LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACDCI - Agri-Communities Development Corporation Incorporated ACDI - Agno Conservation Development Incorporated AO - Assisting Organization AP - Assisting Professional CAR - Cordillera Administrative Region CBFMA - Community Based Forest Management Agreement CENRO - Community Environment and Natural Resources Office/Officer CFDF - Community Forestry Development Fund CLOA - Colos Land Owners Association CO - Community Organizing COA - Commission on Audit CPU - Central Processing Unit CSD - Comprehensive Site Development DAO - Department Administrative Order FSP - Forestry Sector Project GPS - Global Positioning System HCORE - Highland Community Revived Enthusiast ICM - Inspection Chart Mapping IEC - Information Education and Communication IIWMP - Itogon Integrated Watershed Management Project IPBA - Institutional and Project Benefit Assessment ISP - Infrastructure Support Project IWSP - Itogon Watershed Subproject JBIC - Japan Bank for International Cooperation KALASAN - Koldilyera Alyansang Pangkalikasan, Inc. LGUs - Local Government Units M&E - Monitoring and Evaluation MC - Memorandum Circular NFDO - National Forestation Development Office NGO - Non-government Organization NPC - National Power Corporation PASSTFA - Payket, Asin, Sayo, Salapsap Tree Farmers Association PMCC - Project Management Coordinating Committee PMO - Project Management Office PO - People’s Organization SMP - Survey, Mapping and Appraisal SUSIMO - Subproject Site Management Office SYEC - Society of Young Environmentalist in the Cordillera TTGA - Tinongdan Tree Growers Association WASR - Weighted Average Survival Rate

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ------i

I. Subproject Description ------1 1. Purpose/ Objectives 2. Subproject Scope and Dimension A. Comparison of Original and Actual Scope and Dimensions B. Reasons for Revision/ Modification Of Scope and Dimensions C. Contribution of Subproject to Relevant (Sub) Sectors

II. Subproject Implementation ------20 1. Organizations for Implementing Subproject 2. Implementation Period 3. Subproject Cost 4. Comments on Performance of AO, AP, PO, M&E, and Infra Contractors 5. Other Matters Relating to Subproject Implementation

III. Action taken by the AO, AP, and PO ------36 Relating to Recommendation(s)

IV. Initial Operation and Maintenance Of the Subproject Facilities ------38 1. Present Condition of Facilities 2. Organization for Operation and Maintenance 3. Annual Budget or Actual Expenditure For Operation and Maintenance (by year) 4. Maintenance Method

V. Benefits Derived from the Project ------46 1. Indirect Effects

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations ------49

LIST OF TABLES:

Table 1 : Trainings Attended by the PO ------50

Table 2 : Subproject Performance ------51

Table 3 : Subproject Site Management Office Equipments ------52

Table 4 : Trainings Attended by the SUSIMO ------53

Table 5a : Micro Finance Livelihood Project ------54

Table 5b : Rice Trading Livelihood Project ------55

Table 5c : Swine Production Livelihood Project ------56

Table 5d : Micro lending Livelihood Project ------57

Table 5e : Farm Equipment (for Hire) Livelihood Project ------58

Table 5f : Rice Trading Livelihood Project ------59

Table 5g : Sari-sari Store Livelihood Project ------60

Table 6 : Subproject Status Report ------61

Table 7 : SMP Cost Estimate Per Activity ------62

Table 8 : Community Organizing Cost Estimate Per Activity ------63

Table 9a : Cost Estimate for Agroforestry Per Activity ------64

Table 9b : Cost Estimate for Assisted Natural Regeneration Per Activity --- 65

Table 9c : Cost Estimate for Erosion Control Per Activity (Bamboo) ------66

Table 9d : Cost Estimate for Bamboo Plantation Per Activity ------67

Table 9e : Cost Estimate for Tree Plantation/Reforestation Per Activity --- 68

Table 10 : Monitoring and Evaluation Cost Estimate Per Activity ------69

Table 11a : Infrastructure Project ------70

Table 11b : Infrastructure Project ------71

Table 12 : Annual Work and Financial Plan ------72

ANNEXES:

1. Organizational Structure ------73 1a. CO 1b. CSD Contractor 1c1-1c2. M & E Contractor 1d. SUSIMO 1e1-1e2. Infrastructure Contractor

2. Pictures ------78

3. CSD Accomplishment Map ------80

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Community-Based Forest Management Program (CBFMP) revolutionized forest development and rehabilitation efforts of the government when it was institutionalized in 1995 by virtue of Executive Order No. 263.

Before the adoption of the CBFM approach, the sole motivating factor of contract reforestation awardees was primarily financial gains. With the implementation of the Forestry Sector Project (FSP) using CBFM as its main strategy to rehabilitate the upland ecosystem, it empowered beneficiary communities economically, socially, technically and politically while transforming them into environmentally responsible managers. The tenurial right to develop subproject sites alongside the various inputs from the Subproject deepened their commitment to collaborate with other stakeholders in the implementation of these subprojects.

The Itogon Watershed Subproject is located within Barangays Tinongdan, Dalupirip, Ampucao and Poblacion in the Municipality of Itogon, Benguet. The Subproject is significant for its role in providing water to local and downstream communities of Benguet and Pangasinan for domestic and irrigation purposes and in empowering as well as improving the socio-economic condition of project beneficiaries.

The Agno Conservation Development Inc. (ACDI) was commissioned to do community organizing (CO) but the entire exercise was an uphill battle for the Assisting Organization for its lack of technical capability that resulted in failure to train the People’s Organizations (POs) in financial and management aspects. But the basic preparation, which should have been handled properly, was the conduct of an intensive information, education and communication. Insufficient IEC caused limited understanding of the project that in turn resulted to lack of commitment and poor performance of PO members.

On the other hand, three POs handled the Comprehensive Site Development (CSD): Colos Land Owners Association (CLOA), Payket, Asin, Sayo, Salapsap Tree Farmers Association (PASSTFA) and Tinongdan Tree Growers Association (TTGA).

From a total of 7,733 hectares targeted for rehabilitation, only 4,982.12 hectares with a weighted average survival rate of 80.43% were accomplished. Scarce labor force was one of the main causes of low performance as well as the simultaneous conduct of community organizing and comprehensive site development activities. This subsequently brought down the cost from PHP88.12 million to PHP81.01 million.

CLOA, PASSTFA and TTGA were still able to get their retention fee and a performance rating of satisfactory because of their accomplishment in spite of social, technical and organizational problems these POs have encountered.

Involvement in Subproject activities, share in retention fees as well as income from harvest of agro forestry crops raised the residents’ annual average household income by 62%, from PHP24, 574.00 when the appraisal was conducted to PHP39, 897.38, during project implementation. On the other hand, a total of PHP2.26 million Community Forestry Development Fund (CFDF) has been generated and will be used for livelihood activities and plantation enhancement.

Subproject activities like CSD and infrastructure works gave employment to members as well as non-members registering a total of 321, 791 mandays.

Inclusion of the Infrastructure Component boosted the livelihood initiatives, increasing the probability of sustaining them. The 2.0 kilometer- farm-to-market road now facilitates convey of agricultural products to place of commerce with ease. The footpath and hanging bridges provide ease in mobility for the community while the irrigation systems boost maintenance of agro forestry plantations as well as provide potable water to residents.

With the increase in income that came with employment and complementary infrastructures to make life a lot easier for them, the members are ready to stand on their own feet probably with just a minimal supervision from the SUSIMO. The trainings that they have availed of have prepared them for the eventual project expiration inasmuch as these were not only on plantation matters but also included practical training on business planning and other relevant subjects. SUBPROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

Of

ITOGON WATERSHED SUBPROJECT

Forestry Sector Project Loan Agreement No. PH-P 135

I. Subproject Description

The Itogon Watershed Subproject is situated along the Agno River Basin within the Middle Agno Watershed Forest Reserve, which had been declared as such on November 22, 1983 under Proclamation no. 2320. The Subproject has an approximate area of 9,263 hectares encompassing the territorial jurisdiction of Barangays Tinongdan, Dalupirip, Ampucao and Poblacion, all in the Municipality of Itogon, Benguet. Geographically, the Subproject site lies between 16º 16'16" and 16º 23' 24" latitude and 120º 41' 41" and 120º 47' 34" longitude. It is bounded on the north by Barangays Baloy and Binga; on the south by Sitio Tayum and some public lands; on the west by Mt. Kotkot (Sangilo, Itogon and Danglay); and on the east by Mt. Anap and Barangay Lusod.

1. Purpose / objectives

A. Original

To rehabilitate a total of 7,733 hectares of watershed area within Tinongdan and Dalupirip, for sustainable water supply of the downstream river system and to improve the socio-economic condition of the people through the agroforestry and livelihood components.

Specific Objectives :

1. To reforest 5,867 ha. of open grassland in the Tinongdan and Dalupirip watershed areas; 2. To establish 439 ha. of agro forestry plantation; 3. To establish 87 ha. of tiger grass and napier cover crop within the plantations;

1 4. To stabilize 178 ha. of stream banks and minimize soil erosion and siltation of river beds; 5. To enrich 1,162 ha. of Benguet pine forest through Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR); 6. To provide alternative livelihood opportunities to the community; and 7. To involve the local community in the management and protection of the watershed.

B. Modification

a. Modified purpose/objectives

To rehabilitate a total of 4,982.12 hectares of watershed area within Tinongdan and Dalupirip for sustainable water supply of the downstream river system and to improve the socio-economic conditions of the people through the agroforestry and livelihood components.

Specific Objectives:

1. To reforest 3,546.24 ha. of open grassland in the Tinongdan and Dalupirip watershed areas; 2. To establish 512.11 ha. of agro forestry plantation; 3. To establish 12.96 ha. of tiger grass and napier cover crop within the plantations; 4. To stabilize 61.94 ha. of stream banks and minimize soil erosion and siltation of riverbeds; and, 5. To enrich 848.87 ha. of Benguet pine forest through Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR).

b. Reasons for the modification (with detailed explanation of the discrepancy between the original and modified basic plans, where applicable)

There was a general reduction in size of area to be developed due to a number of reasons, most of which are technical and social factors. Some portions have been found to be rocky, hence, not suitable for plantation establishment. In addition, the area subjected to the Survey, Mapping and Planning (SMP) was not the one developed because of the resistance of the PO to join the project. It was also experienced by the project that the target participants (ancestral claimants) within the developed area were reluctant to plant their claimed area because of fear that once the area is developed by the Project the government would take it away from them.

2 2. Subproject Scope and Dimension

A. Comparison of Original and Actual Scope & Dimensions

a.1 Please check: There has been ( revision and/or modification or  no revision and/or modification) of the Subproject scope and dimensions.

a.2 If “revision and/or modification”, please complete the Table.

ITEM Original Scope and Revised/Modified Dimensions ( Based on (Actual) the Original Contract/Planned) I. REFORESTATION/ WATERSHED/ CBFM

A. SMP 7.733 hectares 7,733 hectares B.COMMUNITY ORGANIZING1 7,733 hectares 7,733 hectares Year 1 December 9, 1996- December 9, 1996- Year 2 December 9, 1998 June 2000

 IEC activities  Assistance to CSD activities  Assistance on Networking and Linkage  Organizational Development and Capacity Building  Livelihood Project implementation  Monitoring and Evaluation

C. COMPREHENSIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. SOIL EROSION CONTROL a. Infrastructure b. Trail and

3 footpath c. Plantation species c.1. Napier/ 87 hectares 12.96 hectares tiger grass c.2 Bamboo 178 hectares 61.94 hectares

2. VEGETATIVE MEASURES2

a. Agro forestry 439 hectares 512.11 hectares b. Assisted Natural Regeneration 1,162 hectares 848.87 hectares c. Enrichment Planting d. Tree Plantation d.1 Bamboo d.2 Rattan d.3 Mangrove d.4 Plantation 5,867 hectares 3,546.24 hectares Spp. e. Timber Stand Improvement

3. INVENTORY RESIDUAL FOREST 4. INCOME ENHANCEMENT PROJECT 5. INFRASTRUCTURE

o Bunkhouse 10 units 8 units o Look-out tower 10 units 2 units o Foot trail 28.375 km 28.375 km o PO Office 2 units 2 units

Total 7,733 hectares 4,982.12 hectares

D. INFRASTRUCTURE

o Farm to Market 1.9 km

4 Road o Water system 11 units o Bridges 5 units o Concrete Footpath 9.74 km

E. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

o Physical Component Inspection Chart Conducted in four (4) Year 1 Mapping passes; Year 2 October 1999 to Year 3 March 2003 Year 4 4,982.12 hectares;

. Verification of boundaries, monuments, and block corner posts . Seedling production inventory analysis . Survival Counting with 20% sampling intensity, including mapping of developed areas . Height and diameter measurement, assessment of overall health/appearance . Inspection of physical infrastructure

o Institutional and Conducted in two (2) Project Benefit passes: March 2002 to Assessment (IPBA) March 2003

. Assessment of the overall development of the PO . Assessment of the

5 capability of the PO to pursue sustainable resource management and sustain its livelihood initiatives . Identification of various issues/problems/c onstraints related to the development and strengthening of the PO and the relevant support systems . Identification of immediate benefits of the project and evidences that would indicate the intermediate and long-term socio- economic and environmental impacts.

3. SUSIMO o Equipment provided o 1 unit vehicle KIA to the Office3 (old) o 1 set Computer o 1 unit Power Generator o 1 set maptitude o 1 unit Radio base transceiver o 3 units hand held radio o 1 unit printer o 1 unit UPS o 2 units GPS o 2 units Forester’s transit o 1 unit Manual

6 typewriter o 4 units Brunton compass o 2 units steel nylon tape o 2 units Diameter tape o 1 unit Plainmeter o 3 units Abney hand level o 1 unit rain gauge o 1 unit Lettering set o 5 sets desks and chairs o 1 unit Drafting table o 2 units Camera o 2 units tape recorder o 5 units Lantern lamp o 8 units Flashlights o 3 units Binoculars o 3 units Motorcycles o 3 heads Working animal o Researches None conducted o Training4 o Team Building o Capability skills development trainings on financial o Organizational Management Livelihood options and technical like nursery and plantation establishment and maintenance. o Others

7

SUSIMO Office 24 X 28Ft; estimated worth: 450,000

Infrastructure turned- Rehabilitation/renovat over facilities ion of SUSIMO building amounting to almost 200T out of infrastructure component fund.

 Toyota Surf (4 wheel drive) turned over to Regional Office  Computer set turned over to CENRO Pacdal thru Regional Office  2 units of Steel cabinet at SUSIMO (1 at CENRO)  Two sala set (one at CENRO)  Two Dining set top glass (One at SUSIMO)  Gas range at CENRO  Blankets

1 Please refer to Table 1 for the details on training attended by the POs 2 Table 2 details the subproject performance in terms of area planted 3 Table 3 shows the details of the equipment provided to the SUSIMO 4 Please refer to Table 4 for the training attended by the SUSIMO staff

B. Reasons for revision/modification of scope of Dimension

b.1 Where there has been “revision/modification” of the Subproject scope and dimensions.

Please choose the reasons(s) from the following list and check.

8  Revision of the superior plan (e.g. sector development plan, etc.)  Revision of the supply-and-demand estimate  Large fluctuation in the Subproject cost  Substantial revision of design due to the unforeseeable physical condition at the time of the original design (e.g. poor soil condition, etc.)  Natural disaster/unseasonable weather  Unusual circumstances beyond the control of the Executing Agency  Structural and organizational problems of the agencies concerned (e.g. lack of staff, inadequate coordination with other agencies, etc.)  Availability of funds (e.g. lack of funds, use of contingency, fluctuation of the exchange rate, etc.)  Unrealistic initial plan/Technical problems  Procurement problems  Performance of contractor/supplier  Performance of consultant  Change in construction period  Others b. 2 Detailed statement of reasons

1. Natural Disaster/unreasonable weather Twice the El Nino had hit the Subproject on the second year of implementation that caused severe damage (72% mortality) to the plantations. Considering the time left to implement the Project and the bulk of the required seedlings for re-planting and new plantations yet to be established, plus the fact that the fund allocated for seedling production had been used up, the POs experienced difficulty in producing seedlings, to the extent that in some instances they used their own money in procuring the seedlings. This prompted the DENR and POs to reduce the CSD area from 7,733 hectares to 4,982.12 hectares

2. Performance of the Contractor

After three years of Subproject implementation, the POs were able to establish only about 64% or 4,982.12 hectares out of 7,733 hectares. The low performance of the POs however can be attributed to several factors, to wit:

9 a. Problem on labor force requirement for target area specifically during plantation establishment period. Stakeholders who have limited household members but with wide plantation area were forced to hire laborers. On the other hand, difficulty in hiring laborers was a consequence of the low labor cost for CSD activities than for the gold panning activities along the Agno River, whereby the laborers are paid P250.00 per day while in CSD they are offered only from P180.00 to P200.00 per day. There was a time when the stakeholders employed laborers outside the Itogon area. b. Negative attitude of the target communities in the project caused by the adverse information fed by other groups opposed to the construction of the San Roque Dam. c. Simultaneous conduct of the Community Organizing and the Comprehensive Site Development activities that made the POs socially unprepared to implement the project. d. Poor quality of site emphasized in the appraisal report. The POs still developed the area despite its poor quality due to the thin topsoil especially in steep slope areas.

3. Others

 On Infrastructure Component (Added FSP Component)

In CY 2000, the Project Management Office (PMO) at the central level instituted a review of the performance of all the Forestry Sector Subprojects nationwide. The assessment validated the need to include Infrastructure Support Component. The component aimed to promote livelihood development projects of the People’s Organization through the rehabilitation of poor road condition that hinders livelihood development and/or other infrastructure projects that the PO deemed necessary for the enhancement of their livelihood activities.

 On Monitoring and Evaluation (Policy Change)

Inspection Chart Mapping or the so-called ICM was being used in the conduct of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of the Subproject’s accomplishments, until the issuance of the Memorandum Circular (MC) 2001-04 entitled “Revised Guidelines in the Conduct of the Monitoring and Evaluation of the FSP”. This adopted an independent assessment and evaluation of the physical

10 and socio-institutional aspects of project implementation, thus, issuance of separate contracts for physical and Institutional Project Benefit Assessment (IPBA)

 On SUSIMO Creation (Re-structuring of the Project Office)

After the intensive review conducted by the PMO, the creation and institutionalization of the Subproject Site Management Office (SUSIMO) was deemed appropriate to effectively and efficiently address the need of the POs. Hence, Department Administrative Order (DAO) No 2000-65 mandated the DENR field offices to install SUSIMO in the subproject site. Simultaneous with the creation of the SUSIMO were the strengthening and capability building of the SUSIMO staff to manage the project, and provision of facilities such as equipment and institutional support.

C. Contribution of Subproject to Relevant (Sub) Sector(s)

c.1 (Sub) Sector (s) to which the Subproject belongs.

 Electric power and Gas  Telecommunication Social services  (Multipurpose) Dams  Telecommunications Water supply  Power Plants  Broadcasting Sewerage  Transmission lines  Education Distribution Systems  Irrigation and Flood control  Health  Gas  Irrigation  Tourism  Others  Flood control  Others

 Transportation  Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries  Roads  Agriculture and Forestry  Bridges  Fisheries  Railways  Airport  Mining and Manufacturing  Ports  Mining  Marine Transportation  Manufacturing  Others

c.2 Original (at the time of appraisal/planned)

Item Description 1. Site Development Through the site development and watershed rehabilitation there will be direct and indirect benefits that the

11 project can generate such as:

 Land-uses will improve and will consequently minimize accelerated soil erosion, landslides and stream bank erosion.

 It is also projected to enhance the watershed environment thereby providing sustainable water supply to the local community and the downstream communities for domestic and irrigation purposes.

 The established vegetative cover will enhance the ecological habitat of the remaining wildlife in the area and the surrounding communities.

 The environmental and economic benefits in this site are expected to have spillover effects in adjacent barangays and municipalities.

 The increase in water discharge from Agno River will complement the San Roque Multi-purpose Dam Project.

 Significant increase in stumpage production 2. Socio-institutional development  The community residents within the and Community Organizing watershed subproject will be developed and organized into capable forest managers in their respective areas.

 The community will get organized such that institutional structures will be established to address social, economic and environmental problems of the people. 3. Livelihood Development  Alternative livelihood activities will be developed to augment the income of the people while waiting for agro forestry and bamboo harvest. Linkages

12 with government and private agencies that could support livelihood development and provide market support services will be established.

 Employment opportunities and livelihood activities will be created to uplift the socio-economic conditions of the people.

 The project implementation is expected to increase household income from P24, 574 to P44, 971 per year for the first five years.

c.3 Present situation and outlook for the future

Item Description 1. Site Development  The 4,982.12 hectares established plantation of the Subproject having 80.43% survival had generally contributed to the irrigation and agricultural activities in terms of water yield of the watershed. It is beneficial to the San Roque Multi- purpose Dam and vast agricultural areas in the neighboring province of Pangasinan.

 It is expected that after 5 years and onwards when the established plantations have attained full development, those denuded portions of the watershed will become vegetated again and contribute to an estimated 10% of the total water production of the whole Middle Agno Watershed. Further, other short term and long term environmental benefits will be derived from the project implementation such as:

a. Land uses will improve and will consequently minimize accelerated

13 soil erosion, landslide and stream bank erosion. b. The established vegetative cover will enhance the ecological habitat of the remaining wildlife in the area and the surrounding communities. c. The environmental and economic benefits in the site will have spill over effects to adjacent barangays and municipalities. d. In the long run, water yield and quality will improve and will support the irrigation and domestic needs of the downstream communities. e. Stumpage production and other minor forest products will increase.

2. Livelihood Development5  The three (3) POs have generated a total of PHP2.26M Community Forestry Development Fund (CFDF) from different sources (CSD savings, income from livelihood projects, membership fees and others). This will be used to sustain their livelihood activities and plantation enhancement.

 Different small-scale livelihood projects are currently implemented by the three (3) POs. Below are the brief descriptions of the different livelihood projects being operated and managed by the POs:

 CLOA:  Micro-financing. This livelihood activity was conceptualized based on the financial needs of PO members in carrying out the CSD activities, but now covers non- CSD activities having initial capital of PHP1, 142,520. Latest financial statement showed that they generated profit amounting to PHP69, 563.58 but records

14 revealed that the collectibles equaled to their investment.

 Rice trading- A total investment of P472,000 was distributed to four (4) barangays for the purpose.

 PASSTFA:  Micro-lending- the initial capital was P87, 000.00 and still accruing interests from the borrowers.

 Swine production- initial capital was P30, 000.00 generated out of their capital share, membership fee, annual dues and the 20% reserve fund from their Project Management Cost (PMC).

 Farm equipment such as thresher, power sprayer, brush cutter, hand tractor and grinder are being rented out. Profit generated from such is being used for the maintenance of the equipment and portion goes to the CFDF.

 TTGA:  Rice trading and Community Store- The PHP18, 600.00 initial capital for these livelihood projects came from their CFDF. Experiences in livelihood implementation taught them to formulate policies that will hasten the growth of their livelihood projects.

As described above, the POs still lack technical and financial capability to manage the livelihood projects, hence, provision of technical, financial and networking/linkaging assistance to the

15 POs in order to strengthen, capacitate and improve their skills to manage their livelihood projects is necessary.

Should these livelihood projects be sustained, funds for the continuing activities of the Subproject can be generated.

When financially capable and technically equipped, some pipeline/identified livelihood projects will be implemented in the future. 3. Rehabilitation/Construction of Several infrastructures implemented Infrastructure within the Subproject helped:

 Promote the livelihood activities of the respective communities and somehow uplifted the socio-economic status of the people living in remote areas.

 Push for the socio-economic growth of the beneficiaries through cost effective and expedient delivery of their products from the agricultural areas to the market place.

 Motivate the community to avail other social services such as: education and water resources, aside from the immediate benefits that the members of the organization have received.

Below are the specific infrastructure projects implemented:

 Farm to Market Road  A 2.0 km farm-to-market road in Ampucao, Itogon was rehabilitated, with about 890 m of which was concreted and about 1.11 km compacted and graveled. This road section is 20.2 km away from Baguio connecting the provincial road at Sitio

16 Cruz, going into Sitio Bokengkeng, towards the agro forestry and ANR plantations of CLOA members. A total length of 51 linear meters drainage lines/ditches, to protect side slopes, was also constructed.

 Concreted Footpath  A 2.175 kilometer-footpath facilitates travel to and from the plantation sites of PASSTFA and the community. The contract of MARCONS Builders covered only 1.757-km, the excess, however, was constructed through labor courtesy of the community while materials came from the Marcons Builders.

 Hanging bridge  The 135-meter long hanging bridge connecting Sitios Kereng and Coog is the first of its kind in the province. An improvement of an old bridge, it provides enough comfort to the community and students of the National High School across Coog, and Kireng,Tinongdan. Itogon, Benguet.

 The rehabilitated four (4) hanging bridges located in Asin-Sayo, Mainit- Tococ and two (2) at Sayo-Ave Maria in Barangays Dalupirip and Poblacion, Itogon also provide ease to passers by not only during dry seasons but also especially during rainy season.

 Small Scale Irrigation  The nine (9) small-scale irrigation System systems that have been constructed are strategically located to supply irrigation of agro forestry plantations and to provide potable water for the community. These are located in Sitios Djapa, Payket, Sayo, all found in Dalupirip, Sitios Piket Talombob, Bidawan in Poblacion and one in Kereng, Tinongdan.

17

 All these infrastructure projects have been turned over to the local government units concerned for maintenance.

With the support from the LGUs, maintenance of these infrastructure projects is assured. It is expected that short-term and long-term benefits to be continuously experienced by the communities. 1. Infrastructure Construction under the CSD contract 2.  PO Office  The CLOA and PASSTFA have constructed and maintained office buildings.  Bunkhouses  The POs were able to construct seven (7) bunkhouses within the plantation of which five are serviceable, while two (2) need maintenance.  Look-out towers  Only one lookout tower (located in Kereng, Dalupirip) is in good condition and being extensively used during dry season.  Graded trails/footpath  The PO members constructed the graded trails and footpaths, using own money to facilitate the assessment of their own parcels. They planted tree species along these trails as advised by the SUSIMO.  Fire lines  A total of 9,600 sq.m. of fire lines was constructed to lessen the damage caused by forest fire.

The above CSD infrastructures are being used for the patrolling and other maintenance and protection activities of the POs. Should there be funds for the purpose, maintenance of the same shall be considered. Additional look out towers would be of great help to effectively and

18 efficiently monitor the occurrences of fires within the CSD areas.

5. Issuance of Community-Based  The CBFMA was awarded to three Forest Management Agreement (3) POs in December 1999 with a (CBFMA) total area of 7,733 hectares. Out of this, the POs were able to rehabilitate and establish a total area of 4,982.12 hectares of different components with 80.43% survival.

 The established plantation with a total of 3,546.24 hectares is meant to cater not only to the giant hydropower plant and to the agricultural lands downstream of the Agno River, but it is expected to be a future potential source of raw materials for the furniture industry in the province. However, resource extraction must be done in accordance with the DENR regulations since the project is within the critical watershed.

. With a total of 512.11 hectares planted to agro forestry crops, harvests will be abundant in just few years that will augment annual household income of the community.

Presently, the three POs with 662 active members can manage their organization but they still need further assistance in all aspects of management to be more effective in the CBFM project. On-the- job training and coaching on financial aspect would be the best strategies to capacitate the POs in terms of financial management. 5 Please refer to Table 5 for the livelihood projects being implemented by the POs

19 II. Subproject Implementation

1. Organizations for Implementing Subproject

Function in the Name of Organization Reasons for Subproject (1) Original (2) Changed Change Implementation 1. SMP Contractor Kalasan and SYEC 2. CO Contractor Agno Development Conservation Inc.(ADCI) 3.Assisting Joseph Laza and . Professional William Ganipis Nellie Ballola 4. CSD Contractor Colos Land Owners Association (CLOA)

Payket, Asin, Sayo, Salapsap Tree Farmers Association (PASSTFA)

Tinongdan Tree Farmers Association (TTGA)

4. M&E Contractor  Physical and ACDCI Institutional

 Institutional Highland and Project Community of Benefit Revived Association Enthusiasts, In (IPBA) 4. Infrastructure  CAL-PHIL MARCONS CAL-PHIL Contractor  F. GURREA BUILDERS voluntarily rescinded the contract due to social problem in

20 the area.

Please State:

1.1 Reasons for the Change

Change in Infrastructure Contractor

California-Philippines (CAL-PHIL) is the original contractor of bridges, concrete footpaths, small-scale irrigation systems under Contract Package -33 implemented in the Subproject. There are issues on surface rights payments and labor problems that caused so much delay in the execution of construction activities at the job sites. This caused CAL-PHIL management to back out and to voluntarily rescind the contract. After careful assessment of the project situation, the DENR decided to re-award the infrastructure project to MARCONS Builders. It completed the detailed works of Contract Package-33 on the second week of August 2003.

1.2 Problems Arising, counter measures adopted and results

All organizations and individuals who worked in the Subproject were able to perform their assigned functions/duties for the realization of the project. There were however, problems and obstacles met during the initial stage of project implementation especially by the Assisting Organization and the PO during the initial stage but were able to overcome these problems. The significant ones are:

1. Negative attitude of the stakeholders toward the project

During the first two years of implementation, the Assisting Organization experienced difficulty in the conduct of the Community Organizing due to the presence of other organizations giving negative information about the project and alleging that once the area is developed by the subproject, it will be taken away by the government. This created the negative attitude of the PO to participate in the project until the institutionalization of the SUSIMO.

Measures undertaken:

One proven tool of effective Information, Education and Communication (IEC) campaign is leading by example. The SUSIMO

21 staff voluntarily did the replanting and construction of wattling as soil erosion control measure (20ft X 11ft) in the area of PASTFA and CLOA. This covered an approximate area of 33 hectares. Such action was done to show the commitment of the SUSIMO staff to the PO members and to encourage participation of the stakeholders in the Subproject implementation. Further, they conducted series of IEC campaign through small group discussions, dialogues and consultations to fully explain the objectives and the direct and indirect benefits that can be derived from the Subproject.

Result:

The community finally supported the project and actively participated in the project implementation, although still manifesting the wait and see attitude.

2. The POs are weak in all aspects of project management

Despite the completion of CO contract, the POs are still weak in all aspects of project implementation which maybe due to the simultaneous implementation of the CO and CSD activities. There was ineffective CO works due to insufficient CO activities conducted; weak IEC that caused limited understanding on the concept of the project and lack of commitment of the members to the Subproject that resulted in poor performance of the PO activities. One indication of improper management was the one time production of an approximately 6.0M seedlings good for the establishment of 7,733 hectares.

Upon SUSIMO installation, the POs were experiencing different problems in project management and as an organization. CLOA had problems on the financial aspect because of improper recording and absence of record keeping, apart from the imperative to improve the survival rate from 28% to at least 80% of the total 4,982.12 hectares. On the other hand, PASSTFA and TTGA were observed to have lost interest in the project implementation.

Measures undertaken:

To recover the interest of the POs, the disintegration and distrust among the members of the POs, the SUSIMO conducted an intensive IEC campaign, technical assistance, close monitoring of PO activities (with BODs as counterparts), and close coordination and consultation with the POs, thus enhanced the people’s awareness and increased their commitment to project implementation. They also made their

22 presence in the area to be felt more to promote honest and sincere commitment of the SUSIMO to project implementation.

Result:

The POs were further strengthened with the learning that they have acquired in the areas of conflict resolution, documentation/ proceedings (preparation of minutes of meeting), record keeping; financial management system. They have been equipped too with additional technical knowledge on regular monitoring and improved fire management.

3. Low Survival and backlog of the plantation

First pass of M&E by ACDCI showed that total area planted during that time was 4,771 with weighted average survival rate (WASR) of 28% and a backlog of 109 hectares. The total seedling requirement for replanting and establishment of 109 hectares backlog totaled to almost 5.0 million. Considering the financial status of the PO, they could hardly produce the required seedling.

Measures undertaken:

To mitigate the pressing problems in project implementation, several strategies have been carried out by the SUSIMO, PO and AP:

a. Determined the actual situation of the plantations through review of the documents (M&E and stakeholders records) and site inspection.

b. To be able to produce a total of 5.0M seedlings for replanting of 4,771 hectares and establishment of 109 hectares backlog, the POs shouldered the expenses incurred in the production of 2.9 million worth bare root seedling, with almost half of seedlings produced financed out of the PMC cost of the PO. Out planting however was incorporated in the revised Work and Financial Plan.

c. Regular attendance to the Project Management Coordinating Committee (PMCC) meetings conducted by the Regional Office to address the pressing issues and problems in project implementation.

Result:

23

With the efforts extended by the DENR at different levels, SUSIMO and PO, the plantation survival increased progressively from 28% to 44% to 65% to 80.43%. Moreover, the POs were able to complete the total revised target area of 4,880.12 hectares. Likewise, they received their respective retention fees amounting to Php10.0M.

4. Frequent occurrences of forest fire

Benguet province is a fire-prone area, with Itogon experiencing almost an average of three (3) fire occurrences per year that caused damage to an estimated total area of 280 hectares.

Measures undertaken:

a. Trainings were facilitated by the SUSIMO regarding fire management and suppression.

b. Creation of barangay fire brigade composed of PO members in coordination with LGUs.

c. Creation of the Municipal Environment Natural Resources Committee (composed of different Local Government Agencies, NGOs and POs) to oversee the protection of forest resources of Itogon through the initiative of the LGUs with the assistance from the DENR-SUSIMO. Quarterly meeting is conducted to address the issues and problems of the forest resources, attended by the barangay brigade of the project.

Result:

This created awareness among PO members and the residents on fire protection aspect. Immediate response from the PO in suppressing fire is now being observed. Eliminated the “black propagandists” resulting in greater appreciation for the project.

5. Surface right problems, labor cost and attitudinal problems of the people in the community were encountered in the implementation of infrastructure projects.

Some people demanded payments for the use of their land in the infrastructure projects. Another is the issue on labor force and cost. These resulted in the withdrawal of CAL-PHIL Builders. Several infrastructure components such as Calew Small Scale

24 Irrigation System, Tigwang Small Scale Irrigation System, the 2.0 -km concrete footpath in Payket-Ave Maria, all located in Barangay Dalupirip and portions of the farm-to-market road in Ampucao, Itogon under Contract Package- 32 as well as the three sections of concrete footpaths at Kereng-Ave Maria, Sayo-Ave Maria and Lucbuban-Ave Maria for CP-33 were cancelled in contract packages due to the above stated problems.

Measures undertaken:

Series of dialogues with the surface claimants and other concerned individual/groups were conducted to settle the issue. Contract was re-awarded to MARCONS Builder as a result of renegotiation facilitated by the DENR. Extension of work schedule was granted to properly implement and complete the infrastructure projects in the Subproject.

Result:

Despite the problems encountered, the infrastructure contractors were able to complete the infrastructure projects on schedule.

The latest organization charts (or equivalent) for the implementation of the Subproject are ( attached or  not available)

The Organizational Charts are hereto attached and marked as Annexes 1a, 1b1-1b2, 1c1-1c2.

1.3 If the organizational chart (or equivalent) is not available, please state the reason.

2. Implementation Period

A. Comparison of Original Schedule and Actual Period

Item Original Schedule Actual Period 1. Contract of Dec. 1995–Mar. 1996 Dec. 1995 – Mar. 1996 NGO for SMP 2. Contract of AO Dec. 1996 – Dec. Dec. 1996-June, 2000 for CO 1998 3. Contract of PO Jan., 1997 – Dec. June 1997-June 20, 2003 for CSD 2000 4. Contract of Oct. 1999 -2003 Oct. 1999-2003

25 NGO for M & E 5. Contract of Dec. 2002-June, Dec. 2002-Aug 2003 Infrastructure 2003 Component @ completion Dec. 31,2000 September 30, 2003 (completion of Subproject) Please refer to Table 6 for the subproject status report

Notes: Completion of the Subproject was defined as ( completion ceremony  final disbursement of  other than the above.

The completion date was scheduled for Dec. 31, 2000 (at the time of appraisal) and is indicated (thus @) in the above Table.

B. Reasons for delay in project completion

b.1 In case of delay or early completion, please choose the reason(s) from the following list and check.

 Change in scope/dimensions  Natural disaster/Unseasonable weather (e.g. earthquake, typhoon, etc.)  Shortage of funds/Fluctuation of the exchange rate  Problems in procurement  Inflation  Unusual circumstances beyond the control of the Executing Agency  Structural and organizational problems of the agencies concerned (e.g. lack of staff, inadequate coordination with other agencies, etc.)  Legislative matters  Unrealistic initial plan/Technical problems  Performance of contractor/supplier (CO, CSD)  Performance of consultant  Others

b.2 Reasons and background for delay or early completion

1. Change in Scope and Dimensions

a. On Comprehensive Site Development

26 MC 2000-19 entitled “Guidelines Governing the Updating of Cost Estimates and Intensification of Plantation Maintenance and Protection Activities for DENR-FSP Watershed Subprojects under JBIC Funding” mandated the DENR to conduct intensive maintenance and protection activities in the subprojects. It aims to improve the quality of the plantation and to ensure its success, hence, frequency of ringweeding, cultivation and application of fertilizers have been increased from (2) passes to four (4) passes per year depending on the actual situation of the site. Patrol works and re-planting activity were likewise intensified. This extended the project duration.

b. On Infrastructure

Variation orders cover the repair/restoration and maintenance of existing hanging bridge at Kereng-Coog. Accordingly, urgent repair/restoration was deemed necessary since the existing hanging bridge is the only link between two (2) communities separated by the river, and maintaining the structure in good and safe condition (while the proposed hanging bridge under the FSP is being constructed) will prevent any untoward incidents that may occur.

c. On Monitoring and Evaluation

Before the adoption of MC 2001-04, the M&E contractors evaluated and assessed the physical component of the project and also did partial assessment of the socio-institutional component. Since the Subproject was covered with CBFMA, the need to determine the capability of the community or the PO as managers was done, hence it required for a separate study on this aspect. The awarding of the separate contracts both for physical and Institutional Project Benefit Assessment (IPBA) was therefore instituted.

2. Natural Disaster/Unseasonable Weather

. On Comprehensive Site Development

The country experienced long drought or the El Nino in 1998. This phenomenon brought significant damage (72% mortality) to the plantations of the POs in Itogon. The need to recover the backlog and improve the quality of the plantation (increased survival) took almost two years from seedling production to plantation establishment. Furthermore, successive occurrences of forest fires aggravated the poor condition of the plantations that needed to be rehabilitated and improved before the project turnover.

27

3. Performance of Contractor

. On Comprehensive Site Development

The need to improve the quality of the plantation brought about by the poor performance of the contractor caused the delay in the completion of the CSD contract. Replanting and other maintenance and protection activities were undertaken during the CSD extension period.

4. Others

. Assisting Organization for CO (presence of opposition group conducting negative IEC towards the project)

The ACDI lacked technical capability, had insufficient time to conduct community organizing works that resulted in the reluctance of the stakeholders to join the project. Weakness of the AO was further aggravated by the presence of opposition group giving negative information regarding the Subproject. “Wait and see attitude” was likewise observed.

. On Infrastructure (Surface problem and variation orders)

The Subproject site and its surroundings are covered by tax declaration because of ancestral claims. As such, owners of the site where the infrastructure projects would be constructed demanded for payments on the use of their lands. This hindered the contractor to proceed with the construction. CAL-PHIL Builders, one of the infrastructure contractors opted to back out because of the said issue.

C. Remedial Action Taken in Each Case of Delay

1. Change in Scope and Dimensions/ Natural Disaster/Unseasonable Weather and Performance of the Contractor

All the programmed/targeted activities were properly planned and studied. However, during the implementation, there were unforeseen problems that delayed project activities. Immediate solutions were

28 made, among which were the review and reprogramming of the WFP to suit actual situations, conduct of marathon IECs, close coordination with LGUs and other organizations in the area as well as regular monitoring & evaluation.

The PO with assistance from the SUSIMO and AP conducted massive production of seedlings for replanting and establishment of backlogs. Likewise, they performed intensive replanting and close monitoring of the CSD activities.

2. Others

 On Community Organizing (Social Acceptance)

Intensive IEC campaign was conducted by the AO with assistance from the site coordinators and other DENR personnel. Extension of the CO contract was likewise issued.

 On Infrastructure (Variation Order)

Series of dialogues with the surface claimants and other concerned individual/groups were conducted to settle the issue. With regard to the withdrawal of CAL-PHIL, MARCONS Builder took over after the renegotiation made by the DENR. Extension of work schedule was granted to properly implement and complete the infrastructure projects in the subproject. Supplemental contract was issued to carry out the variation order.

3. Subproject Cost

A. Comparison of original cost & actual expenditure (by component)

Original Cost Actual Expenditures Item (in M pesos) (in M pesos)

29 Survey, Mapping & Planning 2.275000 2.275000

Community Organization 5.183200 5.103904

Comprehensive Site 88.120327 81.013676 Development

Monitoring and Evaluation 2.091045 8.960151

Infrastructure Dev ’t 27.778360 29.270507

Subproject Coordinating Office (SUSIMO) 2.321745 2.321745

Total 127.769678 128.944984 Please refer to Tables 7, 8, 9a-e and 10 for the details on cost of SMP, CO, CSD and M&E, respectively. List of Infrastructure projects with its corresponding cost is also attached as Table 11.

B. Reasons for Difference between Original Estimated Cost and Actual Expenditure.

b.1. If there is any difference between Table A.1 and Table A.2 in Paragraph A, please choose the reason(s) from the following list and check.

 Increase in reconstruction cost arising from natural disaster/unreasonable weather (e.g. earthquake, typhoon, etc.)  Increase or decrease arising from a change in construction period  Increase or decrease arising from inflation  Increase or decrease arising from fluctuation in the exchange rate  Increase or decrease arising from a change in the scope/work volume of the Subproject  Decrease arising from keen competition in tender  Unusual circumstances beyond the control of the Executing Agency  Unrealistic cost estimates/Technical problems  Others

b.2 Description of the detailed reason(s) and background

30  Increase or decrease arising from a change in the scope/work volume of the Subproject

On Comprehensive Site Development (area reduction)

Despite the updating of cost and intensification of the maintenance activities pursuant to MC 2000-19, the Comprehensive Site Development Cost decreased due to significant (36%) reduction in area for development.

On Monitoring and Evaluation (policy change)

Implementation of MC 2001-04 brought significant increase in the cost of Monitoring and Evaluation component. The original contract covered the evaluation and assessment of both physical and socio- institutional components. With the adoption of MC 2001-04, separate contracts for physical and institutional and project benefit assessment (IPBA) were issued to carefully analyze and assess the physical component of the project as well as the capability of the POs. Strengths and weaknesses of the POs were likewise evaluated.

On Infrastructure (Variation Orders)

Inclusion of repair/restoration and maintenance of the existing hanging bridge in Kereng-Coog increased the cost of infrastructure component although there was decrease in cost of the farm-to-market road and construction of concrete footpath. The insignificant reduction was affected by the increase in quantities of some items and additional work such as rock excavation.

 Others

On Community Organizing (Unaccomplished activity)

The AO did not complete the activities stipulated in the contract. One of these activities was the training on cutflower production in Barangay Ampucao.

C. Action taken in Case of Overrun and Results

Additional fund allocation was downloaded to the regional offices to cover the cost overrun. The WFPs as well as the contracts were revised

31 and amended accordingly. All financial obligations have been paid to the contractors along with the corresponding physical accomplishments.

D. Comparison or Original Expenditure and Actual Expenditure (by year)

Calendar Original Actual Expenditures (based on original (in M pesos) contract) (in M pesos) 1996 3.968295 0 1997 21.589282 7.750592 1998 40.364206 11.497172 1999 20.056025 14.727602 2000 11.691765 12.027130 2001 0.637600 18.577116 2002 0.745675 27.027262 2003 28.716831 37.338111 Total 127.769678 128.944984 Please refer to Table 12 for the details of the Annual Work and Financial Plan

4. Comments on Performance of Assisting Organization (AOs), Assisting Professionals (APs), Peoples Organizations (POs), M & E and Infrastructure contractors.

Please describe the performance of each organization after checking the item(s) in the relevant lists on which you have any comment.

A. Performance of Assisting Organizations & Assisting Professionals Peoples Organizations, M & E and Infrastructure contractors

a.1.  Over-all performance  Design  Contract administration  Construction supervision  Expertise  Staff qualifications  Coordinating ability  Compliance with Contracts  Performance related to any other than the Subproject scope, if any.  Others

a.2 Description (in detail)

Over all performance and expertise

1. Koldilyera Alyansang Pangkalikasan, Inc., (KALASAN) and Society of Young Environmentalist in the Cordillera (SYEC).

32

The performance of the two SMP contractors were considered satisfactory, since, they were able to deliver the expected outputs and provided the significant features of the site.

2. Agno Conservation Development Inc. (ACDI) as Assisting Organization for Community Organizing

ACDI is composed of experienced development workers, since most of its officers and consultants have been involved in various development projects implemented by the government and non-government agencies. In addition, its staffs have attended various workshops, seminars and training on CO. However, its performance in CO was found to be insufficient because of failure to train the POs in financial and management aspects. It was also noted that most of the staff of the ACDI were members of the PO awarded with CSD activities. In many instances the project was not able to deliver the desired output. Considering the total amount spent for the CO activities, it is but fair to mention that the AO’s performance was unsatisfactory.

2. Assisting Professionals (APs)

The two (2) Assisting Professionals (APs) namely: Mr. William Bill Astor Ganipis and Mr. Joseph Laza, have been with the Subproject since the SUSIMO was created. They have imparted learning in the areas of conflict management and organizational strengthening. However, on the technical aspect, only few significant contributions have been provided which could be due to the fact that most of the SUSIMO personnel are forestry professionals.

In general, both APs have satisfactorily performed the tasks given to them, although they could have shared more had they stayed longer in the site and thus have lessened tardiness. They were able to install the plantation register now being maintained by the PO, although, it needs follow-up from the SUSIMO.

Ms. Nellie Ballola (formerly AP of Sto. Tomas) was re-hired to assist the POs in financial management aspect for which she was rated satisfactory since she contributed much in initiating the conduct of external audit on financial status of Colos Land Owners Association (CLOA).

3. Colos Land Owners Association (CLOA), PASSTFA, TTGA, People’s Organization for Comprehensive Site Development

33 Inspite the social, technical and organizational problems encountered by the POs, they were able to establish a total of 4,982.12 hectares with a weighted average survival rate of 80.43%. This rating enabled them to receive their retention fees, thus, their performance can be rated satisfactory.

Based on the POs’ policies, 50% of their retention fee is on hold for the enhancement of their established plantations and livelihood development activities. They also have plans to strengthen their organizations. Despite these plans, its sustainability is still in question, since, the financial systems have not been polished yet as evidenced by high rate of collectibles from the members out of their livelihood ventures, specifically for CLOA, amounting to Php1.5M.

4. Agri-Community Development Center, Inc. (ACDCI), as Monitoring and Evaluation Contractor for Physical Component

The ACDCI was awarded with the first pass of M&E for the assessment of the socio-institutional and physical components. With its technical capabilities and satisfactory performance in the field it was able to have the M & E contract renewed for three (3) successive years from 2000 to 2002. However, submission of their final reports were always delayed, probably due to the scattered location of the plantations within the four (4) barangays so that so much time is consumed traveling from one area to another.

5. F. GURREA Construction, MARCONS Builders, CAL-PHIL, as Infrastructure Contractor

The infrastructure contractors (both F. Gurrea construction and MARCONS Builders) have accomplished their contracts despite problems encountered in the implementation of the project.

The contractors satisfactorily provided the necessary engineering equipment, management, supervision and administration of the project according to the contract documents. They supplied all the necessary construction materials, manpower, equipment, tools and supplies to install all parts of the work, inclusive of temporary facilities, electric power supply, water supply and distribution, sanitation and health facilities, security in the premises of the project as well as third party liability insurances.

Staff Composition

34 6.. Highland Community Revived Enthusiast (HCORE), as Monitoring and Evaluation Contractor for IPBA

The technical staff of HCORE is complete, with expertise in their own field of specialization that was utilized during the conduct of the activity. The contractor has satisfactorily accomplished the comprehensive study on the capability of the POs and assessment on the project impacts in the community. Their findings and recommendations were considered and adopted by the SUSIMO and the POs.

5. Other matters relating to Subproject Implementation

Please choose the item(s) from the following list on which you have any comment, check it (them) and describe it (them) with measure and results in (B) below.

A.  Technical  Financial  Institutional  Economic  Social/Distributional  Others

B. Description (in detail)

1. Institutional

Comment Measures Undertaken Results 1. On Institutional and Technical Aspects

 The backlog and low survival  Through DAO 2000-  The process of rate of established 65, the CENRO evaluation and plantations may be attributed immediately assigned processing of to the delayed conduct of full time staffs to man billings had evaluation and processing of the SUSIMO and been shortened billings of POs that abetted carry out its and facilitated, the workers’ slow mandates. thus, performance and poor encouraged maintenance activities. This is participation of also attributed to lack of the sufficient number of staff to stakeholders. conduct evaluation and validation of the AOs and POs  The POs were accomplishment and further able to recover aggravated by limited time to their losses in do the activity. This has been the subproject the inherent problem of implementation. CENRO Baguio City in the Subproject implementation.

35

 Partial conduct of the SMP  The area was reduced  Uplifted the low and Site Appraisal caused from 7,733 hectares morale of the many problems to the POs due to 4,982.12 hectares. PO and to the unsuitability of the improved the site for development. Rocky  Action planning and very low survival portions and steep slopes strategizing with the rate of 28% to were included in the area POs and SUSIMOs 80.43%. This recommended for plantation had been undertaken entitled the development, further, no soil to improve the quality POs to receive testing was undertaken during of plantations and to their respective the time of SMP and appraisal recover the backlogs. retention fees. that caused high mortality of seedlings planted.  Regular consultation with top DENR management and other concerned groups through the PMCC have been conducted.

2. Financial Aspect

The conduct of Community Constant coordination Facilitated the Organizing, Comprehensive Site and follow-up by the releases of Development, Monitoring & SUSIMO and other payments to Evaluation by NGO and DENR staff with the different Infrastructure components National Forestation contractors. required fund allocations. Development Office Payments however were based (NFDO) regarding the on progress billings. Funds fund allocation and cash provided for these activities allocation was made. were sufficient, payments, however, incurred delays caused by shortage of cash in the bank.

III. Action Taken by the AOs, APs and POs relating to Recommendation/s

1. Recommendation(s) made by SUSIMO

SUSIMO check: this article is ( applicable.  not applicable. There has been no recommendation with regards to the Subproject).

Recommendation Action Taken by the Results AO,PO,AP

36 1. Conduct of training The Assisting Commitments of the on organizational, Professionals POs had been elicited, technical and conducted training on: active participation financial aspects.  Team Building and was encouraged that Business Planning; contributed to the  External  Human Relations; improvement of the auditing;  CO refresher quality of the  Preparation of course; and, plantations. reference maps;  Surveying and  Fire mapping using GPS management and control They also facilitated the conduct of fire management and forest protection training.

2. Delineation of non- The ACDCI with the  Based on the plantable areas PO surveyed and M&E report the within the individual segregated the non- area reduced from plantation sites. plantable areas 7,733 hectares to within the individual 4,982.12 hectares. plantation sites. Individual maps of stakeholders were prepared although this was not part of their contract. 3. Immediate conduct  The CLOA  This resulted in of external audit for contracted an the unaccounted financial transactions Independent Public disbursement that in CY 2000-2003. Accountants amounted to BAINO, BOGBOG, P1,130,641.93 for UD-ULON & Co. to six-month period audit their financial that ended on June activities. 30, 2003.

It was found out that the association did not comply with its written policies on financial management, so, no internal control has been employed 4. Conduct of cross  The PO visited the  Their knowledge,

37 visit by the PO . Kalahan Educational skills and attitude Foundation Inc. (A regarding community-based environmental organization using enhancement and environmental socio-economic resources as raw activities were materials; wild upgraded since they fruits such as were able to observe Tigway jelly, guava some indigenous jelly, wine for their practices regarding, livelihood livelihood and activities). located farming activities, in Imugan, Santa especially on Fe, Nueva Vizcaya. composting, soil and Lectures and water conservation exercises on measures. organizational aspect gave  The lecture is being emphasis on the used in the conduct effects of forest of IEC in different fires. schools in Itogon Municipality.

 Farming activities were adopted by the PO in their backyard and Agro forestry plantations.

 The unity shown by the Kalahan Academy had inspired the PO to do the same.

2. Action taken and results, please see above table

IV. Initial Operation & Maintenance of Subproject Facilitate

1. Present Condition of Facilities

Please check: This article is ( applicable due to problem(s) or  not applicable. No particular problem has occurred since the initial

38 operation started). If there have been any problems, please check the relevant space in the Table.

All facilities given/assigned at the Subproject and purchased by the Pos are serviceable in spite of some minor defects, except for the service vehicle which is at present under repair.

For SUSIMO Item Status Initial Mainte Manage Others Operation nance ment 1. Service vehicle Serviceable  (KIA) 2. Computer -do-  3. Working animal 4 dead

4. Generator Serviceable

5. Maptitude -do-

6. Radio Base -do-  Transceiver -do- 7. Handheld radio -do-  8. Forester’s transit -do- 9. Typewriter -do- 10. Camera -do- 11. Compass -do- 12. Steel cabinet -do-  13. Steel tape -do- 14. Diameter tape -do- 15. Planimeter -do- 16. Abney hand level -do- 17. Rain gauge -do- 18. Binocular -do- 19. Calculator -do- 20. Lettering set -do- 21. Drafting table -do-  22. Motorcycle -do-

For the PO: Item Status Initial Mainte Manage Others Operation nance ment 1. Theodolyte Serviceable   2. Computer Serviceable Accessories Serviceable 3. TV Serviceable 4. Piano Serviceable 5. Office tables and Serviceable chairs Serviceable

39 6. Filing cabinets Serviceable 7. Compass Serviceable 8. Video Camera Serviceable 9. . PO Offices Serviceable

A. Please check: The Problem(s) has arisen owing to the following reasons(s).

 Technical  Financial  Institutional  Economic  Social/Distributional  Others

B. Description (in Detail)

The motorcycle and vehicle (Kia) assigned for the official use of SUSIMO Itogon has many mechanical defects. The maintenance of the said vehicle is costly, as it needs constant minor & major repairs. To date, it is not serviceable because the needed spare part is too expensive and not available. The vehicle being used now has only a sitting capacity of five while the SUSIMO personnel are 17. The computer’s central processing unit (CPU is malfunctioning because of its defective part. The base radio cannot relay message probably due to the height of the tower which was reduced to 40 Ft. when it should have been 80 Ft. in order to conform to the specifications of the SUSIMO building. On the other hand, the Theodolite, Video camera and computer of the PO have also defective parts.

C. Aspect of Utilizing Subproject Facilities

For the SUSIMO Item Original Actual 1. Service vehicle (KIA) For the use of the For the use of the 2. Computer SUSIMO Itogon SUSIMO Itogon 3. Working animal Watershed Watershed Subproject 4. Generator Subproject -do- 5. Maptitude -do- -do- 6. Radio Base Transceiver -do- -do- 7. Handheld radio -do- -do- 8. Forester’s transit -do- -do- 9. Typewriter -do- -do- 10. Camera -do- -do- 11. Compass -do- -do- 12. Steel cabinet -do- -do- 13. Steel tape -do- -do- 14. Diameter tape -do- -do- 15. Planimeter -do- -do-

40 16. Abney hand level -do- -do- 17. Rain gauge -do- -do- 18. Binocular -do- -do- 19. Calculator -do- -do- 20. Lettering set -do- -do- 21. Drafting table -do- -do- 22. Motorcycle -do- -do-

For the PO Item Original Actual 1. Theodolyte 2. Computer Accessories 3. TV 4. Piano 5. Office tables and chairs 6. Filing cabinets 7. Compass 8. Video Camera

2. Organization for Operation & Maintenance

A. Name of PO/SUSIMO

a.1 Please give the name of PO and/or Body in charge of O/M

PO : 1. Colos Land Owners Association (CLOA) 2. Payket Asin Sayo Salapsap Tree Farmers Association (PASSTFA) 3. Tinongdan Tree Growers Association (TTGA)

SUSIMO: SUSIMO Itogon Watershed Rehabilitation Subproject

a.2 Please check

The latest organization chart (or equivalent) for O/M of the Subproject facilities is  attached or  not available

a.3 If the organization chart (or equivalent) is not available, please state the reason.

41 B Number of staff/workers of the P.O. or body for operation & maintenance of Subproject facilities

PO: a. CLOA – 3 staffs b. PASSTFA – 5 staffs c. TTGA –1 staff

SUSIMO : 1 staff

C. Please check and explain the following.

c.1 The number of staff is currently ( sufficient or  insufficient) If “insufficient”, please describe your estimate of the optimum number of staff and your plan for providing them.

c.2 Average employment period of the present staff

PO: a. CLOA : 7 years b. PASTFA : 7 years c. TTGA : 7 years SUSIMO : 18 years

c.3 Availability of training program to promote the vocational ability of the staff, its contents and expected effects. None

3. Annual budget or Actual Expenditure for Operation and Maintenance) (by year)

A. Original Expected Expenditure

For the SUSIMO: Item Maintenance Operation Total Calendar year (mil peso) (mil peso) (mil peso) 2001 0.060000 0.190000 0.250000 2002 0.152750 0.204925 0.357675 2003 0.281080 0.312450 0.593530 Total 0.493830 0.707375 1.201205

In case of the POs, there was no original expected expenditures, however, allocation was provided as the need arises.

B. Actual and Currently Expected Expenditure

For the SUSIMO:

42 Item Maintenance Operation Calendar Year Maintenance Operation Total (mil peso) (mil peso) For expanded portion (mil peso)

2001 1. SUSIMO building 0.039449 0.039449 2. KIA vehicle 0.062509 0.0141310 0.076640 3. Motorcycles 0.015431 0.015431

2002 1. SUSIMO 0.041182 0.041182 building 2. KIA vehicle 0.076976 0.106979 0.183955 3. Motorcycles 0.005530 0.001514 0.007044

2003 1. SUSIMO building 2. KIA vehicle 0.077798 0.153500 0.231298 3.Motorcycles 4. Computer 0.049893 0.049893

2004 1. SUSIMO building 0.04118 0.04118 2. KIA vehicle 0.07779 0.15350 0.11897 3.Motorcycles 0.00553 0.00553 4. Computer 0.04989 0.04989

Total 0.262172 0.38263 0.08332 0.2446 0.972693

For the POs: Item Maintenance & Calendar Maintenance Operation Operation Total Year (mil peso) (mil peso) (For Expanded (mil peso) Portion) 2000 1. Theodolyte 2. Computer Accessories 0.002 0.005 0.007 3. Video Camera 4. PO Office 0.010 0.010 5. Generator

43 0.0012 0.002 0.0032 2001 1. Theodolyte 2. Computer Accessories 0.002 0.005 0.007 3. Video Camera 4.PO Office 5. Generator 0.010 0.010 0.0012 0.002 0.0032 2002 1. Theodolyte 2. Computer Accessories 3. Video Camera 0.002 0.005 0.007 4. PO Office 5. Generator 0.010 0.010 0.0012 0.002 0.0032 2003 1. Theodolyte 2. Computer Accessories 3. Video Camera 0.002 0.005 0.007 4.PO Office 5. Generator 0.010 0.010 0.0015 0.003 0.0032 2004 1. Theodolyte 2. Computer Accessories 0.003 0.0054 0.0084 3. Video Camera 4. PO Office 0.010 0.010 6. Generator 0.0015 0.003 0.0032

Total 0.0131 0.069 0.0045 0.0184 0.105 Note: Actual and currently expected expenditure for expansion, replacement or any other improvement purposes.

Please describe the basis for the above estimate and for your financing plan for the same.

The disbursements of the SUSIMO and PO are based on actual operations and disbursements. For the PO expanded portion, funds for the purpose will come from the income from livelihood and out of their PMC cost. For the SUSIMO, the PMO provided funds for the expanded portions.

44

4. Maintenance Method

A. Content of Method

1. SUSIMO

The SUSIMO building is still being used as SUSIMO Office. The equipment is covered with a memorandum receipt (MR) and is maintained and considered as responsibilities of the persons concerned.

2. PO Facilities

CLOA

The CLOA building is still maintained and being used as their office. This is where the PO conducts their official business. The firefighting tools were distributed to the four barangays covered by CLOA; Ampucao, Dalupirip, Poblacion and Tinongdan and being maintained by the members in the Barangay. Other handy equipment was assigned to the officers as the ones responsible for the maintenance of items. The PO has recorded the items and the persons responsible.

PASSTFA

The PASSTFA building was constructed for multi-purpose use of Sitio Payket. It is now used as an office, Day Care Center, and for other meetings outside PASSTFA concerns. Transaction on the use of this building is negotiated with PASSTFA members. Firefighting tools were distributed to the different sitios and maintained by assigned members. The farm equipment for hire is already accruing income from the community & is being maintained by the PO members.

TTGA

The PO has no official building. Meetings and transactions were done at the PO president’s residence. All the facilities are being maintained and under the responsibility of the TTGA President.

B. Frequency

45 Facilities Content of Method Frequency 1. Truck (KIA) Change oil Every after 3,000km Change tires Every after 11 months General check-up/ repair Quarterly 2. Motorcycles Change oil Monthly Change tires Every after 6 months General check-up/repair Quarterly Change of chain and sprocket Every after 9 months 3. Power generator Change oil Monthly General check-up/repair Quarterly 4. Computer and accessories Upgrading Annually General check-up As the need arises 5. GPS General check-up As the need arises 6. Handheld radio Change of battery pack As the need arises General check-up As the need arises 7. Base radio General check-up As the need arises

C. Others, if any (None)

V. Benefits derived from Subproject

1. Indirect Effects

A. Please choose and check the item(s) which are dealt with this Article by you.  Technological transfer (e.g. application of technology used in the subproject to other similar projects and subprojects).  Employment Creating (e.g. during construction, contribution to the sector(s) after completion  Income raising (e.g. income of the residents in the community)  Other intended or unintended effects on the relevant sectors or the region concerned

B. Please give details for each of the item(s) you checked.

 Technological transfer (e.g. application of technology used in the Subproject to other similar projects and subprojects

Knowledge and skills acquired in the Subproject implementation such as: proper care and maintenance of seedlings; proper site preparation techniques; and, the appropriate method of conducting maintenance and protection activities are being applied by some members of the POs in the implementation of the Itogon

46 Integrated Watershed Management Project (IIWMP) funded by the JBIC through the National Power Corporation.

Other skills and knowledge gained through different activities of the POs such as cross visits, attendance to technical, managerial and financial trainings can be further developed and practiced.

 Employment Creating (e.g. during construction, contribution to the sector(s) after completion

The Subproject implementation had generated a total of 321,791 man days from the CSD and infrastructure activities. All members of the three (3) POs relied on the project as an additional source of income and employment. The POs had an average of 2-3 billings each year for their CSD accomplishment, thus provided salaries and wages to the members and non-members who worked in the CSD areas. The POs also employed personnel to perform other important functions of the organizations, like administrative and technical aspects.  Income raising (e.g. income of the residents in the community)

Based on the observation and interview by the SUSIMO, the Subproject implementation helped alleviate the socio-economic condition of the community as evidenced by the improvement of the houses (construction and fixing of houses), acquisition of household appliances and the capability of most families to send their children to schools, even in college. An estimated increase in the annual average household income of 62% from PHP24, 574.00 (during the time of appraisal) to PHP39, 897.38 (during the project implementation) has been noted. These can be attributed to the wages gained from the Subproject activities and share of the stakeholders from the retention fees, as well as income from harvest of agro forestry crops.

Other potential sources of income are the small-scale livelihood projects of the PO.

 Other intended or unintended effects on the relevant sectors or the region concerned

Aside from the original intended environmental and socio-economic benefits, there are some intended benefits derived from the project implementation brought by the inclusion of infrastructure support project in Forestry Sector Project:

47

1. Greater mobility of the community through the construction/rehabilitation of the farm-to-market roads, footpaths and bridges to benefit even the remote areas of Itogon, Benguet.

2. Facility to passers-by not only during dry seasons but especially during rainy days with the construction of the hanging bridge in the province connecting sitios of Coog and Kireng, Barangay of Tinongdan, barangays of Itogon, Benguet. Likewise for the rehabilitated four (4) old hanging bridges in Barangays Dalupirip and Poblacion, Itogon.

3. Adequate water supply for domestic and irrigation purposes with the construction of nine (9) small scale irrigation system distributed in the four (4) barangays covered by the Subproject.

4. One main purpose of the project implementation is to uplift the socio- economic condition of the people in the community through increase in productivity of the farm lots brought about by the increase in water yield but also through the farm-to- market road that provides easy access for the agricultural products of the community to places of commerce.

48 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 The rehabilitation of the 4, 982.12 hectares contributes to the irrigation and agricultural welfare of the communities in Itogon, Benguet as well those in the neighboring province of Pangasinan.

 The Subproject succeeded in improving the socio-economic condition of the Project participants through involvement in Subproject activities and income from livelihood projects.

 A 2-year period of an intensive community participatory planning and CO works should be undertaken instead of simultaneous conduct of CO and CSD. This is to ensure the social acceptability of the subproject and thereby smooth implementation.

 Community residents should participate in the delineation of their CBFM areas so that they would have “free and prior informed consent” as well as project planning exercise with the LGUs.

 For CSD Component, both the SUSIMO and the PO can improve performance with the installation of own strategies to monitor own personnel.

 Plantations that are too distant from settlements should be dissuaded inasmuch as it would be difficult to look after them as well as hard in reaching these areas should forest fire occurs. Especially for Agro Forestry Component located in the hinterlands, it is suggested that these be integrated with the livelihood development framework within the PO’s area.

 There should be harmonization and complementation of development efforts of projects located within a common site.

 Continuing support from the DENR, LGUs and other government and non- government agencies is strongly recommended to assure the existence of the three (3) POs considering their current financial condition and inasmuch as they have already started their small-scale livelihood projects as potential source of income but yet to get the collectibles from the members.

49 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 1. TRAINING ATTENDED BY THE PEOPLES ORGANIZATION # OF INCLUSIVE TRAINING TRAINORS PARTICIPANTS DATES 1 FSP Orientation NFDO-TA 16 November 23-24, Assessment and SUSIMO 2000 Action Planning Workshop 2 Workshop on Benefit NFDO-TA 25 February 7,2002 Sharing System for CBFM 3 FSP Orientation Course NFDO-TA 12 March 6-8,2002 4 Workshop On Business Plan NFDO-TA 25 April 1-3,2003 Preparation 5 Phase Out/Phase In DENR/AP 14 April 8-9,2003 Workshop 6 Forest Protection and Fire DENR 30 Feb. 26-March 8, Management 2001(1st batch) 30 March 1-3,2001 (2nd batch) 7 Organizational Management DENR/AP 24 April 23-24,2002

8 Business Planning DENR/AP 20 May 9-10, 2002

9 Introduction to DENR/AP 22 March 7-8,2002 Agroforestry 10 Cross Farm Visit DENR/AP 27 31-May-02 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 2. SUBPROJECT PERFORMANCE Year Component Species Planted Area Planted % Survival Planted 1997 Reforestation 200.00 Agroforestry 31.68 Bamboo - ANR - Erosion Control - Subtotal 231.68 1998 Reforestation 1,491.34 Agroforestry 209.91 Bamboo 6.73 ANR 446.69 Erosion Control - Subtotal 2,154.67 1999 Reforestation 1,148.72 Agroforestry 270.52 Bamboo 55.21 ANR 330.77 Erosion Control 12.96 Subtotal 1,818.18 2000 Reforestation 706.18 Agroforestry - Bamboo - ANR 71.41 Erosion Control - Subtotal 777.59 Reforestation 3,546.24 81.12 Agroforestry 512.11 57.98 TOTAL Bamboo 61.94 20.00 ANR 848.87 95.48 Erosion Control 12.96 80.32 WASR Reforestation 4,982.12 80.43 Species Planted

Reforestation Benguet Pine Gmelina Anchoan Dilaw A.auriculiformis Avocado Coffee E. deglupta Guyabano kakawate langka mahogany marang mango orange other indigenous species other fast growing species Agroforestry Anchoan Dilaw Avocado Benguet Pine Banana Coffee Gmelina Guyabano Kakawate Lanzones Langka Mahogany Marang Mango Orange Rambutan other indigenous species other fast growing species Assisted Benguet Pine Natural Coffee Regeneration E. deglupta Gmelina other indigenous species Mahogany mango Avocado orange Riverbank Anchoan Dilaw Benguet Pine Gmelina other indigenous sp. kawayan Erosion Control Benguet Pine Gmelina Napier Grass Mango Avocado Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P135

Table 3. LIST OF EQUIPMENT OF SUSIMO Procured ITEM Specifications Qty Cost (PhP) Date/year procured 1. Power generator Engine, gasoline, GS 280, 3.5 KVA 1 4/23/2001 44,096.00

2. Motorcycle Suzuki 3 06/19/98 From ADB fund 2. Computer HP Brio PC Intel Pentium III 733 1 2/20/2001 70,850.00 mhg 3. Printer Hp Deskjet 1 4/27/2001 5,811.52 model 840 C 4. UPS Gamatronic Compact Model 1 4/15/2001 5,720.00 520VA 5. GIS maptitude Comb software 1 3/18/2001 44,460.00 & geographic 6. GPS Global positioning 2 3/28/2001 210,000.00 Promark X 7. Handheld radio VHF, FM COM 3 1/12/2001 44,899.92 Model IC-F3GT 8. Foresters transit Surveying compass, 2 5/21/2001 69,680.00 Ushikata, model S-27 9. Base radio VHF/FM ICOM 1 64,789.92 model IC-F320 10. Manual typewriter Oliveti, 18 1 3/28/2001 8,309.60 carriage 11. Brunton compass Kataoke br., 3 3/28/2001 14,664.00 Model BCD-90 12. Steel nylon tape Tajima Br. 2 4/23/2001 2,700.00 13. Diameter tape Kinglong brand, 2 3/29/2001 1,331.20 20 meters 14. Planimeter OSKK KOIZUMI 1 10/26/2001 7,800.00

15. Abney hand level Model:OSK 3 5/21/2001 7,176.00 17251 16. Rain gauge Digital rainwise 1 5/28/2001 6,300.00 TOTAL 608,588.16 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 4. TRAINING ATTENDED BY THE SUSIMO FSP reorientation, assessment & SUSIMO NO. OF TRAINING TRAINORS INCLUSIVE DATES Action planning workshop PARTICIPANTS

1 Workshop on benefit sharing system for CBFM-Pos NFDO-TA 9 Oct. 22-24, 2000

2 Re-orientation course on FSP implementers FSP-TA 10 Feb. 7, 2002

3 Workshop on Business Plan FSP-TA 10 March 5-8,2002 Preparation

4 Human relations and CO NFDO-TA 10 April 1-3, 2003 refresher course

5 AP 38 May 9-11, 2001 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5a. Livelihood Project of PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Micro Finance

Implementor : CLOA(Colos Land Owners Assn.)

No. of Beneficiaries : 117

Amount of investment : Php 1,142,520.00

Date of Feasibility Study : None

Date started : July 1, 1999

Status : On-going

Net Income : Php 69,563.58

CFDF : Php 2,260,082.80

Linkages Developed : None Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5b. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Rice Trading

Implementor : CLOA(Colos Land Owners Assn.)

No. of Beneficiaries : 153

Amount of investment : Php 472,000.00*

Date of Feasibility Study : None

Date started : October-02

Status : On-going

Net Income : Php 74,000.00

CFDF : Php 2,260,082.80

Linkages Developed : NFA for marketing

* This amount was distributed to four barangays covered by the CLOA Poblacion- 100,000.00 Ampucao - 124,000.00 Dalupirip - 124,000.00 Tinongdan-124,000.00

Amount intended for rice trading in Poblacion was converted into microlending. For Dalupirip the amount was added to microlending only P30,000.00 was allotted for rice trading. Ampucao, on the other hand needs further study for a potential livelihood Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5c. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Swine Production

Implementor : PASSTFA (Payket, Asin, Salapsap, Sayo Tree Farmers Association

No. of Beneficiaries : 16

Amount of investment : Php 6,000

Date of Feasibility Study : Apr-02

Date started : May-02

Status : On-going

Net Income : Php 8,200.00

CFDF : Php 2,260,082.80

Linkages Developed : DA for technical assistance Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5d. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Micro Lending

Implementor : PASSTFA (Payket, Asin, Salapsap, Sayo Tree Farmers Association

No. of Beneficiaries : 84

Amount of investment : Php 30,000.00

Date of Feasibility Study : None

Date started : November-01

Status : On-going

Net Income : Php 862.00

CFDF : Php 2,260,082.80

Linkages Developed : None Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5e. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Farm Equipment/tools for hire

Implementor : PASSTFA (Payket, Asin, Salapsap, Sayo Tree Farmers Association

No. of Beneficiaries : 84

Amount of investment : Php 132,000.00

Date of Feasibility Study : None

Date started : December-03

Status : On-going

Net Income : Php 5,775.00

CFDF : Php 2,260,082.80

Linkages Developed : LGU for technical assistance Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5f. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Rice Trading

Implementor : TTGA ( Tinongdan Tree Farmers Association)

No. of Beneficiaries : 32

Amount of investment : Php 15.000.00

Date of Feasibility Study : None

Date started : November-02

Status : On-going

Net Income : Php 16,500.00*

CFDF : Php 2,260,082.80

Linkages Developed : None

* This includes net income of sari-sari store Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5g. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Sari-sari Store

Implementor : TTGA ( Tinongdan Tree Farmers Association)

No. of Beneficiaries : 32

Amount of investment : Php 3,600.00

Date of Feasibility Study : None

Date started : November-02

Status : On-going

Net Income : Php 16,500.00*

CFDF : Php 2,260,082.80

Linkages Developed : None

*This includes net income of rice trading FORESTRY SECTOR PROJECT LOAN NO. PH-P 135

Table 6. SUBPROJECT STATUS REPORT STATUS OF PROGRESS NAME/LOCATION OF PROJECT PROJECT COST Region (O:on going C: Completion) THE SUBPROJECT AREA (ha) (million peso) SMP CO CSD M & E INFRA

ITOGON CAR WATERSHED 4,982.12 126.623239 C C C C C SUBPROJECT

TOTAL 4,982.12 126.623239 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 7. SMP Cost Estimate Per Activity

TARGET UNIT OF UNIT ACTIVITY TOTAL COST OUTPUT MEASURE COST

I. SURVEY AND MAPPING 5,200 337.50 1,755,000.00 1 Monumenting and Survey 1.1 Establishment of tie line 1.2 Perimeter Survey 5,200 ha 100.00 520,000.00 1.3 Relocation of boundaries 5,200 ha 110.50 574,600.00 2 Location and Monumenting of UTM corners, sections and 5,200 ha 52.00 270,400.00 blocks 3 Completion of Blocking of Plantable Areas 5,200 ha 75.00 390,000.00 4 Preparation and submission of reports (2 types of maps) 5 Existing dev't (CREF or impact project, etc) II. PLANNING II. PLANNING 5,200 ha 100.00 520,000.00

a. Data synthesis and analysis b. Report Writing GRAND TOTAL 5,200 ha 437.50 2,275,000.00 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 8. Community Organizing Cost Estimate per Activity

UNIT of ACTIVITIES TARGET UNIT COST TOTAL COST MEASURE

1. Social Investigation 592,529.13 2. Information and Education Campaign 251,175.33 3. Documentation Process 120,814.04 4. Identification of Possible CBFMA 198,131.00 5. Organizing Activities 2,032,510.00 6. Community Activities 1,756,784.00 7. Others (CO staff dev't) 151,960.32 8. Contingency

Total 7,733.0 ha 660.02 5,103,903.82 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 9a. Cost Estimate for Agroforestry Per Activity TARGET UNIT OF UNIT TOTAL MAJOR ACTIVITY/ACTIVITY OUTPUT MEASURE COST COST 1. SEEDLING PRODUCTION 919,640.00 sdlngs 6.28 5,776,077.00 2. PLANTATION ESTABLISHMENT 512.11 ha 5,635.24 2,885,864.67 a. Strip brushing/clearing 512.11 ha 2,366.80 1,212,063.17 b. Staking 853,687.00 spot 0.34 288,690.44 c. Hole Digging 853,687.00 spot 0.94 803,032.11 d. Hauling 853,687.00 sdlg 0.34 288,586.46 e. Planting 853,687.00 spot 0.18 149,487.71 3. MAINTENANCE & PROTECTION 512.11 ha 4,391.81 2,249,090.11 a.Ringweeding, cultivation and fertilization 853,687.00 sdlg 1.66 1,416,844.34 b.Replanting 170,737.00 sdlg 3.44 587,498.09 c.Fireline establishment / maintenance 505.66 km 359.43 181,747.34 d.Patrol works 512.11 ha 118.74 60,805.86 e.Tools 512.11 ha 4.29 2,194.48

4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COST 439.00 ha 2,455.15 1,077,812.88 a.First and Second Year ('97) 31.68 ha 5,838.75 184,971.60 b.Third Year ('98) 241.59 ha 1,009.23 243,820.00 c.Fourth Year ('99) 512.11 ha 99.83 51,122.25 d.Fifth Year ('00) 512.11 ha 491.87 251,891.94 e.Sixth Year ('01) 512.11 ha 215.24 110,226.29 f.Seventh Year ('02) 512.11 ha 359.81 184,264.45 g.Eight Year ('03) 512.11 ha 100.60 51,516.35 GRAND T O T A L 512.11 ha 23,410.68 11,988,844.66 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 9b. Cost Estimate for Assisted Natural Regeneration Per Activity TARGET UNIT OF UNIT TOTAL MAJOR ACTIVITY/ACTIVITY OUTPUT MEASURE COST COST 1. SEEDLING PRODUCTION 757,400.00 sdlg 2.50 1,893,500.00 2. PLANTATION ESTABLISHMENT 848.87 ha 1,295.12 1,099,389.43 a. Strip brushing/clearing 848.87 ha 157.55 133,738.69 b. Staking 707,533.00 spot 0.17 117,815.40 c. Hole Digging 707,533.00 hole 0.23 162,314.48 d. Hauling 778,286.00 sdlg 0.45 346,577.90 e. Planting 778,286.00 sdlg 0.44 338,942.96 3. MAINTENANCE & PROTECTION 848.87 ha 4,594.71 3,900,309.24 a.Ringweeding, cultivation and fertilization 778,286.00 sdlg 3.37 2,620,452.59 b.Replanting 155,657.26 sdlg 3.41 530,318.16 c.Fireline establishment / maintenance 1,044.37 km 367.83 384,154.62 d.Patrol works 848.87 ha 426.31 361,884.67 e.Tools 848.87 ha 4.12 3,499.20 4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COST 700.00 ha 1,844.39 1,291,075.52 a.First and Second Year ('97-'98) - b.Third Year ('99) 446.69 ha 1,359.36 607,210.66 c.Fourth Year ('00) 777.46 ha 125.67 97,705.93 d.Fifth Year ('01) 848.87 ha 281.17 238,676.57 e.Sixth Year ('02) 848.87 ha 354.01 300,508.44 f.Seventh Year ('03) 848.87 ha 55.34 46,973.92 GRAND T O T A L 848.87 ha 9,641.38 8,184,274.19 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 9c. Cost Estimate for Erosion Control Per Activity (Bamboo) TARGET UNIT OF UNIT TOTAL MAJOR ACTIVITY/ACTIVITY OUTPUT MEASURE COST COST 1. SEEDLING PRODUCTION 330,850.00 sdlg 0.24 79,404.00 2. PLANTATION ESTABLISHMENT 12.96 ha 3,534.72 45,810.00 a. Strip brushing/clearing 12.96 ha 420.00 5,443.20 b. Staking 330,850.00 spot 0.01 1,879.20 c. Hole Digging 330,850.00 hole 0.02 7,776.03 d. Hauling 330,850.00 sdlg 0.06 19,047.57 e. Planting 330,850.00 spot 0.04 11,664.00 3. MAINTENANCE & PROTECTION - a.Ringweeding, cultivation and fertilization b.Replanting c.Fireline establishment / maintenance d.Patrol works e.Tools 4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COST 12.96 ha 2,420.18 31,365.47 a.First and Second Year ('97-'98) b.Third Year ('99) c.Fourth Year ('00) 12.96 ha 1,210.09 15,682.74 d.Fifth Year ('01) 12.96 ha 1,210.09 15,682.74 e.Sixth Year ('02) f.Seventh Year ('03) GRAND T O T A L 12.96 ha 12,081.75 156,579.47 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 9d. Cost Estimate for Bamboo Plantation Per Activity TARGET UNIT OF UNIT TOTAL MAJOR ACTIVITY/ACTIVITY OUTPUT MEASURE COST COST 1. SEEDLING PRODUCTION 38,650.00 sdlg 13.26579715 512,723.06 2. PLANTATION ESTABLISHMENT 61.94 ha 4,977.50 308,306.29 a. Strip brushing/clearing 61.94 ha 450.00 27,873.00 b. Staking 38,650.00 spot 0.26 10,220.10 c. Hole Digging 38,650.00 sdlg 1.04 40,168.09 d. Hauling 38,650.00 hole 3.97 153,611.20 e. Planting 38,650.00 sdlg 1.81 70,013.88 f. Tools 61.94 ha 103.65 6,420.02 3. MAINTENANCE & PROTECTION 61.94 ha 185.5217953 11,491.22 a.Ringweeding, cultivation and fertilization 38,650.00 spot 0.18 7,144.41 b.Replanting 7,730.00 spot 0.56 4,346.81 4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COST 61.94 ha 1388.486116 86,002.83 a.First and Second Year ('97-'98) 6.73 ha 1,179.18 7,935.90 b.Third Year ('99) 61.94 ha 625.42 38,738.54 c.Fourth Year ('00) 61.94 ha 961.39 59,548.48 d.Fifth Year ('01) 61.94 ha - - e.Sixth Year ('02) 61.94 ha 22.13 1,370.86 f.Seventh Year ('03) 61.94 ha - - GRAND T O T A L 61.94 ha 14,829.24 918,523.40 Forestry Sector Project Loan No Ph-P 135

Table 9e. Cost Estimate for Tree Plantation/Reforestation Per Activity TARGET UNIT OF UNIT TOTAL MAJOR ACTIVITY/ACTIVITY OUTPUT MEASURE COST COST 1. SEEDLING PRODUCTION 3,546,240 sdlg 3.48 12,353,328.51 2. PLANTATION ESTABLISHMENT 3,546.24 ha 2,018.41 7,157,762.79 a. Strip brushing/clearing 3,546.00 ha 268.06 950,544.57 b. Staking 2,955,200.00 spot 0.24 712,639.86 c. Hole Digging 2,955,200.00 spot 0.53 1,554,526.02 d. Hauling 2,955,200.00 sdlg 0.71 2,090,680.50 e. Planting 2,955,200.00 sdlg 0.63 1,849,371.84 3. MAINTENANCE & PROTECTION 3,546.24 ha 8,455.57 29,985,478.44 a.Ringweeding, cultivation and fertilization 2,955,200.00 sdlg 6.12 18,097,812.23 b.Replanting 591,040.00 sdlg 10.98 6,491,277.18 c.Fireline establishment / maintenance 3,546.24 km 943.43 3,345,612.56 d.Patrol works 3,546.24 ha 416.69 1,477,673.66 e.Tools 3,546.24 ha 81.85 290,266.79 4. INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENT 3,546.24 ha 116.75 414,024.98 a. Construction of PO Office 2.00 unit 122,701.07 245,402.14 b. Construction of look-out tower 1.00 unit 13,400.00 13,400.00 c. Construction of Bunkhouse 7.00 unit 7,888.98 55,222.84 d. Construction of Foot trail 28.80 km 3,472.22 100,000.00 4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COST 3,546.24 ha 2,509.48 8,899,212.01 a.First and Second Year ('97) 200.00 ha 845.30 169,060.00 b.Third Year ('98) 1,691.34 ha 267.75 452,853.25 c.Fourth Year ('99) 2,840.06 ha 625.25 1,775,739.75 d.Fifth Year ('00) 3,546.24 ha 485.26 1,720,848.27 e.Sixth Year ('01) 3,546.24 ha 546.69 1,938,705.62 f. Seventh Year ('02) 3,546.24 ha 705.96 2,503,520.41 g.Eight Year ('03) 3,546.24 ha 93.92 333,050.54 GRAND T O T A L 3,546.24 ha 16,583.71 58,809,806.73 TREE PLANTATION COMPONENT - CLOA Cost Estimate By Activity TARGET UNIT OF UNIT TOTAL MAJOR ACTIVITY/ACTIVITY OUTPUT MEASURE COST COST 1. SEEDLING PRODUCTION 4,824,467.00 sdlngs 2.41 11,607,912.88 2. PLANTATION ESTABLISHMENT 3,351.12 1,921.77 6,440,092.38 a. Strip brushing/clearing - 670,357.21 b. Staking - 646,981.19 c. Hole Digging - 1,356,707.64 d. Hauling - 1,940,751.24 e. Planting - 1,683,908.20 3. MAINTENANCE & PROTECTION 3,351.12 ha 8,159.95 27,344,966.33 a. Ringweeding, cultivation and fertilization 17,754,640.48 b. Replanting 5,143,647.38 c. Fireline establishment / maintenance 3,005,096.81 d. Patrol works 1,192,067.26 e. Tools 249,514.40

4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COST 3,351.12 ha 2,530.49 8,479,971.62 a. First and Second Year ('97) 169,060.00 b. Third Year ('98) 452,853.25 c. Fourth Year ('99) 1,775,739.75 d. Fifth Year ('00) 1,720,848.27 e. Sixth Year ('01) 1,862,378.49 f. Seventh Year ('02) 2,207,039.79 g. Eight Year ('03) 292,052.07 GRAND T O T A L 53,872,943.21 54,097,843.19 224,899.98 TREE PLANTATION COMPONENT - PASSTFA Cost Estimate By Activity TARGET UNIT OF UNIT TOTAL MAJOR ACTIVITY/ACTIVITY OUTPUT MEASURE COST COST 1. SEEDLING PRODUCTION 217,600.00 sdlngs 2.49 541,500.00 2. PLANTATION ESTABLISHMENT 200.00 2,896.81 579,361.42 a. Strip brushing/clearing - 188,352.33 b. Staking - 54,358.19 c. Hole Digging - 140,933.68 d. Hauling - 78,790.82 e. Planting - 116,926.40 3. MAINTENANCE & PROTECTION 200.00 ha 10,808.23 2,161,645.73 a. Ringweeding, cultivation and fertilization 50,245.00 b. Replanting 1,239,659.80 c. Fireline establishment / maintenance 282,723.12 d. Patrol works 266,179.40 e. Tools 40,002.39

4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COST 200.00 ha 1,793.27 358,653.70 a. First and Second Year ('97) - b. Third Year ('98) - c. Fourth Year ('99) - d. Fifth Year ('00) - e. Sixth Year ('01) 46,004.75 f. Seventh Year ('02) 271,650.48 g. Eight Year ('03) 40,998.47

GRAND T O T A L 3,641,160.85 3,821,960.85 180,800.00 TREE PLANTATION COMPONENT - TTGA Cost Estimate By Activity TARGET UNIT OF UNIT TOTAL MAJOR ACTIVITY/ACTIVITY OUTPUT MEASURE COST COST 1. SEEDLING PRODUCTION 81,566.00 sdlngs 2.50 203,915.63 2. PLANTATION ESTABLISHMENT 75.00 1,844.12 138,308.99 a. Strip brushing/clearing 66,937.51 b. Staking 11,300.48 c. Hole Digging 37,469.80 d. Hauling / planting 22,601.20

3. MAINTENANCE & PROTECTION ha 478,866.38 a. Ringweeding, cultivation and fertilization 292,926.75 b. Replanting 107,970.00 c. Fireline establishment / maintenance 57,792.63 d. Patrol works 19,427.00 e. Tools 750.00

4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT COST - ha 60,586.69 a. First and Second Year ('97) - b. Third Year ('98) - c. Fourth Year ('99) - d. Fifth Year ('00) - e. Sixth Year ('01) 30,322.38 f. Seventh Year ('02) 24,830.14 g. Eight Year ('03) - GRAND T O T A L 81,641.00 881,677.69 890,002.69 8,325.00 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 10. Monitoring and Evaluation Cost Estimate per Activity Unit Target ACTIVITIES of Unit Cost Total Cost Output Measure Physical Validation Component

1. Development of appropriate tools for participatory M&E 4,982.12 ha 25.09 125,000.00 2. Verification of Boundaries, UTM monuments and 4,982.12 57.10 284,500.25 block corner post

3. Seedling Production/Inventory Analysis 4,982.12 ha 67.83 337,930.40

4. Survival Inventory (height and diameter measurements and related observations per area/components and parcels 4,982.12 ha 1,128.58 5,622,728.31

5. Documentation/Reports 4,982.12 ha 290.57 1,447,637.62

B. Institutional/Environmental Impacts 4,982.12 ha 169.08 842,354.85

S U B T O T A L 4,982.12 ha 1,738.25 8,660,151.43

Institutional and Project Benefit Assessment

1. Preparatory activities 15,000.00

2. Primary data collection and preliminary assessment 170,000.00

3. Documentation/Reports 115,000.00

S U B T O T A L 4,982.12 ha 60.22 300,000.00 G R A N D T O T A L 4,982.12 ha 1,798.46 8,960,151.43 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 12. Annual Work and Financial Plan Planned Actual 1996 1996 ACTIVITIES Planned Actual Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Target Budget Target Budget I. REFORESTATION/WATERSHED/CBFM 125,447,932.74 126,623,238.68 A. SMP 437.50 2,275,000.00 437.50 2,275,000.00 5,200.00 2,275,000.00 B. CO (Phase 1 & 2) 670.27 5,183,200.00 660.02 5,103,903.82 - - - - 1. Old Sites - - - Year 1 - - -Year 2 - - 2. New Sites 670.27 5,183,200.00 660.02 5,103,903.82 - - - - - Year 1 3,039,964.00 330.83 2,558,297.40 -Year 2 2,143,236.00 154.95 1,198,207.86 - Year 3 - 124.55 963,113.83 -Year 4 - 49.69 384,284.73 C. CSD ######## 88,120,327.21 16,260.88 81,013,676.45 275.00 1,693,294.75 - - 1. Delineation, Landuse Survey & Mapping 123.58 955,648.00 123.58 955,648.00 2. Soil Erosion Control/SWC ######## 2,924,778.00 14,353.84 1,075,102.87 - - a. Infrastructure - - b. Trails and footpath - - c. Plantation 2,924,778.00 1,075,102.87 - - - - c.1. Plantation spp./vegetative 3,920.00 341,040.00 12,081.75 156,579.47 c.2. River bank stabilization ######## 2,583,738.00 14,829.24 918,523.40 3. Vegetative Measures (Plantation Establishment) 84,239,901.21 78,982,925.58 275.00 1,693,294.75 - - a. Agroforestry ######## 9,566,492.00 23,410.68 11,988,844.66 b. Assisted Natural Regeneration ######## 11,652,443.04 9,641.38 8,184,274.19 c. Enrichment Planting - - d. Tree Plantation ######## 63,020,966.17 16,583.71 58,809,806.73 275.00 1,693,294.75 - - d.1. Bamboo - - d.2. Rattan - - d.3. Mangrove - - d.4. Plantation Species ######## 63,020,966.17 16,583.71 58,809,806.73 275.00 1,693,294.75 - - e. Timber Stand Improvement - - 4. Inventory Residual Forest - - 5. Income Enhancement Project - - D. Infrastructure Component 5,575.61 27,778,360.53 5,875.11 29,270,506.98 E. Monitoring & Evaluation 1,045.00 2,091,045.00 1,798.46 8,960,151.43 - - - - -Year 1 1,420,710.00 213,106.50 -Year 2 670,335.00 422,233.50 -Year 3 - 1,604,366.07 -Year 4 - 3,555,528.20 -Year 5 - 3,164,917.16 2. SUSIMO 2,321,745.00 2,321,745.00 Equipment provided to the Office Researches conducted Trainings Others GRAND TOTAL 127,769,677.74 128,944,983.68 3,968,294.75 - Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 12. Annual Work and Financial Plan 1997 1998 ACTIVITIES Planned Actual Planned Actual Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget I. REFORESTATION/WATERSHED/CBFM A. SMP 5,200.00 2,275,000.00 B. CO (Phase 1 & 2) 7,733.00 3,039,964.00 7,733.00 2,558,297.40 7,733.00 2,143,236.00 7,733.00 1,198,207.86 1. Old Sites - Year 1 -Year 2 2. New Sites 7,733.00 3,039,964.00 7,733.00 2,558,297.40 7,733.00 2,143,236.00 7,733.00 1,198,207.86 - Year 1 7,733.00 3,039,964.00 7,733.00 2,558,297.40 -Year 2 7,733.00 2,143,236.00 7,733.00 1,198,207.86 - Year 3 -Year 4 C. CSD 2,255.82 18,549,317.54 231.68 2,917,294.75 7,593.64 38,220,970.24 1,939.66 10,298,963.80 1. Delineation, Landuse Survey & Mapping 149.82 955,648.00 955,648.00 2. Soil Erosion Control/SWC 1,063,707.60 - - 265.00 1,187,500.40 6.73 102,856.56 a. Infrastructure b. Trails and footpath c. Plantation - 1,063,707.60 - - 265.00 1,187,500.40 6.73 102,856.56 c.1. Plantation spp./vegetative 215,742.60 87.00 125,297.40 c.2. River bank stabilization 847,965.00 178.00 1,062,203.00 6.73 102,856.56 3. Vegetative Measures (Plantation Establishment) 2,255.82 16,529,961.94 231.68 1,961,646.75 7,328.64 37,033,469.84 1,932.93 10,196,107.24 a. Agroforestry 149.82 3,265,200.00 31.68 697,026.60 299.64 3,265,200.00 241.59 2,569,219.80 b. Assisted Natural Regeneration 581.00 3,329,784.26 1,162.00 4,578,002.40 c. Enrichment Planting d. Tree Plantation 1,525.00 9,934,977.68 200.00 1,264,620.15 5,867.00 29,190,267.44 1,691.34 7,626,887.44 d.1. Bamboo d.2. Rattan d.3. Mangrove d.4. Plantation Species 1,525.00 9,934,977.68 200.00 1,264,620.15 5,867.00 29,190,267.44 1,691.34 7,626,887.44 e. Timber Stand Improvement 4. Inventory Residual Forest 5. Income Enhancement Project D. Infrastructure Component E. Monitoring & Evaluation ------Year 1 -Year 2 -Year 3 -Year 4 -Year 5 2. SUSIMO Equipment provided to the Office Researches conducted Trainings Others GRAND TOTAL 21,589,281.54 7,750,592.15 40,364,206.24 11,497,171.66 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 12. Annual Work and Financial Plan 1999 2000 ACTIVITIES Planned Actual Planned Actual Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget I. REFORESTATION/WATERSHED/CBFM A. SMP B. CO (Phase 1 & 2) - - 7,733.00 963,113.83 - - - - 1. Old Sites - Year 1 -Year 2 2. New Sites - - 7,733.00 963,113.83 - - - - - Year 1 -Year 2 - Year 3 7,733.00 963,113.83 -Year 4 C. CSD 7,371.00 18,635,314.63 4,191.57 13,551,381.79 6,932.00 11,021,430.05 4,969.16 11,604,896.27 1. Delineation, Landuse Survey & Mapping 2. Soil Erosion Control/SWC 178.00 336,785.00 61.94 443,211.58 178.00 336,785.00 61.94 359,593.18 a. Infrastructure b. Trails and footpath c. Plantation 178.00 336,785.00 61.94 443,211.58 178.00 336,785.00 61.94 359,593.18 c.1. Plantation spp./vegetative c.2. River bank stabilization 178.00 336,785.00 61.94 443,211.58 178.00 336,785.00 61.94 359,593.18 3. Vegetative Measures (Plantation Establishment) 7,193.00 18,298,529.63 4,129.63 13,108,170.21 6,754.00 10,684,645.05 4,907.22 11,245,303.09 a. Agroforestry 439.00 3,036,092.00 512.11 3,832,854.52 512.11 2,294,646.54 b. Assisted Natural Regeneration 1,162.00 2,496,437.23 777.46 2,915,779.58 1,162.00 1,248,219.15 848.87 966,672.33 c. Enrichment Planting d. Tree Plantation 5,592.00 12,766,000.40 2,840.06 6,359,536.11 5,592.00 9,436,425.90 3,546.24 7,983,984.22 d.1. Bamboo d.2. Rattan d.3. Mangrove d.4. Plantation Species 5,592.00 12,766,000.40 2,840.06 6,359,536.11 5,592.00 9,436,425.90 3,546.24 7,983,984.22 e. Timber Stand Improvement 4. Inventory Residual Forest 5. Income Enhancement Project D. Infrastructure Component E. Monitoring & Evaluation 2,001.00 1,420,710.00 - 213,106.50 2,001.00 670,335.00 4,969.16 422,233.50 -Year 1 2,001.00 1,420,710.00 213,106.50 -Year 2 2,001.00 670,335.00 4,969.16 422,233.50 -Year 3 -Year 4 -Year 5 2. SUSIMO Equipment provided to the Office Researches conducted Trainings Others GRAND TOTAL 20,056,024.63 14,727,602.12 11,691,765.05 12,027,129.77 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 12. Annual Work and Financial Plan 2001 2001 2002 ACTIVITIES Planned Actual Planned Actual Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget I. REFORESTATION/WATERSHED/CBFM A. SMP B. CO (Phase 1 & 2) - - 7,733.00 384,284.73 - - - - 1. Old Sites - Year 1 -Year 2 2. New Sites - - 7,733.00 384,284.73 - - - - - Year 1 -Year 2 - Year 3 -Year 4 7,733.00 384,284.73 C. CSD - - 4,920.18 15,950,864.75 - - 4,969.16 22,726,058.53 1. Delineation, Landuse Survey & Mapping 2. Soil Erosion Control/SWC - - 12.96 156,579.47 - - 61.94 12,862.08 a. Infrastructure b. Trails and footpath c. Plantation - - 12.96 156,579.47 - - 61.94 12,862.08 c.1. Plantation spp./vegetative 12.96 156,579.47 c.2. River bank stabilization 61.94 12,862.08 3. Vegetative Measures (Plantation Establishment) - - 4,907.22 15,794,285.28 - - 4,907.22 22,713,196.45 a. Agroforestry 512.11 846,085.68 512.11 1,360,825.32 b. Assisted Natural Regeneration 848.87 1,569,392.39 848.87 2,361,287.40 c. Enrichment Planting d. Tree Plantation - - 3,546.24 13,378,807.21 - - 3,546.24 18,991,083.73 d.1. Bamboo d.2. Rattan d.3. Mangrove d.4. Plantation Species - - 3,546.24 13,378,807.21 - - 3,546.24 18,991,083.73 e. Timber Stand Improvement 4. Inventory Residual Forest 5. Income Enhancement Project D. Infrastructure Component E. Monitoring & Evaluation - - 4,920.18 1,604,366.07 - - 4,969.16 3,555,528.20 -Year 1 -Year 2 -Year 3 4,920.18 1,604,366.07 -Year 4 4,969.16 3,555,528.20 -Year 5 2. SUSIMO 637,600.00 637,600.00 745,675.00 745,675.00 Equipment provided to the Office Researches conducted Trainings Others GRAND TOTAL 637,600.00 18,577,115.55 745,675.00 27,027,261.73 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 12. Annual Work and Financial Plan 2003 Planned (TOTAL) Actual (TOTAL) ACTIVITIES Planned Actual Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget I. REFORESTATION/WATERSHED/CBFM A. SMP 5,200.00 2,275,000.00 5,200.00 2,275,000.00 B. CO (Phase 1 & 2) - - - - 7,733.00 5,183,200.00 7,733.00 5,103,903.82 1. Old Sites - - - - Year 1 - - - -Year 2 - - - 2. New Sites - - - - 7,733.00 5,183,200.00 7,733.00 5,103,903.82 - Year 1 7,733.00 3,039,964.00 7,733.00 2,558,297.40 -Year 2 7,733.00 2,143,236.00 7,733.00 1,198,207.86 - Year 3 - - 7,733.00 963,113.83 -Year 4 - - 7,733.00 384,284.73 C. CSD - - 4,907.22 3,964,216.56 7,733.00 88,120,327.21 4,982.12 81,013,676.45 1. Delineation, Landuse Survey & Mapping 7,733.00 955,648.00 7,733.00 955,648.00 2. Soil Erosion Control/SWC - - - - 265.00 2,924,778.00 74.90 1,075,102.87 a. Infrastructure - - - b. Trails and footpath - - - c. Plantation - - - - 265.00 2,924,778.00 74.90 1,075,102.87 c.1. Plantation spp./vegetative 87.00 341,040.00 12.96 156,579.47 c.2. River bank stabilization 178.00 2,583,738.00 61.94 918,523.40 3. Vegetative Measures (Plantation Establishment) - - 4,907.22 3,964,216.56 7,468.00 84,239,901.21 4,907.22 78,982,925.58 a. Agroforestry 512.11 388,186.20 439.00 9,566,492.00 512.11 11,988,844.66 b. Assisted Natural Regeneration 848.87 371,142.49 1,162.00 11,652,443.04 848.87 8,184,274.19 c. Enrichment Planting - - - - d. Tree Plantation - - 3,546.24 3,204,887.87 5,867.00 63,020,966.17 3,546.24 58,809,806.73 d.1. Bamboo - - d.2. Rattan - - - d.3. Mangrove - - - d.4. Plantation Species - - 3,546.24 3,204,887.87 5,867.00 63,020,966.17 3,546.24 58,809,806.73 e. Timber Stand Improvement - - - 4. Inventory Residual Forest - - - 5. Income Enhancement Project - - - D. Infrastructure Component 27,778,360.53 29,270,506.98 4,982.12 27,778,360.53 4,982.12 29,270,506.98 E. Monitoring & Evaluation - - 4,907.22 3,164,917.16 2,001.00 2,091,045.00 4,982.11 8,960,151.43 -Year 1 2,001.00 1,420,710.00 4,191.57 213,106.50 -Year 2 2,001.00 670,335.00 4,969.16 422,233.50 -Year 3 - - 4,920.18 1,604,366.07 -Year 4 1,969.16 3,555,528.20 -Year 5 4,907.22 3,164,917.16 4,907.22 3,164,917.16 2. SUSIMO 938,470.00 938,470.00 2,321,745.00 2,321,745.00 Equipment provided to the Office Researches conducted Trainings Others GRAND TOTAL 28,716,830.53 37,338,110.70 127,769,677.74 128,944,983.68 Annex 1a

ORGANIZATIONAL SET-UP OF THE AGNO CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, INC

ACDI Manager

Consultant

Utility Treasurer

ACDI Manager

Livelihood Extension Officer Silviculturist

Finance Officer Asst. Silviculturist Asst. Silviculturist

Annex 1a

Annex 1b

COLOS LAND OWNERS ASSOCIATION (CLOA) ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Chairman Vice Chairman BODs

Project Manager Committee

Operations Administrative and Finance

Surveyor Treasurer

Draftsman Bookkeeper

Project Evaluator Clerk

Annex 1c1

ORGANIZATIONAL SET-UP OF THE AGRI-COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION INCORPORATED (ACDCI)

CO PROJECT MANAGER

Forester / Extension Forester / Silviculture Cooperative / Specialist Specialist Financial Specialist

Field Assistance Field Assistance Field assistance

Annex 1c1

Annex 1c2

ORGANIZATIONAL SET-UP OF THE HIGHLAND COMMUNITY OF REVIVED ENTHUSIASTS

PRESIDENT

CO COMMUNITY FORESTER ENUMERATOR SPECIALIST DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL SPECIALIST MANAGEMENT OFFICER

Annex 1c2

Annex 1d

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART SUSIMO Itogon Watershed Subproject Itogon, Benguet

PENRO Benguet

CENRO Baguio City

Subproject Site Management Officer

Assisting Professionals

Administrative Support Unit

SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY VALIDATION AND AND MANAGEMENT ORGANIZING AND BILLING UNIT (VBU) UNIT (SDMU) STRENGTHENING

UNIT (COSU)

Remarks: 1. The term of APs Laza and Ganipis ended lat April 2003 2. AP Nellie Ballola assumed as AP from June to July 2003 3. Ms. Martin was recalled back to CENRO La Trinidad on June 2001 4. At present, all the seventeen (17) SUSIMO staff remained at SUSIMO to continue capacitate the 3 POs

Annex 1d

Annex 1e1

F-GURREA CONSTRUCTION Project Organizational Chart

Project Manager

Resident Manager

Administrative Officer

Utility

Materials Engineer HEAVY EQUIPMENT Equipment Engineer OPERATORS

SKILLED LABORERS Utility Geodetic Engineer (Mason, Steelman,

Carpenters)

Annex 1e1

Annex 1e2

MARCONS BUILDERS PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART

General Manager

Administrator Executive Secretary

Project Manager

Equipment Engineer

Project Engineer

Electro- Geodetic Mechanical Engineer

General Truck Drivers Engineer Equipment Operators

Electricians Leadman- Leadman- Leadman- Rip- /Plumbers Mason Carpenter Steelmen rappers

Electro Mason- Carpenter- Steelmen- Aides Plumber- Aides Aides Aides Aides Side photo of completed Hanging Bridged

Completed grouted Completed Farm to riprap. Market Road.

Completed Water Tank.

Benguet Pine tree plantation Nursery of pine seedling raised by the stakeholders of Itogon Watershed.

Gmelina plantation.

Consultation meeting among the PO members.

Monitoring and Evaluation of the planta- tion being done by the PO members. TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Itogon Watershed Subproject

Corner BEARING DISTANCE (meter) 1-2 S 61 ° 36 ' E 3,021.30 2-3 N 25 ° 9 ' E 4,293.89 3-4 S 65 ° 56 ' E 14,663.29 4-5 S 0 ° 5 ' W 4,677.71 5-6 N 89 ° 38 ' W 4,545.85 6-7 S 11 ° 5 ' W 6,289.96 7-8 S 51 ° 24 ' W 2,537.35 8-9 S 12 ° 57 ' E 4,356.30 9-10 S 17 ° 48 ' W 1,520.88 10-11 S 76 ° 58 ' W 11,030.43 11-12 N 65 ° 47 ' W 4,902.01 12-13 N 9 ° 42 ' E 321.21 13-14 N 3 ° 29 ' E 15,170.78 14-15 N 40 ° 24 ' W 1,227.09 15-16 N 4 ° 53 ' E 1,921.92 16-17 S 52 ° 58 ' E 2,674.12 17-18 N 38 ° 30 ' E 2,346.89 18-19 N 61 ° 32 ' E 613.88 19-20 N 55 ° 20 ' W 853.63 20-21 N 30 ° 14 ' E 1,586.65 21-1 N 0 ° 5 ' E 1,423.60 Reference point: Corner 1: long-X 120 ° 40 ' 9 " lat-Y 16 23 ' 45 "