Tripartite Evaluation Team by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), the Government of the Philippines and the Food

and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Evaluation of Philippines-Australia Technical Support for

Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Project GCP/PHI/047/AUL

Final Report 9 March 2006

Evaluation Team

Rachel Sauvinet-Bedouin, Team Leader/FAO Representative Luis P. Eleazar, Government of Philippines Representative

Ramon Noriel Sicad, AusAID Representative Erin Holleran, FAO Evaluation Service

Note: The Evaluation Report and the recommendations within are the views and opinions of the Evaluation Team. They do not necessarily represent the views of FAO, the Government of the Philippines or the

Government of Australia.

ii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................iii List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 I. Introduction: Background and Context......................................................................... 3 II. Evaluation Purpose and Methodology ....................................................................... 4 III. Project Objectives and Their Relevance .................................................................... 5

3.1 Project Goal and Objectives.................................................................................... 5 3.2 Relevance to Development Needs and Development Strategies........................... 6

V. Project Budget and Management ................................................................................... 9 5.1 Budget and Expenditure .......................................................................................... 9 5.2 Project Management ................................................................................................ 9

VI. Project Outcomes: Outputs and their Effects.......................................................... 10 6.1 Component 1 – Participatory Area Planning (PAP)........................................... 10 6.2 Component 2 - Support Services Coordination and Integration (SSCI) .......... 14 6.3 Component 3 – Beneficiary Economic Development (BED) .............................. 19 6.4 Component 4 – Monitoring ................................................................................... 26 6.5 Knowledge Building and Sharing ......................................................................... 29

VII Overall Conclusions: Impacts and Sustainability ................................................... 29 7.1 Project Likely Impacts........................................................................................... 29 7.2 Sustainability .......................................................................................................... 31

VIII. Recommendations .................................................................................................. 32 Annexes ................................................................................................................................... 35

Annex 1: Terms of Reference .............................................................................................. 37 Annex 2: Evaluation Team Schedule................................................................................ 43 Annex 3: Abridged List of Output Indicators as of December 2005 ............................. 45 .............................................................................................................................................. 46

iii

Acknowledgments

The evaluation team gratefully acknowledges the support of the entire staff of PATSARRD, with particular thanks to the Programme Director, Mr. Edgar Guardian. In particular, the evaluation team was impressed by the excellent logistical arrangements the PATSARRD team made and by PATSARRD’s extraordinary degree of attentiveness to evaluation team needs. The team would also like to thank the FAO Office in the Philippines and all of the representatives from the various agencies who took their time to meet with us and to provide very useful insight.

iv

List of Acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank

ARB Agrarian Reform Beneficiary

ARC Agrarian Reform Community

ARCDP Agrarian Reform Community Development Plan

AusAID Australian Agency for International Development

BED Beneficiary Economic Development

CARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

DA Department of Agriculture

DAR/DLR Department of Agrarian Reform/ Department of Land Reform

DTI Department of Trade and Industry

ENR Environment and Natural Resources

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FAMS Farmers’ Access to Microfinance Services

FAPs Foreign – Assisted Projects

FB Farmer Beneficiary

FSD Farming Systems Development

GOP Government of the Philippines

ICARRD International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development

JBIC Japan Bank for International Cooperation

KFC KALAHI Farmers’ Center

LGUs Local Government Units

ManCom Management Committee

MFI Microfinance Institutions

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MTPDP Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan

NEDA National Economic Development Authority

v

NGA National Government Agency

PACAP Philippines-Australia Community Assistance Program

PALS Philippines – Australia Local Sustainability

PAP Participatory Area Planning

PARCOMM Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee

PATSARRD Philippines-Australia Technical Support for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development

PDC Provincial Development Council PFS Pre-Feasibility Study PMME Participatory Management Monitoring and Evaluation

RSSD Regional Support Services Division

SCUs State Colleges and Universities

SDAA FAO’s Land Tenure Service (Rural Development Division)

SSCI Support Services Coordination and Integration

TSKI Taytay Sa Kauswagan Inc (a Philippine MFI)

TWG Technical Working Group

1

Executive Summary

1. This evaluation of the Philippines-Australia Technical Support for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (PATSARRD) Project was conducted at the end of the three-year life span in order to (i) provide an assessment of the Project’s achievements as well as the major factors hindering progress and (ii) make recommendations on further steps necessary to consolidate progress and ensure achievement of objectives.

2. The evaluation team assesses the PATSARRD Project to be relevant to the development

needs of the Philippines, particularly in addressing rural poverty. Building upon its predecessor projects, the Project assists the DAR and LGUs to bring agrarian reform beneficiaries into development planning processes, to improve efficiency and effectiveness of major investment processes, to help DAR and LGUs modify how they facilitate provision of support services, mobilize resources, and more directly, demonstrate means of improving access by the rural poor to improved technology, markets, and microfinance.

3. While the Project design is conceptually well articulated and benefits from previous

phases are defined, the team found that the design lacks clarity and details on how to operationalize some of the relatively newer components such as the Support Services Coordination and Integration (SSCI) component and the Beneficiary Economic Development (BED) component. With so many activities and an unclear connection between them and the components, the Project lacks focus. This may have resulted in missed opportunities for linkages and synergies.

4. The Project did not suffer any major delays or budgetary problems. However, there is a

remaining balance valued at nearly 20% of the total budget, which reflects some weaknesses in Project financial monitoring and planning which likely resulted in missed opportunities. The Project was well managed and benefited from technical support from FAO Headquarters.

5. The team concludes that the Project has experienced clear success across all components

in terms of outputs. Performance against targets as reflected in the output indicators is impressive. The Project made considerable achievements in terms of capacity building, institutional strengthening and mainstreaming planning processes, and coordinating mechanisms. The report highlights and assesses the outputs and effects of each component.

6. The team found the first component, Participatory Area Planning (PAP) to be a highly

consultative planning process whose results have been impressive. It reached its target population and met or exceeded its targets. It has been institutionalized, replicated, and co-funded. The PAP process has the potential to be more fully exploited; lessons can be learned and there are opportunities for its application that can be explored.

7. Through the second component, SSCI, the Project established a coordination mechanism

called KALAHI Farmer Centers (KFCs) in the target provinces. The team found that the KFCs have facilitated access of a large number of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) to support services during their short period of existence, thereby contributing to convergence efforts. There are some positive indications for the sustainability of KFC operations as seen through improved capacity to mobilize resources, LGU readiness to

2

assume leadership, and increasing demand from ARBs for continuing support. There are some factors that may affect Project results in this area if not addressed: need for a local partner organization to assume the catalytic role that Project experts have had; absence of a legal status of the KFC to the extent that its existence can be questioned by future heads of partner organization thereby affecting sustainability; limited participation of the private sector; and need for the KFC to have a longer-term vision.

8. The evaluation team found the third component, BED, to be at its relatively early stages of

implementation. What was clear is that the acquisition of ARB knowledge and experience in technical, entrepreneurship, and microfinance is a positive effect of the component’s training. Other results were not as clear. Many of the livelihood projects and enterprise models had not gone through enough production cycles to be able to determine the extent to which they can be replicated and results so far have been mixed. The micro projects generated marginal increases in income and many lacked potential for scaling up. Nonetheless, some contributed to household food security and cash flow.

9. Some enterprise models (e.g., tilapia model) have experienced early limited success, with

some increased in income. This lays the groundwork for future work in the area. The team, though, questioned the fit of the microfinance sub-component into BED. Overall, the component showed mixed results in terms of economic benefits and the team questioned the economic soundness of some of the component’s activities. There are some lessons learned from the enterprise model, such as the importance of the selection and analysis of models and business partners, which could be applied to any future efforts.

10. The team found that the monitoring system, the fourth component, to be output-oriented

and too complex to be fully understood and useful to all Project stakeholders. Attention should be given to developing a system that is simpler and more fully captures and assesses Project performance should there be an extension.

11. The evaluation team examined the combined effects of the components in terms of

achieving the overall Project goal of up-lifting the social and economic conditions of the agrarian reform beneficiaries. Most of the Project’s resources concentrate on the creation of an enabling environment, with no short-term direct benefits on the social and economic situations of the ultimate beneficiaries. One of the marginal benefits of the agricultural microenterprises is the increased availability of food supply for the household and an improvement in the household’s food security situation. The Project enhances awareness and access of the agrarian reform beneficiaries to the decision-making process.

12. In the short-term, the impact on the local economies is limited and will remain so as long

as the Project concentrates on a limited number of beneficiaries and on micro-activities that have a limited multiplier effect particularly in terms of employment generation. The most significant impacts at the community level and on the local economies are derived from the ripple effect of the Agrarian Reform Community (ARC) Development Plans and their ability to leverage resources for investment and greater outreach for delivering services. The ARC Plans and the KFC mechanisms supported by the Project have been successful in generating additional support and investment in those communities.

13. In terms of impact on governance, through capacity building and institutional

strengthening activities of the PAP and SSCI components, the Project contributes to enhancing good governance at various levels including barangay, municipal, and

3

provincial levels – even up to the national level. Participatory processes and coordinating mechanisms put in place ensure greater confidence that proposed activities, derived from grassroots-level analysis, have the support of communities, adding a degree of legitimacy and sustainability.

14. Regarding the impact on gender and environment, the Project established policies and

practices to integrate them both into planning, activity design, and implementation. The Project promoted broad access and participation in activities. This resulted in a nearly equal balance of men and women in component activities.

15. While institutional sustainability is critical for the PAP and SSCI components, economic

sustainability of enterprises and other economic activities supported by the Project is vital for the full realization of benefits to the ultimate beneficiaries. Given the stage of Project implementation, the evaluation team has only limited evidence of economic sustainability of Project activities. It appears that much progress has been made in laying the groundwork for institutional sustainability in the future.

16. The evaluation team concurs with the pre-feasibility study’s recommendation of

supporting an extension of the PATSARRD Project. It further believes that it should be done so on the basis of the following principles:

• building on the Project’s comparative advantages, i.e., organizing, facilitating and promoting processes and mechanisms;

• further consolidating and expanding results in terms of institutionalization of these processes and mechanisms (enabling environment);

• recognizing that small-scale economic activities can have multiplier effects;

• focusing on activities with greater economic benefits and greater outreach; and

• designing an exit strategy.

17. The team proposes that a new phase be designed on the basis of the following goal, “To reduce rural poverty by strengthening the enabling environment and facilitating investment and support for the agrarian reform beneficiaries and other rural poor families to engage in sustainable economic activities.” Four purposes support that goal.

18. The evaluation team also recommends that FAO remain as the implementing agency. The

role of FAO should continue to focus on lessons learned, building and sharing knowledge, as well as linking the Project with policy-makers and enhancing policy dialogue on agrarian reform. Additionally, the evaluation team makes specific recommendations for each component that are detailed in the report.

I. Introduction: Background and Context

19. The Philippines-Australia Technical Support for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Project is funded by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) and is managed under the supervision of the FAO Sustainable Development Department’s Land Tenure Service. Project implementation began in March 2003 with a budget of $5,110,772 and a three-year timeframe. A no-cost extension has been granted through June 2006.

4

20. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) has remained a centerpiece of efforts to address rural poverty in the Philippines for the past four administrations since its launch in 1988. The three CARP elements include: land acquisition and distribution, support services to beneficiaries, and agrarian justice. Two agencies are primarily responsible for CARP implementation: 1) the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and 2) the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). As of June 2005, DAR had completed about 83% of its land distribution task, covering 3.5 million hectares and 2 million beneficiary households. The goal is to complete land distribution by 2008.

21. FAO has provided technical assistance to DAR beneficiary support services through a

series of projects for over 15 years. The Government of Italy provided funding for the first phases of the Technical Support to Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (TSARD) from 1990 – 1997. The TSARD project helped DAR, DENR and the Department of Agriculture (DA) with participatory training approaches aimed at improving the capacities of implementers and beneficiaries. The Royal Government of The Netherlands and the Government of Italy supported a project, executed by FAO known as SARC-TSARRD from 1998 – 2001. The SARC-TSARRD Project provided local community planning assistance in agrarian reform communities (ARCs) and this community planning work has been linked to major infrastructure investment in those ARCs.

22. The Agrarian Reform Community strategy was conceived during the Ramos

administration in 1993, and was fully implemented in 1995. It was aimed at accelerating the development of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) by focusing on support services. It was also tailored to the perceived interest of foreign donors in focusing support to specific geographic areas. An ARC consists of a cluster of contiguous barangays – the lowest level of local government.

23. Following a request to Australia for continuation funding and a favorable SARC-

TSARRD evaluation, a project redesign document was drafted and discussed with DAR, NEDA and AusAID. In November 2001, an AusAID Appraisal supported the findings of the redesign team with some adjustments to further improve sustainability and to enhance articulation with AusAID’s strategy. These changes were incorporated into the January 2002 PATSARRD design document.

II. Evaluation Purpose and Methodology 24. The purpose of the evaluation was (i) to provide FAO, the Government of the Philippines

(GOP), and AusAID with an assessment of the Project’s achievements as well as of the major factors that have facilitated or impeded the Project’s progress in achieving the intended outputs and its effects on direct beneficiaries and on the ultimate target groups, and (ii) to make recommendations on further steps necessary to consolidate progress and to ensure achievement of objectives.

25. In addition, an unusual feature of the evaluation was the availability of a pre-feasibility

study (PFS) carried out only a few months before the present team. The PFS Mission visited the Project for four weeks, including visits to several provinces where the Project operates. The PFS includes a brief assessment of the Project which forms part of the basis for its recommendations for a future extension of the Project. It includes broad directions

5

and objectives for the future. These recommendations were discussed with stakeholders, in particular with the Government of Australia and the GOP at the end of the PFS mission. The final PFS represents a consensus among parties on the way forward in the event of new funding to support agrarian reform. AusAID asked the evaluation team to use the results of the PFS as a starting point for the evaluation team’s recommendations on the future.

26. The evaluation team visited the Project from 6 to 17 February, in Manila and in two of the

six provinces where the Project operates. (See Evaluation Team’s Schedule in Annex 2.) The team reviewed the Project’s extensive documentation. In particular, the team found the mid-term report (November 2004) to be very useful in describing Project accomplishments in terms of outputs at the Project’s mid-point and in drawing attention to some of the strengths and weaknesses. The evaluation team conducted interviews with a broad range of stakeholders, including Project staff, Government staff with links with the Project, AusAID, other donors providing support to agrarian reform, as well as with many direct Project beneficiaries.

27. The short time (two weeks) allocated to the evaluation mission did not permit an in-depth

analysis of what is considered a complex project. The evaluation team used primarily secondary data and concentrated on the main effects of each component, the Project’s likely impacts, as well as on providing broad directions for the future.

III. Project Objectives and Their Relevance 3.1 Project Goal and Objectives 28. The goal of the PATSARRD Project is to assist agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB)

families to improve their economic and social conditions, particularly in the southern Philippines.

29. The Project has four objectives:

1. to increase the ability of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) to influence their own well-being by incorporating cost-effective, sustained and participatory planning processes into regular Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and local government unit (LGU) operations;

2. to strengthen and establish mechanisms for cooperation between departments,

LGUs, universities, private firms, donors and others working to improve ARB economic and social conditions;

3. to develop innovative approaches to beneficiary economic development (farm

and non-farm) including marketing and microfinance services, with emphasis on private sector involvement; and

4. to manage and monitor the Project, with particular attention to

institutionalizing activities and processes within DAR and other agencies and to ensure gender and social equity.

6

3.2 Relevance to Development Needs and Development Strategies 30. The Project goal is relevant to development needs in the Philippines and is considered as a

priority objective of the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan. It is also consistent with the AusAID Country Program Strategy and with other donors’ support to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

31. The Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan’s (MTPDP) biggest challenge is

eradicating poverty. In the Philippines, poverty is primarily a rural phenomenon since nearly 75% of the poor live in rural areas and rely on agriculture for their livelihoods. In the MTPDP, the government declares that CARP be maintained as a flagship program to address the social justices and basic needs of the poor, particularly the landless farmers. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is the lead agency for implementing CARP in the lowlands where approximately half of the rural population live. Specifically, DAR is responsible for land distribution and facilitating delivery of support services. In implementing its CARP strategy, DAR works with local government units and is responsible for managing 18 ongoing foreign-assisted projects valued at approximately $1.5 billion, much of which is directed at infrastructure. PATSARRD is directly assisting DAR with its CARP strategy and has contributed to local planning efforts that set priorities for such investment in infrastructure.

32. The major constraints to achieving poverty eradication identified in the MTDPD include:

tight fiscal deficit, insufficient infrastructure, rapid urbanization, growing unemployment and inefficient delivery of services. Project activities directly address some of these constraints, especially those at of inefficient service delivery. As a coordinating mechanism at the provincial level, the KALAHI Farmers Center (KFC) aims at improving access to support services and efficiency of service delivery.

33. With its focus on poverty alleviation in the southern Philippines, the AusAID Country

Program Strategy is aligned with the MTPDP. The AusAID strategy strives to contribute to poverty reduction, sustainable development, and stability in the Philippines by concentrating on economic governance, security and stability, and rural poverty in the southern Philippines. The PATSARRD Project interventions contribute directly to AusAID’s strategic goals and serve as one of its implementation vehicles.

34. Over the last several decades, DAR has garnered support from scores of donors to execute

its agrarian reform strategy in the lowlands. The Project maintains regular contact both with DAR’s Foreign-Assisted Projects Office and with other donor-funded projects, including other AusAID projects to ensure coordination and complementarity. Additionally, at the provincial level, the Project liaises regularly with development entities (both public and private) that operate in the target provinces.

35. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Project is relevant to development efforts in the

Philippines, particularly in addressing the challenges of rural poverty. The Project addresses rural poverty by specifically targeting the rural poor - the agrarian reform beneficiaries. There is no doubt that agrarian reform beneficiaries are among the poorest in the Philippines. The Project’s focus on institutionalization of the capacity within DAR and the LGUs underscores its relevance to sustainable development, as does its gender mainstreaming focus.

7

IV. Project Design 36. The PATSARRD Project design document is complex. It is the result of a redesign of

long-standing support to the agrarian reform through a series of successive phases. As a result, the design document is conceptually well articulated. However, the design lacks sufficient clarity and details on how to operationalize some of it, particularly in the case of the relatively newer components. For example, the Support Services Coordination and Integration (SSCI) component is well laid out conceptually, yet its operationalization beyond the establishment of what became the KALAHI Farmer Centers (KFCs) is not as clear. The document itself states, “The final form of the ...(KFC) has not yet been established.”

37. With so many Project activities and an unclear connection between them and the

components, the Project lacks focus. According to the design, Project activities fit into a sequenced set of components. In practice, though, the evaluation team noted that the sequence is not always observed. Since the design does not articulate the linkages between the components, this blurs Project focus for implementation. In addition, given the link between the components, the Project’s three-year timeframe seems ambitious if the Project concept is to be fully implemented. The timeframe seems more ambitious considering the sheer number of activities the Project has. In particular, the Beneficiary Economic Development (BED) component’s set of activities is numerous ranging from post-PAP productivity enhancement training to enterprise modelling to microfinance to environment, involving various institutions, various groups of stakeholders and requiring different expertise. Many are still in their early stages.

38. In operationalizing the Project, in particular the SSCI component, the Project followed the

design roadmap. While the Project’s achievements in terms of establishing the KFCs are noteworthy, the component might have benefited from having held a strategic planning seminar to flesh out the operationalization of the KFC and to elaborate its focus and vision. Even at this stage in the Project, the vision for the KFC is not clear.

39. The Project has implemented many activities. Yet, some do not seem tied together either

at the component level (except for PAP) or at the Project level. Consequently, the extent to which Project personnel have a vision of the Project’s “big picture” is not clear. This may have resulted in missed opportunities for linkages and synergies.

8

Table 1

Project Budget and Management: Project Financial Status (in US$)

ACTUAL EXPENDITURES

As per Programme Design

Component

Contracts (Experts’ Salaries)

Short-term Contracts

Duty Travel

Procurement Non Expendable

Procurement Expendable

Training

Technical Support Services

General Operating Expenses

Locally Contracted Labor

Salaries, General Support Service

Support Cost

General Over-head

TOTAL

(A)

%

Cost by Component

(B)

% Balance (B – A)

PAP 112,200 166,927 43,184 571,277 34,443 183,339 1,111,370 28 1,233,404 25 122,034

SSCI 112,200 63,090 23,462 11,516 149,465 34,443 182,779 576,955 15 809,481 16 232,526

BED 224,402 55,178 181,967 23,462 38,386 593,253 34,443 215,559 1,366,650 35 1,696,702 34 330,052

PMME 112,200 18,393 30,432 2,879 14,866 34,443 55,858 140,559 347 409,630 10 642,085 13 232,455

FAO Support Cost

38,161 443,026 481,187 12 631,767 13 150,580

TOTAL 561,002 73,571 442,416 46,923 95,965 1,328,860 38,161 137,773 55,858 722,236 443,026 347 3,946,139 100 5,013,440 100 1,067,301

9

V. Project Budget and Management 5.1 Budget and Expenditure 40. Table 1 on the previous page shows the Project’s financial status at the time of the

evaluation. Initially ending in February 2006, a no-cost extension until June 2006 was agreed between the parties. While the Project is ending, there is a remaining balance of US$ 1 million - approximately 20% of the total budget of US$ 5 million. This delay in disbursement does not reflect delays in implementation which show over-accomplishments in most cases vis-à-vis the quantitative targets. The balance is partly explained by unplanned cost-sharing arrangements of activities under the PAP component where other projects and municipalities, including the World Bank-funded ARCDP 2, contributed funds. The balance also reflects some weaknesses in Project financial monitoring and planning which likely resulted in missed opportunities. Part of this remaining budget will be used to document and publish lessons learned. In the evaluation team’s view, this is an effective use of part of the savings.

41. The table also shows the distribution of expenses across Project components which remain

in the order of what was initially budgeted. The table reflects the emphasis on Beneficiary Economic Development (the biggest share among the three components) and on training including starter input for small-scale economic activities (35% of the total expenses) as the most important input provided by the Project.

5.2 Project Management 42. Overall Management. Similar to the previous phase, a Steering Committee composed of

representatives of the main line agencies involved, DAR, AusAID, and FAO provides Project oversight. It met twice1 and considered progress during the previous year and reviewed the workplan. While the Steering Committee meetings are useful for exchanging information and for accountability among those supporting the Project, it is the evaluation team’s view that greater use could have been made of the Steering Committee for strategic guidance, including financial and programming monitoring and planning.

43. As a new feature of this phase, the Project is entirely staffed with and headed by national

experts. All interviewees expressed great respect for the Project team, judged by all to be highly competent and dedicated.

44. Administrative Management. The administrative management of the Project seems to have

been carried out efficiently by the FAO country office. The Project benefited from being a follow-on to predecessor projects with pre-existing routines and relationships between DAR, FAO country office, and the Project Management that were already well established.

45. Technical Management and Backstopping. Project technical backstopping has been

provided mostly and on a regular basis by a technical officer from SDAA (FAO Headquarters Land Tenure Service) - the Project lead technical unit - through virtual support, comments on key documents, and country visits (on average twice a year), including participation in the annual Steering Committee meetings as well as bringing in

1 The Steering Committee meets once a year.

10

targeted technical assistance. The Project also received technical input from FAO staff of the policy branch of the Regional Offices. Overall, Project Management and staff expressed great satisfaction with the quality of the support provided by FAO.

46. FAO’s role is valued by DAR and Project Management in several ways that are not

necessarily well captured in Project documentation. It brings worldwide experience and good practices to the Project. It also provides an external and neutral perspective on the strategic directions which are particularly critical in a context where the Project is entirely staffed by national experts and located within a Government office. More recently, FAO has played a significant advocacy role on the issue of agrarian reform by bringing the experience of the Philippines onto the international scene via the joint organization of the “International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural development” (ICARRD) to be held in Brazil in March 2006 and the preparatory events at national level associated with it. These national and international events open the policy dialogue and provide a global perspective. Finally, FAO, through its country office, is believed to strengthen linkages with other donors.

47. In the evaluation team’s view, there is scope for broadening the technical support of FAO

into the area of agribusiness to better link the farmers with the private sector and microfinance institutions. Technical backstopping from the appropriate unit in FAO (AGS) would help strengthen the soundness of the Project’s economic underpinnings and address critical issues.

VI. Project Outcomes: Outputs and their Effects Introduction 48. The PATSARRD Project consists of three major components: Participatory Area Planning

(PAP), Support Services Coordination and Integration (SSCI) and Beneficiary Economic Development (BED). As described above, the components were designed to be implemented in sequence starting with PAP. Conceptually, components depend upon each other for input. However, each component has its own objective, outputs, and effects.

49. Overall, the evaluation team concludes that the Project has experienced clear success

across all components in terms of outputs. Performance against targets as reflected in the output indicators is impressive, with many indicators exceeding their targets. (See abridged list output indicators in Annex 3.) In the pages that follow, the report highlights and assesses the outputs and effects of each component starting with PAP. After that, an impact section will look critically at the combined effects of all of the Project’s components.

6.1 Component 1 – Participatory Area Planning (PAP) Description and Activities. 50. PAP is a five phase participatory planning tool that PATSARRD adapted from previous

Project phases. It is a highly consultative planning approach carried out by a local PAP team consisting of DAR personnel (including municipal agrarian reform officers and development facilitators), municipal and technical staff, representatives of barangay councils, people’s organizations, women’s groups, and other agrarian reform beneficiaries

11

(ARBs). Women make up half of the team. The process is carried out within barangays for an entire agrarian reform community (ARC). At the end of the process, the PAP team is transformed into an implementation team to oversee implementation of the development plan.

51. PAP consists of a series of sequenced activities as per the table below. It results in ARC

Development Plans that describe ARC resources as well as identify and prioritize their needs.

PAP Training and Planning Process Phase 1 PAP Orientation and PAP Team Formation

Phase 2 Field work: Data Gathering and ARC Profiling

Phase 3 Training: Data Gathering, Analysis, and Skills Development

Phase 4 Field work: Household System Profiling and Indicative Plan Formulation

Phase 5 Training: Finalize and Technical Review of ARC Plan; Field work: Plan Presentation to Each Barangay and Local Government Unit

52. Project inputs into the PAP component consisted of training, technical assistance, and

financial support for travel and other related planning costs. 53. The PAP process represents a continuation of previous Project phases, with a greater

emphasis on institutionalization, on linking it to other local government unit (LGU) and provincial plans, and on gender mainstreaming.

Outputs 54. ARC Development Plans. The major PAP output is the ARC Development Plan. All

ARC Plans follow an established format that closely resembles the format of municipal plans. As of December 2005, the Project had contributed to the formulation of 277 plans, slightly below the target of 3152 (88% accomplishment of target). The fact that Project staff oversaw the development of so many ARC Plans in less than three years is testimony to the clearly defined and established PAP process they have developed.

55. While the number of plans produced is impressive, the evaluation team found that the

quality of the plans’ content varies. Some plans seem to have more useful and accurate information and analysis than others. This is likely due in part to the level of competency of DAR and LGU staff tasked with collecting and consolidating the information. It is also due to the fact that it is difficult to collect accurate data on household income, production, and other variables. The rigor of the ARC’s Plans review may also vary across ARCs.

56. In so far as the evaluation team could determine, the ARC Plans reflect genuine

community priorities. At the stakeholder meetings the evaluation team attended, community members seemed to have a strong sense of ownership, pride, awareness and commitment to the plans.

57. Training. During the PAP process, the Project trained a multitude of people ranging from

DAR personnel to ARBs. As a result, DAR staff and community residents learned how to profile a community’s resources, how to draft a development plan, and finally how to present and finalize the plan. According to Project records, 1,325 DAR personnel were

2 The original target was 305 ARC Development Plans. The target was upward adjusted due to co-funding.

12

trained in how to conduct the PAP process – significantly exceeding the target of 830. The training appears to have been of high quality. The evaluation team met DAR personnel who demonstrated good command of the PAP process. Whether all DAR personnel are adequately trained could not be assessed by this evaluation team. However, what is clear is that DAR personnel are intimately involved in PAP activities from inception to the end and many have received PAP practitioner training. The fact that DAR personnel are already replicating the PAP process without Project oversight is another indication that the training they received was of such quality that those trained achieved the required level of competency. One of the factors that likely contributed positively to the training is the involvement of skilled Project resource people.

58. Training Materials. Another aspect of PAP training that contributes positively to the

process is the development and regular revision of PAP training manuals and training references. Some of these are available in the local language for use at the local level. This improves the accessibility and utility of the manuals.

59. Community Participation. For an intervention such as participatory planning, actual

participation by the target population is critical. The Project monitoring system indicates an extraordinarily high degree of participation in the PAP process. Over 98,000 community residents participated in PAP activities as of December 2005. With such large numbers of people attending PAP sessions, the extent to which they all actively and fully participated and learned something can not (and need not) be assessed. What can be stated is that large numbers of ARC residents had access to the PAP process and that there was a good mix of men and women who participated in PAP activities. Furthermore, nearly 1,600 LGU officials and staff also participated in the PAP process, further broadening the scope of participation. This broad level of participation likely has a positive effect on community ownership of the resultant ARC plan and process.

Effects 60. The PAP intervention produced the desired results and reached the target group. These

results were possible, in part, because the PAP process is an established methodology that has been refined over the Project’s phases. Of particular interest is the degree to which the process has been institutionalized in this Project phase.

61. The ARC Development Plans have many uses. One, the plans are used as a tool to

present community priority needs as identified by the community in an organized manner. Two, they are used as inputs into other planning processes (e.g., KALAHI Strategic Development Plans). However, the extent to which integration with other plans is done systematically could not be assessed. Three, ARC Plans serve as a vehicle for mobilizing resources from government and donors.

62. The PAP process has been institutionalized at many levels - within DAR and within the

communities – to various degrees. DAR issued a circular on PAP, formalizing the PAP process within the agency itself. Another measure of PAP institutionalization is the degree to which DAR personnel are in place and have the required competency to conduct and replicate the PAP process. Approximately 150 DAR personnel at the regional and provincial levels have been trained as PAP practitioners and are actively conducting PAP activities. It is a notable Project achievement that a cadre of individuals can now conduct the PAP process without Project assistance. Many ARC Plans (154) have been prepared outside Project provinces – yet another indication of institutionalization of the PAP

13

process and its value. As a result of Project institutionalization efforts, DAR and LGU personnel are in a position to plan according to identified needs and available resources of the communities.

63. The high degree of community acceptance of the plans and its participation in the process

indicates a degree of ownership by and institutionalization at the community level. Since few, if any, plans have been updated, it is not clear the extent to which the PAP has been fully institutionalized at the community level. Given that many municipalities have demonstrated a willingness to co-fund the process and incorporate the plans into their own planning is indicative of a degree of institutionalization at the municipal level. Mayors and other municipal staff have been involved in the PAP process and the evaluation team observed that many have a relatively high degree of awareness of PAP and its results.

64. The evaluation team found that the PAP process has helped communities become more

aware of their problems and that they have been exposed to some of the tools which can help them analyze and prioritize problems. LGUs stated that they appreciated the fact that the content of the plans originated from the community itself.

65. Other effects of the PAP process are summarized as follows:

• culture of improved planning and consultation at the barangay and municipal levels;

• data-driven development plans that have successfully mobilized funding for projects;

• increased involvement of women in the planning process;

• increased awareness of environmental aspects of development planning;

• increased ability of communities to attract funding for their development projects; and

• strengthened local democracy, especially the confidence of barangay and municipal leadership in representing constituent efforts.

Cost Effectiveness 66. The evaluation team finds the PAP component to be cost effective. The average cost per

PAP within an ARC is approximately $5,300. Over time, PAP stakeholders have shouldered an increasing amount of the costs. Currently, the barangay, LGU, and DAR all contribute funds. When barangays and LGUs willingly allocate scarce resources to PAP, it is an indication that they value PAP and are committed to it. It is also an indication of PAP’s affordability. By December 2005, over 270 LGUs showed their commitment to PAP by cost-sharing. This led to Project cost savings. Additional cost savings were generated by the infusion of funds from other sources such as the World Bank.

67. The extent to which PAP is cost effective is illustrated by the fact that some PAP

applications have been conducted without any Project contribution. All of these factors demonstrate PAP’s cost effectiveness. This does not negate the fact that PAP travel costs may affect participation and need to be considered in budget formulation at the various levels.

Conclusions 68. There are several factors that can affect Project results, including some of the following:

• Travel costs can limit farmer beneficiary participation in the PAP process.

• The competency of DAR and LGU personnel tasked with consolidating the ARC Plans can affect results. Weak personnel can handicap a PAP team.

14

• The full support of barangay and municipal LGUs is a critical factor. With elections every three years, a change in administration can also affect results.

• The quality of the data in the ARC Plans can affect project results.

• The quality and scope of the technical review of draft ARC Plans can affect results.

69. In summary, the evaluation team finds the quality of the PAP process, its outputs, and its results to be impressive. PAP has been institutionalized, replicated, and co-funded. It reached its target population and met or exceeded its targets. The PAP process has potential to be more fully exploited. It has been a successful intervention from which lessons can be learned and from which opportunities for its application can be explored.

6.2 Component 2 - Support Services Coordination and Integration (SSCI)

Description and Activities 70. The Project facilitates the establishment and operation of KALAHI Farmers Centers

(KFC) in the six target provinces, which provide a venue for coordination of development-oriented organizations to pool, mobilize, and direct resources for the development of ARCs. KFCs operate through a management committee that sets policy directions and approves KFC Strategic Development Plans and other related activities. A technical working group (TWG) formulates, appraises, implements and monitors projects identified in KFC Strategic Plans. These two groups consist of heads and senior technical staff, from national government agencies, local government units, state colleges and universities (SCU), non-government organizations and private sector. Total TWG membership ranges from 30 (Agusan del Sur) to 58 (Aklan), with women comprising 46% of the members.

71. The establishment of a KFC follows a series of sequenced activities as shown in Table 2

below. KFC’s operation results in the mobilization of local and external resources to support ARC projects and increases ARB access to support services such as micro credit, production technology and inputs, and business and market links.

Table 2: KALAHI Farmer Center (KFC) Establishment and Operation KFC Establishment and Operation 1. Orientation-cum- Consultation with Development-Oriented Organizations

2. Inventory of Resources and Services (Organizational Assessment)

3. Selection of Partner Organizations and KFC Site

4. KFC Launching, Memorandum of Agreement Signing

5. Preparation of KFC Strategic Development Plan

6. Setting Up of KFC Office, and Organizational Structure

7. Installation of Management Information System (MIS) Database

8. Resource Mobilization, Networking and Linking

9. Implementation of Projects by Partner Organizations

10. Monitoring and Evaluation

72. In the second year of Project implementation, five sub-committees (crops; poultry and

livestock; fisheries; livelihood; and environment and natural resources management) were created under each KFC-TWG to delineate and facilitate work among partner organizations to accelerate project review and approval.

15

73. Project inputs to KFC operation include training with minimal starter inputs to apply learning through techno demo projects, technical assistance, computer hardware and learning materials for KFC offices, and small funding for KFC projects and activities as part of cost-sharing arrangements with partner organizations.

Outputs 74. Establishment of KFC. All KFCs were established in 2003 in the original five provinces

as per Project document, which involved signing of memorandum of agreements (MOA) among partner organizations. The sixth KFC was established in Aklan in 2004 upon DAR’s request. The MOA defines KFC objectives and operational strategies, as well as defines the roles and responsibilities of partner agencies including the type of services each partner provides in the convergence effort. What is less clear is the KFC vision for the future and its focus. All KFCs appear to be operating quite well given the regularity of KFC meetings, high membership participation, and the increase in the number of partner organizations that exceeds the target number of original and additional partners committing to participate and co-share the cost of KFC operation and related activities.

75. Preparation of KFC Strategic Development Plan (SDP). The Project exceeded its

original target of six SDPs with the production of 12 SDPs, mainly because of the updating made of the original plans. It also responded to DAR’s request to assist other provinces that had formulated ARC Development Plans using the PAP methodology. As part of the KFC’s functions, ARC Development Plans produced through the PAP process are expected to be integrated into SDPs to provide a common framework of action for partner organizations in the delivery of support services to ARBs in each province. The extent to which this was done systematically was difficult to assess in the evaluation team’s timeframe. The KFC Strategic Plan is also used as the basis for the KFC annual operation plan, which stipulates the activities, outputs and commitments of partner organizations.

76. Setting up of KFC Office and Management Information System (MIS) Database3. A

total of eight KFC offices have been set up. The creation of the additional KFC offices in Bohol and Agusan del Sur is aimed at reaching out to the largest numbers of ARCs in these two provinces in the delivery of support services. As designed, the KFC office serves as the coordinating office, library, and information and training center for farmers, fisherfolks, women, youth and other provincial residents.

77. Training of KFC-TWG Members. To enhance the capabilities of the KFC-TWG in

conducting technical review of project proposals and accessing and mobilizing resources for supporting projects, trainings on: (i) marketing and business systems and (ii) networking and resource mobilization were provided to members. All partner organizations participated in these trainings. A key output of these trainings is the formation of Marketing and Business Advisory Team (MBAT), composed of selected members of KFC-TWG from the Department of Trade and Industry, Land Bank of the Philippines, NGOs involved in microfinance and microenterprise development, etc., which leads in the provision of marketing and business support services to ARBs engaged in enterprises development. Skills enhancement trainings with emphasis on cash flow and cost and return analyses, and oral and written communication were also provided to TWG members, about half of whom were women.

3 The evaluation team did not have the opportunity to observe the MIS database which contains key provincial information/data and ARC profiles.

16

78. Regularity of KFC-TWG Meetings. For the effective functioning of KFC as a

coordinating mechanism, the regularity of TWG meetings is critical to sustain the participation of partner organizations. Project reports indicate that all TWGs averaged ten meetings per year over the past three years, with a reasonably high degree of membership participation. An average of 46 TWG members participated in every meeting. While the quality of the meetings and the extent of membership participation can not be assessed with the limited time of evaluation, the frequent coordination and interaction among partner organizations seems to have built confidence and commitment to continue and even increase their counterpart contributions to KFC activities aimed at mobilizing resources and linking service providers with ARBs.

Effects 79. As a coordinating mechanism at the provincial level, the KALAHI Farmers Center filled a

“functional vacuum” supposedly to be performed by parallel local coordinating bodies established by law, such as the Provincial Development Council (PDC) and Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM). However, both PDC and PARCCOM are saddled by their respective legal frameworks - restricting membership to elected local officials and a limited representation of non-government organizations with no private sector participation in either of the two committees. The KFC has proven to be an effective coordinating mechanism for delivery of support services following land distribution to ARBs in many ways as highlighted below.

80. Resource Mobilization. From 2003 to 2005, the Project reported that KFCs channelled

financial resources of over 163 million pesos (approximately $US 3.2 million) in the six provinces. Of this, about 30 million pesos (approximately $US 600,000) came from external sources. A total of 712 “projects” were funded, consisting of trainings with starter inputs (283), purely trainings (282) and purely inputs and other related activities (147), benefiting an exceptionally large number of farmers (over 15,000) in six provinces. This was made possible due, in part, from the cost-sharing arrangements instituted by partner organizations in several KFC-supported activities and from two donors’ forums co-organized by the Project with partner organizations.

81. More Convergence and Coordinated Delivery Support Services of Partner

Organizations to ARBs. Access to updated data on ARC profiles via the KFC has made delivery of support services to ARBs better coordinated. Increased convergence and coordination in the delivery of support services to target beneficiaries likely results in greater efficiency of partner organizations in terms of better targeting and reaching out to more beneficiaries. This further contributes to sustained active participation of partner organizations in the convergence process. An unplanned effect generally acknowledged by many KFC members the evaluation team met was that duplication of development efforts was minimized through KFC efforts.

82. Resource Complementation of Projects Made Possible. With the inclusion of other

government projects in the partnership arrangements under KFC, better resource complementation of projects is made possible. In Bohol, for instance, KFC facilitated resource complementation with Philippines-Australia Community Assistance Project (PACAP) in the implementation of certain crop and livestock/poultry raising projects by LGUs and farmer groups in Sta. Catalina and Bilar ARCs. In Misamis Occidental, KFC coordinated with Philippines-Australia Local Sustainability (PALS) Project in resource

17

complementation for a number of farm and non-farm livelihood projects for Gadakinsur Clarin, Vibrant, Banikanhon, Sibula and Tialulin ARCs. KFC also shared resources with other DAR foreign-assisted projects (World Bank-assisted Agrarian Reform Community Development Project II and JBIC4-assisted Agrarian Reform Infrastructure Support Project for a variety of agricultural support services for ARCs in three of the six provinces). This effort resulted in unplanned cost savings for the Project on trainings and starter inputs.

83. Higher Achievements of Partner Organizations. As a result of cost and resource

sharing arrangements, partner organizations met by the evaluation team claimed that they are able to jointly allocate and direct their scarce resources to projects that produced greater results than the usual service delivery mechanism by individual organizations acting independently. The fact that there was a high participation rate in TWG meetings also indicates an improvement in working relations among partners, making it possible to carry out targeted delivery of services to ARBs in various ARCs in the six provinces. The regular exchange of information among partners during TWG meetings further enhanced their capabilities to respond to project implementation problems requiring specialized technical solutions. These joint efforts seem to help them achieve more of their respective targets with no additional budget, although an assessment of this improved performance is beyond the scope of the evaluation.

84. Constant Learning Among Partner Organizations Promoted. The evaluation team

learned from TWG members that the regular TWG meetings have become a good venue for continuous learning among partner organizations, not only on their organizational functions but also on practical convergence strategies. Of particular interest is the acceptance of the cost-sharing arrangements by partner organizations in the hosting of TWG meetings by rotation.

85. Collaborative Monitoring Capacity of Project Staff Enhanced. TWG members stated

that the practice of assessing project progress and status during regular TWG meetings has enhanced collective monitoring capacity. As the University of Eastern Philippines representative in Northern Samar’s KFC-TWG noted, this practice provides an antidote to the scarce resources at the disposal of most partner organizations for monitoring projects.

Conclusions 86. Over their short life, KFCs have facilitated access of a large number of ARBs to support

services. According to partner organizations in meetings held by the evaluation team with KFC-TWGs, the Project has played a key role in organizing and facilitating coordination and it has brought in an objective perspective and a high level of expertise in the convergence process -- two well-recognized values added by the Project to the establishment and functioning of KALAHI Farmers Centers that contributed to removal of turf battles and to the building of learning relationships among partner organizations. In addition, the Project’s small funding support for skills enhancement training and office equipment for KALAHI Farmers Center Offices has been widely appreciated by partner organizations.

87. There are some positive indications for the sustainability of KFC operations. First, the

KFC members have improved their capacity to mobilize resources through cost sharing

4 JBIC stands for Japan Bank for International Cooperation.

18

and resource complementation for support service delivery. Second, the LGUs have demonstrated their readiness to assume a leadership role in KFC. For instance, the Provincial Government of Agusan del Sur reported to the team that it has issued a provincial resolution creating KFC under the Provincial Development Council, with budgetary allocation. The Provincial Governments of Bohol and Misamis Occidental also indicated that KFC Strategic Development Plans had already been integrated in their Provincial Development Plans. This also demonstrates the LGUs’ ability to adopt the KFC structure and processes. Third, the availability of brochures and guidelines on KFC establishment, with translations in local dialects, enhances the Project’s advocacy work to elicit more partners into the convergence process. Finally, an increasing demand for KFC services is beginning to be articulated by some ARBs involved in ongoing activities for continuing or up-scaling support.

88. However, there are a number of factors, which can affect Project results and sustainability

if not addressed in the future. These include: 89. The catalytic role of Project experts is a critical factor that can affect KFC operation in the

longer term. This role needs to be assumed by a local partner organization, possibly the Provincial Government, to pave the way for its institutionalization at the local level. With the KFCs in their developing stage, technical mentoring of KFC-TWG remains essential to consolidate, institutionalize and expand progress in convergence for service delivery.

90. The absence of a legal status of KFC can affect its sustainability to the extent that its

existence and identity can be subject to question by future heads of partner organizations, particularly if they have different development orientations or priorities.

91. The participation of the private sector is still limited. With scarce government resources,

additional resources and expertise can be contributed more effectively by this sector in various livelihood and enterprise development activities.

92. Finally, KALAHI Farmers Center needs a longer-term vision, reflecting a consistent and

sharper focus on its fundamental role as a coordinating mechanism by:

• Disengaging in implementation, particularly of the techno demo projects, or transferring this task to the Beneficiary Economic Development component to achieve closer links between the pilot testing of appropriate technologies and the development of market-driven enterprise models;

• Clarifying and distinguishing the role of KALAHI Farmers Center vis-à-vis the mandates of individual partner organizations to better understand its value added to their operations when acting and pooling resources together; and

• Finding ways of expanding the presently limited involvement of the private sector in KFC-TWG to ensure that KALAHI Farmers Center does not become a public coordinating mechanism and does not duplicate existing provincial coordination structures.

19

6.3 Component 3 – Beneficiary Economic Development (BED)

Description and Activities 93. The Project’s BED component supports DAR in developing approaches to economic

development of ARBs through productivity enhancement of post-PAP projects, and development of new business enterprise and financial services models. The training of ARBs and the establishment of technology demonstrations are two key strategies carried out by the Project to achieve BED’s objectives, through technical assistance and other material support from partner organizations in KALAHI Farmers Center and the local PAP team following its transformation into an implementation team.

94. BED consists of three interventions:

(1) Productivity enhancement of post-PAP crop and livestock “livelihood” projects. ARBs receive training on technology and entrepreneurship after which they receive starter inputs to facilitate the adoption of the new technologies in these micro livelihood projects. (2) Farm and non-farm business enterprise models. The Project contracts private sector partners (PSP) to develop ARC “project ideas” into business plans. The PSP then works with ARBs to implement the enterprise model from conception to first sale. (3) Financial services models. The Project identifies and selects partner Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) based on presence in the area, mature microfinance models, willingness to work with ARBs. Microfinance organizations select borrowers who are already engaged in microenterprises, issuing loans to small groups of borrowers following a Grameen-type model. The Project trains ARBs in the areas of microfinance, entrepreneurship, and technology such that they are relatively more informed borrowers.

95. Project inputs to the BED interventions include: training with starter inputs for livelihood

projects (with a ceiling of 60,000 Philippine pesos per project or approximately $US 1,200), on-site mentoring and guidance to cooperating ARBs in collaboration with partner organizations, and periodic monitoring with validation with the concerned cooperators. The training inputs also include sponsorship to trade fairs, cross-visits and marketing missions of ARB cooperatives with the support of DAR, LGUs, MFIs and other partner organizations involved in KALAHI Farmers Center operation. Partner organizations such as LGUs, state colleges and universities (SCUs), other national government agencies (NGAs) and government-controlled financing institutions, NGOs, and the private sector also contribute to the training, technology demonstration, credit, and business and market linkages. For the enterprise model, the Project contracts the services of the private sector partner. For the microfinance intervention, the Project provides technical expertise and establishes the link with the MFIs.

Outputs 96. Productivity Enhancement Training. One of BED’s major outputs is the provision of

productivity enhancement training. By December 2005, the Project had trained over 10,400 ARBs in the areas of improved rice production; high-value vegetable production; banana, fruit-tree and root crop production; poultry and livestock production; aquaculture development; and food processing. The number of trainees, about half of whom were women, was double the original target. Most of the training sessions are followed by technology demonstrations for application of acquired technical knowledge and skills in

20

real situations. In so far as the evaluation team could determine, many of the training topics came from the development plans so one assumes the topics are relevant. Final selection of livelihood projects tends to involve a consultation with elected barangay (or village) officials, ARB leaders and cooperators to confirm development needs of the community and ARBs. The attendant starter inputs are one feature of the BED training that distinguishes it from other projects. It also likely contributes to higher adoption rates of the technologies at the beginning. Some of the livelihood trainings have been applied and replicated more than others (e.g., abaca fiber extraction versus hog-raising), indicating that some are more relevant.

97. The Project uses the expertise of partner organizations in KALAHI Farmers Center and

other external trainers for the conduct of the trainings for ARBs. On-site advising is mostly provided by the DAR/Project staff, LGU municipal agriculture officers, SCUs, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and other partner organizations. The fact that ARBs are able to apply the training to their respective livelihood project suggests that the quality of instruction is sufficient. With so many training sessions, it is not possible or feasible to assess the quality of each one.

98. Training Materials and Techno Guides. The development, publication, and

dissemination of training materials and techno guides, largely translated into local dialects, help to deepen and retain understanding about the various aspects of business and marketing systems as well as microfinance services.

99. Business Enterprise Studies. Through the services of Project-contracted private sector

business development partners (PSPs), 13 business enterprise studies (business plans) were prepared. These studies laid out a business plan for developing an enterprise from the idea phase to the first sale. The quality of these studies appears to vary in that some of the resultant enterprises appear more promising than others. The results of implementation suggest that some PSPs conducted more analysis in the business plan in terms of market identification or the specific production process. For example, the organic banana study identified only one buyer in Japan which was considered sufficient to launch activities.

21

100. Business Enterprises. Thirteen different types of business enterprises (models) were

established and are managed by ARBs as per Table 3 below. Table 3 Types of Enterprise Models Established as of December 2005

Type of Enterprise Province Pilot ARCs/ Municipalities

Replication (Number)

Business Development Partners

1. Freshwater Pond Culture of Caged Tilapia and Catfish

Agusan del Sur LABIS-POMASA ARC, Veruela

5 Agribusiness Management Services, Inc.

2. Catfish and Tilapia Culture in Irrigated Rice Paddies

Agusan del Sur LABIS-POMASA ARC, Veruela

2 Agribusiness Management Services, Inc.

3. Dried Pidjanga Fish Surigao del Norte Mainit II ARC, Mainit 3 Upland Marketing Foundation, Inc.

4. Virgin Coconut Oil Production

Surigao del Norte Taganaan ARC, Taganaan

1 Upland Marketing Foundation, Inc.

5. Production of Bottled Tuna Fish in Oil

Northern Samar Palapag ARC, Palapag 1 Food Development Training Systems

6. Coconut Vinegar Production

Northern Samar Catarman II ARC, Catarman

1 Food Development Training Systems

7. Organic Banana Production

Bohol Guioang ARC, Guindulman

3 People’s Fair Trade Assistance Center

8. Caged Tilapia Production on Water Impoundment

Misamis Occidental Siloy ARC, Calamba 1 Agribusiness Management Services, Inc.

9. African Catfish Hatchery and Breeding1

Agusan del Sur Veruela 1 Mr. Abello Binauro

10. Sinamay Production1

Aklan Agbalogo ARC, Timbaban & Makato ARC, Madalag

2 Kauswagan Development Cooperative (KADECO)

11. Gigaguit Rhum Enhancement1

Surigao del Norte Gigaguit 1 Gigaguit Multipurpose Cooperative

12. Pottery Production1 Misamis Occidental Sibula ARC, Lopez Jaena

1 Mr. Al Rhoderick Marzona

13. Tilapia Production in Man-made Ponds1

Misamis Occidental Sanjuro ARC, Panaon 1 Mr. Marcos Esrael

23

Source: PATSARRD Project Annual Report (January-December 2005), page 35. Note: 1Demonstrations were established only in 2005.

101. Business development partners shepherd the ARBs through the establishment of the

business enterprise, providing guidance from inception through the first sale. ARBs involved in the development of the enterprises receive technical and business training. According to Project records, 815 groups of ARBs were trained on how to manage entrepreneurial and agribusiness enterprises. A total of 190 trainings were conducted.

102. To assess the quality of the enterprise model, one can look at its viability and its

replicability. Regarding replicability, considering these are all relatively young enterprises aiming to build production and management capacities at the local level, instill a business culture orientation among groups of ARBs, and establish group discipline among ARBs, the 23 replications of business enterprises are a small sign of local people’s interest to invest in the enterprise models that have been developed. The models that have

22

been replicated the most to date include the tilapia and catfish culturing in ponds in Agusan del Sur, dried pidjanga fish production in Surigao del Norte, and organic banana production in Bohol. None of these enterprises, not even the first batch, is beyond the early stage of development. Consequently, it is too early to make an assessment on the replications.

103. Financial Models. Project records indicate that it assessed 12 financial services

models for potential use, and eventually established 11 for use - slightly below the target of 12. These models are all based on the proven Grameen Bank methodology, with slight variations primarily associated with differing borrower eligibility criteria. Key model features include: non-collateralized loans, small loan size of 3,000-5,000 Philippine pesos (approximately $US 60 - 100), group lending, and repayment in 25-26 weeks. While the quality of the model has been well-documented in many countries and is generally successful, the evaluation team questions the choice of intervention in the component. It is not clear the degree to which the microfinance aspect of the BED component fits into the Project’s core set of activities.

104. Microfinance-related Training. The Project trained nearly 14,500 ARBs, DAR

personnel, and LGUs in sessions on microfinance orientation (245 sessions) and enterprise and entrepreneurship (45 sessions). The fact that so many people attended the training sessions indicates a high degree of interest in financial services and that the Project was responding to a community need. However, the degree to which they all learned something can not be assessed. That said, the scope of the training suggests a degree of exposure to microfinance and to entrepreneurship.

105. Microfinance Services of MFIs Introduced and Marketed. Microfinance services of 12

MFIs were introduced and marketed in the ARCs. It is an achievement that the Project succeeded in partnering with 12 MFIs who were willing to work with ARB clients in the rural areas. The training that the ARB borrowers received is likely one element that attracted MFIs to the ARCs. In general, poor ARBs have very limited access to such microfinance services.

Effects 106. Most of the activities carried out under the BED component are at early stages of

development. It was, therefore, difficult for the evaluation team to ascertain the quality and the viability of its interventions as well as their related expected effects. Nonetheless, some Project likely effects are identified below.

107. Adoption of New Technologies. Of the 4,967 ARBs who were trained on technical

aspects of post-PAP projects from March 2003 to December 2005, more than three-quarters of them immediately adopted the productivity enhancement practices on their chosen projects. (The adoption was probably positively influenced by the Project’s provision of starter inputs.) New technologies in the area of crop production, livestock, aquaculture and processing were introduced. Adoption varies depending on the types of projects. Rice, swine and other food production projects showed higher adoption and replication rates than non-food production projects such as environmental management and protection. Of particular interest is that the ARBs gained exposure to and experience in adopting new technologies.

23

108. Acquisition of Knowledge of Business Operations, Entrepreneurship, and Microfinance. Over 3,000 ARBs received entrepreneurial and agribusiness training and hopefully applied it in their enterprise activities. Some ARBs also gained hands-on experience through the demonstration of livelihood and business enterprises. The fact that the enterprise activities of many ARBs are ongoing suggests that capacity has been enhanced. Additionally, over 550 trainees attended the various business-related training sessions offered as part of the microfinance intervention. The complementary business and microfinance training was designed to assist ARBs to more efficiently allocate the credit. In total, 14,500 people attended the various microfinance and business sessions. The Project clearly placed a lot of emphasis on training within the BED component and its training reached a large number of ARBs. The acquisition of entrepreneurial knowledge could serve as a stepping stone for developing business skills. It helps establish an enabling environment.

109. Environmental Awareness of ARBs. Integration of environmental considerations in

the design and implementation of post-PAP projects and business enterprises is a concern of the Project, and is pursued through the provision of training to ARBs on environmental management and protection. According to Project records, over 3,700 ARBs from the six target provinces have been oriented on environmental issues, problems, and on-farm integration.

110. Wider Access to Microfinance. It is likely that few ARB borrowers were accessing

credit before the Project. Following the training, only a third of those trained ended up accessing credit. This is likely due to several factors including: 1) not all the ARBs who sought credit from the MFIs qualified as borrowers; 2) the credit modality did not suit all of the ARB needs; and 3) not all of the trainees were potential borrowers (e.g., DAR personnel). In total, nearly 4,600 ARBs accessed credit in the six target provinces for a total of 39 million Philippine pesos (approximately $US 772,000). Under the present schemes, access to microfinance is not expected to lead to significant economic changes at the household level. The evaluation team visited some women in one of Bohol’s microfinance centers who had accessed credit. At their center, there were 23 members who received a total 248,000 Philippine pesos (approximately $US 4,900) of funds in 3 cycles during the period from July 2004 – January 2006 with a 100% repayment rate. With the group lending models, repayment rates tend to be high due to the structured financial discipline of group membership. The magnitude of total loans disbursed and total savings accumulated as of December 2005 by ARB borrowers is presented by province in Table 4.

Table 4. Status of Microfinance Services to ARBs as of December 2005 Province Particulars

Northern Samar

Bohol Aklan Misamis Occidental

Agusan del Sur

Surigao del Norte

Total

MFI partners TSKI

NSDWCC

TSKI

FCB

CEV

TSKI PMPC

FRIEND

FOUNDATION

PBC

KING COOP BANK

SEDF

RBP

12

No. of borrowers 747 870 263 778 1,686 254 4,598

Total loans disbursed

(million Philippine pesos)

1.908 4.980 1.650 15.000 14.178 1.044 38.756

Total savings accumulated (million Philippine pesos)

0.375 1.555 0.392 3.000 1.276 0.302 6.900

Source: PATSARRD Project Annual Report (January-December 2005), page 42. Data derived from partner MFIs. Note: The evaluation team did not validate the data.

24

111. According to Project data5, each borrower received an average of 8,400 Philippine pesos (approximately $US 166), ranging from loans of 3,000 pesos ($US 60) to thousands of pesos. The evaluation team did not explore loan use in depth. While many of the loans were likely used to finance business enterprises, women beneficiaries in Guioang ARC admitted to having used portions of the loans for emergency household needs and children’s school requirements. They informed the evaluation team that the vending businesses contributed to mostly meeting and diversifying their daily diet.

112. Accumulation of Savings by ARB Borrowers. Nearly 4,600 ARBs saved a total of

6.9 million Philippine pesos (approximately $US 137,000) as shown in Table 4. The forced saving aspect of the financial model exposed members to the discipline and experience of saving. Average savings amount per borrower is 1,500 Philippine pesos (approximately $US 29). ARC borrowers now have experience with saving. Although the amount of savings accumulated is impressive, the evaluation team did not have time to address the ARBs’ plans for the future use of these savings and the extent to which a savings culture was adopted by the borrowers.

113. MFIs Gained Access to ARB Market. MFIs benefited from the Project’s conduct of

trainings – getting more informed borrowers. The Project training provided a certain assurance to MFIs on the productive use of its microfinance resources that they offered to qualified ARBs. Field staff of two MFIs that the evaluation team met in the field expressed satisfaction about the performance of microfinance activities because of the high repayment rates of ARB borrowers. As a result, the MFIs have continued to renew and increase the amount of loans.

114. Equitable Gender Access to BED Interventions. According to Project records and

evaluation team observation, both men and women participated in all three BED interventions. In general, BED trainings involved a fairly broad mix of men and women. However, certain activities (e.g., some livelihood projects, credit) seemed to attract more women than men (or the contrary). For example, while men made up 40% of the microfinance orientation sessions and 25% of the entrepreneurial training sessions, almost 95% of the borrowers are women involved in sari-sari stores (local convenience stores), buying and selling of household food supply items, cooking and selling of snack and meal food, and hog raising/fattening. Men did not participate much in the credit aspect of the program, perhaps since they are less likely to have microenterprises and because the model lends itself more to microenterprise (often secondary or tertiary household activities) and not production activities. For those who participated in the credit program, it does not appear that their microenterprise activities contributed a large share to the household income. The Project may want to analyze the activities that involved a substantial majority of either men or women with a view of using that information in any future planning.

Cost Effectiveness 115. With the limited data that the evaluation team could gather, it can be said that some

aspects of the component do not seem to be very cost effective. In fact, Project inputs (human and financial) for the three BED interventions seem relatively high for the number of beneficiaries as described below.

5 While the limited evaluation timeframe did not allow time for the evaluation team to validate the microfinance data, the team does not have any evidence to suggest it is does not reflect the situation.

25

116. Livelihood activities: The Project policy is to allocate 60,000 pesos (approximately $US 1,200) to each livelihood training project. This covers training and the starter input. In the case of the livelihood activity “bamboo furniture- making”, the Project provided the initial training to approximately ten people. The evaluation team visited the lone trainee who is applying the skill some 12 months later. In addition to the training and starter input, this furniture maker received additional assistance such as being sent to a trade fair. He has one buyer in Germany. Even with all the hands-on assistance, it was not clear if the product’s price reflected all of the value added of the improved design of the furniture. While this might be one case where cost effectiveness is low, it might also serve as an example of the importance of selecting appropriate projects and adequately assessing market potential.

117. Enterprise models: For the enterprise models, a large portion of the cost was allocated

to the PSP contract – ranging from approximately $3,000 for catfish hatchery and breeding to $7,500 for the dried Pidjanga fish. None of the models is advanced enough to make a solid determination. The PSP for the organic banana model received approximately $US 5,500 and there are only a few cooperators who are directly involved in generating a net total income of $US 260. In addition to the contract, there are other Project costs. But, if one considers just the PSP contract cost and the number of beneficiaries directly involved per model, the cost effectiveness seems low. However, the banana model is in its early stage and may seem more cost effective over time.

118. Microfinance: The evaluation team also questions the cost-effectiveness of the

microfinance sub-component for the following reasons: (i) it requires specific expertise, exclusively for related Project activities; (ii) the unit training cost is high and (iii) only a limited number of those trained actually accessed to credit.

Conclusions 119. Project records show a range in the percentage contribution of post-PAP projects and

business enterprise models to the total annual household income from a low 1% (goat production) to a high 100% (improved rice production)6. The data point to some small positive changes, but since most of the projects are in the early stages (e.g., Bohol’s organic banana operation) it is too early to determine whether there is any impact on income and employment (for the enterprise models).

120. Household-based enterprises may not be realistic and sustainable in the long-term. A

careful study of the development or strengthening of ARB organizations for business enterprises is probably necessary both in building local capacity for larger-scale operations and in negotiating better prices for their products.

121. The knowledge of the extent and suitability of the area for business enterprises can

affect results, particularly on crop production models requiring specific land sizes, soil types and topographies to achieve maximum sustainable yields. Alternative end uses of products from business enterprises are also significant to their viability to expand value-added options. A degree of rigor needs to be incorporated into the analysis of projects or enterprises to address such issues.

6 The evaluation team’s cursory look at the cost and return data indicates the need for a review of the assumed and reported yields of various crops and livestock to validate data integrity.

26

122. In summary, the evaluation team finds BED to be in its relatively early phases of implementation. Certain projects or enterprises have a low threshold level (i.e., limited potential for scaling up) such as selling homemade food and drink. They can not expand beyond the absorptive capacity of the local market. Livelihood projects, often secondary or tertiary household activities, do not generate much income or employment. Results from the livelihood projects have been mixed. These micro projects generate marginal increases in income at best and many lack potential for scaling up. Some do, nonetheless, contribute to improved household food security and contribute to the household cash flow.

123. Some of the enterprise models have experienced some early success - albeit limited -

in a positive direction in terms of developing and growing the enterprise. A few, such as the tilapia model, have had some positive effects on income. This lays the groundwork for further work in this area. Certain BED interventions, like the enterprise model, have the potential to be more fully adapted and exploited in order to deepen their impact. There are some lessons learned from the enterprise model, such as the importance of the selection and analysis of models and business partners, which could be applied to any future efforts. In fact, the selection of business enterprise models needs to be more market-driven, with a high potential for diversification, integration, employment generation and scaling up. The selection of enterprise models should be based on more in-depth economic and financial analysis, with a sound appraisal of market opportunities. In that regard, private sector partners can play a key role in assisting with market identification. The private sector can also infuse additional investment to support the scaling up of the various enterprises. Much more effort is needed to attract private sector partners.

124. Finally, the microfinance intervention does not seem to fit the core Project as much as the other activities and requires specific human and financial resources to support it. Furthermore, women are almost the exclusive direct beneficiaries from this intervention which appears to generate marginal increases in household income at best. The intervention does not have as much potential for economic benefits as the other interventions. BED has many activities, requiring the BED budget to be thinly allocated across an array of activities. The Project might have more impact if the components were more focused. The microfinance intervention is not cost-effective and diverts the Project from its focus.

125. The evaluation team makes a number of specific recommendations related to this

component in the report’s recommendations section. 6.4 Component 4 – Monitoring

Description of the Monitoring System 126. The Project’s monitoring system consists of an extensive monitoring and evaluation

system called a “Participatory Management Monitoring and Evaluation” (PMME) system managed by a national expert. Each of the Project’s three components, Participatory Area Planning (PAP), Support Services Coordination and Integration (SSCI), and Beneficiary Economic Development (BED), has a set of indicators that the Project uses for monitoring and evaluation purposes. In total, there are 80 indicators which the Project experts developed together based on the design logframe.

27

127. The word “participatory” refers to the participatory nature of the monitoring system. All Project actors are involved – DAR and LGU personnel and KALAHI Farmer Center – Technical Working Group (KFC-TWG) members - in its system. At the DAR and LGU level, Project actors are tasked with collecting, compiling, and submitting data on Project activities. They complete many forms, some of which are even submitted on a monthly basis. The extent to which these actors analyze and interpret data is not clear, but they do receive training to help them gather data at the agrarian reform community (ARC) level.

128. For the KFC-TWG, involvement occurs at two levels – meetings and field. PMME is

included as an agenda item at all KFC-TWG meetings. Members use their Project training to review and assess data. At the meetings, members have the opportunity to question data and results. Members also conduct validation field visits to delve into more detail.

129. The Project’s monitoring expert supports the monitoring system through attendance at

KFC meetings, field visits, and virtual support. PMME actors at the DAR, LGU and KFC level rely on the expert for guidance. As the description shows, there are many people involved in the monitoring system and there are a lot of data that are collected and submitted.

Uses of the Monitoring System 130. The monitoring system has various uses. 131. Conduct Data Review and Analysis. The system is designed for data review and

analysis at three levels - Project, KFC-TWG, and farmer beneficiary (FB). The three levels are not independently functioning and Project staff engages at all levels. At the KFC level, the Project team conducts capacity building sessions on monitoring and participates in monitoring discussions at KFC meetings. Project staff also accompanies KFC members on many field visits. At the FB level, the beneficiaries and local Project contacts are not fully capacitated to review and interpret data. Ultimately, the data collected at the three levels are for use in identifying and discussing problems, and then implementing corrective measures. To a certain extent, the monitoring system is used for this purpose. However, the sheer volume of the data precludes comprehensive review and analysis. At a micro level, the evaluation team observed that the Project analyzed some of the data and used that analysis to make adjustments. For example, when there were problems with a hybrid hog raising activity, it was discovered that the high costs of feed for the piglets hampered the replication stage. At the macro or Project level, though, the extent to which data are analyzed is not clear. The system does not seem to lend itself to this type of analysis.

132. Measure Component Progress. The system is designed to be used to help assess

component performance. For example, by reviewing and analysing the BED livelihood data input, the Project team can calculate the adoption rates of the new technologies it has introduced and monitor replication. While Project staff makes use of some of these data, the extent to which the results are regularly used to strategically assess and adjust the BED component on a broad scale is uncertain. There is potential to further exploit the data that are being collected to better determine BED component performance and to help allocate Project resources.

28

133. Reporting at Project Level. The Project uses the system to prepare its semi-annual progress reports. Staff members provide data on specific project accomplishments per component in the six-month timeframe. Analysis is focused at the micro and activity level. The evaluation team found the analysis at the Project level to be limited.

134. Establish Monitoring Culture. The system helps instill a culture for monitoring

performance within the KFC-TWG, the LGU, and DAR. Through capacity-building, the evaluation team observed that this culture is gradually being established. Currently, the technical capacity to collect and fully use the data does not exist. If there is an extension, efforts should be intensified to ensure capacity in this area. Before that, the system should be assessed with the goal of streamlining and simplifying it.

135. Monitor Cross-cutting Themes. The system is used to track the status of the cross-

cutting issues of environment, gender and equity. The evaluation team’s review of system data showed that sex disaggregated data are being collected for all people-level variables. It is not clear if the system generates gender progress reports at the Project level. To a much lesser degree, the system also helps track the degree to which environmental concerns are integrated into the various components.

Conclusions 136. As described, the Project’s monitoring system is extensive and complex. It is output-

oriented and consists of many indicators and monitoring sheets. As a result, it is a “heavy” system that is time-consuming for actors at all levels. Given the sheer volume of reports submitted and data collected, the system is prone to error, especially since there are a large number of indicators (80) and they are not defined. The lack of indicator definition can be confusing to the many data users and reviewers. It also opens the possibility of various interpretations of the indicators, suggesting that the indicators might represent different concepts depending on the user. Its results tend to be more micro-focused, with fairly limited analysis at the Project level.

137. A review of Project progress against targets shows that the Project is exceeding its

targets in many areas. This is commendable; however, when a Project exceeds so many targets, one questions the validity of the targets.

138. A key issue for indicators is their appropriateness and to what extent the indicators

adequately capture the Project story. In the case of SSCI, for example, the Project’s indicators do not capture the extent to which the agencies are cooperating and the amount/source of resources leveraged for implementing the respective development plans. This is important information. The SSCI indicators focus on establishment of the KFCs. There are no output and outcome indicators to capture the coordination and resources aspect.

139. Many of the Project’s indicators measure progress rather than impact. It is useful to

track progress at the beginning of a project. At a certain point, a project needs to assess its performance in terms of impact. Project documents refer to expected impact on household income, social conditions and empowerment, yet this does not appear to be tracked with the exception of micro changes in household income for some of the BED activities.

29

140. Monitoring systems are dynamic. For them to be useful, they should be manageable and understood by all of the actors who use them. The Project’s current monitoring system is too complex to be fully understood and useful to all Project stakeholders. If an extension is granted, attention should be given to developing a system that is simpler and more fully captures and assesses Project performance.

6.5 Knowledge Building and Sharing 141. The Project’s mid-term implementation review, conducted by an independent team in

November 2004, emphasized the need for documenting and sharing Project lessons, as well as for providing directions to other practitioners and stakeholders in the design, expansion, replication or enhancement of strategies and approaches to ARB development.

142. Currently, the Project is conducting two major stock-taking exercises that are

contributing to the knowledge building and sharing effort. These are: (i) the development of a compendium describing pragmatic, hands-on Project experience (still in draft) and (ii) jointly with FAO, the provision of assistance to preparatory activities to the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICAARD) to be hosted by Brazil in March 2006, including the organization of a Philippine National Stocktaking and Thematic Dialogue: “New Challenges and Options for Revitalizing Rural Communities” held in January 2006.

143. The compendium is a commendable effort aimed at documenting the Project’s notable

practices in the field of technical support for planning, support service coordination, and beneficiary development. The selection and analysis of learning cases have been done with the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders and with a well-defined methodology. The evaluation team found the draft to be generally of high technical quality and believes that it will represent an important legacy of the Project when it is finalized.

144. The evaluation team views the Project’s knowledge-sharing initiatives as serving

several purposes. First, they are critical to sustaining and mainstreaming mechanisms piloted by the Project. Second, given the Project’s links with policymakers, they have the potential to influence policies and strategies by providing a grassroots perspective on rural development and agrarian reform interventions. Lastly, they constitute an important contribution to the knowledge and practice on rural development and the agrarian reform in the Philippines.

VII Overall Conclusions: Impacts and Sustainability 145. The above sections have examined individual component accomplishments, assessing

implementation and likely and actual effects. This section looks at the combined effects of all components in terms of achieving the overall Project goal of up-lifting the social and economic conditions of the agrarian reform families. This section also addresses cross-cutting concerns and issues.

7.1 Project Likely Impacts 146. The logframe translates the Project’s goal into expected impacts at the household-level

through increased household income, improved social conditions, and people’s

30

empowerment. By concentrating on agrarian reform communities in selected provinces, impacts in the medium and longer term should also be expected on communities as a whole and on the local economies where these ARCs are located.

147. At this stage, it is difficult to assess impacts since they were not well defined either

initially, or in the course of the Project. For those defined, they have not fully materialised. It is further made a hypothetical exercise by the output-orientation of the monitoring system as indicated in the earlier section and the narrow focus of impact assessments carried out by the Project. The Project was conceived to cater to the institutional strengthening and human resources requirements for the enhanced implementation of the CARP, thus ultimately leading to more than individual household income increases. Another difficulty in capturing impact at this stage lies in the fact that the Project’s components are articulated conceptually in a sequential path for which the end result is unlikely to materialize within the Project’s short timeframe.

148. Impacts on the Well-being of the Ultimate Beneficiaries and the Ability to Define their

Well-being: Agrarian Reform Households. Most of the Project’s resources concentrate on the creation of an enabling environment through components one and two, with no short-term direct effects on the social and economic situations of the ultimate beneficiaries. Therefore, it is essentially through the BED component that impacts on the well-being of the households are expected to materialize in the short-term. Analysis made in the previous section shows some positive results in terms of household income increases following adoption of new technologies and diversification of enterprises with the provision of starter input. However, the analysis also highlighted mixed results and questioned the economic soundness of some of the Project activities.

149. One of the marginal benefits of agricultural microenterprises is the increased

availability of food supply for the household and an improvement in the household’s food security situation. Non-rice agriculture micro activities such as yam production or swine and goat-raising also were found to contribute to diet diversification.

150. The Project enhances beneficiaries’ awareness and access to the decision-making

process. This and their effective participation in planning the future of the community where they live, as well as their access to public services from which they had limited access before, likely contributes to people’s empowerment.

151. Impacts on the Local Economies. In the short-term, the impact on the local economies

is limited and will remain so as long as the Project concentrates on a limited number of beneficiaries and on micro-activities that have limited multiplier effects in particular in terms of employment generation. Project resources are spread too thinly to have a significant impact on the community as a whole.

152. However, following the Project design, the most significant impacts at the community

level and on the local economies are derived from the ripple effect of the ARC Plans and their ability to leverage resources for investment and greater outreach for delivering services. It has been shown earlier that the ARC Plans and the KFC mechanisms supported by the Project have been successful in generating additional support and investment in those communities.

31

153. Impact on Governance. Through capacity building and institutional strengthening activities of components one and two, the Project contributes to enhancing good governance at various levels including barangay, municipal, and provincial levels - even up to the national level. Participatory processes and coordinating mechanisms put in place ensure greater confidence that proposed activities, derived from grassroots level analysis, have the support of communities, adding a degree of legitimacy and sustainability. In providing forums for exchanging ideas and sharing resources between actors, the Project contributes to strengthening linkages, commitments and transparency among the various actors, in particular, between the political (elected) and technical actors.

154. All of these will likely result in better prioritization of development orientations and a

more efficient allocation of human and financial public resources based on an informed decision-making process that is supported by a shared vision among various actors.

155. The Project sought to mainstream gender and environmental considerations into its

interventions. At the Project-level, policies and practices have been established to integrate them into planning, activity design and implementation.

156. Impact on Gender. Impact on gender is visible, yet limited to the specific ARCs

where the Project led development planning efforts. The Project promoted (even required) broad access and participation in its activities. This resulted in a nearly equal balance of men and women in component activities. The implications of this are important. Broad participation at the planning level facilitated the broad identification of community needs and projects from both the male and female perspective. It allowed for a more holistic description of community needs and for greater buy-in and ownership by the larger community. It brought men and women together at the planning table. It also raised community awareness of gender.

157. The example for broad participation in planning and implementation of development

activities seems to have been firmly established and may likely influence future efforts. All of this may result in broader participation of men and women in future planning efforts as well as in more gender-sensitive planning documents.

158. Impact on Environment. Project impact on environmental considerations is less

visible than with gender. Environmental considerations were integrated into the development planning process and in the design and implementation of activities. The fact that ARC Development Plans include environmental considerations raises community awareness and it facilitates the elaboration of development projects that are more environmentally sensitive. In terms of results, that is less clear. By incorporating environmental considerations into the plans and activity design, the enabling environment was developed.

7.2 Sustainability 159. Sustainability issues are drawn from across all Project components. In this evaluation,

particular efforts have been made to address them. The above assessments of individual components provide an indication of the likelihood of sustainability of results achieved. While institutional sustainability is critical for components one and two, economic sustainability of enterprises and other economic activities supported by the Project is vital for the full realization of benefits to the ultimate beneficiaries.

32

160. Given the stage of Project implementation, the evaluation team has only limited evidence of economic sustainability of Project activities. It appears that much progress has been made in laying the groundwork for institutional sustainability in the future, including:

• Approaches to participatory planning and coordinating mechanisms that are cost-effective, ownership-driven and replicable;

• User-friendly manuals and guidelines documenting these approaches;

• Capacity built within the Government institutions (DAR, LGUs, line agencies and municipal officials), within other existing development assistance institutions such as NGOs as well as the private sector (e.g., members of the KFC such as Chamber of Commerce, Landbank, MFI etc.). The extent to which capacity has been built varies among these categories of actors and at various levels, but examples of replication have shown that a solid foundation is being built;

• Institutional strengthening through well-established mechanisms and processes designed to be integrated within existing structures; and

• Lessons-learned, knowledge building and sharing. 161. There are some fundamental barriers to sustainability that go beyond the Project

scope. The most important ones relate to the Government of the Philippines’ fiscal situation and the resultant scarcity of public resources that may be the most hindering factor. The uncertainty of continuity in political administration and the often high turn-over of elected officials at provincial and municipal levels may also jeopardize sustainability of results.

VIII. Recommendations 162. The Project made considerable achievements in terms of capacity building,

institutional strengthening and mainstreaming planning processes, and coordinating mechanisms. Consequently, the evaluation team believes that the Project made a significant contribution to the CARP. Considerable efforts will be required to fast-track CARP implementation in order to meet the 2008 target. The Project has shown that it can help do this within the limits of its resources and its geographical coverage by creating capacities and by building the foundation for support in a manner that has received the confidence of the Government and donors.

163. The evaluation team concurs with the pre-feasibility study’s recommendation of

supporting an extension of the PATSARRD Project. It believes it should be done so based on the following principles:

• building on the Project’s comparative advantages, i.e., organizing, facilitating and promoting processes and mechanisms;

• further consolidating and expanding results in terms of institutionalisation of these processes and mechanisms (enabling environment);

• recognizing that small-scale economic activities can have multiplier effects if strategically allocated in a context where there are other existing complementary activities and investments;

• focusing on activities with greater economic benefits and greater outreach; and

• designing an exit strategy.

33

164. With the above principles, the evaluation team suggests that a new phase be designed

with the following goal and purposes: Goal: “To reduce rural poverty by strengthening the enabling environment and facilitating investment and support for the agrarian reform beneficiary and other rural poor families to engage in sustainable economic activities”. Purposes: Purpose 1: To consolidate, institutionalize, and then expand existing progress in convergence and provincial team delivery of support services to the rural poor through the KFC; Purpose 2: To develop viable enterprise models that can be scaled up to maximize economic impact on ARC communities; and Purpose 3: To build upon existing capacity and engage in participatory planning to facilitate and respond to emerging needs and opportunities for leveraging economic development resources. The evaluation team also believes that there is a unique opportunity to exploit the Project’s community-based experience it gained throughout the phases and to use the Project as an observatory for policy-makers on the constraints and challenges faced in the implementation of the post-land acquisition aspects of the agrarian reform. Purpose 4: To provide enhanced knowledge and to facilitate the policy dialogue between stakeholders on the implementation of the post-land acquisition aspects of the agrarian reform. 165. The principle of focused activities implies strategic prioritization of some current

activities carried out by the Project and dropping others. It is believed that specific activities related to environment (including reforestation) and microfinance divert resources away from mainstreaming activities. These should be integrated into programmes that encompass the whole spectrum of issues attached to them. Efforts for linking with MFI and credit institutions will nevertheless continue to be carried out under the framework of the KFC.

166. The evaluation team also recommends that FAO remain the implementing agency.

The role of FAO should continue to focus on lessons learned, building and sharing knowledge, as well as linking the Project with policy-makers and enhancing policy dialogue on agrarian reform. Technical backstopping should also be extended to FAO’s appropriate units working on agribusiness and marketing.

In addition, the evaluation team has specific recommendations in the following areas: 167. Institutionalisation and consolidation of convergence models

- Institutionalize the KALAHI Farmers Center and its structure and processes as a distinct LGU office with a coordinating role under the Provincial Development

34

Council (PDC)7. This requires an enactment of local legislation by the Provincial Legislative Body (Sangguniang Panlalawigan). - Sign a Joint Memorandum of Agreement between Provincial Government Units and Heads of partner organizations for long-term collaboration in the KALAHI Farmers Center with clarification on respective roles of partners. - Strengthen the involvement of NGOs and the private sector in the KALAHI Farmers Center to generate additional resources for increasing access of ARBs to support services. - Include ARC representatives as regular members in KFC-TWG to enable them to participate in the decision-making process for the prioritization of projects and allocation of resources. - Develop a longer-term vision for the KFC to reflect a consistent and sharper focus on its fundamental role as a coordinating mechanism.

168. Development and implementation of enterprise models - Take stock of the experience to date with the private sector already involved with agrarian reform communities, both through the current Project and with other projects such as the World Bank ARCDP II, with a view to understanding the constraints and challenges faced by the private sector in working with those communities. - Collaborate closely with the DA and DTI for a systematic review of value-added chain analysis and market opportunities, including specific analysis of options in provinces targeted by the Project. - Facilitate fora with business entrepreneurs at the provincial level to examine challenges, requirements for their involvement and possible partnerships. - Select enterprise models on the basis of rigorous economic financial analysis and their potential for employment generation among the ARCs.

169. Participatory Planning on a demand basis

- Further document and share lessons learned from the PAP process for a wider application and capacity building. - Assess the quality of ARC Development Plan content to determine if any updates are needed. - Continue to develop a core team within DAR that oversees and develops the application of PAP activities with a view toward complete phase-out of Project support.

7 as provided under Section 112 of Republic Act 7160 - Local Government Code of 1991

35

170. Monitoring

- Define all system indicators to ensure mutual understanding. - Critically assess the clarity, appropriateness, and utility of all system indicators. - Assess the monitoring system with the goal of streamlining and simplifying it to reduce the volume of data collection and report generation at the micro level. This would entail a review of reporting requirements to determine utility of the reports. - Focus on measures to assess impact. This may be done through impact assessments, or beneficiaries’ assessments at different stages of the Project life. - Continue efforts to building monitoring and evaluation capacity in DAR, LGUs and the KFC-TWG. - Hold annual Project-wide reviews and time them before the Steering Committee meeting with a view toward solidifying a Project vision, assessing component and activity linkages, and strategically assessing performance at the Project level. Include external parties (e.g., FAO, etc) in the review to broaden the perspective. 171. General

- Continue to mainstream gender and environmental considerations into future Project activities. 172. The aforementioned recommendations have been made to be taken into consideration

for a design of any projects. In addition, the evaluation team suggests that a strategic planning exercise be used in conceptualizing a vision for any new project. So that this will be most productive, it should involve the current Project team drawing upon their wealth of experience and expertise.

Annexes Annex 1 Terms of Reference Annex 2 Evaluation Team Schedule Annex 3 Abridged List of Output Indicators as of December 2005

36

Annex 1

Terms of Reference

37

Annex 1: Terms of Reference

Philippines-Australia Technical Support for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Project GCP/PHI/074/AUL

_________________________________________________

Terms of Reference

Evaluation Mission

February 6 – 17, 2006 1. BACKGROUND

The Project GCP/PHI/047/AUL - “Philippines-Australia Technical Support for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (PATSARRD)” is an institutional strengthening and human resources development project that provides support to the implementation of the Philippine Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). PATSARRD is a joint project of the Government of Australia (the donor government) through its Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), Government of the Republic of the Philippines through the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (the executing agency).

The PATSARRD addresses rural poverty and provides assistance to DAR and local government units (LGUs) in involving farmer beneficiaries into the development planning processes as a way to facilitate delivery of support services and improve efficiency in resource allocation, and more directly to demonstrate means of improving access by the rural poor to improved technology, markets and microfinance. It also envisages a far greater involvement of the private sector to complement the services of the LGUs and to improve market signals and linkages.

PATSARRD implementation started in early 2003 with budget of US$5,110,772 covering a period of three (3) years (March 2003 - January 2006). It has four major components, Participatory Area Planning (PAP), Support Services Coordination and Integration (SSCI), Beneficiaries Economic Development (BED), and Participatory Management and Monitoring Evaluation (PMME). Development Objective

The goal of the PATSARRD is to assist agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) and their families in improving their economic and social conditions, particularly in the southern Philippines. This is a high priority objective of the Medium Term Development Plan of the Philippines, restated by the GMA administration and is also the focus of AusAID’s country program strategy. Immediate Objectives

The four specific objectives or purposes are as follows:

1. Increase the ability of ARBs to influence their own well-being by incorporating cost-

effective, sustained and participatory planning processes into regular DAR and LGU operations;

38

2. Strengthen and establish mechanisms for cooperation between departments, LGUs, state universities and colleges, private firms, donors and others working to improve ARB economic and social conditions;

3. Develop innovative approaches to beneficiary economic development (farm and non-

farm) including marketing and microfinance services, with emphasis on private sector involvement; and

4. Manage and monitor the project, with particular attention to gender and equity issues and

to the institutionalization of activities and processes within DAR and other agencies. Target Beneficiaries

The primary target beneficiaries of the project are the ARBs of the five provinces in Visayas and Mindanao, namely Bohol, Northern Samar, Misamis Occidental, Agusan del Sur and Surigao del Norte. The province of Aklan was later included upon request of DAR and confirmed by the Project Steering Committee during its meeting in April 2004. In addition to these six (6) provinces, the PAP component covers other provinces in the country with focus on Southern Philippines. Project Activities Participatory Area Planning

The Project implements participatory development planning methodology that is anchored on the Farming Systems Development (FSD) approach.

This is to ensure that the planning approach can apply to a variety of concrete situations and immediately solve constraints to develop specific communities. Likewise, the planning process becomes affordable to DAR and LGUs and yet remains effective, when donor funding ends. Some 10,000 ARC residents, farmer leaders, DAR and other local officials will be involved in participatory planning techniques in the course of preparing about 305 agrarian reform community (ARC) development plans.

The formulated ARC plans become the basis for development activities of PATSARRD, LGUs and other project partners. Support Services Coordination and Integration

The Project assists DAR to operationalize a coordinative mechanism to implement its responsibilities under CARP by bringing together at provincial level, government and non-government agencies providing, or able to provide, services to FBs. This is through the DAR envisioned KALAHI Farmers’ Center (KFCs).

The purpose is to rationalize, integrate and institutionalize support services, to provide a “meeting place” for the bottom-up plans of participatory area planning component and the investment funds of national programs and donor projects. Beneficiary Economic Development

This component seeks to raise the incomes of FBs through the establishment of viable agribusiness and rural enterprises. This will be achieved through training on non-farm technology, marketing and business system, development of enterprise models ready for replication in other areas and enhancing farmers’ access to microfinance services.

39

Management and Monitoring

The Project ensures orderly delivery of outputs from the first three components. Likewise, this component ensures that environmental, gender and social equity issues are incorporated into project activities.

This component is also responsible for linkages with other donor-funded projects, including the exchange of experiences with AusAID’s Area-Based Program and Facilities. 2. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION

This Terms of Reference has been prepared for a team to undertake an evaluation of the implementation of the Philippines-Australia Technical Support for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (PATSARRD) as the project approaches its completion. The evaluation will provide recommendations to FAO, the government of the Philippines, and AusAID on further steps necessary to consolidate progress and ensure achievement of objectives. Further external assistance or support to rural development, specifically on agrarian reform in the Philippines, following the completion in June 2006 of the Philippines-Australia Technical Support to Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (PATSARRD) Project will depend on the success factors and experience gained from implementation. It will also be based on the indicative support of AusAID as mentioned in the report of the Pre-Feasibility mission on Study of Exploring Further Support to Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. 3. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION In general, the Evaluation Mission will review in details the project’s objectives, outputs and activities since its inception and assess what has been achieved by the project in relation to its immediate objectives and the extent to which it has strengthened the technical and institutional capacity of the Host Government and other organizations concerned in contributing towards the long-term development objective. It will identify major factors that have facilitated or impeded the progress of the Project in achieving the intended outputs and its effects (planned and unplanned) on direct beneficiaries and on the ultimate target group(s). Based on the foregoing, The Evaluation Mission will make specific recommendations for any follow-up measures, taking into account the sustainability of the Project results.

In particular, the Evaluation Mission will pay special attention to the following aspects: a. Examination of the continued relevance of the Project’s immediate and long-term

development objectives to Government priorities, needs of the target group(s), and environmental considerations.

b. Adequacy/relevance of the Project design in the light of identified needs, local

conditions, Project setting and critical constraints facing agrarian reform. c. Clarity in the definition of the Immediate Objectives, Outputs and the target group.

Balance between the Immediate Objectives, time and resources, as well as among Outputs/ Activities/Inputs. Adequacy of institutional set-up for Project implementation, and the validity of key assumptions.

d. Extent to which the Project is integrated with other related projects and into the

national development programme.

40

e. Overall efficiency of Project management and implementation, including: • adequacy in the formulation of workplans for the various sectors covered by the

Project.

• Extent to which the Project has been adequately supported by the Government, AusAID and FAO during its implementation.

• Implementation progress, especially in producing target outputs (including their

quality), and in involving each category of target beneficiaries in the Project activities. f.. Achievements of results in terms of:

• Strengthening the technical, operational and management capacity of the national

institutions. • Training of national staff and development of local capabilities. • Use being made of outputs • Utilization and value-added of the data and plans generated by the FSD teams. • Establishment of provincial coordination mechanism.

• Development of enterprises and introduction of microfinance activities.

• Mainstreaming of gender and environmental concerns. • Prospective impact and sustainability of the Project in particular with regards to

the benefits of the final target group(s).

g. Factors which have promoted or impeded the effectiveness and efficiency of Project implementation, including the availability of human resources and direct participation of the beneficiary group.

h. Identification of any potential areas which require further technical support from

external sources, including possible AusAID assistance with regard to institutional strengthening in support to the agrarian reform.

i. Any significant lesson learned that can be applied in similar programmes or projects

including opportunities for replication of the FSD activities in other ARCs.

4. DURATION AND COMPOSITION OF THE EVALUATION TEAM The evaluation work will complete the field work in the Philippines within two weeks (Date : 06-17 February 2006). Another week in Rome is planned for report writing.

The Evaluation mission is composed of the following:

a) FAO - to be nominated by FAO (Team Leader) b) Philippine government - to be nominated by DAR c) AusAID - to be nominated by AusAID

41

The mission members should have the following expertise:

a) Team leader – should have a wide expertise in agrarian reform and rural development, agricultural economics, agricultural project development and management, and project evaluation.

b) Specialist in participatory planning, farm planning and management, and

smallholder agriculture. c) Specialist in institution building, livelihood and enterprise development for small

farmers organizations.

The Mission will liaise closely with the FAO Representative and the AusAID, the DAR, FAO Project Staff and their counterpart staff.

Although the Mission should feel free to discuss with the authorities concerned anything relevant to its assignment, it is not authorized to make any commitment on behalf of FAO or AusAID.

Mission members should be independent and thus have no previous direct involvement with the project either with regard to its formulation, implementation or backstopping. They must have experience in evaluation work. 5. REPORTING The mission is fully responsible for its independent report, which may not necessarily reflect the views of the donor or FAO. The report to which all the Mission members are expected to contribute will be written in conformity with the heading structure provided by FAO with the following headings:

1. Executive summary (maximum 2 pages) 2. Introduction 3. Major Findings and Recommendations 4. Background to the Project 5. Project Objectives and Their Relevance 6. Project Design 7. Summary of Project Implementation (including Budget and Expenditure) 8. Programme Results including:

a. Outputs b. Development Process c. Project Effects and their Sustainability and Impact d. Cost effectiveness

9. Lessons Learned Annexes as required, including - Terms of Reference

To facilitate meaningful discussion with the representative of the government, AusAID and FAO in the country, The Mission will draw a summary of conclusions and recommendations for discussion in a wrap-up meeting with representatives of the Government, the AusAID, FAO and the Project, prior to finalization. The Report will include detailed recommendations for follow-up by the Philippine Government, national institutions and possibly AusAID and FAO. The mission leader bears responsibility for finalising the report, which will be submitted to the Government of the Philippines, AusAID and FAO within three weeks of the completion of the mission.

42

Annex 2

Evaluation Team Schedule

43

Annex 2: Evaluation Team Schedule Saturday 4 February Departure from Rome Sunday 5 February Arrival in Philippines Monday 6 February Manila

FAO Ramesh Jain, FAOR Arcadio Cruz Sarah Lacson PATSARRD Team Edgar Guardian, Programme Director Alberto Aduna, Training Specialist Luz Ani, Planning Specialist Corazon Panganiban, M & E Specialist Aristeo Portugal, Agribusiness Specialist Gumercindo Tumbali, Participatory Planning Specialist Janet Corpuz, Gender Specialist Felicisimo David, Management Systems Specialist Vicente Jurlano, Enterprise Development Specialist Ma Rosamund Parado, Microfinance Specialist AusAID officials Paul O’Neill, First Secretary Rosa Antes, Program Officer Evaluation Team Luis P. Eleazar Ramon Noriel Sicad Rachel Bedouin Erin Holleran

Tuesday 7 February Manila

DAR officials Gerundio Madueno, Undersecretary for Support Services Celerina Afable, Foreign-Assisted Projects Office and Planning Service Marcy Ballesteros, Project Development and Management Service Other DAR personnel

Wednesday 8 February Bohol

Governor of Bohol Erico B. Aumentado, Governor of Bohol Juanito “Nitz”Cambangay, Provincial Planning and Development Coordinator of Bohol Mayor of Pilar Wilson Pajo, Mayor of Pilar Meeting with Pilar PAP Stakeholders (15 stakeholders) Meeting with Pilar Stakeholders engaged in Production and Income Enhancement Projects (55 stakeholders) Meeting with KALAHI Farmers’ Center Technical Working Group (KFC-TWG) Members of Bohol and Northern Samar (17 KFC-TWG members)

Thursday 9 February Bohol

Meeting with Farmer Cooperators engaged in Organic Banana Production (53 stakeholders in the 3 meetings)

44

Meeting with Women involved in Microcredit Interaction with Farmer Cooperators engaged in Bamboo Furniture Making Governor of Misamis Occidental Loreto “Leo” Ocampos, Governor of Misamis Occidental

Friday 10 February Misamis Occidental

Mayor of Calamba + Interaction with PAP Team Members (15 PAP team members) Luisito B Villanueva, Jr, Municipal Mayor of Calamba Meeting with ARC Siloy Calamba PAP Team Members at Brgy Hall Interaction with KFC TWG Members of Misamis Occidental, Agusan del Sur and Surigao del Norte (20 KFC-TWG members) Meeting with PALS (informal) Greg Thomas, PALS Team Leader Isagani Salazar, PALS Deputy Team Leader Meeting with Caraga Regional Office Officials & KFC-TWG Surigao del Norte (8 stakeholders )

Saturday 11 February Misamis Occidental

Meeting with ARC Langca Stakeholders involved in Hog Raising, Ube, Banana, Goats & Microcredit (39 stakeholders) Meeting with ARC Siloy Stakeholders involved in Tilapia Production (13 stakeholders)

Sunday 12 February Manila

Report Writing

Monday 13 February Manila

NEDA Grace Morta, EDS NEDA Project Monitoring Staff Violeta S. Corpus, Chief EFS NEDA Project Monitoring Staff Francis C. Afable, Sr. EDS NEDA Public Investment Staff Gemma Agaga, EDS Project Monitoring Staff Report Writing

Tuesday 14 February Manila

Report Writing

Department of Agriculture Carlos B. Mendoza, Director, Field Operations Service Mercy Gabutin, Field Operations Service

Wednesday 15 February Manila

World Bank Maria Teresa Quinones, Operations Officer, World Bank Alberto Penquino, Project Manager, ARCDP II Department of Trade and Industry Manuel B. Abad, Program Manager, DTI-CARP National Program Office

Thursday 16 February Manila

Report Writing

Friday 17 February Manila

Presentation of Preliminary Findings and Recommendations to AusAID, FAO, DAR, NEDA and the PATSARRD Team Return to Rome

45

Annex 3

Abridged List of Output Indicators as of December

2005

Annex 3: Abridged List of Output Indicators as of December 2005

46

ANNEX 3

TARGET ACCOMPLISHMENT Percent Mar 03 - Jun 06 Mar 03 - Dec 05 Accomplishment

1. Participatory Area Planning (PAP)1.1 Formulation of ARC Development Plans No. of ARC development plans formulated 315 277 88%

1.2 Formulation of ARC Zones/Municipal plans No. of ARC zones/municipal plans formulated 5 4 80%

1.3 FBs/Community residents participation No. of FBs participated in PAP processes 106,150 98,668 93%

1.4 LGU participation in PAP at barangay, municipal No. of LGU officials and staff participating in PAP 1,290 1,599 124%and provincial levels processes

1.5 DAR Regional, Provincial and Municipal Participation No. of DAR personnel trained in conducting PAP processes 830 1,325 160%

1.6 Institutionalization of the participatory area planning process No. of LGUs co-sharing/funding PAP process 321 275 86%

2. Support Services Coordination and Integration (SSCI)2.1 Establish linkages with support institutions No. of MOAs signed operationalizing KFC 6 6 100%

No. of MOAs signed with additional partner 7 7 100%agencies committing resources*

No. of KFC established and operational 5 6 120%

No. of original institutions committing and 68 70 103%

co-sharing resources

No. of additional institutions committing and 100 117 117%co-sharing resources*

2.2 Formulated KFC strategic provincial plans No. of KFC provincial plans formulated 12 12 100%

No. of demo farms established 18 16 89%

No. of demo farms replicated** 60 62 103%

No. of projects implemented with partner institutions*** 258 580 225%

No. of inter-agency consultative-workshop/meetings conducted 94 137 146%

No. of techno-guides prepared and distributed 13 13 100%

No. of farmers assisted by KFC**** 7,500 15,089 201%

3. Beneficiaries Economic Development (BED)3.1 FBs with greater capacity to operate profitable farm and No. of FBs provided with productivity enhancement trainings 5,000 10,415 208%

non-farm enterprises and demonstrations

3.2 Enterprises operational and managed by FBs and other No. of enterprises operational and managed by FBs 2,000 3,025 151%households and other households

3.3 FB groups/cooperatives with enhanced entrepreneurial and No. of trainings conducted on entrepreneurial & agribusiness 72 190 264%agri-business capacity skills

No. of FB groups trained 240 815 340%

3.4 Established enterprise development models that encouraged No. of business enterprise model studies conducted 12 13 108%diversification, increased market opportunities and equitablelink of ARBs to agribusiness

No. of business enterprise models implemented/replicated 24 23 96%

3.5 Establishment of financial services models that encourage No. of financial models established 12 11 92%

savings and investment and increased FB access tosustainable microfinance systems No. of participants (FBs/DAR/LGU staff) provided with 10,000 14,449 144%

microfinance trainings and other services

No. of FBs accessing credit and savings services from MFIs 5,000 4,598 92%

No. of additional MFIs providing microfinancial services 5 12 240%

3.6 Awareness of FBs in environmental issues and trained in No. and type of trainings conduted on environmentalmanagement of environmental issues, problems and protection

on-farm integration a. Multi-ARC Training 24 25 104%b. ARC-Level Trainings 71 74 104%

No. of participants trained on environmental careand managementa. Multi-ARC Training 840 1,030 123%

b. ARC-Level Trainings 1,775 2,754 155%

4. Participatory Management, Monitoring andEvaluation (PMME)4.1 Installation of participatory management, monitoring and No. of ARCs wih operational PMME framework 107 91 85%

evaluation (PMME) framework and system and system"""""

* Additional indicators in response of the project to unanticipated growing support

** Additional indicator to capture replication in other ARCs

*** Adjustment of target due to increasing number of partner agencies supporting

**** Adjustment of target corresponding to developments as noted in ***

""""" Covers only ARCS in 6 priority provinces.where all project components are implemented.

PHILIPPINES - AUSTRALIA TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR AGRARIAN REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (PATSARRD)

COMPONENT / OUTPUT INDICATOR UNITS OF OUTPUTS

STATUS OF ACCOMPLISHMENT VIS-À-VIS OVERALL TARGETS as of December 2005