External Monitoring Report on Indigenous Peoples Safeguards Philippines: KALAHI-CIDSS National Community- Driven Development

Home , Barangay Kagawad, Bulusan, Sorsogon

External Monitoring Report on Indigenous Peoples Safeguards

Final Report June 2018

Philippines: KALAHI-CIDSS National Community- Driven Development Project

Prepared by Jane DC. Austria-Young for the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the Asian Development Bank

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank ACT Area Coordinating Team ADSDPP Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan CADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title CDD Community Driven Development CEAC Community Empowerment Activity Cycle CEF Community Empowerment Facilitator CNO Certification of Non-Overlap CP Certification Precondition DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan FPIC Free Prior Informed Consent GRS Grievance Redress System HAGURA Hanunuo Gubatnon Ratagnon IPPF Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework IP Indigenous Peoples IPP Indigenous Peoples Plan KII Key Informant Interview KC-NCDDP Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan (Linking Arms against Poverty)– Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (KALAHI–CIDSS) National Community-Driven Development Project LGU Local Government Unit MIAC Municipal Inter-Agency Committee MIBF Municipal Inter-Barangay Forum M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCT Municipal Coordinating Team NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples NPMO National Program Management Office NTWG National Technical Working Group RPMO Regional Program Management Office RTWG Regional Technical Working Group SRPMO Sub-Regional Program Management Office TA Technical Assistance

This external monitoring report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature.

In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXTERNAL MONITORING FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT AND LAND ACQUISITION, RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION ...... 5 A. Background ...... 5 B. Approach and Methodology ...... 5 C. Brief Description of the Indigenous Peoples in the Monitoring Sites ...... 7 II. HIGHLIGHTS OF KC-NCDDP PROCESSES FOR SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES—SECOND SEMESTER EXTERNAL MONITORING ...... 8 III. APPRECIATING THE BIG PICTURE: FACILITATING CDD IN THE CONTEXT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ...... 9 A. Implementation of IP Safeguards in KC-NCCDP ...... 10 B. Compliance with IP Safeguards: Empirical Findings Based on the Sites Visited ...... 12 C. Impact Assessment Based on KC-NCDDP Project Outputs ...... 15 IV. CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING IP SAFEGUARDS IN KC-NCDDP ...... 22 A. Revisiting the Results of the First Semester External Monitoring ...... 22 B. Key Issues ...... 25 1. Program Design ...... 26 a. Lack of an Overall Institutional and Policy Framework for Engaging Indigenous Peoples ...... 26 b. Insufficient Time for Quality Facilitation ...... 26 2. Challenges...... 27 a. Lack of Capacity of NCIP to Handle the Size and Scope of the Project...... 27 b. Uncertain Peace and Order Situation ...... 29 c. Indigenous Peoples Are Not Viewed as Equals by Non-IPs ...... 29 d. Challenge of Collecting Culture Sensitive Data that Accurately Describe the Situation of Indigenous Peoples ...... 30 V. OVERALL ASSESSMENT ...... 30 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 31 A. Institutionalize Best Practices Integrating IP Perspectives in KC-NCDPP by Approving and Implementing the Proposed DSWD IP Framework ...... 31 B. Document Innovations in Facilitating CDD in the Context of Indigenous Peoples ...... 32 1. Partnership with NCIP ...... 32 2. Improving the Accuracy of Data Based on the Cultural Realities of Indigenous Peoples 33 3. Ensure the Commitment of LGUs to Improve the Situation of Indigenous Peoples in their Municipality or Barangay ...... 33 4. Improve Compliance with Environment and Social Safeguards ...... 34

C. Recommendations for the Asian Development Bank ...... 34 1. Develop Guidance on How to Apply Social Safeguards Policies in CDD Operations ... 34 2. Develop a Capacity Building Program for the Executing Agency Focused on Safeguards Implementation ...... 34 3. Conduct Ethnographic Studies ...... 35 4. Provide Technical Assistance to NCIP ...... 35 Annex 1: Inception Report ...... 36 Annex 2: List of Persons Met ...... 45 Annex 3: Photo Documentation ...... 52

TABLES Table 1: Activities Conducted in Davao Region Table 2: Activities Conducted in Bicol Region Table 3: Activities Conducted in Caraga Region Table 4: Types of Subprojects in the Monitoring Sites Table 5: Number of Indigenous Peoples Households in the Monitoring Sites Table 6: IP Participation Rate in Barangay Assemblies Table 7: List of Issuance of Certificate of Pre-Condition Table 8: Overall Project Rating

BOXES Box 1: The Case of the Mam-on Manobo: The Process of Acquiring a Tribal Hall Box 2: Stories from the Field: How the Project Built the Capacity of the Project Participants

Supplementary Document

Field Visit Report (Bicol and Caraga)

I. EXTERNAL MONITORING FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT AND LAND ACQUISITION, RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION

A. Background 1. Kapitbisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services National Community-Driven Development Program (KC-NCDDP) is a poverty alleviation program of the national government implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). The overall objective of KC-NCDDP is to empower communities in target municipalities to achieve improved access to basic services and to actively participate in inclusive local planning, budgeting, project implementation, and disaster risk reduction and management. The KC-NCDDP National Program Management Office has engaged the services of a consultant on indigenous peoples to conduct an external monitoring review of the program’s compliance with indigenous people’s safeguards. The external monitoring focused on subprojects in areas where KC-NCDDP is supported by funds from the Asian Development Bank.

2. The sites visited during the second semester external monitoring were in Regions V, XI, and XIII. The consultant used internal monitoring data as well as primary data gathered during field visits to assess whether IP safeguards procedures and objectives were met. External monitoring is essential to assess the impact of four areas: community participation, subproject utility and sustainability, accountability and transparency, and also to appraise institutional impacts at the barangay and municipal levels. The external monitoring for indigenous peoples safeguards has the following objectives: (i) Evaluate the relevance of all Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) activities and determine whether they effectively minimize and mitigate any adverse project impacts on indigenous communities. (ii) Determine the level of engagement of indigenous groups in various activities throughout the Community Empowerment Activity Cycle (CEAC), including social preparation, subproject identification and development, prioritization, and subproject implementation. (iii) Assess the capacity of the implementing agency (DSWD) to handle program activities involving indigenous communities, including a review and verification of internal monitoring systems. (iv) Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Environment and Social Management Plan (ESMP) and Indigenous Peoples Plan approaches and implementation strategies, determine relevant institutional issues, and provide recommendations for improvements for future IP planning activities and overall program implementation.

B. Approach and Methodology

3. The second semester monitoring sites were located in the municipalities of New Bataan, Compostela Valley, Region XI; Donsol and Bulusan, Sorsogon, Region V; and Cagwait and Hinatuan, Surigao del Sur, Region XIII. Eleven subprojects were included, consisting of a tribal hall, barangay hall, health centers, a corn milling station, classrooms, a pathway with streetlights, and an evacuation center. The same data gathering techniques that were employed in the first semester monitoring sites were used, which included a literature review of project documents provided by the national and regional project management teams, discussions with key managers and decision makers from the executing agency, and participatory workshop-

5 style consultations to gather the perspectives of project implementers and community members. The following tables list the monitoring activities that were conducted.

(i) Region XI. Communities belong to the Mandaya indigenous group.

Table 1: Activities Conducted in Davao Region

Date Location/Project Site Activity April 17 DSWD Regional Office KII with the Deputy Regional Program Manager (Davao City) FGD with DSWD field office personnel and the assistant regional director Apo View Hotel, FGD with the Regional Program Management Office –Sub Davao City Regional Program Management Office April 18 New Bataan, KII / Courtesy Call with the Municipal Mayor Compostela Valley FGD with MIAC (Municipal Inter-Agency Committee) FGD with ACT (Area Coordinator Team) Brgy. Andap, New Site Visit 1: Andap Health Substation Bataan Site Visit 2: Andap National High School Site Visit 3: Brgy. Hall and Legislative Building April 19 Brgy. Tandawan, New FGD with Tandawan Brgy. Officials and Tribal Leaders Bataan FGD with Tandawan Community Volunteers April 20 Nabunturan, KII with NCIP Provincial FPIC Focal Person/Community Compostela Valley Development Officer

(ii) Region V. Communities are comprised of Agta Ratagnon, Tabagnon, a small number of Agta Cimmaron, and non-IP Bicolanos.

Table 2: Activities Conducted in Bicol Region

Date Location/Project Site Activity April 23 Legazpi, City KII KC Regional Program Officer and SRPC FGD with NCIP field staff, Sorsogon Service Center FGD with RPMO-SRPMP (Regional Program Management Office-Sub Regional Program Management Office) April 24 Brgy Dancalan, Donsol, FGD with tribal leaders and local officials Sorsogon FGD with Community Volunteers

FGD with teachers Visited Dancalan Boulevard Agta Community FGD with ACT April 25 Sitio Lubas, Brgy San FGD with IP Community Volunteers Rafael, Bulusan, FGD with IP members Sorsogon FGD with non-IP community volunteers FGD with lot owners FGD with ACT FGD with tribal leader and local officials April 26 Brgy San Roque, FGD with IP members in San Rafael

Bulusan, Sorsogon FGD with IP members FGD with Community Volunteers FGD with tribal leaders and local officials

(iii) Region XIII. Communities belong to the Mandaya and Manobo indigenous groups.

Table 3: Activities Conducted in Caraga Region

Date Project Site Activity May 2 Butuan City KII with Regional Director and RPC Ramil Taculod FGD with NCIP regional officers FGD with RPMO-SRPMP May 3 Sitio Mam-on, Barangay KII with local officials and Municipal Area Coordinator Tubu-tubo, FGD with members of the Municipal Inter-Agency Committee Cagwait, Surigao FGD with ACT del Sur FGD with Community Volunteers Spent the night in the village and held informal discussions with tribal leaders May 4 Port Lamon, Hinatuan, KII with barangay officials, Barangay Tubo-Tubo Surigao del Sur FGD with Non-IP Community Volunteers KII with an IP member KII with Vice Mayor, Hinatuan May 5 Hinatuan, Surigao del Sur FGD with ACT Butuan City Visited subproject, tribal hall, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur Wrap-up meeting with RPMO—IP Focal, RCDS, and RCDO

C. Brief Description of the Indigenous Peoples in the Monitoring Sites

4. All but one of the indigenous communities visited are fairly well integrated in mainstream society. A typical statement by local government officials describing the communities might be: ―Our IPs are well integrated; they are educated and they even use cellphones.‖

5. Culture can be likened to an iceberg, with much of what comprises culture existing below the surface, invisible to outsiders, who are only familiar with external cultural expressions such as language, dress, music and food. ―Hidden‖ aspects of culture, however, play a significant role in the way the Mandaya of Tandawan, New Bataan have integrated with the mainstream, especially in regard to local governance. In managing their ancestral domain, customary rules and practices are maintained by enforcing policies set out by the council of elders, the mangkatadeng. The Mandaya recognize the presence of non-IPs in their territory but also require them to follow customary practices for protecting and managing the ancestral domain. The traditional leaders assumed leadership roles in KC-NCDDP activities (e.g., membership on the barangay subproject management committee and involvement as community volunteers), where they proved to be effective. The concept of justice, decision making, and leadership are aspects of culture that are not immediately visible to the outsider but are critical in the ever evolving culture of indigenous peoples.

6. Historically, the Negrito groups, including the Agta Ratagnon, Agta Tabagnon, and Agta Cimmaron in the Bicol region, could be easily identified as they are phenotypically different from the majority of Filipinos. But as a result of intermarriage with the Malay majority, the Bicol Negritos’ physical distinction has become less obvious, and their geographic and cultural integration with the mainstream population has resulted in the loss of their language. One of the challenging issues in Donsol, Sorsogon is identifying ―who the indigenous people are and where they are.‖ With the focus the government places on providing benefits for indigenous communities through KC-NCDDP and the Pantawid Pamilya program, the number of people in Donsol claiming to be indigenous is constantly rising. As a result, it is crucial for project implementers to be able to accurately identify target participants to ensure that genuine indigenous people will benefit from the program. The local government has also found it difficult to identify authentic indigenous representatives.

7. In Barangay Tubo-tubo, Cagwait, Agusan del Sur Manobo communities live in isolated villages with limited access to basic services. Their livelihoods are mostly cash-based and heavily reliant on growing abaca. In Barangay Port Lamon, Hinatuan the majority of the population are non-IPs and the indigenous Mandaya communities are well integrated with the mainstream, though recognized through their tribal leader. The tribal leader serves as the voice of the communities in the local government and other development programs in the barangay.

8. The sites visited represent a good mix of the diverse social realities of indigenous peoples in the country—communities who live in isolated areas with limited access to basic services, communities who are fully integrated with the mainstream society, and communities who have some degree of integration but maintain their cultural traditions in managing their own affairs.

II. HIGHLIGHTS OF KC-NCDDP PROCESSES FOR SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES—SECOND SEMESTER EXTERNAL MONITORING

9. The program has established processes to ensure the meaningful participation of indigenous communities throughout the Community Empowerment Activity Cycle. Common responses from the communities visited were that KC-NCDDP is different from other government projects. The program not only provides community projects, but builds the capacity of marginalized communities to make their voices heard.

10. Following are the findings common to the regions visited: (i) DSWD maintains a clear IP framework and policy guidance for how to engage and safeguard the rights of indigenous people. As a result, there are working strategies in place, including culture sensitivity training, coaching and mentoring using the IP facilitation guide, establishing partnerships with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), and monitoring to ensure effective approaches to program facilitation. (ii) In areas where indigenous people comprise the minority population, prior to KC- NCDDP communities seldom had the opportunity to participate in major decision making processes in the barangay. They lacked access to basic services, as most of their communities are geographically isolated. These circumstances changed with the introduction of KC-NCDDP, which addressed community- identified needs and involved community members in program implementation. The approaches used resulted in a high sense of community ownership of the development process, and active IP participation during meetings and assemblies.

(iii) The ESMP is very technical, but area coordinating teams (ACTs) conduct trainings and workshops to unpack the technical terms and explain the concepts involved. Consequently, indigenous communities are able to analyze proposed subprojects and predict their impacts on existing social, cultural, and economic systems. (iv) The RPMO provides technical sessions and guidance for ACTs to facilitate culture sensitive approaches in engaging indigenous peoples. The IP facilitation guide is used as a reference by RPMOs to systematize their coaching and mentoring approaches. (v) There are clear monitoring systems used by RPMOs to assess indigenous peoples’ participation in assemblies, identify recognized tribal leaders, and appraise the participation of community volunteers and paid labor during subproject implementation. There are regular meetings among the specialists in the regions to analyze, interpret and synthesize findings based on safeguards documentation, monitoring visits, and the ESMP. (vi) Tribal leaders appreciate the fact that they now directly benefit from government funds and that the government recognizes and responds to their aspirations for development. (vii) Community volunteers attend trainings and workshops, which enrich their knowledge and boost their confidence. Most are not afraid to speak out in public meetings. One of the participants in an FGD stated, ―I never thought that I’d be sought after by construction companies after completing my training as a safety officer.‖1

11. In all three regions visited, there are functional Regional Technical Working Groups comprised of staff from DSWD and NCIP that meet regularly. The working relationships face many challenges, but opportunities to share data and resources have been enhanced by the partnership. As a result, there are clear strategies to systematize the Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) validation process and to fast track the release of Certificates of Precondition or Certificates of Non-Overlap by the NCIP. The most frequent problem encountered is NCIP’s lack of human and financial resources to address the demands of validating the numerous subprojects in the region.

III. APPRECIATING THE BIG PICTURE: FACILITATING CDD IN THE CONTEXT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

12. In this section the results of the first and second semester external monitoring are discussed. The sites chosen for external evaluation represent a diverse range of indigenous communities, which include communities where the indigenous people comprise the majority in their barangay and communities where they constitute a small minority. There are indigenous communities that are fully integrated with mainstream society and those that are physically isolated and still maintain a fairly traditional lifestyle. There are also communities that are well integrated but still retain indigenous strategies for managing their social institutions and resources. This varied mix of sites was critical for an accurate assessment of the situations surrounding indigenous communities and to determine which strategies proved effective in terms of facilitating CDD with a special emphasis on community participation, subproject utility and sustainability, accountability and transparency. It also allowed for the appraisal of institutional impacts at the barangay and municipal levels.

1 Sitio Mam-on, Bgy. Tubo-Tubo, Agusan del Sur

Figure 1: Sites Included in the External Monitoring

A. Implementation of IP Safeguards in KC-NCCDP 13. Given that many indigenous communities are targeted for KC-NDDP implementation and the program ―… is likely to have significant impacts on indigenous peoples,‖2 the program is rated Safeguard Category A for indigenous peoples. In implementing projects affecting indigenous peoples ADB is committed ―to design and implement projects in a way that fosters full respect for Indigenous Peoples’ identity, dignity, human rights, livelihood systems, and cultural uniqueness as defined by the Indigenous Peoples themselves so that they (i) receive culturally appropriate social and economic benefits, (ii) do not suffer adverse impacts

2 ADB Safeguard Categories. https://www.adb.org/site/safeguards/safeguard-categories

10 as a result of projects, and (iii) can participate actively in projects that affect them.‖3 In order to implement these policies, ADB ensures that the executing agency, in this case DSWD, will develop measures to strengthen IP safeguards in KC-NCDDP: ―(i) to ensure that impacts are identified and assessed early in the project cycle; (ii) plans to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for the potential adverse impacts are developed and implemented; and (iii) affected people are informed and consulted during project preparation and implementation.‖4

14. Early Experience Addressing Indigenous Peoples’ Concerns. Prior to the launch of KC-NCDDP in 2014, indigenous peoples had been involved in the KALAHI-CIDSS program, but there were no specific considerations for the provision of culturally appropriate social and economic benefits based on indigenous peoples’ cultural identity and unique situation. Program implementers were aware that there were indigenous peoples in project areas but there was no distinct strategy specifically designed for engaging them. There was no clear guidance on how to facilitate meaningful consultation based on the social and cultural realities of the indigenous people in project sites and the NPMO lacked a systematic capacity building program to strengthen the cultural competence of project staff.

15. In certain regions, however, there were efforts to better fit the program to the cultures of indigenous communities. These initiatives included (i) respecting indigenous leadership structures by coordinating with tribal leaders, (ii) using simple explanations and creative ways to clarify unfamiliar concepts, (iii) employing visual aids without written text during meetings to illustrate project concepts and ensure the program objectives are thoroughly understood, and (iv) conducting small group discussions for each cluster to ensure that the majority of the indigenous community members are aware of the project and all its components. A World Bank study conducted in 20125 identified successful innovations that should be systematically adopted by the implementing agency to ensure greater responsiveness to indigenous peoples’ needs in KC-NCDDP.

16. Strengthening IP Safeguards in KC-NCDDP. The external evaluator determined that there is a strong emphasis on ensuring that project outcomes are aligned with the ADB safeguard policy on indigenous peoples and program interventions are systematized to effectively address indigenous peoples’ concerns. The integration of an IP framework represents an important step toward recognizing indigenous peoples’ rights to their land, culture, and pursuit of their economic and social development. DSWD has made culture sensitivity one of the core requirements for facilitating community empowerment processes. One of the impacts of this focus is that indigenous people actively participate in decision making at both the local and municipal levels. By participating in barangay and municipal assemblies, they are taking the opportunity to voice their concerns and advocate for their development aspirations.

17. Findings of the First Semester External Monitoring. The first semester external monitoring found the following strategies proved effective in integrating IP perspectives. The findings were presented in the midterm monitoring report, but are also applicable to the sites visited during the second semester monitoring.

3 Asian Development Bank. Safeguard Policy Statement. (Philippines: 2009), 18. 4 Asian Development Bank. Safeguard Policy Statement, 5. 5 Austria-Young, Jane DC. Developing an IP Lens in Development Projects: A Study of KALAHI-CIDSS Projects with Indigenous Peoples in Preparation for a National Community Driven Development Program (NCDDP). World Bank. 2012.

(i) Capacity building initiatives for project staff and stakeholders proved to be a good investment of program resources toward the development of an IP sensitivity lens among KC staff. The efforts resulted in the formulation of a sound IP framework for implementing KC-NCDDP with indigenous communities. (ii) The ESMP training was effective in ensuring that indigenous peoples safeguards are integrated in all stages of the project cycle. Properly oriented, ACTs were equipped with the tools to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples throughout all phases of KC-NCDDP. They strove to guarantee that indigenous peoples’ economic, social, cultural systems were not negatively affected during subproject design and implementation. (iii) By explaining how to facilitate program components in a way that strengthens indigenous culture and institutions, ensures meaningful participation, and allows equal representation of indigenous communities in decision making processes, the IP facilitation guide helped the ACTs make CEAC processes more culture sensitive. (iv) National and regional structures (NTWG, RTWG, IP Focal) played a crucial role in the implementation of the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) and the operationalization of institutional partnerships and coordination mechanisms in the national, regional, and field offices. (v) M&E units collected data on marginalized groups. Quantitative data was collected on the participation of indigenous people by means of forms and attendance sheets that indicate the number of IP participants in barangay assemblies, trainings, and other activities. This resulted in better tracking of program impacts for indigenous peoples. New data was collected from the field to validate population, ethnicity, and geographic coverage of the indigenous communities. The data was used to better understand the situation of the indigenous peoples in project areas. (vi) For projects that involved infrastructure, an IP-sensitive pre-construction conference with the technical facilitators—engineers and other technical staff— was held to ensure that subprojects were designed and agreed upon by the indigenous communities.

B. Compliance with IP Safeguards: Empirical Findings Based on the Sites Visited 18. Meaningful Consultation and Participation of Stakeholders. Borrowers are required to implement indigenous peoples safeguards for all projects supported by ADB where indigenous peoples are affected. The safeguards oblige DSWD ―to carry out meaningful consultation with affected Indigenous Peoples that establish a context-specific strategy for inclusive and participatory consultation, including approaches of identifying appropriate Indigenous Peoples representatives, and consultation methods appropriate to the social and cultural values of the affected Indigenous Peoples communities.‖6

19. The program systematized its capacity building program for developing culturally competent project staff. Capability building activities were conducted with sessions that included culture sensitivity, orientations on the Indigenous Peoples Framework, the Environmental and Social Management Framework, and the legal framework that defines indigenous peoples’ rights. A detailed IP facilitation guide, Implementing Culture Sensitive Community Empowerment Activity Cycle (CEAC) with Indigenous Communities: A Field Guide, was disseminated to all ACTs working with indigenous communities. The guidebook is designed to

6 ADB SPS, Appendix 3. 55.

12 serve as a resource for ACTs to help them facilitate CDD in a manner that strengthens indigenous culture and institutions, enabling genuine self-determined development where communities fully participate in all decision making processes. The program also systematized its coaching and mentoring program featuring learning sessions during cluster meetings, area spot visits, and area simulation activities. Training on the Community Empowerment Activity Cycle paid special attention to ensuring the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples during all stages of the CEAC.

20. A significant contributing factor to the favorable program outputs achieved was the fact that area coordinating teams integrated culture sensitive facilitation approaches during the various stages of the CEAC. Communities felt that ACTs were helpful and able to provide adequate assistance during CEAC activities. The strategies employed allowed indigenous peoples to fully participate in KC-NCDDP, where they felt they had a genuine and crucial role in all phases of the program. Those strategies included the following: (i) Written communication sent to the barangay and tribal officials was in the local language. (ii) ACTs conducted house-to-house visits, making sure that the indigenous communities were fully informed about the program. (iii) Visual aids and presentations used during activities and discussions were in the local language. (iv) ACTs adapted their facilitation methods depending on whether the indigenous people comprised either a majority or a minority in a barangay or municipality. Where the IPs are a minority, ACTs specifically engaged their leaders and conducted separate consultations with the IP communities without the presence of non-IPs. Where the IPs comprised the majority population, there was no need for ACTs to conduct separate consultations, but they saw to it that isolated communities were informed.

21. Identifying Representatives based on Indigenous Decision Making Practices. Indigenous peoples have their own concepts of delegation of power, authority, and representation integral to their decision making processes. Community facilitators who are outsiders to indigenous culture must understand that in most cases indigenous decision making practices are different from those of the mainstream society. ACTs respected those practices and community facilitators regularly consulted tribal leaders, who are held in high regard and depended on by community members. Their involvement helped guarantee the participation of indigenous representatives.

22. Indigenous leaders were able to influence project prioritization at the barangay and municipal levels, including the Criteria Setting Workshop and Municipal Inter-Barangay Forum. The leaders represented their communities and were tasked to speak for them during assemblies and other venues where major decisions are made. Indigenous representatives were always given the opportunity to share their perspectives and express their concerns in barangay assemblies and municipal forums. Frequent involvement in KC activities often helps indigenous communities develop confidence in dealing with non-IP programs, institutions, and individuals.

23. The external evaluator found in all twelve sites visited, indigenous leaders affirmed that KC-NCDDP provided the opportunity to participate in decision making and offered access to community projects that address their felt needs. The process of problem identification and subproject prioritization represented an important milestone in addressing the historic injustice suffered by indigenous communities---the social and economic marginalization and

13 dispossession of land and resources that prevented the exercise of their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests.7 KC-NCDDP represented a recognition by the government of indigenous peoples’ right to participate in and benefit from development.

24. Compliance with Social Safeguard Instruments. In accordance with the provisions in the Environment and Social Management Framework, communities must formulate an Environment and Social Management Plan for their subproject. The ESMP is a safeguard instrument wherein potential impacts, risks and mitigation measures are identified. In preparing the document, ACTs facilitated meetings where community members analyzed a proposed subproject and assessed how it might impact their cultural and economic systems. They formulated detailed ESMPs that included the application of environmental and social safeguards.

25. KC-NCDDP maintains an internal monitoring system that effectively tracks the progress of subprojects and identifies any gaps in ESMP implementation. Monitoring includes regular meetings to analyze, interpret and synthesize findings based on safeguards documentation and site visits. The program has established a unified tracking tool and database that includes project safeguard documents and an IP directory. Monitoring forms have been recently enhanced and the database now includes (i) indigenous leadership structure; (ii) average income of IP households; (iii) sex-disaggregating number of IP attendees in assemblies; (iv) number of IP beneficiaries per project; and (iv) number of IP workers involved in subproject construction, the payment received, and nature of jobs performed.

26. Gaining the Consent of Indigenous Communities. All KC-NCDDP projects involving indigenous communities within ancestral domains undergo a consultative process based on the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework. DSWD is committed to free, prior and informed consultation with the affected indigenous communities to identify their views and ascertain if there is broad community support for the project.8 Tribal leaders must also grant their consent and ensure that no culturally significant sites will be disturbed by the project.

27. To facilitate the FPIC validation process as required by the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, DSWD established a partnership with NCIP for the implementation of KC-NCDDP in areas with indigenous populations. As defined by a memorandum of agreement entered into by the two agencies, a national technical working group and regional technical working groups (RTWG) were formed. The TWGs coordinate activities at the regional level to address issues related to the implementation of KC-NCDDP. The RTWGs served as a venue for the sharing of data, the resolution of programmatic concerns, and provision of logistical support for the assessment and validation of subprojects. The agencies strove to maintain open lines of communication to address issues concerning validation, expedite the issuance of certification (Certification Precondition or Certification of Non-Overlap), and resolve other operational challenges. The efforts were successful in improving coordination and communication between the two organizations.

28. Grievance Redress Mechanisms. In general, if a grievance involves only indigenous community members, customary conflict resolution practices are used. But if a complaint concerns the program, KC-NCDDP grievance redress mechanisms are invoked. However, in the twelve sites evaluated, there has yet to be a major grievance filed. Most concerns involved

7 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). 2007. 8 Department of Social Welfare and Development. Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework, KC-NCDDP. 2013.

14 questions about project implementation, and these were immediately addressed by the ACT during assembly meetings and community visits.

29. Institutional Arrangements. The program successfully instituted the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) at the national, regional, and local levels. Two tiers of technical assistance were established aimed at enhancing the implementation of IP safeguards and improving the way the program engages indigenous communities. The first was assistance provided by the NPMO to the RPMOs. The second tier of technical assistance was that provided by the RPMOs to the ACTs. The national and regional staff are well versed in the IPPF and emphasize culture sensitivity in engaging indigenous communities. As a result, innovations were introduced that allowed indigenous representatives to influence decision making, especially in the allocation of project resources. The ACTs invested time to build the capacity of indigenous leaders to express themselves during assemblies, to articulate their needs, and ultimately, influence other stakeholders during the MIBF.

30. These efforts also had an influence on local governments, which were awakened to the unique needs of indigenous communities in their barangays and municipalities. Social investigations and other analytical tools used also revealed that indigenous communities had little access to development programs because of their geographic isolation and marginalization. LGUs helped communities prepare their proposals and meet other technical requirements of the proposed subprojects. In many instances they also provided local counterpart funding for subprojects in IP communities.

C. Impact Assessment Based on KC-NCDDP Project Outputs 31. The Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework includes both positive and negative anticipated project impacts based on a social impact assessment that was conducted to serve as a baseline for the IPPF. In the IPPF, the positive impacts were projected to be: (i) communities will have access to the projects they identify, (ii) IP communities will have better access to basic services, and (iii) IP communities can better participate in decision-making in the barangay and municipality. Anticipated negative effects if consultation and participation in planning and implementation are not IP sensitive, appropriate to IKSPs and customary laws include (i) subprojects may not be appropriately designed for the IP community, (ii) communities may be further marginalized from barangay processes, and (iii) there could be a lack of or low participation of the community, particularly women.9 This section explores KC-NCDDP impacts based on project outputs in the sites monitored.

Table 4: Types of Subprojects in the Monitoring Sites

Region Community Subproject Type of Project Region VI (Iloilo) Farm to market road  infrastructure Solar panel with lighting  livelihood Concreting of barangay road development

Region VII (Bohol) Rehabilitation of barangay hall  infrastructure Concreting of access road

Region IV-B (Occ. Mindoro) Balay Tirigsunan (tribal hall)  infrastructure Establishing signs within the ancestral domain  ancestral domain Birthing center delineation

9 Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework, KC-NCDDP.

Region Community Subproject Type of Project Region IV-A (Quezon) Delineation of Ancestral Domain  ancestral domain Tribal hall delineation Livelihood projects (hog raising, fabrication of  livelihood paddle boats, palay production) development

Region X (Bukidnon) Classroom  infrastructure Rehabilitation of farm to market road Day care center

Region XI (Compostela Barangay hall  infrastructure Valley) Classroom  livelihood Health station development Community activity center Corn mill building and corn mill facilities Multi-purpose pavement with storage facility

Region V (Sorsogon) 3 classroom school building  infrastructure Pathway with streetlights Evacuation Center

Region XIII (Surigao del Barangay Hall  Infrastructure Sur) Community center and legislative building Two classrooms at Andap National High School Health station Community activity center Corn mill building and corn mill facilities Multi-purpose pavement with storage facility

1. Project Output 1: CDD Subprojects Selected, Implemented and Completed.

32. Table 4 above shows that by far the most common subprojects proposed by communities involve infrastructure—roads, classrooms, tribal halls, health stations, and others. This is a clear indication that social infrastructure and basic services are needed in indigenous communities. As an example, the solar lighting subproject in Batad, Iloilo allowed Ati women to work at night preparing their herbal products to sell in the market. They were able to increase their production with the lighting, which resulted in added income for the family. The Eskaya of Pilar, Bohol are truly grateful for their farm to market road subproject. In the past, their produce spoiled because they could not get it to market on time. But with the new road, that no longer happens and the farmers are reaping the economic benefits. But for indigenous people, a simple infrastructure project can represent more than the physical presence of a building, a water system, or a road. The Mangyans of Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro view their balay tirigsunan, or tribal hall, as a statement of their identity as indigenous people and an affirmation of their right of ownership over their ancestral territory.

33. In the past, many indigenous peoples resisted mainstream education because it was an institution of the outsiders, of those who sought to oppress and grab their land and resources; they wanted to have as little as possible to do with the mainstream. But as lowland populations expanded into areas formerly occupied exclusively by indigenous peoples, with the inevitable acculturation that accompanied physical proximity, indigenous peoples embraced education, viewing it as a powerful tool to address the marginalization and discrimination they experience. This is one of the reasons that many of the subprojects in the monitoring sites involved the

16 construction of classrooms. Indigenous parents want their children to be able to read and write and do math so they won’t be taken advantage of.

34. In Regions IV-A and IV-B indigenous communities went beyond the usual infrastructure projects, opting for subprojects that address land tenure issues. The Hanunuo, Gubatnon, and Ratagnon communities of Occidental Mindoro installed signs at the edges of their ancestral domain to inform outsiders of its exact boundaries. The Agta-Dumagat of Polillo Island chose to fund the lengthy ancestral domain delineation process as their subproject. Issues involving land tenure are among the most common problems facing indigenous peoples, so it is not surprising that indigenous communities have decided to dedicate their subprojects to securing tenurial security.

35. In all the sites included in the external monitoring indigenous communities conceptualized, designed, and implemented subprojects tailored to their specific needs. Unanimously, they expressed satisfaction with both the results and processes of the program. Therefore, the external evaluator concludes that KC-NCDDP has made a significant contribution to the advancement of indigenous peoples’ capacity to participate in development processes. The program is highly relevant to the development needs of target populations. The strategies for consultation and participation in planning and implementation are culturally sensitive and appropriate for indigenous knowledge systems and practices. They have resulted in improved inclusion and a high participation rate of indigenous peoples in barangay and municipal assemblies. Interventions adequately addressed the anticipated negative program impacts and were effective in engaging indigenous communities based on their social and cultural realities. Thus, the expected project outputs were achieved.

2. Project Output 2: Institutional and Organizational Capacity Strengthened

36. The Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework states that at the end of the project indigenous communities (i) should have acquired project development and management skills, (ii) enhanced opportunities for technical assistance to develop their areas, and (iii) LGUs will be better equipped to serve the needs of indigenous communities.

37. The case of the Manobo of Sitio Mam-on, Barangay Tubo-tubo, Cagwait, Surigao del Sur demonstrates how indigenous peoples acquired project development and management skills during the KC-NCDDP project cycle. According to the local government, Visayans make up 85% of the population of the municipality and the remaining 15%, Manobo, most of whom live in barangays Tub-tubo and Bacolod. The short case study in Box 1 illustrates how KC- NCDDP provided the opportunity for this isolated community to access development funds. It describes how community volunteers were provided training that equipped them with the skills they needed to implement and manage the subproject.

Box 1: The Case of the Mam-on Manobo: The Process of Acquiring a Tribal Hall

In 2016, the local executives of Barangay Tubo-tubo called a general assembly to discuss a new government program that was about to be launched in the municipality called KC-NCDDP. Sitio Mam- on was a long way from the barangay center, and with no regular means of transportation getting to the barangay hall to attend the meeting was expensive. As a result only a few from the Manobo community participated in the First Barangay Assembly. But after the assembly the DSWD community facilitator assigned to the barangay visited Sitio Mam-on and conducted a separate consultation with the Manobo community. During the consultation the community facilitator and the sitio leader, who had attended the barangay assembly, explained what KC-NCDDP was all about and that a total of ₱8 million would be available to address development needs in Cagwait Municipality. She encouraged the Manobo to participate in the program and identify a project that would respond to their needs.

When they received the notice, the Manobo of Sitio Mam-on did not mind walking several kilometers to attend the Second Barangay Assembly. During the meeting the tribal leader explained that since 1994 they had been pushing for Mam-on to be given projects. He said that they could no longer use their tribal hall for its intended purpose because of the lack of infrastructure it was being used as a temporary school. Addressing the officials, the tribal leader stressed that the barangay proper had already benefitted from several projects and it was high time that sitio Mam-on received its fair share.

During the Municipal Inter-Barangay Forum, where a consensus is reached on which project proposals in the municipality will be funded, the Manobo from Sitio Mam-on, outnumbered by Visayans from other barangays, were nervous. But the tribal leaders once again spoke out and pleaded with the representatives from all the barangays in the municipality to prioritize their needs. The barangay captains and other representatives agreed to prioritize the Manobos’ project, a first in the municipality. The Manobo were elated that at long last their voices were finally heard.

The community facilitator then explained that in order to implement the subproject the Manobo need to designate community volunteers to manage all aspects of the project. Using their own decision making process the community identified the volunteers, who attended a series of trainings and workshops dealing with all aspects of project planning, implementation and monitoring. The volunteers were overwhelmingly appreciative of the opportunity to learn the skills they needed to set up, then run their own project. Aside from knowledge, they also gained confidence from being taught how to approach local officials and other people, then actually interacting with them during the course of project implementation. Community volunteers did not mind sacrificing their time for the sake of their community. It was important that, for the first time, they had access to development funds and no longer felt neglected by their local government.

38. As demonstrated in the Mam-on Manobo case, the consultative processes of KC- NCDDP gave the indigenous people the opportunity to voice their development needs in the presence of the LGU and the wider community. They had made numerous requests to the LGU for development assistance that were never heeded. But because KC-NCDDP is an official government program with consultation as one of its main strategies, and the community’s request was made in that context in the presence of officials and representatives from the whole municipality, the circumstances were different. People realized that the indigenous communities had been deprived of government-provided development assistance for a very long time and decided it was time for things to change. The Mam-on experiences and experiences in other municipalities serve as evidence that through KC-NCDDP, indigenous peoples acquire project development and management skills.

Box 2: Stories from the Field: How the Project Built the Capacity of the Project Participants

The following are actual excerpts from transcripts of interviews with community volunteers conducted during the second semester external monitoring visit.

Lowell: Personally, I like the KALAHI process because I am a living witness to how the program taps the participation of the community in the identification, design, and implementation of the project from start to finish. As community volunteers, we experienced many hardships, especially during procurement. We were not familiar with the terminology used and were shy about asking questions. But we made it! We feel proud of our accomplishments. I now realize how important it is that people from the community are involved throughout the project cycle; there is transparency and no corruption. I wished all government programs would be run like KALAHI.

Ariel: The box culvert has been a huge help to our farmers in getting our products from farm to market. I am thankful and appreciative of KALAHI because aside from the project itself, there is active participation from the grassroots.

Evangeline: I could see how happy our community was. It was so satisfying that people learned how to manage all aspects of the project cycle. It was life-changing, not only because of the projects themselves, but because of the attitude of the community: everyone wanted to participate. People are more than happy to volunteer without expecting anything in return. We saw a huge improvement in the way our community members cooperate with each other. We now have a water system, solar power lighting, and a corn mill. We were also elated when we got an award recognizing our efforts as community volunteers.

39. In the municipality of Pilar, Bohol the local government has extensive experience implementing the KALAHI-CIDSS program and highly values the CDD approach with its principles of consultation and community participation. Recognizing its effectiveness, the municipality reports it now employs CDD methods in all its development projects, not only KC- NCDDP. The administration has found that utilizing the approach, communities develop a strong sense of ownership of a project, as they manage it from the very beginning. Projects are initiated in response to problems identified by the majority of their beneficiaries, who also identify the solutions. They are not the product of political whim. These are important contributions of the CDD approach that fight corruption and promote the transparency and participatory processes espoused by the local executives, of which the indigenous Eskaya communities have been direct beneficiaries.

40. In Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro, the Hanunuo, Ratagnon, and Gubatnon spent fifteen years advocating for the recognition of their ancestral territories. Their efforts paid off when the Aquino government awarded them a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title in December 2010. The local government recognized the importance of ancestral domain to the indigenous communities by supporting KC-NCDDP subprojects that helped to strengthen their claim to their traditional territory. This is an indicator that the government is making an effort to better serve indigenous communities.

41. The external evaluator found that there are efforts by a number LGUs to be more responsive to the needs of indigenous communities, but the results were mixed. Some LGUs take a more progressive approach in institutionalizing CDD in local planning, which provides more opportunities to access development funds for their constituents. Other LGUs, however, are only beginning an attempt to involve indigenous peoples in the planning process. Therefore, the assessment is that the area of institutional and organizational capacity strengthening needs

19 more attention to be responsive to the unique needs of indigenous communities, making this output less than efficient and likely sustainable.

3. Project Output 3: Program Management and M&E Systems Enhanced

42. According to the IPPF Output 3 the program’s positive effects are projected to be: (i) better data will be collected to understand the profile, characteristics and needs of IP communities, (ii) there will be better tracking of program outcomes and impacts for IPs, and (iii) there will be lessons learned in the area of effective ways of engaging IPs in KC-NCDDP. With reliable data describing the situation of indigenous peoples, project implementers are able to track the outcomes of the program and its impact on indigenous communities. Anticipated negative impacts include non-IP sensitive data being misinterpreted, leading to further marginalization of indigenous communities. Also anticipated as a hindrance is the difficulty in transposing social or cultural-focused qualitative data to quantitative, suitable for inclusion in the IP database.

43. KC-NCDDP has made an important contribution with its on-the-ground data gathering activities, greatly adding to the existing data describing the overall situation of indigenous peoples in areas covered by the program. In the absence of a national data set describing the ethno-linguistic groups in the country, their number, location, and social, economic and political situation, program staff collected their own data. This served as the basis for area coordinating teams to identify the most appropriate strategies to engage indigenous communities.

44. The data on the number of IP households listed in the first column of Table 5 was collected at the ground level, encoded, and entered into the database by the regional team, then passed to the national monitoring and evaluation team. The data is particularly useful in helping determine the most appropriate facilitation strategy to use. For example, In Brgy. Lundag one hundred percent of the population is Eskaya, so a consultation separate from other residents of the barangay was not necessary. In Brgy. Tubo-tubo, however, the Manobo population is only 7% of the total barangay population so a separate consultation was conducted to ensure that community members could express themselves freely and the facilitation methods be tailored to their unique situation.

Table 5: Number of Indigenous Peoples Households in the Monitoring Sites

No. of IP Estimated IP 2015 Percent IP Monitoring Site Households Population Census Population Mabini, Burdeos, Quezon 46 230 1,299 18% Caw-i, Batad, Iloilo - - 797 - Lundag, Pilar, Bohol 160 800 789 100% San Luis, Malitbog, Bukidnon 1,241 6,205 6,477 96% Paclolo, Magsaysay, Occ. Mindoro 244 1,220 2,857 43% Andap, New Bataan, Compostela Valley 911 4,555 7,460 61% Tandawan, New Bataan, Compostela Val. 214 1,070 1,490 72% Dancalan, Donsol, Sorsogon 139 695 3,061 23% San Rafael, Bulusan, Sorsogon 14 70 1,129 6% San Roque, Bulusan, Sorsogon 65 325 2,378 14% Tubu-tubo, Cagwait, Surigao del Sur 38 190 2,644 7% Port Lamon, Hinatuan, Surigao del Sur 68 340 1,460 23%

45. The household data is useful, not only in identifying the most appropriate facilitation strategy but also verifying who the genuine indigenous people are, especially when non- indigenous individuals change their ethnic affiliation in order to access government services. This has happened in Donsol, Sorsogon. Though this is not the case in other areas, there must be efforts to guarantee that the program will reach those who are the rightful beneficiaries. The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act defined indigenous peoples based on principles of self- identification, ascription by others, descent, language, and resistance to the political, social and cultural inroads of colonization. ACTs should have an in-depth understanding of these principles to avoid confusion about who are the indigenous peoples.

Table 6: IP Participation Rate in Barangay Assemblies

First Quarter Region 2016 2017 2018 IV-A 19% 54% 50% IV-B 55% 53% 54% V 50% 72% 49% VI 27% 62% 54% VII 34% 61% 69% X 27% 34% 45% XI 68% 63% 63% XIII 55% 17% 50%

46. Statistical analysis of demographic data has its limitations; it may shed light on the socio- economic or political situation of indigenous communities in a barangay or municipality but it is unable to provide a window on more intangible aspects, such as worldview or indigenous decision making practices. This limitation is illustrated in Table 6, which details the IP participation rate in barangay assemblies.

47. One of KC-NCDDP’s key performance indicators states that an average participation rate of 45% is expected for indigenous people in program assemblies and forums. The data in Table 6 shows a dramatic decline in the participation rate in Region XIII from 2016 to 2017. The numbers alone are not enough to explain the drop. This is a classic example that demonstrates the limitation of quantitative data to reveal the real factors that most likely caused the low participation rate in 2017

48. Some indigenous communities in Region XIII are in conflict affected areas and circumstances where it is risky to travel. In these instances the tribal leader conducts a consultative meeting in the community where, in a process common to most indigenous peoples, a consensus is reached concerning relevant topics or issues. When the leader attends the assembly meeting in the barangay or municipality, he represents the voice of his community. Even though the leader represents the whole community the data capture system only records one community representative. Indigenous decision making, the role of authority, representation, and delegation of power are invisible to the database. Indigenous decision making and representation are different from mainstream practices and the differences cannot be captured in numbers. This is where the role of the Social Development Unit is critical, as it imperative that these social and cultural elements are integrated in the M&E data. The two units can meet and devise ways to quantify the qualitative, usually descriptive data that represents the true realities on the ground.

49. The external evaluator found that there are efforts on the part of the national and regional M&E units to strengthen monitoring systems with, among others, revised data capture forms to represent general demographic data. One significant innovation on the part of the M&E unit is the inclusion of indigenous leadership structure in the data gathering tools. But the challenge for the unit is how to better quantify and interpret the practices of indigenous peoples that have a bearing on their successful participation in KC-NCDDP. Quantitative data are easily used to measure success or failure. Qualitative data, on the other hand, can be difficult to capture in numerical form, but provide deeper insights into people’s behavior. In order to determine the often complex factors that influence the overall participation rate, the challenge is to develop an M&E system that combines both qualitative and quantitative data.

IV. CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING IP SAFEGUARDS IN KC-NCDDP

A. Revisiting the Results of the First Semester External Monitoring 50. There were five main issues identified during the first semester external monitoring. Following are the responses from the NPMO to the identified issues.

Issue Response of NPMO A. Quality of Technical Assistance 1. Guidance from the NPMO reportedly changes Communication protocols are established constantly, causing a ripple effect through the but the execution is with the Regional RPMO down to the ACT level. Communication Offices and will depend on their context. protocols are sometimes bypassed. As an example, the RPMO would directly communicate with the ACT without consulting the CDOs or the SRPMOs, resulting in confusion about program guidelines and requirements. 2. The lack of consistent guidelines and directives issued by the NPMO to RPMOs has resulted in a perceived lack of clear direction from management. 3. Some specialists in the NPMO are new to KC- Orientation is provided for new staff in the NCDDP, while there are RPMO staff who are NPMO providing TA to Regional Offices. seasoned veterans of the program and have extensive experience implementing CDD. In most cases, when novice NPMO program staff visit the regional offices they are able to provide helpful input concerning the technical aspects of the program but little having to do with program direction. The regions have valued past input of the NPMO, including initiatives such as the IP Summit, which gives IP representatives the opportunity to express their concerns, build partnerships, and build strategies for the introduction of innovations to improve the way the program engages indigenous communities. 4. RPMO staff value, and are very knowledgeable in Continuous coaching and mentoring is the workings of the IP Framework; they understand being provided to staff to improve their the how the safeguards meant to protect the rights appreciation and integration of the thematic of indigenous people work. But ACTs have a area vis a vis CEAC activities. limited understanding and appreciation for

Issue Response of NPMO integrating IP perspectives in the CEAC.

5. The trainings on cultural sensitivity and integrating This is being addressed through on-site IP perspectives in KC-NCDDP are sometimes coaching and mentoring sessions with the conducted too late in the project cycle and no ACT. longer relevant for the ACTs. There are no monitoring systems in place to determine whether the knowledge and skills gained during the IP- related trainings are being applied at the ground level. B. Implementing ESMP, IPP Objectives, and Approaches 1. The ESMP template is complicated and some parts NPMO issued a simplified ESMP template of it are not applicable. The ESMP template is very and a facilitator’s guide for filling out the detailed and covers many aspects of safeguards ESMP. and subproject implementation. But there are parts of the template that are not applicable to most subprojects and ACTs feel the template needs to be revised. 2. Safeguards involve too much paperwork. Documentation is the only reliable means to Indigenous communities find that Kalahi projects ensure that project safeguards are entail numerous requirements that demand an implemented. Only the most necessary and inordinate amount of time and energy to comply crucial parts of the ESMP are required. with. CEFs exert efforts to explain the ESMP, but the process is time consuming, especially in isolated IP communities where few know how to read or write. 3. There is a lack of experience and understanding of Continuous coaching and mentoring and indigenous peoples’ culture and the unique issues proper matching of staff assignment they face. Because of their limited exposure to IP culture and the situations indigenous peoples face, NPMO have mechanisms to assess needed ACTs are not confident filling out the ESMP tool, trainings to be conducted especially when it comes to the legal framework and other social safeguards issues. ACTs receive Example: training on the CEAC, but due to their lack of Trends of subproject being proposed in IP orientation on the culture and overall situation of areas. indigenous people, they are not prepared to provide the technical assistance indigenous Participation rate of IP households communities need. Coordination and collaboration with NCIP 4. Rapid turnover of KC-NCDPP staff. ACTs are Continuous provision of training to program oriented on the ESMP, but due to rapid staff staff, RPMOs are encouraged to always turnover, safeguards instruments need to be include safeguards training in their workplan constantly reviewed and new staff oriented.

5. Discrepancy in the level of understanding of Addressed in collaboration and partnership safeguards processes at the community level. with NCIP Communities claim they are consulted during all stages of subprojects, but in terms of understanding laws and other relevant policies, such the IPRA and FPIC, only the Datus and other

Issue Response of NPMO tribal leaders are familiar with the statutes.

C. Process Efficiency: Ensure the Meaningful Participation and Effective Engagement of Indigenous Communities 1. The time allotted for CEAC activities is too limited. Project timeline to be considered in the CDD CEAC activities are sometimes rushed because the Successor Program amount of time allocated by the program management for their completion is inadequate. Because of the limited time allotted for each CEAC process, activities from successive processes often overlap, resulting in fast tracking of activities in order to comply with the specified time line. Fast tracked activities sometimes result in poor quality implementation and facilitation.

2. Many Community Volunteers feel that KC-NCDDP Enhancement of guidelines and processes are overly tedious, with an abundance simplification of forms were conducted in paper work to complete and documents to prepare. order to suit regional context The amount of paperwork the job requires, in addition to the many community members to visit and meetings to facilitate or attend, causes some volunteers to resign.  Area coordinating teams feel that the KC’s many documentary requirements keep them from spending quality time in the community, and compromises their effectiveness.  The large number of barangays each CEF is responsible for, and the volume of paperwork required of them, does not allow for truly facilitative engagement with communities. Basically, CEFs do not have enough time to visit project areas regularly. D. Partnership with NCIP 1. The lack of human resource on the part of NCIP Validation activities are being conducted makes it difficult to fast-track the validation process back to back with CEAC activities in order to mandated by the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of maximize available resources. 1997. Coordination between NCIP and DSWD personnel is generally good, but due to NCIP’s budgetary and human resource constraints final validation is often delayed, which contributes to setbacks in subproject implementation. 2. Community Volunteers and ACTs facilitate the Project timeline to be considered in the CDD securing of the Certificate of Non-overlap (CNO) Successor Program and Certificate of Precondition (CP) from NCIP, placing pressure on them as they try to adhere to the project timeline. 3. Lack of coordination and delay on the part of This issue is being addressed during joint DSWD in accomplishing the requirements needed DSWD-NCIP RTWG meetings. for the CP/CNO. Delays are often caused by the lack of documents. There have been instances

Issue Response of NPMO where documentary requirements were partially Quarterly report is required to be submitted fulfilled and turned in to NCIP, but the remaining to NPMO to track progress in this area and documents were never submitted because a new provide technical assistance to RPMOs, as KC staff was assigned to the area who was needed. unfamiliar with the process and ignorant of what had already transpired. The lack of proper turnover causes delays in completion and submission of documents to the NCIP. E. Sustaining the IP Perspectives in Facilitating CDD in IP areas 1. The program has produced staff trained to develop To be considered in the CDD Successor and implement the IP Framework using culture Program sensitive approaches to engage indigenous communities. But since staff are project based, they will only remain employed by DSWD for as long as KC-NCDDP exists as a government program. At present, KC-NCDPP has no clear strategy to develop the capacity of LGUs to design and implement an IP framework. 2. The role of the LGUs is crucial for the sustainability Culture sensitivity training is also being of KC-NCDDP projects. LGUs must be trained in conducted for MCTs and LGUs. cultural sensitivity and appreciate the critical role played by the IP Framework. LGU permanent staff should be trained as focal persons committed to I P work. Culture sensitivity training should focus on Municipal Inter-Agency Committee (MIAC) members, since they hold permanent positions in the municipality rather than the Municipal Coordinating Team (MCT), who come and go depending on the current administration. 3. There is a feeling of uncertainty at the regional DSWD IP framework has been drafted and level concerning the direction of the Program when is being finalized by the Department. it comes to IP concerns and the mainstreaming of IP perspectives in KC-NCDPP. The regional offices get their directives that define the thrust of the Program from the DSWD Central Office, especially the NPMO. There was a general feeling at the regional level in the five evaluation sites that the change of leadership that transpired in 2017 has posed challenges to the continuation of prior initiatives to integrate IP perspectives in KC- NCDDP.

B. Key Issues

51. The findings of the second semester external monitoring closely resemble those of the first semester monitoring, the issues being very similar. These issues, discussed below, will form the basis for recommendations for improved policy, project design and project strategies that will result in enhanced project impacts and ultimately, improved provision of services for indigenous communities.

1. Program Design a. Lack of an Overall Institutional and Policy Framework for Engaging Indigenous Peoples

52. The regional DSWD offices are dependent on the directives of the national office for their policy direction, and the absence of an overall national framework for engaging indigenous peoples affects the program direction of the regional offices. At present, there is no clear-cut strategy that defines how IP perspectives can be integrated into the overall organizational vision and direction of the department, or how existing approaches can be enhanced and expanded to provide culture appropriate services to indigenous communities. DSWD has a strong commitment to address indigenous peoples’ issues and the department is continuously broadening its efforts to respond to the needs of indigenous peoples, especially in geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas. But the lack of an institutional framework to ensure IP perspectives are integrated in the program will make it difficult for regional offices to address the issue of sustainability after the program ends. A clear institutional framework with dedicated resources is a requisite condition for the establishment of a successful strategy for mainstreaming IP perspectives in the institution.

53. Examining a topic comparable to that of indigenous peoples, gender issues are well integrated in DSWD and there is a departmental goal to achieve gender equality in all agency activities. The bureaucracy is strongly committed to achieving its gender targets and has established the necessary bureaucratic structure, programs, and budget to be able to meet the goals. A similar institutional approach is needed to ensure that IP perspectives are integrated in the department’s vision, mission, and goals. But unlike gender mainstreaming, the integration of IP perspectives needs to be done at the program level.

54. The adoption of an IP lens in KC-NCDDP has benefitted indigenous communities considerably, with the program now recognizing and responding to indigenous peoples’ issues, such as the right to ancestral domain, indigenous representation, and equal access to basic government services. There are efforts to develop more culturally competent staff capable of facilitating the program in a culturally sensitive manner. Program staff educate other stakeholders on effective and appropriate methods of engaging indigenous communities. But these strategies are not yet institutionalized, as permanent structures have yet to be put in place to ensure indigenous peoples’ perspectives are integrated at all levels of program implementation. DSWD will find it difficult to sustain its successes in engaging indigenous peoples if this policy issue is not addressed.

b. Insufficient Time for Quality Facilitation

55. A community empowerment facilitator (CEF), the KC-NCDDP staff who represents the program’s ―boots on the ground,‖ usually has responsibility for four to five barangays in a municipality. This workload often poses challenges for the ACT, as reaching out to geographically isolated indigenous communities requires time for the travel alone. Often these communities have little or no experience with participatory development programs and extra time is needed to adequately explain the program’s objectives and processes. For anyone, learning new concepts and terminologies takes time, and CEFs are trained to make sure community members come to understand the program during community consultations. Since KC-NCDDP documentation requirements must be accomplished within the program’s limited timeframe, CEFs often end up rushing the community facilitation process to finish the considerable amount of paperwork involved. It is a common concern among RPMO staff that

26 one year is not enough to complete all the CEAC activities and still obtain optimal outcomes, as ACTs are often forced to take shortcuts. Future KC-NCDDP program design should allow adequate time for both unhurried facilitation of CEAC processes and completion of documentation requirements without sacrificing the quality of the services rendered.

2. Challenges

a. Lack of Capacity of NCIP to Handle the Size and Scope of the Project

56. The NCIP administrative order governing free and prior informed consent states: where a ―…plan, program, project or activity is for the delivery of basic services or livelihood projects involving community,‖ it ―shall be subjected to a validation process.‖ This validation process, to be conducted by NCIP and resulting in a Certification Precondition,10 has in some cases delayed the implementation of subprojects in indigenous communities. The validation is a less stringent version of FPIC11 that does not require the exhaustive field based investigation process and is a basic right, enshrined in the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, that indigenous peoples have been fighting for for decades.

57. DSWD managers are aware that securing a Certification Precondition for each subproject involving indigenous communities entails bureaucratic processes within the NCIP that are beyond their control. In order to fast track the validation process, the DSWD national office entered into a memorandum of agreement with NCIP that lays out the steps and responsibilities of both agencies for the facilitation of FPIC in KC-NCDDP areas. To concretize the MoA, technical working groups at the national and regional levels were created to ensure all concerns regarding the validation process are addressed. The partnership between NCIP and DSWD personnel is generally good and has resulted in (i) the development of guidelines for how to fast track the validation process; (ii) provision by the NCIP central office of a small fund to help some regions process requests for validation; (iii) sharing of information on indigenous populations in the target municipalities including leadership and other matters concerning ancestral domains; and (iv) NCIP serving as a resource for how to engage indigenous communities in a culturally sensitive manner.

58. Though there was a great deal of collaboration between the two agencies, in the end it was the lack of human and financial resources on the part of NCIP that most often caused delays in the issuance of final validation, occasionally contributing to setbacks in subproject implementation. NCIP was not prepared to respond to the sheer number of subprojects needing validation even though DSWD made funds available for validation activities.

10 A Certification Precondition (CP) is issued if there are indigenous persons affected; a Certificate of Non-Overlap (CNO) is issued if it is determined that no indigenous people are affected by the proposed project. 11 The full, much more extensive FPIC/Field Based Investigation regimen is required for concessions, licenses, permits or leases, production-sharing agreements, or other undertakings affecting ancestral domains. This is not to be confused with the much less stringent validation process, which also falls under the purview of FPIC.

Table 7: List of Issuance of Certificate of Pre-Condition12 First Quarter 2018

% of No. of Validated Validated No. of CPs No. of CNO Total CP and SPs with REGION SPs Issued issued CNO CP/CNO CAR 284 284 0 284 100% I 142 81 35 116 82% IV-CALBARZON 14 0 7 7 50% IV-MIMAROPA 75 5 17 22 29% V 61 33 4 37 61% VI 157 30 124 154 98% NIR 7 2 0 2 29% VII 21 2 0 2 10% IX 643 348 15 363 56% X 63 0 0 0 0% XI 654 274 200 474 72% XII 410 66 147 213 52% XIII 1296 170 937 1107 85% Total 3827 1295 1486 2781 73% SP = subproject; CP = Certification Precondition; CNO = Certificate of Non-Overlap. Source: KC-NCDDP

59. Table 7 shows that the regions with the highest rate of issuance of Certificate Precondition are CAR (100%) and Regions VI (98%), XIII (85%), I (82%), and XI (72%). Based on key informant interviews, an important reason behind the success in those regions was that RTWGs developed mechanisms to fast-track the validation process. One such method involved a municipal-wide consultation where information needed for the validation was gathered in lieu of NCIP personnel separately visiting each proposed community subproject. In other instances a blanket Certification Precondition was issued per municipality. A third method employed for streamlining the validation process was also issuing one CP for a municipality but listing all of the individual subprojects. There were certainly challenges encountered, but good coordination between DSWD and NCIP resulted in strategies to fast-tack the validation process without sacrificing the quality of consultations with community members.

60. One can see that Regions X (0%), VII (10%), and MIMAROPA (29%) clearly had problems issuing CPs and CNOs. Possible reasons behind this were captured in an interview with a high ranking official in the NCIP National Office who shared: ―We were overwhelmed with the number of projects that we needed to validate. We couldn’t respond to the large number of requests since we don’t have the human resources or a budget allocation specifically for FPIC. Normally, it is the requesting entity that shoulders the expenses. The partnership with DSWD has been a challenge for us since we have our own projects with their own timelines that we also needed to complete. We are not as structured as DSWD and we don’t have personnel specifically tasked to process requests for FPIC; some of our regional offices lack the capacity

12 Expected to be completed in ADB supported areas by 30 July 2018.

28 to fast track the validation process. But in spite of the difficulties, we make sure that regional offices do their best to process the validation documents needed by KC-NCDDP. The abilities of the different regions to respond to the demand for validation are not equal; some have performed well, some are challenged.‖

61. The different factors that both hinder and expedite the FPIC validation process for projects that are community solicited—in this case KC-NCDDP subprojects—should be carefully evaluated. These experiences can serve as input to improve FPIC validation practices and minimize delays. Ensuring a valid and timely process is important, as FPIC is a right that recognizes indigenous people’s capacity to determine their own development priorities as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It should not be seen as a bureaucratic or legal requirement to be complied with. If the current weakness in the ability to issue an FPIC validation in a timely manner is not addressed, it can affect future development initiatives meant to benefit indigenous peoples.

b. Uncertain Peace and Order Situation

62. Most indigenous communities in Mindanao live in geographically isolated areas where there is high incidence of poverty and pockets of armed conflict. The remoteness of many barangays and the unstable security situation has hampered some of the efforts to bring KC- NCDDP to these places. Staff cannot travel to communities if they don’t feel safe. Deploying front line workers in very demanding and high risk situations and asking them to deal with potential danger are issues that program managers in some areas of Mindanao are confronted with. It is a situation not uncommon in Caraga Region, where mobilizing community members to participate in barangay assemblies is a challenge if the peace and order situation is volatile. In these cases, the tribal leader serves as the official voice of the village. It is also a difficult to keep community facilitators if their area of assignment is in a conflict zone. The challenge facing regional leaders is being able to balance the operational needs of the program and the safety of program staff and community volunteers.

c. Indigenous Peoples Are Not Viewed as Equals by Non-IPs

63. Though KC-NCDDP has been successful using a collaborative approach that gives indigenous peoples a say in resource allocation in local initiatives, the conditions under which they access benefits are not always empowering. A tribal leader from Mindanao shared: ―Nagpakilooy mi sa among barangay nga tagaan mi og proyekto na dugay na namong gi- pangandoy kay luoy gyud ang tribo wala nataga-i.” (We pleaded with our barangay to give us a project, something that we’d been aspiring for for a long time. They should feel sorry for us because indigenous people never benefit from development projects.) The true essence of empowerment is when indigenous communities can come to the negotiating table believing that they are true stakeholders and have equal footing with their non-IP counterparts. Participating in KC-NCDDP should be about claiming what is a right, not pleading for a slice of the pie.

64. Another case recorded during the external monitoring involved local government officials, who declared: ―We make sure that we serve our indigenous brothers and sisters in the mountains. But you know our IPs in this municipality are already civilized. They aren’t shy anymore and they even have cellphones!‖ With these ostensibly innocuous statements, local officials were probably not aware of the undercurrent of discrimination flowing beneath their words. For centuries, indigenous peoples have been considered by the more powerful mainstream society as inferior in many ways, so unpacking hidden transcripts of discrimination, which have been passed on from one generation to the next, often unintentionally, is not easy.

But if we aspire for true people’s empowerment and inclusive development, government officials must see, and treat, indigenous peoples as co-equals. Community driven development should not only involve the delivery of development projects, but also include the eradication of discrimination, which is often most intense at the local level. In the absence of systematic interventions to change existing attitudes toward indigenous peoples, inclusive development will remain a challenge. If these concerns are not addressed, the sustainability of the program will be problematic since local governments are expected to continue with the CDD approach after KC-NCDDP ends.

d. Challenge of Collecting Culture Sensitive Data that Accurately Describe the Situation of Indigenous Peoples

65. Participation is an important metric for measuring the success of KC-NCDDP. But how can you measure the quality of indigenous community members’ participation in a meeting? What parameters should be involved in that assessment? Should the number of indigenous people attending a meeting be the sole determinant of participation? What if they all sat on the sidelines during the whole meeting without uttering a word? This is an example of the challenges faced by the M&E unit in characterizing the participation of indigenous peoples in KC-NCDDP. As described in the assessment of Project Output 3 earlier in this report, indigenous decision making practices can influence participation rates measured by a traditional attendance sheet. The fact that an indigenous community member does not attend an assembly meeting does not necessarily mean he or she is unwilling to participate in the project if it is understood that the tribal leader is attending on behalf of the community members. There is no system currently in place to capture these types of realities and measure the true participation rate of indigenous peoples. There has been no training for the M&E staff on how to gather culture sensitive data.

V. OVERALL ASSESSMENT 66. Using ADB’s project rating system, the overall assessment is that KC-NCDDP has integrated indigenous perspectives in the program. Though there are goals that were not fully achieved, the project is successful in ensuring that indigenous peoples have equal access to development programs. Table 8 details the overall project rating.

Table 8: Overall Project Rating Criterion Rating Definition Rating Rating (%) Description Value 1. Relevance 25 The consistency of the project impact Highly Relevant 3 and outcome with country and sector priorities and ADB’s strategic objectives, as well as the adequacy of its design in addressing identified development constraints. 2. Effectiveness 25 The extent to which the project Effective 2 outcome as specified in the DMF (either as agreed at approval or as subsequently modified) was achieved.

Criterion Rating Definition Rating Rating (%) Description Value 3. Efficiency 25 How resources were converted to Efficient 2 results, using cost–benefit analysis. Intended outcomes were achieved within the planned costs or implementation period. 4. Sustainability 25 The likelihood that institutional, Likely 2 financial, and other resources are sustainable sufficient to sustain the project’s outcome over its economic life in an environmentally and socially sustainable way. Overall Highly successful: Overall weighted average is Successful 2.25 Assessment greater than or equal to 2.50. (weighted Successful: Overall weighted average is greater average of than or equal to 1.75 and less than 2.50. above criteria) Less than successful: Overall weighted average is greater than or equal to 0.75 and less than 1.75. Unsuccessful: Overall weighted average is less than 0.75. Source: Asian Development Bank Guidelines for the Evaluation of Public Sector Operations

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

67. The external evaluator finds that IP safeguards have been successfully implemented in KC-NCDDP. DSWD has also taken concrete steps to integrate indigenous perspectives in subproject design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. In order to sustain these initiatives, the evaluator is making the following recommendations:

A. Institutionalize Best Practices Integrating IP Perspectives in KC-NCDPP by Approving and Implementing the Proposed DSWD IP Framework 68. DSWD has recently crafted a draft IP institutional framework, which draws on the experiences of its social protection program and KC-NCDDP in implementing culture sensitive engagement strategies. The NPMO should provide input to help translate the principles laid out in the proposed DSWD IP framework into programs and strategies based on existing best practices including (i) developing culturally competent staff by systematizing capacity building activities, (ii) formulating internal monitoring systems that provide an accurate picture of the situation of indigenous peoples, and (iii) implementing safeguards to protect the rights of indigenous peoples in development programs. KC-NCDDP’s experience, gained from years of working with indigenous communities, can provide guidance, building on the strengths of certain strategies and the lessons learned from problems encountered to improve existing program strategies and provide direction for new ones. It can inform policy to ensure effective and efficient integration of IP perspectives in all department programs.

69. The proposed IP Framework will serve as a blueprint for program implementers and herald a shift from a participation framework, where community participation is seen as a major indicator of program success to a rights-based/empowerment framework, the focus of which is to address issues of discrimination, self-determination, cultural integrity, right to ancestral land

31 and territories, and socio-economic well-being. The proposed IP Framework is built on the principles of rights-based, inclusive, participatory, and culture sensitive engagement of DSWD staff with indigenous peoples. This evaluation strongly recommends that the draft IP Framework be approved, implemented, and translated into programs and activities with the needed budget and human resource allocations.

70. The following are specific steps that should be taken to mainstream IP perspectives in DSWD programs: (i) Develop a systematic capacity building program to build culturally sensitive staff; (ii) Develop guides and manuals with a special focus on how to integrate IP perspectives in program planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation; (iii) Develop realistic and culture specific indicators for monitoring achievements in indigenous peoples’ empowerment, participation, and equal treatment; and (iv) Allocate sufficient funds for program personnel and for the implementation of policies, guidelines, and action plans.

B. Document Innovations in Facilitating CDD in the Context of Indigenous Peoples 71. The NPMO should encourage RPMOs to document their innovations and best practices for engaging indigenous communities. The documents will be invaluable for producing manuals, toolkits, guidance notes, and culture sensitive monitoring systems. The IP facilitation guide used by KC-NCDDP is a good starting point, but additional resources for how to mainstream IP perspectives in capacity building programs and M&E systems can be enhanced by developing analytical tools and materials based on the innovations from the ground. The documents should be made available other government agencies and the wider public to use. Agencies like the DENR, that often have projects involving indigenous people, could learn much from the KC- NCDDP experience in making their programs more IP-culture sensitive.

1. Partnership with NCIP

72. Several studies that examined how FPIC is implemented in the Philippines have come up with the same findings: NCIP, as the agency mandated to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples, lacks the funding and the expertise to meet the demands of facilitating a thorough, balanced FPIC process.13 Though KC-NCDDP does not require the full blown FPIC, it still takes human resources and operational funds to carry out field validations and meet the other bureaucratic requirements for the issuance of a Certification Precondition. NCIP has included validation and FPIC facilitation in their General Appropriation, but it will take time for the budget to be approved and funds to reach the provincial and regional offices.

73. Until NCIP has the resources it really needs to carry out the many validations required by KC-NCDDP subprojects, the following steps can be taken: (i) Since NCIP’s Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) are insufficient to cover the expenses of validating a large number of subprojects and the situation is unlikely to change in the near future, KC-NCDDP should allocate resources to be used by NCIP personnel for the validation process. NCIP officials

13 See FPIC study, An Assessment of the Implementation of the Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) in the Philippines.2013.

also suggested that DSWD hire additional staff on a ―job order‖ basis to assist NCIP staff in conducting subproject validations. (ii) Conduct a joint assessment to evaluate the partnership between NCIP and DSWD for the implementation of KC-NCDDP in IP areas (a) Review the existing MoA and reexamine the responsibilities and commitments of both agencies. (b) Amend the MoA based on the actual situation at the local and regional levels to more clearly define the roles, functions, and responsibilities of both parties. (c) NCIP should conduct a post project evaluation to assess whether indigenous communities truly benefitted from the subproject. (iii) Initiate joint capacity building and learning exchanges for KC and NCIP staff on conducting effective field validation based on successful practices in some of the regions. (v) Produce manuals on best practices and challenges in conducting the validation process that local staff can use to fast track the release of the CP.

74. The foregoing recommendations will require operational funds. Given NCIP’s chronic lack of resources, KC-NCDDP should allocate the funds to carry out the proposed activities.

2. Improving the Accuracy of Data Based on the Cultural Realities of Indigenous Peoples

75. Understanding how indigenous peoples reach an informed decision and how they participate in the decision making cannot fully be captured by numbers alone. To develop methods to capture these important but difficult to quantify elements of indigenous communities, the M&E unit should work with an anthropologist to understand indigenous leadership patterns, decision making process, and participation based on indigenous social and cultural systems. Such an understanding can help them develop methods to translate these cultural dynamics into quantitative data without losing their meaning. The anthropologist can assist the M&E unit to be culturally sensitive in the way they conduct interviews, to organize the data, identify relevant themes, and devise the most effective methods for coding, interpreting, and presenting the data. The end product should be data-based indicators that fit the social and cultural context of indigenous communities.

76. The following recommendations are taken from the midterm report:

3. Ensure the Commitment of LGUs to Improve the Situation of Indigenous Peoples in their Municipality or Barangay

(i) Provide culture sensitivity training for local government officials to raise their awareness of the importance of engaging indigenous communities with respect, sensitivity toward their lifeways, and the goal of inclusive development as paramount. (ii) Focus on building the capacity of focal persons and permanent LGU staff, ensuring they develop the skills and commitment needed to advance the interests of the indigenous communities in their municipality. (iii) Conduct orientations for local government officials to inform them about the real situation and the problems encountered by indigenous communities in their municipalities. Often, LGU personnel have a different perspective of the issues facing indigenous people, not fully

understanding their concerns from the viewpoint of the indigenous communities. With a better appreciation of their situation, LGUs will be more committed to support development programs for IP communities. (iv) Identify local champions and supporters from the LGUs to advance the interests of indigenous communities at the local level.

4. Improve Compliance with Environment and Social Safeguards

(i) The ESMP template should focus on the effects of subprojects on IP culture, rather than on the identification of specific laws concerning indigenous peoples. (ii) The ESMP template should be simplified. Parts of the template cite laws and policies dealing with indigenous peoples, which makes it difficult for ACTs with no background working with IPs and the issues they face. (iii) The mitigating measures specified in the ESMP should be better monitored to ensure compliance.

C. Recommendations for the Asian Development Bank 77. In efforts to improve its social safeguard policy, ADB has conducted internal reviews and evaluation studies to strengthen the implementation of indigenous peoples safeguards. ADB- supported CDD programs have made a significant contribution to the body of knowledge gained from implementing programs that have as a goal the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights and wellbeing. The lessons learned over the last three years implementing KC-NCDDP with indigenous communities form the basis of the following recommendations.

1. Develop Guidance on How to Apply Social Safeguards Policies in CDD Operations

78. CDD projects, by their nature, involve relatively small amounts of money and social impacts are minimal since the projects are identified by the community. During the participatory social analysis conducted as part of the CEAC process, possible negative impacts of subprojects are identified and addressed. The present safeguards procedures and documentation requirements were developed in response to negative impacts that often accompany big ticket projects. Negative social and environmental impacts from big ticket projects can be severe, so safeguards requirements are necessarily comprehensive. But since CDD projects are inherently distinct from big ticket projects (small versus big; voluntarily solicited versus externally initiated), they call for a different approach to safeguards. In every project site visited during the external monitoring, project staff complained that the onerous amount of paperwork involved in safeguards documentation was taking away valuable time they could be spending in the community. Therefore, ADB should consider adopting less stringent social safeguards requirements specifically for CDD operations, where subprojects are small in scope and have minimal negative social impact. Practical guidance for consultants, project teams, and executing agencies should be developed to aid in fulfilling the new requirements.

2. Develop a Capacity Building Program for the Executing Agency Focused on Safeguards Implementation

79. The external monitor discovered there was some confusion in the executing agency with regards to ADB safeguard requirements. To ensure that safeguards policies and requirements are fully understood by the executing and/or implementing agency, ADB should develop a

34 capacity building program for its partners that runs throughout the project cycle. The external monitor found that investing in capacity building for project implementers has resulted in dramatic improvements in the quality of engagement with indigenous communities. Allocating resources for capacity building is a worthwhile investment; it will allow the executing agency to fully appreciate the ADB safeguard policy and result in better performance, including (i) improving project design and framework; (ii) better planning for integrating safeguards throughout the project cycle; (iii) quality safeguards documents produced; and (iv) adequate supervision of project implementers at the ground level.

3. Conduct Ethnographic Studies

(i) Supporting Ancestral Domain/Land Issues in CDD. The majority of subprojects involve infrastructure and basic services; there are only a very few cases where subprojects address issues of land tenure or land security. Land is an important justice and equality issue for indigenous peoples; it is critical for their survival. The external evaluator believes that since land security is such a crucial part of the wellbeing of indigenous peoples, KC-NCDDP should place more emphasis on it, making support for land security more of an option for more communities. To support this recommendation ADB should commission an ethnographic study to explore the feasibility of ancestral domain and land security issues as a potential targets for subprojects in CDD. The result of the study would be recommendations for how to integrate this new focus in the KC- NCDDP cycle.

(ii) Indigenous leadership and Decision Making Processes as They Relate to Participation. Decision making and participation are two of the most important factors that determine the success or failure of CDD programs in IP areas. Earlier in this report it was stated that indigenous decision making practices can be much different than those used by the mainstream population. There should be an ethnographic investigation to describe how decisions are made at the community level in different ethnolinguistic groups. Indigenous decision making is diverse and it would be impractical document each ethnolinguistic group separately. But initially, the ethnography could document the general practices of indigenous groups in the Cordillera, Mindoro, Mindanao, and the Negrito groups. This would provide a big picture of indigenous decision making process. The research will help determine the parameters that define participation in indigenous communities. Since the standard parameter for participation—the percent of households that participate in assemblies—may not be applicable for IP communities, it is crucial that an accurate and culture specific metric is found to measure participation in indigenous communities.

4. Provide Technical Assistance to NCIP

80. ADB should provide technical assistance funds for NCIP to assess its existing FPIC/validation procedures. The goal of the TA would be to formulate ways to overcome the bureaucratic hurdles, especially for projects that fall under NCIP AO-3 S. 2012 (FPIC) Part VI, Other Processes. These are procedures for validation, which includes KC-NCDDP subprojects. There have already been studies conducted that identify a lack of capacity, human resources, and funds to conduct FPIC as the main barriers to the completion of FPIC processes. The TA fund will assist the agency to formulate strategic interventions to address these bottlenecks.

Annex 1: Inception Report External Monitoring on Indigenous Peoples (IP) and Land Acquisition Resettlement and Rehabilitation (LARR)

I. Introduction Kapitbisig Laban Sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services National Community-Driven Development Program (KC-NCDDP) is a poverty alleviation program of the national government implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). The objective of KC-NCDDP is to empower communities in target municipalities to achieve improved access to basic services and to actively participate in inclusive local planning, budgeting, project implementation, and disaster risk reduction and management. The KC-NCDDP National Program Management Office has engaged the services of a consultant-expert on indigenous peoples to conduct an external monitoring review of the program’s compliance with indigenous people’s safeguards and involuntary resettlement. The external monitoring activities will focus on subprojects in areas where KC-NCDDP is supported by funds from the Asian Development Bank.

For the second term of external monitoring activities, the sites will be in Regions V, XI, and Caraga. Both IP safeguards and involuntary resettlement and Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation (LARR) will be assessed. The consultant will make use of the Program’s internal monitoring data as well as primary data gathered during field visits to assess whether IP safeguards procedures and objectives have been met during the program’s implementation. II. Objectives The external monitoring exercise will have the following objectives: a) Evaluate the relevance of all IPP/RP activities and determine whether they effectively minimize and mitigate any adverse project impacts on communities; b) Determine the level of engagement of indigenous groups in various activities throughout the Community Empowerment Activity Cycle (CEAC): social preparation, subproject identification and development, prioritization, and subproject implementation; c) Assess cases of voluntary donations to ensure that (i) the donation is indeed voluntarily given, (ii) the donor is legitimate owner of such lands, and (iii) the donor is fully informed of the nature of the subproject and the implications of donating the property; d) Verify if the livelihoods and the standard of living of affected persons (Aps), including those of the non-titled displaced persons are restored or improved; e) Assess the capacity of the implementing agency (DSWD) to handle program activities involving indigenous communities and involuntary resettlement screening and impacts f) Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the ESMP and IPP/RP approaches and implementation strategies, determine relevant institutional issues, and provide recommendations for improvements for future IP/RP planning activities and overall program implementation.

III. Coverage of the External Monitoring Activities Monitoring activities will focus on subprojects in areas where KC-NCDDP is supported by funds from the Asian Development Bank. It will cover programs in ten municipalities spread across nine regions. Region Municipality Barangay Subproject Region V, Bicol Donsol Dancalan, 3 classroom school building Bulusan Sitio Lubas, Brgy. San Rafael, pathway and reservoir Bulusan San Roque, evacuation center Region VIII, Caraga Cagwait Sitio Mam-on, tribal hall Brgy. Tubo-tubo day care center Hinatuan Portlamon evacuation center barangay health station

IV. Data Collection Methods The schedule of the monitoring activities for each field site covers roughly 5 days of data gathering. Following is the work plan for the first five of the ten areas to be monitored.

Region/Selected Date Activity Municipality Site 1: April 16- Day 1 Focus group discussion with RPMO/SRPMO (RCDS, Region XI 21, 2018 RCDO, and Capacity Building Specialist) Maco and New Bataan, Review of project documentation and monitoring reports Compostella (ESMP, PSA, attendance forms, summary of Valley consultations, community profiles, and others) . Gathering of secondary data—location, ethnic Site 2: April 16- group, skills level, access to cultural sites and Region V, 21, 2018 events, and value of all assets forming entitlements Donsol and and resettlement entitlements. Bulusan . Policies and guidelines for subproject Sorsogon implementation that fit the situation of indigenous peoples. Site 3: Region VIII May 1-6, In-depth interview with NCIP Regional staff and M&E Caraga 2018 Specialist in the region Claver and Day 2 Participatory workshop with the ACT Gigaquit, Surigao Day 3 Participatory workshop with community volunteers del Norte Day 4 In-depth interview with the following: . Tribal leaders . Barangay local officials . GRM committee members at the municipal and barangay levels . Lot owners/donors Day 5 Field visit to community subproject and informal discussion with community members and direct observation

V. Data Collection Instruments Participatory workshop discussion guide with female and male community volunteers and the Area Coordinating Team The evaluation process will be facilitated workshop-style with the goal of establishing a reference point to judge the extent that the indigenous communities have gained an increased awareness of the importance of identifying impacts of subprojects in their lives, socially, economically, and culturally. The discussion will focus on assessing the relevance of all IPP activities at the ground level by seeking the perspectives of female and male community volunteers. A separate group process with the Area Coordinating Team will be conducted to solicit the viewpoints of the project implementers. The process questions posed during the workshop will provide direction for the discussion, but the facilitator has the flexibility to adapt the questions to best fit the situation in each site. The questions below will be used to assess the first objective of the assignment during the first session of the day. Key Components Process Questions Level of awareness of the 1) How do the indigenous communities identify potential negative importance of identifying impacts impacts of a proposed subproject on their social, political, of the subprojects economic and cultural systems? 2) What are the processes involved in identifying environmental and social issues of a proposed subproject? 3) How do communities reach a consensus when deciding on measures to mitigate negative project impacts? 4) Do communities have the proper training and skills to accomplish the ESMP template? 5) Do communities go through the process of formulating an ESMP mainly to comply with project requirements, or do they believe that they have the responsibility to address and mitigate any negative impacts of subprojects? Project impacts with special 1) What changes have taken place in key social and cultural focus on cultural and livelihood parameters relating to the living standards of indigenous people systems in the project area? 2) What changes have occurred in income and expenditure patterns compared to the pre-project situation? What have been the changes in cost of living compared to the pre-project situation? Has the situation of the indigenous people improved or remained the same after completion of the project? 3) Are indigenous women reaping the same benefits as indigenous men? 4) Are negative impacts proportionally shared by indigenous men and women? Customary rights of access to 1) What steps does the community take to ensure a proposed land and the utilization of natural subproject is in line with their vision and goals for protecting resources their ancestral domain? 2) How do the community and the project implementers ensure that a subproject will not disturb sensitive localities such as sacred or local cultural heritage sites, burial grounds, or critical areas identified by the indigenous community? 3) What efforts do the indigenous communities take to safeguard their rights to their ancestral land? 4) Are special measures to protect indigenous culture, traditional resource rights, and resources in place? How are these being implemented?

The second part of the session will consist of a reflection exercise focusing on how indigenous representatives and community members assess their level of engagement during social preparation, subproject identification, prioritization, and implementation. The results of the session will provide answers to the following questions: Were the voices of indigenous communities heard throughout all phases of the KC-NCDDP project cycle? Were they satisfied with their level of engagement in the project decision making processes? What strengths are demonstrated by the involvement of indigenous communities? What challenges remain? What needs to be improved to maximize the participation of indigenous communities in the program?

The exercise will help the ACT to reflect on whether they ensure that subprojects are implemented using culture sensitive facilitation processes. Do the CEFs and Area Coordinators respect customary political structures and traditional decision making processes?

The following questions will address the second objective of the assignment and will be used during the afternoon session.

Area for Investigation Process Questions Facilitating meaningful How does the Area Coordinating Team ensure they: consultations with indigenous 1) Disseminate information about KC-NCDDP in a way that the peoples during the various indigenous communities can easily understand and in a culturally stages of the CEAC appropriate manner? 2) Exert effort to reach out to indigenous communities to involve them in all program activities? 3) Conduct separate consultations for indigenous communities, especially if they constitute a minority in the barangay? 4) Use a local language that can be understood by the minority groups in the barangay? 5) Provide a venue for indigenous representatives to express their viewpoints? Are they are able to influence decisions in subproject selection? Can they express what is socially and culturally appropriate for them? 6) Organize consultations that are inter-generationally exclusive, gender fair, free from external coercion and manipulation, done in a manner appropriate to the customs of the affected indigenous community and with proper disclosure? 7) Respect customary laws in the conduct of consultations, during IPP activities, and in the resolution of conflicts? 8) Invite representatives of the NCIP for the municipal orientation, community validation, and other critical CEAC activities? Indigenous peoples’ 1) Do indigenous representatives and community members feel willingness to participate in all comfortable during general assemblies or critical CEAC activities CEAC activities where major decisions are made? Do they feel they are listened to and understood? 2) Do they feel at all intimidated during large meetings? Are the venue and setup appropriate to allow indigenous communities to feel comfortable during the meeting, especially in cases where they comprise a minority in the barangay? 3) Do they feel that the Community Empowerment Facilitator and the Area Coordinating Team can be easily approached if there are questions or confusion about the program? 4) Do indigenous communities feel that each of the critical processes of the CEAC provides enough time for them to adequately reflect on the process, or do activities always seem to be rushed?

Focus group discussion guide for consultations with the NPMO and RPMO/SRPMO The objective of this session with program staff from the NPMO, RPMO, and SRPMO is to assess, based on the findings of their internal monitoring systems, whether the implementing agency has the resources and the capacity needed to implement IP-specific program activities.

The following process questions will address the third objective of the external monitoring assignment and will be used during the first session of the second day of the field visit.

Area for Investigation Process Questions Internal monitoring system 1) How do you assess the existing mechanisms designed to ensure the effective tracking of the program’s progress and the identification of gaps in subproject/ESMP implementation? (For example, how effective are the technical team, process team, and safeguards team?) 2) What systems are in place to ensure that the safeguards specialists and officers, as well as the operations staff, have established effective lines of communication and a smooth flow of information to enable close collaboration in implementing social and environmental safeguards? 3) What are their suggestions to better improve existing systems and policies for more effective ESMP implementation? Developing culturally competent 1) How do you ensure that you provide high quality technical project staff support to the program staff for building their capacity to effectively engage indigenous communities in a culturally sensitive manner? 2) What are your efforts to systematize the coaching and mentoring of project staff focusing on culture sensitive facilitation and quality engagement with indigenous communities? 3) Have all the planned capacity building and training activities been completed on schedule? 4) Does the management have a clear program directive that ensures indigenous peoples’ perspectives are integrated at all levels of program implementation? What are the structures in place, both at the national and regional levels, to make this a reality? 5) Are there enough human and financial resources to make this initiative work? Safeguarding the rights of 1) How does the program ensure that communities’ free and prior indigenous peoples to be informed consent is obtained? consulted before the 2) What do program staff and management think of their implementation of any partnership with NCIP? What are the strengths and the development project in their bottlenecks in the implementation of the DSWD-NCIP MOA for ancestral domain facilitating KC-NCDDP in IP areas? 3) What recommendations can they make to improve the partnership with NCIP, both at the national and regional levels? Grievance redress mechanisms 1) How much do indigenous communities know about the grievance procedures and conflict resolution mechanisms of the program? Do the mechanisms integrate indigenous conflict resolution practices? 2) How has the program addressed the common perception that project authorities will not act on their grievances? 3) How do the program implementers utilize communication strategies to make it easier for the indigenous communities to

Area for Investigation Process Questions file complaints? 4) Have any of the members of the indigenous communities made use of the grievance redress procedures? What were the outcomes? Have conflicts been resolved? 5) Are the complaints and grievances of affected indigenous communities being documented?

The following process questions are designed to identify the strengths and weakness of the ESMP and the IPP objectives, approaches, and implementation strategies, including any institutional issues. The goal is to provide suggestions for improvements in future planning and implementation of projects that involve indigenous people.

Monitoring Indicators Process Questions Key players are aware of the 1) What strategies are designed to enable the integration of strengths and challenges of indigenous peoples’ perspective at the institutional and program integrating indigenous peoples’ levels of KC-NCDPP? perspectives in the program.  Developing culturally competent project staff  Clear directives for applying IP perspectives in program implementation, such as ensuring the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in major decision making processes, equal representation in committee work, and culturally appropriate subproject design  Clear indicators designed to measure the culture sensitivity of the Community Empowerment Activity Cycle participated in by indigenous communities 2) What are the strengths and challenges in integrating IP perspectives in program implementation?  IPP objectives, approaches, and implementation strategies  ESMP implementation at the ground level (training of CVs, training materials on safeguards) 3) What are the suggestions for improvements and enhancements in future projects involving indigenous people?

Key Informant Interview Guide

A. National and Regional NCIP Officials The objective of the interviews is to give NCIP officials an opportunity to reflect on the collaboration of their agency with the DSWD in facilitating CDD in IP areas. The DSWD- NCIP MOA that was signed in November 2015, which detailed the roles and commitments of the two agencies, will be the main tool used to assess the partnership. 1. What progress has been made concerning the partnership between NCIP and DSWD in engaging indigenous peoples and recognizing their capacity to strengthen their distinct social, economic, political and cultural systems? The discussion will focus on the three main objectives of the collaboration: (i) Ensure culture sensitive facilitation of KC-NCDDP in IP areas (ii) Validate free and prior informed consent of IP communities for subprojects to be implemented in, or have an impact on IP communities (iii) Establish and operationalize institutional partnerships and coordination mechanisms at the national and regional/field office levels

2. Did you establish internal mechanisms at the national and regional levels to coordinate key activities based on the agreed-to targets and timeframe stated in the MOA? What structures are in place to facilitate the collaboration?

3. Were enhancements or adjustments made at the national and regional levels to enable the development of region-specific validation processes?

4. How did these modifications help to fast-track the process for securing the consent of the indigenous communities involved?

5. What are the strengths and bottlenecks in the implementation of the MOA?

6. What recommendations would you make to improve the partnership with DSWD, both at the national and regional levels?

B. Tribal Leaders and Local Officials

1. What do you think of KC-NCDDP as a program that provides services to alleviate poverty and empower disadvantaged communities seeking an improved quality of life? Has the program helped your barangay to achieve this goal?

2. How does the program help to ensure that the marginalized and voiceless members of your community have an opportunity to take part in the decision making processes in the barangay?

3. How do you assess the level of participation of the community, especially indigenous people? Are they able to take advantage of the safeguards designed to guarantee meaningful participation in the decision making and problem solving processes used to determine development priorities and initiate and manage subprojects?

4. What is the role of the barangay and tribal leaders in ensuring that indigenous communities are critically aware of the impacts of a subproject on their economic, social and cultural systems?

5. How do you ensure that the indigenous communities in your area are aware of the grievance procedures and are not afraid to file complaints arising from the project?

C. GRM Committee Members at the Municipal and Barangay Levels

1. How familiar are the indigenous communities with grievance and conflict resolution procedures? Are indigenous conflict resolution practices integrated in the program? 2. How has the program addressed the common perception that project authorities will not act on their grievances? 3. How do the program implementers utilize communication strategies to make it easier for the indigenous communities to file a complaint? 4. Have any members of the indigenous communities taken advantage of the grievance redress mechanisms? What were the outcomes? Were the conflicts resolved? 5. Are complaints and grievances of affected indigenous community being documented?

Guide Questions for Focus Group Discussion on Community-Based Monitoring on IR/LARR 1. How can you ensure that the documents needed to process a subproject are in line with what is required by law? 2. Have there been concrete steps taken to ensure there are no undesirable effects on the livelihoods of those who donate their land to be used in subprojects? 3. Has the BSPMC used force or coercion to persuade land owners to donate land for subprojects? 4. What are the problems or hindrances to LARR safeguards that should be addressed for each phase of project implementation? 5. Did the BSPMC coordinate with community members in the barangay? What form did that cooperation take? 6. How did the Area Coordinator, Community Facilitator and LGU help the community to fulfill the documentary requirements of LARR safeguards?

Guide Questions for Key Informant Interview with LARR Complainants 1. What are your concerns in relation to land or land ownership in the ______subproject? 2. Who has the responsibility to respond to your concerns or complaints? 3. How have you been affected by what has transpired? 4. What solutions could you suggest that would help resolve your concerns or complaints? 5. Who do you think could offer the most help in resolving your concerns or complaints? 6. How will finding a solution to your concerns or complaints benefit the project?

Guide Questions for Key Informant Interview with the RPMO and ACT 1. Do the members of the ACT have the skills to facilitate and process the LARR-related safeguard documents? 2. Have the ACT and community been adequately oriented on how to complete the all the documentation required for the successful completion of a subproject? 3. What assistance does the regional office provided to expedite LARR processes? 4. Is there coordination among the ME, CapBuild and SDU in each region to ensure that ACTs and communities are fulfilling project requirements properly? 5. How have grievances that were raised been resolved?

Annex 2: List of Persons Met

1. DSWD Regional Program Coordinator- April 23, KC-NCDPP Office Name of Participant Gender Position Regional Project 1. Tess Caseres Female Coordinator

2. NCIP Officials- April 23, KC-NCDPP Office Name of Participant Gender Position Time in Service 1. Judith C. Mendez Female CAO I 12 years 2. Ike A. Encarnacion Male CDO III 36 years NCIP Service Center 3. Jennifer B. Belarmine Female CDO III 5 years 4. Jezon . Romano Male RCDS 9 years

3. FGD with RPMO and SRPMO- April 23, KC-NCDDP Office Name of Participant Gender Position Time in Service 1. Oda May G. Im Female RTO 8 months 2. Jenifer Belarmine Female CDO III 5 years 3. Florele I. Bajaro Female RMES 9 years 4. Jezon P. Romano Male RCDS 9 years

4. Key Informant Interviews with Tribal Leaders and Local Officials- Brgy. Dancalan, Donsol, Sorsogon, April 24, Dancalan Elementary School Name of Participant Gender Brgy/Sitio/Purok Position/Time in Service 1. Lamberto Avisado, Jr Male Dancalan Brgy Kagawad, 4 years 2. Milagros Nusa Female Dancalan IPMR, 2 years 3. George Ladag Male Dancalan Brgy Kagawad 4. Luz Jubelle Female Dancalan PT Volunteer 5. Loreto Palles Male Prok 4 Brgy Treasurer 6. Arlene Toledo Female Purok 3 Brgy. Secretary 7. Rogenia Baniaga Female Purok 8 BAC Chair Volunteer 8. Heralled Dodjie Navarro Male Dancalan Brgy. Kagawad 9. Ariel Cita Male Purok 1 Brgy. Captain 10. Marilyn Nieva Female Purok 1 Brgy Kagawad, 3 months 11. Danilo Rabulan Male Purok 6 BSPMC Brgy Kagawad 12. Romeo Valenzuela Male SRPMO SRPMO CDO III

5. FGD with Community Volunteers- Brgy. Dancalan, Donsol, Sorsogon, April 24, Dangcal Elementary School Name of Participant Gender Brgy/Sitio/Purok Position 1. Agnes Guiriba Female Purok 8 BSPMC MIT Chair Person 2. Olivia Quizon Female Purok 8 BSPMC Bookkeeper 3. Maricel Tarog Female Purok 2 BSPMC BAC 4. Henry Figueron Female Purok 2 BSPMC 5. Wilson De Borsa Male Purok 2 BSPMC PIT 6. Esteban Nuelany Male Purok 2 BSPMC PIT 7. Luisito Bagangan Male Purok 2 Volunteer 8. Janet Cabaldo Female Purok 3 Volunteer 9. Edna Cha Female Purok 4 PIT Head 10. Lolinia Mondragon Female Purok 7 PIT Member

6. FGD with Teachers- Brgy Dancalan, Donsol, Sorsogon, April 24, Donsol Municipal Hall Name of Participant Gender Brgy/Sitio/Purok Position/Time in Service 1. Eva Bigayan Female Purok 3 Teacher III, 19 years 2. Joy Navarro Female Purok 4 Master Teacher I, 33 years 3. Rossel Buiza Female Purok 2 Teacher II, 17 years 4. Salvador Avisadol Male Purok 6 Teacher II, 34 years

7. FGD with Area Coordinating Team- Donsol, Municipal Hall, April 24, Donsol Municipal Hall Name of Participant Gender Brgy/Sitio/Purok Position/Time in Service 1. Reymark Lovendino Male Sevilla Donsol CEF-MCT 2. Mark Joseph Auda Male Central, Donsol CEF-MCT 3. Jomar Olvinar Male Vinisitahan, Donsol CEF-MCT 4. Lourdes Biglete Femle Tres Marias Drive Donsol CEF-MCT 5. Lieanne Idjao Female Dangcalan, Donsol CEF-MCT 6. Lealyn Jimenez Female PWWD Donsol CEF-MCT 7. Maria Patricia Macandog Female Rawis, Donsol CEF-MCT 8. Sheila Marie Herrera Female Ogod, Donsol CEF-MCT 9. Jay Bolarios Male ACT ACT-CEF 10. Cherelyn ahoy Female ACT AC 11. Neda Balictar Female LGU Donsol MAC/SWO II, 29 yrs 12. Edwin Orticio Male LGU WMDC, 24 years

8. FGD with IP Community Volunteers- Sitio Lubas, San Rafael, Bulusan, Sorsogon, April 25, Nasipit Spring Name of Participant Gender Brgy/Sitio/Purok Position/Time in Service 1. Eric Mendizabal Male Purok 1 BRI Member, IP Chieftain, 4 years 2. Marcia Villaflor Female Purok 6 Bookkeeper, 2 years 3. Barbara Chua Female Purok 6 Treasurer, 2 years 4. Alona Galvez Female Purok 6 AIT, 2 years 5. Aurora Mendizabal Female Purok 3 Senior Citizen, 2 years 6. Salvacion Nayat Female Purok 4 GC Member, 2 years 7. Anita Ferreras Female Purok 6 GC Chair, 2 years

9. FGD with IP Community Volunteers- Sitio Lubas, Brgy San Rafael, Bulusan, Sorsogon April 25, Nasipit Spring Name of Participant Gender Brgy/Sitio/Purok Position 1. Merriam Bagansala Female San Rafel IP Member 2. Lydia Fresnido Female Purok 5 IP Member 3. April Gamba Female Purok 2 IP Parent Leader 4. Bernadeth Fraga Female Purok 6 IP Member 5. Leny Galvez Female Purok 5 IP Member 6. Richelle Encirares Female Purok 6 IP Member 7. Mary Joy Fuedna Female Purok 1 IP Member 8. Salvacion Gallardo Female Purok 5 IP Member 9. Virginia Ferrares Female Purok 4 IP Member 10. Antonette Carmona Female Purok 6 IP Member 11. Irene Espeno Female Purok 5 IP Member 12. Miguel Entud Male Purok 6 IP Member

10. FGD with Non-IP Community Volunteers- Sitio Lubas, San Rafael, Bulusan, Sorsogon April 25, Coyoca’s House (land owner)

Name of Participant Gender Brgy/Sitio/Purok Position 1. Noel Manga Male Purok 3 CMT Brgy Tanod 2. Dominador Galvez Male Purok 4 CMT Brgy Tanod 3. Daniel Mendizabal Male Purok 3 PSA 4. Joy Funtanares Female Purok 4 Procurement Team Member 5. MarlouGomeceria Male Purok 4 PPT Chairman

11. FGD with Area Coordinating Team- Sitio Lubas, Brgy. San Rafael, Bulusan, Sorsogon April 25, Nasipit Spring

Name of Participant Gender Brgy/Sitio/Purok Position/Time in Service 1. Ronald Pura Male KC-NCDDP Bulusan TSP-CEF, 3.5 years 2. Julie Gabionza Female KC-NCDDP Bulusan MCT-CEF, 1.8 years 3. Gina Collao Female KC-NCDDP Bulusan AC, 7 years 4. Joan Frando Female KC-NCDDP Bulusan MCT-CEF, 1.8 years 5. Fatima Castidades Female KC-NCDDP Bulusan MCST-CEF, 1.3 years 6. Caludine Fumera Female KC-NCDDP Bulusan MCT-CEF, 1.8 years 7. Ruby Ann Fresindo Female KC-NCDDP Bulusan MCT-CEF, 1.8 years 8. Mark Galido Male KC-NCDDP Bulusan MCT-CEF, 1.8 years

12. Key Informant Interview with Tribal leaders and local officials- Sitio Lubas, Brgy. San Rafael, Bulusan, Sorsogon, April 24, local residence Name of Participant Gender Brgy/Sitio/Purok Position 1. Rey Villaflor Male Purok 6 Brgy Official 2. Dominador Villaflor Male Purok 6 Brgy Official 3. Eddie Ferreras Male Purok 4 Brgy Official 4. Lydia Fucieran Female Purok 6 Brgy Official

13. FGD with Lot Owners- Sitio Lubas, Brgy. San Rafael, Bulusan, Sorsogon, April 25, Maura Coyoca Residence Name of Participant Gender Brgy/Sitio/Purok Position 1. Domingo Galvez Male Sitio Lubas Lot Owner 2. Benelda Galvez Female Sitio Lubas Lot Owner 3. David Navalez Male Sitio Lubas Lot Owner 4. Maura Coyoca Female Sitio Lubas Lot Owner 5. Melaño Coyoca Male Sitio Lubas Lot Owner 6. Elena Galarosa Female Sitio Lubas Lot Owner

14. FGD with IP Community Members- Brgy. San Roque, Bulusan, Sorsogon, April 26, Evacuation Center, San Roque Elementary School

Name of Participant Gender Barangay/Sitio/Purok Position 1. Maricel Fumeon Female Ilawod, San Roque IP Member 2. Lien Gapas Female Ilawod, San Roque IP Member 3. Marian Deriada Female Ilawod, San Roque IP Member 4. Estrella Labayo Female Villamor I, San Roque IP Member 5. Arlene Escopete Female Villamor I, San Roque IP Member 6. Donna Hitosis Female Malungoy-longoy, San Roque IP Member 7. Eden Beltran Female Malungoy-longoy, San Roque IP Member

Name of Participant Gender Barangay/Sitio/Purok Position 8. Maruja Beltran Female Malungoy-longoy, San Roque IP Member 9. Carmen ?.. Female Villamor, San Roque IP Member 10. Lea Ete Female Malungoy-longoy, San Roque IP Member 11. Susan Gapas Female Malungoy-longoy, San Roque IP Member 12. Remsogia Deocaresa Female Malungoy-longoy, San Roque IP Member 13. Mary Ann Espina Female Villamor, San Roque IP Member 14. Melanie Bejin Female Villamor, San Roque IP Member 15. Roy Miñon Male Central San Roque IP Member 16. Salvacion Banalbal Female Villamor San Roque IP Member

15. FGD With Community Volunteers- Brgy. San Roque, Bulusan, Sorsogon, April 26, Evacuation Center, San Roque Elementary School Name of Participant Gender Brgy/Sitio/Purok Position 1. Anita Gapas-Baloloy Female Villamor, San Roque PIT Chair and Kalipi 2. Yolanda Galdo Female Central, San Roque PSA 3. Febe Regalarlo Female Villamor, San Roque BRT 4. Rosario Sentelices Female Malungoy-longo, San Roque BRT 5. Cristita Huit Female Malungoy-longo, San Roque AIT 6. Fe Cruz Female San Roque Chair, Proj. proposal committee 7. Aida Fulo Female San Roque 8. Lydia Fulo Female San Roque PT 9. Delsa Frivaldo Female San Roque 10. Julleta Franciso Female San Roque 11. Ma-Ana Ete Female San Roque 12. Antonio Bantaldera Male San Roque 13. Matilde Gamba Female Central, San Roque Grievance Committee 14. Rico Ete Male Tiris, San Roque Grievance Committee 15. Salvador Fulo Male Tiris, San Roque Chairman Monitoring CMT

16. Key Informant Interview With Tribal Leaders and Local Officials- Brgy. San Roque, Bulusan, Sorsogon, April 26, Evacuation Center, San Roque Elementary School Name of Participant Gender Brgy/Sitio/Purok Time in Service 1. Joel Fulleros Male Central, San Roque 5 years 2. Victor Baudoy Male Tiris, San Roque 5 years 3. Divina Miñon Female Quiahon, San Roque 5 years 4. John Fortajada Male Tiris, San Roque 5 years 5. Glenn Ferreras Male Iraya, San Roque 5 years

Persons Met in Caraga Region

Name Organization/ Position Time in

Unit Service May 2 Mita Gupana-Lim DSWD OIC Regional Director 40 years Ramil M. Taculod Butuan RPC 16 years Jade Patrick Dumigpi NCIP Admin Aid IV/FBI-FPIC Focal 3 years Bryan Titugas Technical Writer 1 years Gladys Agbu RPMO/ SPRMO CDO III 7 years Rachel Bade SRCDO 15 years Potamio Valdehueza Jr CIO III 8 years Leizer Dumagan DCO III 12 years Elsa Montemor KCDS 12 years Kenneth Andohayan CDO III-IP Focal 6 years Juvy Echavaria SRPC 15 years Chogen Alderite CIO III 3 years Edsariane Cupin PDO-I 1 year Edward John Ty Reg. TA & E Specialist 11 years May 3 Carlosito C. Avila Cagwait Vice Mayor 8 years Arthur R. Luengas MIAC MENRO 10 years Baby Niel D. Quiñonez MPDC 20 years Anecita M. Selda MSWDO 35 years Elbert B. Cuarez Municipal Engineer 26 years Jemelyn Loreto Municipal Administrator Alfredo Lozada MEEO 25 years Mark Rey L. Geli MCT/ACT MDAC 4 years Pastor B. Cemanes Jr MAC 4 years Sarena Lou S. Plaza MFA 4 years Narciso Panto MCEF 1.3 years Ernie T. Lozada MCEF 4 years Felix D. Vasquez MCEF 2.4 years Jiny A. Aton CEF 2 years Cathy Mae A. Julve DAC 2 years Sheryn E. Andres CEF 2 years Caselyn B. Curay MFA 10 months Arnie M. Robles MFA 3 years Gonzalo Tañola Mam-on CV BAC Chair Jovel Tañola BAC Member Merly Estrella MIT Chair Datu Dave Casil PIT Chair, MACABATTA Sec. Gen Josefino Tañola PIT Mem/CADT 153–Chair Jonalyn Bundan PT Chair Jenefer Guno AIT Chair Randy Camayloman Brgy. Tribal Chieftain

Name Organization/ Position Time in

Unit Service Gonzalo Tañola Sr. Council of Elders - Michale Bundan NCIP Personel - May 4 Clem L. Bajan Brgy. Tubo-tubo Barangay Kagawad 8 years Maria Fe Camino Portlamon CVs Brgy. Secretary 4 years Francisco Tacsanan LGU Officials PPT Chair/BAC Member 11 years Marianita Llanos BHW Arlyn Bago PPT Member 6 years Elvira Papeliras BHW /AIT Member 20 years Jocelyn Danato Purok President 4 years Marissa Llanos Brgy. Kagawad 4 years Analiza Acabo Brgy. Treasurer 4 years Raul Danao GKK Kaabag /PT Chair 11 years Pedro Llanos Brgy. Captain 12 years Roman Realista Brgy. Kagawad 4 years Wenceslao Abinsay Brgy.Portlamon IP Secretary Candelario Viola Jr. Hinatuan Municipal Vice Mayor May 5 Princess Chile Tiodianco Hinatuan CEF 3.8 years Edelyn Tadeo MCT/ACT CEF 2.3 years

Evelyn Badana CEF 3.8 years Joart Badana CEF 1.2 years Mencie Cacho MCEF 1.2 years Iville Rose Sereño MFA 2 months Riza Mae Precioso MFA Region 3.8 years Bernabe Rosales CEF 3 years Laila Abdolmanan DAC 1 Month Reynel Cabucayan MCEF 1.2 years Gretchen Panal DAC 2.8 years Eunice Uypala MDAC 1 year Mary Luna Matulin DAC 7 months

Annex 3: Photo Documentation

Key Informant Interview with Dir. Rebecca P. Geamala, DSWD Regional Director, Region VI

RPMO Specialists Belen Gebucion, Dan Candare, Edison Germo, Relin Zabala during FGD Session 2

Ms Jane Austria-Young conducting FGD with Community Volunteers Bgy. Caw-I, Batad, Iloilo

Cycle 1 Ati Housing Subproject, Caw-I, Iloilo

FGD with Tribal Elders, Barangay Officials and Municipal IPMRs. Top picture Eskaya IP group, Pilar, Bohol. Bottom picture Higaonon IP group, Malitbog, Bukidnon.

School building, KC-NCDDP Subproject in Malitbog, Bukidnon

Pathway and street light, KC- NCDDP subroject in Bulusan, Sorsogon