DISCLAIMER: The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. STRENGTHENING URBAN RESILIENCE FOR GROWTH WITH EQUITY (SURGE) END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID/Philippines Collaborating, Learning and Adapting for Improved Development SOURCE: CDO_PPAPMOCDO Contract Number: 72049220D00004 Submitted: March 15, 2022 Contractor: Panagora Group COR: Albert Aquino Authors: Nicasio Agustin (Team Leader), Rudini Baoy, Rupert Deluna, Senen Dizon, and Ginny Santiago SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | i ABSTRACT This evaluation of the Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth with Equity (SURGE) project assessed its implementation progress and achievements. Evaluation questions focused on the relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of SURGE’s accomplishments and incorporated learning questions from SURGE’s activity monitoring and evaluation plan (AMELP). The evaluation examined SURGE activities in the eight Cities Development Initiative (CDI) cities using a mixed methods approach. It encompassed an overall assessment of SURGE interventions across all the eight CDI cities, a deeper analysis of four CDI cities, and a focused analysis of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions in Marawi City The evaluation found that SURGE has significantly contributed to improved local capacity for inclusive and resilient urban development; improved the enabling environment for local economic development; improved connectivity and access between urban and rural areas; and provided capacity support for entrepreneurship among women in the eight CDI cities. Given its accomplishments, it can be concluded that SURGE was highly relevant to the needs of Philippine CDI cities. The project achieved considerable success in its primary areas of assistance, and it is likely that many of SURGE’s initiatives can be sustained beyond the life of the project The factors that will contribute to the sustainability of SURGE activities include: 1) the government initiating national laws mandating that Local Government Units (LGUs) mainstream the interventions; 2) LGUs adopting policies and plans in areas with SURGE support; 3) key city stakeholders acquiring the technical expertise needed to perform mandated functions as a result of the project’s capacity building activities; and 4) LGUs having adequate budgets to implement immediate follow-through activities. Changes in political leadership arising from the local elections in 2022 could hinder sustainability. The following recommendations are put forward for USAID’s consideration: 1) support the implementation of plans formulated under SURGE; 2) institutionalize initiatives introduced by SURGE; 3) support information and communications technology (ICT) applications to improve urban governance and management; and 4) facilitate the development of LGU capacity development road maps. ii | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... I ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................... III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ V EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS ......................................... 1 FINDINGS................................................................................................................................. 7 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 38 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 43 WASH ASSISTANCE IN MARAWI: AN ENTRY POINT TO RESPONSIVE LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ...................................................... 47 SURGE ASSISTANCE IN COVID-19 RESPONSE: A LESSON OF RELEVANCE DURING THE PANDEMIC ................................................................................................... 52 ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................... 54 SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | iii ACRONYMS AMELP Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources BFP Bureau of Fire Protection BoSNet Bohol Seaweed Network BPLD Business Permitting Licensing Division BPLO Business Permitting Licensing Office BPLS Business Permitting Licensing System BPO Business Process Outsourcing CAAP Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines CCA Climate Change Adaptation CCC Climate Change Commission CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CDI Cities Development Initiative CDO Cagayan de Oro CDRA Climate and Disaster Risk Assessment CHM Compiled Hypertext Markup CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan CMCI City and Municipality Competitiveness Index CPC City Program Coordinator CPDO City Planning Development Office DBM Department of Budget and Management DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DICT Department of Information and Communications Technology DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government DO Development Objective DOST Department of Science and Technology DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways DRR Disaster Risk Reduction DRRM Disaster Risk Reduction Management DRRMP Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan DTI Department of Trade and Industry EO Executive Order EODB Ease of Doing Business FGD Focus Group Discussion GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System ICMA International City/County Management Association ICT Information and Communications Technology IDP Internally Displaced People INVEST Investment Enabling Environment IR Intermediate Result IRA Internal Revenue Allotment IT Information Technology JIT Joint Inspection Team JMC Joint Memorandum Circular JMC 2018 DILG-DPWH-DICT-DTI Joint Memorandum Circular 1, series of 2018 iv | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION KII Key Informant Interview LCCAP Local Climate Change Adaptation Planning LED Low-emission Economic Development LEIPO Local Economic and Investment Promotion Office LGU Local Government Unit LIS Land Information System LOP Life of Project LPTRP Local Public Transportation Route Plan M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCWD Marawi City Water District MOA Memorandum of Agreement MSME Micro, Small, and Medium-Sized Enterprises NEDA National Economic and Development Authority NSS National Spatial Strategy PADTEC Panglao-Dauis-Tagbilaran Executive Council PDP Philippine Development Plan PFG Partnership for Growth PFM Public Financial Management PHIVOLCS Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology PPA Programs, Projects, and Activities PPP Public-Private Partnership RA Republic Act SAMP Strategic Asset Management Plan SFMP Strategic Financial Management Plan SURGE Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth with Equity TFBM Task Force Bangon Marawi TWG Technical Working Group UDLP Urban Development Learning Program ULIS Unified Land Information System USG United States Government W-GDP Women’s Global Development and Prosperity WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene WSP Water Safety Plan SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U.S. Agency for International Development/Philippines (USAID/PH) commissioned the Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting for Improved Health (CLAimHealth) activity, implemented by Panagora Group, to conduct a third-party performance evaluation of the Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth with Equity (SURGE) project. The evaluation assessed SURGE’s implementation progress and achievement of its project objectives, which revolve around improving government operations in selected second-tier cities that are deemed important drivers of inclusive economic growth. Results of the evaluation will inform the co-creation of next-generation activities under the USAID policy on urban resiliency, particularly in improving the delivery of essential services in urban areas and strengthening interconnections between urban and rural areas, as well as USAID’s strategy on water and development. Aside from accountability and learning, the evaluation will also inform USAID-wide policy on local capacity development. SURGE’s primary goal was to provide innovative, creative, and cost-effective solutions that promote broad-based, inclusive, and resilient economic growth, which in turn foster increased investment, economic opportunities, and productive employment for a critical mass of cities beyond the high￾growth areas of Manila, Davao, and Cebu1. The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) implemented the $47.8 million SURGE activity from July 2015 to December 2021. SURGE was the flagship project of USAID’s Cities Development Initiative (CDI), a crucial component of the broader Partnership for Growth (PFG). SURGE assisted cities and adjacent areas in: 1) strengthening local capacity for inclusive and resilient urban development, including the promotion of disaster risk reduction (DRR), climate change adaptation (CCA), and ensuring access to sustainable water supply and sanitation services; 2) promoting low-emission local economic development strategies together with streamlined administrative and regulatory procedures, and improved infrastructure and transport systems; and 3) expanding economic connectivity and access between urban and rural areas. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation focused on SURGE’s performance toward achieving its stated objectives and outputs. Evaluation questions focused on the relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of SURGE’s accomplishments, and incorporated learning questions from SURGE’s activity monitoring and evaluation plan (AMELP). The main evaluation questions are:  Relevance (alignment to policy and strategy): To what extent has SURGE contributed to addressing the development challenges that motivated the Partnership for Growth-Cities Development Initiative, the thrusts of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP, 2017-2022), the current and former USAID/Philippines Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), and USAID’s policies on urban resiliency and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)? 1 SURGE focus cities were Batangas, Iloilo, Cagayan de Oro, Puerto Princesa, Tagbilaran, Zamboanga, Legazpi, and General Santos. vi | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION  Effectiveness (original context of CDI-SURGE): To what extent did SURGE achieve the three objectives of improving local urban development processes, promoting local economic development, and expanding connectivity and access between urban and rural areas?  Sustainability: What is the likelihood that initiatives and gains will continue after the completion of the project? The evaluation examined SURGE activities in eight CDI cities using a mixed methods approach. It encompassed an overall assessment of SURGE interventions across all eight CDI cities, a deeper analysis of four CDI cities, and a focused analysis of WASH interventions in Marawi City, the last of which being undertaken as an extension of Cagayan de Oro City activities and in response to the destruction resulting from a 2017 siege by a group affiliated with the Islamic State (ISIS). The main accomplishments of SURGE are as follows:  The project was highly relevant to the needs of Philippine CDI cities. USAID/Philippines designed SURGE to align with the Government of the Philippines’ policy priorities and program needs. SURGE achieved this, operating as a demand-driven project by identifying individual activities through close consultation with municipal governments.  SURGE achieved considerable success in its primary areas of assistance. This included helping target cities to integrate DRR and CCA into local planning, improving economic enabling environments through simplifying the business registration process, implementing land registry systems, and increasing local revenue generation. It also helped target cities increase urban-rural economic linkages by expanding transport networks and enabling better production and marketing of select regional products, specifically seaweed and cassava. SURGE also supported select cities to improve water quality services, including rehabilitating water systems in Marawi following the highly destructive 2017 siege.  By design, and through good management, it is likely that many of SURGE’s initiatives can be sustained beyond the life of the project. The main reasons for this include a careful alignment between project activities and local policies; the demand-driven nature of the project; and the specific attention given to building the skills and systems required to improve CDI management (e.g., by providing extensive skills training and helping establish university programs to ensure future expertise and skills in areas of project focus, including DRR and CCA). The evaluation’s main findings, conclusions, and recommendations are as follows: FINDINGS Improved Local Capacity for Inclusive and Resilient Urban Development. SURGE support enhanced the skills of local planners in mainstreaming climate resilience and disaster risk reduction in all eight target cities, with key successes including: 1) the development and adoption of risk-sensitive, socially inclusive and gender-responsive local development plans in compliance with national laws; 2) integration of CCA and DRR into WASH infrastructure planning and implementation; and 3) promotion of low emission development strategies in local development planning and investment programming. CDI cities are now able to mainstream CCA and DRR into their updated Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs), prepare and adopt Greenhouse Gas (GHG) management plans, and increase the resilience of urban water and sanitation services. SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | vii Improved Enabling Environment for Local Economic Development. Through SURGE assistance, CDI cities were able to 1) develop improved and updated strategic asset management plans (SAMPs) and strategic financial management plans (SFMPs); 2) streamline and automate local business registration and permitting processes; and 3) improve local land tenure security and land information management through the development of a unified land information system. Utilization of the SURGE-supported business and land registration systems helped all CDI cities increase local revenue collection. SURGE also helped strengthen select Local Economic Investment Promotion Offices (LEIPOs). Improved Connectivity and Access Between Urban and Rural Areas. Key project activities that contributed to improving connectivity and access between urban and rural areas included: 1) introduction of all-cargo air services and new flight services to General Santos City; 2) assistance in preparing tourism development plans for three CDI cities; and 3) establishing improved market linkages between local producers and major markets for the seaweed farmers in Puerto Princesa and cassava growers in Zamboanga. This also led to increased investment in commodity production in the seaweed and cassava sectors. Capacity Support for Entrepreneurship Among Women in Target Areas. In response to the hardships caused by COVID-19, SURGE helped establish local business service centers for women entrepreneurs. Around 750 businesses and online (selling) platforms benefited from SURGE training on digital marketing. Moreover, about 5,000 women participated in at least one of the 182 activities organized or co-hosted by the project, including training and mentoring. The project also assisted CDI cities to draft, propose, and adopt laws, policies, and procedures that promote gender equality. Sustainability: As mentioned under key project accomplishments, most SURGE activities will likely continue beyond the life of the project. Contributing factors include an emphasis on operating under existing policies; helping organizations acquire the skills required to run new programs, and in several cases creating partnerships with existing agencies to provide continuity for capacity and training services supported by the project; and instituting a variety of administrative tools and improvements to increase local resource mobilization. Sustainability challenges include: 1) re-assignment of SURGE-trained personnel to other departments; 2) in some cases, a lack of follow-up capacity building activities; and 3) changes in political leadership in 2022, which may result in a shift of LGU priorities and derail the implementation of some clean energy programs, projects, and activities (PPA) identified in local plans. CONCLUSIONS Relevance: SURGE interventions to improve the institutional capacity of CDI cities in inclusive and resilient urban development contributed to USAID’s development priorities under the Cities Development Initiative-Partnership for Growth; CDCS (previous and current) and USAID’s policies on urban resilience and WASH; the Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022; USAID’s direction to improve the competitiveness of second-tier cities; and the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) of the Government of the Philippines. The SURGE project was demand-driven and highly aligned with the needs of the CDI cities. Effectiveness: The SURGE project helped strengthen capacity in inclusive and resilient urban development and improved the enabling environment for local economic development for the target viii | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CDI cities. SURGE also improved connectivity and access between urban and rural areas by addressing local regulatory constraints that limit the mobilization of investment capital and increase the costs of doing business in the target CDI cities. Sustainability: Factors that will contribute to the sustainability of SURGE activities include: 1) the government initiating national laws mandating that Local Government Units (LGUs) mainstream the interventions initiated; 2) LGUs adopting policies and plans in areas supported by SURGE; 3) key city stakeholders acquiring the technical expertise needed to perform mandated functions as a result of the project’s capacity building activities; and 4) LGUs having adequate budgets to implement immediate follow-through activities. Changes in political leadership arising from the local elections in 2022 could be a hindering factor to sustainability. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are put forward for USAID’s consideration. Support The Implementation of Plans Formulated Under SURGE. Subsequent programs or interventions should focus on strengthening the capacities of partner LGUs by implementing plans that SURGE has developed and conducting follow-through activities. Such activities could include a continued focus on administrative system streamlining and efficiency to support local revenue generation, implementation of DRR and CAA plan priorities, and helping to implement projects to mitigate GHGs. Institutionalization of Initiatives Introduced by SURGE. Methods and tools to institutionalize SURGE’s initiatives could include continued policy support, strengthening or establishing appropriate structures, publication of manuals of processes and systems created under the SURGE project and introduced or supported with local governments, and documentation of effective training modules to support replication of successful programs to additional cities. Application of ICT in Urban Governance and Management. Future interventions should focus on capacity development (institutions and people) for integrated information technology (IT) systems for local and urban governance and management. This can help to further advance some of the efficiency gains supported by SURGE. Develop Post-Project LGU Capacity Development Road Maps to address future training needs of LGU stakeholders such as second-line managers and technical staff, as well as new recruits, to ensure gains are maintained and adequate skills remain available. Define Appropriate Indicators for Better Measurement of Results of Sub-Component Activities. Contributions of specific sub-component activities to cross-cutting indicators should be captured. For some objectives, it was difficult to assess the effectiveness of SURGE sub-components due to a lack of appropriate indicators, or due to the overlap between components. 1 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS The U.S. Agency for International Development/Philippines (USAID/PH) commissioned the Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting for Improved Health (CLAimHealth) activity, implemented by Panagora Group, to conduct a third-party performance evaluation of the Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth with Equity (SURGE) project. The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) implemented the $47.8 million SURGE project from July 2015 to December 2021. SURGE was the flagship project of USAID’s Cities Development Initiative (CDI), a crucial component of the broader Partnership for Growth (PFG). Through this evaluation, USAID/PH aims to assess SURGE’s implementation progress and achievement of its project objective to improve government operations in selected second-tier cities deemed important drivers of inclusive economic growth. Results of the evaluation will inform the co-creation of next-generation activities under the USAID policy on urban resiliency, particularly on improving the delivery of essential services in urban areas and strengthening connections between urban and rural areas, as well as USAID’s strategy on water and development. Aside from accountability and learning, the evaluation will also inform USAID policy on local capacity development. The evaluation focuses on SURGE’s performance toward achieving its stated objectives and outputs. The evaluation questions focus on the relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of SURGE’s accomplishments, and incorporate learning questions from SURGE’s activity monitoring and evaluation plan (AMELP). The main evaluation questions are:  Relevance (alignment to policy and strategy): To what extent has SURGE contributed to addressing the development challenges that motivated the Partnership for Growth-Cities Development Initiative, the thrusts of the National Spatial Strategy (NSS)/Philippine Development Plan (PDP, 2017- 2022), the USAID/Philippines Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) (previous and current), and USAID’s policies on urban resiliency and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)?  Effectiveness (original context of CDI-SURGE): To what extent did SURGE achieve its objectives on improving local urban development processes, promoting local economic development, and expanding connectivity and access between urban and rural areas?  Sustainability: What is the likelihood that initiatives and gains will continue after the completion of the project? These three major evaluation questions are further broken down into main questions, sub-questions, and component-specific probing questions, as presented in Appendix A – Inception Report. The intended audiences of this evaluation are USAID/PH technical and program office staff, other USAID staff worldwide who are interested in local governance, and those responsible for and interested in urban resiliency, WASH, and local capacity development programs and activities. Philippine stakeholders, including those in the Government of the Philippines, second-tier cities, and other researchers are also a primary audience for this evaluation. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 2 After the last part of the evaluation (Conclusions and Recommendations), two case studies are presented: 1) WASH Assistance in Marawi: An Entry Point to Responsive Local Governance and Economic Development; and 2) SURGE Assistance in COVID-19 Response: A Lesson of Relevance Even in Times of Pandemic. These provide insights on how SURGE was able to flexibly contribute to pressing concerns beyond its original scope and still deliver its intended outputs as per the original project design. SURGE BACKGROUND Over the past decade, the Philippines’ economic growth has been highly concentrated in three metropolitan areas—Metro-Manila, Cebu, and Davao—leading to high population growth and congestion there. This concentration has also caused inequities and inequitable access to economic opportunities between urban and rural areas. To address this concern, USAID developed the Cities Development Initiative (CDI) to promote economic growth in other well-governed, highly urbanized and secondary cities. The increased economic growth in these other cities would help equalize income distribution across the Philippines. SURGE’s development hypothesis is that second-tier cities can be developed as engines of growth. The primary goal of SURGE is to provide highly innovative, creative, and cost-effective solutions that set conditions for broad-based, inclusive, and resilient economic growth, which in turn will foster increased investment, economic opportunities, and productive employment for a critical mass of cities and surrounding areas outside Metro Manila. SURGE assists cities and adjacent areas to plan effectively, provide basic public services, reduce business transaction costs, promote competitiveness, support sustainable development, and reduce disaster risks while ensuring inclusive and sustainable growth. SURGE promotes efforts to: 1) improve local capacity in urban development; 2) increase local economic development by fostering business enabling measures; and 3) expand economic connectivity and access between urban and peripheral areas. Tasks under SURGE focus on three key areas: 1. Strengthening local capacity in inclusive and resilient urban development, including the promotion of disaster risk reduction (DRR), climate change adaptation (CCA), and ensuring access to sustainable water supply and sanitation services. 2. Promoting low-emission local economic development strategies together with streamlined administrative and regulatory procedures, and improved infrastructure and transport systems; and 3. Expanding economic connectivity and access between urban and rural areas. A results framework of the SURGE is presented in Figure 1. 3 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Figure 1. SURGE Results Framework USAID designed SURGE such that at its end, CDI cities and local governments would have improved enabling environments for investment and private enterprise activity; the CDI regions would benefit from more rational land-use regulation and planning, better positioning them to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities and leverage local competitive advantages; and there would be stronger institutionalized foundations and technical expertise on local economic development and related urban issues. As a flagship project under the CDI, SURGE’s logical framework links directly to the previous CDCS (2013–2019). This CDCS had three development objectives, and SURGE contributed to development objectives (DO) 1 and DO 3. Under DO 1, it contributed to two intermediate results: improved policy and regulatory environment (Sub-IR 1.1.1) and increased fiscal performance and transparency (Sub-IR 1.1.4). For DO 3, SURGE directly contributed to five intermediate results: increased disaster preparedness (Sub-IR 3.1.1), enhanced disaster prevention (Sub-IR 3.1.2), disaster mitigation measures implemented (Sub-IR 3.1.3), improved water supply and security (Sub-IR 3.2.1), and increased climate change resilience and mitigation (Sub-IR 3.2.2). In the current CDCS, SURGE continues to contribute to the same outcomes with the former DO 1 re￾grouped into DO 2, specifically: 1) IR 2.1 Regulatory Quality Improved, and IR 2.2 Government Capacity to Finance Self-Reliance Increased; and 2) those under DO 3 becoming IR 3.2 Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Strengthened, and IR 3.4 Capacity to Mitigate Risks of and Respond to Disaster Strengthened. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 4 Figure 2. SURGE Theory of Change and CDCS Alignment 5 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation team examined SURGE activity in eight CDI cities using a mixed-methods approach. It encompassed an overall assessment of SURGE interventions across all the eight CDI cities2, a deeper analysis of four CDI cities3, and a focused analysis of WASH interventions that SURGE undertook in an extension area4 of a given CDI city. The evaluation team used quantitative and qualitative tools for data collection and analysis, including a simple survey to gather feedback from a broader base of stakeholders. The analysis is descriptive, primarily presented in crosstabs and listings. The qualitative tools include document reviews, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and case studies. The evaluation team interpreted qualitative data through content and thematic analysis and quantitative information through trend analysis. Finally, they used baseline data and final outputs and outcomes for comparative analysis. STUDY POPULATION AND SAMPLING FRAME The sampling frame for the survey in the eight CDI cities was as follows: 1) the population for the survey is Local Government Unit (LGU) personnel and officials who participated in training programs, workshops, mentoring sessions, and other interventions that SURGE introduced in each city; and 2) the sampling unit is the individual, not the office or agency that the government employees/officials represent. As per ICMA records, 4,105 individuals from among those who received training under the SURGE activity (Components 1 and 2, and cross-cutting interventions) have email addresses and could be considered potential respondents to a survey. The evaluation team selected all individuals with an email address for the survey, with a targeted response of at least 352 individuals or 8.6 percent of the derived sample5. DATA COLLECTION The evaluation team used mixed methods to triangulate and analyze data from multiple sources and to ensure consistency. Given the constraints brought about by the pandemic, the field monitoring and evaluation (M&E) assistants gathered data remotely using video conferencing via Google Meet. For the eight-city survey, the evaluation team used Survey Monkey software. The evaluation team’s technical specialists facilitated the online FGDs and KIIs with support from the field M&E assistants to ensure proper documentation. To ensure that transcriptions and codes reflected the actual answers of the FGD participants and key informants, the team conducted quality checking of audio recordings and the transcription of the recordings and checked the translation of local dialects to English. 2 Cities of Batangas, Iloilo, Cagayan de Oro, Puerto Princesa, Tagbilaran, Zamboanga, Legazpi, and General Santos. 3 Cities of Iloilo, Cagayan de Oro, Puerto Princesa, and Tagbilaran. 4 City of Marawi as an extension of Cagayan de Oro (specifically in the context of establishing city linkages). 5 This is equivalent to the derived sample of the total population computed at 95 percent confidence level and a five percent margin of error. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 6 Appendix B presents the data gathering instruments used for various groups and specific data gathering methods, as well as a copy of the KII and FGD consent form. The team was able to conduct face-to-face data gathering activities in Marawi City for the case study on WASH. Appendix B also includes the data capture form for WASH. The evaluation collected data in October and November 2021. Annex 1 presents the schedule of data gathering activities conducted. Actual primary data gathering activities involved 490 respondents and participants coming from various groups, as indicated in Annex 1. The total number of actual respondents represents 95 percent of those intended (or targeted), as presented in Annex 2. DATA ANALYSIS The evaluation used the content comparison technique in qualitative data analysis whereby analysts coded transcriptions or textual data from the FGDs and KIIs line by line to generate themes around perceptions of the relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of the SURGE interventions. The evaluation team used the NVivo software to code and categorize concepts to form themes and sub-themes. The team analyzed the quantitative data collected from the SURGE stakeholders survey using descriptive statistics and other relevant quantitative tools. LIMITATIONS Lower Than Expected Participation In FGD Sessions: The number of participants in the FGDs was significantly reduced from target to actual (see Annex 1) because of the following: 1) some targeted respondents declined to participate; 2) some failed to participate because they contracted COVID-19; 3) some were not available on a set schedule or for rescheduling; 4) some decided to participate but changed their minds; and 5) some agreed to participate but then did not show up. Mobility Restrictions: Given the government’s health protocols around COVID-19, the team members were not able to freely move around to gather information, talk to people, and observe processes and stakeholders. In particular, travel restrictions limited the ability of the evaluation team to conduct follow-up sessions or meetings. Shortcomings of Online/Virtual Sessions (FGDs and KIIS): While online discussion sessions are an efficient method for conducting interviews, they also tend to become overly formal and reduce extemporaneous interaction. While the team was able to use structured data-gathering instruments to optimize stakeholder discussions, this limited their ability for observation and personal interaction. Also, the need to formally schedule follow-up discussions to gather more information, when necessary, posed some difficulties, which may have resulted in some incomplete information. 7 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FINDINGS Evaluation findings are presented according to the three evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability. Under each evaluation criteria, this report presents specific findings for each SURGE component and sub-component. RELEVANCE To what extent has SURGE contributed to addressing the development challenges that motivated the PFG-CDI, the NSS/Philippine Development Plan (PDP, 2017-2022), CDCS (previous and current), and USAID's policies on urban resiliency and WASH? COMPONENT 1: IMPROVING LOCAL CAPACITY FOR INCLUSIVE AND RESILIENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT SURGE’s interventions to improve the institutional capacity of CDI cities for inclusive and resilient urban development contributed to USAID’s development priorities under the Cities Development Initiative￾Partnership for Growth, CDCS (previous and current), and USAID’s policies on urban resilience and WASH. Key SURGE activities under this component that directly contributed to increasing the capacity of CDI cities for inclusive and resilient economic growth include: 1) technical assistance in mainstreaming DRR and CCA in development planning; 2) building institutional capacity in climate-resilient infrastructure planning and implementation; and 3i) increasing local capacity for delivering sustainable water supply and sanitation services. Moreover, SURGE activities designed to enhance the urban resilience of target cities by enhancing the capacity of LGU personnel in mainstreaming CCA and DRR principles in local plans were consistent with USAID’s policy on urban resilience. SURGE’s WASH-related activities have contributed to key outcomes of the USAID water strategy, such as increasing access to sustainable water supply and improving access to sustainable sanitation. Likewise, SURGE activities under Component 1 contributed to one of the key outcomes of the Philippine Development Plan, 2017-2022 (“individuals and communities are more resilient”). Considering that all the target CDI cities are vulnerable to natural disasters, stakeholders viewed SURGE’s initiatives to build the capacity of cities to prepare climate-resilient and risk-sensitive local plans as highly relevant to increasing the resilience of residents, especially in disaster-prone communities: “At the start of the project, we identified and prioritized the needs and gaps of the LGU with the help of the SURGE experts. Prioritized needs were systematically addressed through the various project activities such as vulnerability assessments, updating of DRRM plans, mainstreaming of CDRA findings into the CLUP, etc.” – CPDO Puerto Princesa City Finally, LGU stakeholders deemed Component 1 capacity development activities as being very relevant based on the results of the Stakeholder Survey (see Table 1). Key LGU informants also viewed SURGE initiatives to be consistent with the city development priorities and responsive to the needs of the city stakeholders and residents. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 8 Note: 5- Extremely relevant, 4- Very relevant, 3- Somewhat relevant, 2- Not so relevant, 1- Not at all relevant COMPONENT 2: IMPROVING ENVIRONMENT FOR LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The evaluation revealed that SURGE’s assistance was consistent with the PDP 2017-2022 as well as USAID’s directive to improve the competitiveness of second-tier cities. It directly contributed to the Mission’s DO1, Broad-Based and Inclusive Growth Accelerated and Sustained, as well as Intermediate Result (IR) 1.1, Economic Competitiveness Enhanced. The project was able to make headway on Sub IR 1.1.1 policy and regulatory framework improved and 1.1.4 fiscal performance and transparency increased, which contributed to the cities’ improved City and Municipal Competitiveness Index (CMCI) ranking. To achieve Sub-IR 1.1.1, the SURGE activity assisted the eight CDI cities in crafting, reviewing, finalizing, and advocating for laws, policies, and procedures that support good governance as well as promoting gender and social inclusion. The legislation and its implementing rules and regulations institutionalize changes geared toward helping the CDI cities become competitive. The activity strengthened the capacities of three original cities (Batangas, Cagayan de Oro, and Iloilo) and guided the efforts of five extension cities (General Santos, Legazpi, Puerto Princesa, Tagbilaran, and Zamboanga) to comply with the mandates of the Anti-Red Tape Act 2007 as well as the Ease of Doing Business (EODB) Act 2018. By the end of the activity, all eight CDI cities had complied with the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)-Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)-Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) 1, s. 2016 and DILG￾Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)-DICT-DTI JMC 1, s. 2018. Compliance with business permitting and licensing system standards and national directives are two indicators of the government efficiency pillar of the CMCI. TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER SURVEY RATINGS ON RELEVANCE OF SURGE COMPONENT 1 CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS CITY URBAN PLANNING GHG PLANNING WASH MEAN RATING/CITY Batangas 4.3 4.4 4.8 4.2 Cagayan de Oro 4.0 3.7 4.0 4.0 General Santos 3.8 3.2 4.0 3.8 Iloilo 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.2 Legazpi 3.6 4.1 4.3 3.3 Puerto Princesa 3.7 5.0 4.2 4.0 Tagbilaran 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.3 Zamboanga 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.7 Overall Mean 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.3 9 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV To achieve Sub IR 1.1.4, SURGE introduced capacity-building activities that helped the CDI cities to develop their Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) and Strategic Financial Management Plan (SFMP). As a pre-requisite to developing these plans, cities had to institute their Unified Land Information System (ULIS) and strengthen their Local Economic Investments Promotion Office (LEIPO). Stakeholders who participated in SURGE’s various activities confirmed that they were very relevant to their jobs and enabled them to accomplish assigned activities that led to their city achieving an improved CMCI rank. The responses are captured in Table 2. Note: 5- Extremely relevant, 4- Very relevant, 3- Somewhat relevant, 2- Not so relevant, 1- Not at all relevant COMPONENT 3: IMPROVING CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESS BETWEEN URBAN AND URBAN AREAS Regarding the relevance of activities under Component 3, SURGE activities that sought to expand economic connectivity and access between urban and rural areas were expected to contribute to: 1) CDCS development objectives (DOs), namely: broad-based and inclusive growth accelerated and sustained (DO1 - CDCS 2013-2018) and more responsive local governance (DO1 – CDCS 2019-2024); and 2) the PDP 2017-2022 goal of more inclusive growth. Specific activities that SURGE and its LGU stakeholders view as contributing to balanced, inclusive, and mutually supportive urban-rural development include: 1) reviewing and simplifying city regulations to reduce barriers to productive urban-rural linkages; 2) facilitating the introduction of all-cargo air services and new flight services to General Santos; 3) assisting in the preparation of tourism development plans for three CDI cities; and 4) establishing market linkages between local producers and major markets for seaweed farmers in Puerto Princesa and cassava growers in Zamboanga. TABLE 2. RELEVANCE OF SURGE ACTIVITIES TO LGU PERSONNEL RELEVANCE SUB￾COMPONENT 2.1 SUB￾COMPONENT 2.2 SUB￾COMPONENT 2.3 SUB￾COMPONENT 2.4 MEAN RATING PER CITY Batangas 4.3 4.4 4.8 4.2 4.4 Cagayan de Oro 4.0 3.7 4.0 4.0 3.9 General Santos 3.8 3.2 4.0 3.8 3.7 Iloilo 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.1 Legazpi 3.6 4.1 4.3 3.3 3.8 Puerto Princesa 3.7 5.0 4.2 4.0 4.2 Tagbilaran 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.4 Zamboanga 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.7 4.6 Overall Mean 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.1 USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 10 Findings from the Stakeholder Survey (Table 3) reveal that SURGE activities were responsive to the stakeholders’ need for capacity strengthening in the delivery of their mandated services such as agri￾fishery value chain development and tourism promotion, among others. Note: 5- Extremely relevant, 4- Very relevant, 3- Somewhat relevant, 2- Not so relevant, 1- Not at all relevant SURGE’s initiative to develop inter-LGU cooperation to improve coordination and exchanges between Tagbilaran City and its two neighboring municipalities by establishing the Panglao-Dauis-Tagbilaran Executive Council (PADTEC) was expected to contribute to the objectives of promoting regional agglomeration and strengthening urban-rural linkages under the NSS of the Government of the Philippines. However, the SURGE contribution to NSS objectives remains to be seen, as the concerned parties have not yet implemented with their full support some key measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of PADTEC, such as the designation of PADTEC staff, capacity building for the PADTEC secretariat and technical working committees, and the formulation of implementing rules and regulations through an ordinance, among others. W-GDP: IMPROVING CAPACITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP AMONG WOMEN IN TARGET AREAS The U.S. Government (USG) launched the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) Initiative in February 2019 to economically empower women by focusing on three pillars: women prospering in the workforce, women succeeding as entrepreneurs, and women enabled in the economy. The W-GDP Initiative coincided with efforts of the Philippine government to empower more women. In 1989, the Philippines released Executive Order (EO) 348, approving the adoption of the “Philippine Development Plan for Women for 1989-1992.” In 2009, the Magna Carta of Women was approved, followed by PCW-DILG-DBM-NEDA JMC, as amended in 2016, to localize the implementation of the act. The Philippine Women’s Commission created the Magna Carta to ensure that women are empowered and are treated equally. TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER SURVEY RATINGS ON RELEVANCE OF SURGE COMPONENT 3 CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS CITY VALUE CHAIN PROMOTION TOURISM DEVELOPMENT MEAN RATING/CITY Batangas 4.2 4.0 4.1 Cagayan de Oro 3.5 3.1 3.5 General Santos 3.8 3.3 3.7 Iloilo 3.7 3.8 3.9 Legazpi 3.2 4.8 4.2 Puerto Princesa 4.2 4.2 4.2 Tagbilaran 3.4 4.2 4.0 Zamboanga 3.8 4.1 4.0 Overall rating 3.7 3.6 3.9 11 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), through its Bureau of Small and Medium Enterprise Development (BSMED), is supporting women entrepreneurs who dominate the micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSME) sector. The DTI reported that 64 percent of MSMEs helped through their Negosyo centers are women. The SURGE program design integrated gender in all activities. In SURGE’s initial work plan, a separate section detailed gender mainstreaming activities. Subsequently, SURGE added a gender-related output indicator to monitor its gender efforts. Output indicator 4.2.1 (later identified as 4.1) focused on the number of laws, policies, or procedures that were drafted, proposed, or adopted to promote gender equality at the regional, national, and local levels. The W-GDP focus fits well into SURGE’s gender mainstreaming efforts. The Year 5 (October 2019 – September 2020) work plan incorporated both gender activities and output indicators. The first set of gender activities under this work plan was baseline assessments and FGDs in the CDI cities coupled with secondary research on the state of women entrepreneurs in the Philippines. As evidenced by testimonials of women beneficiaries as well as the results of the evaluation survey, SURGE’s gender-related activities were seen as helpful and timely. The webinars, mentoring, and coaching sessions conducted virtually during the nearly two-year COVID-19-related lockdown and movement restrictions period enlightened women entrepreneurs and encouraged them to innovate within their businesses. EFFECTIVENESS To what extent did SURGE achieve the three outcomes of improving local urban development processes, promoting local economic development, and expanding connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? COMPONENT 1: IMPROVING LOCAL CAPACITY FOR INCLUSIVE AND RESILIENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT Component 1 seeks to strengthen the capacity of target CDI cities for inclusive and resilient urban development through the implementation of three sub-components: Sub-component 1.1 - Strengthening local capacity in urban development, including the promotion of disaster risk reduction and preparedness and improving climate-resilient land-use planning and development following international best practices; Sub-component 1.2 - Improving local climate resilient infrastructure planning, financing and implementation; and Sub-component 1.3 - Increasing access to sustainable water supply and sanitation services. For the most part, SURGE surpassed all its life-of-project extension indicator targets identified in SURGE’s AMELP, revised in 2020. SURGE support to enhance the skills of local planners in mainstreaming climate resilience and disaster risk reduction led to the following results for this component: 1) adoption of risk-sensitive, socially inclusive, and gender-responsive local development plans in compliance with national laws; 2) integration of CCA and DRR in WASH infrastructure planning and implementation; and 3) promotion of low emission development strategies in local development planning and investment programming. SUBCOMPONENT 1.1 - STRENGTHENING LOCAL CAPACITY IN URBAN DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING THE PROMOTION OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND PREPAREDNESS AND USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 12 IMPROVING CLIMATE-RESILIENT LAND-USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES. This sub-component focused on strengthening the capacity of target CDI cities to identify, assess, plan, and implement activities for low-emission economic growth, and to mainstream climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and low-emission economic development (LED) strategies into all aspects of city governance. FINDING 1: SURGE assisted seven CDI cities (Batangas, Cagayan de Oro, General Santos, Iloilo, Puerto Princesa, Tagbilaran, and Zamboanga) in updating their Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) with an emphasis on mainstreaming climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction (a requirement for approval by the DHSUD of updated CLUPs). Under Philippine law, LGUs must prepare and update their CLUPs on a 10-year cycle. Upon approval of the DHSUD, City Legislative Councils enact the CLUPs in a Zoning Ordinance, which then serve as the primary basis for regulating the use of land resources within the city jurisdiction. CLUPs also serve as the framework for the different development plans required of LGUs under national laws and policies such as the Comprehensive Development Plan under the Local Government Code of 1992, Local Climate Change Adaptation Plan under the Climate Change Act of 2009, and the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Plan under the DRRM Act of 2010. Based on the urban development planning capacity assessments in 2016, SURGE provided training and mentoring sessions to enhance the skills of key LGU personnel on Vulnerability Assessment (VA), DRRM Planning, Climate and Disaster Risk Assessment (CDRA), Local Climate Change Adaptation Planning (LCCAP) and to update mandated local development plans. Overall, LGU stakeholders found SURGE interventions to be very effective in enhancing their knowledge and skills (mean rating was 4.2 for planning-related training where 1 is not effective at all and 5 is extremely effective). Interviews with LGU planning personnel confirmed the effectiveness of SURGE interventions in increasing their knowledge and skills, particularly in mainstreaming CCA and DRR in local development plans. SURGE also conducted a Geographic Information System (GIS) capacity needs assessment and an orientation workshop on the use of GIS-generated maps in local development planning. SURGE conducted a pilot of a web-based geo-portal for storing and sharing urban planning and management information in Zamboanga City. Competing LGU priorities hampered replication of this activity in other cities. With guidance from SURGE technical experts and using the findings from the VA, CDRA, and LCCAP activities implemented by technical working groups (TWGs) composed of key LGU planning officers, the seven CDI cities were able to update and mainstream CCA and DRR into local development plans (see Table 4). SURGE conducted a technical review of the updated CLUPs in 2021 and found that the plans are risk-sensitive, socially inclusive, gender-responsive, and compliant with basic DHSUD standards. As of September 2021, City Councils in seven out of eight CDI cities (Batangas, Cagayan de Oro, Gen Santos, Iloilo, Puerto Princesa, Tagbilaran, Zamboanga) have approved the updated CLUPs for adoption. The integration of CCA and DRR in the updated CLUPs allows CDI cities to identify appropriate risk reduction and climate change adaptation and mitigation options as inputs to comprehensive development plans and local investment programs. This improves urban resilience and helps to ensure more sustainable economic growth. 13 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Notes: Y – provided; N – not provided TABLE 4. SURGE ASSISTANCE TO CDI CITIES RELATED TO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CITY CAPACITY ASSESSMENT VA/DRRM PLANNING LOCAL CCA PLANNING CDRA WORKSHOP UPDATING OF PLANS KEY PLANNING OUTCOMES Batangas Y Y Y N Y Reviewed terms of reference of third-party CLUP consultant Enhanced CDP, LCCAP, and DRRMP Updated CLUP with CCA-DRR mainstreamed; approved by DHSUD Updated zoning ordinance Cagayan de Oro Y Y N N Y Updated CLUP with CCA-DRR mainstreamed; approved by DHSUD General Santos Y Y Y Y Y Enhanced CDP, LCCAP and DRRMP Updated CLUP with CCA-DRR mainstreamed; approved by DHSUD Updated zoning ordinance Iloilo Y Y Y Y Y Enhanced CDP, LCCAP and DRRMP Updated CLUP with CCA-DRR mainstreamed; approved by DHSUD Updated zoning ordinance Created the Office of Zoning Administrator Puerto Princesa Y Y Y Y Y Enhanced CDP, LCCAP and DRRMP Updated CLUP with CCA-DRR mainstreamed; approved by DHSUD Updated zoning ordinance Tagbilaran Y Y Y Y Y Enhanced CDP, LCCAP and DRRMP Updated CLUP with CCA-DRR mainstreamed; approved by DHSUD Updated zoning ordinance Zamboanga Y Y Y Y Y Enhanced CDP, LCCAP and DRRMP Updated CLUP with CCA-DRR mainstreamed; approved by DHSUD Updated zoning ordinance Adoption of Environmental Code Centralized Geo-Portal for city-wide data management USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 14 FINDING 2: SURGE supported the DHSUD in developing an enhanced Climate Disaster Risk Assessment (CDRA) Training Module by expanding the scope of risk assessment and adopting a user￾friendly Compiled Hypertext Markup (CHM) format. Starting in 2017, the SURGE project provided technical assistance to DHSUD’s Policy Development Group in the development of an enhanced CDRA training module called CDRA CHM to help ensure the continuity of DRR-CCA mainstreaming in local development plans. Developed with the participation of key DHSUD staff from PDG and regional offices, the CDRA CHM is an integrated platform that guides trainers and LGUs in facilitating risk assessments, and eventually mainstreaming DRR-CCA in development planning. The intended users of CDRA CHM are the CDRA participants and personnel of DHSUD and other mandated government agencies such as DILG, OCD-NDRRMC, and the Climate Change Commission (CCC). Technical personnel and officers from the City/Municipal Planning and Development Office and the Disaster Risk Reduction Management Office of the LGUs can also use this training module as their reference guide in facilitating risk assessment. CDRA CHM contains the latest practical instructions, references, and templates for CDRA. This should facilitate the risk assessment process, especially for LGUs which do not have technical expertise on DRR-CCA methodology. On June 28, 2021, the Management Committee of DHSUD approved the nationwide adoption of CDRA CHM. FINDING 3: In partnership with Golden Gate University (GGU) in the United States, SURGE facilitated the institutionalization of the Urban Development Learning Program (UDLP) in local universities in three CDI cities (Cagayan de Oro, Iloilo, and Tagbilaran) and replication of UDLP in three other cities (General Santos, Puerto Princesa, and Zamboanga). SURGE helped launch the first UDLP in the University of the Philippines Visayas (UPV) in Iloilo City with a short course on sustainable urban development in September 2018. Planning practitioners and faculty members from Iloilo and other CDI cities participated in the short course wherein international experts from GGU and local experts discussed strategies and applications of urban planning in land use, transportation, and socialized housing. The short course laid the groundwork for an academic partnership between UPV and GGU. In June 2020, Holy Name University in Tagbilaran City launched the Executive Diploma on Urban and Regional Development, a new course developed in partnership with GGU. The program is a 21-unit graduate diploma course to strengthen comprehensive integrated planning and mainstream disaster resilience in development planning. The University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines in Cagayan de Oro launched a master’s program in Public Sector Innovations, developed in partnership with GGU, in June 2021. Designed as a two-year program, this new program has four specializations relevant to emerging local and global themes in the public sector such as Public Policy Studies, Sustainable Development, Digital Platforms, e-Governance Solutions, and Environment and Climate Solutions. In partnership with GGU, SURGE replicated the UDLP in three additional partner universities in CDI cities: Palawan State University in Puerto Princesa, Mindanao State University in General Santos City, and Ateneo de Zamboanga in Zamboanga City. 15 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV University and city officials view the UDLP as an effective mechanism to address the need for continuous upgrading of planning skills at the LGU level and the need to develop a pool of planning professionals who can be tapped by LGUs in the preparation of risk-sensitive and socially inclusive local development plans. FINDING 4: In partnership with the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) under the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), SURGE helped CDI cities build their online hazard and risk database for climate and disaster resilience through GeoRiskPH. GeoRiskPH is a multi-agency initiative led by DOST-PHIVOLCS which aims to provide planners and policy makers a central source of information for accurate and efficient hazard and risk assessment. Following the signing of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between DOST-PHIVOLCS and DOST in March 2021, SURGE held a virtual training series on building an online hazard and risk database through GeoRiskPH for 99 officials from CDI cities. With access to GeoRiskPH, disaster and climate change managers from the CDI cities will be able to compile hazard and risk information that is useful in updating local development plans. City officials cited the following key contributing factors to SURGE achievements: 1) cities are mandated by law to prepare and update local development plans; 2) the SURGE project provided technical expertise on climate resilience and disaster risk management, which most CDI cities needed; 3) the city leadership has strong buy-in, resulting in the designation of key personnel to the TWGs; 4) city stakeholders actively participate in project activities including training, workshops, and study tours designed to enhance their capacity for local development planning; and 5) partnerships have been built by SURGE with key government agencies such as DHSUD and DOST-PHIVOLCS. “The SURGE project came at a time when we were starting to prepare for the updating of our CLUP and other mandated development plans. Thus, all of the capacity development activities conducted during the project for our staff were helpful in enhancing our knowledge and skills on how to integrate climate resilience and disaster risk management in our plans. The experts dispatched by SURGE provided technical guidance and external perspective which greatly improved the quality of our plan.” – City Planning and Development Office – Iloilo City “The technical working groups are the primary workhorses of the project. Because even though the policies and the directions come from the executives, the TWG is the one that really pursues the implementation and completion of the programs.” – City Planning and Development Office – Puerto Princesa City FINDING 5: SURGE conducted a GIS capacity needs assessment and an orientation workshop on the use of GIS-generated maps in local development planning for all CDI cities. In 2018, SURGE piloted a web-based geo-portal for storing and sharing urban planning and management information in Zamboanga City. However, project stakeholders explained that despite the positive results from the pilot, SURGE did not expand the geo-portal to other cities due to competing priorities of both SURGE and CDI cities arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 16 Sub-component 1.2 - Improving local climate resilient infrastructure planning, financing, and implementation FINDING 1: SURGE helped CDI cities enhance their climate change mitigation strategies by providing technical guidance on conducting GHG inventories and preparing GHG management plans. LGUs are required by the Climate Change Act of 2009 (RA 9729) to prepare a Local Climate Change Adaptation Plan (LCCAP) that is consistent with local and national policy frameworks. LCCAP preparation is guided by DILG Memo Circular 2014, which enjoins LGUs to identify mitigation options to help reduce their carbon footprints and contribute to efforts to address climate change. In collaboration with ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, an international non-governmental organization that promotes sustainable development, SURGE assisted four CDI cities to prepare GHG management plans in compliance with national policies. In Legazpi and General Santos, local stakeholders were trained on clean energy and low emissions development strategies. To facilitate the GHG inventory, ICLEI held orientation workshops for external data providers and survey enumerators hired by the city government on the basics of GHG inventory and survey instruments used in data gathering. Stakeholders were also introduced to the CCC’s spreadsheet GHG quantification tool, a practical tool for processing the collected data during the GHG emission survey. Through ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, SURGE also supported Tagbilaran and Zamboanga by conducting workshops to orient key city stakeholders on GHG management planning, including the setting of GHG emission reduction targets, identifying existing and targeted low emission development strategies based on local development plans, and the utilization of USAID’s Clean Energy Emissions Reduction (CLEER) tool. As of September 2021, the city councils of four CDI cities (General Santos, Legazpi, Tagbilaran, and Zamboanga) have approved the GHG management plans including their PPAs. For PPAs that LGUs have funded and implemented, the SURGE project team reported that an estimated 1,803 metric tons (tCO2) of GHG emissions were reduced, sequestered, or avoided across these cities (Table 5). It should be noted, however, that the evaluation team did not validate the GHG emission reduction estimates as this was not within the scope of the evaluation. FINDING 2: SURGE helped build a partnership between CDI cities and the CCC, thereby providing continuity to building capacities of CDI cities in formulating local climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. LGU stakeholders said that their participation in SURGE activities increased their awareness, knowledge, and skills on GHG inventory and management planning, including the use of the GHG Inventory Toolkit (developed by CCC with the help of USAID) and other internationally accepted tools and templates on GHG accounting and monitoring (such as the CLEER tool). Several key informants pointed out that their participation in SURGE activities helped them to appreciate the potential contribution of their cities’ programs, projects, and activities (PPAs) to the Nationally Determined Contributions commitments of the Philippines under the Paris Agreement. 17 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV SOURCE: ICMA M&E DATA “The workshops and mentoring sessions on CDRA conducted by SURGE consultants were very helpful in building our capacity to craft risk-sensitive development plans. Also, the hazard risk maps provided by the project were very useful in making climate projections required in subsequent updating of our CLUP.” – City Planning and Development Office – Puerto Princesa City FINDING 3: SURGE helped CDI cities improve water supply and sanitation services by mainstreaming CCA and DRR in water safety planning. With SURGE assistance, water service providers in three CDI cities (Batangas, General Santos, and Legazpi) and adjacent areas were able to integrate CCA and DRR in their Water Safety Plans (WSPs). Through a series of CDRA workshops facilitated by SURGE technical specialists, water districts and rural water and sanitation associations were able to assess hydrometeorological and geophysical hazards and risks that threaten their water supply systems. The integration of CCA and DRR in WSPs will guide the WSPs in determining and addressing the potential impact of disaster/risk to the quality of water that they supply to their customers. FINDING 4: CDI cities implemented PPAs to help communities adapt to climate change. Data gathered from the SURGE activity show that the total investments in climate change adaptation actions by the eight CDI cities investments amounted to $583,331 as of June 2021. Including leveraged investments, the total amount mobilized for climate change adaptation PPAs is estimated at $10.8 million (see the distribution of investments by CDI city in Table 6). A key contributing factor to the project achievements that the SURGE team and city stakeholders noted is the need for cities to comply with national policies. LGUs in the Philippines are required by law to allot at least 5 percent of their annual budgets for DRRM actions, which largely comprise climate adaptation PPAs. TABLE 5. ESTIMATED GHG REDUCTION CONTRIBUTION OF PLANNED, ONGOING, AND IMPLEMENTED CLEAN ENERGY PPAS IN CDI CITIES IN METRIC TONS CITY CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITIES (PPAS) AMOUNT PER PPA TOTAL General Santos LED solar streetlight project 128.7 923.0 Anti-smoke belching program 794.3 Legazpi LED projects 35.2 35.2 Tagbilaran LED streetlight project 99.0 99.00 Zamboanga Hybrid solar photovoltaic system project 35.1 746.7 LED streetlight project 711.6 Total 1,803.9 USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 18 Key LGU informants added that their participation in the project activities enhanced their appreciation of the benefits of climate-resilient planning and motivated them to increase allocations of financial resources to PPAs that contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation. CONCLUSION: SURGE-supported CDI cities successfully integrated climate adaptation and mitigation actions in urban infrastructure planning, financing, and implementation. Related to climate mitigation, SURGE assisted four CDI cities (Legazpi, General Santos, Tagbilaran, and Zamboanga) to comply with national policies that enable them to contribute to GHG emission reduction such as in preparing GHG management plans. These plans, together with their PPAs, have been approved by the city councils. Some PPAs have been implemented and are fully operational, such as streetlights projects in Tagbilaran and Zamboanga. When fully implemented, the aggregate amount of GHG reduced, sequestered, or avoided as a result of these PPAs is estimated at 1,803 metric tons (tCO2). The evaluation team, however, did not verify the GHG reduction estimates as this was not within the scope of the evaluation. SOURCE: ICMA M&E DATA Concerning climate adaptation, SURGE assisted planners in CDI cities and adjacent areas in mainstreaming CCA and DRR into their WSPs. The integration of CCA and DRR in WSPs will guide them in determining and addressing the potential impact of disaster risk on the quality of water that they supply to their customers. SUB-COMPONENT 1.3 - INCREASING ACCESS TO SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION SERVICES. Under Sub-component 1.3, SURGE extended technical assistance to improve the provision of water supply and sanitation service quality in CDI cities, along with building strong linkages with various LGUs and relevant national government agencies. SURGE helped strengthen the institutional capacity of CDI TABLE 6. AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS (IN $) MOBILIZED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION IN CDI CITIES FOR THE PERIOD 2017-2021 CITY COUNTERPART LEVERAGED TOTAL Batangas 6,287 73,803 80,090 Cagayan de Oro 9,167 70,856 80,022 General Santos 168,958 6,481 175,439 Iloilo 31,629 110,604 142,233 Legazpi 18,415 49,651 68,066 Puerto Princesa 35,059 304,724 339,783 Tagbilaran 95,082 100,342 195,424 Zamboanga 218,331 9,482,575 9,701,308 Grand total 583,331 10,199,036 10,782,367 19 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV cities’ water service providers in the following areas: 1) mainstreaming climate-disaster resilience in water and sanitation planning; 2) improving water and sanitation operations and management; 3) accelerating water service expansion to underserved populations; and 4) improving access to sanitation through septage management. SURGE’s achievements included strengthening the capacities of WASH service providers’ soft components, including providing 134 trainings, workshops, and coaching and mentoring sessions from 2016 to 2020 on water and sanitation system operations and management. Likewise, SURGE assisted WASH hard components, including water resources surveys, district area formation, and water production and service metering systems. SURGE also assisted in organizing WASH-related TWGs and city water and sanitation councils, and passing WASH-related city ordinances. As of September 2021, SURGE reporting showed that the project had surpassed its targets in all four of its performance indicators for this sub-component. SURGE reported that the SURGE-assisted capacity building activities benefited 83 WSPs in terms of increased capacity for water service delivery and 9 WSPs in the field of sanitation service delivery (Indicators 1.8 and 1.9 of Indicator Achievement as of March 2020 & August 2021 Report). SURGE also reported that an estimated 516,339 people benefited from improved service quality from an existing basic or safely managed water service (Indicator 1.10). Other key accomplishments include a SURGE-facilitated review and finalization of Cagayan de Oro City’s (CDO) septage and sewerage ordinances, which were approved in February 2020. Tagbilaran City also approved the same ordinances. The city ordinances will help convene the members of the organized Councils together with the service providers to discuss and formulate actions during irregular incidents, such as inadequate supply due to El Niño events, prolonged periods of inadequate rainfall, or due to disasters. The Local Water Utilities Administration approved the SURGE-supported WSP for Puerto Princesa City Water District. Also, with SURGE's support, the Puerto Princesa City government entered into a joint venture agreement with the private sector for the construction, operation, and management of sanitation facilities in the city. SURGE assisted Tagbilaran City and CDO City to prepare septage/sewerage feasibility studies and terms of reference for the selection of interested private sector partners. The procurement of a private sector partner is still pending. Key stakeholders cited the following contributing factors to the above achievements: 1) a need for increasing access to improved water and sanitation services by unserved and underserved city population; and 2) strong buy-in from the LGU and active participation of stakeholders in SURGE activities. The key hindering factor affecting the expansion of services to unserved water consumers is the lack of adequate financial resources of most CDI city water services providers to invest in service improvement and expansion (see Box 1). USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 20 Box 1 COMPONENT 2: IMPROVING ENVIRONMENT FOR LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SURGE adopted a private sector-led approach to help eight second-tier CDI cities improve their local economies. For the private sector to survive, the business environment must be conducive to private investment. Low-emission private sector investment and job growth in second-tier cities can be facilitated by offering the same kinds of investor services that first-tier cities provide. Therefore, SURGE’s Component 2 activities focused on government efficiency in service delivery. In particular, Component 2 focused on improving the environment for the local economic development of target CDI cities through four sub-components: Sub-component 2.1: Improving local revenue generation and expenditure management; Sub-component 2.2: Streamlining and automating of the construction permitting processes; Sub-component 2.3: Improving local land tenure security and land information management; and Sub-component 2.4: Building the competencies of local economic and investment promotion offices and business support organizations. As of September 2021, the project had surpassed the life-of-project indicator targets for four of five performance indicators identified in its AMELP. The primary indicator that SURGE used to assess the competitiveness of a city was its CMCI rank. The CMCI summarizes 40 sub-indicators that contribute to four pillar scores: economic dynamism, government efficiency, infrastructure, and resiliency. SURGE addressed five of ten indicators under the government efficiency pillar to achieve the Component 2 goal. These indicators relate to the Business Permitting Licensing System (BPLS) standards, business registration efficiency, compliance with national directives, the presence of an investment promotion unit, and capacity to generate local resources. Figure 3 shows that all except Tagbilaran City sustained their positions within the CMCI top 15 for Service Improvement Financial Resources In looking at the systems operation data and information from CDI cities’ major service providers and records from the Local Water Utilities Administration, the evaluation team found that the major service providers’ level of services (LOS) of all assisted major service providers did not show improvements on three key parameters: service coverage, non-revenue water, and actual unit consumption. Efforts to achieve the prescribed levels of the key parameters would require a huge investment to meet the water industry’s desired LOS. Technically, the low LOS can serve as the basis for promoting the government’s private sector participation (PSP) program. Philippine laws and guidelines on PSP provide a number of contractual arrangements between the government and private providers that fit the requirements for the achievement of the service providers’ desired LOS by way of the target service obligations to be explicitly stated in the tender documents. To some extent, SURGE was not able to capitalize on the prevailing low LOS of water supply providers to include in its work plan the PSP interventions. The concept of PSP was applied only in the sanitation component; feasibility studies and assistance in the preparation on tender documents were SURGE’s main contribution. 21 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 2021. Tagbilaran City, which previously ranked eighth among component cities in 2018, slid to 26th in 2019. It improved to 19 in 2021 but did not reach the top 15 target. Figure 3. CMCI Ranking of CDI Cities SUBCOMPONENT 2.1: IMPROVING LOCAL REVENUE GENERATION AND EXPENDITURES MANAGEMENT FINDING 1. SURGE assisted the eight CDI cities in crafting their SAMP and SFMP. Due to a late start for activities in this subcomponent, coupled with adjustments in the plans following the Mandanas ruling, the SAMPs have not yet been finalized. Only Zamboanga was able to adopt their SFMP. FINDING 2. SURGE’s technical assistance contributed to all eight CDI cities increasing the level of their locally sourced revenues from the baseline in 2015 to 2020 (see Figure 4). Reports of the Bureau of Local Government Finance of the Department of Finance show that business tax collection grew. This could be a result of improvements in the business registration process which, in turn, was responsible for much of the growth in locally sourced revenues. The eight cities’ cumulative average growth rate in business tax collection was higher during SURGE (13 percent) than in a comparative number of years before the start of the interventions (10 percent). Real property tax collections improved, as did receipts from local economic enterprises such as waterworks and public markets. From 2015 to 2020, receipts grew by 78 percent. SURGE’s assistance in preparing business plans is partly responsible for the improvement in the tax receipts from economic enterprises. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Batangas Cagayan de Oro Iloilo Puerto Princesa Tagbilaran Zamboanga General Santos Legazpi Ranking Pre-SURGE Year 2021 USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 22 Figure 4. Locally Generated Sources of Revenue Before the Project and Year 2020 SOURCE: BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE FINDING 3. While locally generated funds are meant to reduce dependence on the national government for funding, the data show that target CDI cities did not show significant improvements or deterioration in internal revenue allotments, except for Puerto Princesa (80 percent to 74 percent) and Legazpi (56 percent to 49 percent). Puerto Princesa (74 percent) and Zamboanga (72 percent) remained highly dependent on national funds. On the other hand, Iloilo and Batangas, two original CDI cities, had a dependency rate of 33 percent and 34 percent, respectively. This means Iloilo and Batangas were more financially self-reliant than Puerto Princesa and Zamboanga. Most of the locally sourced revenue growth is attributed to the growth in business tax collection. The rate of growth in business tax collection was higher during SURGE’s period of performance than during a comparative number of years before SURGE. The same growth pace cannot be said for real property tax collections that did not show any pattern. Notwithstanding, gaps in property tax collection were partly covered by improved receipts from local economic enterprises. SURGE placed a greater emphasis on revenue generation than on expenditure management, and more attention to the latter could further improve CMCI rankings. In this way, the cities can learn how to maximize their resources. SURGE developed manuals on BPLS, Real Property Tax, and Revenue Management, which were useful for the expansion cities and based on the strategy of learning from the original CDI cities. SUBCOMPONENT 2.2: STREAMLINING AND AUTOMATING BUSINESS AND CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING PROCESSES FINDING 1. In its initial years of implementation, SURGE helped all eight CDI cities streamline their business registration process from as high as 20-22 steps to two to three steps. Almost all cities have completed the automation of their BPLS and have begun accepting online payments for registration, particularly during the pandemic. Further streamlining BPLS processes, the cities have begun signing MOAs with the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) to include BFP certifications and payments upon - 500.0 1,000.0 1,500.0 2,000.0 2,500.0 3,000.0 in Million PhP Pre-SURGE SURGE 23 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV registration. The cities were in the process of integrating barangay (village) clearance payments in their process, following the release of JMC 1, s. 2018. FINDING 2. The CDI cities were able to streamline their construction permitting process and establish either a one-stop shop for construction permitting or a business one-stop-shop. “Previously it was so tedious. But in this one-stop-shop, it is much easier. We can do it online.” – Officer, Business Group, CDO FINDING 3. Streamlining processes contributed to the increase in business registration. Using data from the Bureau of Local Government Finance, the cumulative number of new business registrations for the eight cities for the duration of the project reached the target of 60,000. However, the net increase in registered businesses from base year to 2020 was only about 35,000. The difference refers to businesses that did not renew their licenses during the same period. The introduction of streamlined processes benefited the CDI cities in increasing the number of businesses registered, more specifically the new businesses. However, the increased number of new business registrations was offset by the non-renewal of some existing businesses. For instance, in Puerto Princesa, 25 percent of registered businesses did not renew their licenses the following year. Linking information on data closure can help the city as it enforces its BPLS regulations. SURGE-developed manuals, updated to account for the changes in JMC 2018, are useful not only for the eight CDI cities but also for all other LGUs as well. SUBCOMPONENT 2.3: IMPROVING LOCAL LAND TENURE SECURITY AND LAND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT FINDING 1: As early as 2017, SURGE provided technical assistance for the ULIS in Cagayan de Oro. Nonetheless, SURGE extended this technical assistance to other cities only in Year 6. At that time, SURGE was supposed to have helped only four CDI cities (General Santos, Legazpi, Puerto Princesa, and Tagbilaran) with their ULIS. Subsequently, the project aimed to have all eight CDI cities using ULIS and digital cadastral databases, with relevant data for a total of 200,000 parcels of land. By the project’s end, the system had about 376,000 parcels, mostly from Cagayan de Oro. Because Cagayan de Oro was the first city to benefit from SURGE’s technical assistance for ULIS, they were able to launch their web￾based ULIS by September 2017. ULIS aids in land tenure issues: Over the project life, Cagayan de Oro was able to release titles and land rights to farmers and informal settlers. In support of ULIS and for sustainability purposes, SURGE assisted the CDI cities to prepare legislation. Table 7 summarizes the status of ULIS and its legislation among the eight CDI cities. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 24 SOURCE: ICMA WORKSHEET FINDING 2. The interventions related to the development of the ULIS began a little belatedly. CDO was able to establish its online kiosk in 2017 and was, therefore, able to address some issues on land tenure security. Assistance for the four other cities was included in the work plans only in Year 6. Therefore, there was insufficient time during the project to update the Land Information System (LIS) and link this LIS to the other systems. TABLE 7. STATUS OF ULIS AND LEGISLATION, AS OF JUNE 2021 CDI CITY ULIS STATUS ULIS LEGISLATION STATUS Batangas 132,565 parcels covering 105 barangays 39, 848 with parcel identification numbers (PIN) Revision of Executive Order (EO) 33 series of 2017 to accommodate ULIS Cagayan de Oro 133,925 parcels; ULIS accessible to the public General Santos 6,778 parcels; some mother parcels were subdivided, and attribute data were updated; requesting Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) data for validation EO in progress Iloilo Awaiting computers to digitize cadastral paper maps; started collecting geographic information of buildings based on permit applications; to digitize 100,000 parcels in 2 years, the city would need 25 personnel Draft ULIS EO for review of the City Planning and Development Coordinator – IT as oversight and dedicated personnel per concerned offices for database build-up Legazpi 12,202 parcels have been counted with updated Lot numbers; the bulk of the city's work is toward correcting spatial layers EO creating the Land Information Management Team sent for approval Puerto Princesa 59,504; ULIS Applications: PPC asset inventory, business investment support, cadastral mapping, disaster support mapping, delinquency mapping, zoning delineation, boundary delineation, utility mapping, others EO 27 s. 2021 designated the Land Information Management Systems Administrator Tagbilaran 11,411 out of 35,007 parcels have already been reviewed; currently web-based for at least 3 barangays EO drafted and endorsed to City Legal Office for review and comments Zamboanga 109,173 with PINs; successful connection to the GIS database and uploaded shapefile; established geoportal but was put on hold when the trained personnel resigned EO drafted, awaiting review and approval 25 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV SUBCOMPONENT 2.4 – BUILDING COMPETENCIES OF LOCAL ECONOMIC AND INVESTMENT PROMOTION OFFICE AND BUSINESS SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS FINDING 1. SURGE assisted Cagayan de Oro, Puerto Princesa, and Tagbilaran to create permanent LEIPOs, structures with permanent staff who had the necessary competencies6. Specific SURGE assistance included crafting the organizational setup, defining skills and competencies required, and delineating functions among staff members. SURGE also provided hands-on capacity building support to LEIPO staff members in mounting investment forums. LEIPOs are the focal unit within the city that facilitates investment. SURGE reported that the cities it assisted generated PhP140 billion (net of Investment Enabling Environment [INVEST] commitments) in investment commitments. SURGE also assisted Cagayan de Oro, Legazpi, and Puerto Princesa in creating their investment promotions committees or boards. When SURGE began, only one city had a distinct LEIPO with staff members deemed as not being competent in investment promotion. Initially, the project assisted Puerto Princesa and Tagbilaran, and later expanded to General Santos and Legazpi when they were added as target CDI cities in Year 4. SURGE subsequently added Iloilo City, Batangas, Cagayan de Oro, and Zamboanga in Year 5. FINDING 2. SURGE records indicate that seven CDI cities were able to generate PhP313 billion in private sector investment commitments and PhP13 billion in public monies to pay for the construction of the Zamboanga Airport Development. There was no report for Batangas. An examination of the breakdown of investment commitments reveals that PhP187 billion referred to commitments generated during INVEST. Puerto Princesa had commitments from developers and tourism-related businesses, including medical tourism. FINDING 3. In Year 5, as a pivot due to COVID-19, the indicator to measure the effectiveness of this sub-component, particularly for business support organizations, became the number of firms and producer groups that received USG assistance to improve their business performance7. SURGE support was in the form of direct capacity-building programs. The project extended this assistance to MSMEs, which are the dominant segment of the business environment in the eight CDI cities, and to producer associations. FINDING 4. The project reported that it surpassed its adjusted firm assistance target by 9 percent. As of September 2021, SURGE reported that it had directly or indirectly assisted 375,575 firms. SURGE linked the results to the overall package of assistance to business support offices, including the facilitation in streamlining reforms, policies, and regulations, the promotion of urban-rural linkages, the activities for investment promotion, and the provision of business development services for select industries/sectors. There were no supporting documents presented to ascertain whether the reported numbers are accurate. FINDING 5. The establishment of a LEIPO with competent staff is necessary to support continuing gains from improved levels of competitiveness. However, project interventions were provided to different cities at different periods in the project. As a result, only some cities were able to establish 6 International City/County Management Association (2016, April 14). “Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth with Equity (SURGE) Project: Revised Work Plan for Year 2/3 – June 2017-October 2017.” Submitted to USAID. 7 Support was defined as assistance in the form of institutional support, business planning and management practices workshops, market linkages and basic skills and technical training. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 26 their LEIPO. Nonetheless, it was reported that PhP140 billion (net of INVEST commitments) were generated as investment commitments to the SURGE cities. COMPONENT 3: IMPROVING CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESS BETWEEN URBAN AND URBAN AREAS Component 3 seeks to help the local government and local stakeholders create conditions that will reduce connectivity costs and improve economic access between cities and neighboring rural areas. To this end, SURGE implemented activities under the following sub-components: Sub-component 3.1 - Reducing policy and regulatory barriers to productive rural-urban linkages; Sub-component 3.2 - Reducing connectivity and information costs that inhibit the flows of goods and services; Sub￾component 3.3 - Strengthening supply chain linkages between urban and rural areas; and Sub￾component 3.4 - Developing metropolitan arrangements that improve coordination and exchanges between cities and adjacent rural areas. As of September 2021, SURGE had exceeded its targets in two of four Component 3 indicators. Achievements included simplifying municipal administrative procedures (much of which happened under Component 2) and increasing transport linkages. SURGE did not achieve its targets for preparing mobility plans and organizing investment in CDI cities and peri-urban areas (Indicators 3.1 and 3.4) due to competing priorities in target LGUs and adverse effects of the COVID-19 crisis on economic activities. SUB-COMPONENT 3.1 REDUCING POLICY AND REGULATORY BARRIERS TO PRODUCTIVE RURAL-URBAN LINKAGES Project performance for this sub-component is measured by the number of city regulations and administrative procedures that have been simplified because of USG assistance. FINDING 1: SURGE helped the local governments in the eight CDI cities reform their policies and regulations to attract investments and reduce the cost of doing business in their jurisdictions. As of September 2021, the SURGE project team reported that a total of 153 policies and regulations had been simplified and approved for adoption by the local governments in CDI cities, with Tagbilaran City accounting for about one-fifth of the total (see Annex 3 for the list of regulations and processes simplified with SURGE assistance). Most of these simplified policies and regulations pertaining to streamlining and automating local business permitting and construction permitting processes, which led to increased efficiency of the delivery of local regulatory functions of CDI cities. Key LGU officials and city stakeholders stated that key factors that facilitated the streamlining of local regulations and administrative procedures include: 1) the need for local governments to comply with the Ease of Doing Business Law of 2018 (RA 11032); 2) technical guidance and training provided by SURGE, and 3) strong buy-in from the local government and local business groups. FINDING 2: When the project began in 2015, SURGE focused on identifying policy and regulatory constraints to trade and investment through discussions with LGU stakeholders, business support organizations, and other relevant entities at the national level. This activity produced an assessment report identifying city-specific policy barriers and suggested SURGE assistance activities, particularly in the air transportation, sea transportation, land transport, communications, and the agriculture/mariculture sectors. 27 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Due to project funding constraints during Years 2 and 3, SURGE put several planned activities related to this sub-component on hold. It was only in the sixth year that SURGE revived activities under this sub￾component, but with a focus on upgrading food safety, product quality, and biosecurity standards for sustainable market access for livestock and poultry producers in Batangas, Cagayan de Oro, General Santos City, and Iloilo. With the absence of sub-component activities in the approved project work plans from the second until the fifth year, there is little verifiable evidence to support project narrative claims that this sub￾component benefited from the outputs generated by Component 2 activities, particularly those related to streamlining business registration and building permitting processes. FINDING 3: The seaweed industry stakeholders reported to the evaluation team that SURGE facilitated the enactment of vital ordinances to support the local seaweed industry. With the help of SURGE, the city government of Puerto Princesa enacted important local legislation expanding the production area for seaweed farming, streamlining the process, reducing fees for seaweed farming activities in mariculture zones, and banning the use of any type of fertilizer in seaweed farming. According to the city agriculturist, these local laws promoted seaweed production and enhanced the competitiveness of the local seaweed industry. SUB-COMPONENT 3.2: REDUCING CONNECTIVITY AND INFORMATION COSTS THAT INHIBIT THE FLOW OF GOODS AND SERVICES The SURGE AMELP has two indicators for this sub-component. The first is the number of mobility plans and policies in select CDI cities prepared (Indicator 3.1), and the second is the number of beneficiaries receiving improved transport services due to USG assistance (Indicator 3.3). SURGE replaced the original AMELP Indicator 3.1 (time and cost of transporting goods between CDI city and peri-urban areas reduced) with the current indicator given the nature of SURGE’s transportation planning and logistics assistance to CDI cities. SURGE did not set targets for these indicators until the sixth year of the project. FINDING 1: SURGE facilitated the expansion of air connectivity and air freight services for General Santos City. To increase passenger traffic, the project worked closely with domestic airline companies to add new flight services from Manila and Cebu to General Santos. The project also promoted the introduction of regular all-cargo air services to General Santos City to address the limited air cargo capacity at the General Santos Airport, which had been a widely reported need by local businesses engaged in trading of high-value agri-fishery commodities (e.g., fresh tuna) to lucrative markets in Manila. The SURGE project team reported that the new flight services resulted in improved access to air transportation to some 296,000 travelers from February 2020 to September 2021, which is especially notable given pandemic-related restrictions on domestic travel. In addition, the introduction of all-cargo air services to General Santos has increased air cargo being moved from General Santos Airport by 17.8 million tons, the bulk of which is fresh tuna and other marine products. However, the evaluation team was unable to independently verify the reported increase in passengers and cargo. FINDING 2: SURGE provided technical support to develop a conceptual master plan for a mixed-use aviation, logistics, and commercial hub within the General Santos City Airport complex, which the Civil USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 28 Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) has adopted for implementation via a public-private partnership (PPP). In 2018, SURGE facilitated a study visit of key local government and private sector representatives to the Clark International Airport and Clark Freeport Zone in Pampanga. This led to the development of the conceptual master plan for the 200-hectare aviation-related complex within the General Santos International Airport in 2019. CAAP’s subsequent adoption of the conceptual master plan in July 2020, including the proposed PPP implementation plan, is expected to enhance connectivity and catalyze the development of the provinces surrounding General Santos City. FINDING 3: SURGE supported Cagayan de Oro in preparing its Local Public Transportation Route Plan (LPTRP), which the city council subsequently adopted for full implementation in April 2021. This plan serves as the basis for the issuance of Public Utility Vehicle franchises and forms part of the Local Transport Master Plan. Local governments are required by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board, a regulatory agency under the Department of Transportation, to prepare LPTRP for the issuance of Public Utility Vehicle franchises and the preparation of a comprehensive local transport plan. An Interview with the SURGE project Component 3 lead revealed that the intention to assist other CDI cities on mobility planning was never realized due to competing priorities of stakeholders at the local level due to the pandemic. SUB-COMPONENT 3.3: STRENGTHENING SUPPLY CHAIN LINKAGES BETWEEN URBAN AND RURAL AREAS Sub-component 3.3 aimed to increase private investments and strengthen market linkages between producers and buyers in CDI cities and neighboring areas through partnerships among city governments and the private sector. In pursuit of this objective, the project focused on the following key activities: 1) establishing market linkages between local producers and major markets of seaweed, vegetables, and cassava in Cagayan de Oro, Puerto Princesa, and Zamboanga; and 2) developing tourism development plans in Legazpi, Puerto Princesa, and Tagbilaran. “The seaweed network linked the local seaweed growers to key industry players, including buyers and processors based in Manila and Cebu City. Also, the summits organized during the project provided a good venue for direct interaction with institutional buyers, thereby creating opportunities for getting better profit margins for local seaweed producers.” – Department of Science and Technology – Puerto Princesa FINDING 1: SURGE helped LGU and seaweed industry stakeholders organize the Puerto Princesa Seaweed Network and improve the access of seaweed farmers from rural areas in Puerto Princesa City and Palawan Province to new markets, technologies, and other services from government and private sector partners. Following a series of SURGE-organized meetings and workshops for seaweed industry players— including growers, buyers, traders, and support agencies (e.g., DTI, DOST, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources [BFAR], and academic institutions)—the Puerto Princesa-Palawan Seaweed Network 29 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV was formally established in May 2017. To link the network with the major markets, SURGE facilitated an institutional partnership agreement between the Puerto Princesa-Palawan Seaweed Network and the Seaweed Industry Association of the Philippines (SIAP) in January 2018. SIAP is a national federation of major seaweed producers, processors, and exporters in the country, accounting for more than 70 percent of all carrageenan and dried seaweed exports to various foreign markets. As a result of SURGE’s intervention, seaweed farmers in Puerto Princesa and nearby municipalities were able to expand their market to seaweed exporters based in Cebu City, bypassing consolidators and traders for better returns for their produce. With the help of SURGE, four-member associations of the seaweed network were able to obtain PhP3.4 million worth of loans from the Land Bank of the Philippines for seaweed production expansion. FINDING 2: SURGE tried to replicate the Puerto Princesa experience in Bohol Province by organizing the 17 seaweed producers’ associations based in Tagbilaran City and the province into the Bohol Seaweed Network (BoSNet) through Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in December 2019. This initiative was intended to unite and strengthen fragmented seaweed producers and collectively address issues confronting them such as declining productivity, poor quality of production, and erratic farmgate prices. However, subsequent project efforts to strengthen BoSNet were interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews with two key officers of BoSNet revealed that after the signing of the MoU, there was no organizational meeting held by BoSNet. They added that poor Internet connectivity hindered coordination with most members who were based in remote areas of the province. FINDING 3: In collaboration with the city government, SURGE assisted smallholder cassava growers in Zamboanga in diversifying their production and accessing lucrative markets through partnerships with major buyers and processors. In partnership with the local government, SURGE assisted cassava growers in Zamboanga to forge a market linkage with a major agribusiness firm, San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI). Based on project reports, the growers delivered more than 240 metric tons of cassava chips to the SMFI feed mill through the firm’s accredited local assembler. With the help of DOST, the project assisted Zamboanga cassava growers to diversify their production by training them on value-added processing of cassava into food￾grade cassava chips and other cassava-based delicacies. FINDING 4: LGU and tourism industry stakeholders from Legazpi, Puerto Princesa, and Tagbilaran valued technical support provided by SURGE in formulating tourism development plans and building their capacity to promote tourism activities such as community-based tourism (Puerto Princesa), heritage tour packages (Tagbilaran), and nature adventure/culinary tourism (Legazpi) through the various trainings, workshops, and mentoring sessions. Capitalizing on the potential of the existing tourism industry in the CDI cities of Legazpi, Puerto Princesa, and Tagbilaran, SURGE supported the stakeholder-led formulation of tourism development plans. As of September 2021, the LGUs had adopted these plans through local legislation, with key tourism activities already being implemented in CDI cities, such as heritage tours in Tagbilaran City and nature/culinary adventure tours in Legazpi City. FINDING 5: Interviews with industry stakeholders revealed their high appreciation for the tourism and value chain-related training, workshops, summits, and study tours organized by SURGE. Likewise, USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 30 tourism and seaweed industry stakeholders valued SURGE’s capacity building activities, which enhanced their knowledge and skills in running their businesses (Table 8). Note: 5- Extremely relevant, 4- Very relevant, 3- Somewhat relevant, 2- Not so relevant, 1- Not at all relevant “The SURGE approach in conducting trainings was really ‘out of the box.’ They brought us to Iloilo City to learn heritage and cultural tourism. Later, we applied our learnings in our city. We identified heritage houses and conducted cultural mapping with the participation of local architects who contributed fresh ideas on how to establish the city’s heritage district.” – City Administrator – Tagbilaran City FINDING 6: The SURGE project team reported a $1.4 billion, or 88 percent increase in private investment in CDI cities and peri-urban areas between 2016 and September 2021. However, it is unclear how the activities under Sub-component 3.3 contributed to the reported increase because the reported investments included all investments from new businesses, with no disaggregation of new investments in local industries assisted by SURGE. CONCLUSION: Through SURGE assistance, supply chain linkages between urban and rural areas were strengthened, especially in CDI cities where most of the key sub-component activities were implemented. The project helped establish market linkages for seaweed producers in Puerto Princesa and cassava growers in Zamboanga, thereby contributing to increased farmer income. Through a participatory multi-stakeholder approach, SURGE assisted the local tourism industry stakeholders in Legazpi, Puerto Princesa, and Tagbilaran to formulate strategic tourism development plans aimed at strengthening the tourism industry value chain, including promotion of community and farm-based tourism destinations. TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER SURVEY RATINGS ON EFFECTIVENESS OF SURGE CAPDEV INTERVENTIONS CITY VALUE CHAIN PROMOTION TOURISM DEVELOPMENT MEAN RATING/CITY Batangas 4.1 3.7 3.8 Cagayan de Oro 3.5 3.1 3.9 General Santos 3.7 3.2 3.8 Iloilo 3.9 4.0 4.1 Legazpi 3.4 4.8 4.2 Puerto Princesa 4.2 4.0 4.1 Tagbilaran 3.5 4.0 4.1 Zamboanga 3.9 4.1 4.2 Overall rating 3.8 3.8 4.0 31 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV The project’s multi-stakeholder approach and SURGE’s prioritizing of local industries with strong growth potential in strengthening supply chain linkages achieved good results that benefited CDI cities and the targeted industry as well as the economies of nearby municipalities where some of the industry players operate. An increase in private investments in CDI cities arising from the strengthening of supply chain linkages could not be ascertained, as SURGE did not track new investments in the industries assisted by the project. SUB-COMPONENT 3.4 DEVELOPING METROPOLITAN ARRANGEMENTS THAT IMPROVE COORDINATION AND EXCHANGES BETWEEN CITIES AND ADJACENT RURAL AREAS Under this sub-component, the SURGE project engaged the local governments of Bohol Province, Tagbilaran City, the two municipalities in Panglao Island (Dauis and Panglao), and the private sector in establishing and convening the Panglao-Dauis-Tagbilaran Economic Council (PADTEC), formerly known as Panglao Island-Tagbilaran Economic Council (PITEC), as an inter-LGU mechanism to synchronize economic development planning among the participating LGUs. FINDING 1: Key activities implemented by SURGE included: 1) technical assistance to the provincial government of Bohol and the local governments of Dauis, Panglao, and Tagbilaran in the formal organization of PITEC, resulting in the passage of Provincial Ordinance 2016-15 in November 2016; and 2) an institutional review and formulation of an action plan to fully operationalize and strengthen the PADTEC in January 2019. The institutional review found PADTEC to be a useful vehicle to pursue common goals such as tourism marketing and to address common problems such as transportation, connectivity, and environmental management. To ensure the long-term sustainability of PADTEC, the review recommended: 1) designation of PADTEC staff; 2) capacity building for PADTEC’s secretariat and technical working committees; 3) formulation of implementing rules and regulations through an ordinance; 4) stronger participation of the private sector; and 5) more proactive engagement with relevant government agencies such as Department of Tourism, Department of Transportation, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and DTI. Interviews with the project team revealed that while SURGE succeeded in formally establishing PADTEC in 2016, the change in political leadership in Bohol Province in 2019 and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 hindered the project from implementing activities to strengthen and fully operationalize PADTEC as recommended by the 2019 institutional review. Political dynamics in other metropolitan agglomerations (e.g., Cagayan de Oro and Iloilo City) hindered the project from expanding its assistance beyond PADTEC. CONCLUSION. Considering that PADTEC has yet to be fully operationalized, it remains to be seen if this inter-LGU arrangement that SURGE initiated will generate the intended result of improving coordination and exchanges among the participating LGUs. To ensure continuity of organizational strengthening activities, this SURGE initiative could have benefited from partnerships with government agencies mandated to assist regional agglomerations such as the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and DILG. It is also important to note that no indicator was identified to measure the contribution of the activities conducted under this sub-component to higher-level objectives of the project. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 32 W-GDP: IMPROVING CAPACITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP AMONG WOMEN IN TARGET AREAS Performance indicators for the W-GDP Component focused on the number of women reached through various SURGE activities. As of September 2021, targets on all five indicators had been surpassed (see Annex 4). Project performance reports indicated that 750 businesses and online platforms benefited from the various digital marketing activities. However, the reports did not present evidence that Facebook pages of the MSMEs improved because of the training, nor did they provide evidence of increased revenues. An ideal outcome of an intervention on women in the informal sector is that they have been encouraged to register their economic activity with the city. A proxy indicator to measure the intervention’s effectiveness would be the number of new women-owned businesses registered. Unfortunately, the cities did not provide disaggregated data on new businesses. The only basis for the numbers presented in this outcome was the count provided by Puerto Princesa. One of the key informants disclosed that the city’s chamber was able to request that the city provide free initial registration for participants in SURGE activities. From this initiative, the city was able to monitor how many trainees registered their businesses. As of September 2021, there were 334 new business registrations, 93 percent of which were women-owned. Box 2 Source: International City/County Management Association (2021). “Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth with Equity (SURGE) Project: Quarterly Progress Report – January 1, 2021-March 31, 2021,” submitted to USAID. As of the end of the project, about 5,000 women had participated in at least one of the 182 activities that the project organized or co-hosted. About 70 percent of these were first-time participants. Some were recipients of the Safe Store Kit provided by Coca-Cola in cooperation with the project, while others were recipients of a free business console software from LayerTech. One of the other indicators for W-GDP was Indicator 3.5.4, the amount of non-USG funding mobilized for women's entrepreneurial development. For this indicator, project performance reports revealed that 50 SURGE-related events received non-USG funding totaling $758,000. The evaluation team was not able to verify this non-USG funding. Neria Openaria, a 63-year-old coffee grower from Albay, became one of the contributors to W Blend coffee, the Women’s Month commemorative blend launched by SURGE and the Philippine Coffee Board, Inc. Ms. Openaria joined the Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Credit Policy Council credit program. She qualified for a PHP300,000 Agri-Negosyo individual loan, payable in five years, to help rehabilitate her coffee farm and purchase farm inputs and implements, production equipment, and machinery. She submitted her business plan and budget. The Guinobatan Municipal Agriculture Office endorsed the documents to the Department of Agriculture Regional Office for evaluation and processing. 33 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV As further assistance to women entrepreneurs, the project helped establish local business service centers. The business centers were meant to assist women entrepreneurs, especially during the COVID-19 lockdowns. The project assisted in executing a Memorandum of Agreement between DTI Region 10 and Cagayan de Oro for the joint establishment of the Ginama One-Town-One-Product hub. During quarantine periods, the project helped Ginama pivot to become a women’s entrepreneurial development center called WOMEN. Partnerships were also established between the LGUs and other organizations such as Puerto Princesa Negosyo Center, GenSan SMED Council, Tagbilaran Livelihood Development Council Office, and the Food Innovation Center of the Western Mindanao State University in Zamboanga. Overall, the project had a target of assisting CDI cities to draft, propose, or adopt laws, policies, or procedures that would promote gender equality in the cities. At the project’s end, there were 41 such documents. An examination of the records shows that 14 proposed procedures were reported as early as Year 3, Quarter 1, but these were not yet adopted by the end of the project. On the other hand, six proposed procedures reported in the Year 3, Quarter 1 report were eventually adopted in the subsequent two quarters. Two of these were from General Santos, three from Legazpi, and one from Puerto Princesa. Further analysis of the listing shows no proposed or adopted legislation for CDO, and only one proposed procedure each for Batangas and Iloilo. Coincidentally, these three cities are original CDI cities. It is possible, though not certain, that gender-related policies and procedures existed before 2017 when gender legislation was first monitored by SURGE. SUSTAINABILITY What is the likelihood that initiatives and gains will continue after the completion of the project? Guided by USAID ADS 201, SURGE’s evaluation team defines sustainability as “The ability of a local system to produce desired outcomes over time. Programs contribute to sustainability when they strengthen the system’s ability to produce valued results and to be both resilient and adaptive in the face of changing circumstances.” This definition focuses on the system’s ability to generate results after the completion of the SURGE project. To evaluate the sustainability of SURGE project components, the evaluation team examined the following five factors for each component: 1) Policy – Activities are consistent with or supported by relevant national or local government policy; 2) Ownership and participation – Activities are supported by local stakeholders as they clearly respond to their needs; 3) Financial capacity – Counterpart institutions are capable and committed to allocate funds for continuing the project activities; 4) Capacity building – Training activities adequately addressed the needs of project stakeholders; and 5) Organization – Appropriate organizations were identified to sustain project activities. COMPONENT 1: IMPROVING LOCAL CAPACITY FOR INCLUSIVE AND RESILIENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT Overall, the evaluation team found that project activities aimed at improving the capacity of local stakeholders for inclusive and resilient urban development are likely to be sustained by local and national government agencies that SURGE engaged and partnered with during the project. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 34 The key factors that will contribute to the sustainability of each sub-component are enumerated in Table 9. “The inclusive approach of SURGE is very different from other projects. SURGE takes premium in the participation of many sectors, particularly the private sector, in planning of the projects and interventions.” – City Planning and Development Office – Puerto Princesa City As Table 9 shows, SURGE’s well-structured implementation helped ensure the sustainability of most project activities. In particular, the project pursued integrated approaches that emphasized the importance of operating under existing policies; helped organizations acquire the skills required to run new programs and, in several cases, created partnerships to provide continuity in project capacity building activities; and helped SURGE’s local government counterparts improve local resource mobilization. Some key informants, mostly from the LGU planning offices, cited the following challenges to the sustainability of Component 1 activities: 1) re-assignment of SURGE-trained personnel to other departments; 2) lack of follow-up capacity building activities; and 3) changes in political leadership in 2022, which may result in a shift of LGU priorities and derail the implementation of some PPAs identified in local plans. TABLE 9. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SUSTAINABILITY OF COMPONENT 1 ACTIVITIES ACTIVITY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Strengthening local capacity in urban development planning, including promoting CCA and DRR/CCA in land use planning and development following international best practices Policies are in place to ensure mainstreaming of CCA and DRR in local development planning. Key LGU planning staff were equipped with knowledge and skills based on their needs. UDLP has been established to address the training needs of local stakeholders. Partnership forged with DHSUD to ensure the roll out of CDRA training module developed by the project. Adequate financial capacity of LGUs to fund the PPAs identified in local development plans. Improving local climate-resilient infrastructure planning, financing, and implementation National and local policies support planning, financing, and implementation of climate-resilient PPAs. Key climate and disaster planners at the local level acquired knowledge and skills on GHG inventory and management. Partnerships forged between cities and key government agencies to ensure continuity of capacity building and data sharing (e.g., CCC and DOST-PHIVOLCS). Willingness of LGUs to invest in climate change adaptation and mitigation projects as evidenced by the ongoing and implemented GHG-reducing projects in CDI cities. Increasing access to sustainable water supply and sanitation Policies in support of WASH activities, including promotion resilience in WASH planning and implementation, exist at the national and local level. Extensive capacity building intervention provided by the project to WASH stakeholders. Active participation and willingness of LGUs and WSPs to invest in project-initiated WASH activities. 35 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Source: Evaluation team document review and interviews with LGU officials and other key stakeholders COMPONENT 2: IMPROVING ENVIRONMENT FOR LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT In general, SURGE activities under Component 2 are likely to be continued after project completion. Policy support, stakeholder participation, and benefits derived from the intervention are key factors that contribute to the sustainability of most Component 2 activities. Key contributing factors to the sustainability of Component 2 activities are described in Table 10. Key factors that may hinder sustainability are: 1) city personnel may need the incentives and guidance to properly execute their SAMPS and SFMPs; 2) digitalization of business processes and the digital linkage of different units in the city may be affected by computers that are not powerful enough to handle the Need to increase access to WASH services by underserved and unserved populations. TABLE 10. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SUSTAINABILITY OF COMPONENT 2 ACTIVITIES SUB-COMPONENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2.1 Improving local revenue generation and expenditure management City officials and personnel were empowered to maximize revenue generation, particularly on business tax collection, real property tax collection, and receipts from local economic enterprises. City officials and personnel were equipped with skills to improve the crafting of SAMPs, SFMPs, and business plans. CDI cities were able to mobilize their TWGs on asset and financial management. SURGE was able to release a Real Property Asset Management Manual for Local Governments in the Philippines in 2017 and a Revenue Management Manual in 2018. Both documents can guide LGUs in managing their assets and revenue generation. 2.2 Streamlining and automating of construction permitting processes Policies are in place at the national level (EODB Act of 2018 and JMC 2018) and local level (city laws, policies, and ordinances). SURGE benefited from the earlier lessons of INVEST on BPLS streamlining that allowed the creation of a BPLS manual and peer-to-peer learning. As such, the transition to streamlining and automating construction permitting was quicker. Businesses have recognized the improvements in business renewal and construction permitting and expect the service delivery levels to continue. Cities were recognized by external organizations for their accomplishments in government efficiency. 2.3 Improving land tenure security and land information management Cities have begun to populate their LIS and have experienced improvements in land tenure security. Improved LIS helped identify government property that could be utilized for revenue generation. Cities have begun to draft legislation in support of a unified LIS. 2.4 Building competencies of local economic and investment promotion office and business support organizations Cities with an intervention in investment generation have a LEIPO with trained personnel who can help package the city. For some cities, there is already an approved Investment Code that simply needs implementation. The cities have established relationships with business support organizations which have helped develop the investment code and will benefit from the implementation of the code. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 36 data, limited bandwidth, poor Internet connectivity, and power failures; and 3) improved relations with the business sector may be affected by changes in city leadership. COMPONENT 3: IMPROVING CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESS BETWEEN URBAN AND URBAN AREAS In general, SURGE activities under Component 3 are likely to continue after project completion. Policy support, stakeholder participation, and benefits derived from the intervention are key factors that contribute to the sustainability of most Component 3 activities. Key contributing factors to the sustainability of Component 3 activities are described in Table 11. Stakeholders from Tagbilaran City cited two key factors that may hinder sustainability of project activities initiated by SURGE: 1) inadequate stakeholder engagement and follow-through activities (e.g., Bohol seaweed network and PADTEC); and 2) changes in political leadership in 2022 which may result in a shift of LGU priorities. The COVID-19 pandemic hindered the conduct of follow-through activities. W-GDP: IMPROVING CAPACITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP AMONG WOMEN IN TARGET AREAS W-GDP was an addition to the six-year SURGE project. It was implemented virtually in 2020, shortly after restrictions were imposed on the movement of people due to COVID-19. It is difficult to measure the sustainability of interventions concerning women entrepreneurs who attended various W-GDP activities. In its June 2021 report, ICMA reported that 74 percent of women participants were first-time participants. There was no indication whether there were attempts to follow up with the participants or TABLE 11. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SUSTAINABILITY OF COMPONENT 3 ACTIVITIES ACTIVITY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Reducing policy and regulatory barriers to productive rural-urban linkages Policies are in place at the national (EODB Act of 2018) and local level promoting simplification of local regulations and procedures. LGUs and other stakeholders recognized the need to simplify local regulations. Local stakeholders, mostly from the business sector, are benefiting from local regulatory simplification. Reducing connectivity and information costs that inhibit the flow of goods and services Strong stakeholder support exists in project activities (e.g., airline companies were willing to expand their services in General Santos). High demand for high-value products (e.g., fresh tuna) by major markets in Luzon. Support was provided by CAAP to air services expansion in General Santos City, including the conceptual plan for a mixed-use aviation hub in General Santos City Airport. Strengthening supply chain linkages between urban and rural areas Organizational strengthening and training from the project for primary producers of cassava and seaweeds. Market linkages established between producers and buyers. Local policy issuances adopting the tourism development plans which SURGE prepared with industry stakeholders. Developing metropolitan arrangements that improve coordination and exchanges between cities and adjacent rural areas LGU stakeholders of Tagbilaran City and the nearby municipalities recognize the need to establish PADTEC as a mechanism to promote inter-LGU cooperation. Policy and organizational framework for cooperation have been established through the project. 37 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV monitor their entrepreneurial activities after the first encounter. There was also insufficient information to determine whether webinars on topics such as digital marketing had any impact on the businesses (see Appendix D’s section on gender analysis). Social media accounts of women participants were tabulated to determine the number of digital platforms established or enhanced. However, there was no assessment to determine whether the Facebook pages improved as a result of the project’s online training. Though the establishment or enhancement of five online portals was referenced, it was not clear how the project assisted the creation or enhancement of the portals. Moreover, no information was available on the usage of such portals and how many items were sold and purchased through them. To determine the number of new business registration by women, the project would have needed to obtain disaggregated data from CDI cities. However, there were no such data presented even if the city could produce disaggregated information. Thus, the only measure of success was the registration of 311 women entrepreneurs in Puerto Princesa. To determine the number of women assisted in entrepreneurial development, there was a count of all women who had at least one instance of participating in any of the project’s W-GDP activities, even if it was just to receive a safe store kit or software. There were no data on whether the 69 recipients from five CDI cities used the software. A list was compiled to determine the number of laws, policies, and procedures proposed or adopted. However, there was no report on the progression of the proposed legislation. Some proposals did not progress into adopted legislation, even three years after initial reporting. It is difficult to ascertain the effectiveness of the various activities, especially because most of the women entrepreneurs did not receive continuous support for a reasonable period. There were indications that a mentoring program was adopted but little was said about it. However, there is one W-GDP indicator suggesting that gains may be sustained post-SURGE. This refers to the number of business service centers for women entrepreneurs and women-managed SMEs that were established or improved. These include the Ginama Entrepreneurial Development Center for Women in CDO, Negosyo Center in Puerto Princesa, City Economic Management and Cooperative Development Office in General Santos, Western Mindanao State University Shared Service Facility Center in Zamboanga, and Tagbilaran City Livelihood and Community Development Office. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 38 CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions address the main evaluation questions on relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability. SURGE Activities and Interventions Were Relevant to The Needs of LGUs. The project was aligned with the Philippine Government and USAID’s higher-level development goals (e.g., the Sustainable Development Goals, PFG-CDI, NSS/PDP 2017-2022, USAID/PH CDCS, as well as USAID’s policies on urban resiliency and WASH). SURGE interventions to improve the institutional capacity of CDI cities in inclusive and resilient urban development contributed to USAID’s development priorities under the Cities Development Initiative-Partnership for Growth, CDCS (previous and current), and USAID’s policies on urban resilience and WASH. Moreover, SURGE’s assistance to build the capacity of CDI cities for preparing climate-resilient and risk￾sensitive local plans increased the resilience of residents, especially in disaster-prone communities. This is a key outcome of the Philippine Development Plan, 2017-2022. SURGE activities to improve economic connectivity and access between urban and rural areas are expected to contribute to: 1) USAID’s CDCS DOs, namely accelerating and sustaining broad-based and inclusive growth (DO1 – CDCS 2013-2018) and more responsive local governance (DO1 – CDCS 2019-2024); 2) the PDP 2017-2022 goal of more inclusive growth; and 3) objectives under the NSS of the Government of the Philippines to promote regional agglomeration and strengthen urban-rural linkages. Overall Project Implementation Approach Was Effective: Component 1: SURGE contributed to strengthening local capacity in inclusive and resilient urban development. Through SURGE technical assistance, seven CDI cities were able to update their CLUPs and other local development plans. In the process of updating these plans, key LGU stakeholders increased their knowledge and skills in mainstreaming CCA and DRR in local development plans in compliance with the standards prescribed by national laws and policies. The integration of CCA and DRR in the updated CLUPs allows CDI cities to identify appropriate risk reduction and climate change adaptation and mitigation options as inputs to comprehensive development plans and local investment programs, thereby improving urban resilience and ensuring sustainable economic growth. As a result of this assistance, CDI cities were able to implement PPAs designed to help communities adapt to climate change. Total investments in climate change adaptation actions by the eight CDI cities amounted to $583,331 as of June 2021. Including leveraged investments, the total amount mobilized for climate change adaptation PPAs is estimated at $10.8 million. SURGE also supported CDI cities to integrate climate adaptation and mitigation actions into urban infrastructure planning, financing, and implementation. Related to climate change mitigation, SURGE assisted four CDI cities in preparing GHG management plans in compliance with national policies. The city councils have approved these plans, together with the PPAs, and some PPAs have been implemented and are fully operational (e.g., streetlight projects in Tagbilaran and Zamboanga). When the PPAs are fully implemented, the aggregate amount of GHG reduced, sequestered, or avoided is 39 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV estimated at 1,803 metric tons (tCO28). Concerning climate adaptation, SURGE assisted CDI cities and adjacent areas in mainstreaming CCA and DRR in their WSPs. The integration of CCA and DRR in WSPs will guide CDI cities in determining and addressing the potential impact of disaster risk on the quality of water that they supply to their customers. Component 2: SURGE contributed to improving the enabling environment for the local economic development of target CDI cities. Through SURGE technical assistance, CDI cities were able to increase local revenue and improve expenditure management through updated SAMPs and SFMPs; streamline and automate the construction permitting process, including the integration of BFP fees and barangay clearance fees; improve local land tenure security and land information management through the development of a unified land information system; and build the competency of LEIPOs and business support organizations, which resulted in a combined investment commitment of PhP140 billion (net of INVEST commitments). Key contributing factors to SURGE achievements include 1) the full backing of the city mayor, 2) the collaboration of private sector groups, academia, and national government agencies, 3) the full cooperation of LGU personnel, and 4) the City Program Coordinator (CPC’s) persistence and commitment. More specifically, based on stakeholder discussions, there is evidence that locally sourced revenue increased in SURGE-assisted cities as a result of administrative improvements supported by SURGE. Of the SURGE-assisted cities, only General Santos showed a decrease in local revenues in 2019, but the city was able to recuperate its losses in 2020. While increased locally sourced revenues should lead to lower dependency and central government funds transfers, this effect was negligible. Except for Legazpi, CDI cities did not fully utilize the 20 percent Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) allocation for social development projects. This can be seen in the CDI cities’ growing cash position. Cities need to learn how to more effectively program their budget expenditures for better service quality delivery, particularly considering that additional IRA budget allocations will soon be available as a result of the Mandanas ruling9. If not, large surpluses are again expected. The project also achieved solid success in helping cities improve their business permitting systems. Drawing from the per city analysis, the evaluation concludes that most of the cities were able to automate their systems and incorporate online processing, including the release of digital permits. Some of the cities have even surpassed national standards set in JMCs 2010, 2016, and 2018. Legazpi was the first to be able to integrate BFP fees into the construction permitting system. The interventions related to the development of the ULIS began late, except for technical assistance to Cagayan de Oro. This city was, therefore, able to address some issues on land tenure security (see the section on Cagayan de Oro City analysis). Assistance for the other cities began in Year 6, leaving SURGE insufficient time to support updating of the LIS and linking it to the other systems. Another significant SURGE intervention was establishing LEIPOs with trained and competent staff. SURGE supported different cities at different points in the project, with some receiving assistance quite 8 The evaluation team, however, did not verify this estimate as this was not within the scope of the evaluation. 9 The Supreme Court (SC) decision on the Mandanas case specifies that the just share of LGUs, also known as Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA), must be computed based on all national taxes, and not just from National Internal Revenue Taxes (NIRT). USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 40 late in the project. As a result, only some cities were able to establish their LEIPO. SURGE reported that the cities it assisted generated PhP140 billion (net of INVEST commitments) in investment commitments. Component 3: SURGE contributed to improved connectivity and access between urban and rural areas by helping cities reform local policies and regulations that limit the mobilization of investment capital and increase the costs of doing business in the target CDI cities. Examples of success include SURGE’s facilitation of expanded air services in General Santos City, which contributed to an increase in air passenger traffic and cargo movement between General Santos City and Manila. The project also supported Cagayan de Oro City in formulating its LPTRP, which contributed to increased access to public land transportation in the city and nearby municipalities. SURGE also assisted seaweed farmers (Puerto Princesa) and cassava growers (Zamboanga) to access technologies and new markets, which resulted in better returns for their products. However, SURGE’s overall work in this area was limited and thus insufficient to make a substantial impact on urban-rural connectivity across the project. Nevertheless, the positive results in Cagayan de Oro and General Santos related to the flow of goods and services offer a model that could be replicated in other second-tier cities. W-GDP: The opportunity to contribute to the W-GDP initiative was a welcome inclusion to the project because it fit well with the project’s goal for inclusive economic growth. Women who participated in the activities felt they were useful, especially during the pandemic when businesses needed to pivot to survive. However, because W-GDP activities were integrated into the project during its fifth year, the evaluation team could not measure the impact and effectiveness of activities in terms of business improvement. The Achievements and Gains of The SURGE Project are Likely to be Sustained: Sustainability factors (both enabling or facilitating and hindering) were identified by the evaluation team and are analyzed below for each of the project’s three components. Component 1: SURGE initiatives toward improving local capacity for inclusive and resilient urban development are likely to be sustained by CDI cities, considering that: 1) LGUs are mandated by national law to mainstream climate and disaster resilience in local development plans; 2) LGUs have adopted policies mainstreaming CCA and DRR into local development planning; 3) key city stakeholders have acquired the minimum technical expertise needed to perform mandated local planning functions as a result of the project’s capacity building activities; 4) UDLPs have been established in local universities to provide continuity to SURGE capacity development activities; and 5) LGUs have adequate budgets to implement most of the PPAs identified in their local development plans. However, changes in political leadership arising from the local elections in 2022 could be a hindering factor to sustainability, potentially resulting in reassignment or removal of project-trained personnel from their posts and a shift of LGU priorities, including a realignment of PPA budgets. Component 2: SURGE initiatives toward improving the environment for the local economic development of target CDI cities are likely to be sustained by CDI cities, considering 1) the development of a streamlined and automated construction permitting system is mandated by national government agencies and is already in use; 2) LGU personnel have strengthened capacity to identify 41 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV potential sources of locally generated revenue; 3) LGUs have improved organizational structures, leading to more regular staff to continue programs started; and 4) LGUs have been recognized externally by unbiased organizations, resulting in increased civic pride. Component 3: CDI cities are likely to continue some Component 3 activities after project completion, given the market-driven nature of SURGE interventions (e.g., strengthening supply chain linkages in the seaweed and cassava industries) and strong private sector participation in project activities (e.g., tourism development and promotion in Legazpi, Puerto Princesa, and Tagbilaran). LGU policy issuances adopting the project initiatives such as tourism development plans is also a key factor to sustainability. Key factors that undermine sustainability are 1) inadequate stakeholder engagement and follow-through activities (e.g., institutional strengthening of BoSNet and PADTEC), 2) lack of post-project capacity building plans, especially for second-line staff and new LGU personnel; and 3) changes in political leadership in 2022, which may result in a shift of LGU priorities. Observations On Demand-Driven Project Interventions at The City Level: SURGE implemented specific interventions on the ground, based on the needs of target CDI cities, an effective approach in terms of ensuring relevance to the needs of people and communities. Strong stakeholder participation and commitment also contributed to project effectiveness. While SURGE’s demand-driven approach had many benefits, it also resulted in overly broad efforts and with work beginning in some cities quite late in the project, which did not allow for a complete end-to￾end implementation of interventions. For example, the streamlining of construction permitting processes would have ideally included the automation of the processes and the linkage to the business permitting process, had time and focus permitted. Likewise, additional cities would have benefited from support in promoting urban to rural linkages focusing on select commodities. Also, some cities received more assistance for a particular intervention, while others received less or were not involved at all, e.g., WASH-related activities, tourism plan preparations, value chain analysis, and UDLP-related initiatives. In terms of components, SURGE provided extensive assistance through consultancies, advisory services, and training for Components 1 and 2, but not as much for Component 3. Likewise, the UDLP focused more on Component 1. Other possible areas that could be added to UDLP’s focus are the themes and functional areas under Component 3. Performance Indicators Set at The Start of The Project are Different from The Performance Indicators Being Used Across Time for Monitoring the Project’s Achievements. Some indicators used in monitoring ended up not being insightful or were not aligned with the intended results of sub-components. This makes it difficult to assess the project’s achievements and validate the project’s theory of change. SURGE’s Engagement in Wash Efforts in Marawi. SURGE’s main deliverables in extending technical assistance for meeting the increased service coverage of Marawi City Water District in Mindanao State University (MSU) surrounding seven barangays included: 1) enhanced the water supply development master plan in the seven barangays surrounding the MSU area; 2) formulated a detailed engineering design of water supply facilities for the seven barangays; and 3) drew up cost estimates of the proposed complete water supply system. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 42 While this was an addition to SURGE’s original statement of work, it generated some learnings on local governance and project design flexibility, with WASH serving as an entry point. The pivot was large and different and required major adjustments to how the project operated, e.g., travel procedures, GPS locators for staff going on fieldwork, etc. The challenge called for strong collaboration between the national and city governments, and with the local water district. The private sector also played a key role through the establishment of the local chamber of commerce and industry. While this was not originally part of SURGE’s scope of work, ICMA justified the work as being consistent with SURGE objectives. Mobilization Of Surge in Providing USAID’s Assistance Related to Covid-19. SURGE maximized its ongoing partnership with the eight CDI cities, supporting them to design and implement crisis communication strategies. Further, SURGE helped strengthen the capacity of CDI cities, and specifically, their local crisis response centers, to disseminate accurate and timely information, manage quarantine measures, and set up public hand-washing facilities. SURGE also supported CDI cities to prepare economic recovery plans and introduced key digital solutions (such as online conferencing facilities) that have helped CDI cities stabilize local government transactions and operations during the pandemic. SURGE also provided skills training to small and microenterprises as well as heavily affected sectors and communities, especially women in CDI cities. In some cases, SURGE was able to leverage opportunities during the pandemic to improve project performance. For example, training programs were delivered online because of gathering restrictions. The project then used funds that would have gone toward travel, venue, food, and accommodation to hire consultants for technical assistance. Strong Commitment of CDI Cities. By the third year, the partner LGUs provided funding to compensate for budget cuts. It was this willingness of partners to fund activities that crystallized sustainability. The challenge turned out as a point of partnership building – a possible best practice. 43 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV RECOMMENDATIONS The evaluation team puts forward the following recommendations for USAID’s consideration:  Implementation of plans. SURGE was able to assist in the formulation and approval of plans and planning documents (e.g., CDRA-compliant CLUPs, WASH master plans, transportation rerouting plans), and succeeding programs or interventions should focus on strengthening the capacities of partner LGUs to implement them and conduct follow-through activities. More specifically, the evaluation team recommends that USAID continue to:  Closely align future programs with Government of the Philippines development plans, as has been done by SURGE, with a continued focus on building the capacities of CDI cities to implement the climate-resilient PPAs identified in their local development plans. For example, future programs could work to build local capacity to develop proposals for bankable projects identified in their LCCAP and for local and international funders (e.g., CCC and Green Climate Fund). This would entail building climate-focused project preparation skills at the local level including technical, financial, and due diligence studies following the guidelines and formats prescribed by funders.  Mobilize resources for climate change mitigation and adaptation. While SURGE enhanced the capacity of cities to prepare local plans that contribute to urban resilience and low emission economic growth, future programs should focus on building the capacity of cities to mobilize both internal and external resources for climate change adaptation and mitigation.  Relatedly, succeeding efforts should further capacitate the cities in responding to climate-related disasters and risks. This includes strengthening the local disaster risk reduction and management councils (DRRMCs) not only in disaster response but, more specifically, in preparing communities—especially the more vulnerable sectors (women, children, and those in disaster￾prone areas)—so that they can reduce risks and hazards. Areas of capacity enhancement include: 1) participation and engagement of local communities; 2) installation of relevant climate and weather hazard detection facilities and warning devices; and 3) provision of scientific information accessible to ordinary people at the community level for planning and mitigation exercises.  In terms of the WASH assistance to the CDI cities, the following activities are recommended: 1) identify and prioritize expansion coverage areas and services to be provided; and 2) develop facilities and infrastructure.  Institutionalization of initiatives. SURGE undertook several trailblazing initiatives. To sustain their gains, these initiatives can be expanded and further institutionalized. Examples include SURGE capacity and skills development programs, manuals produced by the project, partnerships that the CPCs facilitated on the ground, and processes and systems that the project introduced and established. Methods and tools could be institutionalized by developing relevant policies, setting or establishing appropriate structures, publishing manuals of processes and systems, and documenting effective training modules for possible replication. More specifically, the evaluation team recommends that USAID: USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 44  Establish mechanisms for sustaining stakeholder engagement, especially for project activities that could not be completed due to the pandemic, such as establishing PADTEC and organizing the Bohol Seaweed Network. Identifying partner agencies that are willing to continue SURGE initiatives after project completion should form part of the project strategy.  For local economic improvement, consider the management of expenditures. For revenue generation, assist cities in the development of their local economic enterprises. LGUs should learn how to manage their resources better. The use of zero-based budgeting, among others, may help the LGUs prepare better budgets. Greater awareness among LGUs is needed about the use of their IRA, including the 20 percent that should be allocated to social development projects. With the increase in IRA due to the Mandanas ruling, cities will have even more funds. To reduce dependence on the IRA, cities should learn to better manage their local enterprises to generate more revenues to cover their expenses.  Assist cities in strengthening their LEIPO and capacitating to better manage and heighten their investment promotion activities.  Further, strengthen the women's business centers to more effectively reach out to women entrepreneurs. Monitoring will be needed to determine the effectiveness of the interventions.  Application of ICT in urban governance and management. Assistance to LGUs should be continued, especially on the application of GIS, which could be integrated into the LGUs’ various operations (e.g., planning and zoning, BPLS, BFP monitoring of establishments for the issuance of relevant fire certificates, land registration, and land information management, real property assessment, and business tax assessment and collection, among others). Future interventions should focus on capacity development (institutions and people) and the development of an integrated IT system for local and urban governance and management. Specifically, it is recommended that succeeding efforts pursue the development of the ULIS because this benefits land tenure and security and enhances a city’s ability to generate revenue. In particular, utilize the GIS to create the digital cadastral databases and ensure that this is linked to other systems such as those in the Finance group. Identifying and titling properties provides opportunities to assess the properties correctly, thereby increasing revenue collection. Also, identification of LGU property can help the LGU decide to convert idle property to productive property.  Formulation of partner-LGU holistic post-project capacity development road maps. To further ensure that gains are sustained, and knowledge transfer continues, a UDLP-like mechanism could be adopted. However, the coverage of UDLP should be expanded to include other thematic and functional areas to build local-level knowledge. More generally, a holistic post-project capacity development road map should be formulated and adopted, coupled with capacity development to enhance LGU skills in accessing and using climate change data in developing climate-resilient and risk-sensitive development plans and in communicating climate change impacts to local stakeholders.  Definition and selection of appropriate and consistent performance and outcome indicators. Given the complexity and nature of SURGE interventions as well as their demand￾driven approach, the evaluation team recommends that key indicators be carefully defined and selected, with reasonable flexibility for adjustments during implementation. For instance, activities 45 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV related to the promotion of seaweed and cassava supply chains and tourism master plan development should have distinct indicators that could appropriately measure their contribution to improving urban-rural connectivity. Further, the overall CMCI rank was used for Component 2; yet the CMCI is a multi-component index. Narrowing the evaluation to say, CMCI pillars, may tie the target to the indicator better.  Ensure sustainability amid uncertainty. To further ensure the sustainability of gains, succeeding efforts should build on the following: 1) enforce policies adopting measures introduced by SURGE (e.g., DILG issuances and local ordinances adopting streamlined processes); 2) continue, strengthen, and institutionalize the engagement and participation of various groups (business, farmers, media, youth, women and other vulnerable sectors, among others) in the decision and policy-making processes at the city level; 3) ensure continuous advocacy of gains to new city and community leaders, from both government and non-government groups; and 4) maintain and heighten the visibility of USAID in CDI cities through its various sectoral projects and activities. Other ways that USAID can further expand and deepen the gains that have thus far been achieved include:  Scale up successful approaches to more cities. Examples to consider to this end include establishing LEIPOs and ensuring they have qualified staff and offering the suite of administrative tools and systems that help cities increase revenue mobilization, including automated business, tax, and land registries.  To better manage staff turnover, support ways to increase and expand training programs for core urban management functions, especially regarding revenue mobilization. This could include deepening the relationship between cities and universities, expanding in-house training services, and creating systems that ensure second-line technicians and managers receive the training to move into more senior positions.  Help cities to better manage resource expenditures. This could include assistance with stakeholder consultation, strategic planning and budgeting, and instituting systems to monitor and improve service delivery. PROJECT MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS:  While interventions for Marawi and W-GDP were opportunistic, there may be a need to have a stronger master plan of program interventions so that activities are not introduced belatedly (e.g., ULIS and LEIPO). Further, some of the objectives of the subcomponents were changed midway (e.g., 2.2 and 2.4), which set back early efforts to meet original objectives.  The scope of the project was wide, resulting in dispersed attention to the various components. USAID should focus on fewer core priorities, allowing for more comprehensive implementation in more places. Implementing a mix of different activities in different places poses a challenge for implementation efficiency.  Consider targets that consider net improvements. For instance, Subcomponent 2.2 included a focus on new business registration but no attention to the non-renewal of business permits. Thus, while USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 46 the project attained the target for new business registration, the gains were negated by a large number of non-renewals. 47 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV WASH ASSISTANCE IN MARAWI: AN ENTRY POINT TO RESPONSIVE LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE OF THE CASE STUDY10 This case study assesses water, sanitation, and hygiene services (WASH) in the City of Marawi before and after the historic conflict between the government and militants affiliated with the Islamic State. This case study, based on a review of all primary and secondary data available on WASH services in Marawi, provides an overview of the WASH situation, describes support provided by SURGE, and identifies actions needed to restore adequate water and sanitation services in Marawi. DESCRIPTION OF THE WASH SERVICE PROVIDERS IN MARAWI CITY After the five-month conflict between the Philippine Government and the Maute-ISIS Terrorists Group, the City of Marawi faced an unimaginable challenge with WASH services. Apart from people being displaced, business activities were completely paralyzed and social service infrastructure—including water supply and sanitation facilities—were heavily damaged or destroyed. Water supply and sanitation services have been a perennial problem in Marawi City, even before hostility broke out in 2017. Five months into the fighting, displacement continued as the Islamic State-affiliated fighters continued to resist military operations in Marawi City. The deep scars left by the 2017 conflict in Marawi City continue to affect over 100,000 internally displaced people (IDPs). In Marawi City, Marawi City Water District (MCWD), established under PD 198 with CCC No. 003 and issued by the Local Water Utilities Administration on February 22, 1974, is the primary WASH service provider. The other Level III9 11water supply service provider in the city serving households, students, and faculty members inside the campus is the water system developed by the Mindanao State University (MSU). The water supply system on the MSU campus is managed under the MSU’s Motorpool and Water System Division (MSU-MWSD), which was established by the University’s Board of Reagents. No data were available from the MSU-MWSD data system or other sources to enable assessment of the MSU-MWSD level of service. Records only provided information on the existing system facilities being maintained and operated by MSU-MWSD. MCWD’s level of service before the siege was 13.4 percent in the entire city and 26.8 percent in 41 served barangays (ideal service coverage should be more than 85 10 This article presents a summary of SURGE assistance to Marawi specifically on WASH. SURGE provided this assistance as part of USAID’s immediate response to the Marawi siege. 11 Water supply levels: Level I - Stand-alone water points (e.g., handpumps, shallow wells, rainwater collectors) serving an average of 15 households within a 250-meter distance; Level II - Piped water with a communal water point (e.g. borewell, spring system) serving an average of 4–6 households within a 25-meter distance; and Level III - Piped water supply with a private water point (e.g. house connection) based on daily water demand of more than 100 liters per person. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 48 percent). Non-revenue water12 was 53.5 percent (a comfortable level is less than 20 percent), and actual unit consumption was 32 lpcd (within the prescribed level of 100-140 lpcd). Following the Marawi siege, MCWD assessed its major facilities, including administration buildings, storage reservoirs, deep well pumping facilities, and distribution and transmission pipelines. The assessment revealed that most of MCWD’s major water supply facilities were severely damaged and, to some extent, became non-operational. The major water system facilities were located inside an inaccessible militarized zone or the heavily damaged Most Affected Area. After the siege, MCWD, through rehabilitation and restoration programs, was able to partially restore services to 20 barangays, representing just below 50 percent of the previously served 41 barangays (with assistance from the ADB on pipe repair and replacement). MCWD further prepared a comprehensive master plan to undertake rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts as well as develop new water sources and expand services. ACCOMPLISHMENTS SCOPE OF MARAWI WASH DEVELOPMENT As a result of the siege, the center of activities in the city shifted to the western part of Marawi, where the main campus of MSU is located. The MCWD’s target area for service expansion is the seven barangays surrounding the MSU campus. The National Housing Authority and LWUA, under the supervision of the Task Force Bangon Marawi (TFBM) and LGU, are jointly handling water supply and sanitation services in IDP temporary and permanent resettlement areas. The DILG offered the LGU financial support to develop Level II water supply systems in another seven barangays, which will later be converted into Level III systems in close coordination with LWUA. The NHA, LWUA, and the LGU are working together to develop a freshwater supply and sanitation system in the Most Affected Area (in close coordination with TFBM). SURGE INTERVENTION Supporting the MCWD’s Comprehensive Master Plan— and, in particular, providing assistance for pre￾construction planning for water supply facilities—was a major focus of SURGE’s WASH activities. SURGE assisted MCWD in pre-construction activities for the development of fresh Level III water supply systems in the seven barangays surrounding MSU. SURGE also trained 70 officials and staff from MCWD and the city government to effectively operate and manage water and sanitation systems in the city. SURGE’s main deliverables for increasing service coverage of MCWD in the seven barangays around MSU were as follows:  Enhanced water supply development master plan in the seven barangays, 12 Non-revenue water is water that has been produced and is “lost” before it reaches the customer. Losses can be real losses (through leaks, sometimes also referred to as physical losses) or apparent losses (for example, through metering inaccuracies). 49 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV  A detailed engineering design of water supply facilities for the seven barangays, and  Cost estimates of the proposed complete water supply system. The quality of work provided under SURGE’s technical assistance encouraged the Office of the Provincial Governor to elevate the funding request for rehabilitation of the water systems to BARMM. This increased requested funding to Php163,670,040 out of Php388,000,000 appropriated to support the implementation of Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 of MCWD’s Master Development Plan for the seven barangays. SURGE engaged Metro-Pacific Water Investment Corporation to conduct a georesistivity survey around the seven barangays. The potential water yield was identified through four vertical electrical sounding (VES) assessments13. was estimated at 4,320 M3/Day. SURGE also conducted a georesistivity survey to determine the potential use of groundwater as a major source of water for the IDPs in the permanent resettlement areas. Around 25 VES points were identified with a potential yield of around 6,220 M3/Day. In addition, SURGE assisted MCWD in conducting a pipe network diagnostic assessment through the use of the Hydraulic Pipe Network Model (WaterGEMS). SURGE PROJECT INTERVENTION COVERAGE Population coverage of SURGE interventions included the seven barangays surrounding MSU, which have a total population of 26,135 or 3,407 households (as per the 2015 census), plus the 3,500 IDP families in the permanent settlement areas. SURGE’s main work was the detailed preparation of engineering design and cost estimates for all freshwater supply facilities to serve the seven-barangay target area. SURGE ACTIVITY SCHEDULE SURGE activities were completed according to the target timeline. The contributing factor for prompt completion of the activities stemmed from the urgency of the needs and full cooperation of the LGU, TFBM, and participating representatives from the national government agencies. FACTORS THAT FACILITATED OR HINDERED IMPLEMENTATION AND ACHIEVEMENT OF RESULTS Full cooperation of the WASH-concerned offices facilitated the successful completion of SURGE activities according to the pressing needs of the MCWD and the LGU, in cooperation with the LWUA and the TFBM. The physical implementation of the completed SURGE intervention was hindered by pandemic-induced inefficiencies in the procurement process, delaying the delivery of materials and services in the coverage areas. Initially, the full TFBM completion of Marawi restoration, reconstruction, and development of all social service facilities (including the transfer of resettlement housing units to all IDPs) was projected 13 Vertical Electrical Sounding is a geophysical resistivity method that is commonly used to explore groundwater availability and abundance. VES Points were identified on the ground through the geophysical method for investigation of a geological medium in the identified points using Geophysical Instruments. The Electromagnetic method is based on the estimation of the electrical conductivity or resistivity of the medium. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 50 before the end of the president’s term. TFBM now anticipates that the program’s completion will be adjusted, most likely to the end of 2022. CONCLUSIONS SURGE activities were completed according to the work plan. This work included completing the basic design requirements for engineering technical standards and design to restore water systems in target areas, including developing a format for sourcing project implementation financial support. SURGE also helped MCWD prepare detailed engineering designs for all freshwater supply facilities, a treated water reservoir, and transmission and distribution pipelines14. Although the evaluation team was unable to triangulate evidence, key informant interviews and focus group discussions conducted in Marawi City as part of this evaluation left the impression that the active participation of SURGE in the WASH restoration and reconstruction projects in Marawi City helped create a positive working environment among local and national government agencies. In turn, this may have enabled effective collaboration among agencies in providing the range of technical expertise needed to rehabilitate damaged and destroyed water systems. IMPLEMENTATION OBSERVATIONS During face-to-face discussions with concerned WASH-related officials in Marawi City from November 21 to 26, 2021, the evaluation team made the following observations related to ongoing and future requirements of managing improved water services in Marawi, mandated through government regulatory requirements and beyond the scope of SURGE’s direct assistance:  Existing and underdeveloped water sources have not obtained water permits from the National Water Resources Board or its deputized agency in the region, as is required.  The frequency of water quality monitoring for both microbacteriological and physicochemical analysis may not have been following the pertinent provisions of the Philippine National Standards for Drinking Water PNSDW. Furthermore, water sample analyses being monitored by the service providers were mainly on microbiological and chlorine content analysis, while physicochemical analysis was not given much attention.  Even the prime water service provider is unaware of formats and engineering standard requirements for the technical engineering design of system facilities along with the operation and maintenance requirements, including the systematic and reliable data recording and data banking system. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Prior to the actual detailed engineering design of water supply facilities, there is a need to identify basic design requirements like the calculation of water demand, water sources, areas to be served, etc. With these technical design standards, following LWUA Methodology Manual should be considered. Design drawings indicating specifications should be prepared for the preparation of Bill of Quantity, followed by cost estimates. 51 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV To provide sustainable, effective, and efficient water supply services, we recommend that future assistance ensure local officials and managers have the knowledge and capacity to comply with the following regulations:  P.D. 1067 – Philippine Water Code for water permit applications  Philippines National Standards for Drinking Water for water quality parameters and monitoring requirements.  LWUA Methodology Manual for water supply engineering design and standards, operation, and maintenance requirements. It is further recommended that officials and technical staff of water supply service providers understand and can manage internationally established operation and management standards to ensure compliance with the level of service quality guidelines. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 52 SURGE ASSISTANCE IN COVID-19 RESPONSE: A LESSON OF RELEVANCE DURING THE PANDEMIC CONTEXT With the significant spread of COVID-19 in most key cities around the world beginning in January 2020, WHO declared a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. In the Philippines, work slowed, and many business operations stopped. National and local governments intensified efforts to address cases and deaths. The national government focused its attention and resources on health response, social amelioration, regulation, and policy formulation and implementation. SURGE COVID-19 ASSISTANCE Since March 2020, the United States, through USAID, the Department of Defense, and the Department of State, has provided more than Php1billion ($22.6 million)15 to the Philippines' COVID-19 response. USAID's ongoing development projects, valued at more than Php5 billion ($100 million) a year, are addressing impacts of the pandemic across the health, economic development, governance, education, and environment sectors. SURGE mobilized to complement efforts of other USAID projects, specifically in areas of governance and economic development. Despite the limited nature of assistance authorized by the Mission, SURGE undertook activities that helped continue the advancement of good governance and address the economic effects of the pandemic at the local level. Specifically, SURGE did the following:  Partnered with local governments in some of the hardest-hit areas around the country to promote effective crisis management and implement response plans. For example, SURGE leveraged its ongoing partnership with the eight CDI cities to provide further support to design and implement crisis communication strategies.  Strengthened the capacity of CDI cities, specifically their local crisis response centers, to disseminate accurate and timely information, manage quarantine measures, and set up public hand-washing facilities. SURGE also provided technical assistance in the preparation of economic recovery plans by CDI cities.  Introduced key digital solutions (such as online conferencing facilities) that have helped CDI cities stabilize local government transactions and operations during the pandemic, as well as strengthen supply chains and connect agricultural producers and consumers.  Provided skills training to small and microenterprises as well as heavily affected sectors and communities, especially women in CDI cities. 15 Retrieved on January 20, 2022, at https://www.usaid.gov/philippines/covid-19-assistance 53 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EFFECTS OF COVID-19 ON SURGE’S IMPLEMENTATION COVID-19 entered the scene when SURGE was only a year and a half away from its completion. Despite the substantial degree of health and mobility restrictions, SURGE successfully implemented all its initially targeted activities by the end of the project. Restrictions (i.e., no face-to-face events and activities, lockdowns, and inter-city travel restrictions) required adjustments that opened opportunities and enabled SURGE to surpass its targets. For example, SURGE could not conduct face-to-face training activities but, through the use of teleconferencing facilities, was able to conduct more training activities on various thematic areas and engage more participants from cities other than the eight CDI cities. Thus, in terms of numbers (training events, thematic coverage, and participants), SURGE did more than had been planned precisely because COVID-19 forced it to use remote training methods. The new mode of conducting activities also generated savings for SURGE due to the unspent budget for training venues, food, accommodations for participants, and airfare for training teams. SURGE redirected the savings to procure the services of experts for additional technical studies and research related to SURGE functions. LESSONS FROM THE EXPERIENCE The pandemic provided avenues and entry points whereby the concepts and principles of good local governance, sustainable economic development, and the resilience of communities and vulnerable sectors could be applied beyond the normal situation. Given the pandemic, activities that SURGE implemented became more aligned with the requirements of the time without losing sight of the activity’s mandate to help and assist LGUs, partner private sector groups, and micro and small-scale enterprises, especially those owned by women. The pandemic strengthened SURGE’s relevance in enhancing the capacities of partner CDI cities toward resilient urban development. USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 54 ANNEXES ANNEX 1. SCHEDULE OF DATA COLLECTION, NUMBER OF ACTUAL RESPONDENTS Note: Details of the study participants are available in Appendix I. ANNEX 1. SCHEDULE OF DATA COLLECTION, NUMBER OF ACTUAL RESPONDENTS DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY INCLUSIVE DATES/ SCHEDULES NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS PLANNED ACTUAL QUALITATIVE Key Informant Interview (KII) October 4-November 11, 2021 56 50 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) October 15- November 8, 2021 103 55 Number of FGD Sessions 11 12 QUANTITATIVE SURGE Stakeholders Online Survey October 25-November 15, 2021 352 364 Case Study November 22-24, 2021 15 21 Total Respondents 526 490 55 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX 2. TYPE OF RESPONDENTS BY DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY ANNEX 2. TYPE OF RESPONDENTS BY DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS IMPLEMENTIN G PARTNER (ICMA) GOVT. AGENCIES OR INSTRUMENTALIT IES AT THE CITY LEVEL NGAS LOCAL CHIEF EXECUTIVES (MAYORS) LGU DEPT. HEADS & PERSONNEL PRIVATE SECTOR/BUSINESS/ FARMERS GROUP REPS. WASH SERVICE DELIVERY AGENCY EXECUTIVES & PERSONNEL ACADEME QUALITATIVE Key Informant Interview (KII) 8 7 4 15 9 7 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) 9 22 17 7 Number of FGD Sessions 1 4 5 2 QUANTITATIVE SURGE Stakeholders Online Survey 28 177 114 27 18 Case Study 3 3 1 7 7 Total Respondents (N=490) 17 10 31 5 221 140 41 25 Percent Distribution 3.47 2.04 6.33 1.02 45.10 28.57 8.37 5.10 USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 56 ANNEX 3. LIST AND DESCRIPTION OF SIMPLIFIED REGULATIONS AND PROCESSES PER CITY ANNEX 3. LIST AND DESCRIPTION OF SIMPLIFIED REGULATIONS AND PROCESSES PER CITY CITY REGULATION/ PROCESS DESCRIPTION/RESULT Batangas Harmonizing DRR/CCA data under GeoriskPH MOA between the 8 CDI cities and PHIVOLCS Batangas GIS use City GIS Team created Batangas Water & Sanitation Amendments to the composition and functions of the City Waterworks and Sanitation Management Team Batangas Land use planning Creation of the City Technical Working Group for the Review and Updating of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Integrated Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Development Plan, and Local Development Investment Program in 2018; with October 2020 PLUC resolution endorsing the CLUP 2019-2028 to Sangguniang Panlungsod, and approved by the city council through Resolution No. 049 in Jan 2021 Batangas Asset management Local asset management council created Batangas BPOS streamlining Business One-Stop-Shop created Batangas Investment promotion - Incentives Investment code of 2014 enacted in 2016 Batangas Public financial management Adoption of the Strategic Financial Management Plan (SFMP) of Batangas City Batangas Land information management As of Sept 2021, 105 barangays parcellary maps converted to shapefile - 132,565 parcels converted to shapefile; 42 out of 105 brgys with PIN (39,848 parcels); 11 barangays ongoing input of PIN (45,411 parcels) Cagayan de Oro Harmonizing DRR/CCA data under GeoriskPH MOA between the 8 CDI cities and PHIVOLCS Cagayan de Oro Local Climate Change Action Planning 2017-2019; Enhanced with the assistance of ATLAS Cagayan de Oro Local sustainable sanitation planning LSSP completed Cagayan de Oro Asset management Local asset management council and office created Cagayan de Oro BPLS streamlining Ordinance No 13992-2020, an Ordinance providing for the streamlined guidelines for the issuance of permits, licenses, clearances, and certificates for business and nonbusiness-related transactions in all offices/departments of the city government, signed on December 14, 2020 Cagayan de Oro BPOS streamlining Streamlined procedures for construction of telco towers Cagayan de Oro BFP payments integration MOA between LGU CDO and BFP in December 2020 Cagayan de Oro Investment promotion - Incentives Investment incentives code enacted through an ordinance 57 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Cagayan de Oro Land administration and management (including LIS) In 2017, the city government of Cagayan de Oro entered into a MOPA with the DENR Region X to advance land administration and management in the city. The CDO Land and Asset Management Office (LAMO) and LMC were created in 2017. These facilitated the launch of the city's ULIS which incorporated all parcels within the city. Cagayan de Oro Public-private partnerships PPP subcommittee in the LDC created; PPP Code enacted through city ordinances in April and July 2018 Cagayan de Oro Traffic management/ land transport Transport study experts team tasked to formulate a traffic management plan created; Local Public Transport Route Plan completed in Feb 2020; (as a requirement for approving route applications) Cagayan de Oro Traffic management/ land transport CDO Transport Master Plan with Active Transport policy formulated Cagayan de Oro MSME coaching and mentoring Curated learning platform for MSMEs launched through the Small Business information Registry Cagayan de Oro Food security assessment Food security dashboard developed and turned over to the local governments of Cagayan de Oro, General Santos, and Iloilo Cagayan de Oro Public financial management SFMP adopted Cagayan de Oro COVID response - installation of handwashing facilities With MOA for partnership between USAID, Coca-Cola Foundation Philippines Inc., City Government of Tagbilaran, City Government of Cagayan de Oro City, Bohol Integrated Development Foundation, Inc. and Balay Mindanaw General Santos Harmonizing DRR/CCA data under GeoriskPH MOA between the 8 CDI cities and PHIVOLCS General Santos GHG management Adoption of Climate Change Adaptation and mitigation strategies through Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction program in General Santos City General Santos Septage management MOU & MOA with GSCWD, Maynilad, MSU on septage management & sanitation entered into; Water quality monitoring committee created; LGU entered MOA with DENR for a feasibility study of a septage management project General Santos Land use planning With June 2019 City Council Resolution Approving the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City of General Santos for 2018-2026 General Santos Local Climate Change Action Planning 2019-2022 General Santos Local sustainable sanitation planning LSSP completed General Santos Asset management Local asset management council created; with updated EO creating the city government Asset Management council, technical working group, and defining its functions, roles, and responsibilities in March 2021 General Santos BPLS streamlining Reforms implemented in time for the 2018 renewal period General Santos BPOS streamlining TWG and joint inspection team (JIT) created General Santos BFP payments integration MOA signed in May 2020, updated in June 2021 General Santos Investment promotion - creation of bodies Investment promotion - creation of bodies USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 58 General Santos Joint inspections JIT created in 2017 General Santos Public financial management Completed SFMP, with EO for the signature of Mayor General Santos COVID response - economic recovery planning With city Resolution adopting the COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plan (PRP) General Santos Land information management As of Sept 2021, some mother parcels were subdivided and attribute data were updated; One practical application: senior citizen vaccination data from TAPAT (urban area only) General Santos Traffic management/ air, tourism, trade Joint Resolution Supporting the Launching of Flights Between Clark International Airport and General Santos International Airport, signed June 6, 2019 General Santos Food security assessment Food security dashboard developed and turned over to the local governments of Cagayan de Oro, General Santos, and Iloilo Iloilo Food security assessment Food security dashboard developed and turned over to the local governments of Cagayan de Oro, General Santos, and Iloilo Iloilo Harmonizing DRR/CCA data under GeoriskPH MOA between the 8 CDI cities and PHIVOLCS Iloilo Food security assessment Food security dashboard developed and turned over to the local governments of Cagayan de Oro, General Santos, and Iloilo Iloilo Land use planning With a 2017 Executive Order Creating the CLUP Sectoral Planning Team and the CLUP Technical Working Group for the Preparation of the 2018-2026 CLUP; SURGE assisted in plan formulation from 2020-2021, until the RLUC has endorsed the CLUP and ZO for the city council's approval in August 2020 Iloilo Asset management EO created for the asset management committee; BAC reconstituted in May 2021 for the disposition of real properties Iloilo BPLS streamlining BPLS streamlining enhanced; for the 2021 renewal period - An Executive Order creating the technical working group and composite team for the 2021 off-site renewal of business permits and licenses Iloilo BPOS streamlining TWG and ad hoc Office of the Building Official created Iloilo Investment promotion - creation of bodies Investment promotion board created Iloilo Investment promotion - Incentives Iloilo City Investment Incentives Board and Iloilo Trade and Promotions Board were created in 2017 & 2018 respectively Iloilo Public financial management SFMP adopted Iloilo COVID response - economic recovery planning Resolution approving and adopting the COVID-19 BASRR (September 2020 - December 2022), March 23, 2021 Iloilo Land information management Creating the TWG for the development of ULIS of Iloilo City in July 2021 Legaspi Harmonizing DRR/CCA data under GeoriskPH MOA between the 8 CDI cities and PHIVOLCS 59 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Legazpi Epayments for watsan Launching of Electronic Payment of Legazpi City Water District, launched on Oct 1; LGP-PayMaya MOA - this is part of expanding electronic payments of the city hall; Legazpi Epayments for watsan Authorizing the Bawad General Manager Alma B. Calleja to enter into and sign on behalf of Bacacay Water District (BAWAD) the memorandum of agreement (MOA) with ECPAY/GCASH for e-payment Legazpi GHG management Adoption of the GHG Inventory Reports which were facilitated by SURGE - this was approved January 26, 2021 Legazpi Septage management Septage management program ordinance passed in August 2019; with a social marketing campaign Legazpi Local Climate Change Action Planning 2019-2028; Updated through UN HABITAT assistance but also using inputs facilitated by SURGE Legazpi Asset management Local asset management council was created in 2018; the city government's TWG presented its Strategic Asset Management Plan to the mayor in August 2021, who expressed favorable response and the planned endorsement to the city council for the passing of a resolution. Legazpi BPLS streamlining Reforms implemented in time for the 2018 renewal period; further reforms include the MOA between the BFP for FSIC collection in 2019; support up to 2021 renewal with EO No. 52, Revised Procedures and Requirements for New Applications and Renewal of Business Permits in the new normal, signed on January 5, 2021. In November 2020, the city council passed into law the collection of barangay clearance fees. Legazpi BPOS streamlining TWG created; soft launch in Sept, official launch in Nov; includes automation Legazpi BFP payments integration MOA between the BFP for FSIC collection in signed 2019and revised in Year 5; Authorizing the city mayor Hon. Noel Rosal to sign the memorandum of agreement by and between the city government of Legazpi and the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) for the one-stop-shop and collection of fees subject to existing laws, rules, and regulations, signed on November 23, 2020; MOA updated in Dec 2020 Legazpi Investment promotion - Incentives Investment promotion - incentives Legazpi Joint inspections JIT created in 2017 Legazpi Public financial management Strategic Financial Management Team created in May 2021; with LCPDC resolution Adopting and Recommending to the Sangguniang Panlungsod the SFMP of Legazpi City Legazpi COVID response - economic recovery planning COVID-19 Response and Economic Recovery Plan - this was approved on December 11, formally adopted on January 26, 2021; TWG originally established June 2020 Legazpi Land information management As of Sept 2021, the bulk of the city's work is towards correcting spatial layers; the urban area (Brgy.1-41) is made up of ~12,202 parcels; the assessor's office will continue to work on its completion. Legazpi Tourism development - code As of Feb 2020, the tourism code has already been submitted to the provincial government. Before this, the city issued an EO creating a TWG for the formulation of the Tourism Code on 20 Feb 2019 Legazpi Tourism development - planning EDC & CPDC resolutions endorsing the TDMP 2019-2021 for the adoption of the SP were issued on 08 Oct 2018; the TDMP formally approved via Ordinance on 06 Feb 2019 Legazpi Tourism recovery and reopening - COVID response EO No. 05, An executive order prescribing the guidelines for the re-opening of tourism-related activities in the city of Legazpi USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 60 Legazpi Improving tourism transport services Ordinances supporting Grab Trike implementation Puerto Princesa Harmonizing DRR/CCA data under GeoriskPH MOA between the 8 CDI cities and PHIVOLCS Puerto Princesa Septage management Multi-sectoral septage management council and TWG created; with subsequent reorganizations Puerto Princesa Water security / WDM Order creating the Puerto Princesa Water Security Council and the Formulation of the Puerto Princesa City Water Security Action Plan for the years 2021-2025, signed on March 9, 2021 Puerto Princesa Land use planning Pilot for CDRA training enhancement; CDRA synthesis completed, for integration in 2022 CLUP Puerto Princesa Local sustainable sanitation planning LSSP completed Puerto Princesa Asset management City Government of Puerto Princesa entered into a partnership with DENR, Land Registration Authority-Register of Deeds (LRA-RoDs), Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Revenue District 036, NCIP, and the DAR in May 2019. The regular coordination and consultation of the city’s asset management working group with these agencies helped address land classification discrepancies and adhere to agency regulations. Puerto Princesa Asset management Enacting real property assessment and classification in the city Puerto Princesa Asset management Local asset management council created; office asset manager designated in 2021 Puerto Princesa BPLS streamlining Reforms implemented in time for the 2017 renewal period Puerto Princesa BPOS streamlining TWG was created; with an Order implementing the automation/computerization of the application and issuance of building permits, ancillary permits, and certificate of occupancy in the city of Puerto Princesa and setting standards for processing and providing operational funds, signed on March 8, 2021. The TWG composition was also amended in Feb 2021. Puerto Princesa BFP payments integration MOA between LGU PPC and BFP made and entered by and between The City Government of Puerto Princesa and the Bureau of Fire Protection, signed on March 11, 2021 Puerto Princesa Investment promotion - creation of bodies Investment promotion - creation of bodies Puerto Princesa Joint inspections JIT reconstituted in 2016 Puerto Princesa Public financial management EO for amending composition of EFM Committee passed in 2018; EO in SFMP TWG; EO in DRMP TWG Puerto Princesa Land information management Designation as Administrator of Land Information Management Systems (LIMS) Effective 14 June 2021 through Office Order No. 27, and Assigning Office Data Administrator and Data User for ULIS through Memorandum Order Puerto Princesa Establishment, regulation, and maintenance of public markets (under Public Financial Management [PFM]) Under EO No. 2021-20 signed on March 24, 2021, the LGU of Puerto Princesa created the Puerto Princesa City Market Committee. 61 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Puerto Princesa Agriculture - seaweed processing, network/linkage Seaweed Network was created in 2018, which became an important face in seaweed industry development; January 2020 ordinance passed by the city council prohibiting the use of any type of fertilizer in Seaweed farming activities in the city of Puerto Princesa Puerto Princesa Agriculture - seaweed processing, network/linkage Liberalizing use of the mariculture zone; coastal areas for seaweed farming Puerto Princesa Tourism development - heritage conservation An ordinance in 2016 created the Puerto Princesa Heritage District and Its Governing Body Puerto Princesa Tourism development - planning EO establishing Puerto Princesa City Tourism Inter-agency Coordination Committee and Clusters toward the TDP implementation signed in Nov 2018 Puerto Princesa Tourism recovery and reopening - COVID response With resolution requesting Mayor Bayron through the city tourism office in coordination with the city tourism council to come up with the Puerto Princesa City Tourism short- and long-term recovery plan given the adverse effects of COVID on the tourism industry of the city Puerto Princesa Road network development planning EO No. 2021-19 signed on March 22, 2021, reconstituted the composition of the Puerto Princesa city technical working group to formulate the local road network development plan Puerto Princesa Promotion of sustainable livelihood development at the barangay level and facilitating business registration City Ordinance institutionalizing the Negosyo Serbisyo Caravan sa Barangay Program passed on June 7, 2021 Tagbilaran Harmonizing DRR/CCA data under GeoriskPH MOA between the 8 CDI cities and PHIVOLCS Tagbilaran COVID response - installation of handwashing facilities With MOA for partnership between USAID, Coca-Cola Foundation Philippines Inc., City Government of Tagbilaran, City Government of Cagayan de Oro City, Bohol Integrated Development Foundation, Inc. and Balay Mindanaw Tagbilaran Water & Sanitation Water & sanitation overall management committee created; reforms with the TCWD implemented; In 2019, created TWG for Sanitation Social Marketing Tagbilaran Creation of CDRRMO Creating Tagbilaran CDRRMO in Sept 2020; Confirming the appointment of Mr. Gerard Lavadia as City Government Department Head I (Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Officer) of the Office of the City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management, City Government of Tagbilaran Effective January 27, 2021; recognizing and commending the exemplary performance of Mr. Gerard Lavadia, Tagbilaran City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Action Officer for being chosen as CSC PAGASA Awardee Tagbilaran Epayments Authorizing the Honorable City Mayor, John Geesnell L. Yap, II to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with Innove Communications, Inc.; the Development Bank of the Philippines, and Paymaya Philippines Inc. relative to E-Payment services Tagbilaran GHG management Adoption of Climate Change Adaptation and mitigation strategies through Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction program in Tagbilaran City in March 2021; Endorsing the development of the green park of Tagbilaran Public Market for funding under the local government support fund assistance to cities (LGSF-AC) “Green, Green, Green Program” in the amount of twenty-six million six hundred eighty-nine thousand two hundred forty-one pesos (PHP 26,689,241.00) Tagbilaran Water safety planning Creating and organizing the Water Safety Plan (WSP) team and supporting the implementation of the WSP in the Tagbilaran City Waterworks System, in March 2021 USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 62 Tagbilaran Water safety planning An order organizing the Water Safety Plan (WSP) Team and supporting its implementation of the WSP of Dauis and Barangay Waterworks System, Nov 2020 Tagbilaran Water safety planning An order re-organizing the Water Safety Plan (WSP) team and supporting its implementation of the WSP of Panglao Waterworks System; Creation of the Local Drinking Water Quality Monitoring Committee (LDWQMC) of the Municipality of Panglao, Bohol, Jan 2021 Tagbilaran Water security / WDM Creating the “Tagbilaran City Water Security Council (TCWSC) of the City of Tagbilaran and the formulation of the Tagbilaran City Water Security Action Plan for the years 2021-2025 Tagbilaran Land use planning City Council approved the Tagbilaran City Comprehensive Development Plan CY 2018 to 2023 in May 2018; EO Organizing the Composition of the Local Zoning Tagbilaran Local Climate Change Action Planning 2017-2027 Tagbilaran Local sustainable sanitation planning LSSP completed Tagbilaran Asset management Local asset management council created; in year 5, the city passed a resolution for improvements in the city assessor's office and reconstituted committee on appraisal, inventory, and disposal of property; Tagbilaran Asset management With memorandum order on the Committee on Financial Analysis of Priority City Government of Tagbilaran Assets, signed on March 11, 2021; and EO creating and organizing the composition of the membership of the Committee on the Acquisition of Lots of the City Government of Tagbilaran Tagbilaran BPLS streamlining Reforms implemented in time for the 2017 renewal period Tagbilaran BPOS streamlining TWG created, officially launched Aug 5, 2019; enhanced up to 2021 (Extending the deadline for payment of business tax for the fourth quarter of 2020 without interest and surcharges, authorizing the city mayor John Geesnell L. Yap II to enter into a memorandum of agreement with medical mission group hospital and health services and the outsourcing of diagnostic tests needed for the 2021 application/renewal of business permits) with additional work for e-payments Tagbilaran BFP payments integration Memorandum of Agreement between City Government of Tagbilaran and Tagbilaran City Bureau of Fire Protection Tagbilaran Investment promotion - creation of bodies Investment promotion program TWC was created in 2016; LEIPO established in 2017 Tagbilaran Investment promotion - Incentives City investment council and TWG created; investment code enacted through an ordinance in June 2018 Tagbilaran Joint inspections JIT reconstituted in 2016 Tagbilaran Public financial management City resolution passed in 2018 approving and adopting the enhanced Public financial management Improvement Plan; in December 2018, the city revised the membership of the Local Finance Committee through an EO; created Committee on Financial Analysis of Priority City Government of Tagbilaran Assets, through Memorandum Order signed on March 11, 2021 Tagbilaran Tax declaration approval (under PFM) On January 10, 2020, the city council adopted a resolution on the use of E-signature in approving tax declarations to facilitate real property assessment Tagbilaran Land information management The city is ongoing review and cleansing of parcel data but as of Sept 2021, the ULIS is web-based for at least 3 barangays 63 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Tagbilaran Agriculture - seaweed processing, network/linkage Through an agreement between and among seaweed growers’ associations and cooperatives from Tagbilaran City and Bohol Province forming the Bohol Seaweed Network (BoSNet), said stakeholders are formally organized to facilitate the exchange of information, industry dialogue, and engagement with government agencies and private sector groups for the development of the local seaweed industry. Tagbilaran Inter-municipal collaboration - crosscutting PITEC created; supporting resolutions from Tagbilaran, Dauis secured; Provincial Ordinance passed in 2018 to change PITEC to PADTEC Tagbilaran Inter-municipal collaboration - investment MOA with the Provincial Govt of Bohol and BCCI for the Enhanced Bohol Investment Promotions Program (Ebipp) Tagbilaran Public-private partnerships Tagbilaran PPP code established Tagbilaran Tourism development - heritage conservation Tagbilaran City Heritage District and heritage conservation guidelines formulated; an EO signed in October 2018 revised the composition of the Committee on Culture and the Arts Tagbilaran Tourism development - planning City tourism office created Tagbilaran Tourism recovery and reopening - COVID response With provincial ordinance on tourism reopening and IRR Tagbilaran Streamlining delivery of services for MSMEs Local Economic Development and Investment Office (LEDIPO) reorganized and livelihood fund allotted Zamboanga Harmonizing DRR/CCA data under GeoriskPH MOA between the 8 CDI cities and PHIVOLCS Zamboanga GHG management GHG Management Plan prepared and for formal adoption by the city government Zamboanga Water security / WDM With EO Creating the Zamboanga City Water Security Council in June 2021 Zamboanga Land use planning With March 2017 City Council Resolution adopting and endorsing to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the Zamboanga City the draft CLUP, ZO, and CDP for approval Zamboanga Local Climate Change Action Planning 2016-2030 Zamboanga Local sustainable sanitation planning LSSP completed Zamboanga Asset management Creating the Local Asset Management Committee and the Local Asset Management Technical Working Group (TWG) Zamboanga BPLS streamlining Reforms implemented in time for the 2017 renewal period Zamboanga BPOS streamlining TWG created; dry run in Aug 2019 Zamboanga Joint inspections EO providing guidelines issued in 2016 Zamboanga Public financial management TWG for the SFMP of Zamboanga City created; SFMP completed USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 64 Zamboanga Land information management ULIS Management Council and TWG were created through an Executive Order in July 2021; ZC had established geoportal before but was put on hold when the trained personnel had resigned. As of Sept 2021, there is a successful connection to the GIS database and uploaded shapefiles. Legazpi￾Adjacent Septage management With Executive Order creating the Tabaco City Septage Management Board (TCSMB) Multi-city Watsan Public Service Continuity Planning (PSCP / BCRP) 11 PSCPs completed National BPLS streamlining JMC (on revised standards for processing business permits & licenses) developed 65 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX 4. SURGE INDICATOR ACHIEVEMENT SUMMARY COMPONENT 1: IMPROVING LOCAL CAPACITY IN INCLUSIVE AND RESILIENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT Sub-component 1.1: Strengthening local capacity in urban development, including the promotion of disaster risk reduction and preparedness and improving climate-resilient land-use planning and development following international best practices Sub-component 1.2: Improving local climate infrastructure planning, financing, and implementation Sub-component 1.3: Increasing access to sustainable water supply and sanitation services TABLE 1: COMPONENT 1 INDICATOR ACHIEVEMENT AS OF MARCH 2020 & JUNE 2021 INDICATOR BASELINE (2015) ORIGINAL LOP TARGET CUMULATIVE ACHIEVEMENT AS OF 03/20 % OF ORIGINAL LOP TARGET LOP EXTENSION TARGET CUMULATIVE ACHIEVEMENT AS OF 08/21 % OF ORIGINAL LOP TARGET 1.1 Number of CDI cities with risk-sensitive, socially inclusive, and gender-responsive land use plans 2 7 5 71% 6 6 100% 1.2 Number of people supported by the USG to adapt to the effects of climate change (EG.11-5) 0 650,000 595,267 92% 720,000 1,410,232 196% 1.3 Number of people using climate information or implementing risk-reducing actions to improve resilience to climate change as supported by USG assistance (EG. 11-6) 0 3,250 3,166 97% 3,330 3,583 108% 1.4 Number of people trained in clean energy supported by USG assistance (EG. 12-1) 0 200 501 251% 200 541 271% USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 66 SOURCE: AMELP 2017; AMELP 2020; SURGE YEAR 5-Q3 PROGRESS REPORT; SURGE FINAL REPORT COMPONENT 2: IMPROVING ENVIRONMENT LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Sub-component 2.1: Improving local revenue generation and expenditure management Sub-component 2.2: Streamlining and automating of construction permitting processes Sub-component 2.3: Building competencies of Local Economic and Investment Promotion Office and Business Support Organizations Sub-component 2.4: Increasing access to sustainable water supply and sanitation services 16 Indicator retired in Year 5 after achievement of original LOP target 1.5 Amount of investment mobilized (in USD) for climate change adaptation as supported by USG assistance (EG. 11-4) 0 $500,000 $509,000 102% $500,000 $509,00015F16 102% 1.6 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, estimated in metric tons CO2e, reduced, sequestered, or avoided through clean energy activities supported by USG assistance (EG 12-6) 0 1,500 0 0% 1,500 1,803 120% 1.7 Value of new funding mobilized to the water and sanitation sectors as a result of USG assistance (HL 8.4-1) 0 $180,000 $1,204,180 668% $2,000,000 $6,606,517 330% 1.8 Number of water service providers with strengthened capacity for water service delivery 0 45 42 93% 60 83 138% 1.9 Number of water service providers with strengthened capacity for sanitation service delivery 0 7 8 114% 7 9 129% 1.10 Number of people receiving improved service quality from an existing basic or safely managed drinking water service as a result of USG assistance 0 400,000 364,967 91% 450,000 516,339 115% 67 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV SOURCE: AMELP 2017; AMELP 2020; SURGE YEAR 5-Q3 PROGRESS REPORT; SURGE FINAL REPORT COMPONENT 3: EXPANDING ECONOMIC CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESS BETWEEN URBAN AND RURAL AREAS 3.1 Reducing policy and regulatory barriers to productive rural-urban linkages 3.2 Reducing connectivity and information costs that inhibit the flows of goods and services 3.3 Strengthening supply chain linkages between urban and rural areas 3.4 Developing metropolitan arrangements that improve coordination and exchanges between cities and adjacent rural areas TABLE 2: COMPONENT 2 INDICATOR ACHIEVEMENT AS OF MARCH 2020 & JUNE 2021 INDICATOR BASELINE (2015) ORIGINAL LOP TARGET CUMULATIVE ACHIEVEMENT AS OF 03/20 % OF ORIGINAL LOP TARGET LOP EXTENSION TARGET CUMULATIVE ACHIEVEMENT AS OF 08/21 % OF ORIGINAL LOP TARGET 2.1 CDI cities’ Cities and Municipalities Competitiveness Index (CMCI) improved w/in top 60 All cities within the top 15 8/8 cities 100% All cities within the top 15 7/8 cities 88% 2.2 Number of newly registered businesses 13,220 60,000 52,090 86% n/a 58,895 98% 2.3 Percent increase of locally sourced or municipal (city) revenue Ave 8% 40% cum 29% cum 73% n/a 42% 102% 2.4 Number of parcels with relevant parcel information corrected or incorporated into an official land administration system as a result of USG assistance 0 200,000 144,634 72% 200,000 376,772 188% 2.5 Number of firms receiving USG-funded technical assistance for improving business performance 0 345,000 351,842 117% 345,000 375,575 109% USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 68 SOURCE: AMELP 2017; AMELP 2020; SURGE YEAR 5-Q3 PROGRESS REPORT; SURGE FINAL REPORT W-GDP TABLE 3: COMPONENT 3 INDICATOR ACHIEVEMENT AS OF MARCH 2020 & JUNE 2021 INDICATOR BASELINE (2015) ORIGINAL LOP TARGET CUMULATIVE ACHIEVEMENT AS OF 03/20 % OF ORIGINAL LOP TARGET LOP EXTENSION TARGET CUMULATIVE ACHIEVEMENT AS OF 08/21 % OF ORIGINAL LOP TARGET 3.1 Mobility plan/policies in select CDI cities prepared 0 3 0 0 3 1 33% 3.2 Number of municipal (city) regulations and administrative procedures that have been simplified as a result of USG assistance 0 50 45 90% 70 132 189% 3.3 Number of beneficiaries receiving improved transport services due to USG assistance 0 TBD n/a n/a 1.1 million individuals; 18.5 million kg cargo 18,726 individuals; 17.8 million kg cargo 111% for individuals; 96% for cargo 3.4 Private investment in CDI cities and adjacent pre-urban areas increased 75% 100% increase from baseline 80% increase to $1.3 billion 80% 100% increase from baseline 88% increase to $1.4 billion 88% TABLE 4: SURGE W/GDP INDICATOR ACHIEVEMENT AS OF SEPTEMBER 2020 & SEPTEMBER 2021 INDICATOR BASELINE (2015) ORIGINAL LOP TARGET CUMULATIVE ACHIEVEMENT AS OF 03/20 % OF ORIGINAL LOP TARGET LOP EXTENSION TARGET CUMULATIVE ACHIEVEMENT AS OF 08/21 % OF ORIGINAL LOP TARGET 3.5.1 Number of digital marketing/ ecommerce platforms developed or enhanced as a result of SURGE/W-GDP assistance 0 50 41 82% 305 750 246% 3.5.2 Number of women-owned and/or managed enterprises granted business permits as a result of SURGE/W-GDP facilitation 0 0 n/a n/a 120 311 259% 93.5.3 Number of women assisted in entrepreneurial development through SURGE/W￾GDP 0 1,000 1,630 163% 3,800 5,084 134% 69 | SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Source: AMELP 2020; SURGE year 5 annual report; SURGE final report COVID-19 RESPONSE 3.5.4 Amount of non-USG funding mobilized for women entrepreneurial development through SURGE/W-GDP 0 100,000 $531,591 532% $300,000 $758,271 253% 3.5.5 Number of business service centers for women entrepreneurs and women-managed SMEs established or improved through SURGE/W-GDP 0 0 n/a n/a 4 5 125% 4.1 Number of laws, policies, or procedures drafted, proposed, or adopted to promote gender equality at the national, regional, and local level (GNDR-1) 0 40 35 88% 40 41 103% TABLE 5: COVID-19 RESPONSE INDICATOR ACHIEVEMENT AS OF MARCH 2020 & SEPTEMBER 2021 INDICATOR BASELINE (2015) ORIGINAL LOP TARGET CUMULATIVE ACHIEVEMENT AS OF 03/20 % OF ORIGINAL LOP TARGET LOP EXTENSION TARGET CUMULATIVE ACHIEVEMENT AS OF 08/21 % OF ORIGINAL LOP TARGET CV1 Number of host-country COVID-19 preparedness and/or response plans in various phases (formally proposed, adopted, or implemented) supported with USG assistance 0 11 10 91% 20 22 110% 2.5/CV2 Number of firms receiving USG-funded technical assistance for improving business performance (EG.5.2-1) 0 154 141 92% 308 386 125% CV3 Number of host-country civil society organizations (CSOs) receiving USG assistance engaged in interventions to advocate and/or conduct oversight on COVID-19 prevention, management, and response measures and messages 0 8 8 100% 8 8 100% CV4 Number of public-private partnerships addressing second-order COVID-19 impacts 0 5 5 100% 7 7 100% USAID.GOV SURGE END-OF-PROJECT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 70 Source: AMELP 2020; SURGE final report CV5 Number of cities supported with USG assistance to improve on handwashing program for disease prevention and control 0 8 8 100% 8 8 100% CV6 Number of health facilities, schools, water points, markets, and other public spaces or businesses equipped with handwashing facilities in accordance with local standards with USG assistance. 0 3 6 200% 27 53 196% CV7 Value of new funding mobilized to the water and sanitation sectors as a result of USG assistance (HL.8.4-1) 0 20,000 27,702 139% 10,000 60,564 606% DISCLAIMER. This report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Panagora Group and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or of the United States government. APPENDIX 1 – INCEPTION REPORT 2 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Source: USAID Flickr STRENGTHENING URBAN RESILIENCE FOR GROWTH WITH EQUITY (SURGE) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION INCEPTION REPORT USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 1 CONTENTS ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. 2 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY ......................................................................................................... 4 PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION .................................................................................................. 4 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................. 5 SURGE THEORY OF CHANGE AND DESCRIPTION ......................................................................... 7 EVALUATION QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................... 7 EVALUATION APPROACH .......................................................................................................... 13 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 15 STUDY POPULATION AND SAMPLING FRAME 15 DATA COLLECTION 16 KII RESPONDENTS 16 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 17 CASE STUDIES 17 DOCUMENT REVIEW 18 DATA ANALYSIS 18 KNOWN LIMITATIONS TO THE EVALUATION DESIGN 18 EVALUATION PHASES AND ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................... 19 THE EVALUATION TEAM ............................................................................................................ 21 ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................. 23 ANNEX A - EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX 23 ANNEX B - EVALUATION TOOLS AND INSTRUMENTS 36 ANNEX C - INFORMED CONSENT FORMS 73 ANNEX D - CASE STUDY OUTLINE 77 ANNEX E - SECONDARY DATA COLLECTION: DOCUMENT LIST 78 ANNEX F - SURGE EVALUATION WORK PLAN 1 List of Tables TABLE 1 - SUMMARY INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................. 4 TABLE 2 - SPECIFIC EVALUATION QUESTIONS ON RELEVANCE ............................................................................ 9 TABLE 3 - SPECIFIC EVALUATION QUESTIONS ON EFFECTIVENESS ................................................................. 10 TABLE 4 - SPECIFIC EVALUATION QUESTIONS ON SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................. 12 TABLE 5 - SURGE’S MAJOR IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS .................................................................................. 13 TABLE 6 - DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS PER CDI CITY ................................................................. 15 TABLE 7 - KII DISTRIBUTION ......................................................................................................................................... 16 TABLE 8 - FGD DISTRIBUTION ...................................................................................................................................... 17 List of Figures 2 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FIGURE 1 - SURGE ACTIVITY SITES ................................................................................................................................ 6 FIGURE 2 - EVALUATION AREAS AND QUESTIONS .................................................................................................... 8 ACRONYMS BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Agrarian Resources BFP Bureau of Fire Protection BPLO Business Permitting and Licensing Office BPLS Business Permitting and Licensing System CCC Climate Change Commission CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CDI Cities Development Initiative COP Chief of Party CPC City Program Coordinator CPDO City Planning and Development Office CPC City Program Coordinators DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DICT Department of Information and Communication Technology DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government DO Development Objective DOT Department of Tourism DOTC Department of Transportation and Communication DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways DTI Department of Trade and Industry FGD focus group discussion HLURB Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board ICMA International City/ Country Management Association IP implementing partner IR Intermediate Result KII key informant interview LCE Local Chief Executive LGU local government unit LRA Land Registration Authority MSME micro, small and medium enterprise USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 3 NEDA National Economic and Development Authority PDP Philippine Development Plan PFG Partnership for Growth SDG Sustainable Development Goal SOW Scope of Work STTA Short-Term Technical Assistance SURGE Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth with Equity TOC Theory of Change WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene W-GDP Women’s Global Development and Prosperity 4 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY TABLE 1 - SUMMARY INFORMATION Activity Name Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth with Equity (SURGE) Implementing Partner International City/ Country Management Association (ICMA) Cooperative Agreement number AID-492-H-15-00001 Total Estimated Cost (TEC) $47.8 million Life of Activity July 27, 2015, to December 31, 2021 Active Geographic Regions National in scope (with focus on Cities Development Initiative sites) –8 CDI Cities: Batangas City, Cagayan de Oro City, Iloilo City, General Santos City, Legazpi City, Puerto Princesa City, Tagbilaran City, and Zamboanga City, plus Marawi City as an expansion city Mission Development Objective (DO) CDCS 2013- 2019 DO 1: Broad-based and Inclusive Growth Accelerated and Sustained IR 1.1: Economic Competitiveness Enhanced DO 3: Environmental Resiliency Improved IR 3.1: Disaster Risks Reduced IR 3.2: Natural Resources and Environmental Management Improved Mission Development Objective (DO) CDCS 2020-2024 DO 2: Inclusive, Market-Driven Growth Expanded IR 2.1: Regulatory Quality Improved IR 2.2: Government Capacity to Finance Self-Reliance Increased DO 3: Environmental and Community Resilience Enhanced IR 3.2: Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Strengthened IR 3.4: Capacity to Mitigate Risks of and Respond to Disaster Strengthened Evaluation Type External Performance Evaluation PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The United States Agency for International Development/Philippines (USAID/PH) commissioned a third￾party performance evaluation of the Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth with Equity (SURGE) Activity. Through this evaluation, USAID/PH aims to assess SURGE’s implementation progress and achievement of its project objectives, improving government operations in selected second-tier cities deemed important drivers of inclusive economic growth. SURGE is guided by USAID’s strategies on sustainable urban services,16F17 water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH),17F18 and other cross-cutting policies such as gender inclusion and private sector engagement. It is central to the Cities Development Initiative (CDI), a vital element of the US-Philippines Joint Partnership for Growth (PFG), and a core component of the Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). Specifically, SURGE contributes to USAID/PH’s Development Objectives of “Broad-based and Inclusive Growth Accelerated 17 See https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/USAIDSustainableUrbanServicesPolicy.pdf 18 See https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/USAID_Water_Strategy_3.pdf USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 5 and Sustained” and “Environmental Resilience Improved” of the previous CDCS (2013-2019) as well as the Development Objectives (DO) of the current CDCS (2020-2024) of “Inclusive, Market-Driven Growth Expanded” and “Environmental and Community Resilience Enhanced.” The evaluation will cover the original duration of SURGE and part of its extension (July 27, 2015 to present). The Mission implemented the activity in nine (9) CDI cities, specifically Batangas, Cagayan de Oro, Iloilo, Tagbilaran, Puerto Princesa, Zamboanga, Legazpi, General Santos, and Marawi18F19. SURGE supports the Philippine government’s Journey to Self-Reliance (J2SR) and the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2017-2022. The PDP is anchored on the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) that guides public investments and catalyzes private investments to maximize agglomeration efficiencies, enhance connectivity, and build resilience against natural hazards.19F20 Results of the evaluation will inform the co-creation of next-generation activities (Nextgen SURGE) under the USAID policy on urban resiliency, particularly on improving the delivery of essential services in urban areas and strengthening interconnections (URBAN CONNECT Activity) between urban and rural areas, as well as USAID’s strategy on water and development. Aside from accountability and learning, the evaluation will also inform the ongoing formulation of the USAID-wide policy on local capacity development. The intended audiences of this evaluation are USAID/PH technical and program office staff, other USAID staff worldwide who are interested in local governance, and those responsible for and interested in urban resiliency, WASH, and local capacity development programs and activities. Philippine stakeholders, including those in the Government of the Philippines, second-tier cities, and other researchers, are also a primary audience for this evaluation. BACKGROUND In the past decade, the Philippines’ economic growth has been highly concentrated in three metropolitan areas – Metro-Manila, Cebu, and Davao leading to high population growth and congestion in these areas. This concentration has also caused inequities and inequitable access to economic opportunities between urban and rural areas. USAID developed the Cities Development Initiative (CDI) to increase economic growth opportunities to spread to other well-governed, highly urbanized and secondary cities to address this concern. The increased economic growth in these other cities would help equalize income distribution across the Philippines. The development hypothesis of SURGE is that its interventions can help develop resilient second-tier cities as engines of growth. The primary goal of SURGE is to provide highly innovative, creative, and cost-effective solutions that set conditions for broad-based, inclusive, and resilient economic growth. These interventions will foster increased investment, economic opportunities, and productive 19 The nine cities comprise of the original sites (Batangas, Cagayan de Oro, Iloilo), those identified as first batch (Tagbilaran, Puerto Princesa and Zamboanga), and second batch (Legazpi, General Santos). The city of Marawi was later identified as an extension of Cagayan de Oro City. Intervention in Marawi was part of the Mission’s response to the Marawi Siege. 20 See https://www.neda.gov.ph/philippine-development-plan-2017-2022/ 6 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV employment for a critical mass of cities and surrounding areas outside Metro Manila. SURGE assists cities and adjacent areas to plan effectively, provide essential public services, reduce business transaction costs, promote competitiveness, support sustainable development, and reduce disaster risks while ensuring inclusive and sustainable growth. SURGE promotes efforts to:  Improve local capacity in urban development  Increase local economic development by fostering business enabling measures  Expand economic connectivity and access between urban and peripheral areas. Tasks under SURGE focus on three key areas: 1) Strengthening local capacity in inclusive and resilient urban development, including the promotion of disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, and ensuring access to sustainable water supply and sanitation services; 2) Promoting low-emission local economic development strategies together with streamlined administrative and regulatory procedures, and improved infrastructure and transport systems; and 3) Expanding economic connectivity and access between urban and rural areas. As part of the project’s overall approach to economic inclusion, SURGE advocates for and works to ensure that economic growth is equitably distributed and enjoyed by all sectors regardless of gender, ethnicity, and religious beliefs. SURGE implements an extensive but focused package of technical assistance for women to increase the number of women entrepreneurs with access to a more significant number of markets, increase opportunities to participate in viable supply chains, and enhance the efficiency and profitability of their existing business ventures. The Women’s Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) Initiative funds SURGE’s inclusion support. Figure 1 illustrates SURGE’s geographic reach. Marawi City is an extension site of Cagayan de Oro for humanitarian assistance and recovery interventions as part of USAID/PH’s response to the Marawi Siege. Figure 5 - Surge Activity Sites USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 7 SURGE THEORY OF CHANGE AND DESCRIPTION USAID designed SURGE such that at its end, CDI cities and local governments would have improved enabling environments for higher levels of investment and private enterprise activity. The CDI regions would benefit from more rational land-use regulation and planning and be better positioned to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities and leverage local competitive advantages. SURGE would build stronger institutionalized foundations and technical expertise on local economic development and related urban issues. As a flagship project under the CDI, SURGE’s logical framework links directly to the previous CDCS (2013 – 2019). This CDCS had three development objectives, and SURGE contributed to DO 1 and DO 3. Under DO 1, it contributed to two intermediate results: improved policy and regulatory environment (Sub-IR 1.1.1) and increased fiscal performance and transparency (Sub-IR 1.1.4). For DO 3, SURGE directly contributed to five intermediate results: increased disaster preparedness (Sub-IR 3.1.1), enhanced disaster prevention (Sub-IR 3.1.2), disaster mitigation measures implemented (Sub-IR 3.1.3), improved water supply and security (Sub-IR 3.2.1), and increased climate change resilience and mitigation (Sub-IR 3.2.2). In the current CDCS, SURGE continues to contribute to the same outcomes with the former DO 1 re￾grouped into DO 2, specifically:  IR 2.1 Regulatory Quality Improved and IR 2.2 Government Capacity to Finance Self-Reliance Increased, and  those under DO 3 becoming IR 3.2 Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Strengthened and IR 3.4 Capacity to Mitigate Risks of and Respond to Disaster Strengthened. SURGE is part of USAID’s response to the Marawi siege, providing support to enhancing access to safe water and sanitation to Marawi City, restoring livelihoods of internally displaced persons, and supporting economic activity in Marawi/Lanao provinces. SURGE also forms part of USAID/PH’s COVID-19 response. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation will focus on SURGE’s performance towards achieving its stated objectives and outputs. The evaluation questions focus on the relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of SURGE’s accomplishments and incorporate learning questions in SURGE’s AMELPs. Figure 2 provides a snapshot of the three areas of evaluation and the central evaluation question for each. Tables 1, 2, and 3 present more specific questions under these three major evaluation questions. As presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3, these evaluation questions served as a reference in preparing the evaluation tools and instruments. As seen in Annex A, the Evaluation Design Matrix indicated the data gathering instruments and data analysis methods discussed in detail under methodology. 8 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Figure 6 - Evaluation Areas and Questions USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 9 TABLE 2 - SPECIFIC EVALUATION QUESTIONS ON RELEVANCE 1. Relevance (Alignment to Policy and Strategy): To what extent has SURGE contributed to addressing the development challenges that motivated the PFG-CDI, the NSS/Philippine Development Plan (PDP, 2017-2022), CDCS (previous and current), and USAID's policies on urban resiliency and WASH? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS 1.1 How relevant were the activities/ interventions conducted by SURGE in terms of contributing to higher-level development goals (e.g., CDCS, CDI, PFG) 1.1.1 To what extent has SURGE contributed to achieving the development objectives of CDCS (previous and current), CDI, and PFG? 1.1.1.1 To what extent has SURGE contributed to the DO1 (broad-based and inclusive growth accelerated and sustained) and DO2 (environmental resilience improved)? 1.1.2 How relevant was SURGE in promoting international development commitments? 1.1.2.1 To what extent has SURGE contributed to promoting the following international commitments: - Sustainable Development Goals - Paris Agreement on Climate Change 1.1.3 How relevant was SURGE in promoting USAID policies on urban resiliency and WASH? 1.1.4 Were opportunities present for increasing the contribution of SURGE to higher development objectives? 1.1.4.1 Were there opportunities for increasing SURGE contribution to the development objectives of CDCS (previous and current)? 1.1.4.2 Were there opportunities for increasing SURGE contribution to the promotion of international commitments? 1.2 In the context of the development hypothesis of SURGE, how relevant were the activities conducted? 1.2.1 How responsive were the activities conducted to the SURGE development hypothesis, i.e., resilient second-tier cities can serve as engines of growth and help equalize income distribution across the country? 1.2.1.1 How responsive were the activities conducted to address the 2014 CDI Project Appraisal Document (see page 3 of Panagora Technical Proposal)? 1.3 How relevant were the activities conducted by SURGE to the development priorities and needs of key stakeholders at the national, regional, and local levels? 1.3.1 How relevant were the SURGE activities in addressing the development priorities outlined in the National Spatial Strategy and PDP, 2017-2022? 1.3.1.1 Were there opportunities for SURGE to increase its contribution to national development priorities? 1.3.2 How relevant were the SURGE activities in addressing the development priorities outlined in regional development plans? 1.3.2.1 Were there opportunities for SURGE to increase its contribution to regional development priorities? 1.3.3 How relevant were the SURGE activities in addressing the development priorities outlined in city/local development plans? 1.3.3.1 Were there opportunities for SURGE to increase its contribution to local development priorities? 1.3.4 How relevant were the SURGE activities in addressing the needs of key stakeholders and target beneficiaries? 1.3.4.1 Were there opportunities for SURGE to increase its contribution towards addressing the needs of its stakeholders and beneficiaries? 10 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE 2 - SPECIFIC EVALUATION QUESTIONS ON RELEVANCE 1. Relevance (Alignment to Policy and Strategy): To what extent has SURGE contributed to addressing the development challenges that motivated the PFG-CDI, the NSS/Philippine Development Plan (PDP, 2017-2022), CDCS (previous and current), and USAID's policies on urban resiliency and WASH? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS 1.3.5 What are the challenges and opportunities for second-tier cities to foster inclusive growth at the policy and regulatory levels? 1.3.5.1 How did SURGE address the challenges? 1.3.5.2 How did SURGE capitalize on the opportunities? TABLE 3 - SPECIFIC EVALUATION QUESTIONS ON EFFECTIVENESS 2. Effectiveness (Original Context of CDI-SURGE): To what extent did SURGE achieve the three outcomes: improving local urban development processes, promoting local economic development, and expanding connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS 2.1 To what extent did SURGE improve local capacity in inclusive and resilient urban development (Component 1)? 2.1.1 To what extent has SURGE achieved its Component 1 indicator targets (Indicator Nos. 1.1.1 to 1.1.8)? 2.1.1.1 What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 1 targets? 2.1.1.2 How were the hindering factors addressed? 2.2 To what extent did SURGE contribute to the improvement of the environment for local economic development (Component 2)? 2.2.1 To what extent has SURGE achieved its Component 2 indicator targets (Indicator Nos. 2.1.1 to 2.1.5)? 2.2.1.1 What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 2 targets? 2.2.1.2 How were the hindering factors addressed? 2.3 To what extent did SURGE improve connectivity and access between urban and rural areas (Component 3)? 2.3.1 To what extent has SURGE achieved its Component 3 indicator targets (Indicator Nos. 3.1.1 to 3.1.5)? 2.3.1.1 What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 3 targets? 2.3.1.2 How were the hindering factors addressed? 2.4 To what extent did SURGE achieve each expected output (sub￾components) per objective (component)? 2.4.1 What activities did SURGE implement to achieve each output (sub-component)? 2.4.1.1 Component-specific question (e.g., What activities did SURGE implement to increase access to sustainable water supply and sanitation?) 2.4.1.2 What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of each sub-component? 2.4.1.3 How were the hindering factors addressed? 2.4.2 Which government functions were improved and how? 2.4.2.1 To what extent have government functions improved responsiveness to attract private investment and support micro/small/medium enterprises (MSMEs)? 2.4.3 To what extent has SURGE improved local economic activities between CDI areas and adjacent cities/ municipalities 2.4.4 What were the contributions of SURGE towards improving environmental USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 11 TABLE 3 - SPECIFIC EVALUATION QUESTIONS ON EFFECTIVENESS 2. Effectiveness (Original Context of CDI-SURGE): To what extent did SURGE achieve the three outcomes: improving local urban development processes, promoting local economic development, and expanding connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS resilience (disaster risk, and water supply and security)? 2.5 To what extent did SURGE contribute to the objectives of W￾GDP? 2.5.1 Has SURGE provided equal access to opportunities for economic empowerment to both men and women in the urban and rural areas? 2.5.2 Will improved knowledge and increased access to business support services translate to increased incomes for the target enterprises? (Learning Plan, W￾GDP) 2.5.3 Will SURGE package of technical assistance to targeted participants, areas result in increased employment, participation, and increased incomes for women? (Learning Plan, W-GDP) 2.6 To what extent did SURGE contribute to higher-level outcomes (e.g., CDCS Results Framework)? 2.6.1 To what extent has SURGE contributed to specific CDCS objectives (e.g., improving policy and regulatory environment; increasing fiscal performance and transparency; increasing disaster preparedness; enhancing disaster prevention; implementing disaster mitigation measures; improving water supply and security; increasing climate change resilience and mitigation) 2.6.1.1 Were there opportunities for increasing SURGE’s contribution towards higher-level outcomes? 2.7 What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of SURGE objectives (outcomes) and outputs? 2.7.1 Which of the identified risks and assumptions deemed to influence the achievement of the project goal occurred (or otherwise)? And if so, how were these managed? 2.7.1.1 How were the risks managed? 2.7.1.2 Were risk assessments conducted? 2.7.2 Which of the three objectives contributed the most to achieving the development goal of inclusive growth through strengthened urban resiliency with equity? 2.7.2.1 What were the facilitating factors? 2.8 Were there any unintended outcomes (positive or negative) from the SURGE project? 2.8.1 What outcomes were not anticipated or captured by the SURGE ToC or results framework? 2.8.1.1 Were there any synergies achieved between SURGE and other USG-funded projects in CDI cities? 2.8.1.2 Were there any unintended outcomes that resulted from the Marawi response? 2.8.1.3 How did SURGE affect USG’s visibility in project areas? 12 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE 3 - SPECIFIC EVALUATION QUESTIONS ON EFFECTIVENESS 2. Effectiveness (Original Context of CDI-SURGE): To what extent did SURGE achieve the three outcomes: improving local urban development processes, promoting local economic development, and expanding connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS 2.9 What lessons did SURGE learn from interventions and approaches? 2.9.1 Which SURGE interventions and approaches worked well (or did not work)? 2.9.1.1 Which among the interventions contributed most/least to the achievement of SURGE intended outcomes? 2.9.1.2 What were the facilitating and hindering factors? 2.9.1.3 Did varying scope or scale of sub￾components yield significantly different levels of results? 2.9.2 What practices were successful, e.g., brought about positive changes? (Note: define practices/ successful) 2.9.2.1 What were the facilitating and hindering factors? TABLE 4 - SPECIFIC EVALUATION QUESTIONS ON SUSTAINABILITY 3. Sustainability: What is the likelihood that initiatives and gains will continue after the completion of the project? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS 3.1 What are the prospects that the outcomes and intermediate results generated by the project will continue after project completion without further assistance from SURGE? 3.1.1 Are technical, institutional, and financial capacities adequate to ensure continuity to project activities? 3.1.2 Are policies in place to ensure continuity of SURGE activities? 3.1.1.1 What is the likelihood that LGUs will take ownership of the interventions initiated by SURGE? 3.2 Were sustainability mechanisms integrated into the design and implementation of SURGE? What were the intended or unintended results? 3.2.1 What were the exit strategies developed and implemented/conducted by the IPs? 3.2.2 Which sustainability mechanisms worked or did not work? What were the facilitating and hindering factors? 3.2.3 What gaps need to be addressed within the Mission and externally by the host government to ensure sustainability? 3.3 What is the likelihood that the activities and benefits derived from W-GDP will continue after project completion 3.3.1 What is the likelihood that providing equal access to opportunities for economic empowerment to both men and women in the urban and rural areas will continue in CDI cities? 3.3.2 What is the likelihood that the SURGE assistance package will continue to produce champions and leaders among target women entrepreneurs USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 13 TABLE 4 - SPECIFIC EVALUATION QUESTIONS ON SUSTAINABILITY 3. Sustainability: What is the likelihood that initiatives and gains will continue after the completion of the project? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS after project completion? (Learning Plan, W-GDP) 3.4 Are there opportunities for replicating successful SURGE interventions in the future? 3.4.1 Are there national or local government plans to replicate or expand any of the SURGE interventions in the future? 3.4.2 Are there plans by USG to expand or replicate any of the SURGE interventions in the future? EVALUATION APPROACH The evaluation approach is multi-sectoral, consultative, participatory, and stakeholder-driven. This evaluation will engage the various SURGE partners - government, private sector, academe, and individual development actors at national and sub-national levels. Their insights and opinions on the level of performance of SURGE implementation are crucial in responding to the multi-faceted evaluation questions. Table 5 lists SURGE’s major implementation partners. TABLE 5 - SURGE’S MAJOR IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AT THE REGIONAL AND CITY LEVELS AGENCIES AND INSTITUTIONS AT THE CITY LEVEL National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) DILG – Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) Department of Housing – Housing and Land Use Regulatory Commission (HLURB) Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Department of Information and Communication Technology (DICT) Department of Tourism (DOT) Climate Change Commission (CCC) Land Registration Authority (LRA) NEDA Regional Offices DTI Regional and City Offices BFP Regional Offices DILG Regional Offices DOT Regional Offices HLURB Regional Offices LRA Regional Offices Office of the Local Chief Executive City Planning and Development Office (CPDO) Business Permitting and Licensing Office (BPLO) Local Economic and Investment Promotion Office Office of the Building Official Office of the Treasurer City Assessor’s Office City Tourism Office City Environment and Natural Resources Office City Water District Rural waterworks and sanitation association Office of the District/City Fire Marshall City Chamber of Commerce and Industry/City Business Groups and Associations 14 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE 5 - SURGE’S MAJOR IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AT THE REGIONAL AND CITY LEVELS AGENCIES AND INSTITUTIONS AT THE CITY LEVEL Academic and research institutions USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 15 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The evaluation of the eight CDI cities will use mixed methods. The evaluation encompasses an overall assessment of SURGE interventions across all the eight CDI cities, a deeper analysis of four CDI cities, as well as a focused analysis of specific interventions in two CDI cities. The evaluation team will use quantitative and qualitative tools and analysis, including a simple survey to gather feedback from a broader base. The analysis will be descriptive, primarily presented in crosstabs and listings. The qualitative tools include document reviews, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and case studies. The researchers will make sense of qualitative data through content and thematic analysis and quantitative information through trend analysis. Finally, the research will use baseline data and final outputs and outcomes for comparative analysis. STUDY POPULATION AND SAMPLING FRAME The Mission has identified four CDI cities for this study: Iloilo City, Cagayan de Oro, Tagbilaran City, and Puerto Princesa. The selection criteria included the following: representation from the initial and extension lists, level of SURGE investment, and the number of interventions and activities implemented. For the focused analysis, the Mission selected two cities based on the level of earmarked funds. These are Marawi for the WASH component, and Legazpi for resilience. The sampling frame for the survey for gathering data from the eight CDI cities are as follows:  the population for the survey is LGU personnel and officials who have participated in training programs, workshops, mentoring sessions, and other interventions introduced by SURGE in each city; and  the sampling unit is the person and not the office or agency that the government employees/officials represent. As per ICMA records, 4,105 individuals (components 1 and 2, and cross-cutting interventions) received training under the SURGE activity. The sample size will be 352 individuals (computed at 95 percent confidence level and a five percent margin of error). The researchers will use a systematic stratified sampling methodology to ensure appropriate representation in each sub-group with equal chances of being selected. The strata will be the cities. The proportion of participants to total participants was computed and used to allocate samples in a given city. Table 5 shows the distribution of the survey respondents. TABLE 6 - DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS PER CDI CITY CDI NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES WEIGHT (%) SAMPLE ALLOCATION Batangas 124 0.03 11 Cagayan de Oro 706 0.17 61 General Santos 951 0.23 82 Iloilo 248 0.06 21 Legazpi 354 0.09 30 Puerto Princesa 1,093 0.27 94 16 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Tagbilaran 502 0.12 43 Zamboanga 127 0.03 11 TOTAL 4,105 1.00 352 This research will employ a computer-generated randomizer to determine the participants in the survey. To ensure a good number of responses to generate relevant statistics, the researchers will replace non￾responding invited participants from the pool that the computer will generate. Once the survey instruments are released, the invited respondents should return their survey questionnaire within two weeks to return their survey questionnaire. Otherwise, the researchers will generate a new set until a 50 percent response rate is reached.20F21 Annex B.11 presents the sample questionnaire. DATA COLLECTION The evaluation of the SURGE activity utilizes mix-methods for triangulation and to ensure consistency. Given the constraints brought about by the pandemic, Field Cities Evaluation Assistants will gather data remotely. The data gatherers will use digital platforms, including video conferencing via Zoom or Google Meet. For the eight-city survey, the researchers will use digital survey tools, with the possibility of sending and receiving survey questionnaires via electronic mail. If travel restrictions are lifted, the researchers will collect in-person data primarily for the two case studies – Marawi and Legazpi. The STTA specialists will facilitate the FGD and KIIs with the assistance of the field staff to ensure proper documentation. To ensure that transcriptions and codes reflect the actual answers of the FGD participants and key informants, the team will conduct quality checking of audio recording and the transcription of the recordings, and the proper translation of local dialects to English. KII RESPONDENTS Key informant interviews are one-on-one interviews with people of authority based on their function or role in an organization, or their affiliation with a specific group. Key informants will provide extensive, reliable, and official responses concerning the relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of the SURGE activity. Annex B (B.1 to B.7) presents the protocol for the KIIs conducted. Based on initial estimates, a total of 58 KII sessions is necessary. Table 6 shows the distribution of KIIs. TABLE 7 - KII DISTRIBUTION PARTICIPANTS NO. OF RESPONDENTS USAID 2 ICMA (Central office) 4 (1 COP, 3 Component Leads) LGU Executives (Mayors) 4 (1 per city) LGU Executives (Dept. Heads) 24 (6 per city) Implementing Partner Institutions 12 (3 per city) 21 Babbie E. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth; 1990. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 17 WASH service provides executives 8 (2 per city) Business Group 4 (1 per city) Total 58 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS The researchers will probe deeper into questions of how and why through focus group discussions. Participants will provide information about the challenges and opportunities experienced through the SURGE interventions. There will be four (4) participant groups for the FGD with multiple sessions, leading to a total of 11 sessions with about 100 participants (see Table 7). Ideally, there would be a maximum of 10 participants to allow each participant a chance to share their views within a 90-minute session. The CPCs of the eight (8) CDI cities were selected to draw out the relevance of their role in implementing SURGE and their insights on project delivery within their assigned city. Their responses will feed into the sustainability aspect. The research team will invite select LGU personnel to participate in an FGD to better understand the effectiveness and sustainability of SURGE. Likewise, the evaluation team will ask the technical working groups for the different components to provide more information about relevance and sustainability. Finally, representatives from the academe who are partners under the Urban Development Learning Program will also participate in an FGD to give insights on SURGE sustainability. TABLE 8 - FGD DISTRIBUTION Participants No. of Sessions No. of Participants ICMA CPCs (8 cities) 1 8 LGU Personnel (Users) 4 40 TWGs (Multi-sectoral) 4 40 Academe (those with UDLP) 2 15 Total 11 103 Annex B (B.8 to B.10) presents the protocol for each of the FGDs. CASE STUDIES There will be two (2) case studies: (1) on the WASH intervention in Marawi and (2) SURGE resilience interventions in Legazpi City. There were two major SURGE activities in Marawi – Livelihood Recovery and WASH. The WASH intervention arose in response to the Marawi siege in 2017. Another USAID activity already probed the Livelihood Recovery Intervention, so this aspect will no longer be studied. Instead, the research team will conduct a more thorough review of the WASH intervention to gain helpful insights for designing future activities for Marawi. This evaluation will look into the SURGE interventions on resiliency for Legazpi, a city in constant exposure to disasters. The study will investigate measuring the effectiveness of the various interventions undertaken. 18 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Refer to Annex D for the outline for the case studies. DOCUMENT REVIEW The evaluation team will review baseline assessment reports and end-project project reports to measure gains and losses of the various interventions. Intervening progress and performance monitoring reports determining how the SURGE interventions have moved through the years, understanding any challenges or opportunities that the implementing partners and the city experienced. Annex E provides a list of requested documents. The team will also gather legislative documents and memoranda of the agreement to assess how the city has progressed in legislation and private-partner relations. Annex E enumerates the complete list of documents needed. Finally, the team will deploy secondary data capture forms on water supply operation and sanitation facilities for all the WASH service providers (rural waterworks and sanitation associations and water districts) in eight (8) CDI cities (Annex B-12). DATA ANALYSIS The evaluation team will use the content comparison technique in qualitative data analysis where transcriptions or textual data from the FGDs and KIIs will undergo line-by-line coding of concepts to generate themes. The evaluation will focus on themes gathered from the discussions that reveal perceptions of the relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of the SURGE interventions. The researchers will use the NVivo software to code and categorize concepts to form themes and sub￾themes. The evaluation team will analyze the quantitative data generated from the SURGE stakeholders survey using descriptive statistics and other relevant quantitative tools. The team will deploy the survey to sample respondents using Google Forms. The survey will gather information on the effectiveness and sustainability of SURGE interventions. The researchers will use the STATA software to analyze the survey and secondary data from the WASH data capture forms. KNOWN LIMITATIONS TO THE EVALUATION DESIGN 1. Sample size: Some respondents may not be able to participate due to health reasons/COVID-19 or a weak internet connection, resulting in a reduced number of samples. To mitigate this, the researchers will replace non-responding invited participants from the computer-generated pool. 2. Self-reported data: Surveys, KIIs, and FGDs rely on what respondents will say, and responses will depend on what people can remember because these activities or events took place in the past. We use triangulation to mitigate this limitation, ensuring data are collected from a variety of sources. 3. Access to documents: Some contacts are probably no longer connected with their agencies, and office staff will need more time to look for records, potentially resulting in delays or limited access to documents. To mitigate this potential drawback, the evaluation team will start requesting documents immediately. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 19 4. Site visits: Some study sites might not be accessible due to COVID-19 quarantine restrictions. To mitigate this, the team may have to rely on other sources of primary data, including KIIs and FGDs. 5. Delays in secondary data collection among SURGE CDI Cities: Secondary data collection may be delayed because of work-from-home restrictions. To mitigate this, the team will start data collection immediately, working within the time parameters afforded by the evaluation. EVALUATION PHASES AND ACTIVITIES Based on the overall approach and methodology, Figure 3 presents the phases and detailed activities for the evaluation. Annex F provides a more detailed implementation schedule in the Gantt chart. Figure 3. Evaluation Study Implementation Phases and Activities With the submission of this Inception Report, the evaluation team has completed all activities in Phase 1. Phase 2 initiates the preparatory period for fieldwork. During Phase 2, the evaluation team will pilot test the tools and instruments. Based on this pilot, the team will finalize the tools and prepare the Evaluation Manual and protocols to guide the administration of the tools. The evaluation team will also coordinate its field research in the cities and schedule the FGDs and KIIs. The evaluation team will travel to the evaluation sites or conduct all FGDs and KIIs remotely, subject to government restrictions on COVID￾19. Evaluation fieldwork begins during Phase 3. During fieldwork, the evaluation team will divide into six two-person groups. Each team will be composed of one specialist (Team Leader, Evaluation Specialist, or 20 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Data Analyst) and one field evaluation or research assistant and will focus on a specific city21F22 for conducting KIIs and FGDs. However, the whole evaluation team will run the initial set of KIIs and FGDs to ensure that all team members understand how to implement the evaluation protocols and processes in the Evaluation Manual. This exercise will ensure consistency in administering the instruments. During Phase 3, the evaluation team also will conduct the survey and tracer study of stakeholders and beneficiaries. This survey and tracer study will use an online survey platform for stakeholders and in￾person interviews for target respondents less likely to access the online platform. Local enumerators will conduct the in-person interviews. Suppose COVID lockdowns prevent local enumerators from conducting interviews. In that case, the survey will explore the feasibility of the online survey platform and other remote data collection options such as a cell phone or SMS survey. The evaluation team will edit, clean, and upload the data that the field teams collect each day to help ensure complete, consistent, and accurate data. The Evaluation Manual will detail the procedures for this daily data processing. The Team Leader and Data Analyst will perform data quality control checks by reviewing the daily data upload and providing feedback and input to the field data collection teams. Phase 4 includes data analysis, report writing, learning materials, and event preparation. The first step will be to clean, organize and consolidate survey and tracer study data and review and clean the KII and FGD transcriptions completed during the fieldwork phase. Once the data are clean and organized, the evaluation team will use the methods listed in the evaluation matrix (Annex A) to analyze the data. The principal tool that the team will use to analyze the qualitative data is NVivo. To analyze quantitative data, the team will use Excel and SPSS for the codable survey data. The team will triangulate data findings from the qualitative and quantitative data. The evaluation team will conduct a Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations workshop with USAID and its major stakeholders to support a contextualized report that presents actionable recommendations supported by evidence from the findings and conclusions. The team leader will be responsible for drafting the evaluation report, supported by the evaluation specialists and the data analyst. The report will present the evaluation’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations in narrative form. 22 When rational, it is possible that some teams will cover more than one city. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 21 THE EVALUATION TEAM The evaluation team is comprised of experts with in-depth knowledge and understanding of local governance, government operations, urban and land use planning, disaster risk reduction, water and sanitation, micro, small and medium enterprise, gender and social inclusion, and evaluation studies. The team operates on two levels: (a) the first level is the CLAimDev team, which provides oversight, quality control, and staff support; and (b) the second level is the external evaluation team. The CLAimDev team is composed of the following CLAimDev staff: (a) Chief of Party; (b) Senior Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Specialist, (c) Evaluation Specialist; and (d) Travel and Meetings Coordinator. The CLAimDev roles and responsibilities are related to ensuring evaluation quality and rigor and providing the evaluation team with logistical support. The external evaluation team is composed of the following: (a) Evaluation Advisor; (b) three (3) Technical Specialists; (c) Data Analyst; (d) five (5) Field Cities’ Evaluation Assistants; and (e) a Research Assistant. These evaluation team members and their roles and responsibilities are as follows:  Mr. Nicasio Angelo Agustin will serve as the Team Leader and Lead Evaluator. He will oversee all aspects of the evaluation under the supervision of the Principal Investigator, Mr. Sicad. As primary coordinator, Mr. Agustin will work closely with the Principal Investigator. He will manage the evaluation team’s activities and ensure timely implementation. He will ensure the overall technical soundness of the evaluation design, including methodologies, instruments, and analysis. The Team Leader will have primary responsibility for drafting and revising all evaluation deliverables for the Principal Investigator’s review before submission to USAID/PH. Further, he will ensure the completion of deliverables according to evaluation standards (e.g., OECD-DAC criteria) and requirements and compliance with applicable USAID policies, procedures, and protocols.  Mr. Rudini Baoy, Mr. Senen Dizon, and Ms. Ginny Santiago, as Technical Specialists, will work closely with the Team Leader to implement the work plan. They will focus on documents review, data analysis on their respective field of specialization, and the integral and cross-cutting elements of the evaluation. They have subject matter and thematic expertise, broad sector knowledge, experience relevant to the components and focus areas, plus general knowledge of the Local Government Units covered by SURGE and their peripheries. The consultants will complement each other in integrating the three focus areas of SURGE and its contribution to the goal of the PFG and the development objectives of the previous and current CDCS. Together with the Team Leader, the Technical Specialists will ensure the technical soundness of the evaluation design, methodologies, instruments, and outputs. At least one evaluation team member will have expertise in gender issues related to governance, urban development, MSME, and WASH.  Mr. Rupert Deluna, as Data Analyst, will support the evaluation team in ensuring the quality and sufficiency of data collected for the evaluation. He will be in charge of data consolidation and perform a systematic and holistic analysis of data generated, both qualitative and quantitative. He will aid the evaluation team in the strategic and operational interpretation and presentation of results and evaluation findings. 22 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV  The pandemic restricts fieldwork and face-to-face interactions. Hence, Field Cities’ Evaluation Assistants will conduct field data collection using the evaluation tools and instruments, following prescribed methodologies (e.g., documents review, survey, focus group discussions, in-depth interviews) in cities that the evaluation team will cover. They will also perform data processing at the field level (documentation, transcription, encoding, tabulation, etc.), both qualitative and quantitative, using a prescribed format and software. Further, they will assist the evaluation team in packaging evaluation outputs. When site visits are possible, the Field Cities’ Evaluation Assistants will coordinate site visits and site-specific data gathering activities, including communication with local respondents and logistics preparations.  A Research Assistant will assist the evaluation team in overall data management, including developing and formatting data collection tools, designing remote data collection systems, data consolidation and processing, analysis, and presentation. S/He will also be responsible for maintaining organized evaluation files and formatting and proofreading all evaluation deliverables. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 23 ANNEXES ANNEX A - EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX 1. Relevance (Alignment to Policy and Strategy): To what extent has SURGE contributed to addressing the development challenges that motivated the PFG-CDI, the thrusts of the NSS/Philippine Development Plan (PDP, 2017-2022), CDCS (previous and current), and USAID's policies on urban resiliency and WASH? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS 1.1 How relevant were the activities/ interventions conducted by SURGE in terms of contributing to higher-level development goals (e.g., CDCS, CDI, PFG) 1.1.1 To what extent has SURGE contributed to achieving the development objectives of CDCS (previous and current), CDI, and PFG? 1.1.1.1 To what extent has SURGE contributed to the DO1 (broad-based and inclusive growth accelerated and sustained) and DO2 (environmental resilience improved)? - CDCS (previous and current) - PFG/CDI documents - SURGE project Document - CDCS/SURGE Results Framework - SURGE Theory of Change - Key informants from USAID/ICMA - Document Review - Key informant interview - Content analysis - Triangulation 1.1.2 How relevant was SURGE in promoting international development commitments? 1.1.2.1 To what extent has SURGE contributed to promoting the following international commitments: - Sustainable Development Goals - Paris Agreement on Climate Change - SURGE project Document - SURGE Theory of Change/ Results Framework - International agreements (e.g., SDG) - Key informants from USAID/ICMA -ditto- -ditto- 24 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 1. Relevance (Alignment to Policy and Strategy): To what extent has SURGE contributed to addressing the development challenges that motivated the PFG-CDI, the thrusts of the NSS/Philippine Development Plan (PDP, 2017-2022), CDCS (previous and current), and USAID's policies on urban resiliency and WASH? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS - implementing partner (NEDA/CCC, etc.) 1.1.3 How relevant was SURGE in promoting USAID policies on urban resiliency and WASH? - SURGE project Document - SURGE Theory of Change/ Results Framework - USAID policies on WASH and urban resiliency - Key informants from USAID/ICMA -ditto- -ditto￾1.1.4 Were opportunities present for increasing the contribution of SURGE to higher development objectives? 1.1.4.1 Were there opportunities for increasing SURGE contribution to the development objectives of CDCS (previous and current)? 1.1.4.2 Were there opportunities for increasing SURGE contribution to the - SURGE project Document - SURGE Theory of Change/ Results Framework - SURGE project Document -ditto- -ditto- USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 25 1. Relevance (Alignment to Policy and Strategy): To what extent has SURGE contributed to addressing the development challenges that motivated the PFG-CDI, the thrusts of the NSS/Philippine Development Plan (PDP, 2017-2022), CDCS (previous and current), and USAID's policies on urban resiliency and WASH? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS promotion of international commitments? - Key informants from USAID/ICMA/IPs 1.2 How relevant were the activities conducted in the context of the development hypothesis of SURGE? 1.2.1 How responsive were the activities conducted to the SURGE development hypothesis, i.e., resilient second-tier cities can serve as engines of growth and help equalize income distribution across the country? 1.2.1.1 How responsive were the activities conducted to address the 2014 CDIA Project Appraisal Document (see page 3 of Panagora Technical Proposal)? - CDCS (previous and current) - PFG/CDI documents - SURGE project Document - CDCS/SURGE Results Framework - SURGE Theory of Change - Key informants from USAID/ICMA -ditto- -ditto￾1.3 How relevant were the activities conducted by SURGE to the development priorities and needs of key stakeholders at the national, regional, and local levels? 1.3.1 How relevant were the SURGE activities in addressing the development priorities outlined in the National Spatial Strategy and PDP, 2017-2022? 1.3.1.1 Were there opportunities for SURGE to increase its contribution to national development priorities? - SURGE project Document - SURGE Theory of Change/ Results Framework - Key informants from ICMA/IPs (NEDA) -ditto- -ditto- 26 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 1. Relevance (Alignment to Policy and Strategy): To what extent has SURGE contributed to addressing the development challenges that motivated the PFG-CDI, the thrusts of the NSS/Philippine Development Plan (PDP, 2017-2022), CDCS (previous and current), and USAID's policies on urban resiliency and WASH? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS 1.3.2 How relevant were the SURGE activities in addressing the development priorities outlined in regional development plans? 1.3.2.1 Were there opportunities for SURGE to increase its contribution to regional development priorities? - SURGE project Document - SURGE Theory of Change/ Results Framework - Key informants from ICMA/IPs (e.g., NEDA) -ditto- -ditto￾1.3.3 How relevant were the SURGE activities in addressing the development priorities outlined in city/local development plans? 1.3.3.1 Were there opportunities for SURGE to increase its contribution to local development priorities? - SURGE project Document - SURGE Theory of Change/ Results Framework - Key informants from ICMA/IPs/LGU - Document Review - Key informant interview - Focus group discussion -ditto￾1.3.4 How relevant were the SURGE activities in addressing the needs of key stakeholders and target beneficiaries? 1.3.4.1 Were there opportunities for SURGE to increase its contribution towards addressing the needs of its stakeholders and beneficiaries? - SURGE project Document - SURGE Theory of Change/ Results Framework - Document Review - Key informant interview - Focus group discussion - Stakeholder survey -ditto- USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 27 1. Relevance (Alignment to Policy and Strategy): To what extent has SURGE contributed to addressing the development challenges that motivated the PFG-CDI, the thrusts of the NSS/Philippine Development Plan (PDP, 2017-2022), CDCS (previous and current), and USAID's policies on urban resiliency and WASH? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS - Key informants from ICMA/IPs/LGU/affected sector 1.3.5 What are the challenges and opportunities for second-tier cities to foster inclusive growth at the policy and regulatory levels? 1.3.5.1 How did SURGE address the challenges? 1.3.5.2 How did SURGE capitalize on the opportunities? - SURGE project Document - SURGE Theory of Change - Key informants from ICMA/IPs/LGU - Document Review - Key informant interview - Focus group discussion -ditto￾2. Effectiveness (Original Context of CDI-SURGE): To what extent did SURGE achieve the three outcomes on improving local urban development processes, promoting local economic development, and expanding connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS 2.1 To what extent did SURGE improve local capacity in inclusive and resilient urban development (Component 1)? 2.1.1 To what extent has SURGE achieved its Component 1 indicator targets (Indicator Nos. 1.1 to 1.10)? 2.1.1.1 What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 1 targets? 2.1.1.2 How were the hindering factors addressed? - SURGE project Document - Final M&E Plan, Results Framework, Indicators, and Targets - Annual Work Plans - Document Review - Key informant interview - Focus group discussion - Content analysis - Before and after analysis (qualitative and/or quantitative) 28 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 2. Effectiveness (Original Context of CDI-SURGE): To what extent did SURGE achieve the three outcomes on improving local urban development processes, promoting local economic development, and expanding connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS - SURGE Progress/M&E Reports (annual, quarterly) - Baseline assessment reports - Component-related reports - Key informants from ICMA (Component lead, CPC, M&E, etc.) and IPs - LGU/city stakeholders - Stakeholder survey - Triangulation 2.2 To what extent did SURGE contribute to the improvement of the environment for local economic development (Component 2)? 2.2.1 To what extent has SURGE achieved its Component 2 indicator targets (Indicator Nos. 2.1 to 2.5)? 2.2.1.1 What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 2 targets? 2.2.1.2 How were the hindering factors addressed? -ditto- -ditto- -ditto￾2.3 To what extent did SURGE improve connectivity and access between urban and rural areas (Component 3)? 2.3.1 To what extent has SURGE achieved its Component 3 indicator targets (Indicator Nos. 3.1 to 3.4)? 2.3.1.1 What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 3 targets? 2.3.1.2 How were the hindering factors addressed? -ditto- -ditto- -ditto￾2.4 To what extent did SURGE achieve each expected 2.4.1 What activities were implemented to achieve each output (sub-component)? 2.4.1.1 Component-specific question (e.g., What activities were implemented -ditto- -ditto- -ditto- USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 29 2. Effectiveness (Original Context of CDI-SURGE): To what extent did SURGE achieve the three outcomes on improving local urban development processes, promoting local economic development, and expanding connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS output (sub￾components) per objective (component)? to increase access to sustainable water supply and sanitation?) 2.4.1.2 What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of each sub￾component? 2.4.1.3 How were the hindering factors addressed? 2.4.2 Which governmental operations were improved and how? 2.4.2.1 To what extent governmental operations have improved responsiveness to attract private investment and support micro/small/medium enterprises (MSMEs)? -ditto- -ditto- -ditto￾2.4.3 To what extent has SURGE improved local economic activities between CDI areas and adjacent cities/ municipalities -ditto- -ditto- -ditto￾2.4.4 What were the contributions of SURGE towards improving environmental resilience (disaster risk, and water supply and security)? -ditto- -ditto- -ditto￾2.5 To what extent did SURGE contribute to the objectives of W￾GDP? 2.5.1 To what extent has SURGE achieved its W-GDP indicator targets (Indicator Nos. 3.5.1 to 3.5.5)? - SURGE project Document - SURGE W-GDP Learning Plan, Work Plan and Targets - Document Review - Key informant interview - Focus group discussion - Content analysis - Before and after analysis (qualitative and/or quantitative) 30 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 2. Effectiveness (Original Context of CDI-SURGE): To what extent did SURGE achieve the three outcomes on improving local urban development processes, promoting local economic development, and expanding connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS - SURGE Progress/M&E Reports (annual, quarterly) - Baseline assessment reports - Key informants from ICMA/IPs - W-GDP stakeholders and beneficiaries - Triangulation 2.5.2 Has SURGE provided equal access to opportunities for economic empowerment to both men and women in the urban and rural areas? -ditto- -ditto- - Content analysis - Triangulation 2.5.3 Will improved knowledge and increased access to business support services translate to increased incomes for the target enterprises? (Learning Plan, W￾GDP) -ditto- -ditto- -ditto￾2.5.4 Will SURGE package of technical assistance to targeted participants, areas result in increased employment, participation, and increased incomes for women? (Learning Plan, W-GDP) -ditto- -ditto- -ditto￾2.6 To what extent did SURGE contribute to the COVID-19 2.6.1 To what extent has SURGE achieved its indicator targets related to COVID-19 response and 2.6.1.1 What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of COVID-19- related targets? - SURGE project Document - Document Review - Content analysis - Before and after analysis USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 31 2. Effectiveness (Original Context of CDI-SURGE): To what extent did SURGE achieve the three outcomes on improving local urban development processes, promoting local economic development, and expanding connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS response and recovery efforts in target CDI cities? recovery? (Indicator Nos. 3.5.1 to 3.5.5) 2.6.1.2 How were the hindering factors addressed? - COVID 19 Abbreviated Work Plan - SURGE Progress/M&E Reports (annual, quarterly) - Baseline assessment reports - Key informants from ICMA/IPs - LGU/city stakeholders - Key informant interview - Focus group discussion (qualitative and/or quantitative) Triangulation 2.6.2 What activities were implemented related to COVID￾19 response and recovery? 2.6.2.3 What factors facilitated or hindered the implementation of COVID￾19 related activities? 2.4.1.3 How were the hindering factors addressed? -ditto- -ditto- - Content analysis - Triangulation 2.7 To what extent did SURGE contribute to higher-level outcomes (e.g., CDCS Results Framework)? 2.7.1 To what extent has SURGE contributed to specific CDCS objectives (e.g., improving policy and regulatory environment; increasing fiscal performance and transparency; increasing disaster preparedness; enhancing disaster prevention; implementing disaster mitigation measures; improving water supply and security; increasing climate change resilience and mitigation) 2.7.1.1 Were there opportunities for increasing SURGE’s contribution towards higher-level outcomes? - CDCS (previous and current) - PFG/CDI documents - SURGE project Document - CDCS/SURGE Results Framework - SURGE Theory of Change - Key informants from USAID/ICMA -ditto- -ditto- 32 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 2. Effectiveness (Original Context of CDI-SURGE): To what extent did SURGE achieve the three outcomes on improving local urban development processes, promoting local economic development, and expanding connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS 2.8 What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of SURGE objectives (outcomes) and outputs? 2.8.1 Which of the identified risks and assumptions deemed to influence the achievement of the project goal occurred (or otherwise)? And if so, how were these managed? 2.8.1.1 How were the risks managed? 2.8.1.2 Were risk assessments conducted? - SURGE Logframe and/or results framework - SURGE Progress/M&E reports (quarterly, annual) - Risk management plans - Key informants from ICMA -ditto- -ditto￾2.8.2 Which of the three objectives contributed the most to achieving the development goal of inclusive growth through strengthened urban resiliency with equity? 2.8.2.1 What were the facilitating factors? -ditto- -ditto- -ditto￾2.9 Were there any unintended outcomes (positive or negative) from the SURGE project? 2.9.1 What outcomes were not anticipated or captured by the SURGE ToC or results framework? 2.9.1.1 Were there any synergies achieved between SURGE and other USG￾funded projects in CDI cities? 2.9.1.2 Were there any unintended outcomes that resulted from the Marawi response? 2.9.1.3 How did SURGE affect USG’s visibility in project areas? - SURGE ToC/Logframe and/or results framework - SURGE Progress/M&E reports (quarterly, annual) - Key informants from ICMA/USAID - LGU/City stakeholders -ditto- -ditto￾2.10 What lessons were learned from SURGE 2.10.1 Which SURGE interventions and approaches worked well (or did not work)? 2.10.1.1 Which among the interventions contributed most/least to the - SURGE Progress/M&E reports (quarterly, annual) -ditto- -ditto- USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 33 2. Effectiveness (Original Context of CDI-SURGE): To what extent did SURGE achieve the three outcomes on improving local urban development processes, promoting local economic development, and expanding connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS interventions and approaches? achievement of SURGE intended outcomes? 2.10.1.2 What were the facilitating and hindering factors? 2.9.1.3 Did varying scope or scale of sub-components yield significantly different levels of results? - Pause and Reflection Reports - Project documentation reports - Key informants from USAID/ICMA/IPs - LGU/City Stakeholders 2.10.2 What practices were successful, e.g., brought about positive changes? (Note: define practices/ successful) 2.10.1.2 What were the facilitating and hindering factors? -ditto- -ditto- -ditto￾3. Sustainability What is the likelihood that initiatives and gains will continue after the completion of the project? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS 3.1 What are the prospects that the outcomes and intermediate results generated by the project will continue after project completion without further assistance from SURGE? 3.1.1 Are technical, institutional and financial capacities adequate to ensure continuity to project activities? 3.1.2 Are policies in place to ensure continuity of SURGE activities? 3.1.1.1 What is the likelihood that LGUs will take ownership of the interventions initiated by SURGE? - SURGE Progress/M&E Reports (annual, quarterly) - Component￾related reports - LGU policies proposed or adopted - LGU plan and budget - Document Review - Key informant interview - Focus group discussion - Content analysis - Triangulation 34 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 3. Sustainability What is the likelihood that initiatives and gains will continue after the completion of the project? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS - Key informants from ICMA/IPs - LGU/city stakeholders 3.2 Were sustainability mechanisms integrated into the design and implementation of SURGE? What were the intended or unintended results? 3.2.1 What were the exit strategies developed and implemented/conducted by the IPs? 3.2.2 Which sustainability mechanisms worked or did not work? What were the facilitating and hindering factors? - SURGE Progress/M&E Reports (annual, quarterly) - Sustainability/exit plans - Component￾related reports - Key informants from ICMA/IPs - LGU/city stakeholders -ditto- -ditto￾3.2.3 What gaps need to be addressed within the Mission and externally by the host government to ensure sustainability? - SURGE Progress/M&E Reports (annual, quarterly) - Sustainability/exit plans - Key informants from USAID/ICMA -ditto- -ditto￾3.3 What is the likelihood that the activities and benefits derived from W￾GDP will continue after project completion 3.3.1 What is the likelihood that providing equal access to opportunities for economic empowerment to both men and women in the urban and rural areas will continue in CDI cities? - SURGE W-GDP Learning Plan, Work Plan and Targets - W-GDP sustainability and/or exit plans - Key informants from ICMA/IPs -ditto- -ditto- USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 35 3. Sustainability What is the likelihood that initiatives and gains will continue after the completion of the project? QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS COMPONENT SPECIFIC PROBING QUESTIONS DATA SOURCE (DOCUMENT/ PERSON) DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS - W-GDP stakeholders and beneficiaries 3.3.2 What is the likelihood that the SURGE assistance package will continue to produce champions and leaders among target women entrepreneurs after project completion? (Learning Plan, W-GDP) -ditto- -ditto- -ditto￾3.4 Are there opportunities for replicating successful SURGE interventions in the future? 3.4.1Are there national or local government plans to replicate or expand any of the SURGE interventions in the future? - SURGE Progress/M&E Reports (annual, quarterly) - Sustainability/exit plans - Component￾related reports - Key informants from ICMA/IPs/LGU/city stakeholders -ditto- -ditto￾3.4.2 Are there plans by USG to expand or replicate any of the SURGE interventions in the future? - Sustainability/exit plans - Replication plans - Concept papers, if any - Key informants from ICMA/USAID - Document Review - Key informant interview -ditto- 36 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX B - EVALUATION TOOLS AND INSTRUMENTS TOOLS AND INSTRUMENTS TARGET PARTICIPANTS AND RESPONDENTS ANNEX NUMBER KII Guide USAID B.1 KII Guide ICMA (Top Management) B.2 KII Guide LGU Chief Executives B.3 KII Guide LGU Dept. Heads B.4 KII Guide Implementing Partner Institutions B.5 KII Guide Business Group B.6 KII Guide WASH Service Providers Executives B.7 FGD Guide ICMA CPCs B.8 FGD Guide CITY TWG B.9 FGD Guide Academe B.10 Survey Questionnaire SURGE Stakeholder Survey B.11 WASH Data Capture Forms Water District and RSWA B.12 USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 37 ANNEX B.1 - KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR USAID General Instructions: This instrument will be used for key informant interviews with USAID. The evaluation team will conduct the KII via ZOOM. Before starting the KII, facilitators are requested to send a copy of the INFORMED CONSENT FORM (Refer to Annex C) to the participants and verbally seek the respondents' consent. Upon confirmation of intent to participate, ask the participants to attach their electronic signature and send back the completed form. Do not start without the completed form. Except when internet connectivity is a problem, please request participants to turn on their cameras for recording purposes. At the minimum, the cameras should be turned on: at the beginning, end, and when the participants speak. Turning cameras on will verify the speaker. As a reminder, participants should mute themselves while someone is talking. OPENING Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for joining us today. Your participation is essential to determine the extent of achievement on the outputs and outcomes of SURGE. I am Dr. Nic Agustin. We are external evaluators supporting the Panagora Group in the conduct of the evaluation on SURGE. Dr. Ginny Santiago, Mr. Nick Baoy, and Mr. Senen Dizon will be joining us. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. May I clarify at this point if you have submitted a signed Informed Consent Form and retained a signed copy? If not, may I request you to exit the session and e-mail us your signed consent form? You may re￾enter once we receive the form. I wish to reiterate that your participation in this KII is voluntary, and you may opt out. You do not have to answer every question if you do not wish to. Should you opt-out, we will strike from our records all statements made by you. For those who will continue with us, we wish to assure you that our conversation will remain confidential and will be discussed only within the research team led by Ramon Noriel Sicad of the CLAimDev team. Should we use any of the statements you made in our report, we will seek prior approval to do so. You may then inform us whether you would like the information stricken or included in the report and whether or not you would like the information to be attributed to you. Our KII for today should last no more than 90 minutes. Should our conversations be animated, we will interject with time checks. 38 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV We ask that you keep your cameras on for documentation purposes. Should you experience connectivity problems, we request that the cameras be turned on at the beginning and end of the session, at least when you speak. Do you have any questions? Now that we have addressed all questions, we will now start our session. KII QUESTIONS 1. What activities/interventions conducted by SURGE contributed significantly to achieving higher-level development goals (e.g., CDCS, CDI, PFG)? Please give at least five (5) and explain their relevance. (1.1) Were there opportunities to achieve this (1.1.4) 2. Based on your opinion, to what extent has SURGE contributed to achieving the development objectives of CDCS (previous and current), CDI, and PFG? Please give specific and concrete examples. (1.1.1) Were there opportunities for SURGE to achieve this? (1.1.4.1) 3. To what extent has SURGE contributed to the DO1 (broad-based and inclusive growth accelerated and sustained) and DO2 (environmental resilience improved)? (1.1.1.1) 4. What specific international development commitments of the Philippines has SURGE been able to support? Please provide examples and discuss their relevance. 1.1.2 (for example, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change). Were there opportunities to achieve this? (1.1.4.2) 5. How would you describe the appropriateness, significance, and relevance of the SURGE design with the policy of USAID on urban resiliency and WASH? (1.1.3) 6. Are there opportunities for replicating successful SURGE interventions in the future? (3.4) 7. Are there national or local government plans to replicate or expand any of the SURGE interventions in the future? (3.4.1) 8. Are there plans by USG to expand or replicate any of the SURGE interventions in the future? (3.4.2) CLOSING We wish to thank you for your active participation in this KII. We appreciate the time you have taken to be with us today to contribute to an honest evaluation of the interventions concerning the SURGE activity. We have learned a lot from our session. We wish to remind you that our session today will be held in the strictest confidence. We will contact you in the future should we use any of the statements you made in our report. Continue to keep safe. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. We will now end the recording. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 39 ANNEX B.2 - KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ICMA TOP MANAGEMENT General Instructions: This instrument will be used for key informant interviews with ICMA top management and component leads. The evaluation team will conduct the KII via ZOOM. Before starting the KII, facilitators are requested to send a copy of the INFORMED CONSENT FORM (Refer to Annex C) to the participants and verbally seek the respondents' consent. Upon confirmation of intent to participate, ask the participants to attach their electronic signature and send back the completed form. Do not start without the completed form. Except when internet connectivity is a problem, please request participants to turn on their cameras for recording purposes. At the minimum, the cameras should be turned on: at the beginning, end, and when the participants speak. Turning cameras on will verify the speaker. As a reminder, participants should mute themselves while someone is talking. OPENING Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for joining us today. Your participation is essential to determine the extent of achievement on the outputs and outcomes of SURGE. I am Dr. Nic Agustin. We are external evaluators supporting the Panagora Group in the conduct of the evaluation on SURGE. Dr. Ginny Santiago, Mr. Nick Baoy, and Mr. Senen Dizon will be joining us. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. May I clarify at this point if you have submitted a signed Informed Consent Form and retained a signed copy? If not, may I request you to exit the session and e-mail us your signed consent form? You may re￾enter once we receive the form. I wish to reiterate that your participation in this KII is voluntary, and you may opt out. You do not have to answer all the questions if you do not wish to. Should you opt-out, we will strike from our records all statements made by you. For those who will continue with us, we wish to assure you that our conversation will remain confidential and will be discussed only within the research team led by Ramon Noriel Sicad of the CLAimDev team. Should we use any of the statements you made in our report, we will seek prior approval to do so. You may then inform us whether you would like the information stricken or included in the report and whether or not you would like the information to be attributed to you. Our KII for today should last no more than 90 minutes. Should our conversations be animated, we will interject with time checks. 40 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV We ask that you keep your cameras on for documentation purposes. Should you experience connectivity problems, we request that the cameras be turned on at the beginning and end of the session, at least when you speak. Do you have any questions? Now that we have addressed all questions, we will now start our session. KII QUESTIONS 1. What activities/ interventions conducted by SURGE contributed significantly to achieving higher￾level development goals (e.g., CDCS, CDI, PFG)? Please give at least five (5) and explain their relevance. (1.1) Were there opportunities to achieve this (1.1.4) 2. Based on your opinion, to what extent has SURGE contributed to achieving the development objectives of CDCS (previous and current), CDI, and PFG? Would you please give specific and concrete examples? (1.1.1) Were there opportunities for SURGE to achieve this? (1.1.4.1) 3. To what extent has SURGE contributed to the DO1 (broad-based and inclusive growth accelerated and sustained) and DO2 (environmental resilience improved)? (1.1.1.1) 4. What specific international development commitments of the Philippines has SURGE been able to support? Please provide examples and discuss their relevance. 1.1.2 (for example, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change). Were there opportunities to achieve this? (1.1.4.2) 5. How would you describe the appropriateness, significance, and relevance of the SURGE design concerning the policy of USAID on urban resiliency and WASH? (1.1.3) 6. What activities do you think are relevant in achieving the development hypothesis of SURGE? Please cite at least five (5) specific and concrete examples. (1.2) 7. What activities do you think are relevant to the SURGE development hypothesis, i.e., resilient second-tier cities can serve as engines of growth and help equalize income distribution across the country? Cite at least five (5) outcomes and intermediate results generated by the project will continue after project completion without further assistance from SURGE? (3.1) What are the mechanisms or aspects that are put in place to sustain such gains? (3.1.1) 8. What is the likelihood that LGUs will take ownership of the interventions initiated by SURGE? (3.1.1.1) 9. Are local policies in place to ensure continuity of SURGE activities? Please cite examples. (3.1.2) 10. Were sustainability mechanisms integrated into the design and implementation of SURGE? What were the intended or unintended results? (3.2) 11. What were the exit strategies developed and implemented/conducted by the IPs? (3.2.1) USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 41 12. Which sustainability mechanisms worked or did not work? What were the facilitating and hindering factors? (3.2.2) 13. What gaps need to be addressed within the Mission and externally by the host government to ensure sustainability? (3.2.3) 14. What is the likelihood that the activities and benefits derived from SURGE/W-GDP will continue after project completion? Would you please cite the reasons? (3.3) 15. What is the likelihood that providing equal access to opportunities for economic empowerment to both men and women in the urban and rural areas will continue in CDI cities? Why? What are the factors that you can consider for this? (3.3.1) 16. What is the likelihood that the SURGE assistance package will continue to produce champions and leaders among target women entrepreneurs after project completion? (Learning Plan, W-GDP) (3.3.2) 17. Are there opportunities for replicating successful SURGE interventions in the future? What are these? Cite clear and concrete examples. (3.4) 18. Are there national or local government plans to replicate or expand any of the SURGE interventions in the future? What are these? (3.4.1) MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO COMPONENT LEADS: 1. To what extent did SURGE improve local capacity in inclusive and resilient urban development (Component 1)? Kindly explain and cite examples. (2.1) What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 1 targets? (2.1.1.1) How were the hindering factors addressed? (2.1.1.2) 2. To what extent did SURGE contribute to the improvement of the environment for local economic development (Component 2)? Kindly explain and cite examples. (2.2) What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 2 targets? (2.2.1.1) How were the hindering factors addressed? (2.2.1.2) 3. To what extent did SURGE improve connectivity and access between urban and rural areas (Component 3)? Would you please explain and cite specific examples? (2.3) What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 3 targets? (2.3.1.1) How were the hindering factors addressed? (2.3.1.2) CLOSING We wish to thank you for your active participation in this KII. We appreciate the time you have taken to be with us today to contribute to an honest evaluation of the interventions about the SURGE activity. We have learned a lot from our session. We wish to remind you that our session today will be held in the strictest confidence. We will contact you in the future should we use any of the statements you made in our report. Continue to keep safe. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. We will now end the recording. 42 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX B.3 - KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR LOCAL CHIEF EXECUTIVES General Instructions: This instrument will be used for key informant interviews with local chief executives (mayors). The evaluation team will conduct the KII via ZOOM. Before starting the KII, facilitators are requested to send a copy of the INFORMED CONSENT FORM (Refer to Annex C) to the participants and verbally seek the respondents' consent. Upon confirmation of intent to participate, ask the participants to attach their electronic signature and send back the completed form. Do not start without the completed form. Except when internet connectivity is a problem, please request participants to turn on their cameras for recording purposes. At the minimum, the cameras should be turned on: at the beginning, end, and when the participants speak. Turning cameras on will verify the speaker. As a reminder, participants should mute themselves while someone is talking. OPENING Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for joining us today. Your participation is essential to determine the extent of achievement on the outputs and outcomes of SURGE. I am Dr. Nic Agustin. We are external evaluators supporting the Panagora Group in the conduct of the evaluation on SURGE. Dr. Ginny Santiago, Mr. Nick Baoy, and Mr. Senen Dizon will be joining us. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. May I clarify at this point if you have submitted a signed Informed Consent Form and retained a signed copy? If not, may I request you to exit the session and e-mail us your signed consent form? You may re￾enter once we receive the form. I wish to reiterate that your participation in this KII is voluntary, and you may opt out. You do not have to answer all the questions if you do not wish to. Should you opt-out, we will strike from our records all statements made by you. For those who will continue with us, we wish to assure you that our conversation will remain confidential and will be discussed only within the research team led by Ramon Noriel Sicad of the CLAimDev team. Should we use any of the statements you made in our report, we will seek prior approval to do so. You may then inform us whether you would like the information stricken or included in the report and whether or not you would like the information to be attributed to you. Our KII for today should last no more than 90 minutes. Should our conversations be animated, we will interject with time checks. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 43 We ask that you keep your cameras on for documentation purposes. Should you experience connectivity problems, we request that the cameras be turned on at the beginning and end of the session, at least when you speak. Do you have any questions? Now that we have addressed all questions, we will now start our session. Basic Information Name of Mayor: City: Year/s elected as Mayor: ( ) 2013 ( ) 2016 ( ) 2019 KII QUESTIONS 1. In your opinion, what significant changes, benefits, or outcomes resulted from SURGE activities in your city? (Q2.1, Q2.1.1, Q2.2, Q2.2.1, Q2.3, Q2.3.1) [Possible answers below]  Component 1 Benefit/Outcome examples (Updated risk-sensitive, inclusive CLUPs; enhanced skills of LGU personnel in preparing risk-sensitive, inclusive plans, strengthened capacity of WDs/WSPs for water/sanitation service delivery, etc.)  Component 2 Benefit/Outcome examples (Improved CMC Index, increase in new business registrations, increase in locally sourced revenues; updated land administration and information management system; etc.)  Component 3 Benefit/Outcome examples (Increased investments in CDI and peri-urban areas, policy and regulatory reforms in business/construction permitting, improved transport services, e.g., increased cargo movement from General Santos airport, etc.) 2. In your opinion, which local government functions/operations did the SURGE project generate the most significant contribution? Please elaborate (Q2.4.2) 3. What key factors facilitated or contributed to the achievement of these benefits or outcomes? (Q2.1.1.1, Q2.2.1.1, Q2.3.1.1) 4. What key issues/challenges have hindered achieving the intended benefits or outcomes of SURGE activities in your city? How did the SURGE project and your city address these issues/challenges? (Q2.1.1.1, Q2.1.1.2 Q2.2.1.1, Q2.2.1.2, Q2.3.1.1, Q2.3.1.2) 5. How relevant or responsive were the SURGE activities/interventions in addressing the development priorities of your city as articulated in your Comprehensive Development Plan? How can SURGE activities/interventions be improved to enhance its responsiveness to local development priorities? (Q1.3.3, Q1.3.3.1) 44 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 6. How relevant or responsive were the SURGE activities/interventions in addressing the needs of key stakeholders (e.g., city officials) and target beneficiaries (e.g., business owners, etc.)? How can SURGE activities/interventions be improved to enhance its responsiveness to the needs of key stakeholders and beneficiaries? (Q1.3.4, Q1.3.4.1) 7. What sustainability mechanisms were put in place by the SURGE project to ensure that the SURGE initiatives and gains will continue after project completion in December 2021? What were the exit strategies developed by the SURGE project? (Q3.2, Q3.2.1, Q3.1.2) 8. How do you assess the city's current technical, institutional, and financial capacity to sustain or ensure the continuity of SURGE initiatives/activities? (Q3.1.1) 9. Are policies in place to ensure continuity of SURGE activities/initiatives in your city? Do you think these policies are adequate for LGUs to take ownership and continue/expand the SURGE initiatives in your city? (Q3.1.2, Q3.1.1.1) 10. What key lessons have you learned from the implementation of the SURGE project in your city? Which of the SURGE interventions, practices, and approaches worked well and should be continued or expanded by similar projects in the future? What were the facilitating factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 11. Which interventions, practices, or approaches did not work? What were the hindering factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 12. If SURGE activity could be re-designed or implemented differently, what changes or modifications would you propose to improve the effectiveness of the SURGE interventions in your city? CLOSING We wish to thank you for your active participation in this KII. We appreciate the time you have taken to be with us today to contribute to an honest evaluation of the interventions concerning the SURGE activity. We have learned a lot from our session. We wish to remind you that our session today will be held in the strictest confidence. We will contact you in the future should we use any of the statements you made in our report. Continue to keep safe. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. We will now end the recording. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 45 ANNEX B.4 - KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR LGU DEPARTMENT HEADS General Instructions: This instrument will be used for key informant interviews with LGU department heads. The evaluation team will conduct the KII via ZOOM. Before starting the KII, facilitators are requested to send a copy of the INFORMED CONSENT FORM (Refer to Annex C) to the participants and verbally seek the respondents' consent. Upon confirmation of intent to participate, ask the participants to attach their electronic signature and send back the completed form. Do not start without the completed form. Except when internet connectivity is a problem, please request participants to turn on their cameras for recording purposes. At the minimum, the cameras should be turned on: at the beginning, end, and when the participants speak. Turning cameras on will verify the speaker. As a reminder, participants should mute themselves while someone is talking. OPENING Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for joining us today. Your participation is essential to determine the extent of achievement on the outputs and outcomes of SURGE. I am Dr. Nic Agustin. We are external evaluators supporting the Panagora Group in the conduct of the evaluation on SURGE. Dr. Ginny Santiago, Mr. Nick Baoy, and Mr. Senen Dizon will be joining us. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. May I clarify at this point if you have submitted a signed Informed Consent Form and retained a signed copy? If not, may I request you to exit the session and e-mail us your signed consent form? You may re￾enter once we receive the form. I wish to reiterate that your participation in this KII is voluntary, and you may opt out. You do not have to answer all the questions if you do not wish to. Should you opt-out, we will strike from our records all statements made by you. For those who will continue with us, we wish to assure you that our conversation will remain confidential and will be discussed only within the research team led by Ramon Noriel Sicad of the CLAimDev team. Should we use any of the statements you made in our report, we will seek prior approval to do so. You may then inform us whether you would like the information stricken or included in the report and whether or not you would like the information to be attributed to you. Our KII for today should last no more than 90 minutes. Should our conversations be animated, we will interject with time checks. 46 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV We ask that you keep your cameras on for documentation purposes. Should you experience connectivity problems, we request that the cameras be turned on at the beginning and end of the session, at least when you speak. Do you have any questions? Now that we have addressed all questions, we will now start our session. Basic Information Name of Interviewee: Current organization: Position/Designation: Role/participation in the SURGE activity: KII QUESTIONS 1. Are you familiar with the SURGE activity of the USAID? How did you come to know about it? Are you familiar with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)? How did you come to know of it? 2. What activities/projects in your city did SURGE support? (Q2.4.1)? [Possible answers below]  Component 1 Activity examples (Mainstreaming DRR and CCA in local development plans; Training on GHG management planning; Establishing Urban Development Learning Program; Upgrading of water services of water service providers (e.g., water safety planning, non￾revenue water (NRW) management, enhanced billing and collection, water demand management, etc.); Strengthening institutional capacities on sanitation (e.g., septage management, etc.)  Component 2 Activity examples (Streamlining/automating business permitting and licensing processes; Streamlining/automating construction permitting processes; Setting up of One￾Stop-Shop for BPLS and construction permitting; Training of Local Economic and Investment Promotion Office and Business Support Organizations; etc.)  Component 3 Activity examples (Establishing market linkages between local producers and buyers, e.g., seaweed, cassava; formulating tourism development plans, establishing inter￾LGU cooperation, e.g., Panglao Dauis and Tagbilaran Executive Council in Bohol; etc.) 3. In your opinion, what significant changes, benefits, outcomes, or value-added resulted from SURGE activities in your city? (Q2.1, Q2.1.1, Q2.2, Q2.2.1, Q2.3, Q2.3.1) [Possible answers below] USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 47  Component 1 Benefit/Outcome examples (Updated risk-sensitive, inclusive CLUPs; enhanced skills of LGU personnel in preparing risk-sensitive, inclusive plans, strengthened capacity of WDs/WSPs for water/sanitation service delivery, etc.)  Component 2 Benefit/Outcome examples (Improved CMC Index, increase in new business registrations, increase in locally sourced revenues; updated land administration and information management system; etc.)  Component 3 Benefit/Outcome examples (Increased investments in CDI and peri-urban areas, policy and regulatory reforms in business/construction permitting, improved transport services, e.g., increased cargo movement from General Santos airport, etc.) 4. In your opinion, which local government functions/operations did the SURGE activity generate the most significant contribution? Please elaborate (Q2.4.2) 5. What key factors facilitated or contributed to the achievement of these changes, benefits, or outcomes? (Q2.1.1.1, Q2.2.1.1, Q2.3.1.1) 6. What key issues/challenges have hindered achieving the intended benefits or outcomes of SURGE activities in your city? How did the SURGE project address these issues/challenges? ((Q2.1.1.1, Q2.1.1.2 Q2.2.1.1, Q2.2.1.2, Q2.3.1.1, Q2.3.1.2) 7. How relevant or responsive were the SURGE activities/interventions in addressing the development priorities of your city as articulated in your Comprehensive Development Plan? How can SURGE activities/interventions be improved to enhance its responsiveness to local development priorities? (Q1.3.3, Q1.3.3.1) 8. How relevant or responsive were the SURGE activities/interventions in addressing the needs of key stakeholders (e.g., city officials) and target beneficiaries (e.g., business owners, etc.) (Q1.3.4, Q1.3.4.1) 9. What sustainability mechanisms were put in place by the SURGE project to ensure that the SURGE initiatives and gains will continue after project completion in December 2021? What were the exit strategies developed by SURGE? (Q3.2, Q3.2.1, Q3.1.2) 10. How do you assess the city's current technical, institutional, and financial capacity to sustain or ensure the continuity of SURGE initiatives/activities? (Q3.1.1) 11. Are policies in place to ensure continuity of SURGE activities/initiatives in your city? Do you think these policies are adequate for LGUs to take ownership and continue/expand the SURGE initiatives in your city? (Q3.1.2, Q3.1.1.1) 12. What key lessons have you learned from the implementation of the SURGE activity in your city? Which of the SURGE interventions, practices, and approaches worked well and should be continued or expanded by similar projects in the future? What were the facilitating factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 13. Which interventions, practices, or approaches did not work? What were the hindering factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 48 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 14. If SURGE could be re-designed or implemented differently, what changes or modifications would you propose to improve the effectiveness of the SURGE interventions in your city? CLOSING We wish to thank you for your active participation in this KII. We appreciate the time you have taken to be with us today to contribute to an honest evaluation of the interventions concerning the SURGE activity. We have learned a lot from our session. We wish to remind you that our session today will be held in the strictest confidence. We will contact you in the future should we use any of the statements you made in our report. Continue to keep safe. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. We will now end the recording. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 49 ANNEX B.5 - KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTING PARTNER INSTITUTIONS (NEDA, DTI, DHSUD, HLURB, DILG-BLGS, DOT, BFAR, ETC.) General Instructions: This instrument will be used for key informant interviews with implementing partner institutions. The evaluation team will conduct the KII via ZOOM. Before starting the KII, facilitators are requested to send a copy of the INFORMED CONSENT FORM (Refer to Annex C) to the participants and verbally seek the respondents' consent. Upon confirmation of intent to participate, ask the participants to attach their electronic signature and send back the completed form. Do not start without the completed form. Except when internet connectivity is a problem, please request participants to turn on their cameras for recording purposes. At the minimum, the cameras should be turned on: at the beginning, end, and when the participants speak. Turning cameras on will verify the speaker. As a reminder, participants should mute themselves while someone is talking. OPENING Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for joining us today. Your participation is essential to determine the extent of achievement on the outputs and outcomes of SURGE. I am Dr. Nic Agustin. We are external evaluators supporting the Panagora Group in the conduct of the evaluation on SURGE. Dr. Ginny Santiago, Mr. Nick Baoy, and Mr. Senen Dizon will be joining us. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. May I clarify at this point if you have submitted a signed Informed Consent Form and retained a signed copy? If not, may I request you to exit the session and e-mail us your signed consent form? You may re￾enter once we receive the form. I wish to reiterate that your participation in this KII is voluntary, and you may opt out. You do not have to answer all the questions if you do not wish to. Should you opt-out, we will strike from our records all statements made by you. For those who will continue with us, we wish to assure you that our conversation will remain confidential and will be discussed only within the research team led by Ramon Noriel Sicad of the CLAimDev team. Should we use any of the statements you made in our report, we will seek prior approval to do so. You may then inform us whether you would like the information stricken or included in the report and whether or not you would like the information to be attributed to you. Our KII for today should last no more than 90 minutes. Should our conversations be animated, we will interject with time checks. 50 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV We ask that you keep your cameras on for documentation purposes. Should you experience connectivity problems, we request that the cameras be turned on at the beginning and end of the session, at least when you speak. Do you have any questions? Now that we have addressed all questions, we will now start our session. Basic Information Name of Interviewee: Current organization: Position/Designation: Role/participation in the SURGE activity: KII QUESTIONS 1. Are you familiar with the SURGE activity of the USAID? How did you come to know about it? Are you familiar with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)? How did you come to know of it? 2. Over the last six years (2015-2021), in which SURGE activities/projects was your agency actively involved? (Q2.4.1) [Possible answers below]  Component 1 Activity examples (Mainstreaming DRR and CCA in local development plans; Training on GHG management planning; Establishing Urban Development Learning Program; Upgrading of water services of water service providers (e.g., water safety planning, NRW management, enhanced billing and collection, water demand management, etc.); Strengthening institutional capacities on sanitation (e.g., septage management, etc.)  Component 2 Activity examples (Streamlining/automating business permitting and licensing processes; Streamlining/automating construction permitting processes; Setting up of One￾Stop-Shop for BPLS and construction permitting; Training of Local Economic Investment and Promotions Office and Business Support Organizations; etc.)  Component 3 Activity examples ((Establishing market linkages between local producers and buyers, e.g., seaweed, cassava; formulating tourism development plans, establishing inter￾LGU cooperation, e.g., Panglao Dauis and Tagbilaran Executive Council in Bohol; etc.) 3. In your opinion, what CDI cities derived significant changes, benefits, outcomes, or value-added as a result of the SURGE activities? (Q2.1, Q2.1.1, Q2.2, Q2.2.1, Q2.3, Q2.3.1) [Possible answers below]  Component 1 Benefit/Outcome examples (Updated risk-sensitive, inclusive CLUPs; enhanced skills of LGU personnel in preparing risk-sensitive, inclusive plans, strengthened capacity of WDs/WSPs for water/sanitation service delivery, etc.) USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 51  Component 2 Benefit/Outcome examples (Improved CMC Index, increase in new business registrations, increase in locally sourced revenues; updated land administration and information management system; etc.)  Component 3 Benefit/Outcome examples (Increased investments in CDI and peri-urban areas, policy and regulatory reforms in business/construction permitting, improved transport services, e.g., increased cargo movement from GenSan airport, etc.) 4. What key factors facilitated or contributed to the achievement of these changes, benefits, or outcomes? (Q2.1.1.1, Q2.2.1.1, Q2.3.1.1) 5. What key issues/challenges have hindered achieving SURGE activities' intended benefits or outcomes in CDI cities? How did the SURGE project and its implementing partners address these issues/challenges? ((Q2.1.1.1, Q2.1.1.2 Q2.2.1.1, Q2.2.1.2, Q2.3.1.1, Q2.3.1.2) 6. How relevant or responsive were the SURGE activities/interventions addressing the national development priorities outlined in the PDP, 2017-2022, National Spatial Strategy (relevant to NEDA/HLURB), regional development plans (relevant to NEDA)? How can SURGE activities/interventions be improved to enhance its responsiveness to national/regional development priorities? (Q1.3.1, Q1.3.1.1) 7. How relevant or responsive was the SURGE in promoting international development commitments? To what extent has SURGE contributed to SDGs, Paris Agreement, etc.? (Q1.1.1, Q1.1.2.1) 8. Are you aware of the sustainability mechanisms or exit strategies that were put in place by the SURGE project to ensure that the SURGE initiatives and gains in CDI cities will continue after project completion in December 2021? Was your agency involved in formulating these mechanisms or strategies? (Q3.2, Q3.2.1) Q3.1.2) 9. How do you assess the CDI cities' current technical, institutional, and financial capacity to sustain or ensure the continuity of SURGE initiatives/activities? (Q3.1.1) 10. Was your agency involved in formulating policies to ensure continuity of SURGE activities/initiatives in CDI cities? Do you think these policies are adequate for CDI cities to take ownership and continue/expand the SURGE initiatives? (Q3.1.2, Q3.1.1.1) 11. What key lessons have you learned from implementing SURGE in CDI cities? Which of the SURGE interventions, practices, and approaches worked well and should be continued or expanded by similar projects in the future? What were the facilitating factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 12. Which interventions, practices, or approaches did not work? What were the hindering factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 13. If SURGE could be re-designed or implemented differently, what changes or modifications would you propose to improve the effectiveness of the SURGE interventions in CDI cities? 52 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV CLOSING We wish to thank you for your active participation in this KII. We appreciate the time you have taken to be with us today to contribute to an honest evaluation of the interventions concerning the SURGE activity. We have learned a lot from our session. We wish to remind you that our session today will be held in the strictest confidence. We will contact you in the future should we use any of the statements you made in our report. Continue to keep safe. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. We will now end the recording. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 53 ANNEX B.6 - KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR BUSINESS GROUP EXECUTIVES General Instructions: This instrument will be used for Key Informant Interviews with business group/local chamber executives. The evaluation team will conduct the KII via ZOOM. Before starting the KII, facilitators are requested to send a copy of the INFORMED CONSENT FORM (Refer to Annex C) to the participants and verbally seek the respondents' consent. Upon confirmation of intent to participate, ask the participants to attach their electronic signature and send back the completed form. Do not start without the completed form. Except when internet connectivity is a problem, please request participants to turn on their cameras for recording purposes. At the minimum, the cameras should be turned on: at the beginning, end, and when the participants speak. Turning cameras on will verify the speaker. As a reminder, participants should mute themselves while someone is talking. OPENING Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for joining us today. Your participation is essential to determine the extent of achievement on the outputs and outcomes of SURGE. I am Dr. Nic Agustin. We are external evaluators supporting the Panagora Group in the conduct of the evaluation on SURGE. Dr. Ginny Santiago, Mr. Nick Baoy, and Mr. Senen Dizon will be joining us. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. May I clarify at this point if you have submitted a signed Informed Consent Form and retained a signed copy? If not, may I request you to exit the session and e-mail us your signed consent form? You may re￾enter once we receive the form. I wish to reiterate that your participation in this KII is voluntary, and you may opt out. You do not have to answer all the questions if you do not wish to. Should you opt-out, we will strike from our records all statements made by you. For those who will continue with us, we wish to assure you that our conversation will remain confidential and will be discussed only within the research team led by Ramon Noriel Sicad of the CLAimDev team. Should we use any of the statements you made in our report, we will seek prior approval to do so. You may then inform us whether you would like the information stricken or included in the report and whether or not you would like the information to be attributed to you. Our KII for today should last no more than 90 minutes. Should our conversations be animated, we will interject with time checks. 54 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV We ask that you keep your cameras on for documentation purposes. Should you experience connectivity problems, we request that the cameras be turned on at the beginning and end of the session, at least when you speak. Do you have any questions? Now that we have addressed all questions, we will now start our session. Basic Information Name of Interviewee: Current organization: Position/Designation: Role/participation in the SURGE activity: KII QUESTIONS: Awareness and perceptions about SURGE (40 minutes) 1. Are you familiar with the SURGE activity of the USAID? How did you come to know about it? Are you familiar with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)? How did you come to know of it? 2. Do you think that the SURGE was able to improve conditions in your city? Can you elaborate? 3. Let us move to the theme of resiliency. What are your perceptions about how SURGE has helped improve local capacity in inclusive and resilient urban management and processes? Were the interventions suited to your cities’ needs? Can you be more specific? 4. Let us move to the theme of economic development. What are our perceptions about how SURGE has helped the environment for local economic development? Were the interventions suited to your cities’ needs? Can you be more specific? 5. Let us move to the theme of urban-rural connectivity. What are your perceptions about how SURGE has helped connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? Were the interventions suited to your cities’ needs? Can you be more specific? 6. Let us move to the theme of inclusivity. What are your perceptions about how SURGE has been inclusive in its interventions? Were the interventions suited to your cities’ needs? Please use your definition of inclusivity. Involvement or lack of participation in the process (30 minutes) 7. Was the business group consulted in the selection and design of interventions in your city? 8. What role did the business group have in the selection, design, and implementation of the intervention? USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 55 9. How satisfied are you in the involvement of the business group in the selection, design, and implementation of the intervention? 10. Were there any hurdles the business group encountered during collaborative efforts with ICMA? Recommendations for improvement (20 minutes) 11. Were any of the interventions covered by other donors and therefore rendered the SURGE intervention superfluous? 12. Are there other interventions you would have wanted to see implemented in your city? 13. Do you think the city still needs assistance from donors to improve the cities competitiveness? What could you suggest as improvements to aid extended to your city? Sustainability 14. Do you think that the city will be able to continue the projects without SURGE/ICMA? 15. Are there any other items you wish to discuss? CLOSING We wish to thank you for your active participation in this KII. We appreciate the time you have taken to be with us today to contribute to an honest evaluation of the interventions concerning the SURGE activity. We have learned a lot from our session. We wish to remind you that our session today will be held in the strictest confidence. We will contact you in the future should we use any of the statements you made in our report. Continue to keep safe. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. We will now end the recording. 56 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX B.7 - KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR WASH SERVICE PROVIDERS EXECUTIVES General Instructions: This instrument will be used for Key Informant Interviews with WASH service providers executives. The evaluation team will conduct the KII via ZOOM. Before starting the KII, facilitators are requested to send a copy of the INFORMED CONSENT FORM (Refer to Annex C) to the participants and verbally seek the respondents' consent. Upon confirmation of intent to participate, ask the participants to attach their electronic signature and send back the completed form. Do not start without the completed form. Except when internet connectivity is a problem, please request participants to turn on their cameras for recording purposes. At the minimum, the cameras should be turned on: at the beginning, end, and when the participants speak. Turning cameras on will verify the speaker. As a reminder, participants should mute themselves while someone is talking. OPENING Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for joining us today. Your participation is essential to determine the extent of achievement on the outputs and outcomes of SURGE. I am Dr. Nic Agustin. We are external evaluators supporting the Panagora Group in the conduct of the evaluation on SURGE. Dr. Ginny Santiago, Mr. Nick Baoy, and Mr. Senen Dizon will be joining us. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. May I clarify at this point if you have submitted a signed Informed Consent Form and retained a signed copy? If not, may I request you to exit the session and e-mail us your signed consent form? You may re￾enter once we receive the form. I wish to reiterate that your participation in this KII is voluntary, and you may opt out. You do not have to answer all the questions if you do not wish to. Should you opt-out, we will strike from our records all statements made by you. For those who will continue with us, we wish to assure you that our conversation will remain confidential and will be discussed only within the research team led by Ramon Noriel Sicad of the CLAimDev team. Should we use any of the statements you made in our report, we will seek prior approval to do so. You may then inform us whether you would like the information stricken or included in the report and whether or not you would like the information to be attributed to you. Our KII for today should last no more than 90 minutes. Should our conversations be animated, we will interject with time checks. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 57 We ask that you keep your cameras on for documentation purposes. Should you experience connectivity problems, we request that the cameras be turned on at the beginning and end of the session, at least when you speak. Do you have any questions? Now that we have addressed all questions, we will now start our session. Basic Information Name of Interviewee: Current organization: Position/Designation: Role/participation in the SURGE project: General Questions: 1. Are you familiar with the SURGE activity of the USAID? How did you come to know about it? Are you familiar with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)? How did you come to know of it? 2. What Type of Water Supply System do you have in your service area? o Level II o Level III o Combination of Level II and Level III) 3. What is your role in the technical operation and management in your organization? o Engineering planning and construction, o System operation and maintenance, o Others 4. How do you assess the status of the level of services of your organization as water service and sanitation services to date? o Number of household service connections, o Water production, o Percent service coverage, o Percent NRW level, o Water supply situation (24/7), o Water quality, o Others 5. Has your office been frequently receiving customer’s complaints? o Supply interruption, o Poor water quality, o Service connection and disconnections, 58 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV o Billing and collection, o Others 6. Has there been an incident in the past where your organization considered the possibility of entertaining private proponents to improve water supply and sanitation services through the Public￾Private Partnership program of the government? 7. Are you fully aware that through the assistance of the U.S. government, SURGE provides people with improved service quality from an existing basic or safely managed drinking service? Relevance Questions 8. To what extent has SURGE helped your organization mitigate the effect of climate change and seasonal disaster risks as far as the level of services your organization provides? (1.1.2.1) 9. To what extent has SURGE helped your organization identify additional water sources to address the present and future demand in your service area? (1.3.5) 10. To what extent is your organization aware of the water extraction regulatory requirements from concerned national government offices? (1.3.5) o Water Permit o Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) o Others 11. To what extent has SURGE helped your organization monitor water quality to ensure good quality of water following the prescribed frequency of water sampling collection for Laboratory analysis and what type of analysis usually brings conduct? (1.1.3) o Physico-Chemical, o Bacteriological, o Pesticide, o Others 12. To what extent has SURGE helped your organization in extending support in developing priority hard component projects? (1.3.1) o Water treatment facilities o Transmission and distribution pipelines o Storage facilities o Others 13. To what extent did SURGE help your organization extend technical support for capacity building to personnel who somehow lack know-how in their respective system operation and management areas? (1.3.4) 14. What activities/interventions do you know need further support from SURGE? (1.3.4) o Technical assistance on sound engineering design for Level III water supply system physical facilities development, o NRW reduction programs (methodologies, instrumentation, etc.) USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 59 o Data repository system, o Others 15. To what extent did the SURGE activity assist in developing Water Safety and Business Continuity Plans to address the challenges in delivering well-deserved water supply and sanitation services to all beneficiaries? (1.3.5.1) 16. To what extent has SURGE favorably considered any opportunities online for other urgent needs of your organization as a water supply and sanitation service provider? (1.3.5.2) 17. To what extent has SURGE influenced the organization's behavior (norms) and practices (rules and regulations), including how value chain actors and supporting functions operate in these basic social services? (1.3.5.2) Effectiveness Questions 18. Capitalizing internal resources, have there been positive or negative changes in the major areas of WASH operation and management practices reflecting the system’s target level of service indicators without SURGE intervention? If so, what contributes to the positive and/or negative changes? (2.4.1.1) 19. Did the provision of technical assistance from SURGE, like capacity building on water resources survey/studies, hydraulic design modeling of water distribution engineering, and others, introduce positive results that lead to achieving the required level of services? (2.4.1.2) 20. In applying for the said external technical assistance, were there internal or external factors that hindered or facilitated the possible results of the implementation of the assistance, and how did your organization address hindering factors? (2.4.1.2) / (2.4.1.3) Sustainability Questions: 21. In terms of service sustainability, how would your organization maintain the positive changes brought about by the SURGE with available limited internal resources, hindering the effect of climate change/disaster risks that may embrace future system operations and management? (3.1) 22. Knowing the government’s usual tedious process of limited resources allocation, is there a possibility for your office to entertain private proponents for the take-over of the entire system operation and management following the government's PPP program? (3.1.1.1) 23. With the inevitable change in political leadership in your area or sets of officers in your organization, are you highly confident that you will be able to sustain the positive changes in water supply and sanitation services for the years to come? What are the strategies developed by your organization to protect the SURGE’s outcome? (3.1.1.1). 24. What key lessons have you learned from implementing SURGE in your service area? 60 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV CLOSING We wish to thank you for your active participation in this KII. We appreciate the time you have taken to be with us today to contribute to an honest evaluation of the interventions concerning the SURGE activity. We have learned a lot from our session. We wish to remind you that our session today will be held in the strictest confidence. We will contact you in the future should we use any of the statements you made in our report. Continue to keep safe. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. We will now end the recording. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 61 ANNEX B.8 - FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR CITY PROGRAM COORDINATORS OF ICMA General Instructions: This instrument will be used for focus group discussion with City Program Coordinators (CPCs) of ICMA. The evaluation team will conduct the FGD via ZOOM. There are four areas of questions in this instrument. These are:  The CPCs role in the intervention process  CPCs perceptions about interventions conducted and their effect on beneficiaries  The challenges CPCs encountered and how these can be improved  Sustainability of projects Before starting the FGD, the facilitators will seek respondents' consent by sending a copy of the INFORMED CONSENT FORM to the participants. Upon confirmation of their intent to participate, the participants should send back the completed form with their electronic signature. The FGD will not start without the completed form. Except when internet connectivity is a problem, please request participants to turn on their cameras for recording purposes. At the minimum, the cameras should be turned on: at the beginning, end, and when the participants speak. Turning cameras on will verify the speaker. As a reminder, participants should mute themselves while someone is talking. OPENING Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for joining us today. Your participation is essential to determine the extent of achievement on the outputs and outcomes of SURGE. I am Dr. Nic Agustin. We are external evaluators supporting the Panagora Group in the conduct of the evaluation on SURGE. Dr. Ginny Santiago, Mr. Nick Baoy, and Mr. Senen Dizon will be joining us. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. May I clarify at this point if you have submitted a signed Informed Consent Form and retained a signed copy? If not, may I request you to exit the session and e-mail us your signed consent form? You may re￾enter once we receive the form. Has anyone of you participated in an FGD before? (If yes, proceed to the next paragraph. If no, continue as follows). Let me tell you what happens in an FGD. We will ask a general question, and anyone can take the lead to answer the question. Then, the next participant either agrees or disagrees with the statement, explaining the reasons for it. The conversations continue until the facilitator asks another question). 62 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV I wish to reiterate that your participation in this FGD is voluntary, and you may opt out. You do not have to answer all the questions if you do not wish to. Should you opt-out, we will strike from our records all statements made by you. For those who will continue with us, we wish to assure you that our conversation will remain confidential and will be discussed only within the research team led by Ramon Noriel Sicad of the CLAimDev team. Should we use any of the statements you made in our report, we will seek prior approval to do so. You may then inform us whether you would like the information stricken or included in the report and whether or not you would like the information to be attributed to you. Our FGD for today should last no more than two (2) hours. Should our conversations be animated, we will interject with time checks. So that we remain organized, may we request you to raise your hand and wait to be acknowledged if you would like to speak? For others, you may want to use the chat box to share your views. We ask that you keep your cameras on for documentation purposes. Should you experience connectivity problems, we request that the cameras be turned on at the beginning and end of the session, at least when you speak. Do you have any questions? Now that we have addressed all questions, we will now start our session. We ask that you kindly mute your audio and open only when you are acknowledged to speak. In our chat box, kindly indicate “okay” so that we can proceed. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. For the record, may we have one round of introductions? Please tell us your name, your city of assignment, and the inclusive dates you were a CPC in that city? FGD QUESTIONS The CPCs role in the intervention process (30 minutes) 1. What was your role in the SURGE activity? 2. How aware are you of the goals of the SURGE activity? Where did you gain your knowledge? 3. How involved were you in the planning of the SURGE interventions? 4. How were you prepared for your role? Were there skill sets that helped you with your task? 5. What is the typical process you undertake with each intervention? 6. Were you able to introduce any innovations in accomplishing your task? CPCs perceptions about interventions conducted, the process, and its effect on beneficiaries (40 minutes) USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 63 7. In your perception, were the interventions relevant to the beneficiaries? 8. In your opinion, did the beneficiaries gain from the interventions? 9. Were the interventions implemented correctly? Could it have been done better? 10. Were the intended beneficiaries reached? The challenges CPCs encountered and how to get better (20 minutes) 11. What challenges did you experience in doing your task? 12. Are there aspects of the intervention that you could have done differently? 13. Are there other kinds of support you would have needed to make you more effective? 14. How could SURGE be more effective in the city you served? Sustainability 15. Do you think the city will continue the projects without SURGE/ICMA/CPC? CLOSING We wish to thank you for your active participation in this FGD. We appreciate the time you have taken to be with us today to contribute to an honest evaluation of the interventions through SURGE. We have learned a lot from our session. We hope that you have found this session as helpful and educational as we have. We wish to remind you that our session today will be held in the strictest confidence. We will contact you in the future should we use any of the statements you made in our report. If you have additional information that you want to share with us but were unable to do so, please feel free to contact us to schedule an interview at a later date. Continue to keep safe. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. We will now end the recording. 64 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX B.9 - FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR CITY TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP MEMBERS General Instructions: This instrument will be used for focus group discussion with the City Technical Working Group (CTWG). The evaluation team will conduct the KII via ZOOM. Before starting the FGD, facilitators are requested to send a copy of the INFORMED CONSENT FORM (Refer to Annex C) to the participants and verbally seek the respondents' consent. Upon confirmation of intent to participate, ask the participants to attach their electronic signature and send back the completed form. Do not start without the completed form. Except when internet connectivity is a problem, please request participants to turn on their cameras for recording purposes. At the minimum, the cameras should be turned on: at the beginning, end, and when the participants speak. Turning cameras on will verify the speaker. As a reminder, participants should mute themselves while someone is talking. OPENING Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for joining us today. Your participation is essential to determine the extent of achievement on the outputs and outcomes of SURGE. I am Dr. Nic Agustin. We are external evaluators supporting the Panagora Group in the conduct of the evaluation on SURGE. Dr. Ginny Santiago, Mr. Nick Baoy, and Mr. Senen Dizon will be joining us. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. May I clarify at this point if you have submitted a signed Informed Consent Form and retained a signed copy? If not, may I request you to exit the session and e-mail us your signed consent form? You may re￾enter once we receive the form. Has anyone of you participated in an FGD before? (If yes, proceed to the next paragraph. If no, continue as follows). Let me tell you what happens in an FGD. We will ask a general question, and anyone can take the lead to answer the question. Then, the next participant either agrees or disagrees with the statement, explaining the reasons for it. The conversations continue until the facilitator asks another question). I wish to reiterate that your participation in this FGD is voluntary, and you may opt out. You do not have to answer all the questions if you do not wish to. Should you opt-out, we will strike from our records all statements made by you. For those who will continue with us, we wish to assure you that our conversation will remain confidential and will be discussed only within the research team led by Ramon Noriel Sicad of the CLAimDev team. Should we use any of the statements you made in our report, we will seek prior approval to do so. You may then inform us whether you would like the information stricken or included in the report and whether or not you would like the information to be attributed to you. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 65 Our FGD for today should last no more than two (2) hours. Should our conversations be animated, we will interject with time checks. So that we remain organized, may we request you to raise your hand and wait to be acknowledged if you would like to speak? For others, you may want to use the chat box to share your views. We ask that you keep your cameras on for documentation purposes. Should you experience connectivity problems, we request that the cameras be turned on at the beginning and end of the session, at least when you speak. Do you have any questions? Now that we have addressed all questions, we will now start our session. We ask that you kindly mute your audio and open only when you are acknowledged to speak. In our chat box, kindly indicate “okay” so that we can proceed. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. For the record, may we have one round of introductions? Please tell us your name, your city of assignment, and the inclusive dates you were a CPC in that city? FGD QUESTIONS 1. How responsive were the activities conducted to the SURGE development hypothesis, i.e., resilient second-tier cities can serve as engines of growth and help equalize income distribution across the country? (1.2.1) 2. How relevant were the SURGE activities in addressing the needs of key stakeholders and target beneficiaries? Who are these beneficiaries and how were they able to benefit from the project? (1.3.4) 3. Were there opportunities for SURGE to increase its contribution towards addressing the needs of its stakeholders and beneficiaries? Kindly cite examples. (1.3.4.1) 4. To what extent did SURGE improve local capacity in inclusive and resilient urban development (Component 1)? (2.1) What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 1 targets? (2.1.1.1) How were the hindering factors addressed? (2.1.1.2) 5. To what extent did SURGE contribute to the improvement of the environment for local economic development (Component 2)? (2.2) What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 2 targets? (2.2.1.1) How were the hindering factors addressed? (2.2.1.2) 6. To what extent did SURGE improve connectivity and access between urban and rural areas (Component 3)? (2.3) What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 3 targets? (2.3.1.1) How were the hindering factors addressed? (2.3.1.2) 7. Which governmental operations were improved and how? (2.4.2) 8. To what extent have governmental operations improved responsiveness to attract private investment and support micro/small/medium enterprises (MSMEs)? (2.4.2.1) 66 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 9. What were the contributions of SURGE towards improving environmental resilience (disaster risk, and water supply and security)? (2.4.4) 10. Has SURGE provided equal access to opportunities for economic empowerment to both men and women in the urban and rural areas? (2.5.1) 11. Which of the three objectives contributed the most to achieving inclusive growth through strengthened urban resiliency with equity? Kindly explain and cite an example. (2.7.2) What were the facilitating factors? (2.7.2.1) 12. Which SURGE interventions and approaches worked well (or did not work)? (2.9.1) Which among the interventions contributed most/least to the achievement of SURGE intended outcomes? (2.9.1.1) What were the facilitating and hindering factors? (2.9.1.2) 13. What practices were successful, e.g., brought about positive changes? (Note: define practices/ successful) (2.9.2) What were the facilitating and hindering factors? (2.9.1.2) 14. What are the prospects that the outcomes and intermediate results generated by the project will continue after project completion without further assistance from SURGE? (3.1) 15. Are technical, institutional, and financial capacities adequate to ensure continuity to project activities? (3.1.1) 16. What is the likelihood that LGUs will take ownership of the interventions initiated by SURGE? Kindly explain. (3.1.1.1) 17. Are local policies in place to ensure continuity of SURGE activities? What are these policies? (3.1.2) 18. Are there opportunities for replicating successful SURGE interventions in the future? What are these opportunities? (3.4) CLOSING We wish to thank you for your active participation in this FGD. We appreciate the time you have taken to be with us today to contribute to an honest evaluation of the interventions concerning the SURGE activity. We have learned a lot from our session. We hope that you have found this session as helpful and educational as we have. We wish to remind you that our session today will be held in the strictest confidence. We will contact you in the future should we use any of the statements you made in our report. If you have additional information that you want to share with us but were unable to do so, please feel free to contact us to schedule an interview at a later date. Continue to keep safe. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. We will now end the recording. ANNEX B.10 - FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR THE ACADEME USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 67 General Instructions: This instrument will be used for focus group discussion with the academe. The evaluation team will conduct the FGD via ZOOM. Before starting the FGD, facilitators are requested to send a copy of the INFORMED CONSENT FORM (Refer to Annex C) to the participants and verbally seek the respondents' consent. Upon confirmation of intent to participate, ask the participants to attach their electronic signature and send back the completed form. Do not start without the completed form. Except when internet connectivity is a problem, please request participants to turn on their cameras for recording purposes. At the minimum, the cameras should be turned on: at the beginning, end, and when the participants speak. Turning cameras on will verify the speaker. As a reminder, participants should mute themselves while someone is talking. OPENING Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for joining us today. Your active participation is important to determine how effective the interventions introduced by ICMA have helped achieve the goals of SURGE. I am Dr. Nic Agustin. We are external evaluators supporting the Panagora Group in the conduct of the evaluation on SURGE. Dr. Ginny Santiago, Mr. Nick Baoy, and Mr. Senen Dizon will be joining us. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. May I clarify at this point that everyone has submitted a signed Informed Consent Form and retained a signed copy? If not, may I request you to exit the session and e-mail us your signed consent form? You may re-enter once we receive the form. Has anyone of you participated in an FGD before? (If yes, proceed to the next paragraph. If no, continue as follows). Let me tell you what happens in an FGD. We will ask a general question, and anyone can take the lead to answer the question. Then, the next participant either agrees or disagrees with the statement, explaining the reasons for it. The conversations continue until we ask another question. I wish to reiterate that your participation in this FGD is voluntary, and you may opt out. You do not have to answer all the questions if you do not wish to. Should you opt-out, we will strike from our records all statements made by you. For those who will continue with us, we wish to assure you that our conversation will remain confidential and will be discussed only within the research team led by Ramon Noriel Sicad of the CLAimDev team. Should we use any of the statements you made in our report, we will seek prior approval to do so. You may then inform us whether you would like the information stricken or included in the report and whether or not you would like the statement to be attributed to you. Our FGD for today should last no more than two (2) hours. Should our conversations be animated, we will interject with time checks. So that we remain organized, may we request you to raise your hand and 68 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV wait to be acknowledged if you would like to speak? For others, you may want to use the chat box to share your views. We ask that you keep your cameras on for documentation purposes. Should you experience connectivity problems, we request that the cameras be turned on at the beginning and end of the session, at least when you speak. Do you have any questions? Now that we have addressed all questions, we will now start our session. We ask that you kindly mute your audio and open only when you are acknowledged to speak. In our chat box, kindly indicate “okay” so that we can proceed. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. For the record, may we have one round of introductions? Please tell us your name, affiliation, and involvement/participation with the SURGE project. FGD QUESTIONS 1. Are you familiar with the SURGE activity of the USAID? How did you come to know about it? Are you familiar with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)? How did you come to know of it? 2. What was the role of the academe in ensuring that the SURGE activities are relevant in addressing the development priorities outlined in city/local development plans? (1.3.3) 3. What specific interventions have the Academe introduced that contributed to the success of the SURGE? How were these conceptualized? In what component of the SURGE are these applicable? 4. What are the prospects that the outcomes and intermediate results generated by the project in your institution will continue after project completion without further assistance from SURGE? (3.1) 5. Are technical, institutional, and financial capacities adequate to ensure continuity to project activities? (3.1.1) What is the likelihood that your institutions will take ownership of the interventions initiated by SURGE? (3.1.1.1) 6. With what SURGE introduced in your institution, are there opportunities for replicating such in the future? What are these opportunities, and why do you consider them as such? (3.4) 7. Are there plans by your institutions to replicate or expand any of the SURGE interventions in the future? (3.4.1) CLOSING We wish to thank you for your active participation in this FGD. We appreciate the time you have taken to be with us today to contribute to an honest evaluation of the interventions concerning the SURGE activity. We have learned a lot from our session. We wish to remind you that our session today will be held in the strictest confidence. We will contact you in the future should we use any of the statements you made in our report. Continue to keep safe. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. We will now end the recording. ANNEX B.11 - SURGE STAKEHOLDERS SURVEY USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 69 Preliminaries: The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) commissioned the Panagora Group to undertake a performance evaluation on the Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth with Equity (SURGE) Project. The performance evaluation aims to assess what the SURGE project has achieved, how it was implemented. Information gathered will be used to document lessons learned for future projects that USAID may provide. You are part of this survey because you were identified as a participant in at least one SURGE activity. Please know that your participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you choose to participate in the survey, you can withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. Participating in this study does not mean that you are giving up any of your legal rights. All the information generated through this instrument will be treated with a high degree of confidentiality. Research records will be kept in a locked file, and all electronic information will be coded and secured using a password-protected file. Any report of this research made available to the public will not include your name or any other individual information by which you could be identified. Demographics 1. City ____________________________ 2. Organization ____________________________ 3. Years in Organization ____________________________ 4. Position ____________________________ 5. Years in Position ____________________________ 6. Unit/Department ____________________________ Survey Proper 1. Try to recall the various SURGE activities that you participated in. Please enumerate these on the space provided. If you cannot be specific, general terms are acceptable. Then, please rate the relevance and effectiveness of the activity on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 as the highest. Name of Activity How relevant was the activity to your job? 1 to 5, 5 highest How effective was the activity in enhancing your knowledge and skills? 1 to 5, 5 highest 2. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 as the highest, how confident are you in fulfilling your tasks after receiving some assistance from SURGE? _______ 3. Did you receive any other training, workshop, or intervention similar to those you listed that other organizations provided in the last five years? 70 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV If yes, how would you compare those activities with those led by SURGE? Please select one. ___ SURGE contributed more to my knowledge and skills ___ SURGE and other entities contributed equally to my knowledge and skills ___ Other entities activities contributed more to my knowledge and skills If no, proceed to the next question. 4. Are there any other activities you would like to participate in that will make you more effective in your job that SURGE or other organizations have not yet offered? If yes, what activities would these be? Please list as many as you would like. ________________________________________________________________________ _______ If no, proceed to the next question. 5. Think about SURGE activities in general and your city in particular. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 5 as the highest, please indicate to what extent your city benefited from the SURGE intervention? ________________________________________________________________________ _______ 6. The SURGE assistance to its partner cities will end in December 2021. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 5 as the highest, how would you assess the prospects for continuity of the SURGE activities in your city beyond 2021? ________________________________________________________________ 7. What other areas does your city need assistance from an external party? __________________ 8. Do you have comments or suggestions that you would like to share? If so, please list them down. ________________________________________________________________________ _______ USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 71 ANNEX B.12 - WASH DATA CAPTURE FORMS WATER SUPPLY OPERATION DATA CAPTURE FORM * A. NUMBER OF SERVICE CONNECTION PER BARANGAY (YEAR 2017 - 2021) DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION 1. Brgy. 2. Brgy. 7. Brgy. DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION 1. Brgy. 2. Brgy. 3. Brgy. JUNE BARANGAYS JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER BARANGAYS JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY NAME OF RURAL WATER AND SANITATION ASSICIATON (RWSA) B. BILLED VOLUME (2017 - 2021) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) 1. DOMESTIC 2. COMMERCIAL 3. INSTITUTIONAL 4. OTHER TOTAL C. WATER PRODUCTION (2017 - 2021) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) SURFACES 1 2 3 GROUND/ SPRING 1 2 3 TOTAL NOTE * - Rural Waterworks Associations (RWSA) CATEGORIES WATER SOURCES & LICATION WATER SUPPLY OPERATION DATA CAPTURE FORM * A. NUMBER OF SERVICE CONNECTION PER BARANGAY (YEAR 2017 - 2021) DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION 1. Brgy. 2. Brgy. 3. Brgy. 4. Brgy. 5. Brgy. 6. Brgy. 7. Brgy. DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION 1. Brgy. 2. Brgy. 3. Brgy. 4. Brgy. 5. Brgy. 6. Brgy. 7. Brgy. NAME OF WATER DISTRICTS MAY JUNE BARANGAYS JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER BARANGAYS JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL B. BILLED VOLUME (2017 - 2021) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) 1. DOMESTIC 2. COMMERCIAL 3. INSTITUTIONAL 4. OTHER TOTAL C. WATER PRODUCTION (2017 = 2021) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) SURFACES 1 2 3 GROUND/ SPRING 1 2 3 TOTAL NOTE * - Water Districts CATEGORIES WATER SOURCES & LICATION 72 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 2017 2018 2019 2020 Sewerage Facilities 1 Sewerage Facilities 2 Sewerage Facilities 3 Septage Facilities 1 Septage Facilities 2 Septage Facilities 3 a Number of Trucks NOTE : * - LGU or WATER DISTRICT NAME OF LGUs / WATER DISTRICTS CAPACITY (cm/s) CAPACITY (cm/s) TOTAL CAPACITY (cm/s) NO. FACILITIEE 2 TOTAL 1 CAPACITY (cm/s) SANITATION FACILITIES (2017 - 2020) USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 73 ANNEX C - INFORMED CONSENT FORMS INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR KIIs PANAGORA GROUP 11th Floor Ramon Magsaysay Center Roxas Boulevard, Manila RESEARCH PROJECT: SURGE Evaluation in support of the USAID CLAimDev activity in the Philippines RESEARCHERS: Dr. Nicasio Angelo Agustin najagustin@gmail.com Dr. Andrea Santiago drginnysantiago@gmail.com Senen Dizon senen.dizon@yahoo.com Nick Baoy nick.baoy@gmail.com Rupert Deluna rupertdeluna@gmail.com A. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The PANAGORA GROUP is evaluating the SURGE activity under the USAID CLAimDEV project in the Philippines. In this regard, under the supervision of Ramon Noriel Sicad, we would need to help determine the effectiveness of the interventions undertaken by ICMA to achieve SURGE goals. We selected you as a possible participant in this study because of your personal experience in the SURGE activity. B. PROCEDURES If you agree to participate in this evaluation study,  We will ask you to share information in your official capacity as a representative of your organization, including the number of years you have assumed your role in the organization.  The KII will run no more than 90 minutes.  We will facilitate the KII as a team.  We will record the KII in audio and written form. C. RISKS Due to the delicate issues surrounding the evaluation of effectiveness, you may feel uncomfortable or embarrassed. Should, at any time, you feel a need to withdraw from the conversation, please let us know so that you can be excused. We do not require you to explain your withdrawal. If, at any time, you want to correct any statement that you had shared, please let us know as well so that we will strike out the statement. 74 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV D. CONFIDENTIALITY We will keep the records from this evaluation confidential. The access to the audio and written files will be password secured. Only the evaluation team can access the files. The files will be retained only for five years. Note that we may use some of your statements in our report. If we should do so, we will not provide individual identities. You will be allowed to review verbatim statements and can withdraw the comment if you so wish. E. BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION There will be no direct benefit to you from participating in this evaluation study. However, through your participation in this study, you will be contributing to future activities supporting second-tier city development that will help uplift the economic conditions in the cities, in particular, and the country, in general. F. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION Your decision to participate in this study is voluntary and will not affect your relationship with Panagora Group. If you choose to participate in this study, you can withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time without prejudice. G. QUESTIONS If you have any questions about the study, please contact Ramon Noriel Sicad at norielsicad@panagoraphilippines.net. CONSENT YOU ARE MAKING A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN AN EVALUATION STUDY. YOUR SIGNATURE BELOW INDICATES AFTER READING ALL THE INFORMATION ABOVE, YOU HAVE FREELY DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE AND THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE INFORMATION IN THIS FORM AND ANSWER QUESTIONS. WE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH A COPY OF THIS FORM. Signature ________________________________ Date _______________ USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 75 INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR FGDs PANAGORA GROUP 11th Floor Ramon Magsaysay Center Roxas Boulevard, Manila RESEARCH PROJECT: SURGE Evaluation in support of the USAID CLAimDev activity in the Philippines RESEARCHERS: Dr. Nicasio Angelo Agustin najagustin@gmail.com Dr. Andrea Santiago drginnysantiago@gmail.com Senen Dizon senen.dizon@yahoo.com Nick Baoy nick.baoy@gmail.com Rupert Deluna rupertdeluna@gmail.com A. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The PANAGORA GROUP is evaluating the SURGE activity under the USAID CLAimDEV project in the Philippines. In this regard, under the supervision of Ramon Noriel Sicad, we would need to help determine the effectiveness of the interventions undertaken by ICMA to achieve SURGE goals. We selected you as a possible participant in this study because of your personal experience in the SURGE activity. B. PROCEDURES If you agree to participate in this evaluation study,  We will ask you to share information in your official capacity as a representative of your organization, including the number of years you have assumed your role in the organization.  The FGD will run no more than two (2) hours.  We will facilitate the FGD as a team.  We will record the FGD in audio and written form. C. RISKS Due to the delicate issues surrounding the evaluation of effectiveness, you may feel uncomfortable or embarrassed. Should, at any time, you feel a need to withdraw from the conversation, please let us know so that you can be excused. We do not require you to explain your withdrawal. If, at any time, you want to correct any statement that you had shared, please let us know as well so that we will strike out the statement. 76 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV D. CONFIDENTIALITY We will keep the records from this evaluation confidential. The access to the audio and written files will be password secured. Only the evaluation team can access the files. The files will be retained only for five years. Note that we may use some of your statements in our report. If we should do so, we will not provide individual identities. You will be allowed to review verbatim statements and can withdraw the comment if you so wish. E. BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION There will be no direct benefit to you from participating in this evaluation study. However, through your participation in this study, you will be contributing to future activities supporting second-tier city development that will help uplift the economic conditions in the cities, in particular, and the country, in general. F. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION Your decision to participate in this study is voluntary and will not affect your relationship with Panagora Group. If you choose to participate in this study, you can withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time without prejudice. G. QUESTIONS If you have any questions about the study, please contact Ramon Noriel Sicad at norielsicad@panagoraphilippines.net. CONSENT YOU ARE MAKING A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN AN EVALUATION STUDY. YOUR SIGNATURE BELOW INDICATES AFTER READING ALL THE INFORMATION ABOVE, YOU HAVE FREELY DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE AND THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE INFORMATION IN THIS FORM AND ANSWER QUESTIONS. WE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH A COPY OF THIS FORM. Signature ________________________________ Date _______________ USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 77 ANNEX D - CASE STUDY OUTLINE I. DESCRIPTION II. ACTION TAKEN (THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK) III. LESSON LEARNED IV. CASE IMPORTANCE 1. Problem Description 2. Action Taken 3. Results a. Situation analysis b. Alternatives Evaluation c. Technical Design  Technical Parameters Considered in the Projects  Socioeconomic Evaluation  Diagnosis and Institutional Proposal  Documentation 4. Lessons Learned 5. Sharing the Benefits a. How and with whom do you plan to share the impact the project has had in the city? b. What recommendations do you have for other areas interested in replicating the project? c. Do you have documents that promote the project that you can share with others? d. Describe any sustainability plan of the city to allow continued implementation once the project has ended V. CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION 78 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX E - SECONDARY DATA COLLECTION: DOCUMENT LIST Request for Documents (INITIAL – July 28) Contact details of Implementing partners (institutions and individuals) and “beneficiaries” at the national, regional, local – from where we could draw “samples” for KII, FGD, and survey. General Documents:  ICMA Inception Report for SURGE  SURGE Original Project Document with Results Framework and Theory of Change; revised project documents (if any)  Request for SURGE final report, midterm, and baseline documents (all available progress reports)  Annual Plans (components, cities, and whole project)  Annual accomplishment reports (components, cities, and entire project) Specific Documents:  List of training, attendance (mentors and mentees), and content of the training conducted by the SURGE from year 1 to present.  Copy of manuals related to disaster risk and environment, local finance/ assessment, and other relevant LGU processes (BPLS, building and occupancy permitting and licensing processes), and others generated by the SURGE.  List of partnerships entered into between SURGE Cities and their concerned partners, and city ordinances issued by cities through SURGE interventions or initiatives  Assessment and Baseline studies on local capacities (e.g., urban planning, etc.)  Documentation reports on policy and regulatory reform processes conducted, if any (e.g., BPLS, building occupancy permits, etc.)  Sub-projects or activities supported out of “earmarked” funds  Sub-projects or activities supported by “un-programmed” investments/ interventions WASH Documents  Water Security for Resilient Economic Growth and Stability (BE-SECURE) Report  SURGE Work Plan implementation Report  Action Against Hunger (AAH) - Muti-cluster Initial Rapid Assessment (MIRA) Report  Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Strategic Response Plan  Marawi City Water District (MCWD) comprehensive master plan,  Marawi Restoration and Reconstruction Work Plan Accomplishment Report,  List of service providers SURGE dealt with for WASH in each CDI  Copy of seminars, training/ workshop designs, expected participants implemented in each CDI, and associated reports. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 1 ANNEX F - SURGE EVALUATION WORK PLAN ACTIVITIES/ MILESTONES ESTIMATED START ESTIMATE D FINISH 2021 2022 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1. Evaluation Team Planning Meeting 7-Jul-21 9-Jul-21 2. STTA Team Meeting 12-Jul-21 12-Jul-21 3. Document Review 12-Jul-21 23-Jul-21 4. STTA Team Meeting 19-Jul-21 19-Jul-21 5. Recruitment of field personnel (1 month) 19-Jul-21 19-Aug-21 6. In-brief meeting with USAID Technical Offices (OEDG and EO) 22-Jul-21 22-Jul-21 7. In-brief meeting with implementing partner (ICMA) and Major Stakeholders 23-Jul-21 23-Jul-21 8. Preparation/Writing of Inception Report, with development of evaluation plan and tools 19-Jul-21 30-Jul-21 9. Submission of Inception Report to PI (v1); review by PI 30-Jul-21 3-Aug-21 10. Revision of draft Inception Report based on the PI's comments 4-Aug-21 6-Aug-21 11. Submission of revised draft Inception Report to PI/ COP (v2); review by COP 9-Aug-21 11-Aug-21 2 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACTIVITIES/ MILESTONES ESTIMATED START ESTIMATE D FINISH 2021 2022 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 12. Revision of draft Inception Report based on COP comments (v3) 11-Aug-21 12-Aug-21 13. Submission of the revised draft Inception Report to AMT (v3); review by AMT 12-Aug-21 14-Aug-21 14. Revision of the revised draft Inception Report based on AMT's comments; submission to AMT (v4); AMT clearance 15-Aug-21 16-Aug-21 15. Submission of Inception Report to USAID 17-Aug-21 17-Aug-21 16. Submission of presentation materials for the in￾briefing Mission-wide 22-Aug-21 22-Aug-21 17. In-briefing with USAID – Mission￾wide 23-Aug-21 23-Aug-21 18. Revision of the Inception Report based on USAID's comments 24-Aug-21 25-Aug-21 19. Pilot test tools and instruments; engagement and training of field team on data collection and processing 26-Aug-21 31-Aug-21 20. Finalize tools and instruments 1-Sep-21 3-Sep-21 USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 3 ACTIVITIES/ MILESTONES ESTIMATED START ESTIMATE D FINISH 2021 2022 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 21. Sending out of letters to respondents 1-Sep-21 10-Sep-21 22. Data collection (KII, FGD, and simple survey for triangulation) and Document review and analysis 13-Sep-21 22-Oct-21 23. Data Processing and Analysis 18-Oct-21 29-Oct-21 24. USAID Out-brief (Mid-term briefing) 28-Oct-21 28-Oct-21 25. Learning Event #1: Findings, conclusions, and recommendations workshops with IPs (Virtual) 4-Nov-21 4-Nov-21 26. Learning Event #2: Findings, conclusions, and recommendations workshops with major stakeholders (Virtual) 5-Nov-21 5-Nov-21 27. Final report drafting (1st draft report) 3-Nov-21 22-Dec-21 28. Submission of draft Final Report to IP 12-Jan-22 12-Jan-22 29. Revision of draft Final Report based on PI's comments 14-Jan-22 14-Jan-22 30. Submission of draft Final Report to HO 17-Jan-22 17-Jan-22 4 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACTIVITIES/ MILESTONES ESTIMATED START ESTIMATE D FINISH 2021 2022 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 31. Revision of draft Final Report based on HO's comments 19-Jan-22 20-Jan-22 32. Submission of draft Final Report to ATM 21-Jan-22 21-Jan-22 33. Revision of the draft Final Report based on ATM's comments 24-Jan-22 24-Jan-22 34. Submission of the Final Report to USAID 25-Jan-22 25-Jan-22 35. Learning Event #3: Dissemination of findings and lessons learned 28-Jan-22 28-Jan-22 36. Final report revisions based on USAID comments (final report) 31-Jan-22 31-Jan-22 TOTAL USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 1 APPENDIX 2 – DATA GATHERING INSTRUMENTS 2 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV INFORMED CONSENT FORMS FOR KII AND FGD SESSIONS PANAGORA GROUP 11th Floor Ramon Magsaysay Center Roxas Boulevard, Manila RESEARCH PROJECT: SURGE Evaluation in support of the USAID CLAimDev project in the Philippines RESEARCHERS: Dr. Nicasio Angelo Agustin najagustin@gmail.com Dr. Andrea Santiago drginnysantiago@gmail.com Senen Dizon senen.dizon@yahoo.com Nick Baoy nick.baoy@gmail.com A. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The PANAGORA GROUP is conducting an evaluation of the SURGE activity under the USAID CLAimDEV project in the Philippines. In this regard, we, under the supervision of Ramon Noriel Sicad, would need to help to determine the effectiveness of the interventions undertaken by ICMA to achieve SURGE goals. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because of your personal experience in the SURGE activity. B. PROCEDURES If you agree to participate in this evaluation study, the following will occur:  You will be asked to share information in your official capacity as a representative of your organization. This includes the number of years you have assumed your role in the organization.  The KII/FGD shall run no more than 90 minutes  We will facilitate the KII as a team  The KII/FGD shall be recorded in audio and written form C. RISKS Due to the delicate issues surrounding the evaluation of effectiveness, you may feel uncomfortable or embarrassed. Should, at any time, you feel a need to withdraw from the conversation, please let us know so that you can be excused. You are not required to give an explanation for your withdrawal. If, at any time, you want to correct any statement that you had shared, please let us know as well so that the statement can be stricken. D. CONFIDENTIALITY The records from this evaluation will be kept as confidential as possible. The access to the audio and written files shall be password secured. It will be accessed only by the evaluation team. The files will be retained for a period of five years, after which it will be destroyed. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 3 Do note, that we may use some of your statements in our report. If we should do so, we will not provide individual identities. You will be allowed to review verbatim statements and can withdraw the comment if you so wish. E. BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION There will be no direct benefit to you from participating in this evaluation study. The anticipated benefit of your participation in this study is your contribution to future activities in support of second-tier city development that will help uplift the economic conditions in the cities, in particular, and the country, in general. F. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION Your decision whether or not to participate in this study is voluntary and will not affect your relationship with Panagora Group. If you choose to participate in this study, you can withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time without prejudice. G. QUESTIONS If you have any questions about the study, please contact Ramon Norial Sicad at norielsicad@panagoraphilippines.net. CONSENT YOU ARE MAKING A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN AN EVALUATION STUDY. YOUR SIGNATURE BELOW INDICATES THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY AFTER READING ALL OF THE INFORMATION ABOVE AND YOU UNDERSTAND THE INFORMATION IN THIS FORM, HAVE HAD ANY QUESTIONS ANSWERED, AND HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS FORM FOR YOU TO KEEP. Signature ________________________________ Date _______________ 4 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV SURGE STAKEHOLDERS SURVEY Preliminaries: The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) commissioned the Panagora Group to undertake a performance evaluation on the Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth with Equity (SURGE) Project. This is to assess what the SURGE project has achieved, how it was implemented. Information gathered will be used to document lessons learned for future projects that USAID may provide. You are part of this survey because you were listed as a participant in at least one of the SURGE. Please know that your participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you choose to be in the study, you can withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. Participating in this study does not mean that you are giving up any of your legal rights. All the information generated through this instrument will be treated with a high degree of confidentiality. Research records will be kept in a locked file, and all electronic information will be coded and secured using a password-protected file. Any report of this research that is made available to the public will not include your name or any other individual information by which you could be identified. Demographics 7. City ____________________________ 8. Organization ____________________________ 9. Years in Organization ____________________________ 10. Position ____________________________ 11. Years in Position ____________________________ 12. Unit/Department ____________________________ 13. Educational attainment in years: ____________________ 14. Age of respondents _______________________________ 15. Sex: Male and Female, Others 16. Category: LGU employee, MSMEs, Farmers Group, WASH, Others____. Survey Proper 9. Try to recall the various activities that you participated in that were organized by SURGE. Please enumerate these on the space provided. If you cannot be specific, general terms are acceptable. Then, please rate the relevance and effectiveness of the activity on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 as the highest. Name of Activity How relevant was the activity to your job? 1 to 5, 5 highest* How effective was the activity in enhancing your knowledge, competency, and skills? 1 to 5, 5 highest** * Relevance: 5- Extremely relevant, 4- Very relevant, 3- Somewhat relevant, 2- Not so relevant, 1- Not at all relevant. **Effectiveness:5- Extremely effective, 4- Very effective, 3- Somewhat effective, 2- Not so effective, 1- Not at all effective USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 5 10. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 as the highest, how confident are you in fulfilling your tasks after receiving some assistance from SURGE? _______ 11. Did you receive any other training, workshop, or intervention similar to those you listed that were provided by an entity other than SURGE in the last five years? If yes, how would you compare those activities with those led by SURGE? Please select one. ___ SURGE contributed more to my knowledge and skills ___ SURGE and other entities contributed equally to my knowledge and skills ___ Other entities activities contributed more to my knowledge and skills If no, proceed to the next question 12. Are there any other activities that you would like to participate in that will make you more effective in your job, that have not yet been offered by SURGE or other entities? If yes, what activities would these be? Please list as many as you would like. _____________________________________________________________________ ___ If no, proceed to the next question 13. Think about SURGE activities in general and your city in particular. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 5 as the highest, please indicate to what extent your city benefited from the SURGE intervention? _____________________________________________________________________ ____ 14. The SURGE assistance to its partner cities will end in December 2021. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 5 as the highest, how would you assess the prospects for continuity of the SURGE activities in your city beyond 2021? ________________________________________________________________ 15. What other areas does your city need assistance from an external party? __________________ 16. Do you have comments or suggestions, that you would like to share? If so, please list them down. __________________________________________________________________________ ___ 6 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW (KII) GUIDES KII GUIDE FOR ICMA TOP MANAGEMENT GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: This instrument will be used for key informant interviews with ICMA top management and component leads. The evaluation team will conduct the KII via Gmeet. Before starting the KII, facilitators are requested to send a copy of the INFORMED CONSENT FORM (Refer to Annex C) to the participants and verbally seek the respondents' consent. Upon confirmation of intent to participate, ask the participants to attach their electronic signature and send back the completed form. Do not start without the completed form. Except when internet connectivity is a problem, please request participants to turn on their cameras for recording purposes. At the minimum, the cameras should be turned on: at the beginning, end, and when the participants speak. Turning cameras on will verify the speaker. As a reminder, participants should mute themselves while someone is talking. OPENING SPIEL Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for joining us today. Your participation is essential to determine the extent of achievement on the outputs and outcomes of SURGE. I am_________________. We are external evaluators supporting the Panagora Group in the conduct of the evaluation on SURGE. _______________________will be joining us. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. May I clarify at this point if you have submitted a signed Informed Consent Form and retained a signed copy? If not, may I request you to exit the session and e-mail us your signed consent form? You may re-enter once we receive the form. I wish to reiterate that your participation in this KII is voluntary, and you may opt out. Should you opt-out, we will strike from our records all statements made by you. For those who will continue with us, we wish to assure you that our conversation will remain confidential and will be discussed only within the research team led by Ramon Noriel Sicad of the CLAimDev team. Should we use any of the statements you made in our report, we will seek prior approval to do so. You may then inform us whether you would like the information stricken or included in the report and whether or not you would like the information to be attributed to you. Our KII for today should last no more than 90 minutes. Should our conversations be animated, we will interject with time checks. We ask that you keep your cameras on for documentation purposes. Should you experience connectivity problems, we request that the cameras be turned on at the beginning and end of the session, at least when you speak. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 7 Do you have any questions? Now that we have addressed all questions, we will now start our session. KII QUESTIONS 19. What activities/ interventions conducted by SURGE contributed significantly to achieving higher￾level development goals (e.g., CDCS, CDI, PFG)? Please give at least five (5) and explain their relevance. (1.1) Were there opportunities to achieve this (1.1.4) 20. Based on your opinion, to what extent has SURGE contributed to achieving the development objectives of CDCS (previous and current), CDI, and PFG? Would you please give specific and concrete examples? (1.1.1) Were there opportunities for SURGE to achieve this? (1.1.4.1) 21. To what extent has SURGE contributed to the DO1 (broad-based and inclusive growth accelerated and sustained) and DO2 (environmental resilience improved)? (1.1.1.1) 22. What specific international development commitments of the Philippines has SURGE been able to support? Please provide examples and discuss their relevance. 1.1.2 (for example, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change). Were there opportunities to achieve this? (1.1.4.2) 23. How would you describe the appropriateness, significance, and relevance of the SURGE design concerning the policy of USAID on urban resiliency and WASH? (1.1.3) 24. What activities do you think are relevant in achieving the development hypothesis of SURGE? Please cite at least five (5) specific and concrete examples. (1.2) 25. What activities do you think are relevant to the SURGE development hypothesis, i.e., resilient second-tier cities can serve as engines of growth and help equalize income distribution across the country? Cite at least five (5) outcomes and intermediate results generated by the project will continue after project completion without further assistance from SURGE? (3.1) What are the mechanisms or aspects that are put in place to sustain such gains? (3.1.1) 26. What is the likelihood that LGUs will take ownership of the interventions initiated by SURGE? (3.1.1.1) 27. Are local policies in place to ensure continuity of SURGE activities? Please cite examples. (3.1.2) 28. Were sustainability mechanisms integrated into the design and implementation of SURGE? What were the intended or unintended results? (3.2) 29. What were the exit strategies developed and implemented/conducted by the IPs? (3.2.1) 30. Which sustainability mechanisms worked or did not work? What were the facilitating and hindering factors? (3.2.2) 31. What gaps need to be addressed within the Mission and externally by the host government to ensure sustainability? (3.2.3) 32. What is the likelihood that the activities and benefits derived from SURGE/W-GDP will continue after project completion? Would you please cite the reasons? (3.3) 8 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 33. What is the likelihood that providing equal access to opportunities for economic empowerment to both men and women in the urban and rural areas will continue in CDI cities? Why? What are the factors that you can consider for this? (3.3.1) 34. What is the likelihood that the SURGE assistance package will continue to produce champions and leaders among target women entrepreneurs after project completion? (Learning Plan, W￾GDP) (3.3.2) 35. Are there opportunities for replicating successful SURGE interventions in the future? What are these? Cite clear and concrete examples. (3.4) 36. Are there national or local government plans to replicate or expand any of the SURGE interventions in the future? What are these? (3.4.1) MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO COMPONENT LEADS: 4. To what extent did SURGE improve local capacity in inclusive and resilient urban development (Component 1)? Kindly explain and cite examples. (2.1) What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 1 targets? (2.1.1.1) How were the hindering factors addressed? (2.1.1.2) 5. To what extent did SURGE contribute to the improvement of the environment for local economic development (Component 2)? Kindly explain and cite examples. (2.2) What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 2 targets? (2.2.1.1) How were the hindering factors addressed? (2.2.1.2) 6. To what extent did SURGE improve connectivity and access between urban and rural areas (Component 3)? Would you please explain and cite specific examples? (2.3) What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of Component 3 targets? (2.3.1.1) How were the hindering factors addressed? (2.3.1.2) COVID RELATED QUESTIONS: 1. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt SURGE addressed? Elaborate. 2. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt you needed more assistance? Elaborate. 3. Were there any projects that were delayed due to COVID-19? Will the delay impact the effective implementation of the project? CLOSING SPIEL We wish to thank you for your active participation in this KII. We appreciate the time you have taken to be with us today to contribute to an honest evaluation of the interventions about the SURGE activity. We have learned a lot from our session. We wish to remind you that our session today will be held in the strictest confidence. We will contact you in the future should we use any of the statements you made in our report. Continue to keep safe. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. We will now end the recording. USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 9 10 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV KII GUIDE FOR ICMA COMPONENT 1 LEAD General Instructions, opening spiel, and closing spiel are similar to Annex 4. KII QUESTIONS A. BEFORE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION:  May we know the established criteria for proper selection/ identification of the WASH service providers to be assisted under the SURGE project. (i.e., Service Providers within the Eight (8) CDIs.)  SURGE project conducted review/ assessment of the service providers’ capacities. The Report covered only the three CDI cities, i.e., Batangas, Tagbilaran and Puerto Princesa. May we know if the same Reports are available for the other five CDIs. May we know the Type of Water Supply System being provided by each RWSA in each CDI.  As part of the capacity assessment of service providers, may we know if the SURGE project reviewed the service providers’ Level of Service (LOS) based on the established Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) supported by the available operation data/ information records? If so, can we have a copy of the results? (LOS should serve as a basis for the formulation of SURGE project Activity Work Plan and implementation strategy).  May we know the results of the assessment conducted on the extent of further improvements of the existing operating facilities as well as the development of additional physical facilities (Hard component) in addition to the capacity building intervention (Soft component) in order to achieve the service providers’ sustainable desired Level of Service coverage. (e.g., DMA formation is an instrument for NRW reduction, Georesistivity survey is for the new water sources, development of additional facilities is an instrument to expand service coverage.)  May we know if the formulated Project Activity Work Plans were applied to all selected service providers or the application depends on the service providers’ prevailing needs based on LOS. (It seems PPCWD is more or less already meeting desired the LOS).  May we know if there was a review of the service providers’ organizational structures assessing personnel qualifications and experiences (if situation permits) apart from determining if under or over manned. (over-manned results in inefficiency of the operations, Report revealed that certain RWSA is operating with an average of only four personnel.).  May we know if the formulation of the SURGE project Annual Work Plan included the idea of considering a centralized system of providing WASH services in every CDI as one of the essential programs, wherein seven of the subject eight CDIs have established Water Districts. (CDIs’ competitiveness as second-tier cities - I read that even Maynilad recommended for a centralized system) USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 11 B. AFTER PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION:  After the LWUA approval of the Water Safety Plan, Local Sustainable Sanitation Plan, and others, for the assisted WASH service providers, may we know if the assisted service providers have organized their in-house Teams (temporary or permanent) tasked to ensure continuous implementation of the plans. (RWSAs have limited technical personnel and the system is not so complicated)  With the recorded more or less 134 trainings, seminars, and workshops conducted for WASH, apart from the ground survey undertaken, may we know the established indicators of how such activities substantially contributed to the achievement of the desired Level of Service (LOS) per CDI’s service providers according to the parameters of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). (Service Coverage, NRW, Supply Quantity and Quality, etc.)  Parallel to conducting/ facilitating WASH capacity building interventions for improved system operation and management practices, may we know what activities are carried out by the SURGE project to measure the achievement of the desired LOS parameters. (Example: GIS validation, reduced NRW level, increased consumers’ billed volume, improved water quality at distribution system, etc.)  Geo-resistivity surveys were conducted in a number of CDIs WASH service providers, may we have a copy of the results of the survey indicating the potential yield per VES Point in all surveyed service providers’ areas. In addition, may we know if there had been surface water source assessment in areas with available potential surface water sources? (Supply and Demand analysis for each assisted service provider).  In the SURGE project Annual Accomplishment Reports, the number of persons gaining access to basic water supply and sanitation services were indicated, i.e., 364,000), may we know what sort of mechanism was used to measure such achievements. Note that the total population of all subject CDIs is at the tune of 3,470,750 (i.e., referring to Outcome Indicators 1.1.7 and 1.1.8).  May we know if the SURGE project facilitated a follow-through activity with all assisted service providers and/or LGU executives after the completion of each capacity building activity, especially on areas with quantifiable results. This is to ensure continuity of application of knowledge acquired during each session. (Example: WSP, BCP, LSSP, DMA formation for NRW reduction, frequency of waters sampling to ensure quality per PNSDW, etc.)  Knowing that WASH services in all selected CDIs have a decentralized system, may we know then if SURGE pushed to consider existing Water Districts, LGU-operated system in Tagbilaran, to represent as the “centralized system” despite Year 5 SURGE Work Plan Report explicitly stated the following? “Most RWSAs and LGU Run water utilities are under- funded and services are inefficient”. 12 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV If not, may we know the reason why?  In the case of Water Districts with concession-type Joint Venture Agreement with Private Proponent, like Metro Iloilo Water District (MIWD), may we know if the SURGE project has ever considered the possibility of strengthening the capacity of MIWD which became the Central Monitoring Units (CMU) tasked primarily to evaluate/ monitor the performance of the Joint Venture based on the agreed Target Service Obligations (TSO)? In actual PPP experiences on WASH, it was determined that most Water Districts and LGUs with concession-type Agreement with Private Proponent have limited capacity in doing their major role in the Joint Venture as CMUs.  May we know if there are issues and concerns encountered with regards to the WASH service providers’ compliance with the government’s laws and guidelines on WASH. (e.g., Water Permit, Result of geo-resistivity surveys for potential sources of raw water, water quality monitoring according to PNSDW, etc. On Sanitation Service: Knowing that Water Districts are mandated to provide sanitation services within their respective service areas, sanitation service is not included in their priority programs. However, LGUs are always the ones initiating the provision of such service in most cases through the Private Sector Participation (PSP) program of the Government. Reports indicate that the SURGE project assisted LGUs in the required preparation and selection of interested Private Proponents following pertinent guidelines. May we know the extent of SURGE assistance. (Was SURGE involved in the preparation of tender documents and evaluation?) RWSAs are operating only on small-scale systems, in most cases Level II water systems. May we know what assistance SURGE extended to RWSA on the provision of sanitation services. C. MARAWI CITY WASH  Reports revealed that MCWD was serving 41 out of 96 Barangays in the entire City which are divided into 15 Zones, may we have the list of the 41 served Barangays. The report indicates that the population service coverage, as of the year 2016, was at the tune of 14 % of the entire City while commercial and institutional establishments were not receiving the services of MCWD, Any reason why.  Action Against Hunger prepared the Multi-cluster Initial Rapid Assessment (MIRA) which defined the specific work plan for the restoration and rehabilitation of the WASH system in the city, may we then have a copy of the complete MIRA Report.  SURGE project endeavored to extend Technical Assistance for the Mini Master Plan of MSU for the seven (7) Barangays divided into four Zones, may we know if the SURGE project initiated the move to include the seven barangays to the service area of MCWD. If so, may we know the arrangements made between MSU and MCWD? (e.g., turn-over of existing MSU facilities, physical development of additional facilities by SURGE, distribution, billing, and collection).  In terms of DILG’s SalinTubig Program development assistance in seven (7) barangays, again not covered by MCWD service area, may we know the extent of SURGE contribution in the implementation of such assistance. Same as MSU areas, was there a discussion for the possible inclusion of the seven Barangays to the MCWD areas. (i.e., development of Level II system to be converted eventually into Level III system). USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 13  Task Force Bangon Marawi (TFBM) reported that included in the overall city’s restoration/reconstruction programs is the temporary and permanent resettlement housing being developed for the Internally Displace People (IDP) in five Barangays located in the eastern part of the city. May we know if there are SURGE contributions to the water supply services in the resettlement areas.  Records revealed that Marawi City Water District (MCWD) was the third ever established Water District in the Country under PD 198, may we know if the SURGE project considered the idea of initiating the development of the MCWD as the “Centralized WASH service provider” in the entire City. (i.e. take-over of MSU water supply system in 7 barangays, IDPs resettlement in eastern Barangays, etc.  As part of the capacity assessment, may we know if the SURGE project verified from National Water Resources Board (NWRB) if all the existing water sources of MCWD and MSU have been issued Water Permits? 14 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV KII GUIDE FOR ICMA COMPONENT 2 LEAD General Instructions, opening spiel, and closing spiel are similar to Annex 4. KII QUESTIONS EFFECTIVENESS The project started with 3 cities (Batangas, CDO, Iloilo), followed by 6 others, including Marawi. From the report, it would seem that some cities were more advanced than others, and some cities had prior or co-USAID projects. Would you say that this had an impact on the effectiveness of SURGE? If there were prior projects, what would be the contribution of SURGE? In terms of the CMCI indicator, is it correct to say that there were already some cities that belonged to the top 15%? What then would be the contribution of SURGE concerning this indicator? Based on the submitted reports, there was one city that did not meet the target on CMCI. May we know which city this is? What would account for this? I will not ask about the registered business indicator due to the pandemic, but for locally sourced revenues, was it a particular city that was not meeting its target? If so, may we know what would account for this? Concerning the number of parcels, SURGE exceeded its target. What would account for this? SURGE could pivot very quickly when the pandemic hit us. What would account for this? There were some sub-components that SURGE was able to accomplish faster than others. For instance, in streamlining BPLS, shifting to online payments, manualizing operations. What would account for this? Other areas took longer to accomplish. What were the challenges SURGE experienced? Is there anything in the program design that you think would have made the implementation better? Was the time allotted – 6 years – sufficient for SURGE to accomplish its goals? Had it not been for the pandemic, would not the project have attained its goals sooner? SUSTAINABILITY What exit strategies did SURGE adopt for component 2? Would the cities be able to sustain the momentum without SURGE? Would the LGUs be able to take ownership of the initiatives? RELEVANCE The objective of component 2 was to promote low-emission local economic development strategies. How were low-emission local economic development strategies operationalized? Of all the activities and interventions, which were the ones that only SURGE could have done? Do you think SURGE was effective in contributing to the US-PH Partnership for Growth as well as to the PDP? USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 15 As part of the project’s overall approach to economic inclusion, SURGE advocates for, and works to, ensure that economic growth is equitably distributed and enjoyed by all sectors regardless of gender, ethnicity, and religious beliefs. How did SURGE ensure equitable distribution regardless of gender, ethnicity and religious beliefs? Was there a consciousness or deliberate effort or was it consequential? COVID RELATED QUESTIONS: 1. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt SURGE addressed? Elaborate. 2. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt you needed more assistance? Elaborate. 3. Were there any projects that were delayed due to COVID-19? Will the delay impact the effective implementation of the project? 16 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV KII GUIDE FOR ICMA COMPONENT 3 LEAD General Instructions, opening spiel, and closing spiel are similar to Annex 4. 1. Component 3 seeks to expand economic connectivity and access between urban and rural areas through four sub-components. Could you please cite the key achievements of SURGE under each of the four sub-components? [Notes: Sub-component 3.1 – Reducing policy and regulatory barriers to productive rural￾urban linkage; Sub-component 3.2 – Reducing connectivity and information costs that inhibit the flows of goods and services; Sub-component 3.3 – Strengthening supply chain linkages between urban and rural areas; Sub-component 3.4 – Developing metropolitan arrangements that improve coordination and exchanges between cities and adjacent rural areas] 2. On the whole, to what extent did these key achievements under the four sub-components contribute to the objective of improving economic connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? Please cite specific cases/examples where SURGE contributed significantly to this objective? What factors promoted or hindered the achievement of the Component 3 objective? 3. Component 3, originally, has four performance indicators. To what extent did the ACTIVITIES of SURGE under Component 3 contribute to the achievement of performance indicator targets? What were the promoting or hindering factors in achieving Component 3 indicator targets? How were the hindering factors addressed? [Possible follow-up questions – To what extent did the COVID-19 pandemic affect the Component 3 indicator targets? Do you think the ACTIVITIES were appropriate and sufficient in achieving the Component 3 indicator targets? What additional or alternative ACTIVITIES should have been implemented? Which ACTIVITIES should have been dropped/cancelled and why?] [Notes: Component 3 indicators and % level of achievement as of June 2021: 3.1 – Time and cost of transporting goods between CDI city and pre-urban areas (replaced with Mobility plan/policies in select CDI cities prepared – 33%); 3.2 – Number of municipal (city) regulations and administrative procedures that have been simplified as a result of USG assistance – 109%; 3.3 – Number of beneficiaries receiving improved transport services due to USG assistance – 2% for individuals; 96% for cargo); 3.4 – Private investment in CDI cities and adjacent peri-urban areas increased – 80%] 4. Do you think the four performance indicators of Component 3 adequately capture the range and magnitude of the ACTIVITIES implemented by SURGE under Component 3? What changes or improvements in the performance indicators can you suggest? 5. How relevant or responsive were the SURGE activities/interventions under Component 3 in addressing the needs of key stakeholders (e.g., city officials) and target beneficiaries (e.g., business owners, etc.)? How can SURGE activities/interventions be improved to enhance their responsiveness to the needs of key stakeholders and beneficiaries? 6. What sustainability mechanisms were put in place by the SURGE project to ensure that the SURGE initiatives and gains under Component 3 will continue after project completion in December 2021? What were the exit strategies developed by the SURGE project? 7. How do you assess the current technical, institutional, and financial capacity of CDI cities to sustain or ensure the continuity of SURGE initiatives/activities under Component 3? USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 17 8. Are policies in place to ensure continuity of SURGE activities under Component 3 in CDI cities? Do you think these policies are adequate for CDI cities to take ownership and continue/expand the SURGE initiatives under Component 3? 9. What key lessons have you learned from the implementation of the SURGE activities under Component 3? Which of the Component 3 activities, interventions, practices, and approaches worked well and should be continued or expanded by similar projects in the future? What were the facilitating factors? Which Component 3 activities, interventions, practices, or approaches did not work? What were the hindering factors? 10. In general, If SURGE could be re-designed or implemented differently, what changes or modifications would you propose to improve the overall effectiveness of the SURGE interventions? 18 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV KII GUIDE FOR LGU EXECUTIVES-MAYORS General Instructions, opening spiel, and closing spiel are similar to Annex 4. Basic Information Name of Mayor: City: Year/s elected as Mayor: ( ) 2013 ( ) 2016 ( ) 2019 KII QUESTIONS 13. In your opinion, what significant changes, benefits, or outcomes resulted from SURGE activities in your city? (Q2.1, Q2.1.1, Q2.2, Q2.2.1, Q2.3, Q2.3.1) [Possible answers below]  Component 1 Benefit/Outcome examples (Updated risk-sensitive, inclusive CLUPs; enhanced skills of LGU personnel in preparing risk-sensitive, inclusive plans, strengthened capacity of WDs/WSPs for water/sanitation service delivery, etc.)  Component 2 Benefit/Outcome examples (Improved CMC Index, increase in new business registrations, increase in locally-sourced revenues; updated land administration and information management system; etc.)  Component 3 Benefit/Outcome examples (Increased investments in CDI and peri-urban areas, policy and regulatory reforms in business/construction permitting, improved transport services, e.g., increased cargo movement from General Santos airport, etc.) 14. In your opinion, which local government functions/operations did the SURGE project generate the most significant contribution? Please elaborate (Q2.4.2) 15. What key factors facilitated or contributed to the achievement of these benefits or outcomes? (Q2.1.1.1, Q2.2.1.1, Q2.3.1.1) 16. What key issues/challenges have hindered achieving the intended benefits or outcomes of SURGE activities in your city? How did the SURGE project and your city address these issues/challenges? (Q2.1.1.1, Q2.1.1.2 Q2.2.1.1, Q2.2.1.2, Q2.3.1.1, Q2.3.1.2) 17. How relevant or responsive were the SURGE activities/interventions in addressing the development priorities of your city as articulated in your Comprehensive Development Plan? How can SURGE activities/interventions be improved to enhance its responsiveness to local development priorities? (Q1.3.3, Q1.3.3.1) 18. How relevant or responsive were the SURGE activities/interventions in addressing the needs of key stakeholders (e.g., city officials) and target beneficiaries (e.g., business owners, etc.)? How can SURGE activities/interventions be improved to enhance its responsiveness to the needs of key stakeholders and beneficiaries? (Q1.3.4, Q1.3.4.1) 19. What sustainability mechanisms were put in place by the SURGE project to ensure that the SURGE initiatives and gains will continue after project completion in December 2021? What were the exit strategies developed by the SURGE project? (Q3.2, Q3.2.1, Q3.1.2) USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 19 20. How do you assess the city's current technical, institutional, and financial capacity to sustain or ensure the continuity of SURGE initiatives/activities? (Q3.1.1) 21. Are policies in place to ensure continuity of SURGE activities/initiatives in your city? Do you think these policies are adequate for LGUs to take ownership and continue/expand the SURGE initiatives in your city? (Q3.1.2, Q3.1.1.1) 22. What key lessons have you learned from the implementation of the SURGE project in your city? Which of the SURGE interventions, practices, and approaches worked well and should be continued or expanded by similar projects in the future? What were the facilitating factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 23. Which interventions, practices, or approaches did not work? What were the hindering factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 24. If SURGE activity could be re-designed or implemented differently, what changes or modifications would you propose to improve the effectiveness of the SURGE interventions in your city? COVID RELATED QUESTIONS: 1. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt SURGE addressed? Elaborate. 2. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt you needed more assistance? Elaborate. 3. Were there any projects that were delayed due to COVID-19? Will the delay impact the effective implementation of the project? 20 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV KII GUIDE FOR LGU DEPARTMENT HEADS General Instructions, opening spiel, and closing spiel are similar to Annex 4. Basic Information Name of Interviewee: Current organization: Position/Designation: Role/participation in the SURGE activity: KII QUESTIONS 15. Are you familiar with the SURGE activity of the USAID? How did you come to know about it? Are you familiar with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)? How did you come to know of it? 16. What activities/projects in your city did SURGE support? (Q2.4.1)? [Possible answers below]  Component 1 Activity examples (Mainstreaming DRR and CCA in local development plans; Training on GHG management planning; Establishing Urban Development Learning Program; Upgrading of water services of water service providers (e.g., water safety planning, non-revenue water (NRW) management, enhanced billing and collection, water demand management, etc.); Strengthening institutional capacities on sanitation (e.g., septage management, etc.)  Component 2 Activity examples (Streamlining/automating business permitting and licensing processes; Streamlining/automating construction permitting processes; Setting up of One-Stop-Shop for BPLS and construction permitting; Training of Local Economic and Investment Promotion Office and Business Support Organizations; etc.)  Component 3 Activity examples (Establishing market linkages between local producers and buyers, e.g., seaweed, cassava; formulating tourism development plans, establishing inter-LGU cooperation, e.g., Panglao Dauis and Tagbilaran Executive Council in Bohol; etc.) 17. In your opinion, what significant changes, benefits, outcomes, or value-added resulted from SURGE activities in your city? (Q2.1, Q2.1.1, Q2.2, Q2.2.1, Q2.3, Q2.3.1) [Possible answers below]  Component 1 Benefit/Outcome examples (Updated risk-sensitive, inclusive CLUPs; enhanced skills of LGU personnel in preparing risk-sensitive, inclusive plans, strengthened capacity of WDs/WSPs for water/sanitation service delivery, etc.)  Component 2 Benefit/Outcome examples (Improved CMC Index, increase in new business registrations, increase in locally-sourced revenues; updated land administration and information management system; etc.) USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 21  Component 3 Benefit/Outcome examples (Increased investments in CDI and peri￾urban areas, policy and regulatory reforms in business/construction permitting, improved transport services, e.g., increased cargo movement from General Santos airport, etc.) 18. In your opinion, which local government functions/operations did the SURGE activity generate the most significant contribution? Please elaborate (Q2.4.2) 19. What key factors facilitated or contributed to the achievement of these changes, benefits, or outcomes? (Q2.1.1.1, Q2.2.1.1, Q2.3.1.1) 20. What key issues/challenges have hindered achieving the intended benefits or outcomes of SURGE activities in your city? How did the SURGE project address these issues/challenges? ((Q2.1.1.1, Q2.1.1.2 Q2.2.1.1, Q2.2.1.2, Q2.3.1.1, Q2.3.1.2) 21. How relevant or responsive were the SURGE activities/interventions in addressing the development priorities of your city as articulated in your Comprehensive Development Plan? How can SURGE activities/interventions be improved to enhance its responsiveness to local development priorities? (Q1.3.3, Q1.3.3.1) 22. How relevant or responsive were the SURGE activities/interventions in addressing the needs of key stakeholders (e.g., city officials) and target beneficiaries (e.g., business owners, etc.) (Q1.3.4, Q1.3.4.1) 23. What sustainability mechanisms were put in place by the SURGE project to ensure that the SURGE initiatives and gains will continue after project completion in December 2021? What were the exit strategies developed by SURGE? (Q3.2, Q3.2.1, Q3.1.2) 24. How do you assess the city's current technical, institutional, and financial capacity to sustain or ensure the continuity of SURGE initiatives/activities? (Q3.1.1) 25. Are policies in place to ensure continuity of SURGE activities/initiatives in your city? Do you think these policies are adequate for LGUs to take ownership and continue/expand the SURGE initiatives in your city? (Q3.1.2, Q3.1.1.1) 26. What key lessons have you learned from the implementation of the SURGE activity in your city? Which of the SURGE interventions, practices, and approaches worked well and should be continued or expanded by similar projects in the future? What were the facilitating factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 27. Which interventions, practices, or approaches did not work? What were the hindering factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 28. If SURGE could be re-designed or implemented differently, what changes or modifications would you propose to improve the effectiveness of the SURGE interventions in your city? COVID RELATED QUESTIONS: 1. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt SURGE addressed? Elaborate. 2. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt you needed more assistance? Elaborate. 3. Were there any projects that were delayed due to COVID-19? Will the delay impact the effective implementation of the project? 22 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 23 KII GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS General Instructions, opening spiel, and closing spiel are similar to Annex 4. Basic Information Name of Interviewee: Current organization: Position/Designation: Role/participation in the SURGE activity: KII QUESTIONS 14. Are you familiar with the SURGE activity of the USAID? How did you come to know about it? Are you familiar with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)? How did you come to know of it? 15. Over the last six years (2015-2021), in which SURGE activities/projects was your agency actively involved? (Q2.4.1) [Possible answers below]  Component 1 Activity examples (Mainstreaming DRR and CCA in local development plans; Training on GHG management planning; Establishing Urban Development Learning Program; Upgrading of water services of water service providers (e.g., water safety planning, NRW management, enhanced billing and collection, water demand management, etc.); Strengthening institutional capacities on sanitation (e.g., septage management, etc.)  Component 2 Activity examples (Streamlining/automating business permitting and licensing processes; Streamlining/automating construction permitting processes; Setting up of One-Stop-Shop for BPLS and construction permitting; Training of Local Economic Investment and Promotions Office and Business Support Organizations; etc.)  Component 3 Activity examples ((Establishing market linkages between local producers and buyers, e.g., seaweed, cassava; formulating tourism development plans, establishing inter-LGU cooperation, e.g., Panglao Dauis and Tagbilaran Executive Council in Bohol; etc.) 16. In your opinion, what CDI cities derived significant changes, benefits, outcomes, or value-added as a result of the SURGE activities? (Q2.1, Q2.1.1, Q2.2, Q2.2.1, Q2.3, Q2.3.1) [Possible answers below]  Component 1 Benefit/Outcome examples (Updated risk-sensitive, inclusive CLUPs; enhanced skills of LGU personnel in preparing risk-sensitive, inclusive plans, strengthened capacity of WDs/WSPs for water/sanitation service delivery, etc.) 24 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV  Component 2 Benefit/Outcome examples (Improved CMC Index, increase in new business registrations, increase in locally-sourced revenues; updated land administration and information management system; etc.)  Component 3 Benefit/Outcome examples (Increased investments in CDI and peri-urban areas, policy and regulatory reforms in business/construction permitting, improved transport services, e.g., increased cargo movement from GenSan airport, etc.) 17. What key factors facilitated or contributed to the achievement of these changes, benefits, or outcomes? (Q2.1.1.1, Q2.2.1.1, Q2.3.1.1) 18. What key issues/challenges have hindered achieving SURGE activities' intended benefits or outcomes in CDI cities? How did the SURGE project and its implementing partners address these issues/challenges? ((Q2.1.1.1, Q2.1.1.2 Q2.2.1.1, Q2.2.1.2, Q2.3.1.1, Q2.3.1.2) 19. How relevant or responsive were the SURGE activities/interventions addressing the national development priorities outlined in the PDP, 2017-2022, National Spatial Strategy (relevant to NEDA/HLURB), regional development plans (relevant to NEDA)? How can SURGE activities/interventions be improved to enhance its responsiveness to national/regional development priorities? (Q1.3.1, Q1.3.1.1) 20. How relevant or responsive was the SURGE in promoting international development commitments? To what extent has SURGE contributed to SDGs, Paris Agreement, etc.? (Q1.1.1, Q1.1.2.1) 21. Are you aware of the sustainability mechanisms or exit strategies that were put in place by the SURGE project to ensure that the SURGE initiatives and gains in CDI cities will continue after project completion in December 2021? Was your agency involved in formulating these mechanisms or strategies? (Q3.2, Q3.2.1) Q3.1.2) 22. How do you assess the CDI cities' current technical, institutional, and financial capacity to sustain or ensure the continuity of SURGE initiatives/activities? (Q3.1.1) 23. Was your agency involved in formulating policies to ensure continuity of SURGE activities/initiatives in CDI cities? Do you think these policies are adequate for CDI cities to take ownership and continue/expand the SURGE initiatives? (Q3.1.2, Q3.1.1.1) 24. What key lessons have you learned from implementing SURGE in CDI cities? Which of the SURGE interventions, practices, and approaches worked well and should be continued or expanded by similar projects in the future? What were the facilitating factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 25. Which interventions, practices, or approaches did not work? What were the hindering factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 26. If SURGE could be re-designed or implemented differently, what changes or modifications would you propose to improve the effectiveness of the SURGE interventions in CDI cities? COVID RELATED QUESTIONS: 4. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt SURGE addressed? Elaborate. 5. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt you needed more assistance? Elaborate. 6. Were there any projects that were delayed due to COVID-19? Will the delay impact the USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 25 effective implementation of the project? 26 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV KII GUIDE FOR WASH EXECUTIVES General Instructions, opening spiel, and closing spiel are similar to Annex 4. 1. GENERAL QUESTIONS: a. May we know which water supply and sanitation service provider you are engaged in and what is your position? b. What Type of Water Supply System in your service area is being provided? (i.e., Level II or Level III or combination of Level II and Level III) c. Do you have an active part in any area of the operations and management of water supply and/ or sanitation systems in your Office? (i.e., Planning, Construction, System Operation and Maintenance, Customer Services, etc.) d. Do you have an idea on what level of services your Office has been providing to the water consumers including sanitation services to date? (e.g., number of household service connections, water production, percent service coverage, percent NRW level, water supply situation (24/7), line pressure, water quality, etc.) e. Does your Office frequently receive customer complaints regarding supply interruption, poor water quality, service connection and disconnections, billing and collection, etc.? f. Has there been an incident in the past where your Office considered the possibility of entertaining Private Proponents for the improvement of water supply and sanitation services in your service area by way of Public-Private Participation (PPP) program of the government? g. Are you fully aware of the USAID-SURGE project designed to provide technical support/ guidance for the improvement of water supply and sanitation services, and what had been your participation in the implementation of SURGE project activities? 2. RELEVANCE QUESTIONS a. Are there any issues and concerns regarding the effect of climate change and seasonal disaster risks that affect the level of services your Office had been trying to resolve? If there are, what are they and which area in the system operations do you think would need special and urgent attention? (1.1.2.1) b. Are the water sources from river/ lake, spring, or groundwater and is your Office aware of the water extraction Regulatory requirements, like securing a Water Permit and Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from concerned National Government Offices? (1.3.5) c. Are water quality monitoring in the distribution system and water sources follows the prescribed frequency of regular or random water sampling collection for Laboratory analysis according to the PNSDW and what type of analysis is usually conducted (i.e., Physico-Chemical, Bacteriological, pesticide, etc.?) (1.1.3) d. What are the priority hard component Projects, activities and expected intermediate results included in your Office’s short- and long-term work plan that requires external support to achieve the overall system operations and management goal? (1.3.1) USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 27 e. Does your Office frequently observe that some of your planning and operation personnel are somehow lacking know-how in their respective areas of system operation and management? (1.3.4) f. What activities/interventions do you know that need to be applied to substantially helped improve water supply and sanitation operation and management practices? (i.e., capacity building, technical assistance on water source development, NRW reduction programs, data repository system, organizational strengthening, physical development of facilities, etc.) (1.3.4) g. Does your Office develop, with the approval of concerned national or local Offices, a Water Safety and Business Continuity Plan to address the possible effect of climate change as well as disaster risks as a challenge in delivering well-deserved water supply and services to all of the beneficiaries? (1.3.5.1) h. Has your Office favorably taken into consideration any opportunities online for different urgent needs of your Office as a water supply and sanitation service provider? If so, please enumerate some possible major opportunities. (1.3.5.2) i. To what extent would external opportunities influence the behavior (norms), and practices (rules and regulations) of the Organization/ Office including how value chain actors and supporting functions operate in these basic social services? (1;3;5;2) 3. EFFECTIVENESS QUESTIONS a. Capitalizing internal resources, have there been positive or negative changes in the major areas of WASH operational and management practices along with the target achievements of the system’s level of service indicators without external support/ intervention? If so, what contributes to the positive and/or negative changes? (2.4.1.1) b. Given an external support/intervention, would technical assistance like capacity building, water resources survey, application of various operational and management Software including Hydraulic modeling for water distribution engineering design and others, be very useful in arriving at a result that will lead to the achievement of the required services? (2.4.1.2) c. In applying the said external technical assistance, will there be internal or external factors that will hinder or facilitate the possible effectiveness of the implementation of the assistance and how would your Office address hindering factors? (2.4.1.2) / (2.4.1.3) 4. SUSTAINABILITY QUESTIONS: a. In terms of service sustainability, how would your Office maintain the positive changes brought about by the external support/ intervention with available limited internal resources, hindering effect of climate change/disaster risks that may embrace future system operations and management? (3.1) b. Knowing the government’s usual tedious process of resources allocation, is there a possibility for your Office to entertain Private Proponents for the take-over of the entire system operation and management following the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) program of the government? (3.1.1.1) 28 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV c. Realizing the inevitable change in political leadership in your area or sets of Officers in your Office, what makes you think that sustainability of the current high level of water supply and sanitation services will be maintained in the future? (3.1.1.1) USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 29 KII GUIDE FOR FARMERS GROUP LEAD General Instructions, opening spiel, and closing spiel are similar to Annex 4. Basic Information Name of Interviewee: Current organization: Position/Designation: Role/participation in the SURGE activity: KII QUESTIONS 1. Are you familiar with the SURGE activity of the USAID? How did you come to know about it? Are you familiar with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)? How did you come to know of it? 2. What activities/projects in your organization did SURGE support? (Q2.4.1)? 3. In your opinion, what significant changes, benefits, outcomes, or value-added resulted from SURGE activities in your group/organization? (Q2.1, Q2.1.1, Q2.2, Q2.2.1, Q2.3, Q2.3.1) 4. In your opinion, which organizational functions/operations did the SURGE activity generate the most significant contribution? Please elaborate (Q2.4.2) 5. What key factors facilitated or contributed to the achievement of these changes, benefits, or outcomes? (Q2.1.1.1, Q2.2.1.1, Q2.3.1.1) 6. What key issues/challenges have hindered achieving the intended benefits or outcomes of SURGE activities in your organization? How did the SURGE project address these issues/challenges? ((Q2.1.1.1, Q2.1.1.2 Q2.2.1.1, Q2.2.1.2, Q2.3.1.1, Q2.3.1.2) 7. How relevant or responsive were the SURGE activities/interventions in addressing organizational needs? How can SURGE activities/interventions be improved to enhance its responsiveness? (Q1.3.3, Q1.3.3.1) 8. What sustainability mechanisms were put in place by the SURGE project to ensure that the SURGE initiatives and gains will continue after project completion in December 2021? What were the exit strategies developed by SURGE? (Q3.2, Q3.2.1, Q3.1.2) 9. How do you assess your organization's technical, institutional, and financial capacity to sustain or ensure the continuity of SURGE initiatives/activities? (Q3.1.1) 10. What key lessons have you learned from the implementation of the SURGE activity? Which of the SURGE interventions, practices, and approaches worked well and should be continued or expanded by similar projects in the future? What were the facilitating factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 11. Which interventions, practices, or approaches did not work? What were the hindering factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 12. If SURGE could be re-designed or implemented differently, what changes or modifications would you propose to improve the effectiveness of the SURGE interventions? 30 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV COVID RELATED QUESTIONS: 7. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt SURGE addressed? Elaborate. 8. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt you needed more assistance? Elaborate. 9. Were there any projects that were delayed due to COVID-19? Will the delay impact the effective implementation of the project? USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 31 KII GUIDE FOR HEAD OF LOCAL CHAMBERS AND BUSINESS GROUPS General Instructions, opening spiel, and closing spiel are similar to Annex 4. Basic Information Name of Interviewee: Current organization: Position/Designation: Role/participation in the SURGE activity: KII QUESTIONS: Awareness and perceptions about SURGE (40 minutes) 16. Are you familiar with the SURGE activity of the USAID? How did you come to know about it? Are you familiar with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)? How did you come to know of it? 17. Do you think that the SURGE was able to improve conditions in your city? Can you elaborate 18. Let us move to the theme of resiliency. What are your perceptions about how SURGE has helped improve local capacity in inclusive and resilient urban management and processes? Were the interventions suited to your cities’ needs? Can you be more specific? 19. Let us move to the theme of economic development. What are our perceptions about how SURGE has helped the environment for local economic development? Were the interventions suited to your cities’ needs? Can you be more specific? 20. Let us move to the theme of urban-rural connectivity. What are your perceptions about how SURGE has helped connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? Were the interventions suited to your cities’ needs? Can you be more specific? 21. Let us move to the theme of inclusivity. What are your perceptions about how SURGE has been inclusive in its interventions? Were the interventions suited to your cities’ needs? Please use your definition of inclusivity. Involvement or lack of participation in the process (30 minutes) 22. Was the business group consulted in the selection and design of interventions in your city? 23. What role did the business group have in the selection, design, and implementation of the intervention? 24. How satisfied are you in the involvement of the business group in the selection, design, and implementation of the intervention? 25. Were there any hurdles the business group encountered during collaborative efforts with ICMA? COVID RELATED QUESTIONS: 32 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 10. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt SURGE addressed? Elaborate. 11. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt you needed more assistance? Elaborate. 12. Were there any projects that were delayed due to COVID-19? Will the delay impact the effective implementation of the project? Recommendations for improvement (20 minutes) 26. Were any of the interventions covered by other donors and therefore rendered the SURGE intervention superfluous? 27. Are there other interventions you would have wanted to see implemented in your city? 28. Do you think the city still needs assistance from donors to improve the cities competitiveness? What could you suggest as improvements to aid extended to your city? Sustainability 29. Do you think that the city will be able to continue the projects without SURGE/ICMA? 30. Are there any other items you wish to discuss? USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 33 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDES FGD GUIDE FOR CITY PROGRAM COORDINATORS OF ICMA GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: This instrument will be used for focus group discussion with City Program Coordinators (CPCs) of ICMA. The evaluation team will conduct the FGD via ZOOM. There are four areas of questions in this instrument. These are:  The CPCs role in the intervention process  CPCs perceptions about interventions conducted and their effect on beneficiaries  The challenges CPCs encountered and how these can be improved  Sustainability of projects Before starting the FGD, the facilitators will seek respondents' consent by sending a copy of the INFORMED CONSENT FORM to the participants. Upon confirmation of their intent to participate, the participants should send back the completed form with their electronic signature. The FGD will not start without the completed form. Except when internet connectivity is a problem, please request participants to turn on their cameras for recording purposes. At the minimum, the cameras should be turned on: at the beginning, end, and when the participants speak. Turning cameras on will verify the speaker. As a reminder, participants should mute themselves while someone is talking. OPENING SPIEL Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for joining us today. Your participation is essential to determine the extent of achievement on the outputs and outcomes of SURGE. I am_____________. We are external evaluators supporting the Panagora Group in the conduct of the evaluation on SURGE. __________________will be joining us. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. May I clarify at this point if you have submitted a signed Informed Consent Form and retained a signed copy? If not, may I request you to exit the session and e-mail us your signed consent form? You may re-enter once we receive the form. Has anyone of you participated in an FGD before? (If yes, proceed to the next paragraph. If no, continue as follows). Let me tell you what happens in an FGD. We will ask a general question, and anyone can take the lead to answer the question. Then, the next participant either agrees or disagrees with the statement, explaining the reasons for it. The conversations continue until the facilitator asks another question). 34 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV I wish to reiterate that your participation in this FGD is voluntary, and you may exit at any point, even without informing us. Should you opt-out, we will strike from our records all statements made by you. For those who will continue with us, we wish to assure you that our conversation will remain confidential and will be discussed only within the research team led by Ramon Noriel Sicad of the CLAimDev team. Should we use any of the statements you made in our report, we will seek prior approval to do so. You may then inform us whether you would like the information stricken or included in the report and whether or not you would like the information to be attributed to you. Our FGD for today should last no more than two (2) hours. Should our conversations be animated, we will interject with time checks. So that we remain organized, may we request you to raise your hand and wait to be acknowledged if you would like to speak? For others, you may want to use the chatbox to share your views. We ask that you keep your cameras on for documentation purposes. Should you experience connectivity problems, we request that the cameras be turned on at the beginning and end of the session, at least when you speak. Do you have any questions? Now that we have addressed all questions, we will now start our session. We ask that you kindly mute your audio and open only when you are acknowledged to speak. In our chatbox, kindly indicate “okay” so that we can proceed. We will be recording our session. You will need to accept the recording before you are allowed to continue. We will now begin recording. For the record, may we have one round of introductions? Please tell us your name, your city of assignment, and the inclusive dates you were a CPC in that city? FGD QUESTIONS How did you view your role in the SURGE activity (30 minutes) 16. What was your role in the SURGE activity? 17. How aware are you of the goals of the SURGE activity? Where did you gain your knowledge? 18. How involved were you in the planning of the SURGE interventions? 19. How were you prepared for your role? Were there skill sets that helped you with your task? 20. What is the typical process you undertake with each intervention? 21. Were you able to introduce any innovations in accomplishing your task? What is your perception about the interventions conducted, the process, and its effect on beneficiaries? (40 minutes) 22. In your perception, were the interventions relevant to the beneficiaries? 23. In your opinion, did the beneficiaries gain from the interventions? 24. Were the interventions implemented correctly? Could it have been done better? 25. Were the intended beneficiaries reached? USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 35 What are the challenges you encountered and how it can be improved? (20 minutes) 26. What challenges did you experience in doing your task? 27. Are there aspects of the intervention that you could have done differently? 28. Are there other kinds of support you would have needed to make you more effective? 29. How could SURGE be more effective in the city you served Sustainability 30. Do you think that the city will be able to continue the projects without the presence of SURGE/ICMA/CPC? COVID RELATED QUESTIONS: 13. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt SURGE addressed? Elaborate. 14. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt you needed more assistance? Elaborate. 15. Were there any projects that were delayed due to COVID-19? Will the delay impact the effective implementation of the project? CLOSING SPIEL We wish to thank you for your active participation in this FGD. We appreciate the time you have taken to be with us today to contribute to an honest evaluation of the interventions through SURGE. We have learned a lot from our session. We hope that you have found this session as helpful and educational as we have. We wish to remind you that our session today will be held in the strictest confidence. We will contact you in the future should we use any of the statements you made in our report. If you have additional information that you want to share with us but were unable to do so, please feel free to contact us to schedule an interview at a later date. Continue to keep safe. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. We will now end the recording. FGD GUIDE FOR BUSINESS SECTOR AND MSMES General Instructions, opening spiel, and closing spiel are similar to Annex 14. FGD QUESTIONS: Awareness and perceptions about SURGE (40 minutes) 1. Are you familiar with the SURGE activity of the USAID? How did you come to know about it? Are you familiar with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)? How did you come to know of it? 2. Do you think that the SURGE was able to improve conditions in your city? Can you elaborate? 36 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 3. Let us move to the theme of resiliency. What are your perceptions about how SURGE has helped improve local capacity in inclusive and resilient urban management and processes? Were the interventions suited to your cities’ needs? Can you be more specific? 4. Let us move to the theme of economic development. What are our perceptions about how SURGE has helped the environment for local economic development? Were the interventions suited to your cities’ needs? Can you be more specific? 5. Let us move to the theme of urban-rural connectivity. What are your perceptions about how SURGE has helped connectivity and access between urban and rural areas? Were the interventions suited to your cities’ needs? Can you be more specific? 6. Let us move to the theme of inclusivity. What are your perceptions about how SURGE has been inclusive in its interventions? Were the interventions suited to your cities’ needs? Please use your definition of inclusivity. Involvement or lack of participation in the process (30 minutes) 7. Was the business group consulted in the selection and design of interventions in your city? 8. What role did the business group have in the selection, design, and implementation of the intervention? 9. How satisfied are you in the involvement of the business group in the selection, design, and implementation of the intervention? 10. Were there any hurdles the business group encountered during collaborative efforts with ICMA? Covid Related Questions: 11. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt SURGE addressed? Elaborate. 12. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt you needed more assistance? Elaborate. 13. Were there any projects that were delayed due to COVID-19? Will the delay impact the effective implementation of the project? Recommendations for improvement (20 minutes) 14. Were any of the interventions covered by other donors and therefore rendered the SURGE intervention superfluous? 15. Are there other interventions you would have wanted to see implemented in your city? 16. Do you think the city still needs assistance from donors to improve the cities competitiveness? What could you suggest as improvements to aid extended to your city? Sustainability 17. Do you think that the city will be able to continue the projects without SURGE/ICMA? 18. Are there any other items you wish to discuss? USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 37 FGD GUIDE FOR THE ACADEME/UDLP General Instructions, opening spiel, and closing spiel are similar to Annex 14. FGD QUESTIONS 8. Are you familiar with the SURGE activity of the USAID? How did you come to know about it? Are you familiar with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)? How did you come to know of it? 9. What was the role of the academe in ensuring that the SURGE activities are relevant in addressing the development priorities outlined in city/local development plans? (1.3.3)\ 10. What specific interventions have the Academe introduced that contributed to the success of the SURGE? How were these conceptualized? In what component of the SURGE are these applicable? 11. What are the prospects that the outcomes and intermediate results generated by the project in your institution will continue after project completion without further assistance from SURGE? (3.1) 12. Are technical, institutional, and financial capacities adequate to ensure continuity to project activities? (3.1.1) What is the likelihood that your institutions will take ownership of the interventions initiated by SURGE? (3.1.1.1) 13. With what SURGE introduced in your institution, are there opportunities for replicating such in the future? What are these opportunities, and why do you consider them as such? (3.4) 14. Are there plans by your institutions to replicate or expand any of the SURGE interventions in the future? (3.4.1) 38 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV FGD GUIDE FOR LGU STAFF AND PERSONNEL General Instructions, opening spiel, and closing spiel are similar to Annex 14. FGD QUESTIONS 1. Are you familiar with the SURGE activity of the USAID? How did you come to know about it? Are you familiar with International City/County Management Association (ICMA)? How did you come to know of it? 2. What activities/projects in your city did SURGE support? (Q2.4.1)? [Possible answers below]  Component 1 Activity examples (Mainstreaming DRR and CCA in local development plans; Training on GHG management planning; Establishing Urban Development Learning Program; Upgrading of water services of water service providers (e.g., water safety planning, non-revenue water (NRW) management, enhanced billing and collection, water demand management, etc.); Strengthening institutional capacities on sanitation (e.g., septage management, etc.)  Component 2 Activity examples (Streamlining/automating business permitting and licensing processes; Streamlining/automating construction permitting processes; Setting up of One-Stop-Shop for BPLS and construction permitting; Training of Local Economic and Investment Promotion Office and Business Support Organizations; etc.)  Component 3 Activity examples (Establishing market linkages between local producers and buyers, e.g., seaweed, cassava; formulating tourism development plans, establishing inter-LGU cooperation, e.g., Panglao Dauis and Tagbilaran Executive Council in Bohol; etc.) 3. In your opinion, what significant changes, benefits, outcomes, or value-added resulted from SURGE activities in your city? (Q2.1, Q2.1.1, Q2.2, Q2.2.1, Q2.3, Q2.3.1) [Possible answers below]  Component 1 Benefit/Outcome examples (Updated risk-sensitive, inclusive CLUPs; enhanced skills of LGU personnel in preparing risk-sensitive, inclusive plans, strengthened capacity of WDs/WSPs for water/sanitation service delivery, etc.)  Component 2 Benefit/Outcome examples (Improved CMC Index, increase in new business registrations, increase in locally sourced revenues; updated land administration and information management system; etc.)  Component 3 Benefit/Outcome examples (Increased investments in CDI and peri￾urban areas, policy and regulatory reforms in business/construction permitting, improved transport services, e.g., increased cargo movement from General Santos airport, etc.) 4. In your opinion, which local government functions/operations did the SURGE activity generate the most significant contribution? Please elaborate (Q2.4.2) USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 39 5. What key factors facilitated or contributed to the achievement of these changes, benefits, or outcomes? (Q2.1.1.1, Q2.2.1.1, Q2.3.1.1) 6. What key issues/challenges have hindered achieving the intended benefits or outcomes of SURGE activities in your city? How did the SURGE project address these issues/challenges? ((Q2.1.1.1, Q2.1.1.2 Q2.2.1.1, Q2.2.1.2, Q2.3.1.1, Q2.3.1.2) 7. How relevant or responsive were the SURGE activities/interventions in addressing the development priorities of your city as articulated in your Comprehensive Development Plan? How can SURGE activities/interventions be improved to enhance its responsiveness to local development priorities? (Q1.3.3, Q1.3.3.1) 8. How relevant or responsive were the SURGE activities/interventions in addressing the needs of key stakeholders (e.g., city officials) and target beneficiaries (e.g., business owners, etc.) (Q1.3.4, Q1.3.4.1) 9. What sustainability mechanisms were put in place by the SURGE project to ensure that the SURGE initiatives and gains will continue after project completion in December 2021? What were the exit strategies developed by SURGE? (Q3.2, Q3.2.1, Q3.1.2) 10. How do you assess the city's current technical, institutional, and financial capacity to sustain or ensure the continuity of SURGE initiatives/activities? (Q3.1.1) 11. Are policies in place to ensure continuity of SURGE activities/initiatives in your city? Do you think these policies are adequate for LGUs to take ownership and continue/expand the SURGE initiatives in your city? (Q3.1.2, Q3.1.1.1) 12. What key lessons have you learned from the implementation of the SURGE activity in your city? Which of the SURGE interventions, practices, and approaches worked well and should be continued or expanded by similar projects in the future? What were the facilitating factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 13. Which interventions, practices, or approaches did not work? What were the hindering factors? (Q2.9, Q2.9.1, Q2.9.1.2, Q2.9.2) 14. If SURGE could be re-designed or implemented differently, what changes or modifications would you propose to improve the effectiveness of the SURGE interventions in your city? COVID RELATED QUESTIONS: 16. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt SURGE addressed? Elaborate. 17. Were there needs that arose as a result of COVID-19 that you felt you needed more assistance? Elaborate. 18. Were there any projects that were delayed due to COVID-19? Will the delay impact the effective implementation of the project? 40 | USAID/PH MRP EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV WASH SECONDARY DATA CAPTURE FORM WATER SUPPLY OPERATION DATA CAPTURE FORM * A. NUMBER OF SERVICE CONNECTION PER BARANGAY (YEAR 2017 - 2021) DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION 1. Brgy. 2. Brgy. 7. Brgy. DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION 1. Brgy. 2. Brgy. 3. Brgy. JUNE BARANGAYS JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER BARANGAYS JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY NAME OF RURAL WATER AND SANITATION ASSICIATON (RWSA) B. BILLED VOLUME (2017 - 2021) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) 1. DOMESTIC 2. COMMERCIAL 3. INSTITUTIONAL 4. OTHER TOTAL C. WATER PRODUCTION (2017 - 2021) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) SURFACES 1 2 3 GROUND/ SPRING 1 2 3 TOTAL NOTE * - Rural Waterworks Associations (RWSA) CATEGORIES WATER SOURCES & LICATION WATER SUPPLY OPERATION DATA CAPTURE FORM * A. NUMBER OF SERVICE CONNECTION PER BARANGAY (YEAR 2017 - 2021) DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION 1. Brgy. 2. Brgy. 3. Brgy. 4. Brgy. 5. Brgy. 6. Brgy. 7. Brgy. DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL INSTITUTION 1. Brgy. 2. Brgy. 3. Brgy. 4. Brgy. 5. Brgy. 6. Brgy. 7. Brgy. NAME OF WATER DISTRICTS MAY JUNE BARANGAYS JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER BARANGAYS JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL B. BILLED VOLUME (2017 - 2021) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) 1. DOMESTIC 2. COMMERCIAL 3. INSTITUTIONAL 4. OTHER TOTAL C. WATER PRODUCTION (2017 = 2021) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) (CU.M) SURFACES 1 2 3 GROUND/ SPRING 1 2 3 TOTAL NOTE * - Water Districts CATEGORIES WATER SOURCES & LICATION USAID.GOV USAID/PH SURGE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – INCEPTION REPORT | 41 2017 2018 2019 2020 Sewerage Facilities 1 Sewerage Facilities 2 Sewerage Facilities 3 Septage Facilities 1 Septage Facilities 2 Septage Facilities 3 a Number of Trucks NOTE : * - LGU or WATER DISTRICT NAME OF LGUs / WATER DISTRICTS CAPACITY (cm/s) CAPACITY (cm/s) TOTAL CAPACITY (cm/s) NO. FACILITIEE 2 TOTAL 1 CAPACITY (cm/s) SANITATION FACILITIES (2017 - 2020) U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523