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 Mananga-Kotkot-Lusaran Watershed Subproject is in Cebu Province and covers the cities of Cebu, Talisay and Danao and the municipalities of Minglanilla, Lilo-an, Consolacion, Compostela and Balamban. The rehabilitation of the MKL Watershed is significant considering the declining underground water supply aggravated by salt-water intrusion on the one hand and the continuing and pressing demand for water for Metro Cebu’s industries and residents on the other.

The implementation of Comprehensive Site Development ( CSD ) activities for the MKL Subproject involved the participation of 13 People’s Organizations to cover the entire expanse of the three watersheds. With an original target of 5,688 hectares, accomplishment reached only a total of 4,920.75 hectares due to the heavy damage caused by the El Nino phenomenon in 1998 to some 1.0 million seedlings. Realignment of targets focused development and maintenance activities on the improvement of these 4,920.75 hectares.

The CSD activities as well as Infrastructure Development nevertheless provided employment to the local community as well as some technical persons in need of work. A total of 498,685 man days were generated that resulted to an estimated increase of 59% in the average annual household income from PHP 15,976 before the project to PHP 25,330 during the project.

The Subproject has succeeded in diverting concentration on forest- based source of income to non-forest based income sources as PO members invested part of the PHP 1,868,709.56 Community Forest Development Fund on various livelihood projects.

i In terms of infrastructure, beneficiaries find the farm-to-market roads, the hanging bridges and footbridges very helpful in facilitating mobility and ease in transporting their farm products to places of commerce. The irrigation system and water supply structures on the other hand supplement water supply requirements of the communities.

The MKL Subproject suffered several setbacks in its implementation but the same problems had taught valuable insights to both implementers and beneficiaries.

ii LIST OF ACRONYMS

ANR Assisted Natural Regeneration AP Assisting Professional BAKANTI Banikanhong Kapunongan Alang sa Nasudnong Tingusbwan CBFM Community Based Forest Management CBFMP Community Based Forest Management Program CCCICSM Central Cebu Center for Integrated Catchment System Management CCIC CENRO Composite Inspection Committee CCNP Central Cebu National Park CO Community Organizing COMMITTA Camp 4 - Manipis - Minglanilla - Toong COSU Community Organizing and Strengthening Unit SCD Comprehensive Site Development COSW Cebu Uniting for Sustainable Water DA Department of Agriculture FORI Forest Reseach Development GIS Geographical Information System IEC Information, Education and Communication IGP Income Generating Project IPBA Institutional Project Benefits Assessment JBIC Japan Bank International Cooperation KLRWFR Kot-kot Lusaran River Watershed Forest Reserve LFA Licos Farmers Association LGU Local Government Unit M & E Monitoring and Information MALTAJ Maghaway-Lagtang-Tapul-Jaclupan MCFA Mulao Compostela Farmers Association MFMFC Mulao Compostela Farmers Multipurpose Cooperative MWFR Mananga Watershed Forest Reserve NAGMATA Nagkahiusang Grupo sa mga Mag-uuma sa Tag-ubi NGO None-Government Organization OECF Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund OIDCI Orient Integrated Development PCEEM Philippine Canadian Environmental and Economic Management Project PO Peoples Organization PSBA Pamutan Sang Daku Buot - Taop Assn. PSMPC Pung-ol Sibugay Multipurpose Cooperative RAFI Ramon Aboitiz Foundation SDMU Site Development and Management Unit SEC Security Exchange Commision SMP Survey, Mapping and Planning SNP Sudlon National Park SSSFAI Sinsin-Sudlon I Sudlon II Farmers Assn. SUSIMO Subproject Site Management office TMPC Tabla Multipurpose Cooperative UFMPC United Farmers Multipirpose Cooperative VBU Validation and Billing Unit WFP Work and Financial Plan 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 ------19 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 ------39 Relating to Recommendation(s)

IV. Initial Operation and Maintenance Of the Subproject Facilities ------41 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 ------48 1. Indirect Effects

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations ------51

LIST OF TABLES:

Table 1 : Trainings Attended by the People’s Organization ------52

Table 2 : Subproject Performance ------54

Table 3 : Subproject Site Management Office Equipment ------55

Table 4 : Trainings Attended by SUSIMO ------56

Table 5a : Swine Production Livelihood Project ------57

Table 5b : Rice and Corn Retail Livelihood Project ------58

Table 5c : Micro-Lending Livelihood Project ------59

Table 5d : Rice and Corn Retail Livelihood Project ------60

Table 5e : Swine Production Livelihood Project ------61

Table 5f : Cattle Dispersal Livelihood Project ------62

Table 5g : Poultry Raising Livelihood Project ------63

Table 5h : Swine Production Livelihood Project ------64

Table 5i : Consumer Store Livelihood Project ------65

Table 5j : Micro-Lending Livelihood Project ------66

Table 5k : Consumer Store Livelihood Project ------67

Table 5l : Micro-Lending Livelihood Project ------68

Table 5m : Livestock Dispersal Livelihood Project ------69

Table 5n : Consumer Store Livelihood Project ------70

Table 5o : Micro-Lending Livelihood Project ------71

Table 5p : Livestock Dispersal Livelihood Project ------72

Table 5q : Consumer Store Livelihood Project ------73

Table 5r : Rice and Corn Retail Livelihood Project ------74

Table 5s : Consumer Store Livelihood Project ------75

Table 5t : Consumer Store Livelihood Project ------76

Table 5u : Micro-Lending Livelihood Project ------77

Table 5v : Livestock Dispersal Livelihood Project ------78

Table 5w : Trucking Livelihood Project ------79

Table 5x : Rice and Corn Livelihood Project ------80

Table 6 : Subproject Status Report ------81

Table 7 : Community Organizing Cost Estimate per Activity ------82

Table 8a : Cost Estimate for Agroforestry Per Activity ------83

Table 8b : Cost Estimate for Enrichment Planting Per Activity------84

Table 8c : Cost Estimate for Bamboo Plantation Per Activity------85

Table 8d : Cost Estimate for Rattan Plantation Per Activity------86

Table 8e : Cost Estimate for Tree Plantation Per Activity ------87

Table 9 : Monitoring and Evaluation Cost Estimate Per Activity ------88

Table 10 : Infrastructure Project ------89

Table 11 : Annual Work and Financial Plan ------98

ANNEXES:

1. Organizational Structure ------102

1a. PO 1b. M&E 1c. SUSIMO 1d. Infrastructure Contractor

2. Pictures ------120

3. CSD Accomplishment Map ------123

SUBPROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

of

MANANGA-KOTKOT-LUSARAN WATERSHED SUBPROJECT

Forestry Sector Project Loan Agreement No. PH-P 135

I. Subproject Description

The Mananga-Kotkot-Lusaran Watershed Subproject is located within the cities of Cebu , Talisay, and Danao, and the municipalities of Minglanilla, Lilo- an, Consolacion, Compostela and Balamban, all in the province of Cebu. It lies in 10º 19' 47.49" to 10º 23' 42.77" latitude and 123º 47' 25.15" to 123º 00' 50.17" longitude.

The rehabilitation of the critical Mananga-Kotkot-Lusaran Watershed was considered by the then Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF) of Japan now the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) as one of the subprojects of the Forestry Sector Project – Loan II in Central Visayas in view of the increasing demand of Metro Cebu’s industries and populace for potable water.

1. Purpose/Objectives

A) Original (at the time of appraisal)

1. To establish, manage, and safeguard protection zones for sustenance of water yield and for natural as well as permanent habitat of endemic wildlife;

2. To rehabilitate and re-vegetate degraded lands in the restoration zone with indigenous species and to establish soil and water conservation measures especially along water channels;

1 3. To establish, manage and develop multiple-use zone for the production of land-based goods and services applying appropriate land-use technologies;

4. To develop and manage sustainable use zone by improving existing land uses and by introducing alternative non-forest based livelihood activities;

5. To establish and develop riparian zones through stream bank stabilization, planting of bamboo, fruit trees and endemic forest tree species for erosion control;

6. To educate watershed residents and increase their awareness on watershed protection, biodiversity conservation, wildlife conservation and appropriate upland farming technologies.

7. To enforce forest protection laws, rules and regulations through community-based and multi-sectoral approaches; and,

8. To institutionalize community-based and multi-sectoral capability in watershed planning and management.

B) Modification

a. Modified purpose/objectives (No Modification was made)

b. Reasons for modification (Not applicable) (with detailed explanation of the discrepancy between the original and modified basic plans, where applicable)

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.

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

ITEM Original Scope and Revised/Modified Dimensions (At the (Actual) time of appraisal/Planned) 1. REFORESTATION/ WATERSHED/CBFM A. SMA 5,688 hectares 5,688 hectares B. CO1  RAFI February 1997 to February 1997 to February 1999 July 2001 782.33 hectares 230.08 hectares

 CRMOI February 1997 to February 1997 to February 1999; July 1999 999.75 hectares 1,288.08 hectares

 VALUES February 1997 to February 1997 to February 1999; July 2000 1,034.74 hectares 1,088.88 hectares

 Blessed February 1997 to February 1997 to Philippines February 1999; July 2000 1,210.18 hectares 1,601.42 hectares

Total 4,027 hectares 4,208.46 hectares

Year 1  IEC activities  IEC activities Year 2  Assistance to  Assistance to CSD activities CSD activities  Assistance on  Assistance on Networking Networking and and Linkaging Linkaging  Organizational  Organizational Development Development and and Capacity Capacity Building Building  Livelihood Project  Livelihood implementation Project  Monitoring and implementation Evaluation  Monitoring and Evaluation

3 C. CSD 1. SOIL EROSION CONTROL a. Infrastructure  gabion 1 unit 1 unit b. Trail and footpath c. Tree Plantation c.1 Riparian Zone (Bamboo) 1,146 hectares 1,149.20 hectares

2. VEGETATIVE MEASURES2 a. Agroforestry 1,129 hectares 1,945.51 hectares b. Assisted Natural regeneration c. Enrichment Planting 396 hectares 68 hectares d. Tree Plantation d.1 Bamboo d.2Rattan (Protection Forest) 899 hectares 750.11 hectares d.3 Mangrove d.4 Plantation Spp. (Production Forest) 2008 hectares 1,007.93 hectares e. Timber Stand Improvement

TOTAL: 5,578 ha. 4,920.75 ha.

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

 Look-out tower 9 units 9 units  Bunkhouse 6 units 5 units  Graded trail 1,000 km 1,300 km  Footpath 30,000 sq.m 30,000 sq.m

D. INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENT

 Hanging bridge  A 62-meter o Brgy. Buot-Taup hanging bridge; (proper), Cebu City made up of two (2) 7.90-meter concrete towers,

4 high tensile strength (HTS) cables with lightweight steel channels for floor joists, welded wire mesh flooring and cyclone wire sidings.

o Brgy. Lagtang and  An 80-m hanging Lwaan II, Talisay City, bridge connecting Cebu. Brgy. Lagtang and Lawaan II, Talisay City. It is made up of two 11.30-meter concrete towers, High Tensile Strengths (HTS) cables with lightweight steel channels for floor joists, welded wire mesh flooring and cyclone wire sidings.

o Brgy. Mulao,  A 50-m hanging Compostela Cebu bridge made up of HTS with lightweight steel channels for floor joists, wielded wire mesh flooring and cyclone wire.

 Concrete Footbridge  A 21-meter o Brgy. Pamutan, Cebu Concrete City Footbridge; made up of concrete slab resting on a

5 single concrete beam supported by concrete columns. It has G.I pipe railings and compacted fill with grouted riprap approaches.

 Water Supply Structures  A small scale o Brgy. Pamutan, Cebu Water Irrigation City System composed of a concrete intake box, one distribution tank (capacity 17.248 cu.m.) and interconnected by a 227.34 meters polyethylene pipeline.

o Brgy. Jaclupan,  A water system Talisay City, Cebu at Brgy. Jaclupan, Talisay City, Cebu. The water system is composed of s concrete intake box, one concrete distribution tank (capacity=17.248 cu.m.) and interconnected by a 1.04921-km. Polyethelyne pipeline.

 A Pump Irrigation System  Five (5) o Brgy. Sinsin, Sudlon I, distribution tanks Sudlon II, Cebu City (capacity 17.28 cu.m), a concrete relief box, and interconnected by

6 9,420 km polyethylene pipeline.

 Farm to Market Road  A 1.91120-km Rehabilitation Project rehabilitated o Brgy. Tagba-o, Cebu farm to market City road.

o Brgy. Magsaysay,  A 2.532- km Farm Talamban, Cebu City to Market Road Sitio Sunog-Sitio Manunggal Crossing to Sitio Sandayong at Brgy. Magsaysay, Balamban, Cebu. Portion of the road (1.809 km) is concreted.

E. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Physical Validation Inspection Chart Conducted in three Year 1 Mapping (3) passes; Year 2 December 1999 to Year 3 May 31, 2003; 4,920.75 hectares

. Verification of boundaries, monuments, and block corner posts . Seedling production inventory analysis . Survival Counting with 20% sampling intensity, including mapping of developed areas

7 . Height and diameter measurement, assessment of overall health/ appearance . Inspection of physical infrastructure

Institutional and Project Benefit Conducted in two (2) Assessment passes: June 2002 to June 2003; 4,920.75 hectares

. Assessment of the overall development of the PO . Assessment of the capability of the PO to pursue sustainable resource management and sustain its livelihood initiatives

. Identification of various issues/problems/ constraints related to the development and strengthening of the PO and the relevant support systems

. Identification of immediate benefits of the project and

8 evidences that would indicate the intermediate and long-term socio- economic and environmental impacts.

2. SUSIMO . Equipment provided to  1 unit truck the Office3  1 unit Power Generator  1 set Computer w/ software  1 unit UPS 500VA  1 unit GIS Software  2 units GPS  1 set Base Radio Transceiver  4 sets Handheld Radio Transceiver  2 units Forester’s Transit  1 unit Typewriter Manual  4 units Brunton Compass  6 units Steel cabinet  1 unit Water pump  2 units Steel/Nylon  1 unit Tape/Chain  2 units Diameter  I unit Tape  1 unit Cassette Recorder  1 unit Planimeter; 1 unit  4 units Abney Hand Level  1 unit Rain Gauge  . Binoculars

9  4 units Calculator  1 set lettering  1 unit Drafting Table  12 units Desks & Chair  2 pcs Camera  1 unit Scanner  2 units Printer  50 pcs Plastic Chairs  7 pcs VHF-FM radio

. Researches conducted None

. Trainings4  Simple Bookkeeping.  Simple Worksheet & Simple Financial Statement Preparation.  Forest Protection & Fire Mgt and Control.  Workshop on Organizational Mgt. & CO Milestones.  Simple Process Documentation & record Keeping.  Basic Auditing for Non- Auditors.  Financial Mgt. Integration.

. Others o SUSIMO  Renovated the Building old Forest

10 Research Institute (FORI) building at Camp7, Minglanilla, Cebu having an approximate area of 400 square meters, worth P200T.

o Turned-over  Two four wheel facilities of drive vehicles Infrastructure (Nissan path finder & Izuzu fuego),  Two Cameras, (Kodak Advantix)  Two desktop computers , (Compaq)

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 and Dimensions

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

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

 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

11  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 (with background).

 Natural Disaster/Bad Weather.

The occurrence of the El Nino phenomenon in 1998 brought damage to the seedling production of the People’s Organizations (POs) of Mananga-Kotkot-Lusaran. Approximately 1.0 million seedlings of different species for agro forestry and reforestation components worth millions of pesos were affected by the El Nino phenomenon. Taking into account the number of seedlings to be produced again and the cost it may incur, the PO will not be able to generate the required number of seedlings for reforestation component. This prompted the DENR and POs to realign the target of different components of CSD.

 Performance of contractor/supplier

After five years of project implementation, the PO established only a total of 4,920.75 hectares out of 5,688 hectares. Result of assessment conducted in year 2000 however, dictated the revision of the targets of all subprojects under the Forestry Sector Project funded by JBIC. Development and other maintenance activities were focused on the improvement of the 4,920.75 hectares established plantation.

 Others

o On Monitoring & Evaluation (Policy Change)

Before the adoption of MC 2001-04 entitled “Revised Guidelines in the conduct of Monitoring and Evaluation in the Forestry Sector Project”, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of FSP subprojects’ accomplishments employed the Inspection Chart Mapping (ICM) system, whereby, there was a 100% counting of seedlings planted and

12 dealt only on the physical aspect. Review of policy, however, resulted to the adoption of MC 2001-04 that specified the conduct of an independent review and assessment of not only the physical components of the subproject but also came up with the Institutional and Project Benefit Assessment (IPBA).

o On Infrastructure Component (added component of the FSP)

An intensive review and assessment of the status of each subproject was conducted by the NFDO through the Technical Assistance team in CY 2000. Results of the assessment justified the inclusion of the Infrastructure Support Project in the FSP II. The Infrastructure Support Project aimed to promote the livelihood development of the PO through the rehabilitation of the poor road condition that hindered livelihood development and /or other infrastructure support that the PO deemed necessary for the promotion of their livelihood projects.

o On SUSIMO Creation (Project Management Office Initiative)

Results of the assessment likewise, compelled NFDO to institute a system that would provide effective and efficient management of the Subproject on the ground level. Creation of the Subproject Site Management Office (SUSIMO) manned by the DENR permanent personnel was found to be the proper approach, hence, the issuance of the Department Administrative Order (DAO) No 2000-65 that, mandated the Regional Office and the field Offices to install the SUSIMO for each subproject site. Simultaneous with SUSIMO creation was the capability building of its staff through the provision of the technical, financial and management trainings. Facilities such as buildings and other equipment were likewise provided to the SUSIMO for sound subproject administration.

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

13  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 and rehabilitation  The Subproject at full development is expected to increase the extent of forested area in the watershed, which in turn will increase volume of wood and minor forest products at a substantial level, bringing about stumpage and other plantation products build-up.

 The water yield of watersheds is expected to increase substantially and will generate sufficient and sustained amount of water in Cebu City and nearby municipalities.

 It will provide positive economic spillover downstream.

2. Livelihood Development Projects  Additional livelihood projects will be identified and implemented by the communities to augment household income of the watershed communities while waiting for major harvests from the agro forestry component of the Subproject.

3. Management of the Community  CBFMA management will generate Based Forest Management Agreement employment opportunities

14 (CBFMA) Area. equivalent to 11.81 million person- days for a period of 26 years or an annual average of 454,295 person- days. This is equivalent to a total labor of 47,247 workers in 26 years or an average of 1,817 workers annually.

 There will be an increase in annual household income estimated at P6,025 for the first year up to P26,268 for the fifth year or a total of P112,155 for five years. This will give an average increase of P22,432 per household annually.

C.3. Present situation and outlook for the future

Item Description 1.Issuance of land tenure . Instead of CBFMA, PACBRMA will be issued to the POs since MKL is within the proclaimed protected area. The 13 POs of MKL through the SUSIMO already submitted their application for PACBRMA to the respective Protected Area Management Boards (PAMBs) of MKL Watershed Subproject. To date, issuance of PACBRMA is still being processed.

. Delay in the formulation of the implementing guidelines for the issuance of PACBRMA greatly affects the trust & confidence of the upland communities. Once the PACBRMA is issued to the POs, they will be motivated to manage the area sustainably.

 Efficiency and effectiveness of the POs in protected area management will depend on the assistance to be provided by the DENR-PAMB and SUSIMO.

2. Established plantation . The CSD area of BUKID MPC and UFMPC includes the remaining natural growth of Mount Manunggal and the Tabunan Forest respectively. The vegetation on the slopes towards Mt. Manunggal still contains species

15 commonly found only in natural forest, although there is great reduction in big trees. Several dipterocarp species are still present in big part of such slopes.

. Based on the CUSW’s Final Pass Report, Eight (8) out of thirteen PO’s are above the standard Weighted Average Survival Rate (WASR), with WASR ranging from 82% to 93%, while the other five (5) PO’s are below standard WASR, ranging from 30% to 79%. Eventually, four (4) POs passed and claimed their respective retention fees.

 A total of 4,920. 75 hectares was established by the POs with a weighted average survival rate (WASR) of 85.46%. With the above accomplishment the extent of forested area in the watershed increased. At full development, there will be an increase in wood volume and quantity of minor forest products at a substantial level. Thus, stumpage and other plantation products build-up in the long run.

 The water yield of watershed will also increase substantially and will generate sufficient and sustained amount of water in Cebu City and nearby municipalities, thus, there will be positive economic spill-over downstream.

3. Livelihood Development5  The Subproject implementation has diverted the attention of the community from forest- based source of income to non-forest based income sources. Presently, the POs of MKL are investing much of their CFDF into individual livelihood projects. Some POs are engaged in vegetable production and have tied up with MACRO supermarket for the marketing of their products. Other POs are into consumer stores, grocery stores, micro-financing and others. A cumulative CFDF is P1,868,709.56, with P11,550.00 as the smallest and P1,258,000.00 as biggest CFDF among the 12 POs.

16 . Given the necessary support through continuous trainings on technical aspects of livelihood projects, marketing, linkaging and financial management systems, competency level of these thirteen POs will increase, thus, will enable them to expand their livelihood projects and do away with the forest-based means of livelihood,

4.Comprehensive Site  The Subproject generated employment Development Activities opportunities equivalent to 1,050 workers (employment ranging from 90 to 700 days) for a period of seven (7) years from different CSD activities and infrastructure development.

 The Subproject activities increased the annual household income at an estimate of 59% or an annual additional household income of P9,354.00 for seven (7) years.

5.Agroforestry  Planted fruit trees, particularly cacao are development growing well and becoming visible vegetative component of developed areas, although these are in relatively small parcels. There are some indigenous tree species that exhibit promising growth performance, such as pangantoon, bagalunga, himbabalud and molave. Mangiums planted in 1998 showed highest average diameter of seven centimeters (7 cm.) and eight meters (8 m.) in height for SSSFAI and MCFA plantations.

 The agro forestry component of BUKID MPC is associated to intensive human intervention and if applied to areas with natural growth, the project is expected to do more damage than development to the natural resources and soil conservation. It was also noted that BUKID MPC’s activities did not include schemes for protection and production forests (ViFARD 2nd Pass Report). This observation is also true with UFMPC CSD areas near the Tabunan Forest.

 BUKID MPC’s CSD area has a wide coverage. Similar rehabilitation works should be

17 expanded to adjoining area that needs similar land development. The PO has the advantage of having big areas needing development, since the area can be used to request for additional funds or to secure new project. However, the organization should continue concentrating on degraded areas that are more or less dominated by grass. While much of the planted sites are indeed in denuded sites, isolated parcels of this kind within the covered areas remain unplanted.

. A total of 1,945.51 hectares was planted to agroforestry crops and has a weighted average survival rate of 84.78%. Harvest will be abundant in just few years to augment annual household income of the community. Once harvests of agro forestry products boom, processing of such is deemed necessary to optimize gain from the products. Trainings and capability development as well as funds support are encouraged to sustain the agro forestry development as an alternative source of income.

. Further development is likewise encouraged for the optimum use of the land.

6. Conduct of Maintenance  There is no more funds for maintenance and and Protection activities protection activities, but through the CFDF, allocation for such has been provided. Presently, the PO has been able to meet the standard survival percentage.

 Maintenance of established plantations must be continued especially that the plantations are in their critical stage. Funding must either be allocated from the regular DENR budget or solicited from other funding agencies including the private sector. NGOs working in the area must be encouraged to participate in supporting the maintenance activities, such as adopting a particular plantation area and working with POs concerned.

18 7.Infrastructure  Through the effort of the SUSIMO, the Development/Rehabilitation Philippine Canadian Environmental and Economic Management Project (PCEEM) installed the water system benefited by almost 380 families in barangay Mulao, Lupa, Compostela Cebu.

 Different infrastructure projects have been constructed/rehabilitated in the site to support the livelihood development activities of the POs, such as:

o The rehabilitated farm-to-market roads, hanging bridges and footbridges provide accessibility to the community as well as ease of transport of the farm products thus, increasing profitability.

o Irrigation system and water supply structures that provide irrigation and domestic water supply to Brgys. Pamutan, Jaclupan, Sinsin, Sudlon I and Sudlon II.

5 Please refer to Table 5 for the livelihood projects being implemented by the POs

II. Subproject Implementation

1. Organizations for Implementing Subproject

Function in the Name of Organization Reasons for Subproject (1) Original (2) Changed Change Implementation 1. SMA By Administration

2. AO for CO o BLESSED Phils. Inc. o VALUES Inc. o CRMOI o RAFI

3. AP JUDAH ALIPOSA JUSTINO JUDAH JUSTINO BRIONES ALIPOSA BRIONES ISIDRO resigned from DINEROS OIDCI as an AP BRIGITTE after receiving YANOC a better job

19 offer from FPE in terms of salary & scope of work.

4. PO 1. MALTAJ o BUKID MPC Additional PO 2. CAMMITA was tapped by 3. SSSFAI DENR to be 4. PSBA contracted for 5. PSMPC the 6. UFMPC establishment 7. TMPC of backlog in 8. MFMPC CSD 9. MCFA 10. NAGMATA 11. BAKANTI 12. LFA

5.M&E Contractor

 Physical Cebu Uniting for Both Physical Component Sustainable Water and and Socio- (CUSW) Inc. Institutional institutional components were awarded to  Institutional ViSCA Foundation CUSW, but and Project for Agric’l. and CUSW did not Benefit Rural Dev’t. complete the Assessment (VIFARD) IPBA. Hence, a (IPBA) new contract for Institutional & Project Benefit Assessment was awarded to VIFARD.

6. Infrastructure 1. PMC Contractor Construction 2. WERR Corp. (International)

20 Please state:

1.1 Reasons for the change

 On Assisting Professional (AP)

After a year of being an AP of the MKL Watershed Subproject, Mr. Judah S. Aliposa, resigned to pursue a career development path. Considering the number of POs in MKL that need assistance, replacement of Mr. Aliposa was deemed necessary, hence, SUSIMO requested the Project Management Office (NFDO) and the OIDCI to hire not just one but two AP’s in the persons of Mr. Isidro Dineros and Ms. Brigitte Yanoc.

 On Comprehensive Site Development

The willingness of the BUKID MPC to implement and complete the backlogs in CSD area and with the strong support of LGUs of Balamban, Cebu City encouraged the SUSIMO to award a 600-hectare CSD contract to BUKID MPC. BUKID MPC was organized by the LGU of Balamban, Cebu City in 2000 while, strengthening and capability building trainings were conducted and facilitated by the SUSIMO and AP.

 On Monitoring & Evaluation

The original contract of CUSW was designed to conduct both the physical evaluation and Institutional & Project Benefit Assessment of the POs of MKL Watershed Subproject. Considering the area coverage and the scattered location of the area of the thirteen POs, it seemed that CUSW could not cope with conducting both activities at once. Consequently and in compliance with MC 2001-04, the DENR decided to split the M&E activities and awarded the Institutional and Project Benefit Assessment to ViFARD, Inc. to ensure completion of M&E activities on time.

1.2 Problems arising, counter measures adopted and results

Problems Measures Adopted Results A.. On Community Organizing

1. The AO (VALUES) The Regional DENR The PO was able to abandoned its CO management provided recover the backlog of contract in 1999 and project officer, aside SSSFAI.

21 left some financial from the site obligation to SSSFAI. coordinator, to supervise the implementation of the CO and SSSFAI CSD contract in 1999.

2. Weak Organizational The SUSIMO and PO  Some PO association/ and Financial conducted Training organization Management of POs. Needs Assessment TNA), capacitated on thus, prioritized the organizational and conduct of trainings and financial aspect seminars on record keeping, bookkeeping,  Systems on auditing, and organizational and documentation of financial aspects were minutes of meeting. installed functional/operational .

 Clarified roles, responsibilities and functions of PO Officers, members and BODs.

3. Lack of appreciation  SUSIMO and AP  Increased awareness and awareness about the intensified the IEC of PO in project project by some PO and conducted house implementation, thus, members brought about to house encouraged other cultivations in portions meetings/discussions interested claimants of developed areas by during regular, and tenants to claimants (tenants or emergency and BOD participate in the absentee claimants) for meetings. plantation their basic needs. establishment

 The SUSIMO and AP  Increased degree of adopted a Joint coordination between monthly meeting and among the DENR, among the 13 POs, POs and LGUs. SUSIMO and APs to discuss all issues,  Shared lessons problems, and learned. concerns in the project  POs’ monthly action implementation. plan prepared.

22

B. On Comprehensive Site Development

1. Unsatisfactory per-  SUSIMO installation:  There was sufficient formance of AO and SUSIMO staffs were staff to monitor and some POs at the early deployed to monitor and supervise the stage of project supervise the CSD performance of the implementation. activities of two-three AP and PO. Validation POs. and billing process Only one site was shortened and coordinator was assigned  Provision of three facilitated from an at first to monitor the AP’s to assist the 13 average of 3 months project implementation POs as part of the to 1 month. covering 12 POs of 39 SUSIMO installation Barangays with an area and capacitation. of more than 5,000 ha. The site coordinator,  Close monitoring and  Improved quality of being alone, could not supervision by the plantation monitor the SUSIMO and AP was performance of the AO employed.  Out of 13 PO’s, 12 and PO properly. This have claimed their resulted to poor  POs were assisted in retention fees. Only performance (average the preparation of one PO (PSMPC) did survival of 65%) of the the monthly CSD not receive the project. work plan as their retention fee because basis in the regular of low survival rate assessment of CSD (35% survival rate), performance. but was able to manage the livelihood project.

2. Regional directive to  No action Incurred delays in the conduct 100% inventory processing of billings due of the CSD to extensive validation accomplishments. procedure, which caused loss of interest of some POs to perform the CSD activities. 3. Unavailability of area to be developed under the CSD.

Most of the members of Canvassers The POs of MKL were the organized PO have (approximately 65 able to meet the revised

23 no area to be developed. persons) were employed target but of different Sometimes the tenant by the PO to identify the area per component. Most wanted the area be area for development of the target area under planted but the charged to CSD fund, it reforestation was absentee claimant did incurred approximately converted into not allow planting, or an amount of P572,000 agroforestry. vice versa. for the canvasser only.

4. Poor Quality of  The very low survival plantations due to rate of PSMPC is absence of maintenance attributed to stray activities. animals, and apathy or loss of interest and dissatisfaction of stakeholders concerned who allegedly did not allow the conduct of maintenance activities in the plantation within their claimed area.

5. Lack of support from The SUSIMO conducted After series of dialogue, Local Government Units, intensive IEC on the coordination and IEC, the except for BUKID MPC project to win the SUSIMO and the PO (Barangay level), most support of most LGUs in gained support of the members of the PO was the subproject site. LGUs concerned. influenced by the LGUs.

6. Rodents attacking The POs applied chemical No significant effect jackfruit plantations at (COALTAR) to minimize because the smell would an alarming (90% infestation. fade after several days damaged) rate, of exposure. particularly SSSFAI’s plantations. These pests The PO changed the Rodents no longer attack ate the succulent part species used for planting starapple seedlings, of the stem and barks of from jackfruit to apparently because of its the jackfruit seedlings starapple. hardness. once out planted in the field.

1.3 The latest organization chart (or equivalent) for the implementation of the Subproject is ( attached or  not available).

24 Organizational Charts of the thirteen (13) POs, M&E Contractors, and Infrastructure Contractors are attached and marked as Annexes 1a1-1a13, 1b1-1b2 and 1d1-1d2, respectively.

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

Organizational Charts of the CO contractors (RAFI, CRMOI, VALUES, Blessed Philippines) are not on file. Securing of such was explored by the region, but still neither Organizational Structure nor its equivalent was secured.

2. Implementation Period

A. Comparison of Original Schedule and Actual Period

Please fill in the following blanks with actual period for each item.

ITEM ORIGINAL SCHEDULE ACTUAL PERIOD

1. SMA February 1996 – July 1996 February 1996 – July 1996 1. Contract of AO for CO 2.1 RAFI Feb. 12, 1997 – Feb. 12. 1999 Feb. 1997 – July 2001 2.2 VALUES Feb. 12, 1997 – Feb. 12. 1999 Feb. 1997 – Jan. 2000 2.3 CRMOI Feb. 12, 1997 – Feb. 12. 1999 Feb. 1997 – June 1999 2.4 BPI Feb. 12, 1997 – Feb. 12. 1999 Feb. 1997 – July 2000

3. Contract of PO for CSD 3.1 MALTAJ Oct. 15, 1997 – Oct. 15, 2000 Oct. 1997 – June, 2003 3.2 CAMMITA Oct. 15, 1997 – Oct. 15, 2000 Oct. 1997 – June, 2003 3.3 SSSFAI Oct. 15, 1997 – Oct. 15, 2000 Oct. 1997 – June, 2003 3.4 PSBA Oct. 15, 1997 – Oct. 15, 2000 Oct. 1997 – June, 2003 3.5 PSMPC Nov. 14, 1997 – Nov. 14, 2000 Nov. 1997 – June, 2003 3.6 UFMPC Nov. 14, 1997 – Nov. 14, 2000 Nov. 1997 – June, 2003 3.7 MFMPC Nov. 27, 1997 – Nov. 27, 2000 Nov. 1997 – June, 2003 3.8 MCFA Nov. 26, 1997 – Nov. 26, 2000 Nov. 1997 – June, 2003 3.9 LFA Nov. 26, 1997 – Nov. 26, 2000 Nov. 1997 – June, 2003 3.10 TMPC Nov. 27, 1997 – Nov. 27, 2000 Nov. 1997 – June, 2003 3.11 NAGMATA Nov. 27, 1997 – Nov. 27, 2000 Nov. 1997 – June, 2003 3.12 BAKANTI Nov. 27, 1997 – Nov. 27, 2000 Nov. 1997 – June, 2003 3.13 BUKID-MPC Dec. 28, 2000 – Jun. 30, 2003 Dec. 200 – June, 2003

4. Contract of NGO for M&E

25 4.1 CUSW Dec. 1999 – June 2001 Dec. 1999 – May 20‘03 4.2 ViFARD June 2002 – June 2003 June 2002 – June 2003

5. Contract of Infrastructure Component 5.1 PMC Dec. 12, 2002 – June 30, 2003 Dec. 12, 2002 – July 31, 2003 5.2 WERR Corp. Dec. 12, 2002 – June 30, 2003 Dec. 12, 2002 – July 31, 2003

 Completion June 30, 2000 October 24, 2003 (completion of Subproject)

Please refer to Table 6 for the subproject status report

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

The completion date was scheduled for June 30, 2000 (at the time of appraisal) and is indicated (thus ) in the above Table.

B. Reasons for Delay or Early 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/bad 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  Performance of consultant  Others

26 B.2. Reasons and background for delay or early completion

. Change in scope and dimension

o On Comprehensive Site Development

Intensification of maintenance activities such as: ringweeding, cultivation and application of fertilizers (RCF) and patrolling to improve the quality of plantation brought the change in schedule of the implementation period of the CSD activities pursuant to MC 2000-19 entitled “Guidelines Governing the updating of Cost and Intensification of Maintenance activities in the FSP Subprojects funded by JBIC.”

o On Infrastructure

Duration of the infrastructure activity was affected by different variation orders made by the contractors for effective and efficient use of different infrastructure projects, such as: a. Pump Irrigation System : A need to install the 3- Phase electrical power supply to Sinsin-Sudlon Pump Station. Originally, installation of power lines is not incorporated in the technical plan of the water system in Barangay Sinsin, Sudlon I, Sudlon II, but, during its initial operation it was found out that there is no power supply to operate the pump irrigation system, thus, this variation order; b. Hanging bridge: Transfer or relocation of the original contract for a 72-meter hanging bridge at Brgy. Jaclupan to an 80 meters hanging bridge at Brgy. Lagtang, Talisay Cebu. Jaclupan is accordingly the site of another proposed bridge to be constructed from the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) of the Congressman of Talisay City.

27  Natural Disaster/Bad Weather.

o On Comprehensive Site Development

The occurrence of the El Niño Phenomenon in 1998 hampered the PO’s production of planting materials and also caused high mortality (50%) of out planted seedlings. It was aggravated by Typhoon Nanang that hit Cebu in November 2001 causing landslides, gully erosion and floods. This brought considerable damage (30% of the area) to the established plantations of MALTAJ, PSMPC,PSBA,SSSFAI, UFMPC and BUKID MPC. Re-planting and other maintenance activities to recover the damage were conducted during the extension period.

o On Infrastructure

Typhoon in 2002 damaged a portion of the rehabilitated farm-to- market road in Barangay Magsaysay, Balamban, Cebu City. The contractor again conducted the repair job which delayed the completion of infrastructure project.

 Problems in procurement

Difficulty in procuring the services of the Community Organizing contractor had been the experience of the MKL, attributed to the cost allocation over the location and size of the target communities. The DENR Region 7 had posted notice of bidding for the conduct of the community organizing for Mananga-Kotkot-Lusaran, only one (1) NGO had shown interest. So, it was declared failure of bidding due to insufficient number of bidders. Other NGOs had backed-out before the bidding process, apparently, due to low CO cost.

 Structural and Organizational Problems of the Agencies Concerned

At the start of implementation, only one site coordinator (which later became three) was assigned to facilitate and supervise the Subproject implementation. Being alone, supervision and monitoring the performance of the four (4) AOs and twelve (12) POs of thirty- nine (39) barangays covering an area of 5,578 hectares became ineffective that resulted to poor quality of the plantation with just an average survival of 65%.

Poor performance of the POs is also attributed to the procedure and composition of team that conducted inspection and validation of accomplishments of AOs and POs. Composite Inspection Team (CIT)

28 or Composite Inspection Committee (CIC) members were not on full time basis in the FSP as evaluators. Delay in the conduct of validation also delayed the processing and release of payments to the POs, with the domino effect in the implementation of the CSD activities of the POs.

Installation of SUSIMO by virtue of DAO 2000-65 seemed to be the appropriate strategy for effective and efficient management of the Subproject but in the case of MKL, it did not easily materialize. Considering the need for 19 SUSIMO staff for MKL alone, the DENR R-7 could only deploy even just eight (8) personnel, which is still insufficient to carry out the tasks mandated by DAO 2000-65. Delays in the provision of assistance, facilitation, supervision and validation of POs accomplishments were still encountered, although minimized.

 Legislative Matters.

Since MKL Watershed Subproject is within the four (4) proclaimed protected areas of Cebu namely; Mananga Watershed Forest Reserve (MWFR), Kotkot-Lusaran River Watershed Forest Reserve (KLRWFR), Sudlon National Park (SNP) and Central Cebu National Park (CCNP), CBFMA could not be issued to the 13 POs, hence, occupants were hesitant to participate in the project. In 2002 through DAO No. 02 the establishment and management of the Community Based Program within the protected area has been allowed through the issuance of the PACBRMA as its tenurial instrument. Henceforth, requirements for the processing and issuance of PACBRMA had been worked out and complied with by the POs, SUSIMOs and Protected Area Management Boards (PAMBs). However, issuance of the tenurial instrument is still pending due to the long delay in the approval of the management zones of MKL. Thus, loss of trust and confidence to the DENR by the occupants further contributed to the non-participation of the residents in the project implementation.

 Unrealistic initial plan/Technical Problem/Performance of the Contractor/Supplier

During the preparatory stage, appraisal of the site had been conducted by the DENR personnel to evaluate the feasibility, viability (economic and financial aspects), and social acceptability of the project. Local communities had been consulted; however, there was no direct participation of local communities in the planning process even in the preparation of the Work and Financial Plans (WFPs) of the POs. This resulted to rejection of some recommended species by the local

29 communities, primarily, due to its poor performance in that area as observed by the POs during implementation; over-estimation of areas for plantation over the actual available area due to the resistance of the absentee claimants to plant their claimed lots and low acceptance of the project by the communities.

Convincing the target participants to implement the project took long, since the Community Organizing activity was awarded in 1996, but the PO started nursery operations only in 1998. Another contributing factor to the delay was the need to revise the WFPs to incorporate the preferred species of the communities in order to gain their active participation and willingness to plant their claimed area for the project.

Deployment of inexperienced and not well-trained CO staff resulted to resistance of the community to accept the project. There was weak information, education and communication campaign by the CO- workers. Furthermore, the CO activities were conducted as what the guidelines provided and not based on the needs of the community.

 Performance of the Contractor/Supplier

Since, the contractor awarded with the infrastructure component is based in Luzon, heavy equipment necessary for the farm-to-market road construction such as bulldozer, dump truck and the like, need to be transported from Luzon, and thus incurred significant delay in the completion of the infrastructure project. Further, a portion of the rehabilitated farm-to-market road in Brgy. Magsaysay was of substandard quality and was easily damaged by the typhoon.

 Others (Insufficient fund for M&E activity and Policy Change)

Considering the size and location of approximately 3,000 patches plantations (with an average of 1.3 ha per patch) of thirteen (13) POs in MKL, the cost provided for the conduct of monitoring and evaluation was not sufficient enough prohibiting the CUSW to hire required number of workers to do the M&E activity. There was therefore a delay in its completion.

Another factor that affected the schedule of the M&E activity was the adoption of the MC 2001-04 or the “Revised guidelines in the Conduct of the Monitoring and Evaluation” wherein contracts for the Institutional and Project Benefit Assessment (IPBA) and Physical components must be awarded separately.

30 C. Remedial Action Taken in Each Case of Delay

. Change in scope and dimension

o On Comprehensive Site Development

Pursuant to MC 2000-19, corresponding revision of the WFPs and amendment of the CSD contracts were undertaken by the PO and the site coordinator, to effect the increase in frequency of the ring weeding passes, application of fertilizer and the conduct of patrolling in the area for further improvement in the quality of the established plantations.

o On Infrastructure

As regards the infrastructure project, different variation orders made by the infrastructure contractors had been approved by the PMO.

. Natural Disaster/ Unseasonable weather

To minimize damage of El Nino phenomenon, the POs were instructed to apply leaf pruning and practice mulching (in the plantation) to lessen the transpiration rate of seedlings; provide additional shade in the nurseries; purchase additional watering equipment/ tools/ facilities like drums, hose and water pump; construct water- impounding dams for nursery and encourage backyard nursery. Moreover, the POs conducted intensive replanting in the damaged area. Likewise, they implemented the maintenance and protection activities specified in MC 2000-19 during the extension period.

. Problems in procurement

Since, there was a failure of bidding for Community Organizing, a negotiated bidding took place. Hence, CRMOI, VALUES, RAFI and BLESSED Philippines were awarded with the Community Organizing contract for Mananga-Kotkot-Lusaran in 1996.

. Structural and Organizational Problems

Implementing the DAO 2000-65 or the SUSIMO creation was deemed appropriate for effective and efficient management of the Subproject in the field level. In the case of MKL however, this was not the outright solution as called for by the need to deploy 19 SUSIMO staff. The SUSIMO instead adopted the following

31 strategies to address the need of the POs on technical, financial and management aspects:

a. Site Coordinator scheme in the supervision and provision of technical assistance to the PO in the plantation establishment, maintenance and protection activities;

b. Tapping the technical assistance of the personnel from the DENR-RO, Central Cebu Center for the Integrated Catchment System Management (CCCICSM), PENRO and CENROs for the conduct of technical, financial and management trainings for POs’ strengthening and conduct of field validation.

c. Hired foresters on a contractual basis (charged to the project) in the last quarter of CY-2001 as approved by the PMO Central Office and fielded to the different POs of MKL Watershed Subproject to provide technical assistance/advice and to oversee the actual CSD implementation of the POs.

. Legislative Matters.

The MKL SUSIMO encouraged PO presidents/chairpersons to apply for membership in the PAMB (some are already PAMB members) so that they could participate in the planning and development of the protected area. For the PACBRMA issuance, the SUSIMO also sent tracer- letters to the offices concerned on the status of the POs application for PACBRMA and for the PAMB to make follow-ups in the DENR Central Office with regard the submitted management zones.

. Unrealistic Initial Plan/Technical Problems/Performance of the Contractor.

The SUSIMO instructed the POs to prepare resolutions for changing/adding of species to be planted in their respective areas and assisted in the preparation of their plans and resolutions. For the POs who had difficulty in accomplishing their target areas as per CSD contract, the SUSIMO successfully convinced these POs to reduce their areas based on their capabilities and award the same to POs of good standing. Likewise, corresponding revision and extension of contracts have been undertaken.

Extension of the contract duration was granted for infrastructure.

32 . Others (Insufficient cost for M&E activity and policy change)

The Regional Office encouraged the M&E contractor to undertake the activity by allowing them to just identify and indicate the relative location of the patches plantation while the SUSIMO would determine the area planted per stakeholder.

In compliance with MC 2001-04, issuance of separate contracts for socio-institutional and physical components had been made.

3. Subproject Cost

A. Comparison of Original Estimated Cost and Actual Expenditure (by Component) Original Cost Actual Expenditures Item (based on appraisal) (in M pesos) (in M pesos)

SMA Community 7.248600 6.388486 Organization

Comprehensive 100.835388 94.753681 Site Development

Monitoring 5.938672 5.921526 and Evaluation

Infrastructure 31.940664 33.655122 Dev’t

Subproject 3.019450 3.019450 Coordinating Office (SUSIMO)

Total 148.982774 143.738265 Please refer to Tables 7, 8a-e and 9 for the details on cost of 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.

33

 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

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

o On Comprehensive Site Development

Despite updating of cost and intensification of the maintenance activities of the POs per MC 2000-19, as well as the granting of contingency funds to some POs, still the CSD cost decreased because of the series of revision, reduction and re-alignment of targets from one PO to another.

o On Monitoring and Evaluation

Although, implementation of MC 2001-04 brings an increase in cost of the M&E because of the increase in cost per hectare on physical aspect and additional fund provided for IPBA, this was not the case for MKL. Adoption of the revised guidelines brought a decrease in the number of passes and the area covered by the M&E and thus reduced the M&E cost.

o On Infrastructure

Different variation orders brought decrease in cost of some specific infrastructure projects, however, installation of the electrical power supply in pump irrigation system in Brgys Sinsin, Sudlon I and Sudlon II caused increase in total cost of infrastructure project.

34 . Unusual circumstances beyond the control of the Executing Agency

Decrease in cost of the Community Organizing was caused by the loss of interest by the CRMOI to claim the retention fee due to the billing requirements of the DENR.

 Others (performance of the contractors)

o On Community Organizing

Decrease in cost was mainly due to the unaccomplished CO activities of some AOs, whereby only two (2) of the four AOs successfully received their respective retention fees.

o On Comprehensive Site Development

Reduction in CSD cost is an indication of the poor performance of the contractors. Failure of the POs to establish the target up to CY2000 forced the DENR to reduce the 5,688 hectares to 4,920.75 hectares.

C. Action taken in Case of Cost Overrun and Results

Additional obligation and corresponding revision of the WFP on infrastructure component was undertaken. The financial obligation was paid for corresponding physical accomplishments.

D. Comparison of Original Estimated Expenditure and Actual Expenditure (by Year) Calendar Original Cost Actual Expenditures Year (based on Original (in M pesos) Contracts) (in M pesos) 1997 19.447047 1.817131 1998 56.544947 25.925880 1999 16.576002 17.579311 2000 15.515992 15.379566 2001 1.539750 22.383793 2002 0.599000 14.574059 2003 32.821364 40.156999

Total 148.982774 143.738265 Please refer to Table 12 for the details of the Annual Work and Financial Plan

35 4. Comments on Performance of Assisting Organizations (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 (if any) Peoples Organizations, M&E and Infrastructure contractors

A.1.  Overall 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)

o Over-all Performance

. Assisting Organizations

In general, the Assisting Organizations (AOs) in MKL can be rated fair, since, only two have successfully accomplished their CO activities namely: BLESSED Phils. Inc. (BPI) and Ramon Aboitiz Foundation, Inc. (RAFI), while the personnel of VALUES, Inc. abandoned their site during the later part of their contract duration after one of its personnel borrowed a considerable amount of money from their PO and never paid it back. Cebu Resource Management Organization, Inc. (CRMOI) on the other hand, submitted a terminal report to the DENR but it had lost interest in complying with other billing requirements until its contract expired.

. Assisting Professionals

The Assisting Professionals (APs) performance in the delivery of their duties and obligations to the PO’s of MKL Watershed Subproject was satisfactory. They had successfully instituted reforms in the project management particularly in financial aspect. The APs helped the PO to improve the systems and procedures in project management and conducted all other activities left by the AOs some of which were installation of systems and procedures on financial management, proper bookkeeping, preparation of

36 feasibility studies, and record keeping. Presently, most POs are practicing the systems instituted by the AP’s.

. People’s Organization

In the midst of the contract duration, only one (1) out of thirteen (13) POs was able to deliver satisfactory performance in terms of physical accomplishment (standards and compliance to instructions). Majority (12 POs) did not internalize the trainings and coaching provided by the AOs during the CO works. As a result, most PO’s encountered financial losses, huge debts and failures in livelihood development activities. Continued assistance however, was provided by the DENR and APs until the POs were able to plant a total of 4,920.75 hectares and was able to receive their retention fees.

. The M & E Contractors

Initially, only the CUSW was contracted to do the monitoring and evaluation of the MKL both for the physical and institutional aspect. However, it was observed by the DENR that CUSW had difficulty in completing the task considering that almost 3,000 patches of plantations were covered by the M&E contract, thus, Vifard was tapped to perform other activities. This was to ensure the completion of the activity particularly the institutional and project benefit assessment. Performance of both contractors can be considered satisfactory since they delivered the expected outputs.

. The Infrastructure Contractors

There were two contractors for the MKL-WSP Infrastructure Projects, however, none of them delivered good performance. Without extension and revision of the contract, none of the structures would be finished. This could be attributed to the fact that the contractors were not based locally and that they lacked logistical and financial support from their respective head offices.

 Expertise and Staff Qualifications

. Assisting Organization

Expertise and staff qualifications greatly affected the administration of CO contracts. Some AOs employed experienced personnel while others utilized fresh graduates, apparently new in

37 community organizing works. In terms of staff qualifications, high- ranking officials of the AOs were highly trained and experienced, however, the time spent by these officials was not as often as expected particularly during community immersion.

. Assisting Professional

The expertise and qualifications of the APs are beyond question. The time frame however, was not enough considering the number of POs in the Subproject. The activities undertaken by the APs were very important to ensure the sustainability of the organization.

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)

Lack of technical knowledge and skills in the project implementation.

There were undertakings within the Subproject that differ from one PO to another that could not be explained by different site coordinator; e.g. planting of fruit trees in almost all management zones. This would have been clear had enough technical training were provided to the site coordinators. On the other hand, only selected personnel could handle other aspects of the project implementation.

Measures undertaken and Results:

Training and coaching in skills development and capacity building of the SUSIMO Staff were facilitated by the SMO to make them effective and efficient in carrying out the tasks, such as:

(1) Training on bookkeeping attended by the Validation and Billing Unit, (2) Survey and Mapping attended by the Administrative and Support Unit staff, and; (3) Different technical trainings attended by the Site Development and Management Unit (SDMU) staff.

38 Through this initiative, the SUSIMO was able to assist, monitor, supervise and manage the thirteen (13) POs of MKL.

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

1. Recommendation(s) made by SUSIMO

Recommendations Action Taken by APs and Results PO’s 1. Conduct of Joint Since the creation of Close coordination monthly SUSIMO MKL, monthly between SUSIMO meetings meetings were regularly and POs. Issues and between undertaken, to create a forum problems were SUSIMO, POs in discussing issues affecting addressed on time, and APs as a each organization’s thus, facilitated the venue for performances and problems. implementation of resolving issues During these meetings, POs the CSD activities. and problems were given time to present and sharing of their monthly accomplishments experiences in and problems and their views the project on issues that they may have implementation. encountered. This also served as a venue whereby the SUSIMO and APs would know the training needs of the POs and for the SUSIMO and APs to formulate strategies and come up with appropriate training designs for each POs specific need.

After a few months since the 2. Hiring of creation of SUSIMO, the Immediate response technical SMO requested for additional to the need of the PO support staff allotment for hiring of was provided. It also for the additional technical personnel facilitated the billing SUSIMO on contractual basis. When the process of the POs request was granted, these accomplishments. technical personnel were assigned to the different POs of MKL Watershed Subproject whose functions were similar to those of the “Site Coordinators”.

39 Upon hiring, the SUSIMO staffs were assigned to respective POs to act as SDMU and at the same time as project site coordinators.

. Validation and Billing Unit attended the 3. Development of Bookkeeping and SUSIMO staff and skills and Financial Management the PO members were knowledge of training. capacitated on the SUSIMO different aspects of staff and the . SDMU attended project management. PO members different Technical through training training. on technical, financial and . Admin staff attended management Survey and mapping aspects. (basic) training.

. PO were trained on the different aspects conducted by the SUSIMO

4. Proposed the Facilitated the creation of conduct of validation Composite team and billing of from region, accomplishment. PENRO and CENROs to validate the accomplishment s of 13 POs in MKL. Also, requested the other CENRO staff to cross validate the accomplishment s of other POs outside the jurisdiction of

40 their respective CENROs The AP assisted the SUSIMO and POs in the conduct of 5. Initiated the Financial Audit. Transparency on conduct of financial transaction Financial Audit was established. per POs.

IV. Initial Operation and Maintenance of Subproject Facilities

1. Present Condition of Facilities

A. Please check: This article is ( applicable due to problem(s) or  not applicable. No particular problem has occurred since the initial operation started). If there have been any problems, please check the relevant space in the Table.

For the PO: Item Status Initial Maintenance Manage Others Operation ment

1.Bunkhouse Serviceable 2.Computer serviceable 3.Canter vehicle serviceable 4.Motorcycle Serviceable 5.Water pump Serviceable 6.Multicab Serviceable

For the SUSIMO

Item Status Initial Maintena Manage Other Operation nce ment s 1. KIA cross truck, 4x4 Serviceable 2. Power Generator Needs repair  3. Computer Serviceable Needs Repair  4. Printer (HP840C) Serviceable 5. AVR Serviceable 6. UPS Serviceable Serviceable

41 7. GIS Maptitude Unserviceable  8. GPS Serviceable 9. Handheld Radios Serviceable 10. Foresters Transit Serviceable 11. Base Radio Serviceable 12. Manual Serviceable Typewriter Serviceable 13. Brunton Compass Serviceable  14. Steel Tape Serviceable  15. Diameter Tape Serviceable 16. Planimeter Serviceable 17. Abney Hand Level Serviceable 18. Rain Gauge Serviceable 19. Lettering Set Serviceable 20. Binocular Serviceable 21. Clerical Tables & Chairs Serviceable 22. Drafting Table Serviceable 23. Camera Serviceable 24. Cassette Recorder Serviceable 25. Scanner Serviceable 26. Printer (LQ300) Serviceable 27. Steel Cabinet Serviceable 28. Water Pump Serviceable 29. Printer (HP5550) Serviceable 30. SUSIMO Office Serviceable

B. Please check: The Problem(s) has arisen owing to the following reason(s).

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

C. Description (in detail)

The Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) has lost the compression, but no available spare parts could be found locally. Other equipment that encountered problems need replacement of defective parts but no spare parts available locally.

D. Aspect of utilizing the Subproject facilities.

For the PO:

42 Item Original Plan Actual Operation 1.Bunkhouses For the use of PO’s of For the use of PO’s of MKL 2.Computers MKL -do- 3.Canter vehicle -do- -do- 4.Motorcycles -do- -do- 5.Water pumps -do- -do- 6.Multicabs -do- -do-

For the SUSIMO

Item Original Plan Actual Operation 1. KIA cross truck, 4x4 For the use of For the use of 2.Power Generator SUSIMO MKL SUSIMO MKL Watershed 3. Computer Watershed Rehabilitation Subproject 4.Printer (HP840C) Rehabilitation -do- 5.AVR Subproject -do- 6. UPS -do- -do- 7. GIS Maptitude -do- -do- 8. GPS -do- -do- 9. Handheld Radios -do- -do- 10. Foresters Transit -do- -do- 11. Base Radio -do- -do- 12. Water Pump -do- -do- 13. Printer (HP5550) -do- -do- 14. SUSIMO Office -do- -do-

2. Organization for Operation and Maintenance.

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

PO : 1. MALTAJ 2. CAMMITA 3. SSSFAI 4. PSBA 5. PSMPC 6. UFMPC 7. MFMPC 8. MCFA 9. LFA 10 TMPC 11. NAGMATA 12. BAKANTI 13. BUKID-MPC

43

SUSIMO : SUSIMO MKL Watershed Subproject

A.2. Please check: The latest organizational charts (or equivalent) for the O/M of the subproject facilities are  attached or  not available.

Organizational Charts of PO in charge of Operation and Maintenance of facilities are marked as Annexes 1a1-1a13, while SUSIMO organizational chart is marked as Annex 1c.

A.3. If the organizational chart (or equivalent) is not available, please state the reason. (not applicable)

B. Number of staff/workers of the PO or Body for Operations and Maintenance of Subproject Facilities

PO : 1. MALTAJ - 8 2. CAMMITA - 9 3. SSSFAI - 12 4. PSBA - 16 5. PSMPC - 6 6. UFMPC - 6 7. MFMPC - 5 8. MCFA - 6 9. LFA - 4 10. TMPC - 4 11. NAGMATA - 8 12. BAKANTI - 7 13. BUKID-MPC- 12

SUSIMO : 14

C. Check and explain the following:

C.1. The number of staff is currently ( sufficient or  insufficient).

C.2. Average employment period of the present staff

PO : 1. MALTAJ : 6 years 2. CAMMITA : 6 years 3. SSSFAI : 6 years 4. PSBA : 6 years 5. PSMPC : 6 years 6. UFMPC : 6 years

44 7. MFMPC : 6 years 8. MCFA : 6 years 9. LFA : 6 years 10. TMPC : 6 years 11. NAGMATA : 6 years 12. BAKANTI : 6 years 13. BUKID-MPC : 3 years

SUSIMO : 6 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 (per year) (per year) 2001 0.501150 0.414600 0.915750 2002 0.027000 0.242000 0.269000 2003 0.142030 0.444970 0.587000 TOTAL 0.670180 1.101570 1.771750

For the PO, there was no original expected expenditure, since, fund for that purpose is made available as the need arises from the 10% project Management Cost of the PO.

B. Actual and Currently Expected Expenditure

For the PO: (Unit: Mil Pesos) Item Maintenance Operation Maintenance & Total Calendar year Operation (For expanded portion) 1999 1. Bunkhouse 0.003000 0.003000 2. Computer set 0.004000 0.010000 0.014000 3. Canter vehicle 0.024000 0.024000 4. Motorcycle 0.01200 0.006000 0.018000

45 5. Water pump 0.006000 0.001000 0.007000 2000 1. Bunkhouse 0.003000 0.003000 2. Computer set 0.004000 0.010000 0.014000 3. Canter vehicle 0.024000 0.024000 4. Motorcycle 0.012000 0.006000 0.018000 5. Water pump 0.006000 0.001000 0.007000 2001 1. Bunkhouse 0.003000 0.003000 2. Computer set 0.004000 0.010000 0.014000 3. Canter vehicle 0.024000 0.024000 4. Motorcycle 0.012000 0.006000 0.018000 5. Water pump 0.006000 0.001000 0.007000 2002 1. Bunkhouse 0.003000 0.003000 2. Computer set 0.004000 0.010000 0.014000 3. Canter vehicle 0.024000 0.024000 4. Motorcycle 0.012000 0.006000 0.018000 5. Water pump 0.006000 0.001000 0.007000 2003 1. Bunkhouse 0.003000 0.003000 2. Computer set 0.004000 0.010000 0.014000 3. Canter vehicle 0.024000 0.024000 4. Motorcycle 0.012000 0.006000 0.018000 5. Water pump 0.006000 0.001000 0.007000 2004 1. Bunkhouse 0.0036 0.003600 2. Computer set 0.004800 0.01200 0.016800 3. Canter vehicle 0.02880 0.028800 4. Motorcycle 0.025200 0.00120 0.026400 5. Water pump 0.007200 0.00120 0.008400 Total: 0.104000 0.22000 0.037200 0.0468 0.414000

Note: Actual and currently expected expenditure for expansion, replacement or any other improvement purposes

For the SUSIMO:

Maintenance & Item Maintenance Operation Operation Total (For expanded Calendar Year portion) 2001 1. SUSIMO Office 0.001200. 0.018000 0.019200

46 2. Motorcycles (7 units) 0.060550 0.072800 0.133350 3. Power generator 0.000600 0.001260 0.001860 4. Computer (2 units) 0.002000 0.005000 0.007000 5. Printer 0.001000 0.036000 0.037000 6. GPS (2 units) 0.002880 0.002880

2002 1. SUSIMO Office 0.002400 0.018000 0.020400 2. Motorcycles (7 units) 0.072800 0.072800 3. KIA Cross-Truck 4x4 0.005400 0.005400 4. Power generator 0.000600 0.001260 0.001860 5. Computer (2 units) 0.002000 0.005000 0.007000 6. Printer 0.001000 0.039900 0.040900 7. GPS (2 units) 0.002880 0.002880 8. Camera (2 units) 0.003510 0.003510 2003 1. SUSIMO Office 0.002400 0.018000 0.020400 2. Motorcycles (7 units) 0.077000 0.077000 3. KIA Cross-Truck 4x4 0.075500 0.075400 0.150900 4. Power generator 0.000600 0.001260 0.001860 5. Computer (2 units) 0.002000 0.005000 0.007000 6. Printers (2 units) 0.002000 0.056400 0.058400 7. GPS (2 units) 0.002880 0.002880 8. Camera (2 units) 0.003510 0.003510 2004 1. SUSIMO Office 0.02400 0.018000 0.042000 2. Motorcycles (7 units) 0.010000 0.052000 0.062000 3. KIA Cross-Truck 4x4 0.04500 0.0800 0.12500 4. Power generator 0.000600 0.001260 0.00186 5. Computer (2 units) 0.002000 0.010000 0.012000 6. Printers (2 units) 0.001500 0.020400 0.021900 7. GPS (2 units) 0.002400 0.002400 8. Camera (2 units) 0.003510 0.003510 TOTAL 0.153850 0.52414 0.083100 0.18757 0.948660

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

47 For the PO, expanded portion will come from the income from livelihood and out of their PMC cost, while for the SUSIMO, the PMO provided funds for the expanded portions. Fund for each facility will be allocated as the need arises.

4. Maintenance Method

Facilities Content of Method Frequency  SUSIMO Office Repainting Annual

 Motorcycle Change oil, Quarterly Change tire Yearly Minor repair (defective Quarterly parts, tune -up

 KIA Change oil Every after 5,000km Change tire Yearly Tune up and minor repair Quartely

 Power generator Change oil Yearly Tune up and minor repair As the need arises

 Computers/GPS Minor repair As the need arises

 Camera Minor repair As the need arises

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 region)  Other intended or unintended effects on the relevant sector(s) and/or the region concerned.

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

o Technological Transfer

48 Implementation of MKL Watershed Subproject had provided the POs with new technologies in forestry, agriculture and livelihood management through trainings, actual application and coaching. Among these technologies imparted to them are proper handling and maintenance of seedling, proper site preparation and planting of forest and fruit trees seedlings, maintenance and protection activities. On agricultural practices, planting along contours as soil erosion control measure, was adopted. It is expected that the POs will be able to apply all the knowledge and skills gained in other similar projects to be implemented in MKL. o Employment Creating

The implementation of the Subproject generated various employment opportunities for the local community through participation in various CSD activities, M&E and infrastructure development. It has also provided job opportunities not just to the local community but also to some unemployed technical persons (e.g. Foresters, agriculturists, etc.) both for the POs and the DENR. It generated a total of 498,685 man days during project implementation. o Income - raising

The Subproject implementation brought an estimated increase of 59% in the average annual household income of the people from P15,976 before the project, to P25,330 during the project through wages gained from the CSD and infrastructure activities as members of the work force. Further, the implementation of the Subproject also enhanced the socio- economic situation of the beneficiaries. Latest ViFARD M&E report showed that “they (watershed occupants) do not have to go to other places to look for a job”, at least during the project implementation. ViFARD also noted that, “people (watershed occupants) are less shy and are now eating rice most of the time instead of rootcrops, which they did before”. These are indicators that there is an increase in income. Other MKL Watershed POs are now recipients of various livelihood projects/grants from LGUs and other NGOs. o Others

The implementation of the Subproject has opened up the minds of some watershed occupants to the value of protecting the environment through the rehabilitation of the Mananga and Kotkot - Lusaran Watershed. Also, the implementation of some infrastructure projects among some POs of the MKL has bolstered their trust and confidence on the DENR since these infrastructure projects are of great help to them.

49 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Considering the performance of the 13 POs, capacity building of the field personnel played a greater role in the Subproject’s success than the assistance of AOs.

 The Mananga-Kotkot-Lusaran Watershed Subproject might have fall short in expectations, but it has given numerous benefits to the local community and the environment specifically the watershed.

 The Subproject’s success can be fully appreciated by its beneficiaries with the provision of tenurial instrument, which they longed to have since the start of the project.

 It is recommended that continued assistance of the DENR to the POs be provided even without funding assistance from foreign institutions to assure sustainability of the Project.

 The POs of MKL Watershed should continue to exert efforts in organizational strengthening by providing continuing education program for its members.

 Networking/coordination among the DENR, POs, LGUs, NGOs and other private institutions should also be made to come up with appropriate plans for further development of the watershed.

 Should similar project be launched in the future, leveling-off exercise among the project implementers must be conducted before its implementation to resolve any differences among them.  Incentives and benefits promised should be cleared and approved first before disseminating the information to the people concerned so as not to demoralize them because of unfulfilled promises.

 Project should be strong in social preparation to prevent a repeat of the Mananga-Kotkot-Lusaran experience whereby resistance was encountered in the course of implementation.

50  Future DENR projects in watershed areas must concentrate development efforts in the riparian not only for the planting of bamboo but also for timber and other native species. The advantage of the riparian system is its role as channel for movement of flora and fauna. Plant diversity has greater chance of being sustained in areas with the riparian system.

51 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 1. TRAININGS ATTENDED BY THE PEOPLES ORGANIZATION # OF TRAINING TRAINORS INCLUSIVE DATES PAX 1. Value Formation Seminar BLESSED Phils., Inc. 106 Aug. 15 & 23, 1997 2. Problem Identification, Analysis and BLESSED Phils., Inc. 66 Aug. 16 & 24, 1997 Prioritization. 3. Bamboo Management BLESSED Phils., Inc. 88 Aug. 17 & 23, 1997 4. Nursery Practices & Techniques BLESSED Phils., Inc. 41 Aug. 24, 1997 5. PO Administration BLESSED Phils., Inc. Oct. 3, 1997 6. Project Management Skills Workshop BLESSED Phils., Inc. 107 Oct. 4, 1997 7. Advance Leadership Training BLESSED Phils., Inc. 105 Oct. 3, 1997 8. Financial Management Skills Workshop BLESSED Phils., Inc. 105 Oct. 4-5, 1997 9. Coordination & Mobilization BLESSED Phils., Inc. 106 Feb. 21, 1998 10. Livestock Production Training BLESSED Phils., Inc. 108 Feb. 22, 1998 11. Pre-association Membership BLESSED Phils., Inc. 80 Feb. 20, 1998 12. Planning Capability BLESSED Phils., Inc. 105 May 22, 1998 13. Agroforestry/Soil & Water Conserv'n. BLESSED Phils., Inc. 105 May 23, 1998 Measures 14. Basic Surveying BLESSED Phils., Inc. 105 May 24, 1998 15. Monitoring & Evaluation BLESSED Phils., Inc. 70 Aug. 27 & Oct. 29, 1998 16. Maintenance & Protection BLESSED Phils., Inc. 70 Aug. 28 & Oct. 30, 1998 17. Forest Resource Inventory BLESSED Phils., Inc. 70 Aug. 30, & Oct. 25, 1998 18. Silvicultural Treatment BLESSED Phils., Inc. 35 Oct. 28, 1998 19. Team/Group Building BLESSED Phils., Inc. 35 Oct. 31, 1998 20. Institutional Capability Building CRMOI 18 Dec. 29-30, 1997 Seminar/Workshop 21. Nursery Establishment & Management CRMOI 111 Feb. 11 - 13, 1998 & Feb. 17 - 19, 1998 22. PMES CRMOI 35 Mar. 24-25, 1998 36 Apr. 17-18, 1998 20 Sept. 24-25, 1998 31 Nov. 13-14, 1998 30 Nov. 18-19, 1998 34 Jan. 19-20, 1998 60 Feb. 8-11, 1999 23. Paralegal Training CRMOI 0 June 19-20, 1998 24. Policy Formulation-Coop Mgt. CRMOI 22 July 23-25, 1998 25. Simple Bookkeeping & Accounting CRMOI 24 July 17-18, 1998 26. Watershed Management CRMOI 61 Aug. 26 -27, 1998 & Sept. 12-13, 1998 27. Agroforestry/Soil & Water Conserv'n. CRMOI 29 Dec. 21-22, 1998 Measures 28. CRMF Plan Workshop CRMOI 31 Jan. 28-29, 1999 29. Basic Surveying CRMOI 57 Feb. 16-18,1999 & Feb. 25-27, 1999 30. Organizational Dev't. RAFI 52 August 1997 & Sep. 1997 31. Store Management RAFI 36 Sep. 1997 32. Soil & Water Conservation RAFI 28 Sep. 1997 33. Water Mgt. Seminar RAFI 37 Oct. 22-24, 1997 34. Farm Planning RAFI 37 Oct. 1997 35. CSD Orientation RAFI 150 Sep. & Oct. 1997 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 1. TRAININGS ATTENDED BY THE PEOPLES ORGANIZATION # OF TRAINING TRAINORS INCLUSIVE DATES PAX 36. Nursery Establishment RAFI 180 Nov. 1997 37. Bookkeeping RAFI 40 Jan. 1998 38. Plantation Establishment RAFI 180 Jul. 1998 39. Team Building RAFI 66 Sep. 1998 40. CBFM/CRMF Orientation RAFI 240 Oct. & Nov. 1998 41. Staff Development Training VALUES, Inc 7 Aug. 24, 1997 9 Nov. 26-27, 1997 9 July 6, 1998 7 Sept. 10, 1998 9 Oct. 10, 1998 42. Nursery Development VALUES, Inc 47 Sept. 28, 1997 43. Plantation Establishment VALUES, Inc 35 Sept. 29, 1997 44. Plantation Protection & Maintenance VALUES, Inc 44 Sept. 30, 1997 45. Financial Management VALUES, Inc 78 Dec. 14, 1997 46. Planning Workshop on CSD VALUES, Inc 83 Nov. 23-24, 1997 47. Organizational Management VALUES, Inc 85 Dec. 15. 1997 48. Policy Formulation VALUES, Inc 41 April 5, 1998 49. Seminar-Workshop on Project Mgt. VALUES, Inc 40 April 6, 1998 50. Agroforestry VALUES, Inc 80 April 27, 1998 51. Soil & Water Conservation VALUES, Inc 75 April 28, 1998 52. Bamboo Management VALUES, Inc 78 July 4, 1998 53. Stakeholders Development VALUES, Inc 76 July 5, 1998 54. Planning Workshop on CRMF VALUES, Inc Sept. 2-6, 1998 55. Human Resource & Org'l. Mgt. VALUES, Inc 9 Sept. 10. 1998 56. Simple Bookkeeping Training APs & SUSIMO 30 March 23-24, 2001 Workshop. 57. Simple Worksheet and Simple Finan'l. AP's 13 March 19-20, 2002 Statement Preparation Workshop. 13 April 10-12, 2002 58. Training on Forest Protection & Fire SUSIMO/CENRO 24 April 25, 2002 Management & Control. APs 31 April 30, 2002 59. Re-orientation Workshop on Org'l. APs 13 June 13-14, 2002 Management & Subprojects CO Miles- tones. 60. Simple Process Documentation and APs 17 October 24 & 25, 2002 Record Keeping 61. Basic Auditing for Non-Auditors. APs 18 December 12 13, 2002 62. Financial Management Integration APs 21 April 7-8, 2003 20 April 10-11, 2003 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 3. SUBPROJECT SITE MANAGEMENT OFFICE (SUSIMO) EQUIPMENT

Procured ITEM Specifications Qty Cost (PhP) Date/year procured 1. Truck 1 9/30/2002 680,000.00 KIA cross truck, 4x4 2. Power generator Engine, gasoline, GS 1 4/23/2001 44,096.00 280, 3.5 KVA 3. Computer HP Brio PC Intel 1 2/20/2001 70,850.00 Pentium III 733 mhz 4. Printer Hp Deskjet model 840 1 4/27/2001 5,811.52 C 5. UPS Gamatronic Compact 1 4/15/2001 5,720.00 Model 520VA Comb software & 6. GIS maptitude 1 3/18/2001 44,460.00 geographic data Global positioning 7. GPS Promark X 2 3/28/2001 210,000.00 VHF, FM COM Model 8. Handheld radio IC-F3GT 4 1/12/2001 59,866.56 9. Foresters transit Surveying compass, 2 5/21/2001 69,680.00 Ushikata, model S-27 10. Base radio VHF/FM ICOM 1 64,789.92 11. Manual typewriter Oliveti, 18 carriage 1 3/28/2001 8,309.60 12. Brunton compass Kataoka br., Model 4 3/28/2001 19,552.00 BCD-90 13. Steel nylon tape Tajima Br. 2 4/23/2001 2,700.00 14. Diameter tape Kinglong brand, 20 2 3/29/2001 1,331.20 meters 15. Planimeter OSKK KOIZUMI 1 10/26/2001 7,800.00 16. Abney hand level Model:OSK 17251 4 5/21/2001 9,568.00 17. Rain gauge Digital rainwise 1 5/28/2001 6,300.00 18. Lettering set Leroy set 1 12/27/2001 4,992.00 19. Binocular 3 5/28/2001 12,168.00 20. Clerical Table Wooden (41/2x231/4x30) 12 6/28/2001 33,000.00

21. Office Chairs Wooden & rattan 12 6/28/2001 11,700.00 Seat 22. Drafting table Goldwood Brand 1 2,080.00 1210x880x930 23. Camera Pentax ESPIO838 2 17,990.00 24. Cassette Recorder Sony CFD-V117 1 4,179.00 25. Scanner HP Scanjet 3500 1 8/16/2002 9,880.00 26. Printer EPSON LQ-300 1 10/6/2001 7,950.00 Model P852A 27. Steel Cabinet 4 Drawers 4 2/20/2002 15,800.00 28. Water Pump Meroni Self-priming 1 5,100.00 pump 1HP 29. Monoblock Chairs Plastic (w/out arms) 50 6/19/2001 8,000.00 30. Calculator Casio HL122L 4 1,780.00 31. Printer HP Deskjet 5550 1 6/9/2003 8,330.00 ALINCO VHF-FM 32. Handheld Radio 7 2/21/2001 69,650.00 Transceiver DJ-195 TOTAL 1,523,433.80 FORESTRY SECTOR PROJECT LOAN NO. PH-P 135

Table 2. SUBPROJECT PERFORMANCE Mananga-Kotkot-Lusaran Watershed Rehabilitation Subproject

Year Planted Component Species Planted Area Planted Survival

1998 Agroforestry Ca/Gu/Jf/Mo/Nr/Ma/Kk 113.67 86% Rattan Rt 178.62 94% Tree Plantation Ma/Mo/Bg/Pn/Nr 225.87 84% Bamboo/Tree plantation Bm/Pn/Ro/Mm 162.34 82% Enrichment Planting ma/Ids/Gu 87% Subtotal 680.5 1999 Agroforestry 303.45 85% Rattan 398.79 92% Tree Plantation 560.2 86% Bamboo/Tree plantation 519.2 84% Enrichment Planting 8.5 86% Subtotal 1,790.14 2000 Agroforestry 47.03 83% Rattan 103.81 90% Tree Plantation 149.66 84% Bamboo/Tree plantation 250.91 83% Enrichment Planting 42.84 85% Subtotal 594.25 2001 Agroforestry Ca/Gu/Jf/Mo/Nr/Gm/Ma/M 1,176.42 84% r/Du Rattan Rt 57.69 86% Tree Plantation 63.08 83% Bamboo/Tree plantation 159.69 82% Enrichment Planting 1.56 84% Subtotal 1,458.44 2002 Agroforestry 46.99 84% Rattan 11.2 87% Tree Plantation 9.12 83% Bamboo/Tree Plantation 30.14 82% Enrichment Planting 15.1 84% Subtotal 112.55 2003 Agroforestry 257.95 88% Bamboo/Tree plantation 26.92 86% Subtotal 284.87 Total 4,920.75 85.518 SUMMARY Agroforestry 1,945.51 84.78% Rattan 750.11 91.66% Tree Plantation 1,007.93 85.00% Bamboo/Tree Plantation 1,149.20 83.00% Enrichment Planting 68.00 85.00% Total 4,920.75 85.46%

List of Species Planted Species Code Species Species Code Species Ca Balete Mr Marang Gu Guyabano Du Durian Jf Jackfruit Sn Seneguelas Mo Molave Rt Rattan Nr Narra Bg Bagalunga Gm Grafted Mango Pn Pangantoon Ma Mahogany Gm Gmelina Kk Kakawate Ca Cacao Kp Kape Bm Bamboo Mg Mango Ro Robles Mn Mangium Hm Himbabao Ids Indigeneous spp. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 4. TRAINING ATTENDED BY SUSIMO

# OF INCLUSIVE TRAINING TRAINORS PARTICIPANTS DATES 1 Orientation Course for Subproject Site Management NFDO-TA 9 Nov. 7 -10, 2000 Office Staff Phil. Womens 2 Enhanced Forest Management May 30, 2001 - University-GIS 2 Through GIS and GPS June 9, 2001 Center 3 Forestry Sector Project March 12 - 14, FSP-TA 11 Reorientation Course 2002 4 Forestry Sector Project Phase- FSP-TA 6 Nov. 7 - 10, 2002 out/Phase-in Planning Workshop Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5a. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Swine Production

Implementor : Maghaway Lagtang Tapul and Jaclupan Ass'n.

No. of beneficiaries : 30

Amount of Investment : Grant from Talisay City LGU

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : No income yet

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : Philippine Business for Social Progress provided assistance on technical and financial management aspect Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5b. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project Rice and Corn Retail

Implementor : Maghaway Lagtang Tapul and Jaclupan Ass'n.

No. of beneficiaries : 30

Amount of Investment : PhP25,000.00

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php 3,750.00

CFDF 1868669.56

Linkages Developed : Philippine Business for Social Progress Assist, facilitate introduce marketing of farm products Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5c. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Micro-Lending

Implementor : Mulao Compostela Farmers Ass'n.

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : PhP35,921.00

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php10,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : LGU and Municipal Agrarian Reform Office Provide loan and technical assistance Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5d. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Rice and Corn Retail

Implementor : Mulao Compostela Farmers Ass'n.

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : PhP5,470.00

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php 12,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : LGU and Municipal Agrarian Reform Office Provide loan and technical assistance Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5e. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Swine Production

Implementor : Mulao Compostela Farmers Ass'n.

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : PhP14,100.00

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php 27,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : LGU and Municipal Agrarian Reform Office Provide loan and technical assistance Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5f. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Cattle Dispersal

Implementor : Nagkahiusang Grupo sa mga Mag-uuma sa Tag- ubi

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : PhP400,000.00 ( Grant from PACAP thru Mag- uugmad Foundation)

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php 180,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : Mag-uugmad Foundation provided Loan payable at the time of harvesting of products. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5g. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Poultry Raising

Implementor : Nagkahiusang Grupo sa mga Mag-uuma sa Tag-ubi

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : PhP5,000.00

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php 25,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : Mag-uugmad Foundation Loan/ products terms, interest Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5h. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Swine Production

Implementor : Nagkahiusang Grupo sa mga Mag-uuma sa Tag-ubi

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : PhP350,000.00 (Grant from PACAP thru Mag-uugmad Foundation)

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php 37,500

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : Mag-uugmad Foundation Loan/ products terms, interest Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5i. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Consumer Store

Implementor : Licos Farmers Ass'n.

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : PhP21,000.00

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : Temporarily closed

Net Income : No record

CFDF 1868669.56

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

Table 5j. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Micro-Lending

Implementor : Licos Farmers Ass'n.

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : PhP4,800.00

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php 15,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : Honorable Joseph Ace Durano, Congressman of 5th District of Cebu provided financial support to the PO. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5k. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Consumer Store

Implementor : Tabla Multipurpose Cooperative

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : PhP79,507.77

Date of Feasibility Study : Feasibility Study for Concumer Store was prepared by RAFI

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php 10,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed Ramon Aboitiz Foundation Inc. & DA Technical assistance was provided. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5l. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Micro-Lending

Implementor : Tabla Multipurpose Cooperative

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : PhP35,000.00

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php 15,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed Ramon Aboitiz Foundation Inc. & DA Technical assistance was provided. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5m. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Livestock Dispersal (Cow, Goat, Chicken)

Implementor : Tabla Multipurpose Cooperative

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : PhP35,000.00

Date of Feasibility Study : Feasibility Study was prepared by RAFI

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php 20,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed Ramon Aboitiz Foundation Inc. & DA Technical assistance was provided. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5n. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Consumer Store

Implementor : Mulao Farmers Multipurpose Cooperative

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : PhP191,797.00

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php 60,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

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

Table 5o. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Micro-Lending

Implementor : Mulao Farmers Multipurpose Cooperative

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : PhP43,542.50

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php 15,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

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

Table 5p. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Livestock Dispersal (Swine and Cattle)

Implementor : Mulao Farmers Multipurpose Cooperative

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : (30 heads of swine and 20 heads cattle)

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php15,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : Municipal Agrarian Reform Office Technical assistance on livestock Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5q. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Consumer Store

Implementor : Pung-ol Sibugay Multipurpose Cooperative

No. of beneficiaries : No Record

Amount of Investment : PhP25,000.00

Date of Feasibility Study : Feasibility Study prepared PSBP

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php 3,500.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : Philippine Business for Social Progress Assistance on technical and financial management aspect. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5r. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Rice and Corn Retail

Implementor : Pamutan Sapang-daku Buot-Taup Ass'n.

No. of beneficiaries : 30

Amount of Investment : PhP25,000.00

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On - Going

Net Income : Php 4,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : Philippine Business for Social Progress provided assistance on financial and technical aspect. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5s. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Consumer Store

Implementor : Barangay Unity Key to Integrated Dev't. Multipurpose Cooperative

No. of beneficiaries : 30

Amount of Investment : PhP25,000.00

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On-going

Net Income : Php 5,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : LGU,DA, NIA

Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5t. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Consumer Store

Implementor : United Farmers Multipurpose Cooperative

No. of beneficiaries :

Amount of Investment :

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On-going

Net Income : Php 22,905.63

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : CARE Philippines , PBSP and City Agriculture Office Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5u. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Micro Lending (Loan from CARE Phils. Inc.)

Implementor : United Farmers Multipurpose Cooperative

No. of beneficiaries :

Amount of Investment :

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On-going

Net Income : Php 49,259.72

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : CARE Philippines , PBSP and City Agriculture Office Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5v. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Livestock Dispersal

Implementor : Banikanhong Kapunongan Alang sa Nasudnong Tingusbawan

No. of beneficiaries :

Amount of Investment :

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : Livestock Dispersal - On-going

Net Income : Php 3,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : Mag-uumad Foundation, Inc. provided assistance on technical aspect. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5w. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Trucking

Implementor : Sinsin, Sudlon I, Sudlon II Farmers Ass'n. Inc.

No. of beneficiaries : 30

Amount of Investment :

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On-going

Net Income : Php 50,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : Philippine Business for Social Progress provided assistance on technical and financial aspect. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 5x. Livelihood Project of the PO

Name of Livelihood Project : Rice and Corn Retail

Implementor : Sinsin, Sudlon I, Sudlon II Farmers Ass'n. Inc.

No. of beneficiaries : 30

Amount of Investment :

Date of Feasibility Study : No Feasibility Study

Date Started : No Record

Status : On-going

Net Income : php 5,000.00

CFDF 1,868,669.56

Linkages Developed : Philippine Business for Social Progress provided assistance on technical, financial and marketing aspects. FORESTRY SECTOR PROJECT LOAN NO. PH-P 135

Table 6. SUBPROJECT STATUS REPORT AS OF June, 2003 STATUS OF PROGRESS NAME/LOCATION OF PROJECT PROJECT COST Region (O:on going C: Completion) THE SUBPROJECT AREA (ha) (Mil peso) SMP CO CSD M & E INFRA

Mananga-Kotkot- Lusaran Watershed 7 4,920.75 140.718815 C C C C C Rehabilitation Subproject

TOTAL 4,920.75 140.718815 FORESTRY SECTOR PROJECT LOAN NO. PH-P 135

Table 7. COMMUNITY ORGANIZING Cost Estimate per Activity UNIT of ACTIVITIES TARGET MEASUR UNIT COST TOTAL COST E

1. Social Investigation 632,803.70 2. Information and Education Campaign 415,825.66 3. Documentation Process 240,990.68 4. Identification of Possible CBFMA 211,598.43 5. Organizing Activities 2,170,661.26 6. Community Activities 1,876,193.80 7. Others (CO staff dev't) 840,412.76 8. Contingency

Total 4,208.46 ha 1,518.01 6,388,486.29 MKL Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 8a. Cost Estimate for Agroforestry per Activity Unit of Unit cost MAJOR ACTIVITY/ACTIVITY TARGET Maeasure TOTAL COST

1. Seedling Production 1. Proccured/Purchased 7,632,062.95 2. Raised 2,293,862.15 SUB-TOTAL 2,563,521.00 sdlg 3.87 9,925,925.09 2. Plantation Establishment 1 Strip brushing/clearing 1,945,510.00 sdlg 0.26 509,871.39 2. Staking 1,945,510.00 sdlg 0.05 96,783.84 3. Hole Digging 1,945,510.00 sdlg 0.17 336,734.14 4. Hauling & Planting 1,945,510.00 sdlg 0.67 1,301,167.57 SUB-TOTAL 1,945.51 ha 1,153.71 2,244,556.94 3. Maintenance and Protection 1. Ringweeding, cultivation and fertilizer application 1,945,510.00 sdlg 1.23 2,388,172.07 2. Replanting 389,102.00 sdlg 1.78 691,273.19 3. Patrol Works 1,945,510.00 sdlg 0.12 238,872.49 4. Fireline construction w/ greenbreak (sq.m.) 31,539.29 sq.n. 4.38 138,026.07 5. Fireline maintenance (sq.m.) 3,150.00 sg.m 8.27 26,047.49 SUB-TOTAL 1,945.51 ha 1,789.96 3,482,391.31 5. Project Management Cost 1 First Year ('98) 113.67 ha 1,113.66 126,589.76 2 Second Year ('99) 417.12 ha 810.18 337,940.22 3 Third Year ('00) 464.15 ha 112.84 52,375.44 4 Fourth Year ('01) 1,640.57 ha 798.58 1,310,132.23 5 Fifth Year ('02) 1,945.51 ha 26.90 52,330.90 6 Sixth Year ('03) 1,945.51 ha 147.66 287,268.67 SUB-TOTAL 1,945.51 ha 1,113.66 2,166,637.22 TOTAL 1,945.51 ha 9,159.30 17,819,510.56 MKL Forrestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 8b. Cost Estimate for Enrichment Planting (Restoration) per Activity

MAJOR ACTIVITY/ACTIVITY TARGET UNIT OF UNIT TOTAL OUTPUT MEASURE COST COST

1. Seedling Production .1. Purchased 36,445.00 sdlg 7.00 255,115.00 .2. Raised 40,325.00 sdlg 3.98 160,629.42 SUB-TOTAL 76,770.00 sdlg 5.42 415,744.42 2. Plantation Establishment 1 Strip brushing/clearing 68.00 ha 387.90 26,377.19 2.. Staking 64,600.00 steke 0.07 4,219.36 3. Hole Digging 64,600.00 hole 0.20 13,028.79 4. Hauling & Planting 64,600.00 sdlg 0.57 36,936.31 SUB-TOTAL 68.00 ha 1,184.7 80,561.65 3. Maintenance and Protection 1. Ringweeding, cultivation and fertilizer application 64,600.00 sdlg 2.02 130,755.39 2. Replanting 12,920.00 sdlg 5.32 68,783.11 3. Patrol Works 64,600.00 sdlg 0.24 15,257.17 4. Fireline construction with greenbreak (sq.m.) 45,000.00 sq.m 0.02 966.60 SUB-TOTAL 68.00 ha 3,172.97 215,762.27 4. Project Management Cost 1 First Year ('98) - 2 Second Year ('99) 8.50 ha 1,362.92 11,584.85 3 Third Year (00) 51.34 ha 1,137.27 58,387.66 4 Fouth Year ('99) 52.90 ha 40.19 2,126.16 5 Fifth Year ('01) 68.00 ha 302.65 20,580.15 6 Sixth Year ('03) 68.00 ha - SUB-TOTAL 68.00 ha 1,362.92 92,678.82 TOTAL 68.00 ha 11,834.52 804,747.16 MKL Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 8c. Cost Estimate for Bamboo Plantation (Riparian) per Activity

MAJOR ACTIVITY/ACTIVITY UNIT OF UNIT TARGET TOTAL COST MEASURE COST

1. Seedling Production 1. Proccured/Purchased bamboo culms 79,256.00 26.61 2,108,920.00 2. Proccured/purchased seedlings 321,981.00 6.76 2,176,571.00 3. Proccured/purchased banana sucker 24,910.00 5.00 124,550.00 4. Raised bamboo culm 432,347.00 10.19 4,404,218.11 5. Raised banana suckers 17,600.00 0.79 13,889.70 SUB-TOTAL 876,094.00 sdlg 10.08 8,828,148.81 2.Plantation Establishment 1 Strip brushing/clearing 1,149.20 ha 1,745.09 2,005,462.34 2.. Staking 730,078.00 stake 0.16 119,181.75 3. Hole Digging 730,078.00 hole 0.80 582,642.50 4. Hauling & Planting 730,078.00 sdlg 7.64 5,576,086.08 SUB-TOTAL 1,149.20 ha 7,207.95 8,283,372.67 3. Maintenance and Protection 1. Ringweeding, cultivation 730,078.00 sdlg 7.01 5,116,665.45 2. Replanting 146,015.60 sdlg 12.26 1,790,394.64 3. Patrol Works 730,078.00 sdlg 0.52 377,927.21 4. Fireline with greenbreak 187,724.55 SUB-TOTAL 1,149.20 ha 6,502.53 7,472,711.85 4. Project Management Cost 1. First Year ('98) 162.34 ha 2,527.83 410,367.39 2 Second Year ('99) 681.54 ha 1,925.71 1,312,447.63 3 Third Year ('00) 932.45 ha 680.20 634,257.00 4 Fourth Year ('01) 1,092.14 ha 369.61 403,668.65 5 Fifth Year ('02) 1,122.28 ha 67.89 76,188.70 6 Sixth Year ('03) 1,149.20 ha 59.21 68,049.09 SUB-TOTAL 1,149.20 ha 2,527.83 2,904,978.46 TOTAL 1,149.20 ha 23,920.30 27,489,211.79 MKL Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 8d. Cost Estimate for Rattan Plantation per Activity

MAJOR ACTIVITY/ACTIVITY TARGET UNIT OF UNIT TOTAL OUTPUT MEASURE COST COST 1. Seedling Production 1. Purchased 153,737 sdlg 8.88 1,365,118.24 2. Raised 403,271 sdlg 8.34 3,363,463.04 SUB-TOTAL 534,429 sdlg 8.84 4,726,581.28 2. Plantation Establishment 1 Strip brushing/clearing 750.11 ha 2,130.35 1,598,000.00 2.. Staking 445,358 stake 0.45 199,750.00 3. Hole Digging 445,358 hole 1.08 479,400.00 4. Hauling & Planting 750.11 sdlg 2,642.92 1,982,478.80 SUB-TOTAL 750.11 ha 5,678.67 4,259,628.80 3 . Plantation Maintenance 1. Ringweeding, cultivation and fertilizer application 445,358 sdlg 14.54 6,474,577.18 2. Replanting 89,072 sdlg 8.79 782,951.51 3. Patrol Works 445,358 sdlg 2.35 1,044,453.53 4. Fireline with greenbreak (sq.m.) 386,570.00 5. Fireline Maintenance (sq.m.) 1,711.69 SUB-TOTAL 750.11 ha 11,585.32 8,690,263.91 4. Project Management Cost 1 First Year ('98) 178.62 ha 2,816.14 503,018.21 2 Second Year ('99) 577.41 ha 1,944.97 1,123,046.87 3 Third Year ('00) 681.22 ha 429.15 292,343.08 4 Fourth Year ('01) 738.91 ha 219.87 162,462.88 5 Fifth Year ('02) 750.11 ha 42.04 31,531.29 6 Sixth Year ('03) SUB-TOTAL 750.11 ha 2,816.12 2,112,402.33 TOTAL 750.11 ha 26,381.30 19,788,876.32 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 9. MONITORING AND EVALUATION Cost Estimate per Activity Unit ACTIVITIES Target Output of Unit Cost Total Cost Measure Physical Validation Component

1. Development of appropriate tools for participatory M&E 41,000.00

2. Verification of Boundaries, UTM monuments 219,574.40 and block corner post

3. Seedling Production/Inventory Analysis 323,196.70

4. Survival Inventory (height and diameter measurements and related observations per 2,770,709.90 area/components and parcels

5. Documentation/Reports 648,644.94

B. Institutional/Environmental Impacts 518,400.00

S U B T O T A L 4,920.75 ha 918.87 4,521,525.94

Institutional and Project Benefit Assessment

1. Preparatory activities 26,210.00

2. Primary data collection and preliminary 930,531.00 assessment

3. Documentation/Reports 443,259.00

S U B T O T A L 1,400,000.00 G R A N D T O T A L 4,920.75 ha 1,203.38 5,921,525.94 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 10a. Infrastructure Component

Infrastructure Project : Hanging Bridge Structure

Location : Brgy. Buot-Taup (Proper), Cebu City

Contractor : WERR Corporation International

Contract Cost : PhP15,184,768.76 (This is a packaged contract amount inclusive of all the infra projects undertaken by WERR in MKL Contract Duration : 180 days Effectivity of Notice to proceed : December 20, 2002 Expected Completion date : June 17, 2003

Revised Completion date

Date of MOA with LGU : December 18, 2003

Brief description : A 62-meter Hanging Bridge connecting Brgy. Buot-Taup Proper and the plantation areas as well as the road leading to Brgy. Pamutan, Cebu City. It is made up of two 7.90 meters concrete towers, high-tensile-strength (HTS) cables with lightweight steel channels for floor joists, welded wire mesh flooring and cyclone wire Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 10b. Infrastructure Component

Infrastructure Project : Concrete Footbridge

Location : Brgy. Pamutan, Cebu City

Contractor : WERR Corporation International

Contract Cost : PhP15,184,768.76 (This is a packaged contract amount inclusive of all the infra projects undertaken by WERR in MKL Watershed Subproject)

Contract Duration : 180 days

Effectivity of Notice to proceed : December 20, 2002

Expected Completion date : June 17, 2003

Revised Completion date :

Date of MOA with LGU : December 18, 2003

Brief description : A 21-Meter Concrete Footbridge coonecting Brgy. Pamutan, Cebu City to Sitio Bocaue, Pamutan, Cebu City. It is made up of concrete slab resting on a single concrete beam supported by concrete columns. It has G.I. Pipe railings and compacted fill with grouted riprap Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 10c. Infrastructure Component

Infrastructure Project : Small Scale Irrigation System

Location : Brgy. Pamutan, Cebu City

Contractor : WERR Corporation International

Contract Cost : PhP15,184,768.76 (This is a packaged contract amount inclusive of all the infra projects undertaken by WERR in MKL Watershed Subproject)

Contract Duration : 180 days

Effectivity of Notice to proceed : December 20, 2002

Expected Completion date : June 17, 2003

Revised Completion date :

Date of MOA with LGU : December 18, 2003

Brief description : A Small Scale Water irrigation System at Brgy. Pamutan, Cebu City, Cebu. The water system is composed of a concrete intake box, one concrete distribution tank (capacity=17.248 cu.m.), and interconnected by a 227.34 meters polyethylene pipeline. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 10d. Infrastructure Component

Infrastructure Project : Pump Irrigation System

Location : Brgy. Sinsin, Sudlon I and Sudlon II, Cebu City

Contractor : WERR Corporation International

Contract Cost : PhP15,184,768.76 (This is a packaged contract amount inclusive of all the infra projects undertaken by WERR in MKL Watershed Subproject)

Contract Duration : 180 days

Effectivity of Notice to proceed : December 20, 2002

Expected Completion date : June 17, 2003

Revised Completion date :

Date of MOA with LGU : December 18, 2003

Brief description : A Pump Irrigation System at Barangays Sinsin, Sudlon I, Sudlon II, Cebu City. The irrigation system is composed of a concrete intake box, five (5) distribution tanks (capacity=17.28 cu.m.), a concrete pressure relief box, and interconnected by 9.420km. polyethelyne pipeline. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 10e. Infrstructure Component

Infrastructure Project : Hanging Bridge

Location : Brgy. Lagtang & Lwaan II, Talisay City, Cebu

Contractor : WERR Corporation International

Contract Cost : PhP15,184,768.76 (This is a packaged contract amount inclusive of all the infra projects undertaken by WERR in MKL Watershed Subproject)

Contract Duration : 180 days

Effectivity of Notice to proceed : December 20, 2002

Expected Completion date : June 17, 2003

Revised Completion date :

Date of MOA with LGU : October 11, 2003

Brief description : An 80-meter Hanging Bridge connecting Brgy. Lagtang and Lawaan II, Talisay City. It is made up of two 11.30 meters concrete towers, high- tensile-strength (HTS) cables with lightweight steel channels for floor joists, welded wire mesh flooring and cyclone wire sidings. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 10f. Infrastructure Component

Infrastructure Project : Water System

Location : Brgy. Jaclupan, Talisay City, Cebu

Contractor : WERR Corporation International

Contract Cost : PhP15,184,768.76 (This is a packaged contract amount inclusive of all the infra projects undertaken by WERR in MKL Watershed Subproject)

Contract Duration : 180 days

Effectivity of Notice to proceed : December 20, 2002

Expected Completion date : June 17, 2003

Revised Completion date :

Date of MOA with LGU : October 11, 2003

Brief description : A water system at Brgy. Jaclupan, Talisay City, cebu. The water system is composed of a concrete intake box, one concrete distribution tank (capacity=17.248 cu.m.) and interconnected by a 1.04921 km. Polyethelyne pipeline. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 10g. Infrastructure Component

Infrastructure Project : Hanging Bridge Structure

Location : Brgy. Mulao, Compostela, Cebu

Contractor : WERR Corporation International

Contract Cost : PhP15,184,768.76 (This is a packaged contract amount inclusive of all the infra projects undertaken by WERR in MKL

Contract Duration : 180 days

Effectivity of Notice to proceed : December 20, 2002

Expected Completion date : June 17, 2003

Revised Completion date :

Date of MOA with LGU : December 18, 2003

Brief description : A 50-m hanging bridge made-up of HTS with light weight steel channels for floor joist, wielded wire mesh flooring and cyclone wire. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 10h. Infrastructure Component

Infrastructure Project : Farm-to-Market Road Rehabilitation Project

Location : Brgy. Tagba-o, Cebu City

Contractor : PMC Construction Corporation

Contract Cost : PhP18,803,126.88 (This is a packaged contract amount inclusive of all the infra projects undertaken by PMC in MKL Watershed Subproject)

Contract Duration : 180 Calendar Days

Effectivity of Notice to proceed : December 23, 2002

Expected Completion date : June 20, 2003

Revised Completion date : September 26, 2003

Date of MOA with LGU : December 18, 2003

Brief description : A 1.91120-kilometer rehabilitated farm-to- market road project stretching from Tagba-o and Manggabon Junction towards Sitio Manggabon, Tagba-o, Cebu City. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. Ph-P 135

Table 10i. Infrastructure Component

Infrastructure Project : Farm-to-Market Road Rehabilitation Project

Location : Brgy. Magsaysay, Balamban, Cebu

Contractor : PMC Construction Corporation

Contract Cost : PhP18,803,126.88 (This is a packaged contract amount inclusive of all the infra projects undertaken by PMC in MKL Watershed Subproject) Contract Duration : 180 Calendar Days

Effectivity of Notice to proceed : December 23, 2002

Expected Completion date : June 20, 2003

Revised Completion date : September 26, 2003

Date of MOA with LGU : December 18, 2003

Brief description : The Magsaysay Road begins at station 0+000 (Sitio Sunog - Sitio Manunggal Crossing) to Station 2+5329 (Sitio Sandayong) Brgy. Magsaysay, Balamban, Cebu. Portion of the road (1.809 kms) was concreted. Forestry Sector Project Loan No. PH-P135

TABLE 11. ANNUAL WORK AND FINANCIAL PLAN

1997 Planned Actual ACTIVITIES Planned Actual Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Target Budget Target Budget

1. REFORESTATION/WATERSHED/CBFM 33,853.16 145,963,323.87 28,597.03 140,718,815.16 A. SMP B. CO (Phase 1 & 2) 1,800.00 7,248,600.00 1,518.01 6,388,486.29 4,027.00 3,823,546.40 4,208.46 1,817,131.12 1. Old Sites - Year 1 - Year 2 2. New Sites 1,800.00 7,248,600.00 1,518.01 6,388,486.29 4,027.00 3,823,546.40 4,208.46 1,817,131.12 - Year 1 949.48 3,823,546.40 431.78 1,817,131.12 4,027.00 3,823,546.40 4,208.46 1,817,131.12 - Year 2 850.52 3,425,053.60 855.13 3,598,769.71 - Year 3 146.02 614,510.34 - Year 4 85.08 358,075.12 C. CSD 23,386.67 100,835,387.72 19,255.94 94,753,680.78 351.86 15,623,500.58 1. Delineation, Landuse Survey & Mapping #DIV/0! - 255.26 1,423,848.44 2. Soil Erosion Control/SWC 28,410.09 32,557,964.88 23,920.30 27,489,211.79 131.20 5,458,204.61 a. Infrastructure b. Trails and footpath c. Plantation 28,410.09 32,557,964.88 23,920.30 27,489,211.79 131.20 5,458,204.61 c.1. Riverbank Protection (Bamboo) 28,410.09 32,557,964.88 23,920.30 27,489,211.79 131.20 5,458,204.61 3. Vegetative Measures (Plantation Establishment) 15,835.53 68,277,422.84 16,986.12 64,063,996.34 220.66 10,165,295.97 a. Agroforestry 5,397.67 6,093,967.86 9,159.30 17,819,510.56 120.40 1,940,661.38 b. Assisted Natural Regeneration c. Enrichment Planting 7,600.80 3,009,917.39 11,834.52 804,747.17 - 428,708.81 d. Tree Plantation 21,234.57 59,173,537.59 25,846.82 45,439,738.61 100.26 7,795,925.78 d.1. Bamboo d.2. Rattan 26,968.51 24,244,689.12 26,381.30 19,788,876.32 - 1,191,315.23 d.3. Mangrove d.4. Plantation Species 18,503.78 34,928,848.47 25,449.05 25,650,862.29 100.26 6,604,610.55 e. Timber Stand Improvement 4. Inventory Residual Forest 5. Income Enhancement Project 6. Contingency 1,776,624.21 D. Infrastructure Component 31,940,664.38 33,655,122.15 E. Monitoring & Evaluation 1,574.60 5,938,671.77 1,570.05 5,921,525.94 -Year 1 1,104.37 2,355,000.00 277.58 591,930.00 -Year 2 657.63 2,256,463.77 167.29 574,000.00 -Year 3 186.13 653,985.00 141.41 496,870.80 -Year 4 178.50 673,223.00 1,129.17 4,258,725.14 2. SUSIMO 3,019,450.00 3,019,450.00 Equipment provided to the Office Researches conducted Trainings Others GRAND TOTAL 34,553.46 148,982,773.87 29,210.64 143,738,265.16 19,447,046.98 1,817,131.12 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. PH-P135

TABLE 11. ANNUAL WORK AND FINANCIAL PLAN

1998 1999 2000 ACTIVITIES Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget

1. REFORESTATION/WATERSHED/CBFM A. SMP B. CO (Phase 1 & 2) 4,027.00 3,425,053.60 4,208.46 3,598,769.71 4,208.46 614,510.34 4,208.46 358,075.12 1. Old Sites ------Year 1 - Year 2 2. New Sites 4,027.00 3,425,053.60 4,208.46 3,598,769.71 4,208.46 614,510.34 4,208.46 358,075.12 - Year 1 - Year 2 4,027.00 3,425,053.60 4,208.46 3,598,769.71 - Year 3 4,208.46 614,510.34 - Year 4 4,208.46 358,075.12 C. CSD 5,457.66 53,119,893.22 680.50 22,327,110.70 5,457.66 16,576,001.64 2,470.64 16,964,800.86 5,457.66 15,515,992.28 3,064.89 15,021,490.71 1. Delineation, Landuse Survey & Mapping 5,578.00 1,194,054.98 5,578.00 229,793.46 2. Soil Erosion Control/SWC 1,146.00 19,141,838.70 162.34 4,796,979.20 1,146.00 4,144,809.90 681.54 6,559,144.40 1,146.00 3,813,111.67 932.45 8,073,361.55 a. Infrastructure b. Trails and footpath c. Plantation 1,146.00 19,141,838.70 162.34 4,796,979.20 1,146.00 4,144,809.90 681.54 6,559,144.40 1,146.00 3,813,111.67 932.45 8,073,361.55 c.1. Riverbank Protection (Bamboo) 1,146.00 19,141,838.70 162.34 4,796,979.20 1,146.00 4,144,809.90 681.54 6,559,144.40 1,146.00 3,813,111.67 932.45 8,073,361.55 3. Vegetative Measures (Plantation Establishment) 4,311.66 33,978,054.52 518.16 16,336,076.52 4,311.66 12,431,191.74 1,789.10 10,175,863.00 4,311.66 11,702,880.61 2,132.44 6,948,129.16 a. Agroforestry 1,129.00 4,050,501.58 113.67 2,064,697.52 1,129.00 55,349.55 417.12 1,161,458.08 1,129.00 47,455.35 464.15 340,405.46 b. Assisted Natural Regeneration c. Enrichment Planting 396.00 1,383,483.02 - 321,896.67 396.00 598,862.68 8.50 25,146.75 396.00 598,862.88 51.34 175,741.30 d. Tree Plantation 2,786.66 28,544,069.92 404.49 13,949,482.33 2,786.66 11,776,979.51 1,363.48 8,989,258.17 2,786.66 11,056,562.38 1,616.95 6,431,982.40 d.1. Bamboo d.2. Rattan 899.00 13,622,432.37 178.62 6,295,454.13 899.00 4,715,470.76 577.41 3,763,311.22 899.00 4,715,470.76 681.22 2,765,752.43 d.3. Mangrove d.4. Plantation Species 1,887.66 14,921,637.55 225.87 7,654,028.20 1,887.66 7,061,508.75 786.07 5,225,946.95 1,887.66 6,341,091.62 935.73 3,666,229.97 e. Timber Stand Improvement 4. Inventory Residual Forest 5. Income Enhancement Project 6. Contingency D. Infrastructure Component E. Monitoring & Evaluation 1,088,100.00 - 1,266,900.00 591,930.00 -Year 1 1,789.10 1,088,100.00 2,132.44 1,266,900.00 2,132.44 591,930.00 -Year 2 -Year 3 -Year 4 2. SUSIMO Equipment provided to the Office Researches conducted Trainings Others GRAND TOTAL 56,544,946.82 25,925,880.41 17,664,101.64 17,579,311.20 16,782,892.28 15,971,495.83 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. PH-P135

TABLE 11. ANNUAL WORK AND FINANCIAL PLAN

2001 2002 ACTIVITIES Planned Actual Planned Actual Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget

1. REFORESTATION/WATERSHED/CBFM A. SMP B. CO (Phase 1 & 2) 1. Old Sites - Year 1 - Year 2 2. New Sites - Year 1 - Year 2 - Year 3 - Year 4 C. CSD 4,523.33 20,844,042.79 4,635.88 13,975,059.04 1. Delineation, Landuse Survey & Mapping 2. Soil Erosion Control/SWC 1,092.14 3,917,358.78 1,122.28 3,355,708.71 a. Infrastructure b. Trails and footpath c. Plantation 1,092.14 3,917,358.78 1,122.28 3,355,708.71 c.1. Riverbank Protection (Bamboo) 1,092.14 3,917,358.78 1,122.28 3,355,708.71 3. Vegetative Measures (Plantation Establishment) 3,431.19 16,926,684.01 3,513.60 10,619,350.33 a. Agroforestry 1,640.57 8,786,939.96 1,687.56 4,459,518.21 b. Assisted Natural Regeneration c. Enrichment Planting 52.90 51,158.93 68.00 163,694.67 d. Tree Plantation 1,737.72 8,088,585.12 1,758.04 5,996,137.45 d.1. Bamboo d.2. Rattan 738.91 3,478,091.60 750.11 2,578,339.10 d.3. Mangrove d.4. Plantation Species 998.81 4,610,493.52 1,007.93 3,417,798.35 e. Timber Stand Improvement 4. Inventory Residual Forest 5. Income Enhancement Project 6. Contingency D. Infrastructure Component E. Monitoring & Evaluation 2,256,463.77 574,000.00 653,985.00 496,870.80 -Year 1 -Year 2 3,431.19 2,256,463.77 3,431.19 574,000.00 -Year 3 3,513.60 653,985.00 3,513.60 496,870.80 -Year 4 2. SUSIMO 1,539,750.00 1,539,750.00 599,000.00 599,000.00 Equipment provided to the Office Researches conducted Trainings Others GRAND TOTAL 3,796,213.77 22,957,792.79 1,252,985.00 15,070,929.84 Forestry Sector Project Loan No. PH-P135

TABLE 11. ANNUAL WORK AND FINANCIAL PLAN

2003 Planned (TOTAL) Actual (TOTAL) ACTIVITIES Planned Actual Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget Target Budget

1. REFORESTATION/WATERSHED/CBFM 4,311.66 145,963,323.87 4,920.75 140,718,815.16 A. SMP B. CO (Phase 1 & 2) 4,027.00 7,248,600.00 4,208.46 6,388,486.29 1. Old Sites - Year 1 - Year 2 2. New Sites 4,027.00 7,248,600.00 4,208.46 6,388,486.29 - Year 1 4,027.00 3,823,546.40 4,208.46 1,817,131.12 - Year 2 4,027.00 3,425,053.60 4,208.46 3,598,769.71 - Year 3 4,208.46 614,510.34 - Year 4 4,208.46 358,075.12 C. CSD 4,920.75 5,621,176.68 4,311.66 100,835,387.72 4,920.75 94,753,680.78 1. Delineation, Landuse Survey & Mapping 5,578.00 1,423,848.44 2. Soil Erosion Control/SWC 1,149.20 786,659.15 1,146.00 32,557,964.88 1,149.20 27,489,211.79 a. Infrastructure b. Trails and footpath c. Plantation 1,149.20 786,659.15 1,146.00 32,557,964.88 1,149.20 27,489,211.79 c.1. Riverbank Protection (Bamboo) 1,149.20 786,659.15 1,146.00 32,557,964.88 1,149.20 27,489,211.79 3. Vegetative Measures (Plantation Establishment) 3,771.55 3,057,893.32 4,311.66 68,277,422.84 3,771.55 64,063,996.34 a. Agroforestry 1,945.51 1,006,491.33 1,129.00 6,093,967.86 1,945.51 17,819,510.56 b. Assisted Natural Regeneration c. Enrichment Planting 68.00 67,108.85 396.00 3,009,917.39 68.00 804,747.17 d. Tree Plantation 1,758.04 1,984,293.14 2,786.66 59,173,537.59 1,758.04 45,439,738.61 d.1. Bamboo d.2. Rattan 750.11 907,927.84 899.00 24,244,689.12 750.11 19,788,876.32 d.3. Mangrove d.4. Plantation Species 1,007.93 1,076,365.30 1,887.66 34,928,848.47 1,007.93 25,650,862.29 e. Timber Stand Improvement 4. Inventory Residual Forest 5. Income Enhancement Project 6. Contingency 1,776,624.21 1,776,624.21 D. Infrastructure Component 31,940,664.38 33,655,122.15 31,940,664.38 33,655,122.15 E. Monitoring & Evaluation 673,223.00 4,258,725.14 3,771.55 5,938,671.77 3,771.55 5,921,525.94 -Year 1 2,132.44 2,355,000.00 2,132.44 591,930.00 -Year 2 3,431.19 2,256,463.77 3,431.19 574,000.00 -Year 3 3,513.60 653,985.00 3,513.60 496,870.80 -Year 4 3,771.55 673,223.00 3,771.55 4,258,725.14 3,771.55 673,223.00 3,771.55 4,258,725.14 2. SUSIMO 880,700.00 880,700.00 3,019,450.00 3,019,450.00 Equipment provided to the Office Researches conducted Trainings Others GRAND TOTAL 33,494,587.38 44,415,723.97 4,311.66 148,982,773.87 4,920.75 143,738,265.16 Appendix 9

COMMUNITY ORGANIZING Cost Estimate Per Activity

UNIT of ACTIVITIES TARGET MEASUR UNIT COST TOTAL COST E

1. Social Investigation 632,803.70 2. Information and Education Campaign 415,825.66 3. Documentation Process 240,990.68 4. Identification of Possible CBFMA 211,598.43 5. Organizing Activities 2,170,661.26 6. Community Activities 1,876,193.80 7. Others (CO staff dev't) 840,412.76 8. Contingency

Total 4,208.46 ha 1,518.01 6,388,486.29 Appendix 11

MONITORING and EVALUATION Cost Estimate By Activity

Unit ACTIVITIES Target Output of Unit Cost Total Cost Measure Physical Validation Component

1. Development of appropriate tools for participatory M&E 41,000.00 1. Preparatory activities/orientation, 41,000.00 protocols 2. Basic skills trainings on GPS/GIS

2. Verification of Boundaries, UTM monuments 219,574.40 and block corner post

3. Seedling Production/Inventory Analysis 323,196.70

4. Survival Inventory (height and diameter measurements and related observations per area/components and parcels 4.1 Field training on the conduct of systematic strip sampling method and 32,200.00 height and diameter measurements

4.2 Survival counting 20% systematic strip sampling method, height and 2,738,509.90 diameter measurement 5. Documentation/Reports

5.1 Production of necessary maps, summary tables and charts for the draft 20,000.00 and final reports 5.2 Documentation of the learnings on the FSP implementation (Physical 8,000.00 Accomplishments)

5.3 Preparation and submission of Draft/Interim Report 62,000.00

5.4 Presentation of Draft/Interim 31,500.00

5.5 Preparation and submission of 527,144.94 Terminal Report

B. Institutional/Environmental Impacts 518,400.00

S U B T O T A L 4,521,525.94

Institutional and Project Benefit Assessment

1. Preparatory activities 26,210.00

2. Primary data collection and preliminary 930,531.00 assessment

3. Documentation/Reports 443,259.00

S U B T O T A L 1,400,000.00 G R A N D T O T A L 5,921,525.94 Annex 1a-1

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

President

Administration Operation Manager Vice-President Head

Protection Monitoring & Evaluation Maintenance In-charge In-charge In-charge

Bookkeeper Treasurer Auditor EDCOM

111 Annex 1a-2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Board of Trustees

President

Administration

 Secretary  Treasurer  Bookkeeper  Auditor

Comprehensive Site EDCOM Development Division Livelihood Committee

Trucking Advocacy Training Services Project Manager/ Forester Livestock Consumer Dispersal Store

Plantation Monitoring & Protection In-charge Evaluation Manager

112 Annex 1a-3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

SSSFAI President

Driver Draftsman

Vice President

Secretary Auditor Treasurer Bookkeeper

CSD Operations Livelihood Manager

Patrol, Monitoring Protection & Brgy. Sinsin & Maintenance Evaluation Brgy. Sudlon I

Brgy. Sinsin Brgy. Sinsin

Brgy. Sudlon II

Brgy. Sudlon I Brgy. Sudlon I

Brgy. Sudlon II Brgy. Sudlon II

113 Annex 1a-4

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

PSBA President

Project Manager/ Forester Secretary

Vice President for Vice President for Vice President for Operations Finance Education

Nursery In-charge Treasurer Information Education Campaign Survey In-charge Auditor

Education Plt’n. Establish- Bookkeeper Committee ment

Plt’n. Maintenance In-charge

Plt’n. Protection In-charge

M&E In-charge

114 Annex 1a-5

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF

PUNG-OL SIBUGAY MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

ELECTION COMMITEE

BOARD OF AUDIT& INVENTORY MEMBERS

CREDIT COMMITEE

TREASURER TREASURER TREASURER

125 Annex 1a-6

General Assembly

Audit and Inventory Board of Credit Election Committee Directors Committee Committee

Education Secretary Committee

Treasurer

Management and Staff Annex 1a-7

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

ELECTION BOARD OF AUDIT & INVENTO- CREDIT COMMITTEE DIRECTORS RY COMMITTEE

EDUCATION COMMITTEE & ON SPECIAL TRAINING EDUCATION COMMITTEE

TREASURER SECRETARY

MANAGEMENT STAFF

117 Annex 1a-8

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

AICOM CRECOM BOD ELECOM

TREASURER

EDCOM

MANAGER

BOOKKEEPER

CSD PROJECT CONSUMER DIVI- LIVELIHOOD PRO- IN-CHARGE SION JECT

Sales Clerk Purchaser Project Warehouse Maintenance & Officer Protection Man

Agroforestry Riparian Micro-Lending Livestock

118 Annex 1a-9

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

President

Vice-President

Operation Admin./Finance

Treasur- CSD Livelihood Secre- Bookkeeper Auditor tary er

Rice Trading

Protection Restoration Riparian Micro-Lending Swine Dispersal

119 Annex 1a-10

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Local Gov’t. Board of Trustees Non-Gov’t Units Organization

Monitoring and Project Implementor ) Evaluation (Mgt. Committee) Support Group

Agriculture Water Health and Environment Infrastructure  Home Garden  PWS Sanitation  Pocket Forest  Bunkhouse  Livelihood  SWID  Toilet  CSD  Farm to market  SWC  Composting

Sitio Chapters

Tubli Tabok Mangga Tag-ubi 2 Tapul Mahagnaw

120 Annex 1a-11

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

President

Vice-President

Secretary Bookkeeper Treasurer Auditor

CSD

Riparian Agroforestry

121 Annex 1a-12

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

BOD

President

Vice-President

Operation Admin./Finance

CSD Livelihood Treasur- Bookkeeper Auditor Secretary er

Protection Agroforestry Riparian Micro-Lending Sari-sari Store

122 Annex 1a-13

General Assembly

Audit and Inventory Board of Credit Election Committee Directors Committee Committee

Secretary Education Committee

Treasurer

Management and Staff Annex 1b-1

STAKEHOLDERS GOVERNANCE

GENERAL MEMBERSHIP

Organizations, Individuals, Government Units & Agen- cies, Institutions

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 23 Sectoral Representatives

BOARD OF TRUSTEES WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COORDINAT- President ING Vice President COUNCIL Secretary, Treasurer, Audi- tor Representative Corporate Six (6) Members Membership

EXECUTIVE OFFICE WORKING COMMITTEES Executive Director CHAIRPERSONS Associate Director VOLUNTEER MEMBERS Executive Staff

124 Annex 1b-2

Visca Foundation for Agricultural and Rural Development (M&E Contractor)

General Assembly

Board of Directors

Executive Director

Technical Operations Administrative and Finance

Project/ Study Auditor Accountant Treasurer Leaders

Finance/Audit Acctg Clerk Cashier Assistant

Research and Research and Research and Dev’t Proj. Dev’t Project Dev’t Project Utility/Mess enger

125 Annex 1c

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE of the SUSIMO

SECRETARY ss

REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (RED)

PENRO

CENRO

SUBPROJECT SITE MANAGEMENT ASSISTING OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (SUSIMO)

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

COMMUNITY SITE VALIDATION ORGANIZING AND DEVELOPMENT AND BILLING STRENGTHENING MANAGEMENT UNIT UNIT SITE

117

Annex 1d-1

PMC Construction Corporation

PMCC CORPORATE MANAGEGEMENT OFFICERS DENR PROJECT Project Manager MANAGEMENT OFFICE

Project Project Administrative Safety Group Group

Project Engineer

Equipment Engineer Materials Construction Foreman Survey Group/ Engineer Surveyors Annex 1d-2

WERR CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL

Project Manager

Resident Engineer

Surveyor Administrative Officer

Project/Safety Equipment Quality Engineer Supervisor Control/Materials Engr.

Operators/Drivers Chief Mechanic Materials Lab Technicians

Construction Foreman

Skilled/semi-skilled Helpers Helpers Laborers

Unskilled Laborers

128 Portion of plantation

Rattan plantation Panoramic View of the Plantation

Farm-to-market road PO Bunkhouse SUSIMO Office

People’s Organization meeting

Livelihood project – Livestock Dispersal & Rice & Corn Trading Cooperative Stores of POs TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Mananga-Kotkot-Lusaran Watershed Subproject

Bakanti Corner BEARING DISTANCE (meter) 1-2 S 84 ° 23 ' E 1,372.96 2-3 S 76 ° 8 ' E 250.53 3-4 N 0 ° 28 ' W 224.05 4-5 N 5 ° 13 ' W 1,383.07 5-6 N 86 ° 4 ' W 2,134.38 6-7 S 6 ° 18 ' W 1,182.19 7-1 S 64 ° 3 ' E 864.34 Reference point: Corner 1: long-X 123 ° 56 ' 59 " lat-Y 10 28 ' 58 " TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Mananga-Kotkot-Lusaran Watershed Subproject

MCFA Corner BEARING DISTANCE (meter) 1-2 N 54 ° 14 ' W 911.68 2-3 S 19 ° 14 ' W 278.56 3-4 S 11 ° 51 ' E 366.05 4-5 N 48 ° 56 ' W 899.03 5-6 N 0 ° 12 ' W 892.91 6-7 N 43 ° 50 ' E 666.15 7-8 N 77 ° 51 ' E 692.41 8-9 S 77 ° 11 ' E 1,013.44 9-10 S 11 ° 45 ' E 998.76 10-1 S 47 ° 29 ' W 1,211.39 Reference point: Corner 1: long-X 123 ° 56 ' 11 " lat-Y 10 28 ' 12 " TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Mananga-Kotkot-Lusaran Watershed Subproject

NAGMATA Corner BEARING DISTANCE (meter) 1-2 N 63 ° 52 ' E 1,320.16 2-3 N 84 ° 7 ' E 765.44 3-4 S 55 ° 43 ' E 296.10 4-5 S 37 ° 20 ' E 352.89 5-6 S 16 ° 28 ' E 195.90 6-7 S 68 ° 12 ' E 867.77 7-8 N 80 ° 39 ' E 341.50 8-9 S 19 ° 8 ' W 1,106.36 9-10 N 74 ° 29 ' W 1,276.40 10-1 N 62 ° 35 ' E 291.90 11-12 N 86 ° 43 ' W 2,160.20 12-1 N 9 ° 22 ' W 697.13 Reference point: Corner 1: long-X 123 ° 53 ' 15 " lat-Y 10 29 ' 48 " TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Mananga-Kotkot-Lusaran Watershed Subproject

LFA Corner BEARING DISTANCE (meter) 1-2 S 22 ° 1 ' E 668.67 2-3 N 51 ° 55 ' E 271.00 3-4 S 14 ° 27 ' E 195.39 4-5 S 68 ° 31 ' E 859.27 5-6 N 80 ° 20 ' E 331.01 6-7 N 61 ° 35 ' E 389.10 7-8 S 85 ° 26 ' E 1,483.84 8-9 N 73 ° 48 ' E 781.95 9-10 N 22 ° 0 ' W 901.47 10-11 N 88 ° 36 ' W 843.59 11-12 N 84 ° 20 ' W 773.09 12-13 N 68 ° 18 ' W 975.73 13-14 S 75 ° 0 ' W 435.89 14-15 S 36 ° 1 ' W 54.62 15-1 S 59 ° 59 ' W 1,040.30 Reference point: Corner 1: long-X 123 ° 54 ' 20 " lat-Y 10 30 ' 9 " TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Mananga-Kotkot-Lusaran Watershed Subproject

BUKID-MPC Corner BEARING DISTANCE (meter) 1-2 N 15 ° 8 ' W 3,253.67 2-3 N 55 ° 45 ' E 6,319.20 3-4 N 75 ° 26 ' E 2,052.89 4-5 S 27 ° 54 ' E 1,934.67 5-6 S 52 ° 58 ' W 4,103.14 6-1 S 52 ° 46 ' W 5,012.20 Reference point: Corner 1: long-X 123 ° 46 ' 42 " lat-Y 10 24 ' 50 "