Empowered Participatory Governance Towards Progress in North … · Mindanao Land Acquisition, Housing and Development, Inc. (MinLand) Evaluation period: January 2017 Consultant:

This report was commissioned by Action Against Hunger | ACF International. The comments contained herein reflect the opinions of the Evaluators only.

Empowered Participatory Governance TowardsProgress in North Cotabato Communities(EPG-Progress), Philippines

Funded by

EUROPEAN

COMISSION By Hannah Neumann

INDEPENDENT FINAL EVALUATION JANUARY 2017

FinalProjectEvaluation

Project:EmpoweredParticipatoryGovernanceTowardsProgressinNorthCotabatoCommunities(EPG-Progress)

Durationofproject:Sep.2013–Jan.2017(40months)

Projectbudget:628.848€

Fundedby:EuropeanCommission(EC)ActionAgainstHunger

ImplementingPartner:MindanaoLandAcquisition,HousingandDevelopment,Inc.(MinLand)

Evaluationperiod:January2017

Consultant:HannahNeumann,PhD

‘Nowweknowthatgovernanceisnotforthe

peoplesinthegovernmentalone,butitiseveryone’sbusiness.’

Participantsofagroupdiscussionthatwaspartoftheevaluation,heldinArakan(NorthCotabatoProvince)in

January2017

Author:HannahNeumann,[email protected] 2

SummaryTable

ProgrammeName EPG-ProgressContractNumber DCI-NSAPVD/133-439Partners(ifapplicable) MinLand,DILGSector GovernanceLocation(country/ies,region/s) Philippines/MindanaoDuration 40monthsStartingDate 16September2013EndingDate 15January2017ProgrammeLanguage EnglishDonor&Contribution/s DelegationoftheEuropeanUniontothePhilippinesCountryOfficeadministeringtheProgramme

ActionAgainstHungerPhilippines

ResponsibleHeadQuarter ActionAgainstHunger-SpainEvaluationType FinalEvaluationEvaluationDates 02January2017–07February2017


ListofAcronymsACF ActionAgainstHunger

BDP BarangayDevelopmentPlan

BLGU BarangayLocalGovernmentUnit

BuB BottomUpBudgeting

CSO CivilSocietyOrganisation

DILG DepartmentofInteriorandLocalGovernance

DLSU-JRIG JesseRobredoInstituteofGovernanceatDeLaSalleUniversity

EC EuropeanCommission

EPG EmpoweredParticipatoryGovernance

GG GoodGovernance

IRA InternalRevenueAllotment

LGU LocalGovernmentUnit

MinLand MindanaoLandAcquisition,HousingandDevelopmentFoundation

MLGU MunicipalLocalGovernmentUnit

MoU MemorandumofUnderstanding

MPDO MunicipalPlanningandDevelopmentOfficer

OVI ObjectivelyVerifiableIndicators

PO PeoplesOrganisation

ROM ResultsOrientedMonitoring

SGLG SealofGoodLocalGovernance


ThecontentsofthispublicationarethesoleresponsibilityoftheevaluatorandcaninnowaybetakentoreflecttheviewsoftheEuropeanUnion.


Tableofcontents

SummaryTable..................................................................................................................2

ListofAcronyms................................................................................................................3

Tableofcontents...............................................................................................................5

1. ExecutiveSummary.....................................................................................................7

2. BackgroundInformation..............................................................................................91. Aimoftheevaluation................................................................................................................................................92. Scopeoftheevaluation............................................................................................................................................9

3. Methodology.............................................................................................................101. SamplingMethod.....................................................................................................................................................102. Methodsofdatagathering...................................................................................................................................103. LimitationsofMethodology................................................................................................................................11

4. Findings.....................................................................................................................121. Impactoftheprojectonthemainstakeholders(AssessmentalongInterventionLogic).......12RelationshipbetweenCSOsandLGUsingovernance:From“nuisance”to“partnersindevelopment”.......................................................................................................................................................................12CSOs:From“watchdogs”to“advocatesforthecommongood”....................................................................13LGUs:From“critical”to“supportive(withinlimitations)”..............................................................................14

2. EvaluationoftheprojectalongOECD-DACCriteria.................................................................................15Qualityofprojectdesign:................................................................................................................................................15Relevance/Appropriateness/Pertinence:................................................................................................................16Coherence..............................................................................................................................................................................17Efficiency................................................................................................................................................................................18Effectiveness.........................................................................................................................................................................20Sustainabilityandlikelihoodofimpact....................................................................................................................20

5. Conclusions...............................................................................................................22

6. Lessonslearnedandgoodpractices...........................................................................231. LessonsLearned.......................................................................................................................................................232. GoodPractices...........................................................................................................................................................24Step1:AdaptationandRoll-outofGoodGovernancetrainingtoallbarangays...................................24Step2:BDPPlanninginthebarangays....................................................................................................................25

7. Recommendations....................................................................................................261. Immediate...................................................................................................................................................................262. MediumTerm............................................................................................................................................................273. LongerTerm..............................................................................................................................................................28

8. Annexes....................................................................................................................291. GoodPracticeTemplate........................................................................................................................................292. EvaluationCriteriaTable.....................................................................................................................................323. ListofQuestionsandSub-questionsguidingtheEvaluation(asoutlinedintheToR).............334. ListofdocumentsforDeskReview..................................................................................................................355. ListofInterview,FGDsandWorkshops........................................................................................................366. EvaluationMatrix....................................................................................................................................................387. ExemplaryResultsofDotmocracyExercise.................................................................................................398. ToR.................................................................................................................................................................................41


Anumberofpersonsgavetheirtime,insights,opinionsandideastomakethisevaluationasuccess.Iwanttothankallofthemfortheircontributionsandhopethattheevaluationreportreflectsthefrankdiscussionswehad.AspecialthankyougoestoACFandtheEuropeanCommissiontoprovidethefinancialmeansforthis

evaluationandtotheACFandMinLandfieldstafffortheirhelpinnotifyinginterviewpartnersandparticipantsforgroupdiscussions,forfacilitatingtransportationandlodgingandforgivingtheirfullsupporttothis

endeavour.Iwouldfurtherliketoexpressmygratitudetothemanypersonsthattooktimeofffromtheirbusylivestospeaktousabouttheirexperiences,strugglesandsuccesses,especiallyCSOleadersandcommunity

members,LGUandDILG.Itismyhopethatthisreportprovidesthemwithusefulinformationforthesustainabilityplanningofthisprojectandthepreparationoffutureprojectsinordertoachievecontinuedsuccessintheirendeavour;reducingpovertyandimprovegovernanceinthePhilippinesandbeyond.

1. ExecutiveSummaryThe “Empowered Participatory Governance TowardsProgress in North Cotabato Communities“ (EPG-Progress) project is a 40 months project,implemented by Action Against Hunger (ACF),MindanaoLandAquisition,HousingandDevelopmentFoundation(MinLand)andJesseRobredoInstituteatDe LaSalle University between September 2013 andJanuary 2017. It is funded by the EuropeanCommission under the thematic programme “Non-State Actors and Local Authorities in Development”(NSA-LA),withasignificantco-fundingfromACF.

Theobjective of the project is to uplift the lives ofpoor households in five municipalities in NorthCotabatoProvince(namelyArakan,Antipas,Magpet,MatalamandPresidentRoxas,allinMindanao,SouthPhilippines) through improved and responsive localgovernance at municipal and community (barangay)level. More specifically it aims to: (1) increase theengagementbetweenLocalGovernmentUnits(LGUs)and Civil SocietyOrganisations (CSOs) and thus leadto more participation and better communityplanning,(2)strengthenacriticalcivilsocietyholdingLGUs accountable towards good governance and (3)engage and document best practices of goodgovernanceintheprojectarea.

The aim of the final evaluation was to providecredible evidence on the project’s effect on thebeneficiaries assisted by the project and to drawrecommendations and lessons learned for similarprojectsinthefuture.Further,aspectscentraltotheExit and Sustainability Workshop were givenattention to maximise the benefit of the evaluationactivityfortheprojectteam.

The evaluation covers the entire project duration aswell as the whole geographical area of theintervention. Itbuildsona triangulation of findings,combiningdifferentmethodsofdatagathering,suchaskeyinformantinterviews,focusgroupdiscussions,review of project documents, assessment ofmonitoringdataandfeed-backworkshops.

1)InterventionLogic

The main problem of good governance in thePhilippines is that good national policies are notimplemented on the ground. This project addressesthe core of the problem, taking one of the mainaspects of good governance – participation – to thelowestlevelofpolitics–thebarangay–tryingtotrulyconvinceallrelevantstakeholdersofitsusefulness.Itworks with the whole spectrum of actors involved,namely the Department of Interior and LocalGovernance (DILG), theMunicipal LGUs (MLGU) andBarangay LGUs (BLGU) and the respective CSOs and

PeoplesOrganisations (POs) inorder tochange theirpractice of governance towards a more inclusiveapproach. If the project gains remain in place, thisdoes not only alleviate poverty, but also minimizesthe likelihood of rebel activities and improvesemergencyresponseinthisdisasterpronearea.Asofthe time of the evaluation, first successes could beassessed and the target population was highlysatisfied with the project. They would only havewishedforittostaylongerandcomewithadditionalfunds for “hard” projects. This, however, was not apriority of the call andwould not have been in linewithdonorpriorities.

2)Impactoftheprojectonparticipatorygovernance

Prior to the project, CSOs, in their own assessment,had little understanding on how they could engagewith the government beyond merely criticising itsworkoraskingforbenefitsfortheirownconstituents.LGUs, on the other side, would describe CSOs as“nuisance”,as“complaining”,as“incitingbadideasinthepeople.”

This fundamentally changed in the course of theproject in all five municipalities. LGUs started toappreciate the knowledge of CSOs with regards tospecific issuesandproblemson thegrassroots level,CSOs learnedtounderstandthe limitationsbywhichtheir LGUs are bound, particularly with regards tobudgetallocations.

Especially the experience during Bottom-up-Budgeting (BuB) planning, implementation andmonitoring on municipal level and BarangayDevelopment Plan (BDP) planning on barangay levelhas led tobig changes in the relationbetweenCSOsandLGUs.CSOsarenowsometimesevenpro-activelyaskedtoengageinplanningandmonitoringactivities,not just for compliance reasons, but as activepartners. CSOs describe their role as “critically-constructive”, as “partners in development”;attributesverifiedbymostoftheirLGUcounterparts.

Therefore, the combination of a roll-out of goodgovernance trainings to all communities and thesubsequentprocessofBDPPlanningcanbeidentifiedas a best practice of this project as it ensuresmeaningful participatory governance on barangaylevelwithtangibleeffectsonpovertyreduction.

In comparisonwith neighbouringmunicipalities thathadnot joined theproject,acleardifferencecanbeobserved in terms of participation, quality ofdevelopment planning and implementation ofprojects.Thiswill likelytranslateintotangibleresultsin termofpovertyreduction,yet thosecouldnotbeassessedatthetimeofthisevaluation.


3)AssessmentoftheprojectalongDACCriteria

Thedesignof theprojectwasweak. Itdidnotbuildon a thorough baseline assessment and was guidedby assumptions that did not prove realistic. As aconsequence,itwasoverlyambitiousandtheprojectneeded to be readjusted mid-way. Despite thiscritique,thelogicoftheproposalwascoherentanditintroduced a few good ideas to foster meaningfulavenuesforCSO-LGUcooperation.

The project succeeded despite its weak design,because itwashighly relevant toall stakeholders. Itwas in line with donor and national policies andsupportedDILGandMLGUs intheirownapproachesto ensure better participatory governance.Complementary advocacy work on national levelcouldhavefurtherincreasedrelevance.

Afterthedesignandmainindicatorshadbeenrevisedmid-way, the project was efficient and nearly allactivities had been implemented at the time of theevaluationwithoutoverstretchingthebudget.

Overall, the project managed to start many goodprocesses and was able to reach its aims in all fivemunicipalities. Yet, key activities were notconceptualised holistic enough, leaving some loosedends at the end of the project; compromisingeffectiveness. For example, community plans havebeen finalised, yet not all BLGUs know how totranslate them into annual investment plans key tostartimplementation.

The design included some activities towardssustainability,mainly thecollectionofbestpracticesand the cooperation with DILG, yet this was notsufficient.Currently, sustainability isdependentonalarge number of external factors, not necessarily infavour of good governance. Here, additionalresources are necessary and should be invested bythedonors.

The impact of the project on participatorygovernancewashugeandthechangeinattitudeandpractices is likely to last, towhat degreemay differbetween the municipalities. An impact on povertyreduction is likely, especially if BDPs guidesubsequent barangay development. It should beassessed in five years if they did and what tangibleeffectsthishadonpovertyreduction.

4)Lessonslearned

The project was a learning journey for everyoneinvolved, especially for ACF as it had little priorexperience in governance projects. The mostimportantlessonswere:

- Assessmentofpolicies,context,stakeholdersandintervening factors is of utmost importance ingovernance projects as they are highly contextsensitive.

- OVIs should reflect the specific nature ofgovernance projects to ensure usefulmonitoringandproperfocus.

- Social and political processes are complex andtime consuming. This should be reflected inpersonalresourcesandtimetable.

- Any intervention that aims to strengthenparticipatory governance should focus on CSOs,organise them and make them independent ofoutsidesupport.

- To make governance projects sustainable, theirgains need to be reflected in technical, financialandinstitutionalchanges.

- Complementaryadvocacyonnationallevel,fromthebeginningoftheproject,ishighlyuseful.

- On local level, it is important to identify thesupporters of the project early on and activelyengagetheminplanningandimplementation.

5)Recommendations

The following recommendations can be made toincrease the sustainabilityof thisprojectandensurethe implementation of the lessons learned insubsequentprojects:

- ACF, MinLand and the EU should develop ascheme to ensure the sustainability of projectgainswithregardstotheCSOFederations.

- ACF and EU should promote policy changes onnational level with regards to participatorygovernance.

- ACF should try to secure resources for a newgovernance project in the region to complementthe gains of this one, especially focusing ondecreasingIRAdependency.

- DILG should see itself as guardian of the projectgainsinthefield.

- CSOFederationsshouldprofessionalisetheirworkand diversify funding sources to ensure acritically-constructiveengagementindependentofLGUsupport.

- LGUs should proactively strengthen existingavenues of cooperation and explore furtherpossibilities to honour the improved relationshipwithCSOs.

- LGUs should institutionalise the support to CSOsfortheirengagementinparticipatorygovernance.

- ACF and EU shouldassess the tangibleeffectsofthis project in terms of poverty reduction in 5years.

- EU should improve its calls to ensure a betterdesignandrelevanceofprojects.

- DILG should work on an inventory of trainingsavailable for BLGU and CSOs on aspects ofgovernanceandprojectcyclemanagement.

- ACFshouldcarefullydesignanyfuturegovernanceprojectbasedonthelessonslearnedofthisone.

2. BackgroundInformationThe “Empowered Participatory Governance TowardsProgress in North Cotabato Communities” (EPG-Progress)project is a 40-month project, implemented by ActionAgainst Hunger (ACF) and Mindanao Land Acquisition,Housing and Development Foundation (MinLand). TheDepartment of the Interior and Local Governance (DILG)supported the whole project implementation; the JesseRobredo Institute of Governance (DLSU-JRIG) providedtrainingmodulesintheinitialyear.

Theproject ismainly fundedby theEuropeanCommission(EC)underthethematicprogramme“Non-StateActorsandLocal Authorities in Development” (NSA-LA), with asignificant co-funding from ACF (230.052 Euro). ItcommencedinSeptember2013andwillendonJanuary15,2017. Its overall objective is to uplift the lives of poorhouseholds in five municipalities in North CotabatoProvince (namely Arakan, Antipas, Magpet, Matalam andPresident Roxas) through improved and responsive localgovernance atmunicipal and community (barangay) level.More specifically it aims to: (1) increase the engagementbetween Local Government Units (LGUs) and Civil SocietyOrganisations /CSOs) and thus lead to more participationand better community planning, (2) strengthen a criticalcivil society holding LGUs accountable towards goodgovernanceand(3)engageanddocumentbestpracticesofgoodgovernanceintheprojectarea.

1. Aimoftheevaluation

The aim of this final project evaluation is to provide credible evidence on the project’s effect on thebeneficiariesassistedbytheprojectandtodrawrecommendationsandlessonslearnedforsimilarprojectsinthefuture,inordertoincreasetheireffectandquality.Thistranslatesintotwomainfoci:

(1) toassesstheoverallperformanceoftheinterventionand(2) todetermineifithasreacheditsintendedobjectiveswithregardstothedifferentcomponentsofthe

resultchainaswellaskeysocialandpoliticalcontextfactors.

Further,aspectscentraltotheExitandSustainabilityWorkshopweregivenattentiontomaximisethebenefitoftheevaluationactivityfortheprojectteam.

2. Scopeoftheevaluation

Theevaluationcoverstheentireprojectdurationaswellasthewholegeographicalareaoftheintervention,specifically the municipalities of Antipas, Arakan, Magpet, Matalam and President Roxas. 10 of the 53barangaysassistedwerepartoftheevaluation.Theywereselectedbasedontheirrepresentativenessforthestatus as well as the successes and challenges of the project. In all municipalities selected, beneficiariestargetedbytheprojectwereinterviewedorjoinedasparticipantsinFGDs,namelylocalgovernmentandcivilsociety leaders and CSO Network key officers. In addition, community members of three of the fivemunicipalitieswereinterviewed.

The evaluationwas guided by a set of questions and sub-questions derived from theOECD-DACCriteria ofRelevance,Coherence,Efficiency,EffectivenessandSustainabilityaswellasanACFspecificCriterionfocusingon theDesign of the project (seeAnnex 3). Further, the following issues specific to the projectwere givenattentionduringtheassessment:

Picture1:MapofProjectArea


(1) thechallengingdevelopmentcontext(poverty,violence,accessibility), � (2) theeffectivenessof trainings, to improve local governments in their response to their constituents

and �the qualityofthecollaborationbetweencivilsocietyandLGUs, � (3) the ability of the project to incorporate the recommendations suggested by interim evaluations

(internalevaluationandROMreport),(4) thechallenges/limitationsaswellaschancesandpossibilitiestoimprovesimilarprojects�and (5) ananalysisofreplicabilityandscaling-upthegoodpracticesandlessons-learned. �

Finally,referencewasmadetothefollowingcrosscuttingissues: �

- GenderMainstreaming(asoutlinedintheACFGenderPolicy), � - mainstreamingand/orconsiderationstoDisasterRiskReductionintheprojectactivities, � - mainstreamingand/orconsiderationstoEnvironmentalSustainabilityand � - mainstreamingand/orconsiderationstoCulturalsensitiveness.

3. MethodologyContinuousmonitoringoftheprojecthasprecededtheevaluationandisstillongoing.Anumberofindicatorsfor a thorough input/output analysis, grouped by objectives and results, have been defined in the projectproposalandwereaccounted for.Further,an internal interimevaluationandaResults-OrientedMonitoringReport(ROM),commissionedbytheEC,havebeenconductedandregularprogressreportsbeensubmitted.Thiscombineddata(seeAnnex4)allowstoadequatelymeasuretheprogressoftheactivitiesoftheproject.Theevaluationbuildsontheseresourcesandgathersfurtherdatafrom:

- theprojectstaff,- thedifferentstakeholders,especiallytheLGUsandCSOsinvolved,- directandindirectbeneficiariesoftheactivities,- theprojectpartnersanddonor,- engagedcivilsocietyandacademicinstitutionsand- relevantpublicsourcessuchasgovernmentstatistics.

1. SamplingMethod

All fivemunicipalities coveredby the projectwere part of the evaluation; data gatheringwas conducted inthesemunicipalities.Directbeneficiaries,especiallykeyLGUstaff(n=37)aswellasCSOmembers(n=35)frommunicipalityandbarangay levelwere interviewedorpartofFGDs (foranoverviewof resourcepersons,seeAnnex5).Further,communitymembersfromthreeoutofthefivemunicipalities(indirectbeneficiaries,n=20)were interviewed in separate FGDs. Their selection was based on a convenience sample, given the shortdurationofthefieldvisitaswellasthelogisticalconstraintsaccompanyingworkinginremoteareas.

2. Methodsofdatagathering

Datagatheringwaspredominantlybasedoninterviews,group discussions, participatory observation andinformal conversation. Such qualitative approachesallow for a more nuanced evaluation of projectobjectives and approaches taken in the light ofalternativesandareasonedassessmentofimpactsandsustainability. The participative character of thosequalitative approaches, especially the groupdiscussions and workshops, are adept to the targetgroups of the project and make sure that allparticipants can share their views and priorities. Theyhave a people-centered approach, as opposed to theproject/donor-centered approach of the majority ofindicatorsusedforcontinuousmonitoring.

Whenever working with groups, the approaches were highly participative and aimed to counterbalancepossibleasymmetriesofin-grouphierarchies.Towardsthisend,asmall“dotmocracy”exercisewasintroducedtotheparticipantsofthefocusgroupdiscussionstocompensatepossibleasymmetriesprevailinginthegroup

Picture2:FGDwithMLGUandBLGUmembers


(e.g. government vs. CSO,municipal vs. barangay level, frequent speakers vs. silent participants).Whereverpossible,sexandage-disaggregateddatawascollected(forresultsofthisspecificexercise,seeAnnex7).

The following methods were used to reach the triangulation needed for relevant evaluation results (seeEvaluationMatrixattachedinAnnex6):

− SecondaryAnalysisofindicatorassessmentasconductedaspartofthecontinuousmonitoring.− Reviewofprojectdocuments(seeAnnex4)toassesstheflowoftheprojectanditscapacitytoadapt

tochangingcircumstancesorchallengesarisingduringtheimplementation.− Key-informant interviews(KII,n=12)wereusedtoreflectonaspectsthatsurfacedascrucialduring

the firstassessment, todiscuss theapproaches takenandpossiblealternatives,and toevaluateontheimpactoftheproject.

− FocusGroupdiscussions(FGDs,n=13)wereheldwith(1)representativesoflocalgovernmentsunitsandbarangaydevelopmentcouncilsand(2)representativesofCSOs,participatingintheprojectand(3) communitymembers.AVisualizationexercise (dotmocracy)wasconductedanddocumentedbyphotographs(seeAnnex7).

− Workshops/FeedbackSessionswith(1)thedirectbeneficiaries,(2)theprojectteamandtheprojectpartner and (3) the country office were used to discuss first impressions and outcomes of thefieldworkandqualifyinitialfindings.

− InformalInterviewswereacontinuouscompanionintheevaluation.Theywereusedtocontextualizeinformation,gatherfurtherspecificinformation,exchangeideasandpreliminaryfindingsandcreateaparticipativeatmosphereamongallinvolved.

3. LimitationsofMethodology

Thefollowinglimitationstothemethodanddatagatheringinthefieldcanbeidentifiedandshouldbekeptinmindwhenassessingtheresultsofthisevaluation:

- Time:thetimeallocatedfortheevaluationwasnecessarilylimited.Overall,fieldworkonlylastedfor12 days. Given the necessity to include all relevant stakeholders and hold feedback sessionsimportanttoensureownershipoftheevaluationfindings,compromiseshadtobemadewithregardtothenumberandset-upofFGDsandKII.

- MissingBaseline:Anumberofindicatorshadnobaseline,thusend-of-projectassessmentcannotbefully used to assess the impact of the project. Further, some indicators could not be usefullyaccounted for at all and some key aspects of the project have not been part of monitoring(satisfactionofCSOsorcommunitymemberswithLGUperformanceetc.).Thislimitstheabilityoftheevaluationtotracktheirdevelopmentovertime.

- Attributionofchange:Thisprojectaimstofosterchangeinthecapacityofthebeneficiariesaswellastheirrelationship,yetitisnottheonlyvariableinthecomplexsettinginthefield.Therefore,itwillbedifficulttodefinitelyattributechangeintheseaspectstoaspecificactorortospecificactivities.

- Accessandhalobias:AccesstothecommunitieswasobtainedthroughACFandMinLandstaff.Thisholdsthepotentialforbiasedinformation,asinformantsmaybeoverlyoptimisticabouttheproject.Althoughthiscannotbedefinitelyruledout,thegeneralatmosphereinFGDsandinterviewswasveryopenandcritical,alsotowardsprojectstaffandactivities.

- Not all activities implemented: At the time of the evaluation, not all activities had been fullyimplementedandtheimpactofsomecanonlybeseeninanumberofyears.Here,theevaluationcanonlymakeanassessmentintermsofalikelihoodofimplementationandimpact.

- Actorsdirectlyinterferinginevaluation:OnemayortriedtodirectlyinterfereintheevaluationbynotlettingtheteamspeakwiththerespectiveMLGUofficials.Thishappenedinapreviousevaluationaswell.Theteamcould,however,continuetospeakwithBLGUofficialaswellasmembersoftheCSOsinthismunicipality.

- Mayors were not available for interviews: As they were called on a closed-door meeting by thepresident,theywerenotavailableformeeting. Insomecases,theteammanagedto interviewViceMayors. A full understanding of the perspective of Chief Executives on the project, however, ismissing.


4. FindingsTounderstandtheimpactoftheprojectaswellastheremainingchallengesforitssustainability,itisusefultofocus on the developmentswithin CSO and LGU and their partnership over the course of the project first,beforeenteringintoanassessmentoftheprojectalongtheOECD-DACcriteria.

1. Impactoftheprojectonthemainstakeholders(AssessmentalongInterventionLogic)

One of the main problems of politics in the Philippines is, that good national policies are often notimplementedontheground.Thereasoniseitheranunwillingnessofkeyactorstodoso,oralackincapacity;inmostcasesamixofthetwo.Theaimofthisprojectistoreducepovertybyaddressingexactlythisproblem.Itattemptstoimprovelocalgovernancebyimprovingtheparticipationoflocalstakeholdersintheprocessofplanning,decision-makingandimplementationatthelowestpoliticallevel,themunicipalityandthebarangay.Itworkswiththewholespectrumofactorsinvolved,namelyDILG,theMLGUsandBLGUsandtherespectiveCSOsandPeoplesOrganisations(POs) inordertochangetheirpracticeofgovernance.Thechangesthattheproject reached towards thisendcouldbewell retracedbasedon theFGDsandKII.Allquotes taken in thesubsequentparagraphsaretakenfromthosediscussions:

RelationshipbetweenCSOsandLGUsingovernance:From“nuisance”to“partnersindevelopment”

“TheRepublicActNo.7160isfrom1991andnowitis2016thatitisonlyimplemented.”

Priortotheproject,CSOs, intheirownassessment,hadlittleunderstandingonhowtheycouldengagewiththegovernmentbeyondmerelycriticisingitsworkoraskingforbenefitsfortheirownconstituents:“weweremoremirror-CSOs,onlyinterestedinourownbenefits.”Often,theywereexcludedfromdecision-making:“Wehadmanybadexperiences, tried just tobecalm,swallowwhatever it is,veryhumiliating, theyframedusasdemons,andifweinsistedinourrightsasintheconstitutionswewerecalleddevils.”LGUs,ontheotherside,woulddescribeCSOsas“nuisance”,as“complaining”,asmaking“ourworkharderandincitingbadideasinthepeople.”

Thisfundamentallychangedinthecourseoftheproject;inallfivemunicipalities:“Beforetheprojectcame,wehadreallydifficultiesinorganisingtheCSOstoparticipate.Theythought,theirrolewasnotimportant,butastimegoeson,withthehelpofthisproject,theparticipationgreatlyincreased.”Bothsidesexplainedhowtheirunderstandingfortheircounterparthaschanged,howthey learnedtobetter liveuptotheirresponsibilitiesandunderstandtherolesoftheother.LGUsstartedtoappreciatetheknowledgeoftheCSOswithregardstospecificissuesandproblemsonthegrassrootslevel,CSOslearnedtounderstandthelimitationsbywhichtheirLGUofficialsarebound,especiallywithregardstobudgetallocations.

Especially the experience during Bottom-up-Budgeting (BuB) planning, implementation and monitoring onmunicipallevelandBarangayDevelopmentPlan(BDP)planningonbarangaylevelhasledtobigchangesintherelationbetweenCSOsandLGUs. “PreviouslyengagementwithLGUwouldbeveryhard, theywouldalwayslookatusasanenemy,andwelookedatthemasenemies. Itwasallpolitics.Nowit isgood-good,nomorepolitical colours.” CSOs are now sometimes even pro-actively asked to engage in planning andmonitoringactivities,notjustforcompliancereasons,butasactivepartners:“beforeitwasnoteasyforCSOstocomeandtellthegovernmentandgovernmentwouldsay‘goout’andthingslikethat.Butasaresultofthelegislationand this project, now they would insist and we would listen.” CSOs describe their role as “critically-constructive”, as “partners in development”; attributes verified by most of their LGU counterparts andmembersofthespecificworkinggroupsonMLGUlevelinwhichCSOsparticipate.

In comparison with neighbouring municipalities that had not joined the project, a clear difference can beobserved, as bothMLGUs and the CSOs pointed out: “For BuB planning, in othermunicipalities, themayorwouldonlycall thosewhoareclosetothemandgivethemextra funds,only forparticipation. If theygetallthat funding, how can they be critical to the LGU? Here, we can be purely CSO because we are no moredependent.Andwheredidthemayorgetthatmoneyfrom?WewouldneverclaimanythingfromtheLGUifweknowthatthereisnobudgetforthat.”Thesamemanifestsonbarangaylevel:“Peoplefromotherbarangaysare asking, so what is your secret, why are you receiving all those projects? And I tell them by attendingmeetings,goingtoseminarsandsharewhatyouproblemsare.”


CSOs:From“watchdogs”to“advocatesforthecommongood”

“We established a self confidence. Priorwewould not talk, just listen.We treated ourselves belowothers,we did not level up, but that iswrong. Especiallywith finances, beforewewould not see aglimpseofhowtheyspendthemoney.Andnowwerealised,thatwe,thepeople,arethegovernmentand thepeopleat thepolitical sideare just the implementersofourwill.Wearenowrecognisedaspartners,weare thecitizens,althoughthe transformation takesslowly.ArakanvalleyCSOsareveryclose,webecamelikeafamily.”

At thebeginningof theproject,CSOs in the fivemunicipalitieswere focusingat theirown sector toensurefundingfortheirconstituents:“Wehadnodirection,onlymeetingsandlocalaction.Onlyfocusedonus”.Mostofthemwerenotaccreditedand,ifinvolvedingovernanceprocessesatall,merelyforcompliancepurposes:“Wewouldjustsignwhateverthemayorgavetous,notevenlookatthebudget.Becausethis ishowitwasdone”.Atthatpointintime,noneoftheCSOswasreadytoaccepttheroleenvisagedforthembytheproject,tospeakuponbehalfofthecitizensandensurethattheirrighttoparticipationingovernanceismeaningfullyasserted.

During the course of the project, the biggest CSOs / sectors in each municipality have been capacitated,formed into federations (one per municipality), learned about their roles in participatory governance andmanagedtoliveuptothisresponsibility:“ForusintheLGU,CSOfederationsareagreathelp,onlythesefivemunicipalitieshaveit,andtheyarereallyworking.Before,CSOswereverydiverse,nowtheyhavegatheredtohaveonevoiceandagenda,theyreviewandconsolidatetheirplans,thisisaprocessanditmakesworkingwiththemeasier for us.”Especiallywithin the federations, anunderstanding for the commongoodemerged, asCSOsstartedtogetengagedindefiningprioritiesfortheircommunityasawholeorconductedfundraisersforoutreachactivitiestothepoorestparticipantsoftheirmunicipalities.“Whentrainedasanassociationandhowtomanageit,weknewhowtogetinvolvedinthecommunitiesandwithLGUs,howtodemandsomething.Welearnedtoprioritiseprojects,notjustforourown,butforthecommunityasawhole.”“NowIsee,thereisnoneedtobecomeapoliticianifyouwanttobeaservanttothepeople.”

Especially as a federation, they became vocal – constructivelywhen engaged in development planning andmonitoringandsometimescritical,iftheyfelttheydidn’treceiveenoughsupportfromtheirMLGU:“Whenwegatheredasarealformation,wecreatedMACSON.Webecamecloseandwesharedinformation.Andwegotothemayoralltogether.Hestilldoesn’tlikeCSO,butifwegotogether,hewouldn’tsayno.”

The critical engagement, however, is still reliant on an external backup, either throughACForMinLandorsomementor insidetheMLGU. Ifthecircumstancesare infavourofLGU-CSOcooperation,CSOsareabletofullytakeovertheirroleinparticipatorygovernance:“Now,weareveryexcitedtodoourwork,evenwithoutcompensation, because we can see the impact we can have. This boosted ourmorale, also because of thesincerityprovenbyourLGU.”IftheLGUislesssupportivetoCSOsandtheyarenotbackedup,however,moststillrefrainfrominsistingontheircritiqueorrights.Asked,whetherthelocalCSOfederationwouldcontinuethe transparencymonitoring in theirmunicipality, FGD participants answered: “NoMam, because nomoreback-up”.Thismayremainakeychallengetothesustainabilityofprojectgains.

In most municipalities and barangays, the sectorial groups were able to claim the funds that they aremandatedtoreceivebylaw(IRA-Share)inthecourseoftheproject.OtherCSOssecuredadditionalfundingtoimplement concreteprojects, eitherbasedonBuBor community /municipal budget. Someof the strongerCSOs,especially thoseorganised incooperativespriortotheproject,canat largecomplywithstandards formanagingsuchprojectsthankstothesupportprovidedbytheproject:“Myworkbeforewasonlyinclassroom,soIwasnotsoexposedtothatkindofknowledgeandtohowtoorganisepeople.That’swhereIlearnedmostfrom the project. Also project planning, proposalmaking, speaking up.” Towards the end of the project, itbecameincreasinglyobvious,however,thatmostoftheCSOsstilllackthecapacitytofullycomplywithprojectcyclemanagementrequirements,especially intermsofaccountingandmonitoring:“So,theyaskedusintheLGUtogivethemsomeprojectandwedid.Andnowweaskthem,whatdidyoudowiththatmoney,whereistheresults?Whatdidyouspendthemoneyfor,wherearethepictures?Andthentheycannotcomeupwithmuch.”Thismaybeanotheraspectthathamperssustainabilityofprojectgainsinthemid-term.

AnotheractivityoftheprojectaimedtoincreasethesupportofLGUstoCSOsthroughtheestablishmentofaCSODeskintheMLGU,taskedtoassistCSOswiththeformalrequirementscomingwiththeirparticipationingovernance,suchasaccreditationandreportwriting.However,notallCSODesksintheprojectareaaregiventhe resources to fulfil this duty.Here, the project staff stepped in, yet it remains unclear how this support


functioncanbesustainedaftertheendoftheproject:“Theseedshavebeenplantedandwestartedtogrow,butwestillneedprotection”.

Further,theCSOsindividuallyaswellasthefederations,stilllookuponandrelyonthegoodwilloftheLGUtoensure their self-sustenance. The support that LGUs provide towards this end clearly differs between themunicipalities - fromnonetoanExecutiveOrdercoveringnearlyallexpensesoftheCSOs.Most federationshavenoclearideaonhowtheycantakeoverthefunctionsprovidedtothembytheprojectinthisregard.Afewfederationshavedevelopedschemestomakethemself-sustainable(membershipfees,micro-loans),yettheir ideasmaynotbesufficient.Asoneprojectstaffsummarisedit inthefeed-backworkshop:“youshouldrelymoreonyourselves,beforeaskingothersforsupport,remainindependentandself-reliant,justnotworrysomuch,howtheLGUperceivesyou,becauseyoudoyourjobforthepeople,notforthem.”

LGUs:From“critical”to“supportive(withinlimitations)”

TheprojecthadstrongsupportfromtheProvinciallevel.ThedegreeofinitialsupportfromtheMayorsoftheMunicipalitiestotheprojectdifferedbetweenthefivemunicipalities.One,Arakan,wasverysupportivefromthebeginning.Thecommunityhadalreadybenefitedfromothergoodgovernanceprojectsinthepastandwasaware of the benefits of such projects for their municipality. Others needed to be convinced throughcontinuousrelationshipbuildingandmeetings.Oneremainedcriticaluntiltheveryend,yetitdidnotactivelyobstructproject activities:“InBuBPlanning,whenweas theCSOswere involved, themayorwould just notcome to safe face.” In all of these cases, however, the administrations should not be perceived as uniformactors.Theprojectwasalwaysabletoworkwithafewsupportersoftheidea,buildingontheirengagementtoconvinceChiefExecutivestoatleasttoleratetheproject,whiletheywerealsofacedbynegativeinterventionsofspoilers.

Being used to more “hard” projects, such as WASH or livelihood interventions; the first reaction in manymunicipalitieswas “What’s in it forus?” “This is justwhatDILG is doing forus.” and the very ideaofmoreinvolvementofCSOsinplanningandmonitoringwasnot immediatelywelcomed.Atthestartoftheproject,CSOs were mostly perceived as complaining about, rather than supporting local governments. The mostsupportiveactorswere, ingeneral,thosewhosejobtheprojectmadeeasier,suchastheMunicipalPlanningand Development Officer (MPDO), the Municipal ABC Clerk (in charge of coordinating activities on thebarangay level) and the DILG representative within the MLGU (MLGOO). Other supporters could be won,throughouttheprocess:“Now,wearelisteningandifitisnotagainstourlaws,wewillimplement”.Hadtheproject staff been aware of those supporters from the very beginning, project activities could have startedearlier.

EspeciallythenewlyintroducedBuBhelpedtheprojecttogainacceptanceonmunicipallevel.ItrequiredtheparticipationofCSOsinplanningandmonitoringbylawandopenedfirstavenuesforconcreteparticipationonmunicipal level.MostMLGUswelcomed the fact that their CSOs could, due to the project, live up to theirresponsibilitiesasmandatedby theprocess: “Here, theprojectwasa stronghelp, inBuBplanning,becauseCSOs were already organised and they had understanding of project management.” Further, the goodgovernance trainings implemented by the project improved the understanding of CSOs and citizens on thelimitations by which their representatives are bound: “Some people are also misinformed about issues. Sowhentheyareincludedinthetrainings,thisisless.Therewaspoliticalinfluencingandtheyreactedbadlyonlybecausetheydidn’tknowbetter.Now,witheducation,thisreducesconflict.”

Thesepositivedevelopments trickleddown to thebarangay level during the courseof theproject: “Before,citizensalwayscomplainedaboutbudgetingofthebarangay.Theywerethinkingthatpoliticiansareenrichingthemselvesandnotgivingmoneytothepublic.Suddenly,theyunderstandhowbudgetisbeingspent.Andthatwe don’t have budget for everything. So they are complaining less. If they can understand, they are lessfrustrated.” The feedbackmechanisms established by the project further reduced discontent: “Now peoplewouldnotgototheradiostationbuttheycansettleinthecommunity.”

Althoughtheprojectinitiallyfocusedmoreonthemunicipallevel,theimpactonBLGUlevelwashighestintheend. All 132 barangays have received a roll-out of the good governance training, improving the capacity oflocalCSOsandBLGUs to joinedplanning: “Theproject changed the structuresof decision-making.Before, itwasonlythebarangaycouncil,evenonlythebarangaycaptainwhodecided,noknowledgeandnoresourcesfor consultation, and also they didn’t know how to consolidate and formulate their input.” The sameexperiencewasmadeduring the jointbarangaydevelopmentplanning.Nearlyallbarangays thathavegonethroughthisprocessarenowinsupportoftheideaofparticipatorygovernance.“OnMunicipallevel,wecouldseeimprovementfrom25%tomaybe40%,onbarangaylevel,thingsare90%good”,asoneCSOleaderputit.


In the eyes of the LGUs, the project especially helped them to increase the participation of people ingovernanceprocesses:“Absenceofpeoplefrommeetingsandassemblieswasabigproblem.Now,wheretheyfeelthattheycanhaveasay,theyarecoming.”

Towards theendof theproject, someMLGUscameupwith innovativepractices toensure thegainsof theproject.ThisincludedfundingschemesforthesupportofCSOs:“MembersofCSOsarenotwelloff,soweneedtosupportthem”orimprovedservicedeliverytothebarangays.Arakanmunicipality,forexample,replicatedtheexperienceof theGoodGovernanceRoll-out trainingstoallbarangays,visitingonebarangaypermonthwithallHeadsofDepartmentsandofferinginformation,consultationandengagementwithinterestedcitizensoftherespectivebarangays.InotherMunicipalities,themayorsupportedthecreationofayearlyCSOdaytohonourtheinputofCSOsingovernanceplanning.

2. EvaluationoftheprojectalongOECD-DACCriteria

Tobetter understandandassess the approach thattheprojecthastakentoreachthebenefitsdescribedin the section above an analysis of the activitiesalong theOECD-DACCriteria forproject evaluation,namely Relevance, Coherence, Efficiency,Effectiveness and Sustainability is helpful. It alsosupports an identification of challenges andshortcomings in relation to the proposal and itsoverarchingobjectives. TheOECD-DACcriteriahavebeenqualifiedbytheprojectpartnersthroughasetof sub-questions and complemented by an ACF-Internal Criterion of the Quality of Project Design(definedintheToR,seeAnnex8).

Qualityofprojectdesign: The ideaoftheprojectwasgood, its internal logiccoherent,yet itwasbasedonassumptionsthathavenotbeenvalidatedduringthedesignphase,leadingtoanoverlyambitiousdesignthatneededtobeadjustedmidway.Most of the challenges that the team encountered during the implementation of the project were aresult of the weak design. The following assumptions were made in the design phase that were notcrosscheckedpriortothestartoftheprojectanddidnotprovetoberightintheimplementationphase:

(1) CSOs would bemature enough to speak on behalf of a “the people” and engage in transparencymonitoringandgovernanceprocesses–inrealityveryfewwereactiveandeventhosemostlyfocusedonensuringbenefitsfortheirownconstituents.

(2) MLGUswouldbewillingtocooperateandmeaningfullyengagewithCSOsinparticipatorygovernance–inreality,onlyoneMLGUwassupportive,theothersneededtobeconvincedinlengthyprocesseswithnotallbeingsupportivetotheprojectuntiltheveryend.

(3) Stakeholderswould be able andwilling to not only implement transparencymonitoring, but use astricter monitoring tool than the one provided by DILG – in reality, this overburdened everyoneinvolvedandthenewSGLG,introducedbyDILG,wasusedwithoutfurthermodifications.

(4) PoliciesofDILGwithregardstoparticipatorygovernancewouldnotchange inthecourseofprojectimplementation-actuallymajorchangeswerealreadyon-goingofwhichtheproposalwritingteamwasnotaware.

(5) Thecontextoftheimplementationwouldremainstableandoneactivitycouldbuildupontheotherwithoutlaybacks-inreality,twoelectionswerescheduledduringtheimplementationperiodleadingtochangeinMunicipalandbarangayleadershipinmanytargetcommunitiesandtheneedtorestartaccreditationprocessesoftheCSOs.

(6) Allactorswould,ingeneral,becapacitatedenoughtocomplywiththeirresponsibilitiesasenvisionedbyDILGpoliciesandcapitalisebestpracticesassharedtowardstheendoftheproject–inreality,thislevel needed to be reached through large input of the project and, in some aspects, has not beenreachedbytheendoftheproject.

Thesemisperceptionsledto(1) anunclearterminology(CSOs,shouldtheybepartnersorwatchdogs?)andanunclearfocusofproject

activities(doesitfocusonLGUorCSO,onmunicipalorbarangaylevel?),(2) anoverlyambitiousprojectdesign,

Picture3:FulldisclosureBoard,MunicipalityofMagpet


(3) an indicator monitoring tool, that did not fully reflect the activities of the project and failed tomeasurethequalityoftheintervention,

(4) adelayinprojectimplementation,afterroughly1,5yearsofon-goingactivities,theteamhadreachedthestatusthatwasanticipatedtobeinplaceatthestartoftheprojectand,subsequently,

(5) theneedtoreassessandreshapetheprojectmid-waytoregainfocusanddefinetargetsthatcouldbereachedand

(6) theemergenceofnewissuesthathavetobeaddressedtoensuresustainability,whichthedesigndidnotanticipate.

The upcoming Exit and Sustainability Planning workshop might be able to reduce this problem, but keychallengeswillremain(seeSectiononSustainability).

MainRecommendations

- Assessment of policies, context, stakeholders and intervening factors is of utmost importance ingovernanceprojectsastheyarehighlycontextsensitive.

- Anyprojectdesignandmonitoringshouldbepreciseinitskeyconceptsaswellasitsfocus.- OVIs should reflect the specific nature of governance projects to ensure useful monitoring and proper

focus.- Inthefuture,EUshouldimproveitscallstoensureabetterdesignandrelevanceofprojects.- ACFshouldcarefullydesignanyfuturegovernanceprojectbasedonthelessonslearnedofthisone.

Relevance/Appropriateness/Pertinence: Theproject,asitwasimplemented,washighlyrelevanttoallstakeholdersinvolved.Thereisastrongneedformoreinclusivegovernancetoensurethatlocalgovernmentsrespondtotheconcernsoftheirconstituents.Iftheydo,thisdoesnotonlyalleviatepoverty,butalsominimizesthelikelihoodofrebelactivitiesandimprovesemergency response in this disaster prone area. If people think that their voices are heard by their localgovernments and know how to influence decision-making processes, they are less likely to turn to radicalmovementsorpursue their aimswith violentmeans. Further, awell functioning local government candealbetter with emergencies as it is connected with relevant sectors to assess needs, has established strongcommunicationlineswithinthecommunitiesandcanbuildonitsCSOstoinformpeopleaboutprocessesanddecisionsanddeliveremergencyresponse.This,however,hasnotbeenthepriorityoftheprojectevaluated,whose main focus was on poverty reduction. If stakeholders will continue to implement the processes ofparticipatorygovernanceintroducedtowardsthisend,theactivitiesaremostlikelygoingtohavetheintendedimpactontheindirectbeneficiaries.Asofthetimeoftheevaluation,thetargetpopulationwashighlysatisfiedwiththeproject.Theywouldonlyhavewishedforittostaylongerandcomewithadditionalfundsfor“hard”projects.This,however,wasnotapriorityofthecallandwouldnothavebeeninlinewithdonorpriorities.

The project was, in general, appropriate to the needs of the target groups. All stakeholders, includinggovernment units at all levels, did not hesitate to express their appreciation in interviews and FGDs. ThisincludesthebarangayofficialswhostronglybenefittedfromBDPPlanning,theimplementingpartnerswhoarecommitted advocates of the initiative and the MLGUs which recognize the need even if they might beconcernedaboutthepoliticalconsequences“Thestartwasn’teasy, ittookalongtime,thiskindsofprojectscreatealotofquestionsinpeoplesminds”.Evenpeopleinthecommunities,whohadinitiallyhadreservationstoparticipatejoinedinlargernumbers:“Wewereaskingourselves:isitreallynecessary,letthepoliticiandoit,theyarepaidforit.Butthathaschanged.”

Thegovernance reforms introducedby theprojectaremandatedby thegovernmentundera long-standingprogrammeofdecentralizationandstrengtheninglocalgovernment(RepublicActNo.7160of1991,knownasLocalGovernment Code), the implementationofwhich ismanagedbyDILG.As a consequence, the projectworkedcloselywithDILG,alinkthatcouldhavebeenstronger,especiallyintheinitialphase.

Most of the approaches implemented by the project were developed in close cooperation with thestakeholdersthemselves.Keyactivities,suchasBDPPlanningandroll-outofGoodGovernancetrainings,weredirectly adapted and implemented by them. One important legacy of the project is the considerableexperience gained by implementing partners in local governance reform. Only part of Activity 2, theadaptationof themonitoring tool (Activity 2.1, 2.3 and2.7),wasnot in linewith stakeholderpriorities andabandonedontheway.Itwasreplacedwithalike-mindedprocessinlinewithpoliciesandpracticescomingfromDILGdirectly,theSealofgoodLocalGovernance.Overall,theprojectprovidedsolutionstokeyneedsofthe stakeholders (such as BDP Planning, SGLG, Federation of CSOs),mainly by providing capacity trainings,


resources and the space necessary to implement those processes and providing concrete avenues forcooperationbetweenCSOsandLGUs.AsaDILGrepresentativewithinaMLGUputit:“WiththefundingfromACF,theLGUnowhadnomoreexcusetoexcludeCSOsfromtheactivities.”

Anassessmentof the challenges to goodgovernanceonwhich theprojecthad thebiggest impact showed,thatitdidnotonlymanagetoworkonkeyaspectsasidentifiedbythebeneficiaries,butalsotoconsistentlyaddressthose(seealsoAnnex7):

(1) CSOsarenolongerperceivedasenemyoftheLGU,(2) CSOsareinternallyorganisedandaccredited,(3) Reportingontransparencyisworking,(4) LGUsarenowabletobetterdelivergoodgovernanceandunderstandthepovertysituationinremote

areasand(5) CSOsnowhaveresourcesfortrainingandparticipation.

One of the strength of the projectwas its ability to adapt to the various contexts it faced in the differentmunicipalities. As fieldworkerswere assigned toonemunicipality each, they could tailor their support andindividually guide the processes. Further, the more academic modules provided by DLSU-JRIG on GoodGovernance (GG)were adapted to the local needs in the barangays, by the stakeholders themselves. Evenmoreso,theteamwaspro-activelytryingtoreshapetheprojectapproach,wherevertheyconsideredthistobe necessary. After the first year of project implementation and two mid-term evaluations, the projectpartnersmade someadjustments to thedesignand indicatorswereadapted to the contexton theground,thoseweremainly:

(1) additional capacity training to CSOs to bring them in the position to fulfil tasks foreseen by theproject,

(2) federationofCSOstoensurethattheycanspeakformorethantheirdirectconstituents,(3) continuoussupportandback-uptoCSOsintheirengagementwithMLGUs,(4) recurringvisitsatMLGUtoconvinceeventhemostcriticalexecutivestocontinuetheirsupporttothe

project,(5) roll-outofgoodgovernancetrainingstoallbarangaysindividually(notclusteredasintroducedinthe

proposal)and(6) reductionofthenumberofbarangayswithBDPPlanningactivities.

A more strategic exit and sustainability planning could have ensured additional relevance. As mentionedabove,however,theprojectwasshortintime,attheend.

Ingeneral,thereisahighpotentialtoreplicateandscale-uptheapproach,basedonamorethoroughbaselineassessment in the respective municipalities. The challenge to meaningfully implement participatorygovernanceinacontextofpovertyandlackingcapacitiesonbehalfofboth,LGUsandCSOs,isnotuniquetothesefivemunicipalities.TheapproachchosenbythisprojectisclearlyinlinewithgovernmentprioritiesandprovedreceptivetoCSOsneeds.Thus,areplicationinothermunicipalitiesshouldbeconsidered.Bybuildingonthelessonslearnedandencouragingsomeofthechampionmunicipalitiesofthisprojecttosupportothermunicipalities in a “big brother / small brother” scheme could allow for some scale-up, yet communityorganisation,capacitytrainingandrelationshipbuildingwillalwaysremainatimeconsumingactivities.

MainRecommendations

- Governance projects need to be highly context specific. The design should allow for such flexibility toensurerelevanceoftheprojectacrosslevelsandgeographicregions.

- Additionalthoughtneedstobegiventoensuresustainabilityofgovernanceprojectsastheycan,atbest,reachachangeinperceptionandprocesses.

- ACFshouldtrytosecureresourcesforanewgovernanceprojectintheregiontocomplementthegainsofthisone,especiallyfocusingondecreasingIRAdependency.

Coherence

Theprojectwasclearlyinlinewithdonorpriorities(asdefinedintheCallforproposals)andnationalpoliciesasmostoftheactivitiessupportedDILGintheimplementationofparticipatorygovernanceontheground,anexercisethatusuallylackscapacityandfinancialresourcestobefullyimplemented.However,theprojectwasnotuptodatewithregardstoupcomingpolicychangesinkeyareas,leadingtoadesignthatwasnotcoherentwiththestatusquo,whentheprojectstarted(especiallymonitoringtoolandBuB).


Complementaryadvocacyworkonnational level couldhave led toadditional coherenceof theactivity.ThefieldteamwouldhavebeenbetterinformedaboutnewpoliciesofDILGandsomeofthechallengesthatwereencounteredbecauseofconflictinginterpretationsofnationalpoliciesbetweentheMLGUs,betweenMLGUsand CSOs and between the team andDILG could have been resolved by seeking clarification fromnationallevel. An initialMemorandumofUnderstanding (MoU) between EU, ACF andDILG, signed at national levelwould have made access to and support from MLGUs easier. Further, some key policy changes to makeparticipatorygovernancemoremeaningfulonthe local levelcouldhavebeenpromoted,basedonACFfieldexperienceatanearlierstageoftheproject.Thiswasnotpartoftheprojectdesign;itwouldhavemadethingseasier,however.

ACF and MinLand actively engaged and consulted with the main stakeholders, especially DILG, CSOs andMLGUs in the course of the project. After initial reservations, DILG was very supportive in the roll-out oftrainings, providing resources and resource speakers. However, some training activities of ACF and DILGdoubled,leadingtooverlaps.AmoreintensiveconsultationwithDILGduringdesignphasecouldhavefurtherbenefittedtheproject(seeabove).

ExchangebetweenACF/MinLandandotheractorsworkinginthesameareaofintervention(goodgovernance)wasonlythoughttowardstheendoftheprojectimplementation.Thegreatinspirationthoseengagedintheexchangedrawfromtheir joinedconferencealreadyshowstheadditionalbenefitanearlierexchangecouldhave had. Especially the following aspects of coordination with other organisations could have beenintensified:

(1) assessment of previous and current good governance interventions in the area to build on theirknowledge(CRSwithBDPPlanninginAntipas,SIDAwithpreviousGGprojectinArakan,a.o.),

(2) linkwith other GG projects inMindanao and on national level, especially those funded under thesameEUCall(here,EUcouldalsohavesupportedexchange),

(3) startlinkingCSOFederationsandstrongerCSOswithregionalandnationalCSOnetworksand(4) assessexisting trainingopportunitiesandmodalities forCSOscoming fromgovernmentagenciesas

wellasCSOnetworks.

TheprojectwasinlinewithACFGenderPolicy,althoughitdidnotgivespecificattentiontoGenderaspects,asthetargetsoftheactivitieswereinstitutionsandorganisations,notindividuals.Theinvolvementofwomeninpolitics,andevenmoreso inCSOs, isnotamain issueofconcern in thePhilippines (except for theMuslimdominatedareas).Ahighproportionofwomenhaveparticipatedingivingandreceivingthetrainingsandinmanaginggovernancereformasfunctionariesinlocalgovernmentunitsaswellasfieldworkersintheprojectitself.AmongtheCSOstrainedandencouragedintheproject,asignificantproportionrepresentstheinterestsofwomen.

AspectsofDisasterRiskReductionwerenotspecificallyaddressedbytheproject,butthere isan impressiveawarenessoftheneedtoaddressenvironmentalconcernsamongLGUandCSOmembersintheprojectarea.Manymentioneddeforestation,preventionofmudslidesoreco-tourismascoreprojectsforthecomingyears.TheprojectaddressedsuchmattersiftheyemergedinthecontextofBuBorBDPactivities.

Ithastobementioned,however,thattheselectionof53outofthe132barangaysthatreceivedBDPplanningwasbasedonpragmaticconsiderationsincooperationwiththeMLGUsandnotalonganassessmentoftheirvulnerability.Asaconsequence,someofthepoorestbarangays,especiallyinPresidentRoxas,wereexcludedfromthisactivity.ThisisnotinlinewiththegeneralstrategyofACFtofocusonthosemostvulnerable.

MainRecommendations

- Close coordination with organisations active in governance projects in the respective country and anassessmentofpreviousgovernanceprojectsintheprojectregioncreateadditionalsynergies.

- Complementaryadvocacyonnationallevel,fromthebeginningoftheproject,ishighlyuseful.- Onlocallevel,itisimportanttoidentifythesupportersoftheprojectearlyonandactivelyengagethemin

planningandimplementation.- In the future,ACFandEUshouldpromotepolicy changesonnational levelwith regards toparticipatory

governance.

Efficiency

Theefficiencyofaprojectwithregardstoachangeofperceptionsandpracticesaswellasonrelationshipsisalwaysdifficulttoassess.ThegeneralambienceintheFGDsandthegreatrecognitionwithwhichboth,CSOs


andLGUs,spokeofeachother’sparticipationingovernanceandthedevelopmentsthroughoutthelastthreeyears, justifyapositiveassessment in theeyesof theevaluator. Thepositive steps thatmostmunicipalitieshavetakentoensureacontinuityofthepartnershipfurtherunderlinethisassessment.IftheBDPswillfinallyguidetheplanningandimplementationofactivitiesinthebarangays,theprojectisagoodvalueformoney.

Project limitations were primarily political and social, i.e. the weak capacity of most CSOs and POs toparticipateinthepoliticalprocessatthemunicipalandbarangaylevelsandtheinitialreluctanceofmunicipaland barangay officials to take the trouble to incorporate those organization in government activities.Additional funds to incentivesMLGUs at an earlier stage of the project could have helped jump-start suchprocesses; to which extend this would have increased sustainability in the long run remains a matter ofdebate.Unsurprisingly,moststakeholderswouldhavepreferredadditionalhardprojects:“Hardprojectsalsosupport good governance. Roadsmakemeetingsmore accessible andwhen people have better livelihoods,they can participatemore. Plus, revolutionary elements try to reorient people by saying things like: ‘look atyourroads,thegovernmentdoesn’tcareforyou.’”

Asindicatedabove,theprojectfacedmajordelaysintheinitialphaseduetoamissingbaselineassessmentinkeyareas.Timecouldhavebeensavedwithaproperbaseline-assessmentshowing that thebottleneckwasthecapacityofCSOstoparticipateaswellasthecapacityofofficialsatthebarangaylevel.Intheinitialyear,fieldworkers had devotedmore attention than justified tomunicipal governance reform and not sufficientattentiontoreformatthebarangaylevel.Afterarevisionofactivitiesandindicatorsmid-way,theprojectstaffrefocusedand,bytheendoftheproject,activitieswerewellontrackandmostlyimplementedontime.Atthetime of the final evaluation, only very few activities had not been concluded. Those were the “Exit andSustainabilityPlanningWorkshop”aswellas the“DocumentationofBestPracticesonline”.Preparations forbothactivitieshavebeenmade,soitislikelythattheywillbeimplementedwithonlyasmalldelay.

All revised indicatorswillbemetat theendof theproject;however, the indicators themselvesarenotveryusefultomeasuretheimpactofagovernanceproject.

(1) thebaselinewasonlyassessedwhenactivitieswerealreadyon-going,(2) therewas almost no usable information regarding civil society organizations and barangays at the

startoftheprojectandOVIsonlycountthenumberofCSOfederationswithouttrackingthequalityoftheirengagementorthenumberandtypeoftheirmembers,

(3) very little baseline datawas available on theOVIs intended tomeasure project performance (f.ex.“Increaseinbudgetallocationforcommunitybaseddevelopmentsprogrammes”hasnobaseline,asaconsequence,theamountof69,200,000Phpismeaningless),

(4) somedata relevant for the baseline and subsequentmonitoring could not be gathered at all (f.ex.“numberofparticipantsincommunityconsultations”),

(5) all indicators were of a quantitative nature, not allowing an assessment of the quality of theinterventionorthepartnership,

(6) some of the key components of the project are not being monitored, sometimes leading to anunintendedshiftinfocus(f.ex.workingwiththebarangays)and

(7) some indicators could have been more useful with only slight rephrasing (OVI: number ofperformancefeedbacksacceptedbyLGU–betterwouldbe:Ratiobetweennumberofperformancefeedbackshandedinandnumberofthoseacceptedandactedupon,byLGU).

A revisedmonitoring toolmakessomesteps into the rightdirection,yetanewprojectdesigncouldbenefitfromamorecarefullydevelopedlogframe.

Allactivitiesimplementedwerenecessarytoachievetheresults.Additionalactivitiestoensuresustainabilityoftheresults,especiallywithregardstothecapacityofCSOstoimplementandaccountforprojectsassignedto them, should have been included.One activity, the adaptation of the transparency-monitoring tool,wasabandonedmid-wayand replacedby the implementationof thestandardisedmonitoringmechanismof theSGLG.Theroll-outofgoodgovernancetrainingstoeachbarangaywentbeyondtheactivitiesintroducedintheproposalbut itwas important to (1)prepare theBDPprocess in the respectivebarangaysand (2)ensureatleastsomeimpactonthosebarangaysthatcouldnotjointheBDPprocessduetotherevisionmid-way.

Overall,ithastobepositivelymentioned,thattheprojectwasabletoreachitsaimsinallfivemunicipalities,giventhesocialandpoliticalcontextof theregion,this isamajorachievement,reachedthroughtheeffortsmadebythestaffinthefieldaswellasthestrategicinterventionsoftheACFCountryDirectoranditsDeputy.


MainRecommendations

- Any intervention thataims to strengthenparticipatorygovernance should focusonCSOs,organise themandmakethemindependentofoutsidesupport.

- Social and political processes are complex and time consuming. This should be reflected in personalresourcesandtimetable.

- OVIs should reflect the specific nature of governance projects to ensure useful monitoring and properfocus.

Effectiveness

Changing how local governments function, particularly changing them so they serve the interests ofmarginalizedpeoples(byincorporatingthevoicesofCSOs),meetsanumberofcomplexchallenges.Thereareexternal factors inthisprojectthatarenotwithintheproject’scontrolandthismustbetaken intoaccount.Yet, other factors that arewithin the projects control have not been fully recognised. A better assessmentprior to implementationwouldhave saved the team fromgoing through someof the troubles in the initialphase.

Theoriginaldesignwasoverlyambitious,takingarathertechnicalapproachtoreachsocialchange.Thiswasaclearmisfit, based on (1) the limited experience of ACF in governance-only interventions and (2) the poorassessment of key elements in the design phase (see above). Especially the time, that it takes to buildrelationshipsandtogaintrustoftheprojectpartnerswasunderestimated,aswellasthetimeittakestobuildnew relationships mid-way, if key stakeholders leave and new personal arrives (after elections, change inleadershipofCSOsetc.).WiththelongexperienceofMinLandinthisfield,however,itissurprising,thattheirexpertise was not reflected in the project proposal. At this initial point, MinLand should have been moreassertivetofeeditsexperienceintotheprojectdesignanditsimplementation.

Many good developments have been jump-started, but “they fizzle out in the end”, as a team memberconcluded in one of the feedback workshops. And this is the case despite the fact that ACF has investedconsiderableresourcesinadditionalstaff,re-staffingevenattheendoftheprojectcycleandimplementingallrecommendationsmadeduringmid-termevaluationandROM.Togivetwoexamples:59outof132barangaysreceivedBDPPlanningsupport,butanumberofthemfailtotranslatetheseprogrammesintoyearlybudgetallocations necessary to receive funds and implement projects along their priorities. The CSOs are not self-sustainingat theendof theproject.Especiallybudgetingatbarangay levelandprojectmanagementamongtheCSOsremainsachallenge;keyaspectsthatmayhampersustainabilityoftheproject.“30%oftheCSOscando thewhole projectmanagement others struggle, especially the new ones coming in. good policies of theproject may lead to reinforcing stereotypes if CSOs cannot deliver on projects. Financial bookkeeping andaccountingandmonitoringisreallyaproblem.”

Despite these challenges, the project has also built upon and developed some good practices. Theidentification of the BDP planning as a key avenue to practice participatory governance resulted from aprevious intervention of ACF in the area. The adaptation of the GG roll-out to the specific context in thebarangay (throughgames, theatreplaysetc.) is basedon theexperienceof key resourcepersons inearlier,relatedactivities.AcloserpartnershipwithMinLandinthedesignphaseandabettercooperationwithotheractorswith broader experience in governance projects inMindanao (see above) could have broadened thebaseofgoodpracticesandlessonslearned.

MainRecommendations

- Anyfutureprojectshouldensurethatitdoesnotonlyjump-startpositiveprocesses,butaccompanythosethroughthefullprojectcycle/untiltheirfullimplementation.

Sustainabilityandlikelihoodofimpact

Theproject holds a great opportunity for sustainability. Yet, activities to ensure that this potentially is fullyexploredhavenotbeensufficientlystartedasofthetimeoftheevaluation.This isduetothesmalldelayinprojectactivitiesbutalsobasedontheweakprojectdesign.ThekeyforsustainabilityofsuchprojectslieswiththeCSOs.Governmentschangeeverythreeyears.Andevenifthepersonaldoesnotchange,socaninformalpolicies and attitudes towards participation and transparency. In the end, it is CSOs that hold governmentsaccountable-ornot.Whentheyarestrongandhavethecapacitytodoso,theywill,irrelevantofchangesinadministration. Smaller CSOsmay vanish, othersmay appear, but if the network is strong and capacitated,they will continue to call for transparency and participation. For LGUs, such endeavours or often just an


additionalworkload,inthefirstplace.Sotheymayparticipate,butonlyreluctantly.IfthepressurefromCSOsishigh,however,theywillbehappyforeverysupporttheyget,tomeettheirdemands.Inthislight,itremainsquestionablewhytheproject,initially,dedicatedmostsupporttotheLGUsratherthantheCSOs;amisbalancethatwascorrectedtowardstheendoftheproject.Activitiestoensuresustainability,however,onlyforesawan exchange of best practices, yet did not take into account that not all actors may be either willing orcapacitatedenoughtocapitalisethose.

Withregardstofinancialsustainability,theprojectcouldhavefocusedmoreondevelopingschemestowardsaself-sustenanceofCSO,especiallyCSOformationactivities.Sofar,CSOslookuptotheLGUsorINGOs,likeACF,tocontinuetheircapacitybuildingandcovertheirexpenses(suchastransportationfeesandfood).Thismightwork,aslongasLGUssupporttheworkofCSOs,butitkeepsCSOsdependentandinaninferiorposition.SomeCSOs slowly start to develop more sustainable schemes, such as membership fees and micro-loanprogrammes, yet their success remains to be seen. Most LGUs have made commitments to support CSOsthrougheitheranExecutiveOrderensuringaregularallocationof fundsorbasedonannualallotments.Butthosecanberevokedatanypointintime.

Whethertheimproveddevelopmentplanningwillleadtoadditionalincomingfundsforboth,LGUsandCSOsisanotheraspectthatcannotbefullyassessedatthispoint intime.However, firstdevelopmentstowardsthisend(suchasthesupportofDOLEtotwocommunityactivities inMagpetandArakan)showthepotential. Ingeneral, however, the project has strengthened the relevant actors for participatory governance, withoutincreasingthebudgettobedividedamongthem;IRAdependencyremainshighintheregion,anaspectthatshouldbeaddressed inany futureproject.“Thecakehasnotbecomeanybigger,but therearemoreactorsfightingoverit,now.”Thismayleadtofrustrationinthemediumterm.

Intermsoftechnicalsustainability,thetoolsthathavebeendevelopedinthecourseoftheprojectareveryuseful and have been adapted to the local context, such as the training modules, the checklists for SGLGmonitoring and the templates for BDP Planning. Some LGUs have even developed them further and areplanning to translate them into the local vernaculars. To ensure sustainability, those tools should bemadeavailabletoallstakeholders,beyondtheprojectduration.

CSOsandLGUshavebeentrainedtogetherinthecourseoftheproject.Thishasreducedmisinformationandreacheda“levelling-up”betweenthetwo.Therehasbeennoschemedevelopedtoensurethatthecapacitybuilt on both sides, LGU and CSO, will remain on the same level beyond the project duration. Continuouscapacity building is necessary, however, to ensure consistency when new actors enter the picture, smalleractorswill get involvedandnewpoliciesgain in importance. Trainingwill continue tobeprovided for LGUsthroughnationalagencies,butasimilarschemeforCSOshasnotbeendevelopedbytheprojects.

In terms of institutional sustainability, it was a great gain of the project that it managed to build CSOFederations. Those ensure sustainability beyond the existence of specific NGOs or POs: “The practice ofparticipationwillremainandmemoriesofthegoodthatbrought”.Federationsareverymotivatedtoensuretheir self-sustainability and some already have the capacity to do so. As long as the circumstances arefavourable to CSO engagement onMunicipal level, it is very likely that they will remain active partners indevelopment. If circumstancesbecome trickier, small-scale supportmightbenecessary toensure thatCSOswill insiston theirparticipation throughbackup fromexternalactors.Thiscouldbedoneby theCSODesks(where they are functional), the representatives of DILG in theMLGU ormembers of the formerMinLandprojectteam,iftheyarestillworkinginthecommunities.

Withnewadministrationspossibleeverythreeyears,thereisnoguaranteethattheelectedofficials,whohavebeentrainedbytheproject,willcontinueinoffice.LocalstaffoftheDILGwhoseroleitistostrengthenlocalgovernmentandsupportBuBwithsupportfromtheCSOs,should,inprinciple,continuetheproject'spracticesbuttheyareoftennotfullycapabletodoso.Thegapsintheirperformancehavebeenfilledbytheprojectbutthesegapswilllikelyreturnoncetheprojecthasconcluded.

The creation of a CSO Desk within theMLGUs was thought to be a key to institutional sustainability. Thedegree towhich it is currently functional, however, differs strongly between themunicipalities. Even thosefunctionaldonothavethecapacitytoproactivelydevelopinitiativestostrengthenCSOsorengagedeprivedgroups:“withlimitedresources,CSODeskOfficersstruggletojustmeettherequestsputforwardbythosemostvocal”.ThecontinuityofthesupportoftherespectiveofficerstotheCSOsfurtherdependsonthegoodwilloftheadministrationsaswellastheirindividualcapacities.

The CSOs and the functionaries, some of whom have been trained, will continue to embody the project’sprinciplesbut lackingadequatesupport, theyareprobablynotgoingtoupholdthecurrentstandards.Some


LGUOfficialsareconfidentthatkeyelementswilllast,butthismayonlypertainforthosemunicipalitiesmostadvanced in terms of good governance: “Much that was gained and also developed by municipality willremain,theradioprogramme,outreachvisits,disclosurepolicy,onceintroduced,itwillbehardtotakeitback.”Itwouldbebetter,alltogether,ifthepracticeswereinstitutionalisedandbacked-upwithasignificantbudgettoensuretheircontinuity.DILGshouldbetherepositoryandcustodianofthis,thecomingmonthswillshowwhethertheyarewillingandabletoliveuptothisrole.

The impact of the project on the direct beneficiaries - CSOs, LGUs and their partnership - has been clearlyassessed by the evaluation and described above. The project has reached a better understanding of whatparticipatorygovernancemeansinpractice,exemplifiedhowallthoseinvolvedcanbenefitfromitandclearlydefined standards and set examples on how it can be implemented on barangay and municipal level.Individuals have been empowered to fulfil their responsibilities and all those involved can relate to thestandards, procedures and resulting Planning Documents in the future: “they are now vigilante, because itcame from them.” The impact of the project on indirect beneficiaries andwith regards to the overall aim,povertyreduction,cannotbeassessedatthepointoftheevaluation.Ifbarangayactivitiesinthenext5yearswillbeguidedbytheBDPsandcommunitieswillbeabletoassessadditional fundingfromMLGUandothernationalagencies,basedontheirplans,therewillsurelybeapositiveeffect.Asubsequent(small)evaluationcouldverifythisin3-5yearstomeasuretangibleeffectsoftheinterventiononthisaspect.

MainRecommendations

- To make governance projects sustainable, their gains need to be reflected in technical, financial andinstitutionalchanges.

- ACF, MinLand and the EU should develop a scheme to ensure the sustainability of project gains withregardstotheCSOFederations.

- DILGshouldseeitselfasguardianoftheprojectgainsinthefield.- CSO Federations should professionalise their work and diversify funding sources to ensure a critically-

constructiveengagementindependentofLGUsupport.- LGUs should proactively strengthen existing avenues of cooperation and explore further possibilities to

honourtheimprovedrelationshipwithCSOs.- LGUsshouldinstitutionalisethesupporttoCSOsfortheirengagementinparticipatorygovernance.- ACFandEUshouldassessthetangibleeffectsofthisprojectintermsofpovertyreductionin5years.- DILGshouldworkonaninventoryoftrainingsavailableforBLGUandCSOsonaspectsofgovernanceand

projectcyclemanagement.

5. ConclusionsOverall, theprojectwashighlyrelevantandsuccessfulevaluatedagainstthereadjustedaimsand indicators.However, it was based on aweak design and the experience of themain implementing agency, ACF, with“governanceonly”projectswas limited in the initialyears.Asa result,keyconceptswereunclear,prioritieswerenotclearlycommunicatedandtheprojectfacedchallengesduringtheimplementationthathadnotbeenanticipatedinthedesignphase.Twomid-termassessmentshelpedtoreshapethefocusoftheprojectandtodefine realistic aims. Both project partners (ACF andMinLand) adjusted to the new design and proactivelyidentifiedadditionalwaystomaketheprojectmorerelevanttothestakeholders.However,attheendoftheproject,timewaslackingtoworkonacomprehensivesustainabilityscheme.

The impactof theprojectonparticipatorygovernancewashugeandthechange inattitudeandpractices islikelytolast,towhatdegreemaydifferbetweenthemunicipalities.Itislikelythattheprojectwillalsoreachtangible effects in terms of poverty reduction. Singular developments towards this end can already beidentified;yet,itistooearlytofullyassessthose.Ifadditionalresourcescouldbeinvestedinacomprehensivesustainabilityscheme(eitherasacontingencyreserveorasoneelementinanewproposal),theimpactoftheprojectislikelytomanifestmoresystematically.Asubsequentassessment,threetofouryearsfromnowcouldbeusedtodefinitelyevaluateandmeasuretheimpactoftheprojectinthelongerterm.


6. LessonslearnedandgoodpracticesAnumberoflessonscanbelearnedfromthisprojectforfutureproject design, implementation and monitoring. Governanceprojects, in the past, have not been the main focus of ACFsprogrammatic portfolio.However,most ofACFs developmentprojects and even a considerable number of its humanitarianprojectshavegovernancecomponentsthatcanbeinformedbythe lessons generated in this project. If projects are notgoverned in the right way, implementation gets delayed orstopped all together, interventions may not reach the mostvulnerableandgoalsreachedmaynotbesustainable.Further,it may be worth considering for ACF to engage stronger in

governanceprojects.AtleastinthePhilippines,goodgovernanceisthekeytopovertyreduction,afindingthatholdstrueformostACFcountryoffices(exceptforthoseinacutecrisisregions).Inmostofthem,hungerisapolitical,ratherthanaresourceproblem.

1. LessonsLearned

First,a proper assessment of the context inwhich the project intervenes is necessaryprior to thedesignphase as governance projects are highly context sensitive. This includes an assessment of current andupcomingpolicies,ofattitudesandcapacitiesofstakeholdersandoffurtherinterveningfactors,suchaslocalconflictsorviolentactivities,politicalextremismorgeographicalconsiderations.Here,oneshouldnevertakethemostpositivesettingasbasisforplanning.

Anyprojectdesignandmonitoring shouldbeprecise in its key concepts aswell as its focus. Processes, ingeneral, are not as standardised as in humanitarian interventions. Governance interventions are complex,targetmanyactors,arehardtomonitorandneedtoadapt tochangingcircumstances.Therefore,clarityonthekeyconceptsmakesimplementationeasierandmoreeffective.

OVIsshouldreflectthefocusoftheprojectandbedevelopedtomeaningfullymeasurethedevelopmentandsuccessof theproject.Aproperbaselineaswellas the introductionofa fewqualitativeelements ishelpfultowardsthisend.Ifwelldefined,theyhelptheprojectteamtostayfocusedevenifadaptationsarenecessaryandchallengesoccur.

Socialandpoliticalprocessesarecomplex,changingthose isatimeconsumingactivitythatrarely leadstoacontinuous improvement of the situation. The time that it takes to build relationships, build trust and gothroughtheseprocessesoverandoveragainshouldbefactoredintoprojectdesign.

AnyinterventionthataimstostrengthenparticipationinthelongerrunshouldfocusonCSOsandmakethemindependentofoutsidesupport.Federatingthemisanadditionalassettosustainability.Governmentschangeeverythreeyears.Andevenifthepersonneldoesnotchange,socaninformalpoliciesandattitudestowardsparticipationandtransparency.Intheend,itisCSOsthatholdgovernmentsaccountable-ornot.Whentheyarestrongandhavethecapacitytodoso,theywill,irrelevantofchangesinadministration.SmallerCSOsmayvanish, others may appear, but if the network is strong and capacitated, they will continue to call fortransparencyandparticipation.

Additional thought needs to be given toensure sustainability of governance projects as they can, at best,reach a change in perception and processes. To make them sustainable, those need to be reflected intechnical,financialandinstitutionalchanges.Theemergenceofthosecannotbetakenforgrantedandshouldthus be consequently fostered by the project activities and be anticipated in the design phase. A merecollectionandsharingofbestpracticesmaynotsufficetowardsthisend.

As governance projectsmostly relate to national policies and laws, complementary advocacy activities onnational level (even ifon lowscale)contributetothe localprojectactivities.Supportfromrelevantnationalagencies, in the formofaMoUora joined statement,makes it easier to secure thebuy-in from local levelofficials.Further,shortcommunicationlineswithnationalagenciesandactorshelpincaseswhereclarificationontheimplementationofspecificpoliciesisneeded.

Onlocallevel,itisalwayshelpfultoidentifythemostlikelysupportersofaspecificprojectoractivityearlyonintheimplementationandconstantlyengagethosetofostertheacceptanceofandsupporttotheproject

Picture 4: Concluding remarks during FGD withCSOmembersinPresidentRoxas


among their peers. Inmost cases, supporterswill be thosewhose live ismade easier by the project. Theymight,mostlikely,alsobekeytoensurethesustainabilityofprojectresults.

2. GoodPractices

Twomaingoodpracticescanbeidentifiedinthisproject,theroll-outofthegoodgovernancetrainingstoallbarangays and subsequent barangay development planning. Only combined can they develop their fullpotential, as one is the preparatory activity making the other a meaningful exercise with useful output.Complementingtheseactivitieswithathirdcomponent,ensuringthatbarangaystranslatetheplansinannualinvestmentplanstoassessandspendthefunds,wouldensureadditionalsustainability.This,however,hasnotbeenpartoftheproject.

Theidentificationofthetwoactivitiesisbasedon(1)theirroleforthesuccessoftheprojectasawhole,(2)theirinnovativecharacter,(3)theirpotentialreplicabilityand(4)theirappreciationbythestakeholdersoftheproject.TheBDPisanational,Filipino,policy,butsimilarprocessesareenvisagedoratleastintheplanninginnearlyallcountriestoguideplanningandbudgetallocationonthelowestpoliticallevel.Thus,replicationwithslightmodifications is possible andmay alsohelp inform the selection anddesignof hardprojects, such asWASHorLivelihood.

Step1:AdaptationandRoll-outofGoodGovernancetrainingtoallbarangaysThe project team, together with a team from DLSU-JRIGconductedanumberof trainings toMLGUandmainCSOsineachmunicipality.Thesetrainingscombinedcoursesin:

(1) Goodgovernanceprinciplesandconcepts,(2) ProcessofPolicyDevelopment,(3) FinancingProgramsandFundraisingand(4) Participatory engagement with local authorities

andnationalagencies

In a subsequent activity, the main lessons from thesetrainingswerecombinedintoatwo-daymodule,theGood

Governancetraining.IndividualsfromMLGUandCSOswereidentifiedtoteachthismoduleintherespectivebarangaysoftheirmunicipality:“Inthebarangay,eventhosewhowenttotrainingsbefore,theyonlyknowalittleofeverything”.Theyadaptedtherathersophisticatedlessonstothelocalcontextandeducationlevelbyintroducinggames,theatreplays,quizzesetc.Inasubsequentactivity,thetrainer-teamvisitedonebarangayafteranothertoconductthetrainings.Theprojectteamwaspresentduringthevenueandtheprojectbudgetsecuredtransportationandmodestfood.Thetrainersaswellasparticipantsvividlyrecollected.Mainfactorsforthesuccessofthesetrainingswere:

(1) Changeinculture:Theimplementationoftheseactivitiesclearlychangedthecultureofgovernance.Peopleactuallywenttothebarangays, ratherthancallingselectedpeople fromthebarangays.ThetrainingswereimplementedbyCSOsandLGUstogether,exemplifyingthenewspiritofpartnership.

(2) BetterUnderstandingandCapacities:Asaresultof thetrainings,people in thecommunitiescouldunderstand each other’s roles and responsibilities in governance better and were capacitated tobetter liveuptothose.Thiseasedthe implementationofsubsequentgovernanceactivities,suchasBDPPlanning.

(3) Increase in participation:As the roll-outactivitywasbrought to thebarangays,a largernumberofpeoplecouldparticipate.Thisalsoincreasedparticipationinsubsequentgovernanceprocesses.

(4) Levellingupofbeneficiaries:Astheroll-outensuredbroadparticipationofpeople,ithelpedtolevel-upthe informationbetweenthosewhohavealreadyparticipated in trainings (especiallyBLGU)andthose who had never received such education, mostly POs and regular citizens: “So with joinedtrainings,wecould justgo thereandsay,youwere in thesame training, soyouhave toknowthis.Theyevencalledustojoininthebudgetplanning.Thatwasasurprisetous.”

(5) Empowerment and Awareness: A number of trainers shared their own stories of empowermentbecauseofthetrainings:“Before,Iwasveryshy,nowIcanreallyspeakup.SoIwasaspeakerinfrontofbarangayofficials,recitingRepublicActsandseeingtheirfacesandtheir‘ahs’and‘ohs’,thatwasgreatfun.AsaCSOmemberandwithmydisability,IwasnotusedtodoingthatbutwithsupportfromACFandMinLanditwaseasy.”Tomost,especiallyamongtheMLGU,thetrainingswereimportanttobetterunderstand the situationof poverty inwhich largenumbersof their constituents live.Manyhadnotseenthemoreremotebarangaysoftheirmunicipalitypriortothisactivity.

Picture5:TrainingofTrainersGGRoll-out


Step2:BDPPlanninginthebarangays

The roll-out of the good governance training to thebarangay level was the preparatory activity for thesubsequent joined barangay development planning.This activity provided a concrete and highly relevantavenueforcooperationbetweenCSOsandBLGUsthatalsoincludedindividualcommunitymembers:“Itisforthefirsttimethattheyarebeinginvolved,butalso,asthey can join, they cannot blame the captain alone,anymore”. Eachbarangayneeds todevelop its BDP, adocument covering a period of five years to ensureadditional funding from Municipal Level and nationalagencies. In thebest case, thisplanwouldalsodefinehow the regular barangay budget, the IRA would bespentandserveasreferencepointforanycommunitydiscussions:“Transparencyismissingwithoutaplan.”

This plan is not an overly complex document, but it requires aminimumof baseline assessment, technicalexpertise and involvement of the community tomake it ameaningful document. In the past, none of thebarangayswasabletogothroughthisexercisealone,asaresulttheyeitherhadnoplan,justcopyandpastedtheir plans from other barangays or the barangay captain drafted a makeshift document which was thenacceptedbythebarangaycouncil formerecompliancereasons.TheactivityoftheEPGprojectchangedthisapproach, thus laying the foundation for a meaningful community development: “It provided a venue forparticipation,peopleknowbestwhattheyneedandthebarangayleadershipcouldreallyseetheirknowledgeandwillingnesstoparticipate.Now,thematrixisintherelocallanguagesotheycanactuallyunderstandwhatis in theplan. Suchplanning ismost important ingoodgovernancebecauseonlywithaplan canyou checkaccountability.”Further,eachsectorwasallocateditsshareoftheIRA,asmandatedbylaw,toprioritiseandaccountforontheirown. Inajointmeeting,communitymembers,POsandsectorrepresentativesaswellasmembersofthebarangaydevelopmentcouncilandthebarangaychairmanassessedthebaselineinformationnecessary,definedgapsinthecommunitiesandprioritisedprojects in thedifferentsectors for thenext fiveyears:“BDPplan isnotaneasy thing to do. You have to call all CSOs together,make them sit down, listen to them, one by one andprepare a holistic plan“. The process was jointly guided by the project team andMLGU officers from theplanningdivisionaswellastheDILG.Atechnicalwriterwashired,makingsurethatallrelevantinformationisgatheredinthedocumentandthefinalplancomplieswithnationalstandards.Thisplanthenguidesbarangayspending,aswellasmunicipalbudgetallocationstothecommunity:“BDPplanningwithCSOsalsohelpsusinthemunicipalitytoseetherealproblems,definetherightprojects.”

Mainfactorsforthesuccessofthisactivitywere:

(1) HighRelevance:Formoststakeholdersoftheproject,especiallyDILG,MLGUandBLGUandtheCSOsthisactivityishighlyrelevant.Ittookoversomeoftheirkeyduties,theywerenotabletoperforminthepastandmadeplanningandprioritisingeasierforthem.Althoughitisnota“hard”activity,BDPplanningfinallysecuredthebuy-intotheprojectasawholefromMLGUlevel.

(2) Concreteavenueforparticipation:ThisactivityprovidedagreatavenuetoshowcasethebenefitsofcooperationbetweenCSOs/POsandLGUatthelowestandmosttangiblelevelofgovernance.Thediscussionsmainly focused to problems and projects that everyone could relate to, thus ensuringactive input frommost: “BDP is not just the paper, but the process and the participation and theappreciationofeachother’sroles. Itprovedtheusefulnessoftheconcept.Theynowhaveamissionandavisionfortheirplanning,othersareverydependentontheirchairman.”

(3) Context sensitivity: the project team just provided space and financial resources for this activity.Input,discussionsandoutcomewereshapedbythestakeholdersthemselves,thusensuringtheirfullownershipofthefinalplan.

(4) Setstandards:Asthisactivityneedstobereplicatedeveryfiveyearsonbarangaylevel,thisshowcaseBDPPlanning set standards for subsequent processes. Peoplewill refer to the approach taken thistime and, if implementation is successful, BLGU andMLGUmay set aside funds to ensure anotherroundofmeaningfulBDPprocesses.

Picture6:Budgetasdisplayed inbarangayHall, barangaySanMiguel


(5) Ensure longer-term impact of project: As BDPs guide budget allocation for, at least, the next fiveyears, the EPG project has a lasting impact on the ground. Tangible results in terms of povertyreductionarelikelytofollow,ifbarangaysfollowtheprioritiessetintheBDP.

Casestudy:EcoTourisminbarangaySanMiguelThecommunityofSanMiguel,partoftheMunicipalityofArakan,liesinthemountainandhasaconsiderableIPpopulation.Inthepast,theyhavetriedtoraiseincomethroughgrowingandsellingvariouscrops,yetwith limitedsuccess.DuringtheBDPexercise,theylearnedthatmostoftheirsoilwasnotfertile,sofarmingwasno suitable option for income generation beyond smallsubsistence gardening. As a consequence, they brainstormedabout additional possibilities to improve their livelihoods.Members of the IP community, some of them beingrepresentatives in thebarangaydevelopmentcouncil, suggestedeco-tourism as an alternative, as the barangay is not far fromDavao.

Intotal,fivepotentialeco-tourismsitesarelocatedintheancestraldomainofSanMiguel;onlytheydidnotknow how to develop those into actual attractions. During the BDP process, the barangay prioritised thedevelopmentofthesites,startingwiththenaturalspringandreadjusteditscurrentaswellasfuturebudget.The ideawas to construct a natural pool at thebottomof a smallwaterfall, surroundedbyNipaHuts. Thebarangay provided the construction material and could secure additional input from DOLE to pay thecommunity labourers,basedona cash forwork scheme.SinceMay (9months), the communityhasearned113.000 Peso in entrance fee. This is shared among those working on the site, the barangay and the IPcommunity.Theshareofthebarangaywillbeusedtodevelopfurthersites,theshareoftheIPcommunitytostartascholarshipprogrammeforcollegetuition.

7. Recommendations

Picture8:ProjectPlanningBoard,CSOFederation,PresidentRoxas

Thefollowingrecommendationsaddressvariousactorsandshouldbeaddressedindifferenttimeframes.Theactorsareclearlystatedatthebeginningofeachrecommendation;therecommendationsaregroupedalongimmediate,medium-termandlonger-termtimeframes.

1. Immediate

ACF,MinLandandtheEUshoulddevelopaschemetoensurethesustainabilityofprojectgainswithregardstotheCSOFederations.SuchaschemecouldeitherbebasedonaCostExtensionorasmallcomponentinanewproject design. It should focuson the following aspects: (1) Financial Self-Sustainability of Federations,(2)politicalmentoringandback-upforthenext9-12months(possiblechangeinadministrationthroughlocalelections), (3) support in project cycle management, (4) development of a continuous and self-sustainingtrainingschemeand(5)buildnetworkwithregionalandnationalCSOformations.

Picture7:NaturalPool,BarangaySanMiguel


DILGshouldsee itselfasguardianof theprojectgains in the field.Thismeansespecially:(1)Back-upCSOswherevernecessaryincaseofconflictwithLGUs,(2)promotetheideaofparticipatorygovernanceinMLGU,especially after a change in administration, (3) ensure availability of resources developed in this project(manuals,templates,trainingmodules)toeveryoneand(4)conduct,wheneverpossible,joinedtrainingswithLGUandCSOs(makethe‘governmentacademy’a‘governanceacademy’).

CSOFederationsshouldprofessionalisetoensureacritically-constructiveengagementindependentofLGUsupport.Thismeansespecially:(1)developfundingschemesforself-sustenance,(2)diversifyfundingsources,(3)developschemeforcontinuedcapacitybuilding,independentofLGU,(4)ensuregoodprojectmanagementand(5)shepherdsmallerPOsandweakersectorstostrengthenthemandmultiplyprojectgains.

LGUs should proactively strengthen existing avenues of cooperation and explore further possibilities tohonour the improved relationshipwith CSOs. Thismeansespecially: (1)ensure continuousparticipationofCSOsingovernanceprocesses(BDPPlanning,ProjectMonitoring,MunicipalBudgetingandSpecialBodies)andworkagainstspoilersintheadministration,(2)collectandimplementbestpracticesresultingfromthisproject(suchasoutreachvisitsofArakanMunicipality,CSODaycelebrationinAntipas),(3)exploreadditionalavenuestohonourthe,mostlyvoluntary,engagementofCSOsinparticipatorygovernance.Supportersofparticipatorygovernanceshouldpro-activelypromotethisconceptintheadministration.

2. MediumTerm

ACFandEUshouldpromotepolicychangesonnationallevelwithregardstoparticipatorygovernance.Thusareespecially:(1)Lobbyforadequatefundsforparticipatorygovernance,thisincludesresourcesfortrainingof CSOs comparable to the level of training that LGUs receive and resources to compensate CSOs for theirinput to governance processes (transportation fees, allowances), (2) Lobby for the continuity of BuB or asimilarscheme,notonlytothepoorestMunicipalities,(3)RequestclarificationonthepolicyofCSODesk,thispositionshouldbefulltimewithownresourcesand(4)provideadditionalresourcetothebarangayreservedfortechnicalsupport inBDPdocumentation. Ifagovernmentwantsmeaningfulparticipatorygovernanceonthelowestlevels(whichisagoodthing),ithastoprovideadequateresourcestoenablesuchparticipationofthecivilsociety.IncontrasttoLGUs,theyarecurrentlyneithertrainednorpaidfortheirparticipation.

DILGshouldworkonan inventoryoftrainingsavailableforBLGUandCSOsonaspectsofgovernanceandproject cyclemanagement.Continuouscapacitybuilding isnecessary toensure the sustainabilityofprojectgains.Anumberofnationalagencies,asideofDILG,offertrainingmodulesonaspectscoveredbythisproject.SodosomeCSOformations.DILGshouldworkonaninventoryontheavailableoptionsaswellasconditionstoensurethattheexistingoffersareknownandused.

LGUs should institutionalise the support to CSOs for their engagement in participatory governance. Thismeans especially: (1) Ensure the reliable provision of adequate financial resources to CSOs (based on anExecutiveOrder)and(2)ensureadequateresources(timeandfinance)fortheCSODesk.

ACFshouldtrytosecureresourcesforanewgovernanceprojectintheregionto(1)replicatetheactivitytoadditional municipalities in the region, maybe based on small brother / big brother scheme engaging themunicipalities thathaveparticipated in thisproject and (2)provide complementaryactivities to the currentmunicipalities to increase theirbudget (taxcollection,entrepreneurial skillsetc.)and improvemonitoringofgovernance and implementation of projects. Here, a lot can be learned from the RESOURCE Gov project,fundedunderthesameCall.

ACF should carefully design any future governanceproject basedon the lessons learnedof this one.Thismeansespecially:(1)pro-activelyencouragelocalpartnerstofeedtheirexpertiseandcritiqueintothedesignasearlyaspossible,(2)carefullyassessthematurityandattitudeofkeystakeholdersvis-à-vistheprojectpriortotheproposalmaking,(3)promoteatimeframeandmonitoringindicatorsadequateforgovernanceprojects(and thus different from hard projects; concrete suggestions, see above) and (4) consider aspects ofsustainabilitymorecarefully.

EU should improve its calls to ensure a better design and relevance of projects. This means especially:(1)requestmappingofkeystakeholdersintermsofcapacity,maturity,attitudetowardstheproject(incaseofCSO:constituents,previousprojects,agenda,activity,historyofengagementwithLGU,atleastforthebiggest;in case of LGU: political colour, likelihood to support the project, historywith like-minded projects, resultsfromprevious transparencymonitoring,howtosecure theirbuy-in), (2) carefully check riskassessmentandtimeframe(doesitfactorinchangesinadministration,reflecttimeittakestobuildrelationships?),(3)request


inventoryofpreviousgovernanceprojectsintheprojectarea,(4)ensurethattimefordraftingsuchaproposalissufficienttoconductrelevantstakeholderconsultationsand(5)beclearintheconceptsusedinthecall.

3. LongerTerm

ACFandEUshouldassessthetangibleeffectsofthisprojectintermsofpovertyreductionin5years(endofBDPcycle).ThiscanbedonebytakingaspecificnumberofbarangaysthatwentthroughtheBDPprocessandcross check (1) to what extent the BDP has guided their planning and project implementation, (2) whichfinancialsupporttheyreceivedbeyondtheirIRAfrommunicipallevel,nationalagenciesandotherdonorsandrelatethistoexternalfundingreceivedinpreviousBDPcycle, (3)assesswhichproportionoffundshasbeenspend on improvement of basic services, livelihood projects and income generation for the barangays andrelatethistotheallocationoffundsinpreviousBDPcycleand(4)assessthesatisfactionofcitizenswiththedevelopmentsintheirbarangaysinthelast5years.


8. Annexes

1. GoodPracticeTemplate

ParticipatoryGovernanceonCommunity Level /GoodGovernanceTrainingandBarangayDevelopmentPlanning

Theroll-outofgoodgovernancetrainingstoallbarangaysandsubsequentbarangaydevelopmentplanningprovidedmeaningfulavenuesforcooperationbetweenCSOsandLGUsthatledtopragmaticapproachesofpovertyreduction.InnovativeFeatures&KeyCharacteristicsForthefirsttime,CSOsoncommunitylevelreceivedtrainingonwhattheirroleingovernanceissupposedtobe.ForsomeoftheBLGUleaders,itwasthefirsttraining,aswell.Itwasajoinedtraining,exemplifyingthespirit of participation and people actually took the time to go o the barangays, regardless of theirremoteness.BDPPlanningwasmademeaningfulby thispreparatoryactivityand itselfprovideda concreteavenue forcooperationbetweenCSOsandLGUsthatwashighlymeaningfultotheman,throughimprovedplanning,tothecommunityasawhole.BackgroundofGoodPractice

(What was the rationale behind the good practice?What factors/ideas/developments/events lead to thisparticularpracticebeingadopted?Whyandhowwasitpreferabletootheralternatives?)

FurtherexplanationofchosenGoodPracticeStep1:Roll-OutofGoodGovernanceTraining

Theprojectteam,togetherwithateamfromDLSU-JRIGconductedanumberoftrainingstoMLGUandmainCSOsineachmunicipality.Thesetrainingscombinedcoursesin:

(1) Goodgovernanceprinciplesandconcepts,(2) ProcessofPolicyDevelopment,(3) FinancingProgramsandFundraisingand(4) Participatoryengagementwithlocalauthoritiesandnationalagencies

Inasubsequentactivity,themainlessonsfromthesetrainingswerecombinedintoatwo-daymodule,theGoodGovernance training. Individuals fromMLGU and CSOswere identified to teach thismodule in therespectivebarangaysoftheirmunicipality:“Inthebarangay,eventhosewhowenttotrainingsbefore,theyonly know a little of everything”. They adapted the rather sophisticated lessons to the local context andeducationlevelby introducinggames,theatreplays,quizzesetc. Inasubsequentactivity,thetrainer-teamvisited one barangays after an other to conduct the trainings. The project teamwas present during thevenueandtheprojectbudgetsecuredtransportationandmodestfood.Thetrainersaswellasparticipantsvividlyrecollected.Mainfactorsforthesuccessofthesetrainingswere:

(1) Change in culture: The implementation of these activities clearly changed the culture ofgovernance. People actuallywent to thebarangays, rather than calling selectedpeople from thebarangays.ThetrainingswereimplementedbyCSOsandLGUstogether,exemplifyingthenewspiritofpartnership.

(2) BetterUnderstandingandCapacities:Asaresultofthetrainings,peopleinthecommunitiescouldunderstand each others roles and responsibilities in governance better and were capacitated tobetterliveuptothose.Thiseasedtheimplementationofsubsequentgovernanceactivities,suchasBDPPlanning.

(3) Increaseinparticipation:Astheroll-outactivitywasbroughttothebarangays,alargernumberofpeoplecouldparticipate.Thisalsoincreasedparticipationinsubsequentgovernanceprocesses.

(4) Levelling up of beneficiaries: As the roll-out ensured broad participation of people, it helped tolevel-up the information between those who have already participated in trainings (especiallyBLGU)andthosewhohadneverreceivedsucheducation,mostlyPOsandregularcitizens:“Sowithjoinedtrainings,wecouldjustgothereandsay,youwereinthesametraining,soyouhavetoknowthis.Theyevencalledustojoininthebudgetplanning.Thatwasasurprisetous.”

(5) Empowerment and Awareness: A number of trainers shared their own stories of empowermentbecauseofthetrainings:“Before, Iwasveryshy,nowIcanreallyspeakup.So Iwasaspeaker in


front of barangayofficials, recitingRepublicActs and seeing their facesand their ‘ahs’ and ‘ohs’,thatwasgreatfun.AsaCSOmemberandwithmydisability,Iwasnotusedtodoingthatbutwithsupport fromACFandMinLand itwas easy.” Tomost, especially among theMLGU, the trainingswere important to better understand the situation of poverty in which large numbers of theirconstituentslive.Manyhadnotseenthemoreremotebarangaysoftheirmunicipalitypriortothisactivity.

Step2:BDPPlanninginthebarangays

The roll-out of the good governance training to the barangay level was the preparatory activity for thesubsequent joined barangay development planning. This activity provided a concrete and highly relevantavenueforcooperationbetweenCSOsandBLGUsthatalso includedindividualcommunitymembers:“It isforthefirsttimethattheyarebeinginvolved,butalso,astheycanjoin,theycannotblamethecaptainalone,anymore”.Eachbarangayneeds todevelop itsBDP,adocumentcoveringaperiodof fiveyears toensureadditionalfundingfromMunicipalLevelandnationalagencies.Inthebestcase,thisplanwouldalsodefinehowtheregularbarangaybudget,theIRAwouldbespentandserveasreferencepointforanycommunitydiscussions:“Transparencyismissingwithoutaplan.” Thisplan isnotanoverlycomplexdocument,but it requiresaminimumofbaselineassessment, technicalexpertiseand involvementof thecommunity tomake it ameaningfuldocument. In thepast,noneof thebarangayswas able to go through this exercise alone, as a result they either had no plan, just copy andpastedtheirplansfromotherbarangaysorthebarangaycaptaindraftedamakeshiftdocumentwhichwasthenacceptedbythebarangaycouncilformerecompliancereasons.TheactivityoftheEPGprojectchangedthisapproach,thuslayingthefoundationforameaningfulcommunitydevelopment:“Itprovidedavenueforparticipation, people know best what they need and the barangay leadership could really see theirknowledge andwillingness to participate. Now, thematrix is in there local language so they can actuallyunderstandwhatisintheplan.Suchplanningismostimportantingoodgovernancebecauseonlywithaplancanyoucheckaccountability.”Further,eachsectorwasallocateditsshareoftheIRA,asmandatedbylaw,toprioritiseandaccountforontheirown. Inajointmeeting,communitymembers,POsandsectorrepresentativesaswellasmembersofthebarangaydevelopmentcouncilandthebarangaychairmanassessedthebaselineinformationnecessary,definedgapsinthecommunitiesandprioritisedprojectsinthedifferentsectorsforthenextfiveyears:“BDPplanisnotaneasythingtodo.YouhavetocallallCSOstogether,makethemsitdown,listentothem,onebyoneandprepare a holistic plan“. The processwas jointly guided by the project teamandMLGUofficers from theplanningdivisionaswellastheDILG.Atechnicalwriterwashired,makingsurethatallrelevantinformationis gathered in the document and the final plan complies with national standards. This plan then guidesbarangayspending,aswellasmunicipalbudgetallocationstothecommunity:“BDPplanningwithCSOsalsohelpsusinthemunicipalitytoseetherealproblems,definetherightprojects.”

Mainfactorsforthesuccessofthisactivitywere:

(1) High Relevance: Formost stakeholders of the project, especially DILG,MLGU and BLGU and theCSOs this activity is highly relevant. It tookover someof their key duties, theywere not able toperforminthepastandmadeplanningandprioritisingeasierforthem.Althoughitisnota“hard”activity,BDPplanningfinallysecuredthebuy-intotheprojectasawholefromMLGUlevel.

(2) Concreteavenueforparticipation:ThisactivityprovidedagreatavenuetoshowcasethebenefitsofcooperationbetweenCSOs/POsandLGUatthelowestandmosttangiblelevelofgovernance.The discussions mainly focused to problems and projects that everyone could relate to, thusensuringactive inputfrommost:“BDP isnot justthepaper,buttheprocessandtheparticipationandtheappreciationofeachothersroles.Itprovedtheusefulnessoftheconcept.Theynowhaveamissionandavisionfortheirplanning,othersareverydependentontheirchairman.”

(3) Context sensitivity: theproject team justprovided spaceand financial resources for this activity.Input,discussionsandoutcomewereshapedby thestakeholders themselves, thusensuring theirfullownershipofthefinalplan.

(4) Set standards: As this activity needs to be replicated every five years on barangay level, thisshowcaseBDPPlanningsetstandardsforsubsequentprocesses.Peoplewillrefertotheapproachtakenthistimeand,ifimplementationissuccessful,BLGUandMLGUmaysetasidefundstoensureanotherroundofmeaningfulBDPprocesses.

(5) Ensure longer-term impactofproject:AsBDPsguidebudgetallocationfor,at least,thenextfiveyears, the EPG project has a lasting impact on the ground. Tangible results in terms of poverty


reductionarelikelytofollow,ifbarangaysfollowtheprioritiessetintheBDP.

Practical/SpecificRecommendationsforRollOutTheBDPisanational,Filipino,policy,butsimilarprocessesareenvisagedoratleastintheplanninginnearlyall countries to guide planning and budget allocation on the lowest political level. Thus, replication withslightmodificationsispossibleandmayalsohelpinformtheselectionanddesignofhardprojects,suchasWASHorLivelihood.On practical level it would especially need an understanding of the policies on local governance in therespectiveregion,thebuy-inoflocalgovernmentunitsandCSOsandtheadaptationofnationalcurriculaonthespecificlocalcontext.Onpolicylevel,itwouldneedanationallevelsupporttotheideaofparticipatorygovernance(thatrequestsacertain levelofdecentralisation)aswellassomefundingallocations toensure thesustainabilityof suchjoinedplanningactivitiesaswellasfundstobedisbursedonthelocal level.Furthercontext-specificpolicyactivitiesmayberelevant.

HowcouldtheGoodPracticebedevelopedfurther?

Complementing these activities with a third component, ensuring that barangays translate the plans inannualinvestmentplanstoassessandspendthefunds,wouldensureadditionalsustainability.


2. EvaluationCriteriaTable

Criteria Rating Rationale

1 2 3 4 5

Design x The design was weak as it was not based on a properassessment of key variables, over ambitious, Indicators werenot in line with project focus and major changes werenecessarymid-way

Relevance /Appropriateness

x Projectwasrelevanttobeneficiariesandmanagedtoadapttothe different contexts it met during implementation. In theinitialphase,focuswastoomuchonMLGU.

Coherence x Project was coherent with donor and national policies, morecould have been invested in exchange with like mindedprojectsandcomplementaryadvocacyonnationallevel

Coverage x Coverage was not fully examined by scope of evaluation.Project covered some of the poorest municipalities in thePhilippines;yet,selectionofcommunitieswithinthosewasnotbased on criteria of vulnerability. Selectionwas notmade byACFalone,butincooperationwithmunicipalities.

Efficiency x After a revision of the design and indicators, the projectwasefficient,buttimehadbeenlost.

Effectiveness x Manygoodthingsstartedwithcomparablylittleresources,butactivitieswerenotalwaysholisticenough,leavinglooseendsattheendoftheproject.

Sustainability x Sustainability was not carefully enough considered in thedesign phase and project was running out of time to ensurepropersustainabilityplanning.Asaconsequence,sustainabilityis depended on a number of external factors not per se infavouroftheproject.

LikelihoodofImpact x Impact is likely, especially in terms of BDP implementation.Challengeswithregardstosustainabilitymayhamperimpact.


3. ListofQuestionsandSub-questionsguidingtheEvaluation(asoutlinedintheToR)

Qualityofprojectdesign: Wastheprojectadequatelydesigned?Thefollowingfactorsshouldbetakenintoaccountindeterminingthequalityoftheprojectdesign:

- Thequalityoftheproject’spreparationanddesign:thelevelofparticipationofallpartiesinvolvedinpreparationanddesign;thequalityoftheassessment,dataavailableatthebeginningoftheproject,assessmentsandotherpreparatorystudies.

- Thequalityoftheinternallogicoftheproject’sdesign:Howpracticalandcoherentare:theproject’sactivities in contributing to the desired results; the results in contributing to the project’s specificgoals; its intentions in contributing to general goals; its indicators and, finally, the risks itcontemplates?

- Has the strategy for sustainabilityofproject resultsbeendefinedclearlyat thedesign stageof theproject?

Relevance/Appropriateness/Pertinence: Ameasureofwhetherinterventions,policiesandstrategiesensureconsistencyandminimizeduplication.Thefollowingcriteriashouldbeusedtodeterminetheproject’spertinenceforthebeneficiaries’needsaswellasnationalanddonorpriorities.Thetargetpopulations’satisfactionwiththeprojectshouldbemeasured,withthe methodology for this measurement disclosed. The evaluation should take into account the followingquestions: �

- Therealneedsandproblemsofthebeneficiariesthattheprojectaimstoaddress:Wastheassistanceappropriatewithregardtothecustoms,practicesandsocialorganizationofthetargetpopulationandbeneficiarieswereconsultedwithregardstotheirneedsandpriorities?

- Evaluate theway inwhich recommendationsmadeduring the implementationof theprojectwereintegratedorusedotheridentifiedopportunitiesand/orconstraintsthatneedtobeaccommodatedintheimplementationinordertoincreasetheimpactandrelevanceoftheproject?

- Assessthevalidityoftheprojectapproachandstrategyanditspotentialtobereplicatedandscaled-up.

- Weretheexpectationsoftheroles,capacityandcommitmentofstakeholdersrealisticandlikelytobeachieved?

Coherence

The need to assess existing interventions, policies and strategies to ensure consistency and minimizeduplication. �

- Howdid theprojectsupportorcontribute to theachievementofnational/local levelplans,policiesandprioritiestorespondtobuildinggoodgovernanceinitiatives?

- Have Action Against Hunger and MinLand taken proper steps to ensure that its responses arecoordinated with other agencies, institutions, government entities, CSOs and interested parties?Whatwerethesynergiesoroverlaps,ifany?

Efficiency

Ameasureofhoweconomicresources/inputs(funds,expertise,timeetc.)areconvertedtoresults–ValueForMoney(VFM).

- Werealloftheactivitiesimplementednecessaryforachievingresults?- Weregoodsandservicesdeliveredontime?Wereactivitiescompletedontime?Wasthetimetaken

reasonableandproportionaltotheresultsobtained?- Wastheprojectgatheringandusingrelevantinformationabouttheproject’sresultsandOVIs?

Effectiveness

Theextenttowhichtheproject’sobjectiveswereachieved,orareexpectedtobeachieves,takingintoaccounttheirrelativeimportance.


- What were the reasons for possible deviations from planned activities and what has been theeffectedofthedeviation?

- Hastheprojectusedpreviousgoodpracticesandlessonslearnt?

Sustainabilityandlikelihoodofimpact

A measure of whether the benefits of the project are likely to continue after donor funding has beenwithdrawnandmission/projectoperationsofficiallyceaseandthelikelihoodoftheseinterventionsproducingpositiveandnegative,primaryandsecondary long-termeffects inadirect, indirect, intendedorunintendedway.Canapositiveimpactbeexpectedtocontinueasaresultofthisprojectonceitisconcluded?Whatisthebasisforthisexpectation?Theevaluationshouldtakethefollowingfactorsintoaccount:

- Financialsustainability:Dothecollaboratorshavethefinancialcapacitytomaintainthebenefitsoncethe project’s support ends? Has the government or another organization made a budgetarycommitment to thisend?Areanymechanismsplanned for recovering this investment?Hasprivatemanagementbeenconsidered?

- Technicalsustainability:Doestheprojectuseandpromoteadequatetechnology?Canthistechnologybe maintained after the project ends? Do the beneficiaries have enough support to achievesustainablepracticesaswellasdirectresults?

- Institutionalsustainability:Dolocalinstitutionssupporttheproject?Aretrainingactivitiescarriedouteffectively? Has an exit plan been developed for transferring management responsibilities? Areresponsibilitiesassignedtoeachactorinaccordancewiththeircapabilitiesandcompetence?

- Identify potential good practices andmodels of intervention that could inform future participatorygovernanceprojects,especiallythosethatlocalinstitutionscouldincorporateintonationalpolicyandimplementation

- Assessthelikelihoodofimpacttheprojecthasmadeinstrengtheningthecapacityandknowledgeoflocalgovernmentstructurestoencouragelocalownershipoftheproject.


4. ListofdocumentsforDeskReview

- ACFEvaluationPolicyandGuideline,2011- ProjectProposalandReformulationofLogicalFramework- Mid-TermEvaluationReport,2015- Results-OrientedMonitoringReport,2015- MonthlyActivityProgressReports(APR)- InterimReports(1stand2nd)- ProcurementDocuments- TrainingManualsandDocumentation- GenderMainstreamingguidelinesofACF- DocumentationofConsultative-WorkshopandRoundTable,2012- MinutesfromtheEUConsultationandInformationMeetingwithCSOs,2016- DocumentationofFeedbackprovidedbyCSOstoLGUs- RoundTableDiscussiononParticipatoryGovernancewithNGOsbasedinDavaoCity,2016- ActivityReport,NationalRoundtableDiscussiononParticipatoryGovernance,2016- TwoSampleBDPsthatresultedfromtheprojectactivities- BaselineReport


5. ListofInterview,FGDsandWorkshops

Date Affiliation Kind Comments

09January2017 CountryDirectorACF KII

09January2017 DeputyCountryDirectorACF KII

09January2017 AdvocacyManagerACF KII FormerprojectmanagerEPG

10January2017 FieldTeamMinLand Discussion

10January2017 FieldTeamACF Discussion

10January2017 DILG Project Focal Point andDILGProvincialDirector

KII

10January2017 ProvincialAgriculturalist KII

11January2017 CSOsofMatalam FGD N=3,includingHeadofCSOFormation

11January2017 BLGUsofMatalam FGD N=4

11January2017 MLGUPres.Roxas FGD N=6

12January2017 ViceMayorArakan KII

12January2017 CSODeskArakan KII

12January2017 MLGUArakan FGD N=4

12January2017 MLGUAntipas FGD N=6,includingViceMayor

13January2017 MLGUMagpet FGD N=6

13January2017 CSODeskOfficer KII

13January2017 CSODeskOfficerAntipas KII

14January2017 CSOFormationPresident,Pres.Roxas

KII

14January2017 CSO Formation PresidentAntipas

KII N=4,oldandnewlyarrived

14January2017 CSO Formation PresidentMagpet

KII

14January2017 CSOsPres.Roxas FGD N=6

14January2017 Community members Pres.Roxas

FGD N=6

15January2017 CommunitymembersAntipas FGD N=6

15January2017 CSOsAntipas FGD N=2

15January2017 CSOsArakan FGD N= 8, including CSO FormationPresidentArakan

16January2017 CSOsMagpet FGD N=6

16January2017 CommunityMembersMagpet FGD N=6

16January2017 MLGOOs from themunicipalities

FGD N=4

16January2017 EPGstaff KII

18January2017 Feedback WorkshopStakeholders

N=16


18January2017 FeedbackWorkshopEPGTeam N=5

19January2017 Field Visit Case Study SanMiguel

IncludinginformalinterviewswithBDCmembers

19January2017 FeedbackWorkshopMinLand N=9

20January2017 DebriefingEUrepresentative

20January2017 DebriefingACFCountryOffice

23January2017 DebriefingELA,ACF

23January2017 DebriefingHQ,ACF


6. EvaluationMatrix


7. ExemplaryResultsofDotmocracyExercise



8. ToR

TERMS OF REFERENCE

For the Final External Evaluation of Action Against Hunger’s Project

Empowered Participatory Governance Towards Progress in North Cotabato Communities (EPG-Progress)

Summary Table Project Name Empowered Participatory Governance Towards

Progress in North Cotabato Communities (EPG-Progress)

Location Philippines: Five municipalities in Arakan Valley Complex in North Cotabato Province specifically the municipalities of Arakan, Antipas, Magpet, Matalan and President Roxas

Contract Reference DCI-NSAPVD/133-439

Sector Good Governance

Partners Mindanao Land Acquisition, Housing & Development Foundation, Inc., ( Minland Foundation), Department of Interior and Local Government ( DILG) and the Provincial Government of North Cotabato

Duration 40 months

Starting Date 16 September 2013

Ending Date 15 January 2017

Programme Language English

Donor & Contribution/s Delegation of the European Union to the Philippines

Project Budget EUR 682,848

Responsible Action Against Hunger HQ Action Against Hunger - Spain

Mission administering the Project Action Against Hunger - Philippines

Evaluation Type Final Independent External Evaluation

Evaluation Dates 2/January/2017- 07/February/2017


1. PROJECT BACKGROUND

Map of Project Area

Rationale for the project The Local Government Units (LGUs) in the Philippines, which were created in 1991 through Republic Act No. 7160, also known as Local Government Code of 1991, play important roles in the fight against poverty in their communities. With the devolution of government services as mandated in the Local Government Code, the LGUs act as the key government structure and the duty-bearers in the delivery of basic services to the people such as social welfare, health services, agriculture support and others. But the poverty data for the province of Cotabato and the five (5) target municipalities imply that municipal and barangay LGUs may have not fulfilled their mandate. At the inception of the project proposal, available government statistics indicated that the poverty incidence among Filipino families in Cotabato Province was at 42.9%. Poverty data in 2009 indicated that the percentage of households who lived below the poverty line in the five target municipalities were not much different from the data in 2000. The other five municipalities have the following percentage1 of their total households living under the poverty line: Antipas (45% or 2,560 households); Arakan (44% or 3,916 households); Magpet (67% or 5,909 households); Matalam (54% or 8,085 households); and President Roxas (69% or 3,504 households). Further, eight provinces in Mindanao are included in the ten provinces with the highest poverty incidence2. North Cotabato province ranked number 10. Cognizant of this context, Action Against Hunger successfully submitted a proposal to the Delegation of the European Union in the Philippines (EU) in 2012 under the thematic programme “Non-State Actors and Local Authorities in Development” (NSA-LA). The proposal targeted five municipalities in North Cotabato province: Arakan, Antipas, Magpet, Makilala, and President Roxas.

1 2009 Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS). 2 2005 National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) Poverty Mapping Report.


The project, Empowered Participatory Governance Towards Progress in North Cotabato Communities (EPG-Progress), came into being. It commenced on September 2013 and will end on 15 January 2017. The project worked with specific target groups: 1,435 elected local government officials, including local councils and members of local CSOs. Target areas include the province of North Cotabato at the provincial level and in the five abovementioned municipalities. The Project supported activities which strengthened the capacity of civil society organizations (CSO) and local government units (LGUs) to work in partnership to support local initiatives and services and create a more equitable, open and democratic society. Further, the Project supported activities of CSOs to improve the transparency, accountability, and performance of LGUs in delivering basic services to the poor, and to fight corruption. The 40-month project is implemented by Action Against Hunger and Mindanao Land Acquisition, Housing and Development Foundation, Inc. (MinLand). During the first year of the project implementation in 2014, the De La Salle University – Jesse Robredo Institute of Governance (DLSU-JRIG) was engaged, particularly in the development of training modules.

Project description The project’s overall objective is: To contribute to the upliftment of the lives of people living in poverty in five municipalities in North Cotabato through improved and responsive local governance and strong participation of the community. The project’s specific objectives are: Specific Objective 1. To strengthen the capacities of local government units (LGUs) and civil society organizations (CSOs) to effectively collaborate in development planning, project implementation and policy making. Specific Objective 2. To strengthen CSOs in their the role as governance “watchdogs” aimed at making LGUs aware of their responsibilities to the communities, and ensure transparency in the performance of their duties. The project’s intended results are the following: Result 1. Increase in engagement between LGUs and CSOs, with CSO representatives integrated into formal LGU bodies and procedures, leads to more community concerns and issues addressed by the LGUs. Result 2. CSOs provide feedback on the LGUs performance and discusses with LGU counterparts to resolve and improve problems identified in service delivery. The feedback and resolutions are transparent and available to the communities involved. Result 3. Number of documented best practices increased and evidence of adoption of recommendations by the LGUs is noted. The project has four main activities: 1. Advocacy and networking among CSOs to support engagement with LGUs and to share governance best practices; 2. Installation in local CSOs of M&E tools for LGU performance monitoring and for objectively verifying the results of LGUs’ self-assessment in the Local Governance Performance Management System (LGPMS); 3. Capacity-building of LGUs at barangay and municipal levels to integrate good governance principles such as accountability, transparency, participation, and others and 4. Capacity-building of CSOs on social accountability, to include constructive engagement and performance monitoring of LGUs. The project logical framework is enclosed as Annex I. The project also has detailed activities which can be found in Annex II. Project Current Status As of October 31, 2016, project accomplishment is at 87.5 % and the project has reached 1,605 beneficiaries out of the 1,435 target beneficiaries. The following are the project key updates on the implementation progress:

i. Completed the review, updating and packaging of Barangay Development Plans (BDP) in 54 barangays from Antipas, Arakan, Magpet, Matalam and President Roxas. All the BDPs have


been endorsed by the Barangay Development Councils (BDC), adopted and approved by the BDC. The BDPs are medium-term plans that can be implemented until 2022. Assisted Barangay LGUs in resource mobilization.

ii. Strengthening the capacities of the CSOs to make them effective partners of their LGUs on local governance through:

• Capacity building on project proposal making; financial management and simplified bookkeeping; advocacy; and monitoring and evaluation of projects and programs;

• Development of the civil society formation’s organizational visioning and direction-setting; technical assistance in the registration to accrediting agencies (e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Department of Labor and Employment ( DOLE) and Cooperative Development Agency (CDA); and sought Sangguniang Bayan (SB) accreditation;

• Exposure to replicable sites and organizations to learn and exchange innovations on organizational development; linkage-building and experiential insights and;

• Participation in joint LGU-CSO project monitoring and evaluation and development and policy planning.

• Facilitated experiential discussions with leading CSO coalitions and networks on empowered participation to guide the CSO formation;

• Consulted with civil society leaders and government officials on the effect of El Niňo in aid for a more substantial annual investment planning and utilization of the Disaster Risk Reduction Management (DRRM) funds;

iii. Documented, published and shared best practices of LGUs and CSOs on good governance initiatives that are worth replicating.

iv. Provided avenues for CSO leaders and LGU leaders to convene and share evidenced-based achievements on good governance and how enabling environment paves the way for a smooth LGU-CSO partnership towards empowered governance.

2. EVALUATION BACKGROUND The project has experienced two evaluation processes: mid-term internal evaluation and external evaluation headed by European Union (EU) through the conduct of Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM):

i. Midterm Evaluation (20-27July 2015). This internal evaluation was organized and conducted by Action Against Hunger Head Quarter – Spain, following internal evaluation policies, process and guidelines. Actual evaluation was conducted by Headquarter based project Manager, Marta Fresno. The overall internal assessment was focused on overall performance and less focused on final results and activity indicators progress. Therefore, recommendations relied on qualitative information gathered from a) Meetings with the implementing and supporting ACF team and; b) Field visits, including discussions with partners, stakeholders and beneficiaries. Results and impacts of the program are not sufficiently evident halfway through the implementation period due to limited progress and thus they preclude any in-depth analysis of their attainment or sustainability. The purpose of the evaluation focused on the efficiency of implementation and came up with the recommendations for the remaining period of the project. In total, the evaluator interviewed 55 people (Annex VIII: See annex for the internal evaluation report).

1) Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) was carried out from 23 November to 3 December 2015.

The ROM was commissioned by European Union (EU) and Jim Freedman conducted the evaluation. The evaluation focus was on determining: the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of the project. The ROM yielded six recommendations that were carried out in the remaining months of the project, namely: 1) allocating more time in working with at the barangay level than at the municipal level; 2). increasing pace of updating the Barangay Development Plans (BDPs) and assisting the barangays in securing the funds; 3) conducting peer-to-peer consultations; 4) ensuring that Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) at the provincial and municipal level are engaged through the Consortium Coordination Team (CCT) meeting, and; 5) ensuring that all members of the project


management committee participate equally in guiding the project and making project decisions and interact and exchange experiences with other good governance projects . Consequently, the ROM report became the basis to revise the logical framework and work plan in order to achieve the objectives. In total, the evaluator interviewed 41 people. (Annex IX. See annex for the ROM report)

3. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

Rationale for the Evaluation The final external evaluation of the project in the Philippines is being carried out as per the planning in the proposal. The evaluation results are expected to inform future Action Against Hunger’s development projects and EU in their future funding strategies and programing. Objectives of the Evaluation This final evaluation is expected to be carried out towards the end of the action, 15 January 2017. A final external evaluation, following DAC criteria, is selected. The aim of the evaluation is to have credible evidence on the project’s effect on the beneficiaries assisted by the project and draw recommendations and lessons learned for similar projects in the future to increase the effect and quality. Therefore, the evaluation to be conducted will have two objectives: Objective: The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the overall performance of the intervention and to determine if it has reached its intended objectives looking at all the components of the result chain (inputs, activities and results) as well as key contextual factors that might have enabled or hindered its delivery. Users and Use of the Evaluation Action Against Hunger

Through dissemination of evaluation findings to the whole Action Against Hunger Network by Action Against Hunger-UK ELA Unit

Implementing HQ Action Against Hunger -Spain and technical departments Field Level Action Against Hunger Philippine mission, partners and stakeholders EU Contribute in appraising future proposals, funding consideration of similar

actions and programming strategy Others Final reports will be shared with relevant stakeholders such as local

government and civil society leaders, DILG and other stakeholders

4. EVALUATION SCOPE The evaluation will cover entire project duration, from 16 September 2013 to 15 January 2017, and will cover the geographical areas of the Arakan Valley Complex, specifically the municipalities of Antipas, Arakan, Magpet, Matalam and President Roxas. Out of the 61 barangays (villages) assisted by the project, 10 Barangays should be part of the evaluation. It will focus on the beneficiaries targeted by the project such as the local government and the civil society (CSO) leaders and CSO Network key officers Specific issues to be covered:

• The evaluation needs to look at Action Against Hunger’s project within the challenging development context: persistent poverty, remote and marginalized populations and a tendency to resort to violence to express grievances.

• Assess if there are any evidences of effectiveness on the principal focus of the project which is to provide training in good governance to both local government units and local civil societies, to guide them in collaborating to improve local governments in responding to the needs of their constituents.

• The evaluation should set an emphasis on how projects of this nature can be improved in the future, as well as highlight limitations

• Analysis on the replicability and scaling-up the good practices and lessons learned


Cross-cutting issues: The evaluator/s is/are requested to evaluate how the following cross-cutting issues are integrated and/or mainstreamed in project implementation:

• Gender mainstreaming in line with Action Against Hunger International Gender Policy • Mainstreaming and/or considerations to Disaster Risk Reduction in the project activities • Mainstreaming and/or considerations to Environmental Sustainability • Mainstreaming and/or considerations to Cultural sensitiveness

5. EVALUATION APPROACH AND QUESTIONS

As per Action Against Hunger Evaluation Policy and Guidelines, Action Against Hunger adheres to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria approach for evaluating its programs and projects. Specifically, Action Against Hunger uses the following DAC criteria:

• Relevance/Appropriateness; • Coherence; • Coverage; • Efficiency; • Effectiveness; • Sustainability and; • Likelihood of Impact.

To the latter list, Action Against Hunger adds an additional criterion, Design. Action Against Hunger also promotes a systematic analysis of the monitoring system in place within the aforementioned criteria. Evaluation questions have been developed to help the evaluator/s assess the project against these seven criteria (refer to Annex III). The evaluator may adapt the evaluation criteria and the questions, but any fundamental changes should be agreed between the Mission focal persons and ELA and Action Against Hunger – UK and the evaluator/s and reflected in the inception report. All independent external evaluations are expected to use DAC criteria in data analysis and reporting. In particular, the evaluator/s must complete the DAC criteria rating table (refer to Annex VI) and include it as part of the final evaluation report.

6. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

This section outlines the suggested methodological approach for the evaluator/s to collect quantitative and qualitative data and the chronological steps of the evaluation process. The evaluator/s have to extent further and develop instruments and methods which allow collecting sex and age disaggregated data. The instruments need to make provision for the triangulation of data where possible. Evaluation Briefing Prior to the evaluation taking place, the evaluator is expected to attend an evaluation technical briefing with the ELA Action Against Hunger-UK. In case face-to-face briefing is not possible due to budget or logistic constraints, briefings by telephone or online must be agreed in advance. Briefing at the mission level will be facilitated and done by Mission Focal person. Desk review The evaluator/s will undertake a desk review of project materials, including the project documents and proposals, progress reports, outputs of the project (such as publications, communication materials, videos, recording etc.), results of any internal planning process and relevant materials from secondary sources. Action Against Hunger HQ and Mission Briefing As part of the evaluation, the evaluator/s will attend a briefing with HQ and Mission stakeholders to get preliminary information about the project being evaluated. In case face-to-face briefing is not


possible due to budget or logistic constraints, briefings by telephone or online must be agreed in advance. Sampling The evaluator should clearly state the sampling approach in terms of sites and beneficiaries. Due to the short period of time in the field, access to a representative sample through a probabilistic sampling approach is highly challenged. Convenience sampling is suggested for both, project sites and beneficiaries. As mentioned in the evaluation scope section, the aim is for the evaluation to ideally cover 10 barangays, with 1 barangay per municipality minimum). In case a lesser amount of sites is proposed due to time constraints, priority should be given to 5 Municipal Local Government Units, Municipal Local Government Operations Officers and CSO network and Formation Officers from the five municipalities. This includes the activities where the targets were reached very easily and even exceeded, and others were they are very difficult to meet. The criteria for the selection of beneficiaries should involve ACF and Minland Project Staff. The sampling approach should be adjusted and further detailed by the evaluator in the inception report. Inception Report At the end of the desk review period and before the field mission, the evaluator/s will prepare a brief inception report. The report will be written in English and will include the following sections:

• Key elements of the TORs to demonstrate that the evaluator will adhere to the TORs; • The methodological approach to the evaluation include an evaluation matrix in annex to

specify how the evaluator will collect data to answer the evaluation questions, pointing out the limitations to the methodology if any and the choice of sites per field visit;

• The data collection tools; • A detailed evaluation workplan and; • State adherence to Action Against Hunger Evaluation Policy and outline the evaluation report

format. The inception report will be discussed and approved by the country office focal person who will be the primary contact in managing and coordinating the evaluation while ELA unit (ACF-UK) will support in technical advisory role. Field Mission Primary data collection techniques As part of the evaluation, the evaluator will interview key project stakeholders (expatriate/national project staff, local/national representatives, local authorities, civil society leaders, and donor representatives). The evaluator/s will use the most suitable format for these interviews as detailed in the inception report. The evaluator/s will collect information directly from beneficiaries. Towards enriching triangulation, the evaluator is expected to conduct FGDs (beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, key informants – CSO and LGU leaders) and surveys. Field visits The evaluator/s will visit the project sites and the facilities provided to the beneficiaries (if any). Secondary data collection techniques: Desk review The evaluator/s will further review complementary documents and collect project monitoring data or any other relevant statistical data. Debriefing and stakeholders workshop The evaluator shall facilitate a learning workshop in country to present preliminary findings of the evaluation to the project and key stakeholders; to gather feedback on the findings and build consensus on recommendations; to develop action-oriented workshop statements on lessons learned and proposed improvements for the future. Presentation of Findings to EU The evaluator/s is expected to prepare a presentation of the evaluation report to EU. Evaluation Report The evaluation report shall follow the following format and be written in English:


• Cover Page; • Summary Table (to follow template provided); • Table of Contents; • Executive Summary (must be a standalone summary, describing the project, main findings

of the evaluation, and conclusions and recommendations. This will be no more than 2 pages in length);

• Background Information; • Methodology (describe the methodology used, provide evidence of triangulation of data and

presents limitations to the methodology); • Findings (includes overall assessment of the project against the evaluation criteria, responds

to the evaluation questions, all findings are backed up by evidence, cross-cutting issues are mainstreamed and; unintended and unexpected outcomes are also discussed);

• Conclusions (conclusions are formulated by synthesizing the main findings into statements of merit and worth, judgements are fair, impartial, and consistent with the findings);

• Lessons Learnt and Good Practices (presents lessons that can be applied elsewhere to improve project performance, outcome, or impact and; identify good practices: successful practices from those lessons which are worthy of replication; further develop on one specific good practice to be showcased in the template provided in Annex VII);

• Recommendations (Recommendations should be as realistic, operational and pragmatic as possible; that is, they should take careful account of the circumstances currently prevailing in the context of the action, and of the resources available to implement it both locally. They should follow logically from conclusions, lessons learned and good practices. The report must specify who needs to take what action and when. Recommendations need to be presented by order of priority);

• Annexes (These should be listed and numbered and must include the following: Good practice template, Evaluation Criteria Rating Table, list of documents for the desk review, list of persons interviewed, data collection instrument, evaluation TORs).

The whole report shall not be longer than 30 pages, 50 pages including annexes. The draft report should be submitted no later than 10 calendar days after departure from the field. The final report will be submitted no later than the end date of the consultancy contract. Annexes to the report will be accepted in the working language of the country and project subject to the evaluation. Debriefing with Country office Focal Person and ELA Action Against Hunger-UK The evaluator should provide a debriefing Country office focal persons and to the ELA in Action Against Hunger-UK to discuss any issues related to the evaluation report. In case face-to-face debriefing not possible with ELA Action Against Hunger-UK, debriefing will have to be done through skype. Debriefing and Action Against Hunger HQ Presentation The evaluator should provide a debriefing and a presentation with the relevant Action Against Hunger HQ on her/his draft report, and on the main findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation. Relevant comments should be incorporated in the final report. In case face-to-face debriefing not possible with Action Against Hunger HQ, due to budget or logistic constraints, debriefing will have to be done through skype.

7. KEY DELIVERABLES

The following are the evaluation outputs the evaluator/s will submit to the Mission Focal person: Outputs Deadlines Inception Report 7 January 2017 Field Interview 9-13 January 2017 (excluding travel time) Stakeholder Workshop: Presentation of the evaluation results to the stakeholders ( including ACF field staff and MinLand) and donor

16-17 January 2017

Draft Evaluation Report 23 January 2017 Final Evaluation Report 7 February 2017


The quality of the inception report and the evaluation report will be assessed and discussed against ELA quality checklist and consultant will be requested to make necessary quality improvements. The evaluator is expected to follow the format, structure and length. All evaluation outputs will be delivered in English. The evaluator will follow the format, structure and length defined in the ELA template. All outputs must be submitted in English and under Word Document format.

8. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS AND WORKPLAN

These evaluation TORs have been developed in a participatory manner, by the Philippine Mission and ELA in Action Against Hunger-UK based on inputs from relevant stakeholders. The evaluator will directly report to the Mission focal person for this evaluation while ELA in Action Against Hunger-UK will provide advisory role. The evaluator will submit all the evaluation outputs directly and only to the Mission Focal Persons while ELA in Action Against Hunger-UK will provide advisory role to ensure quality of the evaluation and decide whether the report is ready for sharing. The Mission focal persons will forward a copy to key stakeholders for comments on factual issues and for clarifications. The Mission focal persons will consolidate the comments and send these to the evaluator/s by date agreed between the Mission focal persons and the evaluator/s or as soon as the comments are received from stakeholders. The evaluator will consider all comments to finalize report and will submit it to the Mission focal persons who will then officially forward to relevant stakeholders. Once the evaluation is completed the Mission focal persons will prepare the management response follow-up form to track implementation of the recommendations outlined in the evaluation report. A review of the follow-up process will be undertaken six months after the publication of the evaluation report.

Tentative Work plan – Tentative Activities

Expected Results Dates Duration

Proposal Review & Project Updating

Evaluator understands the aim of the project and gains knowledge on the progress of the project

2- 4 January 2017 3 days

Development of Inception Report, Evaluation Tool / Questionnaires & Presentation of the agreed tool to ACF

Assessment Tool developed that is useful for the conduct of FGD and KII & detailed evaluation work plan developed

5-6 January2017 2 days

Travel - International Weekend 7- January 2017 1 days Preliminary Meetings (Log, Admin, Program Manager, Technical Coordinator and M and E Manager)

Oriented on ACF Philippines’ Administration Protocols; discussed and agreed on External Evaluation’s Process and Tools; Meeting with EU

9 January 2017 1 day

Travel Time (Manila-Davao-Kidapawan City)

Minland conducted 10 January 2017 1 day

Field Visits: FGD and KII per Municipalities, partners

External Evaluation conducted

11-15 January 2017 5 days

Presentation of the evaluation results to the stakeholders – including ACF field staff and MinLand

Two Feedbacking session with LGU and CSO and stakeholders conducted as follows: -Feedbacking with direct beneficiaries (LGU and CSO)



-Feedbacking sessions with partners ( DILG )

Final Evaluation Wrap Up Meeting (ACF, MinLand) – debriefing – and travel to Davao

Discuss initial findings and validate issues concerning project implementation and strategies;


Travel Time (Davao- Manila ) Travel and Meeting with ACF Manila staff /Briefing


Meeting with EU Delegation and wrap-up

Meetings 20 January 2017 1 day

Travel back – International 21 January 2017 1 day 1st Draft evaluation report submission to ACF for comments

Submitted the 1st draft of evaluation report with comments integrated


Revising 1st draft report with ACF comments/clarifications

Revised draft report submitted

1-2 February 2017 2 days

Submission of Final Reports Final Report submitted 7 February 2017 TOTAL CONSULTANT WORKING DAYS

26 days

Profile of the evaluator/s The evaluation will be carried out by an international evaluation consultant with the following profile:

• Knowledge in participatory governance; • Significant field experience in the evaluation of development projects; • Relevant degree / equivalent experience related to the evaluation to be undertaken; • Significant experience in coordination, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of

programs; • Good communications skills and experience of workshop facilitation; • Ability to write clear and useful reports (may be required to produce examples of previous

work); • Fluent in English and Tagalog will be an advantage • Understanding of donor requirements; • Ability to manage the available time and resources and to work to tight deadlines; • Independence from the parties involved.

9. LEGAL AND ETHICAL MATTERS

The ownership of the draft and final documentation belong to the agency and the funding donor exclusively. The document, or publication related to it, will not be shared with anybody except Action Against Hunger before the delivery by Action Against Hunger of the final document to the donor. Action Against Hunger is to be the main addressee of the evaluation and its results might impact on both operational and technical strategies. This being said, Action Against Hunger is likely to share the results of the evaluation with the following groups: -Donor(s) -Governmental partners -Civil society partners -Various co-ordination bodies For independent evaluations, it is important that the consultant does not have any links to project management, or any other conflict of interest that would interfere with the independence of the evaluation. Intellectual Property Rights All documentation related to the Assignment (whether or not in the course of your duties) shall remain the sole and exclusive property of the Charity.

10. ANNEXES TO THE TORs


I. Project logical framework – Key Performance Indicators: Target vs. Achievement II. Project key activities III. Evaluation Criteria and Detailed Evaluation Questions IV. List of Project documents for the desk review V. List of people to be interviewed VI. DAC Criteria Table VII. Good practices Format VIII. Mid-term Evaluation Report IX. Results-Oriented Monitoring Report


Annex I. Project logframe – Key Performance Indicators: Target vs. Achievement

RESULTS INDICATORS TARGET ACHIEVED OVERALL OBJECTIVE

To contribute to the upliftment of the lives of people living in poverty in five municipalities in North Cotabato through improved and responsive local governance and strong participation of the community.

Number of programs passed and implemented by LGU contributing to achievement of the Philippine MDG targets

N/A 1,114 or 371 PPAs per year

Increase in budget allocation for basic services (health, education and water) as percentage of total AIP of MLGU

7% Average across project areas: 8% for 2016

Increase number of people in the community participating in consultative assemblies or meetings called by LGU

1,435 3,422

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

To strengthen the capacities of local government units (LGUs) and civil society organizations (CSOs) to effectively collaborate in development planning, project implementation and policy making.

Increase in CSO Formation accredited by MLGUs

5 CSO Formations

5 CSO Formations

100% of MLGUs and 39% of BLGUs in target municipalities are engaging CSOs in policy, development planning and program implementation.

5(100%) MLGUs and 54 BLGUs (40%)

5 MLGUs and 54 BLGUs

70% of capacitated CSOs participating in LGU governance processes, e.g. planning, budgeting, policy hearings, etc.

5 CSO Formation/ 56 CSOS

5 CSO Formation/ 119 CSOs

To strengthen CSOs in their role as governance partners aimed at making LGUs aware of their accountabilities to the communities and ensure transparency in their performance of their duties.

Number of CSO networks or individual CSOs actively and regularly monitoring the performance of MLGUs and BLGUs.

5 CSO Formation or Individual CSOs

5 CSO Formations and 79 CSOs

Number of MLGUs with a formal structure mandated to attend and respond to CSO concerns

5 MLGUs 5 MLGUs

Number of performance feedbacks by CSO accepted and responded to by LGUs.

5 Feedbacks 17 Feedbacks

Result 1 Increase in engagement between LGUs and CSOs as CSO representatives are integrated in formal LGU bodies and processes and

Number of accredited CSO Formation representatives actively attending as regular member to sessions of LGU committees or councils.

5 CSO Formation

5 CSO Formation and for 2016, 93 members of the CSO Formations were identified as members of the Local Special Bodies (LSBs).


increase in community agenda addressed by LGU.

Increase in budget allocation for community based development projects/programs

Number of programs allocated with budget

23 Projects and Programs funded amounting to Php 69, 200,000.00.

Number of development plans and annual investment plans prepared through bottom-up participation of community/CSO.

60 BDPs and 5 CSO Development and Poverty Reduction Plan)

61 BDPs and 5 CSO Development and Poverty Reduction Plan; and 4 Executive-Legislative Agenda from all EPG Areas except President Roxas

Result 2 CSOs and LGUs openly discuss and resolve feedbacks from CSOs about the LGUs’ Performance and the community has access to information about local government units’ performance and transactions.

Governance Performance Monitoring System adopted and used by CSO networks in the target municipalities.

1 Tool Used (Seal of Good Local Governance)

SGLG, Aside from this, the project also used ARTA, BuB Project Monitoring and BGPMS for barangay performance monitoring.

CSOs, LGUs and DILG agree on common indicators to be monitored to cross check LGPMS ratings by MLGUs.

Certification from LGUs on the use of performance monitoring tool

5 Certifications/EO from the Local Chief Executive adopting and using the Seal of Good Local Governance as tool for performance monitoring

Number of performance documents and/or transaction information made available on the request of CSOs.

5 Performance/ Transaction Documents

9 Transaction and 11 Performance documented; (1) SGLG Results- of Antipas as basis of the CSOs for cross monitoring and (2) BGPMS for 2014 (Antipas); (3) full disclosure documents from Brgy Sumalili; (4) 6 documents; 4 Socio-eco profiles from Brgys. Datu Agod, Luhong, Magsaysay, New Pontevedra, Antipas; (5) 2 FD of Brgys, Poblacion and Latagan, Matalam; (6) 3 DANA Reports from OPAG, and OMAG of Matalam and MDRRMC of Magpet; (7) 1 diagnostic tool from


DILG

Result 3 Number of documented best practices increased and evidences of adoptions are captured.

At least two best practices documenter per municipality

10 8 LGU-based best practices

At least ten best practices documented for barangays

10 12 CSO-based best practices

Three information dissemination session of best practice were conducted in coordination with DILG at provincial, regional and national level.

3 3 Session: CSO Day last October 2015; the Good Governance Journey on April 2016; and the Good Governance Summit last October 2016

Progress in project implementation is shown on this graph from the Activity Progress Report as of October 31, 2016.


Annex II. Project Key Activities

The Project is composed of four (4) components. For more detailed activity description, please refer to the project proposal. 0. Common activities for all Results

Activity 0.1- Formation of Project Management Team Activity 0.2- Courtesy Visits and Signing of MOU with MLGU &BLGU Activity 0.3- Setting up of Beneficiary Feedback Mechanism Activity 0.4- Mapping of CSOs in target Municipalities Activity 0.5- Conference on CSO Network Formation Activity 0.6- MLGU Conference on Setting up of the “CSO Desk”

Activities linked with Result 1 Activity 1.1- Inventory of CSO representatives in local governance bodies. Activity 1.2- Conduct of course on Good Governance principles and concepts Activity 1.3- Conduct of course on Process of Policy Development Activity 1.4- Conduct of course on Financing Programs and Fund –raising Activity 1.5- Conduct of course on Participatory Engagement with Local Authorities and National Agencies Activity 1.6- Dialogues to institutionalize more CSO representatives in local governance bodies Activity 1.7- Review and updating of Barangay Development Plans

Activities linked with Result 2 Activity 2.1- Formation of Technical Working Group on Performance Indicators Activity 2.2- Conduct of course on Monitoring and Evaluating the Performance of Local Government Authorities Activity 2.3- Customization and Roll out of the Governance Performance Monitoring System for CSOs (GPMS-CSO) Activity 2.4- Data-gathering on indicators of performance (LGPMS and Basic services delivery) Activity 2.5- Processing and Analysis of findings Activity 2.6- Feedbacking to barangay officials on basic services delivery performance Activity 2.7- Feedbacking on LGPMS rating

Activities linked with Result 3

Activity 3.2- National and provincial promotion of best practice cases Activity 3.3- Identification and selection of MLGU sub-grant awardee Activity 3.4- Monitoring of the community project with sub-grant from the Action

Annex III: Evaluation Criteria and Detailed Questions To assess the project against each evaluation criteria, the evaluator/s will respond to the following evaluation questions:


a. Quality of project design: Was the project adequately designed? The following factors should be taken into account in determining the quality of the project design:

• The quality of the project’s preparation and design: the level of participation of all parties involved in preparation and design; the quality of the assessment, data available at the beginning of the project, assessments and other preparatory studies.

• The quality of the internal logic of the project’s design: How practical and coherent are: the project’s activities in contributing to the desired results; the results in contributing to the project’s specific goals; its intentions in contributing to general goals; its indicators and, finally, the risks it contemplates?

• Has the strategy for sustainability of project results been defined clearly at the design stage of the project?

b. Relevance/Appropriateness/Pertinence: A measure of whether interventions, policies and strategies ensure consistency and minimize duplication. The following criteria should be used to determine the project’s pertinence for the beneficiaries’ needs as well as national and donor priorities. The target populations’ satisfaction with the project should be measured, with the methodology for this measurement disclosed. The evaluation should take into account the following questions:

• The real needs and problems of the beneficiaries that the project aims to address: Was the assistance appropriate with regard to the customs, practices and social organization of the target population and beneficiaries were consulted with regards to their needs and priorities?

• Evaluate the way in which recommendations made during the implementation of the project were integrated or used other identified opportunities and/or constraints that need to be accommodated in the implementation in order to increase the impact and relevance of the project?

• Assess the validity of the project approach and strategy and its potential to be replicated and scaled-up.

• Were the expectations of the roles, capacity and commitment of stakeholders realistic and likely to be achieved?

c. Coherence: The need to assess existing interventions, policies and strategies to ensure consistency and minimize duplication.

• How did the project support or contribute to the achievement of national/local level plans, policies and priorities to respond to building good governance initiatives?

• Have Action Against Hunger and MinLand taken proper steps to ensure that its responses are coordinated with other agencies, institutions, government entities, CSOs and interested parties? What were the synergies or overlaps, if any?

d. Efficiency: A measure of how economic resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time etc.) are converted to results – Value For Money (VFM).

• Were all of the activities implemented necessary for achieving results? • Were goods and services delivered on time? Were activities completed on time? Was the

time taken reasonable and proportional to the results obtained? • Was the project gathering and using relevant information about the project’s results and

OVIs? e. Effectiveness: The extent to which the project’s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieves, taking into account their relative importance.

• What were the reasons for possible deviations from planned activities and what has been the effected of the deviation?

• Has the project used previous good practices and lessons learnt?


f. Sustainability and likelihood of impact: A measure of whether the benefits of the project are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn and mission/ project operations officially cease and the likelihood of these interventions producing positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects in a direct, indirect, intended or unintended way. Can a positive impact be expected to continue as a result of this project once it is concluded? What is the basis for this expectation? The evaluation should take the following factors into account:

• Financial sustainability: Do the collaborators have the financial capacity to maintain the benefits once the project’s support ends? Has the government or another organization made a budgetary commitment to this end? Are any mechanisms planned for recovering this investment? Has private management been considered?

• Technical sustainability: Does the project use and promote adequate technology? Can this technology be maintained after the project ends? Do the beneficiaries have enough support to achieve sustainable practices as well as direct results?

• Institutional sustainability: Do local institutions support the project? Are training activities carried out effectively? Has an exit plan been developed for transferring management responsibilities? Are responsibilities assigned to each actor in accordance with their capabilities and competence?

• Identify potential good practices and models of intervention that could inform future participatory governance projects, especially those that local institutions could incorporate into national policy and implementation

• Assess the likelihood of impact the project has made in strengthening the capacity and knowledge of local government structures to encourage local ownership of the project.

Annex IV: ListofProjectdocumentsforthedeskreview The following documents will be reviewed by the evaluator/s during the desk review phase:

1. ACF Evaluation Policy and Guideline, 2011 2. Project Proposal and Reformulation of logical framework 3. Mid-term Evaluation Report, 2015 4. Results-Oriented Monitoring Report, 2015 5. Evaluation of ACF’s emergency response in the Philippines, June 2014 6. Monthly Activity Progress Reports (APR) 7. Interim reports (1st and 2nd) 8. Procurement documents 9. Training manuals and documentation 10. Beneficiary list 11. Gender mainstreaming in line with ACF International Gender Policy and Toolkit 12. Mainstreaming and/or considerations to Disaster Risk Reduction in the project activities


Annex V: List of people to be interviewed The evaluator will interview the following stakeholders: Participants for the Focus Group Discussions for each of the 5 Municipalities:

The evaluator will interview the following stakeholders:

Internal

Name PositionandOrganisation Contact3personsfromeach

municipalityMunicipality: MPDC, Admin, SB

Representative

1personsfromeachmunicipality Municipality: 1 CSO Desk Officer

3 CSO Representatives from each municipalities

CSO Formation (Women, IP, Farmers, Youth, etc.)

-3 persons

From the Barangay Local Government Units (Brgy. Captain, Brgy Kagawad, and Brgy Secretary)

-2 persons

From Barangay Development Council or CSO representative

3personsFromProvincialgovernment,DILG

andothers

3persons ACFfieldstaff

3Persons MinLandstaff

2Persons ActionAgainstCapitalOffice 5 persons

KII: Municipal Mayor and/or Vice Mayor-Representative

5persons -CSOs with representation from the Local Special Bodies (5)

5persons CSO Formation President per municipality (5)

5 persons Municipal Local Government

Operations Officer (MLGOO) per municipality

10 Community members

External

Name PositionandOrganisation Contact

1Person EUDelegation

2Persons FromotherINGOs


AnnexVI:EvaluationCriteriaTableTheevaluatorwillbeexpectedtousethefollowingtabletoranktheperformanceoftheoverallinterventionusingtheDACcriteria.Thetableshouldbeincludedinannexoftheevaluationreport.

Criteria Rating(1low,5high)

Rationale

1 2 3 4 5Design Relevance/Appropriateness Coherence Coverage Efficiency Effectiveness Sustainability LikelihoodofImpact Guidanceforratingtheevaluationcriteria:

Rating Definition

1.Unsatisfactory Performancewasconsistentlybelowexpectationsinmostareasofenquiryrelatedtothe evaluation criteria.Overall performance in relation to the evaluation criteria isnotsatisfactoryduetoseriousgapsinsomeoftheareas.Significantimprovementisneeded. Recommendations to improve performance are outlined in the evaluationreportandActionAgainstHungerwillmonitorprogressintheseareas.

2. Improvementneeded

Performance did not consistently meet expectations in some areas of enquiry–performance failed to meet expectations in one or more essential areas ofenquiry.Someimprovementsareneededinoneormoreofthese.Recommendationsto improve performance are outlined in the evaluation report and Action AgainstHungerwillmonitorprogressinthesekeyareas.

3. On averagemeetsexpectations

Onaverage,performancemetexpectations inallessentialareasofenquiryandtheoverall quality of work was acceptable. Eventual recommendations over potentialareasforimprovementareoutlinedintheevaluationreport.

4. Meetsexpectations

Performanceconsistentlymetexpectationsinallessentialareasofenquiry,andtheoverallqualityofworkwasfairlygood.Themostcriticalexpectationsweremet.

5.Exceptional Performanceconsistentlymetexpectationsduetohighqualityofworkperformedinall essential areas of enquiry, resulting in an overall quality of work that wasremarkable.

AnnexVII:GoodPracticeTemplateThe evaluation is expected to provide at least one (1) key example of Good Practice from theprogramme/programme.Thisexample should relate to the technical areaof intervention,either in termsofprocesses or systems, and should be potentially applicable to other contexts where AAH operates3. ThisexampleofGoodPracticeshouldbepresentedintheExecutiveSummaryandtheMainBodyofthereport.

TitleofGoodPractice

(Max30words)InnovativeFeatures&KeyCharacteristics

(Whatmakestheselectedpracticedifferent?)

BackgroundofGoodPractice

(What was the rationale behind the good practice?What factors/ideas/developments/events lead to thisparticularpracticebeingadopted?Whyandhowwasitpreferabletootheralternatives?)

FurtherexplanationofchosenGoodPractice

(Elaborate on the features of the goodpractice chosen.Howdid the practicework in reality?What did itentail? Howwas it received by the local communities? What were some of its more important/relevantfeatures?Whatmadeitunique?)

Practical/SpecificRecommendationsforRollOut

(Howcantheselectedpracticebereplicatedmorewidely?Canthispracticebereplicated(inpartorinfull)byotherAAHprogrammes?Whatwouldittakeatpracticallevel?Whatwouldittakeatpolicylevel?)

HowcouldtheGoodPracticebedevelopedfurther?

(Outlinewhatstepsshouldbetakenforthepracticetobeimprovedandforthemissiontofurthercapitaliseonthisgoodpractice)

3ExpectedtobesharedwiththeWASHCluster.


Country

Title

Subtitle

Abstract

Quotes

Context

Objectives

Impact

Testimonial

Partners

Facts & Figures

Final useful footnotes