Project RECOVERY (EU-UNDP) Terminal Evaluation Report

Annexes

Program Results Framework, Coverage Map and Outputs Delivered ...... 108 Annex A.1. Program Results Framework ...... 108 Annex A.2. Project RECOVERY Coverage Map ...... 109 Annex A.3. Summary of Outputs Delivered (by Component, by LGU, as of 31 March 2017) ...... 110 Annex A.4. EU-UNDP Project Team Structure ...... 113 Summary Findings of December 2015 Results-Oriented Monitoring (ROM) ...... 114 Progression on Status and Challenges of Project RECOVERY ...... 119 Annex C.1. Matrix of Annual Status (July 2014 – 1st Quarter 2017) ...... 119 Annex C.2. Matrix on Challenges (July 2014 – 1st Quarter 2017) ...... 137 Evaluation Matrix ...... 145 List of Individual or Groups Consulted (FGD, KII and Survey) and References/Documents ...... 163 Annex E.1. List of Individual or Groups Consulted/Met (FGD, KII and Survey) ...... 163 Annex E.2. Reference and Documents Reviewed ...... 171 Data Gathering Tools ...... 173 Annex F.1. Guide Questions for UNDP (General) ...... 173 Annex F.2. FGD Guide for LGUs ...... 182 Annex F.3. FGD Guide for Community Groups ...... 191 Annex F.4. FGD Guide for Resettlement Shelter Beneficiaries ...... 199 Annex F.5. FGD Guide for NGAs ...... 201 Annex F.6. KII Guide for Infrastructure ...... 209 Annex F.7. Livelihood Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire (English Version) ...... 218 Annex F.8. Livelihood Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire (Waray Version) ...... 221 Annex F.9. Livelihood Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire (Cebuano Version) ...... 224 Annex F.10. Resettlement Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire ...... 227 Summary Matrices of 8 LGUs ...... 231 Annex G.1. Hernani, Eastern Samar ...... 231 Annex G.2. Ormoc City, Leyte ...... 237 Annex G.3. Cabucgayan, Biliran ...... 247 Annex G.4. Balangkayan, Eastern Samar ...... 253 Annex G.5. Tacloban City, Leyte ...... 259 Annex G.6. Palo, Leyte ...... 267 Annex G.7. Salcedo, Eastern Samar ...... 275 Annex G.8. Guiuan, Eastern Samar ...... 299 Annex G.9. Data Analysis on Resettlement and Housing ...... 304 Short Biographies and Justification of the Team Composition ...... 313 Summary of Results of Survey on Livelihood and Resettlement ...... 316 Annex I.1. Summary of Survey Results on Livelihood Projects Survey ...... 316 Annex I.2. Summary of Survey Results on Resettlement and Housing ...... 318

A n n e x e s

Program Results Framework, Coverage Map and Outputs Delivered Annex A.1. Program Results Framework EU-UNDP Project RECOVERY: Results Framework Overall Goal Strengthened capacity of national and local governments as well as partner communities in facilitating the timely and sustainable recovery of affected families in the Visayas devastated by Typhoon Haiyan.

Project Purpose Complement and enhance the efforts of the government and communities in transitioning from relief to recovery and development through modelling, promotion and institutionalization of resilient infrastructure, sustainable livelihood contributing to local economic development, resettlement package and DRR processes.

Expected Result 1 Expected Result 2 Expected Result 3 Expected Result 4 Disaster-resilient, multi-purpose public Economic insecurity of target individuals, LGU and partners with enhanced capacity Capacities for disaster risk reduction and infrastructures modelled and promoted households and organizations reduced for shelter/resettlement planning and management (DRRM) and response- through agriculture-based and non- with model disaster-resilient preparedness of government actors and agriculture-based livelihood support resettlement community communities enhanced

Community evacuation centers Linkage with stable markets established Selected households resettled to safer LGUs equipped with basic constructed in safe zones and at higher for groups engaged in seaweed, high areas with disaster-resilient housing communications, early warning and construction standards value crops, livestock/poultry production model and livelihood support rescue equipment

Coastal and critical public infrastructures Value chain-related community Homeowners associations (HOA) in LGUs and communities trained on developed as disaster mitigation and enterprises and alternative (off-resource) resettlement sites capacitated on hazard/vulnerability/needs assessments, livelihood sustainability measures livelihood programs developed organizational and estate management contingency and DRRM planning

Women’s groups and individuals assisted in both project and organizational Shelter plans for selected LGUs developed or development and management updated

Immediate employment provided through coco-lumber processing operations (Source: UNDP Team)

108

Annex A.2. Project RECOVERY Coverage Map

The project operates in three (3) UNDP Yolanda Response Hubs covering a total of two (2) cities and (13) municipalities in the provinces of Biliran, Leyte and Eastern Samar. The map and table below provides an overview of the coverage areas of Project RECOVERY.

Guiuan Hub Ormoc Hub Tacloban Hub1 • Balangkayan, Eastern Samar • Biliran, Biliran • Palo, Leyte • Giporlos, Eastern Samar • Cabucgayan, Biliran • Tacloban City • Guiuan, Eastern Samar • Caibiran, Biliran • Hernani, Eastern Samar • Naval, Biliran • Lawaan, Eastern Samar • Ormoc City • Mercedes, Eastern Samar • Quinapondan, Eastern Samar • Salcedo, Eastern Samar

1 Serves as the main Project Management Office of UNDP operations in the Visayas region

109

Annex A.3. Summary of Outputs Delivered (by Component, by LGU, as of 31 March 2017)

Distribution of Components and Outputs Across the 15 LGUs Tacloban Hub Guiuan Hub Ormoc Hub

Tacloban Ormoc Comp. Outputs Target Actual Palo Lawaan Giporlos Quinapondan Hernani Balangkayan Salcedo Mercedes Guiuan Naval Biliran Cabucgayan Caibiran City City Component 12: 1 Community Evacuation Centers 11 11 ongoing ongoing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (CECs) 1 Man-made coastal mangrove infrastructures coastal + (including 8 8 res. mgt. mangrove mangrove mangrove boardwalk mangrove boardwalk boardwalk mangroves) center and view deck 1 Critical public TACRU infrastructures multi-use 2 2 center and mangrove 1 Cold storage facility 1 1 1 Component 23: 2 Immediate employment 2,000 2,317 255 552 145 141 155 159 534 138 25 160 53 through coco- lumber processing 2 Small farming households provided 5,000 4,196 773 667 17 37 353 70 463 291 98 205 552 251 64 200 155 with agricultural inputs 2 Men and women trained in alternative 1,500 1,490 649 215 41 74 25 55 19 65 48 50 249 livelihood skills

2 Result 1 Indicator (OVI-Logfame): (1) Number of families making use of multi-use facilities. 3 Result 2 Indicators (OVI-logframe): (1) Number of farmers who have resumed agricultural production; (2) number of newly-employed individuals; (3) number of new micro- enterprises

110

Distribution of Components and Outputs Across the 15 LGUs Tacloban Hub Guiuan Hub Ormoc Hub

Tacloban Ormoc Comp. Outputs Target Actual Palo Lawaan Giporlos Quinapondan Hernani Balangkayan Salcedo Mercedes Guiuan Naval Biliran Cabucgayan Caibiran City City 2 Men and women trained in sustainable 5,000 3,220 700 620 17 37 171 20 200 102 133 186 425 230 64 170 145 agriculture management 2 Communities supported in the establishment of 5 14 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 agri-based enterprise 2 Hectares of farmlands devoted 300 384 160 99 10 15 20 30 50 for high value crops 2 Women’s organizations provided with 5 9 3 2 1 1 2 microenterprise assistance Component 34: 3 Resettlement areas with model disaster- 3 3 1 1 1 resilient shelter units 3 Disaster-resilient shelter units 165 165 55 55 55 3 Level II water Level III Level III Level III 6 3 systems ongoing ongoing ongoing 3 Homeowners associations provided with 3 3 1 1 1 capacity building support

4 Result 3 Indicator (OVI-logframe): Number of families provided with water supply and facilities

111

Distribution of Components and Outputs Across the 15 LGUs Tacloban Hub Guiuan Hub Ormoc Hub

Tacloban Ormoc Comp. Outputs Target Actual Palo Lawaan Giporlos Quinapondan Hernani Balangkayan Salcedo Mercedes Guiuan Naval Biliran Cabucgayan Caibiran City City 3 LGUs provided with technical support on resettlement 3 3 1 1 1 planning and handling of land management issues Component 45: 4 LGUs provided with comprehensive 15 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DRRM capacity building package

5 Result 4 Indicator (OVI-logframe): Number of well-equipped DRRM units and personnel of LGU

112

Annex A.4. EU-UNDP Project Team Structure

Resilience and Peace Building Unit | Procurement Unit | Finance Unit UNDP Country Office

Ms. Eden Garde Project Manager

SUPPORT UNIT PROGRAMME UNIT Project-wide Project-wide

Monitoring and Communications Administrative Finance Officer Project Officer Project Officer Project Officer Project Officer Evaluation Officer Officer Officer Elisa Vistavilla / Infrastructure Livelihoods Community Dev’t. DRRM Nelson Peloton Jr. Leoniza Morales Joyce Alipalo Nerissa Quindara Engr. Joel Bobis Ma. Theresa dela Cruz and Settlements Napoleon Manegdeg (Fin-Admin Associate) Susan Saballa Assisted by: Arch. Niko Abogado Arch. Shamie Faderan Engr. Jovanie Muralla

ORMOC HUB TACLOBAN HUB GUIUAN HUB Covering: Ormoc, Naval, Biliran, Covering: Covering: Lawaan, Giporlos, Quinapondan, Balangkayan, Cabucgayan and Caibiran Tacloban and Palo Hernani, Salcedo, Mercedes and Guiuan

Area Coordinator Area Coordinator Area Coordinator Dario Cubelo Eden Garde (PM) James Abdul

Project Officer Project Officer Project Officer Project Officer Project Officer Project Officer Boris Pascubillo Roy Dimayuga Alimudin Mala Rey dela Calzada Severino Salva Carmela Belonio (Biliran Prov. C1-C4) (Ormoc C1, C2 and C4) (Palo C2 and C4) (Tacloban C2 and C3) (Hub C1 and C2) (Hub C2, C3 and C4)

Project Officer Admin and Finance Admin and Finance Project Officer Admin and Finance Arch. Solomon Gaveria Assistant Assistant Marivic Monteverde Assistant (Infra Ormoc & Biliran) Delia Cinco Rhea Lamorena (Hub C2) Flor Elisa Triño / Maria Bettelin Ortiz

113

Summary Findings of December 2015 Results-Oriented Monitoring (ROM)

Report of Results-Oriented Monitoring (ROM) Mission (December 2015) Recovery and Resilience in Selected Typhoon Yolanda-affected Communities in the Visayas

Summary Findings on Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency and Sustainability RELEVANCE

The project "Recovery and Resilience in Selected Typhoon Yolanda-affected Communities in the Visayas", in short Project RECOVERY has a high relevance.

The UNDP is well placed to play a coordinating role in the reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts of multiple national and international stakeholders. The action is adequate to the capacities of the beneficiaries, i.e. Local Government Units (LGUs) and communities, who have lost capacity (physical infrastructure and human resources). The project addressed their restoration needs in both the physical infrastructure and social infrastructure, as well as sought to increase their resilience and capacity to respond to future disasters that are expected to occur more frequently due to overall climate change, applying principles of sustainable development.

Whereas the overall project components with their respective outputs are pre-defined in terms of budget allocations and general description of the outputs. The actual types of infrastructure, the designs of constructions, the locations, as well as the specific livelihood and DRR activities are jointly determined by the project management and the direct target groups, the LGUs and CBOs. This consultation process enhanced the ownership of the involved LGUs. LGU officials (Barangay chairmen, Mayors and Planning Officers of Municipalities were very happy with the multifunctional Community Evacuation Centres (CEC), and actively participated in the various exercises related to DRR, such as the CVAs (Capacity and Vulnerability Assessments) and the preparation of the Contingency Plan. The HOAs are directly in charge of the construction of their shelters in good cooperation with project staff and are keen on having more responsibility in the procurement of construction materials (now fully taken care of by UNDP). Whereas the communities are participating in the livelihood activities, they were not well informed about the objectives and planned and future activities of the sub-project they were participating. Consequently, they were not pro-active, but rather waiting for what the project would bring. EFFECTIVENESS

On the Outputs:

1. The project has focused on C-1 (infrastructure), which is reflected by a physical delivery rate of 54%. However, the performance for each of the 10 CECs differs a lot: from a few that are nearly completion, to some that have hardly started and one (Tacloban) that involves massive land preparation (excavation of a hill top), before the actual construction can take place. Solar panels and generator are not yet installed. The contractor is just starting (November) the foundation for the cold storage. None of the 5 critical structures are yet identified. The work on the mangrove rehabilitation is behind schedule, some planting is done, but it is not clear if maintenance is being done.

114

2. The Livelihood Component (C-2) has a physical rate of 27%, if it did not continue the emergency coco-lumbering project that was initiated prior to the start of RECOVERY, the financial delivery rate would be half this figure. During the second half of 2015 a total of 16 subprojects were approved, for which the procurement started, so implementation rate will soon increase significantly. Although the figures are not yet available, indications are that the high targets for delivery of inputs and training and acreage under commercial crops will not be obtained.

3. C-3 (Resettlement) has a physical delivery rate of 38%. After a long preparation process (selection of beneficiaries, formation and training of HOAs, selection of resettlement sites and obtaining legal documents, etc. The construction is now well underway on two sites (Hernani and Tacloban) and just started in Ormoc. It was decided to upgrade the drinking and sanitation system from level II (community-based) to level III (individual facilities). Expected completion is by mid-2016.

4. C-4 Disaster Risk Reduction. This component has a physical rate of 49%. Twenty-five ADs were developed, including conducting Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments (VCAs) and Contingency Planning (CP) workshops at provincial, municipal and Barangay level, provision of communication means, Early Warning Systems, rescue equipment and drills. Technical assistance was provided to the OPARR, OCD and recently to NEDA in planning and strategy development for DRR.

The quality of the CECs is satisfactory to very good, depending on the contractor. The project staff is on the spot and checking the contractors. The quality of the permanent shelters is good. It is too early to assess the quality of the 10 soft infrastructures (mangroves) and the cold storage, as these activities have just started. The livelihood activities are just starting and it is too early to assess the quality of the outputs. The quality of the outputs of DRR programme is good, this applies for the training of facilitators, as well as the VCA reports and the Contingency Plans that were prepared in a highly participatory manner.

On Outcomes:

1. C-1 disaster resilient public infrastructure: partially yes, for CECs and potentially the rehabilitated mangroves, but for the other outputs it is doubtful if they will be achieved: other critical infrastructure is not yet identified. The cold storage is an example of a high risk investment, so far RECOVERY considers it just as a procurement and construction task and not as an productive asset, requiring a business plan; it may turn out to be a nice facility, but under-utilized.

2. C-2 potentially yes, the provision of agricultural inputs and alternative livelihood training is expected to have a positive effect on the livelihoods of rural people; however there are risks related to alternative crops, processing and marketing; it may even lead to adverse effects (lower than expected yields, selling the crops and/or processing at a loss, etc.)

UPDATES: Terminal Evaluation Mission (August 2017): The marketing of dried cassava chips and seaweeds, produced by farmers and fisherfolks were already established with the guidance of service providers (PCF and PRRM) on organizational development and marketing. These conduit organizations helped in building the capacity of cooperatives in Balangkayan and Salcedo, both in Eastern Samar. In the case of BACO, the technical assistance and production loans were being provided to member-farmers who were engaged in the production and drying of cassava chips to institutional buyers such as the San Miguel Corporation (SMC). The members of BACO also include those farmers and fisherfolks in adjoining LGUs.

115

3. C-3 yes the permanent shelters will be built, but much more capacity building is required to ensure that the HOA will successfully continue constructing entering the market as a commercial contractor (which is the aim of the model.

4. C-4 yes, the comprehensive DRR package enhanced the capacity of provinces and LGUs to implement similar programmes in municipalities and barangays that are currently not covered by the project. EFFICIENCY

1. In October 2015, the M&E expert introduced Accomplishment Reports (ARs) and an “Integrated Physical Progress Monitoring Matrix”, to track progress against planning for the ADs, to the physical and quantitative targets in the logframe, and budget codes. The AR template -if well filled in - provides excellent monitoring data, as it not only informs about the accomplishment rate, but also the factors that affected implementation, the actions that were or will be taken, and possible modifications made. The matrix gives a good overview of the physical and financial delivery rates, but is still fully output oriented. To achieve the Expected Results (ER) that are outcome-oriented, the Matrix need to be expanded with the formulation and assessment of outcome indicators. Another activity is "beneficiary profiling" that seeks to gather baseline data that will be used to assess outcomes towards the end of the (sub-) projects.

2. All activities for the livelihood and DRR component require (sub-) project write-ups, called "Activity Designs" or ADs. Whereas this implementing mechanism in principle is excellent, it was found that they were restricted to the Annual Work Plan of 2015, causing a disconnect with the (sub-) project's multi-year time frame and objectives. This system leads to uncertainty in the beneficiaries and project officers, of what the RECOVERY project would deliver the next year, whereas new ADs need to be prepared and approved for 2016, requiring additional time and resources.

UPDATES: Terminal Evaluation Mission (August 2017): Starting in 2016 the MCGA was implemented for greater ownership of community/livelihood groups in buying the needed materials and ensure better quality control by beneficiaries on goods delivered by Suppliers. It was also mentioned during the FGD that some suppliers delivered goods that were not according the specification and has to returned and replaced with correct item took consideration time (Sustainable Organic Farmers of Ormoc on building materials and Salcedo Multipurpose Cooperative on supplier of cassava stalks). As such, the implementation of project by community groups were delayed and timing of planting was also affected. It was also mentioned during the FGD that price quotations using the direct procurement by UNDP were higher as compared to price quotations being requested in the name of the community groups (Sustainable Farmers Organization and Nanguan Mangrove Association, Ormoc City, etc.)

3. The project has a hierarchical structure, with all decisions on funding and project management taken by the UNDP Manila's Office and in case of investments of over 50,000 Euro by the Bangkok Office. All procurement is done by UNDP directly, without involvement of the partners. UNDP project staff based in the field may assist in the preparation of the documentation, but the actual procurement is done by the Manila-based procurement unit. Although this ensures that no funds are being diverted, it also leads to delays the actual delivery of the goods and services to the sub- projects. The two visited HOAs could not work at full speed in the construction of the houses

116

("permanent shelters"), instead they had to send part of the workers home, for lack of materials, most of which was locally available.

4. The EU budget for field staff contains only 7 positions for technical staff, as well as 2 positions at the national level (TA seconded to OPARR, OCD, NEDA). There is no budget provision for staff in the hubs, whereas the project cannot be implemented without such staff. Hub staff are currently on the payroll of two other UNDP implemented projects (KOICA, UNICEF), but they are said to be spending part of their time to the project RECOVERY. Technical staff in Tacloban were mobilized by March/April 2015 (about 10 months after the project start), which together with time consuming processes, such as official approvals, allocation of land, non-complying contractors and suppliers, etc.- led to significant delays in implementation.

5. This is reflected in low delivery rates: total disbursement as per October 31, 2015 has been EUR 2.9 million, or 30% of the total budget (3% in 2014 and 27% in 2015), corresponding to 40% of the planned expenditure for this period; the expenditure rate by component is as follows: C -1: 45%; C-2:13%; C-3: 25%; and C-4: 30%. Expenditure on Human Resources 17%. These delays are particularly critical for the livelihood component and the non- CEC infrastructure.

6. Overall, the outputs were delivered in a cost-efficient manner. SUSTAINABILITY

1. C-1: The delivery of disaster resilient infrastructure depends on external funding; it is certainly beyond the reach of LGUs. The LGUs are capable to use the multifunctional CECs and take care of maintenance, as these structures are low cost in maintenance (robust structures, solar power). LGUs could partly implement the rehabilitation of mangroves themselves, but still require additional funding to reach a reasonably large scale to become effective. The Guiuan Municipality requires additional technical assistance to effectively make use of the cold storage as an important asset in the supply chain of whole fish, fillet and ice products.

UPDATES: Terminal Evaluation Mission (August 2017): Cold storage Facility was completed and turned over to the LGU last quarter of 2016. It was not made operational yet by the LGU, though a Business Plan has already been prepared. It was pointed out during the 25 August 2017 Project Board meeting, the UNDP will exert effort with the LGU Guiuan, Eastern Visayas.

2. C-2: The main sustainability strategy is to build capacity in the beneficiaries and their organizations (source: entry conference for this monitoring mission). Project support to already well-functioning CBOs, providing them with essential inputs, thereby boosting their operations is sustainable. However, the sustainability of the support to farming and fishing communities in increasing productivity, processing and marketing is doubtful. Support should not be limited to social preparation and mobilization. These actions require long-term technical and organizational assistance to CBOs that so far is not being offered, and due to the late start of the (sub-) projects, few time is left. Relying on government agencies, such as BFAR and DA is not realistic, as they lack resources.

UPDATES: Terminal Evaluation Mission (August 2017): Linkages were already established by the CBO with institutional buyers (private sector businesses) of dried cassava chips and seaweeds. Conduit scheme of technical assistance for organizational development, management of cooperatives and marketing were already started in last quarter of 2016, with service providers such as the PCF for cassava and the PRRM for seaweeds.

117

3. C-3: the HOAs are currently trained in the planning of work and are providing the skilled and unskilled labour, but they are not trained and not gaining experience in negotiating and purchasing of building materials. This will negatively affect their positioning as contractors for future resettlement projects, which is an important aim of this component.

UPDATES: Terminal Evaluation Mission (August 2017): The participants to the FGD indicated that they would request quotations from the suppliers to get better price from among the suppliers. As such, most of them have already developed the skill for negotiating and purchasing building materials. However, there is a need to develop further the capacity of the HOA on the construction management and scheduling, which could be provided by an established construction firm through a construction management consultancy arrangement similar the conduit scheme of the PCF and PRRM.

4. C-4: The comprehensive DRR package that is provided to the LGUs enhances them to implement similar programmes in municipalities and barangays that are currently not covered by the project. However, financial contributions from external sources remain necessary, in particular for sharing part of the cost of trainers and DRR-related equipment

All hard-infrastructural structures are typhoon-proof. The soft man-made coastal structures, primarily the replanted mangrove forests help to protect the coastal areas against storm surges and hard winds, and at the same time increase the quality of marine life feeding and breeding in the forests. Equally, the comprehensive DRR package helps to increase resilience of local communities and to reduce environmental impact of disasters.

Initial steps are taken to link producer associations (fishermen and farmers) to processors and buyers. The project collaborated with the private sector for linking trainees of its alternative livelihood programme to employment opportunities through the Leyte Chamber of Commerce. This has to be intensified to effectively provide new and sustainable opportunities for these project beneficiaries.

118

Progression on Status and Challenges of Project RECOVERY Annex C.1. Matrix of Annual Status (July 2014 – 1st Quarter 2017)

Progression on Implementation and Financial Status (version 4) (July 2014 -March 2017)

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) Component 1: DISASTER-RESILIENT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE Total Budget €3,000,000 €3,000,000 €3,000,000 €3,000,000 (€) 2014-17 AWP Budget 0 US$ 2,905,216 US$ 1,564,526 €571,258 (US$) Annual Expend. 0 US$ 2,030,298 US$ 911,649 €203,349 (US$) % Annual Exp. 0 70% 58% 36% Annual US$ 2,030,298 (USD) US$ -1,118,649 Increase (US$) % Annual Inc. - -55 Cumulative (€) €2,347,066 2014-16 % Expenditure 78% on total budget 1.1 CEC Architectural drawings and Completion (structural) of 6 Completion of nine (9) CECs Official handover of the designs for the CEC in community evacuation centers out of the overall target of 11 Balangkayan, Hernani and Tacloban City developed by (CEC). units. Quinapondan CECs to the UNDP in collaboration with Municipal LGUs. the Tacloban City Architect. Ongoing construction of 3 Continuation of CEC Detailed design, Bill of CECs in Eastern Samar. construction activities in Continuation of CEC Quantity (BOQ) and construction activities in

specifications of the other 10

119

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) CECs outside Tacloban City Procurement of solar power Tacloban City (37%) and Tacloban City (60%) and (i.e. LGUs in Eastern Samar, systems and generator sets for Lawaan (18%); and, Lawaan (70%). Ormoc City and Biliran) all CECs subjected to consultations with concerned LGUs, On-site delivery of the 5-KVA finalized and approved by generators for all completed these partners. CECs Of the 10 CECs outside

Tacloban City (1 CEC per LGU), bidding announcements were made for the CEC constructions in 3 LGUs (i.e. Ormoc City in Western Leyte, Hernani and Salcedo municipalities in Eastern Samar). While for the remaining 7 LGUs (i.e. Balangkayan, Quinapondan, Mercedes, Cabucgayan, Naval, Biliran, Guiuan), the land and sites were already identified, though their respective LGU councils/LCEs has yet to formally allocate the land. 1.2 Mangrove The blueprint for the Completion of mangrove Continuing care and Continuing care and & Boardwalk mangrove reforestation and planting activities under the maintenance of maintenance of rehabilitation project in Mangrove Rehabilitation replanted/rehabilitated replanted/rehabilitated Ormoc City defined and Project in Ormoc; mangrove areas in Lawaan, mangrove areas in Lawaan, finalized in consultations with Giporlos, Balangkayan, Giporlos, Balangkayan, the LGU and communities.

120

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) Twenty hectares of mangrove Procurement of construction Mercedes, Ormoc City and Mercedes, Ormoc City and forest will be rehabilitated in materials for the boardwalk Tacloban City. Tacloban City. three coastal barangays, projects in Cabucgayan and namely: Naungan, Lao and Salcedo, and the coastal Completion of a 500-meter Utilization of the Caridad San Juan. resource management center mixed-material boardwalk in Boardwalk in Salcedo, Eastern in Palo. Salcedo, Eastern Samar. Samar. At least 40 households residing in these coastal Procurement of seedlings for Completion of 260-meter Utilization of Naravil barangays as direct mangrove rehabilitation concrete boardwalk in Boardwalk in Cabucgayan, beneficiaries for replanting project in Balangkayan, Cabucgayan, Biliran Biliran as mangrove and monitoring under the Giporlos, Mercedes and ecotourism facilities.

community contracting Lawaan scheme.

UNDP conducted a series of consultations with Naungan- San Juan Mangrove Planters’ Association (NASAMPA), Ormoc City’s CDRRMO, leaders of 3 target barangays and planning meetings with Office of City Administrator, City Environment and Natural Resources Office and City Planning and Development Office.

UNDP and OXFAM have conducted a joint study on the target mangrove forest to integrate initial findings into

121

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) the planned interventions under Project RECOVERY.

1.3 Critical One (1) critical public infra Completion of the Handover and utilization of infra approved which is 20% of training/multi-use center for the TACRU Training/Multi-use target, through the Beach and the TACRU and a community- Center and the Palo Mangrove Forests based coastal resource Community- based Coastal Establishment/Rehabilitation management center in Palo, Resource Management in the Coastal Areas of Leyte Center. Tacloban City”, a three-phase project to rehabilitate 26 Completion of mangrove hectares of mangroves forests, planting activities in remaining establishment of 6 hectares of areas of Tacloban covered by beach forests, establishment the Beach and Mangrove of 3 central nurseries and Forests Project. coastal resource management centers to produce and manage the propagules requirements of 8 target coastal areas, plantation maintenance and protection, and formation/ training/deployment of forest protectors.

1.4 Cold After consultations with Completion of concreting Commissioning and official Note: Cold storage facility was Storage affected LGUs in the coastal works of the footings, tie turnover of the Guiuan cold not yet operating as of 9 municipalities of Eastern beams, columns and floor storage facility to the LGU; August 2017 (during visit of Samar, Guiuan selected the slabs of the Guiuan cold- and crafting of the facility’s Terminal Evaluation Team) site of the cold storage facility storage facility (50% progress) business (operations and to support the fisheries- management) plan related livelihoods in the

122

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) municipality and with neighboring Salcedo and Mercedes which will share in the use of the facility.

A design for the cold storage facility was submitted by the LGU of Guiuan and reviewed by UNDP towards streamlining the structure, reducing the costs and meet the functional objective of the building.

Component 2 SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS Total Budget €2,582,839 €2,582,839 €2,582,839 €2,582,839 (€) 2014-17 AWP Budget €330,039 US$ 2,200,853 US$ 1,877,761 €1,106,205 (US$) Annual Expend. US$ 330,320 US$ 735,780 US$ 749,568 €166,439 (US$) % Annual Exp 100 % 33 % 40 % 15 % Annual Increase (US$), US$ 13,788 2015-16 % Annual Inc. 2 % Cumulative (€) €1,476,633 2014-16 % Expenditure 57 % on total budget

123

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) 2.1 Coco- Under Project RECOVERY, Completion of the coconut lumber 1,760 farmers were timber-to-lumber operations processing employed/earned income in providing income various stages of coco lumber opportunities to 2,317 persons processing. which is 116% of target 2,000 (i.e. 1,508 haulers, 275 A total of 19,884 trees were chainsaw operators, 342 cut in 11 municipalities and private saw millers, 192 tree cities. owners) Transitional houses built by three (3) partner-entities (Operation Compassion, IOM and All Hands Volunteer Organization) using coco lumber provided by Project RECOVERY 2.2 Agricultural Provision of agricultural inputs Delivery of agricultural inputs Delivery of agricultural inputs inputs like planting materials, farms to an additional 1,347 farming to 173 new farming tools and equipment to 2,676 households this year bringing households bringing the (53.52%) small farming the overall total to 4,023 overall total to 4,196 households households provided with households (84% of target) agricultural support like provided with agricultural planting materials, natural support like planting fertilizers, farm tools, materials, natural fertilizers, equipment and other farm tools and equipment, production materials and other production materials.

124

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) 2.3 Alternative Discussed and consulted with Implementation of alternative Completion of additional Completion of additional livelihood skills the regional and provincial livelihood skills training alternative livelihood alternative livelihood offices of TESDA, Leyte sessions on food processing, vocational training and vocational training and Chamber of Commerce and cookery,bartending, accreditation sessions to accreditation sessions to Industry and selected schools housekeeping, massage increase total number of increase total number of (i.e. Lawaan National School therapy, shielded metal arc graduates to 1,062 individuals graduates to 1,490 individuals of Craftsmanship and Home welding, and motorcycle and (i.e., 719 graduates in 2016 (i.e., 428 graduates Industries, Balangiga National small engine servicing and the 343 in 2015) Agricultural School) – all benefitting a total of 327 constituting a 70% delivery In 2017, 719 graduates in existing partners of UNDP – individuals (106 males-221 rate of the overall target. 2016 and 343 in 2015) on opportunities for a females) or 4.5% of the target constituting a 99% delivery continuing collaboration with Ongoing coordination with rate of the overall target; and UNDP in skills training and job partner training service ongoing delivery of alternative placement. providers and target livelihood support to beneficiaries for the households in various implementation of remaining resettlement sites in Tacloban programmed training courses; City. and continuing coordination with the graduates to track their status of employment and income generated to date 2.4 Sustainable Discussed key players such as Conduct of various training Conduct of additional training Conduct of additional training agriculture Food and Agriculture sessions pertaining to sessions pertaining to sessions on sustainable management Organization (FAO), LGU sustainable agriculture sustainable agriculture agriculture management, agriculture and fishery management, organic and management, organic and organic and integrated officers and international integrated farming covering a integrated farming covering a farming—along with delivery NGOs to map similar ongoing total of 2,248 individuals (875 total of 3,070 individuals (i.e., of agricultural inputs—to initiatives and identify males-1,373 females) or 31.2% 822 beneficiaries in 2016 and cover a total of 3,220 possible areas for of the target. the 2,248 individuals trained individuals (i.e.,150 complementation and in 2015) which constitutes a beneficiaries in 2017, 822 in partnership in sustainable 2016 and the 2,248 individuals agriculture programs, trained in 2015) which

125

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) focusing on identifying 60% delivery rate of the constitutes a 64% delivery information that will be overall target rate of the overall target. shared with UNDP, such as the profiles of farmers’ associations, areas of operation, ongoing work on processing, value-adding, post-harvest facilities (e.g. cold storage plants) and strengthening the root crop industry along the Guiuan- Salcedo-Mercedes strip. DA agreed on consolidating data that will be shared with UNDP. 2.5 Finalized the terms of, 5 communities (100% of Implementation and/or Continuing implementation Community- “Support to Informal Micro- target) supported through 5 continuing monitoring of nine and monitoring of nine (9) based Enterprises: Enhancing the projects focusing on (9) agriculture-based agriculture---based livelihood livelihood Tacloban Lechon Industry”as integrated agri- and aqua- livelihood projects (including projects in 14 communities projects an initiative to improve the based livelihood systems in 4 the 3 expanded and 1 new for across Leyte, Eastern Samar business operations and areas 2016) in 14 communities and Biliran Provinces increase the income of lechon across Leyte, Eastern Samar (exceeding overall target of operators. This livelihood and Biliran Provinces only 5 communities) undertaking was approved in (exceeding overall target of December 2014 and only 5 communities). supported 16 lechon enterprises, consisting of 12 Majority of those approved pork lechon and 4 chicken since 2016 are being lechon operators, through implemented through the upgrading of the food stalls of MCGA modality of UNDP the 16 operators and which was adopted. As a strategy to help build the

126

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) provided training on business capacities of beneficiary- management and food associations in project handling. management as well as to simplify project implementation.

Challenges on Livelihood (2016) - Difficulty in finding qualified proponents for the Micro-Capital Grant (alternative to direct procurement by UNDP) because most of the target beneficiaries have yet to be formally organized.

NOTES (Terminal Evaluation Mission):

5 September 2016 - Contract with Philippine Cooperative Fund (PCF) for organizational development and marketing support to BACO (Balangkayan) and community organizations in 3 LGUs (under EU-UNDP: Quinapondan, GIporlos, and Lawaan) and Borongan involved in the production, processing and marketing of cassava.

127

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) 7 September 2016 - Contract with PRRM for organizational development, production, processing, consolidation and marketing of community groups in Eastern Samar, involved in seaweeds production and marketing of seaweeds. 2.6 High value LGU Salcedo (Eastern Samar) Implementation of seven (7) Continuing implementation Continuing implementation crops (area) allocated 100 hectares for projects supporting the and monitoring of eight (8) and monitoring of eight (8) root crop production, LGU establishment of 279.5 projects which covers a total projects covering a total of Mercedes and Guiuan have hectares of farmlands or 93% of 384 hectares (now 384 hectares (exceeding allocated 50 hectares each for of target, devoted to high exceeding the overall target of overall target of 300 hectares) root crops and fruit trees. value commercial crops (e.g. 300 hectares) of farmlands of farmlands across While in LGU Tacloban, 12 cacao, banana, jackfruit) as across Balangkayan, Ormoc, Balangkayan, Ormoc, hectares in the livelihood pilot to agro-industry Tacloban and Palo planted Tacloban and Palo planted center of the resettlement development with high-value commercial with high value commercial areas of the city government crops (i.e., cacao, vegetables, crops (i.e., cacao, vegetables, have been allocated. banana, jackfruit and cassava) banana, jackfruit and cassava) 2.7 Women’s Two women’s organizations Implementation of three (3) Continuing implementation Continuing implementation group in Biliran province identified livelihood projects directly and monitoring of eight (8) and monitoring of eight (8) livelihood as possible beneficiaries of supporting four (4) women’s livelihood projects directly Livelihood projects directly micro-enterprise assistance organizations in Tacloban and supporting five (5) women’s supporting five (5) women’s for the processing of Cabucgayan or 80% of the associations and four (4) associations and four (4) marine/fishery-based target women-led organizations in women-led organizations in products. Three women’s Cabucgayan, Tacloban, Cabucgayan, Tacloban, organizations identified as Salcedo, Guiuan and Hernani Salcedo, Guiuan and Hernani potential partners in Palo, Hernani and Guiuan.

128

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) Component 3 RESETTLEMENT OF DISPLACED POPULATIONS Total Budget €1,117,161 €1,117,161 €1,117,161 €1,117,161 (€) 2014-17 AWP Budget US$ 454 US$ 1,026,802 US$ 657,746 €146,846 (US$) Annual Expend. US$ 1,335 US$ 656,167 US$ 606,912 €28,761 (US$) % Annual Exp. 294% 64% 92% 20% Annual Increase (US$), US$ -49,255 2015-16 % Annual Inc. -8% Cumulative (€) €1,051,991 2014-16 % Expenditure 94% on total budget 3.1 Disaster- The detailed designs, BOQ Ongoing shelter construction Generally completed the Handover of housing units to Resilient and specifications of the core activities at the resettlement construction of 165 housing resettlement beneficiaries in Permanent shelters have been completed project sites in Tacloban, units across the three (3) Tacloban and Hernani; Shelters with inputs from the mayors Hernani and Ormoc; and, the resettlement sites in ongoing rectification works in of the concerned LGUs and procurement of inputs as Tacloban, Ormoc and Hernani; selected housing units at the the LGU engineering and livelihood support to both the and ongoing installation of the three sites based on the housing offices. Two Level II Tacloban and Hernani level III water system in all punch list submitted by water systems per Homeowners’ Associations three areas concerned beneficiaries; and resettlement area were ongoing installation of Level III included in the design of the water system in Tacloban plumbing system of the row- (98%), Ormoc (90%) and housing structures. Hernani (24%)

129

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) 3.2 HOA Details of community-driven Delivery of various inputs as Ongoing implementation of scheme were already defined livelihood support to group and individual by UNDP in shelter members of the Tacloban, livelihood projects for the 155 construction to ensure that Hernani and Ormoc HOAs. household members of the recipient communities are at Tacloban, Hernani and Ormoc the forefront of the Ongoing procurement of HOAs and for 448 selected resettlement process. The livelihood inputs for 300 households in Tacloban scheme involves organizing households relocated in resettlement sites. the shelter recipients and Tacloban North resettlement building their capacities in areas Conduct of “Estate organizational, project, Management Orientation and Conduct of Estate financial and estate Training Workshop” to assist Management Orientation and management. They were the HYSBA in the preparation Training Workshops for organized as HOAs which and completion of their Estate Ormoc and Tacloban HOAs to shall be registered with SEC, Management Plan. assist them in the completion DOLE or other relevant of their Estate Management government entities. Plans; UNDP will directly contract

HOA for the construction of the core shelters in the target resettlement sites. UNDP engineering and community development teams will guide the HOA in organizing their workforce who will carry out the construction. Under UNDP guidance, the HOA will develop and implement a system for mobilization of counterparts and paid labor, undertake skills profiling and

130

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) training, monitor the project, manage and administer the payroll, and coordinate with key partners. The HOA will be trained and provided with regular mentor support throughout the project management cycle. 3.3. Shelter Completion of enumeration Conduct of shelter planning Plans with work covering all households workshops for the LGUs of LGUs in Hernani and 90% Tacloban City and completion in data encoding Municipality of Hernani. as part of the shelter planning support to the LGU. Completion of field work and data collection for the A review of the draft of “Compendium of Ormoc’s five-year Resettlement Approaches and Comprehensive Shelter Plan Packages of Different (2015-2020) indicated some Agencies Involved in Haiyan gaps. The Ormoc TWG on Response in Eastern Visayas” Resettlement already started filling in some of the data gaps but could not complete the exercise this year due to technical glitches in the updating of their Community- based Monitoring System (CBMS) which would have provided their data requirements. The LGU is now considering the conduct of a household survey through

131

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) Project RECOVERY’s technical and/or funding support, to address the data gaps. Component 4 SUPPORT TO RECOVERY COORDINATON AND LOCAL CAPACITIES FOR DRRM Total Budget €1,111,664 €1,111,664 €1,111,664 €1,111,664 (€) 2014-17 AWP Budget US$ 9,376 US$ 983,134 US$ 683,692 €291,085 (US$) Annual Expend. US$ 18,648 US$ 591,059 US$ 392,237 €38,654 (US$) % Annual Exp 199% 60% 57% 13% Annual Increase (US$), US$ -198,822 2015-16 % Annual Inc. -34% Cumulative (€) € 820,579 2014-16 % Expenditure 74% on total budget 4.0 OPARR; OPARR put together an Following the issuance by Assistance to NEDA, during then NEDA overall strategic vision and President Benigno Aquino of the period, consisted of integrated short-term, Memorandum Order 79 series deployment of personnel that medium-term and long-term of 2015, which transfers the could provide support in plans and programs for the government’s recovery Yolanda Inter-Agency rehabilitation of Typhoon coordination mandate from coordination meetings that Yolanda-affected areas. the Office of OPARR to NEDA, aimed to assess the status of OPARR played a key Project RECOVERY engaged Yolanda programs and coordination role in the one (1) Rehabilitation and projects and to discuss the crafting of the government’s Recovery Officer and one (1) new monitoring and reporting

132

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) CRRP. The CRRP articulates Rehabilitation and Recovery mechanisms. Consultations the principles, approaches Advisor who provided were also undertaken to and specific programs, coordination and technical validate the list of agency projects and activities to be support to facilitate the projects for monitoring. undertaken by national and transition between the two local government entities, agencies. Support was also provided development actors and towards updating the private sector partners to These personnel provided the database of NEDA’s Yolanda enable the affected following support to the projects based on agency communities to recover from transition: (1) Technical advice validation of physical and the impact of the disaster. on the prioritization of financial targets. government programs, projects and activities (PPA) under the CRRP which may be implemented in the remaining months of the Aquino administration; (2) Inputs on lessons learned, challenges and good practices from the Typhoon Yolanda experience, particularly with respect to monitoring of rehabilitation and recovery efforts, and the strengthening of private sector and development partner engagement; and (3) Guidance on staffing support and operational concerns to support coordination of rehabilitation and recovery efforts.

133

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) 4.1 OCD and Supported the OCD in the In support to the policy Support to HUDCC consisted HUDCC area of policy development, development work of the OCD, of technical assistance in the particularly in the ongoing Project RECOVERY provided transfer of the data tracking sunset review of Republic Act the agency with one (1) Head software, the electronic- 10121 or the Philippine DRRM of Strategic Policy and Management Platform: Act of 2010, through the Development Section, one (1) Accountability and provision of the following key Senior Technical Officer for Transparency Hub for Yolanda specialist staff: 1) Head of Development and one (1) (eMPATHY), which the agency Strategic Policy and Senior Technical Officer for can use to monitor the Development Section, 2) Policy. progress of the projects Senior Technical Officer for undertaken by the Development, and 3) Senior The 2 personnel delivered Resettlement Housing Cluster. Technical Officer for Policy. technical assistance to the Information technology Policy Support Unit of OCD in equipment (i.e. laptops) were the following: (1) Review of also provided by Project the National DRRM RECOVERY. Framework and Plan; (2) Assessment of the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005- 2015; and (3) Analyses of regional, international and national strategies and plans for the 3rd UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (3WCDRR) in Sendai, Japan.

134

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) 4.1 DRRM Conduct of DRRM and Implemented DRRM capacity Conduct of workshops on Training Contingency Planning sessions building interventions in all Contingency Plan Updating in Ormoc City with all eight (8) coverage areas and at various and Formulation of Disaster municipalities of Biliran levels (i.e., barangay, cities Risk Reduction (DRR)--- province and Municipality of and municipalities) on the Climate Change Adaptation Salcedo in Eastern Samar following: orientation sessions (CCA) Protocols for core on DRR-Climate Change municipal emergency Adaptation and Republic Act responders of all 23 10121, risks assessment municipalities in Eastern workshops, contingency and Samar Province. DRRM planning at barangay and municipal levels, conduct of evacuation planning and

drills. 4.2 DRRM Assisted the Municipal LGUs Assisted the Municipal LGUs Plans, of Guiuan, Mercedes and of Lawaan, Giporlos and Contingency Hernani in crafting their three- Quinapondan, and in crafting Plans, CLUP to-five-year DRRM Plan their three-year DRRM Plan.

Assisted 128 barangays in Assisted a total of 42 selected Eastern Samar, Tacloban, Barangays across Tacloban, Palo, Ormoc and Cabucgayan Palo and Eastern Samar in in formulation of contingency crafting their three-year plans through hazard- DRRM Plan. vulnerability-capacity assessments, risk mapping Integration of the 2015-2016 sessions and table-top Community-Based Monitoring exercises System (CBMS) survey and Climate-Disaster Risk Assessment (CDRA) results into the 2017 Ormoc City

135

Component & December 2016 December 2014 December 2015 March 2017 Outputs (1US$ = €0.936) Comprehensive Land and Water Use Plan. 4.3 ERT Conduct of WASAR training for Trained a total of 281 Trained an additional 160 Training emergency response teams in individuals across eight (8) individuals from selected the municipalities of Lawaan, Eastern Samar municipalities barangays in Tacloban, Palo, Mercedes, Quinapondan, and and Tacloban City on MOSAR, Giporlos and Quinapondan on Salcedo in Eastern Samar standard first aid-basic life standard first aid. support, basic firefighting and life guarding 4.4 Rescue and Configuration, re-packaging Operationalization of EOCs, Commenced procurement of communication and distribution of various provision of additional rescue and radio equipment communications and rescue communications and rescue communications equipment equipment to all covered LGUs equipment at the at barangay for Caibirian, Cabucgayan, and and municipal levels Naval in Biliran province. 4.5 Municipal Mobilized seven (7) Municipal Finalized content and layout and Barangay DRRM Councils, EOCs of 82 of information, education and DRRMCs and Barangay DRRM Councils and communication (IEC) materials community a combined total of about (i.e., posters) on disaster drills 5,700 families (across all areas preparedness and response; covered) in the conduct of and, commenced simultaneous municipal and procurement for printing barangay level drills to test services. developed or agreed communication, evacuation and emergency response protocols

NOTE: Visibility actions continued through: (1) use of signage at project sites areas and during training sessions; (2) printing and distribution of shirts to beneficiaries; and, (3) placement of stickers on donated equipment and other assets. All visibility materials bear both the EU and UNDP logos. The Project Team also developed short feature stories and briefers which highlight project accomplishments to date.

136

Annex C.2. Matrix on Challenges (July 2014 – 1st Quarter 2017)

Project RECOVERY Challenges and Issues (2014-2017) Source: Annual and Quarterly Report (UNDP-PMO)

Items 2014 (July – Dec) 2015 (Jan-Dec) 2016 (as of 3rd Qtr) 2017 (1st Quarter) General Project implementation Among the challenges faced Among the challenges faced began immediately after the by UNDP in the by UNDP in the signing of the Contribution implementation of Project implementation of Project Agreement between EU and RECOVERY include the RECOVERY during the UNDP on 10 July 2014. following: reporting period include the Project installation following: processes were facilitated • Significant number of by the presence of an government institutions, • A significant number of existing PMO of the UNDP UN agencies and government institutions, TRRV programme in local/international NGOs UN agencies and Tacloban and of satellite are also present in the local/international NGOs hubs in Guiuan and Ormoc. coverage areas. To avoid are also present in the Project RECOVERY required duplication as well as coverage areas. To avoid the hiring of staff but encourage duplication as well as implementation was able to complementation, UNDP encourage take off on time, even while needed to spend complementation, UNDP hiring was being considerable time in needed to spend undertaken, due to the coordinating with considerable time in support of the existing concerned institutions coordinating with team. However, Project through continuing concerned institutions RECOVERY also faced some meetings and dialogues. through continuing challenges in its first six meetings and dialogues. months (July-December This was particularly true 2014). These challenges for the DRR activities in include the following: Eastern Samar.

137

Items 2014 (July – Dec) 2015 (Jan-Dec) 2016 (as of 3rd Qtr) 2017 (1st Quarter)

Difficulties Many of the partner LGUs of encountered by UNDP had lost or LGUs and effect experienced major on coordination destruction of physical assets, particularly their municipal buildings. This made it difficult for the LGUs to resume their normal day-to-day operations even a year after Typhoon Yolanda and to fully transition to working with development agencies such as UNDP. On CECs The project was Late start of CEC Delays in CEC construction infrastructure-heavy, construction in Lawaan and due to accessibility issue requiring design, Tacloban City due to delays (i.e., ongoing access road contracting and bidding in securing technically improvements by the LGU) processes which have taken response bids from building near the Tacloban CEC site over three months. The contractors and in and the limited supply of related activities were still complying with the cement locally to meet the continuing in various stages, performance bond volume requirements for although this period was requirement. concreting of the Lawaan much shorter than regular CEC. government processes for infrastructure projects. Construction progress of Moreover, developing the housing projects affected design of various by: (i) backlogs in the infrastructure outputs and performance of sweat calculating the equity of some housing corresponding costs had beneficiaries for various

138

Items 2014 (July – Dec) 2015 (Jan-Dec) 2016 (as of 3rd Qtr) 2017 (1st Quarter) been time-consuming reasons (e.g., abled because of the participatory household members looking nature of the exercise. The for paid work, looking after design of the CECs in children, cannot handle the particular had to be revised physical nature/load of several times to address the sweat equity work); (ii) request of LCEs and LGU additional time required for technical staff to ensure the assessment and that the CECs will fully meet processing of requests for their functional objective. additional budget allocation, and for procurement of additional construction materials and labor component which were not covered in the original bill of quantities and scope of work; and (iii) at the Tacloban and Hernani sites, dearth of skilled workers from among the beneficiaries and from within the locality needed to complete structural and finishing works. Land acquisition The infrastructure Pre-construction activities and build-back components required the such as site identification better identification of available and infrastructure design parameters land for the construction of preparation took a CECs and housing projects. significant amount of time Because the LGUs had to due to safety and consider both availability accessibility considerations. and safety, it took a The initially identified

139

Items 2014 (July – Dec) 2015 (Jan-Dec) 2016 (as of 3rd Qtr) 2017 (1st Quarter) significant amount of time housing site in Tacloban was to establish these areas. eventually changed due to Further, the LGUs had to its proximity to an open consider various factors in dumpsite, while the process of beneficiary the site for the cold storage selection for the housing facility in Guiuan was projects, increasing the time transferred near the public needed to prepare for market to be more actual construction. accessible to target users. In some areas, the bidding process for construction firms was deferred until such time that the LGUs were able to secure: a) proof of lot ownership or authorization to use; b) Legislative Council resolution officially designating permanent sites for use by Project RECOVERY; c) certification from the Mines and Geosciences Bureau of the DENR, and DOST, indicating that identified construction sites are not within “no- build zones”, hazard prone or high-risk areas. Procurement – Delays in procurement due Delays in the procurement Delays in procurement and high demands to the huge volume and delivery of livelihood delivery of some livelihood but low supply requirements (e.g., inputs due to: (i) huge inputs due to: (1) non- communications and rescue volume requirements (e.g., availability or limited

140

Items 2014 (July – Dec) 2015 (Jan-Dec) 2016 (as of 3rd Qtr) 2017 (1st Quarter) equipment) and the limited molasses); (ii) non- availability in the local availability of supplies in the availability of specific needs market [e.g., cacao local market (e.g., mangrove within the local market seeds/seedlings sourced seedlings, native chicken (e.g., Rhode Island chicken from Davao, vacuum fryer stocks). variety, “cardava” banana and dehydrator machine tissue culture); and, (iii) ordered in Cebu]; and, (2) constraint in the need to check and comply appropriate payment with government modality (i.e., UNDP’s regulations [e.g., transfer of limited amount ceiling for banana tissue culture across cash advance) that can regions currently match the preference of prohibited, coco-sugar prospective suppliers for processing project in Naval food-based projects to had to be coordinated with engage only in cash-basis PCA, DENR and BFAD. transactions. Difficulty on Difficulty to mobilize Some training workshops Limited community participation to participants to alternative and other capacity-building participation to complete livelihood livelihood skills training activities had to be re- mangrove replanting trainings (and activities due to conduct of scheduled due to changes in activities in Tacloban since mangrove similar interventions in 2014 the availability of training fisher folks and coastal replanting) and 2015 by other service providers, resource residents in covered sites competing with organizations and hesitation persons, LGU officials and prioritize their income- other with the long training target beneficiaries. Some generating activities responsibilities duration (mostly women planning and technical with household writing sessions also had to Slight delays in progress of responsibilities, e.g., be deferred due to the some livelihood projects cooking, child care, and difficulty of some LGUs to under the MCGA modality daily wage earners) collate data requirements due to need of grantees for and prepare draft regular guidance and Some training workshops documents. supervision on and other capacity-building procurement, financial

141

Items 2014 (July – Dec) 2015 (Jan-Dec) 2016 (as of 3rd Qtr) 2017 (1st Quarter) activities had to be re- recording and scheduled due to changes in documentation. the availability of training service providers, resource Some livelihood and DRRM persons, LGU officials and training workshops and target beneficiaries. other capacity-building activities had to be deferred due to changes in the availability of training service providers, resource persons, LGU officials and target attendees Consolidation Project RECOVERY was and integration developed before the with CRRP government’s CRRP was finalized. Although UNDP was in coordination and consultation with OPARR in the development of the project proposal, additional time was needed by UNDP to engage in continuing consultations with the LGUs and key government line agencies to ensure that Project RECOVERY interventions would support and be consistent with the CRRP, while avoiding duplications and fostering complementarity with

142

Items 2014 (July – Dec) 2015 (Jan-Dec) 2016 (as of 3rd Qtr) 2017 (1st Quarter) similar recovery efforts in the affected areas. Effect of Destruction caused by Construction activities Typhoon Ruby Typhoon Ruby temporarily encountered significant and weather hampered the recovery delays due to rainy weather condition in efforts of government and conditions. Intermittent Eastern Visayas partners in the project sites. rains forced work stoppage Weather events likewise at project sites (for health delayed the and safety considerations), commencement of additional workload (e.g., mangrove replanting which draining of rainwater from can only start after the sections ready for concrete typhoon season. pouring) and damage to access roads which caused difficulties in subsequent deliveries of construction materials. Disbursement of Given the above-mentioned The overall annual budget Of the €5,435,223.20 Aside from the reported funds with challenges, the original 2014 of the project for 2015 approved budget for 2016, expenditures, Project revised targets AWP in the amount of amounts to Project RECOVERY utilized RECOVERY has a total for 2014 US$1,187,369.36 was US$8,769,472.78 and later €3,150,535.77 by the end of commitments of revised in the amount of revised to US$8,141,973.13. the reporting period which US$820,296.25 (28% of the US$367,963.00 to ensure Financial delivery relative to represents a financial 2017 AWP) which are due that the AWP reflected the the Revised Annual delivery rate (FDR) of 58%. for processing and changing context of the Workplan as of December Combining this amount with scheduled for payment project. Intended activities 2015 is 57%. (2015 Annual the expenditures in 2014 within the next quarter. The for 2014 will now be more Report). and 2015, total expenditure following charts provide a effectively implemented in as of 31 December 2016 is snapshot of the Project’s 2015 given that preparatory €6,842,631.92 which financial performance as of work had been done last translates into an FDR of 31 March 2016 relative to year. 75% relative to the the 2017 AWP (20%) and approved budget allocation the overall budget

143

Items 2014 (July – Dec) 2015 (Jan-Dec) 2016 (as of 3rd Qtr) 2017 (1st Quarter) to date in the amount of allocation (76%). €9,127,319.35 (i.e., combined 2014-2015 Note: from the Table on p. expenditures and 2016 36 AWP) (2016 Annual Report). Per Agreement (76%) Per Amount received (81%) Per 2017 AWP (20%)

PLANS FOR APRIL-JUNE 2017

Priorities for the next quarter include the following:

1. Completion of: (a) CEC construction in Tacloban and Lawaan; (b) CEC enhancement works in Ormoc, Naval, Biliran and Cabucgayan; and, (c) boardwalk and view deck construction in Ormoc. 2. Delivery of remaining livelihood inputs (i.e., supplies, equipment, training) currently under UNDP procurement and completion of livelihood projects implemented by beneficiaries through the MCGA modality. 3. Completion of: (a) punch lists works and remaining site development activities at the resettlement sites; (b) water system installation and commissioning; (c) organizational development and estate management support to HOAs; (d) local shelter planning support to the LGUs; and, (e) Compendium of Resettlement Approaches and Packages of Different Agencies Involved in Yolanda Response in Eastern Visayas 4. Delivery or completion of all programmed DRRM interventions (i.e., trainings, technical assistance, equipment support) for LGUs in 2017 5. Engagement of consultant and completion of fieldwork for the Project’s Terminal Evaluation 6. Monitoring, validation and documentation of final outputs, results and success stories from the application or utilization of EU-UNDP interventions 7. Compilation of project records (both in hard and electronic copies) in preparation for Project closure.

144

Evaluation Matrix

Recovery and Resilience in Selected Typhoon Yolanda-affected Communities in the Visayas (Project RECOVERY)

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard Relevance How relevant is the Communities Infrastructure: Project Desk review Project Purpose Descriptive (core) project to target are supportive To what extent documents and outputs are statistics. groups’ of governance, did the FGD aligned and (communities & livelihood, and rehabilitation of Project baseline responsive to Analysis of key beneficiaries), disaster risk public report KII priorities of the events and including reduction infrastructures CRRP on assistance to governments’ programs. serve the needs Post-disaster Simple Typhoon people (national, LGUs) of the target damage and community Yolanda needs and (Assumption in groups and needs survey priorities? the logframe for areas? assessment – the Overall CRRP Mapping Goal) Shelter: To what extent Progress did the reports (UNDP resettlement and partners) assistance address the Local and housing needs regional of the displaced recovery plans HHs? Personnel of Livelihood: NGAs, LGUs and How did the NGOs as well as livelihood community interventions

145

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard contribute to groups and the restoration beneficiaries and stabilization of economic activities of the HHs and communities? How relevant is the Capacitated Infrastructure: Project Desk review Implementing Analysis of project to other duty holders To what extent documents units and policies and key key stakeholders’ supportive of were the FGD mandates were interventions needs and and responding infrastructure Progress consistent and outputs priorities? to the needs projects reports (UNDP KII delivered (Government of and welfare of significant to and partners) the Philippines the disaster- government, Simple (GPH), partner prone LGUs, local Personnel of community organizations- communities. communities, NGAs, LGUs and survey OPARR, NEDA, Assumption in private and civil NGOs as well as

OCD, LGUs, the logframe for society groups? community Mapping communities, the Project groups and partners – other Purpose) Shelter: beneficiaries UN agencies, How important NGOs, etc.) is the resettlement component among government agencies?

146

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard

Livelihood: How significant are the livelihood interventions to the programs and projects of the government, LGUs, local communities, the private sector and the CSOs?

Appropriateness Was the project Beneficiaries Are the Project Desk review Outputs Analysis of (additional) implementation use the assistance documents delivered met needs of people approach relevant livelihood related and/or FGD the priority and and appropriate? inputs and supportive to Progress needs of mechanisms in training to the existing reports (UNDP KII communities delivering Were efforts made produce skills and and partners) and individual outputs to by project reached agricultural knowledge of Simple Survey beneficiaries beneficiaries the intended commodities beneficiaries? Personnel of target groups? and to earn NGAs, LGUs and income. NGOs as well as Who benefited (Assumption in community from the project? the logframe for groups and Component 2 ) beneficiaries

147

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard Coherence To what extent LGUs and How did the Project reports Desk review. Accessibility of Analysis on (additional) was the project beneficiaries project CES by local access of aligned with the put the Model components Reports from FGD. residents, people to policies and Community contribute to partner especially facilities and strategies of the Evacuation national agencies. KII. women, services Philippine Center (CES) to (OPARR) and children, elderly Government on good use as a local post LGU and PWDs. post disaster dual purpose disaster Department recovery and facility recovery Heads. resilience? (Assumption in projects? Desk review. the logframe for Representatives Outputs Analysis of Component 1 ) What were the from NGAs. FGD. delivered were process and coordination needed by linkages of issues both Project team. KII. communities implementing vertical and for post disaster units to LGUs horizontal in Beneficiaries. recovery and and community implementing preparedness. groups the project activities?

What capacity development activities were implemented by the project to improve DRR management?

148

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard To what extent Did the project Project Desk review. The different Analysis on was the project design and the documents outputs were priorities of the consistent with the implementation FGD. consistent with UN, principles of UN of activities Progress the needs of Government, post-disaster promote “build reports (UNDP KII. local and local needs recovery? back better” and partners) communities. in building principles: Site visits capacities on - Promoting Personnel of Quantity of DRRM local and NGAs, LGUs and goods and national NGOs as well as services ownership community delivered and capacities groups and through - Promoting beneficiaries community and participatory LGUs

practices - Integrating risk reduction and conflict prevention measures - Strengthening accountability systems - Integration of cross cutting issues (gender, youth, human

149

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard rights, climate change) - Promoting equality and preventing discrimination and abuse.

Connectedness What were the Availability of What were the Project reports. FGD Implementation Analysis on (additional) major strengths resettlement key strengths issues were implementation and weaknesses of areas and weaknesses Project team. KII identified, approaches and the project? (Assumption in of the project in discussed and linkage with the logframe for terms of: Project partners Desk review addressed LGUs and Component 3 ) 1. Design? – NGAs, NGOs, (procurement community 2.Implementation? UN Agencies Mapping. timelines). groups 3. Partnerships? Were the different Was there a FGD Extent and Analysis on cost project conscious effort types of allocation and components in integrating KII outputs beneficiary implemented in an the different delivered needs integrated components of Desk review manner? the project to Analysis of achieve more Mapping process on results and output delivery, impact? How chronology of did the events and implementation readiness of strategy LGUs and local integrate the communities

150

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard various components? Was there a resource leveraging or joint programming of the project with other agencies? How did this joint programming contribute to the connectivity of recovery efforts in the area? How did the Did the Project FGD Analysis on different implementation documents chronology of components of emergency KII events and contribute to a and early Progress processes in the seamless transition recovery reports (UNDP Desk review delivery of from emergency to activities also and partners) outputs and recovery phase? aim at strengthening supporting or Personnel of local capacities preparing for NGAs, LGUs and medium to long NGOs as well as term recovery community

151

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard and groups and development? beneficiaries What strategies or inputs were put in place to enhance the transition from emergency to early recovery to development phase? What strategies Typhoon- What issues Project Number of Analysis of were undertaken displaced emerged in the documents families processes by the LGU to residents in the land acquisition provided with undertaken by facilitate the community and preparation Progress water supply LGUs in resettlement move into the of the reports (UNDP and facilities facilitating the program with the core shelter at relocation area? and partners) delivery of site, different the relocation What activities houses and stakeholders? area and were done in Personnel of services. assume planning and NGAs, LGUs and responsibility. implementing NGOs as well as (Assumption in the community the logframe for construction of groups and Component 3) the core beneficiaries. shelters?

What essential community

152

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard public utilities and facilities were available and functional prior to the relocation activities?

How were the core shelter beneficiaries identified and selected? What activities were implemented in the actual movement or transfer of the core shelter beneficiaries to the relocation area?

Gender To what extent LGUs and What activities Project KII 1) Number of Descriptive Mainstreaming were women and coastal or measures documents farmers who statistics on (additional) men (and communities were FGD have resumed participation of - Equity community) as well actively support implemented to agricultural people - Inclusiveness as the LGUs were mangrove ensure gender Desk review. production;

153

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard - Participation involved in the development equality in Progress (2) number of Analysis of following: and sustainable project reports (UNDP Simple newly- processes (and coastal identification and partners) community employed issues, if any) (a) project infrastructure and survey. individuals; towards identification and (Assumption in development, Personnel of (3) number of promoting preparation; the logframe for implementation NGAs, LGUs and Mapping and new micro- greater (b) procurement; Component 1 ) and NGOs as well as photographs. enterprises inclusiveness (c) implementation; monitoring? community and (d) M&E; Claimholders groups and participation (e) O&M; and and What actions beneficiaries (f) sustainability stakeholders were adopted mechanisms are supportive to reduce the of and insecurity and responding to vulnerability of livelihood, women (female governance, headed HHs, and risk internally reduction displaced programs persons (IDPs), (Assumption in youth, and the logframe for children)? Project Purpose) How did the project support the coping mechanisms of women and girls in the

154

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard recovery project?

Effectiveness Were the planned LGUs and Was the project Project FGD 1) Duty holders Quantitative (core) objectives and government design documents capacitated to analysis on outcomes in the agencies developed KII address disaster extent of project document actively support based on the Progress risks delivery of achieved? livelihood needs and reports (UNDP Desk review outputs and To what extent initiatives? capacities of and partners) 2) Number of outcomes have the intended (Assumption in the target Simple communities (percentages) outcomes been the logframe for groups and Personnel of community with economic achieved? Component 2 ) partners? NGAs, LGUs and survey. activities Analysis of the NGOs as well as nearing pre- trend on the How useful community Mapping and Typhoon levels delivery of were the groups and photographs outputs and

community beneficiaries were accessed infra in by the supporting the . beneficiaries. recovery of the target groups and areas?

What results or benefits did the livelihood interventions provide in the economic restoration and

155

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard stabilization of the target groups?

What specific capital assets of the target groups were restored and developed?

How effective was the resettlement assistance in addressing the tenure security and vulnerability of the target groups? How did How did Project FGD Timeliness in Analysis on implementing partnerships documents delivery of chronology of partners at the with the KII outputs events, national (OPARR, national and Progress mandate of NEDA, OCD) and local authorities reports (UNDP Desk review institutions and local level (LGUs, contribute in and partners) key people and communities) the stakeholders

156

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard benefited from the effectiveness of Personnel of project? project NGAs, LGUs and delivery? NGOs as well as community groups and beneficiaries Has the project The What were the Project FGD Number of Analysis of contributed or is government is changes or documents Typhoon- extent of likely to contribute committed to improvements, KII affected areas reporting by to long-term social, pursuing if any that were Progress reporting on the LGUs and NGAs economic, recovery and undertaken by reports (UNDP Desk review progress of on the delivery technical, rehabilitation of the NGAs, LGUs and partners) their recovery of outputs and environmental Typhoon and and services to LGUs changes for Haiyan-affected communities Personnel of development and local individuals, areas. towards faster NGAs, LGUs and communities as communities and (Assumption in and more NGOs as well as well as the flow institution-related the logframe for appropriate community of resources projects? the Overall Goal ) measures in groups and helping local beneficiaries communities related to post- disaster response and preparedness?

Efficiency Were the Were the Project Desk review Cost of Analysis on (core) resources and project funds documents procurement chronology of inputs converted utilized KII and delivery events and flow to outputs in a specifically on of resources

157

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard timely and cost- the budget line Progress FGD effective manner? items reports (UNDP Financial approved? and partners) analysis

Were the project Personnel of activities and NGAs, LGUs and results realized NGOs as well as based on the community planned groups and timelines? beneficiaries.

Were there project savings utilized to multiply or expand target outputs?

Were the project funds (both direct project costs and operating costs) spent efficiently?

Sustainability To what extent are Strong LGU What measures Project Desk review (1) Number of Descriptive (core) the project results support and were put in documents families making statistics

158

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard likely to continue leadership in place? If any, KII use of multi-use after the project? the recovery what will Progress facilities Analysis of and further reports (UNDP FGD issues, needs rehabilitation strengthen and and partners) and measures efforts. benefit the Simple taken by LGUs (Assumption in LGUs and Personnel of community and local the logframe for communities NGAs, LGUs and survey communities to Component 3 ) towards NGOs as well as ensure mainstreaming community sustainability DRRM into post groups and disaster beneficiaries response & Project reports preparedness?

What are some of the measures that will be carried out as part of phase out plan of Project RECOVERY, that will further strengthen the capacities of LGUs and communities towards mainstreaming

159

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard DRRM into post disaster response and preparedness? Is stakeholders’ How did Project Desk review (1) Duty holders Analysis of engagement likely partners documents capacitated to Budget and to continue, be support the KII address disaster reported scaled up, sustainability of Progress risks releases replicated or the project? reports (UNDP FGD institutionalized and partners) (2) Number of Analysis of after external Did the partner communities extent of funding ceases? government Personnel of with economic participation of agencies sustain NGAs, LGUs and activities key institutions and expand the NGOs as well as nearing pre- and LGUs on project? community Typhoon levels mechanism for groups and delivery of Were there beneficiaries outputs and other projects continuing or programs support developed and funded by other stakeholders as a result of partnership? What measures, if What project Project FGD (1) Duty holders Analysis of any, have been put management documents capacitated to processes and in place to schemes or KII address disaster policies that are promote sustainability risks put in place

160

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard sustainability of measures were Progress Desk review the project’s focus established to reports (UNDP (2) Number of and outcomes? continue or and partners) Simple communities expand the community with economic project? Personnel of survey. activities NGAs, LGUs and nearing pre- Was NGOs as well as Typhoon levels sustainability community strategy groups and integrated right beneficiaries from the start of the project? Was there a clear exit strategy to sustain the project?

How did the project promote local actions and resources? What lessons have The OPARR What were the Project Desk review Number of well- Analysis on the been learned from establishes major documents equipped DRRM inter-linkages this project and closer constraints in KII units and and how might these coordination sustaining the personnel of complementati be of assistance in with the LGUs, project FGD LGU on of policies

161

Preliminary Evaluation Matrix Relevant Indicators/ Assumptions to Specific Sub- Data Collection Methods for Evaluation Key Questions Data Sources Success be Assessed Questions Methods/ Tools Data Analysis Criteria Standard preparing similar who make use coordination Progress and operational projects on post of the DRRM mechanism reports (UNDP units towards disaster recovery equipment and towards faster and partners) improving and resiliency of training in the delivery of DRRM and the UNDP and conduct of outputs and Personnel of preparedness. other institutions? disaster achieving NGAs, LGUs and response and outcomes? NGOs as well as risk reduction community activities. How can we groups and (Assumption in further improve beneficiaries the logframe for the design and Component 4 ) implementation of the project? How can it be done differently to achieve better results and impacts?

162

List of Individual or Groups Consulted (FGD, KII and Survey) and References/Documents

Annex E.1. List of Individual or Groups Consulted/Met (FGD, KII and Survey)

Date Places Visited Name Position 5 July 2017, RCBC Towers, Makati Inception meeting with Mr. Enrico Gaveglia Deputy Country Director, UNDP Wednesday, am City UNDP Country Office Mr. Allen Mariano Project Officer, UNDP Personnel Ms. Marian Theresia Valera Project Officer, UNDP 25 July, Tuesday, Tacloban (EU-UNDP Inception Meeting with Ms. Eden Garde Project Manager am/pm PMO) EU-UNDP PMO Engr. Nelson Peloton Jr. Monitoring and Evaluation Officer Component Specialists (Noriel/Leo) Engr. Joel Bobis Project Officer (Infrastructure) Ms. Maria Theresa Dela Cruz Project Officer (Livelihood) Ms. Susan Saballa Project Officer (Community Development and Settlements) 25 July, Tuesday, Tacloban (EU-UNDP Consultation Meeting Mr. Rec E. Eguia Team Leader, UNDP-KOICA Evaluation pm PMO) with UNDP-KOICA Team Evaluation Team Leader 27 July, Hernani, Eastern Samar FGD with LGU Mr. Miguelito Ogania Municipal DRRM Officer Thursday, am (Noriel/Leo/Freddie/Noel) Engr. Samuel Calvenos Municipal Engineer 27 July, Hernani, Eastern Samar Informal Lunch get- Mayor Edgar Boco Municipal Mayor Thursday, am together with Mayor & LGU Staff (Noriel/Leo/Freddie/ Noel) 27 July, Brgy.. Garawon, FGD & Survey with Mr. Esteban Alota Sr. President Thursday, pm Hernani, Eastern Samar Brgy.. Garawon Agrarian Refer to List of Survey Reform Beneficiaries Respondents Association (BGARBA) (Leo/Freddie)

163

Date Places Visited Name Position 27 July, Brgy. Poblacion, FGD with Hernani Mr. Renato Orocay (& President Thursday, pm Hernani, Eastern Samar Motorcycle & Small Members) Engine Servicing Association (HMSESA) (Noriel/Noel) 28 July, Friday, Brgy. Poblacion, FGD with Tindog Hernani Mr. Gemelo Consultado Manager am Hernani, Eastern Samar Credit Cooperative on Ms. Mayrian Haropohop Account Officer inputs for cassava production (Noriel/Noel) 28 July, Friday, Hernani Resettlement, FGD & Survey with Mr. Pedro Naing President am Brgy. Cancelides, Resettlement Refer to List of Survey Hernani, Eastern Samar Beneficiaries Respondents Hernani Yolanda Survivors Beneficiaries Association (Leo/Freddie) 31 July, Monday, Ormoc City KII with CDRRMO Mr. Ciriaco Tolibao II City DRRM Officer am (Noriel/Leo) 31 July, Monday, Ormoc City FGD with LGU Officers Mr. Ciriaco Tolibao II City DRRM Officer pm (Leo/Freddie) Engr. Raoul Cam City Planning and Devt. Officer Mr. Enrique Caberos City Social Welfare & Devt. Office Ms. Maria Elena Mendoza Acting City Agriculturist Ms. Avelina Molato Agricultural Technologist 31 July, Monday, Brgy. Naungan, Ormoc FGD with Naungan San Ms. Victoriana Entero (& President pm City Juan Mangroves Planters Members) Association (NSJMPA) (Noriel/Noel) 1 August 2017, City Agriculturist Office, FGD & Survey – Lake Mr. Clement Sales (& President Tuesday, am Ormoc City Danao United Free members)

164

Date Places Visited Name Position Farmers Association (LADUFFA) (Noriel/Noel) 1 August 2017, City Agriculturist Office, FGD & Survey Sustainable Mr. Roque Villaneza Jr. (& President Tuesday, am Ormoc City Organic Farmers members) Association in Ormoc City (SOFAOC) (Noriel/Noel) 1 August 2017, City Agriculturist Office, FGD & Survey - Ormoc Mr. Amando Apoderado (& President Tuesday, pm Ormoc City City Jackfruit Producers Members) Association (OCJPA) (Noriel/Noel) 1 August 2017, City Agriculturist Office, FGD with Bangon Farms Ms. Rhea Fabi (& Members) Farm Technician Tuesday, pm Ormoc City (Noriel/Noel) 1 August, Ormoc Resettlement, FGD & Survey with Ormoc Mr. Carlito Bejemino President Tuesday, pm Brgy.. Cagbuhangin, Construction Workers Refer to List of Survey Ormoc City Association Respondents (Leo/Freddie) 2 August, Cabucgayan, Biliran FGD with LGU Ms. Hossana Enage Gomez Municipal DRRMO designate Wednesday, am (Leo/Freddie) Mr. Lorenzo Genoguin Municipal Planning & Devt. Coordinator Engr. Raul Homeres Municipal Engineer 2 August, Cabucgayan, Biliran FGD and Survey with Mr. Rufo Palconit President Wednesday, pm Magbangon Rural Refer to List of Survey Improvement Club (MRIC) Respondents (Leo/Freddie) 3 August, Cabucgayan, Biliran FGD and Survey with Ms. Mary Suzon Municipal Agriculturist Thursday, am Municipal Agriculture Refer to List of Survey Office (MAO) & Farmer Respondents Beneficiaries (Leo/Freddie)

165

Date Places Visited Name Position 3 August, Brgy.. Looc, FGD and Survey with Ms. Elizabeth Maala President Thursday, pm Cabucgayan, Biliran Naga-Rawis-Villa Corro- Refer to List of Survey Looc Fisherfolks Respondents Association (Leo/Freddie) 2 August, Balangkayan, Eastern Courtesy Call, Office of Atty. Allan Contado Municipal Mayor Wednesday, am Samar the Mayor 2 August, Balangkayan, Eastern KII with DRRMO Mr. Ventura Rhoel Baris Municipal DRRMO Wednesday, am Samar 2 August, Balangkayan, Eastern KII with Agricultural Mr. Arnel Glino Municipal Agriculturist Wednesday, pm Samar Technician and PESO Officer 3 August, Balangkayan, Eastern FGD with Officers and Mr. Dadit Gesite Chairman of the Board, BACO Thursday Samar Personnel of BACO Mr. Jun Ramos Vice Chairman, BACO Ms. Anita Dadula Manager, BACO Mr. Michael Technician and Marketing Officer Ms. Maria Virgie Boco Account Officer/Staff 3 August, Balangkayan, Eastern KII with MPDC Ms. Joy Valera Municipal Planning and Development Thursday, pm Samar Coordinator 3 August, Balangkayan, Eastern KII with Graduate on Mr. Ismael Contado Proprietor, Small Engine Repair Shop Thursday, pm Samar Small Engine Repair 4 August, Friday, Taloban City FGD with TACRU Ms. Lutgarda Raagas Team Leader am (Noriel/Leo/Freddie/Noel) Mr. Samuel Quiao Asst. Team Leader Lieza Monica Astorga Staff Mr. Eliseo Encoy Staff Mr. Mark Anthony Millos Staff 4 August, Friday, Tacloban City KII with CDRRMO Mr. Ildebrando Cordero City DRRM Officer pm (Noriel/Leo/Freddie/Noel) Bernadas

166

Date Places Visited Name Position 5 August 2017, Palo, Leyte FGD and Survey – am Graduates on Skills Training (Welder, Plumbers, Electricians) (Yen/Noriel/Noel) 5 August 2017, Brgy. Salvacion, Palo, FGD with Bantay Dagat Mr. Gerardo R. Campo President am Leyte Fisherfolks Association Mr. Jerome Brecio In Charge, Fishery Program, LGU Palo (Noriel) (& six (6) other members of Bantay Dagat) 5 August 2017, Palo, Leyte FGD: Barangay Cabarasan am Daku Farmer’s Association (Yen/Noel) 5 August 2017, Palo, Leyte FGD: Libertad Farmer’s am Association (Yen/Noel) 5 August 2017, Palo, Leyte FGD: Tacuranga Farmer’s pm Association (Yen/Noel)

6 August, Tacloban Resettlement, FGD & Survey with Ms. Florentina Duma President Sunday, am Brgy. Cabalawan, BYSCWA (Leo/Freddie) Refer to List of Survey Tacloban City Respondents 6 August, Brgy. San Roque, FGD & Survey with Mr. Marciano Homeres President Sunday, pm Tacloban City Nagkaorosa San Roque Refer to List of Survey Farmers Association Respondents (NAGSARFA) (Leo/Freddie) 7 August, Salcedo, Eastern Samar KII with Municipal Mayor Hon. Melchor Melgar Municipal Mayor Monday, am (Noriel/Leo/Yen/Freddie/ Noel) Salcedo, Eastern Samar Ms. Isabel Abella Municipal Planning & Devt. Officer

167

Date Places Visited Name Position 7 August, FGD with MPDC & Ms. Maria Rowena Estor Municipal Local Govt. Operations Monday, am MLGOO Officer (Noriel/Leo/Yen/Freddie/ Noel) 7 August, Brgy. Caridad, FGD & Survey with Hon. Jessica Rojero Barangay Captain Monday, pm Salcedo, Eastern Samar Caridad Women’s Ms. Gloria Arceno President Association (Leo/Freddie)l) Refer to List of Survey Respondents 7 August, Brgy. Caridad, FGD & Survey with Mr. Melchor Yarzo President Monday, pm Salcedo, Eastern Samar Caridad Masagana Refer to List of Survey Fisherfolks Association Respondents (CaMFA (Leo/Freddie) 7 August, Salcedo, Eastern Samar FGD ERT Team (Yen) Monday, pm 7 August, Salcedo, Eastern Samar FGD with Bangon Monday, pm Fisherfolks Assoc. (Noriel/Noel)

7 August, Salcedo, Eastern Samar FGD with Bagtong Monday, pm Fisherfolks Assoc. (Noriel/Noel)

8 August, Guiuan, Eastern Samar KII with EU-UNDP Officer Mr. Severino Salva Project Officer (Livelihood) Tuesday, am (Noriel/Leo/Yen) 8 August, Brgy. Caga-ut FGD & Survey with Caga- Ms. Cherry Ann Abud President Tuesday, am Salcedo, Eastern Samar ut Women’s Association Refer to List of Survey (Leo/Freddie) Respondents

168

Date Places Visited Name Position 7 August, Salcedo, Eastern Samar FGD Salcedo Mr. Arturo Silvester Bantillan Account Officer, Cassava Production In- Tuesday, pm Multipurpose Cooperative (& 5 other members) Charge - Cassava (Noriel)

8 August, Guiuan, Eastern Samar KII with Municipal Mayor Hon. Christopher Sheen Municipal Mayor Tuesday, pm (Noriel/Leo/Yen/Freddie/ Gonzales Noel) 8 August, Guiuan, Eastern Samar FGD with LGU Mr. Rico Ryan Sabulao MDRRO Operations Officer Tuesday, pm (Noriel/Leo/Yen/Freddie/ Ms. Ma. Nenita Ecleo Municipal Planning & Devt Coordinator Noel) 8 August, Guiuan, Eastern Samar FGD with PRRM Ms. Ma. Lorena Dagatan Project Area Coordinator Tuesday, pm (Noriel/Leo/Yen/Freddie/ Ms. Shiela Ramasta Field Staff Noel) 8 August, Guiuan, Eastern Samar FGD and Survey with Mr. Jaime Villas Jr. President Tuesday, am Barangay Ngolos Refer to List of Survey Fisherfolks Association Respondents (BNFA) (Leo/Freddie) 8 August, Guiuan, Eastern Samar FGD and Survey with Ms. Agripina Campilan School Head Tuesday, pm International Spiritual Therapeutic Massage Health Care Incorporated (ISMTMI0 (Leo/Freddie) 9 August, Guiuan, Eastern Samar FGD and Survey with Ms. Ramonita Waniwan President Wednesday, am Guiuan Integrated Micro Ms. Aurora Delos Reyes Adviser Entrepreneurs Association (GIMEA) Refer to List of Survey (Leo/Freddie) Respondents Refer to List of Survey Respondents

169

Date Places Visited Name Position 9 August, Sampaguita St., FGD with PCF on BACO Mr. Rodolfo Adel Jr. (Jun) Project Officer, PCF Wednesday, am Tacloban City and Cassava Marketing (Noriel/Yen) 9 August, Palo, Leyte Courtesy Call with Office Hon. Remedios L. Petilla Municipal Mayor Wednesday, am of Municipal Mayor Mr. Felipe Ygrubay Municipal Administrator (Noriel) 10 August 2017, Government Center, KII with NGAs - NEDA Ms. Meylene Rosales Assistant Regional Director (ARD) am Palo, Leyte Regional Office 8 Ms. Hiyasmin Martillo, Senior Economic Development (Yen/Noriel) Specialist 10 August 2017, Government Center, KII with NGAs - PCA Mr. Joel Pilapil OIC-Regional Manager, PCA am Palo, Leyte Regional Office 8 (Noriel) 10 August 2017, Palo, Leyte KII with NGAs - OCD Dr. Edgar Lino Posadas Regional Director am Regional Office 8 (Yen)

170

Annex E.2. Reference and Documents Reviewed

Benson, Charlotte, “Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction into Development. Challenges and Experiences in the Philippines”, 2009

Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, UNDP, Livelihoods and Economic Recovery in Crisis Situations, 2013

City of Tacloban Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan 2016-2022, July 2016

EU, Letter of EU to UNDP on the approval of Proposed Modifications to the Description of the Action – Project RECOVERY, 12 March 2015

EU-UNDP Project RECOVERY - Project Management Office, 2014 Annual Progress Report (EU- UNDP), 2015

EU-UNDP Project RECOVERY - Project Management Office, 2015 Annual Progress Report (EU- UNDP), 2016

EU-UNDP Project RECOVERY - Project Management Office, 2016 Annual Progress Report (EU- UNDP), 2017

EU-UNDP Project RECOVERY - Project Management Office, 2017 1st Quarter Progress Report (EU- UNDP), 2017

EU-UNDP Project RECOVERY - Project Management Office, Minutes of Meeting of the Project Board (PB) - Project RECOVERY (EU-UNDP), 22 November 2016

EU-UNDP Project RECOVERY - Project Management Office, Results Framework of Project RECOVERY (EU-UNDP)

EU & UNDP, Contribution Agreement of EU to Recovery and Resilience of Local Communities in Eastern Visayas Affected by Typhoon Yolanda on Project Proposal, 2014

Municipality of Salcedo, Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Management Plan 2016-2020, 2016

Municipality of Salcedo, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2017-2025

NEDA, Eastern Visayas Yolanda Recovery and Rehabilitation Results Framework, February 2016

NEDA, Reconstruction Assistance on Yolanda (RAY): Build Back Better, December 2013. Available at: http://www.neda.gov.ph/2013/12/17/reconstruction-assistance-yolanda/

NEDA Region VIII, Eastern Visayas Regional Development Plan (RDP) 2017-2022. Available at: http://www.neda.gov.ph/2013/12/17/reconstruction-assistance-yolanda

NEDA Region VIII, SULHOG: Eastern Visayas Yolanda Reconstruction Plan, March 2014

171

OECD, “Guidelines for Resilience Systems Analysis: How to Analyse Risk and Build a Roadmap to Resilience”, 2014

Ryan, Roberta, et.al., “Evaluations of post-disaster recovery: A review of practice material”, Evidence Base, issue 4, 2016, , version 1, ISSN 1838-9422 © The Australia and New Zealand School of Government. 2014

Turner, Chris. The Leap, Vintage Canada – Publishers. 2012

UNDP, ‘Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Results’, 2009. Available at: http://www.undp.org/eo/handbook

UNDP, Letter to EU on the proposed modifications to the Description of the Action – Project RECOVERY, 4 March 2015

UNEG, Norms and Standards for Evaluation, June 2016. Available at: www.unevaluation.org/2016-Norms-and-Standards

UNEG, UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation, March 2008. Available at: www.uneval.org/document/download/54 UNEG, UNEG Quality Checklist for Evaluation Terms of Reference and Inception Reports, UNEG AGM 2010. Available at: http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/608

UNDP Philippines Country Office. Presentation/Orientation Materials on the Terminal Evaluation Project RECOVERY. 5 July 2017

UNDP, Results Oriented Monitoring Report (ROM): Recovery and Resilience in Selected Typhoon Yolanda Affected Communities in the Visayas, December 2015

Wachtendorf, Tricia and Kendra, James M., “Improvising Disaster in the City of Jazz: Organizational Response to Hurricane Katrina”, 11 June 2006. Available at: http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Wachtendorf_Kendra/

172

Data Gathering Tools

Annex F.1. Guide Questions for UNDP (General) Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support Questions Criteria questions) A. Relevance (core) How relevant is the Infrastructure: A1. How relevant is the project to the UNDP’s project to target groups’ To what extent did the Post-Yolanda program and projects? (in terms of policies, priorities (communities & rehabilitation of public and strategies) beneficiaries), including infrastructure serve the needs governments’ (national, of the target groups and A2. What was the basis or assessment reference in designing the LGUs) needs and areas? project? (in terms of interventions/components, LGUs, beneficiary priorities? groups) Shelter: To what extent did the A3. Based on your recovery and rehabilitation plan, to what extent resettlement assistance did the project address the recovery needs of the target households address the housing needs of and communities? (community infra, livelihoods, shelter, DRR the displaced HHs? governance)

Livelihood: How did the livelihood interventions contribute to the restoration and stabilization of economic activities of the HHs and communities?

How relevant is the Infrastructure: project to other key To what extent were the infra stakeholders’ needs and projects significant to priorities? (GPH, partner government, private and civil organizations- OPARR, society groups? NEDA, OCD, LGUs, communities, partners – Shelter: other UN agencies, NGOs, How important is the etc.) resettlement component among government agencies?

173

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support Questions Criteria questions)

Livelihood: How significant are the livelihood interventions to the programs and projects of the government, the private sector and the CSOs? B.Appropriateness Was the project Was the assistance related B1. Do you think that the project interventions/components were (additional) implementation and/or supportive to the developed based on the capacities and needs of the affected approach relevant and existing skills and knowledge communities and partner LGUs? In what way and circumstances? appropriate? of beneficiaries? B2. Was the project design consistent or supportive of the LGU’s and Were efforts made by national or Regional recovery plan? In what way? project reached the intended target groups? Who benefited from the project?

C. Coherence (additional) To what extent is the How did the project C1. To what extent did the project contribute in the overall DRR project aligned with the components contribute to institutional coordination and collaboration (from national, sub policies and strategies of national (OPARR) and local national down to local)? the Philippine post disaster recovery Government on post projects? C2. What specific issues were addressed by the project to improve disaster recovery and early recovery coordination and partnerships? resilience? What were the coordination issues both vertical and C3. What capacity development activities were implemented by the horizontal in implementing project to improve DRR management among LGUs and NGAs? the project activities? C4. What factors should have been considered by the project to What capacity development enhance coherence and synergy with partners? activities were implemented by the project to improve DRR management?

174

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support Questions Criteria questions) To what extent was the Did the project design and the C5. To what extent did the project adopt the principles of “building project consistent with implementation of activities back better”? Please give examples. the principles of UN post- promote “build back better” disaster recovery? principles: C6. Were there cases or instances that the project overlooked the - Promoting local and participation and ownership of the project among local national ownership and stakeholders? Elaborate. capacities - Promoting participatory C7. To what extent were the cross-cutting issues (e.g. gender, practices youth, climate change, DRR, human rights and protection of - Integrating risk reduction vulnerable groups) were integrated in the design, implementation, and conflict prevention monitoring and reporting of the project? measures - Strengthening accountability systems - Integration of cross cutting issues (gender, youth, human rights, climate change) - Promoting equality and preventing discrimination and abuse. D.Connectedness What were the major What were the key strengths D1. Was there a joint planning and programming with the LGUs and (additional) strengths and and weaknesses of the project NGAs in preparing the project design and work plan? Elaborate weaknesses of the in terms of: please. project? 1. Design? 2. Implementation? 3. Partnerships? Were the different Was there a conscious effort D2. Do you think that the project was implemented in an integrated project components in integrating the different manner? Based on your experience with the project, what would implemented in an components of the project to you suggest to enhance the integration of different project integrated manner? achieve more results and components and its relationship building with other recovery impact? How did the programs and projects? implementation strategy integrate the various

175

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support Questions Criteria questions) components? Was there a D3. What strategies or activities were put into place to make sure resource leveraging or joint that the project transcended seamlessly from emergency and relief programming of the project to medium to long-term recovery and development? with other agencies? How did this joint programming D4. Was there joint recovery programming with other UN agencies? contribute to the connectivity (FAO, ILO, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN-Habitat, WFP) of recovery efforts in the area? How did the different Did the implementation of components contribute emergency and early recovery to a seamless transition activities also aim at from emergency to supporting or preparing for recovery phase? medium to long term recovery and development? What strategies or inputs were put in place to enhance the transition from emergency to early recovery to development phase? What strategies were What issues emerged in the undertaken by the LGU to land acquisition and facilitate the preparation of the relocation resettlement program area? with the different stakeholders? What activities were done in planning and implementing the construction of the core shelters?

What essential community public utilities and facilities were available and functional prior to the relocation activities?

176

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support Questions Criteria questions)

How were the core shelter beneficiaries identified and selected? What activities were implemented in the actual movement or transfer of the core shelter beneficiaries to the relocation area? E. Gender Mainstreaming To what extent were What activities or measures E1. What strategies and activities were implemented to promote (additional) women and men (and were implemented to ensure gender mainstreaming in the project? - Equity community) as well as gender equality in project - Inclusiveness the LGUs were involved identification and E2. How can the project improve the design and implementation to - Participation in the following: development, implementation further enhance gender mainstreaming? and monitoring? (a) project identification and preparation; What actions were adopted to (b) procurement; reduce the insecurity and (c) implementation; vulnerability of women (d) M&E; (female headed HHs, IDPs, (e) O&M; and youth, and children)? (f) sustainability mechanisms How did the project support the coping mechanisms of women and girls in the recovery project? F. Effectiveness (core) Were the planned Was the project design F1. Do you think that the project was effective in addressing the objectives and outcomes developed based on the recovery needs of the target groups and in strengthening their in the project document needs and capacities of the resiliency (reducing vulnerability)? Based on your experience with achieved? target groups and partners? the project, what factors and indicators you think contributed in the To what extent have the effectiveness of the project? intended outcomes been How useful were the achieved? community infra in supporting F2. What significant results and benefits were accomplished and realized by the different project components?

177

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support Questions Criteria questions) the recovery of the target groups and areas?

What results or benefits did the livelihood interventions provide in the economic restoration and stabilization of the target groups?

What specific capital assets of the target groups were restored and developed?

How effective was the resettlement assistance in addressing the tenure security and vulnerability of the target groups? How did implementing How did partnerships with the partners at the national national and local authorities (OPARR, NEDA, OCD) and contribute in the effectiveness local level (LGUs, of project delivery? communities) benefited (not benefited) from the project? Has the project contributed or is likely to contribute to long-term social, economic, technical, environmental changes for individuals, communities and institutions related to the project?

178

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support Questions Criteria questions) G. Efficiency (core) Were the resources and Were the project funds G1. Were the project activities and assistance provided when it was inputs converted to utilized specifically on the most needed? To what extent you think was the project efficient or outputs in a timely and budget line items approved? inefficient? cost-effective manner? Were the project activities G2. Was there an instance of project duplication at the community and results realized based on and household level? If yes, kindly elaborate and how can this be the planned timelines? avoided in the future?

Were there project savings G3. To what extent were the local capacities and local that were utilized to multiply resources/materials utilized by the project? or expand target outputs?

Were the project funds (both direct project costs and operating costs) spent efficiently? H. Sustainability (core) To what extent are the H1. What measures or mechanisms you think were established by project results likely to the project to address sustainability issues? continue after the project? H2. To what extent was the project adopted or replicated by other agencies and groups? Is stakeholders’ How did partners support the H3. Did the project create institutional partnerships to sustain and engagement likely to sustainability of the project? expand the recovery efforts in the communities? How? continue, be scaled up, replicated or Did the partner government H4. To what extent were the people’s access to public services institutionalized after agencies sustain and expand restored or improved as a result of the project? external funding ceases? the project? H5. Based on your experience with the project, how can we improve Were there other projects or the impact and sustainability of the project? programs developed and funded by other stakeholders H6. What should have been done differently by the UNDP Project as a result of partnership? team to achieve more impact and sustainability?

179

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support Questions Criteria questions) What measures, if any, What project management have been put in place to schemes or sustainability promote sustainability of measures were established to the project’s focus and continue or expand the outcomes? project?

Was sustainability strategy integrated right from the start of the project? Was there a clear exit strategy to sustain the project?

How did the project promote local actions and resources? What lessons have been What were the major learned from this project constraints in sustaining the and how might these be project? of assistance in preparing similar projects on post How can we further improve disaster recovery and the design and resiliency of the UNDP implementation of the and other institutions? project? How can it be done differently to achieve better results and impacts? Focus questions for specialist:

A. DRRM 1. Did the project/UNDP conduct an LGU capacity needs assessment or training needs assessment to guide the project’s DRR capacity building interventions? If no, what do you think was the basis of the project in developing their DRR capacity building for LGUs? 2. What trainings or capacity building activities were provided by the project? (e.g. training, planning workshops, equipment or facilities support, mapping/GIS support, networking, local policy or legislation review and development, etc.)

180

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support Questions Criteria questions)

3. What significant results or improvements were realized by the partners (LGUs, NGAs & community groups) in DRR management and governance? Compare your pre-Yolanda capacities and post-Yolanda capacities? Please elaborate the changes or difference. 4. What challenges or issues did you encounter in strengthening the DRR capacity of LGUs, communities and NGAs? 5. To what extent did the LGUs adopt or institutionalize the DRR capacity development? (ex. Creation or enhancement of existing DRR office, integration in land CLUP and CDP, equipment upgrading, early warning systems, emergency response team, capacity to conduct post-disaster damage and needs assessment, relief management, recovery and rehabilitation programming and implementation, data and knowledge management, etc.) 6. What can you suggest to the project to improve its DRR component and activities?

B. Livelihoods 1. What techniques or processes were utilized by the project in livelihood project identification, planning and implementation? 2. What do you think were the weaknesses and gaps of the livelihood assistance? 3. What do you think were the best or good practices of the livelihood component? 4. What policy recommendations or strategy shifts can you suggest to improve the design and implementation of the livelihood component?

181

Annex F.2. FGD Guide for LGUs

Target participants: MPDC, DRRMO, Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Municipal Agriculture Office (MAO), PESO, Municipal Office, Municipal Engineer (MEO), ABC Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) A. Relevance (core) How relevant is the Infrastructure: A1. How relevant is the project to the LGU’s project to target groups’ To what extent did the Post-Yolanda program and projects? (in terms of policies, priorities (communities & rehabilitation of public and strategies) beneficiaries), including infrastructures serve the governments’ (national, needs of the target groups a. Resilient Infrastructures (Evacuation Centers, mangrove) LGUs) needs and and areas? b. Sustainable livelihoods priorities? c. Resettlement (housing, water supply, etc.) Shelter: d. DRRM Capacity Building To what extent did the resettlement assistance A2. What specific project areas or assistance did the project support address the housing needs of to the LGU’s post-disaster recovery? the displaced HHs? A3. Based on your recovery and rehabilitation plan, to what extent Livelihood: did the project address the recovery needs of the target households How did the livelihood and communities? (community infra, livelihoods, shelter, DRR interventions contribute to governance) the restoration and stabilization of economic activities of the HHs and communities? How relevant is the Infrastructure: project to other key To what extent were the infra stakeholders’ needs and projects significant to priorities? (GPH, partner government, private and civil organizations- OPARR, society groups? NEDA, OCD, LGUs, communities, partners – Shelter: other UN agencies, NGOs, etc.)

182

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) How important is the resettlement component among government agencies?

Livelihood: How significant are the livelihood interventions to the programs and projects of the government, the private sector and the CSOs? B. Appropriateness Was the project Was the assistance provided B1. Do you think that the project interventions/components were (additional) implementation related and/or supportive to developed based on the capacities and needs of the affected approach relevant and the existing skills and communities? In what way and circumstances? appropriate? knowledge of beneficiaries? Components Were efforts made by a. Resilient Infrastructures (Evacuation Centers, mangrove, project reached the b. Sustainable livelihoods intended target groups? c. Resettlement (housing, water supply, etc.) Who benefited from the d. DRRM Capacity Building project? B2. Was the project design consistent or supportive of the LGU’s plan? In what way?

B3. On infrastructure (evacuation center, mangrove, boardwalk), what were the considerations in selecting the location of the facility? C. Coherence (additional) To what extent was the How did the project C1. To what extent did the project contribute in the overall DRR project aligned with the components contribute to institutional coordination and collaboration (from national, sub policies and strategies of national (OPARR) and local national down to local)? the Philippine post disaster recovery Government on post projects? C2. What specific issues were addressed by the project to improve disaster recovery and early recovery coordination and partnerships? resilience? What were the coordination issues both vertical and

183

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) horizontal in implementing C3. What capacity development activities were implemented by the the project activities? project to improve the LGU’s DRR management?

What capacity development C4. What factors should have been considered by the project to activities were implemented enhance coherence and synergy with other projects and agencies? by the project to improve DRR (inter-department within the LGU and relationships with other management? NGAs and NGOs) To what extent was the Did the project design and the C5. To what extent did the project adopt the principles of “building project consistent with implementation of activities back better”? Please give examples. the principles of UN post- promote “build back better” disaster recovery? principles: - Promoting local and national ownership and BBB Principles capacities a. Risk and site assessment (before the event of disaster) - Promoting participatory b. Scoping and planning of projects practices c. Site Analysis - Integrating risk reduction d. Architectural, Engineering, Urban Design and and conflict prevention Documentation measures e. Materials and construction quality - Strengthening accountability systems C6. Were there cases or instances that the project overlooked the - Integration of cross cutting participation and ownership of the project among local issues (gender, youth, stakeholders? Elaborate. human rights, climate change) - Promoting equality and preventing discrimination and abuse. D. Connectedness What were the major What were the key strengths D1. Was there a joint planning and programming with your LGU in (additional) strengths and and weaknesses of the project preparing the project design and work plan? Elaborate please. weaknesses of the in terms of: project? 1. Design? D2. Was your LGU involved in the monitoring and/or providing 2. Implementation? feedback regarding the project? To what extent did your LGU

184

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) 3. Partnerships? participated in the monitoring or feedback mechanism established by the project? Was knowledge sharing regularly promoted during the project implementation? How? Were the different Was there a conscious effort D2. Do you think that the project was implemented in an integrated project components in integrating the different manner? Based on your experience with the project, what would implemented in an components of the project to you suggest to enhance the integration of different project integrated manner? achieve more results and components and its relationship building with other recovery impact? How did the programs and projects? implementation strategy integrate the various D3. What strategies or activities were put into place to make sure components? Was there a that the project transcended seamlessly from emergency and relief resource leveraging or joint to medium to long-term recovery and development? programming of the project with other agencies? How did these joint programming contribute to the connectivity of recovery efforts in the area? How did the different Did the implementation of components contribute emergency and early recovery to a seamless transition activities also aim at from emergency to supporting or preparing for recovery phase? medium to long term recovery and development? What strategies or inputs were put in place to enhance the transition from emergency to early recovery to development phase? What strategies were What issues emerged in the undertaken by the LGU to land acquisition and facilitate the

185

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) resettlement program preparation of the relocation with the different area? stakeholders? What activities were done in planning and implementing the construction of the core shelters?

What essential community public utilities and facilities were available and functional prior to the relocation activities?

How were the core shelter beneficiaries identified and selected? What activities were implemented in the actual movement or transfer of the core shelter beneficiaries to the relocation area? E. Gender Mainstreaming To what extent were What activities or measures E1. What strategies and activities were implemented to promote (additional) women and men (and were implemented to ensure gender mainstreaming in the project? - Equity community) as well as gender equality in project - Inclusiveness the LGUs were involved identification and E2. How can the project improve the design and implementation to - Participation in the following: development, implementation further enhance gender mainstreaming? and monitoring? (a) project identification E3. What was the process of identifying and prioritizing those that and preparation; What actions were adopted to were the most vulnerable households in the community? (b) procurement; reduce the insecurity and (c) implementation; vulnerability of women (d) M&E; (female headed HHs, IDPs, (e) O&M; and youth, and children)?

186

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) (f) sustainability mechanisms How did the project support the coping mechanisms of women and girls in the recovery project? F. Effectiveness (core) Were the planned Was the project design F1. Do you think that the project was effective in addressing the objectives and outcomes developed based on the recovery needs of the target groups and in strengthening their in the project document needs and capacities of the resiliency (reducing vulnerability)? Based on your experience with achieved? target groups and partners? the project, what factors and indicators you think contributed in the To what extent have the effectiveness of the project? intended outcomes been How useful were the achieved? community infra in supporting F2. What significant results and benefits were accomplished and the recovery of the target realized by the different project components in your groups and areas? municipality/city?

What results or benefits did the livelihood interventions provide in the economic restoration and stabilization of the target groups?

What specific capital assets of the target groups were restored and developed?

How effective was the resettlement assistance in addressing the tenure security and vulnerability of the target groups? How did implementing How did partnerships with the partners at the national national and local authorities (OPARR, NEDA, OCD) and

187

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) local level (LGUs, contribute in the effectiveness communities) benefited of project delivery? (not benefited) from the project? Has the project contributed or is likely to contribute to long-term social, economic, technical, environmental changes for individuals, communities and institutions related to the project? G. Efficiency (core) Were the resources and Were the project funds G1. Were the project activities and assistance provided when it was inputs converted to utilized specifically on the most needed? To what extent you think was the project efficient or outputs in a timely and budget line items approved? inefficient? cost-effective manner? Were the project activities G2. Was there an instance of project duplication at the community and results realized based on and household level? If yes, kindly elaborate. the planned timelines? G3. To what extent local capacities and local resources/materials Were there project savings were utilized by the project? that were utilized to multiply or expand target outputs?

Were the project funds (both direct project costs and operating costs) spent efficiently? H. Sustainability (core) To what extent are the H1. What measures or mechanisms you think were established by project results likely to the project to address sustainability issues?

188

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) continue after the H2. To what extent the project was adopted or replicated by other project? agencies and groups?

Is stakeholders’ How did partners support the H3. Did the project create institutional partnerships to sustain and engagement likely to sustainability of the project? expand the recovery efforts in the communities? How? continue, be scaled up, replicated or Did the partner government H4. To what extent people’s access to public services were restored institutionalized after agencies sustain and expand or improved as a result of the project? external funding ceases? the project? H5. Based on your experience with the project, how can we improve Were there other projects or the impact and sustainability of the project? programs developed and funded by other stakeholders as a result of partnership? What measures, if any, What project management H6. On the evacuation centers, what measures are being pursued have been put in place to schemes or sustainability to ensure its O&M and continued usefulness? promote sustainability of measures were established to the project’s focus and continue or expand the H7. What is the alternative use of the evacuation center while it is outcomes? project? not being used for its intended use (as evacuation centers)?

Was sustainability strategy integrated right from the start of the project? Was there a clear exit strategy to sustain the project?

How did the project promote local actions and resources? What lessons have been What were the major learned from this project constraints in sustaining the and how might these be project? of assistance in preparing

189

Specific Sub-Questions (can Relevant Evaluation Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) similar projects on post How can we further improve disaster recovery and the design and resiliency of the UNDP implementation of the and other institutions? project? How can it be done differently to achieve better results and impacts? Additional questions: Focus on LGU DRRM 1. Did the project/UNDP conduct an LGU capacity needs assessment or training needs assessment to guide the project’s DRR capacity building interventions? If no, what do you think was the basis of the project in developing their DRR capacity building for LGUs? 2. What trainings or capacity building activities were provided by the project? (e.g. training, planning workshops, equipment or facilities support, mapping/GIS support, networking, local policy or legislation review and development, etc.) 3. What significant results or improvements were realized by your LGU in DRR management and governance? Compare your pre-Yolanda capacities and post- Yolanda capacities? Please elaborate the changes or difference. 4. What challenges or issues did you encounter in strengthening your LGU’s DRR capacity? 5. What can you suggest to the project to improve its DRR component and activities?

190

Annex F.3. FGD Guide for Community Groups

Target Groups: HOAs, Women’s Group, Livelihood Groups and Community Associations/Barangay 10-15 Participants per FGD, on-site. Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support FGD Questions Criteria questions) A. Relevance (core) How relevant is the Infra: A1. What specific project components or assistance did your group project to target groups’ To what extent did the receive from the project? (infra, livelihoods, shelter, DRR training) (communities & rehabilitation of public beneficiaries), including infrastructures serve the A2. Did the project effectively address your recovery needs or did the governments’ (national, needs of the target groups project need adaptation or adjustment to make it responsive to your LGUs) needs and and areas? needs? Please elaborate and give examples. priorities? Shelter: A3. What was your participation in the identification and planning of To what extent did the your recovery projects? resettlement assistance address the housing needs of A4. What do you think should be done differently by the project to the displaced HHs? make it more relevant to your recovery and development?

Livelihood: How did the livelihood interventions contribute to the restoration and stabilization of economic activities of the HHs and communities? How relevant is the Infra: project to other key To what extent were the infra stakeholders’ needs and projects significant to priorities? (GPH, partner government, private and civil organizations- OPARR, society groups? NEDA, OCD, LGUs, communities, partners – Shelter: other UN agencies, How important is the NGOs, etc.) resettlement component among government agencies?

191

Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support FGD Questions Criteria questions)

Livelihood: How significant are the livelihood interventions to the programs and projects of the government, the private sector and the CSOs? B. Appropriateness Was the project Are the assistances related B1. Do you think that the project interventions/components were (additional) implementation and/or supportive to the developed based on your capacities and needs? In what way and approach relevant and existing skills and knowledge circumstances? appropriate? of beneficiaries? B2. Was the project design consistent or supportive of your Were efforts made by community or organization plan? In what way? project reached the intended target groups? Who benefited from the project? C. Coherence (additional) To what extent was the How did the project C1. Do you think that the project is supportive of or consistent with project aligned with the components contribute to the government recovery programs and projects (LGUs and NGAs)? policies and strategies of national (OPARR) and local the Philippine post disaster recovery C2. What specific issues were encountered by your community in Government on post projects? terms of coordination and working with your government partners? disaster recovery and resilience? What were the coordination C3. What factors should have been considered by the project to issues both vertical and enhance coherence and synergy with other projects and agencies? horizontal in implementing the project activities?

What capacity development activities were implemented by the project to improve DRR management? To what extent was the Did the project design and the C4. What are your roles and accountabilities in the project? project consistent with implementation of activities

192

Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support FGD Questions Criteria questions) the principles of UN post- promote “build back better” C5. Did the project promote local ownership and community disaster recovery? principles: participation? Elaborate. - Promoting local and national ownership and C6. Based on your experience, do you think that the project has capacities contributed in reducing your vulnerabilities (or increasing resilience)? - Promoting participatory practices C7. Did the project design and implementation provide equal - Integrating risk reduction opportunity to women and men and the vulnerable individuals and conflict prevention (youth, PWD, single headed HHs, etc.)? Please give examples. measures - Strengthening C8. Did the project enhance your (positive) coping mechanisms? In accountability systems what way? - Integration of cross cutting issues (gender, youth, human rights, climate change) - Promoting equality and preventing discrimination and abuse. D. Connectedness What were the major What were the key strengths D1. To what extent was the project implemented in a holistic or (additional) strengths and and weaknesses of the integrated manner? weaknesses of the project in terms of: project? 1. Design? D2. Was there an effort to collaborate or connect your project with 2. Implementation? other agencies and groups to achieve more results and impact? 3. Partnerships? Please elaborate. Were the different Was there a conscious effort D3. Was there a conscious effort to improve or upgrade your project components in integrating the different community role in the value chain process (for groups with implemented in an components of the project to livelihood projects)? In what way? integrated manner? achieve more results and impact? How did the D4. How did you use the project assistance to address or prepare for implementation strategy your long-term recovery needs and development? integrate the various components? Was there a resource leveraging or joint

193

Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support FGD Questions Criteria questions) programming of the project with other agencies? How did these joint programming contribute to the connectivity of recovery efforts in the area? How did the different Did the implementation of components contribute emergency and early recovery to a seamless transition activities also aim at from emergency to supporting or preparing for recovery phase? medium to long term recovery and development? What strategies or inputs were put in place to enhance the transition from emergency to early recovery to development phase? What strategies were What issues emerged in the undertaken by the LGU land acquisition and to facilitate the preparation of the relocation resettlement program area? with the different stakeholders? What activities were done in planning and implementing the construction of the core shelters?

What essential community public utilities and facilities were available and functional prior to the relocation activities?

194

Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support FGD Questions Criteria questions) How were the core shelter beneficiaries identified and selected? What activities were implemented in the actual movement or transfer of the core shelter beneficiaries to the relocation area? E. Gender Mainstreaming To what extent were What activities or measures E1. In your community, what strategies and activities were (additional) women and men (and were implemented to ensure implemented to ensure the participation/voice and equal access of - Equity community) as well as gender equality in project women, men, girls and boys to the project? - Inclusiveness the LGUs were involved identification and - Participation in the following: development, E2. Was there a gender issue in the course of project implementation and implementation? Please elaborate. (a) project identification monitoring? and preparation; E3. Based on your community experiences, how can the project (b) procurement; (c) What actions were adopted improve social inclusivity and gender mainstreaming? implementation; (d) to reduce the insecurity and M&E; vulnerability of women (e) O&M; and (female headed HHs, IDPs, (f) sustainability youth and children)? mechanisms How did the project support the coping mechanisms of women and girls in the recovery project? F. Effectiveness (core) Were the planned Was the project design F1. Do you think that the project was effective in addressing the objectives and outcomes developed based on the recovery needs of your community members? Based on your in the project document needs and capacities of the experiences with the project, what factors and indicators you think achieved? target groups and partners? contributed in the effectiveness of the project? To what extent have the intended outcomes been How useful were the F2. What significant results and benefits were accomplished and achieved? community infra in realized by the different project components at the community and household or family level?

195

Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support FGD Questions Criteria questions) supporting the recovery of the target groups and areas? F3. Are you satisfied with the project? Why or why not?

What results or benefits did F4. What positive changes were realized in your community as an the livelihood interventions effect or result of the project? provide in the economic restoration and stabilization of the target groups?

What specific capital assets of the target groups were restored and developed?

How effective was the resettlement assistance in addressing the tenure security and vulnerability of the target groups? How did implementing How did partnerships with partners at the national the national and local (OPARR, NEDA, OCD) and authorities contribute in the local level (LGUs, effectiveness of project communities) benefited delivery? (not benefited) from the project? Has the project contributed or is likely to contribute to long-term social, economic, technical, environmental changes for individuals, communities and institutions related to the project?

196

Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support FGD Questions Criteria questions) G. Efficiency (core) Were the resources and Were the project funds G1. Were the project activities and assistance provided when it was inputs converted to utilized specifically on the most needed in your community? To what extent you think was the outputs in a timely and budget line items approved? project efficient or inefficient? cost-effective manner? Were the project activities G3. In your community, to what extent was local capacities and local and results realized based on resources/materials were utilized by the project? the planned timelines? G4. Was local or community knowledge considered in the planning Were there project savings and implementation of projects? How? that were utilized to multiply or expand target outputs?

Were the project funds (both direct project costs and operating costs) spent efficiently? H. Sustainability (core) To what extent are the H1. What measures or mechanisms you think were established by project results likely to the project to address sustainability issues at the community and continue after the household level? project? H2. Was your access to government programs and services increased or improved as a result of the project? How? Give examples. Is stakeholders’ How did partners support the engagement likely to sustainability of the project? H3. In your community, what capacities were developed by the continue, be scaled up, project to sustain or expand your project/s? replicated or Did the partner government institutionalized after agencies sustain and expand H5. Based on your experience, how can the project improve the external funding ceases? the project? impact and sustainability of the project?

Were there other projects or programs developed and funded by other stakeholders as a result of partnership?

197

Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support FGD Questions Criteria questions) What measures, if any, What project management have been put in place to schemes or sustainability promote sustainability of measures were established to the project’s focus and continue or expand the outcomes? project?

Was sustainability strategy integrated right from the start of the project? Was there a clear exit strategy to sustain the project?

How did the project promote local actions and resources? What lessons have been What were the major learned from this project constraints in sustaining the and how might these be project? of assistance in preparing similar projects on post How can we further improve disaster recovery and the design and resiliency of the UNDP implementation of the and other institutions? project? How can it be done differently to achieve better results and impacts?

198

Annex F.4. FGD Guide for Resettlement Shelter Beneficiaries Key Areas for Data Gathering & Guide Questions Analyses To what extent did the resettlement How did the resettlement assistance respond to the component address the housing needs housing needs of the displaced families? of the displaced households? How important is the resettlement Why do LGUs and NGAs support the resettlement component among government program for disaster-affected communities? agencies? Was the assistance related and/or How did the community-driven scheme implemented supportive to the existing skills and in the resettlement utilize the skills and abilities of the knowledge of beneficiaries? beneficiaries? What were the coordination How were project activities implemented and mechanisms both vertical and managed? What monitoring and reporting mechanisms horizontal in implementing the project were established to keep track of the progress of activities? project activities? What capacity development activities What capacity building activities were implemented to were implemented by the project to enhance DRRM knowledge and skills of stakeholders at improve DRR management (at regional, different levels? LGU and community levels)? What were the criteria for the selection Who were involved in the selection of the resettlement of the resettlement area? site? What factors were considered in the selection process? What difficulties were encountered in the identification of sites for resettlement purposes? What were the criteria for the selection Who were involved in the selection of the resettlement of the resettlement beneficiaries? beneficiaries? What factors were considered in the selection process? What agreements were established Who possesses land ownership and authority over the between the beneficiary and the land resettlement area? What is the tenurial arrangement administrator (LGU) on the tenurial between the land administrator (LGU) and the status of the lot occupied for the beneficiary for the home lot occupancy? Between the housing unit? UNDP shelter donor and the beneficiary? What activities were conducted in What office/s were involved in the planning and planning and implementing the construction of the core shelter units? construction of the core shelters? What were the structural considerations and enhancements in the design of the core shelter units? Were the beneficiaries consulted in the structural design of the shelter units? What is the Homeowners Association How did the beneficiaries react to the community- (HOAs)? driven scheme in shelter construction? To the “sweat equity” counterpart of the shelter beneficiaries?

199

Key Areas for Data Gathering & Guide Questions Analyses Was the purpose for organizing the shelter beneficiaries into HOAs achieved? How were their personal capacities enhanced to put their skills into practice in the construction of their core shelters and other construction projects? What benefits did the HOAs obtain from their work? How were the women members involved in HOA construction activities? What essential community public Was the water system project functional when you utilities and facilities were available and moved into the resettlement area? How did you functional prior to the relocation manage to get your water requirements before the activities? water system was completed? Was electric power installed and available? If not, what caused the delay for its installation? How did you manage to get your light and power supply? Did the project provide a communication system to the resettlement site? In what way? How was communication to and from the resettlement area facilitated? What are the existing physical features Assessment Areas and socio-economic facilities of the a. Accessibility of the resettlement area resettlement area, together with the b. Availability of public utilities socio-political functioning of the beneficiaries that will be subjected to c. Availability of livelihood and economic an assessment by the beneficiaries opportunities themselves as to their level of d. Core shelter concurrence and overall satisfaction of e. Resettlement location safety from natural hazards the resettlement project? f. Availability of community socio-economic facilities g. Homeowners Association h. Existence of Estate Management Systems i. Homeowners integration into the barangay political system j. Resettlement beneficiary satisfaction

200

Annex F.5. FGD Guide for NGAs

Target Agencies: TESDA, DA, DOLE, DTI, NEDA, DSWD, OCD (Regional Offices) Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) A. Relevance (core) How relevant is the Infra: A1. How relevant is the project to the agency’s Post-Yolanda project to target groups’ To what extent did the program and projects? (in terms of policies, priorities and (communities & rehabilitation of public strategies) beneficiaries), including infrastructures serve the governments’ (national, needs of the target groups A2. What specific project areas or assistance did the project support LGUs) needs and and areas? in the agency’s post-disaster recovery? priorities? Shelter: A3. To what extent did the project address the recovery needs of the To what extent did the target households and communities? (community infra, livelihoods, resettlement assistance shelter, DRR governance) address the housing needs of the displaced HHs?

Livelihood: How did the livelihood interventions contribute to the restoration and stabilization of economic activities of the HHs and communities? How relevant is the Infra: project to other key To what extent were the infra stakeholders’ needs and projects significant to priorities? (GPH, partner government, private and civil organizations- OPARR, society groups? NEDA, OCD, LGUs, communities, partners – Shelter: other UN agencies, NGOs, How important is the etc.) resettlement component among government agencies?

201

Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions)

Livelihood: How significant are the livelihood interventions to the programs and projects of the government, the private sector and the CSOs? B. Appropriateness Was the project Was the assistance related B1. Do you think that the project interventions/components were (additional) implementation and/or supportive to the developed based on the capacities and needs of the communities? In approach relevant and existing skills and knowledge what way and circumstances? appropriate? of beneficiaries? B2. Was the project design consistent or supportive of the agency’s Were efforts made by plan? In what way? project reached the intended target groups? Who benefited from the project?

C. Coherence (additional) To what extent was the How did the project C1. To what extent did the project contribute in the overall DRR project aligned with the components contribute to institutional coordination and collaboration (from national, sub policies and strategies of national (OPARR) and local national down to local)? the Philippine post disaster recovery Government on post projects? C2. What specific issues were addressed by the project to improve disaster recovery and early recovery coordination and partnerships? resilience? What were the coordination issues both vertical and C3. What capacity development activities were implemented by the horizontal in implementing project to improve DRR management? the project activities? C4. What factors should have been considered by the project to What capacity development enhance coherence and synergy with other projects and agencies? activities were implemented by the project to improve DRR management?

202

Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) To what extent was the Did the project design and the C4. To what extent did the project adopt the principles of “building project consistent with implementation of activities back better”? the principles of UN post- promote “build back better” disaster recovery? principles: C5. Were there cases or instances that the project overlooked the - Promoting local and participation and ownership of the project among local national ownership and stakeholders? Elaborate. capacities - Promoting participatory practices - Integrating risk reduction and conflict prevention measures - Strengthening accountability systems - Integration of cross cutting issues (gender, youth, human rights, climate change) - Promoting equality and preventing discrimination and abuse. D. Connectedness What were the major What were the key strengths D1. Was there a joint planning and programming with your agency in (additional) strengths and and weaknesses of the project preparing the project design and work plan? Elaborate please. weaknesses of the in terms of: project? 1. Design? D2. Was your agency involved in the monitoring or feedbacking of 2. Implementation? the project? To what extent did your agency participated in the 3. Partnerships? monitoring or feedback mechanism established by the project? Was knowledge sharing regularly promoted during the project implementation? How? Were the different Was there a conscious effort D2. Do you think that the project was implemented in an integrated project components in integrating the different manner? Based on your experience with the project, what would you implemented in an components of the project to suggest to enhance the integration of different project components integrated manner? achieve more results and

203

Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) impact? How did the and its relationship building with other recovery programs and implementation strategy projects? integrate the various components? Was there a D3. What strategies or activities were put into place to make sure resource leveraging or joint that the project transcends seamlessly from emergency and relief to programming of the project medium to long-term recovery and development? with other agencies? How did these joint programming contribute to the connectivity of recovery efforts in the area? How did the different Did the implementation of components contribute emergency and early recovery to a seamless transition activities also aim at from emergency to supporting or preparing for recovery phase? medium to long term recovery and development? What strategies or inputs were put in place to enhance the transition from emergency to early recovery to development phase? What strategies were What issues emerged in the undertaken by the LGU to land acquisition and facilitate the preparation of the relocation resettlement program area? with the different What activities were done in stakeholders? planning and implementing the construction of the core shelters?

What essential community public utilities and facilities

204

Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) were available and functional prior to the relocation activities?

How were the core shelter beneficiaries identified and selected? What activities were implemented in the actual movement or transfer of the core shelter beneficiaries to the relocation area? E. Gender Mainstreaming To what extent were What activities or measures E1. What strategies and activities were implemented to promote (additional) women and men (and were implemented to ensure gender mainstreaming in the project? - Equity community) as well as gender equality in project - Inclusiveness the LGUs were involved identification and E2. How can we improve the design and implementation of the - Participation in the following: development, implementation project to further enhance gender mainstreaming? and monitoring? (a) project identification and preparation; What actions were adopted to (b) procurement; (c) reduce the insecurity and implementation; (d) vulnerability of women M&E; (female headed HHs, IDPs, (e) O&M; and youth, and children)? (f) sustainability mechanisms How did the project support the coping mechanisms of women and girls in the recovery project? F. Effectiveness (core) Were the planned Was the project design F1. Do you think that the project was effective in addressing the objectives and outcomes developed based on the recovery needs of the target groups and in strengthening their in the project document needs and capacities of the resiliency (reducing vulnerability)? Based on your experience with achieved? target groups and partners?

205

Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) To what extent have the the project, what factors and indicators you think contributed in the intended outcomes been How useful were the effectiveness of the project? achieved? community infra in supporting the recovery of the target F2. What significant results and benefits were accomplished and groups and areas? realized by the different project components?

What results or benefits did the livelihood interventions provide in the economic restoration and stabilization of the target groups?

What specific capital assets of the target groups were restored and developed?

How effective was the resettlement assistance in addressing the tenure security and vulnerability of the target groups? How did implementing How did partnerships with the partners at the national national and local authorities (OPARR, NEDA, OCD) and contribute in the effectiveness local level (LGUs, of project delivery? communities) benefited (not benefited) from the project? Has the project contributed or is likely to contribute to long-term social, economic, technical, environmental

206

Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) changes for individuals, communities and institutions related to the project? G. Efficiency (core) Were the resources and Were the project funds G1. Were the project activities and assistance provided when it was inputs converted to utilized specifically on the most needed? To what extent you think was the project efficient or outputs in a timely and budget line items approved? inefficient? cost-effective manner? Were the project activities G2. Was there an instance of project duplication at the community and results realized based on and household level? If yes, kindly elaborate. the planned timelines? G3. To what extent was local capacities and local Were there project savings resources/materials were utilized by the project? that were utilized to multiply or expand target outputs?

Were the project funds (both direct project costs and operating costs) spent efficiently? H. Sustainability (core) To what extent are the H1. What measures or mechanisms you think were established by project results likely to the project to address sustainability issues? continue after the project? H2. To what extent the project was adopted or replicated by other agencies and groups? Is stakeholders’ How did partners support the H3. Did the project create institutional partnerships to sustain and engagement likely to sustainability of the project? expand the recovery efforts in the communities? How? continue, be scaled up, replicated or Did the partner government H4. To what extent was people’s access to public services were institutionalized after agencies sustain and expand restored or improved as a result of the project? external funding ceases? the project?

207

Specific Sub-Questions Relevant Evaluation Key Questions (probing and support KII Questions Criteria questions) Were there other projects or H5. Based on your experience with the project, how can we improve programs developed and the impact and sustainability of the project? funded by other stakeholders as a result of partnership? What measures, if any, What project management have been put in place to schemes or sustainability promote sustainability of measures were established to the project’s focus and continue or expand the outcomes? project?

Was sustainability strategy integrated right from the start of the project? Was there a clear exit strategy to sustain the project?

How did the project promote local actions and resources? What lessons have been What were the major learned from this project constraints in sustaining the and how might these be project? of assistance in preparing similar projects on post How can we further improve disaster recovery and the design and resiliency of the UNDP implementation of the and other institutions? project? How can it be done differently to achieve better results and impacts?

208

Annex F.6. KII Guide for Infrastructure

For LGU personnel who are managing the use and maintenance of infrastructure project(s) Relevant Evaluation Specific Sub-Questions (can Criteria (with BBB Principles Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions – DILG/AVID 2017) questions) A. Relevance (core) How relevant is the Infrastructure: A1. How relevant is the project to the LGU’s Post-Yolanda program project to target groups’ To what extent did the and projects? (in terms of policies, priorities and strategies) (1) Risk and site (communities & rehabilitation of public assessments (BBB) beneficiaries), including infrastructures serve the a) Resilient Infrastructures (Evacuation Centers, mangrove, etc) governments’ (national, needs of the target groups b) Sustainable livelihoods Plan ahead to understand LGUs) needs and and areas? c) Resettlement (housing, water supply, etc.) and mitigate for possible priorities? d) DRRM Capacity Building risks and hazards before a Shelter: calamity to make the To what extent did the A2. What specific project areas or assistance did the project support response more efficient. resettlement assistance towards promoting resilient infrastructure in time of disasters? address the housing needs of the displaced HHs? A3. Based on your recovery and rehabilitation plan of the LGU, in what way the prospective use of the infrastructure facility was Livelihood: intended and established under the EU-UNDP Project RECOVERY? How did the livelihood interventions contribute to the restoration and stabilization of economic activities of the HHs and communities? How relevant is the Infrastructure: Who are the intended users of the infrastructure facility established project to other key To what extent were the infra under the EU-UNDP Project RECOVERY? stakeholders’ needs and projects significant to priorities? (GPH, partner government, private and civil organizations- OPARR, society groups? NEDA, OCD, LGUs, communities, partners – Shelter: other UN agencies, NGOs, How important is the etc.) resettlement component among government agencies?

209

Relevant Evaluation Specific Sub-Questions (can Criteria (with BBB Principles Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions – DILG/AVID 2017) questions)

Livelihood: How significant are the livelihood interventions to the programs and projects of the government, the private sector and the CSOs? B. Appropriateness Was the project Was the assistance related B1. Do you think that the project interventions/components were (additional) implementation and/or supportive to the developed based on the priorities and needs of the affected approach relevant and existing skills and knowledge communities, with reference to the CLUP and DRRM plans of the (2) Scoping and planning of appropriate? of beneficiaries? LGU? In what way and circumstances? projects (BBB) Were efforts made by Allowing enough time and project reached the B2. Was the project design consistent or supportive of the LGU’s resources to discuss, intended target groups? plan? In what way? analyze information and Who benefited from the consult. Utilize existing project? B3. On infrastructure (evacuation center, mangrove, boardwalk), CLUP and land use plans to what were the considerations in considering selecting the location of assist decision making, the facility? ensuring DRR and CCA Principles are taken into account. C. Coherence (additional) To what extent was the How did the project C1. To what extent did the project contribute in the overall DRR project aligned with the components contribute to institutional coordination and collaboration (from national, sub policies and strategies of national (OPARR) and local national down to local)? the Philippine post disaster recovery Government on post projects? C2. What specific issues were addressed by the project to improve disaster recovery and early recovery coordination and partnerships? resilience? What were the coordination issues both vertical and C3. What capacity development activities were implemented by the horizontal in implementing project to improve the LGU’s DRR management? the project activities?

210

Relevant Evaluation Specific Sub-Questions (can Criteria (with BBB Principles Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions – DILG/AVID 2017) questions) What capacity development C4. What factors should have been considered by the project to activities were implemented enhance coherence and synergy with other projects and agencies? by the project to improve DRR (inter-department within the LGU and relationships with other management? NGAs and NGOs) To what extent was the Did the project design and the C5. To what extent did the project adopt the principles of “building project consistent with implementation of activities back better”? Please give examples. the principles of UN post- promote “build back better” disaster recovery? principles: - Promoting local and national ownership and BBB Principles (DILG/AVID) capacities • Risk and site assessment (before the event of disaster - Promoting participatory • Scoping and planning of projects practices • Site Analysis - Integrating risk reduction • Architectural, Engineering, Urban Design and and conflict prevention Documentation measures • Materials and construction quality - Strengthening accountability systems C6. Were there cases or instances that the project overlooked the - Integration of cross cutting participation and ownership of the project among local issues (gender, youth, stakeholders? Elaborate. human rights, climate change) - Promoting equality and preventing discrimination and abuse. D. Connectedness What were the major What were the key strengths D1. Was there a joint planning and programming with your LGU in (additional) strengths and and weaknesses of the project the selection of the site for the infrastructure component and in weaknesses of the in terms of: preparing the project design and work plan? Elaborate please. (3) Site analysis (BBB) project? 1. Design? 2. Implementation? D2. Was your LGU involved in the monitoring or feedbacking of the An understanding of the site 3. Partnerships? project? To what extent did your LGU participated in the monitoring risks to ensure structures or feedback mechanism established by the project? Was knowledge are located in the optimum

211

Relevant Evaluation Specific Sub-Questions (can Criteria (with BBB Principles Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions – DILG/AVID 2017) questions) building envelope on the sharing regularly promoted during the project implementation? subject site (e.g. avoiding How? areas likely to be subject to overland flow/landslides) Were the different Was there a conscious effort D2. Do you think that the project was implemented in an integrated project components in integrating the different manner? Based on your experience with the project, what would implemented in an components of the project to you suggest to enhance the integration of different project integrated manner? achieve more results and components and its relationship building with other recovery impact? How did the programs and projects? implementation strategy integrate the various D3. What strategies or activities were put into place to make sure components? Was there a that the project surpasses seamlessly from emergency and relief to resource leveraging or joint medium to long-term recovery and development? programming of the project with other agencies? How did these joint programming contribute to the connectivity of recovery efforts in the area? How did the different Did the implementation of components contribute emergency and early recovery to a seamless transition activities also aim at from emergency to supporting or preparing for recovery phase? medium to long term recovery and development? What strategies or inputs were put in place to enhance the transition from emergency to early recovery to development phase? What strategies were What issues emerged in the Resilient Infrastructure for LGUs undertaken by the LGU to land acquisition and

212

Relevant Evaluation Specific Sub-Questions (can Criteria (with BBB Principles Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions – DILG/AVID 2017) questions) facilitate the preparation of the relocation What issues emerged in the land acquisition and preparation of the resettlement program area? evacuation centers, mangrove rehabilitation, or boardwalk? with the different What activities were done in stakeholders? planning and implementing What activities were done in planning and implementing the the construction of the core construction of the community evacuation centers? shelters? Resilient housing in resettlement areas What essential community public utilities and facilities What issues emerged in the land acquisition and preparation of the were available and functional relocation area? prior to the relocation activities? What activities were done in planning and implementing the construction of the core shelters? How were the core shelter beneficiaries identified and selected? What activities were implemented in the actual movement or transfer of the core shelter beneficiaries to the relocation area? E. Gender Mainstreaming To what extent were What activities or measures E1. What strategies and activities were implemented to promote (additional) women and men (and were implemented to ensure gender mainstreaming in the design of the infrastructure project? - Equity community) as well as gender equality in project - Inclusiveness the LGUs were involved identification and E2. How can the project improve the design and implementation to - Participation in the following: development, implementation further enhance gender mainstreaming? and monitoring? (4) Architectural, (a) project identification E3. What was the process of identifying and prioritizing those that Engineering and Urban and preparation; What actions were adopted to were the most vulnerable households in the community in the use of Design and documentation (b) procurement; reduce the insecurity and infrastructure projects? (BBB) (c) implementation; vulnerability of women (d) M&E; (female headed HHs, IDPs, (e) O&M; and youth, and children)?

213

Relevant Evaluation Specific Sub-Questions (can Criteria (with BBB Principles Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions – DILG/AVID 2017) questions) Utilize architectural, (f) sustainability engineering and urban mechanisms How did the project support design options to improve the coping mechanisms of both the structure’s women and girls in the resilience, as well as the recovery project? public space surrounding it; ensuring the structures provide equitable access for people with disabilities. F. Effectiveness (core) Were the planned Was the project design F1. Do you think that the project was effective in addressing the objectives and outcomes developed based on the evacuation and recovery needs of the target groups and in in the project document needs and capacities of the strengthening their resiliency (reducing vulnerability)? achieved? target groups and partners? To what extent have the Based on your experience with the project, what factors and intended outcomes been How useful were the indicators you think contributed in the effectiveness of the project? achieved? community infra in supporting the recovery of the target F2. What significant results and benefits were accomplished and groups and areas? realized by the infrastructure component in your municipality/city?

What results or benefits did Was there an instance or event that the infrastructure facility was the livelihood interventions used for its intended purpose? How many people have used such provide in the economic facility? restoration and stabilization of the target groups?

What specific capital assets of the target groups were restored and developed?

How effective was the resettlement assistance in addressing the tenure security

214

Relevant Evaluation Specific Sub-Questions (can Criteria (with BBB Principles Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions – DILG/AVID 2017) questions) and vulnerability of the target groups? How did implementing How did partnerships with the partners at the national national and local authorities (OPARR, NEDA, OCD) and contribute in the effectiveness local level (LGUs, of project delivery? communities) benefited (not benefited) from the project? Has the project contributed or is likely to contribute to long-term social, economic, technical, environmental changes for individuals, communities and institutions related to the project? G. Efficiency (core) Were the resources and Were the project funds G1. Were the project activities and assistance provided when it was inputs converted to utilized specifically on the most needed? To what extent you think was the project (5) Materials and outputs in a timely and budget line items approved? implemented with reference to its timeliness? Construction quality (BBB) cost-effective manner? Were the project activities G2. Which among the process was the most difficult and how long Quality construction and results realized based on did it take? (site acquisition, procurement, construction, etc.) including inspection and the planned timelines? testing of materials and G3. What measures were taken to address any of the processes that workmanship is essential to Were there project savings took time more than expected? What improvements could be ensure safe, functional and that were utilized to multiply instituted to avoid such delays in order to improve similar projects durable structures. External or expand target outputs? in the future? monitoring of these quality checks by an impartial party Were the project funds (both strengthens these checks. direct project costs and

215

Relevant Evaluation Specific Sub-Questions (can Criteria (with BBB Principles Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions – DILG/AVID 2017) questions) operating costs) spent G4. To what extent local capacities and local resources/materials efficiently? were utilized by the project?

G5. In terms of cost, which part of the infrastructure, if any, incurred relative greater cost than what was initially planned?

G6. What measures were instituted in addressing the increase in budget requirements? What improvements could be instituted to improve similar projects in the future? H. Sustainability (core) To what extent are the H1. What measures or mechanisms you think were established by project results likely to the project to address sustainability issues? What arrangements are continue after the in place or being considered in use of completed facilities when not project? needed for emergency evacuation?

H2. To what extent the infrastructure project was adopted or replicated by other agencies and groups? Is stakeholders’ How did partners support the H3. Did the project create institutional partnerships to sustain and engagement likely to sustainability of the project? expand the recovery efforts in the communities through the use of continue, be scaled up, the infrastructure facilities? How? replicated or Did the partner government institutionalized after agencies sustain and expand H4. To what extent the people’s access to public services or access to external funding ceases? the project? natural resources were restored or improved as a result of the infrastructure project? Were there other projects or programs developed and H5. Based on your experience with the project, how can we improve funded by other stakeholders the usefulness and sustainability of the project? as a result of partnership? What measures, if any, What project management H6. On the evacuation centers, what measures are being pursued to have been put in place to schemes or sustainability ensure its O&M and continued usefulness? promote sustainability of measures were established to the project’s focus and continue or expand the H7. What is the alternative use of the evacuation center while it is outcomes? project? not being used for its intended use (as evacuation centers)?

216

Relevant Evaluation Specific Sub-Questions (can Criteria (with BBB Principles Key Questions serve as probing and support KII Questions – DILG/AVID 2017) questions)

Was sustainability strategy integrated right from the start of the project? Was there a clear exit strategy to sustain the project?

How did the project promote local actions and resources? What lessons have been What were the major learned from this project constraints in sustaining the and how might these be project? of assistance in preparing similar projects on post How can we further improve disaster recovery and the design and resiliency of the UNDP implementation of the and other institutions? project? How can it be done differently to achieve better results and impacts?

217

Annex F.7. Livelihood Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire (English Version) Recovery and Resilience in Selected Typhoon Yolanda-affected Communities in the Visayas (Project RECOVERY) ______

Livelihood Component Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), with funding support from the European Union (EU), in partnership with local stakeholders has implemented a

comprehensive post-disaster recovery project in Yolanda-affected areas in the Visayas Region. Titled as “Recovery and Resilience in Selected Typhoon Yolanda-affected Communities in the Visayas (Project RECOVERY),”the project sought to contribute in the recovery of Yolanda victims in fifteen local government units by integrating four components namely: (i) disaster-resilient public infrastructure (ii) sustainable

livelihoods (iii) resettlement of displaced populations and (iv) capacity building for disaster risks reduction and management.

With the completion of the project implementation phase this 2017, it is imperative to document and assess the overall accomplishments, experiences and key learning of the

project. It is within this context that this project terminal evaluation is being conducted. This survey questionnaire will only focus on livelihoods and the results will be processed and analyzed together with the other three important components.

Please answer the following items accurately, completely and to the best of your knowledge. Rest assured that your answers will be treated with utmost confidentiality.

Thank you very much for your time and support.

218

Instructions: Please answer the following items accurately, completely and to the best of your knowledge. Put an (X) mark in the box accordingly.

I. Respondent’s Profile

Surname First Name Middle Initial 1. Name 2. Gender Male Female 3. Age Single Married 4. Marital Status Others (Please specify): 5. Number of Family Members 2 3 4 5 More than 5

6. Address

Elementary College Graduate 7. Highest Educational attainment High School Master’s Degree College Undergraduate

Coconut lumber processing Farm inputs Skills training 8. Type of livelihood assistance provided by UNDP Enterprise development Fishery-based livelihood Others: (pls. specify) ______

II. Key Assessment Area

(a) (b) (c) (d) ASSESSMENT AREA I agree I agree I disagree I don’t completely somewhat completely know 9. The livelihood project provided by EU-UNDP was

relevant for my income restoration and economic recovery. 10. I have a clear understanding of my role and responsibility in the implementation and sustainability of my livelihood project/s. 11. I was involved in the identification and planning of my

livelihood recovery project.

219

(a) (b) (c) (d) ASSESSMENT AREA I agree I agree I disagree I don’t completely somewhat completely know 12. The livelihood projects supported by EU-UNDP were responsive to my income restoration and economic recovery. 13. I think that EU-UNDP’s livelihood project was sufficient to support my overall recovery after Typhoon Yolanda. 14. I think that EU-UNDP livelihood support project was more of an emergency or relief assistance rather than a recovery and long-term development assistance. 15. I believe that my livelihood, employment skills and capacities were developed because of EU-UNDP’s project. 16. Based on my experience, the EU-UNDP livelihood projects were effective for my income generation and economic recovery. 17. The EU-UNDP project team and staff were very helpful and effective in the implementation of livelihood projects. 18. I think that I can sustain my livelihood activities even upon the phase out of the EU-UNDP project in my community. 19. My access with the local government unit and other government agencies providing livelihood assistance was improved as a result of the UNDP Yolanda Recovery Project. 20. My income after Typhoon Yolanda had increased because of EU-UNDP’s recovery project. 21. Because of EU-UNDP’s livelihood project, I am now much more capable and prepared to deal with future disasters. 22. I am satisfied with EU-UNDP’s livelihood recovery support project.

Thank you!

220

Annex F.8. Livelihood Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire (Waray Version) Recovery and Resilience in Selected Typhoon Yolanda-affected Communities in the Visayas (Project RECOVERY) ______

Livelihood Component Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire

WARAY-WARAY:

An United Nations Development Programme (UNPD), nga ginsuportahan han pundo tikan ha European Union (EU), kaupod an iba pa nga mga grupo na interesado han mahap-id nga pagdumala han proyekto kahuman han kataladman “Yolanda-affected areas” sa Rehiyon Visayas. An titulo na “Recovery and Resilience in Selected Typhoon Yolanda-affected Communities in the Visayas (Project RECOVERY)”, an proyekto na nagkita ha mga kinahanglanon pagpadukwag han mga biktima han bagyong Yolanda han napulo kag lima ka mga bungto ug syodad, dida han pagpahamutang han upat nga parte hini nga masunod: (i) disaster-resilient public infrastructure (ii) sustainable livelihoods (iii) resettlement of displaced populations and (iv) building for disaster costs reduction and management.

Dida han katapus han implementasyon hini nga proyekto han tuig dos mil desisiete, tangkod la na igpahan-ay o kitaon an kabug-usan nga nahanabo o mga katalwasan na nahatag hin mga liksyon hini nga proyekto. Asya an rason han paghimo hin kabug-usan na sukol han mga natatabo. An mga pakiana nakulaw la han panginabuhi. An resulta gagamiton han proseso ngan paganalisar upod an tulo pa nga mga importante nga kabahin hini nga programa. Alayon pagbaton han kompleto ngan matuod na pagbaton han mga pakiana tubtob han imo nahabruan. Amon ini hahatagan hin tim-os nga respeto basi diri mawara an kompiyansa.

Damo nga salamat han imo ginhatag nga panahon ug suporta.

221

Instructions: Please answer the following items accurately, completely and to the best of your knowledge. Put an (X) mark in the box accordingly.

I. Respondent’s Profile

Surname First Name Middle Initial 1. Name (Ngaran) 2. Gender Male Female 3. Age Single Married 4. Marital Status Others (Please specify): 5. Number of Family Members 2 3 4 5 More than 5

6. Address

Elementary College Graduate 7. Highest Educational attainment High School Master’s Degree College Undergraduate

Coconut lumber processing Farm inputs Skills training 8. Type of livelihood assistance provided by UNDP Enterprise development Fishery-based livelihood Others: (pls. specify) ______

II. Key Assessment Area

(a) (b) (c) (d) ASSESSMENT AREA I agree I agree I disagree I don’t completely somewhat completely know 9. An panginabuhi nga proyekto han EU-UNDP in subay

para maibalik an akon panginabuhi ug ekonomiya 10. Maaram ngan klaro ha akon it akon buruhaton ug responsibilidad ha panahon han implementasyon ngan para maipadayon an panginabuhi nga programa

11. Naging kaparti ako han pagpili ngan pagplano agud

maibalik an akon panginabuhi.

222

(a) (b) (c) (d) ASSESSMENT AREA I agree I agree I disagree I don’t completely somewhat completely know 12. An panginabuhi nga programa na gin suportahan han EU-UNDP in kabatonan para ako magka-ada ug pagpabalik han akon panalapi 13. Ha akon pagbana-bana, an panginabuhi nga programa han EU-UNDP in supesyente nga suporta agud hul-os nga maibalik katapos han bagyo nga Yolanda.

14. Ha akon pagbana-bana, an EU-UNDP nga suporta para han panginabuhi in kadali-an nga bulig agud maibalik ngan diri para pan maiha-an pagpadukwag

15. Natoo ako, nga nahag-id an akon kapasidad, abilidad ha panginabuhi mahitungod han EU-UNDP nga proyekto 16. Basi han akon eksperyensya, an panginabuhi nga proyekto han EU-UNDP in epektibo para magka-ada ako hin kita ug pagbalik hit akon panginabuhi 17. An grupo hit proyekto ngan an empleyado han EU- UNDP in mabinuligon ug epektibo ha pag implement han panginabuhi nga programa. 18. Ha akon pagbana-bana, maipapadayon ko an mga buruhaton han panginabuhi bisan tapos na an EU-UNDP nga programa 19. Ang akon pagduok hit gobyerno nga local ngan hit iba nga ahensya hit gobyerno nga na-asisti para panginabuhi nag maupay in resulta han UNDP Yolanda Recovery Project 20. An akon pangita pagkahuman han bagyo nga Yolanda in humita-as tungod han EU-UNDP Recovery Project 21. Tungod han EU-UNDP livelihood project, hi ako yana nagka-ada kapas ngan andam pag-atubang han mga kataradman nga maabot. 22. Kontento ako han EU-UNDP livelihood recovery support project.

Salamat!

223

Annex F.9. Livelihood Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire (Cebuano Version)

Recovery and Resilience in Selected Typhoon Yolanda-affected Communities in the Visayas (Project RECOVERY) ______

Livelihood Component Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire

CEBUANO:

Ang United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), nga sinuportahan ug pundo gikan sa European Union (EU), kadasig sa ubang mga grupo nga interesado sa pagpahapnay sa mga comprehensibong proyekto kahuman sa mga panghinabo nga dili kalikayan “Yolanda-affected areas” sa Rehiyon Visayas. Ang ulohan nga “Recovery and Resilience in Selected Typhoon Yolanda-affected Communities in the Visayas (Project RECOVERY)”, ang proyekto nga nagtan-aw sa mga kinahanglanon pagpauswag sa mga biktima sa bagyong Yolanda, sa labing-lima ka mga hugpong panggobernohan, diha sapagpahapnay sa upat ka mga kabahin sa programa nga masunod: (i) disaster-resilient public infrastructure (ii) sustainable livelihoods (iii) resettlement of displaced populations and (iv) building for disaster risks reduction and management.

Diha sa pagkatapus sa implementasyon niining proyekto niining tuig dos mil desisiete, kaangayan lang nga igpahan-ay o tan-awon ang katibuk-an nga nahitabo o mga kalampusan nga naghatag ug liksyon niining maong proyekto. Mao ang hinungdan sa paghimo ug katibuk-an nga pagsukod sa mga nahitabo. Ang mga pangutana nagatotok lang sa panginabuhi, ang resulta gamiton sa proseso ug pag-analisar uban ang tulo pa nga mga importanting kabahin niining programa.

Palihug sa kompleto ug tinooray nga pagtubag sa mga pangutana kutob sa imong nasabtan. Gipasabut namo nga hatagan kini namo ug tininood nga respeto aron dili mawala ang kompiyansa.

Daghang salamat sa gihatag nga panahon ug suporta.

224

Instructions: Please answer the following items accurately, completely and to the best of your knowledge. Put an (X) mark in the box accordingly.

I. Respondent’s Profile

Surname First Name Middle Initial 1. Name 2. Gender Male Female 3. Age Single Married 4. Marital Status Others (Please specify): 5. Number of Family Members 2 3 4 5 More than 5

6. Address

Elementary College Graduate 7. Highest Educational attainment High School Master’s Degree College Undergraduate

Coconut lumber processing Farm inputs Skills training 8. Type of livelihood assistance provided by UNDP Enterprise development Fishery-based livelihood Others: (pls. specify) ______

II. Key Assessment Area

(a) (b) (c) (d) ASSESSMENT AREA I agree I agree I disagree I don’t completely somewhat completely know (wa (uyon kaayo) (uyon) (dili uyon) kabalo) 9. Ang livelihood project nga gi-supportanhan EU-UNDP ay mapuslanon (relevant) para mahibalik ang akong

pinanginabuhian (income restoration) og pagpalambo sa economia sa lugar namo (economic recovery). 10. Naa koy klaro nga pagsabot sa akong responsibilidad og luna (role) para sa pag-implementar og sa malungtaron pagpalambo (sustainability) sa akong livelihood project/s. 11. Nahi-apil ako sa pagpili og pagplano sa akong

livelihood recovery project.

225

(a) (b) (c) (d) ASSESSMENT AREA I agree I agree I disagree I don’t completely somewhat completely know (wa (uyon kaayo) (uyon) (dili uyon) kabalo) 12. Ang livelihood projects nga supportahan sa EU-UNDP ay tukma o haum (responsive) nga mahibalik ang akong pakakitaan (income restoration) og ang pagbangon nga pag-economiya (economic recovery). 13. Sa akong tan-aw, ang EU-UNDP’s livelihood project ay supisente (sufficient) para masuportahan ang kinatibuk-an nga pagbangon (overall recovery) pagkahuman sa Typhoon Yolanda. 14. Sa akong tan-aw, ang EU-UNDP livelihood support project ay mas haum nga pang emergency or relief assistance kaysa isa ka proyecto nga para sa pagbangon (recovery) og sa malungtaron nga paglambo (long-term) 15. Ako nagasalig o naga-tuo, nga ang mga kahibalo para sa panginabuhian (livelihood) og sa mga kaadman para sa pagpang-empleyo (employment skills and capacity) ay napundar o nahimong mas hanas tungod sa EU-UNDP’s project. 16. Base sa akong kaagi , ang EU-UNDP livelihood projects ay epektebo (effective) para sa akong pagpangita sa kwarta (income generation) og para sa pagbangon sa economia (economic recovery). 17. Ang mga taga EU-UNDP nga nagdumala sa proyekto (project team and staff) ay matinabangong kaayo (very helpful) og epektibo (effective) sa pag-implementar (implementation) sa mga livelihood projects. 18. Sa akong pangagpas, ako gyud nga mapadayon og mapalambo (sustain) ang akong ginahimo nga pinanginabuhian (livelihood) bisan nga mahuman (phase out) ang proyekto sa EU-UNDP project sa communidad. 19. Mas nikusog nahimong mas sayon (improved) ang akong pag-access sa akong barangay o munisipyo (LGU) og uban nga ahensya sa gobyerno nga nagahatag og livelihood assistance, resulta sa EU-UNDP Project. 20. Ang akong kita o pagkwarta (income) nilambo o mas taas pagkahuman sa Typhoon Yolanda tungod sa tabang sa EU-UNDP’s recovery project. 21. Tungod sa EU-UNDP livelihood project, ako karon ay may kakayahan o mas daghan ang kahibalo (capable) para sa pag-preparar og sa pag-atubang sa mga umaabot nga katalagman (future disasters). 22. Ako ay nalipay o satisfied sa EU-UNDP’s livelihood recovery support project.

226

Annex F.10. Resettlement Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire Recovery and Resilience in Selected Typhoon Yolanda-affected Communities in the Visayas (Project RECOVERY) ______

Resettlement Component Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), with funding support from the European Union (EU), in partnership with local stakeholders has implemented a comprehensive post-disaster recovery project in Yolanda-affected areas in the Visayas Region. Titled as “Recovery and Resilience in Selected Typhoon Yolanda-affected Communities in the Visayas (Project RECOVERY),”the project sought to contribute in the recovery of Yolanda victims in fifteen local government units by integrating four components namely: (i) disaster-resilient public infrastructure (ii) sustainable livelihoods (iii) resettlement of displaced populations and (iv) capacity building for disaster risks reduction and management.

With the completion of the project implementation phase this 2017, it is imperative to document and assess the overall accomplishments, experiences and key learning of the project. It is within this context that this project terminal evaluation is being conducted. This survey questionnaire will only focus on resettlement and the results will be processed and analyzed together with the other three important components.

Please answer the following items accurately, completely and to the best of your knowledge. Rest assured that your answers will be treated with utmost confidentiality.

Thank you very much for your time and support.

For more information, please contact:

UNDP Project Unit, Tacloban Office Address:

Telephone:

227

Instructions: Please answer the following items accurately, completely and to the best of your knowledge. Put an ( X ) mark in the box accordingly.

Resettlement Location: Tacloban City Ormoc City Hernani, Eastern Samar

I. Household Information Surname First Name Middle Initial 1. Name of Household Head

Surname First Name Middle Initial 2. Name of Respondent

2.1 Relationship to Household Head 3. Gender Male Female 4. Age 5. Marital Status Single Married Live-in Separated 6. Number of Family Members 2 3 4 5 More than 5 Elementary College Undergraduate Elementary Graduate College Graduate 7. Highest Educational attainment High School Master’s Degree High School Graduate 8. Address

8.1 Before Typhoon Yolanda

8.2 After Typhoon Yolanda

II. Key Assessment Area

(a) (b) (c) (d) ASSESSMENT AREA I agree I agree I disagree I don’t completely somewhat completely know A. Accessibility of the Resettlement Area 1. From the city/town proper 2. By public transportation facilities 3. Good road condition B. Availability of Public Utilities 1. Potable water supply 2. Electric power 3. Telecommunication network C. Availability of Livelihood and Economic Opportunities

228

(a) (b) (c) (d) ASSESSMENT AREA I agree I agree I disagree I don’t completely somewhat completely know 1. Within the resettlement area 2. Outside the resettlement area D. Core Shelter 1. Structure is durable and sturdy 2. Shelter size is sufficient for the family 3. Made up of heavy construction materials E. Resettlement Location Safety from Natural Hazards 1. Geological hazards (earthquake, landslide, tsunami) 2. Meteorological hazards (typhoon, tornado) 3. Hydrological hazards (flood, storm surge) F. Availability of Community Socio-economic Facilities 1. Community school 2. Health center 3. Public market 4. Sports and recreational facilities G. Homeowners’ Association Functioning 1. Still active and functioning 2. Ability to acquire construction projects independently 3. Able to manage projects efficiently and effectively H. Existence of Estate Management Systems 1. Waste management 2. Water sanitation hygiene (WASH) 3. Peace and Order 4. Security I. Homeowners Integration into the Barangay Political System 1. A new barangay political system was created from among

the homemakers 2. Homeowners integration into the existing barangay

government was facilitated harmoniously 3. Homeowners leadership accepted in the existing barangay

government J. Resettlement Beneficiary Satisfaction 1. Towards UNDP Project Management - Management team - Engineering team - Community development team

229

(a) (b) (c) (d) ASSESSMENT AREA I agree I agree I disagree I don’t completely somewhat completely know 2. Towards Participating National Government Agencies - DSWD - NHA - DPWH - Dept. Of Agriculture - Civil Defense Office - NEDA 3. Towards LGU - Mayor’s Office - Engineering Office - Housing Office & Community Devt Office - DRRMO - PPDO 4. Towards their Own Beneficiary Participation

OVERALL SATISFACTION

of the Beneficiary Respondent Can you say that you have RECOVERED from the YOLANDA

DISASTER?

THANK YOU!

230

Summary Matrices of 8 LGUs

Annex G.1. Hernani, Eastern Samar

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING Evaluation How relevant is Was the project To what extent What were the To what extent To what extent Were the To what extent Questions the project to implementation was the project major strengths and were women and have the intended resources and are the project target groups’ approach relevant aligned with the weaknesses of the men (and outcomes in the inputs results likely to (communities & and appropriate? policies and project (in all or community) as well project document converted to continue after the beneficiaries), strategies of the each of the as the LGUs were been achieved? outputs in a project? Is including Was the assistance Philippine components)? involved in the Has the project timely and stakeholders’ governments’ provided related Government on following: contributed or is cost-effective engagement likely (national, LGUs) and/or supportive to post disaster Were the different likely to manner? Were to continue, be needs and the existing skills and recovery and project components (a) project contribute to the project scaled up, priorities? knowledge of resilience in implemented in an identification and long-term social, activities and replicated or beneficiaries? LGUs and integrated manner? preparation; (b) economic, results realized institutionalized How relevant is communities procurement; (c) technical, based on the after external the project to covered by the How did the implementation; environmental planned funding ceases? other key project? (In different (d) M&E; (e) O&M; changes for timelines? stakeholders’ what ways) components and (f) individuals, needs and contribute to a sustainability communities and priorities? Did the project seamless transition mechanisms. institutions design and the from emergency to related to the implementation recovery phase? project? of activities promote “build What strategies or What changes or back better” inputs were put in improvements, if principles? place to enhance any, that were the transition from undertaken by the emergency to early NGAs, LGUs and recovery to communities development towards faster phase? and more appropriate measures in helping local communities on post disaster response and preparedness?

231

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING

FGD with Municipal DRRMC and Engineer CEC Very relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Mainstreamed. Effective. Efficient. Sustainable.

The CEC directly The consultation The scope of The EU-UNDP No issues were CEC being CEC Regular O&M of addressed the process with the LGU assistance was assistance mentioned on the continually used construction facilities such as need for a was very appropriate defined in complements the CEC. as venue for was started in the solar panels, permanent CEC in locating the consultation assistance provided training and also 2015. It was water tanks & located at safe appropriate land and with other by KOICA on waste Items that could be as quarters for turned over by shrinkage of location, from location. development management. improved were as temporary visitors Feb 2017. wooden doors. the 3 coastal partners/donors follows: to the LGU. barangays that LGU already bought and The CEC is situated The The use of the CEC were severely the land after international at the Government 1. Updated The CEC was specification of would be damaged. Typhoon Yolanda NGOs, through Center, also the demographic turned over to the the CEC sustained since it with financial Donors’ Forum location of the new data as reference LGU last February appears to be is being used for 6 DANA was assistance from and individual municipal hall, fire for DANA and 2017, and use as over specified social gatherings, prepared in Marikina City, follow-up station and rural stakeholders, venue for with thick seminars, etc. January 2014, through LGU consultation health unit (RHU). with sex- seminars and walls (about with assistance sisterhood. The meetings. disaggregated meetings of the 6”, instead of The CEC would from Provincial OPARR facilitated It is located about 2 data (male, Homeowners 4”), use of J- not be used as an Government, the linkage of LGUs Original design kms from the female), Association. bolt for roofing office to ensure its which provided affected by Typhoon of CECs Poblacion, along 2. Inventory of LGU fixtures as well readiness for use the whole picture Yolanda with big included a the national facilities should as concrete as an evacuation. of damages as cities from outside helipad and highway. be carried out to gutter. basis in matching the Eastern Visayas solar power. map out available the assistance (Region 8). The helipad was facilities for from various not pursued. socioeconomic; donors and by groups – government fishers and agencies. fisherfolks. Assistance from PSA would be helpful. 3. Restoring and promoting local governance – in

6 Damage Assessment and Needs Analysis (DANA) was prepared with the Provincial Government of Eastern Samar. LGU lead unit was the Municipal Planning Development Office, through the MPDC.

232

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING

working together as part of the DRRMO capacity building. Livelihood Very relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Mainstreamed. Effectiveness. Efficient. Sustainable.

Livelihood The livelihood The livelihood UNDP coordinated Skills were Overall project Labor for Long term security activities were component at the component with the LGU in the distributed among was appreciated construction of of tenure by . very relevant for resettlement was complemented conduct of training beneficiaries by LGU officials housing units beneficiaries is economic intended to provide other assistance on construction including male and and technical was packaged being finalized by recovery of HHs. alternative livelihood that were skills for livelihood be male. personnel. into “pakyaw” the LGU and HOA. opportunities to provided by of beneficiaries. system, for A 25-year usufruct On the earlier beneficiaries. Assets other agencies Profile of Success factors on labor, with the is being discussed phase on were built up and – seeds were beneficiaries for the overall following with the distribution of supported by UNDP given by skilled and project: (1) good arrangement: beneficiary relief goods for the beneficiaries, Palayan; 32 unskilled. Other coordination by 6 days for paid groups. (before EU-UNDP which included the pump boats NGOs also provided the LGU; (2) very labor and 1 project), the I- following: small were given by skills training on transparent day as “sweat” Beneficiaries also NGOS went building for mini- Spanish masonry, carpentry transactions by equity: grow ornamental directly to the HH grocery, equipment government; and others. the UNDP; (3) and vegetables in as part of their for the store, fresher CFW for debris UNDP providing the resettlement mandates. for storage of clearing was After Typhoon updates to LGU; area. perishable items, provided from Yolanda, the LGU and (4) TWG was LGU allowed and 1 vehicle for December 2013 recognized that organized at the direct transport. - January 2014 tourism is another start of UNDP distribution business that is assistance, because of need. The LGU was more resilient as involving all heads Later, LGU was consulted with compared to of the LGU directly involved reference to the farming. section. to avoid location of the jealousies among grocery. communities Resettlement Very relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Mainstreamed - Effective. Efficient. Sustainable. with inclusivity of Housing was very Selection of The LGU has no Site development senior citizen and Beneficiaries were As part of Estate planning helpful even with beneficiaries was shelter program was coordinated by children of chosen by resettlement and active role of small number, based on a 2-stage before Typhoon the LGU. Upon vulnerable age as drawing of lots, as area, the the HOA would and given with process, namely: (a) Yolanda. The purchase of the part of the 7-point follows: following ensure

233

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING

complete based on EU-UNDP land, the plan was qualification of (a) Barangay utilities were sustainable use of package. qualification, based project prepared with beneficiaries. Batang (100% facilitated by housing units and on UNDP; then (b) supported the layout of washed out), with LGU such as livelihood 3 barangays were draw lots for those ongoing government center, 20 beneficiaries; roads, opportunities. severely qualified. The preparation of prepared by LGU (2) Garawon with drainage damaged. Six process was decided the shelter Marikina. With 6; (3) Brgy. 3 with system, and In subsequent barangays were by LGU Hernani. program. The entry of the UNDP, 9; (4) Brgy. 4, with electrification projects, the late affected. After 2025 projected the site was 4; (5) Brgy. 2 with (now being deliveries of typhoon, Qualifications: (1) housing pointed out by the 3; and (6) Padang worked out materials need to temporary house was totally requirement LGU and plan was with 3. with the help be addressed evacuation damaged; (2) located was at 1,051 prepared by UNDP of LGU). HOAs since delivery was centers were in no build zone; (3) units. in coordination with The beneficiaries requested LGU not synchronized established at no permanent Municipal Engineer in the assistance for with labor schools and some income;(4) with Approach taken (MEO). It was then resettlement the post for available. The stayed with their senior citizen in by UNDP: It approved by the gained better electrification. laborer- relatives. family; (5) with informed and LGU Mayor. opportunities for beneficiary also children in family coordinated livelihood as Water was thought that Design for (vulnerable age); (6) with LGU. The 55 units of compared to the tested during funds are shelter: UNDP willing to be shelter are also 4Ps who became visit of limitless. As such, coordinated with organized; and (7) One of the designated as depended on dole Evaluation there was a the LGU while willing to be success factors evacuation centers outs (created Team and now prolonged construction was relocated. identified was for relatives that dependency). completed. implementation. carried out by the importance would be affected, UNDP with site The shelter of building in the event of The LGU entities energy. component also capacity within disasters. involved in the benefited from the the LGUs and contingency are complementation of knowing the the HOAs and the other assistance such inter-linkages Municipal Housing as from DA (on among Office (currently livelihood, DSWD stakeholders. being undertaken from 4Ps); (3) by the Municipal leadership of LCEs; MSWD. and (4) good partnership of the Areas for UNDP-PMO, LGU and improvement beneficiaries. suggested were on the following: (a) procurement; and (b) LGU has

234

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING

limited counterpart funds.

The TWG would be the most appropriate mechanism in resolving implementation challenges through the synergy of INGOs among all components. DRRM Relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Effective. Efficiency. Sustainable. Capacity Building Capacity building Training was The four (4) Communication Before Yolanda, Besides DRRMO initially on DRRM in provided on WASAR. components equipment were DRRM is not capacity supported by support to the Next training would served as the provided to the taken seriously by building on volunteers. needs of the be on fire fighting. overall strategy LGU (8 hand-held the LGU. DRRM, Currently, there LGUs and Other training needs towards and radio based) equipment were five (5) OJTs communities. include MOSAR. achieving the and to 9 barangays Changes noted, of was also and two (2) ERT restoration of (2 handheld radios people in terms of provided - personnel. assistance: for each of 9 preparedness in spine boards, barangays) responding to megaphone, Sustainability of 1.livelihood; future risks and ropes and life mainstreaming of 2. water; vulnerability. vest. DRRM is also 3. access to Barangay level Need to being pursued work; and DRRM activities improve clarify with barangay 4. Evacuation included processes in DRRMO and Center; among preparation of making use of preparation of others. DRRM plan and the budget barangay’s Contingency Plans that is contingency plans (CPs) which available. (CPs). covers before, during and after.

235

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING

FGD Very relevant. Very appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Very effective. Efficient. Very sustainable.

Barangay The fishing gear The project was The project was The project links Fishing and fish The project was The UNDP The livelihood Garawon package suitable to the coherent with the fish catch from processing tasks effective in provision of support to the Agrarian consisting of 3 members of the the the sea with the are shared generating material individual Reform pump boats association whose municipality’s fish processing and between the male income for the support to the households is very Beneficiaries together with a main source of economic marketing of the and female family individual association in sustainable since Association marine diesel livelihood is marine- rehabilitation fish product. The members of the member families terms of the families rely (BGARBA), engine and based in view of its and recovery male members do association. Normal from their dried motorized heavily on their Barangay fishing net each shoreline community program of the fishing tasks, daily operations fish products and boats and fish products to Garawon, that was location. Training aquaculture and the females starts with the simultaneously fishing nets to generate family Hernani, provided by sessions on agriculture for perform the fish male family generating the association income. In Eastern UNDP to BGARBA community food sufficiency processing and members sailing income for the was efficiently addition, the Samar fisher folks organizing and and sustainable marketing the out to the sea in 3 association from administered members derive association was organizational livelihood. finished product. separate motor the utilization or by the project additional income very relevant for development The individual boats between rental of the team. for their share the early provided to the family earns income 3:00-4:00PM and motor boats and Utilization of from the recovery of their association helped in from the finished returns in the fishing gears. the boats is association’s fishing livelihood promoting mutual processed fish evening with the Proper care and harmoniously prudent that was understanding, product while the fish catch at 9:00 maintenance of managed by management of completely lost cooperation and association earns PM. The the boats, the the officers of their boat income and terminated unity among the income from the housewives receive diesel engines and the association and association by Typhoon members in abiding usage of the the fishes, clean the fish nets are in accordance funds. Above all, Yolanda. The with the rules and motorized boat and and marinate them managed by the with the rules the delicious fishing package regulations they fishing net. with seasoning, and association to and marinated dried relived their established on the sun-dry them in insure them of regulations the fish products of traditional utilization of the daytime. Once continuing usage members have the association is occupation of fishing boat and dried, the dried throughout the established in great demand producing facilities. fishes are ready for year as the and mutually in the local market marinated dried the market. weather allows. agreed upon. such that supply fish for sale to orders already the public. exist from the fish dealers before the fish are processed and available for sale.

236

Annex G.2. Ormoc City, Leyte

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING Evaluation How relevant is the Was the project To what extent What were the To what extent To what extent Were the To what extent Questions project to target implementation was the project major strengths were women and have the resources and are the project groups’ approach relevant aligned with and weaknesses of men (and intended inputs converted results likely to (communities & and appropriate? the policies and the project (in all community) as outcomes in the to outputs in a continue after beneficiaries), strategies of or each of the well as the LGUs project timely and cost- the project? Is including Was the assistance the Philippine components)? were involved in document been effective stakeholders’ governments’ related and/or Government on Were the different the following: (a) achieved? Has manner? Were engagement (national, LGUs) supportive to the post disaster project project the project the project likely to needs and existing skills and recovery and components identification and contributed or is activities and continue, be priorities? How knowledge of resilience in implemented in an preparation; (b) likely to results realized scaled up, relevant is the beneficiaries? LGUs and integrated procurement; (c) contribute to based on the replicated or project to other communities manner? How did implementation; long-term social, planned institutionalized key stakeholders’ covered by the the different (d) M&E; (e) economic, timelines? after external needs and project? (In components O&M; and (f) technical, funding ceases? priorities? what ways) Did contribute to a sustainability environmental the project seamless mechanisms. changes for design and the transition from individuals, implementation emergency to communities of activities recovery phase? and institutions promote “build What strategies or related to the back better” inputs were put in project? What principles? place to enhance changes or

the transition from improvements, if emergency to any, that were

early recovery to undertaken by development the NGAs, LGUs phase? and communities towards faster and more appropriate measures in helping local communities on post disaster response and preparedness?

237

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING Lake Danao Relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Mainstreamed. Partly effective. Partly Efficient. Sustainable. United Free Farmers The assistance The coffee, as a The planting of While the coffee There was no The provision of The delivery of Upon reaching Association provided by UNDP crop, served as the coffee is was the issue on the coffee planting the coffee the fruiting stage (LADUFFA) to the Farmers appropriate coherent with appropriate crop gender materials to the seedlings in of the coffee a Association was replacement crop of the need of the for the area, the mainstreaming. farmers helped November 2015 steadier and very relevant to the abaca which community as farmers indicated Both male and in improving the was delivered. sustainable the long-term was damaged by well as in that it was their female members asset based of However, not all income will be Note: The needs of the 53 pest (bunchy top) protecting the impression that are helping in the the farmers with seedlings were provided to the members of farmer members. and devastation watershed of labor for the activities in the the planting of planted since the farmers. The the farmers’ 1000 coffee caused by Typhoon Lake Danao for planting of the farm. Coffee is coffee, inspite farmers had to President of the association seedlings and one Yolanda to the contamination coffee would be also a familiar the situation find work in Association relocated to (1) sprayer were farms. Coffee of agricultural included as part of crop in the area that not all other projects reported that the evacuation provided to each of growing also chemicals, in the budget. that will need seedlings were offering CFW to DTI Regional centers in the 53 members in utilized the the case of However, the labor. Both male planted. Upon sustain their Director Ormoc City, October 2015. The common local vegetable actual and female the fruiting of daily needs. As encouraged after the July coffee seedlings knowledge of farming. Lake implementation participated the coffee plant, such, it was them to go into 2017 were provided to farming which was Danao is the based on the during cultivation, two (2) farmers noted that coffee processing earthquake. plant an area of 1 then augmenter source of fresh review of the ADs harvesting and indicated that adequate social as part of The FGD was hectare for each through a two (2) - water for by the Evaluation processing. flowering had preparation improving the conducted at member. day on-site training Ormoc City. Team, indicated started on their should be contribution of the Office of on coffee that labor was coffee plants undertaken in the farmers to the City In addition, production. There was an their counterpart. after about two subsequent the value chain Agriculturist carabaos (10), plow initial issue on As such, some (2) years, it is projects to and participation of Tacloban (10), shredder (for The proposal for the planned farmers were not expected that ensure that the to the local City, organic material) this project was ecotourism able to plant all the harvest of recipients of the economy. On the adjacent to and construction prepared by the project in the the 1,000 coffee beans seedlings will other hand, the evacuation materials for shed office of the City area which was seedlings. Some would bring in fully plant all the ten (10) carabaos center. of Agriculturist in later resolved only planted 500 substantial 1,000 seedlings. would also help vermicomposting coordination with with the help of to 700 seedlings income, in increasing (about 20 feet by EU-UNDP project City since they have to considering The sequencing production asset 30 feet) was given personnel and the Agriculturist. work with other stable prices in and balancing of of farmers to the group. The members of the government the future. the through the coffee and farmers’ agencies through implementation agreed dispersal vermicomposting association. the CFW program. of CFW arrangements were also priorities While waiting for mechanism among members of the national and the fruiting of towards the shift of the local government coffee, these of providing association. farmers are counterpart

238

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING for resilient and planting labor has to be high value crops. vegetables. The reviewed for farmers are also subsequent post- linking with DA, disaster DTI, for the programs .This processing of situation on the coffee for the transition is not fruiting of the unique for this coffee plants. project but also all other projects on Typhoon Yolanda.

Sustainable Relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Gender and Highly effective. Partly efficient. Sustainable. Organic inclusiveness was Farmers The project on The support to the Organic farming The farming mainstreamed. The organization Timing of Model farms are Association organic farming organic farming being association is part of the delivery of being promoted in Ormoc was very relevant association is an undertaken by coordinates with The members of organic farming materials was by individual City to the members of appropriate the association the City the association network of delayed and not members for (SOFAOC) the farmers’ response towards also supports Agriculturist in reported no Region 8. The synchronized. others in the association for promoting resilient ecotourism, further improving particular demo farm community to resilient agriculture food security, the knowledge violation on the served as Suppliers quoted see and follow. production of production system food safety and and skills of principles related learning site for higher prices for The animal Organized: vegetables and for the benefit of intake of members of the to inclusiveness. Agriculture UNDP but lower dispersal among March 2011 other farm families and healthy food association. It Many of the Training Institute prices for members will products. Organic communities. The items. As such, coordinates with members are (ATI) for regional farmers’ group. also promote farming is also a association also it embraces a DA, DTI and DOST women, who are offices. sustainability. priority of the LGU promotes urban coherent on the production, also cultivating Efficiently used Registered Ormoc City and the gardening and approach of processing and their respective SUFAOC. locally available The City with DOLE: DA (with the law backyard bringing marketing the plots of land. materials and Agriculturist 2015 on Organic production of together the organic products. Suggested local knowledge helped in linking Agriculture). poultry and swine, members and Some of female indicators for on organic and SUFAOC to DA, with use on the community In the long-term, members (at least success of NFS of NFS. ATI. The members of indigenous in promoting the animal two (2)) were SUFAOC were Members: the organization microorganism in and support dispersal of the awardees on the following: (a) Proposal (₽2.2M) Individual 32. More are farmers controlling and organic farming association, organic farming good health of prepared in members female and actually involved in eliminating the foul system. among its (Ugmadsaka members of March 2015 for actively pursue mostly natural/organic odor from animal members, will Award). HHs; (b) three (3) projects expansion of farming. manure. The farms promote personal of three (3) program in their Individually, the diversification and wellness of organizations respective

239

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING senior members of the were visited by the resiliency of HH members; and (RIC, SUFAOC & community by citizens association are evaluation team. income sources. (c) lower 4HClub). About adopting a involved in production cost ₽800,000 for neighbor to vegetable, swine The proposal for of crops and SUFAOC. engage in natural and poultry this project was animals. farming and production as well prepared by the . Phase 1 release providing the as organic fertilizer office of the City A member of of funds was in technology for Proposal to production. Agriculturist in SUFAOC Dec 2015 for free. EU-UNDP coordination with reported their shedder, training prepared The production of EU-UNDP project family had on organic SUFAOC actively March 2015 organic food is also personnel and the already farming, organic supporting the gaining a foothold members of the recovered after fertilizer & integrated among buyers and organic farmers’ Typhoon vermicomposting community food consumers in association. Yolanda (15 kgs of African (ICF) program of Ormoc City. The increased night crawler) the National association is part income at least and bought Anti-Poverty of the organic twice (2x) as initial 5 heads of Commission farming network in compared pigs. (NAPC) in Region Region 8. before Yolanda - 8 towards nd mainly because Funds for 2 reducing of lower cost of Phase was incidence of inputs and released 1st malnourished easier marketing Quarter of 2016 children (high in of naturally for Region 8). grown products establishment of from 5-hectare demo farm Measures that st integrated farm (1,000 sq.m). 1 will be pursued consisting of rice procurement by to ensure and animals UNDP, suppliers sustainability are (duck, chicken delivered sub- the following: (a) and goat). standard continuation of materials, as good practices As part of compared to list on NFS; (b) adaptation on of materials from seedbanking of farming, SUFAOC UNDP. Bamboo resilient crops; served as the poles were and (c) pursue source of delivered as mechanization of organic fertilizer post, by supplier. land preparation in Ormoc City. It SUFAOC changed to catch up on

240

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING sold about 15 it into coconut the proper timing sacks of lumber. of planting with vermicompost respect to the @₽400/sack. It Bought 5 pigs weather pattern also produced and sold after 3 in the locality. and sold 110 months. Next sacks of batch not biocompost pursued due to (rapid outbreak of composting in 10 swine disease. days) Members @₽250/sack. pursued Biocompost individual consist of farming, with mudpress, UNDP providing chicken dung, other inputs and IMO concoction, technical lactic acid, assistance. vermicast, kohol Requested extract, pig pen fencing materials bedding & hog (hogwire) in manure. 2016.

The members of The Phase 3 was SUFAOC also released in two noted that the tranches, with st EU-UNDP project the 1 tranche had also foster release was last camaraderie 6 June 2017 among members (₽705,000) with and increased the ₽600,000 for participation of the procurement members in of vehicle for working hauling while the together in the ₽105,000 was for demo farm. training.

Members also The last tranche noted the shift of ₽700,000 will be used for the

241

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING of rice chicken layers consumption of (300 heads), gilt their neighbors (3 heads), and to naturally procurement of grown rice from feeds, training, commercially surrounding grown rice. They fence and reported that establishment of their neighbors plant nursery. sold their commercially grown rice and then bought naturally-grown rice from SUFAOC members

Ormoc City Relevant.Livelihood Appropriate. With Coherent with Interconnected. Mainstreamed. Effective. With Efficient. Sustainable. Jackfruit project was very existing production other With use of value Division of labor is the expected Planting Measures being Producers relevant for rehab of jackfruit, the government chain analysis and being pursued increase of fruits materials were undertaken and Association of existing jackfruit processing aspect program with diversification of with processing, (starting 4th year, provided when household and (OCJPA) production and with support of the jackfruit as part multi-crop. mostly carried out with ten (10) most needed. community level processing as agri- UNDP, will promote of the High- Commodity by women. No fruit/tree and Locally available for continuing Organized in enterprise in wider markets. Value crop with matching was also gender issue while increasing to 40- seedlings from operation for 2003 Ormoc. Proposal More production jackfruit being pursued with a social inclusion is 50 fruits/year.) Abuyog (Leyte) processing with was prepared by area was expected promoted in processing being pursued High potential were provided. the help of DOST Registered City Agriculturist after a couple of Region 8. company. The with more labor income, in the design of with DOLE: with UNDP. years. jackfruit from neighbors. estimated at MCGA of ₽1.6M building for Aug 2012 DTI is providing association was about was provided in processing. Before Yolanda, In addition to assistance for not able to match Allowing the ₽150,000/tree X 2017 for the Members: the planting of production, the GMP (Good the low cost of neighbors to taste 156 deep frying Linkage with 63 jackfruit was OCJPA will pursue manufacturing ₽120/kg FOB the jackfruit trees/hectare. equipment. NGAs are existing started in 2008, as nursery operations practices) and Cebu. would hopefully with DOST, DTI February plant now pay later that will produce HACCP (Hazard encourage them Climate and January 2016: (trainings), LGU 2015: program of DA. seedling and Analysis and The building of to plant. rainfall pattern is Inputs provided Ormoc, DA Discussion of grafted planting Critical Control resilience will evenly by EU-UNDP (production), ATI City In 2012, the materials. Linkage Points) – include processing distributed project with (training) and Agriculturist harvest started and will also be pursued particularly on throughout the about 156 VSU (Dept. of with UNDP in 2013 many of year which is jackfruit seedling

242

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING on Proposal the harvest were with the academe facilities and and marketing of conducive to per hectare. Food on Value sold to Manila, and students. food handling. new products. jackfruit Most of the Technology) Chain with the LGU of production. It is members got 95 Analysis Ormoc providing Association is for long term seedlings (other Capabilities were (VCA) for the refrigerated still dependent development as members got 35, already jackfruit van in support to on support of compared to 70, and 100 developed within the farmers’ City vegetables. seedlings the organization March 2015: association. Agriculturist depending on in terms of Proposal while Benefits include area planted). processing of preparation, There’s a need to marketing of food for the About 11,000 fruit and nursery 2 weeks for develop further the fruits is both by family. seedlings were operations. rehab of 50 marketing package the group and given as hectares (no existing study individual. Limiting the intercrop with Future expansion (₽5.1M) yet). The height to 3 feet planting distance plans for beneficiary- Enhancements to 6 feet, will of 3m x 4m. exporting of January respondent in FGD will be pursued result into Organic products. As 2016: indicated that if through production of fertilizers were such, product Delivery of price of jackfruit is grafting, fruit bigger fruits. also provided development and jackfruit high then farmers pruning, and training at competitive seedlings will produce clearing and Members were VISCA/ATI. pricing and (156 X 50 (timelag have to be sanitation. very satisfied quality hectares studied). with the support February 2017 assurance. with coffee Resilience is of UNDP with funds released (11,000) as being improved full range of ₽2.6M for Within the intercrop. with limiting equipment for processing organization, Cacao was tree height to 6 processing and equipment need to not pursued feet to avoid the inputs on (three (3) encourage since it is a damage by the freezers, one (1) discipline among host to pest strong winds. rehabilitation of upright members to to jackfruit. jackfruit. refrigerator, work together Coping Without the “caldero” (big and help one Labor for mechanism support of UNDP cooking pots), another for the planting was includes the replanting two (2) stainless common purpose counterpart diversification would be working tables, of the of farmers of crops with banana (readily dehydrator and organization. jackfruit and available 200 kgs/batch coffee plants planting (settings 4,5 or 6 (starting to materials) and hours) flower). other cash crops.

243

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING Positive changes Current includes: (a) processing labor facility located at employment to Office of City community; (b) Agriculturist long-term (with support of aspirations; (c) LGU will transfer unexpected help to Bagsakan from others; and Alegria by 2018). (d) encouraged Production just to move in life recovered (now after devastation 2nd year fruiting by Typhoon only at 10%. Yolanda. Fruiting season March- September (higher production & sweeter fruits) & November- March (1 month rest – October).

Last tranche release (₽1.46M) under MCGA with ₽630,000 for nursery, deep fry machine and micro-grant funds for operations.

244

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING FGD Bangon Relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Mainstreamed. Effective. Efficient. Sustainable. Farms With agriculture Project responded With the The project There were no Benefits: The assistance Capacities were Initially, and organic to the need for support of the provided issues on gender Increased was provided developed organized by farming production water. The national assistance towards with members of vegetable when most among farmers Land Bank as part of production of government improving the families. production for needed with lack for productive livelihood. vegetables in small such as the productivity and Furthermore, this family needs and of capital to buy small gardens, Members: scale garden is following: (a) income with the served as one of also as income the water tank including It offered the consistent with DSWD for CFW water supply for the opportunities source to after Typhoon preparation of 24 in following features: objectives of during cash vegetables, swine to the former provide daily Yolanda. It was farm plans. lowland (a) savings in labor Bangon Inc. preparation. raising and even rebels (FRs) who school needs of useful in Ormoc; for watering; (b) for carabaos to were being children. ensuring Integrate, and 30 Barangay water storage; 15 days x 10 drink. trained on Neighbors are adequate water more resilient Barok; controlled/ equal persons x farming together regular buyers of for the farming system 30 in Gaas; distribution of P260/day. Its implementation with other naturally grown vegetables. with vegetables 30 in Liberty water; (c) direct has strong linkages farmers on food since they (high-value and application of Garden plot to with DSWD, DA, vegetable and are assured that Local knowledge local as well as Training concoction during be dug to depth VSU and the swine production. vegetables not on farming was root crops) and were irrigation of 24 inches, 10 Armed Forces of grown using enhanced with also animals conducted (fertigation) meters long the Philippines The members of pesticides. training of (with dispersal) on: (a) and 1 meter (AFP). Bangon that concoction for for short and preparation The assistance was wide with volunteers and Assets and organic fertilizer long-term concoctions prepared in mixing of soil The project uses farmers assumed savings: The and also proper recovery and of organic coordination with ameliorants the value chain some risks in water tank attitude and resiliency of fertilizer (3 LBP and UNDP with (vermicast, rice analysis (VCA) as travelling and/or served as an perspective on households and days); (b) technical working hull carbonate) guide in its working with FRs, additional natural and communities. planting to group (Carigara, operations on as part of helping productive asset, resilient farming harvesting of Ormoc) LGU was such areas as the recovery and which the system. Support and crops (1 supportive of production, integration farmers could coordination st month To be done the program. processing and efforts, which is a not afford, given Feb 2016: 1 with agencies: (a) training) differently (in next UNDP provided marketing (still to very strong free by EU- release of planting projects) - water materials while be improved). initiative in UNDP. Savings assistance materials from Training was supply will be farmers promoting on time and (UNDP) DA; (b) conducted at developed for provided labor Overall, it will be inclusiveness. labor were consisting of coordinated with the domestic water as counterpart. in the long-term achieved in the water tanks DSWD on CFW; communal supply and recovery, with irrigation of (1,100 liter (c) partnership garden of irrigation. Planted high facility and skills plants. The capacity), piping with Army on Ormoc value crops but needed for water tank also for drip irrigation transport of Sustainable market is not served as (50 meters). yet ready. Thus,

245

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING Organic planted locally marketing and storage of Upland areas, materials using Farming. preferred processing. chlorinated where most of army trucks (6x6) vegetables. water which the FRs live, Training was could then be were also conducted Provided equal used for covered as with the Phil opportunity for irrigation for the Bangon farms. Army for the members of next couple of group of family to help days. former in the family- rebels (FR), based farm. Needed together improvements: with Changes Need to further members of included: improve on Bangon, (a) will lead into linkages to increase in regular market. 500 sqm. production and No regular vegetable income; market farm with (b) will arrangements. total areas encourage Only of 1,000 members of participated in sqm. for family in trade fairs and total pursing link to the integrated vegetable feeding program farm (with production as of DSWD. farm house). well as swine Previously production. supplied to hospitals and Abuyog Provincial hospital but discontinued to price fluctuations and availability of cheaper vegetables from other areas.

246

Annex G.3. Cabucgayan, Biliran

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING How relevant is Was the project To what extent What were the To what extent To what extent Were the To what extent the project to implementation was the project major strengths were women and have the resources and are the project target groups’ approach relevant aligned with the and weaknesses men (and intended inputs converted results likely to needs and appropriate? policies and of the project (in community) as outcomes in the to outputs in a continue after (communities & Was the strategies of the all or each of the well as the LGUs project timely and cost- the project? Is beneficiaries), assistance related Philippine components)? were involved in document been effective stakeholders’ including and/or supportive Government on Were the the following: (a) achieved? Has manner? Were engagement governments’ to the existing post disaster different project project the project the project likely to (national, LGUs) skills and recovery and components identification and contributed or is activities and continue, be needs and knowledge of resilience in implemented in preparation; (b) likely to results realized scaled up, priorities? How beneficiaries? LGUs and an integrated procurement; (c) contribute to based on the replicated or relevant is the communities manner? How implementation; long-term social, planned institutionalized project to other covered by the did the different (d) M&E; (e) economic, timelines? after external key stakeholders’ project? components O&M; and (f) technical, funding ceases? needs and In what ways contribute to a sustainability environmental priorities? did the project seamless mechanisms. changes for design and the transition from individuals, implementation emergency to communities and of activities recovery phase? institutions promote “build What strategies related to the back better” or inputs were project? What principles? put in place to changes or enhance the improvements, if transition from any, that were emergency to undertaken by early recovery to the NGAs, LGUs development and communities phase? towards faster and more appropriate measures in helping local communities on post disaster response and preparedness?

247

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING FGD Very relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Effective. The project was Sustainability of planned for a the association’s Boardwalk for The project is The boardwalk is The boardwalk The combined Equal The boardwalk 300-meter long canteen Naga-Rawis-Villa local resource- appropriate for project is store and opportunities are through the boardwalk of operations and Corro-Looc based consisting the mangrove coherent to the canteen given to both the mangrove area is concrete posts the ecotourism Fisherfolks of a rehabilitated area for access to environmental livelihood male and female effective for and flooring with project of the Association c/o boardwalk that the fishing rehabilitation of operations, the members of the marine steel railings that barangay Ms. Elizabeth extends from the grounds and as a the typhoon- LGU’s boardwalk association. The ecotourism extend from the government Maala shore to the sea local ecotourism destroyed and ecotourism various tasks in purposes. The shore to the sea depend upon the through the venture of the boardwalk and project jointly canteen and food store and canteen through the presentable mangrove area association and mangrove areas managed by the service operations are mangrove to appearance and to provide access the barangay. The for ecotourism association and operations are likewise effective provide access to safety provisions to the fishing store and canteen as prioritized in the barangay handled by men in generating the fishing of the boardwalk, grounds and for are suitable to the the LGU’s post- government are and women alike. income for the grounds and for especially at the ecotourism capacity and skills Yolanda cconnected to association. ecotourism far end to the purposes. The of its members. recovery the However, at the purposes. private project is Along the program. The environmental far end of the However, only restaurant and managed by the boardwalk, project program of the boardwalk, an 210 meters of cottages where beneficiary FA Improvised rest showcased the LGU on coastal enterprising boardwalk was the boardwalk who attends to areas set on value of and mangrove private individual completed. Some floorings are the entrance fee mangrove trees mangroves in protection. The who is related to portions of the made of (Adults at ₽20, and floating the marine registration or the barangay steel railings had bamboos. Some Children at ₽10) cottages provide ecosystem and entrance fee chairperson been cut and portions of the of incoming picnic sites for the income collected at the operated a protective safety steel boardwalk visitors that is families. A floating potential of boardwalk gate is floating plastic rope railings were shared with the restaurant at the aqua- utilized for the restaurant that railings at the becoming rusty barangay end of the silviculture. The repair and provides sides are missing, and need repair. government for boardwalk project is jointly maintenance of occasional band they were said to The mangrove the maintenance provides supported by the boardwalk. entertainment be stolen. The itself is not of the boardwalk. occasional band the LGU, DSWD during weekend security of the attractive An income for entertainment and UNDP. It is nights. In boardwalk is enough to be the the association is during weekend consistent to addition, another loose. reason for generated from nights. While it the livelihood operator visiting local or its canteen serves as a tourist recovery and maintains floating foreign tourists. operations at the attraction, it coastal and cottages for picnic Moreover, there entrance gate of seemed to be environmental and overnight is no parking area the boardwalk. inappropriate. The protection of accommodations. available for loud sounds from the The association private vehicles. the live rock music municipality. gets a percentage Only one side of

248

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING band are a share from these the concrete recurring businesses but the highway is disturbance to the sharing utilized for natural habitat or arrangement is parking. The biodiversity of the not clear however barangay or the mangrove area. to the association. LGU has to The loud noise develop and from the rock promote the area band somehow as a picnic disturbs the ground for the marine local population biodiversity of the or a recreation mangrove area. resort for tourism purposes. KII: Very relevant. Very appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Very effective. Efficient. Sustainability of the agricultural Ms. Mary Suzon The project is The technical The project is The members of Home gardening, The training on The conduct of technology on (Municipal very relevant to training provided coherent to the the various whether organic farming the training on organic farming Agriculturist) and local needs and jointly by UNDP economic sector farmers ornamental or gardening was organic farming or backyard FGD with capacities. It is and the Municipal development of associations plants or effective in the was facilitated by gardening is beneficiaries re: also a priority Agriculturist’s the region’s were trained on vegetables is a sense that the the LGU’s assured by the organic backyard recovery project Office that was YRRP, where the technical common activity learnings were agriculture office. training gardening. of the LGU since subsequently agricultural aspects of among the directly applied Training participants who the municipality followed with the production is organic farming women members by the participants were applied their is agriculture- application of promoted for or backyard of the household participants in easily gathered learning in their based and food organic gardening food sufficiency gardening. The or family. More their homes from among the respective homes self-sufficiency is in different in typhoon- lessons learned women than where land members of the where land a primary containers, in the ravaged areas. were then men participated spaces are Cabucgayan spaces are concern of the backyards and The provision applied in in the organic available. The farmers available for Municipal farms of and application planting different backyard training included associations and planting and the Agriculturist association of agricultural kinds of gardening agriculture the different family is assured Office. Selected members are technology vegetables (i.e., training hence. teachers in rural of food at home members of the appropriate to promotes food pechay, lettuce, more women elementary improvement where vegetables Cabucgayan their knowledge self-sufficiency tomato, were engaged in schools who clubs. Efficiency are raised in Farmers needs and skills. and economic eggplant, bell the actual applied their is further backyard Association The different kinds security to the pepper, okra, application of the learning to their manifested by gardens. Organic consisting of of vegetables region. ampalaya, string agricultural schoolchildren in the direct backyard upland and harvested from beans, upo) in application of the vegetable

249

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING lowland farmers their gardens their home lots technology in gardening participant’s gardening of the whole provided food for or in improvised their home lots. lessons knowledge on becomes municipality home use and for containers. organic sustainable together with sale. Vegetable gardening in municipality- selected harvests from their home wide when the members of the gardens or housewives Rural farms are used continuously Improvement for home food adapt the Clubs were consumption technology all trained on while the surplus year round with organic farming, is sold to the the continuing organic backyard market. promotion and gardening and support of the the preparation Municipal of organic Agriculturist’s fertilizers from Office. vermiculture, composts, urine, chicken dung, and kitchen solid wastes.

FGD with Very relevant. Very appropiate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Effective. Efficient. Sustainable. beneficiaries re: organic adlay The introduction The introduction The project is The LGU is the Organic adlay Organic adlay Adlay production Organic adlay production of organic Adlay of organic adlay coherent to the proponent of the production is a production in the was introduced production could production is production in economic sector organic adlay family farm municipality was in August 2016 in be sustained relevant to the Cabucgayan is development of production activity where effective with the Barangay through the needs of the appropriate for the region’s project through the males Mayor leading Salawag in open continuing farmers and the the farmers’ YRRP, where the Municipal perform the the promotion of fields or under support and community as a knowledge and agricultural Mayor who laborious manual the crop for coconut trees. It promotion of the staple food skills. It is production is introduced the farm work while adlay research. was fully LGU through the substitute for responsive to the promoted for crop to the the females The LGU introduced Mayor and the rice and corn. promotion and food sufficiency Municipal undertake the provided the throughout the MAO who Aside from being research of the DA in typhoon- Agriculturist less strenuous seeds and ₽2,000 municipality in introduced the a staple crop, Regional Field ravaged areas. Office for work. per hectare for January 2017. crop. Large- scale Adlay can also be Office No. 8 (DA With the crop’s adoption and farm labor while adlay production processed in RFO-8) as an potential in cultivation in the UNDP provided in the making flour for alternative staple addressing food municipality. the organic municipality bread and other food substitute to security, Through the LGU fertilizer support. could be

250

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING delicacies as well rice or corn in the research and support, one Full introduction achieved if the as health and region. Full development is thousand (1,000) of adlay LGU could assure wellness production of currently kilos of adlay production to the the farmers with products. The adlay in the undertaken in seeds were farmers was the production, crop has municipality is selected regions bought from launched on post-harvest medicinal value envisioned by the of the country. Malaybalay City, January 2017. processing and and is a potential LGU to feed Relative to this, Bukidnon. Adlay marketing feedstuff for malnourished DA RFO-10, production support to be ruminants and schoolchildren. Northern research was provided for non-ruminants. Mindanao conducted with their produce. Agricultural farmer co- Crops and operators in their Livestock farms with the Research provision of Complex project support (NMACLRC) in for seeds, organic Dalwangan, fertilizer and Malaybalay City labor funds. is conducting the development, promotion and utilization of Adlay to sustainably nurture its potential as an alternative food source for Filipinos.

FGD Very relevant. Very appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Very effective. Efficient. Very sustainable.

Magbangon The “Kan-anan sa Aside from the The economic The transition Of the 16 active The livelihood of The LGU, DSWD The likelihood Rural Barangay” food market location of recovery of the from organization members of the the association and UNDP were that the food Improvement service business the food service members of the to MRIC, 11 are was effective as a efficient in business Club c/o Mr. of Magbangon business is Magbangon operationalization females, while food service providing their livelihood of the Rufo Palconit RIC was relevant suitable to the Rural of the “Kan-anan only 5 are males. provider of the support to the association is to the recovery community, the Improvement sa Barangay” Females municipality. Its association. sustainable is of local food bayside market Club was restaurant or food composed nearly location at the Upon the former strong. The

251

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING processing and space was achieved with service at the 70% of the total market site is Mayor’s advice, indicators were service providers provided by the the restoration market site was number of convenient for the formation of noticeable. Its whose micro- LGU while the 10 of livelihood encouraged by members. Equal the eating public the association location at the enterprises had eating kiosks and assets, the former opportunities and the rows of was fast-tracked marketplace been terminated main store-kitchen entrepre- Municipal Mayor were given to the kiosks made of followed with its which is directly by Typhoon house were neurship in January 2014 male and female native materials registration with accessible and Yolanda. The donations from development, after Typhoon members of the added to its DOLE and the convenient to food business DSWD. and skills Yolanda who association. In being a tourist release of the the community was responsive UNDP provided he training offered the fact, cooking or attraction, the LGU’s business and the visiting to the need of cooking and dining provided by the market site kitchen work reason for calling permit. With the public is ideal. the community materials and project that together with the were handled it “Baywalk”. DSWD kiosks The rows of for a clean fast equipment. The includes DSWD donation of more by the male Being near the available, UNDP individual kiosks food service food business is leadership, 10 eating kiosks members while municipal followed with its made of native provider to out- appropriate to the bookkeeping and table serving or buildings and material materials along of-town visitors cooking know- and marketing. stores/kitchen waiter service offices, LGU provision of the bayside as well as to the how and skills huts as an were rendered visitors were cooking, dining added to its food catering requirements for economic by the female often brought to materials and attraction as a service need of all the members of recovery project members. this place for equipment. The tourism feature local the association. of Yolanda food and association’s of the constituents. survivors. The refreshments. business community Magbangon Rural Daily income operation started hence it’s called Improvement from the even without the “Baywalk”.Food Club (MRIC) business was UNDP fund service is fast responded to the deposited releases that from the kitchen Mayor’s call for directly to the came in batches. to the tables by which a micro- OCCI, a multi- friendly enterprise was purpose association organized, officers cooperative members who were elected, the serving the serve as cooks association was municipality. and waiters / registered with waitresses to DOLE and a customers. The Mayor’s business membership is permit was generally young acquired to (average age is operate the 30 and literate business. college level students). Above all, it is highly

252

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING recognized in the community as a fast food service provider in offices, special events, and community and family gatherings.

Annex G.4. Balangkayan, Eastern Samar

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING Evaluation How relevant is Was the project To what extent What were the To what extent To what extent Were the To what extent Questions the project to implementation was the project major strengths and were women and have the intended resources and are the project target groups’ approach relevant aligned with the weaknesses of the men (and outcomes in the inputs results likely to (communities & and appropriate? policies and project (in all or community) as project document converted to continue after the beneficiaries), Was the assistance strategies of the each of the well as the LGUs been achieved? outputs in a project? Is and related and/or Philippine components)? were involved in Has the project timely and stakeholders’ governments’ supportive to the Government on Were the different the following: (a) contributed or is cost-effective engagement likely (national, LGUs) existing skills and post disaster project components project likely to manner? Were to continue, be needs and knowledge of recovery and implemented in an identification and contribute to the project scaled up, priorities? How beneficiaries? resilience in integrated manner? preparation; (b) long-term social, activities and replicated or relevant is the LGUs and How did the procurement; (c) economic, results realized institutionalized project to other communities different implementation; technical, based on the after external key stakeholders’ covered by the components (d) M&E; (e) O&M; environmental planned funding ceases? needs and project? In what contribute to a and (f) changes for timelines? priorities? ways did the seamless transition sustainability individuals, project design from emergency to mechanisms. communities and and the recovery phase? institutions implementation What strategies or related to the of activities inputs were put in project? What promote “build place to enhance changes or back better” the transition from improvements, if principles? emergency to early any, that were

253

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING recovery to undertaken by the development NGAs, LGUs and phase? communities towards faster and more appropriate measures in helping local communities on post disaster response and preparedness?

KII: No evacuation Location of CEC is CEC planning The arrangement Satisfactory. CEC is being used (MPDC) Sustainable. center before appropriate and safe and construction on the direct as training venues Efficient. DRRMO & Typhoon from storm surge. were contracting was the Facilities are for all LGU offices. Need for regular MPDC Yolanda; now a Land for the CEC was coordinated least burdensome available for men, It also served as The current O&M; possible designated provided by the LGU. with the LGU in terms of the time women and temporary/ practice of the funds from DRRM; (on CEC, evacuation Municipal needed to be children. transparent for UNDP is to useful as venue DRRMO, & center. Mangrove sites that Engineer with supervised and LGU visitors. have its own for trainings – mangrove) were rehabilitated actual monitor the Though, the core technical about two (2) CEC with were limited to areas construction progress of ramp’s persons was trainings per Note on the improved lay-out that were heavily contracted out implementation. configuration is welcomed by week. nd earlier at the 2 floor. damaged. to private Such arrangement not PWD friendly. the LGU. It was courtesy call The building is contractors. was welcomed by Slope too steep for suggested with the located about (MPDC) the LGU since they wheelchair. however, that Mayor. three (3) were also very busy technical kilometers from with the immediate experts would The Mayor the Poblacion, at concerns on relief then provide was very Barangay Talisay. and recovery. The guidance in thankful for It is located in a LGU personnel the all the land owned by were very thankful assessment of support that the LGU along for this straight sites and was provided the national road forward appropriate by the EU- and facing the arrangement on the species for UNDP which Talisay. construction of the mangrove is very Elementary CEC. (MPDC) rehabilitation relevant and School. and supportive to reforestation. the needs of The new CEC is

254

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING the local the designated community evacuation after Typhoon center for Yolanda. families located in the coastal barangays of Balangkayan.

KII: The LGU of Though people had Cassava It was later realized Satisfactory. Effective. Efficient. Sustainable. Balangkayan, in bad experience on production and that the LGU had Agri coordination the failure of processing limitations in Both male and Cassava No delay in the Marketing linkage Technician with EU-UNDP marketing of cassava originally to be carrying business in female members production made delivery of agri on cassava chips and PESO PMO initially during the early managed by LGU the production, of family are use of idle lands inputs on would provide Coordinator started cassava 1980s’, the (MEEDO) with processing and supportive in into agriculture cassava regular market. project. Cassava marketing linkage SMC as the marketing of undertaking land. production. Production loan is was chosen since with San Miguel Corp target market cassava. As such, it livelihood projects. also being it is a resilient (SMC) provided a for dried was later decided Benefits: Cassava stalks provided by BACO crop from the steady market for granulated by the LGU and the Gender is not an Livelihood on for 10 hectares to members for effects of dried cassava chips cassava chips. UNDP that an issue. cassava were provided cassava typhoon. for animal feed. As (MPDC). agriculture production and and distributed production. such, it attracted the cooperative would processing is to farmers. interest of farmers to Cassava is a be more responsive currently being Another batch Technology and plant cassava and resilient crop for in helping the pursued by was delivered production also expand the farm food security. farmers in the farmers. for ten (10) support through area. Coordination on consolidation and hectares but linkage with DA, training on marketing of BACO had only about CDA and Visayas Project proposals technology in cassava chips. expanded its 50% were State University. were developed by partnership with operation to planted since UNDP and LGU LGU. (MPDC) members in about 6 Trainings will be personnel. The Hernani, Giporlos, hectares of pursued on the project was initially The UNDP For next project Quinapondan and target for processing of

started by the LGU provided a cycle, need for Borongan City. planting was cassava for animal with linkage to the separate social preparation flooded. feeds and for

SMC. Considering cooperative for participation One farmer with human (BACO) with the and ownership of ½ hectare farm Organic consumption. the limitations of LGU to enter into assistance of the project. Need for had a gross sales fertilizer (150 of about ₽20,000 bags x 3 contract and enter LGU and the orientation for new into agreement with PCF. A 10-month technology since (which generated truckloads private entities, a contract was the farmers are surplus income) were given to st new cooperative was awarded to PCF more familiar with farmers of 1

255

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING organized. with specific rice that cassava. Benefits: provided 10 hectares by milestones in income to send the LGU. Improve synergy and organizational For BBB: skills children to school; coherence towards development training and new small Tools were continue existing and capacity technology for improvements in provided and program and building for the agriculture – proper lifestyle; food distributed continuing officers and variety and security for the through BACO. arrangement, and personnel of drainage of field. family Mongo seeds with skills training BACU. Intercropping of (100 packs) for self-employment. vegetable seeds were also Criteria for (mongo) provided as Skill training was selection of intercrop to

undertaken on small participants for Training was cassava. engine since there skills training: (1) conducted within

was not much not more than the LGU venue in employment after Balangkayan. 40 years old; (2) Typhoon Yolanda no employment; Resource person and there were and (3) and tools were many motorcycles. In interested in provided by UNDP. Livelihood and 2016, 19 graduated training. Training The LGU provided skills training out of 25 was provided by the venue and small originally participants. TESDA. engines. planned for residents that No allowance was will be relocated given to to the NHA participants since housing (not yet skills training is completed). already part of the recovery stage.

On DRRM On DRRM: The The Municipal DRRM Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Effective. Efficient. Sustainable. initial UNDP OIC was (newly) assistance was designated 30 Sept After the The preparation of DRRM Plan LGUs gained Training Though the on training on 2013, about 1 month training of basic DRRM plan was includes women’s expertise of exercise was DRRMO has only 1 WASAR, Basic before Typhoon survival, WASAR prepared by the friendly space. WASAR, MOSAR conducted regular municipal First Aid among Yolanda. & MOSAR, the municipal TWG. through trainings after personnel, others. participant LGUs Includes warning provided under understanding volunteers and agreed on Four (4) themes system for RECOVERY. the response personnel under The position of responding to were adopted by evacuation – with needed. As job orders (JOs) Municipal the needs of the LGU. The the following such, better supported the

256

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING DRRMO is still an each of the assistance of the priority: PWD, Municipal DRRM understanding operations of adhoc function of LGUs, such as UNDP was more on pregnant women Council was on DRRM DRRMC. Funds the DRRMO, with during incidence post-disaster and children conveyed with concepts. are also available personnel of fire. recovery. annual budget of for DRRM related support as ERT ₽3M and being The MDDRMO expenses. The use volunteers. The Project utilized for DRRM indicated that of funds is clear provided related concerns. duplication of for DRRM with Municipal communications training Accounting and DRRMC TWG equipment – Benefits: Better (attending one Budget. Municipal hand-held radio coordination in after the DRRMC is and base radio. responding to other) had The TWG composed of emergency demonstrated arrangement following In terms of situation across to be helpful could be municipal offices: build-back- LGUs. to the LGU replicated in DRRMO, MPDO, better principles personnel responding to Municipal adopted: Cautro since it similar disastrous Engineer’s Office, Aguas (on provided events. Assessor’s Office, roofing) was opportunities MSWD, adopted for to review and Municipal Health public buildings. study again the and Municipal DRRM Agriculture Local residents concepts and fully cooperated policies, which and attended are new to the the community LGU drills. personnel.

FGD: Infra support for Besides the Coherent. Satisfactory. Satisfactory. Effective. Efficient. Sustainable. the building up agricultural inputs, Officers and of assets for the organizational Cassava is also Integrated and Women usually Members have Assistance Increasing Staff of BACO BACU in support development aspects an appropriate coherent approach help and earn confidence in provided when members from and site visits of its operations. achieved the high value crop. involving the whole while chopping the expanding the needed but the original 65 in to cassava Dryer sheds (2), following: (a) family, closeness of cassava tubers, area planted to with concerns September 2016 farms and silo storage (2) motivation of farmer Challenges: social interaction usual income of cassava. on the quality to 551 members processing and chipping to work with Initially, it was and confidence in ₽200/day. Transform of cassava by 24 August center shed truck. cooperative; (b) difficult to start working as a group. laziness to stalks. Later, 2017. Capital Chipping area proper value a cooperative There is no attitude of hard local source of builds up from and shed; formation; and (c) since the Linking with other discrimination in work due to stalks was ₽338,075 in Sept Granulator for management and farmers were agencies for assured market found to 2016 to ₽388,199 used to receiving livelihood and ensure better

257

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING dried cassava organization training. dole outs. As improving the membership to the channel of quality. Local by 24 August chips was also Officers were also such, the project value-chain. coop. products. capacity used 2017. given by UNDP to trained on carried out in terms of BACU. management. continues BACO viewed the chipping and Fresh tuber information UNDP assistance for drying of bought from Construction of BACO’s role includes drive and long-term recovery. cassava chips. 75,436 kgs (23 the storage marketing support, education, Sept 2017) to building (10 m x provision of small including roles In terms of 83,450 kgs (24 20m) is ongoing farm support (inputs, and capitalization Aug 2017). with about 40 % credits, etc.). It also responsibilities of BACO, completion rate. promotes that of members. target of 30% The project is members would loan amount being eventually be owners After Yolanda, will be paid implemented by and not just many agencies monthly, per BACU under the borrowers. are providing advice of PCF. MCGA, now the same As such, the awaiting for its package. These farmers will 2nd and final agencies should not forget funds release. co-ordinate with their loans. package in livelihood, Basis for loans shelter, CFW. are on the There was a number of hills tendency of of cassava competition. planted and not on the size of the lot area which is at an equivalent loanable amount of ₽2/hill.

KII: The training on Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Effective. Efficient. Sustainable. small engine beneficiary repair provided Considering that Skills training are There are many The graduate Graduate gained Nineteen (19) Repair works on on small added skills, with prior to this part of users of small preferred work more confidence members small engine is engine repair some tools that particular training improving engines in the locally through his in carrying out his graduated out expanding and enhance his has already started resilience of municipality of small shop and be work locally and of twenty-five continuing. knowledge and

258

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING (proprietor of skills for small in repairing small family’s source Balangkayan and with his wife and be with his wife (25) repair shop) engine repair. engines. of income. neighboring areas. son. and son. participants. Prior to the training, he was Improve already synergy and undertaking coherence small engine towards the repair but continued decided to avail existence of of the skill the program training and continuing organized by arrangement, LGU, with and with skills funding support training for of the EU-UNDP self- project. employment.

Annex G.5. Tacloban City, Leyte

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING Evaluation How relevant is Was the project To what extent What were the To what extent To what extent Were the To what extent are Questions the project to implementation was the project major strengths were women and have the intended resources and the project results target groups’ approach relevant aligned with the and weaknesses of men (and outcomes in the inputs converted likely to continue (communities & and appropriate? policies and the project (in all community) as project document to outputs in a after the project? beneficiaries), Was the assistance strategies of or each of the well as the LGUs been achieved? timely and cost- Is stakeholders’ including related and/or the Philippine components)? were involved in Has the project effective manner? engagement likely governments’ supportive to the Government on Were the different the following: (a) contributed or is Were the project to continue, be (national, LGUs) existing skills and post disaster project project likely to contribute activities and scaled up, needs and knowledge of recovery and components identification and to long-term results realized replicated or priorities? How beneficiaries? resilience in implemented in an preparation; (b) social, economic, based on the institutionalized relevant is the LGUs and integrated procurement; (c) technical, planned after external project to other communities manner? How did implementation; environmental timelines? funding ceases? key stakeholders’ covered by the the different (d) M&E; (e) O&M; changes for project? (In components and (f) individuals,

259

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING needs and what ways) Did contribute to a sustainability communities and priorities? the project seamless mechanisms. institutions design and the transition from related to the implementation emergency to project? What of activities recovery phase? changes or promote “build What strategies or improvements, if back better” inputs were put in any, that were principles? place to enhance undertaken by the the transition NGAs, LGUs and from emergency communities to early recovery towards faster and to development more appropriate phase? measures in helping local communities on post disaster response and preparedness?

FGD with Relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Effective. Efficient. Sustainable. personnel of TACRU and The TACRU Multi- The Multi-use Center The Multi-use Besides training Serving as part of The TACRU Multi- The TACRU Multi- The TACRU and its on Multi-Use use Center was served as both the Center on DRRM and ERT, TACRU, is open to use Center and Use Center training Center very relevant to venue for training supported the the TACRU Multi- male and female ERT personnel provided capabilities, the operations and the storage priorities of the use Center served who have the were effective in accessible venue including the use and as training facility of rescue and Region for also as venue for passion of being of responding to for trainings on of the TACRU venue capacity communication capacity training of help to others request for search and rescue Multi-use Center, building activities equipment for building on livelihood projects during times of emergency for LGU and are continually on DRRM of distribution to emergency and skills training emergency. The services, with the barangay training the personnel of different barangays. response. Its of groups which age limit however, current service personnel as well barangays on Tacloban LGU and As a unit, TACRU personnel were organized is at 40 years old level standard of as it volunteers, BERT. other neighboring served as the pool of complement is into workers’ and physically fit 5-7 minutes with equipment LGUs, which are resource persons in composed of group for pakyaw (regular jogging response time (10 and training TACRU is capable being supported providing the the following: contract on for members of minutes as the support from in continually by Project following trainings: (a) 4 LGU construction of ERT), considering threshold for a Project RECOVERY fulfilling its regular RECOVERY (EU- (a) BERT with 30 regular infrastructure- the physical and patient to be and LGU Tacloban. function with its UNDP). It barangay ERTs personnel as related projects of mental demands braindead, With its plans to approved th celebrated its 17 organized and the Core Team; Project RECOVERY. of emergency according to expand its organizational year anniversary trained on Basic Life (b) 2 nurses The Center also response. The TACRU). The technical structure and with in 2 August 2017. Support and First from DOH; (c) served as training TACRU also personnel of assistance, the assigned

260

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING The importance of Aid; and (b) series of 20 personnel on venue for new maintains inter- TACRU attributed TACRU still needs personnel. It also the work of TACRU Disaster job orders personnel of the LGU protocol for such promptness additional logistics developed IEC was given more Preparedness (JOs); and (d) Bureau of Fire and quick mobilization with the and equipment as materials on attention after Training for the many Protection (BFP- of ERTs to all assistance of the well as DRRM for Typhoon Yolanda municipalities of volunteers from PNP) and locations within Project RECOVERY ambulances continuing (8 November Biliran and DOH, PNP, connecting its the inter-LGU on the equipment (currently 2 units), education of 2013). Rescue and Cabucgayan (Biliran EVSU and from facilities and network, in provided to besides those residents in communications Province), Hernani other LGUs, personnel in coordination with TACRU and being supported barangays and equipment were (Eastern Samar), who are support to post- the OCD in Eastern support to the under the 5% students in school. given to TACRU as Ormoc City (Leyte) available for disaster recovery Visayas Region. training of DRRM funds of the As of end of well as training (by and Basey (Western mobilization. and preparedness. Barangay LGU, towards Project RECOVERY, CRS) with the Samar). The TACRU Response Team as expanding and the TACRU had assistance from continually well as to the extending its already trained 30 EU-UNDP and provide school program on support to LGUs out of 138 other donors. emergency Kiddie TACRU outside Tacloban barangays in After the training, services at a among high school City. Tacloban City. TACRU was minimum of 5 students. utilized by the EU- cases/day and UNDP as part of maximum of 15 the pool of cases/day. The trainers for the 7 LGU Tacloban LGUs in Eastern has plans of Samar (Guiuan, elevating the Salcedo, TACRU and its Mercedes, facilities to a Quinapodan, Rescue Lawaan, Giporlos, Academy for Balangkayan and Eastern Visayas. Hernani). The set of trainings being provided include the following:

(a) Basic Life Support; (b) First Aid; (c) WASAR; (d) MOSAR; (e)

261

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING Incident Command Center; (f) Mass Casualty Management; and possibly (g) Urban Search and Rescue.

FGD: Very relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Very effective. Very efficient. High sustainability.

Nagkaorosa The integrated The agricultural The area and With the All farmer The overall The UNDP project Several San Roque agricultural project was suitable the association promotion of members of the effectiveness of officers hardly agricultural Farmers support of UNDP to the interior were cacao production association, the different experienced production Association to Nagkaorosa San barangay of San recommended in the province of regardless of their activities and difficulties in indicators in the (NAGSARFA), Roque Farmers Roque in Tacloban by the City Leyte, cacao gender orientation projects undertaking the association’s Barangay San Association was City that consists of Agriculturist growers are are entitled to the undertaken by the project with the nursery plots, pig Roque, very relevant for individual farm lots Office for the connecting with same rights, San Roque farmers association. The pens and poultry Tacloban City the rehabilitation on hilly to undulating integrated each other into privileges, duties, association is integration of houses, and and recovery of terrain with good agricultural creating a cacao responsibilities, attributed to its different individual farm the members’ natural drainage. project because planters network and obligations organizational agricultural lots show strong major source of Forty-two (42) of the farmers’ of cooperation in with the maturity and projects was evidences of livelihood which is hectares of individual technical and the crop association in all exposure in facilitated easily economic agricultural crop farm lots were organizational production, programs, projects various past and directly with sustainability for production. The identified for cacao training and processing and and activities agricultural the association’s the association members’ production with the experience with marketing of undertaken for all projects the organizational and its members. individual and provision of the DA and DAR cacao which is a members. association had capacity in skills 42 hectares of communal farm seedlings, organic programs. The prime raw managed and and resources land devoted to lots suffered great fertilizer and farm San Roque area material for worked in shared in the cacao production devastation due to tools. Five farmer would serve as chocolate cooperation with projects. The are now on their the very strong members were sent the city’s production and local and NGAs. Its association flowering and winds of Typhoon to Davao for demonstration other by-products. effectiveness is possessed a fruiting stages. Pig Yolanda. The technical training on farms for the On another hand, manifested on the communal land to dispersal among project revived cacao production, inter cropping the project also successful establish the the members is the association’s processing and of cacao with provided the implementation of cacao, coconut increasing as a unity and marketing. They coconut, funding support the past and on- and vegetable result from the cooperation were called “cacao banana, fruits, for the association going projects nursery plots. The increasing piglets values through doctors’. and vegetables. to engage in being undertaken. pig pens and from delivering mutual self-help The PCA poultry and During the poultry house sows. The and Bayesian established a piggery projects. evaluation visit, were made association is

262

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING activities to coconut 95 heads of the cacao available for ken thinking on the manage UNDP’s seedling chicken layers and seedlings planted the piggery and possibility of crop production nursery in the 15 roosters of two years ago are poultry project. engaging in program and later barangay. The Czechoslovakian now on the Crop production “lechon” poultry and association is breed are being flowering and was implemented production in the piggery projects. also engaged in raised as starters. fruiting stages. in the members’ near future. The vegetable Similarly, the The association is individual farms. members’ production. A piggery project currently And the vegetable gardens vegetable was implemented undertaking a pig association are already nursery was starting with four dispersal program members readily reaching the local created to (4) sows of large for its members. shared their market. And provide the white breed and Vegetables from technical and above all, the seed and ten (10) fattening the members’ organizational organizational seedling pigs of native vegetable gardens knowledge and maturity of the requirements of breed. are reaching the skills for the farmers’ their individual local market. success of the association is high vegetable projects such that mutual gardens. undertaken in understanding, their locality. cooperation and unity are shared values among the officers and members of the association.

FGD: Very relevant. Coherent and Connected. Project design and Effective. Provisions for farm The technology appropriate. implementation restoration training and the Paglaum The assistance on The project on have provided The FGD and (inputs, tools, presence of Farmer’s cacao production, The project design cacao production equal access and review of project trainings) were nursery farm in Association bakery project and and manner of is strongly linked opportunity to documents utilized efficiently Paglaum provides skills training project with the provincial women and men observed the by the association. sustainability (non-agri skills) implementation and regional goals in the project site. following Some of their measure for the were highly were coherent with of developing the accomplishments members are cacao production. acknowledged by the government’s cacao as agri- The and benefits: expanding their Continuous the beneficiary livelihood recovery industry sector in conceptualization farm plots on their capacity building groups as very plan and projects. Leyte. The value of bakery project - Restoration of own – an must be relevant and Livelihood recovery chain approach was purposively farming indication that the considered by the responsive to their of the agriculture also provides done to cater to activities by beneficiaries have project upon exit post Yolanda sector is a core broad connectivity the enhancement replacing shifted their mode by enhancing the strategy and to the different of women’s skills damaged/lost to recovery and relationship and

263

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING livelihood intervention from value chain on food making farm inputs and long-term access of the recovery needs: the various levels of players and provide tools economic group to the Yolanda Recovery (producers, input income generation - Increased in activities. The only services of LGU - Replacing Plan of the providers, buyers, activities for farming issue mentioned and DA. damaged farm government – processors, Paglaum women technology during the FGD The bakery project tools and farm Regional, Provincial haulers, retailers, members. No knowledge was the delay on to Municipal. There etc.) gender issues the provision of needs to expand inputs particularly on was also a strong were observed or assistance that its market and to - Technology nursery acceptability of the raised during the also affected their continue product training on management, cacao project in Paglaum as FGD. planting plan and development. This cacao could be done by production and it addressed both the calendar. agriculture and non- production, and developing a nursery agri (skills training) organic farming The bakery project business plan that management concerns of the - Complementing also took time is well understood - Linking to beneficiaries. agri activities before it started and accepted by market with non-agri its operation the group and - Enterprise skills training for (started to continuous development – self- produce and sell entrepreneurship the case of employment bakery products development. Paglaum bakery and formal job last April 2017). - Acquisition of placement new and - Generation of employable income among /technical skills the members to augment limited cash to meet basic needs (food, education, medicine) The Project also served as a healing mechanism for the beneficiaries to assume recovery and long-term livelihood activities.

264

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING FGD Very relevant. Coherent and Connected. WESDA is a While very limited The project was There are issues appropriate. women’s group in terms of efficient in terms on sustainability WESDA The livelihood The banana chips and the project beneficiary reach of patronizing and that should be (Banana Chips project to support The usage of local project is not a identified and (seven (7) using local addressed by the Project) WESDA was very resources and stand-alone supported this members materials project before its relevant as it was building on the project. It has group to help the benefiting from (banana). Issue on phase-out. The able to establish a capacity of WESDA as created livelihood the enterprise), production project team could women’s a women’s group connectivity to restoration and the project was efficiency was formally endorse enterprise that addressed the local banana recovery of its able to observed. The the group to the provides income appropriateness of growers and to members. There demonstrate long- project has no LGU, DTI and DOLE generation to 7 the project. Value the was a conscious term livelihoods permanent plant for continuous members. Food adding inputs in the buyers/market. effort at the recovery through location for its support to achieve processing such as agriculture sector like Although the project level to value chain production. At enterprise the banana chips the banana chips project is support women’s upgrading. The present, the stability. Identified processing was processing and relatively small in group. group’s access and enterprise only sustainability identified as a marketing is likewise scale (providing partnership with rents a space in issues include: priority livelihoods a strategy underlined livelihoods to DOST and the LGU the locality and location and recovery in the in the YRRP of seven (7) women was also very has no security in permanency of City of Tacloban Tacloban. members and effective in terms of processing plant, and it utilizes local targeting enhancing the continuous usage business planning, resources and ₽147,000 gross quality of their of the space. This financial supports value monthly sales), it product and their is also an issue of management and chain upgrade has created an access to sustainability. The broadening their (food processing). enterprise that buyers/market. group is now market capture. Local sourcing of has a potential to coordinating with raw materials expand its the LGU and the (banana) also operations and DOST to address provides connectivity to the this concern. secondary value chain of benefits to the banana processing growers who were in the area. also affected by Typhoon Yolanda.

Summary The project design There were no issues There were efforts Gender The FGDs and Overall, efficiency Individual farming and noted on the criteria to enhance mainstreaming review of was observed in activities seem to implementation of of “coherency”. All connectivity of the measures were documents the usage of local be sustained by the livelihood the livelihood livelihood projects consciously revealed a number resources and the individual component was assistance and inputs by using value integrated into the of positive results knowledge of the members. The supportive of and are consistent and chain approach project design and and effectiveness. farmers and usage of organic

265

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING consistent with contributory to the and the series of implementation. This can be women’s group. farming likewise the government overall Yolanda trainings and There were no explained in terms There were issues, contributes to Yolanda Recovery recovery plan and coordination negative of the immediate however, on the long-term and Rehabilitation program of the meetings with the feedbacks on restoration of timing of project resource use in Plan. The FGDs government. partner agencies gender related livelihood delivery. The FGDs the area. also indicated a Likewise, the project and LGUs. issues from the activities, revealed delays in Additional strong recognition design and FGDs and KIIs. facilitating the the sustainability from the implementation However, gender transition of the implementation of measures should beneficiary and were in harmony mainstreaming of communities from livelihood address community groups with the UNDP the project could relief mode to assistance. entrepreneurship that the livelihood Livelihood and have been better early/recovery, development and component was Economic Recovery if a strong gender diversification and business planning, responsive to their Guidelines (UNDP- analysis, baseline improvement of improvements on needs for both LER). In particular, and monitoring livelihood assets the financial short-term (quick the livelihood (disaggregated (physical, access management and win projects) and interventions and data) were to natural reporting systems, long-term initial results at the established by the resources, skills expanding market livelihood ground level were project. and social and improving development like contributory to Track network), and the service access the case of agri- A (Livelihoods access to market from the LGU and industry Stabilization) and and government related intervention Track 2 (Local services. government coupled with value economic recovery agencies. chain upgrading. for medium- to long- term employment, income generation, and re-integration) of the UNDP-LER Guidelines.

266

Annex G.6. Palo, Leyte

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING Evaluation How relevant is Was the project To what extent What were the To what extent To what extent Were the To what extent Questions the project to implementation was the project major strengths were women and have the intended resources and are the project target groups’ approach relevant aligned with the and weaknesses of men (and outcomes in the inputs converted results likely to (communities & and appropriate? policies and the project (in all community) as project document to outputs in a continue after the beneficiaries), Was the strategies of the or each of the well as the LGUs been achieved? timely and cost- project? Is including assistance related Philippine components)? were involved in Has the project effective manner? stakeholders’ governments’ and/or supportive Government on Were the different the following: (a) contributed or is Were the project engagement likely (national, LGUs) to the existing post disaster project project likely to activities and to continue, be needs and skills and recovery and components identification and contribute to long- results realized scaled up, priorities? How knowledge of resilience in LGUs implemented in an preparation; (b) term social, based on the replicated or relevant is the beneficiaries? and communities integrated procurement; (c) economic, planned institutionalized project to other covered by the manner? How did implementation; technical, timelines? after external key stakeholders’ project? (In what the different (d) M&E; (e) environmental funding ceases? needs and ways) Did the components O&M; and (f) changes for priorities? project design and contribute to a sustainability individuals, the seamless mechanisms. communities and implementation of transition from institutions activities promote emergency to related to the “build back recovery phase? project? What better” principles? What strategies or changes or inputs were put in improvements, if place to enhance any, that were the transition undertaken by the from emergency NGAs, LGUs and to early recovery communities to development towards faster and phase? more appropriate measures in helping local communities on post disaster response and preparedness?

FGD: Relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Mainstreamed. Effective. Efficient. Sustainable.

The CRC is needed The CRC is The volunteers are The CRC serves as The membership The Bantay Dagat The CRC was The building was

267

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING Bantay as the station and appropriately equipped with 3 the base of of Bantay Dagat volunteers, using constructed already turned Dagat at quarters for situated along the hand held radios operation of the Association is the CRC as their through labor over to the LGU. the coastal volunteers of coastal area for with one base Bantay Dagat composed of base of operation, contracts by the Water is being Resource Bantay Dagat better accessibility radio. The volunteers who family members conduct patrols workers group sourced from a Center when on duty (3 to the area being motorboat being also served as first (fathers and with the use of a from the Tacloban shallow well while volunteers per protected and used in its responders for the mothers) and motor boat and Resettlement electricity is not shift). It is located supervised by the operation is from WASAR operations eligible to be scanning the Area. The workers yet connected to about 20 meters Bantay Dagat BFAR. A new of the engaged with the horizon with group was trained the building. from the volunteers. speedboat, municipality. Its LGU and other binoculars to and organized as seashore, on a recently given by area of coverage agencies on avoid entry of part of the The volunteers land owned by the member of includes the resource-based commercial fishing alternatives skills reported that the LGU Palo. the House of municipal waters livelihood boats into the and livelihood of roof is leaking Representatives is (seacoast and the projects. municipal waters residents on the during rainy days equipped by 2 2 river systems in (15 kms). As such, Tacloban while the doors to outboard motors Palo). the volunteers are resettlement site. the two (2) and 1 spare protecting the comfort rooms are motor. It is not yet coastal marine The Building has a now damaged. operational and resources and the basic design with Both concerns waiting for the fish sanctuary for roof fastened by were already speedboat the benefit of screw and not reported to UNDP supplier that will fisherfolks in the with J-bolt. There PMO personnel assemble the municipality of are no gutters at for possible speedboat. Palo. the roof to collect repairs by the rain water or labor contractors. divert to a One of the common defective plastic downspout. doors is no longer attached to its hinges.

FGD: Relevant. Coherent. The skills training The FGD and Effective but Issues on Coordination with component review of project limited. efficiency were the private sector Skills The intervention Support for skills particularly on the reports indicated only noted in (firms and Training on skills training training that was construction work that the skills The skills training terms of timing or companies) has Beneficiary and retooling adopted and (plumbing, training modules component was delays. The skills provided a more Group: were perceived by implemented by electrical, welding) and selection of successful in training could stable and Welding, the beneficiaries the project was was intended to beneficiaries terms of providing have been more sustainable jobs Plumbing & as highly relevant aligned with the supply the labor provided equal additional skills efficient if the for the skills Electrical to their economic overall livelihood demand for considerations to competency trainings were training and livelihood and economic infrastructure men and women. among the conducted or graduates. But this

268

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING recovery needs for recovery plan of rehabilitation of The FGD with the targeted completed during effort should have the following the government. the project and beneficiaries also individuals and the early stages of been more reasons: The investments the specialist skills disclosed that no communities. The the project to give planned and on skills requirement of “stereotyping” intervention has more time for implemented with • They need to development also the business attitudes and infused post-training local partners to invest or to look support the sector (real estate procedures were investments on support activities expand and for a stable and formation and developers and seen in the whole human capital such as job sustain impact. long-term stabilization of construction work implementation of development that placement, full Positioning and employment local labor market firms). FGD and the skills training is crucial in utilization of capacitating the opportunities as that can supply review of component. recovery starter kits, local players (LGU- the relief and the needs for documents, programs. It has entrepreneurship PESO, TESDA) to CFW programs immediate and however, revealed diversified the support and assume greater start to diminish long-term that job livelihood assets establishing access role and • Most of their rehabilitation of placement and of the to other agencies accountability in livelihood assets the area especially matching fell short beneficiaries by that provide the process of job were lost or in the areas of in terms of combining support employment placement damaged and public providing to farming and services (DOLE, services and venturing into infrastructure adequate and complementing TESDA, PESO). beneficiary new skills will work (roads & permanent jobs to with other non- tracking system provide them drainage, public the beneficiaries. farming skills could add in the with additional buildings, school Also, the (multi-targeting sustainability of opportunities to buildings, water construction work approach). FGD the project. compete in the systems, health under the public was able to labor market centers, dikes, infrastructure monitor good and etc.), shelter and (community success stories on As the recovery the service and evacuation center) job placement and and rehabilitation manufacturing and the transformation of Palo and sectors. resettlement/shelt from being a Tacloban City er component in trainee to a skills would also require three LGUs trainer. A massive (Tacloban, functional infrastructure Hernani and monitoring work, the support Ormoc) only tracking system on for skills program created minimal post-training is timely and job opportunities benefits or job relevant. for the skills placement training groups established with and beneficiaries. the local partners Better planning (LGU-PESO,

269

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING and timing should Regional have been done TESDA/DOLE) by the project to might have been a enhance the good output for synergy of the this component. public This can also infrastructure contribute in the component sustainability and particularly the monitoring of such livelihood (skills program. training) component.

FGD: Very relevant. Coherent. Connected. Effective. Issues on The combination efficiency were of farm Barangay The FGD with the Livelihood The crop The provision of only noted in restoration Cabarasan association recovery of the identification farm inputs, tools terms of timing or support and Daku leaders and agriculture sector (banana, and training delays especially complementary Farmer’s members is a core strategy vegetables & support on farm that farming is skills training (as Association acknowledged the and intervention cacao) considered technology was sensitive to issues intended multi- importance and from the various the provincial and effective in of seasonality. targeting scheme) relevance of the levels of Yolanda municipal facilitating the There were a prove to be a project. Impact of Recovery Plan of agriculture transition of the number of sustainable Yolanda to the the government – recovery plan. beneficiaries from suggestions from approach to livelihoods of Regional, Concrete relief mode to the farming Yolanda recovery. these farming Provincial to manifestation of recovery and long- beneficiaries for This mix has communities, Municipal. The this claim is the term livelihood the project to enabled the included the provisions for association’s stability. A improve the beneficiaries to complete banana and cacao constant number of timely delivery of diversify their destruction of production coordination and beneficiary farm inputs in livelihood assets their crops namely address both the support provided testimonies also consideration of and capabilities rice, vegetables immediate and by the LGU declared that the the local climate that made them (“pinakbet”) and long-term income agriculturist. support for and planting more resilient or their coconut restoration of the Although still farming activities patterns. less vulnerable. trees. Farm stocks beneficiaries – the premature at the went beyond such as fertilizers, banana as a cash time of this restoration and On the other The integration of seeds and basic crop to augment evaluation, the has considered hand, efficiencies organic farming tools were also the immediate cacao is seen by the efforts leading were seen in the methodologies wasted and lost. cash needs of the the beneficiaries toward livelihood use of local like the promotion The replacement families and the as a stable and stabilization and knowledge and and use of organic

270

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING of the farmers’ cacao as a permanent crop long-term capacities of the fertilizers was also livelihood assets foreseen strategic that is connected economic security. beneficiaries and viewed and (farm inputs and investment for to a bigger market Multi-targeting utilization of accepted by the tools particularly agri-industry of cacao industry scheme accessible natural beneficiaries as a on banana development in development in (complementing assets (land and sustainable production and the area. the province and farming with other water). approach to cacao) was region. skills development recovery and responsive in for better development restoring back the employability) was especially on the farming activities acknowledged and “environment”. in the area and confirmed as has contributed in affective by the the recovery group. momentum of the beneficiaries.

FGD: Relevant. Coherent. Connected. Effective. Sustainability issue was seen in Libertad Testimonies from Restoration of The recovery The farm inputs the dwindling Farmer’s the members and farming activities support for and trainings have participation of Association leaders indicated a was identified and papaya and ginger diversified their their members. high appreciation prioritized by both production capacity to initiate Starting from 100 of the EU-UNDP the community supports the recovery from members, the Recovery project. and the local overall post- Yolanda. Some reported active The project’s government of Yolanda beneficiaries also members went support for the Palo. The support agricultural claimed that the down to 40-50 restoration of for ginger and rehabilitation of livelihood support members (less farming activities papaya production the municipality. did not only than 50%). did not only were seen by the The growing of restore their Support for social supported the beneficiaries as an these two crops farming activities preparation and group to depart enabling factor are also aligned but also became organizational from relief that made the with the local an instrument in development for activities, but also community to knowledge and healing this group should served as a work as a group natural resources (psychological) have been more healing process with the intention of the community- their disaster continuously (psychological) of making the making recovery trauma. Multi- undertaken. that they can project as more acceptable targeting scheme already assume additional source and attached to (complementing recovery and long- of income. The the beneficiaries’ farming with other trainings on farm farming practices. skills development

271

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING term livelihoods management and The FGD revealed for better rehabilitation. papaya and ginger linkages with the employability) was propagation were LGU in terms of acknowledged and also treated by the additional support confirmed as beneficiaries as for farm inputs effective by the consistent with and technology group. their aims of coaching. reviving their damaged farm plots.

FGD: Relevant. Coherent. Connected. The assistance on Effective. The combination the replacement of farm inputs and Tacuranga FGD and Interaction with The banana and and restoration of The project was complementary Farmer’s testimonies from the leaders and peanut production farming activities effective in terms skills training (as Association the leaders and the members of (that is also being (farm inputs, of helping and intended multi- members the association processed by the tools, technology accelerating the targeting scheme) indicated a strong revealed that the group into food training and restoration of probe to be a appreciation on project support on product – peanut market linking) farming activities sustainable the project banana and butter) has has provided in the area. This approach to assistance namely peanut production provided equal access and was evident in Yolanda recovery. the support for was strongly connectivity to opportunities to terms of using the This mix has vegetable and aligned with their value chain women and men planting materials, enabled the peanut priorities and upgrade to some farm workers. A inputs and the beneficiaries to production. The needs. The group extent. The raw deeper gender initial harvest and diversify their livelihood support also underlined peanuts and the analysis and sales of their livelihood assets was relevant as it that these two banana are baseline during produce. The and capabilities capitalized on crops are processed into the project initial incomes that made them their existing supported by their chips and spread inception stage derived from the more resilient or natural capital LGU and (peanut butter). should have been restored farm less vulnerable. (land), skills and Municipal There are considered to plots which are knowledge of the Agriculture challenges, further measure being used to Market linking and farmers. The Officer. The hand however, on how or qualify the augment basic entrepreneurship provision for a tractor equipment to scale up their gender impacts of household training support to hand tractor is being used by capacity in terms the project to expenses: the group seems (group managed) the members (on of volume and these farming (regular na to be an important was also a rotation basis their connectivity communities. pambaon ng mga factor in the recognized as a with rent scheme) with other UNDP eskwela at pambili sustainability of good intervention not only for the assisted groups the group. The to upgrade the banana and that are also into preparation of

272

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING capacity of the peanut production these ng ulam, minsan project business farmers in but also for the commodities and sa gamot). plan could also accelerating land land preparation processed food serve as a good preparation of rice paddies, products. capacity activities. The making the intervention to project’s support equipment also enhance the for market linkage supportive to sustainability of and technology other crops. the project. The training was also integration of relevant in organic farming boosting their methodologies production like the promotion capacity and and use of organic product marketing fertilizers were – banana and also viewed and peanuts. accepted by the beneficiaries as sustainable approaches of recovery and development especially on the “environment”.

Summary The livelihood There were no The livelihood Gender Overall, the FGDs Efficiency was Sustainability is project design and issues noted on interventions in mainstreaming and review of achieved in terms more evident on implementation the criteria of Palo municipality measures were documents of local resource the management were observed as “coherency.” All are aligned with consciously revealed a and knowledge and maintenance highly relevant at the livelihood the government integrated into the number of utilization. There of individual farm various levels. This assistance and recovery plan and project design and positive results were issues, plots. There are was validated in inputs were priorities. This can implementation. and effectiveness. however, on the challenges, terms of matching consistent and be seen in the There were no This can be timely delivery of however, on how the livelihood contributory to local recovery negative elaborated in farm inputs and to expand and interventions to the overall plans and even in feedbacks on terms of the tools (seasonality sustain group Regional, Yolanda recovery provincial and gender related immediate issue) and the enterprises Provincial and plan and program regional Yolanda issues from the restoration of phasing of skills (peanut butter, Municipal level of the Recovery and FGDs and KIIs. livelihood training in order cassava chipping, Yolanda recovery government. Rehabilitation However, gender activities, to enhance the job farm produce plans and Likewise, the Plan. There were mainstreaming of facilitating the matching and marketing) as the programs. The project design and also efforts to the project could transition of the employability of associations are

273

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING FGDs with the implementation connect the have been better communities from the graduates / still beneficiary groups were in harmony different if a strong gender relief mode to beneficiaries. organizationally also revealed that with the UNDP livelihood groups analysis, baseline early/recovery, weak. A good the project was Livelihood and to enhance value and monitoring diversification and sustainability responsive to their Economic chain upgrade and (disaggregated improvement of measure is also needs in starting Recovery knowledge data) were livelihood assets investing in the livelihood Guidelines (UNDP- sharing. established by the (physical, access entrepreneurship recovery efforts. LER). In particular, project. to natural capacities of the the livelihood resources, skills groups taking into interventions and and social consideration the initial results at network) and the different entry the ground level access to market points to value were contributory and government chain upgrade and to Track A services. strengthening the (Livelihoods links with the Stabilization) and private sector and Track 2 (Local buyers. Improving economic the relationship recovery for and access of the medium- to long- groups to access term employment, services from LGU income and government generation, and line agencies re-integration of (DOLE, TESDA, DA, the UNDP-LER DTI, DOST) also Guidelines. contribute in the sustainability of the projects.

Implementing or supporting recovery program for the private sector should have been considered by the project to enhance market restoration and contribute to local

274

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING economic development. The mixture of community livelihood recovery and support to the private sector can be a strategic intervention towards long-term and sustainable livelihoods and economic recovery.

The purposive promotion and use of organic farming technologies were likewise good strategies that contributed in the application of “build back better” principle.

Annex G.7. Salcedo, Eastern Samar

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING Evaluation How relevant is Was the project To what extent What were the To what extent To what extent Were the To what extent Questions the project to implementation was the project major strengths were women and have the intended resources and are the project target groups’ approach relevant aligned with the and weaknesses of men (and outcomes in the inputs converted results likely to (communities & and appropriate? policies and the project (in all community) as project document to outputs in a continue after the

275

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING beneficiaries), Was the assistance strategies of the or each of the well as the LGUs been achieved? timely and cost- project? Is including related and/or Philippine components)? were involved in Has the project effective manner? stakeholders’ governments’ supportive to the Government on Were the different the following: (a) contributed or is Were the project engagement likely (national, LGUs) existing skills and post disaster project project likely to activities and to continue, be needs and knowledge of recovery and components identification and contribute to long- results realized scaled up, priorities? How beneficiaries? resilience in LGUs implemented in an preparation; (b) term social, based on the replicated or relevant is the and communities integrated procurement; (c) economic, planned institutionalized project to other covered by the manner? How did implementation; technical, timelines? after external key stakeholders’ project? (In what the different (d) M&E; (e) O&M; environmental funding ceases? needs and ways) Did the components and (f) changes for priorities? project design contribute to a sustainability individuals, and the seamless mechanisms. communities and implementation transition from institutions of activities emergency to related to the promote “build recovery phase? project? What back better” What strategies or changes or principles? inputs were put in improvements, if place to enhance any, that were the transition undertaken by the from emergency NGAs, LGUs and to early recovery communities to development towards faster and phase? more appropriate measures in helping local communities on post disaster response and preparedness?

KII LGU Mayor (All) On CEC The UNDP helped The financing Coherent. During the earlier The LCE did not Effective. CEC was The LGU will the LGU of arrangement for part of the mention any completed and continue its Salcedo for the the CEC was very The overall recovery effort outstanding The current use of turned over the current needs- fast recovery after appropriate with approach of the after Typhoon concern related to the CEC as the LGU. It is currently based approach in Typhoon Yolanda the EU-UNDP LGU, can be Yolanda, the gender base of operation being used as a using the with all the providing the full attributed to the Mayor prepared a mainstreaming. of the ERT training center assistance that assistance by financing of the following factors simple demonstrated and and as base of was provided by

276

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING providing relevant building, with the concerning on Rehabilitation and effective use of operation of the UNDP. To ensure equipment and land as counterpart the success of Recovery the facility while it ERT. sustainability, the capacity building of the LGU, the LGUs Framework of the is not being used. LGU will continue support (including, considering the Salcedo: (a) he needs and On the boardwalk, on improving its the earlier post disaster needs accommodated priorities of the there was delay in capacity in assistance in of the LGU and its and paid LGU, initially the .delivery of managing the digitalization of very limited attention to the handwritten, as lumber for its completed official documents financial capacity. visits of various basis for the construction. facilities. such as birth INGOs and coordination with certificate and agencies to the the INGOs and other documents. Mayor’s Office; other agencies, on (b) MOA defining the deployment of the resources for the responsibilities of needs of the local the LGU and communities INGOs/developm ent agencies; and (d) training on leadership governance by the LCE.

The LCE showed commitment in working with UNDP and other INGOs, together with a functional Municipal Team. On Livelihood Very relevant. Very appropriate. Coherent. Connected. No concrete Effective. No elaboration Sustainable but statement from was provided by will still need The LCE reiterated Projects supported The LCE The LCE explained the LCE on gender Restoration of the LCE on constant and commended by UNDP Recovery reiterated the the strong mainstreaming in livelihoods and livelihood monitoring, the needs-based project and the coherence of the relationships of the UNDP generation of cash efficiency. market support approach of the design/strategy UNDP RECOVERY various plans recovery project. income from and capacity project. This has were applicable in Project approach (CLUP, CDP, YRRP). farming and building for the resulted in the context and as indicated by fishing activities livelihood groups. enhancing the needs of Salcedo. its consistency were already ownership and The livelihood with the local observed in 2016

277

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING relevance of UNDP technologies needs and post- by some projects adopted and Yolanda recovery community implemented in promoted local and development groups. Benefits Salcedo. resources and plan. can be seen in the knowledge. form of replacing their farm inputs and tools, upgrading their knowledge and livelihood technologies and market linking. On DRRM Very relevant. Very appropriate. Coherent. Connected. No concrete Very Effective. Very efficient. Sustainable. statement from The LCE reiterated The DRR The support of Risks and hazard the LCE on gender The LGU of Improved The DRRM Plans and commended equipment, the project for mapping were mainstreaming in Salcedo gathered capacities and team the needs-based facilities and the DRRM used to inform the UNDP several awards continuously serve structure are approach of the trainings provided component has planning at all recovery project including the the efficiency established project. This has by the project promoted not fronts. The LCE DILG’s Seal of factor of the LGU (permanent resulted in addressed local only the explained the Good Governance and the DRRM positions) with enhancing the capacities to cater compliance of strong Award because of Office. Response annual budget ownership and to DRR issues the LGU based on relationships of their immense time is much support from the relevance of UNDP namely, mitigation, the DRRM Law various plans improvements in faster during LGU. The projects preparedness, (LGU role and (CLUP, CDP, YRRP). DRRM. emergencies and capacities implemented in emergency accountabilities) system for developed on DRR Salcedo. The response and but also preparedness and management and support for DRRM recovery. The consistent with response is now operations were was a break-in for assistance provided the Regional and more organized translated into the LGU, was highly Municipal YRRP. and efficient. guidelines and improving their commended by the systems that the DRRM capacity in LGU personnel All the 41 LGU and many fronts and (both elected barangays (26 Barangays are even receiving a officials and staff). coastal and 2 using and number of awards island barangays) updating when such as the Seal of have radio necessary. Good Governance communication given by DILG. and DRRM equipment.

278

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING The LCE attributed the municipality’s fast recovery to the UNDP Project by enhancing their institutional capacity in terms of training and equipment for the establishment of computerized records management systems at the different municipal offices and a local area network to facilitate communication between them.

279

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING FGD LGU Team - MPDC, MLGOO On CEC Relevant. It was Appropriate. The Coherent. The Connected. The Mainstreamed. Effective. Efficient. Sustainable. The noted that before arrangements for completed CEC use of the CEC will The MPDC and CEC is being Typhoon Yolanda, the planning and will also form be managed by MLGOO, both The completed The CEC was managed by the the issue on implementation of part of the assets the MDRRMO as women, did not CEC was not yet completed and MDRRMO to preparedness was the CEC were of the LGU that part of the assets mention any utilized by the turned over to the ensure upkeep of not the priority. coordinated with will be used to of the LGU in outstanding residents as an LGU. Being the facility and Development the LGU but with generate funds responding to the concern related to evacuation center. managed by readiness in case plans were lesser participation as part of the disaster as well as gender It is currently MDRRMO as part of community outdated and during the selection updating of the for use. mainstreaming. being managed by of the assets of evacuation. there was no process. (Thus, less LGU revenue the MDRRMO, for the LGU in DRRM Plan. As burdensome on the code. The income The UNDP Team possible income- responding to the such, the time and workload from the use of were very generating disaster as well as budgeting of LGU personnel) the CEC will be supportive on the potential. The for use (including the put into a trust priorities of the rental of the use completed CEC) fund for the LGU, through the of the CEC will be was not yet O&M of the CEC. CEC, mangrove put on a trust fund needs-based. The MDRRMO and livelihood for the regular will manage the projects of the EU- O&M use of the CEC UNDP, towards requirements of improving the CEC. resiliency, recovery and preparedness On Livelihood Very relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Effective. Efficient. Sustainable but still needs Local The overall project It compliments The connectivity in Overall impression Quick results such Implementation of constant development approach and and supports terms of and delivery of the as re-acquisition the first batches of monitoring, planning and strategy was based various mandated plans UNDP RECOVERY of farm tools and provisions for market support prioritization for on the post- hierarchies of (CLUP, CDP, YRRP) project was inputs were livelihood assets and capacity Annual disaster needs post Yolanda was also gender sensitive. effective in (tools, skills building for the Investment Plan assessment and recovery and successful in It has bringing back the training and farm livelihood groups. (AIP) were recovery planning development terms of re- mainstreamed the normalcy of the inputs) seemed to Supporting the improved due to that was also plan. Livelihood enforcing the issue in terms of destructed be efficient in private sector the RECOVERY elaborated in the projects LGUs sectoral providing equal livelihood terms of re- would also project. The Salcedo YRRP. identified and plans and their opportunity for activities. The starting and address the project considered the constraint and voice and Multi-targeting regaining the sustainability of partnership has economic sector limited budget strategy likewise motivation of the livelihoods but

280

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING created a two-way development being a 5th income participation and augmented the disaster victims to this would require communications elaborated in the class municipality the design of CEC. resiliency of the start recovery and external process that built newly approved in Eastern Samar. HHs by providing reduce their interventions as transparency and CLUP and CDP. additional skills to dependency on the LGU of community The livelihood obtain seasonal or relief and CFW Salcedo has participation in projects were permanent jobs. programs. The limited experience project likewise The diversity and livelihood support in partnering with management. supportive of the holistic approach was very helpful in the private sector Livelihood projects hazard and risks to livelihood the transitioning to promote are very relevant mapping of the recovery was an of activities from sustainable to local needs and LGU. important relief to recovery livelihoods and job capacities and also consideration in phase. creation. the priority pushing recovery recovery projects to long-term and of the LGU. sustainable livelihoods. On DRRM Very relevant. Very appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Very effective. Very efficient. Sustainable.

The support for The component The project The DRRM Office Overall impression The inputs on DRRM equipment DRRM Plan and the DRRM intervention support on DRRM became more pro- and delivery of the DRRM component and trainings are Local Climate component was a encompassed a considered the active not only in UNDP RECOVERY did not only adopted through Action Plan were concrete action holistic approach to local plans for terms of project was enhance the local policy incorporated into and manifestation address the DRR capacity emergency gender sensitive. preparedness and support and the CLUP and CDP. of “building back governance enhancement. It response but also It has emergency institutionalized The DRRM Plans better”. The deficiency of has likewise because of the mainstreamed the response structure within and team project Salcedo in handling provided UNDP issue in terms of capacities of the the LGU. The ERT structure are investments in this DRR. It has even technical intervention, the providing equal LGU but also equipment is established component not included local assistance on DRRM Office was opportunity for contributed in the being used to its (permanent only replaced or climate change CLUP planning able to connect voice and normative policy intended purpose positions) with restored the pre- actions in their processes making and became more participation and making and and in a timely annual budget Yolanda capacity CLUP and CDP all the recovery relevant to the design of CEC. development manner, making support from the of the DRRMO and which makes the interventions development planning of the efficiency a factor LGU. The LGU. The project LGU more prepared coherent and planning LGU. This is best in their day-to-day capacities activities and and resilient to rationale. The particularly in described in their activities. developed on DRR inputs have both daily hazard preparation of providing CLUP and CDP and management and greatly shocks, stresses CLUP (the information to AIP, wherein, operations were capacitated the and projected physical hazard and DRRM was translated into LGU way beyond extreme events framework plan) vulnerability mainstreamed in guidelines and their business as (e.g. strong was translated the various systems that the

281

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING usual (BAU) cyclones and into CDP (the conditions of the planning LGU and approach to DRR. flooding). sectoral plans) municipality. processes. Barangays are The many impacts and Zoning using and can be seen in Ordinance to updating when terms of improved make it coherent necessary. and up to date and supportive to communications one another. systems and hardware, DRRM plan that is strongly integrated into the CLUP and CDP, institutionalized DRRM Office, visible and popular IEC for DRR up to community level, disaster contingency measures, among others.

FGD: Very relevant. Appropriate. The nursery Connected. Satisfactory. Very effective. There was Sustainable. production of efficiency in the Caridad The livelihood The nursery mangrove The mangrove The Caridad The nursery implementation of The association Women’s project is local production of seedlings was seedlings project Women’s production of the mangrove achieved financial Organization resource-based mangrove seedlings very coherent as of CWO connects Organization is mangrove seedlings stability from its (CWO) & utilizing the was very it responded livelihood with generally a seedlings restored livelihood project share of the Caridad mangrove forest appropriate. Being largely to the environmental women’s quickly the since the massive sale of Masagana which is abundant resource-based, immediate protection and association, economic association mangrove Fisherfolks in the area. The mangrove planting demand for rehabilitation of organized, recovery of the members were seedlings to the Association nursery materials were mangrove mangrove areas managed and CWO members, assured of ready INGOs supporting (CaMFA) production of readily available seedlings for the not only in operated by their families and income based mangrove mangrove without cost. The rehabilitation of Salcedo but in the women. No the community as from the orders of restoration seedlings local populace also mangrove areas whole region. adverse effects well. The great INGOs that are projects in the livelihood project provided the devastated by are seen to impact demand for supporting region. It was able of the Caridad supporting Typhoon Yolanda The CaMFA gender issues. mangrove mangrove to establish Women’s workforce to the fisherfolks seedlings for the income generating

282

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING Organization was CWO to respond to in the Eastern pursued their mud rehabilitation of restoration projects to serve timely and largely the high demand Visayas region. crab fattening devastated projects. its members and supplied the for mangrove project mangrove areas in the community immediate seedlings. The livelihood complemented the whole region Efficiency was such as a retail demand for projects of CWO with the fish coral was a windfall for evident in the store and a multi- mangrove The CaMFA mud and CaMFA are while serving also the whole construction of purpose hall for seedlings for the crab fattening coherent to the as guards of the community. Cash the 400-meter training and social rehabilitation of project was also LGU’s protected marine income generated boardwalk functions. The mangrove areas appropriate due to rehabilitation sanctuary in the from the sale of through the mangrove destroyed by the mangrove and recovery area. The mangrove mangrove area boardwalk and the Typhoon Yolanda abundancy in the framework for boardwalk seedlings to INGOs when the ongoing in the Eastern area. communities through the that support beneficiaries were construction of Visayas Region. with mangrove mangrove that mangrove given the chance floating cottages The massive forests and was constructed restoration to identify the at the sea end of demand and potentials for to provide projects was project, plan and the boardwalk will production of ecotourism in the community access beneficial to the design it and become an mangrove case of the to the fishing community. manage its ecotourism facility seedlings not only boardwalk grounds was Households construction for the benefited the project. becoming an repaired their together with the municipality of CWO members ecotourism houses, bought financial support Salcedo. The but also provided feature for electrical for its leadership and a post-Yolanda Salcedo. appliances, implementation. business acumen employment procured motor Efficiency of the incumbent opportunity for boats or occurred when Barangay the whole motorcycles, and the beneficiaries Chairman of community. financed their gained a feeling of Caridad was children’s higher ownership of the instrumental for On the other education. project. The the financial hand, the mud However, the ongoing success of the crab fattening demand for construction of organization. The livelihood project mangrove floating cottages honesty, of CaMFA was also seedlings on stilts was dedication and very relevant gradually lessened observed at the trustworthiness of considering the and terminated. farther end of the the incumbent mangrove present The association’s boardwalk during officers are in the area. The share from the the evaluation necessary to project was seedlings sale field visit to make sustain the complemented provided the the mangrove organization. with a fish coral to opportunity for boardwalk an

283

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING supply the fish the CWO to create ecotourism site Sustainable. The feeds to the mud income generating for Salcedo. The CaMFA is the male crabs and for the community association is counterpart of the family as well. facilities and however CWO composed of services, such a expecting the said their male A supplementary retail store, a hall release of the spouses, relatives project, a 400- for training or remaining ₽85,000 and friends. The meter long social functions balance for the mud crab boardwalk with videoke continuing fattening project is consisting of music facility. construction of complemented concrete posts the floating with a fish coral to and lumber cottages. support the fish flooring was very feeds for the mud relevant. It crabs. During the extends from the evaluation field shore to the sea visit, the members through the were undertaking mangrove to the rehabilitation provide access to of the mud crab the community cages through a fishing grounds “pintakasi” and for (cooperative self- ecotourism help) activity venture of both through their own associations. initiative. They intend to install another fish coral to increase fish catch for the mud crab feeds for the fish market.

FGD: Relevant. Partly appropriate. Partly coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Partly effective. Efficient. Partly sustainable.

Bangon The assistance The ecotourism This livelihood The linkage of the The FA has 25 At the current The 1st tranche The FA and its Fisherfolks provided by the project is located option for ecotourism male members level of revenue, release of UNDP ecotourism Assoc. UNDP was along a fresh water ecotourism is project with their and 1 female, who the 26 members assistance of project would relevant to their stream that is consistent with existing livelihood is the Secretary. of the FA are ₽360,000 was need further plans of about 1 kilometer the priorities of of fishing are There were no undertaking received by the FA assistance from diversifying their from the coastal the LGU as well connected with concerns raised on “pintakasi” (as last May 2017. the UNDP in

284

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING income from area where the as the FA food as part of the gender volunteers) on This amount was resolving the right fishing, with fisherfolks were towards package for mainstreaming rotational basis used for the of way issue, with ecotourism carrying out their diversifying their ecotourism. The since the wives of until such time construction of the strong support through the fishing activities. It income sources. members of the male members are that the revenues the three (3) of the LGU after construction of was also noted that While the FA would have to also involved in would be sheds (cottages) the completion of stream bank the road right of distance from the improve logistical the project. sustainable. and comfort room the EU-UNDP protection that way from the coastline is about arrangement of Currently, the shed. The 2nd project. Additional will then serve as highway to the one (1) bring their fresh members are tranche of capacity building swimming area swimming area, kilometer, the catch and earning about ₽140,000 would would be needed with 4 cottages about 100 meters, fisherfolk would selling/cooking it ₽200/day from be released upon in coordination and sari-sari store. would be passing still be able to at the ecotourism fishing. According submission of the with the LGU The proposal of through a private connect the area. to the members, liquidation of towards further this ecotourism property. The ecotourism with they were earning earlier release strengthening the was facilitated by negotiation with fishing by about ₽500/day (possibly by organizational the LGU Salcedo the landowner and cooking and from fishing August 2017). capability of the with the support the members of the selling their fish before Typhoon FA to manage and of the EU-UNDP. cooperative on the catch as food to Yolanda but The ecotourism diversify their right of way is the ecotourism earning less area started sources of income being facilitated by areas. because of very operations to complement the Mayor of low fish catch with sometime in June their declining Salcedo. The UNDP- the destruction of 2017. Their income from PMO is aware of mangrove and earnings, from fishing. this situation and is coral reefs due to three (3) cottages constantly Typhoon Yolanda. and one (1) sari- coordinating with sari store, were as the office of the The ecotourism follows: ₽5,000 as Mayor in resolving area started of 13 July 2017 this matter. operations and additional sometime in June ₽4,700 as of 3 2017. Their August 2017. The earnings, from FA also received three (3) cottages an assistance of and one (1) sari- ₽10,000 from the sari store, were as LGU Salcedo as follows: ₽5,000 as seed fund for their of 13 July 2017 sari-sari store. and additional ₽4,700 as of 3 August 2017

285

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING FGD: Relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Effective. Efficient. Sustainable.

Bagtong The rehabilitation The protection and The use of the The ecotourism There are no The ecotourism The ecotourism The resource- Fisherfolks of the mangrove utilization of mangrove area as and coastal concerns on project was facility started based marine Association forest at Mahaba mangrove areas for ecotourism while resource inclusiveness and intended to operations during livelihood and Island provided ecotourism and for also serving as improvements in gender provide additional the 1st week of ecotourism would opportunities for fishery related part of the the mangrove mainstreaming income to the July 2017. It provide diversified the community in livelihood provided livelihood on area at the considering that fisherfolks. While generated a total and resilient strengthening the good synergy fisheries (with Mahaba Island members of the it is only operating revenue of ₽3,600 income sources to protection of towards planned fish have strong families of the for a month, its for the whole members of the coastal diversifying and sanctuary and connectedness of members were earning potential month of July Fisherfolks communities from improving income protected area utilizing resilient also helping out in is expected to 2017 since it is association. The strong waves to the 34 members on the opposite resource-based the conduct of increase because only operating on support of the during the (29 male and 5 of the mangrove livelihood and activities of the of natural Saturdays and LGU and the typhoon season. female) of the FA. It forest) would promoting ecotourism area. attraction and Sundays. The management of should be noted create synergy resilience on HHs The fishing activity easy accessibility recent start of the the mangrove The Mahaba however, that and coherence in of members of the is most carried out by motorboat. The ecotourism is also area by the FA Island Mangrove measures have to diversifying and FA. Measures of by male members. production from towards the would ensure Resort is a very be taken to improving the reducing and marine and fishery closing of the EU- sustainability of relevant livelihood minimize or avoid resilience of avoiding pollution sources are also UNDP project by the marine undertaking since pollution in the income sources in the mangrove expected to end of August productive it provided mangrove area of the members area (solid, liquid, increase with the 2017. ecosystem while diversified from solid, liquid of the FA. chemical, noise) protection from also supporting resource-based and noise pollution are to be included illegal fishing The strong linkage ecotourism. income sources in order not to as part of the activities and with fishery from ecotourism disrupt the management of establishment of development (fish and fishing. The ecosystem that the mangrove and fish sanctuary and sanctuary & FA received a cash support the the ecotourism protected area in protected area) is grant of ₽395,000 ecotourism and facility. adjoining areas of expected to bring st as the 1 tranche fisheries. the ecotourism higher levels of st during the 1 facility. fish catch for the week of June members of the 2017. The ecotourism FA. The mangrove facility started resort will also The funds were operations during protect the used for the the 1st week of mangrove area building of simple July 2017. It and adjoining cottages, 2 generated a total fishery areas from floating cottages revenue of ₽3,600 destructive fishing

286

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING and comfort room for the whole and illegal cutting as well as the month of July of mangrove. purchase of 1 2017 since it is pump boat and a only operating on The members generator. Saturdays and rendered Sundays. “pintakasi” volunteer service in the development of the ecotourism facility. Male members (3 members per day) are on duty daily while female members render their service on Saturdays.

FGD: On CEC: Very On CEC: Very On CEC: On CEC: On CEC: On CEC: Very On CEC: Efficient On CEC: relevant in terms appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. effective. in terms of Sustainable. ERT Team of needs, timing, housing the ERT physical design There was an The project Ocular visit of the The design of the The CEC is functions. The LGU of and location. absence or lack of interventions CEC and FGD with CEC/building currently being Salcedo has fully CEC in Salcedo that considered the the ERT members considered gender used as the center However, as the accepted the The LGU has also made them more plans of the LGU manifested a sensitivity in terms of ERT operations construction of responsibility for established vulnerable in in addressing number of of design and its and also provides the CEC is the operations systems and coping and their gaps in connectivity intended training facilities relatively new (not and maintenance directions for recovering with providing a more strengths in terms utilization. to the LGU and more than two (2) of the CEC. The routes of actual disasters such as secured and of its alignment to partner years), the management of evacuation and the case of integrated the overall institutions question of this structure was de-evacuation Yolanda. The evacuation preparedness and (NGOs). The CEC efficiency relative incorporated into operations. The provision of the center. This need emergency structure to its use is still their DRRM Plan CEC was accepted CEC was was also utilization of the enhances the not evident as of and CDP making it by the LGU appropriate not identified in the building, its security and this evaluation sustainable in treated as one of only in terms of Municipal and connectedness to resilience of the period (August terms of providing the new public addressing the provincial YRRP. DRR policies and communities 2017) budget support structures that has need for physical operations especially during for its operations complied more structures that guidelines. The emergency and and maintenance. could protect plan and The LGU has

287

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING than what is evacuees during utilization of the evacuation likewise required by the emergency phase CEC has a defined periods. developed government but also serving as and clear procedures and (Building Code). a facility for DRR-CC connectivity to the guidelines in the The CEC has clear trainings and target barangays utilization of the cut policies and learning center. and communities. CEC. guidelines for its optimal utilization and maintenance. The structure can serve as a resource center or model for CEC projects that can be replicated in other areas. DRRM Very relevant. Very appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Very effective. Efficient in terms Sustainable. of housing the ERT The CEC (physical The mixture of DRR The CEC is a Review of the The Training on The CEC functions. The DRRM Plan structure) was training and concrete project newly acquired DRRM gave equal compliments the However, as the was augmented with support equipment that provides DRR support opportunities for DRR operations of construction of institutionalized materials and to Salcedo was services not only assets/gadgets women and men. the LGU especially the CEC is and it has been equipment based on needs during (hand-held radios, on early warning relatively new (not adopted in the support to make it assessment and the evacuation protective gears, systems and more than two (2) CLUP and CDP. more operational planned upgrade of period but also a base radio, emergency years), the Policies and and responsive to the LGU on their practical measure emergency tools) response. It is question of guidelines were the needs of DRRM functions. and asset that and FGD with the effective in terms efficiency relative developed to Salcedo. The has strengthened ERT members of housing the ERT to its use is still sustain the CEC trainings on DRRM the coherence revealed concrete operations and its not evident as of and serve its have likewise between connectivity equipment and this evaluation purpose under the established the infrastructure measures in the logistics. period (August DRRM Office foundations for projects and DRR form of 2017) the continuous governance and communications, use of the facility local emergency and its development response sustainability. planning in guidelines and general. The CEC contribution to is a proof that long-term coherence can be recovery and

288

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING more realized if development the approach is planning of the holistic and municipality. The coordinated. utilization of hazard maps and vulnerability assessment of barangays also probe explicit connectivity across DRRM Office and other LGU Departments.

FGD: Very relevant. Appropriate. The provision of Connected. Satisfactory. Effective. Efficient. Sustainable. planting Salcedo The members of The materials and The marketing Social inclusivity The cooperative The delivery of The Salcedo Cooperative - the cooperative implementation other inputs as services being and participation and its members cassava stalks as cooperative is also Cassava preferred the mechanism of well as the provided through of men and were able to planting material being supported planting of the distributing the marketing of the the cooperative, women were expand the farm started in by the PCF in cassava since it is cassava planting dried cassava connecting clearly manifested area that were November 2016 terms of one of the materials and chips provided a together the in the cassava planted cassava, and were continuing resilient crops that organic fertilizers very coherent priority program production and with some distributed and capacity building would be able to through the approach that of the government marketing project, members who planted by in cooperative recover and grow cooperative was would be very on cassava (as being supported planted last members. development, after typhoons. As very appropriate helpful to the resilient crop in by the EU-UNDP. November 2016 However, there financial such, the planting since the farmers in terms Region 8) and Many of the are expecting to were instances management and materials and cooperative would of the resilient most importantly, members are harvest their crop that the quality of governance, other production be able to provide cassava as well as connecting the women who are in the next couple the planting among others. As inputs plus the for technical a resilient farmers to a also actively of months. materials provided such, the provision of drying assistance on support regular market involved in Besides cassava, by the contractors sustainability of shed for cassava cassava production organization (SMC). As such the cassava the farmers also was not the Salcedo was very relevant. and also serve as through the farmers are production and allotted some acceptable to the cooperative will The members of the consolidator for cooperative. The assured that they processing. portions of their recipient-farmers. have a greater the cooperative the marketing of members of the would get a fair farm for other The Cooperative potential to were very thankful the dried cassava cooperative will return from their vegetable crops. therefore arrange succeed for the that they could chips. also benefit from cassava farms. Thus effectively, for the benefit of its 30- not expand the the patronage ensuring resiliency replacement of 40 members who refund and profit and diversity of the planting sharing as their crops materials from

289

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING planting area for members of the towards increased other local were given cassava. cooperative. in family income farmers with the production inputs. as well as better cost paid by the nutrition for the Contractor. As family. such, immediate remedial The planting measures were materials and undertaken so fertilizers, that the farmers provided by the would not be EU-UNDP, were delayed in their listed as loans to planting schedule. the members of the cooperative. The bio-organic Upon payment fertilizers were however, the delivered in April money will be 2017 and will be retained by the applied in the next coop as the part of planting season by the capital October 2017. The building of the two (2) weighing member-farmer. scales and solar As such, it will dryer were gradually build up delivered and the savings of the installed member while respectively in also raising funds May 2017. These for the facilities are cooperative. expected to increase the volume that will be bought, processed by the cooperative and sold to the SMC.

FGD: The seaweeds Livelihood project The livelihood Connected. Satisfactory. Effective. The project was Sustainable. production and was appropriate project was efficient in Seaweeds and consolidation being local coherent to the The seaweeds The Caga-ut The members of providing the The continuing Consolidation livelihood project resource-based LGU’s recovery livelihood project Women’s the Caga-ut livelihood support seaweeds

290

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING – Caga-ut of the Caga-ut with training program for the connects Organizaton is Women’s to an organization production, Women’s Women’s provided for economic production and generally a Organization that was newly processing, and Association Association was consolidation. development of processing to women’s recovered created marketing as very relevant coastal marketing with association, economically from (December 2013) consolidator considering the communities the provision of organized, the technical after Typhoon among seaweed capacity of the through the the solar dryer managed and training and Yolanda to producers in members and its production, and mini truck to operated by restoration of transition from Salcedo are being local processing and the Caga-ut women. No their seaweeds relief to recovery. indicators of the resource-based. marketing of Women’s adverse effects production lines. The training on association’s The livelihood marine Organization. The are seen to impact CO-CD seaweeds sustainability. This project was resources. organization rose to gender issues. interventions production by is further provided with a to the level as through a service BFAR, the social enhanced with the support consolidator by partnership with preparation association’s rice infrastructure connecting with PRRM prepared conducted by production project facility (solar the seaweeds the association as PRRM, and the thru ESSU tie-up dryer) for producers in the a consolidator for support facilities and the small- seaweed drying Salcedo area in the marketing of provided by the scale income and a mini truck marketing their products. project hastened generating for transporting products. Additional support the recovery activities it is and marketing of facilities such as efforts for the engaged in. products. The the solar dryer women Recently, “wing social preparation and mini-truck beneficiaries of oysters” were and training further enhanced Caga-ut. The discovered in the provided to the the organization’s Eastern Samar seaweed association operational State University production lines prepared them as capacity for (ESSU) lent four which indicate the consolidator of product (4) hectares of possibility of pearl seaweeds processing and lowland and one culture. produced in the marketing. The (1) hectare upland Coordination with Salcedo area. CWO ventured on areas to the BFAR had been small business association for rice initiated for the opportunities to production with training of the serve the support for seaweed community such planting materials producers on as a mini store of and fertilizer. The pearl culture. basic consumer association readily goods and accepted cash and common material medicine, donations from

291

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING dressmaking, visiting NGOs that computer helped in its encoding, acquisition of photocopying, assets and engage scanning, plastic in small income lamination and generating rice production. activities.

FGD: Relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Effectiveness still ***Efficiency to be seen. cannot be Bua-Bua Although, the The project design The ecotourism The livelihood The women were measured as of Fisherfolks project is still utilizes locally project was also project in Bua-bua involved in the The floating this evaluation Association – under available resources prioritized in the was intended to identification and restaurant project date. The project Ecotourism construction and and coherence with LGU level post- connect with the prioritization and is still being is still under (with floating still to be the LGU livelihood Yolanda recovery overall eco- implementation of constructed. The construction. restaurant completed (by end priorities was programming. tourism strategy the project project cannot be Inefficiency on project). of August 2017), observed. The Making it of Salcedo (floating assessed whether funds release this floating project considered consistent to municipality. The restaurant). No it is effective in (delays) was restaurant project the ecotourism both livelihood LGU consciously adverse effects terms of providing observed. is expected to program of the LGU recovery and connects are seen to impact livelihoods to the provide income and it has adopted coastal and livelihoods and to gender issues. target community. augmentation to hazard mapping to environmental environmental at least ten (10) inform the protection. protection as a members. The identification of packaged project is likewise project site and approach and expected to materials. maximize the support fishing potential impact activities in the of co-benefit area by procuring scheme. the catch of local fishers as raw materials for the restaurant (cooked food). However, sustainability and effectives cannot yet be assessed as of the evaluation period as the

292

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING structure is still being completed. DRRM Mangrove: Mangrove: Mangrove: Relevant. Appropriate. Coherent.

The floating The floating cage The ecotourism restaurant is an restaurant project project was also integral is an integral part prioritized in the component of the of the overall eco- LGU level post- overall campaign tourism program of Yolanda recovery and program of the LGU. It can be a programming. the LGU to good instrument to Making it promote eco- promote the co- consistent to tourism. In a way, benefits goal of both livelihood the project has an environmental recovery and element of “co- protection coastal and benefit” scheme (mangrove environmental as it can serve as a protection) and protection. In venue for sustainable particular, it enhancing livelihoods. augments mangrove campaigns for protection mangrove initiatives and at protection and the same time conservation. A addressing or scheme that contributing to the compliments the long-term sustainability of economic both mangrove development and areas and the livelihoods of the community local communities. livelihoods.

FGD: Very relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Effectiveness still ***Efficiency With emerging to be seen. cannot be issue on Butig Project The project adopts Fishery-based The King Crab No gender stereo measured as of sustainability as Fisherfolks identification was local resources and livelihoods are project was type in the fishing The king crab this evaluation the project hasn’t Association – based on local technology and considered as identified not as a livelihood was project is still date. The project started yet. There King Crab needs and enhances priority project of separate or observed during being completed is still under should be a clear knowledge. It is participation of the Salcedo LGU. independent the area visit and (establishment of construction. The and defined action

293

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING also local different This is well livelihood of Butig FGD with the production project is still from the LGU on resource-based. stakeholders such elaborated in Fishermen. beneficiaries. The modules). The waiting for a final how to support The project went as communities, their YRRP, CLUP Rather, it connects women were project cannot be budget release to and sustain the beyond livelihood LGU, BFAR and and CDP. to the Salcedo involved in the assessed whether complete the project. Capacity asset restoration private sector YRRP and CDP and identification, it is effective in construction of building on project as it has provided (buyer of crab). puts value on prioritization and terms of providing king crab management and economic inputs FGD with the optimizing fishery- implementation of livelihoods to the production enterprise that consider community leaders based livelihoods the project target community. modules. management is several layers of emphasized its and enterprise. (floating Inefficiency on one of the core enterprise appropriateness by restaurant). No funds release issues that should development and highlighting the use adverse effects (delays) was be considered in not solely focusing of their natural are seen to impact observed. the phase out of on the production assets and not to gender issues. EU-UNDP project. side. In particular, displacing them to the King crab their pre-Yolanda project embraces livelihood sources. the full cycle of production (with technology support), post- harvest and semi- processing support and market development. This approach is expected to provide layers of benefits to the communities by considering the whole value chain upgrade of the commodity (mud crab).

KII: Relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Very effective. Efficient. Sustainable.

Philippine The enterprise Support livelihood The areas The evaluation Gender The intervention Activities and PCF is a local Cooperative approach of PCF in projects for cassava provided with through FGDs and mainstreaming through investments on structure in the

294

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING Central Fund the cassava production, semi- fishery-based review of related was highly visible cooperative cooperative province and Federation industry can be processing and livelihoods and YRRP documents in the PCF development and development and Region and has a (PCF) – Mr. expanded or marketing can farming could exhibit that the approach in terms enterprise agri-based long term plan to Rodolfo Adel, replicated in the increase the also venture into project with PCF of participation development industry maintain its Jr municipality of resiliency of cassava on cassava and decision (agri-based promotions cooperative Salcedo. The farmers. The CBU enterprise being industry and making. industry – seemed to be services in the cassava and members promoted by cooperative cassava) was efficient in terms area. Activities production and savings are PCF. Support to development is holistic and of results and and investments marketing additional benefits agri-based highly linked to provides sustained benefits from the on cooperative assistance are at the individual enterprises was the identified and income to the members. This is development and relevant level that can help also identified in prioritized members. Aside evident in the agri-based investments that in the recovery and the YRRP livelihood from the sales form of increases industry can address the sustainable documents from recovery of the income, the PCF of incomes from promotions long-term income livelihoods of Regional, target groups in also promotes the sale and seemed to be restoration and members. The PCF Provincial to Salcedo. The savings marketing of efficient in terms sustainable can be expanded in municipal. replication of the mobilization that cassava and of results and livelihoods of the the communities of PCF approach in enhances the members’ savings benefits from the communities. The Salcedo who are Salcedo may result member’s mobilization. members. This is approach has into farming. to value chain capacity to cope evident in the likewise capture in favor of and recovery in form of increases embedded a the vulnerable and future of income from strong element of marginalized emergencies and the sale and sustainability as it farmers. disasters. marketing of integrates cassava and membership members’ savings development, mobilization. savings, capital build-up and cooperative development. The Agri-based Cooperative Formation and Development under the PCF’s COPE is a matured program of the PCF that is highly relevant in the aim

295

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING of sustainable livelihoods recovery of Salcedo municipality.

SUMMARY Very relevant. Very appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Effective. There were issues on project The CEC and the The livelihood Based on the The assistance completion delays boardwalk were strategy of the secondary data provided by EU- so the factor of very relevant for RECOVERY project review and UNDP, particularly efficiency cannot the needs of the was consistent with primary data the CECs, the be measured. LGU and local the needs of gathering (FGD mangrove However, in some communities in Salcedo with boardwalk and projects that have times of typhoons municipality. It has communities, KII other assistance started to and disaster. utilized a project with LGU from the INGOs complete at least design that officers), the were connected one cycle of respects and livelihood and supportive to livelihoods, considers local projects in the the recovery and efficiencies can needs and municipality of preparedness of also be observed resources making Salcedo are the LGU and its in terms of the full recovery actions coherent with communities. utilization of and local the priorities of project funds, ownership the YRRP – from promotion of local sustainable. Regional to materials, provincial and technology and municipal levels. the financial turn The projects over of cash visited are inflows to the likewise coherent project like the with the case of mangrove knowledge and seedling priorities of the production, target seaweeds and beneficiaries. cassava. Very relevant. Very Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Effective. Very efficient in Sustainability terms of measures should Livelihood projects Project assistance The DRR support There were The manner of The livelihood preparedness and be established in Salcedo were on DRR trainings interventions of several project design provisions and emergency before the exit of

296

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING based on local and support the project were observations and process, support went response EU-UNDP project needs and equipment/tools coherent in proofs that the partnership beyond the functions and the in the area. capacities of were considered building the livelihood building and restoration of adoption of the stakeholders and very appropriate by capacity of the intervention and implementation economic DRRM plan into Clear turnover of beneficiary the LGU and LGU based on the strategy of the promoted gender activities. It has the LGU’s long- responsibilities groups. It has communities. The DRRM Law. It UNDP is mainstreaming. facilitated the term development and commitment promoted the project investment further supports connected with The livelihood replacement of plans and to support the strong linkage and on DRR was able to the LGU to other recovery projects have livelihood assets frameworks – projects from the coherence of enhance the achieve its plan initiatives. Strong promoted full (soft and hard CLUP and CDP. LGU and PCF must community capacity of LGU and of improving DRR connectivity can participation of assets) and to be pursued. livelihoods to the Barangays to deal governance and be seen in the both men and some extent has Sustainability overall Salcedo with DRR operations harmonized CLUP, women in the established value issues that need Yolanda Recovery governance especially in the CDP, AIP and whole project chain upgrades in to be discussed and Rehabilitation especially on the areas of YRRP. management selected with the LGU and Program (YRRP). aspect of preparedness cycle. However, commodities like PCF are the Livelihood project preparedness and and emergency improvements can cassava and following: identification also emergency periods. be made in terms fishing. monitoring, considered the response. of updating the continuous priority projects UNDP M&E data organizational and identified by the segregating leadership LGU. Overall, the women and men building, project livelihood projects beneficiaries. and financial developed and management, implemented in entrepreneurship Salcedo by the promotions and Recovery Project business planning, was responsive product both to the development and immediate marketing. (restoration) and long-term economic needs of the target beneficiaries (farmers and fishing communities). The skills’ training was also relevant in

297

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING terms of increasing the human capital assets of the HHs (adding new technical skills) and making them also competitive in the labor market. Connected. Satisfactory. Very effective. Sustainable.

Upgrading of The DRRM The DRRM inputs The adopted of capacities of the component gave addressed both the DRRM Plan LGU and DRRMO equal voice and the immediate into the CLUP and was linked to the opportunity to and long-term CDP was a demands of the men and women. capacity needs of strategic move to LGU and its Vulnerability the LGU. The address the relationship to assessment as equipment, sustainability of other department translated into trainings and the EU-UNDP plans and YRRP and CDP planning DRRM programs such as (sectoral plans) workshops greatly component. This is the YRRP. also considered contributed in augmented by the gender finalizing the LGUs support policies, mainstreaming. DRRM plan and its permanent integration into structure (DRRMO their CLUP and and ERT), CDP. operational guidelines and the knowledge level achieved by the DRRMO staff under the training program of the project.

298

Annex G.8. Guiuan, Eastern Samar GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING Evaluation How relevant is Was the project To what extent What were the To what extent To what extent Were the resources To what extent Questions the project to implementation was the project major strengths were women and have the and inputs converted are the project target groups’ approach relevant aligned with the and weaknesses men (and intended to outputs in a timely results likely to (communities & and appropriate? policies and of the project (in community) as outcomes in the and cost-effective continue after beneficiaries), Was the assistance strategies of the all or each of the well as the LGUs project manner? Were the the project? Is including related and/or Philippine components)? were involved in document been project activities and stakeholders’ governments’ supportive to the Government on Were the the following: (a) achieved? Has results realized engagement (national, LGUs) existing skills and post disaster different project project the project based on the likely to needs and knowledge of recovery and components identification and contributed or is planned timelines? continue, be priorities? How beneficiaries? resilience in implemented in preparation; (b) likely to scaled up, relevant is the LGUs and an integrated procurement; (c) contribute to replicated or project to other communities manner? How did implementation; long-term social, institutionalized key covered by the the different (d) M&E; (e) economic, after external stakeholders’ project? (In what components O&M; and (f) technical, funding ceases? needs and ways) Did the contribute to a sustainability environmental priorities? project design seamless mechanisms. changes for and the transition from individuals, implementation emergency to communities of activities recovery phase? and institutions promote “build What strategies related to the back better” or inputs were project? What principles? put in place to changes or enhance the improvements, if transition from any, that were emergency to undertaken by early recovery to the NGAs, LGUs development and phase? communities towards faster and more appropriate measures in helping local communities on post disaster response and preparedness?

299

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING KII: Relevant. Appropriate: Coherent. Connected. Mainstreamed. Not Effective. Partly Efficient. Not sustainable, unless made Utility and Needed for Cold storage was Facilities will It will provide The facility will Cold storage Cold storage operational. electrical storage of constructed within support needed service to serve vendors and already completed and technician of fishery products the area of the marketing of market vendors. processors (both completed and turned over to LGU (Note of the Guiuan public market, for products in male and female), turned over but during the last Evaluation Team: Public Market greater Guiuan and Electrical during its not yet made quarter of 2016, but LGU needs to (Federico accessibility surrounding technician operational operational by not yet operational. maintain the Bagon) at the municipalities trained and phase. Guiuan LGU. facility even if Guiuan Cold knowledgeable in not yet Storage. operating the operational. Rust (Noriel/Yen) cold storage and molds were facility observed in the enclosed portion of the cost storage. Ancillary and electrical machineries need cleaning and periodic test runs to ensure its operability.

FGD: Very relevant. Very appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Very effective. The overall efficiency Sustainability of of the project is the RECOVERY Guiuan The UNDP The project is The project The project’s Equal The project was attributed to the project is high. Integrated support to suitable to the showcased the pasalubong opportunities are effective in support of the Micro GIMEA different skills and municipality’s center serves as given to both the rehabilitating former municipal The strong Entrepreneurs responded capacities of its thrust .of the marketing male and female the small tourism officer who support and Association greatly to the members. The convergence - outlet of the local members of the businesses of initiated the recognition of (GIMEA), Brgy.. rehabilitation pasalubong center support to the home-made food association. The the member preparation of the the municipal Ngolos, Guiuan, and recovery of of delicacies and local tourism delicacies and female members entrepreneurs of project proposal and government and Eastern Samar the micro- souvenir items industry, the handicrafts of the commonly GIMEA that serves as a member- the local entrepreneurs serves as an promotion of member- dominate the were destroyed adviser-consultant of chamber of of the alternative indigenous local producers. The food processing by the typhoon. the association. Of commerce to the municipality marketing outlet of products and food center businesses. The The UNDP 32 members of projects and whose small their home-made continuing continuously male members financial GIMEA, one-third of activities of the income- local products support to the serves the visiting are the skilled assistance was the members are association generating aside from its micro- tourists and artists and equally shared law-abiding senior ensures the businesses were export market. The entrepreneurs of religious sculptors of shell by the members citizens who are sustainability of

300

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING destroyed by center also serves local food devotees or craft, woodcraft as capital to mostly public service the project. Typhoon the local tourism processors and pilgrims, and other restart their retirees. The Some food stuffs Yolanda. The industry. The skilled especially during handicrafts and individual micro- association holds its and handicrafts members are modern air- craftsmen. weekends. It also artworks. enterprises. regular monthly produced by the the small conditioned food Organized in serves the food The pasalubong meeting every 2nd member producers of center facility is 2006 and DOLE- catering and center or Saturday of the associations are foodstuffs and conveniently registered in training functions souvenir shop month with special already in the delicacies located along the 2009, GIMEA’s of private and was effective as meetings held for export market. (banana chips, highway enroute rehabilitation public the display and important concerns. The two rimas chips, to the famous and recovery organizations. marketing venue pasalubong pickles, religious pilgrimage program for its GIMEA and its for their centers are pastillas, etc.) place of San members members are products. effective and skilled Antonio de Padua continues with frequently Another marketing craftsmen and in Brgy.. Sulangan. the assistance of tapped by the pasalubong outlets of their sculptors (shell It is furnished the local Tourism municipal center is suitably products. The craft, woodcraft, completely with Office, the government, the located at the suitable highway lamp shades, kitchen and dining Chamber of Eastern Samar town’s business location of the figurines, key utensils, food Commerce, provincial center where modern chains, printed refrigeration DOLE, DTI and government, and more customers presentable food T-shirts, etc.) /preservation NGOs. the regional DTI and tourists go center makes the whose equipment office to attend shopping. place a favorite equipment and (refrigerator, and display their Moreover, the dining place for work areas were freezer, chiller), products in proper location the evercoming damaged by the catering tables and provincial, of the food religious pilgrims disaster. UNDP chairs, and training national and center was of San Antonio funded the facilities (laptop international effectively de Padua construction of computer, trade fairs. As a selected for the devotees to the food center, projector) and a supplementary dining and food Barangay “pasalubong” multicab for home project, the service needs of Sulangan. In center for local- transportation members raise the religious addition, the made foodstuffs service. backyard chicken pilgrims to association has and souvenir layers in cages Sulangan. planned to items, and a that produce establish a material their daily supply weekend market recovery facility of eggs for the of local marine for the kitchen and for and meat association. sale to their co- products, fruits member food and vegetables from their farms

301

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING producers and and gardens. This the local market. will be another income- generating project both for the individual members and the association as a whole.

FGD: Very relevant. Very appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Very effective. Efficient. High Barangay sustainability. Ngolos The project is The project is The project is Seaweed culture There is no The project was The project staff did Fisherfolks very relevant to resource-based coherent with and production is distinction as to implemented not encounter many Seaweeds Association the needs and and the sea around the now emerging as what gender is effectively with difficulties in farming is the (BNFA), capacities of the Barangay Ngolos is municipality’s an important and capable of the beneficiary implementing the main source of Barangay fisherfolks a rich raising promotion of major livelihood engaging in fisherfolks livelihood project livelihood for the Ngolos, Guiuan, whose main ground for seaweed in the coastal seaweeds farming because it because the fisherfolks of the Eastern Samar source of seaweeds production. The areas in the and production. responded beneficiaries were barangay for the livelihood is production environmental country. Seaweed Equal directly to their united and last 20 years so seaweeds throughout the characteristics of is becoming the opportunities are need for cooperative in that their long production since year. the sea waters most valuable provided for both economic working with them. experience in 1996. Their rich surrounding the commodity the male and support after Organizational, this occupation is seaweeds The facilities municipality are produced from female population the devastation financial and a strong production provided by the highly suitable aquaculture in of the community of their primary marketing evidence of its areas were project in the form for seaweed the Philippines. as long as they means of development sustainability. completely of a solar dryer, a production. The Eastern Samar is are physically fit livelihood from training of the FA The seawaters destroyed by small bodega and a high demand on a highly potential and able to work seaweeds conducted by the around Ngolos Typhoon mini truck ensure seaweeds province for in the marine production. The PRRM field staff are very suitable Yolanda. The the members the provides plenty seaweeds environment of technical, helped in facilitating for seaweeds project involved continuous of opportunities production. seaweed material the business growth the the processing and for the local production. facilities and activities of the whole year rehabilitation of marketing facilities communities. equipment, and association internally round. With all the seaweed of their seaweed the and externally. the technical, farms with the harvest. Moreover, organizational financial and provision of a starting financial capacity building organizational seedlings and capital was also activities capacity building materials. Social provided to the provided were inputs provided preparation association to buy effective in their to the activities and the seaweed socio-economic association and

302

GENDER Project RELEVANCE APPROPRIATENESS COHERENCE CONNECTEDNESS EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY SUSTAINABILITY MAINSTREAMING basic training on harvests of the rehabilitation its members, the organizational, members as a and recovery. livelihood that financial and seaweed the seaweed marketing consolidator in the livelihood project development area. will be sustained was conducted is very high. by PRRM to the members of the association.

FGD: Relevant. Appropriate. Coherent. Connected. Satisfactory. Effective. Efficient.

TESDA-certified The training was The project is The provision of Equal Participants who The UNDP-funded International training in appropriate for coherent to the massage opportunities are completed the training of 50 men Spiritual Massage unemployed men development of therapists to the given to men and training and and women on Therapeutic Therapy was and women who the labor sector public also women for skills developed skills therapeutic massage Massage Health relevant to are interested to through the responds to the training and in therapeutic was efficiently Care survivors of learn and develop provision of needs of local employment in massage earned conducted jointly by Incorporated typhoon- additional skills for livelihood skills hotel guests and massage therapy. some income TESDA and ISMTMI (ISMTMI), stricken areas to employment on and employment patients of health from hotel for 3 weeks Guiuan, Eastern provide an health-related opportunities to clinics and guests and continuously at the Samar alternative services. The individuals. It is establishments. customers latter’s training means of training also makes also linked to the needing home center in Guiuan, livelihood available to the promotion of service massage. Eastern Samar. A through skills public the skilled health A few have massage therapy kit development on massage therapists consciousness developed was provided that therapeutic for the health and the continued includes 20 units of massage. concerns of the provision of services from sphygmomanometer, Trainees who locality. public health satisfied 50 units of clinical completed the services. customers. thermometer, and competency individual uniforms, requirements hand sanitizer,oil and are awarded a efficascent oil. national certificate on massage therapy.

303

Annex G.9. Data Analysis on Resettlement and Housing DATA ANALYSIS RESETTLEMENT MATRIX EVALUATION HERNANI RESETTLEMENT ORMOC RESETTLEMENT TACLOBAN RESETTLEMENT CRITERIA RELEVANCE: • The design and implementation of the Resettlement Component of Project RECOVERY of EU-UNDP was very relevant and consistent with the policies and priorities of the Philippine government at the national and local levels. How relevant is the The project component addressed completely the transition from relief to rehabilitation, recovery and project to target development of displaced survivors of Typhoon Yolanda in the two cities of Tacloban, and Ormoc in Leyte and the groups’ (communities municipality of Hernani in Eastern Samar. These places were identified to be highly devastated by the strong winds & beneficiaries), and storm surge that hit the Eastern Visayas Region. including • The project component was a complete package of socio-economic interventions through shelter and livelihood governments’ assistance to a total of 165 household beneficiaries who were relocated in the three resettlement areas that were (national, LGUs) also provided with a safe water supply system, drainage and road network to create a clean, healthy and safe needs and priorities? community. How relevant is the • In the FGD conducted at the resettlement sites during the evaluation field visits, the shelter beneficiaries expressed project to other key their joyful acclamation and deep gratitude to the EU-UNDP primary donors, the project management team, the stakeholders’ needs supporting government agencies, LGU leadership and machinery for the windfall they received unexpectedly as and priorities? helpless victims of a large disaster. When asked if Typhoon Yolanda was a big disaster to their families, the beneficiaries responded equivocally considering the lifetime blessings they received after the Typhoon through the EU-UNDP Project RECOVERY. In other words, the project was "a blessing in disguise” for them.

This appreciative gesture was also manifested by the respondent beneficiaries in the Resettlement Survey Questionnaire administered to them. An old woman member of the resettlement beneficiary association or HOA said to the evaluators: “What more can I ask for when everything I need has been provided? I have a sturdy house to protect me from disaster and a sustainable livelihood to keep me alive.” The project objectives as perceived by the project designers are congruent to the needs of the intended beneficiaries. • In addition, Project RECOVERY was relevant to the government’s thrust of building and strengthening the institutional capacity of LGUs in planning and implementing DRRM programs, projects and activities. The resettlement program was intended for the relocation of displaced and homeless survivors of disaster-stricken areas through the provision of shelter or housing facilities to the affected households. The LGU should be at the forefront of the resettlement process so that her institutional capacities could be enhanced in the course of providing services to her constituents.

304

EVALUATION HERNANI RESETTLEMENT ORMOC RESETTLEMENT TACLOBAN RESETTLEMENT CRITERIA • Guided by the “build back better” principle, the resettlement location and shelter design was finalized in consultation with LGU officials and project beneficiaries. The site addressed inherent hazards (i.e., storm surge, excessive wind speeds, flooding brought by heavy rainfall) in the respective areas. The selected resettlement sites were slightly elevated, far from the coastline, have presence of natural wind barriers within the vicinity and accessible by any mode of transportation. • Likewise, the detailed designs, bill of quantities (BOQ) and specifications of the core shelters were completed with inputs from the LGU chief executives and the engineering and housing offices. Relevant enhancements were applied to improve “disaster resilience” of the core shelters such as: (1) size 16mm reinforced steel bars for footing forms and columns instead of the standard 12mm for socialized housing; (2) additional steel bars in the middle columns to enhance overall sturdiness of the structure; (3) concrete gutter beams as roof drains which will also act as wind breaker to prevent roofing panel detachment in the event of excessive wind speeds; (4) reduction in roofing pitch to minimize impact of excessive wind speeds in roofing panels and trusses; and (5) use of J bolts instead of Tek screws or rivets to securely fasten roofing panels to purlins. Core shelters were provided with shutter windows as an additional measure for disaster resilience. In addition, the louver-type hardwood-made shutter windows can be closed to protect the jalousie windows from being hit by flying debris during a typhoon. • The EU-UNDP project team conducted the shelter beneficiary profiling exercises involving interviews with beneficiaries to generate vital household information such as: (1) pre- and post-Yolanda shelter conditions; (2) access to household utilities; (3) household economic conditions; (4) desired services or facilities at the resettlement site; (5) preferred policies, guidelines or rules for estate management; and (6) feedback on beneficiary selection, shelter design and project implementation. The result generated relevant information helpful in planning resettlement facilities and services for estate management. However the surveys were held midway in project implementation when the construction of the shelter units was at its height. Some information gathered was no longer necessary. Ideally, a socio-economic survey of households of shelter beneficiaries should have been administered earlier before the planning and implementation of the core shelter units so that their socio-economic status before the project intervention could serve as baseline data and their future preferences could guide in planning projects and activities suitable for them. APPROPRIATENESS: • Although limited in the total number of beneficiary households (165 households at 55 households per resettlement area), the three resettlement sites served as models in resettlement project implementation in three different LGU Was the project categories: implementation Rural municipality Agricultural urban city Highly urbanized city approach relevant (Hernani, Eastern Samar); (Ormoc City); and (Tacloban City). and appropriate? The support interventions differ according to the socio-economic environment of the locality.

305

EVALUATION HERNANI RESETTLEMENT ORMOC RESETTLEMENT TACLOBAN RESETTLEMENT CRITERIA Was the assistance • Shelter beneficiaries were provided with viable, self-sustaining livelihood and employment options to help them related and/or assimilate in their new environment. Resettled family members were assisted with alternative livelihoods through supportive to the the provision of TESDA or DTI skills development training in various technical and vocational courses such as existing skills and carpentry, masonry, welding, plumbing, driving, small engine servicing, food processing, cookery, dressmaking, knowledge of manicure, pedicure, haircut, and other practical skills of interest to individuals. They were also provided with the beneficiaries? appropriate tools and implements to practice the trade. • Group-managed micro-enterprises were established appropriate and suitable to the socio-economic environment of the resettlement area with the provision of support infrastructure, facilities and equipment for initial operations and maintenance. Savings mobilization at the association and household levels were encouraged for capital build up and revolving fund for livelihood needs of the members. • In Hernani resettlement, the EU- • In Ormoc, the project supported • In Tacloban, the project likewise UNDP project provided financial the construction and operation provided financial support to the support for HYSBA-managed of a mini-grocery to provide the current and customary livelihood merchandising and canteen consumer needs of the activities of the shelter beneficiaries to operation to provide additional beneficiaries in the area. The strengthen their economic status such income to the HOA and its merchandising facility also as fish vending, retailing of rice, meat members. A small building was served as a marketing outlet for products, ready-to-wear clothing, LPG, currently constructed that will the eggs produced from their household commodities, and cellphone serve as store, warehouse and chicken layers raised and for the load. Through proper savings canteen. The business enterprise vegetables harvested from the mobilization schemes. Beneficiaries was identified and selected by the OCWA communal garden. To have returned a portion of the group in view of the strategic ensure sustainability, members livelihood assistance to the association location of the housing site that is agreed that all yield will be sold as their CBU. adjacent to the municipal to generate funds for replanting. government buildings and offices. The project also supported the The store temporarily occupies BYSCWA in the establishment of a one of the shelter units that is satellite market at the resettlement now operational. It sells site. The market would serve the household commodities to serve housing beneficiaries as well as the the members. residents of nearby resettlement sites and other adjacent communities. The association had just completed the

306

EVALUATION HERNANI RESETTLEMENT ORMOC RESETTLEMENT TACLOBAN RESETTLEMENT CRITERIA construction of the satellite market which they will also manage. Included in the establishment of the market is the setting up of backyard vegetable gardens for food sufficiency at the household level. GENDER • In the planning and implementation of the project’s resettlement component, equal opportunities were provided to MAINSTREAMING: both male and female population in the resettlement areas. There was no distinction given to both sexes as to the rights and privileges extended to all shelter beneficiaries. This was also true in terms of duties and responsibilities To what extent were expected from both of them. women and men • In the identification and selection of shelter recipients, female heads of households were also qualified to own a (and community) as housing unit provided they pass the selection criteria for housing beneficiaries. well as the LGUs • As core shelter beneficiaries, women were qualified to become members of the Home Owners Association and be were involved in the voted upon as an officer of the organization and thereby perform the duties and responsibilities inherent to the following: (a) project position. identification and • Female HOA members were also obliged to render the “sweat equity” requirement together with the male preparation; (b) members as their labor counterpart in the construction of the shelter units. When they were physically unfit to procurement; (c) render hard manual labor, they were still expected to give their share of the work by hiring laborers to substitute implementation; (d) for them similar to senior citizens, PWDs and pregnant women. M&E; (e) O&M; and • Female members could participate in the management of the HOA construction business by performing the clerical (f) sustainability and financial tasks like timekeeping, payroll preparation, bookkeeping and other menial jobs that are less mechanisms. strenuous. EFFECTIVENESS: • The significant role the LGUs played in the resettlement process was important and crucial since the welfare and development of her constituents was the LGU’s concern. The EU-UNDP project management team was effective in To what extent have making the LGUs contribute their assets and capacities in the development process. The LGUs of Hernani municipality, the intended Ormoc City and Tacloban City readily provided the land area required for the resettlement of 165 household outcomes in the beneficiaries in new communities of resilient core shelter units with community amenities. The three resettlement project document sites of the project were located in: been achieved? Has 1. Hernani Resettlement in 2. Ormoc Resettlement in 3. Tacloban Resettlement in the project Barangay Cansilides, Barangay Cagbuhangin, Barangay Cabalawan, contributed or is Hernani, Eastern Samar; Ormoc City; and Tacloban City.

307

EVALUATION HERNANI RESETTLEMENT ORMOC RESETTLEMENT TACLOBAN RESETTLEMENT CRITERIA likely to contribute to • The LGU was mainly responsible for the identification and selection of the core shelter beneficiaries. The shelter long-term social, recipients went through a rigid selection and assessment process according to a standard selection criteria that economic, technical, takes into account the following characteristics of the typhoon survivors such as: (1) totally damage d houses; (2) environmental residing in “no build zone” areas; (3) high number of family members; (4) presence of senior citizens, PWDs, changes for pregnant women, and children; (5) not a government employee; (6) willing to be organized; and (7) willing to be individuals, resettled communities and • The EU-UNDP PMO was likewise effective in assigning the LGUs in undertaking site development activities of the institutions related to resettlement areas. The LGU engineering units conducted site development projects simultaneous with the the project? What construction of the core shelter units by the EU-UNDP engineering team. changes or In Hernani, the project team and In Ormoc, the LGU general In Tacloban however, changes were improvements, if HYSBA conducted excavations for services and engineering offices made in the resettlement layout plan any, that were storm drainage as well as earth performed repair and to accommodate the revision of a undertaken by the moving to level the ground within maintenance of the access road road right-of-way set by the city NGAs, LGUs and and around the resettlement site to the resettlement site. housing and engineering team. The communities towards where heavy equipment were change affected the accomplishment faster and more commissioned to expedite site rate of the project site. With the appropriate development activities. completion of shelter construction at measures in helping the resettlement site, the city local communities on government stepped up the site post disaster development activities through the response and construction and concreting of roads preparedness? and alleys and installation of drainage works. In the process, some water distribution lines to the housing units that were already installed on the ground were destroyed. • Ultimately, the resettlement project -- the shelter recipients, the land and the improvements therein, were turned over to the LGUs upon project completion to take over the administration and management of the resettlement areas. • The project adopted a community-driven scheme in shelter construction to ensure that the recipient communities are at the forefront of the resettlement process and the beneficiaries feel ownership of the project. The scheme involved organizing the shelter recipients. It was effective in building their capacities in organizational, project,

308

EVALUATION HERNANI RESETTLEMENT ORMOC RESETTLEMENT TACLOBAN RESETTLEMENT CRITERIA financial and estate management. EU-UNDP project staff facilitated several social preparation and capacity building activities for shelter recipients and community members. The recipients were organized into HOAs and assistance was extended in their registration with the SEC and DOLE. The following HOAs were organized in the resettlement areas: 1. HYSBA; 2. OCWA; and 3. BYSCWA • With a functioning set of officers, the HOAs possessed the legal personality to enter into contracts and formal partnerships with public and private institutions including EU-UNDP. Thus, the HOAs were contracted by the UNDP project management to undertake the construction of the core shelters in the resettlement sites and the water supply systems under the guidance of the project engineering and community development teams. The HOAs were trained to administer timekeeping, manage the payroll, bookkeeping, warehousing and coordinate with key partners. Coaching and mentor support by project staff were provided throughout the project management cycle.

• Contracting large construction works (building 55 disaster-resilient core shelter units) to a newly-organized association that lacked the technical and management capability to undertake construction activities is not advisable in time-bounded infrastructure development projects. Construction efficiency in building the core shelter units was sacrificed in building the capacity of the association in construction supervision and management work. • The EU-UNDP project introduced the “sweat equity” concept in development projects. The HOA members were required to render “sweat equity” during the construction of the core shelter units. The practice is relevant in a development project where beneficiaries are expected to contribute their share in the development process. For a work-week of six (6) days, 5 days work were paid, while one-day work was rendered free as their labor counterpart. The project engaged women to manage timekeeping, payroll management and bookkeeping while also generating “sweat equity” required. Senior citizens and PWDs who were unable to render actual labor in construction work were allowed to hire laborers on their behalf. Joint cooperative voluntary work or “pintakasi” was often held to render the “sweat equity” counterpart required from them. Men and women were afforded equal opportunities in project activities together with the vulnerable members.

• The “sweat equity” concept of requiring project beneficiaries to render free labor as their counterpart is a good practice and recommended for development projects. Beneficiaries are aware that they are not getting the shelter units for free. They have to sweat it out and work for it. Howeve, it is small compared to the total cost of the project, they contributed their share towards the completion of the project which gives them a sense of fulfillment. “Sweat equity” eliminates “dole outs” in development projects. The practice is effective to acquire beneficiary counterpart in development projects.

309

EVALUATION HERNANI RESETTLEMENT ORMOC RESETTLEMENT TACLOBAN RESETTLEMENT CRITERIA • HOA members who demonstrated advanced construction skills were organized into a Manpower Association which could later bid to provide construction services required by LGUs, households and private businesses. The project supported them in the construction of infrastructure facilities such as the following projects of the respective HOAs: 1. HYSBA: 2. BYSCWA: (a) Guiuan Materials Recovery (a) KOICA-funded Basey Ecological Facility Park and Materials Recovery (b) Ecological Waste Facility, Management Center; (b) EU-funded Community-based Coastal Resource Management Center in Palo, Leyte and (c) EU-funded Construction of TACRU Multipurpose Center. • The project management officially handed over the ownership of the housing units to the HOAs and management of the resettlement sites to the LGUs. The member beneficiaries of Ormoc and Tacloban already relocated to their new houses. The Hernani recipients are awaiting the completion and functioning of the water supply system prior to moving in. As of the evaluation field visit, arrangements had been made by the LGUs for the provision of electric power supply to the resettlement areas. • Ownership of the completed housing units was officially turned over to the shelter recipients and to the LGUs. The shelter units were freely awarded to the beneficiaries while the LGUs still have to formulate the formal agreement and policies with the recipients to ensure their security of tenure over their home lot occupancy. EFFICIENCY: • While the project was effective in utilizing the HOAs for the construction of the core shelter units and the water supply systems in the three resettlement areas, construction problems and issues occurred during project Were the resources implementation. and inputs converted At the Hernani resettlement site, In Tacloban City, significant delays were to outputs in a timely construction delays were encountered in construction work. and cost-effective encountered due to: (1) non- BYSCWA slowed down work and reduced manner? Were the availability of construction the number of workers to take stock of project activities and materials from local suppliers; (2) the construction’s progress vis-à-vis their results realized based limited number of skilled remaining funds. The members provided on the planned beneficiary workers through the additional sweat equity as their timelines? “pakyaw” system; (3) confusion counterpart contribution for the over unclear instructions on additional funds allocated by the Project.

310

EVALUATION HERNANI RESETTLEMENT ORMOC RESETTLEMENT TACLOBAN RESETTLEMENT CRITERIA workload arrangements that led The intermittent breakdown of to a temporary work stoppage; equipment such as concrete mixer and and (4) delays in the performance vibrator, grinder, welding machine and of the required “sweat equity” portable cut off machine significantly from some beneficiaries. delayed some major construction works Additional budget for labor and due to additional time spent for manual materials was required. labor done even by the skilled workers. UNDP replaced spare parts of the broken equipment and resorted to equipment rental to proceed construction works. • Contracting the HOAs to undertake construction works for a large infrastructure project like the 55 core shelter units is a livelihood employment opportunity to the beneficiaries. It is disadvantageous however to the overall implementation of the project. The HOAs lacked the capacity and experience to manage construction activities which continuously required the technical supervision and mentoring of the project engineering team. Project construction inefficiency is partly attributed to the technical and managerial inadequacy of the HOAs to undertake construction contracts. Large infrastructure projects should not be utilized for capacity building purposes. • For large infrastructure projects, the engagement of an established construction firm is recommended. The HOA members may be hired for the labor requirement of the contractor. • The intent of the project management to build and develop the capacity of the HOAs for future construction contracts can still be pursued through the small building construction works they implemented through UNDP support. An organizational assessment of the capabilities of the association members/officers as individuals or as a group should be undertaken prior to their training and development (Training Needs Assessment). SUSTAINABILITY: • The question of sustainability of the three resettlement areas in the municipality of Hernani and the cities of Tacloban and Ormoc does not need to be entertained. Several indicators of sustainability are manifested in the To what extent are existing status and ongoing progress of activities in the three areas. These are attributed to the various human, the project results physical and environmental factors that influence the social, economic and political well-being of the community. likely to continue • Physically, the resettlement site has grown into a community of disaster-resilient housing units laid out in an orderly after the project? Is pattern alongside a network of roads and alleys with a safe water supply and forthcoming electric power supply. stakeholders’ The residents are the organized members of the HOAs who had experienced unity and cooperation in the engagement likely to construction of their shelter units. Individually and jointly, they are presently engaged in different economic continue, be scaled activities and micro-enterprises to earn a sustainable livelihood. Moreover, they have chosen business ventures up, replicated or that are appropriate in their socio-economic environment that will assure them a ready and captive market for their

311

EVALUATION HERNANI RESETTLEMENT ORMOC RESETTLEMENT TACLOBAN RESETTLEMENT CRITERIA institutionalized after products and services. The merchandising and canteen operation in Hernani will cater to the municipal government external funding employees nearby; the Tacloban resettlement wet market will also serve the population in nearby resettlement ceases? sites; and the Ormoc mini-grocery will serve as marketing outlet for their poultry and agricultural products. • In addition, the project supported skilled HOA members in organizing them into a manpower association that could bid for construction services with the public and private sector. The HOAs were able to get small building construction contracts in nearby municipalities that created a track record of construction projects for them. The technical and management skills developed ensure sustainability of HOA operations beyond the UNDP project. An established construction firm in Tacloban already sub-contracted the members in its construction projects. • To facilitate the transition from temporary to permanent dwellings in the resettlement community, the project team prepared the beneficiaries for the major shift through orientations on estate management and assistance in formulating policies, systems and regulations to build and maintain a safe, decent and healthy resettlement community. The policies focused on shelter use and occupancy, unit maintenance, allowable extensions and alterations, cleanliness and waste management, WASH, peace and order, and security, all of which came out as priority concerns of the residents. • Politically, the three resettlement areas and their inhabitants have assimilated into the political structure of the village or barangay government. The HOAs and their leadership already gained recognition in the barangay government. • Moreover, the LGUs already welcomed the turn-over of the shelter units from the EU-UNDP project. They have likewise assumed responsibility and authority over the administration and management of the whole resettlement areas.

With these developments, the sustainability of the three resettlement areas and their residents beyond the EU- UNDP project are assured.

312

Short Biographies and Justification of the Team Composition

The expertise of the members of the Three-person-evaluation Team is summarized below.

1. Mr. Ramon Noriel B. Sicad (“Noriel”), as Independent Consultant, has over 30 years of experience in development work at the national, regional and local levels with expertise on results-based management (RBM) in the public sector, results-based monitoring and evaluation (RBME), development effectiveness and managing for development results (MfDR), results-based planning, performance-informed budgeting, programme management, investment programming, institutional development, among others. He is currently working as a Consultant and has been working, for more than 10 years in supporting Government’s initiatives on results-based public sector management, being carried out by NEDA, Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and Department of Finance (DOF) with the support of ADB, AusAID, FAO, IFAD, JICA, Millennium Challenge Corporation / Millennium Challenge Account – Philippines (MCC/MCA-P), UNDP, UNICEF and World Bank.

His work involves the integration of results-based management (RBM) approaches in the mainstreaming of results-orientation and working across agencies/stakeholders towards achieving outcomes in rural and urban development, better governance as well as enhancing livelihood and employment opportunities in local communities in the context of DRRM. He is currently involved, on intermittent basis as the M&E Specialist (Social Development), the implementation of the ADB-JFPR Grant Emergency Assistance and Early Recovery for Poor Municipalities Affected by Typhoon Yolanda. The project is expected to achieve the outcome of improved access to emergency support and early recovery systems which will aid the areas of populations in 74 poor municipalities in Eastern Visayas affected by Typhoon Yolanda to become more resilient during future disasters

He worked with the Project Monitoring Staff of NEDA for more than 15 years in the monitoring and evaluation of projects in agriculture, fisheries and forestry as well as industry and livelihood, science and technology, social development programmes and infrastructure. His professional experiences also include field implementation of projects with University of the Philippines at Los Banos (UPLB), DAR, NHA, and Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) and DILG.

He has a multidisciplinary perspective and is comfortable in working with colleagues with diverse knowledge and skills. He completed his Bachelor’s degree in Agricultural Engineering at the University of the Philippines at Los Baños (Philippines) and Masters in Business Administration (MBA) at the Ateneo Graduate School of Business (Philippines). He completed the Certificate in Urban and Regional Development at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs (GSPIA) and also completed the program as H.J. Heinz Fellow on Institutional Development and Program Management at the University Center for International Studies (UCIS), both at the University of Pittsburgh (USA).

2. Mr. Reinero Flores (“Yen”), as one of the support specialists has more than 25 years of involvement in development works with hands on experience in program management. He developed and implemented projects related to post-crisis recovery and disaster risk reduction, sustainable livelihoods and entrepreneurship, climate change vulnerability assessment, urban planning, poverty reduction and local economic development. He handled and coordinated projects that required inter- agency collaboration, policy advocacy and social dialogue.

His skills and competencies include the following: (a) project development, monitoring and evaluation; (b) acquired technical skills on sustainable livelihoods including post-crisis response tools and strategies; (c) technical knowledge on disaster risk reduction and management; (d) familiarity

313

with local economic development programmes and value chain development; (e) good knowledge on climate change issues and programs; (f) land use and local planning skills; (g) facilitating and training skills; (h) with background in organizing multi-stakeholder dialogue to enhance inter-agency collaboration and policy advocacy; (i) developed and managed various programs and projects funded by international development agencies (e.g. ADB, AusAID, AECID, IFAD, ILO, FAO ); (j) with work experiences in managing corporate social responsibility programmes; (k) good knowledge of programme and budget, project administration and evaluation; and (l) with high grasp on local governance and democratization issues .

3. Mr. Pelagio A. Pastor (“Leo”), as one of the support specialists, has over 40 years of involvement in development work. He specializes in human resource management and development (HRMD), organization development (OD), project development and management, sustainable development, and rural institutional development that are valuable in assessing the organizational and institutional aspects in the context of DRRM. His considerable years of professional work experience with government and private institutions at the national and local levels, including government-owned and controlled organizations (GOCC) and NGOs, has honed his organizational and management skills in planning, implementing and evaluating institutional development programs and projects. He has been involved in various foreign-assisted, national and local-based projects as a consultant, management and technical adviser, project director or manager, resource person, and researcher. These include, among others, USAID, IBRD-World Bank, JBIC, AusAID, CIDA, ADB, UNICEF, EU and UNDP assisted long- and short-term projects.

His extensive exposure with the DAR from the field to the national level has directed his career towards poverty alleviation, agrarian reform, land resettlement and local sustainable development. In a World Bank funded DAR special project, he served as the Deputy Area Manager in charge of operations for two land settlement projects in Capiz and Bukidnon provinces, and later as the Chief of Operations for Project Planning and Monitoring at the central office level. The project followed the integrated area development concept in coordination with various NGAs implementing their respective agency functions in physical infrastructure, agriculture and forestry, health, resettlement and institutional development. He was also involved with DENR, DA, BFAR, NGOs in forestry and upland development, agricultural production and coastal resource management projects. This was complemented lately with his involvement as an OD adviser/consultant for a DENR-led multi-agency project entitled “Land Administration and Management Project (LAMP)” that was assisted jointly by AusAID and the Wold Bank.

He was involved with the Eastern Visayas Network of NGOs and POs (EVNet) for a UNICEF-funded Project entitled “Mobilizing Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Children’s Participation in Safe Schools Monitoring and Child-centered Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction”, implemented in Yolanda-disaster affected cities/municipalities in the provinces of Leyte, Samar and Eastern Samar. As the Capacity Building & Training Officer, he conducted seminar-workshops for CSOs on DRRM and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) including its advocacy.

Mr. Pastor’s political exposure in local government legislation and administration with the Provincial Government of Leyte as an elected Provincial Board Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, and later appointed as the Assistant Provincial Administrator and concurrently the Provincial Human

314

Resource Management Officer (HRMO) would be a significant advantage for evaluating project beneficiary LGUs for DRRM institutional development.

The multi-disciplinary technical and/or administrative support help ensure the high quality and completion of evaluation processes, methodologies and outputs (i.e., evaluation products). The IC was primarily responsible in the implementation of the evaluation design, application of methodologies and data collection instruments, facilitation of consultations with stakeholders, and development of draft and final reports based on inputs from the Project Team, UNDP Country Office and stakeholders.

315

Summary of Results of Survey on Livelihood and Resettlement

Annex I.1. Summary of Survey Results on Livelihood Projects Survey7

Total (All respondents: 265, 60%Female and 40% Male) I agree I agree I disagree I don't ASSESSMENT AREA completely somewhat completely know No. % No. % No. % No. % 9. The livelihood project provided by UNDP is relevant for my income restoration and 243 92% 17 6% 1 0% 1 0% economic recovery. 10. I have a clear understanding of my role and responsibility in the implementation and 243 92% 14 5% 0 0 sustainability of my livelihood project/s. 11. I was involved in the identification and planning of my livelihood recovery project. 227 86% 31 12% 3 1% 1 0% 12. The livelihood projects supported by UNDP are responsive to my income restoration and 223 84% 32 12% 5 2% 1 0% economic recovery. 13. I think that UNDP’s livelihood project is sufficient to support my overall recovery after 191 72% 60 23% 10 4% 2 1% Typhoon Yolanda. 14. I think that UNDP livelihood support project is more of an emergency or relief assistance 181 68% 60 23% 16 6% 4 2% rather than a recovery and long-term development assistance. 15. I believe that my livelihood and employment skills and capacities were developed because of 223 84% 30 11% 8 3% 1 0% UNDP’s project. 16. Based on my experience, the UNDP livelihood projects were effective for my income 232 88% 28 11% 1 0% 2 1% generation and economic recovery. 17. The UNDP project team and staff were very helpful and effective in the implementation of 233 88% 28 11% 0 1 0% livelihood projects. 18. I think that I can sustain my livelihood activities even upon the phase out of the UNDP project in 238 90% 20 8% 5 2% 0 my community. 19. My access with the local government unit and other government agencies providing livelihood 228 86% 32 12% 2 1% 1 0% assistance was improved as a result of the UNDP Yolanda Recovery Project. 20. My income after Typhoon Yolanda increased due to the EU-UNDP Recovery Project. 179 68% 71 27% 9 3% 2 1% 21. Because of EU-UNDP livelihood project, I have now the capacity and ready to face future 209 79% 47 18% 4 2% 2 1% disasters.

7 The numbers (which start at number 9) used in the Assessment Area column follow the numbers used in the original form of the Survey of Livelihood Projects

316

Total (All respondents: 265, 60%Female and 40% Male) I agree I agree I disagree I don't ASSESSMENT AREA completely somewhat completely know No. % No. % No. % No. % 22. I am satisfied with EU-UNDP livelihood recovery 223 84% 35 13% 2 1% 2 1% support project.

Accessed Livelihood Assistance

120 108

100

83 80 80

64 57 60

40

20

2 0 Coconut Lumber Farm Inputs Skills Training Enterprise Devt Fishery-Based Others Processing Livelihood

317

Annex I.2. Summary of Survey Results on Resettlement and Housing

All Resettlement Respondents (84, 65% F, 35% M) I agree I somewhat I disagree I don't know ASSESSMENT AREA completely agree completely No. % No. % No. % No. % Part 1. Shelter and Livelihood in the Resettlement Area 1. The shelter and resettlement project provided by UNDP is relevant for my housing need, income 73 87% 9 11% 2 2% 0 0% restoration and economic recovery. 2. I have a clear understanding of my role and responsibility in the implementation and 82 98% 2 2% 0 0% 0 0% sustainability of my shelter and livelihood project/s. 3. I was involved in the design of the shelter unit and the identification and planning of my livelihood 77 92% 6 7% 0 0% 0 0% recovery project. 4. The livelihood projects in the resettlement area supported by UNDP are responsive to my income 67 80% 14 17% 1 1% 1 1% restoration and economic recovery. 5. I think that UNDP’s resettlement and livelihood project is sufficient to support my overall recovery 52 62% 25 30% 5 6% 1 1% after Typhoon Yolanda. 6. I think that UNDP shelter and resettlement project 70 83% 13 15% 0 0% 0 0% is a recovery and long-term development assistance. 7. I believe that my livelihood and employment skills and capacities were developed because of UNDP’s 63 75% 14 17% 2 2% 4 5% project. 8. Based on my experience, the UNDP shelter and livelihood projects were effective for my income 59 70% 21 25% 3 4% 1 1% generation and economic recovery. 9. The UNDP project team and staff were very helpful and effective in the implementation of the 70 83% 9 11% 1 1% 2 2% resettlement program and projects. 10. I think that I can sustain my shelter benefit and livelihood activities even upon the phase out of the 74 88% 10 12% 0 0% 0 0% UNDP project in my community. 11. My access with the local government unit and other government agencies providing shelter and 61 73% 21 25% 2 2% 0 0% livelihood assistance was improved as a result of the UNDP Yolanda Recovery Project. 12. I am satisfied with UNDP’s livelihood recovery 67 80% 15 18% 1 1% 0 0% support project. Part II. Resettlement Socio-Economic Facilities and Services A. Accessibility of the Resettlement Area 1. From the city/town proper 42 50% 28 33% 10 12% 0 0%

318

All Resettlement Respondents (84, 65% F, 35% M) I agree I somewhat I disagree I don't know ASSESSMENT AREA completely agree completely No. % No. % No. % No. % 2. By public transportation facilities 31 37% 36 43% 12 14% 0 0% 3. Good road condition 47 56% 26 31% 7 8% 0 0% B. Availability of Public Utilities 1. Potable water supply 24 29% 26 31% 20 24% 9 11% 2. Electric power 14 17% 31 37% 21 25% 11 13% 3. Telecommunication network 44 52% 26 31% 3 4% 2 2% C. Availability of Livelihood and Economic Opportunities 1. Within the resettlement area 53 63% 25 30% 1 1% 1 1% 2. Outside the resettlement area 45 54% 27 32% 1 1% 2 2% D. Core Shelter 1. Structure is durable and sturdy 72 86% 2 2% 1 1% 4 5% 2. Shelter size is sufficient for the family 66 79% 11 13% 2 2% 3 4% 3. Made up of heavy construction materials 73 87% 3 4% 1 1% 2 2% E. Resettlement Location Safety from Natural Hazards 1. Geological hazards (earthquake, landslide 59 70% 12 14% 3 4% 3 4% tsunami) 2. Meteorological hazards (typhoon, tornado) 61 73% 12 14% 3 4% 2 2% 3. Hydrological hazards (flood, storm surge) 59 70% 14 17% 3 4% 3 4% F. Availability of Community Socio-economic Facilities 1. Community school 35 42% 21 25% 14 17% 0 0% 2. Health center 27 32% 21 25% 23 27% 4 5% 3. Public market 37 44% 22 26% 12 14% 2 2% 4. Sports and recreational facilities 27 32% 24 29% 21 25% 3 4% G. Homeowners’ Association 1. Still active and functioning 68 81% 11 13% 3 4% 1 1% 2. Ability to acquire construction projects 45 54% 25 30% 11 13% 2 2% independently 3. Able to manage projects efficiently and effectively 47 56% 27 32% 7 8% 2 2% H. Existence of Estate Management Systems 1. Waste management 54 64% 15 18% 9 11% 2 2% 2. Water sanitation hygiene (WASH) 44 52% 20 24% 6 7% 8 10% 3. Peace and Order 49 58% 24 29% 4 5% 3 4% 4. Security 48 57% 20 24% 7 8% 3 4% I. Homeowners Integration into the Barangay Political

System 1. A new barangay political system was created 52 62% 21 25% 6 7% 0 0% from among the homemakers

319

All Resettlement Respondents (84, 65% F, 35% M) I agree I somewhat I disagree I don't know ASSESSMENT AREA completely agree completely No. % No. % No. % No. % 2. Homeowners integration into the existing barangay government was facilitated 50 60% 20 24% 2 2% 4 5% harmoniously 3. Homeowners leadership accepted in the existing 57 68% 18 21% 2 2% 2 2% barangay government J. Resettlement Beneficiary Satisfaction 1. Towards UNDP Project Management - Management team 66 79% 13 15% 0 0% 1 1% - Engineering team 48 57% 23 27% 4 5% 2 2% - Community development team 60 71% 13 15% 3 4% 2 2% 2. Towards Participating National Government

Agencies - DSWD 49 58% 14 17% 10 12% 3 4% - NHA 43 51% 18 21% 11 13% 6 7% - DPWH 35 42% 17 20% 14 17% 5 6% - Dept. Of Agriculture 50 60% 15 18% 10 12% 2 2% - Civil Defense Office 23 27% 20 24% 16 19% 10 12% - NEDA 31 37% 21 25% 18 21% 11 13% 3. Towards LGU - Mayor’s Office 40 48% 19 23% 8 10% 5 6% - Engineering Office 47 56% 25 30% 5 6% 7 8% - Housing Office & Community Devt. Office 39 46% 18 21% 9 11% 5 6% - DRRMO 46 55% 16 19% 9 11% 7 8% - PPDO 28 33% 19 23% 14 17% 13 15% 4. Towards their Own Beneficiary Participation 45 54% 17 20% 5 6% 2 2% OVERALL SATISFACTION of the Beneficiary Respondent 46 55% 23 27% 1 1% 3 4% Can you say that you have RECOVERED from the 50 60% 20 24% 3 4% 4 5% YOLANDA DISASTER?

320

End of Report

321