PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GROWTH WITH EQUITY IN MINDANAO III (GEM-3) PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GROWTH WITH EQUITY IN MINDANAO III (GEM-3) PROGRAM November 2012 This publication was produced for the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Mary Judd, Bill Millsap, Philip Boyle, Mathias Kjaer, Catalina Jensen, Jeffrey Nash, Assad Baunto, Edgardo Catalan, and Jen Bernardo through Social Impact. The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development nor the United States Government. This document (Report No. AID-492-C-12-00007) is available through the Development Experience Clearing House (http://dec.usaid.gov). Additional information can be obtained from Social Impact, Inc. 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1000 Arlington, VA, 22201 Tel: (703) 465-1884 Fax: (703) 465-1888 info@socialimpact.com This document was submitted by Social Impact, Inc., to the United States Agency for International Development under USAID Contract No. AID-492-C-12-00007. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This evaluation would not have been possible without the contributions made by so many during our planning, fieldwork, analysis, and drafting. While the list of people we wish to thank is too extensive to list here, the evaluation team would like to acknowledge several individuals and organizations whose contributions were instrumental to making this effort a success. First and foremost, the team would like to thank USAID/Philippines Gender Specialist and our Contracting Officer’s Representative, Fatima Verzosa, and USAID/Philippines Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, John Callanta, for their tremendous support, dedication, and guidance throughout our entire evaluation effort. These individuals went beyond the call of duty and were consistently thoughtful, collegial, and welcoming in their interactions with and participation on the evaluation team. The team would also like to thank others at USAID/Philippines and USAID/Washington, including Maria Teresa Robielos, Lee Forsythe, David Dod, for their thoughtful comments on our draft reports. The team also wishes to acknowledge the tremendous support it received from staff of the implementing partner, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. We are especially thankful for the support received from Marilou Sian and her team, which arranged and coordinated most of the logistics surrounding the team’s field visits and security. We would also like to thank the entire GEM staff, both in Manila and Davao, for their willingness to meet with our evaluation team and for their thoughtful and detailed review of our draft evaluation reports. We particularly wish to recognize Charles Feibel, Daniel Bichanich, Michael Langsdorf, Stanley Swerdloff, Adel Oviedo, and Carlos Enriquez for their contributions. We would also like to convey our deep sense of gratitude to the GEM drivers and security staff who were consistently well-organized, responsive and professional. Their tremendous support ensured that the team arrived safely and on-time to even the most remote areas of Mindanao. The team is also highly appreciative of the information, support, and guidance it received from the Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA). We would like to thank all MinDA staff who took time from their busy schedules to meet with our evaluation team and provide insightful and detailed comments on our draft reports. We would especially like to recognize Janet Lopoz, Charlita Escaño, Jayrome Rala, Anelyn Binancilan, Yvette Valderia, and Joan Barera for their contributions. The team also wishes to recognize the excellent work of our local survey partner, the Research Institute for Mindanao Culture (RIMCU), and particularly the work of Magdalena Cabaraban and Maria Teresa Sharon Linog in leading the data collection and analysis of survey results. Last but not least, the team wishes to recognize the tremendous contributions of our two research assistants, Jenet Minanga and Aldin Aminulla. Their tremendous dedication, patience, and work ethic in scheduling interviews, translating, researching for sections of the report, and providing overall logistical and administrative support was a critical piece of this evaluation effort. ACRONYMS ARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao AusAID Australia Agency for International Development BG Business Growth BIP Barangay Infrastructure Project BSO Business Support Organization BUM Beneficial Use Monitoring BWFPDI Bangsamoro Women’s Foundation for Peace and Development, Inc CAAM Conflict Affected Areas in Mindanao CIPYML Congressional Internship Program for Young Mindanao Leaders CLIC Computer Literacy and Internet Connection CLIN Contract Line Item Number COP Chief of Party COR Contracting Officer’s Representative COTR Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative CPR Communications and Public Relations DAAD Development Activity Approval Document DA-MRDP Department of Agriculture-Mindanao Rural Development Program ELAP Emergency Livelihood Assistance Program EMGP Education Matching Grant Project ERR Economic Rate of Return EU European Union FCR Former Combatant Reintegration GAP Gender Action Plan GEM-3 Growth with Equity in Mindanao 3 Project GRDP Gross Regional Domestic Product GRP Government of the Republic of the Philippines HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point HCAP HACCP Certification Assistance Project IEC Information and Education Campaign INVESTS Investments in Vocational, Elementary, Secondary, and Tertiary Studies JEEP Job Enabling English Proficiency JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JSOTF-P US Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines KII Key Informant Interview LEAP Livelihood Enhance and Peace Project LGU Local Government Unit LGPMS Local Governance Performance Management System LOP Life of Project MBC Mindanao Business Council MILF Moro Islamic Liberation Front MinBizCon Mindanao Business Conference MLGU Municipal Local Government Unit MNLF Moro National Liberation Front MinDA Mindanao Development Authority MOU Memorandum of Agreement MRDP Mindanao Rural Development Project MPDO Municipal Planning and Development Office MTPDP Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan MSUFI Mindanao State University-General Santos City Foundation EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROJECT ii NGO Non-Governmental Organization NPA New People’s Army OPAPP Office of the Presidential Advisor on the Peace Process PASS Producers Association PCCI Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry PDC Peace and Development Community (UN Act for Peace) PhP Philippine Peso PMP Performance Management Plan PRIDE Productive Internships in Dynamic Enterprises PRM Program Resources Management Office (USAID/Philippines) PTA Parent-Teacher Association REAP Revenue Enhancement and Progress RFP Request for Proposal RIMCU Research Institute for Mindanao Culture RIP Regional Impact Project RPT Real Property Tax SAF Special Activity Fund SAFE Sustainable Aquaculture and Fisheries Effort SI Social Impact SMV Schedule of Market Values SOCCSKSARGEN South Cotabato, Cotabato (North), Sultan Kudarat, Sarangani Provinces, and General Santos City SOW Scope of Work TA Technical Assistance TCEP Targeted Commodity Expansion Project TWG Technical Working Group UNDP United Nations Development Program USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... i Evaluation Purpose and Methods ........................................................................................................i Key Findings and Results .........................................................................................................................i Overall Recommendations ...................................................................................................................vi I. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Description of Program ......................................................................................................................... 2 Evaluation Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 3 II. Evaluation Methodology .............................................................................................. 3 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Evaluation Constraints ............................................................................................................................ 5 III. Components: Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations ................................ 5 Component 1: Infrastructure Development (ID)........................................................................... 6 Component 2: Workforce Participation .........................................................................................13 Component 3: Governance Improvement ....................................................................................17 Component 4: Business Growth .......................................................................................................23 Component 5: Former Combatant Reintegration ......................................................................31 Component 6: Communications and Public Relations (CPR) ................................................35 Component 7: Support Services .......................................................................................................38 IV. Cross-Cutting Elements ............................................................................................. 39 Relevance and Selectivity ....................................................................................................................39 Effectiveness .............................................................................................................................................41 Efficiency ....................................................................................................................................................42 Gender........................................................................................................................................................44 Sustainability ............................................................................................................................................48 Lessons Learned .....................................................................................................................................53 V. General Recommendations ........................................................................................ 54 Infrastructure ...........................................................................................................................................54 Business Growth .....................................................................................................................................54 Governance ..............................................................................................................................................54 Former Combatant Integration .........................................................................................................54 Gender........................................................................................................................................................55 General Recommendations ................................................................................................................55 Future Efforts ...........................................................................................................................................55 ANNEXES (separate volume) 1. GEM-3 Revised Targets and Completed Targets 2. Scope of Work 3. Evaluation Questions 4. Evaluation Work Plan 5. Evaluation Timetable 6. Survey Questionnaires and Interview Guides 7. Field Sites for Survey and Field Visits EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROJECT ii 8. Field Work Schedules for Evaluation Team 9. People Contacted 10. Revenue Enhancement and Peace Figures 11. Reference Cited 12. Economic Rate of Return Calculations FIGURES AND TABLES Table 1: Infrastructure Development Targets and Completion* .................................................... 6 Table 2: Barangay Infrastructure Projects under GEM-3................................................................... 7 Table 3: Barangay Participation in the BIP and LGU Counterpart Process* ............................... 8 Table 4: Social Benefits Resulting from Barangay Infrastructure Projects* ................................ 9 Table 5: Cost and Beneficiaries of BIP Types .......................................................................................10 Table 6: Economic Rate of Return of BIP Types .................................................................................11 Table 7: Workforce Preparation Targets and Completion .............................................................13 Table 8: Governance Improvement Targets and Completion .......................................................17 Table 9: CIPYML Graduates by Cohort, Sex, and Region ................................................................18 Table 10: Revenue Generation Performance of the First Group of MLGUs between 2008 and 2011(Millions of PhP) ..................................................................................................................19 Table 11: Revenue Generation Performance of the Second Group of MLGUs between 2009 and 2011 (Millions of PhP) ...............................................................................................................19 Table 12: Revenue Generation Performance of the Third Group of MLGUs in 2011 (Millions of PhP) ..................................................................................................................................................20 Table 13: Degree of Achievement of Length of Program Targets by Type .............................23 Table 14: Sales of Exports and Domestic Out-shipments: Actual and Targets ......................27 Table 15: Summary of Sales from GEM-3 Assistance in FY 2012 ................................................29 Table 16: Former Combatant Reintegration ........................................................................................31 Table 17: Communications and Public Relations Accomplishments ..........................................36 Table 18: GEM-3 Costs by CLIN ...............................................................................................................41 Table 19: Staffing Levels by Components ............................................................................................43 Chart 1: Participation in BIP and LGU Counterpart Activities .......................................................... 9 Chart 2: Benefits from BIPs .........................................................................................................................10 Figure 1: Proximity Indicator of Municipalities ...................................................................................27 Figure 2: GEM-3 Business Growth ...........................................................................................................27 MAP OF PROJECT AREA PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) “Growth with Equity in Mindanao III” (GEM-3) is a five-year (2008 to 2012), $99 million dollar program that operates throughout Mindanao, but is specifically targeted to promote development activities in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and other conflict-affected areas of the region. GEM-3’s principal objectives are to: (1) accelerate economic growth in Mindanao; (2) assure that as many people as possible participate in and benefit from the growth; and (3) bring about and consolidate peace in Mindanao. To accomplish these objectives, GEM-3 adopted an “umbrella-type” approach, using one management structure for implementing projects and activities across a wide range of technical fields throughout Mindanao. There are five major and two supporting components under the program: (1) infrastructure development (67% of the budget); (2) workforce preparation (13% of the budget); (3) governance improvement (5% of the budget); (4) business growth (13% of the budget); (5) former combatant reintegration (included in business growth component); (6) communications and public relations; and (7) logistical and operational support (2% of the budget combined). EVALUATION PURPOSE AND METHODS The purpose of this performance evaluation is to identify strengths and weaknesses in GEM-3. The objective is to assess key issues of impact, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, gender, sustainability, and lessons that can be learned from the program. The evaluation findings are intended to help inform decisions by USAID/Philippines regarding future programs in Mindanao. The evaluation was conducted between July and November 2012 by an 11-member evaluation team, comprised of expatriate and host-country evaluation and subject matter experts. It involved over six weeks of fieldwork in Manila and Mindanao and utilized a mixed-methods approach involving a desk review of relevant secondary sources; key informant and group interviews with national, regional, and local government officials, USAID and other donor staff, representatives from civil society organizations, implementer staff, and project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries; and the design and delivery of a quantitative household mini￾survey of over 900 respondents covering 22 provinces, 54 municipalities, five cities, and 87 barangays. The evaluation team encountered several notable methodological and logistical challenges during its fieldwork. First, the absence of relevant baseline data, a results framework, and other similar data made it difficult to comment conclusively on outcomes and impacts of GEM-3 activities. Second, in an effort to ensure objectivity, the evaluation team was intentionally provided with limited support and information on project beneficiaries and prospective interviewees from USAID and the implementing partner. Third, the evaluation team was not provided with cost data by sub-components, except for infrastructure development, which made it difficult for the team to comment on questions related to cost-effectiveness and efficiency. KEY FINDINGS AND RESULTS As of September 2012, GEM-3 had 23 designated targets, of which 18 (78%) have been completed and one terminated (4.5%). Four others (17.5%) are likely to achieve their targets by the end of the project life (December 2012). This is an impressive list of activities carried out by GEM-3 in Mindanao over the last five years. Overall, GEM-3 performance has been on track and will achieve all the physical targets laid out in the project documents by end of project life in December 2012. It is too early to assess the efficacy of the program but it is trending as follows: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM ii  Objective 1 (accelerate economic growth) is partially achieved, as GEM-3 has facilitated and laid the foundation for economic growth in Mindanao.  Objective 2 (assure many people participate in and benefit from the growth) has been achieved, especially for rural residents, who have benefited from infrastructure projects.  Objective 3 (bring about and consolidate peace) is more difficult to assess without pre and post project data. Published studies have reported that improved economic condition is necessary but not sufficient to lead to reductions in conflict and violence. The evaluation in GEM-assisted barangays indicated hopeful signs that residents perceived improved security in their barangays. The findings, conclusions and recommendations of each component are presented below. Component 1: Infrastructure Development. The Barangay Infrastructure Projects (BIPs) proved to be the most cost-effective and efficient effort carried out under GEM-3 for reaching many rural barangay populations and for affecting the lives of local people. As of September this year, 720 out of a target of 760 BIPs were completed. The economic rate of return employed by the evaluation team demonstrated a positive return for BIPs, with grain warehouses/solar dryers, box culvert/bridges, and pedestrian footbridges among the top three. Barangay residents reported high usage of the BIPs (82%) and increased economic opportunities (65% of male and 62% of female). The larger and more expensive Regional Impact Projects (RIPs) have been designed to impact economic growth across barangays and municipalities. 12 out of 12 RIPs have been completed. Taken as a whole, the BIPs and RIPs serve as a clear, daily reminder of the government’s efforts to provide services.1 Conclusion  BIPs are cost-effective and efficient in reaching more rural barangay populations and have economic and social influence on the lives of local people. BIPs also serve as a clear daily reminder of governmental service delivery.2  The most effective and efficient types of BIPs in terms of cost, number of people served, and the time required for implementation are box culverts and bridges, footbridges, boat landings, grain warehouses, and solar dryers.3  RIPs have a greater influence on the region and able to link across barangays.  In Mindanao, women generally participated in decision-making through the prioritization of projects in the annual barangay development plan exercise. BIPs and other barangay projects were selected for funding from these plans. GEM sought to involve women’s views on issues and infrastructure needs only at initial meetings, prior to BIP implementation. Recommendations  The infrastructure development component of both BIPs and RIPs should be continued and expanded.  BIPs should be implemented in all barangays that lack basic services, especially in conflict-affected areas to fulfill the government’s promise of peace dividends.  RIPs should be planned for areas of growth in major cities and potential growth in secondary cities. There should be links to farm-to-market roads for areas with agricultural potential, so that produce can reach major markets. 1 As echoed in “Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects.” Louis Berger Group, Inc. under USAID Contract No. AID 492-C-00-08-000001-00, Sept. 15, 2011. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM iii  Ensure that gender action plans are implemented fully and allow more flexibility in the BIP project menu to meet gender needs. Component 2: Workforce Preparation. This component has achieved, and in some cases exceeded, most of its targets as of September 2012. Computer Literacy and Internet Connection (CLIC) achieved 265 out of 265 targets; Education Matching Grant Project (EMGP) provided 802 of a target 800 grants; Job Enabling English Proficiency (JEEP) was implemented by and continues to operate in 26 target institutions of higher learning; and Investments in Vocational, Elementary, Secondary, and Tertiary Studies (INVESTS) has awarded 275 out of a target of 185 scholarships. In all likelihood, Productive Internships in Dynamic Enterprises (PRIDE), with 91 out of 100 internships provided, will also achieve its target by December 2012. The component reached a large number of students and teachers, but any real gains will be muted when GEM-3 ends, since replication and continued funding are not in place for most of the programs. Conclusions  The sub-components afforded various opportunities to: teachers and students to improve their technical and study skills through access to computers and the Internet; parents and teachers to raise matching funds for needed educational equipment; and students to receive scholarships, internships and become more proficient in English.  Maintenance issues, power interruptions, unreliable Internet connectivity, the growth of private Internet cafes, and the turnover of trained staff have muted the benefits of the CLIC program.  Schools are worried that the activities will not be sustained once donor funding ends. Recommendations  To ensure project sustainability, early orientation sessions for school faculties and PTA members should be closely followed by GEM staff for the development and implementation of realistic operation and maintenance plans. Component 3: Governance Improvement. This component provided much-needed technical assistance (TA), enabling 12 local government units (LGUs) under the Revenue Enhancement and Peace Project (REAP) to expand their revenue collection procedures, however, while revenues generally increased in the first year, the results for subsequent years were mixed and there was no indication that LGUs will continue the effort. The Congressional Internship Program for Young Mindanao Leaders (CIPYML) provided opportunities to 200 young leaders to gain first-hand experience in the areas of public policy and legislation. Conclusions  The REAP project improved the capacity of LGUs to address key administrative and management problems in internal revenue generation and local tax code enforcement and increased the revenues collected in the first year of implementation. However, in subsequent years the revenue collection decreased and there is no indication if the LGUs will sustain this effort.  The CIPYML program enabled the graduates to gain knowledge and technical skills pertaining to policy development and legislative processes and has created a pool of young men and women leaders in conflict-affected areas in Mindanao who are equipped with policy know-how and technical skills. Recommendations  The REAP project should be carried forward in a future USAID programming effort, since its initial PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM iv efforts are likely to be emulated by other municipalities. A more serious effort to spread the project beyond the pilot phase under GEM is warranted and provision of more TA should be made.  Involve provinces in REAP for amendments of local tax codes, real property tax and schedule of market values.  A project such as CIPYML should be continued. The high dividends returned over time by identifying future leaders for the Philippines offsets its expense in resources and time. Post-internship transitional assistance should be provided.  Try to improve synergy by matching CIPYML applications from REAP Municipal Local Government Unit (MLGUs). Component 4: Business Growth (BG). This component has improved sales of international exports and domestic out-shipments of targeted commodities by $86,006,914 since 2008. It assisted in linking 6,040 members of community producer associations and cluster groups to markets, provided post-harvest facilities to 4,600 community members in isolated and conflict areas, and strengthened six new chambers of commerce. However, its impact on the overall Mindanao economy is extremely small. If the BG’s entire export sales of $86 million were compared to the total Mindanao economy, the impact would be equivalent to 0.25% of Mindanao’s gross regional domestic product in 2011. Conclusions  Through strengthening knowledge transfer and market linkages, the BG stimuli assisted in sales improvements in exports and domestic out-shipments of targeted commodities in Mindanao. It expanded agriculture and agribusiness sectors with bearing on supply chain linkages to other industries and on the induced effect of increased household spending on the economy.  The potential for economic spillovers exist, with 65% of business-growth target sites in leading areas and 35% in isolated areas, but unresolved issues of connectivity, such as farm-to-market roads, limit the benefits derived from spillovers. Recommendations  The BG should continue the value-chain and cluster-approach-to-agribusiness programs. However, infrastructure that facilitates connectivity, such as farm-to-market roads, should be pursued to complement the cluster approach and maximize the benefits from spillovers.  The BG should also continue business matching, trade facilitation, and technology transfer to sustain the momentum of market penetration by exporters and producers. Provision of TA (both hard inputs and capacity building) to small and micro-growers in isolated and conflict areas is also required to strengthen their role in the production-supply value chain. Component 5: Former Combatant Reintegration (FCR). FCR has assisted with reintegration efforts by developing agriculture and aquaculture facilities to demonstrate the benefits of peace to the former combatants. As of September 2012, 129 out of a target of 125 former combatant groups/communities have been assisted in producing high value commodities, and another 50 have been provided with pre/post￾harvest facilities. The evaluation team found that mainland communities appeared to be more successful in their livelihood endeavors than those in the island communities, although it should be noted that the island communities visited represents a small sample of overall island activities. People in the majority of FCR sites visited (20 out of 21 sites) reported no return to major armed conflict, but have known people who participated in rido or small-scale communal violence. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM v Conclusions  The FCR component contributed to the generation of economic opportunities for MNLF former combatants, but its success and sustainability varied by region and type of economic activities. The FCR’s production activities were generally appropriate for most beneficiaries given its simple inputs, production technology, and readily available market. Recommendations  Future assistance should be targeted towards conflict-affected communities, not individual former￾combatant cooperatives, in instances where they are not synonymous, to help ameliorate underlying conflict drivers of resentment, jealousy, or feelings of deprivation found more broadly in the community.  Provide additional TA to more remote and isolated FCR communities, such as the island communities.  Involve LGUs in the implementation of FCR to ensure follow up and sustainability when funding ends. Relevance. GEM-3 was able to contribute to four out of five goals linked to peace and development objectives of the national and regional governments (Medium-Term Philippines Development Plan 2004– 2010). Among the various components of GEM-3, the infrastructure development component was most relevant for achieving the implementation of the signed peace agreements (i.e., provision of the peace dividends) and the rehabilitation, development, and healing of conflict-affected areas. Effectiveness. GEM-3 carried out an extensive set of activities consistent with its objectives throughout Mindanao during the last five years. The evaluation indicates that the program was able to contribute to its first and second objectives, but the attainment of the third objective is difficult to ascertain. The infrastructure projects certainly assisted economic growth at the local level and promoted participation of LGUs at both the municipal and barangay levels, mainly in counterpart contribution. Other GEM-3 activities (e.g., workforce preparation, business growth, governance improvement, and FCR) made contributions to economic growth and participation in conflict-affected regions. The program generated people’s perceptions of reduced violence in project-assisted barangays. Conflicts, however, continued to occur, even during the evaluation; the evaluation team had to cancel planned visits to field sites deemed unsafe by the GEM security officer. Efficiency. The umbrella management structure reportedly offered added value to USAID in the form of overlapping responsibilities by managers, resulting in reduced staffing levels and reduced costs with respect to sharing resources for logistical operations. However, no cost data were available to the evaluation team to confirm or reject these points. The USAID Contracting Office Technical Representative (COTR) provided oversight and management from GEM-1 through most of GEM-3, and the program appeared to have benefited from the continuity of management as it was reported that the program ran smoothly with no major problems. The Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA), a government agency, provided oversight and helped with resolving local level issues, especially those related to right of way matters in infrastructure. Feedback from the field revealed potential synergy and complementation of BG with REAP, and BG with FCR. Notably, the business support organizations’ (BSO) partnership with the LGUs has proven to improve tax collection from local businesses and establishments. Gender. The Gender Action Plan (GAP), developed by GEM-3 management in February 2008, addressed all program components and sub-components, establishing a total of 51 benchmarks. This was a thorough treatment of potential gender issues in GEM-3, and guidelines for implementers were comprehensive. In practice, however, the Action Plan was not fully implemented. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM vi Sustainability. An obvious goal of promoting sustainability as a management practice is to achieve the continued operation and maintenance of equipment or systems put in place over the life of the project. Except for the infrastructure projects for which maintenance agreements were signed with various levels of LGUs, as well as JEEP in which sustainability plans were designed by the JEEP partner, no complete and formal plan, through which project equipment and activities will be maintained or the project model continued and expanded, has been devised by GEM-3 and agreed with partners or proponents. Beneficial Use Monitoring (BUM) has been useful in checking sustainability issues. OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS  USAID should continue to have a presence in Mindanao and to work collaboratively with government, stakeholders, donors, and civil society in conflict-affected areas.  Focus development assistance efforts in clusters of conflict-affected areas, either by municipalities or provinces, rather than spreading them too thinly across a wide geographical area.  Ensure that future gender action plans are implemented fully and in accordance with established Philippines national gender laws, USAID policies, and local practices.  An umbrella program like GEM-3 and any future USAID projects should have a separate, independent monitoring and evaluation (M&E) project unit for regular monitoring of activity progress. A strategic planning document and/or results framework is necessary for all projects and a baseline should be undertaken at the beginning of the project. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 1 I. INTRODUCTION This evaluation report examines the successes, shortcomings, and lessons learned from the USAID/Philippines GEM-3 program. It includes recommendations for improving USAID’s assistance delivery in Mindanao and highlights comparative advantages in areas not addressed by other initiatives. The report content adheres closely to the structure of the questions in the SOW and findings, conclusions and recommendations are presented for the seven components and five cross-cutting elements.4 BACKGROUND Mindanao, located in southern Philippines, is home to about 22 million people, almost a quarter of the country’s population. The region has strong potential for economic growth and development. Currently, it accounts for about a fifth of the real Philippine gross domestic product, and contributes to over a third of the country’s agriculture sector and close to 15% each in the industry and service sectors. The region also accounts for about a fourth of the total employment in the country. However, growth has been stymied by violent conflict, lack of infrastructure, and perceived marginalization from Manila. More than three decades of intermittent conflict in southwestern Mindanao have resulted in destruction of infrastructure, population displacements, deferred development, and lack of trust among people at the local level and between these and government authorities. Overview of the Conflict in Mindanao The historical root of the conflict in Mindanao goes back several centuries. In the 20th century, the conflict between Muslims and Christians erupted as a result of the government’s policy of encouraging resettlement to Mindanao from the densely populated northern islands, as a way of easing agrarian unrest. Calls for the creation of a separate Muslim state carved out from Mindanao and other adjoining islands began to surface in the late 1960s. By the early 1970s, large-scale armed conflict between the MNLF and the Armed Forces of the Philippines erupted when then President Ferdinand Marcos ordered an assault on the MNLF. In 1976, through the intercession of Libya (Tripoli Agreement), a ceasefire agreement was signed and the MNLF dropped its secessionist goal in exchange for the creation of an autonomous region for the Muslims in Mindanao. The ARMM was created in 1987 and formally inaugurated in 1990. The situation became more complicated as a result of a split within the MNLF and the establishment of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) who demanded a separate Islamic state for the Muslims in Mindanao. The division between the two separatist groups became more pronounced when the MNLF signed a peace agreement in 1996 with the Ramos administration, while the MILF continued its armed struggle. Immediately after the signing of the Peace Agreement in 1996, foreign assistance through the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), USAID (in 1997 under GEM-1), and the World Bank were provided to MNLF communities as part of the peace dividends. Meanwhile, a series of ceasefire agreements between the government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the MILF began in 2003 and peace talks continue today, brokered by the Malaysian government. A breakthrough framework agreement was formally signed by both parties on October 15, 2012 paving the way forward for discussions on a final peace agreement. Government forces are also in violent confrontation with another group of rebels in Mindanao: the New People’s Army (NPA), formed in 1969 as the guerilla wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines. While the NPA is nationwide, it has cells in Mindanao with a substantial presence in the Caraga region. Fighting between the NPA 4 The SOW for Social Impact is based on RFP No: SOL-492-12-000008, Evaluation of Growth with Equity in Mindanao (GEM-3) Project. USAID/Philippines, January 19, 2012. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 2 and government forces often causes disruption and displacement of communities. Today, the conflict is described as an ideology-based, low-intensity protracted conflict with isolated acts of violence in geographically limited areas. USAID Assistance USAID has been implementing major assistance efforts in the region for almost two decades. For the first few years, assistance was focused on the SOCCSKSARGEN area in south-central Mindanao. In 1995, USAID expanded its assistance efforts to cover all of Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago, and then again following the signing of the Peace Agreement in 1996, to cover further conflict-affected areas of Mindanao— both the areas affected by the Muslim separatist conflict and the areas affected by insurgency and criminality. Currently, USAID is implementing a sizable assistance effort that includes projects and activities in a wide range of technical areas, including: infrastructure development, agricultural development, education improvement, democracy promotion, governance improvement, health services, environmental management improvement, expansion of microfinance services, and reintegration of former combatants. The activities are carried out across Mindanao, but concentrated in the five provinces that make up the ARMM, its neighboring, conflict-affected provinces, and the areas affected by the NPA. In 1995 through 2002, USAID expanded its assistance efforts to cover all of Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago under the auspices of GEM-1 ($22.3 million). Given the continuing need to promote development assistance, USAID funded GEM-2 ($82 million) for the years 2002–2007. USAID’s largest and most diverse program in Mindanao is GEM-3. This $99 million program has continued and expanded earlier work carried out under GEM programs 1 and 2 into the years 2008 to 2012. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM GEM-3 operates throughout Mindanao but is specifically targeted to promote development activities in the ARMM and other conflict-affected areas of the region.5 GEM-3’s overarching principal objectives are to:  Accelerate economic growth in Mindanao;  Help assure that as many people as possible participate in and benefit from the growth; and  Help bring about and consolidate peace in Mindanao. GEM-3 utilizes an “umbrella” approach that features a single management structure responsible for the implementation of projects and activities across a wide range of technical fields, ranging from: (1) infrastructure development (budget: $65, 724,739 or 67%); (2) workforce preparation ($13,087,485, or 13%); (3) governance improvement ($5,133,487 or 5%); (4) business growth ($13,250,085 or 13%); and (5) former combatant reintegration (included in business growth but accounted for $280,000 of Special Activities Fund (SAF) expenses). Beyond these main programmatic areas, GEM-3 also conducted a series of support services in communications and public relations and logistical and operational support to facilitate the implementation of several program activities throughout the life of the program (total for both: $1,754,317 or 2% combined). GEM-3 works with a wide range of public and private organizations and institutions in its efforts to attain its objectives. These include: MinDA, the government agency formally charged with oversight responsibility for GEM-3; the Mindanao Business Council (MBC); the ARMM Business Council; producer association and cooperatives; provincial, municipal, and barangay governments; bilateral and multilateral donor agencies; private firms and corporations; chambers of commerce; national government agencies; PTAs; and non- 5 LBGI; GEM-3 follows earlier development activities carried-out by the same contractor. GEM-1 operated from 1995-2002 with GEM￾2 continuing many of its efforts from 2002-2007. The initial budget for GEM-3 was for $126 million later reduced to $99 million in FY-2011 (refer to the RFP SOL-492-12-000008, p. 9). PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 3 government organizations. It is not integrated into any government agency and implements projects, mainly using consultants and sub-contractors to implement projects on the ground. Underlying Development Assumptions GEM-3 is based on the premise that peace and economic development are linked. The development hypothesis is that providing economic opportunities in Mindanao, especially in majority Muslim areas, will contribute to a reduction in violence and help sustain peace (primarily defined as keeping the peace between government forces and rebel groups, mainly the MNLF, but assistance is also provided to barangays in MILF and NPA areas).6 Many see poverty as a significant factor in the “resilience of the Moro insurgency” and a trigger to armed conflict.7 Livelihood activities have been reported as likely to discourage former combatants from resuming armed conflict.8 It is believed that, through GEM-3, “properly allocated, properly managed, and properly publicized USAID assistance can and [will] have an impact on changing public perceptions regarding prospects for future prosperity, and [will] reduce the likelihood that people will turn to violence as a means of improving their prospects.” 9 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) GEM-3 has clearly identified the output targets to be achieved.10 Unfortunately, no results framework exists, and the three objectives have not been developed further into a logical structure of verifiable indicators, results, outcomes, and impacts that would indicate how changes in welfare, attitude, and behavior would occur. The program has a baseline for some activities in the BG, Governance, and Workforce (JEEP) components, but not for the others. GEM-3’s M&E plan monitors and reports accomplishments of targets by fiscal year. For most of the program (over 76% of the budget) there is very little monitoring on outcomes and no external evaluation has been conducted for GEM-3 (and for that matter neither GEM-1 nor GEM-2). EVALUATION PURPOSE The purpose of this evaluation is to “assess GEM-3’s performance in achieving its objectives and meeting its performance targets as defined in the GEM-3 contract and inform USAID/Philippines on the successes and failures of GEM-3 in developing and stabilizing conflict-affected areas of Mindanao.” This report examines the successes, shortcomings, and lessons learned from GEM-3 activities, including recommendations for improving USAID’s assistance delivery in Mindanao and highlights comparative advantages in areas not addressed by other initiatives.11 II. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY In accordance with the USAID Request for Proposal (RFP), the evaluation team adopted methods to capture sufficient and accurate information for conducting a performance evaluation, focusing on what GEM-3 has achieved over time.12 First, the team designed the evaluation methodology to establish the key results and outcomes 6 The DAAD for GEM-3 indicated that the program will focus on the ARMM region and surrounding provinces and to a lesser extent areas of the NPA. GEM-3 Development Activity Approval Document, Office of Economic Development and Governance, USAID, October 31, 2006. Pgs. 4-5, 6-7. 7 Mindanao: A Gamble Worth Taking. Malcolm Cook and Kit Collier, Lowy, Institute for International Policy, 2006, New South Wales, Australia. Joint Needs Assessment for Reconstruction and Development in Conflict-Affected Areas in Mindanao. World Bank, 2005, Washington DC 8 ELAP Assessment Survey Report. Mindanao State University-General Santos City Foundation (MSUFI), 2000. 9 GEM-3 DAAD. 2006. 10 See Annex 1 for GEM-3 output targets. 11 See Annex 2 for the scope of work (SOW) and Annex 3 for the key evaluation questions. 12 “Performance evaluation: focuses on descriptive and normative questions: what a particular project or program has achieved; how PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 4 of the program—what worked and what did not work for GEM-3? Secondly, the team employed data collection procedures that would produce, within a relatively short period of time, pertinent information regarding GEM-3’s five major component areas with respect to their respective performance elements. DATA COLLECTION The evaluation took place between July and November 2012 and included meetings in Manila (in July and early August) and survey and fieldwork throughout Mindanao (during the month of August and part of September).13 The evaluation team of 11 members was divided into two sub-teams in order to maximize the number of sites visited. Some field visits occurred during the fasting month of Ramadan, but this did not pose a problem as local officials and barangay residents were available for the team’s visits. As much as possible, the team avoided going to Muslim communities until the fasting period was over. Data collection methods and procedures varied based on the answers being sought by the team, the time available, and the anticipated costs to collect data. The team adopted a three-stage data collection approach consisting of: (1) acquiring and reviewing data from secondary sources (documents, studies, reports, etc.); (2) collecting primary data (qualitative data) over five weeks of fieldwork interviewing GEM-3 personnel and other organization managers familiar with GEM-3, conducting key-informant interviews and focus groups; and (3) contracting with the Research Institute for Mindanao Culture (RIMCU) to conduct a household survey of GEM and non-GEM barangays.14 Field visit sites were selected based on the following criteria: (1) at least two provinces per geographical region (as defined by the program, i.e., North, Central and West Mindanao); (2) five to six barangays per province, with each barangay having a cluster of GEM-3 activities; and (3) possess a minimum of security and accessibility issues and with concurrence from USAID. RIMCU conducted a household survey to collect quantitative data to complement the qualitative field data. The objective was to survey five percent of the barangays that had completed BIPs. At the time of the survey, 578 BIPs were already completed against a LOP target of 760 BIPs. Subsequently, 30 BIP barangays were surveyed in six regions along with 6 non-BIP barangays. Survey sites were selected using a proportional￾stratified sampling frame consisting of project type, region, and number of barangays by project type. The survey strategy was to interview 25 persons (gender-balanced to the extent feasible) in each barangay for a total of 750 persons. The non-BIP sites were selected purposively following a selection criterion of being some distance from the BIP barangay but within the same municipality. One hundred fifty persons were interviewed in these six non-BIP barangays, for a total projected survey population of 901 respondents. The survey data collected relevant household information from 36 barangays in 14 provinces over three weeks. Prior to the actual survey, the RIMCU’s trained interviewers pre-tested, refined, and finalized the survey questionnaire. The two sub-teams visited a total of five cities, and 51 barangays in nine provinces during their fieldwork.15 They conducted fieldwork in the provinces of Surigao del Norte, Compostela Valley, it is being implemented; how it is perceived and valued; whether expected results are occurring; and other questions that are pertinent to program design, management and operational decision making.” USAID Evaluation Report Checklist, 2012. 13 See Annex 4 for evaluation work plan and Annex 5 for evaluation timetable. 14 Research Institute for Mindanao Culture, Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro. 15 See Annex 6A for survey questionnaire. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 5 Davao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, North and South Cotabato, Sarangani, and Tawi-Tawi.16 USAID and GEM-3 staff vetted the list of sites for security and accessibility issues. In addition to the aforementioned methods, the teams kept daily field notes on their direct observations while visiting GEM-3 sites.17 EVALUATION CONSTRAINTS The evaluation team experienced several constraints. One was that USAID provided the team with very little documentation about the program; the team was already aware that no baseline data existed and no strategic planning document or results framework materials were available. A second constraint was the advice to the evaluation team from USAID to limit its request to GEM-3 personnel for field assistance to set up interviews in the project sites. It was subsequently up to the team to arrange all their own interviews without the benefit of the implementing partner’s assistance, knowledge of key players, and key individuals to interview. This certainly placed an additional burden on the team.18 A third constraint was the team had little access to GEM-3 cost data by sub-components; it became a difficult task to answer conclusively any question on cost￾effectiveness and efficiency. Despite these constraints, the team was able to collect a considerable amount of information for understanding the outcomes and results of the GEM-3 projects. An additional constraint occurred two weeks into fieldwork as one sub-team was advised to avoid several municipalities in North Cotabato (Aleosan, Carmen and Pikit) due to active conflict in those areas. The team made last minute changes to other sites and cancelled all preparations made for the planned sites. III. COMPONENTS: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Key Results and Outcomes of GEM-3 Program GEM-3 had 23 designated targets of which, as of September 2012, 18 (78%) had been completed and one terminated. The remaining targets will likely be achieved by the end of the contract in December 2012. This impressive list of activities had been implemented by over the last five years. The Infrastructure Development Component, which includes RIPs and BIPs, had achieved well-documented results. Other components, such as parts of business growth and governance, are achieving their targets, some with clear results and others with results anticipated at a later time, most likely after the program ends. The evaluation did not focus on impact but rather the performance of GEM-3 was laid out in the 2006 DAAD. As a result, the evaluation team can only conclude that GEM-3’s performance has been on track and will likely achieve all the physical targets by end of project life in December 2012 and that it is too early to assess the efficacy of the program. However, the evaluation team noted the following trends:  Objective 1 on accelerating economic growth in Mindanao: while it is difficult to say whether economic growth has been accelerated, GEM-3 has facilitated and laid the foundation for economic growth in Mindanao.  Objective 2 on helping to assure that as many people as possible participate in and benefit from the growth: GEM-3 has achieved this objective, improving the lives of many people, especially rural residents, who have benefited from infrastructure projects. 16 See Annex 6B for interview guides. 17 See Annexes 7, 8 and 9 for field visit sites, schedules and people contacted. 18 USAID/Philippines provided additional funds to LBGI to provide transportation for the evaluation team to carry out their field site visits and for insuring the security of the team. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 6  Objective 3 on helping to bring about and consolidate peace in Mindanao: this objective is difficult to assess, especially because there is no baseline data to measure the situation of peace before and after the program. Published studies have reported that improved economic conditions are necessary but not sufficient to lead to reductions in conflict and violence. The evaluation in GEM-assisted barangays indicated that residents perceived improved security in their barangays. While this perception must be substantiated by data, including on the incidences and frequency of violent actions, one can be hopeful that perception will lead to behavior of peace. The findings, conclusions and recommendations of each component are presented below. COMPONENT 1: INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT (ID) Findings Table 1: Infrastructure Development Targets and Completion* PROJECT TARGET COMPLETEDSEPT. 201219 Barangay Infrastructure Projects (BIPs) 760 720 (est.) Regional Impact Projects (RIPs) 12 12 ID’s purpose is twofold. First, GEM-3 has sought to alleviate poverty by improving conditions in the poorest barangays and accelerating economic growth in these remote regions, thereby eliminating and/or reducing the conditions that have often led to social conflict. In addition, the widespread perception, particularly among Muslims, that the area has historically been largely ignored by the national government—with few resources and services provided to the region—led to the notion of being “shortchanged.”20 Accordingly, GEM-3 has sought to assure that as many people as possible participate in and benefit from the program’s economic growth activities. See Table 1, above, for completed structures versus targets. Contribution to the Principal Objectives ID’s targets were the design and construction of 760 BIPs, including community water systems, warehouses, solar dryers, boat landings, barangay bridges, pedestrian bridges, market centers, and farm-to-market roads; and 12 RIPs, including airport runways, water systems, bridges, and roadway upgrades (refer to Table 2). The per-project cost of BIPs generally ranges from $5,000 to $50,000. The cost of RIPs, which are larger and designed to help accelerate regional economic growth, generally range from over $50,000 to $1 million, although some RIPs exceed $1 million.21 Out of a total budget of almost $99 million dollars, ID accounts for 67% of GEM-3 expenditures.22 Barangay bridges were the most frequent project type constructed, followed by post￾harvest facilities (solar, seaweed dryers, grain warehouse) and trade/community centers. All RIPs were completed by June 2012, including six road upgrades, two airport runway improvement projects, two bridge 19 All September 2012 data for this and other tables are from GEM-3 Davao Office, Louis-Berger Group, Inc. 20 Audit of USAID/Philippines’ Growth with Equity in Mindanao (GEM-3) Program. Office of the Inspector General, Manila, Philippines, Audit Report No. 5-492-12-002-P, December 1, 2011. 21 See GEM-3 Quarterly Report #3 (Apr-June 2012), Louis-Berger, Inc. 22 Audit Report No. 5-492-12-002-P, December 1, 2011. Evaluation team inspects GEM-3 constructed Barangay footbridge. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 7 constructions, a water supply upgrade, and one spillway overflow structure. The key result is that needed infrastructure projects are being funded by USAID through GEM-3 to improve economic growth at the barangay level. Table 2 displays the total number of BIPs to completed by September 2012 and the estimated number of persons benefitting from these BIPs. The recent Regional Inspector General’s (RIG) audit report determined that through May 2011 GEM-3 was generally achieving its objectives.23 The report noted that the program has benefitted tens of thousands of people living in the conflict-affected areas of Mindanao. Among other achievements, the program has resulted in improved infrastructure at the barangay level, better access to local markets, and higher incomes for farmers (including MNLF former combatants). Table 2: Barangay Infrastructure Projects under GEM-3 DESCRIPTION COMPLETED AS OF SEPT. 28, 2012 NO. OF BENEFICIARIES Post-Harvest Facilities 138 13,910 Boat Landings 55 251,251 Road Upgrades 47 193,008 Water Systems 15 41,238 Trade Centers 106 665,368 Box Culverts 244 936,262 Drainage Canals 7 28,814 Irrigation Systems 20 15,096 Pedestrian Footbridges 76 404,891 Others (hand pumps etc.) 12 207,379 TOTALS 720 2,757,217 Source: GEM-3 Program, Davao Office, Mindanao The SI-RIMCU survey found that 70% (418 of 601 responding) local resident respondents perceived that their local BIPs had helped reduce violence in their communities; 60% (360 of 601 responding) said they thought the BIPs were helping to bring about peace in Mindanao.24 The positive perception was confirmed when the evaluation team conducted interviews with local mayors on their views of conflict taking place within their region. The mayors reported that as socioeconomic conditions and opportunities improved in their municipalities, the incidents of violent conflict would generally go down. They also stated that when people perceived they had more to lose, they were less willing to sacrifice what they had worked so hard to gain. Supporting this assertion, a recent impact study for USAID/Philippines found that “in the barangays where the GEM program was operating, the overall level of income increased significantly between 2002 and 2010.”25 While not conclusive, these findings support GEM-3’s objective of improving economic conditions. Comparative Advantages/Disadvantages of BIPs and RIPs In general, the difference between BIPs and RIPs are of scope and magnitude. BIPs cost less ($5000 to $50,000) while RIPs range in cost from $50,000 to $1 million dollars or more.26 BIPs are small-scale projects designed to 23 Ibid, p-2. 24 GEM-3 Evaluation Survey, RIMCU for Social Impact, Arlington, VA, August 2012. The total number of survey respondents was 901 with 601 in GEM-assisted and 300 in non-GEM assisted barangays. The survey was conducted for the ID component. 25 Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects. Louis Berger Group, Inc. under USAID Contract No. AID 492-C-00-08- 000001-00, Sept. 15, 2011, p-5. 26 Both RIPs and BIPs were described as “cash-offsetting projects”, i.e., for all projects, GEM-3 provides 75% of the funding needed for a PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 8 improve the socioeconomic conditions in local barangays. They serve relatively small numbers of people in specific locations, but in the aggregate, benefit larger populations over a wide geographic region. By contrast, RIPs are mid￾scale projects designed to be “transformational” to a given area—to bring about serious economic changes in a particular geographic landscape: the two airport runways expanded in Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, for example. The improvements made by these RIPs have enabled each runway to now accommodate the use of larger aircraft, which is expected to expand trade, business, and tourism in these southern provinces.27 Barangay Participation: In the evaluation survey of 901 residents in both GEM and non-GEM assisted barangays, 488 (54%) stated they had “actively” participated in the process of decision-making for the annual barangay development plans; 292 residents (32%) of those surveyed acknowledged they had not actively participated, while 121 persons expressed “no opinion.” The municipal and barangay governments use the barangay development plans to select projects for funding including GEM-3 BIPs. As for the BIPs, the evaluation data in Table 3 show that most people do not participate in them. This is not unexpected, as the municipal government was required to provide at least 25% of the cost of the project, in money or materials, and subcontractors built the structures. Of those who participated, 50% reported contributing local labor, most probably for the work that is the responsibility of the local government, such as the approach to a bridge or a pedestrian walkway. *Total survey population in GEM-assisted barangays=601, number responding to questions=460, number stating they “don’t know” 141. Source: SI-RIMCU Evaluation Survey, August 2012 (multiple responses) During the evaluation team’s visit to 34 different BIPs, there was an overwhelming agreement on the part of local officials and barangay residents that the BIPs were serving the specific needs of the local community and that these types of projects were having a beneficial impact on the lives of barangay residents. Indeed, when survey participants were asked if they were interested in additional BIPs, 899 out of 901 (99.8%) responded that they were interested in receiving other BIPs to improve the local infrastructure. Social Benefits: BIPs were essentially designed to improve local economic conditions at the barangay level. The SI-RIMCU survey asked questions regarding community members’ views on other benefits they felt they had given project with the balance provided by the local copartner (municipality and/or province and barangays). The match can be in cash or in-kind contributions (personal communication). 27 Audit of USAID/Philippines’ Growth with Equity in Mindanao (GEM-3) Program. Office of the Inspector General, December 1, 2011, p-3. Table 3: Barangay Participation in the BIP and LGU Counterpart Process* RESIDENT CONTRIBUTIONS MALE FEMALE TOTAL % Did nothing 78 94 172 37 Contributed materials 12 16 28 6 Contributed local labor 136 96 232 50 Provided local knowledge 9 11 20 4 Gave financial support 3 4 7 2 Provided technical equipment 3 1 4 1 Obtained building permits and legal documents 1 3 4 1 Provided management assistance 9 9 18 4 Provided technical assessment of project 2 1 3 1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 9 received from the infrastructure project and their responses are provided below in Table 4. Table 4: Social Benefits Resulting from Barangay Infrastructure Projects* BENEFIT RESULTING FROM INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MALE FEMALE TOTAL % Gained skills in working with others as a benefit from the infrastructure project 152 147 299 50 Gained technical skills like financial management working with others as a benefit from the infrastructure project 122 147 212 35 Learned to cooperate with different community members as a benefit from the infrastructure project 196 209 405 68 Brought community members together to help decide what project should be implemented next as a benefit from the infrastructure project 177 200 377 63 Contributed to improvements in my community as a benefit from the infrastructure project 216 235 451 75 *N=601 (from GEM-assisted barangays); No. responding=599; No answer=2. Source: SI-RIMCU Evaluation Survey, August 2012 (multiple responses) The majority of survey respondents (75%) acknowledged that BIPs contributed to improving their community infrastructure; 68% said they learned to cooperated with each other as a result of the project; and 63% reported that they came together to decide on what to work on next. In another question regarding types of participation in BIP activities, there appeared to be almost equal participation from men and women in the various activities cited (see Chart 1 below). Chart 1: Participation in BIP and LGU Counterpart Activities N=601 (GEM-assisted barangays); multiple responses Source: SI-RIMCU Evaluation Survey, August 2012 The data for the question regarding benefits from the BIPs are indicated below (Chart 2). In the GEM-3 assisted areas, a high percentage of men and women (65% and 62%, respectively) reported that the BIPs were providing them with economic opportunities. They said that the improved infrastructure also allowed them more time for productive work, lessened their work burden, and improved social relations within the barangay. The benefits to both men and women appeared to be equal. 0 50 100 150 200 250 Provided money Helped organize people in community Provided equipment Provided training Paid outside contractors No. of People Participation in BIP & LGU Counterpart Activities Male Female PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 10 Chart 2: Benefits from BIPs N=601 (GEM-assisted barangays); multiple responses Source: SI-RIMCU Evaluation Survey, August 2012 Effective and Efficient BIPs for Meeting GEM-3 Objectives Local barangay residents who participated in the SI-RIMCU survey indicated that they viewed transportation facilities (roads, box culverts, footbridges, and boat landings) as the main purpose of constructing a BIP in their barangay, (48.4%) followed by agricultural processing (23.9%), commerce activities (trade/community centers–18.3%), and assistance with water resources (water tanks, irrigation systems–14.1%).28 Survey participants (74%) said their BIP project was effective with respect to meeting the needs of their community. It can be argued that all communities want infrastructure projects, especially those with relatively low counterpart costs; in the case of BIPs, only a 25% match, either in-kind or cash, is required.29 Focus group interviews with local mayors, municipal planers, and engineers assured evaluation team members that residents valued and utilized GEM-3 projects. Survey data also confirmed this point—86% (515 out of 601 respondents) said they used their respective BIPs, ranging from sometimes to all of the time. Cost-effectiveness and efficiency are important issues for program manager in development projects. One way to gauge the cost-effectiveness of the various BIP activities under the ID Component is to compare the average number of beneficiaries per type of project to the average cost of this project type. Table 5, below, presents these data. Table 5: Cost and Beneficiaries of BIP Types TYPE OF BIP NUMBER AWARDED TOTAL NO. OF BENEFICIARIES AVG. NO. OF BENEFICIARIES AVERAGE COST 30 COST PER BENEFICIARY Box Culvert Bridges 253 855,431 3,381 $35,310 $10 Grain Solar Dryers 121 37,476 310 $10,027 $32 Trading Centers 105 15,841 151 $31,247 $207 Pedestrian Footbridges 83 394,662 4,755 $39,471 $8 Boat Landings 66 272,820 4,134 $42,322 $10 Roads 54 181,096 3,354 $44,251 $13 28 GEM-3 Evaluation Survey, RIMCU for Social Impact, Arlington, VA, September 2012, question B5. 29 In practice, this 25% requirement can vary—and ranges from 20-50% depending on the type of project (personal communication). 30 Source: GEM-3 Program. “BIP Distribution by Province and City and Average Cost per BIP Type as of June 30, 2012.” Average cost is based on the 803 concurred projects as of June 30, 2012. This cost does not include the 25% counterpart from the MLGU. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Provided economic opportunities More time for productive work Lessen work burden Improved social relations More quality time for children Percentage Benefits from BIPs Male Female PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 11 Irrigation Systems 22 17,910 814 $34,334 $42 Water Systems 19 53,755 2,829 $38,947 $14 Drainage 7 28,814 4,116 $20,250 $5 Seaweed Solar Dryer 7 606 87 $26,725 $307 Grains Warehouse +Dryer 7 684 98 $28,020 $286 Seaweed Warehouse +Dryer 2 1,835 918 $11,635 $13 Others 14 205,469 14,676 $15,977 $1 TOTALS 760 2,577,263 --- --- --- Source: GEM-3 Program, Davao, Mindanao (see footnote for details). The data are ranked by frequency within the total 760 awarded projects. Only 720 of these projects had been completed by September 2012, but all 760, and are expected to be completed by program end in December 2012. Table 5 also presents the average cost per beneficiary for the different BIPs. The most common type the box culvert-barangay bridge, accounts for exactly one-third of all BIPs awarded. At an average cost of $35,310 and benefitting an average of 3,381 beneficiaries, this project affords a relatively inexpensive cost per beneficiary, coming in at about $10/person. Boat landings offer a similar cost per beneficiary. These have an even greater average number of beneficiaries (4,134) than barangay bridges, but cost more on average ($42,322). However, boat landings constitute only 9 % of total BIPs. In many ways, they play a similar, crucial role in the transportation of goods and persons in rural areas. Other BIP types have cost per beneficiary much closer to the $8 to $10 range for footbridges, box-culvert bridges and boat landings. Cost per beneficiary for other BIPs: $14 for water systems (19 built); $13 for roads (54 built), and $13 for the combination of seaweed warehouse and solar dryer (only two built). Evaluators found that farm-to-market roads were always the top priority for barangay residents (except in Tawi-Tawi, a province made up of many small islands). The 54 BIP road projects awarded by GEM-3 complete only 43.2 kilometers of road (averaging 0.8 km per project). At an average cost of $44,252, this is $55,314 per kilometer (PhP 2.27 million), making a full kilometer slightly beyond the usual ceiling for the GEM contribution to BIPs. This is in contrast to the average cost of farm-to-market roads under the Department of Agriculture’s Mindanao Rural Development Program (MRDP): $38,464.36 per kilometer (PhP 1,599,348). 31 However, the number of beneficiaries per kilometer, according to GEM data, is relatively high at 4,192 persons (about 700 families). Measuring the ex-post economic rate of return (ERR) across various BIPs in the infrastructure component was conducted to assess the economic efficiency of some of these projects. At the very least, the team sought to determine if its analysis was comparable to figures provided in a study conducted by Ateneo de Davao earlier in 2012. The ERR, which is the result of cost-benefit analysis, is the discount rate that equates the present value of benefit stream to the investment cost of a project. The ERR undertaken by the evaluation team used the basic figures from the Ateneo study and added the social and economic benefits, as well as social costs, collected during the field visits. The results confirm the positive ratings of the Ateneo study and in several cases even demonstrated higher ratings (see Table 6).32 Table 6: Economic Rate of Return of BIP Types TYPE OF BIP ERR (FROM GEM-3 STUDY)33 ERR (FROM EVALUATION TEAM) 31 This figure refers to the average cost of DA-MRDP farm-to-market roads that are fully liquidated as of August 14, 2012. 32 Refer to Annex 10 for ERRs for several projects from infrastructure and other components. 33 Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects. Institute for Socio-Economic Development Initiatives, Ateneo de PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 12 Box Culvert Bridges 28% 23%-82% Grain Solar Dryers 25%–36% -- Grain Solar Dryers and Warehouse -- 52%–73% Trading Centers 12% 37%–53% Pedestrian Footbridges – 75% Boat Landings 25% 20%–36% Water System (Level 2) – 13%–87% Drainage canal – 59% Note: The ERR from the GEM-3 study is an average while the ERR from the evaluation team is a range. Maintenance of Infrastructure Projects Before a Certificate of Completion is provided by GEM-3 staff turning over the complete RIP or BIP, plans for the sustainability of each RIP or BIP must be drawn up via a Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) between GEM (on behalf of USAID) and the municipality or, in the case of RIP projects, provincial government where the project will be constructed and relevant national government departments. Within the MOU, the article on Project Operation, Maintenance, and Sustainability charges the municipality/province with the responsibility for maintenance of the structure. See the Sustainability subsection under Section IV for details on the MOU. Unfortunately, residents at the barangay level had almost no information regarding the maintenance required for sustaining their BIP: 71% of respondents said they knew nothing about any type of plan to maintain their project; 29% said they were aware of some type of plan and seven respondents declined to answer the question. More generally, local barangay captains and/or residents said their local leaders would ensure that maintenance was provided as needed; in the case of box culverts, footbridges, and boat landings, little maintenance was envisioned given these were generally well-constructed concrete projects. However, projects such as water systems, trade centers, and warehouses require managerial oversight to cover general maintenance and other operation expenses. In one instance where a new water system had been constructed, the fees collected were insufficient to pay the costs of electricity to run the pump. The same was true for trading centers, which had monthly fixed costs to operate. Conclusions  BIPs are cost-effective and efficient in reaching individual rural barangay populations and have economic and social influence on the lives of local people. Taken as a whole, BIPs have affected a large number of local residents and have served as a clear, daily reminder of governmental service delivery.  The most effective and efficient types of BIPs in terms of cost, number of people served, and the total time required for implementation are box culverts and bridges, footbridges, and boat landings.  RIPs have a greater influence on the region and able to link across barangays.  All BIPs have been generated at the barangay level, as reflected in their barangay development plans, and these decisions seemingly reflect the prioritized needs of the community.  Women participated at the barangay level in decision-making regarding the prioritization of local Davao, Mindanao, February 2012. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 13 development projects, according to normal procedures. The GEM program has sought to involve women in discussions of women’s issues and concerns at the beginning of infrastructure implementation.  GEM has been extremely careful to avoid direct participation in local political decision-making processes.  GEM has developed the BUM system to track the use and maintenance of completed BIPs and RIPs. Recommendations  BIPs and RIPs should be continued and expanded.  BIPs should be implemented in all barangays that lack basic services, especially in conflict-affected areas to fulfill the government’s promise of peace dividends.  RIPs offer an efficient means of contributing to economic growth and providing benefits to people across barangays, because of their concentration on major highways and expansion of provincial airports. Their locations should be planned for areas of growth in major cities and potential growth in secondary cities. There should be links to farm-to-market roads for areas with agricultural potential, so the produce can reach major markets.  Ensure that future gender action plans are implemented fully and in accordance with established USAID and the country’s policies. Allow more flexibility in the BIP project menu to meet gender needs. Lessons Learned Good Practices in Infrastructure  The concentration on BIPs over RIPs is a wise choice in a conflict-affected area, given the much greater visibility of BIPs in local areas, compared to a few large projects. The latter may benefit very large numbers of beneficiaries, because of their concentration on major highways (six of 12 RIPs) and expansion of provincial airports (two RIPs) but overall, local officials and barangay residents offered high praise for the construction of their BIPs, and directly associated GEM with USAID. Bad Practices or Problems in Infrastructure  The removal of pre-selection of contractors two years ago has been a source of problems for GEM-3 in its contractor selection and vetting process. The inaccurate assumption that competition would bring more candidates for some projects that were receiving few or no bids, has caused delays. The additional candidates were small firms, often lacking local knowledge of project sites, and not qualified to carry out some types of projects. Relationship of Scale and Scope of Infrastructure to Program Targets and Objectives  The impact of three levels of infrastructure projects stand out: RIPs; BIPs with large numbers of beneficiaries for reasonable cost; and BIPs focused on post-harvest facilities usually associated with producer cooperatives and associations as well as with former combatant groups. COMPONENT 2: WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION Findings Table 7: Workforce Preparation Targets and Completion PROJECT TARGET COMPLETED SEPT. 2012 Computer Literacy and Internet Connections (CLIC) 265 265 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 14 Education Matching Grant Project (EMGP) 800 802 Job Enabling English Proficiency (JEEP) 26 26 Productive Internships in Dynamic Enterprises (PRIDE) 100 91 Investments in Vocational, Elementary, Secondary, and Tertiary Studies (INVESTS) 185 275 The objective of this component is to help students in ARMM and other conflict-affected areas to acquire the skills needed to successfully compete for jobs in high-growth sectors. Sub-components include: 1. Computer Literacy and Internet Connection (CLIC): Designed to close the “digital divide” separating students in conflict-affected areas from other students in the Philippines by providing internet￾connected computers to high schools and training teachers and students on the basics of computer and internet use; 2. Education Matching Grant Program (EMGP): Designed to provide grants that match, peso for peso, funds raised by individual Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) to improve specific education programs or facilities in their schools and also encourage parents to become more involved, in and responsible for, the education of their children; 3. Productive Internships in Dynamic Enterprises (PRIDE): Designed to provide recent college graduates with business internships in large national or multi-national firms and to inform graduates from small, rural communities of the potential range of career possibilities available within corporations. 4. Investments in Vocational, Elementary, Secondary, and Tertiary Studies (INVESTS): Designed to provide secondary/tertiary school students with financial support, the primary objective was to encourage students from underrepresented groups to train for careers in which students from Mindanao are under-represented. 5. Job Enabling English Proficiency (JEEP) Project: Designed to establish job-related, English-language training programs in colleges in Mindanao, this program enables graduates to compete successfully for jobs in high growth sectors of the economy. Contributions to the Principal Objectives All Workforce targets capture input data—ranging from the number of teachers trained and/or computers provided to schools (CLIC), matching grants provided to improve education programs (EMGP), English￾language training (JEEP) provided to the number of internships completed (PRIDE), and students assisted with financial support (INVESTS). Table 7 (above) displays the respective targets and the completion of each sub-component. Discussions with GEM staff on this component emphasized the benefits of expanding educational opportunity, whether through improving computer literacy or language proficiency, along with providing more resources to schools and students by way of direct grants or scholarships would lead to increased employment opportunities. Most Effective and Efficient Workforce Preparation Sub-Components Little can be said regarding which sub-component was most efficient since the Workforce Component costs JEEP participants receiving English-language training PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 15 were treated under a single contract line item (CLIN) and were not broken out by sub-component.34 Despite this, where possible, the team was able to construct ERR for CLIC and JEEP programs based on field data. (CLIC). Students interviewed said that access to computers aided their research and other educational assignments. Most of the students were interested in enrolling but the computer laboratory could only accommodate a specific number of students, and as a result, some schools opted to randomly enroll students. The lack of computers is thus a constraint for the schools to provide the desired computer literacy program.35 The purchase of new computers ceased in March 2011, once every eligible high school in the target area had received computer equipment. The costs of computer maintenance and Internet connectivity were initially sustained by local PTAs and local resources. Some of these costs have now been taken over by the Department of Education (DepEd) but funds are often delayed, resulting in technical breakdowns. The use of IT equipment is being monitored by BUM teams,36 but the evaluation team observed that many computers were inoperable at the ten CLIC sites visited (out of total 153 standard CLIC sites). The overall effectiveness of the CLIC program is being assessed by the Institute of the Ateneo University of Davao (funded by GEM￾3), but only summary results were available when the evaluation report was prepared. Summary results indicate that students in CLIC schools, when compared to non-CLIC, are showing a “robust difference” with respect to cohort survival rate and on the average percent scores received on the National Scholastic Aptitude Test.37 The ERR of CLIC is negligible (see Annex 10). EMGP. Teachers and students expressed similar views on the benefits they received from the matching grants. Teachers said they were able to adopt new teaching methodologies through the use of multimedia equipment provided under the grant. Additional books and other education materials also facilitated preparation of their lesson plans. For students, the additional equipment supplied in home economics classes enabled comprehensive training in dressmaking, baking, and carpentry work. Access to the Internet made students more interested and excited to do research—indeed, the presence of interactive, multimedia instructional materials was, in several teachers’ views, instrumental in expanding students’ intellectual curiosity. PTA members, largely responsible for collecting matching funds, were satisfied with GEM’s implementation of the matching grant because PTA members were directly involved determining how the matching grants would be used to affect improvements in local educational settings. The evaluation team visited 14 EMGP schools (out of 802);38 all the informants interviewed said that they wanted the program to continue. Many of the schools receiving grants worried about sustaining progress if further matching funds cannot be found once GEM-3 is completed. Informants enumerated several specific steps for fundraising to help sustain programs initiated by the matching grant. GEM-3 reported that it had completed all its EMGP targets as of September 2012. PRIDE. Almost all of the interns interviewed said that they were able to enroll in the PRIDE program through the information they received from their respective schools. In order to be selected for the PRIDE program, initial candidates were required to be Muslim graduates from Mindanao and have no grade lower than 88%, but requirements were subsequently relaxed to include all students and the minimum grade average requirement was dropped. Based on GEM’s record as of September 2012, 91 internships have been completed and nine are still ongoing. GEM’s third quarterly report for 2012 noted that, of the 54 students 34 Personal Communication, former Chief of Party, 9-10-12, the Workforce CLIN was $13.087 million (13.3%) of a total GEM-3 budget of $98.950 million. 35 CLIC records indicated this sub-component provided a total of 873 internet-connected computers under GEM-2 and 3 while for Teacher CLIC completed 60. GEM-3 Presentation, August 8, 2012, p. 8. 36 Refer to the GEM-3 Quarterly Report, 9-4 37 Ateneo University, “The Impact of USAIS’s Computer Literacy Internet Connection Program: A Summary of Major Conclusion, August-Sept. 2012. 38 SI recognizes that this is not a statistically significant sample and that only inferences, not definitive conclusions, can be drawn. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 16 completing internships, over half were offered employment with the company where they had interned. INVESTS. This sub-component provides secondary/tertiary school students with financial support; GEM-3 material stated that 275 students have been assisted through September 2012 with three scholarships are still ongoing.GEM-3’s last quarterly reported that INVESTS has met its life-of-project target, though it continues to provide financial support to students who have not yet earned their degrees.39 JEEP. As of June 2012, the JEEP program had been implemented in 26 partner schools in Mindanao. From June 2009 to May 2012, the JEEP student enrollment totaled 55,121, 44,913 of whom (or 81.50%) are JEEP Start students, and the other 10,208 or 18.50% are advanced students in JEEP Accelerate.40 The four schools visited by the evaluation team (out of 26) had more than two years of implementing the JEEP program. Based on their records (software scoring system) and assessments conducted on the progress of students, the schools concluded that the JEEP program indeed improved students’ English proficiency. Student respondents collectively agreed that the program prepared them for the job interview process, increased their confidence, and increased chances of getting better jobs. Despite its widespread support by teachers and students alike, USAID suspended the project in late 2011 because some questions were raised about the possibility of training students for jobs that might conflict with the domestic job market in the United States. Moreover, due to the high operating and maintenance cost of JEEP program, its ERR is negligible, especially for programs implemented by public schools, state colleges, or universities (Annex 10). Workforce Preparation Synergies One possible synergistic effects noted by the evaluation team was EMPG being a possible sustaining mechanism for CLIC (i.e., Notre Dame of Parang, one of the private schools visited, received both EMPG and CLIC projects). The school management used a portion of the funds generated from EMPG for maintenance, paying for internet connectivity, and purchasing new computer units to replace dilapidated ones. 41 42 Statements expressed in focus groups conducted in eight out of 23 schools indicated that programs such as CLIC, EMGP, and JEEP encouraged many participants to be become better students. Also, a summary of a recent study of the CLIC sub-component by Ateneo of Davao University reported students from CLIC-recipient schools performed better on the National Scholastic Aptitude Test than non-CLIC schools in the same region.43 Unfortunately, the synergy in the Workplace Component could not be documented based on the non-anecdotal evidence. Conclusions  The “Peso for Peso” matching-grant project in the EMGP was a new innovation that encouraged self￾reliance among schools by mobilizing local community resources through the PTAs.  The CLIC program offered valuable opportunities to teachers and students to improve their technical skills through their access to computers and the internet.  The training provided to school teachers in CLIC, especially to those in charge of the computer lab, was insufficient for handling basic computer proficiency and technical problems associated with computer operational maintenance. Frequent turnover of trained staff was also a major impediment.  PRIDE had been able to establish internships for students in several industries and these internships 39 GEM-3 3rd Quarterly Report 2012, pg. 3-11. 40 Ibid, 3-8. 41 Refer to the American Standard Dictionary. Synergy is rigorously defined as two or more things functioning together to produce a result not independently obtainable from a single variable. 42 It should also be noted that GEM claims that BSO and Workforce staff identifies scholarship students using BSOs. 43 As of September 11, only a preliminary summary of the study’s findings were available; it is too early to infer whether any synergistic effects took place in educational settings. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 17 may lead to full-time employment of these interns.  The JEEP program was reported to be effective in improving students’ English proficiency.  Schools are worried that the activities will not be sustained once donor funding ends. Recommendations  To ensure project sustainability, early orientation sessions for school faculties and PTA members should be closely followed by GEM staff for the development and implementation of realistic operation and maintenance plans. Lessons Learned  EMGP helped several hundred schools improve educational activities, but the program structure might prove unsustainable for local PTAs after GEM-3 ends. The PTAs had a low probability of sustaining EMGP at comparable levels of operation.  CLIC’s intention to provide students with Internet access and a view of things beyond ARMM and Mindanao was well-intended. While GEM certainly made strides in IT education in the Muslim areas, most of the schools visited were maladapted to ensuring a clean environment and regulated temperatures for the long-term use of expensive equipment. Few of the schools visited had personnel who could troubleshoot and maintain computer equipment.  JEEP was highly praised by the students and faculty, but participants indicated that it will be difficult to raise the required capital outlay and resources to continue JEEP at current levels. JEEP at a private institution had higher chances of sustainability than those at public universities. COMPONENT 3: GOVERNANCE IMPROVEMENT Findings Table 8: Governance Improvement Targets and Completion PROJECT TARGET COMPLETED SEPT. 2012 Congressional Internship for Young Mindanao Leaders (CIPYML) 200 149 Revenue Enhancement and Peace Project (REAP) 12 12 (ongoing assistance for additional 5 MLGUs) The Governance Improvement component has two sub-components: the Congressional Internship Program for Young Mindanao Leaders (CIPYML), designed to strengthen the roles of young Mindanao leaders in governance and legislative processes; and the Revenue Enhancement and Peace program (REAP), focused on improving the capability of Municipal LGUs in ARMM and conflict-affected areas to govern more effectively and efficiently and contribute to economic growth, peace, and development. Table 8 (above) shows component targets and their completion, to date. Major Results Achieved under CIPYML GEM-3 continued the implementation of CIPYML begun under GEM-2. The program offers internship opportunities in the Philippine House of Representatives (PHR) for young leaders from Mindanao’s conflict￾affected communities, giving them first-hand experience in public policy formulation and legislative processes. To date, 149 out of 200 interns have graduated from the program under GEM-3. In the six cohorts of graduates, overall 60% have been women and 40% men. Another six cohorts of congressional PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 18 interns graduated under GEM-2. The program forged a strong partnership with the PHR, as well as the University of the Philippines National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP-NCPAG) and Mindanao State University (MSU￾Marawi), who were sub-contractors, not full partners. Of the GEM-3 CIPYML graduates, 60% came from the ARMM, 20% from Region 12, 15% from Region 10, and 5% from Region 9 (see Table 9). Source: GEM-3 Quarterly Report, April-June 2012. Based on the interviews conducted with CIPYML graduates, the program delivered the following results: (1) increased personal knowledge and technical skills regarding policy development and legislative processes; (2) creation of a pool of young men and women in Mindanao equipped with a broad understanding of national issues and democratic governance; (3) 12 former interns have occupied senior posts in the regional government of ARMM, and (4) the internship is a life changing experience for the alumni. According to graduates interviewed by evaluators, the experience opened doors to various opportunities. Examples include: (1) participation in an ASEAN internship program, overseas scholarship programs, increased networking, and improved social capital; (2) increased knowledge of public administration and improved technical skills in writing policy papers, project proposal preparation, and research papers; (3) increased knowledge of the essential characteristics of good governance, such as transparency, accountability, functional public administration, and participatory governance; and (4) new knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that molded interns into better persons with greater concern for professionalism and strong character. The most recent GEM-3 quarterly report44 indicates that 45 (16%) of the 273 GEM-2 and GEM-3 graduates were seeking employment in June 2012. The remainder were in government service (83); academe (34); pursuing studies (23), or employed in other sectors (88). The four focus group respondents (three males and one female) are currently employed in a World Bank-funded project, a UN World Food Project, as Project Manager of a health organization in Mindanao, and as general manager of the Regional Ports Management Authority of ARMM. The program was credited with providing them with the confidence, problem-solving skills, decision-making skills, and technical capabilities to secure better jobs. Major Results Achieved under REAP Under the REAP, the first four municipal governments (MLGUs) began implementing their Revenue Generation Action Plans in January 2009.45 All four of these governments met their revenue targets for 2009. Each MLGU received a major incentive ranging from street lights, welcome arch, a multi-purpose training center, a combination of welcome arch and street lights. While this is what the municipalities requested, none 44 GEM Quarterly Report (April – June 2012). Page 4-9. Davao City, Philippines. 45 See full list of participating municipalities in Annex 10. Table 9: CIPYML Graduates by Cohort, Sex, and Region COHORT TOTAL MALE FEMALE ARMM REGION 9 REGION 10 REGION 12 7 19 5 14 10 1 4 4 8 25 15 10 17 1 3 4 9 25 12 13 18 1 3 3 10 24 6 18 11 2 3 8 11 29 13 16 16 1 3 9 12 27 9 18 17 1 7 2 TOTAL 149 60 89 89 7 23 30 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 19 of these is economically-oriented in the manner BIPs are intended. However, economic development was not considered a driving factor in the infrastructure facilities offered by GEM to MLGUs. The objective was to incentivize the municipal governments to reach their agreed upon targets. These same four MLGUs participated in the project in 2010, but despite increasing revenue collection, none was able to achieve its new revenue generation target as specified in its MOU with GEM. In 2011, this first cohort of participant municipalities again increased their revenue collection, but only one (Molave in Zamboanga del Sur province) achieved its target and was entitled to receive a major incentive (medical equipment for two municipal health units). Together the four raised an additional PhP 13.83 million ($337,317) in 2011 over 2010 (28% increase). On average, each municipality gained about $84,329 more local revenue in 2011 than in 2010. The first group of four MLGUs (Buug, Dumingag, Lamitin, and Molave) have now been enrolled in REAP for three years, beginning in 2009.46 Their performance in 2009, 2010, and 2011 is presented in Table 10. Their overall increase in revenue between 2008 and 2011 is 84.1%. Table 10: Revenue Generation Performance of the First Group of MLGUs between 2008 and 2011 (Millions of PhP) LGU 2008 2009 2010 2011 % INCREASE Buug 7.75 9.44 12.19 12.91 66.6 % Dumingag 5.88 7.18 8.51 8.96 52.4 % Lamitin 6.69 7.09 7.01 8.63 29.0 % Molave 13.87 17.19 21.41 32.45 134.0 % TOTAL 34.19 40.90 49.12 62.95 84.1 % Source: GEM-3 Quarterly Reports (April-June 2010, 2011, 2012). A second set of three MLGUs (Datu Paglas, Upi, and Alabel) participated in REAP beginning in 2010. Their performance in 2010 and 2011 is presented below. Their overall increase in revenue between 2009 and 2011 is 17.9%. Table 11: Revenue Generation Performance of the Second Group of MLGUs between 2009 and 2011 (Millions of PhP) LGU 2009 2010 2011 % INCREASE Datu Paglas 1.17 2.07 2.59 121.4 % Upi 2.14 4.20 5.39 151.9 % Alabel 27.03 25.56 27.78 2.8 % TOTAL 30.34 31.83 35.76 17.9 % Source: GEM-3 Quarterly Report (April-June 2011, 2012). Two of this second group of municipalities (consisting of Datu Paglas and Upi) previously had achieved their 2010 targets and qualified for receipt of major incentives. In 2011, however, none achieved its target, although all achieved some revenue increase. The three municipalities together produced an increase of revenue of PhP 3.93 million ($95,854) in 2011 over 2010. The third group of municipalities participating in REAP set targets for 2011 based on a formula that took the average revenue for the preceding five years, added an agreed upon increase of 30% to 50% , then adjusted this upward to account for inflation and population growth rates. Four of the five municipalities 46 Buug Municipality, Zamboanga Sibugay Province: Molave and Dumingag Municipalities, Zamboanga del Sur Province; and Lamitan Municipality, Basilan Province. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 20 outperformed their targets, while one failed to achieve it, despite achieving some revenue increase. The four successful municipalities are now in the process of receiving their major incentives: a trading center in Banga, a public pavilion and computers in Norala, a fruit trading center in Parang, and two solar dryers in Pigcawayan. Some of these municipalities also received a Good Housekeeping monetary award from the Department of the Interior and Local Government. The performance of this group of five municipalities in 2011 is as follows, although the actual 2010 base values were not provided. Table 12: Revenue Generation Performance of the Third Group of MLGUs in 2011 (Millions of PhP) LGU ESTIMATED 2010 TARGET INCREASE TARGET 2011 ACTUAL 2011 % INCREASE OVER TARGET Banga 8.21 35 % 11.08 13.07 18.0 % Norala 5.26 40 % 7.36 8.03 9.1 % Malapatan 6.16 35 % 8.31 7.10 - 14.6 % Parang 7.19 30 % 9.35 9.42 0.7 % Pigcawayan 5.00 30 % 6.50 6.93 6.6 % TOTAL 31.82 30–40% 42.60 44.55 40.0 % Source: GEM-3 Quarterly Report (April-June 2012). Although the 2010 base figures are not provided by GEM, the team was able, by working backward from the target increase percentages, to estimate these 2010 figures at PhP 31.82 million. The actual 2011 revenues of PhP 44.55 million indicate a revenue increase of PhP12.73 million, or 40% more than in 2010. Altogether, the 12 participating municipalities generated additional revenues of PhP 30.49 million ($743,659) in 2011 compared to 2010. This is on average about PhP 2.54 million ($61,972) per participating MLGU. A fourth group of five MLGUs (Kiamba, Maasim, President Roxas, Aurora, and Calamba) received “TA-lite” assistance in early 2012, consisting of a four-day workshop. Only one (Calamba) has received its “teaser” incentive, consisting of a computer with printer as reward for revising its local revenue code and other ordinances to reflect updated charges and rates and securing provincial concurrence. The increased revenue realized by these municipalities, according to the GEM April-June 2012 quarterly report, was used as intended to improve basic services to constituents. The additional collection in 2011 will be employed in the same way. This use is specified in the MOU with each municipality. On the other hand, major incentive rewards are chosen by the recipients and do not need to target constituents’ basic needs. They included town arches, computers, and a public pavilion. On the delivery, quality, and range of public services delivered as a result of increased revenue, the evaluation team found that three LGUs (Upi, Datu Paglas, and Parang) channeled their revenue increase to augment development funds for basic services in education, health, social work, and barangay infrastructure. Three others (Pigcawayan, Norala, and Banga), however, used their increased revenues for the improvement of municipal buildings, purchase of computers, and payment of tax collector salaries. Evaluators visited officials of six of the 12 LGUs participating in REAP. They found that a Technical Working Group (TWG) and a Tax Information and Education Campaign (TIEC) team had been established through the issuance of an executive order by the Sangguniang Bayan (municipal council). Each TWG had formulated and implemented a Revenue Generation Action Plan with a budget, approved through council resolution. The plan has served as the LGU roadmap to improving its revenue management system and pursuing revenue targets. The presence of participatory mechanisms for public consultation and dialogue was observed in all six LGUs. Each TWG formulated specific and well-defined strategies to enhance the tax collection and recording system, including intensive TIEC activities, collection strategies for business taxes, collection strategies for real property PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 21 taxes, monitoring activities, database maintenance, and the implementation of rewards and incentive schemes. The problem to be addressed through REAP was that the local revenue code and the real property tax schedules of these LGUs are not periodically updated and legislated. The mandate to revise the local revenue code is issued every five years, while a general revision of assessments and property classification is carried out every three years to reflect the true market values of properties. The RPT is a provincial imposition and municipal LGUs cannot, by themselves, amend the schedule of market values (SMV) without approval and legislation by the provincial government. While the REAP project supports the amendment and codification of tax ordinances, LGUs are legally prevented from revising and enforcing new tax measures until the provincial governmental assembly (Sangguniang Panlalawigan) approves and legislates the changes. This is not always forthcoming and some of these discrepancies between appraised and market values can be considerable. In Maguindanao province, for instance, the SMV is still based on 1985 market values. Contribution to Principal Objectives Accelerated Economic Growth: The results reported by GEM under the REAP project have not been linked by GEM or USAID to accelerated economic growth in Mindanao. Nor has any theoretical link been established between increased municipal revenue and accelerated economic growth, of the region or of the whole of Mindanao. Even had all increases in municipal revenue and major incentive rewards been devoted entirely to economic development ends, which has not been the case, these small inputs to growth would not be discernible in the overall growth figure. However, the objective of this pilot program was not major impact on economic growth, but to demonstrate that some local revenue gains can be realized by municipal governments and probably sustained. The 12 participating MLGUs generated $744,000 in extra revenue in 2011 over 2010. Had all 400 municipalities participated in this experience, $24,800,000 might have been generated. The pilot has involved a total of 17 MLGUs thus far, a small number of municipalities compared to the total for ARMM (118) and the whole of Mindanao (400). Large-scale Population Participation and Benefits: No attempt has been made by GEM to link activities under REAP with number of beneficiaries. While the rationale for REAP maintains that LGUs can make substantially greater investments in economic and social infrastructure by generating more local revenues, municipal governments throughout the Philippines at present only generate 18 % of their revenue from local sources. Even if they invest in development works, all additional revenue raised by updating tax schedules and land valuations—procedures certain to encounter resistance by local elites—this is unlikely to raise overall per capita incomes by significant levels. Under GEM-3, the involvement and impact of REAP achievements and incentives on beneficiaries has been very limited, since it has been a pilot program. This is also true for CIPYML, where only 200 interns have participated in the program since 2008. By its nature, the CIPYML could not involve large numbers of beneficiaries each year. Contribution to Overall Peace: To the extent that municipalities can generate additional income and employ most or all of it to meet the basic economic and social needs of their constituents, they will be perceived by the population as serving the people, not simply being exploitative and corrupt. It is unlikely that additional revenues raised thus far by REAP have had a discernible impact on the livelihoods of constituents. A relationship between REAP achievements and the consolidation of peace cannot yet be made. Success of Technical Assistance Activities REAP benefitted from minimal TA activities. The most recent GEM-3 quarterly report labels REAP as “TA￾lite.”47 Such minimal technical assistance has involved two small workshops in each participating municipality, although municipalities sometimes participate in groups of two or three. In the first workshop, the 47 GEM-3 Quarterly Report: April 1-June 30, 2012.”USAID Growth with Equity in Mindanao Program,” Davao City, Philippines. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 22 municipality is assisted to set a revenue generation target for the next budget year and determine how additional revenue can be obtained. This is drawn up in a Revenue Generation Action Plan. In the second workshop, the municipality is assisted in drawing up the language for a municipal council executive order authorizing the creation of a TWG and a Tax IEC Team. Following this, the GEM-3 Governance Team, with the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF), verifies municipality achievements in revenue generation. Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency Budget information on this component does not distinguish between REAP and CIPYML. The total budget for improving governance under GEM-3 has been about $5.13 million. In terms of comparative cost effectiveness and efficiency, it is difficult to compare these two very different programs within the Governance component. It is therefore not possible to say that one was more effective or efficient than the other in meeting its targets and programmatic objectives. REAP has reached its life-of-project (LOP) target of 12 municipalities and an additional group of five MLGUs is currently moving forward to implement their action plans in the final months of GEM-3. The revised LOP target of 200 intern graduates under CIPYML will be achieved with the graduation of those that began their internship in the PHR in July 2012. Both programs have achieved very different targets on schedule and within budget. These two activities are not directly related under governance improvement, except to the extent that CIPYML graduates were expected to become knowledgeable, committed regional citizens committed to the furtherance of democratic institutions, and thereby implicitly take up positions in MLGUs where they might become able interlocutors with GEM under the REAP project. This has not generally happened, although CIPYML graduates are much sought after in other areas. Addressing Needs and Appropriateness of Incentives The REAP project did address the most pressing need of municipal governments: increasing revenues overall for economic and social service delivery, investment in development infrastructure, and reduced dependence on outside revenue from the national government and donor organizations.48 The two types of REAP incentives—light equipment rewards for revising local revenue codes, and land valuations and major infrastructure or equipment rewards for meeting revenue generation targets in MOUs signed with GEM— were both important in moving the 12 participating MLGUs forward in revenue collection. While all municipalities made some progress in such collection, many were not able to meet agreed targets, especially after the first year of REAP participation. Of the two types of incentives, the larger rewards were the most valued by recipients. Conclusions  REAP improved the capacity of LGUs to address key administrative and management problems relative to internal revenue generation and local tax code enforcement—especially in cases where new tax collection rules were incorporated into formal collection policies.  The implementation of the revenue generation action plans and the innovative collection strategies were effective in increasing the revenues generated from the business and real property taxes.  While most MLGUs in REAP were successful in realizing gains of 30% to 50% in revenue the first year, none of the second year participants has been able to do so, as of yet. For those few municipalities involved for a third year, the success rate was only 25%.  No attempt has been made by GEM to link activities under REAP to numbers of beneficiaries or the 48 However, it should be noted that other factors such as local elections influence the decision of LGU officials to implement tax collection activities. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 23 amount of increased social or development investment from improved local revenue generation. Under GEM-3, the impact of REAP achievements and incentives on municipal populations has been minimal and limited to only 17 municipalities of the total of 188 in ARMM and 400 in Mindanao.  CIPYML imparted knowledge and technical skills on policy development and legislative processes to graduates, but failed to provide avenues for actual application in the real context of local governance.  CIPYML was effective in creating a pool of young men and women leaders in conflict affected areas in Mindanao who are equipped with policy know-how and technical skills. Recommendations  CIPYML, or a similar program, should continue in the future— given the high dividends that may occur by identifying future leaders for the Philippines thereby offsetting costs in time and resources.  A transition period, where interns to actually apply their policy know-how and skills at the local￾government level, is needed. Their experience and knowledge would be especially useful at the local level.  REAP’s pilot-program experience can serve as an example for the remaining 383 municipalities in Mindanao. Total new revenue generation, at least in the early stage, could be substantial in scale up with a large number of participating municipalities.  The REAP project should also be carried forward in future USAID programming efforts. Its initial efforts are replicable by other communities, and an effort to scale up the project can offer large returns on investment, especially in the beginning.  For higher and more sustainable impact, the provincial governments should be involved as it is important that the SMVs are made current and the tax base expanded, since any increase in real property tax collection automatically increases municipal and barangay revenues.  Try to improve synergy by matching CIPYML applications from REAP MLGUs. Lessons Learned  REAP was designed to address weaknesses in the revenue-generation capacity of MLGU and to reduce local dependency on funding from the national government leading to increased self-sustaining independence. Unfortunately, those REAP-targeted municipalities most in need of improved revenue generation all too often lacked the personnel to implement revised tax collection strategies; tax collection teams also lacked the skills to effectively implement new tax collection plans and strategies. COMPONENT 4: BUSINESS GROWTH Findings GEM-3 activities in BG are built upon a foundation that began under GEM-1. Initially, organizations benefitted from institutional organization, including group formation; logistical support with office equipment; salaries and materials for key staff; basic management training; and hosting of events and attendance at workshops, seminars, and congresses. GEM-2 continued logistical support and hosting of events, while adding a more focused effort on technology transfer to the particular economic activity of the group and more management-related training to fortify the group’s implementation capacity. Market definition was also important, since GEM-3 gave stronger emphasis to market penetration and less to logistical support. Groups that started up during GEM-3 basically followed this 1-2-3 approach, although it probably was accelerated, given the implementation experience the GEM team had acquired and the widespread public knowledge of the program. Table 13: Degree of Achievement of Length of Program Targets by Type PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 24 Source: GEM-3 Quarterly Report April-June 2012 (June data used for calculations in BG section as September data were still estimates) Contribution to GEM Principal Objectives Accelerated Economic Growth: The most clearly valuated output of the BG’s activities has been that of export sales of targeted commodities under the Targeted Commodity Expansion Project (TCEP). The total value through June 2012 (4.5 years) of BG-facilitated sales of international exports and domestic out￾shipments of fresh and processed fruit products, vegetables, and seafood commodities was $86 million. While this is 6.5 times greater than the BG budget of $13,250,085, it is only a yearly average increase equal to 0.06% of the Mindanao GRDP ($34,482,765,488 in 2011).49 Although this increase in sales undoubtedly had employment and private investment impacts, GEM has not tracked this data. The focus remains on increasing annual sales from a baseline of $30.7 million in 2007 to $82 million annually by the end of FY2012. Large-scale Population Participation and Benefits: To ensure that as many people as possible can access and benefit from program activities and to maximize program resources, GEM-3 takes advantage of economies of scale by partnering with BSOs: Chambers of Commerce, business councils, and producer associations and 49 However, it should be noted that TCEP focused on a limited set of targeted commodities considered non-traditional export products such as fruit, vegetables, fish and high-value aquaculture and thus comparing total exports to Mindanao’s GRDP does not fully capture TCEP’s goal of expanding these non-traditional export commodities. PROJECT TARGET COMPLETED JUNE 2012 COMMENTS BSO DEVELOPMENT New Chambers of Commerce assisted in CAAM 6 6 100% achieved. Assistance ongoing to all six. Previous Chambers assisted to advocate improved LGU performance in tax revenue generation 6 6 100% achieved. Assistance ongoing to all six . BSOs assisted to plan and implement specific events 25 25 100% achieved. Key growth sector BSOs establish 5 5 100% achieved. Assistance ongoing to all five. Producer organizations assisted to improve the competitiveness of their products 20 20 100% achieved. Assistance ongoing to eight. TCEP Value in US$ (millions) 82 77-85 Sept 2012 figure based on prediction. Even if target (82) is achieved , it would only be 2.7 times the baseline Volume in metric tons (thousands) 90 MT 60-70 MT Sept 2012 figure based on prediction. Will not reach target. Expansion of post-harvest facilities (warehousing, cold storage, and VHT) 1 2 Completed one over target. EXPLORATORY INVESTMENTS CAAM tourist resort 0 0 Discontinued. CAAM BPO facility 4 4 100% achieved and completed. Mining firms community outreach 4 4 100% achieved and completed. FORMER COMBATANT REINTEGRATION MNLF groups/communities assisted to produce high-value commodities 125 129 See write-up in separate section. MNLF cooperatives/communities provided with pre- and post-harvest facilities 50 50 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 25 cooperatives. The program has leveraged funds through cost-sharing to reduce cost and has employed organizational networking to reach large numbers of people. The six new Chambers of Commerce formed under GEM-3 now count 520 members, in addition to the approximately 4,000 Chamber members recruited under GEM-1 and GEM-2. Six previously formed Chambers continued to receive support under GEM-3. Under the high-value horticulture activities of TCEP, a total of 6,040 members support producers associations and cluster groups. Except for the large number of beneficiaries reached through ID (BIPs and RIPs) and some of the workforce preparation activities, the business growth component probably has directly reached most beneficiaries in an economic way by assisting beneficiaries in groups with small-scale infrastructure, seed capital, and TA in high-value horticulture and aquaculture. GEM’s activities led to numerous impacts for participating groups, including increase in membership within a group; greater volumes of the major products transacted (crops, fish); greater geographic outreach of the group; deeper technical knowledge of the production and handling of products; more diversification of economic activities and less dependence on a traditional crop; a growing understanding of a market orientation; an increased appreciation of quality aspects and the technology involved; and an awareness of other marketplaces and how to search for access to them. To the degree that producer groups and their members benefitted in these ways from GEM, agricultural productivity, production, and sales increased, engendering fuller household employment and greater net income to participants. This led not only to private economic benefits for the immediate participants, but also social benefits (improvements in health and education for family members) and sometimes community benefits according to interview respondents. Consolidation of Peace: The impact of GEM’s BG activities on bringing about and consolidating peace in conflict areas of Mindanao is unclear and difficult to quantify, particularly given the absence of an explicit, theoretical linkage in project documents. It is the general consensus, however, that access to productive opportunities and income-generating activities and a perceived, rising level of household purchasing power increase the opportunity costs of joining a rebel group and resorting to violence. The geographic focus of GEM-3 combines ARMM, NPA, and MILF conflict-affected areas (Eastern, Central and Western Mindanao). In the Muslim areas, GEM-3 has completed 79 community development activities and has constructed 50 post-harvest facilities (solar grain dryers and consolidation facilities). These activities have benefited some 4,600 community members. Of the total (6,040) members of producers associations and cluster groups assisted by GEM, 3,504 (55%) are located in the Muslim conflict areas. This assistance provided the communities with income-generating activities, thereby increasing their incomes and purchasing power. Since post-harvest facilities, including solar dryers and consolidation and trading centers, effectively add value and provide micro-growers and farmers linkages to the value supply chain of commodities, some 4,600 community members, including those in isolated and conflict areas, have been integrated into a web of markets and processing plants in a wide range of production areas. There are, however, no indicators tracking total employment and income generated by these activities with producer associations and cluster groups. Nor has GEM-3 developed proxy measures that might track levels of violence or dissidence in the ARMM and other conflict-affected areas. Reports from program areas anecdotally link these income-generating activities and the provision of small infrastructure projects under GEM-3 with decreased population alienation and the use of violence to resolve conflicts. Increase in Private Sector Investment There has been no monitoring of private sector investment under GEM-3; it can only be presumed to have occurred when export volumes and sales increased, as they have done over the LOP. This has not been a performance indicator under GEM-3. Its value, consequently, is not known and cannot be reported. Relative Effectiveness and Efficiency of the BSO and TCEP Activities PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 26 The cost-effectiveness and efficiency of various sub-components of the BG cannot be judged with the information available to the evaluation team. One complicating factor is that many of the results actually stem from GEM 1 and 2 expenditures, from resources supplied by different levels of government, and from the cash and in-kind counterpart of participating organizations and individuals. Moreover, the project-related increases in earnings of participants are unknown, as is the residual value of GEM procurements. Furthermore, many activities should result in after-project incremental earnings of participants, as well as non-participants that benefited from technology transfer, market access, and the like. While increasing the incomes of farmers and their cooperatives was not a target under GEM-3, significant increases were nonetheless substantiated in a GEM-sponsored survey. Finally, it is difficult to determine the efficiency of each activity under the BG component, because the activities are interlinked. We can compare total costs of training to the number of participants and determine that the average cost of training by participant is PhP 166.50 However, we cannot draw a conclusion as to the efficiency of this activity, lacking baseline data on training with which to compare. Nevertheless, this figure appears highly cost efficient. For the trade fairs, a comparison of their cost and the output generated during the same period indicates that there is a cost-to-output ratio of 0.0038, or 0.38%.51 GEM’s outlay on these fairs is substantially less than one percent of the total value of revenue generated from participation in them—in other words, each peso spent on fairs resulted in PhP 263 of new exports from Mindanao. It should be noted, however, that the cost does not include the cost of the GEM implementation staff, only direct costs (i.e., booth rentals and promotional materials). The cost of participation is also co-shared by the Philippine Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Industry, private firms, and participants, both in monetary and in-kind contributions. Nevertheless, the investment advantage of these events would appear to be solid. Caveated by the small sample visited, the most cost-effective (efficient) growth activity for participants appears to be the private sector TCEP/H-CAP export operations, when time of project involvement and project expenditures is considered. Several of the producer organizations would qualify as cost-effective at present, but run the risk of being unsustainable under their current mode of operation, because the tendency is to transfer a substantial portion of the final sales receipts to the producer, leaving only a small margin for the Producers Association (PASS). This margin may not be sufficient to cover future replacement of capital goods, participation in foreign expositions and trade fairs, and other costly, recurrent expenditures. Furthermore, the process of transforming a PASS into a growth agent (whether stand-alone or through its participant members) may delay the receipt of benefits long enough that participants discontinue the activity, lessening its effectiveness. This could result in activities with long-range results being discontinued after the project ends because the impact is not obvious to the beneficiaries. The success of the PASS depends largely on the entrepreneurship of its leadership, which may change before the organization’s business success proves itself to the general membership. Effectiveness of Program Activities in Facilitating Business Services There was a series of overlapping activities by GEM that improved market access for participating BSOs, especially the producer organizations, by focusing on organizational, product, 50 Training: average cost of PhP 12,000/training. Total of trainings = 522. Total participants = 37,653. Total cost = 12,000 x 522 = PhP 6,264,000. Cost per trainee = total cost/total trainees = PhP 6,264,000/37,653 – PhP 166.36. 51 Trade Fairs: Domestic Fairs – 8 @ average cost of PhP 100,000.00/fair = PhP 800,000. International Fairs – 31@average cost of $10,000/fair = $310,000 @ $1.00 = PhP 42.00 = PhP 13,020,000. Total cost = PhP 13,020,000 + 800,000 =PhP 13,820,000 or $329,048. Ratio of cost to exports = $329,048/$86,000,000 (to end June 2012) = 0.0038. GEM-3 sponsored Mindanao Vegetable Congress, a market development activity designed to promote the export of regionally-grown vegetables to other parts in the Philippines and also internationally. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 27 and market development:  Organizational development consisted of strengthening the business entity: training in basic skills (bookkeeping, group management, and governance); and providing operational infrastructure and services (office/trading center facilities, office equipment/scales/crates/group input supply and product transport, definition of business practices for produce supply/quality standards/form of payment).  Product development included various production aspects: determination of product(s) and varieties, TA in production and good agricultural practices; cluster programming according to estimated market demand; timing to stabilize both volume and purchase and sales pricing; quality determination and control mechanisms; and post-harvest handling and packaging.  Market development included attendance at expositions/trade fairs/workshops, market information on varieties/qualities/presentation/volumes, certification if required for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)/Kosher/VHT/ISO, market linkages, and business matching. Chambers of Commerce had analogous activities, but they were based on provision of services, training, and publications to promote an area's products and activities—rather than simply on products—which requires a prior needs assessment. GEM usually carried out this needs assessment, often in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Trade and Industry. The evaluation team interviewed representatives of 24 of the 65 organizations listed by GEM as assisted BSOs and producer organizations and can verify GEM's assistance. However, the evaluation is limited to reporting the data in the latest quarterly report (June 2012) and cannot judge the timeliness of these activities. Overall, the services or outcomes directly related to BSO development clearly stem from increased exposure and information: business matching, expositions (hosting them or attending others), and technology transfer of all types—organization, management, production, and marketing. GEM usually supported around 10 major events a year and over 100 very specific meetings (workshops, seminars), according to local needs. Effectiveness in Improving Producers’ Access to Markets Targeted Commodity Exports: Targets and Achievements: Based on the latest GEM-3 quarterly report,52 the BG aimed to triple the annual value of exports and domestic out-shipments of targeted commodities from the baseline. On average, the BG met 98.3% of its annual targets of sales of exports and domestic out-shipments from a 2007 baseline of $30.7 million. As of 2011, however, actual sales were only 2.3 times the baseline level. BG needs to achieve 98% of its target for FY 2012, in order to meet its revised LOP target of US$ 82,000,000. At the end of June 2012 performance was at $70,000,000, or 85%, of its LOP target. If the BG component reaches this target, performance will stand at 2.7 times the baseline figure of $30.7 million. This is slightly less than the original objective of tripling the value of exports and out-shipments. Table 14: Sales of Exports and Domestic Out-shipments: Actual and Targets FISCAL YEAR ACTUAL TARGET % OF ACTUAL TO TARGET RATIO OF ACTUAL TO BASELINE RATIO OF TARGET TO BASELINE 2007 = Baseline 30,700,010 2008 36,459,970 34,388,056 106.0 1.2 1.1 2009 36,640,834 44,424,909 82.5 1.2 1.4 2010 52,900,793 52,337,225 101.1 1.7 1.7 2011 69,942,753 68,280,577 102.4 2.3 2.2 52 GEM-3 Quarterly Report: April1–June 30, 2012. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 28 2012* 70,000,000 82,000,000 85.0 2.3 2.7 CUMULATIVE 265,944,350 281,430,767 – – – AVERAGE (2008–2011) 48,986,088 49,857,692 98.3 1.6 1.6 *Data not yet available for FY 2012. Total estimated through June 2012. Source: Philippine government data. Based on the transactions data compiled in the latest quarterly report, GEM-3 attributes 36.5%—$86,006,914 of a total of $235,805,894—of the cumulative sales of international exports and domestic outbound shipments of targeted commodities directly to GEM-3 direct-marketing assistance. There are, however, issues in attribution, since some of the members of business chambers interviewed had already penetrated international or new domestic markets before participating in GEM-3-sponsored trade and event-specific fairs. Aside from the assistance being fungible, there are numerous factors that directly or indirectly affect export and domestic out-shipment sales. Relative prices, market orientations, quality, incentives, changes in domestic and international trade policies, and the macroeconomic and political environments are all factors beyond the control of individual firms and GEM-3. These all make the degree of attribution to GEM-3 activities problematic, except in the case of HACCP certification discussed later. Integration and Spillovers: Some 65% of GEM-3 BG target areas are in economically leading areas, while 35% are in economically lagging areas, according to a World Bank classification (see Figures 1 and 2). In lagging areas, issues of isolation and conflict discourage producers, and growers take advantage of economies of scale, which explains the predominance of small and micro-growers in these areas.53 The BG took the step of linking small and micro-growers in lagging areas to actors in the value chain located in leading areas. Providing livelihood assistance, knowledge transfer of the production and handling of products, diversification of economic activities through the TCEP and Sustainable Aquaculture and Fisheries Effort (SAFE), and promoting understanding of market orientation and market linkages are some of the activities that facilitated small and micro- growers to participate in larger markets in semi-urban and urban areas. While there are still outstanding issues in connectivity (e.g., farm-to-market roads) needed to maximize the benefits of spillover of growth from leading to lagging areas, GEM-3 provided post-harvest and product consolidation facilities that complement the institutional support given to businesses. These small infrastructure facilities provide platforms for dispersed farmers to consolidate their produce to meet the competitive volume of production required and to begin connecting with other players in the value chain. 53 Behind the Veil of Conflict. World Bank, 2010 Figure 1: Proximity Indicator of Municipalities Figure 2: GEM-3 Business Growth PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 29 Knowledge Transfer and Market Linkage: Knowledge transfer and market linkage are highly effective and efficient means of assistance to producers. As of June 2012, trade fairs generated a sales volume of 19,095 metric tons of various commodities, valued at $40.71 million. Direct marketing assistance resulted in 623 metric tons valued at $2.88 million. HACCP certified companies increased their exports by 280 metric tons, valued at $25.47 million. To date, 24 companies are HACCP certified because of GEM TA and can thus be attributed directly to GEM Note: Figures based on reports submitted to GEM by the program partners. Quality Control, Public-Private Partnership, and Competitiveness: GEM-3 improved the competitiveness of Mindanao businesses. It supported 522 training workshops and seminars, where good agricultural practices and good manufacturing practices were taught to improve productivity along the supply chain. One of these practices is helping companies through the process of HACCP certification to meet international standard requirements. It is the general consensus that the HACCP-Certification Assistance Project increased commodity exports. For example, some agro-processing companies interviewed experienced a commodity export increase of from 280 to 500 metric tons per month. Another dimension of improving business competitiveness in the Philippines includes simplifying 54 Source: GEM-3, April –June 2012 Quarterly Report: Annexes 2.2 to 2.5. Source: World Bank (2009), “Behind the Veil of Conflict” Source: mindanao.org Table 15: Summary of Sales from GEM-3 Assistance in FY 201254 TYPE OF ASSISTANCE VOLUME (IN METRIC TONS) VALUE (IN US $) % TO TOTAL VOLUME % TO TOTAL VALUE International Trade Fairs 12,429 32,140,772 62,1 46.5 Domestic Trade Fairs 6,667 8,563,116 33.4 12.4 SUBTOTAL 19,096 40,705,888 95.5 58.9 Direct Marketing Assistance (domestic) 623 2,876,000 3.1 4.2 HACCP Certification 280 25,471,000 1.4 36.9 TOTAL 19,999 69,050,888 100 100.0 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 30 government requirements (i.e., business licensing) to reduce transaction costs through public-private partnership. The program’s revenue generation activity was implemented through BSO/LGU partnerships. Using 2006 as the base year and studying six partnerships, the assisted chambers from Surigao del Norte, North Cotabato and Maguindanao experienced a decrease in time and number of signatories in business processing because of the partnership. In addition, four of the six chambers recorded increases in their revenue collection (Parang municipality registered an increase of 246%), while the Chambers of Commerce in Iligan City and Bongao recorded a drop of 14% in time and signatories and no in revenue, due to natural disasters that damaged or destroyed business establishments. Effectiveness of the Business Policy Agenda in Improving Competitiveness “One Voice” for Policy Reform: Multi-sector policy dialogues fostered a “one voice” industry/association mechanism as an effective means for policy reform. GEM’s policy approach for Mindanao, especially in the last few years, consisted of a jointly conducted process over several months with MinDA and the national￾level Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) in several regions of Mindanao. Local government, business, and civil society representatives participated in the dialogues. MinDA and GEM then grouped, studied, and formulated the policy concerns and issues raised by each economic sector: agriculture and fisheries, mining, energy, micro/small/medium enterprises, tourism, human resource development, transport and logistics, and peace and order. The resulting resolutions related directly to sectoral business policy and were presented to the corresponding governmental agencies for a formal response that was later presented in the annual Mindanao Business Conference (MinBizCon). GEM-3 supported 150 training workshops and seminars, conferences, forums and trade fairs attended by 37,653 individuals.55 GEM’s role has been the provision of the logistical and technical assistance to conduct the regional workshops, preparation of resolutions, and cost-sharing of the MinBizCon. The impact of this activity has subsequently depended on the responsiveness of the governmental agencies and does not reflect the soundness of the policies concerning competitiveness, nor the entities involved. In the final analysis, the policies proposed were thoroughly scrutinized in a series of regional consultations to which many sectors provided inputs. As an example, GEM-3 supported a series of consultations addressing the 2010 energy crises in Mindanao. The consultations gave birth to the public/private sector Mindanao Electric Power Alliance, tasked to monitor power generators, distributors, and electric cooperatives. The energy policy dialogue initiative catalyzed the expansion of energy sources to address the energy supply deficiency. Completed and still-on￾going energy expansion has an estimated investment of $610 million with a 250 megawatt capacity (estimated Mindanao energy peak requirement is 270MW). As of August 2012, a hydroelectric power plant in the Davao region and a coal power plant in Misamis Oriental have been completed. Construction of hydropower and coal plants is ongoing in Sarangani, Surigao del Norte and Zamboanga City.56 Conclusions  Small and medium businesses have benefited most from the market encounter activities and participation in trade fairs which have made owners aware that regular updates on market demand and requirements are necessary to stay competitive in a global market.  Through strengthening knowledge transfer and market linkages, the BG stimuli assisted sales improvements in exports and domestic out-shipments of targeted commodities in Mindanao. It expanded agriculture and agribusiness sectors with bearing on supply chain linkages to other industries and on the induced effect of increased household spending on the economy.  The potential for economic spillovers exist, with 65% of business-growth target sites in leading areas and 55 GEM-3 April – June 2012 Quarterly Report, Annex 6 56 Interview with Team Leader, Business Support Organization. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 31 35% in isolated areas, but unresolved issues of connectivity, such as farm-to-market roads, limit the benefits derived from spillovers. Recommendations  BG should continue the value-chain and cluster-approach-to-agribusiness programs. However, infrastructure that facilitates connectivity, such as farm-to-market roads, should be pursued to complement the cluster approach and maximize the benefits from spillovers.  BG should also continue business matching, trade facilitation, and technology transfer to sustain the momentum of market penetration by exporters and producers. Provision of TA (both hard inputs and capacity building) to small and micro-growers in isolated and conflict areas is also required to strengthen their role in the production-supply value chain. Lessons Learned  BG efforts were extensive and far-ranging—accounting for the second largest amount of funding in GEM-3 ($13.25 million). Interventions included assistance to Chambers of Commerce, Producer Associations, and BSOs. Thus, in some respects, the program was overly broad but capable of acting opportunistically to new business opportunities. In particular, the special activity fund afforded the implementers the flexibility to allot monies to activities where they thought project resources would have the most impact, focusing on clustered activities. This cluster approach seems to be an effective way of maximizing resources and fostering unity among those with similar interests. COMPONENT 5: FORMER COMBATANT REINTEGRATION Findings Table 16: Former Combatant Reintegration PROJECT TARGET COMPLETED SEPT. 2012 MNLF groups/communities assisted to produce high-value commodities 125 129 MNLF cooperatives/communities provided with pre/post-harvest facilities 50 50 The purpose of the Former Combatant Reintegration (FCR) component is to support MNLF former combatants in the development of agriculture and aquaculture production, demonstrating the benefits of peace and discouraging them from returning to armed conflict. The underlying development hypothesis posits that providing income-generating activities will address a previous conflict driver of perceived relative deprivation,57 while simultaneously raising the opportunity costs of reengaging in violent conflict, thereby helping to consolidate peace in Mindanao. Contribution to GEM-3 Principal Objectives FCR activities appear to contribute to GEM’s principal objectives in the areas where activities were implemented, however not enough information is available to make definite statements for non-GEM-3 assisted areas or for Mindanao as a whole. Based on qualitative data derived from key informant and focus group interviews 57 Coordinator for Reconstruction & Stabilization, US Department of State. “Philippines: Looking At Mindanao ICAF Report January 2011.” PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 32 with project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries from 21 projects,58 the evaluation team found that 81% reported some increase in income as a result of participation in FCR activities; 86% mentioned that they felt GEM (and other foreign donors) showed them more consideration than domestic government agencies; and 95% claimed that they have not engaged in major armed conflict since receiving FCR assistance. However, the majority of groups had witnessed or participated in smaller-scale rido (clan-based) violence and one group admitted to knowing of some former combatants who had joined the MILF. This data corresponds with data collected from the quantitative household survey: of the 42 respondents who knew former combatants who had participated in GEM, 36 (86%) said that those former combatants experienced an increase in household income; and the 80 respondents who answered what would cause former combatants to take up arms again, 28% said “nothing,” 20% said only “if they find the government insincere in fulfilling their promises,” and 16% said only “extreme poverty or no work.” These findings are also in line with information gathered from the evaluators’ desk review of secondary sources. The 2000 Mindanao State University-General Santos City Foundation (MSUFI) survey, which analyzed former-combatant assistance provided under GEM-1, confirmed a “clear perception of all the survey respondents [is] that the Emergency Livelihood Assistance Program (ELAP) program has been a great benefit to them;” 99% (595 of 598 respondents) believed “that the continued operation of the program will discourage fellow former combatants from resuming armed conflict;” and 86% made enough income to finance follow-on or expansion production.59 Although there are important differences between ELAP activities, which provided simple agriculture and aquaculture inputs and technical training to a broad group of MNLF former combatants, and GEM-3 FCR activities, which provided more targeted assistance to a smaller group of previous ELAP and Livelihood Enhance and Peace Project (LEAP) graduates to diversify into and market higher-value commodities, both sets of activities nevertheless worked towards the same general objective of assisting both MNLF former combatants and community members develop the means to make a better living. While the impact of FCR assistance clearly supported GEM-3’s principal development objectives in areas where FCR assistance was provided, the situation in non-targeted areas is less clear. The household survey of non￾GEM assisted barangays had too small a sample of returned MNLF combatants to be conclusive, i.e., villagers knew of 22 former MNLF combatants who had returned. Of the returnees, none reported any opportunities from gainful employment but respondents from three out of four barangays indicated increase in household income. Given security restrictions and the difficulties of gathering enough information to establish a reliable counterfactual, the evaluation team was not able to draw definitive findings or conclusions on this question. Generating Sustainable Economic Opportunities for MNLF Former Combatants GEM was successful in supporting MNLF former combatants to generate economic opportunities, but the success and sustainability appeared to vary by region and type of economic activity, with mainland Mindanao faring better than island communities. The evaluators found that 14 of 16 projects visited in North and South Cotabato succeeded in helping former combatants generate sustainable incomes, while this was only the case in one of five activities visited in Tawi-Tawi. Given the admittedly small sample of activities visited in island communities, the evaluators cannot draw definitive conclusions. However, it appeared that part of the problem in Tawi-Tawi was that post-input activities were not often followed up by technical support. In one case, a cooperative had been given vegetable seeds in 2008, without any consultation or needs assessment, and a one-day training, which had originally been planned to last three days but was cut back due to “transportation issues.” In another case, the co-op had been given a fish cage and over 1,000 fingerlings to raise and harvest under GEM-2. Shortly before their first harvest, inclement weather destroyed their fish cage and all but 10 of their adult fish escaped. The fish cage was never rebuilt, but the cooperative did receive a 58 Please see Annex 7 for list of communities and projects visited and Annex 9 for list of people contacted. 59 “ELAP Assessment Survey Report.” MSUFI. 2000. Pgs. 15-17. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 33 new plastic abalone cage capable of holding around 500 abalones under GEM-3. However, the low income generated from the past, failed fish production and current abalone production was insufficient to meet the members’ needs. The 100-member cooperative under GEM-2 had been reduced to just two members; the other members had taken other jobs, such as hollow block makers, construction workers, and other professions around Tawi-Tawi.60 The two remaining members reported that while the marginal profit made from the abalone production was welcomed, it was insufficient to provide for their livelihood needs and that they also had to supplement their incomes with income-generating activities, such as hollow block making, for which they already had requisite skills. Most Efficient and Effective FCR Component Activities For broad-based economic growth, GEM’s simple production activities under LEAP which were implemented under GEM-2, were generally appropriate for most beneficiaries, given its simple inputs, production technology, and readily available market. For more concentrated economic growth, GEM’s high￾value production activities, which were implemented under GEM-3, were efficient and effective for those cooperatives able to sustain production. Assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of the individual FCR activities requires a nuanced analysis of their intended results. In the paragraph below, the evaluators examined the choice between broad (to benefit a maximum number of people) and concentrated (targeted but deep) economic growth to reflect the difficult tradeoffs posed by post-conflict environments. Activities focused on breadth of economic growth: GEM’s simple-production activities, which occurred under GEM-1 and GEM-2, led to impressive results. Based on a sample size of 598 participants, the 2000 MSUFI survey found that 92% of participants had continued producing GEM-introduced crops following their graduation; 86% were able to garner savings for the purchase of future production inputs, equipment, and personal and educational expenses; and that 99.5% of participants perceived their participation as a “clear and direct benefit of the GOP-MNLF peace agreement.”61 These findings were validated by the Administrative and Financial Officer of the Bangsamoro Women’s Foundation for Peace and Development, Inc. (BWFPDI), who helped oversee BWFPDI’s participation in LEAP as well as their participation in nine other donor-supported FCR-focused activities. During an interview with three MNLF former combatants who had received GEM assistance in hybrid corn and high-value vegetable and freshwater-fish production in Barangay Buna, Tupi Municipality, all three responded that of the assistance provided, their most preferred was corn production, adding that they no longer engaged in fish production and only grew vegetables for private consumption. The two other focus groups to have received all three kinds of production assistance also reported that each had sustained their LEAP corn/rice production to this day. However, it should be noted that both also reported fish cultivation and vegetable production were more profitable. Although more substantial gains can be made from high-value agriculture and aquaculture production, demonstrated by the relative success of the Sumbakil and Polonuling Multipurpose Cooperatives, simple agriculture production of corn and rice was found to be more sustainable. None of the four groups interviewed involved in corn or rice production had experienced any difficulty in sustaining production. However, four of the ten groups interviewed engaged in high-value agriculture or aquaculture had either experienced difficulty or ceased production entirely. This difficulty was further articulated by separate key informant interviews at the Lato-Lato Hatchery, and with MinDA and GEM-3 staff. The GEM-3 staff member, who oversees GEM-3’s SAFE activities in Tawi-Tawi, including the assistance provided to FCR communities, estimated that the failure rate of fish production was around 5:1. This finding is also supported by the MSUFI survey, which found that 60 It should be noted that the availability of these other income-generating activities may likely be a result of the “dividends of peace,” which GEM certainly helped support, however the key informants did not mention that this was the case. 61 MSUFI Survey, pg.16. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 34 (although still sustainable) fish production was the least sustainable of the LEAP assistance activities. However, it should be noted that the survey studied fish production under GEM-1, not GEM-3, and is referenced here to demonstrate historical patterns. The grouper and milkfish production in Moro Point, Parang, for example, proved to have generated substantial financial gains to the community, but the unsustainable farming practices by the growers with adverse effects on marine environment and future productivity will likely offset the gains, resulting in a small ERR (see Annex 10). Activities focused on depth of economic growth: GEM’s high-value production (both agriculture and aquaculture) was found to be efficient and effective in significantly raising incomes in those communities who were able to sustain the activities (6 out of 10). MNLF cooperatives in Sumbakil, Polonuling, and Lake Sebu, South Cotabato; Moro Point, Maguindanao; and Balimbing, Tawi-Tawi were all particularly successful in increasing their household incomes and sustaining their production. Beneficiaries from all of these cooperatives noted that the high-value production was more complicated and required increased attention and patience, but that the benefits outweighed the costs. See Annex 10 for ERR of selected FCR projects—Buri weaving, milkfish and grouper fish cage production, Cardaba banana production and consolidation facility and seaweed solar dryer. In the four communities interviewed that experienced difficulty sustaining production, three of the barangays mentioned that the difficulty was due to low local market demand and high-cost of production inputs (particularly for fish feed), while the fourth found that production had been successful over two production cycles but that a non-project emergency (hospitalization of a cooperative member) had depleted cooperative funds for future production. Although the beneficiaries felt that the return was not substantial, they still intended to continue production once the funds were paid back. Consolidating Peace and Recidivistic Tendencies The question on the “effect of FCR programming on recidivism” is difficult to answer as GEM-3 had not set up any mechanism to track recidivism over time, either within the FCR communities or between FCR and non-GEM assisted barangays. Providing livelihood and economic activities to help former combatants reintegrate into the community is an important first step. This may encourage them to move away from using violence as a political weapon. There is no guarantee, however, that economic activities will remove former combatants’ sympathy for the cause.62 Furthermore, a study on Indonesia, including Aceh, where large amounts of foreign assistance have been provided, have shown that violence did not decrease after a peace agreement was signed, but that it shifted from large scale violence between government troops and rebels to more routine local violence.63 As mentioned above, information collected from field visits to FCR communities indicated that over 95% of former combatants reported that they had not engaged in major armed conflict since receiving FCR assistance. However, many of them had witnessed and/or participated in smaller-scale rido (clan-based) violence. The mutation of conflict is also emerging in an on-going study where data collected from January to April 2011 indicated that 77% of a total 13 violent conflict incidents involving members of the MNLF, and 40% of total 35 incidents involving members of the MILF, are rido-related. 64The FCR communities may be 62 Leaving Terrorism Behind. Eds. Tore Bjorgo and John Horgan. New York, Routledge, 2009. 63 New Patterns of Violence in Indonesia: Preliminary Evidence from Six “High Conflict” Provinces. The World Bank, November 2010. 64 World Bank-State and Peace Building Fund project ‘Conflict Monitoring System’ (pilot period, January to April 2011). GEM-3 supported backyard vegetable farming activity. This all-women’s cooperative, in a former combatant community, was able to raise over 1,000 eggplant plants on a previously unused plot of land. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 35 more peaceful than other areas with former combatants as the selection of 30 FCR sites were already Peace and Development Communities that had received project interventions from UNDP.65 This convergence of sites may provide potential synergy for a reduction in recidivism in the long run. Conclusions  GEM was successful in supporting MNLF former combatants to generate economic opportunities, but the sustainability and success appears to vary by type of economic activity and region, with mainland Mindanao faring better than island communities visited by the evaluation team.  GEM’s simple production activities under LEAP were appropriate for most beneficiaries given its simple inputs, production technology, and readily available market. By contrast, GEM’s high-value production activities were efficient and effective for those cooperatives able to sustain production.  There is a marked absence of LGU involvement in the FCR activities. Recommendations  Provide additional capacity-building assistance to FCR cooperatives and associations to help sustain activities and gains made under GEM-3.  Future assistance should be targeted towards conflict-affected communities, not individual former￾combatant cooperatives, in cases where these two are not synonymous, to help ameliorate underlying conflict drivers of resentment, jealousy, or feelings of deprivation found more broadly in the community.  Higher-value production activities should include more regular technical follow-up to ensure that appropriate practices are followed and provide rapid remedies to problematic production.  Consider providing multi-crop production, which can help shield small-scale farmers from external shocks and crop failures.  Involve LGUs in the implementation of this component to ensure follow up and sustainability when donor funding ends. Lessons Learned  The FCR beneficiaries are generally supportive of the assistance provided, but had useful suggestions for how to improve or adapt assistance, such as a more thorough needs assessments and direct consultation with the targeted community, as well as providing more frequent monitoring and technical follow-up. Beneficiaries also suggested that the range of support activities be increased and targeted at the communal, not former combatant level, possibly including the provision of entrepreneurial and skills training for women. Overall, this component provided much needed assistance to their intended beneficiaries. FCR-type projects should be continued and expanded but with a more comprehensive package of services to fully reintegrate former combatants into a peaceful society. COMPONENT 6: COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS (CPR) Findings 65 As defined in the 2011 “Act for Peace Terminal Report”, a PDC is a “geographic area where opportunities for development, access to basic services, participation in governance and capability-building for managing and resolving conflict may take place.” It has the following four key features: (1) marked by a convergence of peacebuilding and development activities; (2) a marginalized conflict￾affected community which becomes actively engaged in a process of mainstreaming with the help of development partners; (3) a key production areas which serves as a “resource center” managed by an active cooperative or community association; and (4) serves as a complementation hub of various inputs from difference Program components as well as other donor-assisted projects. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 36 The purpose of GEM communications and public relations (CPR) is to promote a balanced view of Mindanao through local, national, and international media in order to counter a perception of Mindanao as a “battleground” state and encourage investment in the region. It serves as GEM’s “public diplomacy arm” and focuses on highlighting key success stories, investment opportunities, USG visits, instances of GRP and USG cooperation, and select GEM activities around Mindanao. See Table 19 above for the main activities of the component. Contribution to Overall Development Objectives CPR’s contribution to the overall development objectives is indirect, but nevertheless important and facilitative. The evaluators were not able to find any evidence of CPR activities directly leading to broad-based, accelerated economic growth and the consolidation of peace in Mindanao. An appropriate assessment would be to focus on CPR’s indirect contribution—how did these activities facilitate or enable other GEM components to work towards their development objectives? According to this frame of reference, the evaluators found that activities helped raise awareness of USAID presence in Mindanao through the placement of over 762 related news articles and photos, which contributed to a few significant instances of direct investment in Mindanao. CPR far exceeded its intended targets outlined in the GEM-3 DAAD with a total of 5,502 placements placed in local and national dailies, magazines, news and information websites, and international publications.”66 With the proliferation of online media outlets and content aggregators such as the Philippines Information Agency, some GEM placements “take on a life of their own and have even shown up in newspapers as far away as the Middle East,” according to one key informant. Another key informant pointed to the fact that, prior to GEM’s efforts, not a single major news agency had a branch in Mindanao, whereas today, all the major agencies have a branch or dedicated correspondent in Mindanao. Difficulties in measuring changes in attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs, and specifically attributing those changes to specific CPR activities, as well as limitations in the evaluation purpose and resources, resulted in the evaluators being unable to produce concrete, verifiable findings on the extent to which CPR activities have changed perceptions of Mindanao. However, in an attempt to overcome these limitations, the evaluators were able to collect anecdotal evidence of a few specific instances where CPR placements had contributed to increased investment in Mindanao. A key informant interview indicated, and was subsequently confirmed during an Internet search, that GEM CPR and BG activities helped connect the Northern Mindanao Peanut Industry Association with peanut consolidators in Luzon, resulting in the sale of nearly 80 tons of peanuts a month.67 A Mega High-Value Multi-Species Hatchery manager also told evaluators that two of the hatchery’s foreign buyers of mature abalones had heard about the hatchery through stories placed in a major international seafood magazine. The evaluators also learned that another CPR placement in an international seafood magazine led to a U.S. seafood company setting up a seafood processing plant in General Santos City. As a further indicator of CPR’s success, the evaluators found that GEM twice received the Gold Quill Merit Award by the International Association of Business Communicators for their work promoting local 66 “USAID’S GEM-3 Quarterly Report: April 1, 2012 - June 30, 2012.” Pg.83. 67 “Mindanao Pioneers Commercial Peanut Farming,” http://www.newsflash.org/2001/03/be/be001577.htm Table 17: Communications and Public Relations Accomplishments ACTIVITIES COMPLETED SEPT. 2012 News articles and photos releases 762 Placements in local and national dailies, magazines, news and information websites, and international publications 5502 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 37 Mindanao businesses.68 Prevalence of “GEM brand” There is a strong association between GEM and USAID/USG assistance among program beneficiaries, although only a few expressed this was a result of major CPR activities. Eighteen out of 21 beneficiary groups interviewed by the CPR team correctly associated GEM with USAID, and, when further probed, the USG or “the American people.” However, all those interviewed attributed the primary reason for knowing this association to project plaques and signage found on the project sites, which although produced by the CPR team, do not constitute a major activity. Beneficiaries from only two of the 21 groups indicated that they had also heard about GEM and USAID in their local newspapers or radio stations. During separate, key informant interviews with CPR staff in Davao and Manila, respondents were careful to emphasize that GEM had paid significant attention to making sure that CPR outputs emphasized that GEM assistance was provided “thorough USAID and ‘from the American People.’” Key informants also stressed that the name Louis Berger was never mentioned in their print publications. This statement was corroborated by the evaluation team’s review of 13 CPR-produced news articles. The key informants also noted that new procedures implemented last year now require that USAID’s Program Resources Management (PRM) office and the Public Affairs Section (PAS) of the U.S. Embassy review and clear all written program materials, ensuring they mentioned that GEM assistance is provided by the USG. Building on the qualitative data gathered from their structured key informant interviews, the evaluators relied on observational data to answer the more subjective evaluation questions of the “worth,” synergistic effects, and implications for continued use of the GEM brand. There was a clear facilitative advantage to using the GEM name during the scheduling and conduct of interviews. The evaluators noted that respondents generally reacted positively when mentioning GEM—in the form of smiling, nodding, and otherwise receptive body language—and were more rapidly able to identify which assistance projects the evaluators were making reference to. Although 86% of respondents associated GEM with USAID when probed, it was clear to the evaluators that the GEM “brand,” not the USAID “brand,” was foremost in their minds. Evaluators also noted that respondents demonstrated similar positive reactions to other assistance brands, such as “Act for Peace,” but that these reactions were most noticeable when mentioning specific program/project names (e.g. “GEM,” “Act for Peace,” etc.) compared to donors names (USAID, UNDP, etc.) which were generally associated with multiple projects. Unfortunately, given the less rigorous qualitative methods used, the evaluators are not able to confidently conclude that the GEM, or similar, project-specific name, would gain positive implications from future use; however, indications are that it would, especially since it is well-known to MLGUs who provided counterpart funding for the infrastructure projects.. Conclusions  CPR’s contribution to overall development objectives is tenuous and indirect, but nevertheless important and facilitative.  There is a strong association between GEM and USAID/USG assistance among program beneficiaries, although only a few expressed this as a result of CPR activities. Recommendations  Streamline the PRM/PAS approval process so that CPR stories can be timelier and better capture audience attention by linking with topical stories of interest.  Focus placements on interest/industry-specific publications to encourage more direct investments. 68 http://discovery.iabc.com/view.php?pid=1069 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 38 Lessons Learned  The CPR far exceeded its target outputs and spurred instances of direct investment in Mindanao as a result of its activities. However, CPR staff mentioned that recent changes in the clearance process, now needing PRM and PAS approval before stories can be made publically available, has slowed their process significantly and as a result, the CPR team has to focus on less time-sensitive stories and coverage of larger events. A more streamlined approval process would facilitate the publication of more topical stories that could potentially garner more interest and attention. COMPONENT 7: SUPPORT SERVICES Findings The purpose of the Support Services (SS) component is to facilitate the coordination, security, and transportation of USG officials, visitors, and representatives while in Mindanao on official business or partaking in on-request site visits to GEM or other USG development projects. SS has a fleet of 57 vehicles, including six lightly armed light trucks, with drivers in all major regions throughout Mindanao. SS was not designed to contribute directly to the overall development objectives, but facilitated GEM-3 and other USAID/USG activities through key logistical support and local operational knowledge. As direct beneficiaries for four weeks, the evaluators were able to gain a firsthand account of the services provided. The evaluators were transported to all meetings with beneficiaries, government officials, and USAID and GEM representatives in a consistent, timely, and reliable manner. They were able to increase the number of barangays visited due to efficient planning and route knowledge, as well as access to more remote barangays than would have been possible through local transportation or taxi. They also benefitted from security bulletins: one of the evaluation sub-teams did not continue with its planned itinerary to visit volatile areas in Maguindanao where skirmishes had broken out between the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters. Key informant and group interviews with GEM staff echoed the evaluators’ own experience and underscored the component’s key support in getting GEM staff and US visitors “out in the field” safely and efficiently. Key informant interviews with USAID staff not directly involved in GEM-3 activities further underscored the evaluators’ findings. “[SS staff] has been very professional and responsive…they are flexible when things fall apart and have good enough relationships with local contacts to explain that [last minute cancellation] are often out of our control…Gloria [USAID/Philippines Mission Director] always says ‘copy GEM when we need to organize VIP visits,’” commented one USAID specialist. Another USAID staff member echoed similar views and noted that the services were in such high demand that requests for services were sometimes turned down, given the need to focus on GEM activities or other priority visits. Towards the end of the interview, both agreed that the Mission RSO officers “had very high standards” and would not choose to work with GEM if they did not think their services were efficient, safe, and effective. When asked if SS is a necessary component for USAID/USG programming success in Mindanao, all key informants interviewed answered “yes” and stressed the importance of being able to access remote project sites and the ability to confidently and securely arrange for high-level meetings, visits, or business activities as the key contributions of this component to USAID/USG programming in the region. The evaluators noted that the GEM-3 evaluation itself illustrated the contribution of the services to USAID GEM-3 security staff escorting evaluation team during fieldwork in Tawi-Tawi. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 39 programming, as they were able to access a larger number of barangays and interviewees, many in remote and/or unsafe areas, then would have been possible through other public transportation. Although difficult to quantify and measure, SS facilitation of VIP visits also significantly contributed to the “public diplomacy” efforts of GEM, USAID, and USG. Interviewees from GEM, USAID, and even the local barangay officials told the evaluators that many visits by U.S. Ambassadors, Mission and Deputy Directors, and other higher￾level officials would not be possible, certainly not with the current frequency, if not for GEM Support Services. Conclusions  SS was not designed to contribute directly to the overall development objectives, but facilitated GEM-3 and other USAID/USG activities through key logistical support and local operational knowledge. Recommendations  Continue the preparation, security and logistical arrangements for VIP visits and special events as currently implemented under SS. Lessons Learned  Well planned and organized field visits and events complemented by good security arrangements in conflict-affected areas are crucial in supporting the implementation of a development program, especially one that is high profile in the Philippines and in the US. IV. CROSS-CUTTING ELEMENTS RELEVANCE AND SELECTIVITY Government Peace and Development Strategy for Mindanao GEM-3 addressed relevant and priority areas in Mindanao that were consistent with the Philippine national government peace and development strategies. The goals of the peace process as articulated in the MTPDP for 2004 to 2010 were as follows:69  Completion of comprehensive peace agreements with rebel groups resulting in the permanent cessation of armed hostilities by 2010;  Completion of implementation of all final peace agreements signed since 1986;  Mainstreaming of rebel groups through an enhanced amnesty, reintegration, and reconciliation program;  Rehabilitation, development, and healing of conflict-affected areas; and  Strengthening of peace constituency and citizens’ participation in the peace process on the ground The program was also relevant to the goals of two key government organizations, namely, the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) and MinDA, who are tasked respectively to oversee, coordinate, and implement the comprehensive peace process for the country as a whole and to help integrate a development framework that is consistent with the peace and development initiatives of the national 69 Medium-Term Philippines Development Plan (MTPDP), National Economic and Development Authority, Government of the Philippines, 2004. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 40 government for Mindanao in particular.70 Relevance and Links to Peace and Development Objectives GEM-3 was relevant and contributed to four out of five goals linked to the peace and development objectives of the national and regional governments. Among the various components of GEM-3, the infrastructure program had the most relevance for achieving the implementation of the signed peace agreements (goal #2) and the rehabilitation, development, and healing of conflict-affected areas (goal #4). The GRP had promised peace dividends to the people in the form of economic development assistance for signing peace agreements. GEM-3 infrastructure projects had the most visibility in terms of development assistance and benefited a large number of people. GEM-3’s FCR component had specific relevance for integrating former rebel groups into their communities (see goal #3). The FCR component appears to address the MNLF former combatants’ priority needs for a better livelihood. For more details, see the FCR component under Findings, above. Regarding relevance for the peace objective (goal #5), the links are more tenuous; it becomes harder to state with certainty whether GEM-3 had a direct impact in bringing about peace in Mindanao. The evaluation survey reported that when local residents were asked whether their local BIPs had helped reduce violence in their community, 70% (418 of 601respondents) acknowledged that this appeared to be the case. When asked if the BIP was helping to bring about peace in Mindanao, 60% (360 of 601 persons responding) said, “they thought it was helping,” while others said, “they didn’t know.” 71 The FCR component, while generally seen in a positive light, was reported by interview respondents from one group as a source of conflict within their community, resulting in tension between the beneficiaries (the MNLF former combatants) and the non￾beneficiaries (other community members), as the former was seen as being constantly favored by donors at the expense of the latter Other studies have reported that improved economic conditions may not necessarily lead to reductions in conflict and violence. A study using data from the Philippines and Iraq found more occurrences of lethal attacks against security forces in areas with higher employment.72 Another study of six provinces in Indonesia, including Aceh, where large amounts of foreign assistance have been provided, showed that conflict actors are fluid, violence did not decrease after a peace agreement was signed, and that the form of violence between government troops and rebels shifted from large scale violence to more routine violence, such as fights between neighborhood gangs, political disputes, land issues, and old conflicts.73 A similar study has begun for Mindanao and preliminary results indicate that mutations of conflict are present—77% of a total 13 violent conflict incidents involving MNLF and 40% of a total 35 incidents involving MILF are rido-related during the period January–April 2011.74 This informs us that the fluidity and mutations of conflict pose challenges for the peace and security of the region and that continued investment in peace-building programs in conflict-affected areas is necessary. Comparative Advantage of USAID Development and peace/security are two sides of a coin. Development assistance is necessary, but not sufficient. It is necessary to “bring security and development together first to smooth the transition from 70 Meetings notes with OPAPP in Manila, July 27, 2012; MinDA in Davao, August 7, 2012. OPAPP - http://opapp.gov.ph/what-is￾opapp. MinDA Act of 2010. 71 Ibid. 72 Do Working Men Rebel? Insurgency and Unemployment in Iraq and the Philippines. Eli Berman, Joseph Felteer and Jacob Shapiro, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, 155547, November 2009. 73 New Patterns of Violence in Indonesia: Preliminary Evidence from Six “High Conflict” Provinces. The World Bank, November 2010. 74 World Bank-State and Peace Building Fund project ‘Conflict Monitoring System’ (pilot period, January to April 2011). PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 41 conflict to peace and then to embed stability so that development can take hold over a decade and beyond.”75 Such is the case for Mindanao. USAID has a comparative advantage among the donors, as it assists with both development and security. In development, USAID has already made a strong name for itself in Mindanao through the last 17 years of GEM, especially through infrastructure and private-sector assistance. GEM-3 has developed strong relationships with many LGUs in Mindanao. Combined with other USAID programs in agriculture, education, health, and governance, USAID has a strong comparative advantage of multi-sector development in Mindanao. The concomitant side of “securing development” is a safe and secure environment in which to work. This is not a question of sequencing but of simultaneity. The fluidity and mutations of conflict pose challenges for peace and stability in Mindanao; continued investment in security in conflict-affected areas is necessary. The U.S. Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTF-P) is already working with USAID, “securing development” in six priority conflict areas in Mindanao. Good baseline, strong monitoring, and regular assessments will be needed to test this framework and obtain lessons learned for a wider replication later on. EFFECTIVENESS Accomplishment of Objectives The evaluation did not focus on impact but on the performance of GEM-3 as laid out in the DAAD 2006. As such, one can say GEM-3 performance has been on track and will achieve all the physical targets laid out in the project documents by end of project life in December 2012. It is too early to assess the efficacy of the program but trends can be seen as follows:  Objective 1 on accelerating economic growth in Mindanao: while it is difficult to say whether economic growth has been accelerated, one can say that GEM-3 has facilitated and laid the foundation for economic growth in Mindanao.  Objective 2 on helping to assure that as many people as possible participate in and benefit from the growth: one can say that this objective has been achieved in that GEM-3 has touched the lives of many people, especially rural residents, who have benefitted from infrastructure projects.  Objective 3 on helping to bring about and consolidate peace in Mindanao: this objective is difficult to assess, especially because there is no baseline data to measure the situation of peace before and after the program. Published studies have reported that improved economic condition is necessary but not sufficient to lead to reductions in conflict and violence. The evaluation in GEM-assisted barangays indicated that residents perceived improved security in their barangays. While this perception has to be substantiated by data, say of incidences and frequency of violent actions, one can be hopeful that perception will lead to behavior of peace. Table 18 below shows how the budget is divided among the seven components with Infrastructure Development component commanding the largest share of the GEM-3 budget (67%). Table 18: GEM-3 Costs by CLIN CLIN AMOUNT (US $) PERCENTAGE CLIN 1: Infrastructure Development $65,724,739 (67%) CLIN 2: Business Development $13,250,085 (includes FCR) (13%) CLIN 3: Workforce Preparation $13,087,485 (13%) 75 “Fragile States: Securing Development”. Speech given by Robert B. Zoellick, former President of The World Bank Group at The International Institute for Strategic Studies, Geneva, Switzerland, September 12, 2008. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 42 CLIN 4: Governance Improvement $5,133,487 (5%) CLIN 5: Other Activities $1,754,317 (2%) TOTAL $98,950,113 (100%) The infrastructure projects certainly assisted economic growth at the local level and promoted participation of LGUs at both the municipal and barangay levels, mainly in counterpart contribution. Other GEM-3 activities (e.g., workforce preparation, business growth, governance improvement, and FCR) made contributions to economic growth and participation in conflict-affected regions. The program generated people’s perceptions of reduced violence in project-assisted barangays. Conflicts, however, continued to occur, even during the time of the evaluation; the evaluation team had to cancel planned visits to field sites deemed unsafe by the GEM security officer. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Program Infrastructure was a strong component of GEM-3, based on target completion data and widespread implementation that served a relatively large rural population; in the opinion of local residents, it made a difference in their perception of improved conditions for peace in the ARMM and conflict-affected areas of Mindanao. The main weakness of the program was the incompleteness of the intervention packages of the other components, thereby, reducing their effectiveness and sustainability. For example, besides light TA and incentives for REAP, the component would have benefitted significantly from deeper TA with MLGUs, especially for better use of additional revenues collected, and from working with provincial governments to improve local revenue code and real property tax revisions. GEM-3 could have benefitted from more comprehensive component packages and stronger linkages with verifiable indicators need to be made with economic development activities and consolidation of peace and order. Umbrella Assistance Approach The umbrella assistance approach reportedly worked well, especially for management. Discussions with GEM-3 staff confirmed that management and logistical costs were lower than if each GEM-3 component had to operate independently. However, no cost data by sub-components was made available to the evaluation team so this assertion is difficult to substantiate. Technical Assistance, Training, and Partnerships Technical assistance, training, and partnerships have been reported to target the appropriate beneficiaries to ensure the achievement of program targets. Provision of deeper TA, training and monitoring for the non-infrastructure components would have generated greater benefits and ensured better sustainability of completed projects. The US Mission found it necessary to strengthen the interagency collaboration, coordination and synchronization of its various programs in Mindanao through an internal Mindanao Working Group.76 This is a step in the right direction. EFFICIENCY Program Management Structures and Implementing Tools Interviews were conducted with the former GEM-3 chief of party (COP) as well as the Acting GEM-3 COP. 76 US Mission Manila’s Mindanao Strategy, May 2011. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 43 Both individuals cited the added value gained by USAID’s umbrella management structure. Overlapping responsibilities by managers resulted in reduced staffing levels and reduced costs with respect to sharing resources for logistical operations. However, Louis Berger, Inc. did not share any cost data on sub￾components and services to validate the point. Information from another source, the USAID 2011 audit report on GEM-3, mentioned the program’s high support costs. The audit’s financial analysis of expenditures under the program’s infrastructure component revealed that its support costs―originally expected to represent 18% of the component’s total costs―was projected to double the amount planned.77 This meant that the support costs of the infrastructure component were about 36%, a figure considered “higher than expected” by the Office of Inspector General. Appropriate Management and Staffing of GEM-3 Program The question of whether the various activities and projects carried out through GEM-3 have been appropriately managed and staffed is difficult to answer. The team had limited access to information on staffing levels by component areas and therefore cannot respond to whether staffing levels were appropriate. Nonetheless, the GEM-3 organizational chart indicated that, as of April 2012, the program had 370 staff members employed in management, technical, administrative and support positions. Staff distribution was skewed towards the infrastructure component, which comprised the majority (45.9%) of total staff employed, followed by overall management, administrative, accounting, contracts, security and communication (38.6%), and business growth (8.1%). In terms of intensity of staffing levels, measured by project accomplishments per staff employed (project-to-staff ratio) by component, the workforce preparation and governance components stood out where, on average, each employee handled 60.2 projects. Note, however, that the designated project accomplishments under these two components mainly referred to individual inputs (e.g., internship or scholarship recipients) as opposed to other components, which captured outputs. The FCR component, which employed only 1.9% of total staff members, had a project-to-staff ratio of 25.6—an indication that staffing level of FCR component was either highly productive or overburdened. (See Table 19). Table 19: Staffing Levels by Components COMPONENTS NO. OF STAFF EMPLOYED SHARE PROJECTa -TO-STAFF RATIO Infrastructure 170 45.9% 4.3 Business growth 30 8.1% 8.4 Workforce Preparation and Governance 27b 7.3% 60.2 Former Combatant Reintegration 7 1.9% 25.6 Others 143c 38.6% 18.2d TOTAL 234 100.0% 11.1d a Number of projects refer to LOP accomplishments, as of September 2012. b Workforce preparation and governance component share the same management staff c Includes GEM-3 overall management, contracts, accounting, administrative, security and communication staff d Number of projects refers to total LOP accomplishments across all components, as of September 2012 Source: GEM-3 Program Organizational Chart, as of April 2012. Adequacy of Management and Oversight Cost Another question the evaluation team found difficult to answer was whether the management and oversight cost was suitable, given the number and scope of activities carried out. The implementing partner did not 77 Audit of USAID/Philippines’ Growth with Equity in Mindanao (GEM-3) Program, 2011, p 10. Support costs are defined as (1) salaries for GEM staff, (2) overhead and fringe benefits, (3) travel, per diem, and allowances, and (4) other direct costs. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 44 allow the evaluation team to examine any cost data beyond CLIN allocations by component and basic figures provided on infrastructure average costs. MinDA could not shed light on this question either as it was not provided with management cost information by USAID or Louis Berger. Efficiency of USAID Oversight and Management of GEM-3 How efficient was the USAID oversight and management of GEM-3 and how could it be improved? In some respects, the oversight provided by the USAID COTR over the long life of three GEM projects was quite involved and reflected a hands-on management style—even to the point of reportedly micro-managing the program.78 In retrospect, the GEM projects became overly identified as the operational domain of a single person. No independent external evaluation of the GEM program was conducted over a 17-year period. Based on USAID’s evaluation policy of 2011, all projects would now have to undertake regular evaluations. The USAID PRM unit should design a results framework with well-defined strategic objectives with verifiable indicators for anticipated new programs that will replace GEM-3. The Philippines government also has a role in the oversight and management of GEM-3. USAID and MinDA signed an agreement (for Mindanao Peace and Development) at the beginning of GEM-3 making the latter chair of the steering and management committees. MinDA’s main role is to ensure that the USAID-assisted projects are in line with the government’s priorities, to approve funding under the special activity fund, to monitor the achievement of physical targets, and to follow up with LGUs regarding problems, especially related to resettlement for right of way matters in infrastructure projects. While the activities allowed MinDA to participate in GEM-3, MinDA expressed interest in a more meaningful role, such as in the design of the program (which was already set by USAID during the RFP stage), along with the ability to suggest changes in the infrastructure menu, and to receive full disclosure of financial information for transparency and to make informed recommendations.79 Based on interviews with other national and international development agencies, USAID tended towards autonomy, with limited interaction with these organizations. Given reduction in development resources today, USAID would be prudent to work with other organizations to achieve a improved rate of investment on taxpayer’s dollars. Umbrella Project Design and Efficient Use of Program Resources and Synergies among the Different Program Components From a management perspective, the umbrella approach worked well enough, given the scope and depth of GEM-3. Although the evaluation team lacked access to cost data beyond the CLIN allocation, it is reasonable to assume that an individual component contractor performing the same tasks as GEM-3 would have been more expensive than if undertaken by a single contractor. The umbrella approach enabled GEM-3 to share resources and to work on a larger and broader geographic scale. Since cost data on sub-components and support was not available to the evaluation team, no remarks can be made with reference to the cost￾effectiveness of different components. GENDER Implementation of the GEM-3 Gender Action Plan The Gender Action Plan (February 2008) addressed all program components and sub-components. A total of 51 benchmarks were established for the GEM program components; these offered a thorough treatment of potential gender issues in GEM, and guidelines for implementers were comprehensive. In practice, however, the Action Plan was incompletely implemented and monitored. In job creation, it had to be adapted to local cultural practices. Infrastructure: Under the Infrastructure component, the Gender Action Plan promised to “ensure that 78 Personal communication, former DCOP. 79 Evaluation team meeting with MinDA in Davao on August 7, 2012. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 45 women are represented equitably during all stages of project identification, design, construction, and operations.” Rather than engage in site-specific consultations, the document proposed a series of four or five generic consultations with women’s groups to ensure that “women’s generic perspectives are represented.” According to GEM Infrastructure managers, some of these discussions were held in 2008, but their implementation, along with the way in which results were incorporated into infrastructure project designs is unclear to the evaluators. In infrastructure design, the primary equity issue is ease and quality of access for all. Women’s concerns are to be “reflected in the design of all projects as appropriate and feasible.” Final designs would be furnished to municipal and provincial authorities and “made available for perusal by women’s groups among others.” GEM Infrastructure managers and local authorities assured evaluators that discussions during initial public consultations at proposed BIP sites were occurring and that women were making design suggestions, which included shorter step size and railings on boat landings and separate toilets at trading centers. Final designs are approved by the municipalities, but they are not open to further discussion by local citizens. The MOU signed with municipalities contains a section on commitment to gender equity. In this, the parties agree to a series of benchmarks, including: taking women’s concerns into account; discussion of preliminary and final designs with women’s groups; equality of access to jobs; and 30% of all new jobs created to go to women. Temporary jobs generated by infrastructure project construction should be equally accessible to men and women. Sub-contractors have to report the number and percentage of women hired as part of the construction process; a statement to this effect is included in their contracts and this information is to be included in GEM’s Quarterly Reports. GEM also pledged to ensure that any operations and maintenance employment generated by these projects would be equally accessible to men and women. As GEM-3 progressed, further consultations with municipalities, women’s groups, and construction sub￾contractors revealed it culturally impossible to meet such a high level of jobs for women in a field where manual labor on infrastructure is almost entirely male, both within small construction businesses and in local communities. LGUs and sub-contractors consequently asked for this obligation to be waived. However, GEM maintains that many of their sub-contractor engineers and owners have been female. The GAP includes a series of benchmarks for inclusion in the BUM. The benefits to women for each infrastructure project should have been identified in discussions with women and with women’s groups in beneficiary communities. If projects fail to provide intended benefits to women, rectification plans should be implemented and their outcomes assessed. Moreover, project benefits to women should be quantified, if feasible and appropriate. Significant and unanticipated benefits to women should be written up as “best practices.” Quantification of women’s benefits has not been noted in GEM documentation. Intended benefits to women are not included in initial project rationales and inspection results, but there is mention of women as a percentage of beneficiaries in BIP-concurrence requests to USAID and MinDA. Quarterly reports contain beneficiary numbers, but they are not disaggregated, nor is there any mention of women’s special concerns and benefits. In the latest BUM report on 1,380 completed projects, information on women’s participation or benefits is only occasionally included. Workforce Preparation: Because of its many activities, the workforce preparation component had 18 benchmarks in the GAP. The various measures included in the GAP to ensure equal inclusion of female teachers and girls in the classroom for the CLIC program proved unnecessary, due to a plurality of girls and a large majority of female teachers in these schools. Visits to 10 schools by evaluators revealed that participants in the CLIC program are indeed primarily female. Of 22 teachers trained in these schools, 73% are female. Of the 500 students reported by five schools to be using the computer laboratory, 56% are female. Regarding the PTAs with which GEM worked in these schools, female membership ranged from 80% to 90%. This means that comments and recommendations provided during CLIC and matching grant discussions are mostly PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 46 women’s voices. A majority of females in student bodies and the strong majority of women among school teachers and PTA members have meant that a majority of beneficiaries in the EMGP have been female. A list of 71 PRIDE graduates from various parts of Mindanao contains a slight plurality of females (52%) over males. This is due, in part, to the preferences of hosting organizations. In service-related companies, such as hotels and restaurants, managers prefer female employees because of their perceived eye to detail, steadiness, and superiority in interacting with guests. Interns interviewed stated that to their knowledge, gender is not a factor in the selection process; rather, skills and experience qualifications are the top considerations. JEEP was designed to assist colleges and universities throughout Mindanao to establish computer-based, English-language training programs. According to JEEP training data, between 2009 and 2012 a total of 930 teachers and technical staff were provided capacity-building support on JEEP and IT-related programs, of which 70% have been female. The same breakdown is found in the number of male and female JEEP teachers in the four schools visited. In these schools, 39 English teachers have been involved in the program, of which 69% are female. School management stated that it is a matter of school policy to ensure equal access to males and females in capacity building; however, in the final screening and evaluation process, a majority of those qualifying as regular JEEP teachers have been female. Governance Improvement: Governance improvement activities are divided into those addressing human resource development of young leaders (CIPYML) and those focused on working with municipal institutions to generate supplementary revenue (REAP). A number of procedural benchmarks were established under GAP for CIPYML: materials publicizing the program would emphasize equal access of men and women in application; recruitment would stress a gender-blind selection process; equality of participation for men and women would be stressed; and effort would be made to ensure that each group selected for participation would include a percentage of women at least equal to that applying. These prescriptions have been respected and efforts to include women in CIPYML have been very successful. There have been 149 intern graduates in the six cohorts of GEM-3, of which 60% are women. While sex disaggregation of graduates is reported in GEM quarterly reports, this is not the case for the regional representation and employment status of these graduates. The GAP for the REAP program states that additional revenues generated by municipalities should be used to improve the scope and quality of municipal services and that these services should provide equal benefits to men and women. Moreover, incentives provided to LGUs had to be equally accessible to men and women. MOUs signed between GEM and LGUs do include a gender equity clause and specify the responsibilities of municipalities to employ additional revenue for development and social service ends. However, not only is this revenue inconsistently devoted to development investments, but there is no indication that municipalities pay any attention to the gender equity clause of their MOUs with GEM. The REAP benchmarks do not include references to sex disaggregation of participants in training activities nor to composition of the TWG and Tax IEC teams in participating REAP municipalities. Evaluators found that, in six municipalities, two of every three members of these groups are men (67%), but that there are more female tax collectors (53%) than male (47%). Business Growth: The stated objective under business growth was to verify that GEM’s support was “equitably available to men and women.” One benchmark each referred to working with BSOs, training activities, and participation in GEM-sponsored trade fairs, exhibits, and conferences. Membership in BSOs was to be open to men and women equally and organizational activities should be equally accessible to both. To that end, BSO charters and operating guidelines were to include one or more clauses ensuring gender equity. Training provided or supported by GEM was to be available equally to men and women, and training reports would be disaggregated by gender to verify equality of access. Finally, participation in trade fairs, exhibits, and conferences would be open equally to men and women and GEM would work with PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 47 organizations to ensure that an equal number of women could participate. Not only did GEM insert gender equity clauses into BSO charters and guidelines, but at least five of the 12 Chambers of Commerce with which GEM worked have elected women as presidents, and over half the project officers are women. It is still unclear to what degree GEM worked with BSOs to ensure equitable representation of women in trade fairs, exhibits, and conferences. Lists of participants in training and other events have been disaggregated by sex, but membership in assisted BSOs and attendance in training or other events was simply made available to all participants. No analysis was made of gender-based issues or barriers in participation or attendance. As in other GEM components, project management did not take a position in which it actively tried to redress gender imbalances in BSO membership nor access to special events, and it is not known to what degree these may or may not exist in practice. The same GAP benchmarks applied to GEM’s work with producers and producer associations to introduce high-value crops and aquaculture species and assist these organizations to expand their market share. As in the case of BSOs, while attendance in training and other events was tracked and sex-disaggregated, there is no indication that a proactive role was taken by GEM management to seek out or redress gender-based barriers to association membership, participation, access to resources, or attendance at GEM-sponsored training or other events. GEM admits that while TCEP activities are open to all, attendance at activities is limited by poor and expensive transportation, neither of which is covered by GEM. It is not clear whether this places a greater burden on female attendance than that of males, but it is likely. Former Combatant Reintegration: The GAP under Business Growth, for its work with 50 FCR communities to supply pre- and post-harvest facilities, established three benchmarks. The GAP clearly states in its first FCR-related benchmark that information to be collected in the “generic” infrastructure focus groups was to be used to ensure that women’s perspectives would be “given due consideration” in the identification, design, and location of infrastructure delivered to these communities. It is unclear to what degree these infrastructure-oriented women’s focus groups were carried out and how their results were used to inform infrastructure projects. In these 50 communities, any MOUs signed between GEM and LGUs or cooperatives should contain a clause mandating gender equality in access and use of pre- and post-harvest facilities and any employment involved in the operations and maintenance of these facilities would be open equally to men and women. Finally, any training provided by GEM would be open equally to men and women, and training reports would disaggregate attendees by sex. Beneficiaries stated that trainings were open to both men and women and that the identification, design, or location of the pre/post-harvest facilities did not overlook any unique gender concerns. The GAP does not address the 125 FCR producer associations assisted in the production of high￾value horticulture commodities. However, these associations are implicitly covered by the TCEP benchmarks. Mainstreaming of Gender Concerns into GEM-3 Activities Beyond the 51 benchmarks of 2008 GAP and initial consultation in the infrastructure component with women’s groups on generic gender issues and concerns, attention to or follow-up on these gender concerns has been mixed. In Infrastructure, benchmarks related to women’s access to jobs had to be waived as culturally inapplicable. In Workforce Preparation, participants and beneficiaries in PTAs and among teachers and students all appropriately reflected a pre-existing plurality of females in each. In the CIPYML and PRIDE internship programs women also constitute a slight majority. In Governance Improvement, women predominate in tax collection teams, but the opposite is true in the TWG and IEC teams. In BG and FCR activities, women have played a prominent role in Chambers of Commerce, but their roles in various types of producer associations are unclear and unreported. The statement made in the GAP’s introduction—that progress made on each benchmark would be included in GEM’s quarterly reports and that all program impact information should be disaggregated to ensure that PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 48 benefits to women can be identified, assessed, and described—generally has not been followed in practice. Moreover, the BUM has not carried out its GAP pledge to assess the degree to which that GEM-supported projects provide intended benefits to intended beneficiaries. In short, while GEM-3 appeared to mainstream gender issues and concerns into its projects and activities, it subsequently failed to carry out many of its pledged intentions. Addressing Gender Issues GEM-3 did disaggregate training data and placed statements on gender equity in BSO and PASS draft charters, in MOUs with producer associations, PTAs, and MLGUs, and in BIP sub-contractor contracts. Sex￾disaggregated data do exist to verify a high degree of female participation in the workforce preparation component, except among students enrolled in JEEP. The degree to which women participated in governance improvement and business growth training and special events can be verified as well through these data. If sex-disaggregated data on employment during or after BIP construction exist, they have not been provided by GEM in quarterly or BUM reports. The same is true for employment generated through assistance to BSOs and producer associations. Apart from generation of some sex-disaggregated data and insertion of gender equity language into agreements with some program partners, there is little evidence supporting discussions with women’s groups or disaggregated data to identify women’s issues, concerns, or even traditional barriers to equal access to GEM-sponsored training, resources, and activities. These are likely to have been subtle and linked to traditional gender social and economic roles, especially in the case of producer associations. Elements Lacking in GEM Design and Implementation Part of the problem in addressing gender issues in this program is that beneficiary impact data are generally not available in GEM reports, beyond anecdotal references and participant counts. Nearly two dozen life-of￾program targets were tracked by GEM, but there has been little follow-up information on outcomes, beneficiaries, or linkage to higher-level objectives such as economic growth or the consolidation of peace. While the intention has been to ensure gender equality of access to benefits, only in the intern and scholarship programs are targets stated in human terms. USAID did give GEM-3 staff a gender orientation early on to enable them to prepare a Gender Action Plan. Nevertheless, the vast majority of program targets continued to be stated as physical outputs: BIPs and RIPs, chambers, associations, BSOs, export sales and volumes, expansions, resorts, facilities, communities, schools, grants, colleges/universities, and LGUs. Program results could have followed up on benefits to men and women. In the future, a formulated GAP should be respected and followed, but it should be linked to a gender analysis up front. Since a contractor is often absorbed in achieving specified outputs and targets, USAID should ensure that attention to gender is not made subservient to target achievement. Some of the targets themselves should be gender-specific, especially in areas of possible inequality. SUSTAINABILITY Sustainability of the Results and Impacts of GEM-3 Activities The most immediate elements of sustainability are the continued operation and maintenance of the equipment or systems put in place. Ultimately, sustainability also refers to the continuation or spread of the project activities themselves, in the absence of the original funder and promoter. Except for the infrastructure, CLIC and JEEP projects implemented under GEM, for which maintenance agreements have been signed with various levels of LGUs, no formal plan has been devised by GEM and agreed upon by partners or proponents through which project equipment and activities are to be maintained in the short run, or the project model is to be continued and expanded over the longer run. In the absence of PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 49 donor contributions, the ability of even municipal governments to supply needed infrastructure projects to their populations in the future is extremely limited. This has been one reason for the highly visible and successful impact of the infrastructure component under GEM. On the other hand, the other partner entities under GEM-3 are now casting about to ensure the maintenance and/or continuation of the various activities from which they have benefitted. This includes the Municipal Planning and Development Offices (MPDO) of municipalities, elementary and high schools and their PTAs under CLIC and EMGP, colleges and universities involved in JEEP, municipal LGUs under REAP, graduates and former interns under CIPYML and PRIDE, and BSOs and producer associations and cooperatives under the BG component. Evaluators were able to investigate some of these partner solutions for maintenance and continuation of GEM activities. At present, there would appear to be few public or private entities willing to pick these up. With the exception of the infrastructure component and the CLIC and JEEP projects under the Workforce Component, GEM has not been active as yet in assisting partners to develop sustainability plans. Infrastructure The plan for sustainability in GEM projects is contained in the MOU between G'EM and the municipal government where the project will be constructed. The MOU contains an article, “Project Operation, Maintenance, and Sustainability,” in which the municipality is charged with responsibility for maintenance of the structure. The same responsibility applies in MOUs with provincial governments. This MOU pledge is drawn up subsequently in an Operation and Maintenance Plan. An annual appropriation for operation and maintenance of the structure must be included in the MLGU budget. To that effect, a Municipal Council resolution for Year 1 maintenance and supporting budget is submitted concurrently with the MOU, along with the designation of the municipal office responsible for the operation and maintenance of the structure. Following completion of the facility, the MLGU provides an approved operation and maintenance plan and a budget allocating funds for the Year 2 budget and responsible office. If compliance with these terms is not provided, the MLGU may be excluded from future projects. The MOU goes on to say that repair or rehabilitation of any major damage is the responsibility of the recipients. Since the barangay never has funds for such major repairs, the MLGU is responsible for these. To that end, it has a Disaster Fund equal to 5% of its Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) from the national government. However, MLGUs expect barangays to provide routine maintenance, such as debris and mud removal, cleaning, painting, and minor repairs. GEM-3 has issued implementing guidelines to assist the MLGUs in assuming their responsibilities in operating and maintaining new BIPs. There is one set for each major type of BIP. Attached to the guidelines are a maintenance plan matrix and an operation and maintenance manual. The latter contains a section on the sustainability framework, where it is noted that the Office of the Municipal Engineer is responsible for maintaining the structure. To that end, this office should “identify the operation and maintenance activities required and prepare an annual budget to fund these activities,” monitor and inspect the project on a regular schedule, and perform maintenance work. Operation and maintenance procedures are outlined in the manual. The only community organizations that have emerged to maintain, at least partially, new BIPs have been water user associations, and sometimes vendor associations to manage trading centers. In the case of product consolidation centers, solar dryers, and small warehouses, GEM insists that recipients already be organized in producer cooperatives or associations. They are the owners of these facilities and are responsible for their maintenance and repair. Maintenance of RIPs is undertaken by appropriate national governmental departments, in collaboration with provincial governments. These projects deal with a high level of social overhead capital, one that transcends the municipality to affect a whole province or region. National roads, for example, are maintained by the PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 50 Department of Public Works and Highways, provincial roads by the provincial governments, and municipal and barangay roads by municipal governments. Airport taxes partially offset maintenance costs of airport runways, but no tolls on national or provincial highways and bridges are employed to generate either a maintenance or depreciation fund. Workforce Preparation The four participating universities visited by evaluators, have institutionalized the JEEP program and incorporated the JEEP program into its curriculum. Three of the public state-funded university/colleges are as yet still struggling to financially sustain their JEEP program. One institution, a private school, is financially self-sustaining. The private institution is charging PhP 1,800 per student per semester for more than 3,000 students for both the Start and Accelerate programs. The fee is almost twice that of the fees charged by the other three public institutions (from PhP 950 to PhP 1,000 per student per semester). GEM reports that several others are financially sustainable as well. Beyond maintaining equipment and setting up a fund to replace computers and peripherals at the end of their useful life, teachers’ salaries, funded by sufficient enrollment fees is also an issue. Only one of these participating schools currently appears capable of raising fees to a level sufficient to approach financial sustainability. If this trend continues, JEEP may not be sustainable in three of the four institutions examined in this evaluation. These universities and GEM-3 have yet to formulate a sustainability plan that will enumerate objectives and strategies to increase income generation, provide allocation of a budget for teachers’ incentives and maintenance of the facilities by a technical support team, ensure continuing education and training of JEEP teachers, secure a resource provider of JEEP-related educational materials, and develop promotional activities. GEM points out, however, that sustainability discussions were held with all partner institutions, during which strategies were identified and budgets proposed. The situation in the CLIC program is rather different. Each CLIC school employs a different method of resource generation for the maintenance of its computer laboratory. Some of the schools earmark a share of their maintenance budgets to maintain their computers. Funds from the students’ laboratory fee are also used for the maintenance of the computer laboratory. In most of the eight schools visited by evaluators, DepEd pays for their internet connection. In the case of the EMGP, PTA members proposed concrete steps toward at least short-term sustainability: (1) Tap PTA dues for maintenance needs; (2) widen the scope and improve implementation of their traditional trash collection and sale drive to generate funds for the PTA; (3) solicit additional funds from the barangay, municipality, friends, and relatives; (4) partner with private sector businesses, such as mining companies; and (5) seek assistance from the local school board and other municipal government sources. These proposed steps are already proven means of generating additional funds for schools. The exact manner of sustainability will have to be worked out individually. In some cases, PTAs feel unable to raise further support from parents in very poor communities. Not surprisingly, there are also schools/PTAs with no clear plan on how to proceed once GEM-3 phases out. To date, there has been no discussion with GEM on sustaining the project after external support has ceased. For GEM, however, this is a broad program that provides one-off grants to schools for a range of educational activities. They do not see a need to assist these schools to match monies with other potential donors. PRIDE, an internship program funded by GEM, requires minimal participation, in the form of limited funding and staff support time, by the receiving organizations. In the absence of GEM, there is no apparent institutional or financial mechanism to sustain this activity. Certainly, none has been reported to evaluators. The obvious solution would be for the private sector to sustain this institutionally and financially, since it is not likely that any public sector entity will pick it up. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 51 Governance Improvement There are no current plans in place to sustain the REAP program. Participating municipalities have not indicated whether and how they will maintain the program, but they do possess the necessary institutions and skills to do so. The following have been suggested at the municipal level for sustaining the REAP program beyond GEM-3: (1) involve civil society and the public more widely in the implementation of the revenue enhancement program; (2) secure the political will of elected officials and local champions within and outside the bureaucracy to enforce local tax codes and sustain the gains already made; (3) maintain the new institutions, mechanisms, systems, and enforced policies; and (4) share the REAP experience in meetings with planners, treasurers, and LGU leagues to promote its replication in other municipalities. The ARMM regional government is viewed by officials in ARMM as the right institution to continue the CIPYML program. This idea has been supported by the Regional Governor. He is a strong supporter of CIPYML, having been a member of the House of Representatives when CIPYML was first implemented. In 2009, GEM-3 sponsored a first-time gathering of CIPYML alumni, and one of the expected meeting outputs was for the former interns to formulate their own action/next-step plans. Although these plans were formulated, there was no support mechanism from GEM-3 to actualize and implement them. This will require a new institutional and financial sponsor—perhaps the House, itself. As yet there is no such commitment from any public or private institution. On their own initiative, however, the CIPYML alumni have created a social network page where they can connect in real time to communicate their future plans and aspirations, work opportunities, and their advocacy for governance reforms and peace. This may provide an effective lobbying platform for continuation of the program. Business Growth GEM has calculated an efficiency ratio relating the cost of trade fairs to additional exports they generated ($1 generates $263). According to this calculation, these events have had positive impact in terms of revenue generation. The positive efficiency is an encouragement for businessmen to continue attending trade fairs. Aside from this, trade fairs of the type supported under GEM will likely be sustained, because this is consistent with the strategy of the government and the private sector. The project has also transferred the skills of trade fair participation to business support organizations. Three of the nine BSOs interviewed by evaluators are certain to be sustained: the Davao City Chamber of Commerce, Mindanao Trade Expo Foundation, Inc. (MTEF), and the MBC. In each of these organizations, their sources of revenue are sufficient for their operations. Aside from membership dues, they have other sources of funds, including event fees, grants from other foreign donors, and partnership with big organizations, such as the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and the Philippine Export Association. Three other BSOs have a high probability of being sustained, because of strong leadership. However, their sustainability is contingent upon the availability of funds from external sources. Three others, that evaluators feel, are not likely to be sustained, have limited sources of funds, and appear to have weak management. Interviews revealed that those holding management positions in these unsustainable BSOs are too busy attending to their businesses. For these managers, BSO activities are incidental. Another likely reason for lack of sustainability in these marginal BSOs is the discontinuation of some GEM-3-subsidized staff after project completion. GEM’s Business Support Program team, however, feels confident that most GEM-supported BSOs will continue to function, because they have developed networks providing access to resources from government and foreign donors. The team maintains that it has worked with each chamber to introduce sustainability planning, including the design of new projects intended to attract external funding, and has provided training in project proposal writing. With one exception, according to GEM, all GEM-2 BSOs have been sustained. Former Combatant Reintegration PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 52 The evaluators found that four out of the seven post-harvest facilities visited appeared to be sustainable. The facilities were in good working order, regularly used, and had self-sustaining revenue collection to pay for future maintenance. For the other three facilities: (1) equipment had broken down and profitability had fallen; (2) a supplier hatchery was still unprofitable because FCR aquaculture cooperatives have not been able to generate sufficient demand for its products; and (3) intended user fees to maintain a fruit and vegetable consolidation facility were not being collected and the facility was largely unused. The evaluators found that 8 of 14 FCR cooperative development activities appeared to be sustainable. These cooperatives employed multiple cycles of production, were committed to reinvesting profits for future production inputs, and had alternate plans for receiving additional needed assistance in the event that GEM funding should cease. For six other facilities, the evaluators noted a general lack of profitability and progressive depletion of working capital in various income-generating schemes. Judging by comments made during qualitative interviews, site visits, and a literature review of other studies, surveys, and assessments, the results and impact of FCR income-generating assistance in simple agriculture, technology transfer, and post-harvest facilities appear to be sustainable. However, assistance provided in high￾value production, although still potentially sustainable, had a lower percentage of success, depended to a greater extent on the participants’ skills and commitment, and was more vulnerable to external shocks. The vast majority of FCR beneficiaries felt that GEM assistance had made a noticeable difference in their lives and eased their reintegration. Evidence for Future Host Country and LGU Ownership of GEM-3 LGUs will continue their BIP infrastructure provision activities in barangays to the extent they can find funding, because this is their traditional role. They now set aside funds to match potential donors, something they did not do traditionally. In the absence of outside funds, however, their activities will remain very limited. Municipalities may sustain their efforts to generate additional revenues from revision of tax codes and raising land valuations. This requires concurrence from provincial governments, however, and may be difficult politically. Resistance within municipalities from landed or moneyed elites will present a barrier. Nevertheless, it is clearly in their interest to raise additional revenue, and largely within their power to do so. Replication in other municipalities is also highly likely, if many of the 12 MLGUs can continue to show positive results. These results have been mixed, though, especially after the first year. CLIC and EMGP activities could be sustained and expanded by local municipal school boards, but there is no indication at present if this is likely, or even financially possible. JEEP will need to be maintained by the universities and colleges involved, and this will certainly require raising user fees considerably. This, in turn, will limit this program to the wealthier institutions and students. PRIDE, CIPYML, and INVESTS all require a new benefactor, as yet to be identified. It is highly unlikely that any Philippine governmental entity will step forward, except perhaps in the case of CIPYML, but PRIDE could be sustained through a private sector entity or consortium. Business growth and FCR activities could be maintained by the national government or BSOs, but there is little indication yet of that occurring.80 Sustainability of Programs A plan for sustainability of program achievements should be included in all program components in the future. In infrastructure, the concern was not to sustain a mechanism to provide future infrastructure projects, since this was already the mission of MPDOs, but to maintain the facilities put in place by GEM. In all other GEM components, the possible sustainability of the activity itself should have been explicitly 80 It should be noted that future industry-oriented events such as the Mindanao Vegetable and the Mindanao Fruit Conference have already been scheduled by BSOs for 2013 with initial funding commitments from the government primarily DA PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 53 addressed (where applicable), not just the maintenance of the outputs delivered. Sustainability of program impacts implies knowledge of those impacts. A mechanism to track the institutional and personal outcomes of various programmatic outputs, such as impacts on institutions and persons in schools and in municipalities, should be put in place in future programs. This would require tracking of some key elements of desired change from a baseline set of measures. LESSONS LEARNED Design and Implementation of GEM-3 Most of GEM-3 activities are appropriate for the Mindanao context. They have focused on the right issues for Mindanao, such as economic growth and stability and on the priority needs of conflict-affected communities; they have aimed at improving the economy and income generation; and have planned for coverage of a large swath of Mindanao, hoping to convince people to move away from conflict. The design, however, was very prescriptive, allowing little room for prospective firms to suggest complementary approaches and comprehensive component packages during the bidding process. The design was also physical target-focused and ignored outcomes and impact. The lack of a complete baseline has hampered the evaluation team. Implementation of the program is generally sound.81 The implementing firm, which is generally regarded as an engineering consulting firm, has been best at the infrastructure component; it has produced quality structures well appreciated by the beneficiaries. Implementation of the other components has been adequate. Based on uneven outcomes and supported by empirical evidence, TA has been spread thinly over a vast area, limiting the impact and sustainability it could have had the interventions been more substantial, especially for the workforce preparation, governance improvement and FCR. An obvious lesson to be learned from GEM-3 (and its predecessors) is that a program of this scope and magnitude requires external evaluations at critical decision points during its operation. Indeed, the DAAD for GEM-3 stated that “in close coordination with implementing partners, the technical assistance contractors will develop a performance monitoring plan.”82 After repeated requests by the evaluation team, USAID provided a GEM-3 M&E plan developed in 2008. The document provided a list of physical targets to be completed by the implementer over the life of the program; however, well-defined performance indicators were not in evidence. The implementing firm did undertake various internal studies and reviews to examine GEM-3’s own performance.83 As a result, the current evaluation represents a “close-out” performance evaluation that has had to rely heavily on the collection of qualitative data, some quantitative data, and secondary data in order to gauge what has worked well, and not so well, over the life of GEM-3. Socio-Economic Development Programs for Fostering Peace and Stability Socio-economic development programs can go a long way to foster peace and stability in a region. The evaluation has shown that the majority of people appreciated the assistance and the attention they were getting and expressed that the projects provided them with economic opportunities and perceived that they were helping to reduce violence and foster peace in their barangays. Whether actual violence has been reduced is still unclear, as no baseline was collected and other studies have indicated socio-economic development programs are necessary but not sufficient to foster peace and stability. Effective Activities in Promoting Peace 81 GEM-3 Development Activity Approval Document, USAID, October 2006. 82 Ibid. p-38. 83 Personal communication, many of these studies and reviews have been mentioned earlier in this report—refer to References section in Annex 11. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 54 The national, regional and local governments must play a very strong and key role in leading the post conflict work. Foreign assistance, including USAID and other donors, can assist government in the work, but they should not take the lead. GEM activities that work can be replicated on a wider scale in Mindanao. There is a critical need for basic services in conflict-affected areas. These programs include large-scale, community-based public works, including in marginalized and conflicted-affected communities; addressing of infrastructure bottlenecks (in particular, electricity, which is the number one constraint for businesses in fragile and conflict-affected areas); and access to finance and investments to bring producers and markets together.84 These are all mainly GEM-3 activities. In addition, there is the need to promote transparency and good governance in local institutions, so that the gains of the peace process and dividends can be sustained. Donors working in Mindanao, including USAID, are reaching the conclusion that development assistance should not be scattered but needs to be focused in clusters of conflict-affected areas, either by municipalities or provinces. 85 Coordination with government is essential. Coordination among donors is critical to ensure interventions can be delivered with greater impact and convergence. V. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS USAID has a new strategy for Mindanao where both development and security assistance, will be targeted in six priority areas of conflict. This is a sound approach for many reasons, including easier coordination with a smaller number of partners, better targeting and monitoring of sites, higher possibility of success in the dual function of security and development, and improved sharing of lessons learned for wider replication by others at a later date. This section highlights the key recommendations from the performance evaluation of GEM-3 and provides additional recommendations from the evaluation team’s interviews with national and regional government agencies and donors. INFRASTRUCTURE Support a development framework with government to:  Continue and expand BIP-type infrastructure all across rural barangays in Mindanao where basic services are lacking.  Locate and construct RIPs in strategic areas, e.g., with the following links: agricultural production areas with major markets; and processing hubs with major airports and seaports. BUSINESS GROWTH  Focus on reducing transaction costs and increasing credit opportunities for small businesses and producer associations. GOVERNANCE  Involve provincial governments in updated land appraisal and evaluation to increase tax collection at municipal levels.  Link graduates of the congressional internship program to REAP LGUs for greater synergy. FORMER COMBATANT INTEGRATION 84 World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security and Development. World Bank, Washington DC. 85 Evaluation team’s interviews in 2012 with World Bank, July 27; AusAID, EU and JICA, September 14. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM 55  Provide development assistance not only to MNLF former combatants but also to the host and/or community at large so as to minimize potential conflict situations arising from jealously or resentment. GENDER  Ensure that future gender action plans are followed and implemented in accordance with the Philippines’ established national gender laws, USAID policies and local practices. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS  Future project designs should be less prescriptive than GEM-3, so as to afford the implementing party room to suggest new ideas and the ability to work with LGUs, local partners, and communities on priority needs.  Keep the logistical and operations support activity as implemented by GEM-3, if USAID plans to continue working in conflict-affected areas in Mindanao. FUTURE EFFORTS  New initiatives by USAID in Mindanao should continue coordination and partnership with OPAPP, MinDA, ARMM Regional Government and LGUs. This partnership should be a deeper one—starting with the planning and design of the new program through implementation, monitoring, and maintenance—as expressively desired by these organizations.86 This will also enable good models and practices to be continued after a project is over.  Go deep, rather than wide. Focus development assistance efforts in clusters of conflict-affected areas, either by municipalities or provinces, and do not spread them too thinly across a wide geographical area.  Coordinate among donors so that interventions can be delivered with greater impact, convergence and synergy.  USAID’s should capitalize on its comparative advantage on being able to link with other USG programs (including JSOTF-P) and its ability to help “secure” development for Mindanao. 86 Interviews in 2012 with OPAPP, July 27; ARMM, July 25; MinDA, August 7; ARMM-RPDO, August 28; and LGUs during field visits between August 9 to 29. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GEM-3 PROGRAM For more information, please visit http://www.socialimpact.com Social Impact, Inc. 2300 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 1000 Tel: (703) 465-1884 Fax: (703) 465-1888 www.socialimpact.com PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GROWTH WITH EQUITY IN MINDANAO III (GEM-3) PROGRAM ANNEXES TABLE OF CONTENTS ANNEX 1: GEM-3 CONTRACTUAL REVISED TARGETS AND COMPLETED TARGETS .. 1 ANNEX 2: SCOPE OF WORK ...................................................................................................... 2 ANNEX 3: EVALUATION QUESTIONS...................................................................................12 ANNEX 4: EVALUATION WORK PLAN .................................................................................13 ANNEX 5: EVALUATION TIMETABLE ....................................................................................20 ANNEX 6: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES AND INTERVIEW GUIDES ................................. 22 ANNEX 6B: INTERVIEW GUIDES ............................................................................................35 ANNEX 7: FIELD SITES FOR SURVEY AND FIELD VISITS ..................................................46 ANNEX 8: FIELD WORK SCHEDULES FOR EVALUATION TEAM ....................................48 ANNEX 9: PEOPLE CONTACTED ...........................................................................................54 ANNEX 10: REVENUE ENHANCEMENT AND PEACE (REAP) ............................................62 ANNEX 11: REFERENCES CITED .............................................................................................63 ANNEX 12: ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN CALCULATIONS ..........................................65 ANNEX 13: STATEMENT OF DIFFERENCES .......................................................................132 1 ANNEX 1: GEM-3 CONTRACTUAL REVISED TARGETS AND COMPLETED TARGETS1 Project Total Budget $98,950,113 Contractual Revised Targets Completed Targets Sept 2012 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMP $65,724,739 1 Barangay Infrastructure Projects ( # of BIPs) 760 720 (est) 2 Regional Impact Projects (# of RIPS) 12 12 WORKFORCE PREPARATION COMPONENT $13,087,485 3 Computer Literacy & Internet Connection (CLIC) (# schools) - 153 Standard; 18 internet; 34 computers; 60 teachers 265 265 4 Education Matching Grant (EMGP) (# of grants) 800 802 5 Job Enabling English Proficiency (JEEP) (# of colleges/universities) 26 26 6 Business Internships (PRIDE) (# of interns) 100 91 7 Scholarships (INVESTS) (# of scholarships) 185 275 GOVERNANCE IMPROVEMENT COMPONENT $5,133,487 8 Congressional Internship Program for Young Mindanao Leaders (CIPYML) (# of interns) 200 149 9 Revenue Enhancement and Peace (REAP) (# of LGUs) 12 17 BUSINESS GROWTH COMPONENT $13,250,085 10 Identify new Chambers in CAAM for Institutional Support (# of chambers) 6 6 11 Chambers of Commerce in CAAM assisted to advocate improved LGU performance in tax revenue collection (# of chambers) 6 6 12 Producers Associations assisted to improve the competitiveness of their products (# of associations) 20 20 13 Help BSOs plan and implement specific events (# of BSOs helped) 25 25 14 Key growth sector BSOs established (# of BSOs established) 5 5 15 Triple value from 2007 $30 million baseline $82 million $77 16 Triple volume from 207 33T MT baseline 90T MT 60-70T MT 17 Bring about a sizeable expansion of warehousing, cold storage and VHT facilities (# of expansions) 1 2 18 Tourist resort in CAAM (# of resorts) terminated 19 BPO Facility in CAAM (# of facilities) 4 4 20 Outreach and community projects by major international mining firms (# of communities) 4 4 FORMER COMBATANT REINTEGRATION COMP (part of BG above) 21 MNLF Former Combatant coops/communities provided with pre-post harvest facilities (# of facilities) 50 50 22 MNLF Former Combatant groups/communities assisted to produce high value commodities-Sulu (# of groups/communities) 50 50 23 MNLF Former Combatant groups/communities assisted to produce high value commodities-Central Mindanao (# of groups/communities) 75 75 COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES $1,754,317 1 From GEM-3 Davao Office, Louis-Berger Group Inc, September 2012. 2 ANNEX 2: SCOPE OF WORK SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK EVALUATION OF THE GROWTH WITH EQUITY IN MINDANAO (GEM-3) PROJECT (SOL-492-12-0000) C.1 INTRODUCTION The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in the Philippines seeks to conduct an evaluation that will assess the performance of the third phase of its Growth with Equity in Mindanao (GEM-3) project in meeting its overarching objectives: 1) to accelerate economic growth in Mindanao; 2) to help assure that as many people as possible participate in and benefit from the growth; and 3) to help bring about and consolidate peace in Mindanao. To accomplish these objectives the GEM-3 Program conducted a wide range of projects and activities throughout Mindanao with program components ranging from: infrastructure development; workforce preparation; business growth; governance improvement; and former combatant reintegration. Beyond these main programmatic areas, the GEM-3 program also conducted a series of support services in communications and public relations and logistical and operational support to facilitate the implementation of several program activities throughout the life of the program. The evaluation will investigate each of these program components to determine what contribution each made to achievement of the aforementioned overarching objectives, provide lessons learned and make recommendations as to where USAID programs may have a comparative advantage its current assistance provision. C.2 BACKGROUND Economic progress in Mindanao has been limited, due to the continuing unrest, armed clashes, kidnappings, and incidents of terrorism in western and central regions of the island, the eastern coastal area, and the Sulu Archipelago. The vulnerability of people and businesses in those areas to criminal gangs, episodic loss of life and property, and armed conflict, has resulted in the expansion of only a small number of firms with a rare establishment of sizable new businesses. To address the situation in Mindanao, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GPH) has been pursuing a two-pronged approach. Using military and other security resources, it is trying to contain and eliminate the violence where it is still prevalent. To eliminate the future resurfacing of violence, the GPH is attempting to expand economic opportunity for all the people of Mindanao, and to improve the general well￾being of local populations. USAID has been working closely and extensively with the GPH in its attempts to expand economic opportunity and improve the well-being Mindanao residents. USAID coordinates its efforts in Mindanao with other U.S. Embassy Manila agencies in conflict-affected areas of Mindanao to improve peace and stability. These agencies include the State Department’s Public Affairs, Economics and Political Sections, Justice Department, and the Department of Defense, especially the Joint Special Operations Task Force– Philippines (JSOTF-P). USAID has been implementing major assistance efforts in Mindanao for almost two decades. For the first few years, the assistance was focused on the SOCSARGEN (South Cotabato and Sarangani Provinces, and General Santos City) area in south-central Mindanao. In 1995, USAID expanded its assistance efforts to cover all of Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago. After the signing of the Peace Agreement between the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GPH) in 1996, USAID intensified assistance efforts in the conflict-affected areas of Mindanao – both the areas affected by the Muslim separatist conflict, and the areas affected by the New People's Army (NPA) insurgency and criminality. At this point, USAID is implementing a very sizable assistance effort that includes projects and activities in a wide range of technical areas, including: infrastructure development, agricultural development, education improvement, democracy promotion, governance improvement, health services, environmental management improvement, expansion of microfinance services, and reintegration of former combatants. The activities are carried out across Mindanao, but tend to be concentrated in the five provinces that make up the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), its neighboring conflict-affected provinces, and the areas affected by the NPA. 3 1. The GEM-3 Program and its Objectives The largest and most diverse program being carried out in Mindanao by USAID is its Growth with Equity in Mindanao III (GEM-3) Program. The $98 million2 GEM-3 Program continues and expands work carried out under GEM-1 (1995-2002) and GEM-2 (2002-2007) budgeted at $22.3 million and $82 million respectively. GEM￾3 began in January 1, 2008 and is expected to have a five-year life, ending on December 31, 2012. GEM-3 operates throughout Mindanao, but had a special focus on the ARMM and other conflict-affected areas of the region. GEM-3 has three related principal objectives: 1. To accelerate economic growth in Mindanao; 2. To help assure that as many people as possible participate in and benefit from the growth; and 3. To help bring about and consolidate peace in Mindanao. GEM-3 works with a wide range of public and private organizations and institutions in its efforts to attain its objectives. These include: producer associations and cooperatives; the Mindanao Development Authority – (MinDA) (which is the GPH agency formally charged with oversight responsibility for GEM-3); the Mindanao Business Council; the ARMM Business Council; provincial, municipal, and barangay governments; bilateral and multilateral donor agencies; private firms; chambers of commerce; national government agencies; and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). GEM-3 is an umbrella-type activity, under which USAID is implementing a wide range of projects and activities throughout Mindanao. The different components‖ of the GEM-3 Program are: a) infrastructure development; b) workforce preparation; c) business growth; d) governance improvement; and e) former combatant reintegration. Projects are carried out under each of these major GEM-3 components. Performance targets, expected results, and standard indicators for the GEM-3 projects can be found in Annex 1. In addition to the various peace and development activities, GEM-3 also provides a range of general support services for USAID in Mindanao. The most important of these is their continuing information and communication effort aimed at promoting a balanced view of Mindanao through media; i.e., attempting to make people aware that Mindanao is more than just conflict, that it also can be an excellent place to do business. Other services include transporting and arranging security for visiting United States Government (USG) officials, and arranging public diplomacy-related events. Additional information about the GEM-3 Program, including activity descriptions, activity results, and signification accomplishments, can also be found can also be found on the program’s website at www.mindanao.org. No results framework was constructed or baseline data gathered during the formulation of the GEM-3 Program. 2. Other USAID Activities in Mindanao USAID directs 60 percent of its total assistance towards Mindanao to improve the business climate, stimulate economic growth, reintegrate former combatants into the economy, strengthen basic education, improve health services and support transparency in local governance. In the environment and energy sectors, USAID is partnering with local governments and community-based organizations in Mindanao to help them effectively manage their natural resources, improve urban environmental management, and improve access to affordable and renewable energy sources supplied through public-private alliances. To support the health sector, USAID is working with the private sector and local governments to improve the delivery of family health services, including maternal and child health, voluntary family planning, and control of tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and emerging pandemic threats. In its democracy and governance portfolio, USAID is supporting local officials to combat corruption by focusing on transparency and accountability in public administration processes. Finally, in education, USAID is increasing access to quality education and livelihood skills in areas most affected by conflict and poverty and improving the quality of instruction—particularly in math, science, and English. Between 1996 and 2009, through all its programs, USAID provided nearly $500 million to reinforce Philippine Government efforts to secure a lasting peace and build a better life for the people of Mindanao. USAID’s development programming works in conjunction with the efforts of the U.S. Military colleagues in Mindanao. USAID and the Joint Special Operations Task Force – Philippines (JSOTF-P) work closely together 2 In 2011, the contract was renegotiated from its original amount of $125 million to $98 million 4 in several conflict areas of Mindanao to support the Philippine development objectives. The U.S. Embassy’s Mindanao Working Group plays a key role in the coordination of all U.S. Government (USG) assistance to Mindanao. One aspect of the USG effort is the prevention of a backsliding effect that would allow terrorist elements to reestablish the safe haven that previously existed in the Philippines. C.3 SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of this evaluation is to assess GEM-3’s performance in achieving its objectives and meeting its performance targets as defined in the GEM-3 contract.3 The evaluation will inform USAID/Philippines on the success and failures of the GEM-3 program in developing and stabilizing conflict-affected areas of Mindanao. The evaluation’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations will provide the Mission with valuable information and insight into its work in Mindanao and its ability to combat transnational-terrorism. The product of this evaluation will be a final report that evaluates the successes, shortcomings, and lessons learned of GEM-3 activities. The report should include recommendations for improving USAID’s assistance delivery in Mindanao and highlight comparative advantages in areas not addressed by other initiatives. C.4 DETAILED WORK REQUIREMENTS To evaluate the GEM-3 Program performance, the Offeror will address the following eight areas: impact, relevance and selectivity, effectiveness, efficiency, gender, sustainability, lessons learned, and the process for gathering data to complete the assessment. In the proceeding text, the eight areas are listed with questions for consideration by USAID/Philippines. For each of the eight areas, the Offeror must provide questions in their proposal that will be addressed and answered during the evaluation. 1. IMPACT: a) Overall, what are the key results and outcomes of the program? Have the specific targets established for the various activities and projects implemented under the GEM-3 Program been attained? b) What has been the impact of the activities? Have the various projects and activities carried out under the GEM-3 Program played an appreciable role in bringing about improved situations with respect to peace and development? c) Impact of specific GEM-3 Components: (1) Infrastructure Development – How did the infrastructure development component of the GEM-3 Program contribute to the overarching development objectives outlined in Section II? Did the differing scopes and scales of the infrastructure projects have a significantly different level of impact on meeting the program’s targets and objectives? (E.g. Barangay Infrastructure Projects (BIPs) vs. the Regional Infrastructure Projects (RIPs)). Out of the different types of infrastructure projects supported (solar dyers, box culverts, irrigation canals, boat landings, etc.), were there specific types that were more effective and efficient (from a cost and time perspective) in meeting targets and programmatic objectives? Have the quality and functionality of infrastructure projects been maintained by local partners?4 (2) Workforce Preparation – How did the Workforce Preparation component of the GEM-3 Program contribute to the overarching development objectives outlined in Section II? Which of the different Workforce Preparation activities (Computer Literacy and Internet Connection (CLIC)5 , Education Matching Grant Project (EMGP), Job Enabling English Proficiency (JEEP), Productive Internships In Dynamic Enterprises (PRIDE), Investments in Vocational, Elementary, Secondary and Tertiary Studies (INVESTS), etc.), were most effective and efficient (from a cost and time perspective) in meeting targets and programmatic objectives and why? Did the combination of Workforce Preparation activities result in synergies that magnified the effect of any one specific activity? 3 GEM-3 performance targets can be found in Annex 1. 4 Note that GEM-3 is currently undertaking an internal analysis of the economic impact of GEM-3 Infrastructure projects. The Evaluation Team should make use of the report generated from this analysis in their work. 5 Note that GEM-3 is currently undertaking an internal analysis of the impact of the Computer Literacy and Internet Connection (CLIC) program. The Evaluation Team should make use of the report generated from this analysis in their work. 5 (3) Governance Improvement – How did the Governance Improvement component of the GEM-3 Program contribute to the overarching development objectives outlined in Section II? Did the technical assistance activities conducted under this component effectively improve the capacity of the Government of the ARMM and its constituent Local Government Units (LGUs) to address their key administrative and management problems? Which of the different Governance Improvement activities (Revenue Enhancement And Progress (REAP), Congressional Internship Program for Young Mindanao Leaders (CIPYML), etc.), were most effective and efficient (from a cost and time perspective) in meeting targets and programmatic objectives? Did these programs address the most pressing needs of the ARMM LGUs? Did packaging ―incentives‖ (e.g. additional infrastructure projects) with governance improvements lead toward successful attainment of LGU targets? Which ―incentives‖ seemed to be the most effective? (4) Business Growth – How did the Business Growth component of the GEM-3 Program contribute to the overarching development objectives outlined in Section II? Did the activities lead to a significant increase in private investment in the targeted sectors? Which of the different Business Growth activities (Business Support Organization (BSO) Development, Targeted Commodity Expansion Project - (TCEP), etc.), were most effective and efficient (from a cost and time perspective) in meeting targets and programmatic objectives and why? How effective were the different activities at facilitating the services required by local businesses to grow and generate employment? How effective has the Business Growth component of GEM-3 been in improving Mindanao producers’ access to markets? How effective was GEM-3’s business policy agenda in improving competitiveness of Mindanao businesses? (5) Former Combatant Reintegration (FCR) – How did the FCR component of the GEM-3 Program contribute to the overarching development objectives outlined in Section II? What effect did FCR programming have on recidivism rates of former combatants towards violence? Did the activities effectively support former MNLF combatants develop the production of agricultural products to generate sustainable economic opportunities? Which of the specific elements of the Livelihood Enhancement and Peace (LEAP) program were most effective and efficient (from a cost and time perspective) meeting targets and programmatic objectives? (6) Communications and Public Relations (CPR) – How did the CPR component of the GEM-3 Program contribute to the overarching development objectives outlined in Section II? Have public relations efforts been effective in changing the impression that all of Mindanao is a battleground? If yes, has this led to an increase in business activities and investment in the region? Has the CPR component generated public awareness, understanding and support of the Government of the Philippines and USAID activities in Mindanao? If so, to what extent? What have been the impacts of GEM-3 branding efforts? What is the GEM brand worth? Do different Mindanao stakeholders properly associate the GEM-3 Program with USG/USAID development assistance? Does the GEM brand have a synergistic effect on other USG/USAID activities in Mindanao? Should the GEM brand be used for future programs in the region? What are the implications of continuing to use the GEM brand? Which of the CPR activities (Pamphlets, radio, videos, CD-ROMs, etc.), were most effective and efficient (from a cost and time perspective) in supporting GEM-3/USG branding/outreach efforts? (7) Cross Cutting GEM-3 Support Services – How did the Support Services component of the GEM-3 Program contribute to the overarching development objectives outlined in Section II? How has the range of support services provided by the GEM-3 program impacted other USG/USAID programming in the region? Which of the Support Services activities (security services, transportation, arranging Very Important Person (VIP) visits, etc.), were most effective? Are the Support Services a necessary component to achieve success in conflict-affected areas of Mindanao? 2. RELEVANCE AND SELECTIVITY: Did the program address relevant and priority areas in Mindanao that are consistent with the Philippine government peace and development strategies? Which of the GEM-3 Program activities were the most relevant to meeting its peace and economic development objectives? For which activities did USAID have the best comparative advantage? Is it possible to link GEM-3’s socio-economic activities with the objectives 6 of bringing about peace and stability in Mindanao? What evidence was found to support or dismiss these linkages? 3. EFFECTIVENESS: Did the GEM-3 Program accomplish its objectives and achieve its targets? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the program? Did the umbrella-type assistance approach work? Have technical assistance, training, and partnerships been targeted at the appropriate beneficiaries to ensure the greatest impact in advancing peace, stability, and economic growth? How effective are the public and private partnerships that GEM-3 developed? How effective was the financial resource leveraging or buy-in‖ of GEM-3 activities? Where have synergies been achieved with other USAID/USG-funded activities in Mindanao, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food for Progress program and the activities of the Joint Special Operations Task Force – Philippines (JSOTF-P)? What additional opportunities exist for greater collaboration, with JOSTF-P and other USG organizations? 4. EFFICIENCY: Were the program management structure and implementing tools efficient in achieving results? Have the various activities and projects carried out through the GEM-3 Program been appropriately managed? Have staffing levels been appropriate? Were management and oversight costs suitable given the number and scope of activities carried out? How efficient was the USAID oversight and management of GEM-3? How could it be improved? Has the ―umbrella-type‖ project design for GEM-3 been an efficient method of using program resources and finding synergies amongst the different program components? How cost effective were the results of each program area compared with alternative approaches of accomplishing the same objectives? 5. GENDER: To what extent has the GEM-3 Gender Action Plan been implemented? Have gender concerns been mainstreamed into GEM-3 activities? To what degree have gender issues been addressed? What was lacking in the project design and/or implementation that would have improved gender considerations? 6. SUSTAINABILITY: Are the results and impacts of GEM-3 activities sustainable? What evidence exists of the host country and local government units (LGUs) taking ownership of the GEM-3 program, including promoting the networks and best practices developed and disseminated under GEM-3? 7. LESSONS LEARNED: What lessons have been learned from the design and implementation of GEM-3? How can socio-economic development programs be designed to have the greatest impact on fostering peace and stability? Are there activities that are more effective in promoting peace, relative to other activities? If so, which activities are these? Please also include a list of key lessons learned for each of the seven GEM-3 components. 8. DATA COLLECTION: The Offeror will suggest specific variables to be collected to meet the GEM-3 performance evaluation requirements during Stage 2 (Refinement of Review Methods described below) of the evaluation. Variables should be selected based on availability of data as well as the feasibility and cost of collection. C.5 METHODOLOGY The final evaluation will determine the performance and impact of the most sizable, most visible, most varied USAID/Philippines assistance effort in Mindanao. The evaluation will be both quantitative and qualitative and will be implemented over the course of 60 workdays. The evaluation will provide answers to address each of the eight areas outlined in Section IV. Given the lack of viable baseline information and other severe data limitations, the evaluation will rely mainly on qualitative methods including, but not limited to, semi-structured interviews, direct observation at project sites, focus groups of stakeholders and project beneficiaries, and documentation reviews. The 7 evaluation should also strive to collect data from areas where GEM-3 was not implemented to provide a with￾and without-project comparison. Where feasible and appropriate, efforts should incorporate quantitative methods to measure program performance and impact including household surveys. Quantitative data collected will be vetted to the Mindanao Development Authority for consistency with qualitative findings. Through participatory methods a multi-disciplinary team composed of an external consultant (team leader), key technical specialists, Government of the Philippines officials, including the Mindanao Development Authority (MindDA), and USAID/Philippines staff will examine GEM-3 program results. A visit to a series of project sites will allow field staff and beneficiaries to provide their inputs to the review process. Because of the broad area covered by the GEM-3 Program, USAID/Philippines suggests having two teams working to conduct research and collect data simultaneously. The final evaluation will be conducted in four stages: Stage 1: Review of Existing Documentation - Time Frame: 1 week The review team will conduct a thorough literature review of existing data and analyze relevant documentation such as studies, reports, and assessments produced by public and private sources. In addition, the Evaluation Team may decide to consult additional documentation from the USAID/Philippines, GEM-3 Headquarters office, or other sources as deemed necessary. The team will also familiarize themselves with non-GEM-3 USAID/Philippines activities in Mindanao to differentiate between GEM-3 and non-GEM-3 impacts. The Mission will seek to gather all available project documents and make them available at the USAID/Philippines office. The results of Stage 1 (Document Review) will inform the final evaluation methodology and implementation of field visits. Finally, at the conclusion of this phase, the Evaluation Team will outline preliminary field visit plans to view the various types of projects and activities that USAID has undertaken in Mindanao under the GEM-3 Program. Stage 2: Refinement of Review Methods - Time Frame: 1 week GEM-3 program activities are quite broad and diverse as they attempt to achieve the outlined peace and security and economic development objectives in Mindanao. The USAID GEM-3 Team and GEM-3 Staff will provide briefings to the Evaluation Team. To determine whether the collection of program activities had an appreciable impact on its targeted beneficiaries, the team will combine both quantitative and qualitative approaches to data collection. Rather than stating the exact mix in this scope of work, the Evaluation Team will be instrumental in the method selection process. For some selected performance indicators, valid quantitative data should be collected. For other indicators, qualitative methods will be a better way to gather information. At a minimum, the following data collection methods are encouraged: focus group interviews, key informant interviews, review of secondary data, document review, observation, random spot checks (visits to field offices and target population homes/fields), and household surveys. In addition, decisions will be made on choosing a sample of project staff and target beneficiaries to be interviewed or surveyed. Thus, during this stage, the Evaluation Team will decide on final selection of the methods and instruments to be used during the field visit and prepare for the data collection exercise in the field. The strategy including chosen methods, instruments, and target beneficiaries will be presented to USAID for approval prior to the commencement of data collection. Stage 3: Field Data Collection - Time Frame: 5 weeks Stage 3 is the core of the evaluation process, will consider and integrate the findings of Stage 1 and Stage 2, and will involve prime contractor fieldwork, key informant interviews, validation of findings and report preparation. This will involve site visits and key informant interviews with USAID stakeholders at the local and national levels, including project contractors, grantees, MinDA officials, implementing partners in government, civil society and the private sector, beneficiary groups, local leaders, USAID officers and staff, US Embassy officers, and other donors and organizations working in Mindanao. This stage will be preceded by the completion of Stages 1 and 2. Stage 3 will be an in-depth assessment that will further analyze, synthesize and validate the findings under the earlier stages. It will seek to fill the gaps in knowledge and information from the earlier stages, in response to the evaluation questions predetermined by the Offeror. The team leader and technical staff will plan and coordinate all the necessary logistics for the qualitative and quantitative collection of data at the field level.6 The USAID/Philippines and MinDA evaluation team 6 All raw quantitative data collected by one of the Agency’s contractors or grantees for the purposes of the evaluation 8 members will also assist the team leader as requested in this stage. While USAID/Philippines does not propose a specific number of field visits, the total number should be sufficient to view a sizable, representative sample of all the keycomponents of the GEM-3 Program. To the greatest extent possible, each type of project under each of the five main GEM-3 components should be visited at the field level. Stage 4: Write and Present Evaluation Report - Time Frame: 3 weeks Upon completion of the field data collection, the Evaluation Team will draft the evaluation report with conclusions and recommendations.7 The team will analyze and synthesize review findings and field data in order to describe, quantify and assess the impacts of the GEM-3 program on target beneficiaries. It will assess the effectiveness and efficiency of USAID approaches and implementing mechanisms while considering the impact indicators and targets outlined in GEM-3 program design documents. The team leader and technical staff will hold a meeting with USAID/Philippines staff and MinDA officials to present findings, lessons learned, and recommendations. Following the incorporation of feedback from USAID staff and MinDA officials, the team leader and technical staff will present the findings of the report to the entire USAID/Philippines Mission as well as USAID’s Philippine Government Partners at MinDA and other interested agencies. The final report will be submitted to USAID/Philippines/Program Resources Office no later than 15 days following the conclusion of the 60-day work period. The Offeror will submit the final report to the Agency’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) within the same timeframe.8 C.6 DELIVERABLES AND DELIVERABLES SCHEDULE The detailed deliverables and deliverables schedule for this contract are as follows: The Contractor shall deliver the following items to the USAID Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR): a) Detailed Work Plan and Final Report Outline: Due to the COTR within the first 10 days of engagement. The work plan is to include any suggestions for revisions in the statement of work and the evaluation strategy describing the design and methodologies. The work plan shall reflect the Evaluation Team’s schedule for interview, data collection, field visits, report writing, and periodic interim briefings for USAID. The Offeror will also submit an outline of the evaluation report during this time. A checklist for assessing the expected quality of the final report is included in Annex 2. The outline of the final evaluation report and work plan shall be approved by the COTR within five days of reception. b) Draft Report: A draft report shall be submitted to COTR on or before the 49th work day of the engagement. Comments on the report will be provided by the COTR within five days of reception. c) Presentation of Evaluation Results to USAID: Prior to the submission of the final evaluation report, the Evaluation Team shall present the results of the evaluation to USAID and MinDA. This session shall also be used to solicit comments and clarify issues. The Offeror will coordinate with the COTR to schedule these sessions between Day 49 and Day 51. d) Final Report: The final evaluation report shall be submitted to USAID by the Team Leader no later than 15 working days after the completion of the 60 work days of engagement. The final report should contain an Executive Summary of not more than five (5) pages and should clearly identify the team’s findings, conclusions and recommendations. Appendices should at a minimum, list the people and organizations interviewed, the Evaluation SOW, evaluation framework and instruments used, success stories, reports from Stages 1, 2, and 3, and references cited. The final report should be single spaced, using Times New Roman font size 12, with each page numbered consecutively. Items such as graphs, must be provided to USAID/Philippines to be uploaded and stored in a central database. The data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation. USAID Evaluation Policy, January 2011, p. 12. 7 For specific guidance on preparing the final report, refer to the new USAID Policy on Monitoring and Evaluation at http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation/USAIDEVALUATIONPOLICY.pdf. Where applicable this evaluation will follow guidance outlined in this policy. 8 Completed evaluations must be submitted to the agency’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) and a cover sheet attached indicating the type of evaluation conducted and design. Each completed evaluation must include a 3- to 5-page summary of the purpose, background of the project, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned of the evaluation. USAID Evaluation Policy, January 2011, p. 11. 9 charts, should be included in a maximum of 60 pages (excluding appendices). C.7 QUALIFICATIONS OF KEY PERSONNEL The contractor will field an experienced evaluation team with extensive experience in the fields of monitoring and evaluation of large development projects, institutional development, education, peace and security, agriculture, governance, energy/environment, and impact assessment. The evaluation team should be highly experienced in statistical sampling, surveys, and data analysis. Additional requirements of the team members include previous work experience in Asia, excellent data analysis and computer skills (word processing and spreadsheets), and sufficient language skills to conduct field research in Mindanao. To the extent possible, evaluation specialists with appropriate expertise from the Philippines, but not involved in project implementation, will lead and/or be included in evaluation teams.9 Additional logistical support, if necessary, will be drawn from the Office of Economic Development and Governance at USAID/Philippines. The Offeror must take into consideration the existing security concerns present in some regions of Mindanao. American citizens under the Chief of Mission authority must receive clearance by the Regional Security Office of the U.S. Embassy before traveling to Mindanao. This concern may restrict movement of American citizens. Non-Americans should be aware of any restrictions placed on them by their respective embassies and plan accordingly. Considering these restrictions, appropriate actions must be taken to assure all necessary data can be gathered for a complete evaluation. USAID/Philippines suggests including a proper mix of Filipinos willing and able to enter conflict-prone areas to complete necessary tasks. The Offeror must verify the availability of any personnel working on the evaluation for more than 20 days. Please include letters of availability for all applicable personnel when submitting the proposal. Submissions not including letters of availability will not be considered for the award. USAID/Philippines suggests having two teams comprised of approximately six members each with a similar mix of technical specialties. The two teams will work simultaneously to conduct research and compile data in order to achieve the broadest coverage of geographic regions and different GEM-3 components. The teams’ activities will be coordinated and managed by the Team Leader. The following is a list of suggested specialists that should make up each evaluation team, though the Offeror may also suggest a different mix of personnel if deemed more appropriate to conduct this evaluation. The following experts should be considered: The Evaluation Team Leader must have: a) An advanced degree in Economics, Business Administration, Regional Planning, Economic Development, or a related field b) At least 15 years professional experience in project performance and impact evaluation c) Demonstrated ability in designing and implementing development programs on a nation-wide or region￾wide basis d) Strong skills in designing quantitative and qualitative research instruments and methodologies e) Proven ability to analyze data collected as part of program implementation and to prepare reports, including program recommendations f) Proven writing and leadership skills g) Familiarity with USAID project planning, implementation, and evaluation processes h) In-depth knowledge of development issues in conflict-areas of is an advantage Team Members: Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist – a) Post-Graduate degree in Project Monitoring and Evaluation/Project Planning and Management or an advanced degree in relevant social sciences. b) Should have a degree in Economics, Socio-Sciences, Statistics, Development Studies or related field c) Minimum of 10 years of prior experience in monitoring and evaluation, field-based data collection and analysis experience, and knowledge sharing d) Experience in sampling methodologies, in using spreadsheet and data analysis software (e.g. STATA, SPSSS), and an acquaintance with other database software 9 USAID Evaluation Policy, January 2011, p. 9. 10 e) Strong writing skills in a variety of contexts f) Previous experience in the development sector in Southeast Asia g) Familiarity with USAID project implementation and evaluation processes h) In-depth knowledge of development issues in conflict areas in Mindanao is an advantage Rural Development Specialist: a) Advanced degree in economics related to rural development b) Minimum of 8 years of prior technical experience with a focus on agricultural business development, agroindustry and/or small enterprise development, export market products, and value chain analysis c) Ability to design, manage, and implement quantitative and qualitative field-based evaluations related to economic growth d) Strong writing skills in a variety of contexts e) Previous experience in the development sector in Southeast Asia f) Familiarity with USAID project planning, implementation, and evaluation processes g) In-depth knowledge of development issues in Mindanao is an advantage Institutional Development Specialist: a) An advanced degree in Institutional Development, Urban Planning, Business Management; b) Minimum of 8 years of prior technical experience with a focus on local governance, institutional development, and the infrastructure sector c) Ability to design, manage, and implement quantitative and qualitative field-based evaluations related to economic growth d) Strong writing skills in a variety of contexts e) Previous experience in the development sector in Southeast Asia f) Familiarity with USAID project planning, implementation, and evaluation processes g) In-depth knowledge of development issues in conflict-affected areas of Mindanao is an advantage Peace and Security Specialist: a) Advanced degree in a discipline related to international peace, security, conflict management and mitigation and/or governance b) Minimum of 8 years of prior technical experience with a focus on conflict mitigation, counter terrorism or counter extremism c) Ability to design, manage, and implement quantitative and qualitative field-based evaluations that links peace and security to economic growth d) Strong writing skills in a variety of contexts e) Previous experience in the development sector in Southeast Asia f) Familiarity with USAID project planning, implementation, and evaluation processes g) In-depth knowledge of development issues in conflict-affected areas of Mindanao is an advantage Technical Assistants: a) Bachelor’s degree in Economics, Business Administration, Agriculture, Education, etc., or a technical field related to one of the principal areas of GEM-3 involvement b) At least 3 years of work experience providing technical and administrative support to a team of professionals c) Experience in data collection and data quality assurance d) Ability to synthesize input from various sources e) Experience using of spreadsheet and other database software f) Must have a good knowledge of key actors and stakeholders in Mindanao C.8 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The evaluation is expected to be completed within 60 working days. Following is a suggest timeline for conducting the requested activities. The Offeror may suggest variations to schedule, but the total timeframe cannot exceed 60 working days and the final report must be submitted within 15 days after completion. 11 Activity Work Days Review and analysis of basic GEM-3 Program documents and studies 1-5 5 days Briefings from USAID GEM-3 Team and GEM-3 Program management team 6-8 3 days Refine evaluation methodology, prepare work plan, report outline, and schedule of field visits; review of additional documents 9-13 5 days Data collection and field visits 14-43 30 days Preparation of draft report 44-48 5 days Submission of draft report to USAID’s Program Resources Office; briefing and discussions with USAID/ Philippines; solicit comments of the draft report. Briefing with MinDA. 49-51 3 days Revise report 52-55 4 days Presentation of final draft report to USAID. 56-57 2 days Finalize report 58-60 3 days Submission of final report to USAID - 15 working days after completion of management Activity Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W1 0 Review and analysis of basic GEM-3 Program documents and studies Briefings from USAID GEM-3 Team and GEM-3 Program management team Refine evaluation methodology, prepare work plan, report outline, and schedule of field visits; review of additional documents Data collection and field visits Preparation of draft report Submission of draft report; briefing and discussions with USAID; solicit comments of the draft report. Briefing with MinDA on the findings of the evaluation. Revise report Presentation of draft final report to USAID Finalize report Submission of report to USAID 15 working days after completion of engagement [END OF SECTION C] 12 ANNEX 3: EVALUATION QUESTIONS Based on the evaluation expectations presented in the GEM-3 RFP and subsequently discussed with the GEM-3 Contracting Officer’s Representative, the evaluation will address the following critical issues across GEM-3 component areas with respect to the achievements of GEM-3 during Fiscal Years 2007-2012.10 The key evaluation questions as listed in the RFP are as follows:11 Impact: What were the key results and outcomes of this component? Did the GEM-3 projects contribute to economic growth and development in the different intervention regions? How? What kinds of partnerships were generated as part of the GEM-3 process with various stakeholders? In what way did these activities contribute to peace or the reduction of violent conflict in the region? How? Relevance: Did the component address relevant needs in priority areas in Mindanao as articulated by community members? How were infrastructure needs determined and by what organizations? Who were the primary decision-makers for where and what level of resources would be allocated to a given project? Effectiveness: What percent of GEM-3 components achieved their targets? Which ones did not meet their targets? Were these targets achieved on schedule? What kinds of problems or issues were identified for contributing to GEM-3 not achieving its targets? Efficiency: How cost-effective were the projects in achieving its targets? What type of projects were the most cost-effective in terms of time, money and results? What are the comparative rates of return on different types of GEM-3 projects? Gender: Does the project have sex-disaggregated data? If yes, were gender gaps identified in the data analysis? How were these gender gaps addressed? Was there participation of women in decision-making for the type of projects selected? What have been the contributions of and benefits derived by women and men in this project? To what extent did GEM-3implement its Gender Action Plan for this component? Sustainability: What plans are in place to sustain the projects once GEM-3 is finished? By whom? What types of community organizations emerged to maintain a particular project—how was ownership resolved for various types of projects? For RIPs and BIPs, how is maintenance handled? What types of income generation efforts are in evidence to maintain these infrastructure projects? Lessons Learned: What worked best in designing and implementing the projects? What activities did not work as anticipated? Did the differing scopes and scales of the projects have a significantly different level of impact on meeting the program’s targets and objectives? Provide action-oriented, practical and specific recommendations based on evaluation findings for this component. What lessons were learned in the planning, implementation, and monitoring of GEM-3 activities? 10 USAID/Philippines COR for the evaluation is Ms. Fatima Verzosa of the Program Resources Management Office (PMR) 11 RFP No. SOL-492-12-000008, pp. 10-12. 13 ANNEX 4: EVALUATION WORK PLAN FINAL WORK PLAN August 06, 2012 This revised work plan was produced by Social Impact for review and approval by USAID/Philippines under Contract No. SOL-492-12-000008. 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................................................15 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................15 Evaluation Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................15 Evaluation Background ............................................................................................................................................15 Operational Issues to be Addressed by the Evaluation ..................................................................................15 2. PROJECT WORKPLAN TASKS .........................................................................................................................16 Task 1: Orientation Briefing with USAID/Philippines .....................................................................................16 Task 2: Review of Key GEM-3 Documents .......................................................................................................17 Task 3: Prepare Detailed Evaluation Work Plan ..............................................................................................17 Task 4: Conduct a Mini-Survey of BIP Projects ................................................................................................17 Task 4a: Develop and Pre-Test Data Collection Instruments ......................................................................17 Task 4b: Provide Training to Field Staff on Data Collection Procedures ..................................................18 Task 4c: Analyze Survey Data and Conduct a Briefing on Mini-Survey Findings .....................................18 Task 5: Collect Field Data ......................................................................................................................................18 Task 6: Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................................................18 Task 7: Evaluation Briefing and Preparation of the Evaluation Report .......................................................19 Task 8: Submission of the Final Evaluation Report ..........................................................................................19 Task 9: Produce 20-Minute Video on Evaluation Process .............................................................................19 15 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW Introduction The United States Agency for International Development Mission in the Philippines (USAID/Philippines), through its contractor Social Impact (SI), is conducting an evaluation to assess the performance of the third phase of its Growth with Equity in Mindanao 3 (GEM-3) project in meeting its overarching goals to: 1. accelerate economic growth in Mindanao; 2. help assure that as many people as possible participate in and benefit from the growth; and 3. help bring about and consolidate peace in Mindanao. To accomplish these objectives, GEM-3 conducted a wide range of projects and activities throughout Mindanao with program components ranging from: infrastructure development; workforce preparation; business growth; governance improvement; and former combatant reintegration. Beyond these main programmatic areas, GEM-3 also conducted a series of support services in communications and public relations and logistical and operational support to facilitate the implementation of several program activities throughout the life of the program. The evaluation will investigate each of these program components to determine what contribution each has made towards achieving the aforementioned overarching objectives therein providing lessons-learned and recommendations for future USAID programs. Evaluation Purpose The purpose of the GEM-3 evaluation is to assess the overall impact of GEM-3’s complex and extensive set of interventions in achieving the overarching goals mentioned in the overview. This effort will essentially be a “performance evaluation” focusing on descriptive and normative elements that GEM-3 has or has not achieved, supported by the collection of quantitative data to document the various aspects of the program and qualitative data to capture the more subtle expressive features of the GEM-3 interventions. Evaluation Background Opportunities for economic growth and development in Mindanao exist, but economic growth and institutional development have been stymied by three decades of internal conflict, the lack of infrastructure and institutional development. Social conflict along with the lack of basic social services provided by the national government has resulted in the lack of trust among people at the local level and between citizens and government authorities. Foreign assistance to Mindanao through donor-funded projects has sought to bridge this gap and, in particular, USAID has been implementing major assistance efforts in the region for almost two decades. Initially, this assistance was focused on South Cotabato, Sarangani Provinces, and General Santos City areas in south-central Mindanao. In 1995 through 2002, USAID expanded its assistance efforts to cover all of Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago under the auspices of GEM-1 ($22.3million). Given the continuing need to promote development assistance, USAID funded GEM 2 ($82 million) for the years 2002-2007. USAID’s largest and most diverse program in Mindanao is GEM-3. This $98 million program has continued and expanded earlier work carried out under GEM programs 1 and 2. GEM-3 represents a sizable assistance effort that complements projects and activities in a wide range of technical areas including (but not limited to): infrastructure development, agricultural development, education improvement, democracy promotion, governance improvement, environmental management improvement, and reintegration of former combatants. These activities are being carried out across Mindanao, but tend to be concentrated in the five provinces that make up the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) along with neighboring conflict￾affected provinces. The GEM-3 program has provided technical and financial intervention assistance to achieve its objectives through the program five components: 1) infrastructure development, 2) workforce preparation, 3) business growth 4) governance improvement, and 5) former combatant reintegration. GEM-3 also provides cross￾cutting activities including: a) providing information and communication aimed at promoting a balanced view of Mindanao through mass media efforts, and b) supporting transportation and security for visiting United States Government (USG) officials, and arranging public diplomacy-related events. Operational Issues to be Addressed by the Evaluation Based on the evaluation expectations presented in the GEM-3 RFP and subsequently discussed with the GEM-3 Contracting Officer’s Representative, the evaluation will address the following critical issues across GEM-3 component areas with respect to the achievements of GEM-3 during Fiscal Years 2007-2012. 16 Table 1: Project Performance Elements Impact 1. What were the key results (outputs and outcomes) of this component? 2. Did the GEM-3 projects contribute to economic growth and development in the different intervention regions? How? 3. What kinds of partnerships were generated as part of the GEM-3 process with various stakeholders? 4. In what way did these activities contribute to peace or the reduction of violent conflict in the region? How? Relevance 1. Did the component address relevant needs in priority areas in Mindanao as articulated by community members? 2. How were infrastructure needs determined and by what organizations? 3. Who were the primary decision-makers for where and what level of resources would be allocated to a given project? Effectiveness 1. What percent of GEM-3 components achieved their targets? Which ones did not meet their targets? 2. Were these targets achieved on schedule? 3. What kinds of problems or issues were identified for contributing to GEM-3 not achieving its targets? Efficiency 1. How cost-effective were the projects in achieving its targets? 2. What type of projects were the most cost-effective in terms of time, money and results? 3. What are the comparative rates of return on different types of GEM-3 projects? Gender 1. Does the project have sex-disaggregated data? If yes, were gender gaps identified in the data analysis? How were these gender gaps addressed? 2. Was there participation of women in decision-making for the type of projects selected? 3. What have been the contributions of and benefits derived by women and men in this project? 4. To what extent did GEM-3 implement its Gender Action Plan for this component? Sustainability 1. What plans are in place to sustain the projects once GEM-3 is finished? By whom? 2. What types of community organizations emerged to maintain a particular project—how was ownership resolved for various types of projects? 3. For RIPs and BIPs, how is maintenance handled? What types of income generation efforts are in evidence to maintain these infrastructure projects? Lessons Learned 1. What worked best in designing and implementing the projects? 2. What activities did not work as anticipated? 3. Did the differing scopes and scales of the projects have a significantly different level of impact on meeting the program’s targets and objectives? 4. Provide action-oriented, practical and specific recommendations based on evaluation findings for this component. 5. What lessons were learned in the planning, implementation, and monitoring of GEM-3 activities? The original RFP outlined numerous additional questions that the evaluation team has tried to combine and focus in the selection above. However, given that certain component-specific questions are of key interest to the Mission, the evaluation team will ask these questions in their component specific interview protocols. 2. PROJECT WORKPLAN TASKS Nine major tasks will be carried out to evaluate the GEM-3 program. These tasks are discussed below. STAGE ONE Task 1: Orientation Briefing with USAID/Philippines During the first and second week of the evaluation (July 23-August 6, 2012), the Evaluation Team (consisting of the Team Leader and Sub-Team Leader 1) will meet with USAID/Philippines GEM-3 Evaluation Managers to discuss the scope of work (SOW) of the evaluation, any changes since the contract award, and what areas of particular 17 sensitivity the Team should be concerned with for carrying out the evaluation (including program objectives, sub￾contractor sampling design, and other general observations for carrying-out the evaluation of the GEM-3 program. Task 2: Review of Key GEM-3 Documents During Weeks 1 and 2, the entire Evaluation Team will begin reviewing key GEM-3 documents and begin establishing a schedule for meeting with knowledgeable persons regarding the GEM-3 program. The document review and interview findings will provide a critical nexus for determining what activities must be included in the Evaluation Work Plan and what topics and concerns should be addressed within the survey questionnaire and other key informant and focus group protocols. All material and documents will be made available to other members of the evaluation team who are due to arrive during Week 2 of the evaluation. Key documents: In order to familiarize themselves with GEM-3’s mission, its objectives, and programmatic evolution, evaluators will review (among others) the following documents: GEM-3 Quarterly Reports, the GEM-2 Completion Report, recent reports from the USAID Regional Inspector General, along with internal self￾assessment reports conducted by the GEM-3 contractor—Louis Berger, Inc. (LBI). Key Interviews: The Team Leader and Sub-Team Leader 1 will meet with the USAID/Philippines Mission Director to capture her views on the Mission’s expectations of the GEM-3 evaluation and other views relevant to conducting the evaluation. Interviews will also be arranged with Mission Specialists familiar with USAID program. Subsequently, interviews will be conducted with other Government of the Philippines (GPH) agencies and international development organizations working in Mindanao. For example, members of the Evaluation Team will meet with representatives of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), the Office of the Presidential Advisor on the Peace Process (OPAPP), the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) Regional Government, and the World Bank (WB). Other interviews will also be arranged with additional organizations, time permitting. STAGE TWO Task 3: Prepare Detailed Evaluation Work Plan During Week 2 (July 30-August 4, 2012), the entire Evaluation Team will participate in preparing a work plan for carrying-out the evaluation of the GEM-3 program. The Evaluation Team will be divided into two sub-teams with respective responsibilities. The work plan will include; a detailed overall evaluation timetable, an expanded fieldwork schedule, a list of the GEM-3 sites to be visited by the Evaluation Team, and the provinces to be covered by Teams 1 and 2 over a five-week period. Task 4: Conduct a Mini-Survey of BIP Projects Infrastructure projects accounted for approximately 67 percent of the resources allocated to promote economic growth throughout Mindanao. These projects were conceived as serving relatively large numbers of persons in rural barangays with assumption that by improving the rural infrastructure for these populations would ultimately assist in bringing about peace in Mindanao. These infrastructure projects consisted of Regional Infrastructure Projects (RIPs—projects costing in excess of $50,000) and Barangay Infrastructure Projects (BIPs—costing less than $50,000). As part of its proposal, SI proposed using a sub-contractor to conduct a mini-survey of BIP projects. This effort is briefly described below: Task 4a: Develop and Pre-Test Data Collection Instruments During Week 2, the Evaluation Team working with its sub-contractor, the Research Institute for Mindanao Culture (RIMCU) will commence on the development of Survey Questionnaire focusing on the results achieved by the GEM-3 BIPs. This questionnaire will be conducted in 36 barangays (30 barangays with GEM-3 projects and six barangays with no GEM-3 projects) and administered to 900 respondents. Twenty-five respondents will be surveyed in each GEM-3 site for a total of 750 persons with the same number of respondents reviewed in the non￾GEM-3 sites (6 x 25) for a total of 150. In each BIP site, key leaders, including community leaders, local religious heads or imams, women’s group leaders, among others) will also be interviewed to collect their views on the actual benefits they perceive to have been achieved by their respective GEM-3 project. Once the draft questionnaire is developed and reviewed by the Evaluation Team Leader, suggested changes will be incorporated and then sent to the RIMCU field staff for initial translation and preparation for pre-testing the instruments. The development of a GEM-3 mini-survey field questionnaire will involve the following five principles: First, the questionnaire content should reflect the central questions and issues initially detailed in the Evaluation Statement of Work and subsequently addressed in SI’s winning proposal. 18 Second, the questionnaire items should only seek to collect information that is relevant to answering the aforementioned central question—each item should be justified as part of an integrated analytic plan. Third, the instrument items should be as clear and simple as possible—the items should be carefully screened for overly complicated sentences and for unnecessary jargon (especially since the questionnaire will need to be translated into Tagalog). Fourth, the respondent burden should be carefully considered—close-ended items should be used to the extent possible in order to lessen the response burden and to facilitate analysis. Fifth, the questionnaire must be field-tested under realistic condition—as now envisioned, the survey instrument will consist of approximately 40 questions. No more than 30-40 minutes should be required to complete the survey questionnaire. By the end of Week 2 (August 4), RIMCU will complete a pre-test of the BIP field questionnaire in a GEM-3 field site to insure that the survey questions make sense, are clear, and are appropriately translated for capturing the desired information on the GEM-3 program. Once the initial pretest is completed, changes to the instrument will be incorporated and then the questionnaire will be administered to an additional GEM-3 group to assess their comment on the revised instrument including the actual questions, the length of the instrument, and how much time was needed to complete the questionnaire. Task 4b: Provide Training to Field Staff on Data Collection Procedures By the middle of Week 3 (August 8), basic techniques for conducting the survey will be developed including a basic sample frame from which to draw survey participants (especially with the full preparation of the data base from the SI Evaluation Team Leader). In conducting the survey, the main implementation issues are those of consistency (administering the survey in the same way each time), completion of all survey items, and striving for a reliable response rate during from each participant cohort population. Task 4c: Analyze Survey Data and Conduct a Briefing on Mini-Survey Findings RIMCU plans on analyzing their survey data on an ongoing basis as data are collected, cleaned, and entered into a Microsoft Excel document and subsequently a SPSS/PC database. On August 30, towards the end of Week 6, RIMCU will present a briefing on their initial survey findings to the GEM-3 Evaluation Team and representatives from the GEM-3 staff, USAID and other invited parties. STAGE THREE Task 5: Collect Field Data The SI Evaluation Team (divided into two sub teams) will conduct site visits to 36 to 40 GEM-3-assisted barangays; Team 1 (consisting of five persons) will visit approximately 20 barangays with Team 2 (consisting also of five persons) will visit about the same number of barangays. Both teams will conduct their site visits during the Weeks 3 to 5 (August 7-August 25). Teams 1 and 2 will conduct their site visits independent of the mini-survey being conducted by RIMCU. Total sites visited by both the teams and RIMCU will be about 72 to 76 barangays. Upon arriving in Davao City on August 7, the Evaluation Teams will meet with MinDA officials. The teams will visit the GEM-3 staff the following day to obtain documents and to discuss various aspects of the GEM-3 components. To complement the more quantitative mini-survey data collection procedures of RIMCU, the GEM-3 evaluation teams will design and develop during Week 2 the Guide Questions for Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) for collecting extensive qualitative data during their visits to component barangays. Unlike the more focused and structured mini-survey questionnaire, these protocols are essentially open-ended sets of questions designed to probe the attitudes and knowledge of local persons about the results and benefits of the projects that were awarded to their respective barangays by the GEM-3 program. Nevertheless, these protocols have been structured to achieve complementarity between the teams such that they will collect similar types of project performance data across the respective GEM-3 program components. FGDs (between 6 to 8 persons each) and KIIs will require more time—between 50-60 minutes—with focus group sessions limited to an hour and a half sessions. Despite the additional time burden, the expectation is that a rich body of information will be collected to complement the quantitative data collection effort. While all of the team members have experience in conducting interviews, the Team Leader will conduct a short session on how to conduct focus groups prior to the Evaluation Teams’ deployment to the field. Task 6: Data Analysis 19 During Week 6 and into Week 7 (circa August 29-September 6) the Evaluation Team will return to Davao City to begin analyzing their data and preparing brief 10 page component reports describing the results of their site visits. These qualitative summaries by component area will be augmented by a briefing provided by RIMCU summarizing the major themes identified in the survey data. Part of a week has been set aside to ensure that component team members will provide a written report summarizing their FGDs and KIIs. As noted above, survey data will be entered into a data file for quantitative analysis using SPSS/PC. RIMCU is expected to conduct a brief review of the survey findings on/about August 30. STAGE FOUR Task 7: Evaluation Briefing and Preparation of the Evaluation Report The GEM-3 Evaluation Team will depart from Davao City returning to Manila on September 6. The Team Leader and Sub-Team Leaders will be responsible for producing a Draft GEM-3 Evaluation Report for submission to USAID/Philippines on September 17.12 This draft evaluation report on GEM-3 shall be compiled from field data collected from four data sources: quantitative data results from the mini-survey findings analyzed using SPSS/PC, qualitative data summaries and themes generated from extensive key informant interviews and focus groups conducted in approximately 40 barangays, and a mix of quantitative/qualitative data obtained from a thorough review of secondary data sources. The GEM-3 Draft Evaluation Report will be organized as follows: the report will present a succinct analysis for answering how well each component was implemented vis-à-vis the project performance elements—ranging from impact to lessons-learned. Subsequently, based on the specific findings and themes identified in each individual component, a summary chapter will present an analysis of the major findings and crosscutting themes for the GEM￾3 program—resulting in a summative performance evaluation with conclusion and recommendations as called for in the GEM-3 RFP. Prior to submission to USAID/Philippines, the Team Leader will submit the draft report for quality review by SI headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. Once USAID/Philippines and MinDA personnel have reviewed and commented on the draft report (September 20), appropriate revisions will be made by the Evaluation Team. The COR will then arrange for an initial presentation of the Evaluation Team’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations on/about September 21 to PRM staff. Based on the feedback from this initial presentation, the COR will arrange a presentation for the entire Mission as well as relevant GPH agencies on/about September 24. Task 8: Submission of the Final Evaluation Report A final draft report will be submitted to SI HQ, prior to the departure of the remaining GEM-3 Evaluation team members on September 25, along with evaluation data files, the mini-survey database, and other documents collected by evaluation team members during the fieldwork phase of the evaluation. Home office personnel from SI in Arlington, Virginia will be responsible for producing the final evaluation document for submission to USAID/Philippines by October 16, 2012. Task 9: Produce 20-Minute Video on Evaluation Process As agreed with USAID/PPL/LER and USAID/Philippines (and stipulated in an official contract modification), SI, working with its subcontractor Quimera, will produce a short video (around 20 minutes long) that documents the evaluation process, as outlined in the USAID Evaluation Policy, using the evaluation of GEM-3 as an example. The video will include a short introduction of GEM-3; a section on how the evaluation purpose, questions, and methodology were derived; a section on the data collection process, including recordings of FGDs and KIIs; a section on how the evaluation team will analyze and synthesize its findings, conclusions, and recommendations; and a final section on how the evaluation will be used by USAID/Philippines and USAID/Washington to inform future program design. The intended audience will be USAID staff within the Mission and across the agency. 12 SI requested and USAID COR agreed to a change in submission date of the Draft Final Report from September 13 to September 17 (email from USAID/Philippines to SI on August 1, 2012). 20 ANNEX 5: EVALUATION TIMETABLE Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday July 201 2 22 Manila 23 Manila 24 Manila 25 Manila 26 Manila 27 Manila 28 STAGE 1 Meetings w/ USAID 8.30am￾3.30pm Desk Review STAGE 1 Meetings w/ RMICU Desk Review STAGE 1 Meeting with USAID Mission Dir Meeting w/ ARMM STAGE 1 Meetings w/ USAID OEDG & Key Partners Desk Review STAGE 1 Meetings w/ OPAPP, NEDA & Key Partners STAGE 1 Desk Review 29 Manila 30 Manila 31 Manila 1 Manila 2 Manila 3 Manila 4 STAGE 1 Team Briefings Eval Team Planning Meeting STAGE 1 Desk Review & Update Eval Methods STAGE 2 Desk Review & Update Eval Methods STAGE 2 Submission of Final Work Plan & Final Report Outline to USAID STAGE 2 Meetings w/ Key Partners (cont.) USAID gives written approval STAGE 2 Update final work plan, if needed August 2012 5 Manila 6 TRAVEL 7 Mindanao 8 Mindanao 9 Mindanao 10 Mindanao 11 STAGE 2 Preparation for field work Team Meeting on work & logistics STAGE 3 FIELD WORK Team to Davao Meet MinDA STAGE 3 FIELD WORK Meet GEM-3 staff STAGE 3 FIELD WORK T1*-travel to Surigao del Sur T2*-travel to Compostela Valley STAGE 3 FIELD WORK T1-Surigao del Sur T2-C Valley STAGE 3 FIELD WORK T1-Surigao del Sur T2-C Valley 12 Mindanao 13 Mindanao 14 Mindanao 15 Mindanao 16 Mindanao 17 Mindanao 18 Video Team travels to N Cbo on Aug 14 STAGE 3 FIELD WORK T1-Surigao del Sur T2-C Valley STAGE 3 FIELD WORK T1-to N. Cotabato T2-to S. Cotabato STAGE 3 FIELD WORK T1-North Cotabato T2-South Cotabato STAGE 3 FIELD WORK T1-North Cotabato T2-South Cotabato STAGE 3 FIELD WORK T1-North Cotabato T2-South Cotabato STAGE 3 FIELD WORK T1-North Cotabato T2-South Cotabato 19 Mindanao 20 Mindanao 21 Mindanao 22 Mindanao 23 Mindanao 24 Mindanao 25 T2 travels to Davao for flt to ZC STAGE 3 FIELD WORK [Eidl Fitri hol] T1- Maguindanao T2-Travel to Tawi-Tawi STAGE 3 FIELD WORK [nat'l hol] T1- Maguindanao T2-Tawi-Tawi STAGE 3 FIELD WORK T1- Maguindanao T2-Tawi-Tawi STAGE 3 FIELD WORK T1- Maguindanao T2-Tawi-Tawi STAGE 3 FIELD WORK T1- Maguindanao & other prov T2-Depart Tawi-Tawi STAGE 3 FIELD WORK Return to Cotabato T1 and T2 = Team 1 and Team 2 21 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 26 Mindanao 27 Mindanao 28 Mindanao 29 Mindanao 30 Mindanao 31 Mindanao 1 STAGE 3 FIELD WORK [nat'l hol] T1 & T2 in Cotabato City STAGE 3 FIELD WORK T1 & T2 in Cotabato City STAGE 3 FIELD WORK T1 & T2 return to Davao (by vehicle) STAGE 3 FIELD WORK Davao Meet business grps, CoCs RIMCU (2- 4pm) STAGE 3 FIELD WORK Davao Meet business grps, CoCs STAGE 3 FIELD WORK Davao Meetings & Write shop September 2012 2 Mindanao 3 Mindanao 4 Mindanao 5 TRAVEL 6 Manila 7 Manila 8 STAGE 3 FIELD WORK Davao Meetings & Write shop STAGE 3 FIELD WORK Davao Write shop STAGE 3 FIELD WORK All team members submit component reports STAGE 3 FIELD WORK Return to Manila STAGE 4 Data Analysis/ Draft Report STAGE 4 Data Analysis/ Draft Report 9 Manila 10 Manila 11 Manila 12 Manila 13 Manila 14 Manila 15 STAGE 4 Data Analysis/ Draft Report STAGE 4 Data Analysis/ Draft Report STAGE 4 Data Analysis/ Draft Report STAGE 4 Team submits draft report to SI HQ COB for review STAGE 4 Meetings at USAID and AusAID STAGE 4 Team revises draft report based on SI HQ comments 16 Manila 17 Manila 18 Manila 19 Manila 20 Manila 21 Manila 22 STAGE 4 Submission of Draft Report to USAID STAGE 4 Team prepares presentation for USAID1 STAGE 4 Receive comments on draft report from USAID STAGE 4 Team revises draft report STAGE 4 Presentation to USAID1 (USAID & MinDA staff) STAGE 4 Team prepares presentation for USAID2. Cont w/ revision of draft report. 23 Manila 24 Manila 25 TRAVEL 26 27 28 NOTE: Revised date: SI will submit Final Report to USAID by Nov 30 STAGE 4 Presentation to USAID Mission and GPH agencies STAGE 4 Finalize Draft Report Eval Team submits draft report to SI HQ 22 ANNEX 6: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES AND INTERVIEW GUIDES 6A. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE GROWTH WITH EQUITY IN MINDANAO (GEM-3) BARANGAY MINI-SURVEY Social Impact (SI) and Research Institute for Mindanao Culture (RIMCU) Cagayan de Oro City August 2012 IDENTIFICATION Province: ____________________________________ Municipality:__________________________________ Barangay: ____________________________________ Name of Respondent : ___________________________________________ Address (Street & House Number) ___________________________________________ ____________________________________________ CODES Type of Barangay: GEM 3 Area 1 Non-GEM Area 2 Type of Sub-Project Road Construction/Upgrading (RCU) 1 Trading Center (TC) 2 Bridge Construction (BC) 3 Grain Solar Dryer (GSD) 4 Grain Warehouse/Solar Dryer (GWSD) 5 Footbrdige (FTBR) 6 Drainage (DRNG) 7 Field Control Name of Interviewer: _________________________ Signature: _________________ Interviewer’s Code Interview Record Date of Interview Time Start Time End Interview length Month Day Year (IN MINUTES) Interview Completed on First contact 1 Second contact 2 Third contact 3 Name of Field Supervisor: _________________________ Signature: _________________ Date of instrument verification: __________________ Supervisor’s Code 23 Introduction Good morning/good afternoon. I am ________ (show ID) from the Research Institute for Mindanao Culture (RIMCU) Xavier University. Together with the Social Impact (SI), we are conducting a survey on your community. This survey represents an effort to assess the level of satisfaction of local community participants with recently completed Barangay Infrastructure Projects. These projects known as Barangay Infrastructure Projects (BIPs) were funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of the Growth with Equity (GEM3) program. The aim of GEM was to improve the quality of life in barangays by providing resources for constructing a wide range of projects based on the perceived needs of local community members. BE ASSURED THAT ALL RESPONSES WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL; NO NAMES WILL BE USED OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS OR THE NAME OF THE BARANGAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION; REMEMBER: SELECT RESPONDENT ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINE. ASK EVERY QUESTION, RECORD. EXACT ANSWERS, REPEAT QUESTIONS WHEN NEEDED. BLOCK A. RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS (Demographics, Schooling and Employment) A1 How old are you on your last birthday? (Pila na man ang imong idad karon basi nsa imong pinaka-ulahing birthday?) PLEASE RECORD ACTUAL AGE AS GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT ______________________________________ A2 Sex of respondent (Ang RSP ba lalaki o babaye) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONE CODE Male Female 1 2 A3 What is your marital status? (Ikaw ba ulitawo/dalaga, minyo/may ka-ipon, biyudo/biyuda, o bulag sa bana/asawa) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONE CODE Married Single Widowed Separated/Divorced 1 2 3 4 A4 How many children do you have? (Pila man ang tanan nimong anak?) PLEASE RECORD ACTUAL NUMBER OF CHILDREN THAT RESPONDENT HAS. PLACE “0” IF RSP DON’T HAVE ANY. ____________________________ A5 What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Unsa ang pinaka-taas nga grado ang imongnahuman?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONE CODE No formal education/no grade Elementary School High School Specialized Technical Training Some College University/College degree Post-Graduate Courses Only attended a Madrasa 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A6 What main ethnic group does your family belong to? (if mixed use other to specify) (Unsa man ang inyong kagikan?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONE CODE Ilocano Tagalog Cebuano Boholano Ilonggo Zamboangueno Maranao Maguindanao Iranun Subanen Manobo Tiduray Others (SPECIFY) ____________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 24 98 99 A6.1 Could you tell me what religion do you practice? (Unsa man ang relihiyon sa panimalay?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONE CODE None Islam Christianity Other (specify)_____________________________ Refused Don’t’ know 1 2 3 4 98 99 A7 What is your occupational area? (Unsa man ang klase sa imong trabaho?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONE CODE Unemployed (SKIP TO BLOCK B) Industry and/or mining Agriculture and/or forestry Transportation Construction Private business Commercial services Public health Public utilities Education and/or cultural activities Local or national government Housewife Other (SPECIFY)____________________________ Refused 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 98 A8 Do you work for someone and receive a salary? (Ikaw ba nagdawat ug suweldo niining imong trabaho?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE APPROPRIATE CODE YES NO Refused Don’t know 1 0 98 99 A8.1 Are you employed full time or part-time? (Ang imo bang trabaho permanente ug walay undang o ikaw ba dili permanente nga adunay trabaho?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONE CODE Full time employment Part-time employment Refused Don’t know 1 2 98 99 BLOCK B. PROJECT INFORMATION (This information to be completed by the questionnaire enumerator) B1 Are you aware of any GEM project funded by USAID in your barangay? (Nakahibalo ka ba kung adunay GEM project nga ang pondo gikan sa USAID dinhi sa inyong barangay?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONE CODE YES NO (SKIP TO QB3) Refused Don’t Know 1 0 98 99 B1.1 IF “YES”--How did you first learn about the BIP project? (Kang kinsa mo kini nahibalo-an?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ALL ITEMS THAT APPLY People from GEM came to the community My relatives, family friends told me about BIP Through media (newspaper, radio, TV) Other communities told me about the GEM and the BIPs being funded by USAID Refused Don’t know 1 2 3 4 98 99 B2 What was/were this/these GEM project(s) in your community? (Unsa man kini nga mga GEM projects nga ania dinhi sa inyong barangay?) LIST ALL PROJECTS THAT ARE MENTIONED HERE) 01______________________________________________ B2.1What is the status of the project now? (Unsa man ang nahitabo niini nga project sa pagkakaron?) 1- Discontinued 2- Delayed 3 - On-going 4 - 25 02______________________________________________ 03______________________________________________ 04______________________________________________ Completed B3 QUESTION IS FOR NON-GEM AREAS ONLY. FOR GEM AREAS, SKIP TO QB4 AFTER QB2 B3 Which of these infrastructure projects were constructed in your community which is not GEM-funded? (Asa man niini nga mga infra projects ang na-patukod sa inyong lugar nga dili gikan sa GEM?) 01 Box culverts 02 Grain Solar Dryers 03 Training Center 04 Footbridges 05 Boat landing 06 Road 07 Irrigation 08 Water system 09 Drainage 10 Seaweed dryer 11 Grain Warehouse 12 Others (SPECIFY): ___________ 1 – YES 0 – NO B3.1 What is the source of fund for this project? (Kinsa man ang naghatag sa pondo alang niini nga project) B3.1 Was this ever completed? (Kini ba nahuman, wala, o nagpadayon pang gibuhat?) 1 – YES; 0 – NO; 2 ON-GOING B4 What was the main purpose of constructing the BIP project in your community? (Unsa man ang tumong o katuyu-an sa paghimo niining BIP Project dinhi sa inyong barangay o lugar?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ALL ITEMS THAT APPLY To improve transportation facilities (roads, footbridges, box culverts, boat landings) (Para sa pag-improve sa transportation o mapadali ug mapasayon ang pagbiyahe) To improve the processing of agricultural products (solar or seaweed dryers) (Para mapalambo o ma￾improve ang pag-proseso sa mga abot sa uma o panagat ( pagbulad) To provide an area for commercial trade and exchanges (trading centers) (Aron mahatagan ug lugar para sa pagpamaligya sa mga abot) To provide structure for storing crops (grain warehouses) (Paghatag ug building/bodega aron adunay kabutangan sa mga na-ani nga palay, mais) To improve water resources management (irrigations, drainage etc.) (Para mapalambo ug ma-ampingan nga mga tinubdan sa patubig) Others (SPECIFY) __________________________ Refused Don’t know 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 B5 How did your community decide what kind of project BIP should be done? (Gi-unsa man sa mga tawo sa inyong barangay o lugar ang pagkab-ot sa desisyon kung unsa nga BIP project ang himoon?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE CODE Through discussion at the meetings (Gihisgutan o gidiskusyunan sa mga meetings) Local authorities decided (Ang lokal nga pamunu-ang ang nagdisesyon) People’s Organization decided (Ang mga POs ang nag￾desisyon) A few people from the community made the decision (Pipila lang ka tawo sa barangay ang nag-desisyon) Refused Don’t know 1 2 3 4 98 99 B6 How many persons made the decision on this BIP project? Pila man ang gidaghanon sa mga tawo nga mi￾PLEASE RECORD ACTUAL NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO MADE THE DECISION. ENCIRCLE “99” IF DON’T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER OR 98 IF RSP 26 apil sa paghimo niini nga desisyon?) REFUSED TO GIVE ACTUAL FIGURE. Refused Don’t’ know 98 99 B7 How did your community participate in the BIP project? (Sa unsang paagi nakatabang ang mga tawo dinhi sa nyong barangay niini nga BIP project?) The community provided: (Sila ba mihatage sa:) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ALL ITEMS THAT APPLY It did nothing/no contribution at all (walay gitampo) Materials (materyales) Local labor (labor gikan sa mga residente sa barangay) Local knowledge and suggestions (kahibalo ug suggestions gikan sa mga residente sa barangay) Financial support (kuwarta) Technical equipment (technical nga mga gamit/equipment) Obtaining building permits and other legal documents (Pagkuha ug building permits ug uban pang mga legal nga dokumento) Technical assessment (technical nga kahibalo) Management (Pagdumala o pag-manage sa project) Refused Don’t know 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 98 99 B8 Did the residents of the community/barangay actively participated in the BIP project? (Ang mga tawo ba sa inyong barangay aktibong misalmot sa paghimo niining BIP project?)) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONE CODE YES NO (SKIP TO QB8.2) Refused Don’t Know 1 0 98 99 B8.1 IF “YES” approximately, how many persons participated in your community’s BIP? (Pila man ka tawo ang misalmot o mitabang sa paghimo niining Barangay Infra Project o BIP?) PLEASE RECORD ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE BIP.. ENCIRCLE “99” IF DON’T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER OR 98 IF RSP REFUSED TO GIVE AN ESTIMATE: Refused Don’t’ know 98 99 B8.2 Were there female community members who participated in the community BIP? (Aduna bay mga babaye nga misalmot o mitabang sa paghimo niining BIP project sa inyong barangay?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM YES NO (SKIP TO QB9) Refused Don’t know 1 0 98 99 B8.3 IF “YES” approximately, how female members of the community participated in your community’s BIP? (Pila man ang gidaghanon sa mga babaye nga misalmot o mitabang sa paghimo niining BIP Project dinhi sa inyong barangay?) PLEASE RECORD ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FEMALES WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE BIP.. ENCIRCLE “99” IF DON’T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER OR 98 IF RSP REFUSED TO GIVE AN ESTIMATE: Refused Don’t’ know 98 99 B8.4 What did the female members do? (Unsa man particular nga gibuhat sa mga mi-apil o misalmot nga mga babaye sa BIP project sa barangay?) Only listened (naminaw laman) Only provided snacks (naghatag ug merienda/snacks) Provided suggestions for the project (nagpa￾ambit/mihatag ug mga sugyot) Provided cash for the project (mihatag ug cash para sa project) Provided inking contribution (mihatag ug gamay nga tabang) Monitored the sub-contractors (gibantayan ang mga sub-contactors) Used the completed project (gigamit ang nahuman nga project) Did more than one of the above (mihimo ug labaw sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 27 usa sa mga nakalistang gimbuhaton sa itaas) Other (SPECIFY)_______________________________ Refuse Don’t know 9 98 99 B9 How did GEM personnel participate in your community project? (Unsa man usab ang gitabang o sa unsang paagi nakatabang ang mga taga GEM sa paghimo niini nga BIP project?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ALL ITEMS THAT APPLY It did nothing/no contribution at all (walay gitampo) Only provided money (mihatag lamang ug kuwarta) Helped organize people in the community (mitabang sa pag-organisar sa mga tawo sa barangay) Provided equipment (naghatag ug equipment) Provided training (naghatag ug training) Paid for outside contractors (mibayad ug mga taga￾gawas nga contractor) Refused Don’t know 0 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 B10 Were there problems encountered during the implementation of BIP project? (Aduna bay mga problema sa dihang gihimo kining BIP project?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM YES NO (SKIP TO B11) Refused Don’t know 1 0 98 99 B10.1 IF “YES” – what was/were this/these problems(s)? (Unas man kini nga mga problema?) [RECORD SEPARATELY IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE PROBLEM. DO NOT LUMP] 01 _____________________________________________ ________________________________________________ 02______________________________________________ ________________________________________________ 03______________________________________________ ________________________________________________ B11 To what extent do community members utilize this BIP project? (Nagamit o napahimuslan ba ug maayo sa mga tawo dinhi sa inyong barangay kining maong BIP Project?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONE CODE ONLY All the time (sa tanang panahon) Most of the time (kanunay) Sometimes (medyo kanunay) Seldom (panalagsa lang) Not at all (wala gayud) Refuse Don’t know 5 4 3 2 1 98 99 B12 Who is responsible for the maintenance of this project? (Kinsa man ang responsable sa pag￾maintain niining maong BIP project?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ALL ITEMS THAT APPLY Barangay LGU Municipal LGU POs NGOs Community members Refuse Don’t know 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 B13 Do you think the community is interested to have other BIP projects to improve local infrastructure? (Sa imo bang pagtu-o ang mga tawo o residente sa inyong barangay interesado pang maka-angkon ug laing BIP project aron mapalambo o ma-improve ang infrastraktura dinhi sa inyong barangay?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM YES NO (SKIP TO B15) Not sure (dili sigurado) Not at this time (wala sa pagkakaron) No opinion (walay opinion) 1 0 2 3 4 B14 Which of the following projects do you think is needed in the community? (Puwede bang imong isulti kung asa niining mga mosunod nga projects ang 1 – Yes 0 - No B14.1 Please rate according to preference as other types of infrastructure project that you think is needed in your community? (Palihug isulti kung asa niini nga mga projects nga imong ginganlan nga gikinahanglan sa barangay ang labing 28 gikinahanglan sa inyong barangay o lugar?) gusto, sunod nga gusto, ug dili kaayo gusto sa mga tawo) 1 - Most Preferred; 2 – Next Preferred 3 – Least Preferred 01 Box culverts 02 Grain Solar Dryers 03 Training Center 04 Footbridges 05 Boat landing 06 Road 07 Irrigation 08 Water system 09 Drainage 10 Seaweed dryer 11 Grain Warehouse 12 Others (SPECIFY) ____ B15 What benefits that you think resulted from the infrastructure project in your community? (Sa imong pagtu-o unsa man ang mga kaayuhan nga nahatag o mi-resulta tungod sa Infrastructure Project dinhi sa inyong barangay o lugar?) PLEASE READ AND PLACE CODE FOR EACH ONE 0 – NO; 1- YES 01 Gained skills in working with others (Naka-angkon ug kahanas/skills sa dihang nagtrabaho kauban ang mga residente sa barangay) 02 Gained technical skills, like financial management (Naka-angkong ug technical nga kahibalo sama sa financial management o unsaon pagpahiluna sa husto ang kuwarta) 03 Learned to cooperate with different community members (Nakatu-on sa pagpakig-ambit (cooperate) sa nagkalain-lain residente sa barangay) 04 Brought community members together to help decide what project is should be implemented (Nagkahi-usa ang mga residente sa barangay aron sa pagkab-ot sa desisyon kung unsa nga project ang angayang ipahimutang) 05 Contributed to improvements in my community (Nakatabang nga mapalambo o ma-improve ang among barangay o lugar) 06 Others (SPECIFY): _________________________ B16 Has your community been assisted by other groups/ORGANIZATIONS that provided services to your community? (Ang inyong lugar ba nakadawat ug mga hinabang o ayuda gikan sa ubang mga grupo o organisasyon?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM YES NO (SKIP TO QB17) Refused Don’t know 1 0 98 99 B16.1 IF “YES” what other groups/ ORGANIZATIONS have assisted your community? (Kinsa o unsa man kini nga mga grupo o organisasyon?) PLEASE READ AND PLACE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH ONE 0 – No; 1- YES 98 – Refuse; 99 – Don’t know 01 Local NGOs 02 International NGOs 03 LGUs (BLGU, MLGU, PLGU) 04 Philippine National government agency(ies) 05 International donors 06 Church-based organizations 07 private companies/corporation (business sector) 08 The community did not have a need for projects 29 09 No help was provided by any group B16.2 If you had to choose another project, would you choose it from GEM3/USAID or from another organization? (Kung papili-on ka ug lain na usab nga project, pili-on mo ba ang gikan sa GEM/USAID o gikan sa laing organisasyon?) GEM3/USAID Another Organization Refuse Don’t know 1 2 98 99 B17 Using a scale of 1 to 4 (1=not true; 2=somewhat true; 3=true; 4=very true), please rate your view of the benefits derived from the BIP project in your barangay. (Gamit ang numerong 1 hangtud 4, kung diin ang 1 nagkahulugan nga dili tinu-od, ang 2 nagkahulungan siguro tinu-od, ang 3 nagkahulugang tinu-d ug ang 4 nagkahulugang pinaka-tinu-od sa mga kaayuhan o benepisyo nga nakukuha sa inyong lugar tunogd sa BIP. Puwede ba nga imong masulti kung asa niini nga mga numero ang ha-om sa mga mosunod:) (Encircle appropriate code of response. Place 98 if RSP refuse to give answer and 99t if answer is don’t know.) CIRCLE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH ACTIVITY B17.01 Accelerated economic growth in your barangay (Mikusog ang paglambo sa ekonomiya sa inyong barangay) 1 2 3 4 98 99 B17.02 Accelerated economic growth in your province (Mikusog ang paglambo sa ekonomiya sa inyong probinsya) 1 2 3 4 98 99 B17.03 Benefitted relatively few persons within the barangay (Nakatabang sa pipila lamang ka tawo sa barangay) 1 2 3 4 98 99 B17.04 Benefitted the majority of the barangay’s residents (Nakatabang sa kadaghanan sa katawhan sa barangay) 1 2 3 4 98 99 B17.05 BIP project was consistent with the needs of the community (Ang BIP project nakasulbad sa mga panginalanglanon sa barangay) 1 2 3 4 98 99 B17.06 Helped to reduce violence in the community (Nakatabang nga mokunhod o mo-ubos ang kabubot sa sa barangay) 1 2 3 4 98 99 B17.07 Is helping to bring about peace in Mindanao (Nakatabang sa pagkab-ot sa kalinaw sa Mindanao) 1 2 3 4 98 99 B18 Using a scale of 1 to 3 where 1=inefficient; 2=efficient; and 3=highly efficient, please give a rating on how efficiently resources tapped for these barangay infra projects were utilized. (Gamit ang numerong 1 hangtud 3, kung diin ang 1 nagkahulugang na-usik, ang 2 nagkahulungan wala ma-usik o nagamit ug insakto , ug ang 3 nagkahulugang nagamit gyud ng maayo o walay bisan gamay nga na-usik. Pwede ba nga imong masulti kung asa nga numero ang mas ha-om niining mga mosunod:) Encircle appropriate code of response. Place 98 if RSP refused to give a rating and 99 if the answer is don’t know.) CIRCLE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH RESOURCE/CONRIBU TION B18.01 Materials 1 2 3 98 99 B18.02 donated labor from community members 1 2 3 98 99 B18.03 Hired/paid labor 1 2 3 98 99 B18.04 Local knowledge and suggestions 1 2 3 98 99 B18.05 Professional/technical support 1 2 3 98 99 B18.06 Money/Financial support 1 2 3 98 99 B18.07 Construction equipment 1 2 3 98 99 B19 Does your community hold public meetings to select what type of projects is needed in the community? (Ang inyo bang barangay nagpatawag ug miting o panagtigum alang sa pagpili kung unsa nga project ang gikinahanglan sa inyong barangay o PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM YES NO (SKIP TO QB20) Refused Don’t know 1 0 98 99 30 lugar?) B19.1 What was the nature of these meetings? (Unsa man ang nahitabo/gihisgutan ug resulta niini nga mga miting o panagtigum?) PLEASE READ AND PLACE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH ONE 0 – NO; 1- YES 01 The meetings were open to all members of the barangay (Walay gidid-an sa o ang tanang tawo sa barangay gi-awhag sa pagtambong sa mga miting o panagtigom) 02 Men and women could participate equally in these meetings (Ang mga lalaki ug mga babaye pareho nga maka-apil niini nga mga miting o panagtigom) 03 Few people attended these meetings (Pipila lamang ka tawo ang mo-apil o motambong niini nga mga miting) 04 Most people from the community attended these meetings (Kadaghanan sa mga tawo sa barangay motambong niini nga mga miting) 05 We had frequent meetings to arrive at a decision (Daghan nga mga miting o panagtigom ang gihimo ayha pa makahimo ug desisyon) 06 We only had meetings when it was necessary (Aduna lamay tigom o miting nga pagahimoon kung kini gikinahanglan) 07 Only the barangay and/or LGU officials attended the meetings (Ang mga opisyales lang sa barangay o sa munisipyo ang mitambong sa miting) 08 The project was decided on by persons outside the Barangay (Ang project gidesisyonan sa mga tawo mga wala magpuyo sa barangay) B20 Once a decision was reached on the selection of an infrastructure project, was it (in your Opinion) relevant to the needs of your community? (Ang napag￾desisyunan ba o napili nga infrastructure project sa imong huna￾huna mao ang gikinahanglan sa inyong barangay o lugar?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM THAT APPLY Very relevant to community needs (Mitukma gayud sa mga mga panginahanglan sa barangay) Relevant--but comparable to other community needs (Mitukma sa mga panginahanglan apan aduna sad uban nga projects nga anayan himoon) Somewhat relevant—but other infrastructure needs were greater(Medyo nakukma apan adunay mas gikinahanglan nga infra project ang barangay) Irrelevant-project made little sense in terms of community needs (Walay panginahanglan ang barangay sa maong project) Have no idea whether project was relevant or irrelevant (Walay ideya kung ang barangay ba aduna o walay panginahanglan niini nga project) Refused Don’t know 1 2 3 4 5 98 99 B21 What changes have you observed taking place in your community since the BIP project was completed? (Unsa man ang mga kausaban nga imong nakita sa inyong barangay o lugar sa dihang nahuman ang BIP project?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM THAT BEST APPLY Community member are interested in further projects (Ang mga residente sa barangay interesado sa uban pang mga projects) Community members are willing to work together on other projects (Ang mga residente sa barangay andam makigtambayayong sa paghimo ug lain na usab nga project) Community members are willing to work together with LGUs (Ang mga residente sa barangay andam 1 2 3 31 makigtambayayong uban sa LGU) There is little interest in further projects in my community (Adunay gamay lang nga interest ang among barangay sa uban pang mga projects) People are more willing to talk together about community problems (Ang mga tawo sa barangay andam mohisgot sa mga problema sa barangay) I don’t know of any changes in people’s attitudes (Wala akoy nahibalo-an nga kausaban sa mga kina-iya sa mga tawo sa among barangay) Refused Don’t know 4 5 6 98 99 B22 The benefits from this project in the community were mainly for: (Ang mga kaayuhan o benepisyo nga mahatag sa mga residente sa barangay para sa:) PLEASE READ AND PLACE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH ONE 0 – NO; 1- YES 01 Improving employment (pag-improve o pagpalambo sa panarbaho o mga gimbuhaton nga pagkakitaan) 02 Improving agricultural production (pag-improve o pagpalambo sa ani o abot pang-arikultura) 03 Improving water management (pag-improve sa pagdumala sa patubig) 04 Improving transportation (pag-improve o pagpalambo sa transportation) 05 Improving inter-community trade (pag-improve o pagpalambo sa lokal na negosyo sa mga kasikbit nga lugar) B22.1 For you, what benefits did you derive from this project? (Para kanimo unsa man ang mga kaayuhan o benepisyo tungod sa project?) PLEASE READ AND PLACE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH ONE 0 – NO; 1- YES 01 given me economic opportunities (nakahatag kanako ug oportunidad pang-ekonomiya o molu-ag ang panginabuhi) 02 more time can be devoted to productive work (daghang oras ang magahin alang sa mga buluhaton nga adunay abot) 03 lessen work burden (moga-an ang trabaho) 04 improve social relation and community participation (nataga-an ug panahon nga maka-apil o makasalmot sa mga activities sa barangay ug adunay panahon sa pakighinabi ug pag-abi-abi sa mga silingan) 05 more quality time for children (nadugangan ang oras para sa pag-atiman sa mga anak) B23 Was your barangay’s BIP project completed on time as promised by GEM personnel? (Ang BIP ba nahuman sigun sa petsa nga gisa-ad -ingon sa mga taga GEM?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM YES NO Refused Don’t know 1 0 98 99 B24 Has the project proved effective in meeting the perceived needs of the community? (Epektibo ba ang project o nahatag ba sa project ang mga panginahanglan sa barangay o lugar?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM YES NO Refused Don’t know 1 0 98 99 B25 Are you aware of what plans or procedures are in place to sustain the BIP project? (Aduna ka bay nahibalo￾an nga mga plano o pama-agi aron PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM YES NO (SKIP TO QB26) Refused 1 0 98 32 ma-sustain kining BIP project?) Don’t know 99 B25.1 IF “YES” – what are you doing to maintain the BIP project, would you describe them. (Unsa man ang mga gibuhat aron ma-maintain kining BIP project? Imo bang masulti kung unsa kini?) ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ QB26 AND BLOCK D IS FOR GEM AREAS ONLY (FOR NON-GEM AREAS SKIP TO BLOCK C) B26 Lastly, how did you benefit from the completion of the BIP project funded by the GEM program? (Sa kinatibuk-an, unsa man ang imong nakuhang kaayuhan o benepisyo sa dihang nahuman kining BIP project nga gihatag sa GEM program?) PLEASE READ AND PLACE CODE FOR EACH ONE 0 – NO; 1- YES 01 Improved income for my household (midako ang kita sa panimalay) 02 Reduced time spent accessing clean water (gamay na lang ang oras nga nagahin sa pagkuha ug limpyo nga tubig) 03 Increased employment (daghang ang trabaho) 04 Improved training by working on the project (nahatagan ug dugang nga training tungod sa pagtrabaho sa project) 05 Improved setting to conduct trade with other barangays (Nahatagan ug dakong kahigayunan diin ako makapang-negosyo sa uban nga mga barangay) 06 Transportation improvement (roads or footbridges) (pag-improve sa facilidad alang sa transportation) 07 Improved irrigation or drainage for managing water resources (Mi-improve ang irrigation ug drainage alang sa maayong pagdumala sa tinubdan sa tubig) 08 Others (SPECIFY) ______________________________________ B27 What do you believe that the community has learned from doing the GEM project? (Unsa man sa imong pagtu-o ang nakat-unan sa mga residente sa inyong barangay sa paghimo niining GEM project?) ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ B28 If your community did another GEM project, what would you propose doing differently? (Kung adunay himoon pag-usab nga GEM project, unsa man ang imong laing makasugyot nga project?) ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ BLOCK C. PRESENCE AND ACTIVITIES OF EX-COMBATANTS IN THE COMMUNITY C1 Are you aware if there were any Ex￾Combatants that returned to your barangay? (Aduna ka bay nahibalo-an nga mga kanhi miembro sa mga armadong grupo o mga kanhi rebelde dinhi sa inyong barangay?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM YES NO (TERMINATE INTERVIEW) Refused Don’t know 1 0 98 99 C1.1 IF “YES,” do you have any idea how many Ex-Combatants returned/settled to your barangay? (Aduna ka bay ideya kung unsa ka daghan ang mga kanhi meimbro sa armadong grupo o mga PLEASE RECORD ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EX￾COMBATANTS.. ENCIRCLE “99” IF RSP DON’T KNOW OR 98 IF RSP REFUSED TO GIVE AN ESTIMATE. __________________ Refused 98 33 rebelde dinhi sa inyong lugar?) Don’t’ know 99 C2 Do you have any idea what these Ex￾Combatants are doing now? Please describe. (Aduna ka bay ideya kung unsa ang mga gikalingawanng buhaton niining mga kanhi miembro sa armadong grupo o mga rebelde sa pagkakaron?) _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ C2.1 Did any ex combatants participate in the GEM project? (Adunay bay mga kanhi miembro sa armadong grupo o mga rebelde nga mi-apil o misalmot sa GEM Project) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM YES NO (SKIP TO QC3) Refused Don’t know 1 0 98 99 C2.2 How did the ex combatant benefit from the project? (Unsa man ang mga kaayuhan o benepisyo nga ilang nakuha sa ilang pag-apil o pagsalmot sa GEM project?) PLEASE READ AND PLACE CODE FOR EACH ONE 0 – NO; 1- YES 01 Improved income for my household (midako ang kita sa panimalay) 02 Reduced time spent on household chores especially in accessing clean water (gamay na lang ang oras nga nagahin sa mga gimbuhaton sa panimalay ilabi na sa pagkuha ug limpyo nga tubig) 03 Increased employment opportunities (midaghan ang oportunidad sa pagpanarbaho) 04 Improved training by working on the project (nahatagan ug dugang nga training tungod sa pagtrabaho sa project) 05 Improved setting to conduct trade with other barangays (Nahatagan ug dakong kahigayunan diin ako makapang-negosyo sa kasikbit nga mga barangay) 06 Transportation improvement (roads or footbridges) (pag-improve sa facilidad alang sa transportation) 07 Improved irrigation or drainage for managing water resources (Mi-improve ang irrigation ug drainage alang sa maayong pagdumala sa tinubdan sa tubig) 08 Others (SPECIFY): _______________________ C3 Are these ex-combatants engaged in gainful activities? (Kini bang mga kanhi miembro sa mga armadong grupo o kanhi rebelde nga ania sa inyong barangay adunay mga trabaho o mga pangita?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM YES NO (TERMINATE INTERVIEW) Refused Don’t know 1 0 98 99 C4 What events or circumstances do you think that will make these ex￾combatants to resume hostilities or to fight again against the government? (Unsa man kaha sa inyong pagtu-o ang mga panghitabo nga makapa￾aghat kanila nga mobalik sa ilang pagpakig-away sa gobierno?) ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ BLOCK D. FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS AND COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS (ONLY) D1 What is your current position/work for the barangay/community? (Unsa man imong katungdanan o posisyon sa PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM Barangay Chair Barangay Council member 1 2 34 pagkakaron dinhi sa inyong barangay?) Religious leader People’s organization officer (PO officer) Health provider (midwife, nurse, etc) Community tribal leader Business leader/entrepreneur 3 4 5 6 7 D1.1 How many years of service have you rendered in this office/position? (Pila na ka-tuig nga ikaw nag-alagad dinhi sa inyong barangay?) PLEASE RECORD NUMBER OF YES OF SERVICE ENCIRCLE “99” IF RSP DON’T KNOW OR 98 IF RSP REFUSED TO GIVE ANSWER.______________ Refused Don’t’ know 98 99 FOR GEM AREAS ONLY (DO NOT ASK QD2 TO QD3.3 FOR NON-GEM AREAS 2. Let us talk about the cost of the projects that the community acquired through GEM (Atong estoryahan ang mga projects nga nahatag o na-angkon sa inyong barangay pina-agi sa GEM.) (LIST PROJECT MENTIONED THAT ARE ACQUIRED THROUGH GEM) D2.1 How much is the total cost of the project? (Pila man ang kinatibuk-ang kantidad sa project?) D2.2. Did the community shared in the cost? (Mihatag ba ug kontribusyon ang mga tawo sa barangay? 1 – Yes 0 – No D2.3 How much is the cost shared by the community? (Pila man ang kantidad nga gihatag sa barangay isip ilang kontribusyon? D2.4. What form of contribution is this? (Unas man kini nga klase sa kuntribusyon?) 1 – labor 2 – in kind 3 – professional/ technical fees D2.5 IF LABOR: Can you estimate the total cost of labor contribution? (Pila man kaha ang kantidad sa labor nga nahatag alang sa project? D2.6 IF IN KIND: Can you estimate the total cost of in kind contribution? (Pila man kaha ang kantidad sa nahatag nga in kind para sa project?) 3 Is the project earning or generating an income? (Mikita o aduna bay kita ang project?) PLEASE ENCIRCLE ONLY ONE ITEM YES NO (TERMINATE INTERVIEW) Refused Don’t know 1 0 98 99 D3.1 In what ways? (Sa unsang paagi mikita ang project?) ______________________________________ ______________________________________ D3.2 How much income does the project generates annually? (Pila man ang kita sa matag tuig sa project? e.g. abang,bayad sa paggamit, bayad sa toll etc ) ( e.g. rental, usage/storage fee, toll fee, etc) PLEASE RECORD ANNUAL INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROJECT QOUTED BY THE RESPONDENT. RECORD 98 IF RSP REFUSE TO GIVE AMOUNT AND 99 IF RSP DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH IS THE ANNUAL INCOME ______________________________________ D3.3 Aside from cash earnings, what other benefits does the community gained from the project? (Gawas sa cash nga kita unsa pa man ang mga kaayuhan o benepisyo ang na-angkon sa inyong barangay tungod sa project?) 01____________________________________ ______________________________________ 02____________________________________ ______________________________________ 03____________________________________ ______________________________________ (LEAVE TAKING) THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS. GOOD DAY TIME ENDED: ______________________ FOR INTERVIEWER’S ATTENTION: RETURN TO THE FRONT PAGE TO COMPLETE the FINAL INTERVIEW DETAILS 35 ANNEX 6B: INTERVIEW GUIDES FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Date of Interview Province: Interviewer: Municipality: Time Start: _________ Time End: ___________ Barangay: Component: INFRASTRUCTURE Project: Barangay Infrastructure Project (BIP) Topic of Focus Group: Number of Persons in attendance:____________ No. Males___________ No. Females___________ Results 1. What were the key outputs and outcomes of the project? 2. How did this project help your barangay? Who primarily benefitted from this project? 3. Did the GEM project contribute to economic growth in your community? How? 4. In what way did these activities contribute to the peace or the reduction of violent conflict in the region? How? Relevance 1. Did this project serve the needs of your community? The entire community or a group of families? 2. How and who decided on doing this type of project? What did your community contribute in conceptualizing, building and operating the project? Effectiveness 1. Given the range of projects from box culverts, roads to footbridges and water systems, what types of projects do you think are most effective for your community? 2. Was the project completed on time based on your Barangay Development Plan? Efficiency 1. What are the important benefits that your community derived from the project? 2. How many people in your community who benefited from project? How many people outside your community who benefited from the project? 3. What type of projects do you believe are the most cost-effective in terms of time, money and results? 4. Since the community had to provide resources, what projects required the most effort in terms of labor, money or materials? Gender 1. Did women participate in deciding the type of project to carried-out in your community? 2. Were women consulted in the design of the infrastructure projects (e.g. multipurpose center, trading post, port landing, water systems)? 3. What community organizations participated in selecting the community project—did they contribute any labor or other support as part of the community contribution? Sustainability 1. Are there any plans are in place to sustain the project once GEM3 has completed building your community’s project? By whom? 2. Do you believe that any infrastructure activities contribute to the peace process or help in the reduction of violent conflict in the region? How? Lessons Learned 1. What worked best in designing and implementing the projects? 2. What activities did not work as anticipated? 3. Any suggestions you would make to improve the allocation of resources for projects and how they are selected and then constructed. Peace and Security Have you seen a decrease in violence (armed conflict) in your barangay in the last 12 months? 36 Yes:_____ No: _____ Not Sure ______ Don’t Know ______ If yes, how many incidences of violence were there in your barangay during this time: None 1 2 3 4 More than 5 instances Can you describe what types of conflict are typical in this area? 1-Political 2-Resource conflict (land, access to labor market, access to roads) 3-Popular justice (vigilantism) 4- Administrative conflict (corruption, procurement, donor assistance) 5-Identity based on religion or ethnicity Additional Comments FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Date of Interview Province: Interviewer: Municipality: Time Start: _________ Time End: ___________ Barangay: Component: WORKFORCE PREPARATION Project: COMPUTER LITERACY (CLIC) Topic of Focus Group: Number of Persons in attendance:____________ No. Males___________ No. Females___________ Results 1. Is there an increase in the number of students accessing the internet? (M/F) 2. Do you perform better in your class now that you have access to computer and internet connection? Why? 3. Are the students able to comply with their school assignments/requirements faster and with substantive outputs? Relevance 1. Are the interventions/support on CLIC relevant to your needs? Why? 2. Before CLIC was realized, where do you go for your computer needs? Do you have to pay for it? How much? Effectiveness 1. Since computer and internet facility is available in your school, do you often visit the facility for your school requirements? If yes, did it help you? In what way? If not, why do you visit the facility? 2. Besides complying with your school requirements, do you use the computer and internet access for other purpose? If yes, what are these? If no, why? Efficiency 1. Did you experience downtime due to power interruptions, internet service disruption? If yes, what are your alternatives? 2. If you encounter technical problem while using the computer and internet facility, who usually assist you? Are the problems resolved? If not what do you do? 3. What time does the facility opens and closes? Does this give you enough time to finish your work? Gender 1. How many male and female teachers were trained on computer and internet technology to assist in the facility (sex-disaggregated data) 2. Is there equal access to the facility? What is the percentage of male and female students accessing the facility? If there is wide gender gap, how did the project reduce this gap? 3. Is there a separate space for female students using the computer? If none why? Sustainability 1. Is your school allocating regular budget for maintenance and upgrading of the facilities? 2. How can the facility continue to operate even without outside assistance? Lessons Learned 1. What are the difficulties encountered during project implementation? What are the learnings? 37 Peace and Security Have you seen a decrease in violence (armed conflict) in your barangay in the last 12 months? Yes:_____ No: _____ Not Sure ______ Don’t Know ______ If yes, how many incidences of violence were there in your barangay during this time: None 1 2 3 4 More than 5 instances Can you describe what types of conflict are typical in this area? 1-Political 2-Resource conflict (land, access to labor market, access to roads) 3-Popular justice (vigilantism) 4- Administrative conflict (corruption, procurement, donor assistance) 5-Identity based on religion or ethnicity Additional Comments: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Date of Interview Province: Interviewer: Municipality: Time Start: _________ Time End: ___________ Barangay: Component: WORKFORCE PREPARATION Project: ENG MATCHING GRANT (EMGP) Topic of Focus Group: Number of Persons in attendance:____________ No. Males___________ No. Females___________ Results 1. How much funds was raised by the EMGP? How many MGPs completed by LOP? 2. How much equity contribution raised/ provided by the PTCA? 3. What are the systems/facilities/improved practices in place as a result of the intervention? Relevance 1. What are the projects funded by EMGP? 2. Are the funded projects relevant to the needs of the school? Why? 3. Are there other school needs that could have been supported by EMGP but was not given assistance? Why? What are these? Effectiveness 1. Do you think all the approved matching grants projects benefit your school? Why? 2. How do you decide on what projects to be funded by the matching grant program? Are there criteria to be followed? If yes, what are these? If no, why? Efficiency 1. How do you ensure that projects funded under the matching grant are handled and managed for efficient delivery of services? (e.g. libraries, science laboratories) 2. As a member of the PTCA, what is your contribution in conceptualizing projects for funding under the matching grant program. Gender 1. Among PTCA members, how many are male and female? What is the percentage of attendance on PTCA meetings between male and female members? If there are gender gaps, how were these addressed by the project? 2. Did males and female members participate in different ways? Sustainability 1. Does the PTCA engage LGU to tap Special Education Fund (SEF) for additional funding support? 2. What are your plans when the matching grant program by GEM is already completed? Lessons Learned What are the difficulties encountered during project implementation? What are the learnings? 38 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Date of Interview Province: Interviewer: Municipality: Time Start: _________ Time End: ___________ Barangay: Component: WORKFORCE PREPARATION Project INVEST Topic of Focus Group: Number of Persons in attendance:____________ No. Males___________ No. Females___________ General: 1. How did you know the INVEST program? 2. Why did you apply in the program? Are you convinced that the program can help you? Why? Results: 1. How many students were provided scholarship/ financial support (M/F) 2. How many students have completed the program/graduates (M/F) 3. How many graduates were employed (M/F) Relevance: 1. What are the types support/ interventions provided (training, co-financing agreements, financial, school supplies, etc.)? 2. Are the interventions/ activities relevant to the needs of the student-beneficiaries? Why? Are they sufficient to fulfill the needs of the students? Effectiveness: 1. Are there dropouts in the program? (M/F) What are the reasons? 2. How are you monitored by the project? Are you compliant with all the requisites of the scholarship program? Why? 3. Do you think your capability and skills is compatible with your course under the scholarship program? Why? Efficiency: 1. How is your application for your scholarship been processed? What are the requirements? Were you able to comply with the requirements easily? Gender: 1. What is the number of male and female students that were able to avail of the project? 2. What is the percent of male and female able to complete the program? If there are gender gaps, how were these addressed by the project? 3. What courses have the most number of males and females? Do you think male and female students were given equal opportunity to access the program? Sustainability: 1. Do you want the program to continue beyond GEM’s project life? If yes, what are your efforts to sustain the program? If no, why? 2. Are there other organizations that are willing to partner and continue the program? If yes, can you identify those organizations? Lessons Learned: 1. What difficulties were encountered during program implementation? Are the identified difficulties given appropriate solution? 2. What lessons did you learn? 39 Peace and Security Have you seen a decrease in violence (armed conflict) in your barangay in the last 12 months? Yes:_____ No: _____ Not Sure ______ Don’t Know ______ If yes, how many incidences of violence were there in your barangay during this time: None 1 2 3 4 More than 5 instances Can you describe what types of conflict are typical in this area? 1-Political 2-Resource conflict (land, access to labor market, access to roads) 3-Popular justice (vigilantism) 4- Administrative conflict (corruption, procurement, donor assistance) 5-Identity based on religion or ethnicity FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Date of Interview Province: Interviewer: Municipality: Time Start: _________ Time End: ___________ Barangay: Component: WORKFORCE PREPARATION Project: JEEP Topic of Focus Group: Number of Persons in attendance:____________ No. Males___________ No. Females___________ Results 1. Among the total number of students who have attended the JEEP courses, how many are immediately employed? Please provide also percentages (M/F) 2. What is the percentage of male and female graduates under JEEP that are already employed? What are their usual jobs (e.g. maritime, travel and tourism, health and allied services) Relevance 1. Why do you need to participate in the JEEP courses (Start and Accelerate)? 2. Are the regular courses on English Proficiency in your schools not enough to produce the same results as in JEEP courses? Is there any difference? If yes, what are these? Effectiveness 1. Are you more confident now to respond to job interviews? Why? 2. Based on your personal assessment, did your English proficiency skill develop after the JEEP training? Why? 3. Are the JEEP teachers more marketable than their counterpart teachers that did not undergo JEEP training? Why? Efficiency 1. Are the schools participating in the JEEP program accessible to you? 2. Don’t you consider your attendance in the JEEP courses as additional ‘burden’ in completing your college course? Why? Gender 1. How many male and female students are enrolled in the JEEP courses? (sex-disaggregated data). If there are gender gaps, how were they addressed? 2. How many male and female teachers are involved in the JEEP courses? (sex-disaggregated data) Sustainability 1. Do you have to pay for any fee related to your attendance in the JEEP program? If yes, how much? 2. Is your school allocating regular budget to sustain the JEEP program? 3. How can the program continue to operate even without outside assistance? Lessons Learned 1. What difficulties were encountered during project implementation? 2. What lessons were learned? Peace and Security Have you seen a decrease in violence (armed conflict) in your barangay in the last 12 months? 40 Yes:_____ No: _____ Not Sure ______ Don’t Know ______ If yes, how many incidences of violence were there in your barangay during this time: None 1 2 3 4 More than 5 instances Can you describe what types of conflict are typical in this area? 1-Political 2-Resource conflict (land, access to labor market, access to roads) 3-Popular justice (vigilantism) 4- Administrative conflict (corruption, procurement, donor assistance) 5-Identity based on religion or ethnicity FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Date of Interview Province: Interviewer: Municipality: Time Start: _________ Time End: ___________ Barangay: Component: WORKFORCE PREPARATION Project: PRIDE Topic of Focus Group: Number of Persons in attendance:____________ No. Males___________ No. Females___________ General: 1. How did you know the PRIDE program? 2. Why did you apply in the program? Are you convinced that the program can help you? Why? Results: 1. How many interns were absorbed by companies or employed elsewhere (GEM 2 and GEM 3)? Relevance: 1. What are the types support/ interventions provided (training, co-financing agreements, financial, school supplies, etc)? 2. Are the interventions/ activities relevant to the needs of the student-beneficiaries? Why? Are they sufficient to fulfill the needs of the students? 3. Is your course/ degree responsive to the skill sets required by the companies? Why? Effectiveness: 1. How were you selected? What was the process and criteria of selection? 2. Do you think your capability and skills is compatible with your current work as an intern in ________________ (corporation/company)? Why? 3. What are the in-demand skills required by the companies? 4. How did the internship program help you find a job? Efficiency: 1. How is your application for your internship been processed? What are the requirements? Were you able to comply with the requirements easily? 2. How long did you wait before you were given your current internship in _____ company? 3. Are you currently employed? Is your work related with your course? How long did it take for you to find a job? Gender: 1. What is the number of male and female students that were able to avail of the program (per cohort) 2. What is the percent of male and female able to complete the program? If there were gender gaps, how were they addressed? 3. Do you think, male and female students were given equal opportunity to access the program? 4. What is the percent of women and men given regular work after their internship in a certain company? Sustainability: 1. Do you want the program to continue beyond GEM’s project life? If yes, what are your efforts to sustain the program? If no, why? 2. Do you know of other organizations or government officials that are willing to partner and continue the program? If yes, can you identify those organizations? 41 Lessons Learned: 1. What difficulties did you encounter during program implementation? Are the identified difficulties given appropriate solution? 2. What lessons were learned? Peace and Security Have you seen a decrease in violence (armed conflict) in your barangay in the last 12 months? Yes:_____ No: _____ Not Sure ______ Don’t Know ______ If yes, how many incidences of violence were there in your barangay during this time: 3. None 1 2 3 4 More than 5 instances Can you describe what types of conflict are typical in this area? 1-Political 2-Resource conflict (land, access to labor market, access to roads) 3-Popular justice (vigilantism) 4- Administrative conflict (corruption, procurement, donor assistance) 5-Identity based on religion or ethnicity FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Date of Interview Province: Interviewer: Municipality: Time Start: _________ Time End: ________ Barangay: Component: Business Growth Project Type: Business Service Organization Role of Person Interviewed: 1- LGU Official 2-Municipio Official 3-Barangay Official 4-Community Member 5-Other _________________________________ Gender: M F Results 1. How long have you/your organization have been a GEM 3 beneficiary? What kind of assistance did you get from GEM3? 2. What were the key results and outcome of the project? 3. Do you feel the GEM assistance has assisted in promoting economic growth in your community? How? Relevance 1. How did the GEM project serve the needs of your organization? 2. How and who decided on doing this type of project? What did your organization contribute in conceptualizing, building and operating the project? Effectiveness 1. Are you satisfied with the assistance provided by GEM 3? Why? 2. From the assistance provided by GEM 3, how did your organization benefit directly from the assistance? 3. How did you organization benefit indirectly? 4. How effective has the Business Growth component of GEM-3 been in improving Mindanao producers’ access to markets? 5. How effective was GEM-3’s business policy agenda in improving competitiveness of Mindanao businesses? Efficiency 1. What are the specific benefits that your organization derived from the GEM assistance? 2. As a BSO, were you able to document an increase in any sector’s (e/g. agriculture production, fish production, export) activities? 3. Did your BSO add value added to any particular sector in your province and/or region? Gender 1. What is the membership of your BSO? What is the ratio of men to women? 2. How has your BSO benefited your women members? 3. Do women play a major role in your organization’s decision-making? 42 Sustainability 1. Are there any plans are in place to sustain the project once GEM3 has finished providing direct assistance to your organization? 2. Do you believe that your organization’s efforts to improve business activity contribute to the peace process or help in the reduction of violent conflict in the region? How? Lessons Learned 1. What activities on the part of your BSO worked best in promoting business? 2. What activities did not work as anticipated? 3. Any suggestions you would make to improve future assistance to other BSOs? Peace and Security Have you seen a decrease in violence (armed conflict) in your province or region in the last 12 months? Yes:_____ No: _____ Not Sure ______ Don’t Know ______ If yes, how many incidences of violence are you aware in your municipality during this time: None 1 2 3 4 More than 5 instances Can you describe what types of conflict are typical in your municipality? 1-Political 2-Resource conflict (land, access to labor market, access to roads) 3-Popular justice (vigilantism) 4- Administrative conflict (corruption, procurement, donor assistance) 5-Identity based on religion or ethnicity Other Comments? FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Date of Interview Province: Interviewer: Municipality: Time Start: _________ Time End: ___________ Barangay: Component: GOVERNANCE IMPROVEMENT Project: CIPYML Topic of Focus Group: Number of Persons in attendance:____________ No. Males___________ No. Females___________ General: 1. How did you know about the program on CIPYML? How were you selected to participate? 2. Why did you decided to participate in the project? Results 1. Did you learn any new knowledge and skills? Do you use these skills today? 2. Are you better off now than you were before you joined the internship? 3. Did it help enhanced your chance to land a better job? 4. In what way did you contribute to enhance local governance processes and the peace and development agenda of the LGUs as a result of the internship program? Relevance 1. How did the internship program help you deal with your LGU’s efforts on peace and development? 2. Are the interventions relevant to you and your LGU’s needs? Did the program address the most pressing needs of your LGU? 3. Do you feel that the project taught you the necessary knowledge and skills to help improve local governance and peace and development efforts of the local governments? Effectiveness 1. Do you feel that you have benefited from your participation in the internship? What about your respective LGU? 2. Were you able to achieve the objectives and goals of the internship on time? 3. Do you feel that a different type of project would have been more useful for you? 43 Efficiency 1. What are the important benefits that you and your LGU derived from the internship? 2. What did you or your LGU contribute in conceptualizing, building and operating the project? 3. How many people in your community who benefited from project? How many people outside your community who benefited from the project? Gender 1. How many men and women participate in the project? What is the ratio of men and women? If there are gender gaps, how were they addressed? 2. Were there any constraints to female participation and were they treated differently from men in the project? 3. Do you think that men and women benefited differently from the project? Why? Sustainability 1. Are there any plans in place that will sustain the project when GEM3 phases out? Do you think this project will continue? 2. Did you manage to find a job after the internship program? 3. Will you advocate to HOR or any donor program to continue and support the same project? Lessons Learned 1. What worked and did not work? 2. Would you make any changes to the way the projects work? What would these changes be? 3. What are the issues, problems and challenges encountered? Peace and Security Have you seen a decrease in violence (armed conflict) in your barangay in the last 12 months? Yes:_____ No: _____ Not Sure ______ Don’t Know ______ If yes, how many incidences of violence were there in your barangay during this time: None 1 2 3 4 More than 5 instances Can you describe what types of conflict are typical in this area? 1-Political 2-Resource conflict (land, access to labor market, access to roads) 3-Popular justice (vigilantism) 4- Administrative conflict (corruption, procurement, donor assistance) 5-Identity based on religion or ethnicity KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW Date: ______________________ Municipal: ________________ Interviewer: ________________ Barangay: _________________ Time Start: ________ Time End: _________ Project: REAP Individual Role: Municipal Mayor Discussion on Component: Governance Key Results: Financial management capacity of LGUs enhanced through implementation of revenue generation plans to increase locally generated revenues that are earmarked for development priorities and improve the delivery, quality and range of public services. Key Informant: The Local Chief Executive General: 1. Are you aware of GEM-3 projects in your municipality? What was the extent of your participation in these projects? 2. What made you decide to participate in the REAP project? Results: 1. Do you have a revenue generation plan that was approved by the SB/P and actually implemented? What is your involvement in the revenue generation plan of your municipality (formulation, consultation, approval, information campaign)? 2. Are you convinced that this plan will increase your revenue targets? Why? 44 3. In terms of the enabling environment are there related policy, structure, systems and mechanisms in place for collection, legislative measures, public consultation, information drive, computerization, etc.? 4. Are the local tax codes updated and legislated periodically as mandated by the LGC? 5. Did the delivery, quality and range of public services improved as a result of the technical assistance on REAP? Relevance 1. Were you or your LGU staff consulted during the design of the project? 2. Have the project interventions (training/coaching support) helped (or not helped) your LGU tax collection team formulate appropriate/creative/innovative tax collection system? 3. Would you recommend the same project to your fellow LCEs for scaling up and replication? Effectiveness 1. How did your LGU get selected? Are you aware of the selection criteria? 2. When did you start implementing your revenue generation plan? Was there an increase in revenue collection over the years? By what percent? 3. Have you encountered difficulties in implementing the revenue generation plan? What did you learn from participating in this project? Efficiency 1. What are the important benefits that your community derived from the project? 2. What did your community contribute in conceptualizing, building and operating the project? 3. How many people in your community who benefited from project? How many people outside your community who benefited from the project? Gender 1. What is the extent of women’s participation in the project? 2. Are women involved in the revenue generation planning, implementation and monitoring? 3. Are the trainings/ capability building and other TAs equally available to men and women? Sustainability 1. Are there sustaining mechanisms in place to sustain the gains and to maintain a functional and proactive revenue generation system? Lessons Learned 1. What worked and did not work? 2. What are the issues, problems and challenges encountered? Summary of Interview: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Date of Interview Province: Interviewer: Municipality: Time Start: _________ Time End: ___________ Barangay: Component: Former Combatant Reintegration Project: Topic of Focus Group: Number of Persons in attendance:____________ No. Males___________ No. Females___________ General: 1. Were there any projects in your community that provided assistance to former combatants? Can you tell me about them? 2. How did people participate? Were they invited or did they ask to join? 3. Do you know who funded these projects? 45 Results: 1. Did the project teach you or your neighbors any news skills? Do you use these skills today? 2. Is your community better off now than before the project started? Are you satisfied with how things are going now? 3. How were participants viewed in your community? Did this change over the life of the project? (Probe: was there jealousy/resentment; did community feel participants were productive members again, etc.) Relevance: 1. Do you feel that the project taught you the necessary skills to adjust to civilian life? Are there any other skills/activities you wish that the project had taught you? 2. Was the community consulted during the design of the projects? Was the project designed based on your input? Effectiveness: 1. Do you feel that you have benefited from your participation in these projects? What about your community? 2. Is it easier or more difficult to provide for your family since you returned? Efficiency: 1. Would you make any changes to the way the projects work? What would these changes look like? 2. Who gets to use the project facilities? (M/F) Gender 1. Did both men and women participate in your project? 2. Were there female former MNLF combatants who participated in the project. Were the women treated differently from men in the project? 3. Do you think that men and women benefit differently from the project? Sustainability 1. Do you plan on continuing to participate in this project? Why or why not? 2. Are there any similar projects that have been abandoned in the past? If so, why? Lessons Learned 1. Which aspects of the project worked particularly well? Which did not? 2. If you could design your own project, what would it look like to really meet your needs? Peace and Security Have you seen a decrease in violence (armed conflict) in your barangay in the last 12 months? Yes:_____ No: _____ Not Sure ______ Don’t Know ______ If yes, how many incidences of violence were there in your barangay during this time: None 1 2 3 4 More than 5 instances Can you describe what types of conflict are typical in this area? 1-Political 2-Resource conflict (land, access to labor market, access to roads) 3-Popular justice (vigilantism) 4- Administrative conflict (corruption, procurement, donor assistance) 5-Identity based on religion or ethnicity Do you know of any former combatants assisted by GEM who returned to arms? 46 ANNEX 7: FIELD SITES FOR SURVEY AND FIELD VISITS FIELD VISIT SITES PROVINCE MUNICIPALITY/CITY BARANGAY Northern Mindanao Section 1. Compostela Valley 1. Maco 1. Elizalde 2. Mawab 2. Malinawon 3. Monkayo 3. Salvacion 4. New Bataan 4. Batinao 2. Surigao del Norte 5. Claver 5. Hayanggabon 6. Ladgaron 6. Gigaquit 7. Mahanub 8. Poniente 7. Surigao City 9. Poblacion 3. Davao del Norte 8. Tagum 10. Poblacion Central Mindanao Section 4. North Cotabato 9. Carmen 11. Kitulaan 12. Manili 10. Pigcawayan 13. Poblacion 15. Buluan 16. Bulucaon 11. Libungan 17. Poplacion 18. Batiocan 19. Gumaga 20. Sinwingan 12. Makilala 21. Poblacion 5. South Cotabato Koronadal City 13. Banga 22. Poblacion 23. Benitez 24. Brgy Punong Grande 25. Lampari 14. Noralla 26. Poblacion 27. San Miguel 15. Polomolok 28. Bentung 29. Sumbakil 16. Tupi 30. Poblacion 31. Bunao 32. Kalkam 33. Lunen 34. Polonulong 6. Sarangani 17. Alabel 35. Poblacion 7. Lanao del Sur Marawi City 8. Maguindanao 18. Datu Odin Sinsuat 36. Poblacion 37. Awang 38. Dalican 19. Datu Paglas 39. Poblacion 40. Baguadatu 41. Damalusay 20. Parang 42. Poblacion 21. Upi 43. Poblacion Western Mindanao Section 9. Tawi-Tawi 23. Bongao 44. Poblacion-Bongao City 45. Lato-Lato 46. Sanga-sanga 47. Sowangkowang 48. Tongsinah 24. Panglima Sugala 49. Balimbing 50. Malacca 47 51. Parangan 1. Cotabato City 2. Davao City 3. Kidapawan City 4. Koronandal City 5. Marawi City SURVEY SITES – GEM 3 ASSISTED AREAS PROVINCES MUNICIPALITY/CITY BARANGAYS Zamboanga Peninsula 1. Zamboanga del Norte 1. Salug 1. Caracol 2. Manukan 2. Poblacion 3. Liloy 3. Baybay 2. Zamboanga del Sur 4. Labangan 4. Tawagan 5. San Pablo 5. Sagasan 6. Tadubuay 3. Zamboanga Sibugay 6. Tungawan 7. Tigbanuang 8. Batungan 7. Ipil 9. Don Andres ARMM 4. Lanao del Sur 8. Taraka 10. Dilabayan 9. Masiu 11. GubarSawer 5. Maguindanao 10. North Upi 12. Nuro 11. Datu Blah Sinsuat 13. Pinansaran 12. Pandag 14. Kabuling 15. Barangay Pandag CARAGA 6. Surigao Del Norte 13. Alegria 16. Budlingin 14. Malimono 17. Cagtinae 7. Compostela Valley 15. Monkayo 18. Upper Ulip 8. Davao Oriental 16. Banaybanay 19. Maputi Northern Mindanao 9. Lanao Del Norte 17. Kapatagan 20. Mahayahay 21. Tiacongan SOCCSKSARGEN 10. North Cotabato 18. Aleosan 22. Upper Mingading 19. Libungan 23. Ulamian 24. Batiocan 11. Sarangani 20. Tulunan 25. Bunawan 21. Malapatan 26. Poblacion 22. Glan 27. Big Margus 12. Sultan Kudarat 23. Lambayong 28. Poblacion 24. President Quirino 29. Bagumbayan 13. South Cotabato 25. Polomolok 30. Rubber SURVEY SITES – NON GEM 3 ASSISTED AREAS PROVINCES MUNICIPALITY/CITY BARANGAYS Lanao del Norte 26. Baloi 31. Sandor Lanao del Sur 27. Masiu 32. MacalumpangLumbac 28. DitsaanRamain 33. Pangandapan Surigao del Norte 29. Alegria 34. Ombong Compostela Valley 30. Monkayo 35. Olaycon 36. Banlag 48 ANNEX 8: FIELD WORK SCHEDULES FOR EVALUATION TEAM SCHEDULE FOR FIELD VISIT – TEAM 1 Date Province Municipality Barangay Project Organization Contact Person Respondents Male Female Aug 10 Surigao del Norte Claver BIPs MLGU MPDC Eva Casedo; Staff: Ms. M Entenia 0 3 Aug 10 Surigao del Norte Claver Hayanggabon BIP BLGU MPDC Eva Casedo 2 2 Aug 10 Surigao del Norte Claver Daywan BIP BLGU Barangay Chairman Rogelio Nazi 2 2 Aug 10 Surigao del Norte Claver Ladgaron BIP BLGU Barangay Chairman Renerio B. Galinato 1 Aug 10 Surigao del Norte Claver Hayanggabon BIP BLGU MPDC Eva Casedo 0 2 Aug 10 Surigao del Norte Claver Hayanggabon EMGP Hayanggabon Elementary School School Head : Beda G. Murcia 3 10 Aug 10 Surigao del Norte Claver Ladgaron EMGP Ladgaron Elementary School Former School Head : Rosie Entoc 1 8 Aug 11 Surigao del Norte Gigaquit Mahanub BIP MLGU MPDC Rodelio Torregosa 2 2 Aug 11 Surigao del Norte Gigaquit Poniente BIP MLGU Restituto Mira, Municipal Engineer 1 4 Aug 11 Surigao del Norte Gigaquit San Isidro BIP GEM 2 MLGU MEO Mira 1 0 Aug 12 Surigao City BSO Surigao City Chamber of Commerce and Industry Willie Gan, President 7 2 Aug 13 Surigao del Norte Gigaquit Poniente EMGP Poniente Elementary School School Head Joselito P. Manongas 1 10 Aug 13 Surigao City JEEP Surigao City State College of Technology JEEP Coordinator Iryn Cavite 1 8 Aug 15 Maguindanao Municipality of Datu Paglas MLGU REAP Municipal Government Mayor Mohammad Paglas; MPDC Padido Usman 6 3 Aug 15 Maguindanao Municipality of Datu Paglas Damalusay BIP BLGU Mayor Mohammad Paglas; MPDC Padido Usman; Barangay Chairman Mando Guiwan 3 0 Aug 15 Maguindanao Municipality of Datu Paglas Manindolo BIP BLGU Mayor Mohammad Paglas; MPDC Padido Usman 2 0 Aug 15 Maguindanao Municipality of Datu Paglas Bunawan BIP BLGU Mayor Mohammad Paglas; MPDC Padido Usman 2 0 Aug 15 Maguindanao Municipality of Datu Paglas Damalusay EMGP Baguadatu Elementary School School Head Pahmia Abubacar Aug 15 North Cotabato Kidapawan City BSO Metro Kidapawan Chamber of Commerce and Industry Chamber President Dr. Ramon Floresca and Project Officer Blesilda Bayoy 1 2 Aug 16 North Cotabato Kidapawan City RIP Provincial Local Government Unit Prov Engrs Office Admin Officer Oscar Sumejo; GEM Projects In Charge Engr. Eliodoro Vergadera Jr. 2 0 Aug 16 North Cotabato Municipality of Libungan Standard CLIC Notre Dame of Libungan School Head Anita Ceballos 1 0 Aug 17 North Cotabato Municipality of Libungan Batiocan/ Demapaco BIP BLGU MPDC Renante Ponce 5 0 49 SCHEDULE FOR FIELD VISIT – TEAM 1 (cont.) Date Province Municipality Barangay Project Organization Contact Person Respondents Male Female Aug 17 North Cotabato Municipality of Libungan Sinawingan BIP BLGU MPDC Renante Ponce 4 0 Aug 17 North Cotabato Municipality of Libungan Gumaga BIP BLGU MPDC Renante Ponce 4 0 Aug 17 North Cotabato Municipality of Libungan Ulamian BIP BLGU MPDC Renante Ponce 4 0 Aug 17 North Cotabato Municipality of Libungan Baguer BIP BLGU MPDC Renante Ponce 4 0 Aug 18 North Cotabato Pigcawayan REAP Municipal Government MPDC Zaldy Balofinos 3 3 Aug 18 North Cotabato Pigcawayan Buluan BIP MPDC Zaldy Balofinos 3 0 Aug 18 North Cotabato Pigcawayan Bulucaon BIP MPDC Zaldy Balofinos 3 0 Aug 18 Cotabato City BSO Metro Cotabato Chamber of Commerce and Industry Mr. Pete Marquez, Former Chamber President 1 0 Aug 21 Cotabato City BSO Metro Cotabato Chamber of Commerce and Industry Dr. Danda Juanday, President; Ms. Janette Eran 1 1 Aug 22 Maguindanao Upi REAP Municipal Government MPDC Paulo 6 8 Aug 22 Cotabato City JEEP Cotabato City State Polytechnic College JEEP Coordinator Arbaya Boquia 2 4 Aug 22 Cotabato City PASS Department of Agriculture and Fisheries ARMM Executive Director Felix Mosne 1 0 Aug 23 Cotabato City FCR PH Biniruan Famers Association Barangay Chairman Jack Mohammad 1 0 Aug 23 Cotabato City PASS Lucrative Fruits Growers Multi Purpose Cooperative President Baintan Guinta 0 1 Aug 23 Maguindanao Datu Odin Sinsuat JEEP Mindanao State University JEEP Coordinator Sarah Jane Diang 0 11 Aug 23 Maguindanao Datu Odin Sinsuat EMGP MSU Integrated Laboratory High School School Head Lornaida Madale 1 1 Aug 23 Maguindanao Datu Odin Sinsuat Standard CLIC DOS Educational Foundation IT In charge Abdul Makalilay 1 0 Aug 24 Maguindanao Parang REAP Municipal Government Mayor Ibrahim P. Ibay; MPDC Ma. Theresa Ubas 3 2 Aug 24 Maguindanao Parang Poblacion (Market) BIP Municipal Government Municipal Administrator Usman Ibay; MPDC Ma. Theresa Ubas 2 1 Aug 24 Maguindanao Parang Poblacion BIP BLGU Municipal Admin Usman Ibay; MPDC Ma. Theresa Ubas 2 1 Aug 24 Maguindanao Parang EMGP Notre Dame of Parang School Head Caroline Rusiana 0 1 Aug 24 Maguindanao Parang Standard CLIC Easter Joy School Incorporated School Head Amelita Lim 0 1 Aug 24 Maguindanao Parang Moro Point FCR CD Illana Bay Multi Purpose Cooperative Barangay Chairman Jun Serasar 1 0 Aug 24 Maguindanao Parang Moro Point FCR PH Illana Bay Multi Purpose Cooperative Barangay Chairman Jun Serasar 1 0 Aug 25 North Cotabato Carmen Kitulaan FCR CD Kababaihang Carmeniang Nagkakaisa MPDC Engr Marilyn Garcia 50 SCHEDULE FOR FIELD VISIT – TEAM 1 (cont.) Date Province Municipality Barangay Project Organization Contact Person Respondents Male Female Aug 25 North Cotabato Carmen Manili FCR CD Manili Free Farmers Association MPDC Engr Marilyn Garcia 1 0 26 Aug Cotabato City BSO Iranon Chamber of Commerce and Industry Ex Director Monina Macarongon; Chamber President ARMM DTI Secretary 1 4 27 Aug Cotabato City CIPMYL Mr. Shim Yu, CIPMYL alumni 3 1 28 Aug Maguindanao Datu Odin Sinsuat Awang BIP Municipal Government MPDC Manan Mandaragon 1 0 28 Aug Maguindanao Datu Odin Sinsuat Poblacion BIP Municipal Government MPDC Manan Mandaragon 1 0 28 Aug Maguindanao Datu Odin Sinsuat CLIC Camp Siongco National High School IT in charge, Analyn Ballesteros 0 4 28 Aug Maguindanao Datu Odin Sinsuat Poblacion BIP Municipal Government MPDC Manan Mandaragon 1 0 Maguindanao Datu Odin Sinsuat Awang BIP MPDC Manan Mandaragon 1 0 Cotabato City BSO ARMM Business Council Datu Haron Bandila, Chairman 1 0 30Aug Davao City JEEP Davao Merchant Maritime Academy Jee Gica, JEEP Coordinator 3 2 BSO Davao City Chamber of Commerce and Industry Mary Anne Abundo, Executive Director 0 1 PRIDE Casa Leticia Liezel Apple Tungpalan, Officer In Charge 2 6 BSO Mindanao Trade Expo Foundation, Inc. Ann Pamintuan, President 0 1 Aug 31 Davao City HCAP Southern Philippines Fresh Fruits Corporation Christine Joyce Legaspi 0 1 HCAP KF Nutri Foods International Marilou Fernandez 0 1 PASS Mindanao Fruits Council Atty. Antonio B. Partoza, Jr., President 1 0 Sept 3 Davao City BIP, FCR, BSO GEM Staff Marilou Sian, Executive Officer and Support Services Team Leader BSO Mindanao Business Council Debbie Gail Laburada, Project Management Officer 1 0 MRDP Dept of Agric Engr. Renato Tamos 1 51 SCHEDULE FOR FIELD VISIT – TEAM 2 Date Province Municipality Barangay Project Organization Contact Person Respondents Male Female 9 Aug Compostela Valley Mawab Malinawon BIP MLGU MPDC Roland Jose E. Escalantar 2 1 Malinawon BIP BLGU Barangay Chair Rogelio D. Galo 2 4 Malinawon EMGP Malinawon Elementary School School Head Arlyn B. Lim 2 6 10 Aug Davao del Norte Tagum PASS Dynamic Vegetable Growers Association Ray A. Acain, President 4 1 10 Aug Compostela Valley Maco Pangi BIP BLGU Carlo Bangales, Barangay Secretary 2 0 Elizalde BIP BLGU BLGU 4 1 Elizalde BIP BLGU Beneficiaries 0 12 Elizalde EMGP Elizalde National High School IT In Charge Mary Jean B. Soriano 2 6 Elizalde CLIC Elizalde National High School IT In Charge Mary Jean B. Soriano 1 11 11 Aug Compostela Valley New Bataan Batinao BIP BLGU Barangay Chair Bonifacio M. Jaso 9 32 13 Aug Compostela Valley Monkayo Salvacion MLGU MPDC Geronimo O. Balana 2 0 Salvacion CLIC Samuag Elementary School PerlitoOperario, Master Teacher 3 9 Union BIP BLGU Barangay Chair Harvey D. Taroy 3 0 Salvacion BIP BLGU Geronimo O. Balana, MPDC 4 5 13 Aug Davao City BSO Marilou N. Infante 0 1 PASS Central Mindanao Vegetable Industry Council Jose Victor Santos, President 3 0 Aug 13 Davao City PASS Northern Mindanao Vegetable Producers Association, Inc. (NorminVeggies) MarcelinoRemotigue, President 1 0 14 Aug South Cotabato Polomolok Sumbakil FCR Sumbakil Vegetable Producer Association SarodinKakim, President 5 0 Sumbakil BIP MLGU; BLGU Eronio P. Muno, MPDC 11 0 Bentung EMGP Bentung-Sulit National High School Digna A. Hibionada, Head Teacher 3 2 Bentung FCR Bangsmoro Women’s Association Husna Anjam, President 6 15 Aug 15 South Cotabato Tupi Bunau BIP Bunao Muslim Association Renette Bergado, Municipal Admin 2 6 Kalkam FCR Kalkam Aquaculture and Farmers Assoc. Arsad Landasan, MNLF former commander 3 0 Palian FCR Palian Community Workers Assoc. Alexander Basilio, Barangay Chairman 5 1 52 SCHEDULE FOR FIELD VISIT – TEAM 2 (cont.) Date Province Municipality Barangay Project Organization Contact Person Respondents Male Female Aug 15 South Cotabato Koronadal City BSO South Cotabato Chamber of Commerce LitoUy, President 1 0 CLIC Saravia National High School Gil G. Subang, School Head 4 4 Aug 16 South Cotabato Koronadal City FCR Lake Sebu Bangsa Moro Multi-Purpose Cooperative Rudy Tomas, Chairman 1 0 PASS South Cotabato Banana Creations, Inc. Benigno R. Sensano Jr., President 5 1 Banga Municipal government REAP MLGU MPDC Virgilio S. de Leon 3 2 CLIC Banga Central Elementary School Marites P. Gahaport, ICT Coordinator 8 2 Aug 16 South Cotabato Banga CLIC and EMGP Punong Grande National High School Roden E. Solatorio, ICT Coordinator 2 4 Lampari BIP BLGU Abrila N. Miskinan, Brgy. Captain 4 2 Aug 17 South Cotabato Norallah Municipal Government REAP MLGU Victor Y. Balayon, Mayor 2 3 EMGP San Miguel National High School Nemesio M. Alvero, Principal 3 0 Tupi Polonuling FCR Manisan Multi￾purpose Cooperative Mendato c. Abo 10 6 Polonuling BIP BLGU Victor Y. Balayon, Mayor 3 0 Poblacion BIP BLGU Victor Y. Balayon, Mayor 4 0 Aug 21 TawiTawi Bongao SangaSanga RIP PLGU,MLGU of Bongao Ruby Sahali, Vice Governor; Michael Guanieso, Staff Vice Governor’s office 6 0 FCR Botica sa Campo Brgy Womens Club Edwina T. Jumsali, President 4 0 BSO TawiTawi Chamber of Commerce Nazrullah G. Masahud Executive Vice President 0 23 Aug 22 TawiTawi Panglima Sugala BatoBato MLGU Nurbert M. Sahali, Mayor 1 0 Malacca BIP BLGU AdzharAbdulmurib, Brgy. Chairman 5 2 EMGP PanglimaJalman Elementary School Erlinda M. Saiyari, Teacher 1 3 Aug 22 TawiTawi PanglimaSugala Parangan BIP BLGU MahamudAskali, Barangay Secretary 25 0 FCR Parangan Multi Purpose Cooperative MadohSahiron, Chairman 9 0 Balimbing BIP BLGU Raffy Soon, Barangay Chairman 4 1 53 People Interviewed: Males 305 Females 313 SCHEDULE FOR FIELD VISIT – TEAM 2 (cont.) Date Province Municipality Barangay Project Organization Contact Person Respondents Male Female Aug 23 TawiTawi Panglima Sugala LatoLato FCR Mega High-Value Multi Species Hatchery Arlyn Carroz, Hatchery Manager 0 1 Tongsinah EMGP Tongsinah Child Friendly Elementary School Evangeline Tadus, School Head 1 12 FCR TongsinahMulti Purpose Cooperative MuhminArik, Chairman 1 0 Bongao SangaSanga EMGP SangaSanga Elementary School Hja. Anselma A. Jamma, Principal 0 6 Aug 27 Cotabato City FCR Bangsamoro Women for Peace and Development Bai Grace Maryam A. Sinsuat, Ex Director 0 2 BSO Metro Cotabato Chamber of Commerce Dr. Danda N. Juanday, President 1 0 BSO Muslim Chamber of Kutawato Hadji Abdulnasser D. Sema, President 1 0 Aug 28 Maguindanao Datu Odin Sinsuat Awang FCR Kadtabanga Foundation for Peace & Dev Advocates Hadja Giobay Diocolano, Executive Director 1 1 Cotabato City Notre Dame University Peace Center Mr. Essex Guiguiento, Executive Director 1 ARMM Regional Planning & Devlopment Office Engr. Baintan Ampatuan, CESO, Regional Executive Director 0 1 Sept 3 Davao City FCR GEM-3 Adel Oviedo 1 Sept 6 Manila Comm/P R GEM-3/USAID Tina Cuyugan, Nikki Meru, Ima Vermoza 3 Sept 6 Manila Support Services GEM-3/USAID Karen Smith and Enrique Gallardo, Jr 1 1 54 ANNEX 9: PEOPLE CONTACTED CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY Northern Mindanao Vegetable Producers Association, Inc. (NorminVeggies) Marcelino Remotigue, President PROVINCE OF COMPOSTELA VALLEY Municipality of Maco Elizalde Barangay Local Government Unit Fidel G. Cabello, Barangay Chairman Domingo Cabillo, Councilor Florencio C. Bricaole, Councilor Amelia B. Flores, Secretary, Nicolas Maynocas, Tribal Chairman Elizalde National High School Mary Jean B. Soriano, Computer in Charge Meriam R. Andrade, ICT Coordinator Abel E. Dongono, Student Dannah Loveila D. Loguisan, Student Bernadeth S. Lee, Student Jezzel Rabe, Student Jejeen Jiani A. Sinsano, Student Cynthia P. Caasi, Student Crisostomo Abelleja Sr., Parents Teachers Association (PTA) President Virginia S. Perong, PTA officer Malina A. Degamo, PTA officer Genelyn T. Canite, PTA officer Emma K. Resani, PTA officer Apolonia S. Pantaleon, PTA officer Edillyn O. Tating, PTA Officer Ruleth C. Tisado, PTA Officer Roxan C. Tating, PTA Officer Cresencia A. Socorro, PTA Officer Ruby Dizon, PTA Officer Remelyn T. Marmito, PTA Officer Pangi Barangay Local Government Unit Carlo V. Bongales, Secretary Caprida S. Dave, Beneficiary Municipality of Mawab Municipal Government Evalina Jampayas, Municipal Mayor Abram A. Agosajes, Water system In-Charge Roland Jose E. Escalantar, Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator Malinawon Elementary School, Mawab Victor Paig , Parents Teachers Association President Arlyn B. Lim, School Head Evelyn G. Buntrosto, Master Teacher Jeany M. Baring, Student Arnold E. Raronable Jr., Student Reigna Marie P. Decio, Student Princess Claire G. Paig, Student Cyrill Jean B. Satinigan, Student Malinawon Barangay Local Government Unit Rogelio D. Galo, Barangay Chairman Josefina Flores, Secretary Analou G. Balsa, Treasurer Aisa Compendio, Record Keeper Rosita Good, Nutrition Staff Reynaldo Cayang, Councilor Municipality of Monkayo Municipal Government of Monkayo Manuel B. Brillantes( Mayor, M) Geronimo O. Balana, Municipal Samuag Elementary School, Monkayo Perlito Operario, Master Teacher Norma L. Tabios, Teacher Fe R. Ferasol, Teacher Mercy J. Salve, LSB Teacher Josevil A. Borres, Teacher Jan Faye A. Baluis, Teacher Josephine N. Dingal, LSB Teacher Analyn P. Dingal, Teacher Antonio D. Tobias Sr., PTA President Helen M. Parulanang, PTA Treasurer Jocelyn P. Mangayan, PTA Secretary Mario P. Racia, PTA officer Union Barangay Local Government Unit Harvey D. Taroy, Barangay Chairman Jonah C. Salmeo, Councilor Billy M. Paniamogan, Councilor Union National High School Gaudencio M. Binalangbang Jr - principal Ma. Charito O. Mater - computer incharge Mechellie E Pacheco - Teacher Uzziel P Abatayo - Student Mae Liza M. Legatob - Student Lyn E Taroy – Teacher Gena S. Gonzaga - PTA Treasurer Christine Marie D. Villa - PTA Secretary Vilma Castino - PTA PIO Arceli P. Layson - PTA Vice President Renato D. Quinones - PTA President Monaliza M. Sanchez - PTA Business Manager 55 Salvacion Barangay Local Government Unit Bonifacio C. Pagador, Barangay Chairman Nestor M. Leoparipas, Treasurer Joeched Paculanang, Councilor Sanra A. Golez, Beneficiary Tata C. Mondejar, Beneficiary Rhea A. Escorial, Beneficiary Lucresia M. Tulo, Barangay Health Worker Nora D. Gumantasan, Purok Chairwoman Daniel Miel, Purok Chairman Municipality of New Bataan Batinao Local Government Unit Bonifacio M. Jaso, Barangay Chairman Caraciolo O. Jaso, Councilor Dominador Sabite, Staff Evena D. Plantes, Treasurer Eledia Jaso, People’s Organization Treasurer Ceriaca L. Dagal, Purok Chairman Marainito Erosedo, Purok Chairman COTABATO CITY Bangsamoro Women for Peace and Development Bai Grace Maryam A. Sinsuat, Executive Director Anisa K. Abad, Admin and Finance officer Biniruan Famers Association Jack Mohammad, Association President and Barangay Chairman Cotabato City State Polytechnic College (CCSPC) Arbaya H. Boquia, JEEP coordinator John Allesa, Teacher Aida Gasang, Teacher Rica Ali, Teacher Franklin Tizon, Teacher Asliah Balindong, Teacher Department of Agriculture and Fisheries ARMM Felix Mosne, Agribusiness Chief Jelica Mangacop, Chief of Crops Division Growth with Equity in Mindanao Cotabato Office Mao Baraguir, Agriculture Specialist Kadtabanga Foundation for Peace and Development Advocates (KFPDAI) Hadja Giobay Diocolano, KFPDAI Executive Director Makol Musa, KFPDAI member and Chair of Mapayag Multi Purpose Cooperative Lucrative Agri-Development Multipurpose Cooperative Bainta Ginta, Treasurer Mr. Ginta, member Metro Cotabato Chamber of Commerce Dr. Danda N. Juanday, Current President Pete Marquez, Former President Janette Eran, ExecutiveDirector Muslim Kutawato Chamber of Commerce and Industry Hadji Abdulnasser D. Sema, President Notre Dame University, Peace Center Mr. Essex Guiguiento, Executive Director Regional Planning and Development Office Engr. Baintan Ampatuan, Regional Executive Director DAVAO CITY Davao City Chamber of Commerce and Industry Mary Ann Abundo, Executive Director Davao Merchant Maritime Academy Jee Gica, JEEP Coordinator Roly Oring, Teacher Neil Exclamador, Teacher Irish Baguio, Teacher Jake Diacono, Teacher Growth with Equity in Mindanao Dan Bichanich, Chief Oo Party and Infrastructure Team Leader Ross Wherry, Former Chief of Party Dr. Charles E. Feibel, Vice Pres. Louis Berger Group, Inc Marilou Sian, Executive Officer and Support Services Team Leader Dr. Stanley N. Swerdloff, Senior Fisheries Adviser Neil P. Cachuela, BIP Project Manager Arnold A. Dacula, Business Growth Team Roselle P. King, BSO Specialist Adel Oviedo, TCEP – Former Combatant Reintegration Team Leader Carlos Enriquez, TCEP-High Value Horticuture (Veggies/Fruits) Team Leader Armando Sucgang, BSO –Governance Mgmt Specialist Engr. Vilma Belches, InfrastructureTeam Lanie Villan, CLIC in Charge 56 Anna Pulido, Workforce Staff KF Nutri Foods International, Inc Marilou Fernandez, Marketing Officer and owner Mindanao Business Council Rolando Torres, Executive Director Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA) Janet Lopoz, Executive Director Engr. Charlita Escaño, Division Jayrome Rala, Project Monitoring Specialist Anelyn Binancilan Yvette Valderia Joan Barera Mindanao Trade Expo Foundation, Inc. Ann Pamituan, President Mindanao Fruits Council Atty. Antonio B. Partoza, Jr., President PRIDE Interns Carlo Jay Bagundang, We are IT Philippines Hannah Oliveros, Italianni’s Restaurant Ramil Alfaras, Italianni’s Restaurant Gerlie Salgado Crystal Joy Pirante Cristy Cabino Claire Marie Ancheta Liezel Apple Tungpalan Southern Philippines Fresh Fruits Corporation Christine Joyce Legaspi, Marketing Officer PROVINCE OF DAVAO DEL NORTE Dynamic Vegetable Growers Association Ray A. Acain, President Dr. Anastacia Notarte, Asst. Provincial Agriculturist Jesus H. Almendres, Board of Directors C. Feuntes, Board of Directors Alfredo P. Coita, Board of Directors PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO Provincial Local Government Unit of North Cotabato Oscar Sumejo, Provincial Engineers Office Administrative Officer Engr. Eliodoro Vergadera Jr., GEM Projects In Charge Kidapawan City Chamber of Commerce Dr. Ramon Floresta, President Blessilda Bayoy, Project Officer Alma Respicio, Board of Director Municipality of Libungan Manuel dela Serna, Mayor Renante Ponce, Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator Engr. Jerry Licayan, Municipal Engineer Florante Depas, Barangay Chairman Joseph Dante Devilleres, Barangay Chairman Mario E. Pretesto, Barangay Chairman Federico J. Paseoles, Barangay Chairman Rolando E. Martin, Barangay Chairman Beneficiaries while project visits Notre Dame of Libungan Anita Ceballos, School Head Municipality of Pigcawayan Municipal Local Government Unit Zaldy Balofinos, Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator Jaime Akinde, Municipal Treasurer Jocelyn Jaconob, CPA, Municipal Accountant Rosalie Pascual, Municipal Budget Officer Romulo delos Santos, Municipal Assessor Armelinda Palma, Revenue Code Focal Person Buluan Local Government Unit Noel Marfil, Barangay Chairman Barangay Officials Bulucaon Local Government Unit Wilson Untal, Barangay Chairman Barangay Officials Municipality of Carmen Integrated Cultural Livelihood Assistance Multipurpose Cooperative HadjiYusupAmella, Chairman Kababaihang Carmenian Nagkakaisa Cooperative PROVINCE OF MAGUINDANAO Municipality of Datu Paglas Municipal Local Government Unit Mohammad Paglas, Mayor Padido Usman, Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator Arcadio Duruin, Municipal Budget Officer Alfredo Macion, Municipal Assessor Julinar Abutasil, Municipal Treasurer’s Office 57 Hamida Adzal Abubacar, Assistant treasurer Engr. NemiaNando Councilor Nando Councilor Datang Damalusay Local Government Unit Mando Guiwan, Barangay chairman 1Barangay councilor Baguadatu Elementary School Pahmia Abubacar, School Head Municipality of Datu Odin Sinsuat Municipal Local Government Unit Manan Mandaragon, Municipal Planning and Development Officer Camp Siongco National High School Analyn M. Ballesteros, ICT In Charge Helen P. Bayon, Department Head Marfelina I. Buenafe, Department Head Angel Joy R. Condes, IT Teacher Datu Odin Sinsuat Educational Development Foundation Abdul Makalilay, ICT Coordinator Mindanao State University, DOS Campus Sarah Jane Diang, JEEP Coordinator Fhajema Kunso, Teacher Amie Lazado, Professor Agnes Baay, Professor Princess Sheryn Mamucao, Professor Noriel Sabandal, Student Meldred Baguio, Student Ma. Angelica Bagayas, Student Gay Borja, Student Jessa Ybas, Student Elsa Felipe, Student Mindanao State University- Integrated Laboratory High School Lornaida Madale Municipality of Parang Dr. Ibrahim P. Ibay, Mayor Usman Ibay, Municipal Administrator Ma. Theresa Ubas, Municipal Planning and Development Officer Municipal Budget Officer Revenue Collections Officer Staff from Municipal Treasurers Office Easter Joy School Incorporated Amelita Lim, School Head Notre Dame of Parang Ms. Caroline Rusiana, School Head Illana Bay Fishermen Multi-purpose Cooperative, Moro Point Jun Sarasar, Cooperative President and Barangay Moro Point Chairman Iranon Chamber of Commerce and Industry Bai Monina Macarongon, President Chamber Chair Rayda Rachel Sentita, Project Officer Gina Autida, Technical Assistant Mr.Macarongon, Chamber member Municipality of Upi Municipal Government of Upi Ramon Piang Sr., Mayor Alexis Platon - Vice mayor Susan Mayo - SB Member Engr. Paulo Cagara – MPDC Helen Faith Apostol - HRMO Herlinda Aguilos - BPLO - In-Charge Edna Claveria - Treasurer Representative Christdane Sente - IT In-Charge Jose Boglosa - SB Secretary Cherubin Real - Engineering Staff (Sounds - In charge) Pearl Chiong - TV In-Charge Marni Pablo - Mun. Accountant Designate Ma. Selda Platon - Mun Assessor Representative Engr. Gerardo Carino - Mun. Engineer GENERAL SANTOS CITY Neil Cachuela, BIP Project Manager in the GEM General Santos City Office PROVINCE OF SOUTH COTABATO Municipality of Banga Municipal Government of Banga Henry Ladot, Mayor Virgilio S. De Leon, MPDC cum Municipal Administrator Lolita E. Tillan, Municipal Accountant Delilan G. Tanag, MunicipalTreasurer, Robert V. Franilla, Municipal Engineer Banga Central Elementary School Melitona M. Santbayanes, School Guidance Marites P. Gahaport, ICT Coordinator 58 Beatrice Joy L. Tingson, Student Shekinah Bagaman, Student April Jeanhien C. Castillo, Student Brix O. Embedia, Student Kevin Riggs A. Gacilos, Student Lourdes D. Amparo, SPED Teacher Beverlie O. Labordo, Teacher Willafe B. Nicer, Teacher Lampari Local Government Unit Abrila N. Miskinan, Barangay Chairman Susan U. Pineda, Treasurer Jack M. Mame, Councilor Mindal Pablito Councilor Tayan Anibalgan, Councilor Taugan Samerey, Representative, T’boli community Punong Grande National High School Roden E. Solatorio, ICT Coordinator Grace P. Asturias, Student Ma. Carah Ken Tambungalan,Student Elidenio I. Perez, PTA Vice-President Melinda A. Ramos, PTA Treasurer Jocelyn G. Alacayan,Property Custodian Koronadal City Lake Sebu Bangsa Moro Multi-Purpose Cooperative Rudy Tomas, Chairman Palian Barangay Local Government Unit Alexander Basilio, Barangay Chairman Abbie P. Bansil, Councilor Joel E. Basilio, Councilor Palian Community Workers Asssociation (PACOWA) Ruden S. Bantu, PACOWA Chairman Mercedes S. Espiritu, Secretary Marcos Gabat, Auditor Saravia National High School Gil G. Subang, School Head Ricky B. Romua, Student Jetlyn G. Vargas, Teacher Jannien O. Selomenio, Student Kent Joseph Burgos, Student Irish Cabarcas, Student Apple Grace J. Arabaca, Student Michael Rey Patricio, Teacher South Cotabato Chamber of Commerce Lito Uy, President South Cotabato Banana Creations, Inc. Benigno R. Sensano Jr., President Eduardo Morante, Vice President Bernadette De Jesus, Secretary Melecio De Luna, Treasurer Silvestre R. Caduada, Auditor Jershon C. Malubay, Board of Director Municipality of Noralla Municipal Government of Noralla Victor Y. Balayon, Mayor Rosemarie B. Enriquez, Municipal Treasurer Salve M. Fano,Revenue Collector II Zenaida A. Esprella, Revenue Collector Diogenes C. Aquilan, Market Supervisor Manisan Multi-purpose Cooperative Mendato C. Abol, Chairman Analyn Cunahap, Bookeeper Marcelino O. Rafael, Vice Chairman Clarita Rafael, Treasurer Satornino Basques, Recipient Romfo Rafael, Recipeint Elvie C. Liza, Recipient Analea A. Phaza, Recipient Ignazio S. Sulit Jr., Board of Director Jaime D. Gonzales Sr. Board of Director Aladino H. Cunahap, Recipient Doserey Cordero, Recipient Salome Rafael, Recipient Romeo Rafael, Recipient Aldo A. Dela Cruz, Councilor Ronilo H. Juevesa, Councilor Poblacion Local Government Unit Morlito Apuzen, Trading Center Manager Rodolfo E. Empig, Board of Director Marlo Villalon, Board of Director Jaime Jangcan, Board of Director Polonuling Local Government Unit Rey Balanon, Councilor Vicente L. Trabado, Councilor Edgar A. Barrientos, Councilor San Miguel National High School Nemesio M. Alvero, School Head Elnar I. Robles Jr., ICT Coordinator Ernie A. Tianchon, ICT Teacher Municipality of Polomolok Bangsamoro Women’s Association Husna Anjam, Barangay Chair 59 President of Bangsmoro Women’s Assc. Bentung-Sulit National High School Digna A. Hibionada, Head Teacher Raymund S. Arellano, Student Florence C. Miano, IT Coordinator Joy R. Javier, SLRC Coordinator Nelson R. Gasmin, Teacher Sumbakil Local Government Unit Datu Asgar A. Mangelin, Barangay Chairman Sarodin M. Kakim,Councilor Ting R. Lido, Councilor Raffy G. Solaiman Beneficiary Suieb K Mangelin, Councilor Kanar M. Kakim, Benificiary Daven A. Mangelin, Beneficiary Sumbakil Vegetable Producer Association Sarodin Kakim, President, Teng Lido, Vice President Adjed Salik, Treasurer Mangantong Mamdong, Auditor Raffy Solaiman,Secretary Municipal Government of Polomolok Eliazar G. Jobero, Vice Mayor Eronio P. Muno, Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator Ronelio J. Diaz, Municipal Engineer Municipal Government of Tupi Reynaldo S. Tamayo, Mayor Renette Bergado, Administrator Kalkam Aquaculture and Farmers Association Arsad Landasan, Councilor and MNLF former ground commander Nonoy Diego, Beneficiary Felipe Diego, Beneficiary Lunen Local Government Unit Roberto Liwao, Councilor Gina Laco, Tribal Women’s President Dolores Ponan, Representative Tribal Youth Glay Joy D. Poncardas, Beneficiary Lilibeth Tamayo, Beneficiary Amy O. Suarez, Beneficiary SURIGAO CITY Surigao City Chamber of Commerce and Industry Willie Gan, President Jun Piong, Executive Director Cresol Mantong, Project Officer Manuel R. Kong, Chamber member Ferdinand P. Sembrano, Chamber member Concepcion R. Paqueo, Chamber member Julius R. Marasigan, Chamber member Alma Rita M. Laayon, Chamber member Leila G. Esparrago, Chamber member Surigao City State College of Technology Iryn Cavite, JEEP Coordinator Eden Pungkol, Teacher Vera Gingo, Teacher Vanessa Velarde, Teacher AnabelleLaig, Teacher Myron Cubillan Dr Rowena Plando Dr.Jane Jabonera Alice Maghuyop, Former JEEP Coordinator PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL NORTE Municipality of Claver Municipal Local Government Unit Rosemarie Mira Gokiangkee, Mayor Eva Casedo, Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator Manche Entenia, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Renerio B. Galinato, Chairman of Barangay Ladgaron Rogelio Nazi, Chairman of Barangay Daywan Beneficiaries of Daywan (3) Beneficiaries of Ladgaron (4) Beneficiaries of Hayanggabon (2) Hayanggabon Elementary School Beda G. Murcia, School Head Fely D. Malinao, Teacher Custodia S. dela Piña Vivian B. Goron, Teacher Aimee Lubapis, Teacher Dave G. Balili, Teacher Alfredo Pantilo, Parents Teachers Association (PTA) President Gemma More, PTA Officer Liza Maglinte, PTA Officer Tres Rosendo Ebol, PTA Officer Isabel Pardillo, PTA Officer Salome Ruiz, PTA Officer Rosita Cuanan, Parent Ladgaron Elementary School Rosie Entoc, Former School Head Renerio Galinato, Parents Teachers Association President Deodlyn Solis, Teacher 60 Marilyn Leyros, Teacher Meriam Sajulga, Teacher Ma. Luz Tejano, Teacher Adela Galagala, Teacher Mary Ann Acedo, Teacher Rosalinda Najial, Teacher Municipality of Gigaquit Municipal Government of Gigaquit Carlos Egay, Mayor Redelio Torregosa, Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator Engr. Restituto Mira, Municipal Engineer Abundio L. Amarille, Barangay Chairman of Mahanub, with 4 beneficiaries Angelita L. Gesta, Barangay Chair of Poniente, with 3 Barangay councilors Poniente Elementary School Joselito P. Manongas, School Head Loida Galido, Teacher Dalicerna Yamson Alma D. Bayang, Teacher Herminia Montalban, Teacher Warlita Unayon, Teacher Dalicerna Yamson, Teacher Angelyn Pepino, PTA President Evelyn Payajo, PTA Vice President Josefina Villar, PTA Officer Rochelle F. Omandam, PTA Officer PROVINCE OF TAWI-TAWI Provincial Local Government Unit Michael E. Guanieso, Vice Governor’s Office, Staff Nestor Delasas, Provincial Planning and Development Officer Municipality of Bongao Municipal Local Government Unit Jasper Que, Municipal Mayor Manuel G. Pampora, Bongao Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator Moh. Nur Bahap, Bongao Municipal Engineer Jun Q. Ibbo, Municipal Councilor Botica sa Campo Barangay Womens Club Multi Purpose Cooperative Edwina T. Jumsali, President 22 member-beneficiaries Sanga Sanga Elementary School Pepang S. Aksa, Teacher Hja. Manis A. Sammani, PTCA Treasurer Amina H. Lahug, Teacher Noradina J. Abduljabul, Teacher Sherwina A. Hajan, Teacher Hja. Anselma A. Jamma, School Head Tawi Tawi Chamber of Commerce Nazrullah G. Masahud, Executive Vice President Alvin Tan, Board of Director Rolando E. Lim, Board of Director Rasil S. Ibno, Executive Director Municipality of Panglima Sugala Nurbert M. Sahali, Mayor Malacca Local Government Unit Adzhar Abdulmurin, Barangay Chairman Jamaica Faizal, Councilor Abdurajik Amag Councilor Jum Habi Councilor Lutian Badbaran Councilor Mabini Usman Councilor Madezan H. Badbaran, Project Evaluation Officer Panglima Jalman Elementary School Erlinda M. Saiyari, ESP-1 Dambong B. Tingkasa, Parents Teachers Association, Public Information Officer Mersa A. Sabuddin, Home Economics Teacher Leonora A. Ylanan, Teacher Parangan Local Government Unit Mahamud Askali, Brgy. Secretary Muhal Alhari Councilor Saldy Alhari Councilor Dahim Adih Councilor Parangan Multi Purpose Cooperative Madoh Sahiron, Chairman Alsamer S. Hamed, Vice-Chairman Bisar Odan, Member Moktadil Monir, Member Monir Ahmad, Member Odan Osman, Member Yayah Osman, Member Olod Bassad, Member Radz Bassad, Member Balimbing Local Government Unit Raffy Soon, Barangay Chairman Tinding Hassan Councilor Tating Mohammad Councilor Abdurasa Asiri, Councilor Zaffrullah Soon, Municipal Councilor 61 Tongsinah Child Friendly Elementary School Evangeline Tadus, School Head Apsa T. Melaham, PTCA officer Juhura S. Abdulmonap Shelma A. Halipa, PTCA Treasurer Rubin Tawasil, PTCA Vice President Ainul S. Mohammad, PTCA President Huricha Knaick, PTCA Mmber Luciana A. Akil, Teacher Sharipa T. Sarahan, PTCA Member Partana Y. Lssden Al-shaima M Knaic, PTCA Officer Elizabeth Arandilla, PTCA Officer Narcisa Marabbam, PTCA Officer TongsinahMulti Purpose Cooperative MuhminArik, Chairman MANILA Australia Agency for International Development Sam Chittick Suhart Ambolodto, Mindanao Conflict Affected Areas Specialist Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) Manila Liaison Office Jolly Lais, Officer in Charge Abdulhamid Alawi, Jr, Executive Assistant Community and Family Services International (NGO) Steven Muncy, Executive Director European Union Emily Mercado, Program Officer Japan International Cooperation Agency Mori Yusuke, Representative, Mindanao and Governance Section Hernan Pineda, In-house Consultant, Mindanao Section Louis Berger Group, Inc Charles Feibel, Vice President National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Roderick Planta, Director, Project Monitoring Staff Violeta Corpus, Assistant Director, Project Monitoring Staff Jesse David, Project Monitoring Staff Noel Quejada, USAID Desk Officer Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) Secretary Teresita Quintos-Deles Undersecretary Luisito Montalbo Howard Cafugauan, Assistant Secretary for Operations Pamela Padilla, Director III, Program Development Unit United States Agency for International Development Gloria Steele, Head of Mission, USAID/Philippines Reed Aeschliman, Deputy Mission Director Karen Smith and Enrique Gallardo, Jr for Support Services Tina Cuyugan and Nikki Meru for Communications William Murphy, Head, USAID Audit Office/Regional Inspector General Daniel Miller, Head, USAID Office of Economic Development and Governance (OEDG) Fatima Verzosa, Contracting Officer’s Representative, Program Resource Management (PRM) Gerald Britan, Ph.D., Senior Strategy & Evaluation Advisor John Callanta, Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist, PRM Maria Teresa Robielos, Development Assistance Specialist, OEDG Myre Emata Stokes, Office Chief, PRM Stephanie Whittle, Captain U.S. Army/JSOTF-P World Bank Felizardo Virtucio, Rural Development Specialist Matt Stephens, Sr. Social Development Specialist Roberto Tordecilla, Operations Officer Fermin Adriano, Social Development Consultant Other Robert Barnes, former USAID Program Manager for GEM Renne Subido, former DCOP under GEM 2 and GEM 3 62 ANNEX 10: REVENUE ENHANCEMENT AND PEACE (REAP) Cohort Municipality Province 1 Buug Zamboanga Sibugay 1 Dumingag Zamboanga del Sur 1 Molave Zamboanga del Sur 1 Lamitan Basilan 2 Datu Paglas Maguidanao 2 Upi Maguidanao 2 Alabel Sarangani 3 Banga South Cotabato 3 Norala South Cotabato 3 Malapatan Sarangani 3 Parang Maguidanao 3 Pigcawayan North Cotabato 4 Kiamba Sarangani 4 Maasim Sarangani 4 Presidente Roxas North Cotabato 4 Aurora Zamboanga del Sur 4 Calamba Masamis Occidental 63 ANNEX 11: REFERENCES CITED Act for Peace Programme: Action for Conflict Transformation 2005-2011 Terminal Report, Logical Framework, M&E framework, and Results and Peace Significance Matrix Audit of USAID/Philippines’ Growth with Equity in Mindanao (GEM-3) Program, Manila, Philippines, Audit Report No. 5-492-12-002-P, December 1, 2011. “Barangay Infrastructure Project: Operation and Maintenance Policy and Implementation Guidelines of Pedestrian Bridge.” Pg 10. USAID Growth with Equity in Mindanao (GEM) Program, no date. Behind the Veil of Conflict: Moving towards Economic Integration for Sustained Development and Peace in Mindanao. World Bank, May 2009. BIP Distribution by Province and City and Average Cost per BIP Type as of June 30, 2012, GEM Program. “Completion Report: GEM Infrastructure Program Advisory Services – November 10 – December 10, 2010.” Pg. 18. USAID Growth with Equity in Mindanao Program (GEM). Davao City, Philippines Conflict Monitoring System (pilot period, January to April 2011), World Bank-State and Peace Building Fund project. Do Working Men Rebel? Insurgency and Unemployment in Iraq and the Philippines. Eli Berman, Joseph Felteer and Jacob Shapiro, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, 155547, November 2009. ELAP Assessment Survey Report. Mindanao State University Foundation Inc. 2000. Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects. Institute for Socio-Economic Development Initiatives, Ateneo de Davao, Mindanao, February 2012. Implemented by Louis Berger Group, Inc and commissioned by USAID Contract No. AID 492-C-00-08-000001-00, Sept. 15, 2011. “Fragile States: Securing Development”. Speech given by Robert B. Zoellick, former President of The World Bank Group at The International Institute for Strategic Studies, Geneva, Switzerland, September 12, 2008. Forsberg, B.C, E. Sullesta, S. Pieche, and N. Lambo. “Cost of Diarrhoeal Diseases and the Savings from a Control Programme in Cebu, Philippines.” Bulletin World Health Organization. 71(5):579-86. 1993. GEM-3 Development Activity Approval Document, Office of Economic Development and Governance, USAID, October 31, 2006. GEM 3 Quarterly Reports, FY2008 to FY2012. USAID’s Growth with Equity in Mindanao Program. Louis Berger Group, Inc. Makati City, Philippines Gender and Conflict in Mindanao. The Asia Foundation. 2011. Pg. 10 and 15, Dwyer, Leslie and Rufa Cagoco￾Guiam. Growth with Equity in Mindanao 2 Program Completion Report: October 2002 to December 2007. Joint Needs Assessment for Reconstruction and Development in Conflict-Affected Areas in Mindanao. World Bank, 2005, Washington DC. Leaving Terrorism Behind. Eds. Tore Bjorgo and John Horgan, New York, Routledge, 2009 Local Governance Performance Management System (LGPMS): Revenue Generation, LGU Financial Performance e-Report (http://www.blgs.gov.ph/lgpmsv2/cmshome/index.php). Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP), by the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), 2004-2010. “Milkfish Production and Processing Technology in the Philippines.” Yap, W., A. Villaluz, M.G. Soriano and M.N. Santos. World Fish Center-Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Milfish Project Publication Series No.2, 2007. Mindanao: A Gamble Worth Taking. Malcolm Cook and Kit Collier, Lowy, Institute for International Policy, 2006, New South Wales, Australia. “Mindanao Pioneers Commercial Peanut Farming,” http://www.newsflash.org/2001/03/be/be001577.htm 64 1 http://discovery.iabc.com/view.php?pid=1069. National Objectives for Health—Philippines 2005-2010. Department of Health, Republic of the Philippines. Manila, 2005. New Patterns of Violence in Indonesia: Preliminary Evidence from Six “High Conflict” Provinces. The World Bank, November 2010. “Peace Frames & Tapestries: Frontliners’ Perspectives on Peacebuilding Dimensions.” 2009. Page 70, by the ACT for Peace Programme. “Philippines: Looking At Mindanao.” ICAF Report January 2011, US Department of State. Scope of Work for Social Impact. Based on RFP No: SOL-492-12-000008, Evaluation of Growth with Equity in Mindanao (GEM-3) Project. USAID/Philippines, January 19, 2012.Statement of Income and Expenditures (SIE), BLGF-DOF, FY 2006. Summary Report of Beneficial Use Monitoring (BUM) Visits of Barangay Infrastructure Projects (BIP) as of 31 May 2012. GEM-3 Program. “The Impact of USAIS’s Computer Literacy Internet Connection Program: A Summary of Major Conclusion. Ateneo University, Augest-Sept. 2012. US Mission Manila’s Mindanao Strategy, May 2011. USAID Evaluation Policy, Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning, January 2011 USAID’s Growth with Equity in Mindanao (GEM-3) Program: Gender Action Plan. 12 pp. February 29, 2008. Louis Berger Group, Inc. Makati City, Philippines. World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security and Development. World Bank, Washington DC. 65 ANNEX 12: ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN CALCULATIONS Baragay Infrastructure Projects ERR Box Culverts Purok 1, Sitio Bokbokon, Bgy Daywan Footbridge 74.7% Purok 4 Barangay Bridge (Box Culvert) Construction in Ladgaron 81.5% Sitio Day-ason Barangay Bridge (Box Culvert) Construction 76.4% Buluan Barangay Bridge (Box Culvert) 22.6% Trading Centers Hayanggabon Trading Center 53.2% Purok 3, Mahanub Proper Trading Center (with toilet) 37.4% Parang Trading Center (with toilet) 50.0% Water Systems and Irrigation Poblacion 2 Drainage Canal Upgrading 58.6% Malinawon Water System Upgrading (Level 2) 86.5% Sitio Dungo-an, Bulucaon Water System Upgrading (Level 2) 13.2% Boat Landings Malacca Boat Landing 19.5% Parangan Boat Landing 35.8% FCR-Grain Dryers/Warehouses Batinao Grains Warehouse and Solar Dryer Construction 48.8% Manisan Grains Solar Dryer Construction 73.3% Moro Point Seaweed Solar Dryer (Kauyaguyag Fishing Cooperative) 13.7% FCR-Livelihood Cardaba Banana Production Consolidation Facility 21.6% Grouper and Milkfish Fishcage Farming (Illana Bay Cooperative) 7% Buri Weaving, Nagkakaisang Carmenian Association 37.0% Workforce Preparation Mindanao State University (JEEP) - Surigao State College and Technology (JEEP) - Datu Odin Sinsuat Educational and Development Foundation Inc. High School (CLIC) - Notre Dame of Libungan (CLIC) - NOTE: The Philippines Government (NEDA) uses 12 % and above ERR for economically feasible. 66 Project Name: Purok 1, Sitio Bokbokon, Bgy Daywan Footbridge BIP Component: Barangay Infrastructure Project Barangay: Daywan City/Municipality: Claver Province: Surigao del Norte Region: Caraga Date visited: 10 August 2012 Basic info: Items Qty Unit Size of footbridge 60 meters source: field No. beneficiaries 327 persons source: field Ave. household size 4.64 persons per household source: census No. of households (HH) beneficiaries 70 households source: field % of adults of total HH members 55.7 % source: census No. of adult beneficiaries 182 persons source: field (validated census data) % of adult females of total HH members 27.3 % source: census No. of female adult beneficiaries 89 persons source: field (validated census data) No. of HH members attending primary school 2 person per HH source: field Enrolment growth rates at primary school (all levels) SY 2010-11, Caraga 4.08 % source: DepEd-BIS No. of HH members attending secondary school 1 person source: field Enrolment growth rates at secondary school (all levels) SY 2010-11, Caraga 6.50 % source: DepEd-BIS Population growth rate, Surigao del Norte 1.24 % source: NSCB No. of HH evacuees due to flooding 20 households source: field No. of person-evacuees due flooding 70 persons source: field Travel time savings by beneficiaries, normal days 5 minutes source: field Travel time savings by the beneficiaries, flooding season 10 minutes source: field Frequency of flooding 3 per month source: field No. of months (flooding), December to February 3 months per year source: field No. of days of suspended classes due to flooding 3 days per flooding source: field Total no. of school days in a school year (exc holidays) 180 days per school year field, estimate Incremental no. of visits to town center (adult females) 0.5 days per week source: field No. of days devoted to farming 7 days per week source: field Incremental no. of month-visit to farm site (adult) 9 months per year source: field Incremental sacks of palay harvested 20 sacks per hectare source: field No. of harvest in a year 2 harvest seasons per year source: field Average area of rice field tended by one HH 0.311 hectare source: field (validated DA-BAS data) Price of palay (farm-gate) 700 pesos per sack source: field Growth rate of volume of palay production in Surigao del Norte, 2011 3.73 % source: DA-BAS Fare to nearest town center, public market, secondary school and clinic 20 pesos per head (return trip) source: field Fare to nearest elementary school 10 pesos per head (return trip) source: field Travel time to nearest town center, public market, secondary school and clinic 10 minutes source: field 67 Travel time to nearest primary school from pickup point near residence 5 minutes source: field Start date of construction 24-Feb-12 source: GEM3 website Completion date 30-May-12 source: GEM3 website No. of days of construction 96 days source: GEM3 website Delays in completion 0 months source: GEM3 website Construction cost 1,003,571 pesos source: GEM3 website Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Depreciation cost (linear approach) 45,161 pesos per year derived estimate Lifespan 20 years source: GEM3 Infra interview Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Unpaid laborers employed during construction, from the community 4 persons source: field Minimum daily wage non-agriculture, Caraga 258 pesos per person-day source: DOLE-NWPC No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 1 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict political (communist insurgency) source: field Violent conflict actors New Peoples Army, private citizens source: field Violent conflict form P10,000 extortion ('tax') or death source: field Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, Caraga 4.9 % source: NSCB 68 PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 User fee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [B] Social benefits 957,519 922,568 827,512 742,344 665,978 597,502 536,098 Incremental farm income of households 613,689 596,225 532,344 475,307 424,381 378,912 338,314 Cost savings from travel time to nearest town center by adult females 325,839 308,968 279,285 252,453 228,200 206,276 186,459 Cost savings from travel time to nearest school by students 5,391 5,428 5,084 4,822 4,573 4,338 4,115 Cost savings from travel time to nearest safe area by evacuees during flooding 12,600 11,948 10,800 9,762 8,824 7,977 7,210 [C] Total benefits [A]+[B] 957,519 922,568 827,512 742,344 665,978 597,502 536,098 COST [D] Private costs 1,102,643 55,196 51,697 46,158 41,213 36,797 32,855 29,334 Capital outlay (inc. contractor labor input) 1,003,571 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imputed labor cost of community 99,072 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maintenance 10,036 9,400 8,392 7,493 6,690 5,974 5,334 Depreciation cost 45,161 42,298 37,766 33,720 30,107 26,881 24,001 [E] Social cost 0 Imputed traffic cost due to delay in construction 0 Total cost [D]+[E] 1,102,643 55,196 51,697 46,158 41,213 36,797 32,855 29,334 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (1,102,643) 902,323 870,871 781,354 701,131 629,181 564,648 506,764 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (1,102,643) (55,196) (51,697) (46,158) (41,213) (36,797) (32,855) (29,334) Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 7,208,279.9 BCR 5.5 FRR - ERR 74.7% Hence, the project is economically (but not financially) feasible. given that a footbridge is an impure public good. Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 4,633,130.9 4.2 - 68.7% 30% discount rate 3,082,402.6 3.3 - 62.1% 10% increase in benefits 8,087,540.5 6.1 - 83.6% 10% increase in costs 7,049,847.3 5.0 - 66.7% 69 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 481,034 431,651 387,363 347,641 312,014 280,057 251,391 225,675 202,606 181,909 302,066 269,702 240,805 215,005 191,968 171,400 153,036 136,639 121,999 108,928 168,546 152,353 137,716 124,486 112,526 101,716 91,944 83,111 75,126 67,909 3,904 3,705 3,516 3,337 3,168 3,007 2,855 2,712 2,575 2,446 6,518 5,891 5,325 4,814 4,351 3,933 3,555 3,214 2,905 2,626 481,034 431,651 387,363 347,641 312,014 280,057 251,391 225,675 202,606 181,909 26,191 23,385 20,880 18,643 16,645 14,862 13,269 11,848 10,578 9,445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,762 4,252 3,796 3,390 3,026 2,702 2,413 2,154 1,923 1,717 21,429 19,133 17,083 15,253 13,619 12,160 10,857 9,694 8,655 7,728 26,191 23,385 20,880 18,643 16,645 14,862 13,269 11,848 10,578 9,445 454,842 408,266 366,483 328,999 295,369 265,195 238,121 213,828 192,028 172,464 (26,191) (23,385) (20,880) (18,643) (16,645) (14,862) (13,269) (11,848) (10,578) (9,445) 18 19 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 163,339 146,678 131,727 97,257 86,837 77,533 61,384 55,487 50,156 2,324 2,208 2,098 2,374 2,146 1,940 163,339 146,678 131,727 8,433 7,529 6,723 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,533 1,369 1,222 6,900 6,160 5,500 8,433 7,529 6,723 154,906 139,148 125,004 (8,433) (7,529) (6,723) 70 Project Name: Purok 4 Barangay Bridge (Box Culvert) Construction in Ladgaron BIP Component: Barangay Infrastructure Project Barangay: Ladgaron City/Municipality: Claver Province: Surigao del Norte Region: Caraga Date visited: 10 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of box culvert/bridge construction 10 meters source: field No. beneficiaries 779 persons source: field Ave. household size 4.64 persons per household source: census No. of household (HH) beneficiaries 168 households source: field % of adults of total HH members 55.7 % source: census No. of adult beneficiaries 434 persons source: field (validated census data) % of adult females of total HH members 49 % source: census No. of female adult beneficiaries 382 persons source: field (validated census data) No. of HH members attending elementary school 1 person per HH source: field No. of days of suspended classes at primary school due to flooding 2 days per flooding source: field % of HH population in the informal sector, Caraga 16.1 % derived estimate: source: NSCB, census % of self-employed w/o paid employee of total informal sector operator, Caraga 90 % source: NSCB Cost of raft 300 pesos per raft estimate No. of rafts due on flooding season 5 units source: field Frequency of flooding 2 per week source: field No. of months (flooding) 2 months per year source: field Incremental visits to town center (adult females) 5 days per week source: field Incremental visits to town center (adult, non-mothers) 2 days per week source: field Incremental income of HH 350 pesos per week source: field Fare to nearest town center 20 peso per head (return trip) source: field Daily traffic volume, habal-habal (average) 8 units per day source: field Daily traffic volume, 4-wheel vehicle (average) 2 units per day source: field Traffic volume growth rate 5 % per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Operating cost savings of vehicle, motorcycle 1.09 pesos per km source: DPWH, Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Operating cost savings of vehicle, utility car 5.98 pesos per km source: DPWH, Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Average time savings of vehicles 8 minutes per vehicle source: field Average traffic time due to delay in construction 15 minutes per vehicle source: field Start date of construction 9-Oct-09 source: GEM3 website Completion 20-May-10 source: GEM3 website No. of days of construction 221 days source: GEM3 website Delays in completion due to cracks 4.87 months derived estimate, source: GEM3 website 71 Construction cost 2,015,452 pesos source: GEM3 website Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Depreciation cost (linear approach) 90,695 pesos per year derived estimate Lifespan 20 years source: GEM3 Infra interview Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Unpaid laborers employed during construction, from the community 10 persons source: field Minimum daily wage non-agriculture, Caraga 258 pesos per person-day source: DOLE-NWPC No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 4 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict political (communist insurgency) source: field Violent conflict actors New Peoples Army, private citizens source: field Violent conflict form extortion ('tax') source: field Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, Caraga 4.9 % source: NSCB PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 [A] Private benefits 15,770 15,509 14,540 13,631 12,779 User fee 0 0 0 0 0 Operating cost savings of vehicles 75 74 70 65 61 Time cost savings of vehicles 15,695 15,435 14,470 13,566 12,718 [B] Social benefits 2,372,539 2,222,137 2,081,269 1,949,331 1,825,758 Incremental income of HHs 408,239 382,359 358,121 335,418 314,155 Cost savings from travel time of adult females 1,835,573 1,719,211 1,610,225 1,508,149 1,412,543 Cost savings from travel time of adult males 98,864 92,597 86,727 81,229 76,080 Cost savings from building rafts during flooding 3,000 2,810 2,632 2,465 2,309 Cost saving from travel/access by students during flooding 26,862 25,159 23,564 22,070 20,671 [C] Total benefits [A]+[B] 2,388,309 2,237,646 2,095,809 1,962,963 1,838,537 COST [D] Private costs 2,015,452 110,850 103,823 97,241 91,077 85,303 Capital outlay (inc. contractor labor input) 2,015,452 Imputed labor cost of community 570,180 Maintenance 20,155 18,877 17,680 16,559 15,510 Depreciation cost 90,695 84,946 79,561 74,517 69,793 [E] Social cost 14,513 Imputed traffic cost due to delay in construction 14,513 Total cost [D]+[E] 2,585,632 125,362 103,823 97,241 91,077 85,303 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (2,585,632) 2,262,947 2,133,823 1,998,568 1,871,886 1,753,234 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (2,585,632) (110,850) (103,823) (97,241) (91,077) (85,303) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 72 11,981 11,232 10,530 9,872 9,255 8,676 8,134 7,626 7,149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 54 50 47 44 42 39 36 34 11,923 11,178 10,479 9,824 9,210 8,635 8,095 7,589 7,115 1,710,018 1,601,615 1,500,084 1,404,989 1,315,923 1,232,503 1,154,371 1,081,192 1,012,652 294,240 275,587 258,117 241,754 226,429 212,075 198,631 186,039 174,245 1,322,998 1,239,129 1,160,577 1,087,005 1,018,096 953,556 893,108 836,491 783,464 71,257 66,740 62,509 58,546 54,835 51,359 48,103 45,054 42,198 2,162 2,025 1,897 1,777 1,664 1,558 1,460 1,367 1,280 19,361 18,134 16,984 15,907 14,899 13,954 13,070 12,241 11,465 1,721,998 1,612,847 1,510,614 1,414,861 1,325,178 1,241,179 1,162,505 1,088,818 1,019,801 79,896 74,831 70,087 65,644 61,483 57,585 53,935 50,516 47,313 14,526 13,606 12,743 11,935 11,179 10,470 9,806 9,185 8,602 65,369 61,225 57,344 53,709 50,304 47,115 44,128 41,331 38,711 79,896 74,831 70,087 65,644 61,483 57,585 53,935 50,516 47,313 1,642,103 1,538,016 1,440,527 1,349,217 1,263,695 1,183,594 1,108,570 1,038,302 972,488 (79,896) (74,831) (70,087) (65,644) (61,483) (57,585) (53,935) (50,516) (47,313) 15 16 17 18 19 20 6,702 6,283 5,891 5,522 5,177 4,854 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 30 28 26 25 23 6,670 6,253 5,862 5,496 5,153 4,830 948,457 888,332 832,018 779,274 729,874 683,605 163,200 152,854 143,164 134,088 125,588 117,627 733,798 687,280 643,711 602,905 564,685 528,888 39,523 37,017 34,670 32,473 30,414 28,486 1,199 1,123 1,052 985 923 864 10,739 10,058 9,420 8,823 8,264 7,740 955,160 894,615 837,909 784,796 735,051 688,459 44,314 41,505 38,874 36,409 34,101 31,939 8,057 7,546 7,068 6,620 6,200 5,807 36,257 33,958 31,806 29,789 27,901 26,132 44,314 41,505 38,874 36,409 34,101 31,939 910,846 853,111 799,035 748,387 700,950 656,519 (44,314) (41,505) (38,874) (36,409) (34,101) (31,939) Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 23,640,185.5 BCR 7.1 FRR - ERR 81.5% Hence, the project is economically (but not financially) feasible given that a barangay bridge/ box culvert is an impure public good. Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 14,275,499.2 5.2 - 75.2% 30% discount rate 9,037,380.5 3.9 - 68.5% 10% increase in benefits 26,962,070.9 9.2 - 118.1% 10% increase in costs 23,252,498.6 6.5 - 73.1% 73 Project Name: Sitio Day-ason Barangay Bridge (Box Culvert) Construction BIP Component: Barangay Infrastructure Project Barangay: Poniente City/Municipality: Gigaquit Province: Surigao del Norte Region: Caraga Date visited: 10 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of box culvert/bridge construction 10 meters source: field No. beneficiaries (Bgy Poniente and Bgy Camboayon) 2,198 persons source: field and census Ave. household size, Surigao del Norte 4.64 persons per household source: census No. of household (HH) beneficiaries 474 households source: field % of adults of total HH members, Caraga 55.7 % source: census No. of adult beneficiaries 1,224 persons source: field (validated census data) % of adult females of total HH members, Caraga 49 % source: census No. of adult female beneficiaries 1079 persons source: field (validated census data) Population growth rate, Caraga 1.25 % source: NSCB Land area for palay production 60 hectares source: field Volume of palay production 60 sacks per hectare source: field Frequency of harvest 2 times per year source: field Growth rate of volume of palay production in Surigao del Norte, 2011 3.73 % source: DA-BAS Handling fee to transport palay produce to town on a motorcycle (with bridge) 5 pesos per sack source: field Carrying capacity of motorcycle 6 sacks per trip source: field Handling fee to transport palay produce to town on carabao cart (without bridge) 50 pesos per sack source: field Carrying capacity of carabao cart 10 sacks per trip source: field Average traffic time of handling palay produce to cross creek - carabao cart 20 minutes per vehicle source: field Average traffic time of handling palay produce to cross creek - motorcycle 1 minutes per vehicle source: field Average traffic time saving of handling agri produce to cross the creek 19 minutes per vehicle source: field Incremental visits to town center (adult females) 2 days per week source: field Fare to nearest town center 20 peso per head (return trip) source: field Start date of construction 4-Nov-09 source: GEM3 website Completion date 7-Aug-10 source: GEM3 website No. of days of construction 282 days source: GEM3 website Delays in completion due to cracks* 207 months derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Construction cost 1,830,484 pesos source: GEM3 website Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Depreciation cost (linear approach) 82,372 pesos per year derived estimate Lifespan 20 years source: GEM3 Infra interview Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Unpaid laborers employed during construction, from the community 10 persons source: field Minimum daily wage non-agriculture, Caraga 258 pesos per person-day source: DOLE-NWPC *no reported additional cost due to delay in 74 construction No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict source: field Violent conflict actors source: field Violent conflict form source: field Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, Caraga 4.9 % source: NSCB PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 [A] Private benefits 144,000 139,902 129,572 120,004 111,143 User fee 0 0 0 0 0 Operating cost savings of vehicle to transport palay produce 30,000 29,146 26,994 25,001 23,155 Time cost savings of vehicles to transport palay produce 114,000 110,756 102,578 95,003 87,988 [B] Social benefits 2,071,677 1,940,347 1,817,343 1,702,136 1,594,233 Cost savings from travel time by adult females 2,071,677 1,940,347 1,817,343 1,702,136 1,594,233 [C] Total benefits [A]+[B] 2,215,677 2,080,249 1,946,915 1,822,141 1,705,376 COST [D] Private costs 1,830,484 100,677 94,294 88,317 82,718 77,474 Capital outlay (inc. contractor labor input) 1,830,484 Imputed labor cost of community Maintenance 18,305 17,144 16,058 15,040 14,086 Depreciation cost 82,372 77,150 72,259 67,679 63,388 Total cost [D] 2,558,044 100,677 94,294 88,317 82,718 77,474 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (2,558,044) 2,115,000 1,985,955 1,858,598 1,739,423 1,627,902 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (1,830,484) 43,323 45,608 41,255 37,286 33,669 Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 21,740,679.1 BCR 6.8 FRR - ERR 76.4% Hence, the project is economically (but not financially) feasible given that a barangay bridge/box culvert is an impure public good. Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 13,088,551.4 5.0 - 70.2% 30% discount rate 8,242,772.2 3.7 - 63.4% 10% increase in benefits 25,014,066.7 9.4 - 121.4% 10% increase in costs 1,170,786.6 2.0 - - 75 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 102,937 95,336 88,296 81,777 75,738 70,146 64,966 60,169 55,726 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,445 19,862 18,395 17,037 15,779 14,614 13,535 12,535 11,610 81,491 75,474 69,901 64,740 59,959 55,532 51,432 47,634 44,117 1,493,170 1,398,514 1,309,858 1,226,822 1,149,051 1,076,209 1,007,985 944,086 884,238 1,493,170 1,398,514 1,309,858 1,226,822 1,149,051 1,076,209 1,007,985 944,086 884,238 1,596,107 1,493,850 1,398,154 1,308,599 1,224,789 1,146,355 1,072,951 1,004,255 939,964 72,563 67,963 63,655 59,620 55,840 52,300 48,985 45,879 42,971 13,193 12,357 11,574 10,840 10,153 9,509 8,906 8,342 7,813 59,370 55,606 52,081 48,780 45,687 42,791 40,078 37,538 35,158 72,563 67,963 63,655 59,620 55,840 52,300 48,985 45,879 42,971 1,523,544 1,425,886 1,334,500 1,248,979 1,168,949 1,094,055 1,023,967 958,376 896,993 30,373 27,373 24,642 22,157 19,898 17,846 15,982 14,290 12,755 15 16 17 18 19 20 51,612 47,801 44,271 41,002 37,975 35,171 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,752 9,958 9,223 8,542 7,911 7,327 40,859 37,842 35,048 32,460 30,063 27,843 828,183 775,682 726,510 680,454 637,318 596,917 828,183 775,682 726,510 680,454 637,318 596,917 879,795 823,483 770,781 721,456 675,293 632,087 40,247 37,696 35,306 33,068 30,972 29,008 7,318 6,854 6,419 6,012 5,631 5,274 32,929 30,842 28,887 27,055 25,340 23,734 40,247 37,696 35,306 33,068 30,972 29,008 839,548 785,787 735,475 688,388 644,321 603,079 11,365 10,105 8,965 7,934 7,003 6,162 76 Project Name: Buluan Barangay Bridge (Box Culvert) BIP Component: Barangay Infrastructure Project Barangay: Buluan City/Municipality: Pigcawayan Province: North Cotabato Region: Soccsksargen Date visited: 18 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of bridge 10 meters source: field No. beneficiaries, (population of barangay) 1070 persons source: census Average household size, Pigcawayan 4.7 persons per household source: census No. of household (HH) beneficiaries 228 households source: field (validated census data) % of HH members aged 5 years and above, Pigcawayan 88.35 % source: census No. of beneficiary HH members aged 5 years and above 945 persons source: field (validated census data) % of adult females of total HH members 28.26 % source: census No. of female adult beneficiaries 302 persons source: field (validated census data) % of HH population in the informal sector, North Cotabato 16.3 % derived estimate: source: NSCB and census % of self-employed w/o paid employee of total informal sector operator, North Cotabato 77.81 % source: NSCB Population growth, North Cotabato 2.19 % source: NSCB Duration of days of flooding 2 days per flood source: field Frequency of flooding 3 per week source: field No. of months (flooding) 2 months per year source: field Incremental visits to town center (adult females) 1 days per week source: field Incremental visits to town center (adult, non￾mothers) 1 days per week source: field Incremental income of HH 0 pesos per week source: field Fare to nearest town center 16 peso per head (return trip) source: field Daily traffic volume, habal-habal (average), daily 20 units per day source: field Daily traffic volume, truck (average), during harvest season 1 unit per day source: field Traffic volume growth rate 5 % per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Operating cost savings of vehicle, motorcycle 1.09 pesos per km source: DPWH, Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Operating cost savings of vehicle, truck 5.98 pesos per km source: DPWH, Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Average time savings of vehicles 10 minutes per vehicle source: field Incremental distance saved by vehicles from residence to town center 3 kilometers per trip source: field Incremental length of time pedestrians can cross the bridge due to construction delays 3 minutes source: field Note: before GEM3, wooden bridge impassable to vehicles Harvest season 3 seasons per year source: field Start date of construction 27-May-10 source: GEM3 website Completion date 17-Sep-11 source: GEM3 website 77 No. of days of construction 475 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Delays in completion due to flood 400 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Construction cost 1,940,319 pesos source: GEM3 website Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Depreciation cost (linear approach) 87,314 pesos per year derived estimate Lifespan 20 years source: GEM3 Infra interview Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Unpaid laborers employed during construction, from the community 14 persons source: field No. of days devoted by unpaid local laborers to construction before they quit 5 days source: field Minimum daily wage, Soccsksargen 270 pesos per person-day source: DOLE-NWPC No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 4 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict communist insurgency Violent conflict actors New Peoples Army, private citizens Violent conflict form extortion ('tax') Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, Soccsksargen 4.6 % source: NSCB PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 [A] Private benefits 67,054 65,755 61,645 57,793 54,181 User fee 0 0 0 0 0 Operating cost savings of vehicles 25,486 24,992 23,430 21,965 20,593 Time cost savings of vehicles 41,569 40,763 38,216 35,827 33,588 [B] Social benefits 726,025 678,055 633,255 591,415 552,340 Incremental income of HHs 0 0 0 0 0 Cost savings from travel time of adult females 232,229 216,886 202,556 189,173 176,674 Cost savings from travel time of adult males 493,796 461,170 430,700 402,243 375,666 [C] Total benefits [A]+[B] 793,079 743,811 694,901 649,208 606,520 COST [D] Private costs 1,940,319 106,718 99,667 93,081 86,931 81,188 Capital outlay (inc. contractor labor input) 1,940,319 Imputed labor cost of community 18,900 Maintenance 19,403 18,121 16,924 15,806 14,761 Depreciation cost 87,314 81,545 76,158 71,126 66,426 [E] Social cost 477,090 Imputed traffic cost due to delay in construction 477,090 Total cost [D]+[E] 1,959,219 583,808 99,667 93,081 86,931 81,188 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (1,959,219) 209,272 644,144 601,819 562,276 525,332 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (1,940,319) (19,403) (18,121) (16,924) (15,806) (14,761) 78 Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 5,358,729.4 BCR 2.5 FRR - ERR 22.6% Hence, the project is economically (but no financially) feasible given that a barangay bridge/ box culvert is an impure public good. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 50,794 47,620 44,643 41,853 39,237 36,785 34,486 32,331 30,310 28,416 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,306 18,099 16,968 15,907 14,913 13,981 13,107 12,288 11,520 10,800 31,489 29,521 27,676 25,946 24,324 22,804 21,379 20,043 18,790 17,616 515,846 481,763 449,932 420,205 392,441 366,512 342,296 319,680 298,558 278,832 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165,001 154,099 143,917 134,408 125,528 117,234 109,488 102,254 95,498 89,188 350,845 327,664 306,015 285,796 266,913 249,278 232,808 217,426 203,060 189,644 566,640 529,383 494,576 462,058 431,679 403,297 376,782 352,011 328,868 307,248 75,824 70,814 66,135 61,765 57,684 53,873 50,314 46,989 43,885 40,985 13,786 12,875 12,025 11,230 10,488 9,795 9,148 8,544 7,979 7,452 62,037 57,939 54,110 50,535 47,196 44,078 41,166 38,446 35,906 33,533 75,824 70,814 66,135 61,765 57,684 53,873 50,314 46,989 43,885 40,985 490,817 458,569 428,441 400,292 373,994 349,424 326,468 305,021 284,984 266,263 (13,786) (12,875) (12,025) (11,230) (10,488) (9,795) (9,148) (8,544) (7,979) (7,452) 16 17 18 19 20 26,640 24,975 23,414 21,950 20,578 0 0 0 0 0 10,125 9,492 8,899 8,343 7,821 16,515 15,482 14,515 13,608 12,757 260,409 243,204 227,135 212,128 198,112 0 0 0 0 0 83,296 77,792 72,652 67,852 63,369 177,114 165,412 154,483 144,276 134,743 287,049 268,178 250,549 234,078 218,691 38,277 35,748 33,386 31,180 29,120 6,960 6,500 6,070 5,669 5,295 31,318 29,249 27,316 25,511 23,826 38,277 35,748 33,386 31,180 29,120 248,772 232,430 217,162 202,898 189,570 (6,960) (6,500) (6,070) (5,669) (5,295) Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 2,599,216.2 1.8 - 16.2% 30% discount rate 1,048,920.4 1.4 - 9.2% 10% increase in benefits 6,277,489.8 2.7 - 26.5% 10% increase in costs 5,190,663.9 2.4 - 21.6% Project Name: Hayanggabon Trading Center BIP Component: Barangay Infrastructure Project 79 Barangay: Hayanggabon City/Municipality: Claver Province: Surigao del Norte Region: Caraga Date visited: 10 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of trading center 84 square meters source: field, GEM3 Population of barangay 880 persons source: census HH size of town 4.85 persons per household source: census Population (HH) of barangay 181 households source: field Population growth rate, Caraga 1.25 % source: census No. beneficiaries (vendors) - 1st year 24 persons source: field No. beneficiaries (vendors) - 2nd year 5 persons source: field No. beneficiaries (buyers) 50 persons per day source: field (MPDC) Peak days (weekend) 2 days per week source: field Trough days (weekdays) 5 days per week source: field Days open 365 days source: field Incremental total volume of fish sold per day 2 bandehada of fish source: field incremental total volume of fish sold per day by dropout-vendors during the 1st year 0.25 bandehada of fish field estimate Kilogram equivalent of 1 bandehada of fish 8 kilograms source: field Price of fish (peak) 20 pesos per kilo source: field Price of fish (trough) 20 pesos per kilo source: field Growth rate of sales 5 % per year assumption Cost of goods sold by farmers 50 % of sales field estimate Rental fee - for 1st year (with total 24 vendors) 60 pesos per stall-per week source: field Rental fee - for 2nd year* 288 pesos per stall-per week source: field Subsidy (working capital) given by mining company for vendors 5,000 pesos per person, lump￾sum,1st year source: field * with total 5 vendors who now bear the fees of 19 dropout-vendors Rental fee of stalls at the nearest alternative trading center/public market 50 pesos per week source: field (MPDC) Average travel time to nearest alternative trading center/public market 5 minutes source: field % of residents who ride public transport to nearest trading center/public market 0 % source: field **reason: within walking distance Start date of construction 30-Mar-09 source: GEM 3 website Completion/turn-over date 24-Jun-09 source: GEM 3 website No. of days of construction 84 days source: GEM 3 website Delays in completion 24 years derived estimate, source: GEM 3 website Construction cost 1,617,762 pesos source: GEM3 website Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Depreciation cost (linear approach) 72,799 pesos per year derived estimate Lifespan 20 years source: GEM3 Infra interview Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects 80 PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 69,120 64,738 60,634 56,791 53,190 User fee (rental fee of stalls) 69,120 64,738 60,634 56,791 53,190 [B] Social benefits 950,484 1,029,384 964,600 903,894 847,008 Incremental retail net earnings 415,908 528,696 495,653 464,674 435,632 Cost savings from travel time to nearest alternative trading center/public market 534,576 500,688 468,948 439,220 411,376 [C] Total benefits [A]+[B] 1,019,604 1,094,122 1,025,235 960,685 900,199 COST [D] Private costs 1,617,762 88,977 83,336 78,053 73,105 68,471 Capital outlay (inc. contractor labor input) 1,617,762 Maintenance 16,178 15,152 14,192 13,292 12,449 Depreciation cost 72,799 68,184 63,862 59,814 56,022 [E] Subsidy and Opportunity cost 131,520 10,790 10,106 9,465 8,865 Incremental user fee cost 11,520 10,790 10,106 9,465 8,865 Subsidy 120,000 Total cost [D]+[E] 1,617,762 220,497 94,126 88,159 82,571 77,336 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (1,617,762) 799,107 999,996 937,075 878,114 822,863 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (1,617,762) (19,857) (18,598) (17,419) (16,315) (15,281) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Unpaid laborers employed during construction, from the community 0 persons source: field Minimum daily wage, Caraga 258 pesos per person-day source:DOLE-NWPC No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incident source: field Type of violent conflict Violent conflict actors Violent conflict form Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, Caraga 4.9 % source: NSCB Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 10,451,048.1 BCR 4.6 FRR - ERR 53.2% Hence, the project is economically (but not financially) feasible. given that a trading center is a club good. Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 6,040,900.5 3.4 - 46.7% 30% discount rate 3,576,274.5 2.6 - 39.7% 10% increase in benefits 11,785,677.4 5.1 - 59.7% 10% increase in costs 10,161,523.6 4.2 - 47.4% 81 49,819 46,660 43,702 40,932 38,337 35,907 33,631 31,499 29,502 27,632 49,819 46,660 43,702 40,932 38,337 35,907 33,631 31,499 29,502 27,632 793,703 743,753 696,946 653,085 611,985 573,471 537,381 503,562 471,872 442,176 408,405 382,880 358,950 336,515 315,483 295,765 277,280 259,950 243,703 228,472 385,298 360,873 337,996 316,570 296,501 277,705 260,101 243,612 228,169 213,705 843,522 790,413 740,648 694,017 650,322 609,378 571,012 535,061 501,374 469,808 64,131 60,065 56,257 52,691 49,351 46,222 43,292 40,548 37,977 35,570 11,660 10,921 10,229 9,580 8,973 8,404 7,871 7,372 6,905 6,467 52,470 49,144 46,029 43,111 40,378 37,818 35,421 33,175 31,072 29,103 8,303 7,777 7,284 6,822 6,390 5,984 5,605 5,250 4,917 4,605 8,303 7,777 7,284 6,822 6,390 5,984 5,605 5,250 4,917 4,605 72,434 67,842 63,541 59,513 55,740 52,207 48,897 45,798 42,894 40,175 771,088 722,571 677,107 634,504 594,581 557,171 522,114 489,264 458,480 429,633 (14,312) (13,405) (12,555) (11,759) (11,014) (10,315) (9,661) (9,049) (8,475) (7,938) 16 17 18 19 20 25,880 24,239 22,703 21,264 19,916 25,880 24,239 22,703 21,264 19,916 414,350 388,274 363,840 340,943 319,487 214,192 200,805 188,255 176,489 165,458 200,157 187,469 175,585 164,454 154,029 440,230 412,514 386,542 362,206 339,403 33,315 31,203 29,225 27,372 25,637 6,057 5,673 5,314 4,977 4,661 27,258 25,530 23,911 22,396 20,976 4,313 4,040 3,784 3,544 3,319 4,313 4,040 3,784 3,544 3,319 37,628 35,243 33,009 30,916 28,956 402,601 377,271 353,534 331,290 310,446 (7,435) (6,964) (6,522) (6,109) (5,721) 82 Project Name: Purok 3, Mahanub Proper Trading Center (with toilet) BIP Component: Barangay Infrastructure Project Barangay: Mahanub City/Municipality: Gigaquit Province: Surigao del Norte Region: Caraga Date visited: 11 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of trading center 84 square meters source: field Population of barangay 2,050 persons source: census Ave. HH size 4.95 persons per household source: census No. of HHs 414 households source: field Population growth rate, Caraga 1.25 % source: census No. beneficiaries (vendors) 8 persons source: field No. beneficiaries (buyers) - peak 200 persons per day source: field No. beneficiaries (buyers) - trough 70 persons per day source: field Peak days (weekend) 2 days per week source: field Trough days (weekdays) 5 days per week source: field Days open 365 days source: field Monthly electricity bill 500 pesos per month source: field Incremental total volume of sales (peak) 750 pesos per seller-day source: field Incremental total volume of sales (trough) 70 pesos per seller-day source: field Growth rate of sales 5 % per year assumption Cost of goods sold by farmers 50 % of sales field estimate User fee for toilet 1 peso per head source: field % of vendors and sellers who use the toilet 20 % assumption Rental fee - peak 100 pesos per stall-day source: field Rental fee - trough 50 pesos per stall-day source: field Fare from residence to nearest alternative trading center/public market 14 pesos per head (return trip) source: field Fare from residence to nearest alternative trading center/public market-chartered 56 pesos per return trip source: field Rental fee of stalls at the nearest alternative trading center/public market 20 pesos per day source: field % of residents who ride public transport to nearest trading center/public market 10 % source: field Start date of construction 26-Oct-09 source: GEM3 website Completion date 11-Jan-10 source: GEM3 website No. of days of construction 75 days source: GEM3 website Delays in completion* 15 months source: GEM3 website Construction cost 969,958 pesos source: GEM3 website Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Depreciation cost (linear approach) 43,648 pesos per year derived estimate Lifespan 20 years source: GEM3 Infra interview Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects 83 Unpaid laborers employed during construction, from the community 0 persons source: field Minimum daily wage non-agriculture, Caraga 258 pesos per person-day source: DOLE-NWPC * no reported additional cost due to delay in construction No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict Violent conflict actors Violent conflict form Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, Caraga 4.9 % source: NSCB PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 28,601 26,788 25,090 23,499 22,009 User fee (rental fee from stalls) 27,375 25,640 24,014 22,492 21,066 User fee (for use of toilet) 1,226 1,148 1,075 1,007 943 [B] Social benefits 492,893 461,980 417,411 377,305 341,203 Incremental retail net earnings 372,605 349,317 311,890 278,473 248,637 Cost savings from travel time to nearest alternative trading center/public market 120,288 112,663 105,521 98,831 92,566 [C] Total benefits [A]+[B] 521,494 488,767 442,500 400,804 363,212 COST [D] Private costs 969,958 53,348 49,966 46,798 43,832 41,053 Capital outlay (inc. contractor labor input) 969,958 Maintenance 9,700 9,085 8,509 7,969 7,464 Depreciation cost 43,648 40,881 38,290 35,862 33,589 [E] Opportunity cost 21,120 19,781 18,527 17,353 16,253 Incremental user fee cost 21,120 19,781 18,527 17,353 16,253 Total cost [D]+[E] 969,958 74,468 69,747 65,326 61,184 57,306 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (969,958) 447,026 419,020 377,175 339,619 305,907 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (969,958) (24,747) (23,178) (21,709) (20,333) (19,044) Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 3,141,549.0 BCR 2.7 FRR - ERR 37.4% Hence, the project is economically (but not financially) feasible given that a trading center is a club good. Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 1,848,858.8 2.2 - 31.3% 30% discount rate 1,078,011.3 1.8 - 24.8% 10% increase in benefits 3,638,468.5 3.0 - 42.9% 10% increase in costs 2,958,784.3 2.5 - 32.4% 84 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20,614 19,307 18,083 16,937 15,863 14,858 13,916 13,034 12,207 11,434 19,731 18,480 17,308 16,211 15,183 14,221 13,319 12,475 11,684 10,944 883 827 775 726 680 637 596 559 523 490 308,695 279,414 253,029 229,246 207,801 188,455 170,997 155,237 141,003 128,141 221,997 198,212 176,975 158,013 141,083 125,967 112,471 100,420 89,661 80,054 86,698 81,202 76,054 71,233 66,717 62,488 58,527 54,817 51,342 48,087 329,310 298,721 271,113 246,183 223,664 203,313 184,913 168,271 153,210 139,575 38,451 36,013 33,730 31,592 29,589 27,713 25,957 24,311 22,770 21,327 6,991 6,548 6,133 5,744 5,380 5,039 4,719 4,420 4,140 3,878 31,460 29,465 27,597 25,848 24,209 22,675 21,237 19,891 18,630 17,449 15,222 14,257 13,354 12,507 11,714 10,972 10,276 9,625 9,014 8,443 15,222 14,257 13,354 12,507 11,714 10,972 10,276 9,625 9,014 8,443 53,673 50,270 47,084 44,099 41,303 38,685 36,233 33,936 31,784 29,770 275,637 248,451 224,029 202,085 182,361 164,628 148,681 134,335 121,426 109,805 (17,836) (16,706) (15,647) (14,655) (13,726) (12,856) (12,041) (11,277) (10,563) (9,893) 16 17 18 19 20 10,709 10,030 9,394 8,799 8,241 10,250 9,600 8,991 8,421 7,888 459 430 403 377 353 116,516 106,002 96,490 87,881 80,084 71,477 63,819 56,981 50,876 45,425 45,039 42,183 39,509 37,005 34,659 127,224 116,032 105,885 96,679 88,325 19,975 18,708 17,522 16,412 15,371 3,632 3,402 3,186 2,984 2,795 16,343 15,307 14,336 13,428 12,576 7,908 7,407 6,937 6,497 6,085 7,908 7,407 6,937 6,497 6,085 27,882 26,115 24,459 22,909 21,457 99,342 89,917 81,425 73,771 66,868 (9,266) (8,678) (8,128) (7,613) (7,130) 85 Project Name: Parang Trading Center (with toilet) BIP Component: Barangay Infrastructure Project Barangay: Poblacion 2 City/Municipality: Parang Province: Maguindanao Region: ARMM Date visited: 24 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of trading center 84 square meters source: field Population of barangay 8916 persons source: census Ave. HH size 5.15 persons per household source: census No. of HHs 1731 households derived estimate, (validated census data) Population growth rate, Maguindanao 6.60 % source: census No. beneficiaries (vendors) 16 persons source: field No. beneficiaries (buyers) - peak 200 persons per day source: field No. beneficiaries (buyers) - trough 160 persons per day source: field Peak days (Saturday) 1 day per week source: field Trough days (weekdays) 5 days per week source: field Days open 317 days source: field Salary of watchmen 2,000 pesos per head source: field No. watchmen 4 persons source: field Start date of installing watchmen 2011 year source: field Average losses incurred by each vendor before start date of employing watchmen 200 pesos per vendor-day source: field Incremental total volume of sales (peak) 230 pesos per seller-day source: field Incremental total volume of sales (trough) 200 pesos per seller-day source: field Growth rate of sales 5 % per year assumption Cost of goods sold by farmers 50 % of sales field estimate User fee for toilet 2 peso per head source: field % of vendors and sellers who use the toilet 20 % assumption Rental fee - peak 7 pesos per stall-day source: field Rental fee - trough 7 pesos per stall-day source: field Fare from residence to nearest alternative trading place--street 14 pesos per head (return trip) source: field Fare from residence to nearest alternative trading place--street 50 pesos per return trip source: field Rental fee of stalls at the nearest alternative trading place--street 2 pesos per day source: field % of residents who ride public transport to nearest trading place--street 10 % source: field Start date of construction 6-Aug-08 source: GEM3 website Completion date 15-Sep-09 source: GEM3 website No. of days of construction 409 days derived estimate, GEM3 website Delays in completion* 349 months derived estimate, GEM3 website Construction cost 832,235 pesos source: GEM3 website Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Depreciation cost (linear approach) 37,451 pesos per year derived estimate Lifespan 20 years source: GEM3 Infra interview Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Unpaid laborers employed during construction, from 0 persons source: field 86 the community Minimum daily wage (non-) agriculture, ARMM 232 pesos per person-day source: DOLE-NWPC *no reported additional cost due to delay in construction No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 1 incident source: field Type of violent conflict rido Violent conflict actors families Violent conflict form Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, ARMM 6.19 % source: NSCB PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 7,333 6,953 6,592 6,250 5,926 User fee (rental fee of stalls) 4,438 4,208 3,990 3,783 3,586 User fee (for use of toilet) 2,895 2,745 2,603 2,468 2,340 [B] Social benefits 660,917 621,303 563,085 510,672 463,464 Incremental retail net earnings 501,557 470,209 419,830 374,848 334,686 Cost savings from travel time to nearest alternative trading center/public market 159,360 151,093 143,255 135,824 128,778 [C] Total benefits [A]+[B] 668,250 628,255 569,677 516,922 469,390 COST [D] Private costs 832,235 141,773 134,418 127,445 120,834 114,566 Capital outlay (inc. contractor labor input) 832,235 Imputed labor cost of community 0 96,000 91,020 86,298 81,822 77,577 Maintenance 8,322 7,891 7,481 7,093 6,725 Depreciation cost 37,451 35,508 33,666 31,919 30,264 [E] Opportunity cost - 35,280 33,450 31,715 30,069 28,510 Incremental user fee cost 35,280 33,450 31,715 30,069 28,510 Total cost [D]+[E] 832,235 177,053 167,868 159,160 150,904 143,076 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (832,235) 491,197 460,387 410,517 366,018 326,314 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (832,235) (134,440) (127,466) (120,853) (114,584) (108,640) Conclusion, at 12% discount rate Sensitivity Analysis NPV 3,417,507.3 Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR BCR 2.1 20% discount rate 2,137,860.1 2.0 - 44.0% FRR - 30% discount rate 1,357,189.1 1.8 - 37.5% ERR 50.0% Hence, the project is economically (but not financially) feasible given that a trading center is a club good. 10% increase in benefits 4,066,174.8 2.3 - 58.3% 10% increase in costs - 2,593,299.7 0.2 - - 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 87 5,619 5,327 5,051 4,789 4,540 4,305 4,081 3,870 3,669 3,479 3,400 3,224 3,057 2,898 2,748 2,605 2,470 2,342 2,220 2,105 2,218 2,103 1,994 1,891 1,793 1699 1,611 1,528 1,449 1,373 420,924 382,573 347,981 316,764 288,576 263,110 240,090 219,268 200,423 183,356 298,827 266,809 238,223 212,699 189,910 169,562 151,395 135,174 120,691 107,760 122,098 115,764 109,759 104,065 98,666 93,548 88,695 84,094 79,732 75,596 426,543 387,900 353,032 321,552 293,116 267,415 244,172 223,138 204,092 186,834 108,623 102,988 97,646 92,580 87,778 83,224 78,907 74,814 70,933 67,253 73,553 69,737 66,120 62,690 59,438 56,354 53,431 50,659 48,031 45,540 6,376 6,046 5,732 5,435 5,153 4,885 4,632 4,392 4,164 3,948 28,694 27,205 25,794 24,456 23,187 21,984 20,844 19,763 18,737 17,765 27,031 25,628 24,299 23,038 21,843 20,710 19,636 18,617 17,651 16,736 27,031 25,628 24,299 23,038 21,843 20,710 19,636 18,617 17,651 16,736 135,654 128,616 121,945 115,619 109,621 103,934 98,543 93,431 88,584 83,989 290,889 259,284 231,088 205,934 183,496 163,481 145,629 129,707 115,508 102,846 (103,004) (97,661) (92,595) (87,791) (83,237) (78,919) (74,825) (70,944) (67,264) (63,774) Project Name: Poblacion 2 Drainage Canal Upgrading BIP 16 17 18 19 20 3,298 3,127 2,965 2,811 2,665 1,996 1,893 1,794 1,701 1,613 1,302 1,235 1,171 1,110 1,052 167,888 153,862 141,132 129,572 119,065 96,214 85,905 76,701 68,483 61,146 71,674 67,956 64,431 61,089 57,920 171,187 156,989 144,097 132,383 121,731 63,764 60,456 57,320 54,347 51,528 43,177 40,937 38,814 36,800 34,891 3,743 3,549 3,365 3,190 3,025 16,844 15,970 15,142 14,356 13,611 15,868 15,045 14,264 13,524 12,823 15,868 15,045 14,264 13,524 12,823 79,632 75,501 71,584 67,871 64,350 91,555 81,488 72,513 64,512 57,381 (60,466) (57,329) (54,355) (51,536) (48,862) 88 Component: Barangay Infrastructure Project Barangay: Poblacion 2 City/Municipality: Parang Province: Maguindanao Region: ARMM Date visited: 23 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of canal drainage 200 meters source: field No. beneficiaries, (population of barangay) 1958 persons source: census Average household size, Parang 5.15 persons per household source: census No. of household (HH) beneficiaries 380 households source: field (validated census data) Population growth, Maguindanao 6.6 % source: NSCB Duration of days of flooding 2 days per flood source: field Frequency of flooding 3 per week source: field No. of months (flooding) 1 months per year source: field Daily traffic volume, habal-habal 30 units per day source: field Daily traffic volume, utility vehicles 25 unit per day source: field Daily traffic volume, trucks 15 units per day Traffic volume growth rate 5 % per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Operating cost savings of vehicle, motorcycle 1.09 pesos per km source: DPWH, Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Operating cost savings of vehicle, utility vehicles 5.98 pesos per km source: DPWH, Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Operating cost savings of vehicle, trucks 6.14 pesos per km source: DPWH, Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Average time savings of vehicles 20 minutes per vehicle source: field Incremental distance saved by vehicles from residence to poblacion 3 kilometers per trip source: field No of shops affected during flooding 14 shops (wholesalers) source: field Volume of losses during flooding 3 sacks of corn source: field Wholesale price of corn (white) 20.15 pesos per kilogram source: BAS Kilogram equivalent of 1 sack 50 kilograms per sack source: field Start date of construction 8-Aug-08 source: GEM3 website Completion/date 20-Jan-09 source: GEM3 website No. of days of construction 162 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Delays in completion due to flood 102 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Construction cost 494,988 pesos source: GEM3 website Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Depreciation cost (linear approach) 22,274 pesos per year derived estimate Lifespan 20 years source: GEM3 Infra interview Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Laborers employed during construction, 5 persons source: field 89 from the LGU Minimum daily wage agriculture and non￾agriculture, ARMM 232 pesos per person-day source: DOLE-NWPC No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 4 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict political (communist insurgency) source: field Violent conflict actors New Peoples Army, private citizens source: field Violent conflict form extortion ('tax') source: field Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, ARMM 6.19 % source: NSCB PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 [A] Private benefits 547,342 544,896 510,840 478,912 448,980 User fee 0 0 0 0 0 Operating cost savings of vehicles 300,359 299,016 280,328 262,807 246,382 Time cost savings of vehicles 246,983 245,880 230,512 216,105 202,599 [B] Social benefits 126,945 120,360 114,116 108,196 102,584 Incremental loss prevention from flooding 126,945 120,360 114,116 108,196 102,584 [C] Total benefits [A]+[B] 674,287 665,256 624,956 587,109 551,564 COST [D] Private costs 494,988 27,224 25,812 24,473 23,204 22,000 Capital outlay (inc. contractor labor input) 494,988 Imputed labor cost of community 187,920 Maintenance 4,950 4,693 4,450 4,219 4,000 Depreciation cost 22,274 21,119 20,023 18,985 18,000 [E] Social cost 552,160 Imputed traffic cost due to delay in construction 552,160 Total cost [D]+[E] 682,908 579,384 25,812 24,473 23,204 22,000 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (682,908) 94,903 639,444 600,483 563,905 529,564 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (494,988) (4,950) (4,693) (4,450) (4,219) (4,000) Conclusion, at 12% discount rate Sensitivity Analysis NPV 6,732,581.7 Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR BCR 5.3 20% discount rate 3,850,402.2 3.7 - 51.3% FRR - 30% discount rate 2,246,153.6 2.6 - 43.3% ERR 58.6% Hence, the project is economically (but not financially) feasible given that a drainage canal is an impure public good. 10% increase in benefits 7,751,662.5 6.6 - 86.6% 10% increase in costs 6,642,969.7 5.0 - 55.9% 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 420,919 394,612 369,948 346,827 325,150 304,828 285,776 267,915 251,171 235,472 220,755 90 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 230,983 216,547 203,012 190,324 178,429 167,277 156,822 147,021 137,832 129,218 121,141 189,936 178,065 166,936 156,503 146,721 137,551 128,954 120,895 113,339 106,255 99,614 97,262 92,217 87,433 82,897 78,597 74,520 70,654 66,989 63,514 60,219 57,095 97,262 92,217 87,433 82,897 78,597 74,520 70,654 66,989 63,514 60,219 57,095 518,181 486,828 457,381 429,724 403,747 379,348 356,430 334,904 314,684 295,692 277,851 20,859 19,777 18,751 17,778 16,856 15,981 15,152 14,366 13,621 12,914 12,244 3,792 3,596 3,409 3,232 3,065 2,906 2,755 2,612 2,477 2,348 2,226 17,066 16,181 15,341 14,546 13,791 13,076 12,397 11,754 11,144 10,566 10,018 20,859 19,777 18,751 17,778 16,856 15,981 15,152 14,366 13,621 12,914 12,244 497,323 467,052 438,631 411,946 386,891 363,367 341,278 320,538 301,063 282,777 265,606 (3,792) (3,596) (3,409) (3,232) (3,065) (2,906) (2,755) (2,612) (2,477) (2,348) (2,226) 17 18 19 20 206,958 194,023 181,897 170,528 0 0 0 0 113,570 106,472 99,817 93,579 93,388 87,551 82,079 76,949 54,133 51,325 48,663 46,138 54,133 51,325 48,663 46,138 261,092 245,349 230,560 216,667 11,609 11,007 10,436 9,895 2,111 2,001 1,897 1,799 9,499 9,006 8,539 8,096 11,609 11,007 10,436 9,895 249,482 234,341 220,124 206,772 (2,111) (2,001) (1,897) (1,799) Project Name: Malinawon Water System Upgrading (Level 2) BIP Component: Barangay Infrastructure Project 91 Barangay: Malinawon City/Municipality: Mawab Province: Compostela Valley Region: Davao Date visited: 9 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of water system Population of barangay 3,048 persons source: field (validated census) Ave. HH size 4.70 persons per household source: census No. of household (HH) in the barangay 649 households source: field % infant population (< 1 year old) of total, Compostela Valley 2.2 % source: census % child population (1-9 year old) of total, Compostela Valley 21.7 % source: census Population growth rate, Compostela Valley 1.30 % source: census No. of neighborhoods serviced by the project 8 puroks source: field No. beneficiaries (HH) 298 households source: field User fee (proportional rate) 60 pesos per cubic meter source: field Average HH water consumption per month 7 cubic meters per month source: field No. of minutes to nearest alternative source of water (deep well) from residence 5 minute-walk source: field Infant mortality (< 1 year old) rates due to diarrhea and gastroenteritis 0.7 per 1,000 persons source: DOH- National Objectives for Health, Philippines 2005-2010 Child mortality (1-4 year old) rate due to diarrhea and gastroenteritis 16.14 per 100,000 persons source: DOH- National Objectives for Health, Philippines 2005-2010 Child mortality (5-9 year old) rate due to diarrhea and gastroenteritis 2.19 per 100,000 persons source: DOH- National Objectives for Health, Philippines 2005-2010 Cost of treating diarrhea, inflation adjusted 2012 3,044.5 pesos per month source: Forsberg, Sullesta, Pieche and Lambo (1993) Start date of construction 28-Jun-09 source: GEM3 website Completion 10-Nov-09 source: GEM3 website No. of days of construction 132 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Delays in completion* 42 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Construction cost 1,291,093 pesos source: GEM3 website Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Depreciation cost (linear approach) 84,244 pesos per year derived estimate Lifespan 20 years source: GEM3 Infra interview Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Counterpart contribution, cost overrun from 25% to 45% (inc labor payments) 580,992 pesos source: field Minimum daily wage, agriculture Davao 281 pesos per person-day source: DOLE-NWPC *no reported additional cost due to delay in construction 92 No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict Violent conflict actors Violent conflict form Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, Davao 4.5 % source: NSCB PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 1,569,506 1,419,562 1,283,944 1,161,281 1,050,337 User fee 1,569,506 1,419,562 1,283,944 1,161,281 1,050,337 [B] Social benefits 321,220 303,606 274,601 248,367 224,639 Cost savings from travel to nearest alternative water source (deep well) 318,379 300,921 272,172 246,170 222,652 Health cost savings from contracting water￾borne diseases due to improved water source 2,841 2,686 2,429 2,197 1,987 [C] Total benefits [A]+[B] 1,890,727 1,723,169 1,558,545 1,409,648 1,274,976 COST [D] Private costs 1,872,085 97,155 90,649 84,579 78,915 73,630 Capital outlay (inc. contractor labor input) 1,872,085 Maintenance 12,911 12,046 11,240 10,487 9,785 Depreciation cost 84,244 78,602 73,339 68,428 63,846 Total cost [D]+[E] 1,872,085 97,155 90,649 84,579 78,915 73,630 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (1,872,085) 1,793,572 1,632,520 1,473,966 1,330,733 1,201,346 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (1,872,085) 1,472,352 1,328,914 1,199,365 1,082,366 976,707 Conclusion, at 12% discount rate Sensitivity Analysis NPV 14,290,740.1 Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR BCR 5.8 20% discount rate 9,221,480.2 4.6 62.9% 80.4% FRR 68.9% 30% discount rate 6,195,397.2 3.6 56.4% 73.9% ERR 86.5% Hence, the project is economically and financially feasible given that a level 2 -water system is a club good. 10% increase in benefits 16,015,833.8 6.4 77.3% 96.6% 10% increase in costs 1,228,208.3 1.1 2.2% 75.1% 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 949,993 859,234 777,147 702,902 635,749 575,013 520,078 470,392 425,453 384,807 93 949,993 859,234 777,147 702,902 635,749 575,013 520,078 470,392 425,453 384,807 203,178 183,767 166,211 150,332 135,970 122,980 111,231 100,604 90,993 82,300 201,381 182,142 164,741 149,002 134,767 121,892 110,247 99,714 90,188 81,572 1,797 1,626 1,470 1,330 1,203 1,088 984 890 805 728 1,153,170 1,043,001 943,358 853,233 771,719 697,992 631,309 570,997 516,446 467,107 68,700 64,099 59,807 55,802 52,065 48,579 45,326 42,291 39,459 36,816 9,130 8,518 7,948 7,416 6,919 6,456 6,023 5,620 5,244 4,893 59,570 55,581 51,859 48,386 45,146 42,123 39,302 36,671 34,215 31,924 68,700 64,099 59,807 55,802 52,065 48,579 45,326 42,291 39,459 36,816 1,084,471 978,902 883,551 797,431 719,654 649,413 585,983 528,706 476,987 430,291 881,293 795,135 717,340 647,099 583,684 526,434 474,753 428,102 385,994 347,991 16 17 18 19 20 348,044 314,794 284,720 257,519 232,916 348,044 314,794 284,720 257,519 232,916 74,437 67,326 60,894 55,076 49,815 73,779 66,730 60,355 54,589 49,374 658 596 539 487 441 422,482 382,119 345,613 312,595 282,731 34,351 32,051 29,904 27,902 26,033 4,565 4,259 3,974 3,708 3,460 29,786 27,791 25,930 24,194 22,574 34,351 32,051 29,904 27,902 26,033 388,131 350,069 315,709 284,693 256,698 313,693 282,743 254,815 229,617 206,883 94 Project Name: Sitio Dungo-an, Bulucaon Water System Upgrading (Level 2) BIP Component: Barangay Infrastructure Project Barangay: Bulucaon City/Municipality: Pigcawayan Province: North Cotabato Region: Soccsksargen Date visited: 18 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of water system - Population of barangay 3,048 persons source: field (validated census) Ave. HH size 4.70 persons per household source: census No. of household (HH) in the barangay 649 households source: field % infant population (< 1 year old) of total, North Cotabato 2.3 % source: census % child population (1-9 year old) of total, North Cotabato 22.4 % source: census Population growth rate, Soccsksargen 2.41 % source: census No. of puroks serviced by the project 3 puroks No. beneficiaries (HH) - normal days 60 households source: field No. beneficiaries (HH) not paying the user fee for the last two years 50 households source: field Additional no. beneficiaries, evacuees, (population) - flooding season 292 persons source: field No. of months -flooding season 2 months per year source: field User fee (flat rate - for the first 10 cubic meters) 80 pesos per 10 cubic meters source: field User fee (proportional rate - in excess of 10 cubic meters) 7 pesos per cubic meter source: field Average HH water consumption per month 10 cubic meters per month source: field No. of minutes to nearest alternative source of water (deep well) from residence 12 minute-walk source: field Infant mortality (< 1 year old) rates due to diarrhea and gastroenteritis 0.7 per 1,000 persons source: DOH-National Objectives for Health, Philippines 2005-2010 Child mortality (1-4 year old) rate due to diarrhea and gastroenteritis 16.14 per 100,000 persons source: DOH-National Objectives for Health, Philippines 2005-2010 Child mortality (5-9 year old) rate due to diarrhea and gastroenteritis 2.19 per 100,000 persons source: DOH-National Objectives for Health, Philippines 2005-2010 Cost of treating diarrhea 3,112.25 pesos per month source: Forsberg, Sullesta, Pieche and Lambo (1993) Start date of construction 13-Jan-10 source:GEM3 website Completion date 8-May-10 source:GEM3 website No. of days of construction 115 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Delays in completion* 40 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Construction cost 1,200,981 pesos source: GEM3 website Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Depreciation cost (linear approach) 54,044 pesos per year derived estimate 95 Lifespan 20 years source: GEM3 Infra interview Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Unpaid laborers employed during construction, from the community 0 persons source: field Minimum daily wage, Soccsksargen 270 pesos per person-day source:DOLE-NWPC *no reported additional cost due to delay in construction No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict Violent conflict actors Violent conflict form Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, Soccsksargen 4.6 % source: NSCB PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 32,991 18,689 17,089 15,626 14,288 User fee 32,991 18,689 17,089 15,626 14,288 [B] Social benefits 314,733 287,784 263,143 240,611 220,009 Cost savings from travel to nearest alternative water source (deep well) 314,733 287,784 263,143 240,611 220,009 Health cost savings from getting water￾borne diseases due to improved water source 145 138 127 116 106 [C] Total benefits [A]+[B] 347,724 306,473 280,231 256,237 234,296 COST [D] Private costs 1,200,981 66,054 61,690 57,614 53,807 50,252 Capital outlay (inc. contractor labor input) 1,200,981 Maintenance 12,010 11,216 10,475 9,783 9,137 Depreciation cost 54,044 50,473 47,139 44,024 41,115 [E] Social costs 0 Imputed labor cost of community due to delay 0 Total cost [D]+[E] 1,200,981 66,054 61,690 57,614 53,807 50,252 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (1,200,981) 281,670 244,784 222,618 202,429 184,044 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (1,200,981) (33,063) (43,001) (40,525) (38,181) (35,964) Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 1,327,669.98 BCR 1.7 FRR - ERR 13.2% Hence, the project is economically (but not financially) feasible given that a level 2-water system is a club good. Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 521,387.4 1.3 - 7.3% 30% discount rate 44,476.4 1.0 - 0.8% 10% increase in benefits 1,656,644.5 1.9 - 16.2% 10% increase in costs -7,669,332.7 0.3 - - 96 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13,064 11,946 10,923 9,988 9,132 8,350 7,635 6,982 6,384 5,837 13,064 11,946 10,923 9,988 9,132 8,350 7,635 6,982 6,384 5,837 201,170 183,945 168,195 153,793 140,625 128,584 117,574 107,506 98,301 89,884 201,170 183,945 168,195 153,793 140,625 128,584 117,574 107,506 98,301 89,884 97 89 81 74 68 62 57 52 47 43 214,235 195,891 179,118 163,781 149,757 136,934 125,209 114,488 104,685 95,721 46,932 43,831 40,935 38,230 35,704 33,345 31,142 29,085 27,163 25,368 8,533 7,969 7,443 6,951 6,492 6,063 5,662 5,288 4,939 4,612 38,399 35,862 33,492 31,279 29,213 27,283 25,480 23,796 22,224 20,756 46,932 43,831 40,935 38,230 35,704 33,345 31,142 29,085 27,163 25,368 167,303 152,060 138,183 125,550 114,053 103,589 94,067 85,404 77,522 70,353 (33,867) (31,885) (30,012) (28,243) (26,572) (24,995) (23,507) (22,103) (20,779) (19,531) 16 17 18 19 20 5,337 4,880 4,463 4,080 3,731 5,337 4,880 4,463 4,080 3,731 82,188 75,150 68,716 62,832 57,452 82,188 75,150 68,716 62,832 57,452 40 36 33 30 28 87,525 80,031 73,178 66,912 61,183 23,692 22,127 20,665 19,299 18,024 4,308 4,023 3,757 3,509 3,277 19,384 18,104 16,908 15,790 14,747 23,692 22,127 20,665 19,299 18,024 63,833 57,904 52,513 47,613 43,159 (18,355) (17,246) (16,202) (15,219) (14,293) 97 Project Name: Malacca Boat Landing BIP Component: Barangay Infrastructure Project Barangay: Malacca City/Municipality: Panglima Sugala Province: Tawi-Tawi Region: ARMM Date visited: 22 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of boat landing - No. beneficiaries 2385 persons source: census Average household size 6.63 persons per household source: census No. of household (HH) beneficiaries 360 households source: field (validated census data) % of adult females of total population 25.07 % source: census No. of female adult beneficiaries 598 persons derived estimate, source: census Population growth, Tawi-tawi 4.7 % source: NSCB Daily traffic volume (persons) 314 persons per day derived estimate, source: field and Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects No. of days in a year 365 days Traffic volume growth rate 5 % per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Incremental visit of women in town proper 0.5 day per week Average time savings of passengers 4.9 minutes per person derived estimate, source: field and Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Start date of construction 26-Jul-09 source: GEM3 website Completion date 19-Jan-10 source: GEM3 website No. of days of construction 193 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Delays in completion 103 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Construction cost 2,193,948 pesos source: GEM3 website Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Depreciation cost (linear approach) 98,728 pesos per year derived estimate Lifespan 20 years source: GEM3 Infra interview Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Counterpart laborers employed during construction, from the community 3 persons source: field Minimum daily wage agriculture and non￾agriculture, ARMM 232 pesos per person￾day source: DOLE-NWPC No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict source: field Violent conflict actors source: field Violent conflict form source: field Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, ARMM 6.19 % source: NSCB 98 PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 [A] Private benefits 272,710 271,491 254,523 238,616 223,702 User fee 0 0 0 0 0 Time savings of passengers 272,710 271,491 254,523 238,616 223,702 [B] Social benefits 438,312 436,353 409,081 383,514 359,544 Shadow value of time reallocation of adult women from doing household chores 438,312 436,353 409,081 383,514 359,544 [C] Total benefits [A]+[B] 711,022 707,845 663,604 622,129 583,246 COST [D] Private costs 2,193,948 120,667 114,408 108,473 102,846 97,511 Capital outlay (inc. contractor labor input) 2,193,948 Imputed labor cost of community 134,328 Maintenance 21,939 20,801 19,722 18,699 17,729 Depreciation cost 98,728 93,606 88,750 84,146 79,781 [E] Social cost 76,957 Imputed traffic cost due to delay in construction 76,957 Total cost [D]+[E] 2,328,276 197,624 114,408 108,473 102,846 97,511 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (2,328,276) 513,398 593,437 555,132 519,283 485,735 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (2,328,276) (120,667) (114,408) (108,473) (102,846) (97,511) Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 4,783,901.5 BCR 2.2 FRR - ERR 19.5% Hence, the project is economically (but not financially) feasible given that a boat landing is an impure public good. Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 2,215,382.3 1.7 - 13.2% 30% discount rate 774,813.6 1.3 - 6.5% 10% increase in benefits 5,789,597.0 2.5 - 24.4% 10% increase in costs 4,623,751.7 2.1 - 18.8% 99 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 209,721 196,613 184,325 172,805 162,004 151,879 142,387 133,487 125,144 117,323 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209,721 196,613 184,325 172,805 162,004 151,879 142,387 133,487 125,144 117,323 337,072 316,005 296,255 277,739 260,380 244,107 228,850 214,547 201,138 188,567 337,072 316,005 296,255 277,739 260,380 244,107 228,850 214,547 201,138 188,567 546,793 512,619 480,580 450,544 422,385 395,986 371,237 348,034 326,282 305,889 92,452 87,656 83,109 78,798 74,710 70,835 67,160 63,676 60,373 57,241 16,809 15,937 15,111 14,327 13,584 12,879 12,211 11,577 10,977 10,407 75,643 71,719 67,998 64,471 61,126 57,956 54,949 52,099 49,396 46,834 92,452 87,656 83,109 78,798 74,710 70,835 67,160 63,676 60,373 57,241 454,341 424,962 397,471 371,746 347,675 325,151 304,077 284,358 265,909 248,648 (92,452) (87,656) (83,109) (78,798) (74,710) (70,835) (67,160) (63,676) (60,373) (57,241) 16 17 18 19 20 109,990 103,116 96,671 90,629 84,965 0 0 0 0 0 109,990 103,116 96,671 90,629 84,965 176,781 165,732 155,374 145,663 136,559 176,781 165,732 155,374 145,663 136,559 286,771 268,848 252,045 236,292 221,524 54,272 51,456 48,787 46,256 43,857 9,868 9,356 8,870 8,410 7,974 44,404 42,101 39,917 37,846 35,883 54,272 51,456 48,787 46,256 43,857 232,500 217,392 203,258 190,036 177,667 (54,272) (51,456) (48,787) (46,256) (43,857) 100 Project Name: Parangan Boat Landing BIP Component: Barangay Infrastructure Project Barangay: Parangan City/Municipality: Panglima Sugala Province: Tawi-Tawi Region: ARMM Date visited: 22 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of boat landing - No. beneficiaries 2026 persons source: field (validated census) Average household size 6.63 persons per household source: census No. of household (HH) beneficiaries 306 households source: field (validated census data) % of adult females of total population 25.07 % source: census No. of female adult beneficiaries 508 persons derived estimate, source: census Population growth, Tawi-tawi 4.7 % source: NSCB Daily traffic volume (persons) 267 persons per day derived estimate, source: field and Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects No. of days in a year 365 days Traffic volume growth rate 5 % per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Incremental visit of women in town proper 0.5 day per week source: field Average time savings of passengers 4.9 minutes per person derived estimate, source: field and Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Start date of construction 9-Aug-11 source: GEM3 website Completion date 20-Oct-11 source: GEM3 website No. of days of construction 73 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Delays in completion 0 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Construction cost (inc labor from community paid by the contractor) 1,319,857 pesos source: GEM3 website Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Depreciation cost (linear approach) 59,394 pesos per year derived estimate Lifespan 20 years source: GEM3 Infra interview Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Minimum daily wage agriculture and non￾agriculture, ARMM 232 pesos per person-day source: DOLE-NWPC No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict source: field Violent conflict actors source: field Violent conflict form source: field Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, ARMM 6.19 % source: NSCB 101 PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 [A] Private benefits 231,890 230,854 216,426 202,899 190,218 User fee 0 0 0 0 0 Time savings of passengers 231,890 230,854 216,426 202,899 190,218 [B] Social benefits 372,705 371,039 347,849 326,109 305,727 Shadow value of time reallocation of adult women from doing household chores 372,705 371,039 347,849 326,109 305,727 [C] Total benefits [A]+[B] 604,595 601,893 564,275 529,008 495,945 COST [D] Private costs 1,319,857 72,592 68,826 65,256 61,871 58,661 Capital outlay (inc. contractor labor input) 1,319,857 Maintenance 13,199 12,514 11,865 11,249 10,666 Depreciation cost 59,394 56,313 53,391 50,622 47,996 [E] Social cost 0 Imputed traffic cost due to delay in construction 0 Total cost [D]+[E] 1,319,857 72,592 68,826 65,256 61,871 58,661 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (1,319,857) 532,003 533,067 499,019 467,137 437,284 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (1,319,857) (72,592) (68,826) (65,256) (61,871) (58,661) Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 5,172,393.3 BCR 3.3 FRR - ERR 35.8% Hence, the project is economically (but not financially) feasible given that a boat landing is an impure public good. Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 2,847,321.4 2.5 - 29.6% 30% discount rate 1,545,198.5 1.9 - 22.8% 10% increase in benefits 5,913,333.2 3.6 - 40.6% 10% increase in costs 5,080,678.5 3.2 - 35.3% 102 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 178,329 167,184 156,735 146,939 137,755 129,146 121,074 113,507 106,413 99,762 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 178,329 167,184 156,735 146,939 137,755 129,146 121,074 113,507 106,413 99,762 286,619 268,705 251,911 236,167 221,406 207,568 194,595 182,433 171,031 160,342 286,619 268,705 251,911 236,167 221,406 207,568 194,595 182,433 171,031 160,342 464,948 435,889 408,646 383,106 359,161 336,714 315,669 295,940 277,444 260,103 55,618 52,733 49,998 47,404 44,945 42,613 40,403 38,307 36,320 34,436 10,112 9,588 9,090 8,619 8,172 7,748 7,346 6,965 6,604 6,261 45,506 43,145 40,907 38,785 36,773 34,865 33,057 31,342 29,716 28,175 55,618 52,733 49,998 47,404 44,945 42,613 40,403 38,307 36,320 34,436 409,330 383,156 358,648 335,702 314,217 294,101 275,267 257,633 241,124 225,668 (55,618) (52,733) (49,998) (47,404) (44,945) (42,613) (40,403) (38,307) (36,320) (34,436) 16 17 18 19 20 93,527 87,681 82,201 77,064 72,247 0 0 0 0 0 93,527 87,681 82,201 77,064 72,247 150,320 140,925 132,117 123,860 116,119 150,320 140,925 132,117 123,860 116,119 243,847 228,607 214,319 200,924 188,366 32,649 30,956 29,350 27,827 26,384 5,936 5,628 5,336 5,060 4,797 26,713 25,327 24,013 22,768 21,587 32,649 30,956 29,350 27,827 26,384 211,198 197,651 184,969 173,096 161,982 (32,649) (30,956) (29,350) (27,827) (26,384) 103 Project Name: Batinao Grains Warehouse and Solar Dryer Construction BIP Component: Barangay Infrastructure Project Barangay: Batinao City/Municipality: New Bataan Province: Compostela Valley Region: Davao Date visited: 11 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of solar dryer 240 square meters source: field Size of warehouse 36 square meters source: field No. beneficiaries (within and neighboring barangays) 260 households source: field Population of barangay 1085 persons source: census Average household (HH) size, New Bataan 5.14 persons per household source: census No. HH of barangay 211 households source: census Population growth rate, Compostela Valley 1.3 % source: census Volume of palay - harvested 85 sacks per hectare source: field Kilogram equivalent of 1 sack of palay 50 kilograms per sack source: field % of post harvest losses, without GEM3 solar dryer 8 % per harvest season source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Production capacity 60 % per harvest source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Ratio of dry yield palay harvest to wet yield palay harvest, Davao 0.9795 source: DA-BAS Frequency of harvest in one year 2 times per year source: field Farmgate price of palay (wet) 15.04 pesos per kilogram source: DA-BAS Farmgate price of palay (dry) 15.3 pesos per kilogram source: DA-BAS Land area for palay production 40 hectares source: field User fee (goes to association) 1.75 pesos per kg source: field User fee (goes to barangay council for social responsibility activities, e.g. feeding program) 2 pesos per sack of palay source: field Distance from residence to nearest alternative solar dryer (in another barangay) 1 km source: field Fare from site to nearest alternative solar dryer 16 pesos (return trip) per head source: field Start date of construction 12-Jul-11 source: GEM3 website Completion date 27-Sep-11 source: GEM3 website No. of days of construction 75 days source: GEM3 website Delays in completion* 15 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Project cost 1,092,699 pesos source: GEM3 website Salvage value 10 % of total cost assumption Depreciation cost (linear approach) 35,671 pesos per year derived estimate Lifespan 20 years source: field Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year assumption Counterpart contribution by the provincial govt (inc labor) 300,000 pesos source: field Palay worker daily wage rate, Phil 236.14 pesos per person-day source: BAS 104 *no reported additional cost due to delay in construction No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict Violent conflict actors Violent conflict form Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, Davao 4.5 % source: NSO PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 365,160 326,036 291,103 259,914 232,066 207,202 User fee 365,160 326,036 291,103 259,914 232,066 207,202 [B] Social benefits 309,874 289,123 269,762 251,698 234,843 219,117 Incremental gross earnings (quantity and price effects) 309,874 289,123 269,762 251,698 234,843 219,117 [C] Total benefits [A] + [B] 675,034 615,159 560,866 511,612 466,909 426,319 COST [D] Private costs 1,092,699 46,598 41,606 37,148 33,168 29,614 26,441 Capital outlay 1,092,699 Maintenance 10,927 9,756 8,711 7,778 6,944 6,200 Depreciation cost 35,671 31,850 28,437 25,390 22,670 20,241 Total cost [D] 1,092,699 46,598 41,606 37,148 33,168 29,614 26,441 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (1,092,699) 628,435 573,553 523,718 478,444 437,295 399,877 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (1,092,699) 318,562 284,430 253,955 226,746 202,452 180,760 Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 5,042,834.5 BCR 4.4 FRR 18.3% ERR 48.8% Hence, the project is economically and financially feasible given that a grain solar dryer with warehouse is a club good. Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 3,016,920.7 3.2 12.4% 42.8% 30% discount rate 1,840,172.6 2.4 6.0% 36.2% 10% increase in benefits 5,695,371.0 4.8 21.7% 55.0% 10% increase in costs 4,894,581.3 4.0 15.2% 43.2% 105 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 185,001 165,180 147,482 131,680 117,572 104,975 93,727 83,685 74,719 66,713 185,001 165,180 147,482 131,680 117,572 104,975 93,727 83,685 74,719 66,713 204,444 190,754 177,980 166,062 154,941 144,566 134,885 125,853 117,425 109,562 204,444 190,754 177,980 166,062 154,941 144,566 134,885 125,853 117,425 109,562 389,445 355,933 325,462 297,742 272,513 249,541 228,613 209,538 192,144 176,275 23,608 21,079 18,820 16,804 15,003 13,396 11,961 10,679 9,535 8,513 5,536 4,943 4,413 3,940 3,518 3,141 2,805 2,504 2,236 1,996 18,072 16,136 14,407 12,863 11,485 10,255 9,156 8,175 7,299 6,517 23,608 21,079 18,820 16,804 15,003 13,396 11,961 10,679 9,535 8,513 365,837 334,855 306,642 280,938 257,510 236,145 216,652 198,859 182,609 167,762 161,393 144,101 128,662 114,876 102,568 91,579 81,767 73,006 65,184 58,200 17 18 19 20 59,566 53,183 47,485 42,398 59,566 53,183 47,485 42,398 102,225 95,380 88,993 83,033 102,225 95,380 88,993 83,033 161,790 148,563 136,478 125,431 7,601 6,787 6,060 5,410 1,782 1,591 1,421 1,269 5,819 5,195 4,639 4,142 7,601 6,787 6,060 5,410 154,189 141,776 130,418 120,020 51,964 46,397 41,426 36,987 106 Project Name: Manisan Grains Solar Dryer Construction BIP Component: Barangay Infrastructure Project Barangay: Polonuling City/Municipality: Tupi Province: South Cotabato Region: Soccsksargen Date visited: 17 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of solar dryer 360 square meters source: field No. beneficiaries (members of the producers association) 50 households source: field Population of barangay 6261 persons source: census Average household (HH) size, Tupi 4.66 persons per household source: census No. HH of barangay 1344 households source: census Population growth rate, South Cotabato 1.46 % source: census Volume of palay - harvested 55 sacks per hectare source: field Kilogram equivalent of 1 sack of palay 45 kilograms per sack source: field % of post harvest losses, without GEM3 solar dryer 8 % per harvest season source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Production capacity 60 % per harvest source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Ratio of dry yield palay harvest to wet yield palay harvest, Soccsksargen 0.8713 source: DA-BAS Frequency of harvest in one year 2 times per year source: field Farmgate price of palay (wet) 15.04 pesos per kilogram source: DA-BAS Farmgate price of palay (dry) 15.3 pesos per kilogram source: DA-BAS Land area for palay production 31 hectares source: field User fee 2 pesos per kg source: field Start date of construction 27-Oct-09 source: GEM3 website Completion date 28-Nov-09 source: GEM3 website No. of days of construction 31 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Delays in completion 0 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Project cost 239,150 pesos source: GEM3 website Salvage value 10 % of total cost assumption Depreciation cost (linear approach): cement foundation 8,071 pesos per year derived estimate Lifespan 20 years source: field Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year assumption Counterpart contribution by the provincial govt (inc labor) 59,788 pesos source: field Palay worker daily wage rate, Phil 236.14 pesos per person-day source: DA-BAS No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict Violent conflict actors Violent conflict form Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, Soccsksargen 4.6 % source: NSO 107 PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 148,500 138,688 129,525 120,967 112,975 User fee 148,500 138,688 129,525 120,967 112,975 [B] Social benefits 100,426 93,791 87,594 81,806 76,401 Incremental gross earnings (quantity and price effects) 100,426 93,791 87,594 81,806 76,401 [C] Total benefits [A] + [B] 248,926 232,479 217,119 202,774 189,376 COST [D] Private costs 298,938 10,463 9,342 8,341 7,447 6,649 Capital outlay 298,938 Maintenance 2,392 2,135 1,906 1,702 1,520 Depreciation cost 8,071 7,207 6,434 5,745 5,129 Total cost [D] 298,938 10,463 9,342 8,341 7,447 6,649 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (298,938) 238,463 223,137 208,778 195,326 182,727 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (298,938) 138,037 129,347 121,184 113,520 106,325 Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 2,420,933.8 BCR 7.3 FRR 39.8% ERR 73.3% Hence, the project is economically and financially feasible given that a grains solar dryer with warehouse is a club good. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 1,455,230.5 5.0 33.6% 67.1% 30% discount rate 913,514.1 3.7 26.9% 60.4% 10% increase in benefits 2,701,673.9 8.0 44.8% 81.6% 10% increase in costs 2,382,287.1 6.6 35.3% 65.8% 108 105,510 98,539 92,028 85,948 80,269 74,966 70,013 65,387 61,067 57,032 105,510 98,539 92,028 85,948 80,269 74,966 70,013 65,387 61,067 57,032 71,353 66,639 62,236 58,124 54,284 50,697 47,348 44,219 41,298 38,569 71,353 66,639 62,236 58,124 54,284 50,697 47,348 44,219 41,298 38,569 176,864 165,178 154,265 144,072 134,553 125,663 117,360 109,606 102,364 95,601 5,937 5,301 4,733 4,226 3,773 3,369 3,008 2,686 2,398 2,141 1,357 1,212 1,082 966 862 770 687 614 548 489 4,580 4,089 3,651 3,260 2,911 2,599 2,320 2,072 1,850 1,652 5,937 5,301 4,733 4,226 3,773 3,369 3,008 2,686 2,398 2,141 170,927 159,877 149,532 139,846 130,780 122,294 114,352 106,920 99,966 93,460 99,573 93,238 87,296 81,722 76,496 71,597 67,005 62,701 58,669 54,891 16 17 18 19 20 53,264 49,744 46,458 43,388 40,522 53,264 49,744 46,458 43,388 40,522 36,021 33,641 31,418 29,342 27,404 36,021 33,641 31,418 29,342 27,404 89,284 83,385 77,876 72,730 67,925 1,912 1,707 1,524 1,361 1,215 437 390 348 311 278 1,475 1,317 1,176 1,050 937 1,912 1,707 1,524 1,361 1,215 87,373 81,679 76,352 71,370 66,710 51,352 48,038 44,934 42,028 39,307 109 Project Name: Moro Point Seaweed Solar Dryer (Kauyaguyag Fishing Cooperative) FCR Component: Former Combatant Reintegration Barangay: Moro Point City/Municipality: Parang Province: Maguindanao Region: ARMM Date visited: 24 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of solar dryer (120 sq m x 2 levels) 240 square meters source: field No. beneficiaries 50 farmers source: field No. members of cooperative who are former MNLF combatants 35 persons source: field Population of barangay 533 persons source: census Average household (HH) size, Parang 5.15 persons per household source: census No. HH of barangay 103 households source: census % HH with former MNLF combatants 50 % source: field Volume of seaweed - harvested (wet seaweed) 1,000 kilograms per harvest-farmer operator source: field Capacity of GEM3 solar dryer 1,000 kilograms source: field Conversion rate of wet to dried seaweed 40 % source: field % of post harvest losses due to high tide season, without GEM3 solar dryer 8 % per harvest season source: Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Infrastructure Projects Frequency of harvest in one year 8.1 times per year, i.e. every 45 days source: field Duration of sun drying process 3 days per harvest source: field Farmgate price of dried seaweed 30 pesos per kilogram source: field Farmgate price of wet seaweed 25 pesos per kilogram source: field High tide season 50 % (or half of the time) assumption Seaweed seedlings 10 kilograms per grow out source: field User fee 0 pesos source: field Fare from site to the wharf in Poblacion 1, Bacolod 20 pesos (return trip) per head source: field Fare from site to the wharf in Poblacion 1, Bacolod 300 pesos (return trip), chartered source: field Farmers employed 3 persons source: field Salary of employed farmers 1,500 pesos per person-month source: field Fish farming permit fee for the municipal government 0 source: field Profit tax for the barangay 0 source: field Start date of construction 24-Aug-09 source: GEM3 website Completion date 8-Mar-10 source: GEM3 website No. of days of construction 194 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website No. of days to replace bamboo slats 3 days source: field Delays in completion 134 days derived estimate, source: GEM3 website Project cost 661,146 pesos source: GEM3 website Cost of replacement of bamboo slats 10,000 pesos source: field Unpaid loan made by the barangay chief to the contractor for construction 8,000 pesos source: field Salvage value 10 % of total cost Source: field estimate Depreciation cost (linear approach): cement foundation 29,302 pesos per year derived estimate Depreciation cost (linear approach): bamboo cage 970 pesos per year source: field 110 Lifespan (cement structure) 20 years source: field estimate Lifespan (bamboo slats) 3 years source: field estimate Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year assumption Unpaid laborers employed during construction, from the community 6 persons source: field Minimum daily wage, agriculture, ARMM 232 pesos per person-day source: DOLE-NWPC No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict Violent conflict actors Violent conflict form Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, ARMM 6.19 % source: NSCB PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 209,548 187,097 167,051 149,152 133,172 User fee Incremental gross earnings 209,548 187,097 167,051 149,152 133,172 [B] Total benefits [A] 209,548 187,097 167,051 149,152 133,172 COST [C] Private costs 661,146 39,336 35,121 31,358 36,083 24,999 Capital outlay 661,146 0 0 0 0 0 Imputed value of labor cost (replacement of bamboo slats) by the community 0 0 0 0 526 0 Operating cost (excluding labor) 170 152 135 121 108 Maintenance (including replacement of bamboo cages every after 5 years) 7,021 6,268 5,597 12,556 4,462 Depreciation cost 32,145 28,701 25,626 22,880 20,429 [D] Social costs 29,778 Foregone earnings due to disruption of production 29,778 Total cost [C] + [D] 661,146 69,114 35,121 31,358 36,083 24,999 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (661,146) 140,434 151,975 135,692 113,069 108,173 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (661,146) 170,212 151,975 135,692 113,069 108,173 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 723,014.4 BCR 1.7 FRR 14.7% ERR 13.7% Hence, the project is economically and financially feasible given that a seaweed solar dryer is a club good. Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 298,254.6 1.3 8.8% 7.8% 30% discount rate 39,181.3 1.0 2.5% 1.4% 10% increase in benefits 899,757.3 1.9 17.9% 16.8% 10% increase in costs 621,095.3 1.5 11.7% 10.8% 111 118,903 106,164 94,789 95,212 75,565 67,469 60,240 53,786 48,023 42,878 38,284 118,903 106,164 94,789 95,212 75,565 67,469 60,240 53,786 48,023 42,878 38,284 118,903 106,164 94,789 95,212 75,565 67,469 60,240 53,786 48,023 42,878 38,284 22,320 25,683 17,794 15,896 18,281 12,665 11,308 13,012 9,015 8,049 9,262 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 374 0 0 267 0 0 190 0 0 135 96 86 77 77 61 55 49 44 39 35 31 3,984 8,937 3,176 2,836 6,361 2,260 2,018 4,528 1,609 1,437 3,223 18,240 16,286 14,541 12,983 11,592 10,350 9,241 8,251 7,367 6,578 5,873 22,320 25,683 17,794 15,896 18,281 12,665 11,308 13,012 9,015 8,049 9,262 96,583 80,480 76,995 79,316 57,284 54,804 48,932 40,774 39,008 34,829 29,022 96,583 80,480 76,995 79,316 57,284 54,804 48,932 40,774 39,008 34,829 29,022 17 18 19 20 34,182 34,334 27,250 24,330 34,182 34,334 27,250 24,330 34,182 34,334 27,250 24,330 6,417 5,732 6,592 4,567 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 28 28 22 20 1,145 1,023 2,294 815 5,244 4,682 4,180 3,732 6,417 5,732 6,592 4,567 27,765 28,602 20,657 19,763 27,765 28,602 20,657 19,763 112 Project Name: Cardaba Banana Production Consolidation Facility FCR Component: Former Combatant Reintegration Barangay: Manili City/Municipality: Carmen Province: North Cotabato Region: Soccsksargen Date visited: 25 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of consolidation facility 288 square meters source: field Capacity of consolidation facility 1,000 clusters of bananas source: field Population of barangay 2,594 persons source: census Average household (HH) size, Carmen 4.57 persons per household source: census No. HH of barangay 568 households source: census % HH with former MNLF combatants 50 % source: field Members of the cooperative 100 persons source: field % of cooperative members who are former MNLF combatants 100% % source: field Volume of cardaba bananas harvested 500 kilograms per hectare source: field Farmland area for cardaba banana production, 2012 200 hectares source: field Farmland area for cardaba banana production, 2012 7 hectares per farmer source: field Farmland area for cardaba banana production, 2006 2 hectares per farmer source: field Average expansion rate of land devoted to banana production* 0.83 hectares per year derived estimate Frequency of harvest in one year 12 times per year source: field Farmgate price of cardaba bananas (before PRC ban on Phil banana export in 2012) 7 pesos per kilogram source: field Farmgate price of cardaba bananas (after PRC ban on Phil banana export in 2012) 4 pesos per kilogram source: field Product substitution: Volume of lacatan bananas harvested (due to PRC ban 2012) 500 kilograms per hectare source: field Land substitution: Farmland area for lacatan banana production (due to PRC ban) 1 hectare source: field Farmgate price of lacatan bananas 15 pesos per kilogram source: field *assume farmland expansion will be devoted to lacatan banana production starting 2012 source: field (note: farmers stopped using fertilizers/pesticides) Transportation fare from site to market (jeepney) 2,000 pesos (return trip, chartered trip) source: field Cargo capacity of jeepney 4,000 kilograms per trip source: field Farmers employed 3 persons per hectare source: field User fee: harvest fee for the association 5 % of sales per harvest source: field (note: farmers do not use fertilizers or pesticides) Start date of construction 2009 source: field Completion date source: field No. of days of construction 10 days source: field Delays in completion 0 months source: field Project cost (consolidation facility) 1,000,000 pesos source: field Salvage value 10 % of total cost assumption Depreciation cost (linear approach): 80,000 pesos per year derived estimate Lifespan (net, security post) 10 years source: field Lifespan (cage - bamboo) 5 years source: field Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year assumption 113 Unpaid laborers employed during construction, from the community 3 persons source: field Minimum daily wage, agriculture (plantation), ARMM 232 pesos per person source: DOLE￾NWPC Minimum daily wage, agriculture (non-plantation), ARMM 232 pesos per person source: DOLE￾NWPC No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict Violent conflict actors Violent conflict form Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, Soccsksargen 4.6 % source: NSO PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 8,676,570 7,779,625 6,975,279 4,463,907 5,560,650 Incremental gross sales 8,676,570 7,779,625 6,975,279 4,463,907 5,560,650 User fees 433,829 388,981 348,764 223,195 278,032 [B] Total benefits [A]+[B] 8,676,570 7,779,625 6,975,279 4,463,907 5,560,650 COST [C] Private costs 1,006,960 8,067,620 7,230,867 6,480,806 5,718,960 5,203,472 Capital outlay 1,000,000 Imputed value of labor cost (construction and operation) 6960 6,901,592 6,188,136 5,548,336 4,974,599 4,460,113 Operating cost (excluding labor) 627,600 560,357 500,319 446,713 398,851 Maintenance 10,460 9,339 8,339 7,445 6,648 User fees 433,829 388,981 348,764 223,195 278,032 Depreciation cost 94,140 84,054 75,048 67,007 59,828 Total cost [D]+[E] 1,006,960 8,067,620 7,230,867 6,480,806 5,718,960 5,203,472 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (1,006,960) 608,950 548,758 494,473 (1,255,053) 357,178 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (1,006,960) 608,950 548,758 494,473 (1,255,053) 357,178 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 1,426,238.7 BCR 1.0 FRR 21.6% ERR 21.6% Hence, the project is economically and financially feasible given that a consolidation facility is a club good. Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 744,136.1 1.0 16.7% 16.7% 30% discount rate 351,637.0 1.0 11.4% 11.4% 10% increase in benefits 8,559,124.9 1.1 126.6% 126.6% 10% increase in costs -5,564,023.7 0.9 - - 114 4,964,866 4,432,916 3,957,961 3,533,893 3,155,262 2,817,198 2,515,356 2,245,853 2,005,226 1,790,380 4,964,866 4,432,916 3,957,961 3,533,893 3,155,262 2,817,198 2,515,356 2,245,853 2,005,226 1,790,380 248,243 221,646 197,898 176,695 157,763 140,860 125,768 112,293 100,261 89,519 4,964,866 4,432,916 3,957,961 3,533,893 3,155,262 2,817,198 2,515,356 2,245,853 2,005,226 1,790,380 4,662,481 4,177,683 3,743,247 3,353,946 3,005,096 2,692,497 2,412,387 2,161,391 1,936,487 1,734,965 3,998,768 3,585,082 3,214,138 2,881,528 2,583,294 2,315,888 2,076,129 1,861,161 1,668,425 1,495,624 356,117 317,962 283,894 253,477 226,319 202,070 180,420 161,089 143,830 128,419 5,935 5,299 4,732 4,225 3,772 3,368 3,007 2,685 2,397 2,140 248,243 221,646 197,898 176,695 157,763 140,860 125,768 112,293 100,261 89,519 53,418 47,694 42,584 38,022 33,948 30,311 27,063 24,163 21,574 19,263 4,662,481 4,177,683 3,743,247 3,353,946 3,005,096 2,692,497 2,412,387 2,161,391 1,936,487 1,734,965 302,385 255,233 214,714 179,948 150,166 124,701 102,969 84,462 68,739 55,415 302,385 255,233 214,714 179,948 150,166 124,701 102,969 84,462 68,739 55,415 16 17 18 19 20 1,598,554 1,427,280 1,274,357 1,137,819 1,015,910 1,598,554 1,427,280 1,274,357 1,137,819 1,015,910 79,928 71,364 63,718 56,891 50,795 1,598,554 1,427,280 1,274,357 1,137,819 1,015,910 1,554,396 1,392,604 1,247,638 1,117,749 1,001,371 1,340,698 1,201,802 1,077,279 965,643 865,563 114,660 102,375 91,406 81,613 72,869 1,911 1,706 1,523 1,360 1,214 79,928 71,364 63,718 56,891 50,795 17,199 15,356 13,711 12,242 10,930 1,554,396 1,392,604 1,247,638 1,117,749 1,001,371 44,158 34,676 26,720 20,070 14,539 44,158 34,676 26,720 20,070 14,539 115 Project Name: Grouper and Milkfish Fishcage Farming (Illana Bay Cooperative) FCR Component: Former Combatant Reintegration Barangay: Moro Point City/Municipality: Parang Province: Maguindanao Region: ARMM Date visited: 24 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit Size of fish cage - milkfish 36 square meters source: field No. fish cage - milkfish 2 pieces source: field Size of fish cage - grouper 16 square meters source: field No. fish cage - grouper 4 pieces source: field No. beneficiaries (members of the cooperative) 25 persons source: field No. members of cooperative who are former MNLF combatants 19 persons source: field Population of barangay 533 persons source: census Average household (HH) size, Parang 5.15 persons per household source: census No. HH of barangay 103 households source: census % HH with former MNLF combatants 50 % source: field Volume of milkfish harvested 1,000 kilograms per cage-harvest source: field Volume of grouper harvested 180 kilograms per cage-harvest source: field Frequency of harvest in one year - milkfish 3 times per year, i.e. every 4 months source: field Frequency of harvest in one year - grouper 1 i.e. every 8 months source: field Farmgate price of milkfish 85 pesos per kilogram source: field Farmgate price of grouper 450 pesos per kilogram source: field Volume of fingerlings per grow out - milkfish 3,500 pieces per growout source: field Volume of fingerlings per grow out - grouper 1,200 pieces per growout source: field Buying price of fingerlings - milkfish 3.5 pesos per piece source: field Buying price of fingerlings - grouper 48 pesos per piece source: field Fare from site to Cotabato for purchase of the fingerlings 1,300 pesos (return trip, chartered trip) source: field Farmers employed 3 persons source: field Salary of employed farmers 1,500 pesos per person-month source: field Volume of feeds - milkfish 65 sacks per cultivation cycle source: field Volume of feeds - grouper 20 sacks per cultivation cycle source: field Buying price of feeds - milkfish or grouper 650 pesos per sack source: field Hatchery soon to open within the site within 2012 (construction on-going) source: field Fish farming permit fee for the municipal government 800 pesos per operator-year source: field Profit tax for the barangay 5 % of total profits source: field Technology adoption externality: no. households/operators 2 operators source: field Technology adoption externality: size of fishcage - milkfish 36 square meters source: field Technology adoption externality: no. fishcage - milkfish 1 piece per operator source: field Technology adoption externality: length of months of adoption 4 years source: field Growth of technology adoption 2 operators every four years field estimate Scale constant returns to scale assumption Recommended stocking of fish (pen culture: milkfish, Philippines) 12 fingerlings per square meter source: Yap, et al (2007) Average mortality rate of milkfish (for recommended stocking) 10 % source: Yap, et al (2007) Start date of construction 2008 source: field 116 Completion date - No. of days of construction 15 days source: field Delays in completion 0 months source: field Project cost (GEM3 assistance: net, security post, etc) 86,950 pesos source: field Operating cost (GEM3 assistance: fingerlings and feeds) - first year 363,050 pesos source: field Cost of bamboo cage replacement - community counterpart 20,000 pesos source: field Salvage value 10 % of total cost assumption Depreciation cost (linear approach): net, security post, etc 7,826 pesos per year derived estimate Depreciation cost (linear approach): bamboo cage 1,900 pesos per year source: field Lifespan (net, security post) 10 years source: field Lifespan (cage - bamboo) 5 years source: field Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year assumption Unpaid laborers employed during construction, from the community 6 persons source: field No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict Violent conflict actors Violent conflict form 2011 91-day T-bill rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, ARMM 6.19 % source: NSCB PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 885,625 1,097,929 706,015 875,262 562,830 Incremental gross sales 885,625 1,097,929 706,015 875,262 562,830 [B] Social benefits 239,756 256,896 Positive externality due to technology adoption by neighboring farmers 239,756 256,896 [C] Total benefits [A]+[B] 885,625 1,097,929 706,015 1,115,018 819,726 COST [D] Private costs 89,200 794,171 736,151 633,109 586,855 504,710 Capital outlay 86,950 0 0 0 0 0 Labor cost (construction and operation) 2250 57,343 51,199 45,713 40,815 36,442 Operating cost (excluding labor) 719,915 655,107 573,912 522,247 457,519 Maintenance (including replacement of bamboo cages every after 5 years) 923 824 736 657 587 Fee for the municipal permit 850 759 677 605 540 Profit tax 4,813 19,041 3,837 15,179 3,059 Depreciation cost 10,328 9,221 8,233 7,351 6,563 [E] Social cost 337,846 444,762 286,001 510,715 367,421 Environmental damage 337,846 444,762 286,001 510,715 367,421 Total cost [D]+[E] 89,200 1,132,018 1,180,912 919,109 1,097,570 872,131 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (89,200) (246,393) (82,984) (213,095) 17,448 (52,405) NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (89,200) 91,453 361,778 72,906 288,407 58,120 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 117 697,754 448,685 556,245 357,689 443,435 285,147 353,504 227,318 281,811 181,216 224,658 697,754 448,685 556,245 357,689 443,435 285,147 353,504 227,318 281,811 181,216 224,658 229,371 379,436 365,707 322,210 415,845 390,455 345,549 399,746 368,109 328,669 356,431 229,371 379,436 365,707 322,210 415,845 390,455 345,549 399,746 368,109 328,669 356,431 927,125 828,121 921,952 679,899 859,280 675,602 699,053 627,064 649,920 509,885 581,089 479,285 402,352 372,957 320,753 328,950 262,198 237,021 203,844 188,952 162,503 154,317 0 0 0 0 33296 0 0 0 0 0 0 32,538 29,052 25,939 23,160 20,678 18,463 16,485 14,718 13,141 11,733 10,476 416,332 364,731 331,898 290,762 264,587 231,793 210,927 184,784 168,150 147,309 134,048 12,575 468 418 373 333 7,135 265 237 212 189 4,049 482 430 384 343 306 274 244 218 195 174 155 11,498 2,439 9,647 1,944 6,026 1,208 6,131 1,235 4,887 985 3,702 5,860 5,232 4,672 4,171 3,724 3,325 2,969 2,651 2,367 2,113 1,887 407,139 404,053 423,808 322,109 416,969 327,419 332,405 317,327 315,269 252,971 291,411 407,139 404,053 423,808 322,109 416,969 327,419 332,405 317,327 315,269 252,971 291,411 886,425 806,405 796,764 642,861 745,919 589,617 569,426 521,171 504,220 415,475 445,728 40,700 21,716 125,188 37,038 113,360 85,985 129,627 105,892 145,700 94,411 135,361 218,468 46,333 183,288 36,936 114,485 22,949 116,483 23,474 92,859 18,713 70,341 17 18 19 20 144,465 179,096 115,166 142,774 144,465 179,096 115,166 142,774 327,952 292,814 306,267 280,363 327,952 292,814 306,267 280,363 472,416 471,910 421,433 423,138 129,547 120,082 103,274 105,913 0 0 0 10,720 9,354 8,352 7,457 6,658 117,434 106,862 93,617 85,190 151 134 120 107 139 124 110 99 785 3,106 626 1,940 1,685 1,504 1,343 1,199 237,454 232,311 217,825 210,669 237,454 232,311 217,825 210,669 367,000 352,393 321,099 316,582 105,416 119,517 100,334 106,555 14,918 59,014 11,893 36,861 Project: Buri Weaving, Nagkakaisang Carmenian Association FCR Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 800,170.8 BCR 1.1 FRR 177% ERR 7% Hence, the project is financially feasible given that fish cage farming is a private good. It is not economically feasible due to the environmental impact of the project. Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 3,847.0 1.0 172.9% 0.1% 30% discount rate -325,770.6 0.9 163.6% - 10% increase in benefits 2,237,390.7 1.2 267.4% 24.1% 10% increase in costs -557,032.0 1.0 99.3% - 118 Component: Former Combatant Reintegration Barangay: Kitulaan City/Municipality: Carmen Province: North Cotabato Region: Soccsksargen Date visited: 21 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Units Volume of Buri mat produced 10 mats per month source: field Selling price of Buri mat 250 pesos per mat source: field cost of goods (paint, shipping, packaging, but exc labor) 65 % of price source: field Labor 1 person per mat source: field Work day 3 days per mat source: field Minimum daily wage, agriculture, Soccsksargen 270 pesos per person source: DOLE-NWPC Cost of training 30,000 pesos source: field estimate Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, Soccsksargen 4.6 % source: NSCB Present value, inflation adjusted Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 [A] Private benefits 30,000 28,018 25,016 22,336 19,943 Sales 30,000 28,018 25,016 22,336 19,943 [B] Social benefits 97,200 90,778 81,052 72,368 64,614 Shadow value of freed-up time of adult women from household chores 97,200 90,778 81,052 72,368 64,614 Total benefits [A] + [B] 127,200 118,796 106,068 94,703 84,556 [C] Private costs 30,000 116,700 104,196 93,033 83,065 74,165 Cost of goods 19,500 17,411 15,545 13,880 12,393 Labor 97,200 86,786 77,487 69,185 61,772 Training cost 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 Total cost [C] 30,000 116,700 104,196 93,033 83,065 74,165 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation-adjusted (30,000) 10,500 14,599 13,035 11,638 10,391 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation-adjusted (30,000) (86,700) (76,179) (68,017) (60,729) (54,222) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 119 17,806 15,898 14,195 12,674 11,316 10,104 9,021 8,054 7,191 6,421 17,806 15,898 14,195 12,674 11,316 10,104 9,021 8,054 7,191 6,421 57,691 51,510 45,991 41,063 36,664 32,735 29,228 26,096 23,300 20,804 57,691 51,510 45,991 41,063 36,664 32,735 29,228 26,096 23,300 20,804 75,497 67,408 60,186 53,737 47,980 42,839 38,249 34,151 30,492 27,225 66,219 59,124 52,789 47,133 42,083 37,574 33,548 29,954 26,745 23,879 11,065 9,879 8,821 7,876 7,032 6,278 5,606 5,005 4,469 3,990 55,154 49,245 43,968 39,257 35,051 31,296 27,943 24,949 22,276 19,889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66,219 59,124 52,789 47,133 42,083 37,574 33,548 29,954 26,745 23,879 0 0 0 0 0 9,278 8,284 7,396 6,604 5,896 5,265 4,701 4,197 3,747 3,346 (48,413) (43,226) (38,594) (34,459) (30,767) (27,471) (24,527) (21,900) (19,553) (17,458) Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV 100,939 BCR 1.1 FRR - ERR 37.0% Hence, the project is economically (but not financially) feasible given that Buri weaving is a private good. Reason: not enough volume sold. 16 17 18 19 20 5,733 5,119 4,570 4,081 3,643 5,733 5,119 4,570 4,081 3,643 18,575 16,585 14,808 13,221 11,805 18,575 16,585 14,808 13,221 11,805 24,308 21,704 19,378 17,302 15,448 21,321 19,036 16,997 15,176 13,550 3,563 3,181 2,840 2,536 2,264 17,758 15,855 14,157 12,640 11,286 0 0 0 0 0 21,321 19,036 16,997 15,176 13,550 0 0 0 0 0 2,987 2,667 2,381 2,126 1,898 (15,588) (13,918) (12,426) (11,095) (9,906) Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate 59,697.0 1.1 - 30.8% 30% discount rate 16,329.4 1.0 - 15.3% 10% increase in benefits 211,661.8 1.2 - 77.5% 10% increase in costs 3,310.7 1.0 - 1.3% 120 Project Name: Mindanao State University (JEEP) WORKFORCE Component: Workforce Preparation- Job Enabling English Proficiency Project, Barangay: Poblacion City/Municipality: Datu Odin Sinsuat Province: Maguindanao Region: ARMM Date visited: 23 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit No. units of computers used by students - JEEP Start 31 units source: field No. units of computers used by students - JEEP Accelerate, given on 2nd year 10 units source: field No. units of computers used by the teacher - JEEP Start 1 unit source: filed No. beneficiaries (JEEP Start - students), 1st school year 450 students per semester source: field No. beneficiaries (JEEP Start - students), 2nd school year 570 students per semester source: field No. beneficiaries (JEEP Accelerate - students), 2nd school year 330 students per semester source: field No. of student dropouts per JEEP class 1 student per class-semester No. teachers (part-time), 1st school year onwards 8 persons source: field Additional teachers (full-time), 2nd school year 2 persons source: field No. teaching assistants 2 persons source: field No. IT personnel 1 person source: field College enrollment growth rate, ARMM 2.22 % per year source: CHED No. classes per day 9 classes source: field No. hours per class session - normal days 1 hour source: field No. hours per class session - Ramadan or imposition of curfew due to violent conflict 0.45 hour source: field No. times sessions per week for a class 3 sessions per class-week source: field No. semesters in a school year 2 semesters per school year source: field No. months per semester 5 months per semester source: field Attendance rate of a teaching assistant per week 3 days per week source: field Attendance rate of IT personnel for JEEP in a week 1 day per week source: field Required no. of hours devoted by teaching assistants 2 hours per day source: field Required no. of hours devoted by IT personnel (on-call) 1 hour per day source: field Electricity bill (based on university allotment of expenditures) 10,400 per month source: field Annual license fee of software (for JEEP start computer units only) 10,000 pesos per computer unit-year source: field Monthly teacher salary inc. taxes and other dues (entry level) 19,000 pesos per teacher-month source: field Teacher's incentive provided by GEM3 for the first year 14,250 pesos per teacher-semester source: field Teacher's incentive provided by MSU-JEEP for the 2nd year onwards 8,000 pesos per teacher-year Average number of headphone set replaced per year 6 units source: field Replacement cost of headphone set 1,500 pesos per unit source: field User fee - JEEP Start 1,000 pesos per student-semester source: field User fee - JEEP Accelerate 600 pesos per student-semester source: field Teaching assistant salary 600 pesos per person-month source: field Start of GEM3 JEEP training of teachers source: field Start date of JEEP Start Jun-10 source: field Start date of JEEP Accelerate Jun-11 source: field Project cost (hardware) 22,000 pesos per unit source: field estimate Project cost (software, given free by GEM3 for the first year) 10,000 pesos per unit source: field 121 Project cost (training*) 168,000 persons source field Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: field estimate Depreciation cost (linear approach) 4,950 pesos per computer unit-year derived estimate Lifespan of computers 4 years source: field estimate Maintenance cost (excluding replacement of damaged headphone set) 1 % of total cost per year source: field Minimum daily wage rate, non-agriculture, ARMM 232 pesos per person-day source: DOLE-NWPC Minimum hourly wage rate non-agriculture, ARMM 29 pesos per person-hour * note: this refers to per diem only No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 1 incident source: field Type of violent conflict secessionism Violent conflict actors BIFF and AFP Violent conflict form firefight Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, ARMM 6.19 % source: NSCB PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 900,000 1,488,650 1,411,427 1,338,209 1,268,789 1,202,971 User fee of students 900,000 1,488,650 1,411,427 1,338,209 1,268,789 1,202,971 [B] Total benefits [A] 900,000 1,488,650 1,411,427 1,338,209 1,268,789 1,202,971 COST [C] Private costs 3,138,000 2,626,022 2,292,030 2,173,131 2,629,299 2,122,075 Capital outlay (hardware) 704,000 208,588 0 0 568,899 168,559 Training cost 168,000 License fee for the software 320,000 303,400 287,661 272,739 258,590 245,176 Maintenance (including replacement of damaged headphone set) 16,040 17,294 16,397 15,546 14,740 13,975 Salary 1,533,160 1,813,915 1,719,818 1,630,602 1,546,015 1,465,815 Teacher incentive 228,000 75,850 71,915 68,185 64,648 61,294 Electricity bill 10,400 9,861 9,349 8,864 8,404 7,968 Depreciation cost 158,400 197,115 186,890 177,195 168,003 159,288 Total cost [C] 3,138,000 2,626,022 2,292,030 2,173,131 2,629,299 2,122,075 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (2,238,000) (1,137,372) (880,603) (834,922) (1,360,509) (919,104) NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (2,238,000) (1,137,372) (880,603) (834,922) (1,360,509) (919,104) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV (16,047,647.0) BCR 0.5 FRR - ERR - Hence, the project is not economically and financially feasible, given that the JEEP project, which is a private good, is implemented by a public school. Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate -10,450,434.2 0.5 - - 30% discount rate -7,374,358.5 0.5 - - 10% increase in benefits -14,130,951.6 0.6 - - 10% increase in costs -30,483,631.9 0.2 - - 122 1,140,567 1,081,400 1,025,302 972,115 921,686 873,874 828,542 785,561 744,810 1,140,567 1,081,400 1,025,302 972,115 921,686 873,874 828,542 785,561 744,810 1,140,567 1,081,400 1,025,302 972,115 921,686 873,874 828,542 785,561 744,810 1,852,178 1,756,096 2,124,723 1,714,838 1,496,736 1,419,092 1,716,978 1,385,752 1,209,504 0 0 459,724 136,211 0 0 371,501 110,072 0 232,458 220,399 208,966 198,125 187,848 178,103 168,864 160,104 151,799 13,250 12,563 11,911 11,293 10,707 10,152 9,625 9,126 8,653 1,389,776 1,317,682 1,249,327 1,184,518 1,123,071 1,064,812 1,009,575 957,203 907,548 58,114 55,100 52,241 49,531 46,962 44,526 42,216 40,026 37,950 7,555 7,163 6,791 6,439 6,105 5,788 5,488 5,203 4,933 151,025 143,190 135,762 128,720 122,042 115,711 109,709 104,018 98,622 1,852,178 1,756,096 2,124,723 1,714,838 1,496,736 1,419,092 1,716,978 1,385,752 1,209,504 (711,611) (674,696) (1,099,421) (742,723) (575,049) (545,219) (888,436) (600,191) (464,694) (711,611) (674,696) (1,099,421) (742,723) (575,049) (545,219) (888,436) (600,191) (464,694) 16 17 18 19 20 706,173 669,540 634,808 601,877 570,655 706,173 669,540 634,808 601,877 570,655 706,173 669,540 634,808 601,877 570,655 1,146,761 1,387,481 1,119,819 977,394 926,692 0 300,208 88,948 0 0 143,924 136,458 129,379 122,668 116,304 8,204 7,778 7,375 6,992 6,629 860,469 815,832 773,511 733,385 695,341 35,981 34,115 32,345 30,667 29,076 4,678 4,435 4,205 3,987 3,780 93,506 88,655 84,056 79,696 75,562 1,146,761 1,387,481 1,119,819 977,394 926,692 (440,588) (717,941) (485,011) (375,517) (356,037) (440,588) (717,941) (485,011) (375,517) (356,037) Project Name: Surigao State College and Technology (JEEP) WORKFORCE Component: Workforce Preparation- Job Enabling English Proficiency Project 123 Barangay: Poblacion City/Municipality: Surigao City Province: Surigao del Norte Region: Caraga Date visited: 13 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit No. units of computers used by students - JEEP Start 42 units source: field No. units of computers used by students - JEEP Accelerate 5 units source: field No. units of computers used by the teacher - JEEP Start 1 unit source: filed No. beneficiaries (JEEP Start - students) 631 students per semester source: field No. beneficiaries (JEEP Accelerate - students) 252 students per semester source: field No. teachers (1st year of project onwards) 6 persons source: field Additional no. teachers (starting 2nd year of project due to JEEP Accelerate) 2 persons source: field No. teaching assistants 3 persons source: field No. IT personnel 1 person source: field College enrollment growth rate, Caraga 2.21 % per year source: CHED No. classes per day 8 classes source: field No. hours per class session 1 hour source: field No. times sessions per week for a class 3 sessions per class-week source: field No. semesters in a school year 2 semesters per school year source: field No. months per semester 5 months per semester source: field Attendance rate of teaching assistants per week 3 days per week source: field Attendance rate of IT personnel for JEEP in a week 1 day per week source: field Required no. of hours devoted by teaching assistants 8 hours per day source: field Required no. of hours devoted by IT personnel 8 hour per day source: field Electricity bill (based on university allotment of expenditures) 36,000 per year source: field Annual license fee of software (for JEEP start computer units only) 10,000 pesos per computer unit￾year source: field Monthly teacher salary inc. taxes and other dues (entry level) 20,000 pesos per month-teacher source: field Teacher's incentive provided by GEM3 for the first year 12,000 pesos per semester-teacher source: field Average number of headphone set replaced per year 10 units source: field Replacement cost of headphone set 2,500 pesos per unit source: field User fee (subject fee and laboratory fee) 950 pesos per semester-student source: field User fee of nearest alternative JEEP (Butuan City) 2,000 pesos per semester-student source: field Start of GEM3 JEEP training of teachers Apr-11 source: field Start date of JEEP Start Jun-11 source: field Start date of JEEP Accelerate May-12 source: field Project cost (hardware) 22,000 pesos per unit source: field estimate Project cost (software, given free by GEM3 for the first year) 10,000 pesos per unit source: field Project cost (training of 15 teachers over 2 weeks*) 168,000 pesos source field Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: field estimate Depreciation cost (linear approach) 4,950 pesos per computer unit￾year derived estimate Lifespan of computers 4 years source: field estimate Maintenance cost (excluding replacement of damaged headphone set) 1 % of total cost per year source: field Minimum daily wage non-agriculture, Caraga 258 pesos per person-day source: DOLE-NWPC 124 *note: this refers to per diem only No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict Violent conflict actors Violent conflict form Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, Caraga 4.9 % source: NSCB PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 1,198,900 1,606,800 1,504,940 1,409,538 1,320,183 1,236,493 User fee of students 1,198,900 1,606,800 1,504,940 1,409,538 1,320,183 1,236,493 [B] Total benefits [A] 1,198,900 1,606,800 1,504,940 1,409,538 1,320,183 1,236,493 COST [C] Private costs 4,131,660 2,964,137 2,776,232 2,600,238 3,163,385 2,360,298 Project cost (hardware) 1,056,000 0 0 0 727,983 79,283 Training cost 168,000 License fee for the software 430,000 402,741 377,210 353,298 330,901 309,924 Maintenance (including replacement of damaged headphone set) 34,460 33,306 31,194 29,217 27,365 25,630 Salary 2,025,600 2,271,834 2,127,816 1,992,928 1,866,590 1,748,262 Teacher incentive 144,000 Electricity bill 36,000 33,718 31,580 29,578 27,703 25,947 Depreciation cost 237,600 222,538 208,431 195,218 182,842 171,251 Total cost [C] 4,131,660 2,964,137 2,776,232 2,600,238 3,163,385 2,360,298 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (2,932,760) (1,357,337) (1,271,291) (1,190,700) (1,843,201) (1,123,805) NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (2,932,760) (1,357,337) (1,271,291) (1,190,700) (1,843,201) (1,123,805) Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV (20,449,342.8) BCR 0.5 FRR - ERR - Hence, the project is not economically and financially feasible given that the JEEP project, which is a private good, is implemented by a public school. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate -13,511,051.6 0.5 - - 30% discount rate -9,623,570.6 0.5 - - 10% increase in benefits -18,525,102.6 0.5 - - 10% increase in costs -24,418,517.4 0.4 - - 125 1,158,108 1,084,693 1,015,931 951,528 891,208 834,712 781,797 732,237 685,818 1,158,108 1,084,693 1,015,931 951,528 891,208 834,712 781,797 732,237 685,818 1,158,108 1,084,693 1,015,931 951,528 891,208 834,712 781,797 732,237 685,818 2,136,415 2,000,981 2,434,343 1,816,338 1,644,052 1,539,830 1,873,319 1,397,740 1,265,160 0 0 560,210 61,011 0 0 431,103 46,950 0 290,277 271,876 254,641 238,498 223,379 209,219 195,956 183,534 171,899 24,005 22,484 21,058 19,723 18,473 17,302 16,205 15,178 14,216 1,637,435 1,533,633 1,436,412 1,345,353 1,260,068 1,180,188 1,105,373 1,035,300 969,669 24,302 22,762 21,319 19,967 18,702 17,516 16,406 15,366 14,392 160,395 150,227 140,704 131,784 123,430 115,606 108,277 101,413 94,984 2,136,415 2,000,981 2,434,343 1,816,338 1,644,052 1,539,830 1,873,319 1,397,740 1,265,160 (978,306) (916,289) (1,418,413) (864,810) (752,844) (705,119) (1,091,522) (665,504) (579,342) (978,306) (916,289) (1,418,413) (864,810) (752,844) (705,119) (1,091,522) (665,504) (579,342) 16 17 18 19 20 642,342 601,622 563,484 527,763 494,306 642,342 601,622 563,484 527,763 494,306 642,342 601,622 563,484 527,763 494,306 1,184,957 1,441,589 1,075,614 973,588 911,869 0 331,750 36,130 0 0 161,002 150,795 141,236 132,283 123,897 13,314 12,470 11,680 10,939 10,246 908,199 850,626 796,702 746,197 698,894 13,479 12,625 11,824 11,075 10,373 88,963 83,323 78,041 73,094 68,460 1,184,957 1,441,589 1,075,614 973,588 911,869 (542,615) (839,967) (512,130) (445,825) (417,563) (542,615) (839,967) (512,130) (445,825) (417,563) Project Name: Datu Odin Sinsuat Educational & Dev Fdn Inc. High School (CLIC) WORKFORCE Component: Workforce Preparation- Computer Literacy and Internet Connection 126 Barangay: Poblacion City/Municipality: Datu Odin Sinsuat Province: Maguindanao Region: ARMM Date visited: 23 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit No of computer units 6 units source: field No. beneficiaries (3rd and 4th year high school students) - primary users 248 per school year source: field No. beneficiaries (5th and 6th grade elementary school students) - secondary users 160 per school year source: field No. teachers (2008) 1 person source: field No. teachers (post 2008) 2 person source: field No. IT personnel 0 source: field Elementary school (5th-6th grade) enrolment growth rate, Soccsksargen 2.04 % per year source: DepEd-BIS Secondary school (3rd-4th year) enrolment growth rate, Soccsksargen 5.50 % per year source: DepEd-BIS No. of classes per day (3rd and 4th year high school) 4 classes per day source: field No. of classes per day (5th and 6th grade elementary school) 4 classes per day source: field No. hours per class session 1 hour source: field Hands-on learning time per student, actual 10 minutes source: field No. hours per student, ideal 1 hour source: field No. times sessions per week for a class 3 sessions per class-week source: field No. months in a school year 9 school year source: field user fee: computer laboratory fee 50 pesos per student￾month source: field Electricity bill 1,000 per month source: field Internet service fee* 3,600 pesos per quarter source: field Monthly teacher salary inc. taxes and other dues (entry level) 6,000 pesos per month￾teacher source: field *2010: disconnection of internet service User fee of nearest alternative internet café shops, Cotabato City - 2008-10 15 pesos per hour source: field Frequency of study visit to Cotabato City 1 time a month source: field Hands-on learning time per student per 1 class session 60 minutes source: field Transportation fare to Cotabato 30 pesos per head (round trip) source: field User fee of nearest alternative internet café shops, (within campus)-2010 onwards 15 pesos per hour source: field Start date 2008 source: field Project cost (computer hardware, software and internet connection) 22,000 pesos per unit source: field estimate Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: field estimate Depreciation cost (linear approach) 6,600 pesos per computer unit-year derived estimate Lifespan of computers** 3 years source: field estimate Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year source: field estimate note: **lifespan is reduced from 4 to 3 years given source: field 127 intense use of computers by # students No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict Violent conflict actors Violent conflict form Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, ARMM 6.19 % source: NSCB PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 3,610 3,357 3,122 2,905 2,703 2,516 User fee of students 3,610 3,357 3,122 2,905 2,703 2,516 [B] Social benefits 165,240 165,285 155,692 166,527 156,862 147,758 Cost savings from access 165,240 165,285 155,692 166,527 156,862 147,758 [C] Total benefits [A] + [B] 168,850 168,642 158,815 169,432 159,565 150,275 COST [D] Private costs 250,320 163,458 142,034 247,171 127,680 121,057 Capital outlay 132,000 0 0 112,505 0 0 Maintenance 1,320 1,329 1,260 1,195 1,133 1,074 Salary 54,000 102,398 97,086 92,049 87,274 82,747 Internet connection service fee 14,400 13,653 Electricity bill 9,000 8,533 8,090 7,671 7,273 6,896 Depreciation cost 39,600 37,546 35,598 33,751 32,001 30,341 [E] Social Cost 137,700 137,737 129,744 138,772 130,718 123,132 Cost due to reduced learning hour relative to alternative 137,700 137,737 129,744 138,772 130,718 123,132 Total cost [D] + [E 250,320 163,458 142,034 247,171 127,680 121,057 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (81,470) 5,184 16,781 (77,739) 31,885 29,218 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (246,710) (160,101) (138,912) (244,266) (124,977) (118,541) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV (214,950.2) BCR 0.9 FRR - ERR - Hence, the project is not economically and financially feasible given that the CLIC project, which is a private good, is implemented by a small private NGO-school. Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate -1,356,318.1 0.5 - - 30% discount rate -925,648.2 0.5 - - 10% increase in benefits -1,910,230.5 0.6 - - 10% increase in costs -2,596,224.1 0.5 - - 128 2,343 2,182 2,032 1,894 1,765 1,645 1,534 1,431 1,335 2,343 2,182 2,032 1,894 1,765 1,645 1,534 1,431 1,335 139,183 131,106 123,497 116,330 109,578 103,219 97,228 91,586 86,270 139,183 131,106 123,497 116,330 109,578 103,219 97,228 91,586 86,270 141,526 133,287 125,529 118,223 111,343 104,864 98,762 93,016 87,605 210,666 108,823 103,178 179,552 92,751 87,939 153,034 79,052 74,951 95,889 0 0 81,727 0 0 69656 0 0 1,018 965 915 868 823 780 740 701 665 78,454 74,385 70,526 66,867 63,399 60,110 56,992 54,035 51,232 6,538 6,199 5,877 5,572 5,283 5,009 4,749 4,503 4,269 28,767 27,274 25,859 24,518 23,246 22,040 20,897 19,813 18,785 115,986 109,255 102,914 96,941 91,315 86,016 81,024 76,321 71,892 115,986 109,255 102,914 96,941 91,315 86,016 81,024 76,321 71,892 210,666 108,823 103,178 179,552 92,751 87,939 153,034 79,052 74,951 (69,140) 24,464 22,351 (61,329) 18,592 16,925 (54,271) 13,964 12,654 (208,323) (106,641) (101,145) (177,659) (90,986) (86,294) (151,500) (77,622) (73,617) 16 17 18 19 20 1,245 1,162 1,085 1,013 946 1,245 1,162 1,085 1,013 946 81,264 76,548 72,105 67,920 63,979 81,264 76,548 72,105 67,920 63,979 82,509 77,710 73,190 68,933 64,925 130,432 67,377 63,882 111,168 57,426 59369 0 0 50600 0 630 598 567 537 509 48,574 46,055 43,666 41,400 39,253 4,048 3,838 3,639 3,450 3,271 17,811 16,887 16,011 15,180 14,393 67,720 63,790 60,088 56,600 53,315 67,720 63,790 60,088 56,600 53,315 130,432 67,377 63,882 111,168 57,426 (47,923) 10,333 9,308 (42,235) 7,499 (129,187) (66,215) (62,797) (110,155) (56,480) Project Name: Notre Dame of Libungan (CLIC) Workforce Component: Workforce Preparation-Computer Literacy and Internet Connection 129 Barangay: - City/Municipality: Libungan Province: North Cotabato Region: Soccsksargen Date visited: 16 August 2012 Basic info: Qty Unit No of computer units (GEM3) 5 units source: field No of computer units (school counterpart) 5 units source: field No. beneficiaries (3rd and 4th year high school students) 273 per school year source: field No. teachers 3 person source: field No. IT personnel 1 person source: field Secondary school (3rd-4th year) enrolment growth rate, Soccsksargen 5.50 % per year source: DepEd-BIS No. of classes per day (3rd and 4th year high school) 7 classes per day source: field No. hours per class session 60 minutes source: field Hands-on learning time per student, actual (with GEM3) 15.38 minutes per session derived estimate, source: field Hands-on learning time per student, actual (before GEM3) 7.69 minutes per session derived estimate, source: field No. hours per student, ideal 1 hour source: field No. times sessions per week for a class 3 sessions per class-week source: field No. months in a school year 9 school year source: field Student-computer ratio per class (with GEM3) 3.9 students per computer-class derived estimate, source: field Student-computer ratio per class (without GEM3) 7.8 students per computer-class derived estimate, source: field user fee: computer laboratory fee 100 pesos per student-month source: field Electricity bill 2,900 pesos per month source: field Internet service fee (from W.I.T., 2009-2011)* 3,600 pesos per quarter source: field Monthly salary of computer technician 3,000 pesos per month source: field Monthly teacher salary inc. taxes and other dues 7,000 pesos per month-teacher source: field *2011: disconnection of internet service, school subscribed to PLDT starting 2012 2,300 pesos per month User fee of nearest alternative internet café shops, poblacion 10 pesos per hour source: field Hands-on user time 60 minutes assumption Average frequency of visits by students to alternative internet café shops per week 2 time a week source: field Transportation fare to Poblacion 14 pesos per head (round trip) source: field % of students without access to computer at home 90 % source: field Start date 2009 source: field Project cost (computer hardware, software and internet connection) 22,000 pesos per unit source: field estimate Salvage value 10 % of total cost source: field estimate Depreciation cost (linear approach) 6,600 pesos per computer unit￾year derived estimate Lifespan of computers** 3 years source: field estimate Maintenance cost 1 % of total cost per year estimate note: **lifespan is reduced from 4 to 3 years given intense use of computers by # students source: field 130 No. of violent conflict (last 12 months) 0 incidents source: field Type of violent conflict Violent conflict actors Violent conflict form Discount rate 12 % assumption 2011 inflation rate, Soccsksargen 4.6 % source: NSCB PRESENT VALUE, inflation-adjusted Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 BENEFITS [A] Private benefits 257,002 242,087 228,037 214,803 202,337 190,594 User fee of students 257,002 242,087 228,037 214,803 202,337 190,594 [B] Social benefits 88,452 87,151 82,093 77,329 72,841 68,614 Cost savings from access 88,452 87,151 82,093 77,329 72,841 68,614 [C] Total benefits [A] + [B] 345,454 329,238 310,131 292,132 275,178 259,208 COST [D] Private costs 400,600 271,447 265,025 337,120 231,161 215,888 Project cost 110,000 0 0 89,605 0 0 Maintenance 1,100 1,075 1,004 937 875 818 Salary 216,000 201,729 188,400 175,952 164,327 153,469 Internet connection service fee 14,400 13,449 24,073 22,483 20,997 19,610 Electricity bill 26,100 24,376 22,765 21,261 19,856 18,544 Depreciation cost 33,000 30,820 28,783 26,882 25,105 23,447 [E] Social Cost 54,432 53,632 50,519 47,587 44,825 42,224 Cost due to reduced learning hour relative to alternative 54,432 53,632 50,519 47,587 44,825 42,224 Total cost [D] + [E 455,032 325,078 315,544 384,707 275,986 258,112 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - economic, inflation adjusted (109,578) 4,160 (5,414) (92,575) (809) 1,096 NET PRESENT BENEFITS - financial, inflation adjusted (143,598) (29,360) (36,988) (122,317) (28,824) (25,294) Conclusion, at 12% discount rate NPV (338,336.9) BCR 0.9 FRR - ERR - Hence, the project is not economically and financially feasible given that the CLIC project, which is a private good, is implemented by a small private school that still relies on government transfer (i.e. 90% of students receive state scholarship). 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 179,533 169,113 159,299 150,054 141,345 133,142 125,415 118,137 111,280 x Sensitivity Analysis Scenarios NPV BCR FRR ERR 20% discount rate -263,052.6 0.9 - - 30% discount rate -211,264.0 0.9 - - 10% increase in benefits 81,344.5 1.0 - 7.8% 10% increase in costs -791,851.9 0.8 - - 131 179,533 169,113 159,299 150,054 141,345 133,142 125,415 118,137 111,280 64,632 60,881 57,348 54,019 50,884 47,931 45,149 42,529 40,061 64,632 60,881 57,348 54,019 50,884 47,931 45,149 42,529 40,061 244,164 229,994 216,646 204,073 192,230 181,073 170,565 160,666 151,341 274,616 188,302 175,861 223,700 153,390 143,255 182,225 124,950 116,695 72,992 0 0 59,459 0 0 48,435 0 0 763 713 666 622 581 542 507 473 442 143,330 133,860 125,015 116,755 109,041 101,837 95,108 88,824 82,955 18,314 17,104 15,974 14,919 13,933 13,012 12,153 11,350 10,600 17,319 16,175 15,106 14,108 13,176 12,305 11,492 10,733 10,024 21,898 20,451 19,100 17,838 16,659 15,558 14,530 13,570 12,674 39,773 37,465 35,291 33,243 31,313 29,496 27,784 26,172 24,653 39,773 37,465 35,291 33,243 31,313 29,496 27,784 26,172 24,653 314,389 225,767 211,152 256,943 184,703 172,751 210,009 151,122 141,348 (70,225) 4,227 5,495 (52,870) 7,526 8,322 (39,444) 9,544 9,994 (95,083) (19,189) (16,562) (73,647) (12,045) (10,113) (56,810) (6,814) (5,414) 16 17 18 19 20 104,822 98,739 93,008 87,611 82,526 104,822 98,739 93,008 87,611 82,526 37,736 35,546 33,483 31,540 29,709 37,736 35,546 33,483 31,540 29,709 142,558 134,285 126,491 119,150 112,235 148,439 101,784 95,059 120,918 82,912 39,455 0 0 32,139 0 413 385 360 336 314 77,474 72,356 67,575 63,110 58,940 9,900 9,245 8,635 8,064 7,531 9,361 8,743 8,165 7,626 7,122 11,836 11,054 10,324 9,642 9,005 23,222 21,874 20,605 19,409 18,283 23,222 21,874 20,605 19,409 18,283 171,661 123,658 115,664 140,327 101,195 (29,103) 10,627 10,828 (21,176) 11,040 (43,617) (3,045) (2,050) (33,307) (386) ANNEX 13: STATEMENT OF DIFFERENCES ON SOCIAL IMPACT’S PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/PHILIPPINES GROWTH WITH EQUITY IN MINDANAO III (GEM-3) PROGRAM Executive Summary, Workforce Preparation, p. iii “Maintenance issues, power interruptions, unreliable Internet connectivity, the growth of private Internet cafes, and the turnover of trained staff have muted the benefits of the CLIC program. Schools are worried that the activities will not be sustained once donor funding ends. Recommendations To ensure project sustainability, early orientation sessions for school faculties and PTA members should be closely followed by GEM staff for the development and implementation of realistic operation and maintenance plans.” Contractor response: GEM monitoring systems noted a significantly high level of continued operation of CLIC computers and internet connections, except in a few provinces where the internet service providers ceased operations. Various models of revenue generation or fees were designed and implemented by schools and were developed with GEM assistance. Executive Summary, Component 4: Business Growth (BG), p. iv "…the impact of BG's total exports and out shipments ($86 M) is extremely small... compared to the total Mindanao economy, it is only 0.25% of the Mindanao GRDP for 2011.." Contractor response: Comparing the total exports and out-shipments facilitated under the BDT component vis-a-vis the total Mindanao GRDP is simplistic and meaningless. Under the GEM TOR, exports and out-shipment targets are focused on very specific commodities and tripling their values from 2007 to 2012. The main goal was to develop new and emerging Mindanao commodities that have very good market potentials in the export and local markets. Thus, the targeted commodities were those non-traditional Mindanao products (fruits, vegetables, high value aquaculture) as opposed to Mindanao traditional commodities (coconut, corn, etc). Even some Mindanao products which were considered highly-developed by agribusiness multinationals such as Cavendish banana and pineapple were not included as GEM-targeted commodities. In determining the impact of GEM's export and out-shipment results, it would have made more sense if they were compared with total Mindanao food exports rather than the total Mindanao GRDP which is a rather broad indicator. Executive Summary, Gender, p. v Contractor response: The statistics on the participation and number of beneficiaries that were women speak for themselves and should have been repeated in this section. Executive Summary, Sustainability, p. vi Contractor response: Many programs have no issue of sustainability and others were designed to have a limited life (including the various internship programs and scholarship program). The Business Growth activities had sustainability built in as those organizations that are succeeding and making money are likely to continue activities. Also, other partners such as the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture now have more effective linkages to these organizations. For the over 80 BSOs supported over the life of GEM 1, 2 and 3 – only one was not sustainable. CLIC was intended to provide internet to high schools and bridge the digital divide. It accomplished that task. Two years before the end of GEM, the Department of Education began a program to expand internet provisions to schools and to pay for the internet connections. The JEEP schools have continued their participation in JEEP even after GEM assistance ended. The Education Matching Grants were intended to show that PTAs could contribute financially to increasing community resources available for education and in this it succeeded as all community contributions were in place before GEM assistance was provided. REAP benefits will continue in the future since the additional tax revenue collections achieved are permanent. No special, one￾off increases were permitted under the program. Lessons Learned – Design and Implementation of GEM 3, p.53 “Implementation of the program is generally sound. The implementing firm, which is generally regarded as an engineering consulting firm, has been best at the infrastructure component; it has produced quality structures well appreciated by the beneficiaries. Implementation of the other components has been adequate. Based on uneven outcomes and supported by empirical evidence, TA has been spread thinly over a vast area, limiting the impact and sustainability it could have had the interventions been more substantial, especially for the workforce preparation, governance improvement and FCR.” Contractor response: The Louis Berger Group is an internationally recognized consulting firm that provides engineering, architecture, program and construction management, environmental planning and science, and economic development services, not solely an engineering consulting firm. Furthermore, the implementation of all program components greatly exceeded that of “adequate”, as supported by reports, studies, and this very evaluation. While there could have been greater interventions, the range of work is set by the limited funds available and the objectives of the program. General Recommendations, Former Combatant Reintegration, p.55 “Provide development assistance not only to MNLF former combatants but also to the host and/or community at large so as to maximize potential conflict situations arising from jealousy or resentment” Contractor response: While the FCR component of GEM 3 may have focused on cooperatives that were primarily made up of former MNLF combatants, these cooperatives had non-MNLF members. It is also important to note that these communities, barangays and municipalities (not only the cooperative) were also explicitly targeted by other GEM components including Infrastructure, workforce preparation, business growth and governance. Additionally, these small projects with the MNLF were examples to the MILF group (which most of the time lived in the same community or nearby) of the types of assistance that could be provided to them once a peace agreement was signed, and of the benefits of peace. For more information, please visit http://www.socialimpact.com Social Impact, Inc. 2300 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 1000 Tel: (703) 465-1884 Fax: (703) 465-1888 www.socialimpact.com