country level impact assessment (clia) the...

( i )

Country Level Impact Assessment (CLIA)

The Philippines

(ii )

Also in this series: Synthesis Report & Methodology Note – Country Level Impact Assessment (CLIA) Studies: Bukina Faso, Malawi & Philippines The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent those of the member countries of the UNDP Executive Board or of those institutions of the United Nations system that are mentioned herein. The designations and terminology employed and the presentation of material do not imply any expression of opinion whatsoever on the part of the country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or of its frontiers or boundries Copyright © 2003 United Nations Development Programme Evaluation Office One United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017, USA

(iii )

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS………….……………………………………………………………………….. …………..…IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...………………………………………………………………………... ……..….V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………… ……....VII 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background and Context..........................................................................................................1 1.2 Methodology and Approach ....................................................................................................2 1.3 Structure of the Report............................................................................................................2

2.0 CONTEXT....................................................................................................................................3 2.1 Overview of The Philippine Development Challenge..............................................................3 2.2 UNDP Support Over the Period 1972-2001............................................................................4 2.3 Evolution of UNDP Support ....................................................................................................5

3.0 Application of the CLIA Methodology .....................................................................................8 3.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................8 3.2 Phase I – Impact Perceptions .................................................................................................9 3.3 Phase II – Impact Validation .................................................................................................12 3.4 Learning From the CLIA Methodological Experience ...........................................................14

4.0 Phase I Findings ......................................................................................................................18 4.1 Description of Project-Level Impact Areas............................................................................18 4.2 Main Findings........................................................................................................................20

5.0 Phase II Validation of Perceived Impacts..............................................................................29 5.1 Regional Development Planning Programme.......................................................................29 5.2 Macroeconomic Reform Programme....................................................................................33

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................37 6.1 Recommendations ................................................................................................................37 6.2 Factors that Influence Impacts..............................................................................................39 6.3 Improving Impact Delivery.....................................................................................................41

ANNEXES A Terms of Reference B List of Individuals and Organizations Consulted C List of Documents Reviewed D Survey Instruments and Questionnaires E UNDP Philippines “Programme Map”

(iv )

ACRONYMS

ADB AIP APIS AUSAID Cap21 CCF CG CLIA CO CP CSD DAR DBAS DENR EIA EMB ENRA EO EPTA GA GCF GDP GNP GOP HDR HIV/AIDS IBRD IEC IEP IEMSD JICA LGC LGU MNLF MRMP MTPDP NAMRIA NCR NEDA NEX NRO NSCB NSO OECD PCSD PDA PMSS PPFP RDC RDP RDIP RBM RLA RPFP SD SDM SEI SHD SPCPD SURP SZOPAD TA TCDC UN UNDAF UNDP UNFPA UNICEF UP USAID WB

Asian Development Bank Annual Investment Plan Annual Poverty Indicators Survey Australia Agency for International Development Capacity Building in Support of the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development Country Cooperation Framework Consultative Group Country Level Impact Assessment Country Office Country Programme Council for Sustainable Development Department of Agrarian Reform Environmental and Natural Resource Database Department of Environment and Natural Resources Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Management Bureau Environmental and Natural Resource Accounting Evaluation Office Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance General Assembly Global Cooperation Framework Gross Domestic Product Gross National Product Government of the Philippines Human Development Report Human Immune Virus/ Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (The World Bank) Information, Education and Communication Institute of Environmental Planning Integrated Environmental Management for Sustainable Development Japan International Cooperation Agency Local Government Code Local Government Unit Mindanao National Liberation Front Macroeconomic Reforms and Management Programme Medium Term Philippines Development Plan National Mapping and Resource Information Administration National Capital Region National Economic and Development Authority National Execution NEDA Regional Office National Statistical Coordination Board National Statistics Office Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Philippine Council for Sustainable Development Peace and Development Advocate Programme Management Support System Provincial Physical Framework Plan Regional Development Council Regional Development Plan Regional Development Investment Programme Results Based Management Regional Office of Line Agency Regional Physical Framework Planning Sustainable Development Sustainable Development Model Integration of Environmental and Socio-Economic Considerations in Development Policies Sustainable Human Development Southern Philippines Council for Peace and Development School of Urban and Regional Planning Special Zone of Peace and Development Technical Assistance Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries United Nations United Nations Development Assistance Framework United Nations Development Programme United Nations Population Fund United Nations Children’s Fund University of the Philippines United States Agency for International Development World Bank

(v )

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report presents the findings of a Country Level Impact Assessment (CLIA) pilot study conducted in the Philippines by the UNDP Evaluation Office between 2001-2002. The purpose of the exercise was to assess the overall impact of UNDP’s programmes in a given time period, while testing a new methodology for empirically assessing and capturing long-term development results at the country level. A number of people too numerous to mention have contributed to the success of this pilot study. Although it is not possible to mention everyone by name, the Evaluation Office would like to express its gratitude to all the government officials, partners and UNDP stakeholders in the Philippines. The participation of the UNDP country office was critical. The Evaluation Office would like to express its appreciation for all the support received from the Philippines country office and the Regional Bureau of Asia and the Pacific, as a whole, particularly to all those who contributed to the study. We are especially grateful to Terence Jones, Resident Representative, and Ricarda Reiger, Deputy Resident Representative, whose support and interest and overall guidance on the scope of the study was invaluable. Napoleon Navarro, Programme Manager, functioned as the study focal point, supported by Ms. Lea Tamayo. Finally we owe a great deal of gratitude to the evaluation team: Richard Flaman, team leader, Candido Cabrido, Wilfredo Arce and Carmina Sarmiento. This core team received administrative and logistical support from Luisa Jolongbayan, Yvette Guinto and Adel Lambini. From the Evaluation Office, Fadzai Gwaradzimba functioned as the task manager and, together with Nurul Alam, provided methodological guidance and direction to the team. Anish Pradhan provided technical support throughout.

(vi )

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1999, the Evaluation Office (EO) launched three pilot Country Level Impact Assessments (CLIA) to assess the impact of UNDP’s programmes in these countries while strengthening a new methodology for capturing development results. The objective was to empirically assess UNDP’s overall contribution to outcomes and impacts, ultimately, development effectiveness, and at the same time, strengthen the Results Based Management (RBM) methods and tools for reinforcing them. The first and second pilot CLIA studies were launched in Burkina Faso (1999) and Malawi (2000). This report presents the results of the third and final pilot CLIA, which was conducted in the Philippines in collaboration with the UNDP Country Office (CO) in Manila. The country office’s interest in the Philippines becoming a pilot case study and its direct involvement and participation throughout the exercise was invaluable. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The specific objectives of the Philippines CLIA were to: (1) document and demonstrate UNDP’s contribution to development outcomes and impacts in core strategic areas of focus at the national level; (2) identify the combination of external factors, capacities and management decisions that led to a significant impact and draw lessons; and (3) promote a results-orientation and the building of in-house capacities to evaluate development impact at the country level. A concurrent objective was to test the pilot CLIA methodology and make recommendations on how to improve it. Given the sheer volume of projects and the very wide scope of UNDP programmes, which literally span dozens of areas in the Philippines , the CLIA study zeroed in on a small set of programme and thematic areas that were considered by the country office to have generated some impacts. Phase I (May-August 2005) concentrated on the collection of impact perceptions for a short list of programme, project and “soft” areas of support. Phase II, carried out in March 2002, zeroed in on the validation of a small set of sub-programme impacts in regional development planning and macroeconomic reform. Using participatory processes and a range of analytical techniques, impact perceptions were collected from a wide array of stakeholders. Over 150 individuals were consulted from central and local levels of government, some of the Manila-based, donors, non-governmental and academic organizations, the private sector, the general public and UNDP staff. For both phases, a national team used questionnaires, structured interviews, focus group discussions, documentary research and other methods to collect, analyse and validate perceived impacts. A “Programme Map” of UNDP support was developed to support the analysis. Section 3 details how both phases of the draft CLIA methodology were adapted to the present study. PHILIPPINES COUNTRY CONTEXT Development in the Philippines over the past 30 years can be divided into two broad periods, each heavily influenced by major shifts in the political, economic, social and physical environment. During the 1972-1986 martial law period, national priorities focused on economic, social and political reforms to achieve balanced economic development and social equity. The UNDP programme of assistance in the early to mid 1970s was responsive to almost the entire range of national development priorities for that period, while a more selective approach was adopted in 1982-1986. This shift in programme emphasis is seen in the evolution of the six UNDP country programmes (see Figure 1). Major events affecting the Philippines during this period – a flood disaster, the global energy crisis and recession – also significantly influenced the level and type of assistance provided by UNDP. Beginning 1986, the post-martial law period witnessed substantial reforms in the economic, social and political arenas, despite the occurrence of several attempted coups, considerable debt service burdens, structural weaknesses and natural disasters (e.g. Mt. Pinatubo). By the 1990s, government

(vii )

strategies had shifted to a focus on how to enhance the country’s portfolios human development levels and International competitiveness. UNDP support to national development priorities over this period evolved from a number of sectoral thrusts in the late 1980s to the more recent programmatic themes of sustainable human development, environmental protection and regeneration, governance and social initiatives for sustaining human development. Between 1972 and 2001, UNDP supported 316 projects and programmes in the Philippines with a combined cumulative total cost of nearly US$229 million. The thematic focus has tended to shift with government priorities and UNDP mandates.1 MAJOR FINDINGS From the country programme portfolios of 1972- 2001 (Fig –1) phase I analysis collected perceived impacts across a number of project and programme areas comprising the following: regional development planning, environment and sustainability, peace and development (Mindanao), macroeconomic reform, the annual poverty indicators survey and scholarships. These impacts were further analysed in terms of crosscutting or thematic areas. The findings by thematic area are highlighted below. Impact Perceptions generated In Phase I Capacity Development It is interesting to note that most of the UNDP supported projects and programmes since 1972 were in capacity building. UNDP was perceived to have supported several dimensions of capacity building in the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) by: assisting in regional development planning; strengthening the Regional Development Councils and NEDA Regional Offices; training central and regional staff; preparing manuals; establishing a library; and supporting various systems. However, as one senior government official commented, while capacity development of government organizations was satisfactorily carried out, this was perhaps achieved at the expense of building domestic investment and development management capacities in the private sector. Policy Advice and Advocacy. The UNDP supported high-level (Krugman and Sachs) policy advisory missions on economic management in the early 1990s. According to respondents, this support demonstrated UNDP’scapacity and comparative advantage in bringing a neutral perspective and multi-disciplinary expertise to the then sensitive area of socio-economic reform. However, other interview respondents felt that outcomes would have been similar with or without the Krugman and Sachs high-level missions. Governance. In the context of the Mindanao Peace and Development programme, stakeholders were unanimous in their perceptions that the project and UNDP support were important as promoting peace in Mindanao, as well as for the development of the region’s economic potential. An unintended perceived negative effect was the perception of some stakeholders that the multi-donor programme was a donor rather than a government programme. Environment and Sustainable Development. From a range of environmental projects and programmes UNDP has supported over the years, “Capacity 21” was singled out as a successful example of UNDP policy support in raising broad-based public awareness on sustainable development issues in the country. Stakeholders perceived the short UNDP project cycles as a negative factor that prevented deepening the process and possibly undermined sustainability of the outcomes. Partnerships, Donor Coordination and Resource Mobilization. Through various participatory and consultative approaches in most of the selected programme areas, UNDP was perceived to have 1 The Programme Map, developed during this study and contained in Annex E, presents a snapshot of the number and type of projects and the shift in thematic areas of focus between 1972 and 2001. Figure (1) also provides an overview of UNDP’s main areas of support over the period 1972-2001.

(viii )

been an effective catalyst in building partnerships and strengthening collaboration among key stakeholders. The Capacity 21 programme for example was seen as a unifying factor in bringing together government, civil society and the private sector to share their collective vision of this paradigm – groups that had previously pursued individual agendas. UNDP was perceived to have attained some degree of success in coordinating donor support to key thematic programmes such as Agrarian Reform and Peace and Development in Mindanao. It took the lead role in mobilizing support from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Australia, the Netherlands, Spain and the World Bank (WB) to fund development initiatives in territories held by the Mindanao National Liberation Front (MNLF). Based on the initial findings, Phase II zeroed in on the validation of a small set of sub-program impacts in two thematic areas of focus: regional development planning and policy advice on macroeconomic reform. Phase II: Validation of Impact Perceptions Generated in Phase I Regional Development Planning Programme. Of the 15 impact perceptions collected in Phase I of the CLIA analysis, five were selected for validation in Phase II. Key respondents were generally guarded in their assessment of the perceived impacts. There were contrary opinions about attribution of impacts to the UNDP-supported project, but three of the five impact perceptions were found to be generally valid. For instance, there was some consensus that the UNDP assistance was at least partly responsible for various direct and indirect impacts related to development of institutional and staff planning capacities at NEDA central and regional offices and in different government agencies. There was likewise agreement that regional planning served as a mechanism for actively involving local politicians, NGOs and Regional Offices of Line Agencies (RLAs) in the planning processes involving in their areas. A respondent was also however quick to point out that government decentralization had eroded the value of regional development planning and investment programming. The validity of the perception that regional planning mechanisms were relevant to national priorities during the 1970s was contested. There was concurrence with the assessment that UNDP assistance had been timely and relevant in the 1970s, providing technical inputs when they were most needed, but less agreement with respect to the adaptability of the mechanisms put in place. There were some credible respondents who cited efforts to adapt the regional development planning process to changes in governments in power. Others, however, held the view that resistance to changes in planning paradigms and the little value that was conferred on regional development planning had undermined the effectiveness of the changes. Of the five perceived impacts, the most difficult to validate was the statement that implementation of the regional plans led to the development of the region. It was found that outside of foreign-assisted projects there was no effective monitoring of regional planning initiatives. It was, therefore, difficult to ascertain whether or not Regional Development Investment Programme (RDIP) projects had been funded or whether the budgeting process had been driven by national priorities. At the community-level, residents could not relate to any regional plan or project, but it is the view of the team that the validation results might have been different had the CLIA analysis focus group discussions been conducted in areas that had been directly affected by a regional project. Macroeconomic Reform Programme. The initial perceptions gathered on the impact of the Krugman high-level mission on macroeconomic reform were somewhat mixed. Some felt that the mission had generated a positive impact on reforms while others felt that the reforms would have taken place even if the mission had not been carried out. The validation process further refined the impact perceptions a thorough review of project documentation, an analysis of newspaper articles and, most importantly, through interviews with high-level and authoritative individuals who had been actively involved in the Krugman mission. The results of the validation showed that both the Krugman mission process and the mission’s final report deepened the awareness and understanding of the issues and the macroeconomic policy options available to the government of dynamics. This was certainly the case within academia, the

(ix )

“non-economic” levels of government (the President, the Cabinet and Congress), the business community and the general public. It was also shown that the Krugman Report presented a legitimate and credible treatment of selected policy issues and reforms that were subsequently reflected in the 1993-1998 Medium Term Philippines Development Plan (MTPDP). The high-level mission resulted in the design and implementation of the follow-up UNDP-supported macroeconomic reform programme and the channelling of significant UNDP funds to support the area. Economic management and reform became one of the major themes in the UNDP 5th Country Programme. The impact assessment validated that the UNDP-supported Krugman mission was an innovative and successful initiative in the area of policy advocacy and advice on the part of both the sponsoring government organization (NEDA) and UNDP. The success of the mission was attributed first to the credibility, independence and quality of the Krugman mission team, and, second, to the neutrality and responsiveness of UNDP in its facilitation role. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The pilot CLIA for the Philippines documented and demonstrated UNDP’s contribution to development outcomes and impacts for a small set of programme and thematic areas. The assessment of the Regional Development Planning programme showed that there is a need to review and develop a more strategic approach to regional planning. A strategic approach to regional planning should not only: develop the capacity of regional planners to mechanically draft regional plans but also to analyze issues and steer strategic planning activities that are of regional interest; generate support for local governments interventions; delineate and mobilize support for strategic interventions with wider impact; and identify what the regions can do for the country’s development. The Krugman high-level mission proved that policy advice/advocacy is an area where UNDP has had significant success in the past. The repeated message from key respondents is that there continues to be a need to link macroeconomic policies with poverty and governance: all areas are highly inter-related, but this seemed to be not well understood or articulated. UNDP policy support to governance, poverty alleviation and sustainable human development should be closely related to macroeconomic issues, especially given the increasingly complex challenges of globalization. Factors Influencing Impacts. The Philippines CLIA study uncovered a number of external and internal factors perceived by stakeholders to have both positively and negatively influenced outcomes and impacts of the selected UNDP-supported programmes. The external factors that were found to have had a positive influence on results included the monitoring support provided by UNDP to executing agencies, the presence of champions in executing agencies, the establishment of management support structures and multi-agency participation. Factors identified as having a negative influence on results were: government capacity limitations; constraints inherent in National Execution (NEX) especially the extensive bureaucracy; and changes in government leadership and in heads of offices (leading to limited internalization of knowledge and systems and limiting the sustainability of outcomes). Internal factors seen to have had a positive influence on results were: UNDP’s leadership, its neutrality and responsiveness; and resource mobilization capacity; participatory processes (including networks and contacts). Internal factors were seen to have had a negative influence were lack of focus (especially UNDP’s spreading of resources thinly and constantly changing mandates and corporate directives); the recent single project emphasis (i.e. Mindanao); and the tendency to lay on emphasis internal process/procedures rather than results. On Promoting a Results Orientation With respect to the efficacy of the CLIA methodology, the Philippines revealed that it is neither practical nor cost-effective to carry out a complete assessment covering the entire UNDP portfolio in the country over a long period of time. Evidence from the study suggests that efficiencies could be gained by first developing a framework for the assessment and adopting a more strategic approach to assessing and measuring impacts. Focus on investigating the cumulative or aggregate impact from all programmes or projects in a sector and/or region may be more cost effective and manageable than country level coverage.

(x )

The credibility of impact perceptions understandably depends on the credibility of those providing perceptions. In cases where there may be considerable and legitimate variability in perceived impacts (e.g. regional planning), a broad cross-section of individuals from all sectors of society would need to be engaged. In other cases, such as upstream policy advice, authoritative and credible individuals who are closest to the issue should be selected. From the UNDP corporate perspective, the Philippines pilot has overall demonstrated potential for the broader application of the CLIA concept. There is definitely some merit in the Evaluation Office pursuing discussions with other donors, development institutions and programme countries on how impact assessments might best be pursued from a RBM methodological perspective and as a way of strengthening coordination and programme funding perspective at the country level. With respect to the existing draft methodology, clearly much work will be required to refine it, building on the lessons and experiences of all three pilot CLIAs. Specifically, the question of how much can be done with limited resources and within limited time frames needs to be addressed. The issue of how historical project based approaches to programming might be reconciled with current UNDP thinking will also need to be examined.

(xi )

Figure (I) Evolution of UNDP’s Major Sectors, Thrusts and Themes Over the Period 1972-2001 (Summarized from the Country Programmes and CCFs)

SECTORS 1972-1976

SECTORS 1977-1981

OBJECTIVES 1982-1986

THRUSTS 1986-1990

THEMES 1993-1997

THEMES 1997-2001

THEMES 2002-2006 ?

80 Projects/programs. US$41 million


51 Projects/programs. US$24.6 million

57 Projects/programs. US$34.6 million


41 Projects/prgrms. US$52 million

-- --

AGRICULTURE FORESTRY AND FISHERIES

MINERALS

AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC REFORMS AND MANAGEMENT

SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

EMPOWERMENT OF THE POOR

INDUSTRY

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

INDUSTRY, ENERGY AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

INDUSTRY, ENERGY AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND REGENERATION

CREATING AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR SHD

EDUCATION, MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

ENERGY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

EVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GOVERNANCE

ENSURING ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

HEALTH AND WELFARE

GENERAL AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

IMPROVED PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AT THE NATIONAL AND LOCAL LEVELS (GENERAL AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT)

POVERTY ALLEVIATION

SOCIAL INITIATIVES FOR SUSTAINING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

STRENGTHENING FOUNDATIONS OF LASTING PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES

POWER

WATER SUPPLY



Note: Sectors, Objectives, Thrusts and Themes are listed in the order in which they are presented in the respective four Country Programmes (1972-1990) and the more recent Country Cooperation Frameworks (1997-2001 and draft outline for 2002 +++).

(xii )

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT A fundamental question to be asked is: “What impact has UNDP had at the country level, given its relatively low level of resources and the fact that it is a small player in the country?” The Philippines Country Level Impact Assessment (CLIA) seeka to explore answers to this and related questions. This report provides a summary of the findings of the CLIA conducted in the Philippines by the Evaluation Office (EO) in collaboration with UNDP-Manila between May 2001 and March 2002. In 1999, the EO launched the CLIA with a view to assessing the impact of UNDP’s programmes at the country level while developing and strengthening a new methodology for capturing end results.1 The objective was to empirically assess UNDP’s overall contribution to outcomes and impacts and ultimately, development effectiveness, and at the same time, strengthen the Results Based Management (RBM) methods and tools. The objectives of the CLIA, as described in the Terms of Reference (Annex A), are:

to document and demonstrate UNDP’s contribution … to development outcomes and impacts in core strategic areas of focus at the national level;

to document where any combination of projects, programmes and “soft” areas of support

provided by UNDP and other development partners have had a significant impact and qualify this impact with a fair degree of plausibility;

to identify the combination of external factors, capacities and management decisions that

led to a significant impact, draw lessons applicable in a broader context and advise UNDP on ways to improve on and leverage these impacts; and

to promote a result-orientation by focusing the attention of UNDP on the impact of its

support and the building of in-house capacities to evaluate the impact.

Development in the Philippines over the past 25 to 30 years has been heavily influenced by major shifts in the political, economic, social and physical environment. Over this period, annual GDP growth has averaged 3.1 per cent – about half, or less, the rate in GDP growth achieved by other nations in the immediate region. Despite the considerable billions of donor funds invested in the Philippines over the past three decades,little appears to have changed dramatically in the country during this period. The relative lack of development progress has been variously attributed to: (i) a political system characterized by vested interests and major swings from a period of martial law to more recent periods of nascent democracy; (ii) major population growth; (iii) persistent and systemic levels of corruption; (vi) inadequate infrastructure; (v) lack of security (especially in such areas as Mindanao); (vi) an under-performing agricultural system; and (vii) a number of major environmental disasters that have affected the country from time to time.

1 The Philippines CLIA is the third in a series of pilot studies commissioned by the UNDP/EO to test the CLIA methodology. The first and second studies were launched in Burkina Faso (1999) and Malawi (2000).

2

1.2 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH The CLIA for the Philippines covers a period of about 30 years and is comprised of two phases. The first phase consisted of a survey of UNDP programmes during the given period and the application of rapid qualitative and participatory data gathering methods across a broad range of UNDP-supported projects and programmes. It involved a review of relevant documentation as well as extensive consultations with a diverse range of stakeholders from the UNDP country office government, donors, and development partners. Phase I identified the key strategic areas meriting further review and in-depth assessment in addition to documenting perceived impacts from the selected areas of UNDP support. Phase II zoomed in on a few specific areas in order to validate findings on perceptions gathered in Phase 1. National teams supported by an international consultant were engaged to carry out both phases of the Philippines CLIA. The country office provided on-site support and coordination. The UNDP/EO set up a special website for the CLIA study where various documents and reports were loaded into a document repository and links were established for other relevant websites and sources of information. This helped the team and UNDP to access common information and to operate in a “virtual space”.

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT This report is organized into six major sections and has five annexes. In addition to this introductory section: Section 2 - discusses the overall context of UNDP support in terms of the linkages of the UNDP corporate and Philippines country programme (CP) to the national development context. The section highlights the history of UNDP support over the past 30 years using the “Programme Map” as a descriptive tool. Section 3 - discusses the application of the CLIA methodology, presents the major lessons learned and makes suggestions for improving the methodology. Section 4 - presents the main findings on the Phase I collection of impact perceptions. The projects and programmes that were assessed are briefly described. The main findings are then grouped and discussed according to major crosscutting thematic areas. Section 5 - presents the main findings on the Phase II validation for a small set of perceived impacts collected from the Phase I analysis. Section 6 - presents the main conclusions and recommendations resulting from the pilot study. The Annexes contain Terms of Reference for the CLIA, lists of individuals and organizations consulted and documents reviewed, and information on survey instruments and questionnaires used for the exercise. The UNDP Philippines “Programme Map” preceded by a brief description of the UNDP country programme. Part II of this report presents a description of the projects and programmes selected from the short list of impact areas and the detailed findings from these project-level impact assessments and the detailed findings on the validation of impact perceptions for the Regional Development Planning Programme and the Macroeconomic Reform programme.

3

2.0 CONTEXT

2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PHILIPPINE DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE The purpose of this section of the report is to situate UNDP development assistance in the national Philippine context and to attempt to analyse the broad linkages between the two. A major tool in identifying impact areas and linkages of UNDP support to the national development context is the “Programme Map”. The programme map developed for UNDP country support in the Philippines over the period 1972-2001 is in. Development in the Philippines over the past 25-30 years has been heavily influenced by major shifts in the political, economic, social and physical environment of the country. Indeed, over this period, the population has grown by about 2.5 per cent per annum and annual GDP growth has averaged 3.1 per cent a year. This is about half, or less, the rate in GDP growth achieved by other nations in Asia. Figure 2.1 below illustrates the growth rate in the Philippines over the period 1976-2000. These GDP trends would suggest that there has not been a significant improvement in the sustainable livelihoods of average Filipinos over that period. Only in the mid 1970s did the country hit a high growth rate of eight per cent, and this was just for one year, in 1976.There were periods where growth achieved five per cent, but such levels reportedly could not be sustained for various reasons. This relative lack of development in the Philippines has been variously attributed to such factors as: a political system characterized by vested interests and major swings by marked periods of martial law to the more recent periods of nascent democracy; pressures induced by major population growth; persistent and systemic levels of corruption; inadequate infrastructure; lack of security (especially in such areas as Mindanao); an agricultural system that has not improved substantially over the past three decades; and a number of major environmental disasters (such as the Mount Pinatubo eruption).

At the present rate of population growth (2.36%), and economic growth (3%), it will take the Philippines 30 years to catch up to where Thailand is today. About 25 years ago, the Philippines was ahead of Thailand and 40 years ago it was second to Japan.

Figure 2.1 - Philippine GDP growth rate (in %)

-10.0

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

The Programme Map is a graphic representation of UNDP-supported projects and programmes, divided according to the six country programme cycles.

4

These developments have been especially daunting for the poor and underprivileged members of society. Figure 2.2 illustrates the compounded per capita GDP index of the Philippines compared to that of other countries in the region. On a compounded basis, (calculating from a base of 100 in 1976) it can be seen that China’s growth has been five times that of the Philippines. Thailand has grown at twice the Philippines’ rate.

2.2 UNDP SUPPORT OVER THE PERIOD 1972-2001 Over the period 1972-2001, UNDP has supported 316 programmes and projects in the Philippines at a cost of about $229 million. Figure 2.3 illustrates the funding support provided by UNDP over the past 30 years. Funding during the first country programming cycle (1972-1976) amounted to $46 million and has generally declined until the most recent country programming cycle. The recent increases in support are attributable almost entirely to non-core funds, especially with the noncore resources mobilized from various donors for the Mindanao programmes. Figure 2.4 below presents a summary of the numbers and major types of projects and programmes broken down by CP over the period 1972-2001. These figures are based on records obtained from the country office. Most of the UNDP-supported projects and programmes are in capacity building (242 or 77 per cent of the total). Geographically, these programmes and projects are dispersed throughout the country, with a concentration of development assistance in the National Capital Region (NCR). This is due to the fact that support was directed at crafting development policies (30 projects or 9.5 per cent of the total) and enhancing the capacities of public institutions to assist them in undertaking their

planning, research, training, and implementation functions either in the central office of government institutions (generally located in the Metro Manila area) or in their respective field offices, located

nationwide. 2

2 Figure (1), presented at the end of the Executive Summary, identifies UNDP’s major areas of support for each of the programming cycles from 1972 to the present.

Figure 2.4 - UNDP Assisted Programs and Projects by Theme

Theme Policy Formulation

Capacity Building

Direct Services Total

Governance 19 170 2 191 Poverty 5 21 18 44

Environment 6 51 16 73 Peace 0 0 8 8

Figure 2.2 - Compounded Per Capita GDP Index

0

200

400

600

800

China

Korea

Singap

ore

Malays

ia

Thaila

nd

Indon

esia

Philipp

ines

Figure 2.3 - UNDP Assistance by Level of Funding, 1972 to 2001

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

1972-76 1977-81 1982-86 1986-90 1993-97 1997-01

US$

5

2.3 EVOLUTION OF UNDP SUPPORT Irrespective of the type of government, it has not been easy for either the UNDP or other donors to provide development and technical assistance in the volatile Philippine context, where national development priorities fluctuate and the obstacles to progress are many and varied. Even more difficult has been the challenge to deliver development assistance with measurable outcomes or impacts. Over the past 30 years, UNDP has gone through six major changes in the definition and strategic thrusts of its development assistance. Each of these shifts was determined in part by UNDP corporate policies, and to a lesser extent, by national economic and development priorities. The approaches to development assistance (See Programme map and Fig-1) were:

• the shift towards Country Programming and a Global Cooperation Framework; • the shift from a project approach to a programme approach and adoption of national

execution; • adoption of results-based management (RBM) and focus on development result

inrecognition of the importance of partnership execution • the shift to upstream policy advice and practice areas (2000-present)

Overall, through out the 30 year period, the priority sectors and themes as well as the programmes and projects supported by UNDP have been generally consistent with and supportive of national development objectives and priorities. This alignment with the country’s priorities and strategies was behind UNDP’s intent, when, in 1971, it adopted the country programming method effectively transferring the responsibility for programming and implementation from UNDP headquarters to the country level. Likewise, the evolution of programme assistance has also been influenced by the corporate policies of UNDP and shifts in global development trends and paradigigms. The following sector describes the general evolution of the national situation in the Philippines and the UNDP response in terms of technical assistance and programme support. Period of Martial Law (1972-1986) During the Marcos administration (martial law) in the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s, the Philippines undertook economic, social and political reforms to achieve the twin objectives of balanced economic development and social equity. The principal strategies employed were the development of the export sector and an increase in domestic production using labour-intensive methods. Major events occurring in the country during this period also influenced the level and type of assistance provided by UNDP. In the early 1970s, these included a flood disaster, the global energy crisis and recession, and the imposition of martial law. In the early to mid 1980s, the Philippines experienced a major drought (1983), an economic crisis and the emergence of “People Power” during the latter stages of the Marcos administration. While the UNDP programme of assistance in the 1972-1976 period corresponded to nearly the entire range of development priorities identified by the government in power at the time, a more selective approach was adopted in 1982-1986 in order to avoid undue dissipation of resources. The selection process took into account types of activity in which experience had shown that the UNDP was particularly well suited to assist, as well as the need for complementarily with other multilateral and bilateral technical cooperation programmes. In addition to this, from the early to mid 1970s, UNDP implemented several corporate policies that affected the way it delivered support to progeamme countries. These included the country programming method, a shift to

6

outputs and results, and the introduction of the national execution (NEX) modality. By the late 1970s, the Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries (TCDC) modality was also being applied. During this extended period, UNDP was seen to be quite responsive to government requests for technical assistance and support. Figure (1) shows that UNDP planned and delivered its support primarily through defined sectors, each of which were more or less aligned with government sectoral development priorities. The number of sectors was compressed during the 1977-1981 country programme, and sectors were redefined as objectives in the third country programme (1982-1986). The Programme Map in Annex E (Check) illustrates the focal range of a complex stream of projects and programmes undertaken by UNDP during this period. Post Martial Law (1986-1997) The post-martial law period in the Philippines witnessed substantial reforms in the economic, social and political arena. The 1986 People Power revolution, which transformed the political leadership from an autocratic to a democratic regime, also seemed to provide the impetus for economic growth. Real gross national product (GNP) grew by 4.2 per cent in 1986 and reached a peak of 7.2 per cent in 1988. Such growth in GNP reversed the 1984 recession brought about by the second global oil crisis and unfavourable domestic events such as the 1983 drought. Afterward, however, real GNP declined due to weaknesses in the economy caused by structural problems in the industrial and trade sectors, a huge debt service, weak export performance and inadequate foreign investment. This situation was further aggravated by several attempted coups, lower remittances from overseas Filipino workers due to the Gulf War and successive natural disasters. In pursuing the three-pronged objectives of poverty alleviation, social equity and sustainable economic growth, the government implemented two major strategies during this period (1993-1997), namely: a) human development, to ensure human capital formation through investments in health, education and the upgrading of skills and technology; and (b) international competitiveness, to provide the foundation for sustained growth. Over the period 1986-1990, UNDP provided assistance to the country’s effort to institute a stabilization programme. Projects receiving support included: a) Policy Agenda for the Second Half of the Administration; b) High-level Advisory Mission to the Philippines on Economic/Structural Reforms; c) Registration and Control of Public Debt; d) Design and Implementation of the Programme and Policy Information System for the Office of the President; and e) Assistance for Disposition of Government Corporations. Significantly the assistance was programmed in accordance with thematic thrusts as opposed to a sector specific approach. Balanced agro-industrial development and national productivity were the two strategies adopted to achieve the objectives of sustainable economic growth, equity and human development. Accordingly the fourth UNDP country programme (1986-1990) emphasized activities that were directed at the sustained expansion of Philippine exports and the continued development of suitable import substitutes. Projects were either geared towards the development of indigenous materials and supplies to reduce import dependence and/or aimed at increasing the competitiveness of Philippine products in world markets. By the time of the fifth country programme (1993-1997), UNDP had begun to focus its assistance on the themes of economic reform and management, technology transfer, environmental management, and poverty alleviation in support of these strategies. Assistance on economic reforms and management was intended to help the government keep the stabilization programme on track, deepen the structural adjustment programme and enhance national capacity to manage development. Such reforms were intended to build on the economic recovery of 1992 and create strong business and investor confidence for sustained growth. Examples of UNDP-supported

7

initiatives included the Macroeconomic Reforms and Management Programme (PHI/93/003); Investment Programming and Debt Management (PHI/95/002); Trade and Investment Promotion Programme – Phase I (PHI/93/004); Investment Promotion Programme for the Philippines – Phase II (PHI/95/003); and Strategic Management of the GAIN Exports (PHI/96/011). Through the early to mid 1990s, UNDP corporate policies significantly influenced country programming and the thematic focus of UNDP supported projects. There was a decisive shift towards upstream and themes during this period. (See Fig 1 and Programme Map). The major changes were: the adoption of “eradication” of poverty as the organization’s central goal and, Sustainable Human Development (SHD) as the overall mission of UNDP, concern with environment, and the full implementation of the NEX modality. In addition, UNDP was also tasked with responsibility for ensuring the successful implementation of the UN Conference on Environment and Development and the Rio Summit and given the lead role in strengthening national capacity for the management of the environment under Capacity 21 policy support. In the Philippines, the theme of poverty alleviation dominated the government’s human development efforts to reduce the incidence of poverty and bring the benefits of development to the majority of the population. The government also accorded environmental management priority for purposes of environmental sustainability and ecological stability, in line with the framework of the Philippine Agenda 21. Entering the New Millennium (2001+) Although the current Macapagal-Arroyo administration faces numerous challenges, there are early signs that the new government is focusing attention on issues such as corruption, governance, and poverty alleviation and developing a more focused economic development strategy. UNDP continues to support key development themes: empowerment of the poor, creating an enabling environment for SHD, ensuring environmental sustainability, and strengthening foundations of lasting peace and development in the southern Philippines. UNDP has however also recently been undergoing a further process of major changes encompassing among other things – the definition of its role and the kinds of development services it provides and the approach and methods by which these services are delivered. The Administrator’s Business Plans (2002-2003) note that major changes in the global development environment are having a direct impact on the structure and operation of development cooperation on all fronts. Significant alterations are expected in the way UNDP conducts its business, delivers support and works with partners.. UNDP development services in the future will be increasingly geared towards supporting strategic partnerships and a greater emphasis on “upstream” activities such as capacity development, institution building, policy dialogue and advocacy, soft assistance. All of this will have a direct bearing on the present and future Philippines country programmes. A few questions need to be asked at the present juncture: What sorts of development impacts generated by UNDP supported programmes in the past could help forge a new vision and operating modality for UNDP in the Philippines in the future? What are the main internal and external factors that have generated positive development impacts? What lessons can be learned from negative and sub-optimal experiences? Where can UNDP have the greatest impact, given diminishing resources? The results of the CLIA presented in the following sections tries to offer some insights on these and related questions.

8

3.0 APPLICATION OF THE CLIA METHODOLOGY

3.1 OVERVIEW As discussed in Section 2, UNDP’s role in the Philippines has been long-standing and diverse. The potential scope of assessing impacts is vast. In principle, virtually the entire country could be surveyed and assessed for direct and indirect impacts resulting from the many hard and soft areas of UNDP has support over the past three decades.3 The team’s first challenge therefore was to adapt the draft CLIA methodology in a practical and pragmatic manner so that reasonable results could be generated within a short period of time and with a modest investment of resources. This section highlights the adaptation of the CLIA methodology to the case of the Philippines in both Phases I and II. As a pilot study, the Philippines CLIA experimented with a number of approaches, tools and techniques from two methodological perspectives.4 The first dealt with the CLIA methodology per se, i.e. the various concepts and techniques used to identify and validate impact perceptions. The second perspective dealt with the study of the project management methodology: planning, resourcing, selecting areas for impact assessment, timing and scheduling, monitoring and quality control, logistics and other aspects of running the CLIA study as a structured project. The CLIA methodology is based on the concept of “triangulation”, which involves the determination of impacts through three major sources of information (see diagram at right). Phase I of the assessment identified and documented impacts through (1) a review of documentation; and (2) the collection and analysis of perceptions based on surveys and interviews of stakeholders (i.e. organizations and individuals that have been involved in or otherwise affected by UNDP-supported programmes and assistance). Phase II involved the validation of perceived impacts for two programme areas selected by the country office. The potential depth of the analysis was seen to be open-ended. There are a number of tools and techniques that could be adapted or developed to collect – and especially to validate – perceived impacts, and to attribute such impacts to UNDP. This issue of attribution would inevitably be contentious at best for any of the soft areas of support or hard programmes and projects in sectors where UNDP is a small player and/or where there are other active donors. Finally, in many areas, impacts would be beyond the reach of any meaningful assessment due simply to a lack of data, documentation and people (especially as related to the older projects and programmes).

3 This could also be stretched to the region and beyond, as the Philippines has been part of or participated in UNDP-supported regional programmes, conferences and the like. 4 The CLIA study was also seen to have many characteristics of a research initiative insofar as the ultimate outputs and results cannot be well defined in advance As applied to countries using this approach for any impact assessment, this exercise had many up-front unknowns and the CLIA pilot study for the Philippines was no exception.

CLIA ‘TRIANGULATION’

PERCEPTION

IMPACT

DOCUMENTATIONVALIDATION

9

The Draft CLIA methodology suggests a process only for the Phase I (impact perceptions) analysis and does not address Phase II (validation).5 The process was adapted to the pilot Philippines assessment taking into consideration the large and diverse country programme and the limited time and resources available for the study. By nature, the exercise was participatory and consultative, involving the UNDP country office as well as the various stakeholders involved in the surveys and interviews. Phase I took the longest time to carry out, extending from May-November 2001. However the field work involving data gathering and analytical tasks were performed and completed during May-August 2001. A preliminary report containing the Phase I findings was produced in November 2001. Based on a review of the report, the country office in consultation with the Evaluation Office selected from a narrower set of programme areas a number of promising perceived impacts that would then be validated in Phase II. The Phase II validation took place during March 2002. This report contains the summary findings for both phases. Figure 3.2 below graphically illustrates the overall approach and each major phase is described briefly below.

Figure 3.2

3.2 PHASE I – IMPACT PERCEPTIONS Once the study team was identified and mobilized, a detailed Phase I project plan was developed, containing management review milestones, a high-level definition of the “target” report and task assignments. The Phase I plan was broken down into a series of stages, each of which

5 “The present methodology is chiefly concerned with Phase I. Methodologies for Phase II surveys will have to be designed in a case-by-case manner. In each concerned country, Phase II would be undertaken only if Phase I has gathered convincing evidence of significant impact.” (Impact Assessments of UNDP Country Interventions, Methodology for CLIA Phase I, Version 2.1, UNDP, Evaluation Office Section A.4).

CLIA PHASED APPROACH AND PROCESSSETTING THE SCOPE AND NARROWING THE FOCUS

‘Middle List’of Identified Areasof Potential Impact

PHASE I PHASE II

Time

Scop

e

Full ‘Program Map’of UNDP Hard and SoftSupport over the Period

1972 - 2001

‘Short List’Impact Perceptions

Assessment

List of SelectedPerceived Impacts

PROGRAM MAP produced formost UNDP ‘Hard’ and ‘Soft’

areas of support over theperiod 1972 - 2001

PERCEPTION surveys and DOCUMENTATIONreviews carried out for the ‘Middle List’ and the

‘Short List’ of selected Impact Areas

VALIDATIONcarried out

for a small set ofPerceived Impacts in the

Regional Planning Programand the

Macroeconomic ReformProgram

SELECT

SELECT

SELECT

May - September, 2001 March - April, 2002

CO

UN

TRY

OF F

ICE

RE V

IEW

10

involved the development of working papers, review with the Evaluation Office and the UNDP country office, and a management decision to proceed to the next stage. A first major step in the overall process was to briefly assess the context of UNDP support in the Philippines over the past 30 years or so in orderto determine the variables that influenced the type of development assistance and the degree to which this was aligned with the economic development priority of the Government of the Philippines. Juxtaposed to this were the major political periods of recent Philippine history that were seen to have had an effect on UNDP programming. Developing the Programme Map The second major step was to establish the broad scope of the UNDP country programme in terms of the soft areas (advice, dialogue, advocacy, donor coordination, etc.) and hard areas of support, all within the above-noted national social, political and economic contexts. Areas of support that were seen to have generated potential impacts covered sectors, broad programme objectives, thrusts and themes, as defined in the various UNDP five-year country programmes. UNDP support covering all five-year country programmes since 1972 was addressed. The initial intent was to use the Programme Map as the principal tool to define scope in terms of both areas of support and the periods of time in which support was provided. Due to sequencing problems and the need to get on with the work, “the Programme Map was developed concurrently with the collection and analysis of impact perceptions associated with the “middle list” and the “short list”. Only a high-level matrix defining major themes, sectors and thrusts over the period 1972 to the present was used to help zero in on selected areas for impact assessment. The Programme Map (Annex E) covered over 40 broad areas of support, including hundreds of specific projects and programmes and a number of soft areas. Developing the “Middle List” of potential impact areas The third major step involved the development of a “middle list” of potential impact areas, drawn from the Programme Map. This was a particularly critical step in that there were literally dozens of areas of UNDP support that were seen by the country office to have had some impact over the past 30 years. Practicalities required the team to raise the question: “Which areas presented the greatest potential for impact assessment from the CLIA methodological perspective and from the UNDP country office perspective?” The question was tackled as follows: First, stakeholders were selected based on their knowledge of UNDP support at any time over the period 1972-2001. Key resource persons from the UNDP country office and the National Economic Development Agency (NEDA) who were known to have a broad knowledge of UNDP support during the period were identified as credible sources of information. These stakeholders comprised both present and past officials and key staff of the UNDP country office and NEDA – (see Annex B). Second, both old (1970s and 1980s) and new (1990s and 2000s) programmes and projects were given the same level of importance in terms of impact scanning and interviewee tracking. In generating the list of interviewees, individuals from the early period covering the 1970s and 1980s were identified in order to obtain a more or less equal representation or distribution of samples across time. Past UNDP Resident Representatives were included in the list and tracked down. Similarly, past NEDA officials were identified and sought for interview. Third, based on their institutional memories, interviewees were asked to pinpoint: 1) areas of UNDP support that they perceived to have had significant impacts, citing specific programmes/projects or soft areas; 2) the impacts produced by the areas of UNDP support they

11

identified; 3) the strengths or comparative advantages of UNDP, as well as its weaknesses; and 4) factors influencing the impacts of UNDP assistance. The results of the surveys were tabulated to show the areas of convergence or areas most frequently cited. This approach revealed the significance of UNDP support during a particular time frame – information that may not have been manifest from the higher aggregate ratings for convergence areas. (See Annex for sample of survey instruments and questionnaires) Finally, the areas of UNDP support of high convergence were included in generating the “middle list” of areas perceived to have had high impact. The next step was to retrieve and review the available reports for the programmes and projects identified in this middle list. These reports included the project documents, evaluation reports, project completion reports etc. that provided a description of the programmes and projects and their components. Based on the impact perceptions gathered from the stakeholder interviews, a general assessment was carried out and documented. A total of 14 impact areas were identified from the middle list and it was from this list that a shorter-list of impact areas was identified subsequently. 6 Developing and analysing the “Short List” of Impact Areas In the interest of time and costs, a “short list” was generated from the middle list as a fourth major step of the overall Phase I process. The short-listing process was done in consultation with the UNDP Evaluation Office and, especially, the country office management and key staff. The top ranking areas of UNDP support were selected as the short list for the conduct of more detailed stakeholder survey and impact assessments. The areas selected were: the Regional Planning Programme, the Environment and Sustainability Programme, the Peace and Development Programme, the Macroeconomic Reform Programme, and the Annual Poverty Indicators Survey. The most critical step was the collection of impact perceptions from various stakeholder groups associated with the selected impact areas. Each team member was assigned a set of impact areas, data collection methods were developed, primarily structured interviews and questionnaires and a review of available documentation, and stakeholder groups were identified. Data collection techniques were adapted to the needs and particularities of each stakeholder community, which in turn was a function of the selected area. Annex B contains the list of interviewees, or stakeholders, organized by major impact area. In order to support background research on the selected impact areas, as well as to validate gathered perceptions, the team carried out a review of documents relevant to each programme area. Annex C contains a list of the documents reviewed. Survey guidelines and questionnaires were designed and used for different stakeholder communities (Annex D). There was some difficulty in finding people who were involved in the older programmes and projects (in the 1970s and 1980s). Most of the interviewees in fact were involved in projects conducted in the 1990s. Thus, the assessment is biased towards more recent UNDP support, a sampling bias that could not be avoided considering the relatively young staff in the UNDP country office. Throughout the analysis, the team applied UNDP definitions of various concepts and terms as found in UNDP publications on Results Based Management, in the UNDP/EO draft “Monitoring and Evaluating for Results: a Handbook for Programme Managers” (11 May 2001), and in other documents noted at various points in the report. Section 4 presents the findings from the Phase I analysis.

6 For the interested reader, a copy of the working report documenting the results of impact perceptions of the “middle-list” is available from the UNDP/EO or the country office.

12

3.3 PHASE II – IMPACT VALIDATION Selecting the areas for validation Phase II focussed on a small set of impact areas that would present considerable potential for (i) further assessment and validation of impacts generated from UNDP support; and (ii) further testing/development of the CLIA methodology. Based on Phase I findings, the country office selected the Regional Development Planning Programme and the High-level Krugman Advisory Mission to the Philippines on Economic/Structural Reforms, which was part of the border Macroeconomic Reform Programme for this purpose. The following criteria were used in selecting programme areas for further validation: • High impact areas. The areas should present considerable potential, from perceptions gathered, to

have generated significant impacts (direct, indirect, intended, unintended). • Availability of quality information. There should be readily available information in terms of project

documents or other documentation, secondary sources and individuals that would be seen as key, authoritative voices for the validation of perceived impacts. Only the more recent UNDP-supported projects completed within the past five-ten years would meet this criterion.

• Impacts traceable (quantifiable) at the beneficiary level. To the extent possible, the perceived impacts should be assumed to be quantifiable at an end-beneficiary level (in other words, from sources that were not directly involved in the project or programme). Implicit in this criterion is the fact that there should be end-beneficiaries within the broader population of the Philippines, such as the poor and representatives of civil society and the private sector.

• Good candidate for pilot testing under Phase II. The selected area should present the potential for testing the application of the CLIA methodology, tools and techniques.

• Good candidate for country office programming and strategic management. Similarly and perhaps more importantly, the selected areas should present considerable potential for informing UNDP country office programme planning and strategic management

• Doable within given time and resources. The selected impact areas should have a manageable

scope in terms of resources and time that required to carry out. Logistical considerations (e.g. travel in Manila and the country) needed to be taken into account and the areas selected could not require visits to any region of the country that is a security risk.

• Team is familiar with selected area. The team selected to carry out the Phase II analysis should be knowledgeable about the programme or project area and measures should be taken to ensure the independence and objectivity of the analysis.

Refining Perceived Impacts For Validation The Phase I analysis resulted in a number of more or less generalized impact perceptions that the team felt would be difficult to validate. In order to do so it was necessary for the team to go back to the original notes and records of meetings and to further parse these perceptions. This was necessary to ascertain whether the impact perceptions could be broken down into more specific perceived impacts that might better lend themselves to validation. In discussions with country office personnel, a total of 21 subsidiary perceived impacts were identified as pertinent (14 to the Regional Planning Programme and seven to the Krugman mission). From these more detailed lists of perceived impacts, the country office identified a smaller set of perceptions that could be validated in the short time allotted for the Phase.

13

Methods and Tools For Validation As noted earlier, the draft CLIA methodology applies only to a Phase 1 analysis. However, the draft methodology did anticipate that a Phase II would be more substantive in terms of the time and resources required.7 A range of validation approaches and methods were selected and applied to meet the specific needs of each perceived impact. As each perceived impact required its own approach to validation, the specific approaches are discussed in Part II. Generally, these fall into one or more of the following categories: • UNDP document review. Accessing project files and archive records on the UNDP-funded project

documents. This included a review of selected project reports and outputs from the UNDP-funded projects.

• Government and 3rd Party Document Review. As above, but accessing government (e.g. NEDA and local government) and third party documents – publications, reports and the like.

• Interviews and consultations. Key individuals from different sectors of the Philippine society were identified who could speak with credibility and authority on the perceived impacts and associated processes. Informal and structured interview formats were used (Annex C).

• Focus group discussions. In the case of the Regional Programme, inviting representative organizations and individuals to discuss and debate impact perceptions in a dynamic discussion environment.

• Media research. In the case of the Krugman mission, accessing selected newspaper archives and press clipping files.

It is important to note that in Phase II, the validation attempted to reach beyond government by accessing individuals and sources of information in civil society (e.g. NGOs, academia) and the private sector. In the case of the Regional Development Planning Programme, only one region was visited (Bicol), and the visit was complemented by interviews and data gathering in Manila. Data gathering and validation for the Macroeconomic area took place in Malina. The selection of specific approaches, identification of interviewees and setting up of interviews was done in full consultation with the country office. Other approaches and methods were discussed by the team but abandoned due to their potential high cost and the time that would be required for their application (e.g. surveys, full archival research of government records). Once the above tasks were completed, the team developed detailed action plans for the validation of impact perceptions for the two selected areas. For the Regional Planning area, only one region was selected for on-site visits and validation, due to the short time available for the task. Data gathering and validation for the Macroeconomic area took place in Manila.

7 “The second phase involves zooming in on a few, very specific areas identified in phase one as promising in terms of impact. This phase extends over a longer period. It involves both qualitative and quantitative studies designed and conducted by international and national experts or firms specialising in client surveys. It aims at backing up (or challenging) the conclusions of phase one with hard quantitative and qualitative data.” (Impact Assessments of UNDP Country Interventions, Methodology for CLIA Phase 1, Version 2.1, UNDP, Evaluation Office Section A.4).

14

3.4 LEARNING FROM THE CLIA METHODOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE A number of lessons were learned and opportunities for improvement identified by the team during the Philippines CLIA analysis. Combined with the lessons from the other two CLIA pilots, conducted in Burkina Faso and Malawi, the following areas for improvement might be considered by UNDP in refining the methodology for future application. Develop an Initial Study Framework The team found that the identification and selection of candidate areas for impact assessments is a difficult task. It requires careful consultation with UNDP and national stakeholders and the views and opinions differ as to which areas might be seen to offer the greatest promise. The methodology that the team applied for selecting the middle and short lists was biased towards those areas that respondents (primarily within the country office and National Economic Development Agency) felt were worth looking into. A more objective method of impact area selection might be developed that would result in a list that would be more truly representative. The Programme Map might be useful in guiding such a selection. The team suggests that considerable efficiencies could be gained in a CLIA study by first developing a framework for the impact assessment. The framework for the CLIA would define the scope of the assessment and hypotheses that might be tested. . The draft methodology in fact suggests that a CLIA be preceded by a desk review and preparation of a Programme Map. Whether or not the so-called “Pareto’s Law” could be applied, it would nonetheless be important to stake out those areas where most of UNDP resources have been directed, as well as to develop other criteria by which high potential impact areas could be selected. Locate assessment of UNDP, UNDP assistance and contribution within the context of overall ODA to the country The impact of the programmes of a particular donor or agency such as UNDPcould be better understood when viewed in the larger context of overall ODA to a given country. This is particularly important in countries where UNDP is but one of many donors, and probably not a major one; or if a programme/project it has supported has served as a catalyst for follow-up donor assistance to sustain the change that UNDP has initiated. In the validation of the impact perceptions beyond the institution that directly benefited from the UNDP assistance, it was evident that UNDP was but one of the number of players in the region. Adopt a Practical And Flexible Approach The Philippines experience has shown that it is neither practical and feasible nor cost-effective to carry out a comprehensive country level impact assessment of all UNDP supported programmes and projects. The present pilot study had sufficient resources only to validate a very small set of impact perceptions for small sub-components of two programme areas, representing a very small fraction of UNDP programme assistance to the country over the past 10 to 15 years. Even then, the validation tasks were restricted to small samples (e.g. only one region selected for the Regional Development Planning project). Accordingly, the results may not be nationally representative and certainly they are not statistically significant. Great care must therefore be taken in balancing the need for comprehensive coverage of UNDP support with the need to produce some practical results in a reasonably short time period and with a limited budget. For larger, long-standing UNDP country programmes such as those found in the Philippines, a more intensive and time-phased study may be needed in assessing the broader impact of UNDP support in selected sectors, programmes or thematic areas. A more

15

focused assessment based on selected short lists can be promising in terms of identifying the major contributions UNDP has made to national development goals, but such short-listing, as was adopted in this pilot, can also entail the risk of generating misleading results as other potentially significant areas may be easily missed. There are Limits to tracing Impact of Assistance to Communities or Ultimate Beneficiaries The team suggests that the nature of UNDP assistance needs to be considered before investigating the impact a project has had on communities or groups beyond its direct beneficiaries. The case of the macroeconomic reform programme is a good example of when not to attempt to track down community-level impacts. Similarly, the impact perceptions related to UNDP’s support to regional development planning have proven too elusive and difficult to validate beyond NEDA. Provincial, municipal and city planners readily cited impacts of development planning in the region but could not trace any of them to the planning activities of the NEDA regional office or the RDC. There is a need to further Refine Basic Concepts In the area of concept development, the team discovered that stakeholders could not always easily differentiate the term “impact” from “output”, “result” or “outcome”. Such terms were often used interchangeably among those from whom impact perceptions were gathered. Impacts were found to be multi-dimensional and to be a function of factors including time-span, the stakeholders interviewed and the particular area of support selected. A general typology of impacts could be developed to guide CLIA assessors and stakeholders alike to acquire a better understanding and appreciation of the CLIA method. The CLIA triangulation principle could be further articulated and refined, with special emphasis on defining the term ”perception” in the context of UNDP support. Expand the Use of the Programme Map It was felt that the Programme Map, in a refined form, could serve as a colourful and useful device to graphically represent UNDP support over the years. With a more rigorous analysis of project and programme inter-linkages (e.g. in themes, etc.), the map could support the strategic management of the country programme by highlighting areas of potential duplication, integration and sequencing of projects/programmes, as well as linkages to result and impact areas. The Programme Map should be developed during the very initial stages of a CLIA. Further, once a base Programme Map is developed, the country office could update it on an annual basis and use it as a dynamic analytical tool in country programming and in carrying out country programme reviews. The Programme Map could also be used by the different programme units within UNDP, by government (e.g. in aid coordination) and possibly by other donors. Credibility Of Impact Perceptions Depends On The Credibility Of The Source The Phase I analysis collected impact perceptions from a wide variety of individuals at various levels within primarily government or government-supported organizations. Depending on the particular programme or project (downstream vs. upstream-policy), the individuals that may have perceptions of impacts need to be carefully selected. In some cases where there may be considerable and legitimate variability in perceived impacts (e.g. regional planning), a broad cross-section of individuals from all sectors of society would need to be engaged, and the results subjected to further analysis and corroboration. For other cases, such as upstream policy advice, individuals closest to the issue who are authoritative and credible should be selected. Allied to the above point, the team suggests that more substantive guidelines should be developed to define the term “stakeholder”, to define and describe the different types of stakeholders, and to identify and describe types of organizations or groups of individuals on

16

which UNDP-supported programmes may have an impact. The team found that such organizations or people could be defined in terms of their relationship to the programme or project, or to its outputs/results/outcomes. To get a better cross-section, more effort might be applied to the identification and selection of stakeholders that are positive, and avoid picking only a stakeholder constituency with an in-built positive bias towards a given programme, negative and neutral to UNDP support for that method or simply unaware of it. Assuring Independence and Objectivity Of Impact Assessments The credibility and validity of the results of an impact assessment can best be assured if the process is conducted objectively and independently. An organization that carries out impact assessments of its own programmes cannot be independent or objective, or at least cannot be perceived as being so. The analysis and results of the present Philippines CLIA have a built-in bias due to the simple fact that the entire process was managed and controlled by UNDP. Independence and objectivity can be assured through a number of mechanisms, which would need to be attuned to the specific needs of a particular impact assessment. For example, these might include contracting out the assessment to an arms-length independent organization. Optimising Project Planning And Management The Philippines experience showed that considerable time and effort should be applied up front to developing sound project plans for both phases, including the determination of team skills requirements, team structure, reporting and monitoring procedures and resource estimates. The success of the CLIA plan depended upon obtaining agreement on a plan that was reasonable in terms of the required timelines and buy-in by all parties responsible for its implementation. The plan (or parts thereof) should form the Terms of Reference of engaged external consultants or experts.8 The most time consuming tasks associated with the CLIA were found to be those involving data gathering from three major sources: people (through surveys and interviews); documents (including archives); and structured data bases. The team found that the gathering of perceptions through one-off interviews was not sufficient. Interviews, in addition to being structured, should be documented, the documented results fed back to the interviewees to ensure that the captured information was correct, and the results of the various interviews then co-related. As there are many different styles and approaches to interviewing, guidelines for interviewers would be beneficial. Similarly, specific strategies could be devised in terms of collecting data from project, programme and other documents, especially in consideration of the fact that many documents may be archived (not easily accessible), missing and/or incomplete, or non-representative. Other sources of information included the various automated financial and project databases maintained by UNDP. Special techniques could be developed to determine which data sets are relevant, to extract and set up specific databases for study, and to carry out descriptive or inferential analyses. Coordinating and Harmonizing Impact Assessments UNDP programmes generally do not operate in isolation from other government, national and donor-funded programmes. The impact of a particular UNDP project, programme or thematic

8 The chances for a successful CLIA study could be augmented through the preparation of CLIA Procedural Guidelines providing steps, inputs, analysis and outputs for conducting impact evaluations. Cases and examples could be illustrated in such guidelines to make them user-friendly. Such a manual could also provide sample questionnaires and a report outline describing the content of each section. A manual should also allow some flexibility for innovations, especially in unique cases or situations.

17

area may be influenced (positively and/or negatively) by other donor-funded or government programmes. A better strategic approach to assessing and measuring impacts may be to look at a particular sector and or geographic region from a comprehensive perspective – that is, the cumulative or aggregate impacts from all programmes or projects, irrespective of donor. This would require a high degree of collaboration or harmonization among UN agencies, between the UN and other donors and funding organizations, and with national or government organizations. For example, impacts of governance programmes could be the subject of joint assessments by all donors involved in governance. This may be a natural direction as governments (in the Philippines and elsewhere) look to more integrated institutional, coordination and management mechanisms for the delivery of development assistance.

18

4.0 PHASE I FINDINGS As noted in the preceding section, five “project-level” impact areas were selected for the collection and analysis of impact perceptions. These areas consisted of a mix of multi-phased and longer term projects and programmes providing hard UNDP assistance, and a range of softer areas of UNDP support that featured donor coordination, policy advice and resource mobilization. The approach focused initially on data gathering and analysis of impact perceptions at the project level because well-defined stakeholder groups and project specific documentation for these areas were available. The Annexes contain more detailed project-level descriptions of perceptions gathered from UNDP, government and other stakeholders on the outputs, outcomes and impacts generated from UNDP support. Section 4.1 briefly describes each project selected for the impact assessment and Section 4.2 presents the main findings on impact perceptions according to thematic areas.

4.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACT AREAS Regional Development Planning Programme UNDP support to Regional Development Planning consisted primarily of direct support to the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) (Annex F). UNDP support came at a time when the country was under a martial regime and there was no legislative body wherein the development needs of various localities could be represented, or where funds could be properly allocated. By the early 1980s, regional planning had become a medium for allocating resources in pursuit of regional growth and development. The Regional Planning Programme was a good example of the UNDP shift in focus from more reactive support across specific economic sectors) to more pro-active support in crosscutting or thematic areas such as capacity building and institutional development. The Regional Planning Programme consisted of three major phases. Phase I (1975-1977) focused on assisting NEDA in overall regional development planning and strengthening the capability of Regional Development Councils (RDCs) in preparing coordinated regional plans. Phase II (1978-80) involved preparation for the implementation of regional plans, strengthening capabilities of NEDA Regional Offices and RDCs, and planning for plan implementation. Phase III (1984-1987) covered the training of NEDA central and regional staff in regional development planning, the preparation of manuals, setting up a NEDA library, and the printing of Regional Development Plans. A secondary form of assistance was provided to the University of the Philippines’ Institute of Environmental Planning (UP-IEP), now the School of Urban and Regional Planning (SURP). Although UNDP support came a little bit ahead of the assistance given to NEDA, the two levels of assistance complemented each other and produced a synergy that contributed to the institutionalisation of a regional planning system in the country. The assistance was aimed at capacitating the institute so that it would be able to conduct training programmes, offer degree courses and undertake research programmes. Environment and Sustainability Programme Two major programmes/projects in the broad area of Environment and Sustainability were selected for the collection of impact perceptions. These were (1) the Integrated Environmental Management for Sustainable Development (IEMSD) programme and (2) the Capacity 21 project. The former was executed by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) while the latter was coordinated by NEDA and involved the participation of the Philippine Council

19

for Sustainable Development (PCSD). Both the Capacity 21 project and the IEMSD programme were launched in the early 1990s and became significant components of the new UNDP country programme that focused on priority themes including environmental management. The programmes were intended to support the three-pronged national objectives adopted by the Philippines government in the early to mid 1990s: poverty alleviation, social equity and sustainable growth. The Capacity 21 project was a capacity-building initiative designed to assist the government in fulfilling its commitment to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Specifically, it aimed to support the PCSD in integrating the principles of Agenda 21 into national planning and development. The major components of the project were: (1) formulation of the Philippine Agenda 21 (PA21); (2) documentation of sustainable development practices; (3) human resource development; and (4) conduct of the Information, Education and Communication (IEC) programme. These components were aimed at developing stakeholders’ capacity to fulfil their mandate and perform their tasks in pursuit of sustainable development for the country. The IEMSD programme was meant to help the government systematically integrate environment and development into its planning and policy making activities and to fulfil its commitment, made at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, to support Agenda 21 principles. This programme was considered timely and relevant since no other project had been covering sustainable development (SD) concerns or the development of environmental policy tools during the mid-nineties. Peace and Development Programme Unlike the preceding programmes, the peace and development programme (See Annex H for details) is recent and still ongoing. In fact, it is currently the largest programme supported by UNDP. The overall objectives of the programme are to support the Government-MNLF Peace Agreement, and to achieve within 10 years, achievement of the vision to the transform the post-conflict area into a zone of vibrant economic growth where Muslims, Christians and indigenous people are able to live together under a culture of peace, unity and prosperity. The UNDP and the government spearheaded the implementation of this initial three-phased programme, called the NEDA-SPCPD-UN Multi-donor Programme, which is financially and technically supported by various donor, the UN and government agencies. The first phase of this multi-phased programme took stock of the situation in the area, identified the needs of the Mindanao National Liberation Front (MNLF) ex-combatants, families and communities and pilot-tested relief and rehabilitation assistance. Based on experiences from the first phase, Phase II provided expanded assistance directed towards meeting basic needs and enhancing the opportunities for the reintegration of MNLF soldiers into the mainstream Philippines economy and society. Macroeconomic Reforms and Management Programme UNDP provided technical assistance in support of the macroeconomic priorities of the government from the mid 1980s through the mid 1990s(See Annex for details). The support reflected the overall development strategy of the Philippines that sought – and continues to seek – the establishment of a macroeconomic environment of strong and sustained economic growth to address poverty and improve country’s international competitiveness. UNDP support was channelled through three initiatives. The first was the Development Planning and Research project (1988) that assisted NEDA in improving methodological tools and techniques for poverty and income distribution analysis. The second involved support to a high-level Advisory Mission to the Philippines in 1990 on Economic/Structural Reforms. This was a good example of policy advice in that it identified a possible macroeconomic policy agenda for structural adjustment and reforms in the areas of taxation, financial and monetary policy, trade and industrial policy, as well as in local/international finance, budget and debt management and government bureaucracy. The third project (Macroeconomic Reforms and Management

20

Programme -1995) assisted the government in the broad area of macroeconomic reforms. The Key objectives were to enable the government to keep its macroeconomic programme on track, deepen its structural adjustment programme and enhance national capacity to manage economic development. The Annual Poverty Indicators Survey The Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) (See Annex J for details) was a part of a larger recent and ongoing programme of UNDP support entitled "Strengthening Institutional Mechanisms for Convergence of Poverty Alleviation Efforts." The programme had its origins in the mid-1990s when NEDA requested UNDP support for one of its anti-poverty programmes. This project was a good example of where UNDP support sought to combine several priority thematic areas ranging from poverty alleviation and policy advocacy to knowledge advisory services. The programme had two components. The first addressed the development of an Integrated Poverty Monitoring System (IPMS) that was aimed at providing oversight policy-making bodies with timely, accurate and consistent information for assessing the overall progress in poverty reduction and equity in the development of resources. The second component was designed to support the government objective of reducing the incidence of poverty from 41 per cent in 1991 to 30 per cent in 1998. Other Areas An additional impact perception area that was identified by the country office was in training and capacity building that was generated through the years through the granting of scholarships under UNDP funded projects. UNDP’s granting of scholarships for training purposes was viewed not as a separate structured area of programme or project support but as an activity undertaken on a project-by-project basis. In its early days of support to the Philippines, UNDP granted quite a large number of scholarships and this was a major method of capacity building. Many scholarships, including those given by UNDP, were managed through NEDA, which had set up a Scholarship Affairs Secretariat and a Special Committee on Scholarships to keep track of scholarship opportunities available and to systematically match them with personnel working in government agencies. Annex J (Section B) describes the range and types of scholarships UNDP granted to various government agencies and gives a general assessment of the perceived impacts.

4.2 MAIN FINDINGS As can be seen from the preceding section, the project-level assessments generated a considerable amount of information on UNDP’s role and contributions to development goals and national development priorities. The findings also revealed important insights and information on a number of crosscutting or thematic areas of support that may be important to future UNDP corporate and country programme focus. The main thematic areas that captured the most attention on the part of interviewees were: (1) capacity development; (2) policy advice and advocacy; (3) governance; (4) environment and sustainable human development; (5) networking and partnership building; and (6) donor coordination/resource mobilization. The perceptions gathered for each of these areas are discussed in turn, drawing on specific references from the project-level findings. (1) Capacity Development Based on records and policy statements capacity development has always been, and continues to be one of UNDP’s major areas of focus. This was found to be the case in the Philippines, where capacity development was a major theme in all of the assessed projects and programmes Where UNDP has since 1972 supported a total 242 capacity building projects out of a portfolio of

21

316 projects.9 The team found that UNDP had to a certain extent adapted the definition of capacity development as a dynamic, system-wide, cross-sectoral and comprehensive means, or process through which institutions could be built and strengthened and through which better governance could be realized.10 Regional Planning Capacities Regional planning was a major area of capacity development and institutional strengthening where respondents were able to identify perceived impacts. The prime example of this was the UNDP Regional Development Planning Programme and its support to NEDA and the University of the Philippines (UP). UNDP was perceived to have supported several dimensions of capacity development, viz.: • Establishment of NEDA Regional Development Councils (RDCs); • Recruitment and staffing of the RDCs; • Preparation of regional planning coordination procedures and guidelines for government

agencies at national and regional levels; • Strengthening overall capabilities of NEDA Regional Offices and RDCs in the formulation of

integrated regional/area development plans; • Planning for the implementation of the regional plans including the identification,

development and implementation of programmes at both the regional and local level; • Training of NEDA central and regional staff on regional development planning; and • Drafting of a project management manual, establishment of NEDA libraries and preparation

and publication of a Local Development Planning Manual. Simultaneously, the project was seen to have contributed to the preparation of the 1974-1977 national Four-Year Development Plan, the special emphasis of which was comprehensive, integrated regional planning and development. Strengthening Training Capacities UNDP support was seen as effective in strengthening the University of the Philippines’ Institute of Environmental Planning (UP-IEP), now the School of Urban and Regional Planning (SURP). The assistance was aimed at strengthening the institute’s capacity in the development and delivery of training programmes, the offering of degree courses and the undertaking of research programmes in the areas of development planning and regional planning. As a consequence, UP-IEP became a centre of urban and regional planning in the Philippines. Strengthened Environmental Management The UNDP-supported Capacity 21 project was noted by a number of interviewees to have developed considerable institutional capacities in the area of environmental management. Technical assistance was seen to have supported the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) in its efforts to integrate the principles of Agenda 21 into national planning and development. The IEMSD Programme, as noted in Section 4, was also perceived to have contributed significantly to a number of capacity development areas. 9 From the CLIA analysis, it is interesting to note that most of the UNDP supported projects and programmes since 1972 were of the capacity-building type (242 or 77% of the total). 10 The term capacity development is often used in conjunction with or interchangeably with the term institutional strengthening. However, for the purposes of the Philippines CLIA, they are distinct. Capacity development may be carried out at the level of an institution or across institutions. Institutions are also often seen as aggregations of organizations, examples of which include those in the government and banking sectors. Institutions may be seen as a sub-system within a broader system as well (e.g. state sector within the broader system of governance; the judiciary or legislative systems within the broader system of state; the family within civil society; and so on).

22

Capacity Development in the Public Sector With respect to capacity development in the public sector, national government implementing agencies were perceived to have improved their skills in project development and packaging, inasmuch as they had to comply with the requirements of the donor institutions in order to access assistance. New concepts and models emerged for possible implementation. Some of these were noted to include: broadening the concept of a Rural Workers Association to a corporate unit with fund management capability; expansion of the concept of community training to include community enterprises; and various micro-finance models sensitive to the restrictions imposed by the Muslim religion. Reports also indicated that the programme paved the way for enhancing the capacities of regional governments for coordinating, monitoring and evaluating peace initiatives. While the involvement of local governments was not part of the original design of the programme, some local governments provided counterpart resources for the implementation of some multi-donor projects. It was believed, however, that insufficient local government involvement hindered the implementation, coordination and convergence of efforts of stakeholders in the overall process. One Mindanao respondent opined that the absorptive capacity of government agencies was not put to the test because UNDP provided direct support only to the MNLF, and because some government agencies had minimal involvement in the programme. Capacity Development in Civil Society and the Private Sector The Peace and Development Programme in Mindanao devoted a considerable portion of funding support to capacity building in different sectors of the local civil and private sectors. Stakeholders were unanimous in the perception that some of the social- and economic-related projects helped improve the life of some MNLF members and their families. The programme provided the male MNLF members with opportunities to engage in, and diversify their earnings from income-generating activities such as bakery, grocery, restaurant or sari-sari store operation, poultry raising, handicrafts production, and the use of intercropping for growing citrus fruits. Although no funds were specifically allocated for women under the programme, the State Commanders provided 10 per cent of project allocations for the livelihood projects of the women’s federation. These funds benefited about 30 per cent of the 17,000 members of the Bangsamoro women’s federation, creating jobs and livelihoods in a range of fields including herbal beauty soap manufacturing; bakeshop, mini-mart and sari-sari store operation; the making of garments and slippers; and food processing. Mindanao Peace Development One interesting perceived impact of the Mindanao Peace Development programme that may engender sustainability of programme outcomes and possibility impacts that may yield downstream dividends is related to self-sufficiency. The MNLF respondents were unanimous in their appreciation of the programme, which enhanced their capacity to earn income. In addition to bringing them knowledge, skills and technology, the respondents felt that the training and exposure helped to build their self-confidence and opened their minds to what self-help can do and what they, themselves, could do with their own resources. Notwithstanding the positive perceptions of UNDP capacity development support, one senior government official commented that the capacity development of government organizations – especially NEDA – had perhaps been accomplished at the expense of building domestic investment and development management capacities in the private sector. In fact, most of the positive perceptions gathered through the CLIA focused on the building up of government institutions, and to a lesser extent NGOs and the private sector.

23

In the assessment of some, the greatest beneficiaries of UNDP and other donor support were government bureaucrats and government institutions. Furthermore, and as noted below, while the UNDP Regional Development Planning Programme helped to mobilize substantial donor resources in support of regional planning, with these additional resources NEDA perhaps became overly powerful as a government agency, perhaps as noted above inadvertently “crowing out” the potential development of management capacities in the private sector the potential for the development of management capacities in the private sector. (2) Policy Advice and Advocacy Although policy advice and advocacy are among the main areas of UNDP support (as reflected in the Administrator’s Business Plan), this type of support has been provided by the UNDP CO for many years across most sectors. Most of the UNDP-supported projects and programmes selected for the CLIA had some element of policy advice and advocacy. A few had policy advice as their main focus. The team found it very difficult to establish linkages between policy and any ”on-the-ground” impacts in terms of sustainable human development, although from a conceptual level most of those interviewed perceived that such positive impacts had been generated. The following are the areas uncovered by the CLIA that, from the Phase I analysis, present some potential for subsequent validation. Macroeconomic Management In the late 1980s and early 1990s, UNDP provided a range of policy advice that contributed to reforms in macroeconomic management. The reforms and accompanying institutional strengthening measures were perceived to have contributed to the improved overall state of the national economy and ultimately, to the economic conditions and quality of life of the Filipinos. For example, the Development Planning and Research Programme of the late 1980s supported, in part, a number of policy studies on the measurement of poverty and inequality, the Philippine fiscal system and government sectoral expenditure allocation. The Macroeconomic Reforms and Management Programme (1993) helped the government to tackle issues of monetary policy, particularly in controlling inflation under a regime of more liberal capital flows and increased innovations in the financial market. In the area of fiscal policy, UNDP support under the same programme was noted to have enhanced revenue generation and better planning and control of government expenditures. Macroeconomic Reform The UNDP-supported, high-level (Krugman and Sachs) policy advisory missions on economic management of 1990 were perceived to have lent legitimacy and credibility to the national economic reform programme. According to respondents, these missions demonstrated UNDP’s role in bringing a neutral perspective and multi-disciplinary expertise to the then sensitive area of socio-economic reform. However other stakeholders or respondents felt that similar outcomes would have occurred with or without the high-level missions. One other area where there was a perceived impact was the support provided by UNDP for the development of a “Short-Term Forecasting Model”. This model focused on the forecasting of inflation and the assessment of the impact of monetary policy. It was felt by some of those interviewed that it helped policy makers adjust monetary policy to reduce inflation. Consequent reductions in inflation rates allowed individuals to plan for a longer period of time, and to increase their savings as the value of savings being more stable. The rise in savings was recycled to the economy in the form of loans for productive investment purposes.

24

Poverty Alleviation In the area of poverty, UNDP’s recent support to the Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) resulted in the development of baseline data needed for policy analysis. At the conceptual level, APIS helped change the prevailing concept among policy makers that defined poverty mainly in income terms. The new concept defined poverty more in terms of welfare. The intended ultimate beneficiaries of this area of UNDP support were the poor themselves. The APIS was intended to show, among other things, the number of people that benefited from the various anti-poverty programmes of the government. However information on this aspect could not be validated. Various report cards have been produced and published that show some impact from poverty programmes. However the information does not seem to directly indicate reductions in poverty. Interestingly, some respondents noted that the major direct beneficiaries of UNDP support in the poverty area were the implementing agency itself, namely the National Statistics Office, and a range of policy makers in different agencies who used the survey data in policy analysis. Environment and Sustainable Development A sub-component of the UNDP-supported Environmental Management for Sustainable Development (IEMSD) programme was directed towards advocacy on environmental issues and concerns. This included the preparation and wide dissemination of information and education materials to the public, the use of broadcast, TV and print media to convey messages and generally informing the public about sustainable development (SD). SD was also integrated in formal education through assistance given to different schools and in curriculum development. All this was perceived to have lead to the popularization of sustainable development issues in the country. Regional Planning and Legislative Change In 1994, as part of the Regional Development Planning Programme, UNDP extended assistance to NEDA in the formulation of a National Urban Policy Framework. To ensure a broad-based participatory process, a series of consultations were undertaken for the finalization of the framework. The programme also involved the conduct of research studies to provide substantive justification for addressing specific issues identified in consultative workshops. Respondents felt that the consultative process had helped advance the policy dialogue and the eventual formulation and acceptance by the government of the Framework. In the case of the Capacity 21 project, it was reported that through a series of government, civil society and private sector forums, and media support, UNDP influenced the passage of laws and regulations such as those governing the phase-out of leaded gasoline and the Indigenous Peoples Right Act. From the above examples, it is clear that over the years, UNDP has contributed broadly to a series of key policy debates in the Philippines and has been at the leading edge of policy dialogue on issues at the top of the national political and development agenda. Notwithstanding this, it was felt by a number of those interviewed that the credibility and effectiveness of the policy advisory role, played by UNDP either directly or indirectly, was very much dependent on the organization’s impact at down-stream project levels. For example, in the area of environment, UNDP has had considerable operational project experience in agriculture and other sectors, including support to environmental management. The same experience has been generated from the downstream projects in Peace and Development in Mindanao. It was noted by some respondents that it is such downstream experience that increases UNDP capacity and credibility in providing policy advice or in supporting upstream policy initiatives.

25

Governance Governance, a major corporate-wide UNDP “service area”, is another thematic area that UNDP in the Philippines has supported over a period of many years. Governance support has ranged from support to national, regional and local government institutions to helping to forge dialogue and greater cooperation among the public, civil and private sectors of society and promoting concepts of democratisation and increased accountability and transparency in government decision-making. A number of areas yielded positive impacts perceptions in the governance area. Decentralization in a Post-Conflict Situation UNDP has been and continues to be involved in a number of governance related projects in the Philippines. The main programme reviewed for impact perceptions was the Peace and Development Programme in Mindanao. This programme encompasses assistance for the promotion of decentralization and strengthening of local governance capacities. which is channelled through UNDP-managed and multi-donor-funded projects. Stakeholders were unanimous in their perceptions that the project and UNDP’s support were important for the promotion of peace in Mindanao and the development of its economic potential.11 An unintended negative perception was the view held by some that the multi-donor programme was a donor rather than government programme. Perhaps the greatest impact of this programme was its contribution to securing peace and stability in a post-conflict environment. All the stakeholders were unanimous in the belief that the Mindanao Programme responded to the peace-building and development needs of the country as a whole and to Mindanao in particular. At the national level, the UN Multi-Donor initiative was seen to have influenced the policies set forth in the Autonomous Bill Act, and to have been instrumental in the preparation and inclusion of a chapter on pursuing peace and development in Mindanao (Chapter 13) in the Philippine Development Plan (PDP). Chapter 13 of the PDP helped to define the strategies that the national government would pursue to address the challenges for sustained peace and development in Mindanao. This was the first time that a particular chapter of the development plan of the country was devoted to addressing the concerns of Mindanao. The Mindanao Programme served as a conduit for donor and government support to the Mindanao peace agreement. The programme was implemented at a time when Mindanao needed assistance the most and when there were few resources available. Clearly, UNDP seized an opportunity here and its initial catalytic support helped to foster the multi-donor and jointly funded series of support initiatives that materialized. In the case of the Mindanao programme, one noted perceived weakness had to do with the alleged corrupt practices of some MNLF State Commanders who launched “ghost projects”, or demanded a certain percentage of project funds (reported to be 50 per cent) that beneficiaries were required to turn over to their respective State Commanders in the form of cash or firearms. The alleged corrupt practices were also perceived to have been manifested in the augmented standards of living of some State Chairs who reportedly acquired substantial houses and luxurious vehicles. Consequently, some livelihood activities and cooperatives were felt to be unsustainable as participants would not be able to recoup the money given to their respective State Chairs. Prevention of the Environmental Management for Sustainable Development (IEMSD) programme had as one of its components the development of “Procedural Guidelines” as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process. The guidelines were adopted and passed as a legal

11 Some stakeholders expressed reservations in assessing the impact of the programme, given the very short gestation period (e.g. with respect to behavioural changes) and the fragile state of the peace situation in the area. However, they believed that some developments would be apparent in the next two-to-three years. What could be seen at this point in time were the immediate outcomes and manifestations of the possible impacts of the programme in the medium-term.

26

document (Administrative Order) requiring the compliance of all involved in the preparation, review and approval of EIA documents. Significant outcomes of this support included improved monitoring for compliance and the minimization of graft and corruption in the funding and operation of donor-funded environmental projects. A significant impact was generated by the UNDP Regional Development Planning Programme, which was perceived to have helped broaden political participation in national and regional planning during the time of martial law. Through the assistance provided to regional councils and the regional offices of NEDA, regional planning became a medium for participation by local politicians and other local interests. This was seen to indirectly support both administrative and political (democratic) decentralization, whereas previously all planning had been carried out centrally by the National Economic Council – the predecessor of NEDA – and Presidential Planning staff. Some aspects of financial decentralization were supported by the project’s facilitating the flow of development resources for the support of regional development projects. Environment and Sustainable Development As noted above, UNDP has been at the forefront of advocating pro-environment and sustainable development policies. A crosscutting sub-theme here was linking of development and environmental programmes with those for sustainable development. From a range of environmental projects and programmes UNDP has supported over the years, the Capacity 21 project was singled out as an example of UNDP policy support in raising broad-based public awareness of sustainable development. Other major results included the formulation of Philippine Agenda 21 (PA21), documentation of sustainable development practices, human resource development, and the conducting of the Information, Education and Communication (IEC) programme. The project also supported the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) in its efforts to integrate the principles of Agenda 21 into national planning and development. These components were intended to develop stakeholders’ capacities to perform their tasks and fulfil their mandate in the pursuit of sustainable development for the country. UNDP support to the related Integrated Environmental Management for Sustainable Development (IEMSD) programme was perceived to have assisted the government in systematically integrating environment and socio-economic development policies. The flexibility of the IEMSD programme’s approach was claimed to have enabled the programme to respond to emerging needs of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its partner agencies in the implementation of the Sustainable Development agenda. The programme also supported the development of environmental risk assessment guidelines and software as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment sub-program. The developed guidelines and software enabled the preparation of Environmental Risk Assessments (ERAs) that were used to uncover hidden environmental risks in certain types of projects and to identify preventive measures that needed to be put in place for the project to be given an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC). Some respondents thought that the ERA served had as a tool to minimize risks and possible contributed to saving lives and protect property (e.g. in certain industrial projects that would have otherwise released toxic or explosive chemicals into the environment). Impacts in the area of environment were also generated from other projects. For example, the introduction of regional planning through the UNDP Regional Development Planning Programme heightened the awareness of government and local planners on the importance of environmental management. The Central Visayas Regional Programme (CVRP) experience on community-based environmental management planning influenced the Department of Environment and

27

Natural Resources (DENR) thinking on environmental planning and management. It also led to the inclusion of upland farmers in extension work and stimulated the development of suitable upland farming technology. A major concern raised by many of those interviewed related to the long-term nature of environmental programmes and the pursuit of sustainable development. It was generally felt that discrete programmes or projects in these areas required many years of gestation, and consequently many years of continued donor support. The national strategies and time frames for such programmes would extend over many years; however the UNDP and other donor support strategies were typically constrained by shorter, pre-determined project funding cycles. In one case, a UNDP supported environment project attempted to produce outcomes within the project life cycle by committing more funds. This did not integrate well with the government’s longer-term perspective, nor did it reflect limitations in implementation capacity within the government. As with governance initiatives, it was felt by a number of those interviewed that longer-term strategies and more comprehensive strategic management approaches were needed for environment and sustainable development initiatives that require longer time frames to realize outcomes and impacts. Partnership Building, Donor Coordination and Resource Mobilization Through various participatory and consultative approaches in most of the selected programme areas, UNDP was perceived to have been an effective catalyst in building partnerships and networks. A good example of this is the Capacity 21 project, which was perceived to have raised the awareness of the public concerning the sustainable development paradigm. A multi-stakeholder, consensus-building partnership was established through the preparation of the Philippine Agenda 21 (PA21). It enabled government, civil society and the private sector to collectively share a vision of achieving sustainable development, with each committing to contribute towards a common development goal. Respondents felt that there was lack of proper coordination among local partners. This was manifested in the different implementation mechanisms and structures adopted by each component and the lack of common guidelines among the implementing agencies. Coordination at the ground level basically consisted of mere reporting. UNDP provided support for National Mapping and Resource Information in the development of an advanced website for sharing mapping and related information with a large number of government and other organizations (as part of the broader environment programme). In November 2000, NAMRIA won the “Best Government Website” award, beating the highly regarded ERAP (President’s) website. Many of the positive results in networking and partnership building directly to the mobilization of resources. Overall, UNDP has been successful in generating donor resources and mobilizing funds for a number of government and national development initiatives. It was perceived to have been successful in coordinating donor support to key programmes such as the Agrarian Reform and Environment and Peace and Development in Mindanao. In some cases, limited UNDP funds have been used as seed money to catalyze certain projects that subsequently attracted attention (and substantial resources) from a number of bilateral and multi-lateral funding agencies. The attraction of additional donor resources is seen to be a major impact in its own right, as illustrated by the following perceptions from the areas covered by CLIA Phase I. In the case of the Mindanao programme, all of the stakeholders were unanimous in recognizing and appreciating UNDP’s speed of response and role in mobilizing the support of the donor agencies, particularly at a time when Mindanao needed assistance the most and there were few resources available for it. The perceived impartiality of UNDP was cited as the reason for its effectiveness in bringing donors together to complement government support. The satisfaction of

28

the donor community was manifested in the increase in the number of donors – and in the amount of financial assistance mobilized – in Phase III of that programme. Small donor agencies appreciated the multi-donor approach since it provided better focus and a greater multiplier effect for the small amounts they were able to provide for development assistance. The seed money provided through UNDP induced other international and national agencies to provide additional resources. UNDP took the lead role in mobilizing support from the ADB, Australia, the Netherlands, Spain and the WB to fund development initiatives in territories held by the MNLF. The UNDP Regional Development Planning Programme was seen as a catalyst for the mobilization of resources and ongoing support to regional planning. The main example of this was UNDP assistance in the planning of the Central Visayas Regional Programme (CVRP). Convinced of the development impact of regional planning, the World Bank supported the CVRP, which is perceived to have spurred the growth of the region. The successful experience of the CVRP is currently being replicated by the WB through its project on Community-Based Resource Management (CBRM), executed by the Department of Finance (DOF). According to the former NEDA Regional Executive Director of Region VII, this succession of developments would not have happened without UNDP’s catalytic assistance. The Capacity 21 project also had some spin-off benefit in terms of attracting other donors. Although UNDP is no longer providing support, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is currently assisting the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) through its programme on Governance for PA21, considered a sequel to Capacity 21 and aimed at helping PCSD localize sustainable development. According to top NEDA officials, UNDP’s assistance was perceived to have influenced succeeding foreign investment and resource mobilization in support of regional and local planning. The succeeding support came from AUSAID, GTEZ, JICA, OECD, USAID and the WB. The more recent Annual Poverty Indicator Survey was funded by UNDP on a pilot basis in five provinces. The success of the pilot project was reported to have drawn the attention of the European Union, which in October 1998 agree to provide funds through the WB to support the project on a nationwide basis – that is, in all 78 provinces and in the National Capital Region. It is worth commenting that in the case of the Country Cooperation Framework (CCF), NEDA has expressed the need for greater synergy among the donors, calling for them to adopt one combined effort rather than maintaining separate individual development frameworks. A common CCF is expected to facilitate coordination and resource mobilization. Given its apparent success in this area, UNDP could possibly act as a lead institution in this activity.

29

5.0 PHASE II VALIDATION OF PERCEIVED IMPACTS The first phase of the Country-Level Impact Assessment identified several possible areas of UNDP-Philippines assistance that could be the focus for validation in the second phase. Based on the findings of Phase I, the UNDP country office narrowed down the choice to two programme areas: regional development planning and the macroeconomic reform programme (as embodied in the Krugman Report). The validation results are summarized below.

5.1 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROGRAMME UNDP assistance to regional planning in the Philippines began in the 1960s with the provision of support to the then newly-created Institute of Environmental Planning (IEP). This enabled the Institute to develop a pool of urban and regional planners and assisted the government and the private sector with regional development functions. In the early 1970s, the Government of the Philippines adopted a rationalization policy, which aimed at reducing economic disparities among the country’s different regions. To ensure better coordination of government agencies under a regional decentralization set up, the President also created 11 administrative regions for the coordination of planning and administrative activities. Total UNDP support to regional planning amounted to almost $5 million for the period 1975 to 1989. The assistance included the three-phased regional development assistance project (1975-1983) and support for a training programme (1985-1989). Among the project outputs were the preparation of two regional development plans (RDPs) and regional development investment programmes (RDIPs); establishment of linkages between regional development planning, public investment programming and budgeting processes at the regional level; installation of a regional project monitoring system; capacity development of the NROs, the Regional Development Staff (RDS) of NEDA, regional offices of line agencies (RLAs) and selected local government units; preparation/revision of manuals; development of guidelines and procedures for accessing foreign funding available for development projects; and a regional modelling/forecasting study. Perceived Impacts of the Regional Development The first phase of the CLIA yielded 15 impact perceptions related to regional development. However, given the limited amount of time allotted for the conduct of the validation, only five impact perceptions were selected in consultation with the UNDP Country Office. These impact perceptions were:

1. Staff capacities of RLAs, NEDA, NGOs, and LGUs in regional planning and plan implementation were enhanced.

2. UNDP assistance strengthened institutional capacities for regional planning. 3. Mechanisms on regional planning were relevant to national priorities during the

1970s but were not able to adjust to the changes required under a decentralized democratic set-up.

4. Implementation of the regional plans led to the development of the region. 5. Regional planning served as a medium to actively involve local politicians, NGOs

and RLAs in regional planning. These impact perceptions were selected in view of their implications for further assistance to the sector and their importance in pilot-testing validation techniques and tools that could generate

30

“When we began in 1974, we did not know how to do regional planning. The UNDP assistance helped us learn about it. We also got some training materials under the UNDP project that guided us in the preparation of development plans, in forecasting and projecting trends, and in econometric analysis.” Interview with Regional planner, Bicol, March 2002

impact at the grassroots level. They were validated at the national, regional and local levels.12 The Phase II CLIA team traced two strands of the UNDP assistance related to regional development planning: through NEDA and its regional offices, and through the University of the Philippines (UP) School of Urban and Regional Planning (UP-SURP), then known as the Institute of Environmental Planning. Document review and individual interviews were employed extensively to validate the impact perceptions at the national and regional levels. Key officials of SURP and NEDA central and regional offices were interviewed, along with a well-respected local politician, a planner, and a key NGO leader who served in various years on the RDC. Two focus group discussions were also conducted in Bicol. One group consisted of National Regional Office planners who joined NEDA in the late 1970s or early 1980s, while the other group was composed of female and male barangay residents. Discussions of the latter centred around the changes in their communities brought about by “development” and the problems that continued to plague their farming community. Key Findings Impact Perception 1: Staff capacities of regional line agencies (RLAs), NEDA, NGOs and LGUs in regional planning and plan implementation had been enhanced. Although there are contrary opinions about attribution of impact to the UNDP project, the impact perception was found to be generally valid. UNDP technical assistance was credited with having helped develop capacities in physical framework planning. Indirectly, it generated materials (planning curricula, modules and manuals) and planning strategies that had been adopted by other training institutions. The team validated the perceived impact by determining the UNDP’s direct and indirect training inputs, obtaining the assessment of key players in both training and recipient institutions, and asking selected key informants in the region to comment on the impact perception. There were four modes by which UNDP assistance was found to have enhanced the capacities of the staff: a) programmes implemented by IEP; b) training and educational grants received by officials from the UNDP-assisted programme; c) programmes implemented by the universities that linked up with the IEP; and d) programmes implemented by some schools and training institutes such as DAP that were anchored on the project development manual produced through UNDP assistance. Key national respondents credited the UNDP assistance to the IEP with producing influential planners who went on to occupy key positions in government, and for spawning training programmes in Manila and in selected provincial cities. Regional respondents were particularly vocal in attributing to the UNDP project critical capacity development inputs in the 1970s and in crediting UP-IEP for their “landmark training in regional physical framework planning (RPFP).” The sub-national planners, however, attributed a large part of the impact of the training to the assistance from the Australian government that financed the training and preparation of provincial

12 Validation was limited to one region of the country (Bicol) due to time and resource constraints. The selection of the region was guided by three considerations: familiarity of the consultant with the region, ease of conducting interviews on short notice and within a very limited time, and facility with the language spoken in the area. This region should in no way be taken as representative of the other regions of the country.

31

physical framework plans (PPFP) and the revision of the RPFP methodology. Without the Australian aid, the planning capacities would have been limited to the regional land-use committee members and not spread to the provinces. Impact Perception 2: UNDP assistance strengthened institutional capacities for Regional Planning. There was some support from the respondents on the impact perception that UNDP technical assistance had strengthened institutional capacities for regional development planning. More specifically, the UNDP projects were found to have accelerated the pace of adoption of regional development planning systems and tools by the central and regional offices of NEDA. However, while tools and processes of regional development planning seemed to have remained the same, their value in producing RDPs and RDIPs had been eroded by government decentralization. To validate this impact perception, documents were reviewed to identify the mechanisms that evolved and NEDA key officials in Manila and in the region were interviewed to determine the similarities or dissimilarities between the mechanism being used today and those that were developed through the UNDP assistance. Key regional planners credited the UNDP project with building NROs’ regional development planning capacity, while a national planning official interviewed was of the view that even without UNDP assistance, regional planning would have progressed in the same way because “the planning technology is standard.” Among the components of UNDP assistance, only the library services were found to be less prominent now due to the policy decision adopted by NEDA that the agency not provides frontline services. The tools and methods of regional planning and investment programming essentially have remained the same. According to key NRO officials, then as now, regional development planning was done by sector, guided by the policies and principles laid out in the national medium-term development plan. While this process continues to be basically top-down, regional development investment programming now follows a bottom-up approach as the NRO puts together the projects and programmes that are submitted to them and have passed their scrutiny. Knowledgeable regional respondents noted some changes with the passage of the Local Government Code (LGC). Before 1991, inputs to the RDP came primarily from the RLAs and the RDC members, and the RDIP included regional projects, RLA projects that covered one or more municipalities or provinces, and macro projects. After 1991, the RDIP was expected to reflect projects of local governments and RLAs as well as national projects that would be implemented in the region, but it was apparent from the responses of the NRO and local planners that the RDPs and RDIPs do not reflect the plans and projects of local governments. Because the latter are not required by law to provide the NRO copies of their plans or projects, few do so. Impact Perception 3: Mechanisms on Regional Planning were relevant to the national priorities during the 1970s but were not able to adjust to the changes required under a decentralized democratic set up. The validity of the statement was contested. There seemed to be consensus that UNDP assistance had been timely and relevant in the 1970s as it supported the regionalization programme of the Marcos government. Others, however, held the view that resistance to changes in planning paradigms and the little value that is conferred on regional development planning had undermined the effectiveness of the changes. Knowledgeable respondents concurred that UNDP assistance led to the development of regional planning systems and approaches at a time when the NEDA Regional Offices were newly established and such systems and approaches were needed. As gleaned from the pre-1975 national development plans, planning had been focused on macro and sector concerns and

32

“What’s the use of the RDC to me [as a local government executive]? Probably if I have a need for foreign funding then I would have to go through the NEDA process…Otherwise, the RDC is irrelevant to me…It is another bureaucratic layer I have to go through…It takes too long to prepare master plans or medium-term plans and feasibility studies, and given the short term [three years] of local executives, these may be completed or approved too late to help the incumbent executives or local government officials.” Interview with Credible city mayor and ex-RDC hair, March 2002

lacked a spatial dimension. With UNDP support, the Medium Term Philippines Development Plan (MTPDP) began and continued to reflect regional concerns. The success of the regional planning assistance made people comfortable with, and attached to, the manner in which regional planning is performed. Such attachment made it difficult for people to shift to, or even to consider, other approaches to regional planning. National respondents claimed that the shift from a comprehensive to a strategic approach in regional planning in the 1990s addressed the greater autonomy of local governments and the adoption of market-based policies that stressed the importance of the private sector in the development process. To be consistent with these changes, programmes and projects contained in the RDIP were expected to be high-impact, and more focused as compared with the “wish list” generated by the RDIP in prior years. Sub-national key informants, however, pointed out that the RDPs and RDIPs were not as complete now as before since local governments and devolved local offices of national government agencies had ceased providing NROs with their medium-term or annual plans and investment programmes. A focus group discussion of regional planners indicated that because of the LGC, the NRO had taken on new tasks. A key regional respondent offered two examples of efforts to adjust to the changing political climate: the expansion of the RDC membership, allowing for NGO and local government representatives; and the creation of local development councils, which engage in sub-regional socio-economic sectoral planning, an activity that used to be done only at the regional level by NROs and RLAs. Local politicians were found to be dissatisfied with the regional planning system. Given the short term of office of local government officials, they were not interested in participating in RDC activities. Moreover, the vulnerability of RDIP projects to the whims and priorities of congressmen/ women had been a constant irritant to local government executives. A former RDC member observed that in the 1970s through the mid-1980s “a lot of wheeling and dealing took place in the selection of RDC projects.” He said that RDC members would promise their support for a project if others would back up projects that would be located in their province. Impact Perception 4: Implementation of the Regional Plans led to the development of the region. It was difficult to ascertain the validity of this perceived impact. As there was no monitoring of RDP projects outside foreign-assisted ones, it was difficult to ascertain whether or not RDIP projects had been funded and if the budgeting process had become driven by national priorities. At the community level, residents could not relate to any regional plan or project. Perhaps the validation results might have been different had the CLIA focus group discussions been conducted in areas that had been directly affected by a regional project. At the national level, the CLIA team validated this impact perception by interviewing key NEDA officials and reviewing documents to ascertain the presence of mechanisms to monitor the implementation of the regional plans and the mechanism to implement the plans (linkage between the plan and the budget). At the regional level, profiles of regional projects and RDC reports were reviewed to determine the scope of development impact; and key RDC players were interviewed and a focus group discussion of barangay residents was conducted.

33

As envisioned in 1976, the RDIP would serve as the implementing framework of the five-year RDP and as the primary basis for public sector resource allocation in the regions. But while the RDP had been recognized as an accompanying document of the MTPDP, the linkage between the RDIP and the MTPIP had not been established. The situation was found to have worsened in recent years when, starting in 2000, regional budget conferences were no longer mandatory. Instead, budget hearings have been confined to discussions between the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the agencies. There was no system that monitors the implementation of the RDIP. The Regional Project Monitoring and Evaluation System (RPMES) that the NRO claims to have been institutionalised only keeps track of the implementation of foreign-assisted programmes and projects; hence, it was difficult to determine how many of the projects identified in the RDIP have been funded. In the more than 25 years of RDC operation in the Bicol Region, several RDC projects had been completed. Principally because of the nature of the UNDP assistance, validation of the impact perception at the community level did not result in any attribution to the UNDP project of change in welfare or well being. The participants in the barangay-level focus group discussion could not associate themselves with any of the regional projects – not even the power projects, considering the fact that power rates in the area remain high. Instead, they cited the improvements in the access roads as a result of the BRBDP, a national irrigation project and school facilities. Impact Perception 5: Regional Planning served as a medium to actively involve local politicians, NGOs and RLAs in regional planning. Of all the impact perceptions, this garnered the strongest support among respondents. The reconstituted RDC had created an opening for a wide range of regional players and stakeholders. To validate this perception, the executive orders and other issuances on the composition of the RDC since 1972 were reviewed at the national level. At the regional and local levels, the experiences of local politicians, NGOs and RLAs with the RDC were determined. Although the RDC was designed to serve as a participation mechanism for various stakeholders when democracy was restored in the country, interest in it varied depending on how the stakeholders viewed the role of the RDC and regional planning relative to their institutional concerns. Actual participation in the RDC and its activities had thus been erratic. A number of local government officials were found not to attend meetings regularly, if at all. This lack of interest could be traced to the low esteem in which they hold regional development planning. In contrast, NGO representatives seemed to be more active. According to an NGO leader, NGOs and the private sector were interested in the RDC because it gave them an opportunity to push their agendas in the regional development plans. The NGO representatives have been able to do this, particularly at the committee level.

5.2 MACROECONOMIC REFORM PROGRAMME As noted in Section 2, the national Philippine context in the late 1980s and early 1990s was one of major change, uncertainty and economic instability. Impressive growth in output, fuelled mostly by consumption (which occurred shortly after the 1986 Epifanio de los Santos Avenue revolution) eventually proved to be unsustainable. These conditions formed an important backdrop to the Krugman high-level mission. As noted by all respondents and found in the project record, the macroeconomic problems covered by Krugman were well known at the time and in fact had been debated since the mid-1980s. Some of the issues were politically sensitive or had become divisive in terms of certain camps or groups being allied to one position or another (e.g. an open or protected economy, liberalization of trade).

34

NEDA recognized that an impasse on the macroeconomic debate needed to be broken, and that this could best be achieved through the injection of independent, objective, outside and highly credible policy advice. Senior management had identified a high-calibre and internationally reputed economist who was willing to carry out an objective review of the macroeconomic situation and to advise the government on any needed reforms. In mid-1990, NEDA contacted UNDP for technical assistance and UNDP agreed to support the High-level Advisory Mission to the Philippines on Economic/Structural Reforms (PHI/90/009) managed by NEDA. The mission was subsequently referred to as the Krugman mission. Although the overall project produced a number of reports, study tours, workshops and conferences, the main and most visible output of the project was a NEDA and UNDP publication (or monograph) issued in June 1992 entitled “Transforming the Philippine Economy” (commonly referred to as the “Krugman Report”). Perceived Impacts of the Krugman Mission In order to validate the perceptions gathered in Phase I, it was necessary to go back to the original notes and records of meetings and to further refine the perceptions. This had to be done to see if the rather general initial impact perceptions could be broken down into specific statements of perceived impact that might be more amenable to validation. In discussions with the country office, a total of seven subsidiary perceived impacts were identified as being pertinent. Of these, four were selected by the Country Office to undergo validation within the time and resources available for Phase II. These were:

1. The process and the report expanded the awareness and understanding of macroeconomic issues and the need for reforms.

2. Issues and/or policy reform recommendations raised in the Krugman Report were “legitimized’ and made credible by the fact that they were covered in the 1993-1998 Medium Term Philippines Development Plan (MTPDP).

3. Issues and policy recommendations contained in the MTPDP can be directly or indirectly attributed in whole or in part to reforms recommended in the Krugman Report.

4. The mission triggered follow-on programme support and funding from UNDP that focused on reforms proposed in the Krugman Report.

A range of validation approaches and methods were selected and applied to meet the specific needs of each perceived impact. Key Findings Impact Perception 1. The process and the final report expanded the awareness and understanding of macroeconomic issues and the need for reforms. From the analysis, the impact perception was found to be valid. The process and report expanded awareness and understanding of the issues – certainly within academia, the non-economic levels of government (the President, the Cabinet and Congress), the business community and the general public.

Based on the feedback obtained from the key respondents, this was perhaps the most significant perceived impact generated by the Krugman mission through its policy dialogue, advice and advocacy. Different audiences were targeted by both the process and the final report, each of which had a role to play in

supporting tough, top-level decisions on macroeconomic reform.

“ … The Krugman report was all about advocacy for reform, and part of its success

was more people listening. And more people listened because of the non-arrogant and non-

condescending language that was used.” Interview with Economist and Businessman, March 2002

35

It was the consensus among those authoritative sources consulted that the Krugman process expanded awareness and understanding of economic issues and reforms beyond a small group of primarily economists and bureaucrats. According to most of the authoritative respondents, the biggest impact of the Krugman mission and its final report was the carrying of the reform message to high executive, political and legislative levels of the country by a visible, high-profile and internationally reputed economist and his team. To that extent, the mission accomplished its objective and helped to ensure that many of the policy issues and suggested reforms grabbed the attention of senior politicians and legislators, especially those who were non-economists and/or not particularly attuned to macroeconomic issues. According to a number of key respondents who participated in the overall process, the audience was broadened and the awareness and understanding of issues expanded due in large part to the easy-to-read nature of the report, its use of non-technical language, and the accompaniment of report briefs and summaries. Public and media relations were important components of the overall process. All this combined to help get the message spread farther, wider and higher. The general public, business leaders and politicians were able to better understand complex macroeconomic issues due to the plain language that was used.13 Toward the end of the project, in June 1992, NEDA and UNDP hosted a special public policy dialogue or conference on the Philippine Economy that featured the just then published Krugman Report. Participants attending that conference included the Krugman team, plus senior representatives from government, the private sector, NGOs, academia, the business community, the media and the international donor community. The Krugman Report and the event made the headlines in the local media. A partial search of a few newspapers from early June 1992 showed that numerous articles were written on the Krugman Report and the policy dialogue. The Manila Bulletin featured reports – each with substantial space and large point headlines – no less than seven times over the period 3-13 June 1992. Impact Perception 2 Issues and/or policy reform recommendations raised in the Krugman Report were “legitimized” and made credible by the fact they were covered in the 1993-1998 MTPDP. This perceived impact was also found to be valid. From the documented sources supported by the recollection of authoritative respondents, the Krugman Report presented a legitimate and credible treatment of the selected policy issues and reforms, whether or not they were all translated into formal government policy at the time or in later years. In validating this impact perception, the main policy proposals and reforms contained in the Krugman Report were mapped to the MTPDP. Key individuals who were involved in the Krugman mission and were also familiar with the MTPDP were consulted. To assess the degree to which the reforms proposed in the Krugman Report were also reflected in the MTPDP (and hence, officially legitimate), a content analysis was carried out. It showed a direct relationship between Krugman proposals and policy strategies in the MTPDP in areas including trade and industrial policy, fiscal and monetary policy, revenue collection and tax evasion, and job creation. The Krugman proposals on monetary reform and peso depreciation were not directly picked up in the MTPDP. Perhaps most significantly, the Secretary of NEDA, during the time that the 1993-1998 MTPDP was developed, responded that many of the proposals contained in the Krugman Report were indeed reflected in the MTPDP. The comment was made by this key respondent that the Krugman Report was at hand for most of the technical and working sub-committees that had 13 As an ancillary observation, it was noted by a couple of key respondents that the Krugman mission and the process as supported and facilitated by the UNDP also expanded the knowledge, credibility, goodwill and prestige of UNDP. At the time, UNDP was seen as the key donor in supporting macroeconomic reforms – a pronounced comparative advantage over certain other donors who were traditionally seen as being the top-level macroeconomic advisors.

36

prepared inputs to the MTPDP, and that the Krugman team had spent considerable time with members of NEDA and some other government agencies in discussing the macroeconomic issues and proposed reforms. This had the educational effect of increasing the knowledge of macroeconomics among this specialized group of people. Impact Perception 3. Issues and policy recommendations contained in the MTPDP can be directly or indirectly attributed in whole or in part to reforms recommended in the Krugman Report. The impact perception was found to be valid. A number of key policy strategies contained in the 1993-1998 MTPDP were found to be attributable directly or indirectly to the Krugman Report. Despite the above finding, attribution for this perceived impact proved difficult to pinpoint. The MTPDP does not contain any bibliography, sources of information or reference material. Nor does it directly or indirectly refer to or acknowledge Krugman in its foreword, preface, introduction or any other sections. In the limited time available, the CLIA team was not able to delve into the archival records at NEDA, especially the records and working papers of the various technical and working sub-committees that provided input to the MTPDP. According to those authoritative respondents who were closest to both the Krugman Mission and the subsequent preparation of the MTPDP, a number of policy proposals contained in the MTPDP were the direct result of policy reforms suggested by Krugman et al. Impact Perception 4. The mission triggered follow-on programme support and funding from UNDP that focused on reforms proposed in the Krugman Report. The Krugman high-level mission did indeed result in the design and implementation of the follow-on macroeconomic reform programme and the channelling of significant UNDP funds to support the area. Economic reform became one of the major themes in the UNDP 5th Country Programme. According to a number of key respondents who were involved in developing macroeconomic reform projects at the time, the process and results of the Krugman Mission were so successful that they spun off follow-on macro reform programmes supported by UNDP. Economic reform and management became one of four major themes in the UNDP 5th Country Programme, the only period in the long history of UNDP in the Philippines where economic management was elevated to so high a level of attention. Two major projects with a combined value of about $1.3 million were designed and implemented to support the theme: (1) Macroeconomic Reforms and Management Programme (PHI/93/003); and (2) Investment Programming and Debt Management (PHI/95/002). The Macroeconomic Reforms and Management Programme (PHI/93/003) was implemented from 1995 to 1998 and its main objective was to assist the government in the broad area of macroeconomic reform. The amount of financial assistance provided by UNDP eventually totalled $754,360 (which was a reduction from the initially planned amount of $850,000). From the project documentation, the government solicited UNDP support to macroeconomic policy advice and reform because of UNDP’s “… perceived comparative advantages (i.e. neutrality, flexibility, field presence/network, access to global expertise/ technologies, etc.).” 14 A needs assessment for PHI/93/003 was supported in part by a gap analysis on plan implementation that had previously been carried out under PHI/90/009, giving further evidence of this linkage. 14 Ibid. Part B, Section 4, “Identification of UNDP Role”, p. 7. Since this was documented by UNDP and could have been seen to be biased, these comparative advantages were confirmed through discussions with respondents on the validation of the overall perceptions pertaining to the Krugman Report and UNDP’s involvement. The specific comparative advantages noted by the respondents were UNDP’s neutrality, objectivity and access to global expertise (e.g. Krugman and team as the case in point).

37

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As noted at the outset, the objectives of the Philippines pilot CLIA were to: (1) document and demonstrate UNDP’s contribution to development outcomes and impacts; (2) identify the combination of factors that leads to a significant impact; and (3) promote a results-orientation by focusing the attention of UNDP on the impact of its support.15 The Philippines CLIA demonstrated that UNDP has in many cases contributed significantly to development outcomes and impacts. A caveat is however in order : CLIA results are based only on perceived impacts collected across a few project/programme areas. Phase II of the pilot study could only validate perceived impacts for a narrow programme portfolio out of the total picture of UNDP programme support. The validation showed that UNDP’s policy advice support to macroeconomic reforms in the early 1990s generated significant impacts in terms of articulating reforms, capturing senior political and executive attention, and expanding awareness and understanding of underlying issues. On the other hand, the validation revealed that the Regional Planning programme produced mixed impacts. Section 6.1 below presents recommendations that emerged from the validation of perceptions for the selected programmes. The CLIA identified several internal and external factors that were seen to have influenced the generation of both positive and negative impacts were also identified. These factors were identified primarily during the Phase I analysis, where impact perceptions were gathered from a wider spectrum of projects and programmes. A number of UNDP strengths and weaknesses seen to have affected the delivery of (perceived) impacts. However, the analysis of these factors should be seen as tentative, perhaps indicative, given the lack of rigor and depth of the analysis. Section 6.2 identifies these various factors. For the team was able to identify a number of areas where UNDP at both the corporate and country levels might strengthen a results-orientation through greater attention to the ultimate development impacts. Section 6.3 presents the team’s recommendations.

6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS The validation of impact perceptions pertaining to the Regional Development Planning and Macroeconomic Reform programmes offered a number of insights. The following recommendations for each programme area may help the country office in the formulation of future country programme. Regional Development Planning Programme In view of the dissatisfaction of some sectors with the utility of the regional planning approaches, given the decentralized system of government and the government’s strategy towards globalization, there is a need to review and develop a strategic approach to regional planning. The strategic approach to regional planning should be able to:

(1) develop the capacity of regional planners to understand economic growth dynamics and analytical and not be just mechanical in crafting regional plans;

(2) steer strategic planning activities that are regional in interest;

15 Lessons and recommendations pertaining to the CLIA methodology are covered in Section 3 of this report.

38

(3) generate support for encouraging local governments to think of strategic interventions; (4) delineate strategic interventions with wide impact and mobilize support for these

interventions; and

(5) identify what the regions can do for the country’s development. From structural and process points of view, four basic issues need to be addressed:

(1) redefine RDC functions to include its serving as a clearinghouse, engaging LGUs and agencies in joint-prioritization activities. As it is, LGUs find the RDC irrelevant and many RDC members do not attend meetings;

(2) make the RDC directly relevant to the needs of elected officials;

(3) provide RDC with a budget that could be allocated to projects or among local

governments; and

(4) respect the integrity of the regional development investment programmes and make these less vulnerable to the interventions of members of Congress and the NEDA central office.

Macroeconomic Reform Programme The results of the CLIA validation for this area do not lend themselves directly to recommendations on UNDP future country programme, other than to note, as evidenced by the Krugman high-level mission, that policy advice/advocacy is an area where UNDP has had significant success in the past. Based on the Krugman mission and subsequent longer-term macroeconomic reform programme, much can be said about the track record and goodwill that UNDP generated in this area. The experiences and lessons learned can certainly be applied to current and future country programming in policy advice and advocacy. In the area of policy advice and advocacy, the repeated message from key respondents is that there continues to be a need to link macroeconomic policies with poverty and governance: all areas are highly inter-related, yet not well understood. UNDP policy support to governance, poverty or sustainable human development should be related to macroeconomic issues, especially in terms of the increasing globalization of such issues. It should also be noted that the Krugman Report was published in 1992, not long after the launching of UNICEF’s “Adjustment with a Human Face” advocacy campaign of the 1980s. By that time UNICEF was promoting a complete policy package that was thought to be pro-poor. This allowed UNICEF to pursue a more or less consistent capacity-development strategy. As shown in the case of the Krugman Report, this study revealed that unlike UNICEF (or the World Bank or IMF), UNDP historically had not promoted any particular macro-policy package or regime. The question could be asked: “What are the implications for UNDP assistance in the area of macroeconomic reform?” The answer to such a question has implications in terms of the ability of UNDP to promote a focused strategy along the lines of UNICEF, both in terms of policy advocacy as well as institution building. A related question may be: “Would such an approach be sustainable?”

39

6.2 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE IMPACTS A number of internal and external factors related to the production of outputs, results and perceived impacts were identified. Many of the factors, listed in Figure 6.1, were corroborated through reviews of a number of project evaluations and mid-term reports, among other sources. Figure 6.1 – Internal and External Factors Perceived to Influence Impacts

EXTERNAL FACTORS INTERNAL FACTORS

POSITIVE IMPACTS

documented procedures &

manuals champions management support structures

networks and contacts UNDP leadership resource mobilization participatory processes good working relationships cultural sensitivity policy dialogue

NEGATIVE IMPACTS

weak management capacity national execution slow delivery rates changes in leadership unclear policies and objectives

lack of focus project red tape non-results orientation duplication of effort

(1) External Factors The main external factors cited by interviewees to have facilitated the delivery of outputs and the attainment of desired outcomes and impacts were:

Documented procedures and manuals to guide project management in nationally-executed programmes and projects.

Monitoring support provided by UNDP to executing agencies, which helped in the early resolution of project management problems and issues.

Presence of champions in executing agencies. Top government officials who promoted and

supported the programme/project provided necessary leadership and rallied other government agencies in supporting the area of UNDP assistance. Similarly, the presence of competent technical and management personnel helped in successful implementation.

Establishment of management support structures such as inter-agency coordination

committees to support project implementation, which contributed in the harnessing of multi-agency participation.

A number of factors were perceived by key interviewees to have hindered or constrained the performance of UNDP’s assistance, and consequently its impact:

Capacity limitations of the government in implementing programmes and projects, coupled with its failure to institutionalize the innovations introduced by UNDP support.

The introduction of National Execution (NEX) of some programmes/projects, perceived to

have somewhat slowed down implementation with a consequent loss of control of UNDP over many of the project activities and deliverables.

40

Low capacity of government to deliver projects, perceived to have slowed down project

implementation and consequently increased administrative expenditures.

Changes in government leadership or changes in heads of offices that disrupted project implementation and lowered delivery rates. Unclear agency programmes and policy thrusts postponed UNDP’s investment decisions.

(2) Internal Factors The noted success and effectiveness of UNDP in providing assistance across the selected thematic, project and programme areas was perceived to have been attributable to:

Networks and contacts: UNDP’s ability to work through connections and contacts in the government.

UNDP leadership, neutrality and responsiveness. UNDP was also perceived to function as a development catalyst (development advocacy).

Resource mobilization. UNDP was perceived to have maximized the use of its limited resources in helping the government and in mobilizing funds from other donors (in the Mindanao project and other project areas).

Participatory processes. UNDP engaged in preparatory assistance with the participation of national stakeholders before it launched support. In some cases, careful analysis done by UNDP resulted in better design of programmes and the better matching of solutions to the needs of clients.

Good working relationship with NEDA. UNDP’s routine practice of consulting with NEDA in the planning and implementation of projects brought the two closer together.

Cultural sensitivity: International staffs fielded by UNDP, in some cases, were sensitive to the culture, outlook and social conditions in the Philippines.

Policy dialogue. UNDP's main strength was in its intellectual role in terms of providing ideas, advice, a comprehensive view of development and emphasis on poverty as a key development dimension.

Some internal factors were perceived to have negatively affected UNDP’s performance. These are identified as follows:

Expansive focus: UNDP’s resources were perceived to be spread too thinly, or supporting too many areas. Its limited resources were seen as insufficient to attend to a wide array of portfolio themes.

Red tape: UNDP projects required excessive paperwork and reporting procedures,

consuming time of UNDP project and implementation staff alike. Much of the voluminous documentation was found redundant by government executing agencies. UNDP’s project management procedures were perceived as cumbersome.

Internal bureaucratic process orientation: UNDP concentrated its efforts on the

management of inputs, outputs and processes rather than on outcomes, results and the monitoring of performance.

41

Duplication: the UNDP auditing system was noted as being different from government systems, causing duplication of effort.

International recruitment: Some international consultants recruited performed below the

expectations of government executing institutions. However, in the case of the Krugman and Sachs high-level macroeconomic missions, the quality of international expertise was rated as high.

6.3 IMPROVING IMPACT DELIVERY Perceptions of impact across all project and thematic areas appeared to converge in areas of how UNDP support was managed and delivered. The following conclusions and recommendations point to areas where UNDP at both the corporate and country levels might improve its strategic and operational management activities, which would then have the direct, positive effect of improving the overall impact of assistance. The following corroborates the conclusions and recommendations contained in a number of project and programme evaluations. Documenting And Disseminating Acquired Knowledge The validation of impacts of the Krugman high-level mission on macroeconomic reforms showed that considerable knowledge was generated in terms of the nature of policy advice/advocacy and the processes used to support this area. It may be useful to publish a case study or document on lessons learned from the Krugman high-level mission. This would capture this knowledge for application to future policy advice and advocacy initiatives in the Philippines, and for use by UNDP worldwide and by other donors. Further, corporate-wide, UNDP should change its policy on evaluating projects and programmes that have values under $1million. A formal evaluation of the Krugman high-level mission would have likely generated considerable knowledge on the process, success factors, etc. of this policy advice initiative. A formal evaluation may also have demonstrated the clear linkages between macroeconomic policy, governance and poverty, and may have had an impact on the subsequent 1995 decision by the country office to terminate (or extend or refocus) the macroeconomic reform programme.

Other Perceived Comparative Strengths of UNDP • Neutrality. UNDP has neither a political ideology nor a business agenda for supporting projects.

• Responsiveness. The portfolio scheme allows UNDP to quickly respond to emergency or crisis

situations. • Local presence. UNDP has strong field presence in the Philippines and other countries.

• Trust. The GOP has established trust with UNDP. Since the 70s, UNDP has worked closely with

the GOP and has assisted it in nation building. This long association has built a strong foundation of trust.

• Flexibility. UNDP is flexible in accommodating requests for assistance from government.

• Resource mobilization. UNDP is able open the channels for other donor funding. • Human rights. A noted advantage of UNDP over other organizations is the full integration of

human rights in Governance and Empowerment of the Poor portfolios.

42

Greater Sharing of International Know-How and Experience Impacts for both UNDP and other donors could be enhanced through better sharing of international experience, models, lessons learned and best practices, as well as technology, especially in the areas of post-conflict interventions, concepts of peace, governance reforms and so on. Such international sharing in the area of macroeconomic management and reform proved to have significant impacts. The trends towards greater regionalization and globalization should add greater impetus to the accessing and sharing of international knowledge and expertise. However, in the Mindanao programme, greater efforts could have been applied by UNDP to adapt lessons and experiences from international post-conflict situations.16 Using System-Wide Approaches to Capacity Development To ensure the sustainability of outcomes and impacts, more attention could be given to the enhancing of capacities on a system-wide basis, rather than focusing simply on individual government organizations or training. For example, in the environment and Mindanao programmes, multi-dimensional capacities could be developed in a more balanced manner for central and especially local government, civil society organizations and especially the private sector (the sector that generates wealth). The development of such capacities should build upon the existing base as much as possible, addressing absorptive capacity issues in order to lay the foundation for self-reliance and sustainability. Giving Greater Attention to Strategic Management In all cases, UNDP could significantly improve its impact over the longer term by applying strategic management approaches to projects, programmes and the overall definition and delivery of its services in the various thematic areas of support. By this it is meant that UNDP should apply a long-term view to the support it provides, in recognition of the fact that national projects or programmes in major thematic areas (such as governance, decentralization, environment, post-conflict etc.) require many years of planning and implementation. Further, greater attention could be paid to the assessment of needs – looking at the short, medium and longer-term horizons, and devising corresponding implementation strategies to meet such needs. UNDP should develop exit strategies for such projects and programmes – strategies that ensure a reasonable likelihood of sustainability after the withdrawal of UNDP or other donor support. Applying Formalized Risk Management Methods The impact of UNDP support could be enhanced through better assessment and mitigation of project risks, carrying out proper appraisals and performing diligent monitoring. One example of this would be in the area of environment through the application of IEMSD’s sustainability criteria or tests that include economic, environment, socio-cultural, political, technological and institutional assistance to increase a project’s success by anticipating and managing risks. Using More Diversified Implementation and Execution Modalities The impact of UNDP programmes and support might be better assured by giving some consideration to the strengthening of the execution modalities in selected areas. Alternative and more cost effective modalities of the delivery of UNDP support could be devised, particularly in the area of policy advice and advocacy where flexibility, responsiveness and neutrality may be key considerations in successful delivery. Partnership approaches with government and other 16 Based on feedback from senior level government respondents involved in the Krugman and Sachs high-level missions, more attention should be given to value-for-money in the selection, recruitment and utilization of national and especially international experts. Key respondents noted that the relatively higher cost of international experts on the Krugman mission generated considerable value, impact and overall return-on-investment for UNDP, the government and the country.

43

development players would better utilize the comparative advantages and strengths of the respective organizations, while also enabling them to stick to their core businesses. Refining the Programme/Thematic Focus Impacts could be enhanced through greater focus on policy advice, capacity development and the institutionalization of developed systems and capacities, especially in the areas of governance, post-conflict situations, and environment and sustainable development. These were areas where UNDP was perceived to have made a difference. Conversely, UNDP might minimize directing its limited resources to downstream operational projects that are supported by other donors with more funds, unless such projects are for piloting purposes, for generating operational experience to inform policy, or for leveraging funding as in the case of the Mindanao project. Building On Successes Of Donor Coordination This is one area where UNDP has demonstrated some solid strengths and successes. However the impact of UNDP support could be enhanced through better coordination and integration with other related UNDP and donor-funded initiatives. Such coordination and integration should not be limited simply to programmes and projects implemented by partner agencies (of the Multi-Donor Mindanao programme, for example) but could include all other relevant initiatives in the geographic area. (Such concepts as area-based development or sector-wide approaches to programming could be adapted for this purpose, among other approaches.)

Pilot Country Level Impact Assessment – The Philippines 1 Terms of Reference

1

ANNEX A TERMS OF REFERENCE Background In line with UNDP’s results based management (RBM) strategic orientation, the Evaluation Office (EO) launched a series of Country Level Impact Assessments (CLIA) in order to develop new evaluation tools that capture and demonstrate evaluative evidence of UNDP’s contributions at the country level. A Country Level Impact Assessment is planned for the Philippines beginning May 2001. In order to conduct the Philippines CLIA, the Evaluation Office plans to recruit an international consultant to lead the entire exercise from inception to end. Objectives The overall objectives of the Philippines CLIA are: i) To document and demonstrate UNDP’s contribution in the last 10-15 years to development outcomes

and impact in core strategic areas of focus at the national level vis-à-vis the contribution of other actors or partners;

ii) To document where any combination of projects, programmes and soft areas of support by UNDP and

other development partners have had a significant impact in the Philippines and qualify this impact with a fair degree of plausibility;

iii) To identify the combination of external factors, capacities and management decisions that led to a

significant impact and draw lessons applicable in a broader context and advise UNDP on ways to improve on and leverage these impacts;

iv) To promote a result-orientation by focusing the attention of UNDP on impact of its support and by

building in-house capacities to evaluate the impact. Scope The purpose of a CLIA is to provide evaluative evidence on the overall contribution and impact of UNDP’s support over a relatively extended period of time while strengthening and refining UNDP’s methodological tools and approaches to accurately capture results at the outcome and impact levels. The proposed CLIA for the Philippines will cover a period of 10-15 years. In general a CLIA comprises two phases: (i) The first phase involves a survey of UNDP programmes in a given period in which rapid qualitative and participatory methods are applied across a large array of support in order to determine impact at the country level. EO staff and external consultants conduct this phase and it involves a review of relevant documentation, extensive consultations with the country office, government, donors/partners and key national stakeholders and beneficiaries. The purpose of phase one is to identify the key strategic areas meriting further review and in-depth assessment. (ii) The second phase, which zooms in on a few specific areas identified during the first phase, extends over a longer period and involves both qualitative and quantitative studies designed and conducted by international and national experts or firms well-versed in client surveys. The purpose of the second phase is to validate (or challenge) the findings and conclusions of phase one with hard quantitative or qualitative data. Phase two of CLIA would only be undertaken if phase one results in convincing evidence that UNDP programmes have had significant impact. In

Pilot Country Level Impact Assessment – The Philippines 2 Terms of Reference

2

the case of the Philippines, phases one and two will run simultaneously. The methodology for phase two is determined on a case by case basis. Specific Tasks - Team Leader The team leader will work closely with the EO task manager and a team of national consultants and UNDP country office staff. Tasks will, inter-alia, include: 1. Test the methodology developed by the Evaluation Office to capture impact and results at the country level through: Review of the UNDP programmes as articulated in Country Programmes (CP) or Country

Cooperation Frameworks (CFF) and projects in the Philippines during the last 10-15 years. Using objective indicators and stakeholder or client surveys, identify programmes with

demonstrated impact. Identify positive or negative factors that led to impact.

2. Prepare a comprehensive report that should cover the following core issues: (i) Highlight and illustrate the impact of UNDP programmes in the Philippines and the role played by UNDP and other actors; (ii) Demonstrate how the CLIA methodology developed by UNDP was helpful in capturing impact at the country level, identify shortcomings in the methodology and propose improvements.

Specific Tasks – National Consultants The two to three national consultants will work in the UNDP country office under the joint management of the Philippines country office and the Evaluation Office. The tasks will, inter-alia, include:

Review of the UNDP programmes as articulated in Country Programmes (CP) or Country Cooperation Frameworks (CFF) and projects in the Philippines during the last 10-15 years and assemble relevant background information and data for the CLIA team;

Organize and undertake visits to a number of districts to facilitate the focus groups’ meetings in local languages and collate the data and information. (The number of focus groups will be determined later based on the scope and range of UNDP programmes and support in the Philippines);

Administer and analyse completed questionnaires from the various national stakeholder focus groups and establish trends;

Using objective indicators and stakeholder or client surveys, work with the country office, EO and team leader to identify programmes with demonstrated impact;

Prepare reports and synopses of findings as necessary and as directed by EO and the CLIA team.

Expected Outputs 1. Preliminary report capturing results of first phase and highlighting strategic areas of focus for CLIA 2. Comprehensive final report on Philippines CLIA Evaluation Office 19 April 2001

ANNEX B - LIST OF INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED 1 of 6

1

ANNEX B LIST OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED B.1 UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (1) UNDP Country Office Mr. Terence Jones Ms. Ricarda Rieger Mr. Ernie Bautista Mr. Napoleon Navarro Ms. Jana Grace Ricasio Mr. Cesar Liporada Mr. Emmanuel Buendia Ms. Amelia Supetran Ms. Clarissa Arida Mr. Clark Soriano Ms. Rosanita Serrano Mr. Turhan Mangun Mr. Jorge Reyes Mr. Romeo Reyes Mr. John Gacutan Ms. Yumi Kanda Ms. Belle Evidente

Resident Representative and Resident Coordinator Deputy Resident Representative Assistant Resident Representative (Programmes) Programme Manager, Programme Management Support Unit Programme Manager, Empowerment of the Poor Portfolio Peace and Development Portfolio Enabling Environment Portfolio Programme Manager, Environmental Sustainability Portfolio Programme Manager, Environmental Sustainability Portfolio Advisor to the Resident Coordinator Programme Coordinator, Regional Gender Programme Former Resident Representative Former Sustainable Development Advisor Advisor for UNDP Partnership with Asian Development Bank (also Former Assistant Director-General, NEDA) Financial Management Assistant Donor Coordination Donor Coordination

(2) UNDP, New York Mr. Nurul Alam Ms. Fadzai Gwaradzimba Ms. Christine Roth Ms. Linda Maguire Mr. Khaled Ehsan Ms. Siv Tokle Mr. Jose Cruz-Osorio Mr. Larry Maranis

Deputy Director, Evaluation Office Evaluation Adviser, Evaluation Office; EO Task Manager for the Philippines CLIA Study Evaluation Adviser, Evaluation Office Evaluation Adviser, Evaluation Office Evaluation Adviser, Evaluation Office Evaluation Adviser, Evaluation Office Evaluation Adviser, Evaluation Office Programme Officer, Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific

B.2 GOVERNMENT AND NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (Consulted during Phase I) Note: Representative Officials from the Government of the Philippines and national organizations were selected for interviews based on their involvement in or knowledge of UNDP and the selected programme impact areas. Interviewees are organized into major groupings, firstly of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), and secondly according to the major impact areas. (1) National Economic and Development Authority Atty. Raphael Perpetuo M. Lotilla Mr. Augusto B. Santos Ms. Ofelia M. Templo Mr. Nestor Mijares Ms. Marcelina Bacani

Deputy Director-General Deputy Director-General Assistant Director-General Assistant Director-General


2

Ms. Martha Flores Mr. Tomas Benjamin Marcelo Mr. Emmanuel Torrente Mr. Gerardo Sicat Mr. Cayetano Paderanga Mr. Ruperto Alonzo Ms. Josefina Esguerra Ms. Carolina Guina

Director, Regional Development Coordination Staff Chief Economic Development Specialist and UNDP Desk Officer, Public Investment Staff Supervising Economic Development Specialist, Public Investment Staff Supervising Economic Development Specialist, Social Development Staff Former Director-General; Professor, School of Economics, University of the Philippines, Diliman Former Director-General; Chairman, Institute for Development and Econometrics Analysis, Inc., University of the Philippines, Diliman and Philippines Country Director, Asian Development Bank Former Deputy Director-General; Professor, School of Economics, University of the Philippines Diliman Former Director, Public Investment Staff Former Assistant Director-General

(2) Peace and Development Fr. Bert Alejo, SJ Mr. Eddie T. Yap Mr. Khanappi “Sonny” Ayao Ms. Taha Kabugatan Ms. Nenita Masanglang Mr. Mukalidin Kido Mr. Salipada S. Muhammad Mr. Abusama Alamada Mr. Rogelio Llanos Ms. Teresita Jamero Mr. Antonio Angel “Boyet” Salangga III ______________________ Ms. Cynthia Arnaud Ms. Dolly Corro Ms. Joan Abarles Director Cueva Ms. Mafel Joan Negrino Ms. Rosanna Porras Ms. Gi Domingo Mr. Nonoy Fajardo Mr. Rudy Baldemor Mr. Arcadio Cruz Honorable Paul Domiguez Mr. Randolph Parcasio Ma. Lourdes D. Lim Julius Montesillo Mayor Dante Mutia Abdulkahar Aguila Maniri Bannon Kairon Emma Fatima Abubakar Mayor Muslimen Sema Ms. Aiza Minocol Mr. Rodrigo S. Gamit Ms. Gina Razote Sambas Mabang Diamadel E. Dumagay

Mindanaoan Inter-Cultural Dialogue Ateneo de Davao Peace and Development Advocate, North Cotabato Peace and Development Advocate, Matilac Peace and Development Advocate, Central Lanao Peace and Development Advocate Magpet, North Cotabato Peace and Development Advocate, Central Cotabato State Peace and Development Advocate, Satuyan, Malapatan, Saranggani Peace and Development Advocate, Brgy. Alamada, Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao NUKSRC Former Governor, Davao del Sur UNDP Area Coordinator, Southern Mindanao Former Programme Manager, NEDA-SPCPD-UN Multi-donor Programme and Regional Director, Aurora Pelayo, National Economic and Development Authority, Region XI Mindanao Coalition of NGOs Network Senior Specialist, Department of Trade and Industry, Region XI TESDA Regional Director Region XI Technical Education and Skills Development Authority, Region XI Former Staff, Technical Education and Skills Development Authority Programme Manager, PACAP UNICEF Chief Technical Adviser, International Labour Organization Programme Officer, Food and Agriculture Organization Secretary , Office of the Presidential Adviser for Regional Development Executive Director, SPDA, Executive Secretary of Nur Misuari’s ARMM Cabinet Regional Director, National Economic and Development Authority Region XII Barangay Captain, Montaay Kalenbuyan, Lanao del Norte State Chairman, Lanao Norte SRC; Mayor, Tungkal, Lanao Noerte State Vice Chair on Political Affairs, Ranaw State Revolutionary Committee Bangsamoro Woman Bangsamoro Woman Mayor, Cotabato City UNV Provincial Cooperative Officer, Lanao del Norte, Davao del Sur SPCPD Focal Person for MMDP Executive Director, RADO-ARMM


3

(3) Environment and Sustainable Development Ms. Amelia Supetran Ms. Ma. Lourdes M. Lagarde Mr. Calixto M. Mangilin Ms. Estrella Domingo Ms. Sylvia de Perio Mr. Ramil Macatangay Mr. Eduardo Lopez-Dee Mr. Benjie Navarro Ms. Linda Papa Mr. John Fabic Ms. Sunday Lingad Ms. Floradema Eleazar Ms. Cristina Regunay Ms. Doreen Erfe Ms. Liberty Guinto Mr. Ray Alcanses Mr. Roger Birosel Sr. Aida Velasquez Ms. Elizabeth Roxas

Programme Manager, Ensuring Environmental Sustainability UNDP Assistant Director, Agriculture Staff, NEDA Senior Economic Development Specialist, Public Investment Staff, NEDA Director, National Statistical Coordination Board National Statistical Coordination Board National Statistical Coordination Board National Statistical Coordination Board National Statistical Coordination Board Director, Information Management Department, National Mapping and Resources Information Authority National Mapping and Resources Information Authority National Mapping and Resources Information Authority Former Programme Manager, Integrated Environmental Management for Sustainable Development Foreign Assisted and Special Projects Office, Department of Environment and Natural Resources SARDIC Programme, Department of Agrarian Reform Former Chief Economic Development Specialist, NEDA Environmental Management Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary General, Earthsavers Movement Lingkod Tao Kalikasan Environmental Broadcast Circle

(4) Regional Development Planning Architect Joseph Alabanza Mr. Rey Crystal Mr. Truman Cainglet Mr. Alex Valenciano Ms. Estela Paredes Professor Dolores Endriga Professor Frederico Silao Dr. Leandro Viloria Dr. Asteya Santiago Ms. Marcelina Bacani Ms. Medy Endencia

Former Regional Director, NEDA, Region I Former Regional Director, NEDA, Region VII Regional Director, NEDA, Region VI National Economic and Development Authority, Region VI National Economic and Development Authority, Region VI School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of the Philippines (UPI) at Diliman School of Urban and Regional Planning, UPI at Diliman School of Urban and Regional Planning, UPI at Diliman School of Urban and Regional Planning, UPI at Diliman Director, Regional Development Coordination Staff, NEDA Assistant Director-General, National Economic and Development Authority

(5) Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) Ms. Belle Evidente Dr. Vic Jurlano Ms. Doreen Erfe Mr. Pete Morales Ms. Myrna Asuncion Mr. Joey Sescon Ms. Monina Collado Mrs. Marisa Barcenas

Programme Assistant, Empowerment of the Poor Portfolio, UNDP Philippines Country Office SARDIC Programme, Department of Agrarian Reform SARDIC Programme, Department of Agrarian Reform SARDIC Programme, Department of Agrarian Reform National Planning and Policy Staff, NEDA National Planning and Policy Staff, NEDA Director, Incomes and Employment Division, Household Statistics Department, National Statistics Office Household Statistics Department, National Statistics Office


4

(6) Macroeconomic Reforms Mr. Dennis Bautista Dr. Rosario Manasan Ms. Stella Montejo Mr. Francisco Dakila, Jr.

National Planning and Policy Staff, NEDA Philippine Institute for Development Studies Economist V, Fiscal Policy Division, Fiscal Policy and Planning Office, Department of Finance Bank Officer 6, Department of Economic Research, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas

(7) Scholarships/Foreign Training Ms. Brenda Monforte Ms. Ludivina Santos Ms. Editha Abergas Ms. Desiree Abrau Dr. Field Pizarro Ms. Marianita Nalundasan

UNDP Philippines Country Office UNDP Philippines Country Office Scholarship Affairs Secretariat, NEDA Scholarship Affairs Secretariat, NEDA National Statistics Office National Statistics Office

(8) Donor Coordination Mr. Nap Navarro Mr. Cesar Liporada Ms. Yumi Kanda Ms. Belle Evidente Mr. Boying Buendia Ms. Maribel Zonaga

UNDP Philippines Country Office UNDP Philippines Country Office UNDP Philippines Country Office UNDP Philippines Country Office UNDP Philippines Country Office World Bank

B.3 INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED FOR THE PHASE II VALIDATION (1) Regional Planning Program In Metro Manila: Marcelina Bacani Nestor Mijares Leandro Viloria Rowena Mantareng Miles Buerano Corazon Garin

Director, Regional Development Coordination Staff, NEDA Assistant Director General Former Dean, School of Urban and Regional Planning Senior Economic Development Specialist Regional Development Coordination Staff, NEDA Regional Development Coordination Staff, NEDA OIC-Chief, Project Management Staff, NEDA

In Bicol Region: Marlene Catalina P. Rodriguez Jesse Robredo Jose Fuentebella III Juan Villegas Norma Severo Fr. Nelson Tria

Director, NEDA Region V (joined NRO-V in 1974) Naga City Mayor (1988-1998, 2001-2003), RDC chair (1993-1998) and BRBDP Director (1986-1987) Camarines Sur Provincial Development Coordinator (1977-1986) and representative of the governor to the RDC (1977-1986) Chief, Naga City Development Planning Office (early 1980s – present) Municipal Development Coordinator, Calabanga, Camarines Sur Director, Caceres Social Action Foundation, Inc. (CASAFI) and former RDC member, representing NGOs of Camarines Sur (1996-1998)

Elena M. Espinas

Focus Group Discussion (NRO): Division Chief, Social Development Division (joined NRO-V in 1977)


5

Guillermo Tulod, Jr Felix M, Losita a Gilberto A. Abion

Division Chief, Infrastructural Development Division (joined NRO-V in 1983), SURP trainee (with Marlene Rodriguez) Supervising Development Economics Specialist, Economic Development Division (joined NRO-V in 1983) SDES, IDD (joined NRO-V in 1986 as non-technical staff, became technical staff in 1989). SURP trainee

Antonio S. Alto Helen Alto Maria Azaňes Manuel Azaňes Vicente Tapas

Focus Group Discussion: Barangay San Lucas, Calabanga, Camarines Sur Barangay Captain (male, 54 years old) Barangay resident (female, 53 years old) Barangay resident (female, 65 years old) Barangay resident (male, 64 years old) Barangay resident (male, 62 years old)

(2) Macroeconomic Reform Programme (Krugman Mission) Dr. C. Paderanga Dr. Cesar Virata Dr. Arsenio Balisacan Dr. Ernesto Bautista Ms. Ofelia Templo Ms. Xuelin Liu Dr. Sacorra Zingapan Mr. Dennis Bautista

Alternate Executive Director (Philippines), Asian Development Bank. Professor of Economics, University of the Philippines Director, Board of Directors, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation Chairman and President, C. Virata & Associates. Member, Makati Business Club School of Economics, University of the Philippines Former Assistant Director-General, NEDA and Project Director of the UNDP-supported project PHI/90/009 Economist. Former Assistant Director-General of the NEDA National Development Office Country Economist, Philippines Country Office, Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines Director, National Planning and Policy Staff, NEDA National Planning and Policy Staff, NEDA

B.4 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS (1) Embassies and Donors Mr. Peter Smith Ms. Vivien Escott Ms. Narcisa Umali Ms. Narcisa Umali Mr. Terry Baker Ms. Patricia Tan Ms. Elsa da Costa Ms. Eva Mansfield Dr. Werner Baumann Ms. Maribel Zoñaga

Counselor for Development Cooperation, Australian Embassy Development Counselor, Canadian Embassy Development Counselor, Canadian Embassy Canadian International Development Agency Ambassador, New Zealand Embassy New Zealand Embassy Royal Netherlands Embassy Embassy of Sweden Ambassador, Embassy of the Swiss Confederation Programme Officer, World Bank

(2) Other Organizations Ms. Celia Reyes

Philippine Institute for Development Studies


6

B.5 THE CLIA PROJECT TEAM (1) CO Coordination Mr. Terence Jones Ms. Ricarda Reiger Mr. Napoleon Navarro Mr. Emmanuel Buendia Ms. Lea Tamayo (2) CLIA Study Team Ms. Fadzai Gwaradzimba Dr. Candido Cabrido Dr. Wilfredo Arce Ms. Carmina Sarmiento Ma. Luisa Jolongbayan Ms. Yvette Guinto Mr. Adel Lambini Mr. Richard Flaman (3) CLIA Study Team Ms. Fadzai Gwaradzimba Dr. Jeanne Illo Ms. Carmina Sarmiento Ma. Malou Sempio Mr. Richard Flaman

Resident Representative Deputy Resident Representative Program Manager and study focal point Governance Portfolio Finance Assistant and Project Support Phase I (Impact Perceptions: May – November, 2001) UNDP/EO – Study Task Manager National Consultant ([email protected], [email protected]) National Consultant ([email protected]) National Consultant ([email protected]) Research Assistant Research Assistant Data analyst International Consultant (FMP, Canada, [email protected]) Phase II (Impact Validation: March – April, 2002) UNDP/EO – Study Task Manager National Consultant ([email protected]) National Consultant ([email protected]) Research Assistant International Consultant (FMP, Canada, [email protected])

ANNEX C - LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 1 of 5

1

ANNEX C LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED C.1 MAIN REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Asian Development Bank. Country Strategy and Program Update (2002-2004). ADB. Philippines Country Office, October, 2001 1998 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey. National Statistics Office (NSO), ASEAN-Europe Meeting (ASEM), World bank and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Manila. 2000 Blunt, Peter, Sicat, Gerardo and Avina, Jeffrey. UNDP Philippines’ Country Review. Manila. 1999 Balisacan, A. Poverty Comparison in the Philippines: Is What We Know about the Poor Robust?. Asia and Pacific Forum on Poverty: Reforming Policies and Institutions for Poverty Reduction. Asian Development Bank. 5 – 9 February 2001 Capacity Building in Support of the PCSD (PHI/93/G81/F/5G/99): Project Completion Report. National Economic and Development Authority. Pasig City. 1999 Change Consultants, Inc. Results of the UNDP Stakeholders Survey. Manila. 2001 Country Programme Proposal for United Nations Development Programme Assistance, 1972-1976. Manila. 1971 Environmental and Natural Resource Accounting Project, Phase II: Institutionalization of the PEENRA (PHI/97/018). Annual Reports. National Statistical Coordination Board. Makati. 1999 and 2000 Gloria Gilda V. Custodio (ed.). Leaving Behind SD Legacy: IEMSD Programme Completion Report. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Quezon City. 1999 Integrated Environmental Management for Sustainable Development: Terminal Report. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Quezon City. 1999 International Labour Organization (ILO). Vocational Training and Enterprise Development Project the MNLF, their Families, and their Communities (PHI/97/026): Terminal Report International Labour Organization. Vocational Training and Enterprise Development Project the MNLF, their Families, and their Communities (PHI/97/026): Report of the Technical Adviser Krugman, Paul, Alm, James, Collins, Susan and Remolona, Eli. Transforming the Philippine Economy. National Economic and Development Authority and United Nations Development Programme. Manila. 1992 Macroeconomic Reforms and Management Programme. Report on the Terminal Tripartite Review Meeting. United Nations Development Programme. 1998 Making Peace Work in the SZOPAD: SPCPD-NEDA-UN Multi-donor Programme, The Midterm Report Peace and Development in Southern Philippines. NEDA, SPCPD, Australia, Belgium, Canada, European Union, Finland, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UNDP, UNICEF, ILO, FAO, UNIDO, WHO. December 1997 Report on Donor Perception of UNDP Republic of the Philippines. The Philippine National Development Plan: Directions for the 21st Century. National Economic and Development Authority. Manila. 1998


2

Reyes, Celia and Apthorpe, Raymond. Giving More Space, Opportunity and Legitimacy: UN Responses to Capacity-Building Needs for Poverty alleviation in the Philippines 1985-1999: A Forward-Looking Evaluation. Manila and New York. 2001 Sachs, Jeffrey, et. al. Promotion of Broad-Based Economic Growth in the Philippines. National Economic and Development Authority, Harvard Institute for International Development, and United Nations Development Programme. Manila. 1998 Selected Poverty Indicators of the Bottom 40% (Ranking of Provinces). National Statistics Office, ASEAN-Europe Meeting (ASEM), World Bank and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Manila. 2000 Sharing New Grounds in Post-Conflict Situations: The Role of UNDP in Support of Reintegration Programmes SPCPD-NEDA-UN Multi-donor Programme for Peace and Development in Mindanao, Status Reports. June and December 2000 Strengthening Institutional Mechanisms for the Convergence of Poverty Alleviation Efforts (PHI/96/026 and PHI/96/031): 1999 Accomplishment Report. National Economic and Development Authority. Pasig City. 2000 Strengthening Institutional Mechanisms for the Convergence of Poverty Alleviation Efforts (PHI/96/026 and PHI/96/031): January-June 2000 Quarterly Monitoring and Accomplishment Report. National Economic and Development Authority. Pasig City. 2000 Talisayon, Serafin. Mid-term Evaluation of the Integrated Environmental Management for Sustainable Development (PHI/93/007). Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Quezon City. 1997 The UNDP Role in Decentralization and Local Governance: Philippines Country Report United Nations Development Programme. Fifth Country Programme for the Philippines (1993-1997). Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme. New York. 1993 United Nations Development Programme. First Country Cooperation Framework for the Philippines (1997-2001). Executive Board of the United Nations Development Programme and of the United Nations Population Fund. New York. 1997 United Nations Development Programme. Fourth Country Programme for the Philippines (1987-1991). Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme. New York. 1986 United Nations Development Programme. Country Programme for the Philippines: UNDP assistance requested by the Government of the Philippines for the period January 1982-December 1986. Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme. New York. 1981 United Nations Development Programme. Country Programme for the Philippines: UNDP assistance requested by the Government of the Philippines for the period 1977- 1981. Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme. New York. 1976 United Nations Development Programme. Mid-term Review of the Fifth Country Programme for the Philippines. Manila, Philippines. 1996 United Nations Country Strategy Note for the Philippines. Manila, Philippines. 1995 Capacity Assessment and Development: In a Systems and Strategic Management Context, UNDP/MDGD, Technical Advisory Paper No. 3, 1998 C.2 PROJECT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED FOR THE SHORT LIST OF IMPACT AREAS AND FOR VALIDATION (noted by *v) 1. Regional Planning Programme (*v)

• PHI/68/524 Institute of Planning, U.P.


3

• PHI/72/004 Institute of Planning, U.P. • PHI/74/018 Assistance in Regional Planning, Phase I • PHI/77/002 Assistance to Regional Planning • PHI/79/015 Assistance in Regional Planning, Phase II • PHI/83/005 Regional Development Planning Implementation Project • PHI/89/012 Establishment and Strengthening of Regional Support

Foundations/Capacity Building • PHI/94/800 TA for the Formulation of a National Urban Policy Framework

Medium Term Development Plans for the period 1971-2004, Government of the Philippines Other documents:

Presidential Decree No. 01, Letters of Implementation, Executive Orders and other issuances on RDC Composition and Functions Project Documents, Terminal Reports, Tripartite Review on Regional Planning Local Budget Memoranda RDC-5 Silver Jubilee, 1974-1999, “Padagos na Pag-asenso Tabang sa Bicolono.“ A special issue of the RDC-5 newsletter, Regional Development Updates.

2. Environment/Sustainable Development

• PHI/93/G81 Capacity-Building in Support of the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development • Integrated Environmental Management for Sustainable Development Programme (IEMSD) PHI/96/002 Environment and Natural Resource Accounting and Applications (ENRA) PHI/96/003 Integration of Environmental and Socio-Economic Considerations in Development

Policies (SEI) PHI/96/004 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) PHI/96/005 Sustainable Development Models (SDM) PHI/96/006 Environmental and Natural Resource Database (DBAS) PHI/96/007 Programme Management Support (PMS) • PHI/97/018 Environment and Natural Resource Accounting Project, Phase II

3. Macroeconomic Reforms (*v)

• PHI/90/009 High-level Advisory Mission to the Philippines on Economic/Structural Reforms (*v) • “ “ “ Gochoco-Bautista, S., Paper on Monetary, Fiscal and Structural Reforms (*v) • “ “ “ Panganiban, E., Paper on Decentralization (*v) • “ “ “ Alburo, F., Paper on Trade, Investment and Private Sector Development (*v) • “ “ “ Remigio, A., Paper on Environmental Management’(*v) • “ “ “ Communication and Advocacy Program for the Medium Term Philippine

Development Plan: 1993 – 1998 (draft project proposal) • “ “ “ Terminal Report, October, 1993 (includes reactors’ reports plus above reports)(*v) • PHI/93/003 Macroeconomic Reforms and Management Programme (*v) • PHI/95/002 Investment Programming and Debt Management (*v) • PHI/______ Policy Agenda for the Second Half of the Administration

4. Poverty Monitoring Systems

• Strengthening Institutional Mechanisms for Convergence of Poverty Alleviation Efforts • PHI/96/026 Development of an Integrated Poverty Monitoring and Indicator System • PHI/96/031 Support for Coordination and Monitoring of Anti-Poverty Programmes

5. Making the Peace Work in the Special Zone of Peace and Development (SZOPAD) • PHI/97/004 Fact Finding/Needs Assessment and Pilot Emergency Assistance for

Development of Basic Services, Livelihood and Job Creation • PHI/97/021 Support to the Expanded Programme of Assistance for Delivery of Basic

Services, Livelihood and Enterprise Development for Southern Philippines Council for Peace and Development

• PHI/97/025 Agri-based Livelihood for MNLF Soldiers and their Families in the SZOPAD • PHI/97/026 Vocational Skills Training and Enterprise Development • PHI/97/027 Mobile Information Referral and Community Assistance Service


4

• PHI/97/028 Human Resource Development Component for Governance and Livelihood for SPCPD

• Draft Strengthening the Foundations of Lasting Peace and Development in Southern Philippines (Third Phase of GOP/Multi-donor Programme) Sustainable Livelihood (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery) Development Program for PDCs. 2001

• PHI/_____ Strengthening the Foundations of Lasting Peace and Development in Southern Philippines (Third Phase of the GOP/UN Multi-donor Programme) 16 January 2001)

• PHI/_____ Southern Philippines Council for Peace and Development (SPCPD) Expanded Programme of Assistance for Delivery of Basic Services, Livelihood Development, Enterprise and Skills Development, and Capacity Building for MNLF Soldiers, their Families and Communities

C.3 OTHER KEY DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 1. Standard UNDP Documents

Country Programmes (CP) 1972-1976, 1977-1981, 1982-1986, 1987-1991 Country Cooperation Frameworks (CCF) 1992-1996, 1997-2001, 2002-2006 Advisory Notes (1972-1992) Mid Term Reviews of Country Programmes Country Reviews of CCFs CCF Semi-Annual Review report Programme Documents Sector Studies/Strategy Papers Project Documents (upon request) and project summaries on UNDP Philippines website Evaluation Reports of projects (See list available from Central Evaluation Database (CEDAB) and summary findings) Tripartite Reports Strategic Results Framework (SRF) 1999-2001 Results Oriented Annual Reports (1999-2000) Annual Programme Reviews Country Office Management Plans (COMP) National Human Development Reports (1994- present) Client Surveys UNDP Philippines Website

2. Methodology Guidelines

Evaluation Office Website and OSG RBM Website ( http://intra.undp.org/osg/results) on RBM papers and methodology Impact Assessments of UNDP Country support (Methodology for CLIA Phase I and Concept Paper) Technical Note on UNDP Results Framework

3. UN and Partnerships

United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) Resident Coordinator’s Annual Reports Donor/Partnership Profiles Studies/Joint Programmes on UN Support to Global Compacts/International Development Targets (IDTs) Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development (1995, 1996, 1997 etc.)

4. Government Documents

National Development Plans covering period under review Philippines 2000 Medium Term Development Plans 1993-1998 Social Pact for Empowered Economic Development (SPEED) National Anti-Poverty Action Agenda


5

Philippine Agenda 21 5. Selected Key Institutions

Presidential Commission to Fight Poverty (PCFP) Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) NEDA

6. Key Stakeholders

UNDP Staff UN Team Government (includes regional & local authorities and key authority figures) Donors (bilateral and multilateral) Civil Society (NGOs, CBOs, academia, research institutions and think tanks, media organizations and key opinion leaders) Private Sector Organizations and Associations Beneficiary groups, including beneficiary institutions.

7. Other Reports

CLIA Reports for Malawi & Burkina Faso (work in progress) Selected Donor Reports, e.g. ADB & WB Country Assessments and CG reports over the time period Bilateral Donor Country Assessments Any relevant research articles, publications, monographs, (Bibliographic research, Internet) UN DESA Study on Poverty CO Newsletters CO Press Releases CO Press Clippings Files Special Studies and Evaluations, e.g. UNDP/German Evaluation of Decentralization and the Philippines Country Report

ANNEX D - SURVEY INSTRUMENTS AND QUESTIONNAIRES 1 of 4

1

ANNEX D SURVEY INSTRUMENTS AND QUESTIONNAIRES PERCEPTION SURVEY GUIDELINES # 1 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MIDDLE LIST OF IMPACT AREAS (Target interviewees: UNDP CO Key Staff (past and present).

1. Introduce yourself/team members. 2. Briefly cite the purpose of the interview: - Conduct of CLIA for UNDP; - short list UNDP programmes or soft interventions which are perceived to have significant

impacts; - identify impact areas and types of impacts produced; - describe factors affecting achievement of impacts. 3. Ask interviewee about his/her length of residence at UNDP (year joined and

resigned/retired if applicable). 4. Before joining UNDP, was the interviewee involved in any UNDP programme project? If

yes, ask name/title of project/programme and position/role of interviewee and the date/duration of the programme/project.

5. Among the programmes and soft interventions implemented by UNDP of which you are aware, which ones do you consider producing significant impacts? When interviewing UNDP staff, the interviewee should be asked to include programmes and projects outside of his/her management sphere. Also inform the interviewee that the CLIA study covers the period 1972-2001. For non-UNDP staff, the interviewer should briefly explain or give examples of “soft interventions”.

6. From your point of view, what are the main impacts (positive or negative) produced or generated by the UNDP programmes/projects and soft interventions you have identified? Guide questions related to these are found in Annex 3 of the CLIA methodology. Questions in Annex 3 should be applied particularly to stakeholders’ perception survey (Programme implementers, Institutional beneficiaries, etc.).

7. What impact areas do you think the study team should focus on? Be ready to give examples of impact areas in case the interviewee does not immediately grasp your question. (See Annex 5 of the CLIA methodology for the list of impact areas.)

8. What external and management factors helped or hampered the achievement of sustainable impacts? Give examples of factors to get discussion going. See Annex 8 of the CLIA methodology.

9. What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of UNDP’s interventions or programmes?

10. If your choice of programmes and soft interventions are narrowed down to the most significant ones, which top four will you choose? (This question should be asked if the interviewee gave a long list of programmes and projects.)

For the team members: Will it facilitate our work if we send in advance the list of questions that we are going to ask our interviewees? We could attach this questionnaire to our letter.


2

PERCEPTION SURVEY GUIDELINES # 2 FOR STAKEHOLDERS' SURVEY OF IMPACT PERCEPTION I. Background Information: 1. Impact Area: 2. Programme/Project or Soft Intervention: 3. Names of stakeholders/Office/Designation: 4. Role or relationship with UNDP intervention (You may tick off more than one):

( ) Implementing institution/Programme or Project Staff ( ) Beneficiary organization ( ) Contractor institution/Consultants ( ) Others (Specify)

5. Explanatory notes about role/relationship: II. Guide Questions: A. Perceived level of achievement 1. Did the intervention (Programme/Project/Soft) attain its objectives? 2. What objectives were attained/not attained? Why were they not attained? 3. To what extent do you think this intervention was relevant to the situation or need that

existed during that time? 4. To what extent do you think this intervention was timely? B. Outputs Generated 5. Were the target outputs achieved? 6. Which outputs were delivered/not delivered? Why were they not delivered? 7. What factors facilitated/hindered the delivery of outputs?


3

C. Outcomes Produced 8. What outcomes or changes did the outputs produce? 9. Were there any negative outcomes produced? What are these? D. Impacts Produced 10. What benefits did the outputs/outcomes produce? 11. What damages or dis-benefits did the outputs/outcomes produce? 12. Who benefited and how did they benefit from the outputs/outcomes? E. Sustainability of Impacts 13. What is the status of the intervention now? Is the output (activity, system, document, etc.)

still being used or continued? 14. If not, why was the output discontinued? (E.g., No longer relevant or useful; No more

resources to continue intervention; other reasons (specify). 15. What were the problems encountered in the implementation of the intervention? 16. Are the people trained to implement the output (activity, system, documents, etc.) still doing

it? 17. How many left the organization or the unit implementing the output? 18. Were there new people trained? F. Recommendations 19. Do you still need to continue the intervention (activity, system, document, etc.)? What is the

importance of continuing it? 20. What can you recommend to improve, continue or revive the intervention?


4

PERCEPTION SURVEY # 3 FOR STAKEHOLDERS ON THE MACROECONOMIC REFORM PROGRAMME The Country Level Impact Assessment (CLIA) is intended to review the outcomes and impact of UNDP initiatives in the country since 1972 using a two-phased approach. The first phase looks into the perception of stakeholders on the impact of the programme. The second phase, which uses a more scientific approach and is more data intensive, validates the results and deepens the assessment of Phase One. One of the initiatives being looked into is the assistance provided by UNDP at the macroeconomic level, which includes the following assistance packages: Macroeconomic Reforms and Management Programme (including the Sachs Report) Policy Agenda for the Second Half of the Administration High-level Advisory Mission to the Philippines on Economic Structural Reforms (Krugman Report) To generate your perceptions on the impact of the initiatives, we have prepared the questions below. Please feel free, however, to provide additional information or ideas that may not be covered by these questions.

1. Describe your involvement with any or all of the projects aforementioned.

2. What are the effects of the three projects (individually or collectively) at the policy level? What policies have been influenced by these projects?

3. What are the effects of the three projects (individually or collectively) in strengthening the

capabilities of governance institutions in policy formulation, implementation and monitoring?

4. What are the effects of the three projects (individually or collectively) in the performance

of your respective responsibilities (e.g., in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness)?

5. Are there positive or negative outcomes of the UNDP initiatives at the macro level, other than those mentioned above?

6. What management strategies or external factors could have influenced the outcomes of

the UNDP initiatives on macroeconomic reforms and management?

7. How would you rate the performance of the UNDP assistance on macroeconomic reforms on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 5 is the highest and 1 is the lowest)?

8. Do you see a need for UNDP support at the macro level? In what areas should this be?


5

VALIDATION OF PERCEIVED IMPACTS – INSTRUMENT # 1 Validation of Perceptions – Macroeconomic Reform Programme (Krugman Report)

INTERVIEW GUIDELINES FOR SELECTED OFFICIALS 1) To what degree are you familiar with the UNDP-supported 1992 publication, “Transforming the

Philippine Economy” by Krugman?

Very Familiar [ ] Somewhat familiar [ ] 2) Generally, do you feel that issues and recommendations contained in the Krugman Report

responded to a pressing need for reforms at the time?

Yes [ ] Somewhat [ ] No [ ] 3) Which macroeconomic areas covered by Krugman, in your view, were most relevant to national

development needs at the time: Very Somewhat Not Relevant Relevant Relevant

TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL POLICY [ ] [ ] [ ] EXTERNAL FINANCING AND DEBT [ ] [ ] [ ] FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY [ ] [ ] [ ] TAX POLICY [ ] [ ] [ ] POVERTY AND WELFARE [ ] [ ] [ ] 4) In your view, did the process leading to the publication of the Krugman Report expand the

awareness and understanding of macroeconomic issues and need for reforms?

Yes [ ] Somewhat [ ] No [ ] 5) Do you feel that the report influenced in whole or in part the macroeconomic reform agenda in

the 1993-1998 Medium Term Philippines Development Plan, or current ongoing macroeconomic reforms?

Yes [ ] Somewhat [ ] No [ ]

6) Which macroeconomic areas in particular were most influential?

Very Somewhat Not Influential Influential Influential

TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL POLICY [ ] [ ] [ ] EXTERNAL FINANCING AND DEBT [ ] [ ] [ ] FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY [ ] [ ] [ ] TAX POLICY [ ] [ ] [ ] POVERTY AND WELFARE [ ] [ ] [ ] 7) Do you feel that UNDP has had or can have a value-added role in supporting macroeconomic

policy and or macroeconomic reforms?

Yes [ ] Somewhat [ ] No [ ] Would you have any other comments you would like to offer?

1

ANNEX E UNDP PHILIPPINES PROGRAMME MAP E.1 OVERVIEW A major tool in identifying impact areas of UNDP support in the draft CLIA methodology’s definition of the Programme Map. This annex contains the Programme Map developed for UNDP country support in the Philippines over the period 1972-2001. The map is a graphic representation of UNDP-supported projects and programmes, divided according to the six country programme cycles. Using the Programme Map as a guide, the evolution of UNDP country support over the past 30 years is given below. An attempt was made to classify all UNDP-supported programmes and projects in accordance with the four themes adopted in the second Country Cooperation Framework, namely: a) creating an enabling environment for sustainable human development (or governance); b) empowerment of the poor (or poverty); c) ensuring environmental sustainability; and d) establishing the foundations for peace and development. The purpose of such reclassification is to view the extent to which initiatives in previous years contribute to the different elements of Sustainable Human Development – the mission of UNDP. For purposes of this exercise, programmes and projects were classified as empowerment of the poor; ensuring environmental sustainability; and establishing the foundations for peace and development if these initiatives are focused on the poor; the environment and natural resources; and the rebel returnees or ex-combatants, respectively. All other programmes and projects (e.g., public administration, broad-based political, social and economic governance) are classified under the theme, creating an enabling environment for sustainable human development. The magnitude of programmes and projects classified under the governance theme as opposed to the poverty theme reflects the broad-based development efforts undertaken by the government in the past. This is in line with the perspective prevalent at that time assuming that economic development would trickle-down and benefit the poor. This lack-of-focus is now being addressed by the government with the implementation of the social reform agenda. Even prior to the UN Conference on Environment and Development and the Rio Summit, the government, with UNDP support, had already been addressing addressed environmental and ecological issues. Initiatives on peace and development are more recent as compared with the three other themes. UNDP has gone through six major changes in the definition and delivery of development assistance over the past 30 years to become more responsive to development priorities and to make its assistance package more strategic (please refer to chart at end of the Summary). These six major approaches to development assistance were: Shift towards Country Programming and Global Cooperation Framework. The adoption of the country programming method in 1971 transferred the responsibility for programming

Figure E.1 - UNDP Assisted Programmes and Projects by Theme

Theme Policy Formulation

Capacity Building

Direct Services

Total

Governance 19 170 2 191 Poverty 5 21 18 44

Environment 6 51 16 73 Peace 0 0 8 8 Total 30 242 44 316

2

and implementation of development assistance programmes from headquarters to the country level for greater coherence with national objectives and priorities. On the other hand, the First Global Cooperation Framework (GCF) 1997-2000 (DP/GCF/1/Rev.1) was adopted to merge three separate fifth-cycle funding mechanisms, namely, special programme resources, the global programme and the interregional programme. Its goal is to refine the emerging global agenda for attaining sustainable human development into a holistic and comprehensive series of initiatives that can be implemented through UNDP.

Shift From a Project Approach to a Programme Approach. The shift from a project approach to a programme approach in 19891 was intended to encourage the government to formulate, in accordance with its own development plans and priorities, an integrated national programme framework that set out the provision of technical cooperation requirements. Such a framework was expected to enable the system to more effectively support the development priorities of developing countries and to be more country-focused rather than scattering UNDP resources into small projects.

Focus on Results Management. In 1997, UNDP established a set of guidelines which, among other things, required UNDP activities to be seen in terms of outputs or results rather than in terms of inputs such as foreign experts, fellowships and imported equipment. Results based management was introduced in 1997-1999 to improve management effectiveness and accountability by defining realistic objectives, using indicators to monitor progress, integrating lessons learned in management decisions and reporting on performance.

Adoption of National Execution. In its early years, UNDP-funded projects were carried out by the United Nations specialised agencies while the government implemented only a few of these projects. In 1975, National Execution was introduced to promote self-reliance in developing countries, reinforce national capacity building and encourage governments and institutions in recipient countries to assume responsibility for undertaking projects. NEX was reported to have been fully adopted in the Philippines only in the mid-1990s.

Recognition of Partnership With the Private Sector. Strategic partnership with the private sector was recognized in the 1990s for purposes of mobilizing non-governmental sources of funds for development programmes and because of the role of the private sector as an influential, inevitable and imperative agent of development.2

Shift to Upstream Policy Advice. Given its limited resources, in 2000, UNDP decisively has reoriented its programme to support high-leverage initiatives in areas of priority interest to programme countries. (See Administrator Business Plans (2000-2003)). This involves a shift upstream to greater policy dialogue advocacy.

E.2 THE ‘PROGRAMME MAP’ The UNDP Programme Map illustrated in the following charts captures the above trends and shift in UNDP’s thematic areas of focus and strategic approaches. The map is divided into four major sets. The first set covers all environment and sustainability projects and programmes supported by UNDP over the period. The second set covers governance and poverty, while the third set covers peace and development.

Each set is further organized into type of project or support provided by UNDP: support to policy and plan formulation, to capability or capacity building, and to project investments. Individual projects and programmes are classed by size of the project/programme budget ranging from those that were less than US$100,000 to those that were over US$3.1 million.

1 See the GA resolution 44/211 of 1989 2 See the Guidelines and Procedures for Mobilization of Resources from the Private Sector, UNDP, p. 3.

3

Figure E.2 (a) - PROGRAMME MAP – ENVIRONMENT (CHART 1 OF 3)

Support to Policy and

Plan Formulation

Capability-Building

1972 - 1976 1977 - 1981

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

Legend: Less than $100,000

$100,000 - $500,000

$501,000 - 1.0 M

$1.1 M - 2.0 M

$2.1 M - 3.0 M

$3.1 M - Above

Laguna de Bay Water Resource Dev’t.

Survey of Coal Resources in Mindanao

Trng. & Consultancy in Nuclear Power Plant Safety & Analysis

Feasibility Study for a Nuclear Power Plant

Laguna de Bay Water Quality Lab Design

Geothermal Reservoir Assessment & Mgmt.

Institute of Meteorology

National Pollution Control Meteorological

Workshop Organization

Adviser to the

Petroleum Board

Design Study of Manila 1st Stage Sewerage Programme

Port of Pulupandan

Assistance in Coordination and Management of

the Rehabilitation and Dev’t Prog.

Multiple Use Forest Management

Energy Production from Biomass Waste

MaterialsAssessment of Mineral and Energy Exploration

Needs

Fuels & Energy

Program & Policy Dev’t.

Review Panel for the Manila Solid

Waste Mgmt. Study

National Water Resources Council, Phase I

Water Quality Mgt. Prog. Laguna de Bay

Support to Project

Investments

Base and Precious Metals Exploration of

Samar

Phil. Nuclear Power Manpower

Development Prog.

4

Figure E.2 (b) - PROGRAMME MAP – ENVIRONMENT (CHART 2 OF 3)


Plan Formulation

Capability-Building

Support to Project

Investments

1982 - 1986 1986 - 1990



$100,000 - $500,000

$501,000 - 1.0 M

$1.1 M - 2.0 M

$2.1 M - 3.0 M

$3.1 M - Above

Strengthening Agrometeorology Capabilities

Industrial Energy Mgmt. Consultancy & Training, I

Marine Science and Resource Development

Development of Geothermal Energy for Power & Non-Electric Uses

Industrial Energy Mgmt. Consultancy & Training,

II

Strengthening Integrated Social Forestry Programme

Management of Geothermal Resources

Strengthening the Geological Survey Division

Integrated Solid Waste Management in Urban

Settlement

Assistance to Typhoon

Nitang Victims

Assistance to the Victims of the Eruption of Mayon

Volcano

Emergency Relief of the Victims of

Typhoon Undang

Assistance for Core Shelter Development

Emergency Assistance to the Victims of Earthquake

Disaster Management Training Prog.

Technical Assistance on

Precious Metal Exploration

Human Resources Dev’t in Environmental Planning & Mgt. For SD in the Phils.

Chromite Exploration in the Phils.

Geothermal Agro-Industrial Demonstration Plant

Gold Exploration

Dev’t of Mining Law & Mineral Investment

Promotion Prog.

Senior Officials

Consultative Forum for

SD

Env’tal Ed Strategy For SD

Impact Impl.

Of EIA

5

Figure E.2 (c) - PROGRAMME MAP – ENVIRONMENT (CHART 3 OF 3)


Plan Formulation

Capability-Building

Support to Project

Investments

1993 - 1997 1997 - 2001



$100,000 - $500,000

$501,000 - 1.0 M

$1.1 M - 2.0 M

$2.1 M - 3.0 M

$3.1 M - Above

Samar Island

Biodiversity Project

HIMALAYA (Phase Out of CFC)

Phil. 1st Nat’l. Report on

Convention on Biodiversity

Pilot PV - Wind Turbine Hybrid

Sustainable Mgmt. of Mt. Isarog

Cebu Endemic Forest

Biodiversity & Sustainable Dev’t. Proj.

Biodiversity Conservation

& Mgmt. of the Bohol Is. Marine

Triangle

Samar Island Biodiversity Project, II

Tubbataha Reef & World Heritage Site

Reducing Mercury Emission in Contaminated Gold Areas

Tubbataha Reef National Marine Park

Capacity-Building to Remove Barriers to Renewable Energy

Palawan Alternative Renewable Energy

Response to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC)

ENRA II: Institutionalization of PEENRA

Environmental Technology Assessment

System (ETAS)

Capacity-Bldg. In Support to the Phil.

Council for Sustainable Dev’t. (PCSD)

IEMSD: Sub-Prog. 2 -Integration of Envi. & Socio-

Economic Dev’t. (SEI)

Private Sector Participation in Managing the Envi. (PRIME)

IEMSD: Sub-Prog. 3 - Envi. Impact Assessment (EIA)

IEMSD: Sub-Prog. 4 -Sustainable Dev’t. Models

(SDM))

IEMSD: Sub-Prog. 5 - Envi. & Natural Resource Database

(DBAS)

Sustainable Mgmt. of Ancestral Domain in Zambales

Coastal Resource Mgmt. & Sustainable

Tourism

Strengthening Local Envi. Planning & Mgmt. LOCAL-EMP

IEMSD: Sub-Prog. 6 - Prog. Mgmt. Support

IEMSD: Sub-Prog. 1 - Envi. & Natural Resources Acct. &

Applications (ENRA)

Tech. Asst. to DBP for the FINESSE

Phil. Efficient Lighting Market Transformation

Montreal Protocol Project

2nd

Fisheries Nat’l

Workshop

Biomass Tech. In

Developing Countries

6

Figure E.3 - PROGRAMME MAP – PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT (CHART 1 OF 1)


Plan Formulation

Capability-Building

Support to Project

Investments

1993 - 1997 1997 - 2001

PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHERN PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHERN PHILIPPINESPHILIPPINES


$100,000 - $500,000

$501,000 - 1.0 M

$1.1 M - 2.0 M

$2.1 M - 3.0 M

$3.1 M - Above

Strengthening the Foundation of Lasting

Peace & Development in Southern Philippines

Support to the Expanded Programme of Asst. for Delivery of Basic Services,

Livelihood & Enterprise Dev’t. for SPCPD

Agri-Based Livelihood for MNLF Soldiers and

their Families in the SZOPAD

Confidence Building in the SZOPAD through Mobile Information Referral &

Community Assistance Services

Human Resource Dev’t. Programme on Governance & Livelihood for SPCPD

Vocational Skills Training & Enterprise Dev’t. for MNLF Soldiers, their Families &

their Communities

Fact Finding/Needs Assessment and Pilot Emergency Assistance for Dev’t of Basic Services, Livelihood and Job Creation

7

Figure E.4 (a) - PROGRAMME MAP – GOVERNANCE (CHART 1 OF 3)

Support to Policy and Plan

Formulation

Capability-Building

Support to Project

Investments1972 - 1976 1977 - 1981

GOVERNANCEGOVERNANCE

Strengthening Agricultural Training at the CLSU


$100,000 - $500,000$501,000 - 1.0 M

$1.1 M - 2.0 M

$2.1 M - 3.0 M

$3.1 M - Above

Mission on FMD

Asst. to Garment Industry

Quality Control & Productivity

Improvement System

Strengthening the Techno Transfer Board of the Min. of

Industry

Industrial Sub-Contracting

Phil. Carabao Research & Dev’t. Center

TOKTEN

Soil Fertility Survey and Research

Establishment of Reg’l Reference Center on Parasitic Diseases of Ruminants in the Phil.

Assistance to BOI

Soil and Land Classification

Asst. to the Fertilizer Industry

Establishment of Disease Free Zones for Cattle

Dev’t of Marble Industry

Improvement of Agricultural Statistics

Marketing & Storage Programme

Fertilizer Demonstration & Pilot Scheme Distribution

Animal Health Reference & Diagnostic Center

TA to the National Industrial Estates (NIEP)

Dev’t. of the Cement Industry

Industrial Chemicals from Indigenous

Carbohydrate Raw Materials

Drilling Prog. for Groundwater Dev’t.

Food & Drug Administration

Asst. to National Nutrition Council

Dev’t &Trng. of ManpowerStrengthening the Educ’l & Research Prog. of the NCI

Institute of Planning - U.P.

U.P. Dev’t. Plan

Mla. Port Personnel Skills Promotion Prog.

Modernization of the Training of PMMA

Footwear & Leather Goods

W/shop on Comm. Technology

Strengthening the NCC

Assistance to U.P. - National Engineering CenterAssistance to MOLE

Further Road Feasibility Studies II

Reorg of the Bureau of Highways

Integrated Transport Dev’t.

Inter-Island Shipping

Telecommunications Research & Training

3rd Road Feasibility Studies

Dev’t of Telecomm. Sector

Asst. to Nat’l. Water Resources Council, II

Mla. International Container Terminal

Dev’t. of Petrochemical Industry

Dev’t. of Looc Estates

Manila Bay Metropolitan Region Strategic Plan

Pampanga Delta & Candaba Swamp Area Dev’t.

Pampanga Delta Area Dev’t.Candaba Swamp

Dev’t.Mindanao Reg ‘l Dev’t. Study

Project Mapping

Asst. for Integrated Project Dev’t.

Phil. Metric System Board

Expanded Asst. to Central Map Production

Regional Planning, II

Central Bank’s Apex Dev’t. Finance Unit (CB-ADFU)

General Dev’t. Consultancy & Training, I

Regional Planning, III

Comm. Policy Survey

Mission -Manila

Trng. For Technicians for Grain Ind.

Coconut Research & Development

Fishermen Training Center

Trng & Research in Multiple-Use Forest Mgt.

Sedimentation Study of the Central Luzon Plain

Soil and land Resources Appraisal and Training

Malaria Eradication Program

Malaria Eradication Program

Brackishwater Aquaculture Development and TrainingAssistance to Metals Industry Research and Development

Further Assistance to the BOI

Assistance to Metals Industry Research and Development IIExport Promotion

Assistance in Regional Planning

Distribution of School Science Equipment

Strengthen Manpower, Youth & Skills Dev’t Prog. Under NMYC

Design Prod. & Distribution of School Science Equipment

W/shop on Teaching &

Training Methods for Mgt Dev’t

Special Assistance for Highway Rehab.

Luzon Roads Feasibility

Study

Nat’l Scientific Info. System

Strengthening Phil. State Acct. & Auditing Center

Training of Trainors for Industry

Training in Investment Promotion

Dev’t. of the Steel Industry

Assistance to Civil Aeronautics Admin.

Palawan Integrated Area Dev’t Proj.

Assistance to PIDS

TCDC Prog.

Garment Industry (Visayas & Mindanao)

8

Figure E.4 (b) - PROGRAMME MAP – GOVERNANCE (CHART 2 OF 3)


Formulation

Capability-Building

Support to Project

Investments

1993 - 1997 1997 - 2001



$100,000 - $500,000$501,000 - 1.0 M

$1.1 M - 2.0 M

$2.1 M - 3.0 M

$3.1 M - Above

Improving Working Conditions & Productivity in Small & Medium Enterprises

TOKTEN, III

Strategic Management of the GAIN ExportsMilkfish Dev’t. & Fry Production in Ponds & Tanks

Mango Information Network

Nat’l. Preparation for

HABITAT II

National Marine Exam & Certification

Precision Tool & Dye Center

Investment Promotion Prog., I

Investment Promotion Prog., II

Production of Halon Fire Extinguisher

Seedstock Improvement of Kappaphycus, Eucheuma & Glacilaria

National Urban Policy Framework

Nat’l. Coordination of NGOs & Grassroots Women’s Orgs. for Gender Issues in the Phils.

PLCPD, II

COMELECStrengthening Decentralized Capability-Building

Efforts Towards Sustained Local Dev’t.

Investment Programming and Debt Management

Utilizing Economic Tools in the Administration of Justice

Public Accountability Programme

Capability-Bldg. for the LMP

Macroeconomic Reforms & Mgt. Prog.

Aquaculture Techniques Proj.

APEX Body for Phil. Water Regulation

The Phil. Governance Forum

HIV/AIDS

Sustainable Cooperative Development

Justice and Development

Multi-Sectoral Dialogue

Civil Aviation Training Center

Human Dev’t

Report

Global Conference

Publication of Phil HDR

Expert Mtg. Of

SD

Reg’l Gender Prog.

9

Figure E.4 (c) - PROGRAMME MAP – GOVERNANCE (CHART 3 OF 3)


Formulation

Capability-Building

Support to Project

Investments

1982 - 1986 1986 - 1990


Instrumentation and Control Trng. at the Rizal Technological Colleges


$100,000 - $500,000$501,000 - 1.0 M

$1.1 M - 2.0 M

$2.1 M - 3.0 M

$3.1 M - Above

Aquatic Resources Mgmt. Trng.

Asst. to Civil Aviation - Trng. & Operations

Solar Ice Making & Fish Drying

Applied Research & Trng. for Dryland Agriculture

Export Development, I

Bamboo Research & Development

Phil. Carabao Research & Dev’t. Center, IISupport Comm. for Selected Agricultural

Tech. Transfer Projects

Indigenous Fiber Dev’t. of their Processing Tech. & Use in Textile, I

Export Development, II

TOKTEN, II

Upgrading of the Footwear & Leather Goods Training

Maritime Training

TIPS Support Proj.Apprenticeship Programme

Strengthening the Bureau of Posts

Assistance to Phil. Airlines, I

Assistance to Phil. Airlines, II

Coconut Pest & Disease Research & Control

Rehab. of the Ramie Industry

Establishment of Animal Products & By-Products Training Center

Pilot Plant Production of Citric Acid

Pre-Investment Studies of Balanced Agro-Industrial Dev’t. Projects

Phil. Animal Health Center

Integrated Control of Major Coconut Pests and Diseases

UNDP/STAS Multi-Sectoral

TA Proj.

Fibre Processing & Utilization Lab.

Dev’t. of Phil. Nat’l Shelter Strategy

Id, Formulation & Promotion of Industrial Investment

Child Dev’t. Education

5th Road Feasibility Studies

Tourism Master Plan

Structural Adjustments & Employment Policies

Strengthening Training for Regional Dev’t. Planning & Implementation

Registration & Control of Public Debt

Strengthening Development Management

DFA as a Dev’t.-Oriented Institution

Asst. to Phil. Institute of Development Studies (PIDS), II

Documentation of Phil. Economic

Growth & Dev’t.

Fund for Project Preparation

Design & Implementation of Presidential Policy Information

System

Formulation of Shelter Strategy

Productivity Measurement &

Analysis

Regional Statistical System Dev’t. Proj.

Strengthening the PIDS

Production of Ethanol

Modernizing Industrial property System

Strengthening the Tecnology Info. Services

Core Trainers Training Prog. For Construction Ind.

4th UNDP Road Feasibility Study

Statistical Education Support Project

Assistance to the Presidentiol Comm. On Gov’t Reorg.

Policy Agenda for the 2nd Half of the Admin.

High-Level Advisory Mission on Eco/Structural

Reforms

Disposition of Gov’t. Corp.

Civil Aviation Master Plan

Dev’t Planning & r Rsearch

Proj. Dev’t Prog. In CSC

Dev’t of Dryland Agriculture

Selected Agricultural Tech. TransferGroundwater Data Banking

Support to PLCPD for Social Dev’t Policies & Prog.

Impact of TA Prog.

4 seminars on Prvt.

Sector Dev’t

10

Figure E .5 (a) - PROGRAMME MAP – EMPOWERMENT OF THE POOR (CHART 1 OF 3)


Formulation

Capability-Building

Support to Project

Investments

1982 - 1986 1986 - 1990

EMPOWERMENT OF THE POOREMPOWERMENT OF THE POOR


$100,000 - $500,000$501,000 - 1.0 M

$1.1 M - 2.0 M

$2.1 M - 3.0 M

$3.1 M - Above

Agrarian Reform Strategic Plan, I

Strengthening Women’s Participation

through Science & Tech.

Dev’t. of Entrepreneurs for Cottage, Small & Medium-Scale Industries

Income-Generation through Livestock Dev’t.

Gherkins Production

Low Cost Water Supply System Pilot Proj.

Special Public Works Program in Negros Occidental

Brick Industry for Rural Women

Labour-based Construction and Maintenance of Irrig. Works

Community-Based Vocational Rehab. Of Disabled People

Tahu Project for Rural Women

Dev’t of Settlement Areas for Rebel Returnees

Imple. of Housing Policies for the Lowest Income Grpups

Agrarian Reform Strategic Plan, II

Processing & Marketing of Rootcrops by Rural Women

Stuffed Toy Coop Project

Seaweed Production

Self-Employment Loan Asst. Program

Nationwide Appl. Of Labour-Based Methods (LBM) in Infra. Proj.

Nationwide Appl. Of Labour-Based Methods (LBM) in Infra. Proj.

Preparatory Asst.

Accelerated Soybean Production and Utilization Prog.

Dev’t of Sericulture as a Rural Agro-Based Industry in the Phils.

11

Figure E.5 (b) - PROGRAMME MAP – EMPOWERMENT OF THE POOR (CHART 2 OF 3)


Formulation

Capability-Building

Support to Project

Investments

1972 - 1976 1977 - 1981



$100,000 - $500,000$501,000 - 1.0 M

$1.1 M - 2.0 M

$2.1 M - 3.0 M

$3.1 M - Above

Assistance in the Dev’t and Application of Labour-intensive

Const. Techniques

Assistance to Cooperative Dev’t and Marketing

Expanded Assistance to the Agrarian Reform Prog. Phase IIALEC Prog. on Labor Studies

Improvement of Irrigation Facilities through Groundwater Dev’t.

Manpower Trng. for Rural Dev’t.

Water Supply & Sanitation System

Vocational Rehab of the Handicapped

Assistance to Dev’t of Brgy. Industries

Training of Refugee Women in Food

PreparationDevelopment of Settlement Areas for

Rebel Returnees

12

Figure E.5 (c) - PROGRAMME MAP – EMPOWERMENT OF THE POOR (CHART 3 OF 3)


Formulation

Capability-Building

Support to Project

Investments

1993 - 1997 1997 - 2001



$100,000 - $500,000$501,000 - 1.0 M

$1.1 M - 2.0 M

$2.1 M - 3.0 M

$3.1 M - Above

Dev’t. of an Integrated Poverty Monitoring & Indicators System

Support for Coordination & Monitoring of Anti-Poverty Programmes

Microfinance Support Proj. I

Building Partnerships towards Sustainable Human Dev’t

Asset Reform thru CARP and Dev’t of Indeginous Communities

CARP - Impact Assessment Proj.

Sustained Growth, Poverty & HH Food Insecurity

Empowerment of IP for Sustainable Mgmt. of Ancestral Domain

Engaging Private Sector in Sustainable Human Dev’t.

Advancement of Filipino Women for

Economic Empowerment

Support Mechanisms for Sustainable Cooperative Dev’t.

Microfinance Support Proj. II