PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE PHASE 2 PROJECT (ECOGOV2) MIDTERM EVALUATION REPORT 27 DECEMBER 2007 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by ARD, Inc. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Scores of individuals (a quick glance at Annex C will confirm this) gave their time, their ideas, and their insights for this assessment. The evaluation team is most grateful and we hope that this report accurately reflects the frank discussions that we had with them. We would also like to specifically thank the staff at DENR FASPO for their assistance and help notifying and organizing DENR’s field staff who participated in the field portion of this work, and for their valuable time and comments in reviewing drafts of this document. We also gratefully acknowledge the OEE at USAID/Philippines who provided guidance to the team and critical reviews of the report’s text. Finally, it is important that we thank the EcoGov2 staff who assisted us on numerous occasions with area and site briefings, introductions, itinerary options, and even ideas about where we might lodge ourselves for the night when we were in the field. They also provided the evaluation team with comments on the draft and with a wealth of background material and project documentation. For all these we are thankful, and we hope that this report provides them with information useful in implementing the last half of the EcoGov2 contract. More importantly we hope that it helps guide them and all project partners in achieving continued success in their endeavors. Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, USAID Contract Number EPP-I-00-06- 0008, Task Order No. 4. and submitted to: USAID/Philippines EcoGov2 Midterm Evaluation Committee Submitted by: The EcoGov2 Evaluation Team Rafael Bojos, Coastal Resources Management Specialist Steve Dennison, Forestry Specialist & Team Leader Ester Isberto, Facilitator/Logistical Specialist Mary Melnyk, USAID Biodiversity and Conflict Specialist Conchita Ragragio, Urban Environmental Management and Local Government Specialist Richard Volk, USAID Coastal and Aquatic Resources Specialist ARD Contacts: Emily Getman, Project Manager 159 Bank Street, Suite 300 P.O. Box 1397 Burlington, VT 05402 Tel: (802) 658-3890 ext. 2407 Email: egetman@ardinc.com . PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE PHASE 2 PROJECT (ECOGOV2) MIDTERM EVALUATION REPORT DECEMBER 27, 2007 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. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION i CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...........................................................................iii 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................1 1.1 MAJOR FINDINGS ............................................................................................1 1.1.1 Forestry and Forest Land Management Sector ........................................2 1.1.2 Coastal Resources Management Sector..................................................2 1.1.3 Urban Environmental Management Sector..............................................2 1.1.4 Governance and Advocacy Sector..........................................................3 1.2 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................3 1.2.1 Forests and Forest Land Management Sector..........................................4 1.2.2 Coastal Resources Management Sector..................................................5 1.2.3 Urban Environmental Management Sector..............................................6 1.2.4 Governance and Advocacy Sector..........................................................6 1.2.5 Other Key Recommendations................................................................7 2.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................8 2.1 CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT ...................................................................................8 2.2 DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM ADDRESSED BY ECOGOV2..................................................8 2.3 ECOGOV2 INTERVENTION STRATEGIES....................................................................8 2.4 PROJECT DESIGN .................................................................................................9 3.0 PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION........................................................................10 4.0 MIDTERM EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .............................11 5.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................13 5.1 GENERAL FINDINGS............................................................................................13 5.2 FORESTS AND FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT SECTOR (FFM) .....................................14 5.2.1 Sector Context...................................................................................14 5.2.2 Targets...............................................................................................15 5.2.3 Achievements and Impacts...................................................................16 5.2.4 Areas for Improvement and Recommendations.....................................17 5.3 COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (CRM) SECTOR .............................................19 5.3.1 The Context.......................................................................................19 5.3.2 Targets...............................................................................................20 5.3.3 Achievements and impacts...................................................................21 5.3.4 Areas for improvement and recommendations .....................................22 5.4 URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (UEM) ....................................................25 5.4.1 Context .............................................................................................25 5.4.2 Targets...............................................................................................25 5.4.3 Achievements and Impacts...................................................................26 5.4.4 Areas for Improvement and Recommendations.....................................28 5.5 GOVERNANCE AND ADVOCACY SECTOR ..............................................................30 5.5.1 Sector Context...................................................................................30 5.5.2 Targets...............................................................................................31 5.5.3 Achievements and Impacts...................................................................31 5.5.4 Areas for Improvement and Recommendations.....................................32 5.6 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION.............................................................................35 5.7 CROSSCUTTING ISSUES .......................................................................................36 5.7.1 Population and Environment................................................................36 5.7.2 Gender Concerns...............................................................................36 5.7.3 Financing Environmental Governance ...................................................37 ii PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 5.7.4 Climate Change ..................................................................................37 5.8 PROJECT MANAGEMENT......................................................................................37 5.8.1 General..............................................................................................37 5.8.2 Relationship with DENR......................................................................38 6.0 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................40 7.0 LESSONS LEARNED ...............................................................................................41 ANNEX A. SCOPE OF WORK......................................................................................44 ANNEX B. EVALUATION TEAM ITINERARY ...........................................................53 ANNEX C. PERSONS CONTACTED, FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVIEWEES BY REGION AND SITE..............................................................56 ANNEX D. BENCHMARK EXAMPLES FOR OPTION YEARS .................................66 ANNEX E. THE MIDTERM EVALUATION TEAM .....................................................68 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADB Asian Development Bank ARMM Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources CCEF Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation CENRO City Environment and Natural Resources Office CLIN Contract Line Item Number CoP Chief of Party CPUE Catch per Unit Effort CRM Coastal Resources Management CRMP Coastal Resources Management Plan DAI Development Alternatives, Inc. DCoP Deputy Chief of Party DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DILG Department of Interior and Local Government EcoGov 2 Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project EMB Environment and Management Bureau ENR Environment and Natural Resources EO Executive Order FASPO Foreign Assistance and Special Projects Office FFM Forests and Forest Land Management FISH Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest Project FLUP Forest Land Use Plan FMB Forest Management Bureau GoAd Governance and Advocacy ICRM Integrated Coastal Resources Management IEC Information, Education and Communication IPR Individual Property Rights ISWMP Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan LGU Local Government Unit LoP Life of Project LSP Local Service Provider MFO Major Final Output MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding iv PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION MPA Marine Protected Area MRF Material Recovery Facility MTPDP Philippine government’s Medium-Term Development Plan NGO Nongovernmental Organization OVI Objectives Verifiable Indicator P Pesos PENRO Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office RED Regional Executive Director (DENR) RTD Regional Technical Director (DENR) SLF Sanitary Landfill SO Strategic Objective SoW Statement of Work SWM Solid Waste Management SWMP Solid Waste Management Plan TA Technical Assistance TAP Transparency, Accountability, Participation TO Task Order TWG Technical Working Group UEM Urban Environmental Management UNDP United Nations Development Plan USAID United States Agency for International Development WB World Bank WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Midterm Evaluation of the Philippines Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project (EcoGov2) was conducted in October and November 2007, halfway through the project’s five-year contract period. The evaluation has aimed to gauge the effectiveness and impacts to date of the contract implemented by Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI). Specifically the evaluation was charged to: • Assess the progress of EcoGov2 relative to the objectives and results specified in the contract; • Review the management and strategic approaches and methodologies adopted in implementing the project, especially as they pertain to working with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and other government agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), municipalities and communities; and • Document lessons learned and opportunities with an eye toward the linkages between governance and biodiversity conservation, the sustainability and replicability of initiatives, and recommendations for courses of action for change. In the course of its assessment on the ground, the six-person team reviewed project-related documents and relevant background materials; conducted field work and key informant interviews; reviewed and assessed contract deliverables; and examined the efficiency and effectiveness of project methodology, strategies and linkages developed by DAI. Significant findings of the assessment team are enumerated below followed by the key recommendations that the evaluation team believes will help improve the services provided under the EcoGov2 contract and also help ensure its success once the contract is completed. Additional observations and discussions associated with the assessment, as well as recommendations of a lessor priority, are found in Section 5 of this document. 1.1 MAJOR FINDINGS In the course of the assessment, the evaluation team visited more than two dozen different sites and interacted with scores of participants and partners—beneficiaries of EcoGov2’s technical assistance. In addition to reviewing a substantial number of project-related documents, the team also interacted with EcoGov2 staff, USAID, DENR and other government partners. Some of the more notable impacts and achievements are listed below, first in general terms and then by sector. Additional findings are discussed sector by sector in Section 5 of this report. EcoGov2 is respected for its professionalism. Overall the evaluation team was impressed by the level of professionalism and dedication exhibited by the EcoGov2 staff in doing their jobs. It was obvious to the team that at almost every site visited the staff person was respected and valued for the services she or he had been bringing to the local government unit (LGU), to DENR, to the local service provider (LSP) or grantee, or to the working groups in the various communities. This is a significant achievement, for it also reveals that the technical assistance that EcoGov2 is bringing to the regions and municipalities is greatly valued. EcoGov2 is adding value to environmental governance. By and large the activities being implemented are adding value to environmental governance practiced by the LGUs and assisted by DENR. The approaches used by EcoGov2 to affect these processes and to bring about positive change are beginning to show the desired results. 2 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION Project targets are being achieved. With one exception (investment in wastewater treatment), EcoGov2 is on track to achieve or exceed its eight targets established for the initial five-year contract period. 1.1.1 Forestry and Forest Land Management Sector Forest Land Use Plans (FLUPs) are being institutionalized. This is a tremendous gain for environmental governance and participatory planning. The fact that LGUs and DENR have bought into it and are assisting other LGUs in their FLUP efforts is very good testimony. DENR’s Foreign Assistance and Special Projects Office (FASPO) has also directed the World Bank, United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and other donors to use it as model in their projects with DENR. LGUs, DENR and individual farmers and forest dwellers realize the value, utility and tenure security afforded by the co-management process, the associated Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) and individual property rights (IPRs). Those that have them in place praise the process and the results to date; others are working diligently get them established. EcoGov2 is achieving results in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindinao (ARMM). In ARMM, a Sustainable Forest Management Act has been developed. This is a first—even before DENR can agree on similar policy for the rest of the country. Given the complexities of working in ARMM, this is a substantial accomplishment. Cooperation among LGUs and the DENR is being established. It is very proactive in some areas. Champions of the EcoGov2 assistance exist in both institutions. When they are working together with a “we can do this” spirit, significant strides are being made. The FLUP process helps to identify conflict issues and ways that they can be addressed. EcoGov2’s technical assistance in the FLUP process have helped claimants, tenure holders and LGUs realize that they can locally resolve their forest land problems if only they take collective action. (The same holds true for the coastal resources management [CRM] zoning process and solid waste management [SWM] planning.) 1.1.2 Coastal Resources Management Sector Sector targets are being exceeded. The project exceeded (by the end of Year 3) the Life of Project (LoP) target to ‘establish 20 new marine sanctuaries’, and the target for ‘strengthening 50 existing marine sanctuaries’ is projected to be met by the end of Year 4. DENR’s FASPO is promoting EcoGov2 practices as a model. FASPO indicates that a new five-year, Asian Development Bank (ADB)-funded Integrated Coastal Resources Management (ICRM) project will be required to incorporate practices and lessons learned from EcoGov2 implementation. This is good testament that the processes, systems and standards being applied by the project are seen to be generally correct and effective. EcoGov2 has strengthened regional associations. The project has achieved significant institutional strengthening and collaboration among eight LGUs in western Mindanao toward the protection of Illana Bay (IBRA9 association). 1.1.3 Urban Environmental Management Sector The SWM targets thus far are being met. At midterm, the project has achieved close to half (49%) of its LoP target. The LGU target for investments in wastewater treatment is lagging far behind. LGUs are embracing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plans (ISWMPs). LGUs’ strong support for SWM project implementation efforts is demonstrated over and over. Most of the LGUs included in the evaluation team’s visit have shown not only budgetary support for SWM but increasing budgetary allocations. Another demonstration of LGU support is the creation of an Environmental Officer position (or a similar position title) with the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) being among that officer’s primary responsibilities. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 3 1.1.4 Governance and Advocacy Sector Good governance practices are being adopted by municipalities. EcoGov2 is doing its job as an advocacy project that facilitates processes and the adoption of good governance practices. At almost every site visited, LGU and regional networks praised the assistance provided by the project. All the LGUs were eager to continue the relationship and would accept more technical assistance (TA) if it is available. EcoGov2 sites are serving as models for other LGUs. Many municipalities stated that they were ready to continue on their own and in fact were either serving as “model sites” for other visiting institutions and/or were helping other LGUs find their footing with the FLUPs, the Coastal Resources Management Plans (CRMPs) and/or the ISWMPs. These are the foundation for the upscaling activities envisioned for the next two years (and beyond) of the project. EcoGov2 numbers are positive. To date, EcoGov2 assistance has been given to 11 provinces, 130 cities and municipalities and various communities in planning and implementing FLUPs, CRM, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Urban Environmental Management (UEM) plans. Project documents report that LGU funding has increased for environment and natural resource projects from P127 million in 2005 to P151 million in 2007, a 19% increase in the municipalities served by EcoGov2. EcoGov2 outreach materials have an impact in ARMM. In the ARMM, a book entitled Al Khalifa (The Steward) has been published and well received by the Muslim community. This is the first of its kind in Asia, and quite possibly, the world. It outlines basic principles of environmental governance based on teaching in the Qur’an. There are also plans to publish it in Arabic. EcoGov2 staff are active in conflict mediation. EcoGov2 activities have united previously fractious groups around benefits from good environmental governance through stakeholder participation in environmental and resource management decisions. 1.2 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS During the assessment, the evaluation received scores of recommendations from EcoGov2 partners and beneficiaries. Many were very supportive of the work done to date; one of the most common was “give us more of this TA”. Other advice was more detailed, thoughtful and thought provoking. Collectively, the evaluation team sees several common themes emerging from its assessment. The three main themes focus on: • EcoGov2’s relationship with DENR, • Promotion of the project’s successes, and • Ensuring the sustainability of the actions and advocacy being promoted by the project. Ensure DENR ownership. The evaluation team recognizes that working with a bureaucracy as large and as entrenched as DENR is never easy. But EcoGov2, as noted in the findings summary above, is making significant progress with DENR at several levels. The biggest issue is still how to ensure that the DENR has ownership in EcoGov2’s activities. Many of the recommendations reflect this concern and begin to provide suggestions on how to make it be more universal. Project staff and USAID/Philippines need to use more resources and develop a conscious strategy to make it happen. Promote EcoGov2 successes. EcoGov2 is having tremendous success at many sites in each of the regions where it is providing TA. The current annual work plan is putting greater emphasis on this theme but a more formal process needs to be put into place now—with the resources behind it—to document, promote and advertise these. There needs to be more media involvement, the project Web site needs to be upgraded and additional staff effort focused telling the story of environmental governance successes in the Philippines. The lessons being learned need to be captured; the mistakes that have been made and why should be documented; and the current municipal and other government champions of the process given louder voices. 4 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION Work to ensure sustainability at every level. A third major theme area of the assessment recommendations revolves around sustaining the activities that EcoGov2 is currently having success implementing. Project staff and USAID recognize the importance of these and they are currently part of the annual planning and activity tactics. Specific strategies and action plans need to be developed that help ensure that FLUPs, CRMPs, and ISWMPs are thoroughly institutionalized at all levels of project involvement. Training materials need to be updated and other information, education and communication (IEC) materials promoted and distributed. LGUs and DENR need to believe in what they are doing and have active hands-on participation at every level. Model sites and upscaling activities need a higher and more active profile in the EcoGov2 portfolio of strategies and actions. Again, DENR needs to be involved at every step. Develop and promote alternative financing options. There is also a fourth theme (related to the third one just cited) that the evaluation team observed at numerous stops—how do these activities stay financed, and in some instances get financed initially? Plans have been developed and EcoGov2 staff have provided excellent TA to help get them in place, and in many cases started. Now the project needs to work with DENR and the LGUs to ensure that the activities stay implemented and in most cases this will probably involve creative budgeting and/or alternative financing mechanisms. In the next several years the project needs to constructively address this issue. It also has direct bearing on the sustainability of the project’s activities. More detailed recommendations and areas needing improvement based on this assessment are discussed in Section 5 for each sector. The recommendations that the team felt warranted the greatest attention in each sector are presented below in ranked order of priority. Based on its field observations, interviews and discussions with project partners, beneficiaries and staff, the midterm evaluation team recommends that USAID exercise the two-year option to extend the EcoGov2 contract, pending successful completion of a pre-agreed upon set of benchmarks and performance standards to be met during the next two years. Several examples of these benchmark activities appear throughout this report and in collective form in Annex D. 1.2.1 Forests and Forest Land Management Sector (a) Achieving the participatory FLUPs is a major success of EcoGov 2. Sustainability of these plans and the co-management approach will depend on the support given to implementation; therefore, the evaluation team recommends that as much support as possible should be placed in the implementation of FLUPs for the remaining years of the current contract. One area that may be effective is to work with DENR and the LGUs to implement a few FLUP pilot/learning centers. One model site per region (where EcoGov2 is working) with accompanying advocacy, media and training would assist in the institutionalization of FLUPs as a concept. The evaluation team recommends that USAID/Philippines consider the FLUP model site development as one milestone for consideration in granting an extension to the EcoGov2 contract. (b) Successful implementation of FLUPs will also depend on the financing available. In this respect, it is recommended that EcoGov2 consider to what extent it can contribute to advocacy of increased government budgeting for LGUs. EcoGov2 may also want to consider an analysis of alternative financing based on emerging opportunities for payment for environmental services, including voluntary carbon markets. There may also be opportunities through the encouragement of enterprises which could generate tax revenues for LGUs. (c) Another complement to addressing financing constraints are opportunities like the new World Bank forestry project. DENR’s FASPO has already stated that EcoGov2’s success with FLUPs needs to be modeled in the new project. The evaluation recommends that USAID/Philippines and DAI EcoGov2 staff pursue a relationship with FASPO and the World Bank that guarantees that the new project fully complements EcoGov2’s work. (d) Forest and Forest Land Management (FFM) training materials (as well as those for CRM and UEM) that are in use today were developed at the end of EcoGov1. If these materials are not being periodically PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 5 upgraded to reflect the challenges, lessons learned and the issues confronted in the field, then we strongly encourage this to happen. This will become even more critical as project activities evolve to a more promotional and success-story mode in the project’s “senior years”. 1.2.2 Coastal Resources Management Sector (a) A major challenge for the Philippines is to strengthen national-level commitment to the reform of capture fisheries by first recognizing that overfishing is a major driver of fish stock decline. While aquaculture has a role to play in helping to meet growing demand for seafood product, and while MPAs are a critical tool in helping to “grow” wild fish stocks, considerably more attention (including political will at the highest level) is needed to bring about meaningful reform for the management of capture fisheries. This will require close dialogue and collaboration between the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and DENR. The EcoGov2 project, together with the Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) project, is in an excellent position to advance the dialogue on these issues. The evaluation team believes there is much more that can be done in this regard, and encourages the project to have close talks with FISH and USAID/Philippines on appropriate objectives to be achieved for meaningful reform of the management of capture fisheries during the remaining years. (b) The current reality of the FISH and EcoGov2 projects collaborating but working independently—where FISH works primarily with BFAR and EcoGov2 works primarily with DENR—should be reassessed and ways to improve more meaningful collaboration identified and put into action. The bottom line is that EcoGov2 can provide TA, but sustainability and effectiveness is ultimately a question of political will and institutional capacity at multiple levels of government. EcoGov2 should be more than a demand-driven form of TA; it must be proactive in crafting an exit strategy that begins to empower responsible institutions during the remaining years of the project. (c) Clearly, DENR is interested to sustain the type of services that EcoGov2 is providing to the LGUs, but requires assistance in achieving its own decentralization goals. The evaluation team believes there is a strong role for EcoGov2 to play, and that the project, together with USAID/Philippines, should immediately take up with DENR senior officials the question of devolution of authority and resources needed to sustain CRM and fisheries management within the LGUs. A starting point would be an assessment of the institutional capacity of the LGUs, including the relevant policy/legal mandates, professional skills, staffing patterns, management systems, leadership and recurrent budgets needed to sustain CRM and fisheries management services and responsibilities over time. This clearly needs to be a key element in the exit strategy of the project. Providing technical assistance alone on the “mechanics” of CRM/fisheries enforcement will not be enough to sustain these essential public services. A broader, more strategic course of institutional capacity development is needed, and EcoGov2—together with FISH— should use the current opportunity to focus on these devolution issues. (d) There is a great need in the Philippines to turn data into information that can become part of public dialogue and that is available to decision makers. This is recognized in EO 533 that requires provincial￾scale “State of the Coast” reports. As none of these required reports have yet been produced, it is recommended that EcoGov2 exert leadership in helping to formulate a standard methodology and format for presentation of the State of the Coast reports that can be demonstrated within the project and replicated throughout the country. Further, it is suggested that a PowerPoint presentation format be produced and that a strategy designed to maximize public dissemination and dialogue on each State of the Coast report, with particular focus on key decision makers. Inherent in this task is the need to identify concrete benchmarks for monitoring and reporting on environmental progress over time. This is true not only for the CRM sector, but for other sectors as well. (e) Whereas the project has conducted some limited monitoring of MPAs (for biophysical change and stakeholder perception of effectiveness) it is recommended that such monitoring be institutionalized and a target for MPA effectiveness (with a set of biophysical and governance indicators) be added to the list of 6 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION targets for which the project is accountable. More than 1,000 MPAs have been established in the Philippines, but most scientists agree that no more than 20% of these can be labeled effective or sustainable. Thus, the focus in EcoGov2 should be on effectiveness and sustainability, and appropriate targets and indicators developed to monitor and report on these objectives during the remaining years. 1.2.3 Urban Environmental Management Sector (a) The evaluation team observed that the UEM TA provision is hampered by the limited number of EcoGov2 staff. Over the past two-and-a-half years, the project has experienced difficulty engaging UEM specialists in the regions and retaining them. Because of the demand for assistance from the LGUs, the current regional staff are spread thinly across the areas they serve, e.g., only two UEM staff members are serving 22 LGUs in Central Visayas and a regional UEM specialist and two assisting professionals in Central Mindanao. In addition, the position of UEM sector leader has been vacant for over a year. This situation has affected the progress of work in the sector as most LGUs have tended to respond with greater speed in the constant presence of EcoGov2 staff and to lag behind, otherwise. The evaluation team recommends a greater staff presence in the UEM sector and especially a sector specialist to lead the group and be responsive to liaison and communication needs at the national level. (b) The established project goal of 20 LGUs investing in wastewater treatment by the end of the five-year contract is woefully behind. Water can be a strong rallying point, especially if the Clean Water Act is given the same teeth as solid waste’s R.A. 9003. The evaluation team recommends that EcoGov2 revisit its strategy surrounding this goal, including efforts to work with DENR to raise awareness of the Clean Water Act and options to improve its enforcement. A new strategy that identifies the major issues and roadblocks to increase investment in wastewater treatment by LGUs, and options to resolve them, should be among the milestones in place if the two-year extension option is considered. (c) Clustering initiatives for sanitary landfills (SLFs) have stalled. Because many rural towns can ill afford a sanitary landfill, and soil and topographic conditions in some render them unsuitable as landfill sites, having a common facility to serve a cluster of LGUs is a practical solution. Eight LGU clusters have so far been cooperating to develop shared SLFs; however, only one, Tacurong-Isulan, has completed its SLF. Metro Bohol’s efforts have been stymied by the change of administration in the very LGU that will host the SLF. The evaluation team recommends that this case be examined carefully and the positive and negative lessons be used in trying again in one or two others sites where numbers can give more leverage to making something happen. EcoGov2 and USAID should also carefully examine working with the other three or four members of the cluster who did not receive TA in the first instance. There is an opportunity here to have a significant success that can give everyone extra mileage. 1.2.4 Governance and Advocacy Sector (a) EcoGov2 needs to ensure the sustainability of the foundation established and the processes that it has promoted. The Year 4 Work Plan begins to shift the emphasis of activities in the direction of more advocacy materials and greater promotion of successes, especially at the LGU level. The evaluation team endorses this and also recommends that a comprehensive strategy be developed for the latter years of the project that focus heavily on project successes, upscaling and upscaling assistance, and additional help/promotion to LSPs, etc. For upscaling to be successful, the final years of the EcoGov2 should dedicate efforts to focus on effective and lively communication materials. DENR and LGUs should be actively involved in the production of these materials, especially those which may be types of user or training manuals. There needs to be a sense of ownership of these materials by end users. Communication materials may also provide a degree of continuity as leadership changes occur within DENR or LGUs. (b) Similar to some of the FLUP implementation issues noted above (see Section 5.2) some LGUs noted the need for assistance with alternative financing, such as environmental economics (e.g., payment for environmental services, carbon credits), and increases in tax revenue from tourism or other enterprises. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 7 The business planning assistance that is just beginning under EcoGov2 may help address some of these concerns; the evaluation team recommends that EcoGov2 staff develop a set of alternative financing options that LGUs can consider to assist with the implementation of their municipal planning efforts, be they ISWMPs, CRMPs, or FLUPs. (c) More work also needs to be done with media to highlight EcoGov2’s significant achievements. Work with the media should also allow DENR and LGUs to take appropriate credit as a means of ownership and to raise public awareness. The evaluation team recommends that a strategy that addresses this issue be developed and implemented as one of the milestones considered in extending the two-year option period of the current contract. (d) The evaluation team also recommends that EcoGov2 management staff and USAID work together to formally develop an exit plan with clearly defined milestones, whether that be for an ending at the close of the fifth year of the project, or at the end of the two-year extension should USAID grant that option. (e) More attention needs to be given to advertising project successes and upscaling activities. The Year 4 Work Plan begins to address these issues, including more of a focus on advocacy activities such as social marketing, etc. The evaluation team recommends that an even greater emphasis be planned and implemented in this area. Hiring an additional staff person to complement the social marketing specialist is also seen as an important option. One person as currently planned, cannot handle the foreseen demand for such services from all the sectors. 1.2.5 Other Key Recommendations (a) The relationships between the LGUs and the DENR must be improved if the processes promulgated by EcoGov2 are to be sustained. EcoGov2 staff and USAID/Philippines need to develop a more proactive strategy that accepts the changes in personnel at DENR, that recognizes the fact that the institution has very limited funds for operational endeavors and that can capitalize on the fact that it is headed by a Secretary who has strong roots in LGUs. EcoGov2 needs to work with DENR staff who will remain and/or look for some consistency in staff and ensure that they take ownership and receive credit for the work undertaken by the project. (b) At the national level, EcoGov2 sector heads, the Chief of Party (CoP), the Deputy Chief of Party (DCoP) and USAID staff have to communicate with DENR departments more regularly, and preferably face-to￾face and one-on-one. Maybe this could be a tag-team approach, but the DENR Department Heads need to have a steady diet of information about what is going on; what and where the successes are; and to be pointed out where, how, and why DENR participation is important. EcoGov2’s goal is to get them excited about contributing and being a part of meaningful TA activities that are taking place outside of Manila. They need to hear it directly from EcoGov2 or USAID and not from some other donor or NGO. Spoonfeeding DENR at the top will hopefully have some trickle down to the provinces and municipalities. But a strategy that engages them more proactively is needed, especially one that shows them examples of where DENR is successfully engaged and working with LGUs, people’s organizations (Pos), local service providers (LSPs) and networks. This document represents one of four deliverables of the mid-term evaluation. (The other three include a work plan prepared by, and for, the evaluation team, a draft report and a PowerPoint presentation of the major points presented in the report.) This report was written following an initial draft presented to USAID/Philippines, the Mid-Term Evaluation Committee and the EcoGov2 staff. Their comments and edits helped to refine and clarify the text presented in this document. (c) This draft report represents one of the deliverables in the midterm evaluation. A review of this document by USAID/Philippines and the Midterm Evaluation Committee, as well as the EcoGov2 staff, will lead to comments that will help refine and clarify the Midterm Evaluation Final Report. A PowerPoint presentation that reviews the methodology, work plan, findings and recommendations will also be prepared for USAID and project partners. 8 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT The Philippine Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project (EcoGov2) is established on a history of USAID investment in natural resources management in the country, and assistance to the government’s decentralization process that began more than 15 years ago. With the adoption of the Local Government Code in the early 1990s, USAID’s technical assistance to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has become more focused on participatory approaches at the regional and, more specifically, at the level of the local government units (LGUs). EcoGov2 follows the EcoGov1 partnership established in 2001 with DENR focused on governance issues related to coastal resources, forests and the management of solid wastes and wastewater. Both phases of EcoGov have concentrated technical assistance efforts in Northern Luzon, Central Visayas, Western, Central and Southern Mindanao, including the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The latter is also a US government foreign assistance priority area. The EcoGov2 contract was awarded to Development Alternatives, Inc (DAI) on October 1, 2004, and covers an initial five years, up to September 30, 2009, of a possible seven-year effort. At the USAID/Philippines Mission level, EcoGov2 contributes to achieving Strategic Objective 4’s (SO4) intermediate results of reduced overfishing, illegal and destructive fishing; reduced illegal logging and conversion of natural forests; and improved management of water resources and solid waste. In addition, it supports the Mission’s overall goal of enhanced security, governance and capacity for sustainable, equitable economic growth through strengthened management of productive and life-sustaining natural resources. 2.2 DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM ADDRESSED BY ECOGOV2 The EcoGov2 Project vision is to conserve biological diversity by addressing open access and mitigating natural resource-based conflicts in priority ecoregions in the Philippines. Considered among the world’s centers of species diversity and endemism, the Philippines’ forest and coastal-marine resources are both critical to economic growth and human health, but also are under constant threat of destruction. Reports indicate that over 100,000 hectares of forests are lost each year due to illegal logging and forest conversion and that as much as 70% of the nation’s coral reefs have been destroyed, mainly through destructive fishing practices. The country has also seen its mangrove forests decline from 500,000 hectares at the beginning of the 20th century to 112,000 hectares in 1998 as mangroves were cut for their timber or were converted into ponds for shrimp or fish aquaculture. Food security is obviously threatened in a country where almost three-quarters of its people derive at least part of their livelihood from the sea. In addition, pollution from inadequate solid waste management and inadequate sanitation and wastewater treatment threatens both biodiversity and human health. 2.3 ECOGOV2 INTERVENTION STRATEGIES Using the experiences and foundation achieved under EcoGov1, the objective of the current (EcoGov2) project is to strengthen the capacities of the DENR, LGUs, and other local institutions to improve the management of forests, coastal, marine and water resources; and to promote integrated solid waste management by LGUs through effective environmental governance. The project complements or directly supports the Philippine government’s Medium-Term Development Plan (MTPDP) and the DENR’s major final outputs and policy emphasis stated by the new DENR Secretary, Lito PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 9 Atienza, of working more effectively with LGUs. According to EcoGov2’s most recent Annual Work Plan (for Year 4), the project will “continue collaborating with DENR field offices as they partner with cities, municipalities, and provinces to implement decentralized and devolved environment and natural resources (ENR) initiatives in the areas of: • Biodiversity conservation • Watershed management • Solid waste management • Wastewater management and sanitation • Social mobilization for improving environmental governance • Improving property rights systems in forests and coastal areas • Promoting investments in natural resources • Alleviating poverty in forest lands and coastal areas” 2.4 PROJECT DESIGN The EcoGov2 project headquartered in Manila operates four offices (and several sub-offices) in the four regions mentioned above. Its technical assistance is concentrated in four sectors: Forests and Forest Land Management (FFM), Coastal Resources Management (CRM), Urban Environmental Management (UEM), and Governance and Advocacy (GoAd). These correspond roughly to the five Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). In 2006, DAI received approval to combine activities aligned with municipal investment in sanitation (essentially wastewater management and investment) with the UEM sector. Specific targets associated with each of the sectors/CLINS are established under the contract. It is expected that by the end of the initial five years of the contract, the targets listed below would have been covered to achieve considerable progress toward strengthened capacities of DENR, LGUs and local institutions to manage forest, coastal-marine and water resources in a sustainable manner, and promote integrated solid waste management by LGUs, through effective environmental governance. The targets include: 1. Eighty government institutions (e.g., DENR, DILG, LGUs) meeting environmental good governance index benchmarks. 2. Two hundred and fifty thousand hectares of forest cover placed under improved management and improving the productive development of 14,000 hectares. Improved management of forests shall be measured with distinct milestones. 3. One hundred and six thousand hectares of coastal areas placed under improved management, establishing 20 new marine sanctuaries and improving the management of 50 existing marine sanctuaries 4. Twenty-five percent of waste diverted to recycling and composting in 90 LGUs. 5. Twenty LGUs investing in wastewater sanitation facilities. 10 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 3.0 PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION This midterm evaluation aims to gauge the effectiveness and the impacts to date of the USAID-funded scope of Philippine Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project (EcoGov2) activities undertaken by Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI). The EcoGov2 contract also states (Section C, IV. Work, page C-7) that such an independent assessment of project performance shall be undertaken to provide a basis for exercising the option to extend the EcoGov2 contract for an additional two years (beyond the initial five-year period). Specifically, the objectives of the evaluation are threefold: • Assess the progress of EcoGov2 relative to the objectives and results specified in the contract (and its modifications). This will include comments on the quality and impact of project deliverables, the approaches, systems, services and strategies employed by DAI and development goals of USAID/ Philippines relative to biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation/mitigation. • Review the management and strategic approaches and methodologies adopted in implementing the project especially as they pertain to working with the DENR and other government agencies, NGOs and municipalities and communities. • Document lessons learned and opportunities with an eye toward the linkages between governance and biodiversity conservation, the sustainability and replicability of initiatives and recommendations for courses of action for change. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 11 4.0 MIDTERM EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The midterm evaluation was designed to gather and assess the maximum amount of information about project activities and impacts in the time allotted. The Scope of Work (SoW), which appears with this report as Annex A, stipulated five tasks that were to be accomplished by the evaluation team. These included: • A review of project-related documents and relevant background material; • The conduct field work and key informant interviews; • A review and assessment of contract deliverables; • A review and assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of project methodology, strategies and linkages developed by DAI; and • A documentation of lessons learned, challenges and opportunities. The evaluation team would also be responsible for four separate deliverables: a work plan with a methodology for collecting information; a draft evaluation report (with an executive summary); a final report incorporating USAID and the Midterm Evaluation Committee comments where appropriate; and two PowerPoint presentations on the evaluation team’s findings, recommendations and EcoGov2 lessons learned. Based on discussions with USAID, DENR’s Foreign Assistance and Special Projects Office (FASPO), and EcoGov2 staff, a field visit itinerary was developed and implemented. Sites visited were selected based on a number of factors that included bio-geographic significance, cross-section of EcoGov2 activities present, duration of EcoGov2 assistance, the level of EcoGov2 investment, the project partners present, and in some instances the availability of key informants. The evaluation exercise was implemented during a period of the year with a significant amount of local holidays. The evaluation team worked though these in the most effective manner with consideration for logistics and the availability of key informants. Key informant interviews and meetings were the main tools used to gather information about EcoGov2 activities. Questions were generally of an open format that also allowed team members to collect information that was often unique to the specific site. Interviews followed a logical progression of questions related to the broad topics of main/significant accomplishments associated with the project, primary issues and problems confronted by the participants and how these were resolved, key recommendations for the future (next 2.5 years) and a discussion about any important lessons that were learned in the course of their interaction with the EcoGov2 staff. At most sites time was also allotted to see and ask questions about specific interventions (co-management areas, SLFs, material recovery facilities [MRFs], tree planting/nurseries, etc.) on the ground. The evaluation team was also given a briefing by EcoGov2 staff as it entered each region. Staff would also accompany the team to the field sites but were not present during the interviews in order to encourage more frank and open discussions about the partner’s relationships and experience with EcoGov2. A complete itinerary of the evaluation team is found in Annex B, and the persons who participated in the focus group interviews and meetings are listed by region in Annex C. About half of the site visits occurred in Mindanao where project investment has been the greatest. An additional 30% of the effort was in Central 12 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION Visayas and the remainder of the key informant interviews and meetings took place in Northern Luzon and Manila. It is important to note that the contracted evaluation team was also joined by two specialists from USAID/ Washington. One, with a background in coastal and aquatic resources, joined the team about halfway through the field site visits. The second, a biodiversity and conflict specialist, provided important inputs during the last 12 days of the evaluation exercise. These two specialists also traveled to Northern Luzon sites to gather additional inputs while the remainder of the team was occupied with initial draft of this report. The Washington specialists contributed the results of their separate trip in a debriefing to USAID/Philippines and with comparative notes to the Central Visayas and Mindanao findings. The complete evaluation team is presented with brief biographical sketches in Annex E. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 13 5.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the report discusses the findings of the evaluation team based on: (a) Reviews of pertinent documentation, (b) Observations made at the sites visited in the regions, (c) LGU, DENR and EcoGov2 staff presentations, and (d) Interviews with key informants during field and office visits. The discussion is oriented primarily toward the technical sectors in which EcoGov2 operates. The first subsection reports the general findings made during the assessment. Subsections 5.2 to 5.5 offer a brief contextual summary linked to the biophysical targets established for the contract. Throughout the section, significant achievements and impacts are presented followed by what are seen as areas/activities that project implementers can improve. Specific recommendations linked to achievements and areas for improvement appear in the text using a bold font. This section is based on facts, findings and comments linked to EcoGov2’s main sectors for Forests and Forest Land Management, Coastal Resources Management, Urban Environmental Management and Governance and Advocacy. The portion of the report also includes observations, areas for improvement and recommendations germane to EcoGov2’s activities. These include strategies to address crosscutting issues such as biodiversity and climate change and overall administration of project activities, including notes about EcoGov2’s relationship with DENR. 5.1 GENERAL FINDINGS Overall the evaluation team was impressed by the level of professionalism and dedication exhibited by the EcoGov2 staff in doing their jobs. It was obvious to the team that at almost every site visited, the staff person was respected and valued for the services she or he had been bringing to the LGU, to DENR, to the LSP or grantee, or to the working groups in the various communities. This is a significant achievement for it also reveals that the technical assistance that EcoGov2 is bringing to the regions and municipalities is highly valued. Almost without exception, each of the focus groups interviewed in the course of the evaluation stated categorically that what EcoGov2 has shared with them has made a positive impact on how they view government, on the value they now place on their jobs and how they live their lives…and, if there is more technical assistance to be given, they want more. Challenges confront every project, and EcoGov2’s complex nature and focus on “soft” assistance and geographic distribution of activities (north to south and upland to ocean bottom) confounds the issues and problems it faces. EcoGov2 staff is commended in the first instance for the accomplishments they have effected under these conditions, and for the hard work and professionalism with which they conducted themselves while doing their jobs. By and large the activities being implemented are adding value to environmental governance practiced by the LGUs and assisted by DENR. The approaches used by EcoGov2 to affect these processes and to bring about positive change are beginning to show the desired results. The evaluation team recommends that EcoGov2 and USAID follow the tasks, ideas and paths outlined in the Year 4 Work Plan. Also, based on its field 14 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION observations, interviews and discussions with project partners, beneficiaries and staff, the midterm evaluation team recommends that USAID exercise the two-year option to extend the EcoGov2 contract, pending successful completion of a pre-agreed upon set of benchmarks and performance standards to be met during the next two years. With one exception (investment in wastewater treatment), EcoGov2 is on track to achieve or exceed its eight targets established for the initial five-year contract period. The evaluation team commends EcoGov2 staff for working hard to meet these objectives. The next subsections review specific facets of the EcoGov2 project and discuss findings, issues and recommendations uncovered by the evaluation team in the course of its assessment. 5.2 FORESTS AND FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT SECTOR (FFM) 5.2.1 Sector Context USAID/Philippines has a rich history of work in the environment sector and over the past 15 years has implemented projects with DENR (and formerly DNR) professionals aimed at protection, restoration and management of the nation’s forests, especially in the upland regions. With the passing of the Local Government Code and the devolution of services to the regions and local government units, DENR’s role is changing from being strictly a manager and protector to one that has greater focus as an advisor and service provider. The Philippine Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project (EcoGov2), building on the framework established in the first EcoGov project, emphasizes a detailed, planned approach to management, budgeting and implementation. DENR, as a major player in the environment with professional staff knowledgeable of Philippine forests and forestry, needs to be actively involved in the process where municipalities are required to manage the resources within their boundaries—be they forested lands, coastal and marine areas and other publicly owned land. EcoGov2, with its participatory planning approach, uses the Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP) as the primary tool to engage the LGUs and DENR to help delineate, manage, protect and sustain a municipality’s classified forest land. Co-management agreements form the cornerstone of a LGU’s FLUP, and provides the legal basis for how these areas will be used and protected by local stakeholders. They are also tenurial instruments that give specific use rights to people living on these classified forest lands helping to ensure that trees and other vegetative cover will provide long-term conservation and protection. EcoGov2 technical assistance focuses on no less than eight types of activities to help complete and legitimize the FLUPs and co-management agreements. Experience gained from using this tool, the training of DENR and LGU staff in its components and use, interactions with regional and local DENR professionals, and the unique attributes of specific sites where it is being applied also allows EcoGov2 to participate and contribute to forest and forest land use policy dialog at the local, regional and national levels. EcoGov2 staff believe that the FFM interventions depicted in Figure 5.2.1 fosters team learning, capacity building, synergy from collaborative undertakings, resolution of land-based conflicts and good governance practices among the DENR and LGU partners. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 15 FIGURE 5.2.1 AN OVERALL APPROACH FOR FOREST AND FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT UNDER ECOGOV2 Source: Development Alternatives, Inc. 2007. Year 4 Work Plan (Draft). Philippine Environmental Governance 2 Project (EcoGov2). Manila. Prepared for USAID/Philippines. 5.2.2 Targets In order to be effective with its provision of services to the LGUs and to directly link with DENR objectives, the FFM sector of EcoGov2’s operations are aimed at two main objectives. Achieving both objectives is seen as avenues to poverty alleviation and indirectly confronts illegal logging, timber poaching and forest conversion. Specifically, in the course of its five-year implementation, under CLIN 0002, EcoGov2 seeks to: (a) Improve the management of at least 250,000 hectares of natural forest, and (b) Develop at least 14,000 hectares of bare forest lands. The indicator for the first biophysical target is the total number of hectares of natural forest under improved management within the municipalities engaged with EcoGov2 assistance. Natural forests include old growth and residual forests and degraded forest lands that are undergoing processes of natural regeneration. Project documents state that improved management is achieved when open access areas are placed under one of five tenure/allocation arrangements and when tenured areas are under effective and sustainable management. The improved management target is divided among the regions where EcoGov2 operates: South Central Mindanao, Western Mindanao, Central Visayas and Northern Luzon. As of the end of Year 3, 61% of the target figure (155,645), nationwide, had been achieved. The indicator for the second biophysical target is the total number of hectares of forestland classified as bare land, within the LGUs assisted by EcoGov2, that are under productive development, i.e., they come under a 16 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION signed co-management agreement that stipulates a plan for moving the bare lands into a productive use (forest tree plantation, commercial cover species such as rubber trees, pineapple, jathropa, etc.). Nationwide, at the end of Year 3, EcoGov2 assisted co-management agreements between DENR and LGUs, which placed about 12,500 hectares (95 % of the target) of bare forest lands under productive development. 5.2.3 Achievements and Impacts Each year that EcoGov2 has been implemented has seen achievements and impacts; some are large, some are small. A list of accomplishments that the evaluation team sees as significant is elaborated below. Project staff, DENR, the assisted LGUs and USAID can probably provide a larger list of items and details. Significant (and not in any priority order) in our eyes has been the EcoGov2 technical assistance that has promoted or led to achievements listed below. • FLUPs are being institutionalized. This is a tremendous gain for environmental governance and participatory planning. The fact that LGUs and DENR have bought into it and are assisting other LGUs in their FLUP efforts is very good testimony. DENR’s FASPO has also directed the World Bank, UNDP and other donors to use it as model in their projects with DENR. • The province of Nueva Vizcaya was concerned that it had little official authority to reforest and protect existing forest areas. Over the past three years EcoGov2 has brought together LGUs and DENR to put in place, or begin planning, FLUPs across the province. More significantly, EcoGov2 has effectively handed over the planning of the remaining municipalities to the local governments and Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO). • LGUs, DENR and individual farmers and forest dwellers realize the value, utility and tenure security afforded by the co-management process, the associated MOAs and IPRs. Those that have them in place praise the process and the results to date; others are working diligently to get them established. Some DENR Central Environment and Natural Resources Offices (CENROs) claim that their time and resources are stretched as they seek to help the LGUs get co-management in place. • Local service providers are gaining capacity in providing environmental services. They are proud and confident of the EcoGov2-assisted skills and experience they are acquiring and improving to help LGUs, DENR and POs. In terms of overall sustainability of these efforts, EcoGov2’s impact may be greater if additional LSPs and grantees could be trained and used in implementing project activities. As the project begins to wind down, a greater portion of resources should be focused on these efforts. (The discussion in Section 5.5 also addresses this topic.) • In ARMM, a Sustainable Forest Management Act has been developed. This is a first—even before DENR can agree on similar policy for the rest of the country. Given the complexities of working in ARMM this is a substantial accomplishment. Follow-up and monitoring of the implementation of the Act, especially the pros and cons that are experienced, will be important for EcoGov2 to document in the next couple of years. • Cooperation among LGUs and the DENR is being established; it is very proactive in some areas. Champions of the EcoGov2 assistance exist in both institutions. When they are working together with a “we can do this” spirit, significant strides are being made. • There is a demand by LGUs for additional assistance in managing their forestlands. There is no better compliment, or indicator of a successful approach than this. It is understood that there are numerous factors that come together to make it happen. EcoGov2, together with DENR, should continue to promote these successes with field visits to successful (model) sites, promotional materials, etc. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 17 • Some DENR and LGU staff now comprehend a landscape approach to planning that requires stakeholders from civil society, government and the private sector to work together to resolve environmental issues and sustain livelihoods. The associations strengthened by EcoGov2, the landscape approaches, and the joint training exercises with the LGUs, DENR and POs, all treated as equal participants, invigorate this approach and strengthen participatory planning. • EcoGov2 has worked to raise awareness about critical biodiversity assets in 15 different provinces. This awareness and EcoGov2’s commitment to take it to the next level will help DENR’s work and also develop inter-LGU cooperation within a region as awareness about assets are discussed and planned for together. The sum of all the parts is greater than one by itself. • The promotion of a set of governance-oriented forestry guidelines at the national level is a current and important dialog. EcoGov2’s hands-on experiences, especially those gleaned from working with LGUs when trying to affect community-level management are positive elements that can contribute to this discussion at the national level. • Cooperation among stakeholders, especially those that result in public-private partnerships that help promote soil and water conservation, raises awareness about biodiversity and helps protect forest assets. As EcoGov2 becomes more involved in business accountability standards and goal setting with municipalities, these skills will also spill over into the awareness arena and help civil society understand the linkages between environmental protection and livelihoods. • EcoGov2’s technical assistance in the FLUP process have helped claimants, tenure holders and LGUs realize that they can locally resolve their forest land problems if only they take collective actions. (The same holds true for the CRM zoning process and SWM planning.) Box 5.2.1. Resolving conflicts in the FFM sector In almost all LGUs that assisted with EcoGov2 TA, the joint DENR-LGU process in preparing, legitimizing and approving the forest land use plans has helped directly or indirectly resolve conflict issues. The FLUP process requires participants to focus on issues that relate to forest allocation plans, prioritizing watersheds, closing open access areas, boundary and responsibility conflicts among existing tenure holders (especially between CBFMAs and CADTs, CADTs and NIPAS, etc.), individual claimants within communal tenured areas (such as CBFMA, CADT, co-management areas, watershed reservations, NIPAS), and institutional conflicts between DENR, LGUs, and NCIP. In many cases, the local stakeholders with the LGU, local leaders, and local DENR agree to "disagree" in areas of unresolved boundaries or claims. The major area of conflict that was clarified by the FLUP process and a significant outcome of EcoGov2 TA is this: claimants, tenure holders, and LGUs realized that they can locally resolve their forest land problems if they only take collective actions. Source: Guiang, E. Nov.2007. Personal communication. • The FLUP process has also given the LGUs information and authority (the MOAs) to resist national decisions to unilaterally issue tenure instruments without the LGU’s and community’s clearance and endorsement. • A policy established on conflict and alternative dispute resolution is also a significant result of EcoGov2’s experience and ability to bring important concepts to a national-level discussion. The CBFM moratorium and next steps discussion is equally important and EcoGov2’s involvement and contribution is also recognized as key assets in the dialog. 5.2.4 Areas for Improvement and Recommendations This subsection examines areas within the FFM sector that the evaluation team sees as possible areas that need improvement. Given the short time that the evaluation team was on the ground, members may not have seen 18 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION all sides of the issue, and perhaps the improvement may already have happened or been planned for. In other instances these may become opportunities for additional successes for the overall contract. There are four areas in the FFM sector that the evaluation team views as most important and these are listed first in ranked order of priority (as viewed by the team). Additional recommendations for the sector follow this initial discussion. 1. Achieving the participatory FLUPs is a major success of EcoGov 2. Sustainability of these plans and the co-management approach will depend on the support given to implementation; therefore, the evaluation team recommends that as much support as possible should be placed in the implementation of FLUPs for the remaining years of the current contract. One area that may be effective is to work with DENR and the LGUs to implement a few FLUP pilot/learning centers. One model site per region (where EcoGov2 is working) with accompanying advocacy, media and training would assist in the institutionalization of FLUPs as a concept. The evaluation team recommends that USAID/ Philippines consider the FLUP model site development as one milestone for consideration in granting an extension to the EcoGov2 contract. 2. Successful implementation of FLUPs will also depend on the financing available. In this respect, it is recommended that EcoGov2 consider to what extent it can contribute to advocacy of increased government budgeting for LGUs. EcoGov2 may also want to consider an analysis of alternative financing based on emerging opportunities for payment for environmental services, including voluntary carbon markets. There may also be opportunities through the encouragement of enterprises which could generate tax revenues for LGUs. Additional discussion on this topic can also be found in Section 5.7.3. 3. Another complement to addressing financing constraints are opportunities like the new World Bank forestry project. DENR’s FASPO has already stated that EcoGov2’s success with FLUPs needs to be modeled in the new project. The evaluation team recommends that USAID/Philippines and EcoGov2 staff pursue a relationship with FASPO and the World Bank that guarantees that the new project fully complements EcoGov2’s work. 4. FFM training materials (as well as those for CRM and UEM) that are in use today were developed at the end of EcoGov1. If these materials are not being periodically upgraded to reflect the challenges, lessons learned and the issues confronted in the field, then we strongly encourage this to happen. This will become even more critical as project activities evolve to a more promotional and success-story mode in the project’s “senior years”. (Additional discussion on this topic is also presented in Section 5.5.) Other areas for improvement and their recommendations with an FFM focus that are of lesser importance are discussed below in no specific order of priority. In several instances these may complement those mentioned in the rank order list above. • Moving from policy success to successful field implementation is almost always a challenge. Communication to the regions and to the municipal level is obviously important, and having a good understanding of what the policy means on ground is of paramount importance. EcoGov2 can help in communicating policy and its practical ramifications to the regions and to the municipalities especially as it affects their FLUPs and co-management agreements. • Some of the activities associated with moving bare forest land into productive land involve monoculture of bananas, jatropha, pineapple or other single cover crop species. EcoGov2 needs to aggressively address the concerns of monoculture plantations and the reasoning behind them relative to their relationship to biodiversity conservation. • In at least one region it appeared that the regional-level DENR PENRO staff viewed FLUPs as something that the CENROs should contend with. This is true, but collectively the FLUPs can represent a significant part of the region’s activities and operations. EcoGov2 may be able to affect a greater change by also PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 19 engaging DENR regional staff in more participatory planning activities. This is happening (e.g., Nueva Vizcaya, Aurora), or at least is planned in some regions, especially where networking and associations are coming into prominence. The experiences gained in these instances (e.g., with ridge-to-reef activities) need to be capitalized in other regions. • FLUPs and co-management agreement implementation are in their infancy. LGUs are keen on their use because they see them as bringing benefits, even in the short term. Farmers and forest dwellers, with their IPR papers in hand, are thankful for the tenure rights and what is spelled out about what they can (and cannot) do on their lands. EcoGov2 needs to keep a steady and careful watch on the sites as the new tools are used. Problems and issues need to be addressed as quickly as possible, and unanticipated successes also need to be documented and tracked. This is equally important for issues related to enforcement, an issue of primary concern to DENR. • The success of the seedling distribution policy of “receive now, pay later” is still an unknown despite the initial enthusiasm at some sites. In other sites there is a reticence by farmers to acquire perennial plants for their land when they are (more) assured of income from their traditionally planted annual crops. LGU technical working groups will need more than just contracted (academic) studies that confirm that sites are suitable for a new, and perhaps more economic, perennial species. The farmers need to be engaged in the process and the decision making. The evaluation team is also not sure that farmers fully understand that seedlings they are planting now will gradually take some of their agricultural land out of production. EcoGov2 and DENR staff need to work closely with LGUs to ensure that the “right” mix of species are being promoted and that proper extension about the silvics is available, and that the marketability of the species is understood and embraced by the farmers. • Networking, or associations with overlapping or common goals, within a province or among adjacent LGUs is capturing the imagination of some technical working groups (TWGs) and they see the advantage that it brings in leveraging resources. The evaluation team saw this most prominently in the FFM activities in Maasim and Aurora Province, for CRM with the IRBRA9 group and for UEM activities in Bohol. EcoGov2 should continue to work closely with these pilot areas to understand the problems and the benefits. Additionally, DENR needs to be encouraged to participate to the fullest in these activities. From an efficiency and cost-effectiveness standpoint, this seems to make perfect sense: DENR should get greater bang for their peso this way more than in many others. • The evaluation team did not see concrete evidence in our limited visits of coordination, or joint activities, between DENR CENRO and BFAR for activities linked to mangroves nor by logical association with LGUs/barangays. This seems like an excellent opportunity that should not be wasted and we encourage EcoGov2 be more proactive in capitalizing on this in areas where they occur. (See also the discussion in Section 5.3.4.) 5.3 COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (CRM) SECTOR 5.3.1 The Context Implementation of CRM is in pursuance to the Philippines Local Government Code (RA 7160) of 1991 and the Philippines Fisheries Code (RA 8550) of 1998 (that mandates LGUs with marine waters to manage coastal and fisheries resources in coordination with concerned agencies, private sector representatives, and NGOs). Implementation of CRM is likewise in pursuance of Executive Order (EO) 533: the adoption of integrated coastal management as a strategy to ensure the sustainable development of coastal and marine resources. This EO directs the DENR to develop a national integrated coastal management project to coordinate all relevant national and local agencies, and to mainstream coastal management into planning and economic development projects. EcoGov2 implementation of CRM addresses critical threats to the country’s coastal areas, including overfishing and destructive fishing practices, toward the goal of increasing the amount of coastal areas under 20 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION improved management. Its activities support MFO 2 to maintain and stabilize the ecological functions of critical habitats (OVI 2.2) and increase the area under sustainable resource management (OVI 2.3). Such activities also support MFO 3 regarding environmental violations detected and addressed (OVI 3.1) pursuant to DENR’s 12-Point Agenda. EcoGov2 also works to address problems of open access and natural resource-based conflicts in priority ecoregions. Fisheries play a key role in the social and economic life of the Philippines, providing employment, essential nutrition, and even tourism enterprise opportunities for a rapidly expanding, predominantly coastal population. Yet numerous signs indicate that this valuable resource is threatened by overfishing, destructive and illegal fishing, and growing demand for seafood. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) has declined dramatically in recent decades, and some experts have begun to warn of the possible crash of selected stocks in as little as 10 years.1 5.3.2 Targets The project considers it critical that LGUs show commitment to their legitimized CRMPs, and measures such commitment in various ways, including through budget allocations to the sector, the creation of new or strengthening of existing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), and the institutionalization of LGU and inter-LGU committees and collaborative bodies. Specific targets for the CRM sector under EcoGov2 include the following: (a) One hundred six thousand and four hundred ha of coastal area under “improved” management; (b) Twenty new marine sanctuaries2 established, encompassing 627 ha; and (c) Fifty existing marine sanctuaries strengthened, encompassing 2,500 ha. These targets are to be achieved based on established criteria in four strategic geographical locations in the Philippines: (i) Northern Luzon; (ii) Central Visayas; (iii) Southern and Central Mindanao; and (iv) Western Mindanao. The table below shows the LGUs that participated in the guided self-assessment to develop coastal resource indices (CRM baseline) in 2005. Improved management in 106,400 ha of coastal areas is counted when LGUs meet certain conditions and implement good practices as follows: (i) respective fisheries and CRM plans of partner LGUs are legitimized; (ii) annual local budget for CRM is allocated; (iii) resource management organizations are formed and functional; and (iv) good practices in CRM and/or fisheries management are implemented. Similarly, criteria and good practices are defined relative to the establishment of new marine sanctuaries. These include (i) multi-sectoral management bodies are formed, (ii) MPA management plan is approved, (iii) LGU has allocated budgetary support, and (iv) at least two implementation activities have been started (e.g., community IEC, installation and maintenance of MPA marker buoys, implementation of enforcement activities, etc.). In addition, the project utilizes a modified version of the MPA certification scheme previously developed by the CCEF to “score” the relative state of readiness for both existing and new sanctuaries. Finally, the project has worked with several LGUs by facilitating a “guided self-assessment” regarding their CRM capacity development needs (see Table 5.3.1). 1 As excerpted from Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH): Mid-term Evaluation Report. February 9, 2007. USAID/Philippines. 2 As referred to by EcoGov2, “Marine Sanctuaries” are “Marine Protected Areas” under the jurisdiction of LGUs. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 21 TABLE 5.3.1. LGUS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE GUIDED SELF-ASSESSMENT TO ESTABLISH A CRM BASELINE Geographical Location / Number of LGU Province Municipality City Total Remarks / Municipal/City LGUs Northern Luzon 4 1. Aurora 4 0 4 Baler, Dipaculao, San Luis and Dinalungan Central Visayas: 25 1. Cebu 6 2 8 Municipality of: Balamban, Compostela, Dalaguete, Pilar, Poro, Sn. Francisco; and City of: Toledo and Danao 2. Bohol 8 1 9 Municipality of: Alburquerque, Cortes, Dauis, Duero, Jagna, Maribojoc, Panglao, Talibon; and City of Tagbilaran 3. Negros Oriental 5 3 8 Municipality of Amlan, Dauin, La Libertad, San Jose, Sta. Catalina and Cities of Bais, Bayawan and Tanjay Southern and Central Mindanao: 7 1. Sarangani 3 0 3 Kiamba, Maasim and Maitum 2. Sultan Kudarat 2 0 2 Kalamansig and Lebak 3. Maguindanao 1 0 1 Parang 4. Davao del Sur 0 1 1 Davao City (started 2005) Western Mindanao 17 1. Basilan 1 1 2 Municipality of Lamitan and City of Isabela 2. Zamboanga Sibugay 6 0 6 Buug, Naga, R.T.Lim, Ipil, Payao and Tungawan 3. Zamboanga del Sur 7 2 9 Municipality of Dimataling, Dumalinao, Tabina, Dinas, Labangan, San Pablo, Tukuran; and Cities of Pagadian and Zamboanga 5.3.3 Achievements and Impacts Based on EcoGov2 quarterly reports and through focus group discussions at various project sites visited by the evaluation team, this section highlights some of the significant achievements and impacts of the project during its first three years of operation. These are not listed in order of priority, nor is this intended to be an exhaustive list. • Evidence from the majority of LGUs receiving EcoGov2 assistance shows an increase in LGU budgetary allocation for the CRM sector, although total funds are generally still far short of what is needed to sustain enforcement and other management operations in the long term. • The project exceeded (by the end of Year 3) the LoP target of ‘establish 20 new marine sanctuaries’, and the target for ‘strengthening 50 existing marine sanctuaries’ is projected to be met by the end of Year 4. On paper, these numbers look good, and in fact the project has undertaken a limited degree of work to evaluate MPA effectiveness. In general, it appears that stakeholder perception is that the MPAs are having a positive effect on fisheries abundance and catch. • The project has achieved significant institutional strengthening and collaboration among eight LGUs in western Mindanao toward the protection of Illana Bay (IBRA9 association). This example, and a similar example of inter-LGU collaboration in the Camotes Islands, should be the focus of exchange visits and additional “learning” during the project’s final two years. • Davao City, an expansion LGU, issued an EO creating a CRM Office under the City Agriculture Office and currently facilitates planning and implementation of coastal zoning (in pursuance to EO No. 4 s. 2007) within its 19,827 ha coastal marine water jurisdiction which is a portion of Davao Gulf. Coastal 22 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION management zoning is believed to resolve existing conflict on coastal resource use and eventual conservation of its marine biodiversity. The city has already passed an ordinance adopting three marine sanctuaries established for sustainable management. Likewise, it is in the process of establishing an ordinance toward a co-management agreement simultaneous to strengthening its “Ridge-to-Reef” concept in pursuance to the city’s Watershed Code. Other LGUs with CRM sites had started developing such concepts by integrating its CRMPs with the terrestrial zone (e.g., foreshore, river banks, riparian zones) toward critical watersheds. • There is a continuing effort to strengthen the implementation of co-management activities in 580 ha of mangrove in Talibon, Bohol. The mangrove area is beginning to regenerate to its former natural biodiversity, and Community Forestry Management Agreements are being issued to qualified stakeholders in co-management area. • Similarly, EcoGov2 assistance has helped to strengthen the interagency/multi-sectoral Coastal-Fishery Law Enforcement Team. Initial results in some areas show an enhanced coordination with concerned national government agencies, NGOs and POs. These can help lead to effective fishery/coastal law enforcement and a more sustainable policy for logistical support. • CRM activities have helped local constituents address and resolve conflict issues surrounding coastal resources. (See Box 5.3.1 below.) Box 5.3.1 Conflict resolution in the CRM sector Rido, or tribal conflict, is common in Muslim Mindanao. Although not part of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, the Labangan Municipality of Zamboanga del Sur has had its share of this type of problem. When EcoGov2 introduced its CRM project in Barangay Combo in Labangan, the technical working group (TWG) members saw that nothing could be achieved if the warring families in the area could not be reconciled, and asked to participate. The members of the group talked among themselves and decided to ask the Mayor to intervene, for the sake of the project. The mayor obliged to play the role of peacemaker, and succeeded to forge a peace pact among the families. The project activities were launched after each family promised to participate and keep the peace. To this day, the pact holds and the marine protected area continues to enjoy the participation of the erstwhile protagonists in the community. Source: Lim, E. Nov 2007. Personal communication. • DENR’s FASPO indicates that a new five-year, ADB-funded ICRM project will be required to incorporate practices and lessons learned from EcoGov2 implementation. This is a testament that the processes, systems, and standards being applied by the project are seen to be generally correct and effective. • The project has successfully collaborated with other USAID projects, including SCOTIA, CRFC, and FISH, as well as with local tourism councils. 5.3.4 Areas for Improvement and Recommendations There are five areas in the CRM sector that the evaluation team views as most important. These are presented next in ranked order of priority (as viewed by the team). Additional recommendations for the sector follow this initial discussion. (a) A major challenge for the Philippines is to strengthen national-level commitment to the reform of capture fisheries by first recognizing that overfishing is a major driver of fish stock decline. While aquaculture has a role to play in helping to meet growing demand for seafood product, and while MPAs are a critical tool in helping to “grow” wild fish stocks, considerably more attention (including political will at the highest level) is needed to bring about meaningful reform for the management of capture fisheries. This will require close dialogue and collaboration between BFAR and DENR. The EcoGov2 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 23 project, together with the FISH project, is in an excellent position to advance the dialogue on these issues. The evaluation team believes much more that can be done in this regard, and encourages the project to have close talks with FISH and USAID/Philippines on appropriate objectives to be achieved for meaningful reform for the management of capture fisheries during the remaining years. (b) The current reality of the FISH and EcoGov2 projects collaborating but working independently—where FISH works primarily with BFAR and EcoGov2 works primarily with DENR—should be reassessed and ways to improve more meaningful collaboration identified and put into action. The bottom line is that EcoGov2 can provide TA, but sustainability and effectiveness is ultimately a question of political will and institutional capacity at multiple levels of government. EcoGov2 should be more than a demand￾driven form of TA; it must be proactive in crafting an exit strategy that begins to empower responsible institutions during the remaining years of the project. (c) Clearly, DENR is interested in sustaining the type of services that EcoGov2 is providing to the LGUs, but requires assistance in achieving its own decentralization goals. The evaluation team believes there is a strong role for EcoGov2 to play, and that the project, together with USAID/Philippines, should immediately take up with DENR senior officials, the question of devolution of authority and resources needed to sustain CRM and fisheries management within the LGUs. A starting point would be an assessment of the institutional capacity of the LGUs, including the relevant policy/legal mandates, professional skills, staffing patterns, management systems, leadership, and recurrent budgets needed to sustain CRM and fisheries management services and responsibilities over time. This clearly needs to be a key element in the exit strategy of the project. Providing technical assistance alone on the “mechanics” of CRM/fisheries enforcement will not be enough to sustain these essential public services. A broader, more strategic course of institutional capacity development is needed, and EcoGov2—together with FISH—should use the current opportunity to focus on these devolution issues. (d) There is a great need in the Philippines to turn data into information that can become part of the public dialogue and that is available to decision makers. This is recognized in EO 533 that requires provincial-scale “State of the Coast” reports. As none of these required reports have yet been produced, it is recommended that EcoGov2 exert leadership in helping to formulate a standard methodology and format for presentation of the State of the Coast reports that can be demonstrated within the project and replicated throughout the country. Further, it is suggested that a PowerPoint presentation format be produced and that a strategy be designed to maximize public dissemination and dialogue on each State of the Coast report, with particular focus on key decision makers. Inherent in this task is the need to identify concrete benchmarks for monitoring and reporting on environmental progress over time. This is true not only for the CRM sector, but for other sectors as well. (e) Whereas the project has conducted some limited monitoring of MPAs (for biophysical change and stakeholder perception of effectiveness) it is recommended that such monitoring be institutionalized and a target for MPA effectiveness be added to the list of targets for which the project is accountable. More than 1,000 MPAs have been established in the Philippines, but most scientists agree that no more than 20% of these can be labeled effective or sustainable. Thus, the focus in EcoGov2 should be on effectiveness and sustainability, and appropriate targets and indicators developed to monitor and report on these objectives during the remaining years. Additional areas for improvement and their recommendations with a CRM focus that are of lesser importance and may complement those just mentioned are discussed below in no specific order of priority. • The evaluation team did not see concrete evidence in our limited visits of coordination, or joint activities, between DENR CENRO and BFAR for activities linked to mangroves, nor by logical association with LGUs/barangays. This seems like an excellent opportunity that should not be wasted, and we encourage EcoGov2 to be more proactive in encouraging BFAR-DENR collaboration where appropriate. One starting place might be the Talibon co-management area that includes mangroves, fish ponds, and 24 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION surrounding coastal waters, and where a ridge-to-reef approach may be appropriate and possible. It is important for the country to establish successful models for co-management of linked terrestrial-marine ecosystems, and EcoGov2, in its excellent position, needs to be a leader in establishing models for co-management. • Due to the reluctance of some field-based DENR officials to become involved or to lead participatory, process-oriented planning and implementation, it is recommended that EcoGov2 conduct special events that begin with formal commitment and sponsorship for implementation from central and provincial DENR officials. The project should then work to develop the capacity of DENR officials to design and facilitate process-oriented interventions with LGUs and other stakeholders. • Updating IEC and advocacy resource materials based on EcoGov2 experiences with LGUs and other partners is an important element of ensuring the sustainability of CRM activities and practices promoted by the project. It is important to work with project partners in these efforts to show that as needs change, so does the need for improving and updating resource materials. • EcoGov2 may wish to consider the development of an “options checklist” that is reviewed and agreed upon in a civil society setting. Such a list would examine essential technical, social and economic issues common to establishing marine sanctuaries within areas where a coastal marine waters management plan has not yet be completed. This may help avoid putting an LGU in an embarrassing position when it comes to defending established marine sanctuaries within a municipality. • Networking of marine sanctuaries has been a commendable initiative under EcoGov2.The evaluation team recommends that simple messages be developed with community-based constituents to help create a broader and word-of-mouth understanding of the benefits of the networking activities. • EcoGov2 assistance has already helped to strengthen the Coastal-Fishery Law Enforcement Team. The evaluation team recommends that the project explore with POs, NGOs and other relevant partners additional avenues that will help to strengthen and improve the Team’s effectiveness as an interagency operative working with the DENR, BFAR and LGUs. • The project should continue to promote decision-support tools, (e.g., Fish BE) that enhance integrated analysis and decision making for good governance in CRM. However, considerable caution is urged in managing expectations and understanding the limitations of models, especially where such models will be ultimately used in resource management decisions such as establishing sustainable fish catch quotas. Nevertheless, continued use and refinement of the model is warranted, especially with the more advanced LGUs or LGU clusters who have the capacity to absorb the additional technical assistance they will require. The project should ensure that all aspects of the Fish BE model are relevant, feasible, useful and sustainable at the LGU level. • Continue to strengthen inter-LGU alliances such as IBRA9 that enhance beneficial ecological and economic outcomes. Similarly, strengthen collective inter-agency collaboration with DENR as lead supporting these alliances to institutionalize mobilization and delivery of necessary technical assistance to LGUs and coastal community organizations. • Improve coaching/mentoring techniques to further strengthen capabilities of Local Service Providers (LSPs), i.e., primarily among the DENR, BFAR and the DILG, and collectively with NGOs, academe and individual practitioners. EcoGov2’s (and EcoGov1’s) use of MOAs has been most successful in this regard and similar transparent instruments could be used here to formalize commitments that help sustain the implementation of EcoGov2 best practices. • EcoGov2 staff are encouraged to initiate policy refinements and links with concerned agencies at local and national levels that will result in greater harmony between the NIPAS Law and the Fisheries Code. The impetus of these refinements would be to encourage greater community presence PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 25 and participation relative to the management and implementation of nationally declared MPAs (e.g., seascapes) and LGU-initiated established Marine Sanctuaries. • EcoGov2 should coordinate with the DENR-Environment and Management Bureau (EMB) and with established private institutions regarding updated coastal marine water and river water quality monitoring results and relate these results according to locations of water quality monitoring stations. Similarly, EcoGov2 should work with LGUs to monitor biodiversity indicators related to improved water quality, such as number and abundance of marine species, if they are not doing so already. These activities will help provide checks on whether or not LGU-established marine sanctuaries have acceptable waters quality standards for pollution and/or contamination. These water quality parameters (if checked properly) add to the credibility of these marine sanctuaries. The same procedures may be applied to designated coastal tourism and recreation zones relative to the final formulation of coastal zoning plans. 5.4 URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (UEM) 5.4.1 Context The Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act 7160) has mandated local governments to develop solid waste management projects. In 2000, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (Republic Act 9003) was enacted, expanding the role of local governments in addressing the solid waste management concerns. The law requires all LGUs to prepare 10-year solid waste management plans in accordance with the National Solid Waste Management Framework. It requires them to divert at least 25% of all solid wastes from the waste stream through various resource recovery methods. To accomplish this, the law makes waste segregation at source mandatory. The law also prohibits new open dumpsites for waste disposal; existing ones need to be converted into managed and controlled dumpsites by 2004 and then replaced with sanitary landfills by 2006. Moreover, it further specifies fees, fines and penalties as well as incentives for both LGUs and private entities. Since the enactment of R. A. 9003, a great majority of the local governments have experienced difficulties complying with the law that impose such stringent requirements and deadlines. The overall compliance picture, however, shows that the number of LGUs that shifted to controlled dumpsites, established materials recovery facilities and provided sites for sanitary landfills, from the end of 2005 to the present, far surpass the number from the years 2001 to early 2005. To assist local governments implement their solid waste management plans and achieve the minimum 25% waste diversion, the EcoGov2 project provides technical assistance for the implementation of activities resulting in the improved management of solid waste. In 2004, the Philippine Congress passed the Clean Water Act (R.A. 9275) to address pollution from domestic, industrial and non-point sources. It heralded major regulatory shifts including the increased role of governments, and incentives for investing in wastewater treatment systems. The long-term objective of the EcoGov2 project in this respect is to improve the management and treatment of sewage and septage, and in the short-term, to help LGUs invest in sanitation facilities. 5.4.2 Targets For the urban environmental management sector, the EcoGov2 project has two specific targets: (a) CLIN 4: Improved waste management in terms of significant diversion (minimum of 25%) of waste from open dumps to controlled dumps, sanitary landfills, and materials recovery (recycling and composting) in at least 90 LGUs; (b) CLIN 5: Promotion of public and private investment in wastewater treatment facilities in at least 20 LGUs. Operationally defined indicators for both CLIN 4 and CLIN 5 are: 26 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION CLIN 4 • LGUs diverting 25% of recyclables and biodegradables as measured from end-of-pipe (EOP) assessment after 3-5 years of implementation in selected LGUs and evidenced by specific LGU actions to reduce waste stream; • Additional indicators such as: LGUs with completed Solid Waste Management Plans; with supporting local ordinances; with organized informal recycling and waste handling systems; and with composting facilities; CLIN 5 • Actual investments by LGUs or private sector (with agreements and contracts) in sanitation facilities; and • Additional indicators such as: LGUs with wastewater management plans and with engineering plans. The annual performance targets for SWM are as follows: Year Annual Target (Original) Cumulative Target (Original) Cumulative Target (Revised) 2005 18 18 2006 22 40 24 2007 20 60 44 2008 15 75 59 2009 15 90 90 5.4.3 Achievements and Impacts • Targets are being achieved. The technical assistance provided by the EcoGov2 project has been deemed timely and relevant. In the first place, it helped increase awareness among LGUs of their responsibility for the management of solid wastes. Moreover, it provided the foundation and the necessary preparation to enable the LGUs in the project’s sites to comply with R.A. 9003 in a comprehensive manner. • The SWM targets thus far are being met. At midterm, the project has achieved close to half (49%) of its LoP target. • The CLIN 4 and CLIN 5 indicators are sound and relevant to the project targets for the UEM sector. The 25% waste diversion target is what is specified under RA 9003 as a minimum target for LGUs. Achieving this minimum project target means complying with what the law requires. Considering the waste characteristics of most localities (60-80% of wastes are compostable), the target can be readily achieved with effective segregation and effectively operating composting facilities. The additional indicators are what set the stage for diverting compostable, factory returnable and recyclable materials from the waste disposal stream. In the case of wastewater management, detailed engineering plans, management plans and specific MOUs and contracts are necessary preconditions to the actual construction and operation of the WWM facilities. TABLE 5.4.1. ACHIEVEMENT OF SWM ANNUAL TARGETS (AS OF 9/30/2007) Year Annual Target (Original) Accomplishment Cumulative Target (Revised) 2005 18 0 2006 22 22 24 2007 20 22* 44 2008 15 59 2009 15 90 Totals 90 44 *Projected figure PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 27 • The milestones detailed above have resulted in a demonstration effect for other LGUs (especially neighboring ones) and have given provincial-level LGUs engaged in the project the impetus to reach out to their other component municipalities that are not engaged in the project. • EcoGov2 has assisted with a significant number of initiatives that have facilitated LGU compliance. The project has achieved significant strides in helping craft policies in support of R.A. 9003 enforcement. These had to do with the review and approval process of SWM Plans; phased compliance on meeting the law’s requirements; the categories of sanitary landfills and the checklist for the Initial Environmental Examination of Categories 1 and 2 landfills; and the closure and rehabilitation of open and controlled dumps. The annotated outline of the SWM Plan, the ISWM Training Guide and the studies on the various elements of a SWM system—these have greatly helped the LGUs prepare their 10-year SWM Plans. Likewise, the reports on septage management have provided bases for LGU decision-making regarding investments in wastewater treatment facilities. TABLE 5.4.2. PROGRESS IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (AS OF 9/30/2007) Indicator LoP Target Baseline (Oct '04) End of Yr 1 (Sept. '05) End of Yr 2 (Sept. '06) Projected End of Yr 3 (Sept. ‘07) Cumulative target based on annual work plans 0 18 24 63 LGUs with closed dumpsites or with controlled dumpsites 5 8 15 39 LGUs with enacted SWM ordinances 90 1 11 26 42 LGUs with completed, legitimized ISWM Plans 90 20 26 40 49 LGUs with ongoing IEC Projects for ISWM 90 11 31 40 44 LGUs with operational composting and/or MRF 90 2 14 37 48 LGUs meeting 25% waste diversion goal 90 0 0 22 44 (48%) Note: Achievement of 25% diversion is determined based on evidences of the following: segregated collection, ongoing composting of biodegradables, organized recycling, significant waste diversion in a major point source, legitimized SWM plan, enforced ordinance, allocation of annual budget and ongoing IEC. • LGUS’ strong support for SWM project implementation efforts is demonstrated over and over. Most of the LGUs included in the evaluation team’s visit have shown not only budgetary support for SWM but increasing budgetary allocations. Bayawan City, for instance, has almost quadrupled its allocation for environmental projects from P10.6 M in 2005 to P38M in 2008. • Another demonstration of LGU support is the creation of an Environmental Officer position (or a similar position title) with the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan being among that officer’s primary responsibilities. • Provincial governments that are EcoGov2 partners have provided the needed moral boost as well as substantial financial, technical and “brokering” support (see Box 5.4.1). 28 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION Box 5.4.1. Resolving UEM conflicts EcoGov2 assistance helped resolve some of the brewing institutional conflicts between DENR and LGUs, particularly those associated with the identification, selection and approval of suitable sanitary landfill sites. Many LGUs purchased lots as potential sites for landfills; most of these sites, however, are not suitable for landfills based on DENR criteria. Using a simplified process of overlaying critical maps and getting EMB and MGB to agree with the process and its criteria, EcoGov2 helped to dampen the stalemate between the two parties. The project’s work with the provincial governors also opened the possibility of how clustering landfill participants can partly resolve issues on unsuitable landfills. This was further enhanced by DENR's adoption of guidelines for different categories of landfills, which was mostly based on an EcoGov2's study and recommendations. Source: Guiang, E. Nov 2007. Personal communication. • Upscaling approaches are in evidence in several provinces. Scaling up the project’s operations, not just to meet project targets but also to move toward achieving the objectives of the law, is a wise approach to take especially given the limitations on project resources. To date, eleven provinces are actively using EcoGov2 tools to perform advisory and training functions to its component municipalities through their provincial core teams. Three provinces that have received EcoGov2 TA are already independently assisting other LGUs in Bohol, Negros Oriental and Aurora. • Model LGUs are used as learning centers. Some LGUs who have shown exemplary performance, especially those who have been with the EcoGov1 project; many of these are now destination sites for cross-visits by participating LGUs, and even by other interested entities. 5.4.4 Areas for Improvement and Recommendations Within the activities encompassed by the UEM focus there are three areas that the evaluation team views as priorities. These are presented next in ranked order. Other recommendations for the sector follow this list. 1. The evaluation team observed that the UEM TA provision is hampered by limited number of EcoGov2 staff. Over the past two and a half years, the project has experienced difficulty engaging UEM specialists in the regions and retaining them. Because of the demand for assistance from the LGUs, the current regional staff are spread thinly across the areas they serve, e.g., only two UEM staff members are serving 22 LGUs in Central Visayas and a Regional UEM specialist and two assisting professionals in Central Mindanao. In addition, the position of UEM sector leader has been vacant for over a year. This situation has affected the progress of work in the sector as most LGUs have tended to respond with greater speed in the constant presence of EcoGov2 staff and to lag behind, otherwise. The evaluation team recommends a greater staff presence in the UEM sector and especially a sector specialist to lead the group and be responsive to liaison and communication needs at the national level. 2. The established project goal of 20 LGUs investing in wastewater treatment by the end of the five-year contract is woefully behind. A major reason for this, aside from a lack of awareness, is probably cost. Wastewater treatment facilities are expensive and require extensive works to provide the service to all existing residential areas within a locality. Another consideration is the return on investment and the lack of revenue generation (as incentives) from operating them. Water can be a strong rallying point, especially if the Clean Water Act is given the same teeth as solid waste’s R.A. 9003. The evaluation team recommends that EcoGov2 revisit its strategy surrounding this goal, including efforts to work with DENR to raise awareness of the Clean Water Act and options to improve its enforcement. A new strategy that identifies the major issues and roadblocks to increase investment in wastewater treatment by LGUs, and options to resolve them, should be among the milestones in place if the two-year extension option is considered. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 29 TABLE 5.4.3. CURRENT STATUS OF IMPROVEMENTS IN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT LGU Type of Facility Current Status Danao City WWTF (Wastewater Treatment Facility) for fish port, slaughterhouse and public market MOU signed. LSP to be engaged to develop design options, prepare the engineering design of the desired option and prepare the IEE. Kidapawan City WWTF for slaughterhouse Design completed. LGU has no funds for project. General Santos City WWTF for public market Preliminary design completed. LGU has no funds for the project. Dauis, Bohol WWTF for low-cost housing project Joint project with SCOTIA; due to be completed in September 2007 Tacurong City WWTF for slaughterhouse Completed; EcoGov2 proposed modifications that local government still has to implement Alabel and General Santos City STF (Septage Treatment Facility JBIC-funded STF completed; EcoGov2 exploring possibility of Gen. Santos City utilizing the STF (in Alabel). Action plan regarding TA completed. 3. Clustering initiatives for SLF have stalled. Because many rural towns can ill-afford a sanitary landfill, and soil and topographic conditions in some render them unsuitable as landfill sites, having a common facility to serve a cluster of LGUs is a practical solution. Eight LGU clusters have so far been cooperating to develop shared SLFs; however, only one, Tacurong-Isulan, has completed its SLF. Metro Bohol’s efforts have been stymied by the change of administration in the very LGU that will host the SLF. The evaluation team recommends that this case be examined carefully and the positive and negative lessons be used in trying again in one or two others sites where numbers can give more leverage to making something happen. EcoGov2 and USAID should also carefully examine working with the other 3-4 members of the cluster who did not receive TA in the first instance. There is an opportunity here to have a significant success that can give everyone extra mileage. Additional areas for improvement in the UEM sector and their recommendations, some which may complement those just mentioned, are discussed below; no specific order of priority is assumed. • There is a breakdown in communications with the NSWMC. The project’s relationship with the major “frontliner” in solid waste management seems to have fallen by the wayside. The NSWMC is not updated about the progress of LGU initiatives in solid waste and its role as a conduit or a channel of information (with its Regional Solid Waste Coordinators) to non- EcoGov2 LGUs is not maximized. There is an urgent need to mend fences in this matter and fortify the relationship with the Commission. • There is a limited number and capacity of LSPs. There have been only three Local Service Providers engaged for UEM (SEA Consultants, SWAPP and Cebu Uniting for Sustainable Water). They have been contracted to perform specific task orders and thus, their experience in providing technical assistance has been confined to those areas. Apparently, they have not been made aware of the project’s expectations of them as a project sustainability mechanism. A wider net needs to be cast to solidify knowledge in local firms and NGOs capable of providing the necessary services in the UEM sector. This is an important factor in ensuring sustainability. • Linkages with the Leagues are weak and could be made stronger. The fact that solid waste management ranks low in the order of priorities of local government is no more evident than in the tepid response of the local leagues to the project’s efforts to involve them. Ironically, the League of Cities has the prospective ability to multiply the project’s efforts, given that it has a built-in Environment Unit and that the pressure to address SWM concerns is greatest in cities. It is the League of Municipalities that has manifested greater interest in partnership with the project. The evaluation team recommends 30 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION strengthening partnerships at all levels of DENR, NSWCM, EMB. DILG and LGA as well as the various Leagues, and civil society organizations at national, regional and local levels. This is also addressed in the GoAd section below and in the discussion about the relationship with DENR. There are numerous ways to proceed but there needs to be a more conscious strategy to make it happen. • There appears to be only a minimal effort of networking at the local level with NGOs/POs focused on environment. Action among SWM-concerned NGOs is strongest in Metro Manila; unfortunately, these NGOs have no presence in the other regions in the country. There are, however, networks of environmental NGOs, especially in Mindanao, and they may be tapped to assist in the social mobilization and environmental advocacy efforts focusing on urban environmental management. • Advocacy efforts seem to be confined to EcoGov2 top management. A review of the project’s reports indicates that advocacy initiatives have been largely project-driven. This may be necessary at the outset, when the project is just beginning to lay the groundwork for advocacy. Midway through the project’s timetable, however, constituents for the advocacy of environmental governance should have been broadened and environmental champions and “influentials” identified and involved. The evaluation team recommends stepping up the effort to engage more champions for specific issues in specific municipalities. • There is slow progress in the sewage and septage management sub-sector. The project has worked with 10 LGUs initially to assess the wastewater situation in point-sources, e.g., public markets and slaughterhouses. Out of the 10, only five have continued acting on their commitment to carry out specific projects, and only one has actually completed construction of its WWTF. Clustering, or combining resources of several LGUS has been tried with mixed success—the evaluation team recommends that EcoGov2 use the lessons from these experiences and carefully choose the three or four most likely sites and step up efforts to get them engaged. 5.5 GOVERNANCE AND ADVOCACY SECTOR 5.5.1 Sector Context The entry and working level for EcoGov2 is local government. The focus on environmental governance is an extremely difficult one. The institutions are by nature fluid because elected officials come and go and one group’s cause célèbre may be completely different from the next group’s. But the modus operandi for this project IS advocacy and one that seeks to tap into the municipality’s social capital and to build partnerships based on transparent principles among civil society organizations, businesses and local counterparts of national organizations, and with citizens in general. The support of its constituents is necessary for EcoGov2 technical assistance to be successful. The project undertakes communication efforts aimed at changing behaviors and delivering a pro-environment message. Social marketing is also part of the strategy employed. And EcoGov2 works to provide an enabling environment (through local, regional and national policies) that encourages technical assistance and solutions that are understandable, transparent and accountable to the average citizen. EcoGov2 programming operates principally at two levels. First with LGUs and local partners to provide planning and organizational assistance that helps these bodies implement local plans and set targets for UEM, CRM and FFM. These are aimed at influencing behaviors in the ways that citizens manage their waste and support action that confronts illegal activities in municipal seascapes and forests. Civil society organizations are also engaged wherever practical. At the second level of national government partners, area associations and networks and service providers EcoGov2 provides planning and organizational assistance to DENR offices (and others; e.g., BFAR, NCIP, DILG) that have the capability to provide technical services that will complement LGU-led and implemented projects. The project also works with relevant leagues of LGUs and other governance-oriented associations to PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 31 promote good practices linked to environmental governance. In addition, project staff train and coach local service providers to strengthen their experience and capacity so that they can act independently after the contract ends to provide paid consultative services to LGUs in relevant areas. 5.5.2 Targets Under the Governance and Advocacy sector, the contract CLIN states that EcoGov2 will improve environmental governance in at least 80 government partner institutions prior to the end of the initial five-year project implementation period. The key performance indicator for measuring this is the number of institutions practicing good governance. This in turn is observed by calculating an index using a self-assessment tool/survey at the beginning, mid-point and end of the project period. At the time of this midterm evaluation the second self-assessment had been completed, but the final results had not yet been calculated, 5.5.3 Achievements and Impacts The evaluation team listened to many praises about the value of environmental governance promoted by the EcoGov2 project. Many realized timely benefits related to SWM planning and even an understanding of what a sanitary landfill was. Others realized that plans and network capacity building could help solve on-going disputes and improve local livelihoods. There are obviously many achievements and impacts of the project, from small to large. A few of the more significant ones observed by the evaluation team are listed below. • EcoGov2 is doing its job as an advocacy project that facilitates processes and the adoption of good governance practices. At almost every site visited LGU and regional networks praised the assistance provided by the project. All the LGUs were eager to continue the relationship and would accept more TA if it is available. • Many municipalities stated that they were ready to continue on their own and in fact were either serving as “model sites” for other visiting institutions and/or were helping other LGUs find their footing with the FLUPs, the CRMPs and/or the ISWMPs. These are the foundation for the upscaling activities envisioned for the next two years (and beyond) of the project. The evaluation team endorses EcoGov2’s and USAID’s plans for focusing more effort and project resources on activities that promote upscaling and strategies that encourage upscaling. • The cornerstone mantra of functionality, transparency, accountability and participatory-ness is well￾ingrained in the recipients of EcoGov2 technical assistance. They understand its meaning and the value it brings to their activities. Several municipalities interviewed during the assessment were proud that their efforts were succeeding and that participating barangays appreciated the improvements that the implemented plans affected. Even in the cases where fines were levied for infractions, citizens appeared to appreciate the positive changes. • To date EcoGov2 assistance has been given to 11 provinces, 130 cities and municipalities and various communities in planning and implementing FLUPs, CRM , MPA and UEM plans. • Project documents report that LGU funding has increased for environment and natural resource projects from P127 M in 2005 to P151 M in 2007, a 19% increase in the municipalities served by EcoGov2. • The project is also increasing its visibility and touting its successes in materials being distributed regionally and nationally. This help provides concrete examples of how LGUs are benefiting directly and substantially with the TA received from EcoGov2 and DENR. It is recommended that more materials of this type be produced and made available. Project resources in the end years of the project should flow increasingly to promotional and advocacy materials aimed at the LGUs and regional networks/associations. 32 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION • In the ARMM a book, entitled Al Khalifa (The Steward) has been published and well-received by the Muslim community. This is the first of its kind in Asia, and quite possible the world. It outlines basic principles of environmental governance based on teaching in the Qur’an. There are also plans to publish it in Arabic. EcoGov2 and USAID are encouraged to continue promoting this publication, even beyond the region to other Muslim countries where environmental projects are funded with USAID monies. • Other important materials produced include: the Guided LGU Self-Assessment on the State of Environmental Governance Practices (which was administered in early 2005 and again in mid-2007) and the Facilitator’s Handbook. • Coordinated with USAID-assisted FISH project in the development and implementation of information, education, communication (IEC) resource materials as demonstrated in Talibon, Bohol. Positive effects of these IEC resource materials strengthen LGUs and constituencies confidence in managing its coastal and fisheries resources including its established mangrove co-management. These materials also enhanced municipal LGUs firm stand on sustainable advocacy project in coastal environment management; and create positive effects on FFM/FLUP and UEM/ISWM planning and implementation. • Project staff are also active in conflict mediation and EcoGov2 activities have united previously fractious groups around benefits from good environmental governance through stakeholder participation in environmental and resource management decisions. • The project has also begun promoting landscape approaches to management activities. These “ridge-to￾reef” perspectives help upland dwellers and communities throughout a watershed see their inter￾connectedness and the value that environmental good governance can lend to helping them improve their livelihoods. It is recommended that this approach be targeted to key pilot areas, especially those rich in biodiversity and/or sites that have watersheds that are (more) easily monitored; e.g., Bayawan. The Year 4 Work Plan specifically mentions Aurora Province and the Davao City area. The evaluation team underscores the value and use of these sites and the scope of involvement. Developing indicators for improved livelihoods is also important for monitoring purposes. • EcoGov2 has worked with associations and networks of LGUs (e.g., IBRA 9) and the stakeholders and participants in these groups recognize the value, greater reach and effectiveness, and the leverage of greater opportunities that this working relationship has. The evaluation team strongly recommends that EcoGov2 continue working with these groups and perhaps try for one per region, and continue to build and advertise the successes that come from this work. The pitfalls, problems and the solutions to these problems are equally important and should be documented and shared around the country. 5.5.4 Areas for Improvement and Recommendations EcoGov2’s achievements to date are prominent. The real success, however, won’t be noticed in the project’s lifetime. It is the sustainability of the actions that will become its real legacy. Many of the people interviewed in the course of the assessment, from the LGU officials, to the donor, to DENR expressed their worries about some areas even after singing the praises of what has been accomplished to date. This subsection attempts to capture some of the discussions aimed improving EcoGov2’s services and also the strong desire to ensure a greater level of permanence of the environmental governance practices promoted. Activities within this sector are seen as the most critical in the coming years where lessons learned from EcoGov2 are institutionalized and made sustainable. There are three areas that the evaluation team sees as most important. These are presented next in ranked order followed by brief discussions on other recommendations. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 33 1. EcoGov2 needs to ensure the sustainability of the foundation established and the processes that it has promoted. The Year 4 Work Plan begins to shift the emphasis of activities in the direction of more advocacy materials and greater promotion of successes, especially at the LGU level. The evaluation team endorses this and also recommends that a comprehensive strategy be developed for the latter years of the project that focus heavily on project successes, upscaling assistance, and additional help/promotion to LSPs, etc. For upscaling to be successful, the final years of the EcoGov2 should dedicate efforts to focus on effective and lively communication materials. DENR and LGUs should be actively involved in the production of these materials, especially those which may be types of user or training manuals. There needs to be a sense of ownership of these materials by end-users. Communication materials may also provide a degree of continuity as leadership changes occur within DENR or LGUs. 2. Similar to some of the FLUP implementation issues noted above (see Section 5.2) some LGUs noted the need for assistance with alternative financing such as the following: environmental economics (e.g., payment for environmental services, carbon credits); and increases in tax revenue from tourism or other enterprises. The business planning assistance that is just beginning under EcoGov2 may help address some of these concerns; the evaluation team recommends that EcoGov2 staff develop a set of alternative financing options that LGUs can consider to assist with the implementation of their municipal planning efforts be they ISWMPs, CRMPs, or FLUPs. Additional discussion on this topic can be found in Section 5.7.3. 3. More work also needs to be done with media to highlight EcoGov2’s significant achievements. Work with the media should also allow DENR and LGUs to take appropriate credit as a means of ownership and raise public awareness. The evaluation team recommends that a strategy that addresses this issue be developed and implemented as one of the milestones considered in extending the 2-year option period of the current contract. Additional areas for improvement in the GoAd sector and their recommendations that are of lesser importance are discussed below. These are in no specific order of priority and may complement those just mentioned. • The EcoGov2 website can only be accessed through the DENR website. This definitely gives ownership to DENR, but the evaluation team noticed in its numerous attempts to get on to the site access is often difficult and cumbersome. The EcoGov2 website needs to be improved especially if there is to be institutionalization and sustainability of the project’s work. EcoGov2 advocacy staff with DENR and the ISP need to develop a timeline, a strategy and a regular maintenance schedule for improving the website and keeping it up to date. • Several of the municipalities visited were obviously vested in the results of the TA provided by EcoGov2. They had claimed ownership, realized the value that comes from implementing the activities and were making plans to move to the next level(s). DENR’s ownership of the processes was not as visible as one would expect and needs substantial improvements. This fact is also addressed in the DENR’s section of this report. The evaluation team recognizes the difficulty and effort required to get a critical mass of DENR “on board”, but nonetheless recommends that a proactive strategy be developed as soon as possible to give more effective ownership of project activities and benefits to DENR. If this doesn’t happen a critical cog in the sustainability of the good governance practices promoted by EcoGov2 is likely to fail. • The self-assessment LGUs can implement to gauge their “greenness” or level of environmental governance is a useful tool and provides an excellent entry point for determining levels or types of TA that may be of value to the LGU. The indicators that measure functionality (there are 11), accountability (0), transparency (2) and participatory-ness (3) could be stronger. The evaluation team recommends that indicators be used that detail communication and opportunities for citizen response to LGU activities be considered and that accountability indicators be developed. These may include 34 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION measures about the decision-making process, a means for disclosing and explaining decisions and actions, and perhaps a process through which citizens may seek redress or compensation for the consequences of the LGU’s decisions and actions. One good gesture that will signal LGU sincerity (and in a sense, accountability) may be the LGU’s embarking on waste minimization and waste segregation practices in the Municipal/City Hall, the LGU offices and their premises. • For the “P” in TAP principles there are various types and levels of participation. Good governance ought to go beyond mere passive participation or participation by consultation toward more interactive participation and ultimately, self-mobilization. The object of the Self-Assessment should be to determine not only if participatory systems and mechanisms do exist but to what extent do these allow for interactive participation (so that citizens have a stake in sustaining the systems and maintaining the mechanisms) and for self-mobilization (so that they undertake initiatives quite independently of external agents). The evaluation team recommends adopting indicators that enable meaningful participation/feedback by both organized and unorganized stakeholders including women. The indicators should help establish a system to empower all relevant organizations and ensure their effective participation and inputs in UEM planning and implementation as well as effective mechanisms for ordinary citizens to participate in law enforcement. • In the EcoGov project reports, advocacy and social marketing are mentioned in the same breath. Clients are apt to be better served if the project’s literature, promotional materials and reports made a clear distinction between advocacy and social marketing. Advocacy is defined as “a set of targeted actions directed at decision- and policy-makers to influence the socio-political environment in support of a specific cause.” A corollary set of actions that need to complement advocacy is social mobilization—“a deliberate participatory process to engage local institutions, local leaders, community groups and members in organizing for collective action toward a common purpose.” Social marketing is an undertaking that is down the line, so to speak. It deals with specific behaviors, rather than a cause or a common purpose. Social marketing entails changing the target client’s/stakeholders’ socially undesirable or harmful current behavior, into socially beneficial behavior, and sustaining this desired behavior. Translated to the specific concern of solid waste management, advocacy actions could range from simply an influential person persuading the LCE to complete its SWM Plan and to have a Solid Waste Management Program staffed and funded in the local government and the Sanggunian to approve the budget for it, to organizing a pressure group (internal advocates, i.e., within the local bureaucracy, or external advocates, e.g., NGOs, community organizations) to demand that such a program be put in place. A social marketing initiative on the other hand could focus on the household segregation of waste as a desirable behavior that will support the waste diversion objectives of the local solid waste management program • Complementary recommendations about advocacy and public awareness can also be found in other recommendations listed with the FFM, CRM and UEM discussions. Additional ideas for enlivening IEC materials for FFM, CRM and UEM include celebrations of accomplishments with a fiesta , e.g., Pista sa Gubat (forest fiesta), Pista sa Dagat (coastal fiesta) or a bazaar (or waste market) in the controlled dumpsite or SLF site; projects initiated within a local high school or a university that commit the graduating class to “Adopt-a-Forest” or “Adopt-a-Protected Area; incorporating into a local roadside beautification project a tree-planting activity that involves applicants for a marriage license parades and motorcades. These and other innovative and creative campaign activities may be explored and may be undertaken in cooperation with local civic organizations, faith groups and schools. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 35 • As an “advocacy” project EcoGov2 needs to have a clear and compelling plan for advocacy. It is, however, more appropriate for the project not to take a direct role in advocacy, but to play a supporting role, bringing parties together who have shared interests in bringing UEM to the forefront of the local development agenda. The advocacy plan of the project might try to: − Broaden advocacy strategies perhaps by: • Expanding coalitions and alliances for environmental governance • Strengthening capacities for coalition-building, advocacy and social mobilization • Enhancing the skills of individual champions and advocates • Promoting NGO-LGU partnerships − Improve implementation of advocacy initiatives by building local capacity for advocacy (e.g., through advocacy network development training, training of internal [LGU] advocates as well as external advocates and training of provincial UEM core teams); and − Employ non-traditional approaches in local IEC campaigns The project’s IEC efforts may explore culture-appropriate non-traditional modes and avenues for raising public awareness, such as puppet shows, radio plays and theater performances in the public markets, town plazas and malls. Other more conventional methods such as “bikathons”, “fun runs”, and “walk-for-a-cause” may also be supported by the project. 5.6 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION The sites where EcoGov2 is operating were all selected because of the threats that are present to biodiversity conservation. EcoGov2’s long-term vision is to conserve biological diversity by addressing problems of open access and mitigating natural resource-based conflicts in priority ecoregions. The project has a biodiversity￾focused implementation in each geographical region. It’s the principal reason why investments are being made in forests, coastal as well as UEM in the overall project rationale. In the Year 4 Work Plan there is a conscious effort to reemphasize and refocus on the biodiversity baseline of the project. Most of the effort to date has logically been on forest and coastal areas. Reexamining forest, coastal and marine protected areas, not just as local assets but as regional and national treasures, and integrating them into the planning process will help rekindle awareness among project stakeholders. These are also elements that are closer to DENR’s heart and maybe that will also provide a renewed stimulus for having their staff involved (see also Section 5.7.2) and taking ownership in activities promoted by EcoGov2. Project impacts on biodiversity conservation will be most direct in the CRM and the FFM sectors. In the UEM sector it is indirect. Avoiding discharge of polluted water (in the case of sanitary landfills and wastewater treatment facilities) into bodies of water where there may be considerable biodiversity and helping to curtail the extraction of raw materials through re-use and recycling (less tree cutting, less mining of metals, and less use of petroleum-based products) are two examples. EcoGov2’s strategies are making a difference. Awareness about the fragility of the environment, the impacts on health, the quality of life and livelihoods of poor or inadequate environmental stewardship is becoming more widely known and understood because of EcoGov2’s actions at the municipal and provincial levels. The evaluation team experienced a more sophisticated understanding of the issues and solutions at the provincial level, especially in their interviews in South Cotabato, Nueva Vizcaya and Aurora. Numerous municipal staff, particularly those with ardent champions (General Santos City, Bayawan City, Talibon, Wao), viewed sector activities collectively when addressing threats to biodiversity conservation. During the evaluation team’s visit to Alcoy, Cebu the LGU was rightfully proud of the very rare Black Shama, a bird locally known as the “Siloy”. The municipality is using this bird as a “brand” to highlight its ties to nature conservation and to point out that biodiversity is an important concept and attribute for the municipality to rally around. EcoGov2 could make more active use of the popularity of similar indicators of biodiversity and use them more extensively in their IEC materials and awareness campaigns for other LGUs. 36 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION As mentioned elsewhere, monoculture threats to biodiversity are also present in efforts to improve production on bare forestlands within municipalities. EcoGov2 should take immediate steps to address these and to provide a strategy that provides not only a balance in these activities, but also results in a net increase to biodiversity on bare forest lands and maintains the livelihood security that is a large selling point of the monoculture now being promoted on these lands. One of the examples the evaluation team viewed in Maasim raised serious questions about the risks such as pest infestation, crop failures and uncertainties in the market structure associated with the contract pineapple growing being promoted. Since EcoGov2 is funded from USG biodiversity monies, USAID needs to work with EcoGov2 staff to make certain that accountability standards for these funds are in place and understood. EcoGov2, in coordination with the FISH Project, could capitalize on their technical assistance to a globally￾significant ecosystem of the Danajon Double Barrier Reef bordered by the provinces of Cebu, Bohol, Southern Leyte and Leyte where no less than 80% of its residence depend on coastal and marine resources for food and livelihood. This could serve as a good example of inter-province cooperation in the protection and conservation of a significant biodiversity asset. 5.7 CROSSCUTTING ISSUES EcoGov2 environmental governance advocacy involves by necessity cross-cutting issues of gender, biodiversity conservation, population, financing and, most recently, climate change. None of these are by themselves a focus of specific activities in the DAI contract. But there are threads of each throughout each of the project’s sectors and with policy implications at the national level. 5.7.1 Population and Environment There has not been much EcoGov2 time or resources given the relationship between population and environment. Their tie-in, especially to the health sector, is not mandated in the contract as it is in other USAID/Philippines contracts. Plus there is the added fact that the entry point for project activities is government institutions and most specifically LGUs, not civil society, or even barangays. Still there are population concerns and how increases in population put more strain on ENR and, consequently the people and institutions charged with managing them. During the evaluation team’s field visits, only two LGUs raised this concern. Curiously one was Wao in Lanao del Sur, a municipality in the ARMM region, with significant amounts of land. Yet they were concerned about people arriving daily because of what they had heard about in terms of the area’s productivity and the municipal management of the resources. Wao was handling the influx and staying on top of the enforcement issues. EcoGov2 perhaps may want to become more aware of this issue, especially for municipalities gaining reputations for their transparency and good environmental governance. It has implications for the future. 5.7.2 Gender Concerns It is the evaluation team’s perception that the project has not moved much beyond counting female participants in their activities. There have been numerous case studies on this subject matter. There’s the Women’s Participation in the Cogtong Bay Mangrove Management Project: A Case Study by the International Center for Research on Women (Washington, D.C.) Cogtong Bay is in Central Visayas. Another was done my one of the evaluation team members in 1993 entitled Women’s Participation in the Sampaloc Lake Rehabilitation and Resource Management Council Organizing project funded by the Foundation for the Philippine. USAID/Philippines has also drawn attention to the gender issues and their lack of action addressing them within the project. The evaluation team recommends that EcoGov2 address and report on the gender action plan drawn up in February 2005. Progress toward agreed upon goals should also appear in the project’s Quarterly Reports. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 37 5.7.3 Financing Environmental Governance EcoGov2, DENR and the LGU successes in implementing governance and biodiversity conservation activities cost money. The project’s funds have helped the Filipino institutions to get organized and implement important processes. But how do these activities stay financed, and in some instances get financed initially? ISWM, CRM and FLUPs and other actions have been developed and EcoGov2 staff has provided excellent TA to help get them in place, and in many cases started. Now the project needs to work with DENR and the LGUs to ensure that the activities stay implemented. In most cases this will probably involve creative budgeting and/or alternative financing mechanisms. The project’s annual planning for Year 4 is putting more emphasis on this area. Success in finding, developing and instituting financing at the municipal and the provincial levels has direct bearing on the sustainability of the project’s activities. EcoGov2’s activities such as SWM cost-benefit and cost recovery analyses and composting project assessments are part of the initial foundation of this effort. The ridge-to-reef approaches and the networking and association capacity building and cluster approaches to problem solving are also avenues to gaining more efficiency with existing funds and leveraging others. Its business planning assistance, just now getting underway, should also raise awareness, create an environment for more innovative thinking and lead to more site-specific and tailored financing alternatives. One DENR RTD pointed out that upscaling of the technical capabilities (in the provincial level) does not necessarily mean that funds will follow. And more realistically, LGU budgets will always require funds to do these activities, because the onus for the actual work is with them. Even with DENR’s limited funds the RTD felt that some funds (from DENR’s annual budget) to finance the technical assistance needed by the LGUs could help to leverage other monies. The evaluation team heard numerous comments from LGUs that are now successful in their implementation of EcoGov2 processes but who noted the need for assistance with alternative financing. As examples, they are looking for assistance to help pay for environmental services and how to tap into carbon credits, productively and efficiently increase tax revenue from tourism or other enterprises, examine options for establishing polluter fees to finance CRM and fisheries management and general guidance on researching and planning for financing options. Recognizing DENR’s limited operations budget and that financing needs and options differ among LGUs and provinces, it is recommended that EcoGov2 develop a set of realistic financing options for the critical activities promoted by the project. These options would be aimed at LGUs and provincial partners (where practical) and accompanied by the steps necessary to operationalize each of the options. There should also be resources programmed to selectively test several of the more favored options. Because financing beyond the life of the project is so important, it is recommended that these actions be part of the benchmarks considered for an extension to the current contract. 5.7.4 Climate Change Addressing climate change (and global warming) issues are not specified in the DAI contract for EcoGov2. Given the close connection to many of EcoGov2 activities and actions it will be worthwhile for EcoGov2 staff to help raise awareness about climate change. Their interactions with DENR and the LGUs as they develop their planning tools (FLUPs, CRMPs, ISWPs) are the most logical places to begin. Two municipalities visited by the evaluation team (Alcoy and Bayawan) did independently bring up global warming in the context of environmental governance as something the local population needs to be aware of and to take action on. 5.8 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 5.8.1 General The evaluation team was overwhelmed with the thoroughness of reporting about project activities and the professional in-depth approach taken for annual planning. The geographic spread of the activities and the diverse nature of the sectors and the messages sent to the LGUs, the POs, the LSPs, networking associations 38 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION and DENR is extremely challenging, not just in terms of content, but also logistically. The evaluation team’s 18 days of movement around the field sites also gave us a greater appreciation for some of the challenges that EcoGov2 faces on a daily basis. The EcoGov2 staff is well-managed and it is reflected in their work ethic and their conduct and camaraderie with the project partners. The evaluation team would like to underscore the importance of filling vacated positions promptly. A couple of key sector head positions have remained vacant for over a year. The team believes that this has slowed momentum and certainly affected communication with key partners in several instances. It appears that these positions will soon be filled, or that there is a more proactive strategy in place to address some of the shortcomings that have happened. Activities and ideas about a project “exit strategy” are beginning to be formulated; some of the plans outlined in the Year 4 Annual Plan reflect these. The evaluation team also recommends that EcoGov2 management staff and USAID work together to develop an exit plan with clearly defined milestones, whether that be for an ending at the close of the fifth year of the project, or at the end of the two-year extension should USAID grant that option. More attention needs to be given to advertising project successes and upscaling activities. The Year 4 Work Plan begins to address these issues, including more of a focus on advocacy activities such as social marketing, etc. The evaluation team recommends that an even greater emphasis be planned and implemented in this area. Hiring an additional staff person to complement the social marketing specialist is also seen as an important option. One person as currently planned, cannot handle the foreseen demand for such services from all the sectors. 5.8.2 Relationship with DENR The successful and sustainable implementation of activities promoted by EcoGov2 rests in the capacity of LGUs to “buy in” and use the tools promoted with the project’s technical assistance. Success and sustainability also rests significantly in DENR’s ability to render professional and timely services in support of those activities after the contract has ended. These two statements assume that DENR and LGUs are equal and respectful partners in these ventures. During the course of the assessment there were many instances DENR staff insisted that EcoGov2 was equivalent to DENR. In visits with the LGUs EcoGov2 was viewed simply as EcoGov2, a technical assistance project, and DENR was a necessary presence (although not all of the time). More often than not, LGUs were able to see themselves as owners, or at least on their way to ownership of the processes, systems and products provided with EcoGov2’s technical assistance. In only four sites visited by the evaluation team was it perceived that DENR was an equal and confident partner, and also one that owned the process and the products. In these instances it was obvious that DENR staff were playing active roles and that there was a professional and mutually respectful rapport between the LGU and DENR. In another instance (a “ridge-to-reef” training exercise) the evaluation team also saw a very positive interaction between LGU, provincial staff and DENR PENRO professionals. The respect was obvious as was the realization that each institution stood to gain from working together. The relationships between the LGUs and the DENR must be improved if the processes promulgated by EcoGov2 are to be sustained. EcoGov2 staff and USAID/Philippines need to develop a more proactive strategy that accepts the changes in personnel at DENR, that recognizes the fact that the institution has very limited funds for operational endeavors and that can capitalize on the fact that it is headed by a Secretary that has strong roots in LGUs. EcoGov2 needs to work with DENR staff who will remain and/or look for some consistency in staff and ensure that they take ownership and receive credit for the work undertaken by the project. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 39 A greater emphasis is needed to ensure that DENR has ownership of activities mainly at the LGU level, but also in the regions and nationally as well. And, if DENR is to gain confidence about this ownership, a more comprehensive understanding and belief on its part about the responsibilities this entails is also needed. DENR obviously has confidence in the assistance, training, processes and indicators promulgated by the project and EcoGov2 staff. This is evidenced by the points noted above at the relationships being established in a number of LGUs. In several other instances at the regional levels the evaluation team noted the support given by the FMB, by RTDs and REDs to the efforts and assistance given by EcoGov2. In several instances this translates into real ownership by the DENR. In one case the FMB notes that in the preparation of the Omnibus Forestry Guidelines DENR feels they are definitely the real owner of the activity and thanks ECoGov2 for providing the direction necessary especially where the concepts of devolution of authority and co-management are concerned. In Davao (Region XI) the RED notes that EcoGov2 has been very flexible in its approaches to working with the DENR and the LGUs when it did not follow the “normal” FLUP process. He feels that EcoGov2’s adaptability to the unique aspects of individual cases has considerable merit and (if time and resources permit) warrant more attention by the project. Improved communication is one place to begin making these inroads. Periodic fora for exchanging ideas can provide some opportunities for knowledge exchange. There is a national-level Project Steering Committee that functioned or functions when project and DENR and USAID staff can find common times to meet. The SO4 annual review provides another time when broader scale accomplishments and plans can be discussed and commented on. And there are regular training events and other venues that get regional and community-level DENR staff involved. These are helpful and they convey the basics. At this latter level a hands on, let-them-run-the show approach can help build confidence and understanding; as opposed to having them sit in the audience and participate with comments. It is understood that the DENR cannot be expected to do this every time there is an event. But a planned, concerted effort to get them responsibly engaged over time needs to happen to solve the ownership dilemma. The evaluation team also recommends (where practical and feasible) a joint production of outreach materials and manuals. Such a joint production would provide numerous benefits: (1) a sense of ownership of the materials and processes contained within; (2) materials that could provide consistency in subject matter and continuity as leadership at the DENR or LGU level changes; the materials themselves begin the institutionalization process. The information distributed and developed with full participation of DENR and LGUs could work to build consistency and continuity during times of leadership changes, embody principles of transparency and empower local level staff. At the national level EcoGov2 sector heads, the CoP, the DCoP, and USAID staff have to communicate with DENR departments more regularly, and preferably face-to-face and one-on-one. Maybe this could be a tag-team approach, but the DENR Department Heads need to have a steady diet of information about what is going on, what and where the successes are, and to be pointed out where, how, and why DENR participation is important. EcoGov2’s goal is to get them excited about contributing and being a part of meaningful TA-assisted activities that are taking place outside of Manila. They need to hear it directly from EcoGov2 or USAID and not from some other donor or NGO. Spoon feeding DENR at the top will hopefully have some trickle down to the provinces and municipalities. But a strategy that engages them more proactively is needed, especially one that show them examples of where DENR is successfully engaged and working with LGUs, POs, LSPs and networks. This is a tall order and it probably has been tried at varying scales before. But EcoGov2 staff and USAID/Philippines need to develop and institute a strategy that can crack the ownership nut. Without it, and without getting them more engaged the sustainability of environmental governance is at considerable risk. 40 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 6.0 CONCLUSION Overall the Philippine Environmental Governance Phase 2 project is making a positive impact to improve the management of forests, coastal-marine and water resources and promoting solid waste through effective environmental governance. It is successful at engaging Local Government Units and area networks to provide human capital and funding to effectively plan and implement activities aimed at protecting and conserving environmental resources and promoting their use in a sustainable manner. EcoGov2 is also making progress at the national, regional and local levels to promote policies that will continue to support environmental governance. It is also helping DENR devolve its authority and become an important advisor and support for environmental management at the municipal level. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 41 7.0 LESSONS LEARNED The most significant lesson learned, and confirmed over and over again during the focus group discussions during the assessment, is that environmental governance requires collaborative and cooperative action. Here are a few of the comments heard by the evaluation team: Collaboration among national government agencies: provincial, city and municipal governments and the departments within the LGU is important. It is necessary to get everyone to work together as no single agency or office of the government can do the work by itself. The partnership with the communities (barangays) is important; there is a need to help them understand and appreciate the issues so that they can take part in resolving them. A collective effort is needed to save Illana Bay … everyone needs to act Work proceeds smoothly if there is unity between the Local Chief Executive and the Council. The EcoGov2 staff is very aware of the fact that the success is greatest where everyone pulls and works together. The conflict issues and their resolution cited elsewhere in this report (see also Boxes 5.2.1, 5.3.1 and 5.4.1) are testimony to this. And, because this is also an advocacy project, many of these experiences are already in use by staff and specialists to improve the systems and assistance that the project promotes, making them part of the decision-making process and the routines being practiced. Many of the recommendations listed in this document lean directly on this lesson. In the coming years EcoGov2, DENR and USAID need to focus on efforts that strengthen the institutionalization of working together, communicating clearly and persistently at all levels and between levels of partnerships. And, this needs to be advertised and awareness efforts need to be focused on it: cooperation and collaboration improves livelihoods and brings positive results for the economy, for the people (and politicians) of the community and municipality, and for the natural environment. Another lesson perceived by the beneficiaries of EcoGov2 TA and voiced numerous times over the course of the evaluation is the value of a champion. At the municipality level this might be the mayor or his/her environmental officer. At the provincial level the evaluation team witnessed in South Cotabato and Aurora governors who understood the environmental issues and who supported EcoGov2 assistance … their political will has been a significant resource. Others have proven to be key facilitators in the project’s advocacy programs. In Nueva Vizcaya DENR PENRO staff play important roles in bringing various agencies and people together to make things happen. In Maasim (Sarangani Province) and in Bayawan (Negros Oriental) local DENR staff had critical roles in the environmental governance successes that are occurring at these sites. In Cebu, regional DENR staff has a clear picture of how DENR’s decentralization fits into the “big picture” of local control and management of environmental resources. In Manila, FASPO and NEDA staff recognize the value of the EcoGov2 contribution and are stipulating to other donors that the project’s success be a model to the environment and governance efforts that they are designing and implementing. These and other leaders have been important to EcoGov2’s successes to date. For the remainder of the contract EcoGov2 needs to do more to with these champions and to identify others. For those who are current their stories need to be captured by the media and an awareness of their support, and why they are giving in addition to how, needs to be given to a wider audience. LGUs identified for upscaling activities can be immediate beneficiaries and EcoGov2 could also benefit from knowing who in these upscaling sites may be the next champions of best practices of environmental governance. Here is what a few of the current champions had to say to the evaluation team: 42 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION We have to be serious about what we are doing … we have to be committed to what we are doing. The buck stops with me! It’s about time that we stop talking and start working. It will take years to see results of our efforts. We have to accept that trees do not grow overnight. The experience in Bohol where several LGUs have attempted to cooperate in a “cluster”, pool their resources and each haul their solid waste to one community’s sanitary landfill has provided a number of lessons, too. Many relate to the first lesson cited above. Some of the comments from the FGD with the clustering communities included these thoughts about lessons that they had learned: Clustering of LGUs with a common resource base and building alliances with other development agents are effective strategies. Invite the opposing side to have a discussion One day for stakeholder consultation was not enough … more days for discussion over a [protracted] period of time would have been better. The information campaigns were hastily done and participants didn’t know (or could nor grasp) all the details. The social marketing campaign should have come earlier. The lessons here where a clustering effort is concerned is pointed at more advance planning and adequate time for disclosure and discussion of the details. Public hearings scheduled over a longer period of time, or even a series of mini-hearings throughout the LGUs where the same information is repeated in each meeting may be beneficial. Lessons and information can be learned at each event by organizers and participants alike that can provide the basis for the next series of mini-hearings. As EcoGov2 scales up in the coming years and as it assists other cluster opportunities the experience in Bohol is sobering and needs to be heard by others. The Bohol Environmental Management Office appears ready to assist and to help others learn from the ups and down that they experienced. One additional lesson learned by the evaluation team underscores the importance of communication. At several sites, and most vociferously in Manila, it appears that key partners were often not aware (or rigorously enough informed) of EcoGov2 activities and successes that were of direct interest to them. In at least two different instances the team heard of cases where DENR (in both iterations) staff learned of positive project results within the areas of their jurisdiction, not from EcoGov2 or DENR staff, but from parties completely outside the project partner relationship. In a project as large as EcoGov2, which is working alongside one of the Philippines largest bureaucracies, communication is expected to be a problem and because it is anticipated staff and strategies should be in place to deal with the issues. This does not seem to be the case. Greater efforts (staff and resources) need to be directed to touting EcoGov2 successes, especially when they go hand-in-hand with DENR. Recommendations in this report address these points. But this lesson needs to be reiterated again and heard and understood at all levels by each partner institution. A project with the breadth of mission, geographic scope and clientele of EcoGov2 has lessons being learned everyday. The evaluation team has heard many others, but the ones discussed above are the most pointed and critical at this mid-point in the contract. EcoGov2 and USAID need to continue collecting and recording the lessons that they and their partners learn in this process—greater reach and sustainability will be enhanced if they do. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 43 ANNEXES 44 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION ANNEX A. SCOPE OF WORK A. Purpose The EcoGov2 Project midterm evaluation aims to measure the effectiveness and the impact of the USAID￾funded $18.9 million Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project (EcoGov2) implemented by the Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI). Section C, IV. Scope of Work, page C-7 of the EcoGov2 contract states that in the fourth year of Project implementation, an independent evaluation to assess project performance shall be done to provide a basis for exercising the option to extend the contract beyond five years. The assessment will look at the progress made in achieving project objectives and results, and examine whether project strategies and approaches are valid, relevant and efficiently carried out to address key environmental challenges in the Philippines. The study will focus on the review of actual versus planned outputs and results; identify and analyze problems, delays and other issues related to project implementation; and, document lessons learned. Results of the midterm evaluation will primarily be used by USAID to determine whether to exercise the two-year option to extend the EcoGov2 Contract after five years; and not for any follow-on activity after the EcoGov2 project. B. Background on Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project The EcoGov2 Project is designed to conserve biological diversity by addressing open access and mitigating natural resource-based conflicts in priority ecoregions in the Philippines. Considered among the world’s centers of species diversity and endemism, the Philippines’ forest and coastal-marine resources are both critical to economic growth and human health, but also are under constant threat of destruction. Over 100,000 hectares of forests are lost each year due to illegal logging and forest conversion. Seventy percent of coral reefs have been destroyed, and destructive fishing practices threaten food security. Pollution from inadequate solid waste management and inadequate sanitation threatens both biodiversity and human health. Awarded to Development Alternatives, Inc (DAI) on October 1, 2004, the EcoGov2 contract covers the first 5 years, up to September 30, 2009, of a seven-year effort. The project contributes to achieving Strategic Objective 4’s (SO4) intermediate results of reduced over-fishing, illegal and destructive fishing; reduced illegal logging and conversion of natural forests; and improved management of water resources and solid waste. In addition, it supports USAID/Philippines’ overall goal of enhanced security, governance and capacities for sustainable, equitable economic growth through the Mission’s environment strategic objective of strengthened management of productive and life-sustaining natural resources. Building and expanding on the experiences achieved under the Environmental Governance Phase 1 (October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004), the objective of the Environmental Governance (EcoGov2) Project is to strengthen the capacities of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), local government unites (LGUs) and other local institutions to improve the management of forests, coastal-marine and water resources, and promote integrated solid waste management by LGUs through effective environmental governance. It is expected that by the end of the initial five years of the contract, the following targets would have been covered to achieve considerable progress toward strengthened capacities of DENR, LGUs and local institutions to sustainably manage forest, coastal-marine and water resources, and promote integrated solid waste management by LGUs, through effective environmental governance. These targets include: PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 45 5 80 government institutions (e.g., DENR, DILG, LGUs) meeting environmental good governance index benchmarks. 6 150,000 hectares of forest cover placed under improved management. Improved management of forests shall be measured with distinct milestones. 7 800 hectares of coastal areas placed under improved management, 20 marine protected areas (MPAs) established covering 300 has and the management of 60 existing MPAs (covering about 750 has). 8 25% of waste diverted to recycling and composting in 90 LGUs. 9 20 LGUs investing in sanitation facilities. C. Objectives of the Midterm Evaluation 1. Assess the progress of the EcoGov2 Project in relation to the objectives and results specified in the contract and contract modifications, as well as in relation to the development goals of USAID in the Philippines, including biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation/mitigation. Determine the quality and impact of Project deliverables, including systems, strategies and approaches developed and services provided by DAI. 2. Review the management, strategic approaches and methodologies adopted in implementing the Project, including coordination and working relationships with the local government unit-partners, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), other relevant government agencies, NGOs and communities to implement improved environmental management measures in forestry, coastal and marine resources, water quality and solid and hazardous waste. 3. Document lessons learned challenges and opportunities. The EcoGov2 Project intends to demonstrate clear links between governance and biodiversity conservation. The midterm evaluation is expected to provide specific recommendations on the project design, inputs or interventions in relation to impacts of governance on biophysical conditions of natural resources and the environment. Assess whether project strategies and approaches are valid, relevant, effectively and efficiently carried out to address environmental challenges in the Philippines. The assessment will include project inputs for sustainability and replicability of initiatives. The activity will also seek to recommend possible courses of actions to respond to emerging concerns on climate change and biodiversity conservation. D. Statement of Work Under the direction of the CTO, the contractor shall: General 1. Review project-related documents and relevant background material: Documents to be reviewed will include, but will be not limited to the contract and sub-contracts, scopes of work, contract modifications, and work plans, quarterly reports, training manuals, concept papers and circulars, project technical reports, memorandum of agreements between the project and local governments, among others. The midterm evaluation team will also review relevant USAID documents such as the Foreign Assistance Framework, other strategic documents, memorandum of agreements with the Philippine Government, and other documents. 2. Conduct field work and key informant interviews: The midterm evaluation team shall conduct interviews and conduct site visits, to be arranged with assistance from USAID/Office of Energy and Environment and members of the Midterm Evaluation Committee. Suggested persons and places may include: • USAID/OEE management and staff involved with the project; 46 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION • Representatives of the DENR and its related bureaus, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), LGUs where EcoGov2 has presence in key areas in Northern Luzon, Central Visayas, Manila, and Mindanao, including the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao; and • Other USAID implementing partners, donors and organizations working on environmental governance, i.e., efforts related to sustainable forest management, coastal-marine and water resources, integrated solid waste management. 3. Review and assess contract deliverables, including: • Review the work plans, concept papers, manuals and circulars developed by DAI and identify the level of utilization of the technical assistance and expertise provided, as well as any problems or issues related to their use; • The quality, usability and the impact of the training projects, technical reports and manuals developed and provided to project partners such as the DENR and the local government units; • Review of the progress of the EcoGov2 Project in relation to the objectives and results, as well in relation to the development goals of USAID in the Philippines, including biodiversity conservation. • If expected results were not being achieved, identification of gaps and areas for improvements. 4. Review and assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the project methodology, strategies, and linkages developed by DAI: Assess efficiency and effectiveness of project methodology and strategies, as well as knowledge products, benchmarks, and processes developed by the project. Assess the likelihood of these project products, benchmarks and processes being adopted by GRP counterparts, LGUs, and other partners. Review the effectiveness of coordination with partners and other relevant stakeholders, including working relationship of DAI with the DENR and related bureaus, LGUs, other relevant government agencies, sub-contractors (including those under IQS/Local Service Providers), other OEE implementing partners, and other representatives of foreign-assisted projects, private sectors, etc. 5. Document lessons learned, challenges and opportunities: Distill lessons learned from project implementation, including identifying key hindering and facilitating factors—both external and internal to the project, as well as innovations made and gaps that affect progress in achieving results and improve effectiveness of project implementation. Provide recommendations on how to build on the achievements made by the project, other USAID/OEE efforts, etc. within the context of USAID’s thrusts in the Philippines; recommend how to improve coordination with partners and other donors; assess the long-term sustainability and replication for the products, benchmarks, and processes of improving governance of natural resources and the environment developed by the project; and, identify how the project can respond to emerging concerns on climate change and biodiversity conservation. Tasks 1. Prepare Midterm Evaluation Design and Work plan: Within one week of the TO being awarded, the Team Leader and Key Personnel will meet with USAID/Philippines, Activity Managers and other Staff to discuss the TO and agree on expectations and site visit criteria and deliverable formats. Within 10 working days of the Award, the TO Team Leader will submit a detailed midterm evaluation design, methodology, and timeline for the evaluation. This will include, but will not be limited to: initial table of contents of the assessment report, schedule of interviews, interview guides and list of interviewees and respondents, and sampling of proposed sites to be visited. An illustrative set of questions is presented in the succeeding section of this SOW. A detailed midterm evaluation design may employ a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques for USAID approval. The following themes will be the main focus of the midterm evaluation: PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 47 • Forest and Forestland Management • Coastal Resources Management • Solid Waste and Wastewater Management The midterm evaluation will also examine cross-cutting themes such as strengthening governance institutions, both at the national and local levels, and increasing local investments on environmental services. USAID will convene an EcoGov2 Midterm Evaluation Committee (MEC) composed of USAID and DENR representatives. The EcoGov2 MEC will be the focal point for coordination with DENR while conducting the midterm evaluation as well as the mechanism for USAID and DENR to provide technical inputs and monitor progress of the assessment study. The Midterm Evaluation Design and Work plan will be presented to the Evaluation Committee for technical comments, and then to be approved by USAID. Deliverables: Based on the midterm evaluation objectives, the contractor shall develop, for USAID approval, a Midterm Evaluation Design and Work Plan, including: 1.1. Evaluation Methodology, including standards for measuring the quality, usability and the impacts of the technical assistance developed for and provided to project partners; how these measures would be collected; and, site visit itineraries, among others. Note: The final choice of site visits will be made in consultation with USAID/Philippines and GRP partners. Initial elements of the criteria will include: bio-geographic areas where significant EcoGov2 investments have been made, with at least one in Mindanao. Illustrative sites for the Task Order proposal should reflect an appropriate balance of activities, partners and the overall technical approach, as well as cost-effectiveness. 1.2 Key assessment questions for inquiry focusing on both the biophysical and governance targets of the EcoGov2, and their linkages. The midterm evaluation questions should be presented in a way that will capture the scales (e.g., horizontal and vertical) and scope that the project is addressing. The midterm evaluation team should give attention on looking at how project efforts contribute to USAID’s larger development goals, including biodiversity conservation, as well as assessing what are the long-term prospects of sustainability and mainstreaming of efforts of project efforts. An illustrative set of questions is presented in succeeding section of this SOW. 1.3 Working Protocol that would describe how the Team Leader and Key Personnel of the TO will relate with other members of the Midterm Evaluation Team (i.e., with possible USAID Staff as members of the evaluation team), and the EcoGov2 Midterm Evaluation Committee (MEC) composed of USAID and DENR representatives during the different phases of the evaluation. 2. Implement agreed Midterm Evaluation Work-plan: This will include appropriate document reviews, field visits, field interviews and focus group discussions, among others, associated with collection and analysis of data. Aside from the Government of the Philippines (GRP) counterparts and LGUs, at appropriate governance levels, the contractor shall also meet with USAID implementing partners, other implementers of related projects, donor agencies and other stakeholders who can provide input on on￾going activities in the identified sectors. Field visit will include some USAID participation. It is expected that 18 working days will be allotted for data collection and analysis. The Evaluation Team will prepare draft report for review by CTO, USAID staff and members of the EcoGov2 Midterm Evaluation Committee. The draft report will include a 10-page Executive Summary, presenting the team’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations that address all of the objectives in this SOW. The draft report will also consist of additional appendices and supporting materials. 48 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION It is expected that USAID will review the draft focusing on sensitivities and overall focus and not comment on specific technical findings. It is expected that 7 working days will be allotted for review of the EcoGov2 Midterm Evaluation Committee and USAID. Deliverable: A draft midterm evaluation report, with a 10-page Executive Summary, presenting the team’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations that addresses all of the objectives in this SOW. 3. Presentation of Initial Findings and Submission of Final Report: The Midterm evaluation Team shall incorporate necessary edits and prepare final report and associated presentation materials. The team will deliver two presentations of findings, one for an internal USAID audience and to the EcoGov2 Midterm Evaluation Committee. The contractor will be given a week to incorporate comments in the final report, which will be submitted to USAID for final review and approval. Deliverable: Presentation of initial findings of the midterm evaluation in PowerPoint format to be delivered in two meetings. Deliverable: Final report of midterm evaluation, with additional associated appendices and supporting materials (e.g., include list of people and organizations interviewed, reference materials, etc.); including Executive Summary of not more than 10 pages; Microsoft Word; 11 or 12 point font submitted in 2 paper and electronic copies not more than one week after comments are due. Report must meet all legal USAID formatting requirements. Note: The dates for the presentation of initial findings will be discussed with USAID and the EcoGov2 MEC. The Final report must be submitted before January 15, 2008. E. Illustrative Midterm Evaluation Questions Consistent with Section D of this SOW, the Evaluation Team is expected to identify key assessment questions that shall capture the scales (e.g., horizontal and vertical) and scope that the project is addressing. The midterm evaluation team should give attention on looking at how project efforts contribute to USAID’s larger development goals, including biodiversity conservation, as well as assessing what are the long-term prospects of sustainability and mainstreaming of efforts of project efforts. The midterm evaluation questions below focus on assessing the project’s progress including effectiveness and efficiency of implementation, as well as identifying emerging lessons, gaps and opportunities. These questions are illustrative intended to help guide the Midterm evaluation Team in developing their midterm evaluation design and work plan. 1. For the past three years of project implementation, what progress has been achieved so far in terms of performance outputs and deliverables (in each sector, and at different governance scales)? Identify project implementation strengths and weaknesses. 2. What are the systems, processes and standards that DAI has put in place to enhance the capacities of the DENR, local government units and other stakeholders that contributed to the achievement of the project’s intended results? At what extent have these been used, adopted and sustained, by the said partners? 3. Is DAI using appropriate (i.e., effective and efficient) sets of systems, processes and standards as part of its innovations in improving governance of natural resources? Identify how governance systems and practices introduced by the project to resource managers have impacted on the biophysical conditions of the natural resources? 4. Is gender being used to inform project approaches? PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 49 5. How have partnerships with NGOs, community based organizations (CBOs), and other grassroots organizations influenced project outcomes? Are there other potential partnerships that the project could pursue to improve implementation? 6. In the context of a new USAID Foreign Assistance Framework and Mission strategic priorities, how do the emerging lessons and gaps inform future direction and implementation of the project, especially in Mindanao? 7. How can the project contribute to sustain development results and achieve synergies within USAID portfolio? 8. What facilitating and/or hindering factors have affected the ability of DAI to achieve development results? Identify factors that are within the control of DAI and those factors that are outside its influence. 9. What are the long-term prospects for sustainability of efforts? Identify whether DENR and its related bureaus, local government units, and other partners are adopting systems, procedures, and standards being developed by the project. Identify reasons why or why not, and provide recommendations. G. Team Composition and Participation Team Composition and Roles: The Midterm evaluation Team will be an interdisciplinary group of specialists which may include experts in natural resources management (forestry, coastal and marine and/or water resources management), urban environmental management, governance, policy or institutional reform, and project/project development and management. The members of the Midterm evaluation Team must have prior experience in evaluating or implementing donor-funded projects with substantial experience on impact analysis of projects on policy reforms and advocacy and institutional capacity building that links biophysical indicators with governance processes. The team members should have excellent skills in organizational development, workshop/group discussion planning and facilitation. Including the team leader, the team will likely consist of three (3) team members. The Midterm Evaluation Team maybe joined by USAID technical experts (e.g., climate change, and biodiversity experts, etc.) from the Mission or Washington who will participate in different phases of the evaluation process. The Team Leader will have the ultimate responsibility for overall team coordination of the assessment activities and timely delivery of outputs. The following qualifications are preferred for a Team Leader: ƒ Have at least 10 years experience in evaluating and/or implementing donor-funded projects in natural resource management/environmental management, governance/ institutional development or related field with at least five years experience in the Asia/Pacific region and in developing countries, preferably with experience in the Philippines. ƒ Hold an advanced degree (Ph.D. or masters) or equivalent experience in forestry, agriculture, environmental management, community development, rural sociology, development management, public administration and finance or related fields, with expertise preferably in natural resources management. ƒ Excellent written and oral communication skills. Below is a suggested composition of the Midterm Evaluation Team members. However, Offerors may propose a different mix of expertise. The use of qualified local experts is encouraged to the maximum extent possible. 1. Natural Resources Management (NRM) Specialist: Recommended qualifications: ƒ At least 8 years experience in evaluating and/or implementing donor-funded projects in natural resources management (forestry and coastal resources management), governance/ institutional development or related field with at least 4 years experience in the Asia/Pacific region and in developing countries, preferably with experience in the Philippines. 50 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION ƒ Hold an advanced degree (Ph.D. or masters) in forestry, coastal resources-fisheries, agriculture, environmental management, community development, rural sociology, development management, public administration or related fields, with expertise preferably in forestry, coastal and marine management or water resources management. ƒ Excellent written and oral communication skills. 2. Urban Environmental Management Specialist: Recommended qualifications: ƒ Have at least 8 years experience in evaluating and/or implementing donor-funded projects in urban environmental management, governance/ institutional development or related field with at least four years experience in the Asia/Pacific region and in developing countries, preferably with experience in the Philippines. ƒ Hold an advanced degree (Ph.D. or masters) in environmental science/management, environmental engineering, community development, rural sociology, development management, public administration, public finance or related fields, with expertise preferably in solid waste management, toxic and hazardous waste management, or water and sanitation. ƒ Excellent written and oral communication skills. 3. Governance/Institutional Development Specialist: Recommended qualifications: ƒ Have at least 8 years experience in evaluating and/or implementing projects in natural resource management/environmental management, governance/ institutional development or related field with at least four years experience in the Asia/Pacific region and in developing countries, preferably with experience in the Philippines. ƒ Hold an advanced degree (Ph.D. or masters) or equivalent experience in community development, anthropology, agriculture/fishery development management, public administration or related fields. ƒ Excellent written and oral communication skills. The Team Leader may define specific sections of the midterm evaluation design and work plan and final report that could be assigned to other members of the team. The Team Leader will also take the lead in closely coordinating with USAID staff members who will be part of the evaluation team. H. Relationship to USAID and EcoGov2 Midterm Evaluation Committee The Midterm Evaluation Team will be managed as part of the Office of Energy and Environment. Technical directions will be provided by the CTO, or her/his designee. The Midterm Evaluation Team will also closely work with the EcoGov2 Midterm Evaluation Committee (MEC). The EcoGov2 MEC will be composed of USAID and DENR representatives. The EcoGov2 MEC will serve as the coordination center for the assessment as well as a mechanism to provide technical inputs and monitor progress of the assessment. I. Performance Schedule USAID anticipates that the Evaluation Team will conduct the assessment in the Philippines for a period of seven weeks, with an authorized six-day working week. The Midterm Evaluation Team will determine the best use of their time, which will be presented as part of their implementation/work plan and timeline to be presented during the inception meeting at USAID. The Evaluation period is planned within October to December 2007 timeframe. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 51 1. Manila The Team will: a. Review the SOW and project description and other documents of the identified activities that are available at USAID/Philippines and GRP counterparts. b. Receive administrative and technical briefings from the USAID. Refine the methodology and detailed implementation plan for the Manila and site-based portions of the assessment. c. Conduct interviews and discussions with appropriate officers/staff in USAID/Manila, Philippine Department of Environment of Natural Resources, Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, League of Municipalities of the Philippines, League of Cities of the Philippines, Department of Interior and Local Government, and others. 2. Site visits Site visits will take place over an approximate three-week period only. Level of resources for site visits is preferred as follows: 50% in Mindanao, including the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao; 30% in Central Visayas; and 20% in Luzon. The final choice of site visits will be made in consultation with USAID/Philippines and GRP partners. Initial elements of the criteria will include: bio-geographic areas where significant EcoGov2 investments have been made, with at least one in Mindanao. Illustrative sites for the Task Order proposal should reflect an appropriate balance of activities, partners and the overall technical approach, as well as cost-effectiveness. In the course of these site visits, the Team will: a. Interview project staff, key local government officials and representatives of GRP national agencies such as DENR, community and NGO representatives, and other partners or stakeholders knowledgeable about the projects covered by the assessment. b. Visit the DAI and DENR’s field offices and actual project sites. The Evaluation Team may also be joined by EcoGov2 Midterm Evaluation Committee members or their counterparts in some sites. J. Period of Performance and Deliverable The evaluation should begin in Manila, Philippines in October 2007, spread over a period of seven weeks. Deliverables Time Line (SOW Reference) 1. Site visit criteria and deliverable formats within 1 week after award (page 4) 2. Evaluation Design and Work Plan within 10 days (page 4) 3. Draft Midterm Evaluation Report within 5th week (page 5) 4. Presentations of initial Findings - USAID TBD (pages 5- 6) - Midterm Evaluation Committee TBD (pages 5-6) 5. Final Midterm Evaluation Report January 15, 2008 (page 6) 52 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION K. Logistics The contractor is responsible for obtaining all of its own logistical requirements/costs, including transportation, accommodation, translation and secretarial support. USAID/OEE will assist with setting up appointments and providing background materials. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 53 ANNEXB. EVALUATION TEAM ITINERARY 8 October to 15 November 2007 (Yellow highlighted dates are locally observed holidays) Date Site Activities No. Pax* 8 October Manila US Gov holiday Eval Team meets, reviews agenda/protocols 9 October USAID/Manila OEE briefing on the evaluation activity Eval Team meets/reviews project documentation 7 10 October Manila Eval Team meets/reviews project documentation DENR FASPO Midterm Evaluation Committee and Evaluation Team meeting 6 EcoGov2 office Introductory meeting and planning session with EG2 staff, USAID and Evaluation Team 8 11 October Quezon City - UP Intv/disc with No. Luzon’s Aurora Prov DENR and LGU staff 20 12 October EcoGov2 office Detail review of field sites for Team visits 13 October Manila Team work on draft work plan 14 October Manila – Rest day 15 October Manila Drafting & submission of work plan to USAID and the MEC 16 October Manila; EcoGov2 office Final field trip logistical prep; EG2 briefing on Mindanao region MINDANAO REGIONAL VISITS Travel by plane from Manila to Davao City Davao City municipal bldg Group discussion w/ LGU technical working group 10 Davao City municipal bldg Intv/disc with Foundation to Save the Davao Gulf, EG2 grantee 3 Davao-DENR Region 11 office Intv/disc with DENR Region 11 staff 10 17 October Davao-ISFI Intv/disc with EG2 grantee and subcontractor 5 Travel by 4WD pickup to Wao (and then Valencia for overnight) Wao municipal bldg Intv with mayor and members of TWG 3 18 October Wao Tvl to FFM co-mgmt area to visit nursery and intv farmers with IPRs and Wao ex-mayor Tvl to pvt. banana operation providing alternative livelihoods within municipality Tvl to Wao MRF, view operation & intv. operators 20 Travel by 4WD pickup from Valencia to Tacurong (via Davao), Koronadal and to General Santos City (latter for overnight) Tacurong City municipal bldg Intv/disc with LGU staff re: ISWM plan and ISWM facilities 7 Koronadal- So. Cotabato Prov. office Intv/disc with provincial staff and governor on EG2 activities and provincial priorities 14 19 October Koronadal City municipal bldg Intv/disc. With LGU staff and TWG Tvl/visit Koronadal MRF, nursery and landfill site 7 54 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION Date Site Activities No. Pax* Travel by 4WD pickup from Gen San to Maasim to Gen San to Alabel to Gen San (latter for overnight Maasim municipal offices Intv/disc with mayor, TWG, and DENR CENRO Tvl to/ intv contract pineapple farmers in co-mgt area 7 Gen Santos City – EG2 regional office Review EG2 activities in Gen Santos City and Alcoy; confirm logistical arrangements to Western Mindanao 8 20 October Alabel Municipal Office Intv/disc with mayor and LGUs TWG Tvl and visit the LGU’s wastewater treatment facility 5 21 October General Santos City – Rest day Gen Santos City municipal office Intv/disc with City planner and LGU TWG members 4 Travel by van from General Santos City to Davao City 22 October Davao City hotel Intv/disc with DENR ARMM 1 23 October Travel by plane from Davao City to Cagayan de Oro and van to Pagadian (for overnight) Pagadian - EcoGov2 Suboffice Briefing by EG2 staff on activities in Western Mindanao 8 Travel by van from Pagadian to Tabina to Pagadian to Tukuran to Pagadian (for overnight) Tabina municipal office Intv/disc with mayor, LGU TWG, Peoples Organization 15 Tukuran municipal office Intv/disc with mayor and LGU TWG and DENR CENRO (?) 9 24 October Pagadian municipal office Interview with SP staff focused on SWM activities 6 Evaluation Team is joined by new member, Richard Volk from USAID/Washington. Pagadian - EcoGov2 Suboffice Briefing by EG2 staff on IBRA 9 activities 3 Pagadian – municipal office Intv/disc with IBRA 9 TWG members 27 25 October Travel by van from Pagadian to Cagayan de Oro to take overnight ferry to Cebu City CENTRAL VISAYAS REGIONAL VISITS Cebu City – EcoGov2 Regional office Briefing by EG2 staff on activities in Central Visayas 5 Travel by van from Cebu City to Alcoy and Santander and by ferry from Santander to Sibulan, and finally by van from Sibulan to Dumaguete (for overnight) 26 October Alcoy - municipal bldg Intv/disc with mayor, LGU TWG, 3 Pos and pvt sector mining company 12 27 October Travel by van from Dumaguete to Bayawan City to Dumaguete (for overnight) Bayawan City municipal bldg Intv/disc with mayor, LGU TWG and DENR CENRO Visit to LGU’s MRF and wastewater treatment facility Trvl/visit and intv at LGU planting sites and nursery and nursery operators 19 28 October Rest Day and travel by ferry to Tagbilaran (for overnight) 29 October Travel by van from Tagbilaran to Talibon to Tagbilaran (for overnight) Talibon – Water Gate Inn Intv/disc with mayor, LGU TWG Visit LGU’s CRM information Center Visit to LGU mangrove co-mgt area and proposed protected zone 8 Bohol Tropic Hotel Intv/disc with Bohol ISWM Cluster: BEMO, Alburquerque mayor and 9 LGU representatives 30 October 13 Travel by ferry from Tagbilaran to Cebu City (for overnight) EcoGov2 Regional office Intv/disc with DENR Regional Technical Director Intv/disc with EG2 admin and technical staff 31 October 1 Travel by plane from Cebu City to Manila (for overnight) MANILA 1 November Manila Document and field trip review 2 November Manila Document and field trip review 3 November Manila Document and field trip review PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 55 Date Site Activities No. Pax* 4 November Manila Rest day; Evaluation Team is joined by new member, Mary Melnyk from USAID/Washington 5 November Manila – USAID/OEE Intv/disc with USAID/Philippines OEE staff re: EG2 activities; Logistical planning for group disc on next day 5 6 November Manila hotel Group disc with Manila-based EG2 stakeholders; Intv/disc with senior EG2 admin staff 7 7 November Manila – EcoGov off Intv/disc with EG2 senior technical staff Intv/disc with DENR FASPO staff 3 8 November Manila hotel Evaluation Team results workshop 9 - 15 November Manila Preparation of Draft report Executive Summary by contracted Evaluation Team Members 11 November Manila Rest Day NORTHERN LUZON REGIONAL VISITS 12 November US Gov holiday USAID/Washington Team Members Volk and Melnyk travel to No. Luzon (for overnight) 13 November No. Luzon sites Intv/disc with EG2 Regional staff Intv/disc with LGU Tvl/visit FFM areas 69 14 November Travel from No. Luzon to Manila (for overnight) MANILA 15 November Manila Evaluation Draft Report submission to USAID/Philippines, MEC and EcoGov2 Melnyk and Volk debrief USAID on No. Luzon trip Team Leader departs *No. of participants does not include Evaluation Team members. A complete list of participants/interviewees appears in a separate appendix 56 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION ANNEX C.PERSONS CONTACTED, FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVIEWEES BY REGION AND SITE MINDANAO • 47 Female Participants • 108 Male Participants Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) Wao Municipality, Lanao del Sur Province– (3 Females and 18 Males) 1. Elvino Balicao Jr. - Mayor 2. Elvino Balicao Sr. - Ex-Mayor 3. Mary Rith Catalan* - Vice-Mayor 4. Lominog Polayagan - Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Officer, Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office (MENRO) 5. Villarata Hibert - Farmer, IPR Beneficiary 6. Sonia Lobo-on* - Farmer, IPR Beneficiary 7. Ruben Panisan - Farmer, IPR Beneficiary 8. Haide Tamastacas* - Farmer, IPR Beneficiary 9. Onyet Montanez - Technical staff, MENRO 10. Ronilo Charias - MENRO LGU 11. Alex Macaraya - MENRO LGU 12. Julius Jarono - MENRO LGU 13. Roben Shaik - Forest Ranger, MENRO LGU 14. Henry Garcia - Forest Ranger, MENRO LGU 15. Batman Roben - Farmer, MENRO LGU 16. Exlir Balicao - Forest Ranger, MENRO LGU 17. Auan Goreo - Forest Ranger, MENRO LGU 18. Ronnie Jariflo - Forest Ranger, MENRO LGU 19. Reynaldo Taboco - Forest ranger, MENRO LGU 20. Cornelio Hamil - Supervisor, SHOBI 21. Alex Rodorocio - Foreman, Solid Waste Management PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 57 DENR ARMM – (1 Male) 1. Alindatu Pagayas - Assistant Secretary, DENR ARMM Mindanao - Region IX DENR Region IX – (1 Female and 3 Males) 1. Ariel Barrientos - HEA, DENR-FMS IX 2. Nick Jumlaie - APP, DENR-CMMD 3. Alicia Dimaporo* - Forester, DENR-CMMS 4. Adalberto Roullo - DENR-PENRO Tabina Municipality, Zamboanga del Sur – (6 Females and 9 Males) 1. Greg Dayonbon - Mayor 2. Arlan Magallanes - Sanggunian Bayan Member 3. Mario Octavio Arsenal - PMO staff 4. Teofilo Roda Jr. - LGU Tabina staff 5. Carmen Pahang* - LTOO II, MTD Tabina 6. Lunel Bandajon - PO IV, Tabina 7. Elmer Lamesa - PMO Representative 8. Carlos Lluvido - Chairman PELA 9. Antiquio Bicol - Vice-Chairman PELA 10. Wilma Lluvido* - Treasurer 11. Carolyn Eñola* - PELA Member 12. Carmelita Bulaco* - PELA Member 13. Estela Balignot* - PELA Member 14. Lilia Bucol* - PELA Member 15. Arsenio Pefania - PELA Member Tukuran Municipality, Zamboanga del Sur – (3 Females and 6 Males) 1. Bonifacio Vega Jr. - Mayor 2. Nelson Vega - Private secretary of the Mayor 3. Rogelim Cabrales - MPDC 4. Vanessa Alcuizor* - MPDC staff 5. Linda Poloyapoy* - PMO staff 6. Loreto Penavande - ME, Tukuran 7. Noe Gozalo - SB secretary 8. Hydie Corpuz* - MA, Tukuran 9. Marianito Verallo - AT, Tukuran Pagadian City LGU staff – (1 Female and 5 Males) 1. Estrella Arao* - Sanggunian Panglungsod 2. Wilson Co - Sanggunian Panglungsod 3. Leo Salera - PSO IV 4. Necias Sapong - PDO IV, CPDO 5. Mark Daan - PSD 6. Dr. Referino Lingating - MO V, City Health Officer IBRA 9 Members – (13 Females and 14 Males) 1. Eriberto Sumalinog - Sanggunian Panlalawigan 2. Pepito Degamo - Provincial Administrator 3. Ferne Lau Narciso - PO IV –PPDO 58 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 4. Tessie Magdadaro* - PDO III – PPDO 5. Lorna Tolingin* - PDO – PPDO 6. Armida Daculio* - PEO IV 7. Carmencita Singco* - Project Coordinator-Zero Waste 8. Milabel Alia* - DENR Officer –PGO 9. Rebecca Pachica* - Engineering Assistant – PGSO 10. Allan June Molde - Provincial Information Officer 11. Medardo Gutang - Information Officer – PGO 12. Mary Ann Gallego* - PPDO staff 13. Lindley Herrera* - Chief, CMMS – PAO 14. Jamil Saral - Aquaculturist II – PAO 15. Sherry Sedillo* - Chief, CMMS – CENRO Pagadian, DENR 16, Noel Pabiran - PMO Manager – PMO IBRA 9 17. Leah Tambolero* - Administrative Officer, IBRA 9 18. Celerino Miparanum - Staff – PMO IBRA 9 19. Wilfredo Opsima - Staff – PMO IBRA 9 20. Cecilia Arboiz* - PMO staff – LGU Dimataling 21. Abdul Donde - PMO staff – LGU Dinas 22. Ponciano Edano - PMO staff – LGU Dumalinao 23. Rebecca Saral* - PMO staff – LGU Labangan 24. Umalsali Hawani - PMO staff – LGU Pagadian 25. Reynaldo Paeste - PMO staff – LGU San Pablo 26. Mario Octavio Arsenal - PMO staff – LGU Tabina 27. Linda Poloyapoy* - PMO staff – LGU Tukuran Mindanao - Region XI Davao City LGU staff - (5 Females and 5 Males) 1. Luis Mario Jacinto - City Planning and Development Coordinator, City Planning and Development Office (CPDO) 2. Jocelyn Espina* - OIC CENRO, City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) 3. Luisa Tuquib* - Z.O.- IV, City Planning and Development Office (CPDO) 4. Denton Siapno - ITO – I, CPDO 5. Bienvenido Pogoy - DMO-II, CENRO 6. Meriam Faith Palma* - Planning Development Officer, CPDO 7. Radzini Oledan* - CPDO 8. Arnel Llido - EMS, ENRO 9. Jovencio Umawing - CRMO, City Agriculture 10. Virginia Pusar* - CENRO Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) XI – (2 Females and 8 Males) 1.Hardinado Patnugot - Regional Technical Director (RTD) 2. Leonilo Rivera - PASU, Region XI 3. Alfredo Zarasate - Chief- FFM 4. Nestor Patnunot - EMS II, FMB 5. Crisanto Estabillo - CENRO, CMMD 6. Ronald Go - Technical staff, FFM 7. Aida Bautista* - Technical staff, FFM 8. Erlinda Hilay* - PO I, PMD-FMS 9. Samuel Gambong - EMS II, Pasu staff PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 59 10. Camilo Victoria - Staff, FRDD Save Davao Gulf Foundation (SDGF) – (3 Males) 1. Leo Avila - President and Sanggunian Panglungsod Member 2. Efren Elbanbuena - Executive Director 3. Noli Remulla - AFO Ateneo de Davao University - Institute for Small Farmers and Industries (ISFI) – (4 Females and 1 Male) 1. Jocelyn Cabo* - Executive Director 2. Maria Cristy Yuson* - Finance and Adminstration 3. Gloria Penera* - Project Officer 4. Maria Theresa Mates* - Project Officer 5. Joseph Sarile - Project staff Mindanao – Region XII Takurong City, Sultan Kudarat Province – (7 Males) 1. Joselito Cajandig - Sanggunian Panglungsod Member 2. Benjamin Fajardo Jr. - Sanggunian Panglungsod Member 3. Eduard Nilolo - City Administrator 4. Jaime Cedulla - City Planning and Development Coordinator 5. Nemesio Camigaba Jr. - City Environment and Natural Resources Officer 6. Engr. Alfredo Ranido Jr. - PSO II, CENRO 7. Forester Norberto Lopez - EMS II, ENRO South Cotabato Province – (5 Females and 9 Males) 1. Daisy Fuentes* - Governor 2. Jose Manadguit - Sanggunian Panlalawigan Member 3. Ramon Ponce De Leon - OIC Provincial Environment and Management Officer 4. Noli Rosete - Engr. IV, Provincial Engineering Office (PEO) 5. Vilma Flautanitura* - SSRS/PM, DENR XII 6. Rodulfo Tuya - EMS I, PEMO 7. Nencita Alain* - Sr. EMS, PEMO 8. Nelson Beltran - PO III, Provincial Planning and Development Office (PPDO)-Provincial Technical Working Group (PTWG) Solid Waste Management (SWM) 9. Elbe Balucarag* - EMS II, PEMO 10. Generosa Capundan* - Emgr. IV, PEO-PTWG 11. Dennis Domuhod - AAVI, PGO-INFO 12. Roy Derla - AAIV, PENRO 13. Wilson Trajio - EMB, DENR XII 14. Joel Lomidoy - EMB, DENR XII Koronadal City LGU Staff – (2 females and 5 Males) 1. Sergio Morales Jr. - Sanggunian Panglungsod Member 2. Marcelita Lucido* - City Administrator 3. Agustus Bretan - City ENRO 4. Dominador Samilin - EMS II, City ENRO staff 5. Jean Sunga* - Information Officer II 6. Architect Marvin Alegria - City Architect 60 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 7. Floro Calixto Jr. - Executive Assistant III Maasim Municipality, Sarangani Province – (1 Female and 6 Males) 1. Aniceto Lopez Jr. - Mayor 2 Alberto Arquillano - Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator 3 Jilsan Siang* - EMS I, PENRO Sarangani 4 Noel Carino - PENRO Sarangani 5 Ruel Divino - CENRO - DENR 6 Rolando Tysalles - MENRO , Maasim 7 Flor Limpin - DILG, Maasim Alabel Municipality, Sarangani Province – (1 Female and 4 Males) 1. Corazon Grafilo* - Mayor 2. Paul Villamore - Sanggunian Bayan Member 3. Alkin Rivera - MENRO 4. Dr. Honorad Fadra - Municipal Health Officer (MHO) 5. Noel Carino - OIC, PENRO General Santos City - (4 Males) 1. Richard Atendido - Sanggunian Panglungsod Member 2. Nael Cruspero - City Planning and Development Coordinator (CPDC),City Planning and Development Office (CPDO) 3. Nino Arancon - PDO IV, CPDO 4. David Acosta Jr. - PDO II, CPDO VISAYAS • 15 Female Participants • 38 Male Participants Region VII Alcoy Municipality, Cebu – (2 Females and 10 Males) 1. Memyth Rendon* - LGU Agriculture Technician 2. Alejandro Anore - Chairperson, BALAK People’s Organization 3. Catalino de los Santos, Jr.. - Sangguniang Bayan 4. Raymunda Pahayahay* - Chairperson, SAMPC 5. Pablo Adlaw - Chairperson, KMYLB 6. Benjamin delos Santos - Chairperson, BASKET 7. Generoso Gonzaga - President Manager, PMSC 8. Joel Beduya - LGU Draftsman 9. Policarpo Pantalita - LGU Municipal Agricultural Officer 10. Jason Ruelan - LGU Municipal Development Officer 11. Hon. Nicomedes de los Santos- Mayor of Alcoy 12. Hon. Antonio Plando - Vice-Mayor of Alcoy Bayawan City, Negros Oriental – (3 Females and 16 Males) 1. Joel Baterna - City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) 2. Jenny June Tigbao - 3. Agustin Barte - Forner LGU Councilor 4. Bobet Banquerigo - CENRO PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 61 5. Corazon Lirazan* - ACER 6. Constantino Pomaok - LGU Kagawad Ubos 7. Supt. Roy Arella - Philippine National Police 8. Raul Abenueva - Admin. CHO III 9. William Duhaylungsod - Barangay Boyco 10. Elma Tanasan* - Junker Junkshop 11. Mercy Teves* - Division Chief, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Governor’s office 12. Roger Dael - Forner City Environment and Natural Resources Officer 13. Charlie Fabre - OIC City Environment and Natural Resources Office 14, Kenneth Artes - PMO IV 15. Edilberto Euraoras II - CESO 16. Angelo Basud - 17. V.D. Alabastro - Sangguniang Panglungsod 18. Jose Rosariuo Tumpong - CMO 19. Carnegio Muraga - GAO-CA Talibon Municipality, Bohol – (7 Males, 1 Female) 1. Hon. Juanario Item - Mayor 2. Jose Wayne Evardo - Sanggunian Bayan 3. Ednardo Avenido - Municipal Planning and Development Officer 4. Lorenzo Flores - Municipal Engineer 5. Peter Polestico - HRMO 6. Diocoro Jalmorit - LGU- MBO 7. Nestor Cruda - LGU- MSA 8. Jessica Paquibot* - MPDC staff Metro Bohol – (9 Females and 4 Males) 1. Jovencia Ganub* - BEMO, Accounting-Admin 2. Ma. Socorro Trinidad* - BEMO, Aqua 2, ISWM Sector Head 3. Rene Villaber - BEMO, Head 4. Leila Cafe* - LGU – Alburquerque, Municipal Planning And Development Coordinator (MPDC) 5. Ma. Nenita Chiu* - LGU – Maribojoc, MPDC 6. Aristobala Solis* - LGU – Cortes, MPDC 7. Christopher Racho - LGU – Balilihan, MPDC 8. Ma. Mercedes Salinas* - LGU – Dauis, MPDC 9. Hon.Jose Ugdoracion - Mayor of Alburquerque 10. Marcelina Ogus* - LGU – Corella, MBO 11. Jovencia Asico* - LGU – Panglao, MPDC 12. Darwin Francis Apale - LGU – Baclayon, MPDC 13. Joyce Brina* - BEMO, Admin staff DENR Region VII, Cebu City – (1 Male) 1. Dr. Isabelo Montejo - Director III NORTHERN LUZON ƒ 30 Female Participants ƒ 59 Male Participants 62 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION Aurora Province (at Ridge to Reef Training, UP Dilliman, Quezon City, with 5 Females and 15 Males) 1. Teodoro Torio - PG – Enro 2. Ma. Liza Costa* - Baler ENRO 3. Jagger Enaue - ILCRMC 4. Nenita Gonzales* - SB on Environment 5. Manny dela Pena - PG – ENRO 6. Benjamin Mata - SP Baler 7. Raymar Tercero - PG – CRM 8. Renato Pascua - SP on Environment 9. Nenita Hernandez* - Baler Public Health Officer 10.Benjamin Mina - DENR -PENRO 11.Nelianto Bihasa - Baler Vice Mayor 12.Manuel Hernandez - MPDO 13.Jeremias Casala - DENR 14.Harold Pascua - SP 15.Micheal Palispis - Tourism Office 16.Ansel Cabrera - Gov’s office 17.Rodante Tolentino - PEO 18.Rodelio de la Torre - PPDO/PGA 19.Ma. Teresa de Luna* - ENRO 20.Cristina de la Cruz* - PGA – ENRO Nueva Vizcaya Province (25 Females and 44 Males) 1. Jose Cenen Santos - P.B. DMM 2. Marcelina Ramos* - Salvacion SWM Coordinator 3. Emma Aris Tucay* - School SWM Coordinator 4. Cesario Mariano - Principal I 5. Ronald Ubadia - SB-MEN 6. Ofelia Layugan* - SEMS-PEO 7. Lucena Magno* - Saint Mary University 8. Elnora Lugares* - PSHS SWM Coordinator 9. Nelson Melchor - MAGRO-MA 10. Nicanor Costales - Municipal Engineer 11. Johnson Termines - Bayombong MPDC 12. Gilbert Panor - Barangay SDPP 13. Atty. Jig Bagasao - Lawyer 14. Eufronio Ortiz Jr. - Nueva Vizcaya State University 15. Fe Marzan* - SWM-TWG 16. Blesila Ramos* - Unit Head, Training – Agriculture and Environment 17. Teofila Santillan* - EMS II 18. Delia Agunoy* - EMS II 19. Nilo Palparag 20. Veronica Martinez* - PSHS-CVC 21. SandyEvangelista - LGU-Bay. NV 22. Gaston Buhwilon - P.B. 23. Leonardo Cortez 24. Marilyn Juan* - SWM Coordinator 25. Elizabeth Carig* - CDO, FRENDS, Inc. 26. Noemi Villanueva * - Forester II, DENR 27. Teresita Acosta* - Executive Director, FRENDS, Inc. PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 63 28. Andres Barsicula - President, Boliwao-Maasin Watershed Management Association (BMWMA) 29. Jimmy Rafael - LGU-SB Member 30. Virgilio Savedra - LGU-Vice Mayor 31. Orlando Maivic - Board Secretary FRENDS, Inc. 32. Rolando Dela Cruz - LGU-MPDC, Quezon 33. Emmanuel Tiam - DEP. ED-Schoola SWM Coordinator 34. Cesario Mariano - DEP.ED-Principal I 35. Marcelina Ramos* - SWM Coordiantor Barangay Salvacion 36. Jose Cenen Santos - Punong Baranagay, Barangay DMM 37. Lucena Magno* - SMU Central 38. Ofelia Layugan* - SEM/PED-DENR-EMB 39. Elnora Lugares* - ESWM Coordinator, PSHS-CVC 40. Nelson Melchor - LGU-Municpal Agriculturist 41. Nicanor Costales - LGU-Municipal Engineer 42. Johnson Termines - LGU Bayombong- MPDC 43. Fe Marzan* - LGU Bayombong-SWM 44. Marilyn Juan* - LGU Bayombong-SWM Coordinator 45. Blesila Ramos* - Unit Head, Training Agri & Envi, NVSU Bayombong 46. Eufrenio Ortiz - Director, NVSU Bayombong 47. Toefilo Santella - EMS II-DENR 48. Luis Aguy - EMS II-DENR 49. Nick Racapora - LGU-SB 50.Veronica Martina* - Chairperson, PSHS-CVC 51. Atty.JSG Bagasro - Mayor, Bay Municipality 52. Ronald Lipadua - LGU Bay-SB 53. Gilbert Pastores - LGU Bay-Med. Staff 54. Sandy Evangelista - LGU Bay-MPDC Staff 55. Larry Dasalle - LGU Bay-MPDC Staff 56. Enrico Cruz - LGU Alfonso Castaneda-MENRO 57. Roberto Apigo - PENR Officer-DENR 58. Marcelo Bumidang - Forestry Specialist-DENR 59. Teresita Jasmin* - Forest Ranger-DENR 60. George dela Cruz - LGU Alfonso Castaneda-MPDC 61. Ramon Salvador - EMS II 62. Mike Jubay - Nueva Vizcaya Province-PPDC 63. Edgardo Sabado - Nueva Vizcaya Province- Planning Officer-PO IV 64. Valentin Baccay - Forestry specialist-DENR 65. Annie Rose Llanera* - LGU Aritao-MPDC 66.Alema Penaflor* - LGU Aritao-PO II 67. Harlee Rex Lopez - LGU Aritao-Draftsman 68. Mario Velasco - FRDS Chief, CENRO Aritao 69. Andres Linsaugan Jr. - LGU Aritao-PEO II MANILA National Partners – (7 Females and 3 Males) 1. Lizette Cardenas* - Executive Director, Solid Waste Management Association of the Philippines (SWAPP) 2. Ella Deocadiz* - Division Chief, Environment and Management Bureau (EMB)/DENR 64 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 3. Zoilo Andin Jr. - Executive Director, National Solid Waste Management Commission 4. Florendo Barangan - Director, Coastal Division, PAWB/DENR 5. Meriden Maranan* - Scepva, EMS, PAWB/DENR 6. Norma Molinyawe* - Scepva EMS, PAWB/DENR 7. Genesis Fananso - Forest Management Bureau/DENR 8. Moonyeen Manrique* - FASPO/ DENR 9. Atty Analizah Teh* - Assistant Secretary, Foreign Assisted and Special Projects Office (FASPO) 10. Alice Ferrer* FASPO/DENR Director of Project Operations USAID Philippines (3 Females, 2 Males) 1. Aurelia Micko* - Deputy Chief, Office of Energy and Environment 2. Oliver Agoncillo - Natural Resources Policy Advisor, CTO, EcoGov2 Project 3. Mary Joy Jochico* - Urban Environment Specialist 4. Rene Acosta - Coastal Marine management Specialist 5. Fatima Verzosa* - Women-in-Development Officer EcoGov2 Staff (14 Females, 15 Males) National Office 1. Ernesto Guiang – Chief of Party 2. Rebecca Paz* – Deputy Chief of Party 3. Bien Dolom 4. Porfirio Alino 5. Mamet Magno* 6. Annette Menez* Davao Office 1. Raoul Geollegue 2. Aleta Gabronino* GenSan Office 1. Ferdinand Esguerra 2. Mer Oliva 3. Evelyn Andrin* 4. Evelyn Sagun* 5. Marie Anthonel Pawser* 6. Aurea Macaling* 7. Diego Tautho 8. Edwin Camacho (Cotabato City) Pagadian Office 1. Edward Lim 2. Maria Portigo* 3. Ramon Blanco 4. Maritess Magtangob* Cebu City Office 1. May Ybanez* 2. Rudy Aragon 3. Justino Briones 4. Hazel Arceo* PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 65 5. Kent Omictin Dumaguete Office 1. Apple Amor* 2. Fidel Vicente Solano Office 1. Roger Serrano 2. Cheng Solomon* 66 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION ANNEX D. BENCHMARK EXAMPLES FOR OPTION YEARS Based on its field observations, interviews and discussions with project partners, beneficiaries and staff, the midterm evaluation team recommended that USAID exercise the two-year option to extend the EcoGov2 contract, pending successful completion of a pre-agreed upon set of benchmarks and performance standards to be met during the next two years. In Section 5.8 the evaluation team recommended that EcoGov2 project managers and USAID/Philippines work together to develop a plan with clearly defined milestones that need to be achieved before the close of the project. These would be benchmarks (in addition to established project targets) to be attained before the end of the fifth year of the project and/or as markers for the two-year contract extension option. Several examples of these benchmarks were made throughout the text in Section 5 where each sector was discussed. In most cases these may also be viewed as elements in the project’s exit plan, especially if the extension option is not exercised and the contract ends at the close of Year 5. The suggestions made by the team in this report are not intended to be exhaustive, but simply a starting point for further discussion among the Contractor, USAID, DENR, and other partners. The examples discussed in the text are again listed below for convenience. • EcoGov2 staff should work with DENR, provincial governments and LGUs to develop a FLUP model site (perhaps one per region). Some SWM experiences have already made several LGUs models for others wanting to discuss experiences and gain knowledge useful for addressing their own issues. EcoGov2 has helped to raise awareness in the UEM sector through this mechanism. The process could be made more formal for each sector, and similarly a model might also be identified and developed for a “cluster”, a network, or an association. Each of these models would also figure in the project’s GoAd strategy for promoting successes, media and public relations materials. • DENR is interested to sustain the type of services that EcoGov2 is providing to the LGUs, but requires assistance in achieving its own decentralization goals. The evaluation team believes there is a strong role for EcoGov2 to play, and that the project, together with USAID/Philippines, should immediately take￾up with DENR senior officials the question of devolution of authority and resources needed to sustain CRM and fisheries management within the LGUs. A starting point would be an assessment of the institutional capacity of the LGUs, including the relevant policy/legal mandates, professional skills, staffing patterns, management systems, leadership, and recurrent budgets needed to sustain CRM and fisheries management services and responsibilities over time. Providing technical assistance alone on the “mechanics” of CRM/fisheries enforcement will not be enough to sustain these essential public services. A broader, more strategic course of institutional capacity development is needed, and EcoGov2 – together with FISH – should use the current opportunity to focus on these devolution issues. • The current reality of the FISH and EcoGov2 projects collaborating but working independently – where FISH works primarily with BFAR and EcoGov2 works primarily with DENR – should be re-assessed and ways to improve more meaningful collaboration identified and put into action. The bottom line is that EcoGov2 can provide TA, but sustainability and effectiveness is ultimately a question of political will and institutional capacity at multiple levels of government. EcoGov2 should be more than a demand- PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 67 driven form of TA; it must be proactive in crafting an exit strategy that begins to empower responsible institutions during the remaining years of the project. [This is logically related to the previous recommendation and could also apply to the institutions involved in the FFM and UEM sectors as well.] • EcoGov2 needs to revisit its strategy surrounding the project goal of investment in sanitation facilities by 20 LGUs. This would include efforts to work with DENR to raise awareness of the Clean Water Act and options to improve its enforcement. A new strategy should be developed that identifies the major issues and roadblocks to increase investment in wastewater treatment by LGUs, and prioritize options to resolve them. • More work also needs to be done with media to highlight EcoGov2’s significant achievements. Work with the media should also allow DENR and LGUs to take appropriate credit as a means of ownership and raise public awareness. The evaluation team recommends that a strategy that addresses this issue be developed and implemented as one of the option period milestones. • Recognizing DENR’s limited operations budget and that financing needs and options differ among LGUs and provinces, it is recommended that EcoGov2 develop a set of realistic financing options for the critical activities the project promotes. These options would be aimed at LGUs and provincial partners (where practical) and accompanied by the steps necessary to operationalize each of the options. There should also be resources programmed to selectively test several of the more favored options. Because financing beyond the life of the project is so important, it is recommended that these actions be part of the benchmarks considered for an extension to the current contract. 68 PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION ANNEX E. THE MIDTERM EVALUATION TEAM Mr. Rafael Bojos is a widely respected and experienced professional in community coastal resources management. He has more than 40 years of experience as a marine and fisheries educator, coastal resources civil servant, and implementation specialist in the area of community-based resources management. He has excellent knowledge of local government institutions and served as an advisor and facilitator to more than 20 national and donor-funded projects throughout the Philippines. Mr. Bojos has worked as a project manager, evaluator and hands-on problem-solver dedicated to improving livelihoods of coastal and upland dwellers throughout the archipelago. He was the LGU Coastal Resource Management Specialist in Region 6 for the USAID-funded GOLD Project and served a similar role on USAID’s EcoGov I project. He has been active recently with the use of indices that measure the qualitative and quantitative progress of Coastal Resource Management implementation. Dr. Steve Dennison is a natural resources specialist with more than 30 years experience in evaluations, project management, and institutional development work in Southeast Asia, Central and South Asia, Africa, North America, the Caribbean and Eastern Europe. He has served as team leader on seven evaluations and assessments including three multi-disciplinary teams for USAID projects in the Central Asian Republics, Madagascar, and Nigeria. He served as a team member on almost a dozen others. Dr. Dennison has been directly responsible for managing long-term USAID contracts and projects for other donors that have emphasized natural resources, biodiversity and protected area planning. He is most keen to assist local community groups and local institutions who rely significantly on natural resources and sustainable conservation practices for their livelihood and economic well-being. Ms. Ester Isberto is a specialist in techniques and tools for participation and an expert workshop facilitator with seven years of technical assistance to numerous USAID projects in the Philippines, including work as a Participation Development Specialist under the GOLD Project. Her facilitation credentials are complemented by subject-matter familiarity gained with more than 19 years of experience in community organization, policy, planning and strategic design, training, and direct working relationships with LGUs. Dr. Mary Melnyk is Senior Advisor for Natural Resource Management in the Asia and Near East Bureau at USAID and has 18 years experience working on community development and forest conservation throughout Latin America and Asia. Since 2001, she has been designing and managing activities to reduce forest conflict in Asia. She has also designed and facilitated public-private sector alliances linking environmentally-sustainable and socially-responsible natural products to markets. Her Ph.D. is in ecological management from Imperial College of the University of London and quantified the economic and nutritional values of forest foods to rural livelihoods in Southern Venezuela. She graduated summa cum laude with her B.S. in zoology from the University of Maryland, College Park. Ms. Conchita M. Ragragio is an environmental planner with more than twenty years of experience in foreign-funded development projects in the Philippines. For five years she was the Urban Environmental Planning Specialist of the USAID-funded Governance and Local Democracy (GOLD) Project. She worked directly with LGUs in the formulation of local solid waste management programs, municipal environmental plans and comprehensive land use plans. She also served as Country Program Coordinator of the United States-Asia Environmental Partnership, a regional program of the USAID that introduced policies, technologies and practices that improve air and water quality, waste management, resource efficiency and PHILIPPINE ECOGOV 2 MIDTERM EVALUATION 69 environmental governance. She has worked extensively throughout the country as a planner, project/program manager and environmental advocate. She has served as executive director of two NGO networks, and as an independent consultant, has helped to draft environmental management policy, to study solid, toxic and hazardous wastes, and participate as a team member in project evaluation activities. Mr. Richard Volk is a coastal and aquatic resource management specialist with over 25 years of experience in managing, directing, and assisting a wide range of international and domestic programs. He is presently with USAID where he provides worldwide technical and managerial support for numerous river basin and coastal resource management activities. He routinely consults and advises on all aspects of integrated coastal management (ICM), and has spoken, written, and published extensively on governance, institutional analysis, policy development, environmental assessment, science for management, stakeholder participation, public outreach and communication, and best management practices. He focuses much of his present work on merging integrated water resources management (IWRM) with ICM, and the maintenance of natural flow regime as a foundation for ecosystem health. U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523 Tel: (202) 712-0000 Fax: (202) 216-3524 www.usaid.gov