FINAL EVALUATION

“Recovery and Resilience Project” -Promoting Recovery and Enhancing

Resilience of Vulnerable Communities in the Philippines Most Affected by

Typhoon Haiyan

Funded by: Giro 555 (SHO) Netherlands

Barangay Mag-aso, La Paz, Leyte

Written by: Mrs. Corazon T. Urquico

Table of Contents

Page

I. BACKGROUND 1

II. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES 4

III. METHODOLOGY 5

IV. ANALYSIS 6

V. CONCLUSIONS 28

VI. LESSONS LEARNED 32

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 34

LIST OF REFERENCES 36

ANNEXES

A. Case Study 1: Mainstreaming Gender in Early Recovery

B. Case Study 2: Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction Recovery

C. Evaluation Matrix

D. Project Intervention Areas

E. Log frame of Project

F. List of FGDs Participants

G. List of Key Informants

H. Schedule of Evaluation Process

I. Itinerary of Field Visits

J. On-site Programme

K. Photos

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACCORD Assistance and Cooperation for Community Resilience and

Development

BDRRMC Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Committee

CGI Corrugated Galvanized Iron

CWGER Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery

CBO Community Based Organization

CEF Community Enterprise fund

DRR(M) Disaster Risk Reduction(Management)

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FSL Food Security and Livelihoods

HCT Humanitarian Country Team

HFA Hyogo Framework for Action

IASC Inter-Agency Steering Committee

KII Key Informant Interview

LDRRMO Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office

LGU(s) Local Government Unit(s)

MDRRMO Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Management Office(r)

MIRA Multi-Cluster/Sector Initial Rapid Assessment

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

NFIs Non-food Items

OECD/DAC Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development/

Development Assistance Committee

PLW Pregnant and Lactating Women

PWD Persons with Disabilities

PDA/M Post-Distribution Assessment/Monitoring

SHO Dutch Cooperating Aid Agencies

SRK Shelter Repair Kit

UNDP United Nations Development Program

OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

1

I. BACKGROUND

This is the final project evaluation of CARE’s project Recovery and Resilience: Promoting Recovery and

Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Communities that are Most Affected by Typhoon Haiyan in the

Philippines. This two-year project was undertaken by CARE Nederland in partnership with the Filipino NGO

Assistance and Cooperation for Community Resilience and Development (ACCORD). Implemented in the

context of the early recovery phase after Typhoon Haiyan, the project was supported by national

fundraising action for the Philippines of the Dutch Cooperating Aid Agencies (SHO)/Giro555.

Typhoon Haiyan (locally known as Typhoon Yolanda) battered the central region of the Philippines on 8

November 2013 with an unprecedented strength of 315kph (196mph), creating a major humanitarian

crisis spread across 44 provinces, where 171 municipalities were listed as worst hit1. Officially, the

government reported 6,300 dead, 1,061 missing and 28,689 injured; the casualties came mostly from

areas where storm surges occurred. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian

Affairs (OCHA) estimated about 11 million people affected with 4 million left homeless. Access to basic

services was disrupted and means to livelihoods were paralyzed; total damage was estimated at US$15B.

Six landfalls that never dissipated in strength. Typhoon Haiyan ravaged the Visayan region of the Philippines with

unprecedented fury.

1 Source: Office of the Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation and Recovery

2

Rural areas dependent on fisheries and agriculture were completely ruined and became unproductive.

The poorest of the poor in the Philippines were affected - fisher folk, landless farmers, small landholders

and micro entrepreneurs - and the most vulnerable groups: women, children, elderly and persons with

disabilities. Typhoon Haiyan hit one of the poorest regions in the Philippines, Region VIII, where Leyte is

located. Leyte was one of the two hardest-hit provinces covered by the project; the other was Iloilo,

located in Panay Island (Region VI).

The project addressed the urgent needs of targeted communities in Leyte and Iloilo, most affected by the

disaster, for early recovery which comprised activities on shelter, food security and livelihoods. Disaster

risk reduction (DRR) and gender equality were cross-cutting themes throughout the project. It enhanced

the on-going humanitarian assistance and complemented other CARE and partners’ humanitarian

responses in food distribution, non-food items (NFIs) and emergency shelter implemented during the first

three months following onset of the disaster. The project’s duration (of 2 years) ran between 11

November 2013 and 31 December 2015.

A. Project Objectives, Intended Results, Beneficiaries and Main Activities

The hardest hit by Typhoon Haiyan came from agricultural and coastal areas, where poverty groups are

found. Some 70% of the poorest sectors in the country are found in the rural areas. They are the most

vulnerable during disasters owing to their lack of capacities and means for risk reduction and resilience.

The project targeted these remote and underserved areas, which are characterized as Geographically

Isolated and Disadvantaged Areas (GIDA). The project focused on farming and upland communities which

raised rice, corn and coconut (mainly monocrop) and were engaged in household microenterprises.

The following table describing the project has been drawn from the project proposal and updated to

reflect adaptations:

Objectives Overall objective - Communities recover from the disaster, build back safer (BBS), and

strengthen their resilience. Specific objective – Provide access to food security and livelihoods (FSL) and shelter services that incorporates disaster risk reduction (DRR) to speed up the recovery of most affected populations in targeted remote and underserved communities of Leyte and Iloilo Provinces, Philippines.

Target groups and Location

Primary target groups: 9,180 vulnerable households mainly in the agriculture sector

whose livelihoods were most affected by typhoon Haiyan; 225 local public officials Location: 5 municipalities in the province of Leyte (Region 8 –Eastern Visayas): La Paz,

Dagami, Santa Fe, Tabon-tabon, and Pastrana; 2 municipalities in the province of Iloilo (Region 6 – Western Visayas): San Dionisio and Estancia.

Results Results related to the Specific Objective R1. Short-term food security and livelihood needs of targeted vulnerable households are met R2. Shelter recovery by targeted vulnerable households is adequately supported

Main activities R1.1 Provision of livelihood recovery inputs to targeted households prioritising crop and

livelihood diversification and other resilient livelihood strategies

3

R1.2 Capacity building of households in targeted communities on sustainable agriculture, organic farming, disaster risk reduction, organization development and financial management. R1.3 Capacity building of and coordination with local authorities in targeted city and

municipalities R2.1 Assessment of damaged houses and strengthening capacities of targeted

households to build back safer homes R2.2 Distribution of shelter repair kits and cash transfers to targeted households

Beneficiaries Beneficiary targets per activity

R1.1 Provision of livelihood recovery inputs 5,420 households (27,100 persons)

R1.2 Capacity building of households 9,180 households (45,900 persons)

R1.3 Capacity building of local authorities 225 persons

R2.1 Strengthening capacities to build back safer 1,240 households (6,200 persons)

R2.2 Shelter repair kits 1,240 households (6,200 persons)

Beneficiaries without double-counting 46,125 persons

The 46,125 direct beneficiaries of the Project represent 90% of the population and local government officials in the targeted barangays. Beneficiaries targeted for livelihood recovery (R1.1) also received shelter repair kits (R2.2).

Main Expenditures

• Distribution of cash grants to households and community groups for the purchase of livelihood inputs

• Purchase of shelter repair kits and cash transfers

• Training costs

• Transportation of goods and staff travel costs

• Personnel

• Office costs, bank charges etc.

B. Features of Strategy

The project addressed the urgent needs of the targeted beneficiaries in the food security and livelihoods

(FSL) and the shelter sectors, where serious gaps have been identified. It built on earlier food, NFI and

emergency shelter assistance for more comprehensive response to targeted communities. Community-

based and rights-based approaches were consistently applied as the project’s main strategy to empower

communities for early recovery, resilience building and ensuring sustainability. This approach gave

primary importance to: (1) participation; (2) organization, building on traditional mutual-aid practices as

bayanihan2; and (3) meeting the real needs of disaster-affected people guided by the principle that

upholds the right to life with dignity. Disaster risk reduction (DRR) was systematically integrated by means

of explicit DRR activities such as contingency planning and drills, and incorporation of appropriate DRR

measures in community and household FSL and shelter strategies. Gender and inclusion were woven into

the project cycle: sex, age, vulnerability disaggregated data were collected; vulnerable groups were

2Bayanihan (pronounced as buy-uh-nee-hun) is a Filipino custom derived from a Filipino word “bayan”, which means nation,

town or community. The term bayanihan itself literally means “being in a bayan”, which refers to the spirit of communal unity,

work and cooperation to achieve a particular goal. https://themixedculture.com/2013/09/25/filipinos-bayanihan/

4

targeted and identified and their situation and needs addressed, where possible, in FSL, shelter and DRR.

Sharing of knowledge and training complemented delivery of materials inputs to livelihood and shelter.

Coordination with local government units (LGUs) and other actors in the disaster response, INGOs, NGOs

and multilateral organizations, was given importance to facilitate information sharing, mobilize support

to the community, avoid duplication in service delivery, and direct assistance where it was most needed.

C. Brief Profile of Implementing Partners

CARE has a long track-record in the Philippines that dates back to 1949, at a time when the country was

still recovering from the impact of World War II. For decades, CARE had a regular program and also

provided emergency relief; its program also included helping communities prepare for disasters. Since the

turn of the century, CARE’s projects have included promoting microfinance, economic and conservation

development, empowering youth to deal with emergency situations, and developing community disaster

response, preparedness and mitigation activities. More recently, CARE extended assistance in 2009 after

typhoon Ketsana and all subsequent major disasters that devastated large areas in Luzon (typhoons Meari,

Nesat and Nalgae), Visayas (Bohol earthquake) and Mindanao (typhoons Washi and Bopha). For Typhoon

Haiyan, CARE was immediately on the ground providing food, shelter, livelihoods assistance and other

essentials to survivors.

As an implementing partner of CARE, ACCORD Inc. traces its roots to the Strengthening Assets and

Capacities of Communities and Local Governments for Resilience to Disasters Project, which was a

collaboration amongst CARE Nederland, the Corporate Network for Disaster Response and the Agri-Aqua

Development Coalition, with funding from ECHO. As a project then under CARE, ACCORD figured

prominently in the aftermath of the 2006 Guinsaugon landslide in the province of Leyte. One of the

important lessons from the ACCORD Project was that serious gaps existed in programming capacities of

communities, people’s organizations, local government units and NGOs. In 2010, ACCORD Inc. was

established specifically to fill this need, to build local capacities in programming so that poverty reduction

and other programmes would be more effective, with sustainable outcomes, replication and scaling up.

From June 2010 to date, ACCORD has participated in seven emergency response and recovery projects in

partnership with CARE, in the sectors of FSL, WASH, shelter and NFIs. DRR elements were consistently

incorporated in these projects.

II. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

The overall objective of this final project evaluation is to ascertain the level of achievements of the

program objective and results in the course of its two-year implementation. To be assessed are the

appropriateness and effectiveness of program interventions and strategies/operational modalities,

drawing lessons learned and generating recommendations towards enhanced response interventions for

future programming.

5

Specifically, the objectives of the evaluation are to:

• Assess the overall achievement of results of the program at the objective and result levels. This

will include an assessment of how effective gender and protection and disaster risk reduction

were integrated to achieve or contribute to the achievement of project results.

• Evaluate the program model and operational strategy/approach in terms of the Development

Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability.

• Identify lessons learned, and any particular challenges in the implementation of the program

and achievement of results.

• Provide recommendations to CARE for improvement of future programming.

• Produce 2 case studies that demonstrate evidence of program results towards recovery and

resilience building and empowerment of women.

III. METHODOLOGY

The overall approach of the evaluation process was participatory, pursuing the views and experiences of

the project’s stakeholders and beneficiaries. The evaluation followed a phased process using a mix of

methods (triangulation) to obtain both primary and secondary data.

The evaluation has proceeded as follows (see the Annex for a complete timeline):

Literature review

Documentary analysis included the review of project documents, regular monitoring and evaluation

(M&E) reports, annual reports, final project report, mid-term evaluation and relevant documents on

Typhoon Haiyan prepared by the government and OCHA.

Field work

Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were conducted with stakeholders: CARE and ACCORD management and

staff, other NGOs and INGOs, local government units (LGUs) officials from the municipal down to the

barangay3 level.

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were held with beneficiaries in the project areas, with beneficiaries

selected through purposive sampling. Based on the entire coverage of the project, three out of the five

municipalities in Leyte were chosen: Dagami, La Paz and Tabon-tabon. In Iloilo, the two municipalities of

San Dionisio and Estancia were covered (see the maps of the project areas in the Annex). A total of 107

beneficiaries participated in the seven FGDs (80 women and 27 men). (See Annexes E and F for lists of FGD

participants and key informants.)

3 The barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines. A municipality or city is composed of a number of barangays. The

head of a barangay is a barangay captain who is elected every three years with a group of council members who together

compose the Barangay Council.

6

Draft report and final report.

A draft report of the analysis, lessons learned, conclusions and recommendations was submitted to CARE

for comments before the execution of this final evaluation.

The key evaluation questions were framed around the Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee’s (DAC) Criteria for Evaluating Development

and Humanitarian Assistance. These are:

• Relevance: the extent to which an aid activity is suited to the priorities and policies of the target

group, recipient and donor.

• Effectiveness: a measure of the extent to which an aid activity has attained its objectives.

• Efficiency: an economic term which signifies the least costly resources possible to achieve the

desired results were used; and generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving

the same outputs, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted.

• Impact: the positive and negative changes produced by an intervention, directly or indirectly,

intended or unintended.

• Sustainability: assessing the probability that the benefits of an activity are likely to continue after

the program cycle.

Limitation

This evaluation took place immediately after the project ended in 2015 December, covering two years of

implementation. As such, the evaluation of the project impact will only be limited to its short-term impact.

This evaluation will however factor in the potentials that this short-term impact will produce in the

medium and long terms.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Relevance

The objectives and outcomes of the project have been consistent with the objectives of the Philippine

government’s Yolanda (Haiyan) Comprehensive Rehabilitation and Recovery Plan, as well as with the

objectives of the Typhoon Haiyan Strategic Response Plan developed by the Philippines Humanitarian

Country Team. Vulnerable households in geographically isolated and depressed areas, locations that were

most affected but receiving comparatively less assistance were targeted as project beneficiaries. Rapid

needs assessments that were periodically updated ensured that assistance has addressed the urgent

needs of the targeted vulnerable households, including specific needs of the most vulnerable groups. The

synergy of activities implemented, the mix of hard (e.g. shelter repair kits, cash transfers) and soft

(trainings, livelihood groups, shelter roving teams) inputs has resulted in meeting the project outcomes

of meeting short-term food security needs, supporting resilient livelihood strategies, building back safer

shelters, and contributing to the resilience of targeted vulnerable households and communities.

7

Relevance of objectives

Table 1: Specific Objectives

The project was implemented in the context of the early recovery phase which starts and overlaps with

the later part of the humanitarian phase, about 1 month to 2 months after onset of the disaster. As

expounded by the Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER), early recovery occurs in parallel

with humanitarian activities, but its objectives, mechanisms and expertise are different. Early recovery

aims to: enhance ongoing humanitarian assistance operations; support spontaneous recovery initiatives

by affected communities; and establish the foundations of longer-term recovery.4 The project objectives

were in line with these early recovery aims. They were also consistent with the Typhoon Haiyan Strategic

Response Plan developed by the Philippines Humanitarian Country Team (HCT), to address the urgent

early recovery needs identified by the Multi-Cluster/Sector Initial Rapid Assessment (MIRA). The MIRA

was undertaken immediately after the typhoon. In particular, the project addressed MIRA’s

recommendations for:

• Revitalization of food security through support to livelihoods and re-establishment of productive

capacity.

• Protection of the most vulnerable (including women, children, the elderly and disabled)

particularly those displaced and residing in temporary evacuation centers.

• Undertaking all interventions with a view to enhancing resilience.5

While it took the Philippine government almost a year to approve its Haiyan rehabilitation and recovery

plan, the Yolanda Comprehensive Rehabilitation and Recovery Plan (CRRP) nonetheless set the following

objectives:

• To restore, rehabilitate or reconstruct damaged infrastructure necessary to sustain economic

and social activities in the affected areas;

• To repair houses or rebuild settlements and basic community facilities and services that are

more resilient to hazard events;

• To restore the peoples’ means of livelihood and continuity of economic activities and business;

and

• To increase resilience and capacities of communities in coping with future hazard events.6

4 https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/clusters/early-recovery 5 The other recommendations of MIRA were: Addressing urgent food, water and shelter needs; Preventing deterioration of

health and nutritional status of those in worst-affected areas. Restoration of essential community services for water and

sanitation, education, and social welfare. 6 http://yolanda.neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Yolanda-CRRP.pdf

Objectives Overall objective - Communities recover from the disaster, build back safer (BBS),

and strengthen their resilience. Specific objective – Provide access to food security and livelihoods (FSL) and shelter services that incorporates disaster risk reduction (DRR) to speed up the recovery of most affected populations in targeted remote and underserved communities of Leyte and Iloilo Provinces, Philippines.

8

The project’s shelter, livelihoods and disaster risk reduction components were aligned with three of four

CRRP objectives, except the first (rehabilitation of infrastructures).

The project thus responded to a number of objectives designed to address the most relevant concerns

and needs in the Haiyan early recovery, as set by the Philippine government and also by the Humanitarian

Country Team. First, was the provision of assistance for shelter and livelihoods recovery to the most

vulnerable and most affected. Second was strengthening resilience through explicit DRR activities and

integrating DRR in livelihood and shelter strategies. Third was responding to protection needs of the most

vulnerable by considering gender as a cross-cutting theme of the project. Finally, the application of

community- and rights-based approaches that give priority to participation, and organizational capacity

development of communities, as well as inclusion of DRR in the project design, provided some of the

foundation for sustainable early recovery and development.

Relevance to target group and recipients

The project targeted agricultural lowland and upland communities that belonged to the Geographically

Isolated and Disadvantaged Areas (GIDA)7 category, where the poorest of the poor in the Philippines live8.

These groups are landless tenants, small landholders, small leaseholders and micro-entrepreneurs who

are dependent on planting coconut, rice, corn and on microenterprise. Typhoon Haiyan turned the

agriculture sector in the affected areas into a virtual wasteland with totally or partially damaged houses

and means of livelihood levelled to the ground.

The project ensured that its beneficiaries came from to the most affected among vulnerable households

by using a set of criteria that also identified the most vulnerable (women, children, the elderly and

disabled) among them. The selection criteria and process were validated through consultations with the

municipal and barangay LGUs, monitoring visits, interviews and the use of a scoring system for the

selection. The project also enforced transparency and allowed the selection of beneficiaries to be

challenged if any of the proposed beneficiaries did not meet the criteria – through community meetings,

or through a confidential feedback mechanism. With gender as cross-cutting theme, the project promoted

gender equality and participation of women. Specific needs of households with family members belonging

to the vulnerable groups such as the elderly, pregnant and lactating women, and single-headed

households were considered and adjustments made in order not to exclude them from benefiting from

resilient livelihoods options and shelter repair or construction.

Guided by the HCT recommendations based on the MIRA, and the project’s own assessments, the needs

of the targeted beneficiaries were thoroughly examined. CARE and ACCORD conducted an assessment

immediately following the disaster. The assessment findings were periodically updated in order for the

response to continue to be relevant to the evolving needs of beneficiaries. The project prepared barangay

profiles or factsheets that provided data on description of area, demographics, sources of income

(livelihood profiles), extent of damage of shelter and livelihoods and humanitarian actors in the area and

7Refers to communities with marginalized population physically and socio-economically separated from the mainstream society

and characterized by: Physical Factors - isolated due to distance, weather conditions and transportation difficulties (island,

upland, lowland, landlocked, hard to reach and unserved/underserved communities); and Socio-economic Factors (high poverty

incidence, presence of vulnerable sectors, communities in or recovering from a situation of crisis or armed conflict). 8 According to the Philippine Statistical Authority, 70% of the poor in the Philippines live in the rural areas, mainly in the

agricultural and coastal sectors.

9

their interventions. The ability to be relevant to the needs of the beneficiaries was also ensured by

coordinating with the stakeholders, LGUs, UN Cluster Teams and the beneficiaries themselves in order to

stay abreast on vital information regarding the continuing and changing context of the post-Typhoon

Haiyan situation.

Relevance of activities

Table 2: Main Activities

The implemented activities were generally consistent with the project design, and have contributed to

the realization of the two project outcomes: meeting short-term food security and livelihood needs, and

providing adequate support to shelter recovery, with both outcomes incorporating DRR in order to help

build community resilience.

The shelter component consisted of the provision of shelter repair kits (SRKs), as well as instructing the

communities on how to apply the build back safer (BBS) approach. This was based on an assessment

conducted by the project of pre-Haiyan houses, which identified a number of weaknesses that made the

structures weak and indicated major gaps in BBS techniques. Rather than employing cash transfer as the

modality, in-kind SRKs were distributed given the inhibiting conditions, e.g. market forces like availability

and supply, as well as price, that made access to shelter materials difficult, especially for the poor. The

SRKs addressed the issues of availability and access since these were not available locally after the

typhoon. The SRKs also ensured quality, especially the thickness of CGI sheets, which is critical in building

back safer, where the high quality standard of materials is paramount. The project also adjusted the costs

of its SRKs when the initial SRK package was assessed to be inadequate for the needs of the beneficiaries.

Capacity-strengthening on BBS of targeted households were in the form of awareness raising activities,

training of community members on BBS techniques, and organization of shelter roving teams with the

task of providing technical support in the assessment of damage and in the actual repair or construction

of houses. To tap the communities’ own capacities, the project also promoted self-help, self-recovery and

mutual aid. It capitalized on the Filipino custom of ‘bayanihan’) to mobilize communities to rebuild their

houses.

The project provided the adequate support to the communities by providing the means (knowledge on

BBS) and the materials to build sturdier homes. SRKs provided a sturdy core structure, a strong roof and

foundation of houses, and raised beneficiary awareness on the BBS standards.

Main activities

R1.1 Provision of livelihood recovery inputs to targeted households prioritising crop

and livelihood diversification and other resilient livelihood strategies. R1.2 Capacity building of households in targeted communities on sustainable

agriculture, organic farming, disaster risk reduction, organization development and financial management. R1.3 Capacity building of and coordination with local authorities in targeted city and municipalities R2.1 Assessment of damaged houses and strengthening capacities of targeted households to build back safer homes R2.2 Distribution of shelter repair kits and cash transfers to targeted households

10

For the livelihoods component, the project provided livelihood recovery inputs in the form of cash

transfers. This distribution modality was deemed the more feasible approach – in this way, beneficiaries

were allowed certain level of flexibility, yet adhering to the general livelihood plans and strategies drawn

up with assistance from the project. could use the obtained assistance as they saw fit. The project

combined this with technical assistance, promoting in particular resilient livelihood strategies by

strengthening household and community capacities on sustainable agriculture, crop and diversification,

and management skills. The technical inputs were provided to ensure that beneficiaries would be able to

use properly the cash transfers and livelihood assets on which the cash transfers were spent, resulting in

more sustained livelihood activities. As tenants and small landowners, the project recommended the

maximization of the use of their land with the intercropping of short-gestating crops and vegetable

gardening to ensure immediate and steady supply of food for the household, thus contributing to

household food security. Investments in livestock, such as the raising hogs, chicken and goats which also

have short gestation periods further diversified livelihood activities and gave households additional

income that could be used to complete the repair of their houses and other needs such as education of

children.

The livelihood component incorporated a range of sustainability elements. As households’ livelihoods

recovered through the first cash transfer, the project provided a second cash transfer to amplify the effect

of the first grant and invest in a group-based livelihood to prepare them for joint and collective enterprises

and widen their opportunities for additional income through shared facilities (e.g., pre-and post- harvest

facilities, farm animals) and thus enabling a more long-term impact. Towards the latter part of its

implementation, the project also provided funds for enterprises to Community Based Organizations

(CBOs), promoting a value chain approach. This can be considered a timely activity towards the end of an

early recovery phase after a disaster, as it establishes the foundations of longer-term recovery and

development, introducing a new entrepreneurial and market-driven perspective. The main benefit of the

value chain approach is its multiplying impact which when translated in an enterprise means the widening

of opportunities and options - a requirement to achieve long-term development. Linking poverty groups

to value chains is the first step towards disengagement from income poverty.

The project also responded to the need for DRR capacity strengthening of communities and local

government units. DRR capacity strengthening was in the form of awareness-raising or information,

education and communications (IEC) activities, training and mentoring on resilient livelihood strategies,

building back safer shelters, conducting participatory or community risk assessments, formulating

contingency plans, and testing the effectiveness of plans through evacuation drills. The project also

provided DRR training to LGUs at the municipal and barangay levels. The focus on DRR aligned the project

to the goals of the Republic Act 10121 of 20109 which provides that LGUs should lead in DRR at the

community level. This enabling law on DRR provides for the setting up of a Local Disaster Risk Reduction

and Management Office (LDRRMO) in every province, city and municipality, and a Barangay Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management Committee (BDRRMC) in every barangay which shall be responsible for

setting the direction, development, implementation and coordination of disaster risk management

programs within their territorial jurisdiction.

9Known as the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (NDRRM) Act of 2010, this act mandated a strengthening of

disaster management in the Philippines.

11

LGU officials who participated in the DRR training of the project pointed out the relevance of the training

to their mandate and how the tools they have learned are useful for risk assessment, strategic and

contingency planning and early warning systems. As the law requires municipalities and provinces to lead

in disaster preparedness, the training enabled municipalities and barangays to prepare their barangay

level contingency plans that were consolidated at the municipal level. At the barangay level, DRR training

was capped with the community drill that provided communities the experience of a systematic and

orderly early warning system and contingency plan at work.

Beneficiaries also confirmed that the project had responded timely to their real needs immediately after

Typhoon Haiyan. The project provided the resources that were critical for beneficiaries to take the first

steps towards recovery, specifically for their shelter, food security and livelihoods. The introduction of the

concepts of BBS and DRR was very timely because their own experience of the disaster had made these

two concepts most relevant to their daily lives. FGD participants attributed the resilience of their houses

and the viability of their livelihoods today to the inputs of the project. Beneficiaries were optimistic that

with these new and enhanced knowledge that combined recovery with resilience, that the impact of

future challenges from nature can be mitigated.

Relevance of the cash transfer scheme

The report of the Inter-Agency Steering Committee (IASC) Humanitarian Evaluation of the Typhoon Haiyan

Response (OCHA) notes that “the experience of the Philippines illustrates the potential effectiveness of

Cash Transfer Programmes (CTPs) as a flexible means to support people's self-recovery, as demonstrated

by post-distribution monitoring, which shows very diverse expenditure patterns that cannot be easily

replicated by in-kind assistance. This gives more power to individuals to manage their own recovery.

However, cash transfers for emergency employment (cash for work) tended to be sufficient to meet only

immediate household needs”. The same IASC report states the “the evidence suggests that cash for assets,

and those cash CTPs which included elements of training, have been more successful in supporting people

to regain livelihoods”.

The mix of modalities applied in the project, i.e., in-kind distribution of SRKs to address issues of

availability and access, and applying a cash transfer method for food security and livelihoods, allowed a

level of flexibility that enabled beneficiaries to adjust implementation arrangements according to their

particular situation. At the same time, “social contracts” entered into amongst beneficiaries, project

management and local government units, as well as appropriate monitoring have ensured that the cash

transfers, and the in-kind transfers, were not misused.

B. Effectiveness & Efficiency

For the measurement of effectiveness of the project, one can look broadly at 2 sub questions: 1. To

what extent were the objectives achieved? And 2. What were the major factors influencing the

achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?

12

Two years after covering 107 barangays located in seven worst-hit municipalities in the provinces of Leyte

and Iloilo, the project had supported a total of 9,768 households or 48,840 individuals, eliminating double

counting. The total number reached is slightly exceeding the project’s target of by 6%.

For the short-term food security and livelihood component, a total of 5,359 households or 27,259

individuals were assisted against a target of 5,420 households, short by 1%. For the shelter component,

the project reached 1,282 households or 6,410 individuals, exceeding the target by 3%.

For the DRR activities , that were delivered on top of inputs on resilient livelihood strategies and building

back safer techniques, only 68% was achieved of the targeted number of local government

representatives participating in training, risk assessment and planning activities. On the other hand, 107

barangay or villages were covered by the project, exceeding the target by 5%.

Table 3. Summary of Beneficiaries Reached Target Actual

Household

Individual Household

Individual

Result 1: Short-term food security and livelihood needs of targeted vulnerable households are met

Number of beneficiaries receiving livelihood recovery inputs (cash transfers) to support crop and livelihood diversification and other resilient livelihood strategies

5,420

27,100

5,359

27,259

Number of beneficiaries receiving capacity building inputs on sustainable agriculture, organic farming, disaster risk reduction, organization development and financial management

9,180

45,900

9,768

48,840

Number of members of CBOS that received additional cash grants from the community enterprise facility (CEF)

n.a.

1,060

5,300

Number of livelihood groups formed by households receiving livelihood recovery inputs and capacity building

n.a.

142

Number of CBOs that received additional cash grants from the CEF

n.a.

25

Result 2: Shelter recovery by targeted vulnerable households is adequately supported

Number of beneficiaries receiving shelter repair kits and cash transfers

1,240*

6,200

1,282

6,410

Number of beneficiaries receiving capacity building inputs on building back safer

1,240*

6,200

1,282

6,410

Other Disaster Risk Reduction mainstreaming activities

Number of beneficiaries receiving training on DRR 2,010 10,050

Number of local government unit representatives participating in disaster risk reduction trainings

n.a.

225

n.a.

155

Number of barangay (village) that conducted risk assessments and drafted contingency and risk reduction plans

102

n.a.

107

n.a.

Number of barangay that conducted evacuation drills 14 *Original target was 1,500 households but was revised to 1,240 due to an increase in the shelter package from €133 (PhP7,600)

to €181 (PhP10,500) per household.

13

Food security and livelihoods (R1)

The livelihoods component started after the completion of the shelter component. It was designed to

meet short-term food security needs of vulnerable households and to develop household livelihoods that

are better protected from hazards and are quickly restored through: (1) cash transfers (CTs) to

immediately restart quick impact livelihood activities; (2) cash assistance to community-based

organizations (CBOs) to set up group managed enterprises; and (3) a series of capacity building activities.

The strategy involved a combination of supporting household livelihood activities and stimulating group

enterprise and pooling of resources through developing organizational skills and capacities and building

on local traditions of mutual aid. To strengthen resilience, crop and livelihood diversification and

sustainable agriculture practices were promoted. Understanding weather, seasonal variability and climate

change and adjusting livelihood activities accordingly was also introduced as part of resilient livelihood

strategies.

Table 4. Core activities

Cash Transfers for households Cash Grants for CBOs

• Community-led beneficiary selection • Proposal preparation and approval

• Orientation and planning • Sub-grant signing and disbursement of funds

• Cash transfer round 1: distribution to individual households

• Enterprise establishment and operation

• Cash transfer round 2: distribution in part to individual households, in part to 10-member groups

• Capacity building, technical assistance, monitoring and assessment

• Capacity building

Cash transfers to individual households (R1.1)

Based on project documentation, interviews and FGDs, and field visits to project locations, there is every

reason to believe that the project was successful in disbursing the grants to the target group, as intended

under R1.1. The project provided two tranches of conditional cash transfers to enable beneficiaries to

restart their livelihood activities. The first transfer was for individual households and the second was in

part supplied as additional funds for the household livelihood, and part was invested in a 10-member

group livelihood activity (table below). Between CT1 and CT2, the level of drop-outs was negligible (23

households, with project documentation citing as main reasons either migration or inability to properly

utilize the CT1 grants).

Table 5. Amounts of Cash Transfer Cash Transfer 1 (CT1) (for individual household) PhP3,000 EUR61

Cash Transfer 2 (CT2) (part for individual household and part for groups of 10) PhP5,000 EUR102

14

The question is whether these cash transfers were

instrumental in recovering beneficiaries’ livelihoods? To

this end, focus group discussion participants were asked to

rate how far they had recovered in their livelihoods. 20%

of participants said they were at 50% recovery; 50% at 75%

recovery and 25% at 100% recovery. There were also some

(5%) who said that they had recovered beyond their status

before Typhoon Haiyan. All the FGD participants attributed

their economic recovery after Typhoon Haiyan to the cash grants, technical assistance and training

provided by the project (no other organizations were active in the area). They said that the project

responded effectively to their needs. FGD participants attributed the varying rates of recovery of

beneficiaries to the following: (1) household expenditures to support children’s education10 and/or sick

member(s) of the family; (2) the onset of El Niño that brought about drought in 2014 to 2015; and (3) the

need to pay outstanding debts. Thus, some FGD participants explained, the grant of PhP3,000 was not

entirely used for livelihoods. A part was also used to purchase food, medicine and for the needs of their

children.

In addition to this, data from the project’s internal assessment shows that all beneficiaries were able to

re-establish/start up a combination of livelihood activities as a means to ensure food security while

diversifying possible income sources. 91% of sampled respondents continued to operate livelihoods from

the cash grant at the time of the survey: 78% have existing livelihoods, 10% have diversified, 3% have

changed and 9% have stopped. For those who changed or stopped livelihoods, the most common reason

was a lack of funds (75%), and limited knowledge and skills (19%). 59% of beneficiaries surveyed were

able to earn an income, ranging from below PhP500 (€9.60) to PhP30,000 (€579). Of this group, 34% had

incomes that range from PhP1,200 (€23) – PhP3,000 (€58). 88% said this income was used for food,

education of children, other basic needs, rolling capital/reinvestment, and shelter repair.

The most popular choice of livelihood was hog raising, although the sustainability of this was mixed. The

project taught the beneficiaries to plant cassava as its roots and leaves can be used as food for the hogs.

According to beneficiaries, this eliminated the commercial feeds, a major cost in hog raising, which gave

them higher margins. There were FGD participants who said that their hog raising venture resulted in

more capital for more hogs; some have gone into breeding. But there were also those who said that after

selling the hog after three months, the revenue was used to purchase consumer needs which basically

ended the cycle. There were also those who said that the hog served as food for the household.

Another typical livelihood activity, for women in particular, were vegetable gardens. Woman FGD

participants indicated that they were very happy with the vegetable gardens that they now tended,

providing a regular supply of vegetables and an additional source of income. The fact that it brought food

to their tables was most fulfilling, according to the women. A group of women from Barangay Mag-aso,

La Paz, Leyte, who before Typhoon Haiyan had already existed as a group, pooled their cash transfers as

early as CT1 and procured farms tools that they shared.

10 FGD participants said that the monthly cash grant from the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programme of the government to

ensure that children are kept in school is not enough, if the family size is large. The CCT programme is calculated to support a

family with a maximum of three children.

“ With the PhP3,000, I used PhP1,500 to

buy my husband’s medicine and I bought

a piglet from the remaining PhP1,500.

When I sold the pig after it was fattened, I

bought a breeder which has given us

more income.”---FGD participant from

Dagami, Leyte

15

Of important note is the continuing plight of coconut farmers, who lagged behind in recovery compared

to rice and corn farmers. Coconut trees have to be replanted and it takes a coconut tree 6 to 10 years to

bear fruit. Coconut is a monocrop in the region and farmers had traditionally relied on this single crop for

their income. Although at a lesser pace compared to other farmers, crop diversification have taught

coconut farmers to sustain their food security by planting root crops and peanuts, hog raising, renting

farm equipment and tending small retail stores.

Grouping beneficiaries into ‘mutual-aid production clusters’ of each around 10 households was an

important aspect of CARE’s livelihood intervention strategy. The final report of the project describes that,

at the end of the project, around 90% of these groups were still active – with a number of success stories,

providing evidence of some groups merging to form larger groups, joint procurement of draught animals,

farm tools, post-harvesting machinery and joint cultivation of land in different barangays targeted by the

project. Some groups who have generated income from their group livelihood activities have distributed

dividends to their members. This was especially the case for those who were already organized as a group

before Typhoon Haiyan. Previous track records with these groups had nurtured trust that motivated

beneficiaries to pool their funds during the second Cash Transfer round.

FGD participants said there were exceptions to this observation, especially those groups that were formed

only after Typhoon Haiyan. FGD participants reported that some of their members had withdrawn their

financial share. A group member said that they sold some of the

shared tools so that the withdrawing members could be paid. One

group which invested in motorized tricycles is now on the verge of

breaking up as some members insist on getting their shares to pursue

their livelihoods individually – because they are not satisfied with the

income generated through the group activity. Other groups either

divided their shares to engage in individual livelihood activities or completely dissolved due to

management or personal issues.

Cash assistance to CBOs (R1.1)

Because some funds were left unallocated due to budgetary adjustments and a favorable exchange rate,

the project utilized the remaining €112,250 for cash grants to CBOs using the guidelines of CARE’s

Community Enterprise Facility (CEF). CBOs could apply through a proposal outlining information on target

beneficiaries, the problems that the enterprise wanted to address, its viability scenario and its stage in

the value chain. As table 3 describes, a total of 25 CBOs with 1,060 members located in Leyte, Aklan,

Antique, Capiz and Iloilo were able to access funds; monitoring documents indicate these were invested

in a range of productive assets. The CBOs received a number of trainings through the project, and engaged

in a variety of activities, such as vegetable production and trade, root crops production, organic fertilizer

production, native chicken growing, crab fattening, handicrafts production, and integrated rice farming.

At the time of this evaluation, these enterprises had not yet completed their first business operation cycle;

however, because of the way these have been set up, their potential is promising.

Capacity building and technical assistance (R1.2)

Capacity building and technical assistance were important elements of livelihoods assistance, focusing on:

(1) Livelihood assessment and planning support, and training on a range of topics (see table 6); and (2)

Facilitation of government support, i.e. agricultural extension services of the (municipal) LGU. All of the

households that were targeted in the project, participated in the series of capacity building activities. All

“If you ask me, we need to do

values formation first with

these new groups.” --- Zolita

Besa, Municipal Agriculture

Officer (MAO), Tabontabon, Leyte

16

of the 5,359 households that received the two CT tranches participated in livelihood orientations and

planning sessions. Also, the internal monitoring documents provided evidence that members of the CBOs

participated in numerous trainings.

Table 6. Training Activities

Training Content Livelihoods Orientation and Planning (1 day)

Provide practical inputs to beneficiaries to better plan quick impact livelihood activities that make maximum use of limited cash assistance. DRR tools such as seasonal calendars and risk mapping were introduced.

Leadership and Financial Management (2 days)

Identify critical actions including revising and improving livelihood policies on dividend sharing and proper budgeting and clarifying tasks and responsibilities of the organization.

Sustainable Agriculture (2 days)

Includes soil fertility management, alternative pest management, improved techniques on rice production, organic corn and vegetable production; organic fertilizer and pesticides.

DRR on Specific Livelihoods

Includes basic concepts on DRR including risk assessments and livelihood specific tips for different crops, livestock, trading activities, and management of common service facilities.

Specific Trainings for Assisted CBOs

Relevant technical and management training for each particular enterprise to enhance viability and develop resilience as a sustainable source of livelihoods, including community enterprise planning/validation and proposal writing, Marketing and Negotiation, Good Vegetable Practices, participatory value chain analysis and Governance and Record Keeping.

The results of these training activities were discussed during the focus group discussions. Participants said

that new technical knowledge and how-to’s that challenged their traditional agricultural practices, taught

them how to maximize the use of their land, mono-cropping vs. multi-cropping. Crop diversification was

strongly promoted by the project to ensure food security. Adjusting livelihood activities according to

seasonal calendars that anticipate seasonal variability and climate change was also discussed during risk

assessments, and livelihood and DRR trainings.

At the same time, crop diversification was key to the maximum use of their relatively small land resources.

FGD participants also explained how group and collective effort showed them how far ‘strength in

numbers’ can go in rising above the devastation brought by Typhoon Haiyan. They confirmed that groups

now have also formal structures, policies to govern their livelihood activities and uphold the bayanihan

spirit. This is in line with results of an internal assessment of the project, which showed participants

recalling similar topics: sustainable agriculture – applying organic pest spray, planting calendar, planting

drought-resistant crops like corn, peanuts, eggplant, ways to prevent hog diseases, financial literacy and

leadership – how to grow funds, organizational management, leadership.

The site visits confirmed what was said during the FGDs. Beneficiaries were engaged in group and

household enterprises, sharing common facilities, into multi-cropping, root crops production (root crops

are typhoon resilient), organic fertilizer production, backyard gardening and raising of chicken and hogs,

and microenterprise. Beneficiaries also indicated that they improved their management practices,

especially in leadership and financial matters. They were also aware of the need to adjust their planting

season in tune with the changing climate patterns. Similarly, the evaluation also found evidence of an

improved access to government support: the Municipal Agriculture Officer (MAO) in Tabontabon, Leyte

17

was often tapped as resource person for sustainable agriculture. The production clusters of beneficiaries

were also supported by community facilitators,

who monitored and resolved issues. During the

FGDs, group members said that these issues

mostly revolve around the resolution of

members who want to disengage and withdraw

their membership along with their

contributions.

Shelter (R2)

The shelter component of the project preceded the livelihoods component. The objective of shelter

assistance was to provide targeted vulnerable households in remote, most affected and underserved

communities with adequate shelter services for speedy, better and safer recovery. And in response to the

larger challenge of building resilient communities, the ‘Building Back Safer (BBS)’ standard was applied in

repair and construction, which promotes construction techniques to make homes sturdier.

Table 7. Core activities

Distribution of shelter repair kits and cash transfers

• Assessment of damaged houses

• Community-led beneficiary selection

• Training for community members and shelter Roving Teams

• Distribution of construction materials and top-up cash grants

• Technical support by project staff, carpenters, and Roving Teams

• Observance of 8 BBS key messages

Targeting of vulnerable households

The project applied selection criteria to ensure the most vulnerable and most in need were prioritized,

and the selection process was transparent and participatory. At the outset, during the first General

Assembly in the barangays, the project staff explained to the community what was to be expected for

shelter assistance. To ensure that the most vulnerable were reached, the project validated the results of

the first selection conducted during the first General Assembly through ocular inspection of the houses,

using a scoring system based on the criteria. The final lists of beneficiaries were posted in the Assembly

Hall and discussed and challenged during the second General Assembly. According to FGD participants

some cases were excluded who did not fulfill the criteria. These were households who either had a

member who was employed by the government11, or had relatives working overseas. FGD participants

said that those excluded fully understood the criteria and accepted the final decision. Beneficiaries also

pointed out that there were cases of people who were first excluded but later included in the final list,

after community members vouched that they fell within the criteria. The project’s Post-Distribution

Assessment12 also confirmed that it had correctly identified and assisted the most vulnerable. Though the

process took some time, it reduced tensions among beneficiaries, from other community members not

11The government provided emergency assistance to its employees through the Government Service Insurance System. 12SHO Final narrative report. February 2016.

“The project covered 12 out of the 16 barangays in

Tabon-tabon. I was a resource person for sustainable

agriculture where I shared knowledge on resilient

crops, vegetable production, organic fertilizer

production. The households now produce ampalaya

(bitter gourd), sweet corn, stringbeans, squash,

watermelon and cucumber. This helped in achieving

food security”--- Zolita Besa, MAO, Tabontabon,

18

selected for assistance, formal and non-formal leaders in the community and project staff. It also

contributed to developing community capacities for managing on their own important community affairs.

According to FGD participants, the project staff also explained that in an emergency situation where

funding resources were scarce, the objective was to be inclusive and reach a greater number of

beneficiaries. The project staff underscored the need to promote self-recovery, equity and impart

knowledge on BBS and joined the community to link their desire to further improve their shelter with the

outcome of their livelihoods, whereas incomes increase, they could allot their earnings for this purpose.

Better and safer structure

The effective delivery of new-built or rehabilitated houses was dependent on the quality of the repair kits,

as well as training for households, and the shelter roving teams. The quality of the repair kits was ensured

by distributing in-kind construction materials. In addition, the training for community members and

shelter roving teams, technical support by project staff, carpenters and Roving Teams, and the observance

of the eight BBS key messages all made better and safer structures possible.

The shelter intervention built on the traditional culture of ‘bayanihan’ of Filipinos, which reinforces the

thinking and behaviour that puts emphasis on community organizing. By pooling together community

resources, including time and human resources, difficult tasks became easier to undertake. By building on

and catalyzing this practice, repairing or rebuilding a house became a lighter and more manageable task,

and repairs became quicker and less expensive. Bayanihan also made the task of organizing the RTs and

tapping facilitators from the ranks of the community easier. An Roving Team had an average size of five,

two of whom were panday (carpenters). Its composition was gender balanced and Roving Teams were

trained on BBS standards before deployment for the SRKs distribution and actual construction. Each

Roving Team was always accompanied by project staff.

As narrated by a member of a Roving Team, they were trained on how to use BBS construction techniques

so a shelter could withstand the impact of natural hazards. It was “learning by doing”, following a model

house that had been built to incorporate all of the BBS techniques. The same training was echoed to

households by the RTs during construction. The RTs also facilitated the monitoring of the progress and

accomplishments of the shelter assistance. Community members confirmed that with the combination of

knowledge on BBS, acquired carpentry skills and tools provided by the project, “we can continue repairs

on our own.”

BBS makes shelters more durable and can thus better protect households from hazardous events. It

demonstrated that there were less expensive ways for households and communities to make their

houses stronger and more durable. Instructions on BBS were informed by an assessment of pre-Haiyan

houses, which identified a number of weaknesses that made the structures vulnerable and indicated

major gaps in BBS techniques. The project utilised a combination of capacity building methods to ensure

beneficiaries increased their awareness on BBS throughout the shelter process, including a general

assembly, explaining BBS messages before distribution of SRKs, training Roving Teams composed of

carpenters and community mobilizers as well as the leaders of all shelter groupings, monitoring and

mentoring by Roving Teams during repairs, and distribution BBS posters and flyers.

19

The Post-Distribution Assessment (PDA) found that beneficiaries were well on their way to recovery, with

a majority now having dignified and safe shelter, a high beneficiary ownership of the recovery process

and of their houses, and most people confident that they will complete their houses to meet their

household’s requirements, although the time this will take varies considerably. The PDA also found that

repaired houses are stronger and safer, with a high level of awareness of BBS principles, and high levels

of incorporation of BBS principles. According to an ACCORD staff member, “Overall, the shelters built

through the project averaged 6 out of 8, in terms of compliance to the BBS indicators.”13

Adequate shelter recovery services: Shelter repair kits (SRKs)

Intended primarily to augment materials salvaged by beneficiaries after the typhoon and to provide the

means to rebuild resilient shelters, the standard shelter repair kit (SRK) consisted of selected construction

provisions made up of a roofing kit and materials needed for bracing and building strong foundations.14

The SRK also had a ‘top-up’ cash grant of PhP3,000 (approx. €52) to provide beneficiaries with the

flexibility to cover other needs like timber and labor to complete the repair process. A model shelter was

designed in consultation with the shelter cluster to meet the technical requirements and specifications

for safer shelters. By deciding to increase the costs for the SRKs from PhP7,600 (€133) to PhP10,500 (€181)

at the start of the project, CARE ensured the adequacy of the kits for the target group.

The majority of FGD participants said that the Project “provided what was essential, the means to make

our houses stronger through the SRKs”. FGD participants expressed their satisfaction with their shelter,

especially when compared to what they had before Typhoon Haiyan when their houses were made of

light materials and nipa thatched roofs15. Their indicator on the sturdiness of their new houses was

Typhoon Hagupit which hit the area a year after Typhoon Haiyan. According to them, with the wind

strength of 215kph, an evacuation would normally have been necessary. But by this time, their houses

which have been rebuilt through the project, withstood the typhoon. This expression of satisfaction

among beneficiaries is supported by the Post-Distribution Assessment conducted among beneficiaries

which showed that at least 92% said that they were satisfied with the assistance provided. The same

assessment found that beneficiaries indicated that the shelter support was appropriate and enabled them

to repair and rebuild safer shelters, which is in line with the objective of the project.

There were some participants in the FGDs who indicated that the provided kits had not met their needs.

• Some beneficiaries who had a family size larger than four said that the shelter kit could have

provided for more and longer CGI sheets; FGD participants said that the model house was suited

for smaller families or a family of four. Larger sized families therefore did not follow the exact

dimensions of the model, and reconstructed their houses using a wider space, reinforced with the

13 The project utilized the following eight BBS principles, which translate into indicators: Be prepared; Site your house safely;

Simple shape to keep safe; Build on strong foundations; Tie-down from bottom up; Brace against storm; Use strong posts; Good

house needs a good roof. 14 A shelter repair kit typically consisted of the following materials: 10x CGI gauge 26, 3ft x 8 ft, 1 aluminium screen 1mx3.8m, 1

plain sheet 0.5mm 4 ft x 6 ft, 1 elastomeric seal 500ml, 3 kg umbrella nails 2.5 inches, 1 box staple wire, 3/4inch, 100pcs/box, 2

kg common wire nail 3 inches, 1 tin snip, 2 kg common wire nail 4 inches, 1 hammer, 1 kg flat nail 1.5 inches, 1 saw, 1.6kg GI

wire #16, 1 bag 15 In rural Philippines, the typical house is called a nipa hut. Posts, walls, and floors are typically made of wood or bamboo and

other light materials. The hut is topped by a thatched roof, often made out of nipa, anahaw or some other locally plentiful plant.

(Wikipedia)

20

SRKs provided and complemented with additional materials salvaged from the debris. Thus, the

evaluation found that there were houses that had a combination of new roofs from the SRKs and

old roofing materials.

• There were also two FGD participants (from La Paz, Leyte and Estancia, Iloilo) who said that the

shelter kits could also have provided materials for walling. Those who were able to install walling

said that they either used wood salvaged from the debris and fallen coconut trees. Others

apportioned funds from the cash grant of the SRKs and the cash transfer for livelihoods. There

were also those who allotted funds as their livelihoods earned.

Beneficiaries said that in a span of two years, improvements were further made as they earned income

from their livelihoods. This is reflected by the state of the houses, inspected during the field visits for this

evaluation (see the photos in the annex). Some houses have been painted and are made of concrete

walling or hardwood. Others still use tarpaulin for walling: they said that they simply could not save

enough yet because they have not economically recovered. Thus, beneficiaries reconstructed their houses

reflecting the level of their economic recovery after the typhoon.

Speedy recovery

The combination of factors that included access, adequacy of materials, training, technical assistance,

community organization and mobilization (bayanihan) ensured shelter recovery the soonest time

possible. It took an average of three days to complete construction.

The shelters were completed by the middle of 2014 with the exception of two barangays in Dagami, Leyte

which were done in August. The delay was attributed to the delivery of the wrong specifications for the

CGI sheets, which were returned to the supplier for replacement. According to FGD participants from

these barangays, by the time the SRKs with the right specifications came, the livelihood component was

about to start. They said that these simultaneous activities were difficult to manage for the Roving Teams

and community facilitators, who had two priority concerns to deal with. But by and large, the general

sentiment on the shelter component of the project was a feeling of gratitude for the assistance because

“it came in time of their great need, when we had to start over”.

Disaster Risk Reduction

The project applied a two-pronged approach to mainstreaming DRR: 1) integration of appropriate and

simple DRR and climate change adaptation measures into the different components of the project; 2)

formal training activities to increase community knowledge and skills on DRR and CCA. The knowledge

and skills would be applied in community and household level planning. Knowledge sharing was critical in

mainstreaming DRR.

In shelter, DRR mainstreaming took the form of ensuring that beneficiaries understand and apply BBS

standards. Orientation sessions on shelter, as well as information material, also introduced key DRR

messages. The project introduced the BBS concept to the communities aided by the Roving Teams who

were organized and trained on BBS standards.

21

For food security and livelihoods, brief DRR/CCA sessions were conducted, followed by community risk

mapping. These provided important inputs to the identification, design and implementation of

livelihood activities. The inputs were utilised by beneficiaries in planning their livelihood activities,

particularly utilisation of the 2nd tranche of their cash assistance.16 Risk assessments informed livelihood

planning and activities. The seasonal calendar as a risk assessment tool to understand seasonal

variability, climate change and environmental degradation as risk factors to livelihoods was found to be

particularly useful. Contingency and risk reduction plans, which were concrete outputs following

trainings, included measures to protect livelihoods from damage following hazard events.

Formal training activities to increase knowledge and skills on DRR and CCA

DRR training covered Community Risk Assessment; Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction; Disaster

Preparedness [including Early Warning Systems (EWS)]; and Contingency (including Evacuation Planning)

and Risk Reduction Planning. The DRR training aimed to prepare communities and local officials up to a

point that they would have the competence to prepare a contingency plan and conduct a community drill.

The contingency plan17 was a consolidation of the risk assessment, EWS and evacuation plan into one

document. The drills were aimed to test the effectiveness of contingency plans, and to increase

community and barangay LGU awareness about plans.

Table 8. Core training activities

DRR training Reach

• DRR in livelihoods( basic concepts on DRR including risk assessments; livelihood specific tips for different crops, livestock, trading activities and management of common service facilities)

1,995 beneficiaries from 47 communities

• Community-Based Disaster Risk Management Training

At least 2,010 individuals (community officials, livelihood leaders and community members, and 151 municipal officials, staff, and sectoral representatives from all targeted barangays.

• Disaster Preparedness Trainings (risk assessments, contingency plans, reviewing existing DRR structures and early warning systems, reviewing comprehensive development plans)

60 trainings, aimed at municipal LGUs

• Contingency and risk reduction planning workshops (formulation of plans to mainstream DRR in local plans and processes)

45 clusters of 2-3 barangays

• Drill to test contingency plans (increase awareness and preparedness and improve systems and contingency plans of the LGU)

14 communities, 90%-100% of total households

16 SHO Final Report 17 Contingency planning is defined by Republic Act (R. A.) No. 10121 as a management process that analyzes specific potential

events or emergency situations that might threaten society or the environment in advance to enable timely, effective and

appropriate responses to such events and situations.

22

Evidence of these activities was clear during the field visits for this evaluation, with for example a color-

coded evacuation map reproduced in tarpaulin and displayed prominently in the barangay hall, and some

FGD participants who wore their community drill shirts during the FGDs (see annex for photos).

Participation and satisfaction

In general, CARE and ACCORD found that attendance to the trainings was satisfactory. More women

attended the training because the men, according to focus group discussion participants, were busy with

livelihood activities. Low attendance was reported in two barangays in Dagami, Leyte where there was

only one participant in one session and seven in another. During the FGD in Dagami, the community

facilitator said that the reasons behind low participation here were “no time, need to earn for food”. The

facilitator added that some wanted incentives to attend the training, either in kind or monetary. But all

the rest of the barangays had double-digit participation. In FGDs in Dagami and La Paz (Leyte), there were

comments that the training had “too many lectures” and “make the training more entertaining”.

Apart from these critical notes, feedback on the DRR training was positive.

During the FGDs, participants said that the knowledge they had learned on

DRR will certainly make a difference when another disaster comes. From the

communities, the level of confidence and feeling of safety was also high.

Aside from their sturdier houses, communities were conscious that

preparedness was essential and that contingency planning which includes an

evacuation plan had to be in place as it may become necessary.

Among LGU officials interviewed, the MDRRM Officer of Dagami, Leyte said that the barangays that the

project covered in their municipality benefitted from the details of the DRR training. According to him,

this greatly complemented the simple DRR orientation that the law [(National Disaster Risk Reduction

Management Act (NDRRM Act)18 normally provides.

This confirmed outcomes of a survey conducted by the project after the training, in which participants

from LGUs manifested a high level of confidence on DRR to the extent that they can share the knowledge

with others.19 The NDRRM Act mandates LGUs to take the lead in disaster preparedness and risk

reduction.

18 R.A. No. 10121, otherwise known as National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Act. 19 SHO Terminal Report

“After the many DRR training I already received, I still found something new and interesting from the ACCORD

training. It is very useful for strategic planning, DRRM planning and the preparation of a contingency plan. It

included coastal resource planning, cost-effective mitigation like the planting of mangroves. I found their

approach to CCA simple and easy to understand.”---Randy Baido, MDRRMO Officer, Municipal LGU of Estancia, Iloilo

“Knowledge is forever.

We learned a lot about

DRR, things we never

knew before.”---FGD

participant from Dagami,

Leyte

23

The barangay captain of Lonoy, Estancia, Iloilo said that his constituents now know “how it feels to have

a resilient house”. The barangay captain of Lumbia, Estancia, Iloilo said that his constituents now know

what it takes to build a sturdy house through the BBS standards. He added that the full appreciation of

DRR was achieved when the community drill exercise was conducted. This is in line with outcomes of the

project survey, which found that the vast majority of respondents rated their knowledge on DRR and

disaster preparedness from moderate (44%) to high (28%) and very high (21%), with similar high levels of

confidence in teaching DRR and disaster preparedness to their neighbors. The survey also found high

levels of feeling of safety, and confidence in dealing with unexpected environmental shocks related to

doing business. FGD pparticipants from communities who attended the DRR training recalled and

expressed confidence on the following: drawing and executing evacuation plan, where and how to

evacuate, what to bring, prioritizing the most vulnerable, securing valuables and animals, early harvest of

crops.

C. Impact and Sustainability

With this evaluation taking place immediately after the project ending, the evaluation of project impact

is limited to its short-term impact. This evaluation will however factor in the potentials that this short-

term impact will produce in the medium and long terms.

All the FGD participants and the project’s final report confirm that beneficiaries are now engaged in a

livelihood that they directly attribute to the project. As in shelter where the project’s added value is the

resilience element, the same can be said for livelihoods. The project’s value added for livelihoods is to

restore livelihoods that not only contribute to food security but are also grounded on resilience and

sustainability.

The project’s impact two years after the start of implementation can be summarized by the following

points:

• Overall resilience. The project ensured that the overall resilience of households and communities

through safer shelters, strengthened livelihoods, and increased capacities of households,

communities and local government units to assess, analyze, plan for, and act to reduce risks to

lives and livelihood assets contributed to building overall resilience.

• Sharing and practice of knowledge on BBS is demonstrated by the accomplishments of the

project’s shelter component. Beneficiaries now have resilient and livable houses, and beneficiaries

have expressed satisfaction over improved safety and security of their households. Knowledge of

BBS techniques is retained among community members and can be applied in future situations

when required.

• Sharing and practice of knowledge on how food security can be achieved through the maximum

utilization of both the households’ and communities’ resources, sustainable agriculture,

enhancement of skills, livelihoods and crop diversification and adoption of other resilient

livelihoods practices. Livelihood and crop diversification will help households and communities

reduce adverse impacts of future hazards as different crops and livelihoods have different

capacities to adapt to or recover from hazards and stresses. Acquired knowledge to adapt

24

livelihoods to weather conditions, seasonal variability and climate change will also help reduce

livelihood losses. Beneficiaries are also now more confident, especially with the security of being

part of a group or association, that their livelihoods, over time, can even take them beyond food

security and provide for their other needs. The CBOs, which are primed to follow the value chain

approach have the potential to provide that critical link that will enable the beneficiaries to break

away from the chains of marginalization. As the group enterprises have invested in tools and other

assets such as corn and rice mills, they can reduce transportation costs and ensure quality of

output, which can be expected to positively affect their income in the future.

• Sharing and practice of knowledge on DRR. Beneficiaries gained the knowledge and confidence to

be prepared for disasters, including the LGUs, which are mandated by law to lead in disaster

preparedness and recovery. Beneficiaries and LGU’s have succeeded to assess, analyze and

prepare for disasters, and put in place longer-term DRR contingency plans; as well as to

incorporate risk reduction in shelter and livelihood strategies. Longer-term disaster risk reduction

and management plans required by law have been prepared by LGUs. Risk reduction measures

have been incorporated in shelter and livelihood strategies

• Sharing and practice of knowledge on gender. This has given women the confidence to transcend

their stereotype role and become an equal partner in the household and the community. By

mainstreaming gender in the project activities, communities have seen what women can and are

able to contribute in times of disaster, a recognition that can transform the role of women in the

community and household based on equality.

Sustainability is enhanced as livelihoods assets such as shelter and livelihoods are better protected from

hazards, shocks and stresses. Sustainable agriculture practices enhance livelihood resilience and at the

same time contribute to environmental sustainability. In this way it nurtures resilience and continuity. To

ensure continuity, the project has promoted participatory processes such as building community

ownership and has linked the communities with the services of their LGUs, specifically for technical

assistance for agriculture and DRR/leadership coordination. In this way sustainability was also ensured.

Remote rural areas in the Philippines are historically underserved and have minimal access to government

services. Agricultural areas will always require an amount of ongoing technical assistance on farming

systems, a function that is devolved with municipal LGUs through the Municipal Agriculture Officers

(MAOs). That this link with the LGUs has been secured will ensure farmers have continuing access to

technical assistance and inputs from their LGUs. This also links to the Comprehensive Rehabilitation and

Recovery Plan (2014-2020) of the government for Typhoon Haiyan affected areas, in which the

government has given priority to shelter, livelihoods, infrastructure and social services.

The LGUs are also responsible for leading in disaster preparedness and response. Having been trained on

DRR with the communities, with the experience the project provided in DRRM planning and the

community drills, LGUs and communities have gained the confidence to work together in mitigating the

impact of disasters. This training became a venue for LGUs and their communities to collaborate and

cooperate on DRR. By enhancing shelter and livelihoods with resilience, DRR and gender equality, the

project contributed to the empowerment of communities to face the challenges from natural hazards.

Additionally, planning at barangay level fed into plans at municipal and higher levels, thus embedding

these plans in the overall provincial contingency plan.

25

The integration of DRR in all components and all phases of project implementation has contributed to the

protection of lives, livelihood assets, including shelters, thereby contributing to the sustainability of the

whole project. It is noted also that sustainable agriculture practice as a risk reduction strategy in turn

contributes to environmental sustainability.

The participatory processes, hallmarks of community- and rights-based approaches, help build

community ownership, and therefore contribute to sustainability.

The project was implemented in the context of early recovery which establishes the link or transition

between humanitarian assistance and development. Mainstreaming DRR provided that link between

response and development. Participatory processes, capitalizing on traditional practices such as mutual

aid, self-recovery, investing on essentials, etc., are elements in humanitarian response that are already

directed towards development. In the final analysis, in the face of hazards and everyday life, it will have

to be the communities and their LGUs who will be working together in the effort to be resilient and achieve

sustainability.

Similarly, the combination of livelihoods and shelter components enhanced the sustainability of the

project. Through first providing shelter, and then starting the livelihoods support, beneficiaries were able

to direct their full attention to the two components. By including shelter beneficiaries in the livelihoods

support, impact for these beneficiaries was maximised, and the sustainability of shelter support was

enhanced, as the beneficiaries could use the extra income generated through the development of

livelihoods, to further restore and improve their houses.

D. Gender

The project was designed with a specific intent to mainstream gender throughout the intervention. This

is reflected in the data collected about beneficiaries, as well as the involvement of women community

members in the implementation of the project. Data collected is all gender-disaggregated, for example

the data on the beneficiaries of the cash transfers (see the table). As such, the project has well passed

the objective that ‘ 30% of women and girls [would be] benefiting from, and participating in food

security and livelihoods, shelter and DRR activities.’

Table 9: gender and age-disaggregated data on beneficiaries of the cash transfers

Infant (0->5yrs)

Child (5-17yrs)

Adult (17-60 yrs)

Senior (>60yrs)

Total

Male 8.9% 17.4% 24.0% 2.6% 52.9%

Female 7.4% 15.1% 21.3% 3.3% 47.1%

Women FGD participants described the typical role for a Filipino woman as a full-time housewife who

does household chores like cooking, laundry, cleaning and raising the children. On another hand, the

stereotypical man is the moneymaker who provides for the family. The project attempted to influence

this by actively seeking out women beneficiaries and ensuring a gender balance in the composition of

the Roving Teams (RTs) and community facilitators.

26

This was confirmed by FGD participants. There were more

women than men who attended the FGDs conducted for the

evaluation. These women were articulate and vocal about

their ideas and demonstrated that they had actively

participated in the project and contributed to the attainment

of its objectives. According to women FGD participants, the

project provided them the ‘opportunity to discover’ their

potential and ‘what they were capable of doing’ beyond the

stereotype.

The project ensured gender balance in the composition of the

communities’ RTs and in the recruitment of community

facilitators. Women explained that they felt empowered

through taking part in these activities and bearing

responsibility. A female member of an RT said that her

involvement made her overcome being shy (natanggal ang

hiya), she is now proactive, it broadened her perspective (lumawak ang pag-iisip) and widened her

patience due to the interaction with other beneficiaries (lumawak and pasensya).

Women FGD participants spoke of how their participation in the shelter component had given them the

experience of working alongside men in the construction process, when construction was perceived as

an exclusive domain of men.

Economic empowerment due to their participation in the livelihoods component was pointed out as a

major leap for women. With women forming almost half of the beneficiaries under this component (see

the table above), FGD participants said that their capacity to earn and contribute to ‘food on the table’

has been most fulfilling and built their confidence. Additionally, the survey conducted by the project

after implementation revealed that 55% of respondents (of these, well over half (58%) were women)

said that both men and women were able to gain control of productive assets.

At a leadership level, women barangay captains said that their leadership and planning skills had been

enhanced by their participation in the project. The majority of the barangays that completed their

contingency plans were led by female captains.

E. Project Management

Coordination with local authorities and the UN cluster

Interviews with the MDRRM officers in Dagami, Leyte and Estancia, Leyte, 10 barangay officials and five

municipal LGU officials have provided evidence that the project coordinated with the local government,

specifically in the identification of project sites (barangays) and validating the needs of beneficiaries.

Likewise, the exchange of information on the project enabled the LGUs to provide their assistance to the

project, e.g. data and information on the target areas, resource persons for training and inputs for

agriculture production, and DRR training. Project staff also participated in the coordination meetings of

“We fetched the G.I. roofing

materials and handed these to the

men who were up fixing the roofs.”

“I am a widow, I didn’t know I could

handle a hammer and a nail, much

more fix our roof. But I did it.”

“I am a single parent. I can now

provide food for my children better

than before the typhoon because of

the livelihood assistance.”

Women FGD participants

27

the municipal LGUs and provided project updates. At the level of the UN-led Cluster Teams, CARE provided

the representation and coordination.

Feedback mechanism for target communities

The project set up a feedback mechanism using cellular phones and drop boxes as the means for

beneficiaries to raise their concerns. FGD participants said that the project addressed the concerns which

they brought up either by clarifications, explanations or outright action to address the situation. From the

beneficiaries themselves, these concerns included decisions on selection of beneficiaries, questions like

why one household was qualified when criteria were not met and vice versa. There were also concerns

on the amount of cash grants; participants asked if the grants could be increased and if more assistance

was to be expected. Beneficiaries also raised concerns about group problems such as management and

the uncooperative behavior of members. FGD participants said that between the two means they

preferred the cellular phone, because drop boxes could easily be opened by anyone and were less secure.

Collaboration between CARE and ACCORD

The overall coordination of the project was the responsibility of the CARE office in the Philippines with

local NGO ACCORD as implementing partner. The CARE Nederland Disaster Risk Reduction advisor also

provided technical advice, especially on DRR. In terms of collaboration and project management, a

number of issues were mentioned during the interviews for the evaluation: challenges related to

recruitment and turnover of staff, to reporting, and procurement of the necessary materials.

Prior to the project, ACCORD had a staff complement of

16, which was expanded almost 5-fold. Recruitment had

to be completed immediately given that the nature of the

project was a response to a major disaster. ACCORD

recruited, trained and deployed 60 field staff for Leyte,

and 10 covered Iloilo. This sudden increase in staff and

relatively high turnover in some positions, affected the

quality and timeliness of reporting.

Two types of reports were expected to be submitted to CARE by ACCORD: a narrative report and a financial

report. The timeliness of the submission of reports, more especially the financial reports was an issue

between the two partners. ACCORD experienced a turnover of its senior Finance staff, causing financial

reporting to lag behind. On the other hand, ACCORD hired a fulltime Monitoring and Evaluation officer,

based in Manila. But a high turnover of M&E staff in the field also affected the generation of reports from

the field. ACCORD submitted data/beneficiary figures to CARE, which the latter found incomplete and not

always on time. On the other hand, CARE also failed to supply regular feedback to the reports. ACCORD

also participated in program-wide joint monitoring with CARE such as post-distribution monitoring,

assessments and evaluations, but not just specifically for SHO. CARE NL also conducted monitoring field

visits to the project.

“The biggest challenge we faced was

human resources (HR). With a moving

work plan and targets, we had to

immediately hire and train a number of

staff for the project. It wasn’t easy.”---

ACCORD

28

Another challenge cited by partner organization ACCORD was dealing with the logistical requirements of

a disaster response project given the scale of Typhoon Haiyan. This required an amount of multi-sectoral

coordination; sound budgeting; and the speedy procurement and delivery of inputs and supplies in a

situation where demand was huge and supplies were meagre, which significantly affected prices and

sourcing of supplies.

V. CONCLUSIONS

A. Relevance

The humanitarian phase of assistance immediately after Typhoon Haiyan focused on the provision of

emergency food relief and non-food items (NFIs) such as temporary shelter, water, hygiene kits, clothes,

cooking utensils, etc. The project was implemented in the context of the early recovery phase which

starts and overlaps with the later humanitarian phase, about 2 to 3 months after the disaster. Guided

by the HCT recommendations based on the MIRA, and the project’s own validation in the field, the

needs of the targeted beneficiaries for early recovery were thoroughly assessed. The ability to be

relevant to the needs of a project’s target beneficiaries was ensured by the project continuously

monitoring the context of the situation.

The project coordinated with the stakeholders, LGUs, Typhoon Haiyan Cluster Teams and the

beneficiaries themselves that would provide vital information on the continuing and changing context of

the post-Typhoon Haiyan situation.

The project targeted agricultural communities that were dependent on coconut, rice, corn and

microenterprises. As agriculture-based communities, the project accurately saw that its beneficiaries

belong to the poorest of the poor in the Philippines, namely, the landless tenants, small landholders,

small leaseholders and micro-entrepreneurs. Typhoon Haiyan turned the agriculture sector in the

affected areas into a virtual wasteland with totally or partially damaged houses. To start the path

towards early recovery, food security, restoration of livelihoods and shelter needed to be addressed

urgently in the context of an agriculture sector.

The project’s criteria for the selection of beneficiaries ensured that the most vulnerable were reached.

To tap the communities’ own capacities, the project promoted self-help, self-recovery and mutual aid. It

capitalized on the Filipino custom of (‘bayanihan’) to mobilize communities to rebuild their houses and

recover their livelihoods. The project provided the adequate support to the communities to achieve this

by providing a basic SRK and cash transfers for livelihoods. The SRK provided the strong roof and

foundation of their houses and raised awareness on the BBS standards. With the provision of these

SRKs, the project provided the means (knowledge on BBS) and the materials for a strong roof and

foundation. FGD participants thus attributed the resilience of their houses today to these inputs of the

project.

29

For livelihoods, aside from cash transfers, the project went further by providing technical assistance in

sustainable agriculture, crop diversification, and management skills. As tenants and small landowners,

the project recommended the maximization of the use of their land with the intercropping of short-

gestating crops and vegetable gardening to ensure a steady supply of food for the household, thus

achieving food security. Investments in livestock, such as the raising hogs, chicken and goats which also

have short gestation periods gave the targeted households additional income that could be used to

complete the repair of their houses.

Aware of the fact that the impact of disasters can be mitigated by preparedness, the project also

responded to the need to provide knowledge on DRR. Throughout the project, DRR was mainstreamed

together with gender for the empowerment of women and enable them to participate actively in

meeting the challenge of coping with the impact of the disaster.

The beneficiaries themselves confirm that the project had responded to their needs at the time that it

was implemented immediately after Typhoon Haiyan. They said that the project provided the resources

that were critical in taking the first steps towards recovery, specifically for their shelter and livelihoods.

The introduction of the concepts of BBS and DRR, was, according to the beneficiaries, very timely

because their own experience of the disaster had made these two concepts most relevant to their lives.

B. Effectiveness

The project has fully achieved its intended outcomes; shelter, livelihoods and food security outcomes

were met. The project has been effective in catalyzing the beneficiaries to recover by banking on their

own capacities. Overall, the project had successfully laid the groundwork for the beneficiaries to start

over again immediately after the disaster. Evidence from the field shows how far many beneficiaries

have gone in upgrading their houses, although there still those who have only incrementally improved

their houses.

By enhancing cash grants with technical assistance, livelihoods show promise as individuals and groups

who have replaced their productive assets and are harnessing these for agriculture production are now

sharing the benefits with the HH members and group members.

FGD participants directly attributed food security to the livelihoods assistance, in particular, how a

productive resource such as land could maximize its productivity through crop diversification and how

other livelihoods such as hog raising, goat raising, chicken raising can all be integrated into a farming

system.

The mainstreaming of DRR and gender in all the activities of the project was timely and was therefore

effective in creating awareness and the experience on the concepts. The crisis brought about by

Typhoon Haiyan became an opportunity for the project to build capacities, impart knowledge and widen

perspectives on gender and embrace DRR as part of their daily lives.

30

C. Efficiency

What was essential in the design of the project was to provide target beneficiaries the means to have

resilient shelter that followed the principles of Building Back Safer (BBS). Least cost for this undertaking

meant investing in what was essential to build a resilient shelter. Following BBS standards, the

essentials are a strong roof and foundation or a strong shelter frame. That the project invested in this

strong shelter frame had ensured that beneficiaries would have resilient houses in the end (the project’s

desired result), as they filled in, through their own capacities and resources the completion of the

house.

All the FGD participants and the project’s final report also confirm that they are now engaged in a

livelihood that they directly attribute to the project. As in the shelter where the project’s added value is

the resilience element, the same can be said for livelihoods. The project’s value added for livelihoods is

to restore livelihoods that not only contribute to food security but are also grounded on resilience and

sustainability. In addition, gender and DRR were mainstreamed in these two components.

The project operated at an input costs to operating costs ratio of 73% to 27%. At this level, the project’s

efficiency level is high because it had achieved and even exceeded its targets within the duration of the

project at a cost of one-third (1/3) of its total budget.

D. Impact and Sustainability

The project’s impact two (2) years after implementation can be summarized by these points:

• Sharing and practice of knowledge on BBS is demonstrated by the accomplishments of the

project’s shelter component. Beneficiaries now have resilient and livable houses.

• Sharing and practice of knowledge on how food security can be achieved through the maximum

utilization of both the HH’s and communities’ own resources, sustainable agriculture,

enhancement of skills and crop diversification. Beneficiaries now are more confident, especially

with the security of being part of a group or association that their livelihoods, over time, can

even take them beyond food security and provide their other needs. The CEFs, which are primed

to follow the value chain have the potential to provide that critical link that will enable the

beneficiaries to break away from the chains of marginalization.

• Sharing and practice of knowledge on DRR have given beneficiaries the confidence to be

prepared for disasters, including the LGUs, which are mandated by law to lead in disaster

preparedness and recovery.

• Sharing and practice of knowledge on gender have given women the confidence to transcend

their stereotype role and become a truly equal partner in the household and the community.

As envisioned by the project, self-recovery, self-help and mutual aid leads to sustainability. As one FGD

participant said “knowledge is forever”, with more knowledge and skills on resilient shelter and

livelihoods and DRR, beneficiaries themselves are confident of sustainability.

The project has also successfully linked the communities with the services of their LGUs. Agricultural

areas will always require an amount of ongoing technical assistance on farming systems. That this link

31

with the LGUs have been secured will ensure farmers have continuing access to technical assistance and

inputs from their LGU.

The LGU’s are also responsible for disaster preparedness. Having been trained on DRR with the

communities, LGU’s and communities with the experience the project provided in DRRM planning and

the community drills have given them the confidence to work together in mitigating the impact of

disasters.

The overall objective of the project was for communities to recover from the disaster, build back safer

(BBS), and strengthen the resilience of their livelihoods. By mainstreaming DRR and gender in all the

components and its activities, the project has succeeded in not only creating awareness but also providing

the knowledge and opportunity to practice and experience the DRR process from planning to execution

and for it to become a part of their daily lives. The project had correctly targeted LGUs for DRR training

as the training became a venue for LGUs and their communities to collaborate and cooperate on DRR.

The highest priority of DRR is zero casualty. By linking shelter and livelihoods with DRR, the project

contributed to this end. The target communities of the project and their LGU officials are now confident

that people know what it means to assess risks and be prepared for a disaster including what to do in the

event of an evacuation. As members of communities who toil the land, people now have the knowledge

on resilient livelihoods and have applied it by raising/growing more resilient crops to ensure food security.

Livelihood groups that were assisted have transitioned from early recovery and are now showing the way

of what could be long-term development.

32

VI. LESSONS LEARNED

CARE’S work in humanitarian and early recovery after a disaster can benefit from the following lessons

learned from the project:

• There is no one-size-fits-all-approach that provides the answer to these type of early recovery

responses. The aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan was a complex situation. Early recovery is the

difficult phase of transitioning to developmental activities. Assessment of the situation needs to

be ongoing because the context keeps changing. Profiling of communities and beneficiaries,

deepens the understanding of the needs of beneficiaries.20

• Effective communication with the stakeholders of the project, i.e., beneficiaries, LGUs, etc., is very

important. Having an effective feedback mechanism, is a good tool to be constantly relevant.

Transparency has managed possible tensions during project implementation, e.g., expectations

from project, selection of beneficiaries.

• Coordination between NGOs is necessary to avoid duplication and to explore partnerships where

possible. Coordination with these stakeholders had provided the project access to information,

knowledge and even resources that the project needed for its effective implementation.

• An implementing organization can be overwhelmed by the enormity of the response required by

a complex humanitarian situation. Comprehensive operational planning and preparations

contingent to complexities and challenges are required. For a 2-year project, the turnover of staff

can hamper project activities like complying with reporting.

• Promoting self-help and mutual aid in early recovery is a major ingredient in achieving ownership

and sustainability. Beneficiaries felt that by providing labor, their capacities, their ideas, and their

own resources and by harnessing these with the project inputs, they became genuinely

responsible for their own recovery.

• Putting priority on the value of community organization is essential. In a very challenging

environment, community members need to help one another. There are times when community

members, exposed to urbanization, give lesser value to traditional practices, and become more

individualistic. The project has proven that reviving community tradition of working together,

helping each other, helps facilitate recovery and resilience.

• Groups in target communities that have existed and have worked together before the typhoon,

who have gone through the formation process, including values formation, were better prepared

20 This lesson is supported by other NGOs who were interviewed for the evaluation. According to a Team Leader of OXFAM:

“Everything that we do has to be really contextual. Regular assessment is needed. By doing this, a project will be able to see

what really works. For example, part of the context of a community is the LGU. And so, disaster response projects must work

with LGUs to make it work.” The same view was expressed by another NGO. A Programme Coordinator, Save The Children said:

“Our organization is also involved in the same interventions as the SHO project. We were very conscious of the need to

contextualize the situation. We listened to the opinions of our stakeholders.”

33

for the second cash transfers. Those which reported problems, fundamentally cooperation, were

groups formed only after the disaster.

• The use of cash grants should be monitored if these transfers are conditionally provided to ensure

that these are used for the intended purpose. Individual conditional grants can sometimes be

used for other objectives depending on the economic situation and needs of the household.

• FGD participants said that during shelter construction, the provision of relief goods, especially

food, should continue as the household is focused on this major recovery need. In some areas,

the government and other organizations provided relief goods at the time that the project was in

the shelter phase. ACCORD also provided relief goods from another funding source in some

project sites during shelter construction and FGD participants from these areas said that it had

really eased their situation and helped them avoid falling into debts or from using part of the

shelter grant to purchase food and other items.

• Providing technical assistance and knowledge for both shelter and livelihoods had increased

awareness and enhance capacities of beneficiaries to upgrade their houses to resilient levels and

to manage their productive resources in a manner that these are maximized, operating costs are

reduced, risks are minimized and better margins are achieved.

• Providing technical support to complement materials inputs make for success. Without technical

inputs, use of material inputs would most likely go to waste. Timing of technical assistance is

essential. It should be provided when it is needed.

• The project bridged communities and local authorities for the former to access services of the

latter. From a rights perspective, it became clear to communities that they have the right to

access government services. It also clarified government/local authorities are duty bound to

provide services to communities. In terms of sustainability, facilitating community capacity to

access technical support can result in availability of technical support even beyond the life of the

project.

• Disasters give rise to the opportunities for DRR and gender equality to be mainstreamed as their

relevance is highlighted due to the situation. Communities and local authorities are more open

to DRR after emergencies. The need to mobilize human resources to respond to the disaster has

also shown what women can contribute during this challenging situation.

34

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

For future early recovery programming in the same or related context as the impact of Typhoon Haiyan,

the following recommendations are made to CARE:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• CARE should continue with mainstreaming DRR and gender equality in a programmatic way in disaster

response projects in the interest of promoting community resilience and consolidation of

sustainability. This will ensure that the gains from the project are secured, especially in a country like

the Philippines, which is plagued by chronic disasters in increasing frequency and magnitude.

• For the shelter component of the project, the issue at hand was whether the SRK plus the top-up cash

grant was adequate. The visits in the project sites have shown how far beneficiaries had gone from

the provision of the SRKs and cash grant and demonstrated their capacity for recovery after a disaster.

CARE can consider two (2) options for emergency shelter programming: (1) To continue programming

for the provision of SRKs with the top-up cash grant and cover a wider number of beneficiaries; or (2)

to provide for walling materials in addition to the roofing materials, if more resources are available. If

resources are not sufficient, walling materials can be sourced collectively and distributed from the

debris of the typhoon by tapping the community for this purpose.

• For the livelihoods component, CARE should continue providing technical assistance (knowledge) and

better productive assets for livelihoods combined, as these have proven effective in enhancing the

value of economic activities. Investing in shared facilities (productive assets) has motivated people

towards group formation. The use of the cash grants for its purpose should be underscored during the

orientation and monitored after these are provided to the beneficiaries.

• Livelihood groups that are newly formed after the disaster need to be supported, aside from cash

grants, with organizational capacity building that includes values formation, managing organization’s

affairs and group projects and organizing themselves into formal/registered organizations.

• In the development of disaster-response projects, CARE should develop projects whose strategy

promotes synergies among different CARE projects, and with other stakeholders and partners who can

put together their strengths and resources to deliver the intended services; tap organizations with

presence or experience in the areas to be covered to facilitate interaction with communities.

• CARE should always consider Local Government Units (LGUs) as strategic partners in a disaster

response project for several reasons: (1) LGUs are the recognized leaders in the community and have

the capacity to mobilize their constituents; (2) LGUs have their own resources, both human and

material, which can complement a disaster response project; (3) As an institution that is mandated to

deliver basic services to the people by virtue of devolution, the LGU is also a strategic partner for the

attainment of sustainability.

35

• Disaster response projects are community-based, and interaction with the community is almost an

everyday activity. CARE should therefore ensure that project management capacities for an

intervention responding to a scale such as Haiyan include strong skills in planning, operations,

coordination, logistics management, monitoring, financial management, community development

processes, communications and capacity building. The Terms of Reference (TOR) of these skills should

be worked out in advance in the context of the situation.

• CARE and its partner organizations should be prepared for the challenge of big disasters by developing

a database of reliable suppliers and contacts to lessen the difficulty of logistics during these times. A

roster of stand-by potential partners who can be immediately brought in for the timely start-up of the

project will also prove useful.

• To ease the pressure of widening an organization’s human resources base, CARE might consider

outsourcing some of the activities to provide an immediate manpower for the project’s urgent

activities. Shelter, livelihoods and DRR are equally demanding interventions and an organization,

depending on its size, may explore partnership or contracting options. The development of a

volunteers’ pool, already trained in disaster response skills, as an immediate source of manpower, is

also advisable.

• An early recovery project is generally a transition period to the development phase. CARE is

recommended to revisit or review national, regional or local development plans and see how these

can contribute in identifying interventions especially in areas of local economic development. For

example, the devastation of coconut plantations may be an opportunity to change crop and invest in

higher-value crops that are suitable to the area. Most development plans have information on

potentials in the area. This can be considered in programming for livelihoods. Municipalities have

Comprehensive Development Plans (CDPs) and can be reviewed as part of the formulation of DRRM

plans.

• CARE is recommended to include in the project an output on advocacy & policy development. In the

course of the implementation of the project, policy weaknesses, national or local, can be identified and

strengthening of these policies or proposing new policies to LGU’s can go a long way in mitigating

future disasters and recovery.

• As a transition phase to development, CARE is advised to continue the practice of its disaster response

projects in early recovery having a very strong exit and sustainability strategy to ensure that its

outcome is linked to the development phase. Early recovery projects that are strong in capacity and

institution building have successfully delivered on the requirements for a transition to development.

36

LIST OF REFERENCES:

(CARE) Project Summary – Recovery and Resilience Project (final version) 4 March 2014

(ACCORD) SHO Budget Proposal TY Yolanda. 2014

(ACCORD) Community Based Disaster Risk Management Training Tracking Sheet. 2015

(ACCORD) Cash Grants Distribution List. 2015

(CARE) SHO Interim Report. September 2015

(CARE) SHO Terminal Report. February 2016

(CARE) Total Financial Report SHO Project. 2016

(CARE) CEFs Updates. 2016

(CARE) List of CEFs. 2016

Multi-Cluster/Sector Initial Rapid Assessment (MIRA): Philippines Typhoon Haiyan. 2013 November

Yolanda Recovery and Rehabilitation Program (YRRP). National Economic and Development Authority.

2013 December

Reconstruction Assistance to Yolanda (RAY). National Economic and Development Authority. 2014

January

Inter-Agency Steering Committee (IASC) Report on the Humanitarian Evaluation of the Typhoon Haiyan

Response (UNOCHA). 2014 October

37

ANNEXES

A. Case Study 1: Mainstreaming Gender in Early Recovery

B. Case Study 2: Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in Early Recovery

C. Evaluation Matrix

D. Project intervention Areas

E. Log frame of the Project

F. List of FGD’s Participants

G. List of Key Informants

H. Schedule of Evaluation Process

I. Itinerary of Field Work

J. On-site Programme of Field Work

K. Photos of SHO Programme

38

A. Case Study 1: Mainstreaming Gender in Early Recovery

Women are always in the list of the most vulnerable sectors. But given the opportunity, women can overcome their vulnerability by unleashing their experiences and skills that can benefit even disaster risk mitigation and preparedness. By recognizing and promoting the unique capacities of women, one can simultaneously further community resilience and advance gender equality.* Women from the municipalities of Dagami, La Paz, Tabontabon (Leyte Province) and San Dionisio and Estancia (Leyte) who participated in CARE’s SHO project are showing the way that women can be active and equal partners and can meaningfully contribute to recovery, even in a complex situation that was created by Typhoon Haiyan. Women who participated in the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were all aware of the stereotypical role of the Filipino woman, that is confined to child rearing and household chores like cooking, cleaning and laundry. It had been a liberating and empowering journey for these women who worked hand-in-hand with the men in their communities in starting over and cope with the disastrous impact of Typhoon Haiyan. By actively participating in the project, women were given the opportunity to explore their potentials and develop their capacities beyond the stereotypical roles. To provide equal opportunity, the SHO project ensured gender balance in the composition of its Roving Teams and women were tapped as community facilitators (CF). Eunice Villarta, 39, from Barangay Cabariwan, Dagami, Leyte, was a Community facilitator (CF) and a member of the Roving Team (RT). “I learned what it means to Build Back Safer (BBS); I learned how to build the model. Going house-to-house during construction, there were those who were hard-headed and didn’t want to follow BBS; I had to convince them, which was the difficult part. But I was able to perform my role. ” Villarta said that she was also involved in the livelihoods and DRR Training components of the project as community facilitator. According to her, “as CF, I informed the community households about the schedules of the DRR training and why it was important to attend these. Many had excuses for not attending. It was another test for me on how well I could convince households to send a representative. It was the same case for livelihoods. As CF, I worked with the project staff in determining the livelihoods that needed to be restored. I also helped in the scheduling of the livelihoods training and informing households about these.” For Villarta, her experience with the project has been most rewarding. “I used to be shy; I had overcome this. As a CF and member of the Roving Team, I had to talk to all sorts of people. But we were trained by the project for this role. I developed patience and broadmindedness. I never thought I could take on these roles. But most of all, I am very happy that I had contributed to the recovery of my community. ”

___________________________ *Gender and Disasters. UNDP.

During the FGD with Tabon-tabon, Leyte, the women said that they were involved in the design of their

house, managed the budget of the construction and participated in the restoration of their houses. “We

did what men normally do. We carried construction materials and brought these to the carpenters; other

women did the nailing. We are also active in our group livelihood. We now also help in the planting of rice

39

and the cleaning of the rice mill. We now know what DRR is. We now know what to do in case of a disaster. We are now more confident.”

Tabon, Tabon, Leyte Dagami, Leyte

From the women from Dagami, Leyte, they said that “Our time is now important. Our husbands now share in the household chores like cleaning the plates and the house. We manage our backyard gardens that we have planted with lemon and cassava.” The women from La Paz, Leyte and San Dionisio, Iloilo pointed out that their involvement in the livelihoods had empowered them economically. “Before, only men earn a living for the household. Now we have our own livelihoods that we manage.” The women said that raise hogs, chicken, goats, turkey and manage vegetable gardens. Majority of the key informants from the ranks of the Barangay Captains were women who worked closely with the project staff all throughout its implementation. Analita C. Garcela, 47, is the barangay captain of Barangay Cambucao, Tabon-tabon, Leyte. She said “”The project has done a lot for me. My leadership skills were enhanced because of my involvement. We were all affected here by the typhoon. All except one household (because they did not qualify) were all given shelter assistance, 56 in all. Mutual aid was strengthened when we started construction. DRR training taught me how to prepare and manage a contingency plan.”

Garcela (center) shows the mini-rice mill that is now the Behind the rice mill, chicken feed on the rice hull, which is also centerpiece for livelihood of the barangay that she leads. organic fertilizer for the cassava plants. “Nothing is wasted”, according to Garcela.

40

Barangay Cambucao is a rice-planting community where Garcela also leads the Cambucao Farmers’

Association and its 57 members. She has plans to move the community forward with the productive

facilities that they now have. In addition to post-harvest facilities, the association also has hand tractors

and a rice thresher. “My vision is for us to really go commercial and control the facets of production,

harvesting, milling and marketing. Our next goal therefore is to build a warehouse. This way, our members

will earn more and will not be at the mercy of middlemen.”

There were more women than men who attended the FGDs that were organized; women participants

were very articulate and could express themselves. Among the barangays which were represented in the

FGDs, majority of those who completed their contingency plans were led by women barangay captains.

In addition, during the FGDs, CFs and Roving Teams said more women attended the DRR training because

the men were not available due to work. This is an indicator that women could represent their households,

when this used to be the domain of men.

As one woman FGD participant had described her participation in the project, “it was an empowering

experience” and she was grateful for the opportunity to have “discovered” herself and what she could be

“capable of doing”.

-o0o-

41

B. Case Study 2: Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in Early

Recovery

“The howling winds, then the storm surges as high as 10 meters breached the breakwater, went inland

as far as five (5) kilometers. We were not prepared for a typhoon as strong as Typhoon Yolanda. This

hasn’t happened before. We thought it was just one of those typhoons that pass our place every year.

We are just grateful that we are still alive”, recalled a group of women from the coastal community of

Barangay Poblacion, San Dionisio, Iloilo.

Barangay Poblacion, San Dionisio, Iloilo after Typhoon Haiyan. The rubble from a breached breakwater and debris from houses.

(Photos from the FB Account of San Dionisio, Iloilo Community)

8 November 2013 will be a day that will long be remembered. The story of Typhoon Haiyan will be retold

through generations. And the victims of this disaster will never forget how Typhoon Haiyan had changed

their lives in a matter of hours and how they started over and coped with a ‘ground zero’ situation.

During the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) conducted in the project sites, the participants said that only

after being involved in the SHO project’s shelter, livelihood and DRR training activities, did they find out

how little they knew about being prepared for a disaster. A beneficiary said the project taught me that

“disaster preparedness begins with a resilient house, a resilient livelihood and in case of an evacuation, a

systematic and orderly way of preparation”.

Thus, the SHO project provided Shelter Repair Kits (SRKs) with materials that can produce a sturdier house.

Using the Building Back Safer (BBS) standards, beneficiaries were taught the eight (8) BBS indicators,

namely : (1) Be prepared; (2) Site your house safely; (3) Simple shape to keep safe; (4) Build on strong

foundations; (5) Tie-down from bottom up; (6) Brace against storm; (7) Use strong posts; and (8) Good

house needs a good roof.

_____________________________

*Typhoon Haiyan is locally known as Typhoon Yolanda.

42

CARE shelter advisor trains ACCORD staff on how to build safer homes. (R) Community carpenters construct a model house

frame to demonstrate the basic tips on how to build back safer to beneficiaries during repair and construction. These carpenters

were part of the Roving Teams (RTs), organized and trained to facilitate the construction process. (ACCORD photos)

Finished products. A family stands happily at the doorway of their house; braces for a strong roof are shown. (ACCORD photo);

(R) A house in La Paz, Leyte.

As agriculture communities devastated by Typhoon Haiyan and faced with the challenge of food security

and recovering their livelihoods, beneficiaries were provided cash transfers to ensure a steady supply of

food for the table and to restore individual and collective livelihoods and restart earning income for their

daily needs. The sharing of knowledge on DRR tools for livelihoods was incorporated in this project

component.

Beneficiaries attended a training that combined DRR and livelihoods. Their livelihoods were assessed if

appropriate and doable risk reduction measures were incorporated in the livelihood. The modules were

thus structured into two key parts: (1) basic concepts on DRR including risk assessments; and (2) livelihood

specific tips for different crops, livestock, trading activities, and management of common service facilities.

The result has been an appreciation of resilient crops like root crops and crop diversification, not only to

maximize their land, but to become more resilient to disasters and changing weather patterns.

43

La Paz, Leyte. Bananas and root crops (like cassava) are weather resilient.

“The concept of sustainable agriculture was new to us”, said a farmer-beneficiary. “We planted rice all

year long, not knowing that we should adapt to seasonal patterns due to climate change.” Another

farmer-beneficiary said “We are used to planting just one crop and never thought we could plant other

crops together with our coconut trees. We also did not know which crops were strong against floods and

typhoons. Now we know that root crops, bananas and short-gestating vegetables are not only resilient,

but can add to our income.”

The project built capacities on DRR of both for local government units (LGUs) and communities. By doing

this LGUs became better equipped to fulfil their mandate to lead in DRR and to experience what it takes

to practice DRR with their constituents. Formal training on DRR included the following modules: (1)

Community Risk Assessment; (2) Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction Training; (3) Disaster

Preparedness Training; and (4) Contingency and Risk Reduction Planning.

During this training, LGUs and communities go through the risk assessment process during a workshop

that will guide the preparation of early warning systems, evacuation plan and the contingency plan.

Training also provided orientation on the basic concepts and approaches on disaster risk reduction,

climate change adaptation and ecosystem management and restoration.

The Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Officer (MDRRO) of Dagami, Leyte, Gerry Imperial, said that the

DRR training “went beyond the usual orientation training that LGUs normally undergo and went into the

details of contingency planning.” He added that his task to produce a municipal contingency plan had

been facilitated because the project trained the barangays as well. The MDRRO of Estancia, Iloilo, Randy

Baido said that the DRR training he attended under the project “was useful for strategic planning and

provided knowledge on cost-effective mitigation options”.

44

Kuya Joel of Barangay Caltayan, La Paz, Leyte discussing the community’s outputs

during ACCORD's Community Risk Assessment seminar. (ACCORD caption and photo)

An evacuation map prepared during the DRR training.

The culminating activity of DRR training is the community drill where the contingency plan is tested. In

Barangay Poblacion, San Dionisio, Iloilo, 575 households participated in a community drill to test their

contingency plan and the overall preparedness of its Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management

Committee (BDRRMC) by simulating a typhoon like Typhoon Haiyan. At risk households participated in

the activity that include those living in coastal areas and those whose houses are made of light materials.

This is how the community drill was described*:

________________________

45

*Article appeared in Panay News (www.panaynewsphilippines.com) and was uploaded on the website of ACCORD

(www.accord.org.ph)

“Drill organizers provided scenarios to which members of the BDRRMC and the whole community

responded. In the first phase of the drill, barangay officials went around the barangay in motorcycles

shouting ‘Preparar’ (prepare) on their megaphones. Families readied themselves and their emergency kits.

In the second phase, church bells rang while the roving patrol shouted ‘Lakat Na!’ (Start walking). This

served as the signal for evacuation to commence. Evacuees rode the trucks at designated pick-up points

across the barangay, while others walked to pre-assigned evacuation centers. These arrangements are

according to the community-based early warning system.

Orientation of observers before drill starts. Evacuation

map is shown behind the speaker. (Tep Cocjin) (ACCORD Photo)

Led by Vice Mayor Bimboy Albania, representatives from other barangays and municipal and provincial

DRRM councils were present to observe the conduct of the activity. They noted that the people really

followed instructions, bringing food and clothes and moving to evacuation centers as if the emergency was

actually happening.

Ma. Cecile Hipolito, barangay captain of

Poblacion, agreed and said that, ‘Today has

shown that we have learned the lessons

of Yolanda, thanks to systems and processes

we for have set up that are understood by all. That

is the most important thing – our preparations would

not mean anything if people do not participate.’

Do not forget these important things to bring in case of

an emergency evacuation. Preparedness is

power. (ACCORD caption and photo)

Hipolito

46

For his part, John Carlos Quijano, ACCORD Area Coordinator for Panay, expressed pride at what the

barangay has accomplished. ‘They have really owned the process - from the preparations to the actual

drill to the assessment afterwards. This is the essence of our disaster risk reduction efforts - empowering

the people and their leaders so that they themselves can work together towards resilience. Even as our

project here comes to a close, we are confident that our work here will be sustained and the community

will further build on this’."

As of 2015, the Philippines was: fourth (4th) in the world among countries hit by the highest number of

disasters over the past 20 years*; among the top 10 countries with the highest absolute number of

affected people, with 130 million (also in 20 years); and fifth (5th) most vulnerable country in terms of

disaster risk implications for development capacity. Given this scenario, disaster risk reduction inevitably

has to become part of the lifestyle and consciousness of at risk areas. Where zero casualty and minimal

damage to property are the goals, the mainstreaming of DRR is a must and not just an option.

-oOo-

________________________

* According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). A total of 274 disasters were recorded in the

Philippines from 1995 to 2015, trailing the United States (472), China (441), and India (288).

47

C. Evaluation Matrix

The table below shows the evaluation matrix that guided the inquiry into the performance of the

project. The evaluation questions led into the analysis of findings and conclusions on the project’s

overall performance.

EVALUATION MATRIX CRITERIA EVALUATION QUESTIONS DATA REQUIRED SOURCES OF

DATA

METHODS

OF

COLLECTION

• Relevance

--How relevant were the early

recovery interventions to the

community and beneficiaries? To

what extent was the overall

approach appropriate to address

the identified needs in shelter,

food security and livelihoods and

capacity development sectoral

intervention areas?

--Do the assisted communities

view that the needs are met by

the assistance? Are the program

interventions appropriate and

relevant to local needs and

capacities?

--Did the program target the

most vulnerable and does it have

potential for multiplier effect?

--Is the timing of the

interventions appropriate to the

local needs and situation? Does

the timing of the interventions

enable the objectives to be met?

--Could there have been

alternatives or better

approaches?

--Integration,

coherence and

timing of program

components

(shelter, FSL,

capacity

development)

--Community-based

DRR approach

--Testimonials that

the project has met

the needs of

beneficiaries

Beneficiaries,

project staff,

NGOs/INGOs,

LGUs, national

line agencies,

CARE/ACCORD,

Project

documents

--Desk reviews

--FGDs with

beneficiaries

-- KIIs with

implementing

partners,

I/NGOs,

-Ocular

inspection

• Effectiveness

--Was the stated Outcome

achieved?

--To what extent has the project

contributed to the outcome?

--What progress was made?

--What changes were brought to

the main beneficiaries?

What changes can be

observed as a result

of interventions?

Importance of the

approach and

methods used to

implement the

projects

Beneficiaries,

project staff,

NGOs/INGOs,

LGUs, national

line agencies,

CARE/ACCORD,

Project

documents

--Desk reviews

--FGDs with

beneficiaries

-- KIIs with

implementing

partners,

I/NGOs

48

--What could have been done

better?

--Who benefits from cash

transfers in the households?

--How effective was the

partnership strategy with

ACCORD? How effective were

the partnership strategies and

modalities in program

implementation?

--How effective was the

program’s accountability

mechanism?

--How were beneficiary

participation, information and

complaints and response

mechanism (CRM) ensured

throughout the program cycle?

--How effectively have program

components complemented one

another to achieve the program

objectives? What is the

relationship/link among the

sectoral responses? What is the

link between shelter and

livelihood recovery with cash-

based intervention as catalyst?

---Are there different outcomes

for those who received shelter

assistance but no livelihoods

assistance versus those who got

both?

--What were the positive and

negative (if there are any) results

of the project?

--Has there been an effective

coordination mechanism

established between CARE,

partners and other stakeholders

involved in the same sector?

- Interaction between

partners

--Ocular

inspection

• Efficiency --Were resources focused on the

set of activities that were

expected to produce significant

results?

--Were the activities

Implemented within deadline and

cost estimates?

--Effective

mechanism for

monitoring

implementation

--Funding strategy

and use of resources

--Sources and uses of

funds (Financial

reports)

Project staff,

CARE/ACCORD,

Project

documents

--Desk reviews

-- KIIs with

implementing

partners

49

• Impact and

Sustainability

---What had been the impact of

the project in your lives right after

Typhoon Yolanda?

---To what elements of the

project do you attribute this

impact?

--Were initiatives designed to

have sustainable results

given the risks?

--Was an exit strategy included?

--Were development related

concerns included into recovery

planning?

--Is the project replicable to other

post-disaster context elsewhere?

--Trigger effects

--Replicability

Beneficiaries,

project staff,

NGOs/INGOs,

LGUs, national

line agencies,

CARE/ACCORD,

Project

documents

--Desk reviews

--FGDs with

beneficiaries

-- KIIs with

implementing

partners

• Gender --What was achieved in terms of

mainstreaming gender?

--Any good practices to be

replicated?

--Can results of the

programme be

disaggregated

by sex?

--Evidence of gender

empowerment

Beneficiaries,

project staff,

NGOs/INGOs,

LGUs, national

line agencies,

CARE/ACCORD,

Project

documents

--Desk reviews

--FGDs with

beneficiaries

-- KIIs with

implementing

partners

---Ocular

inspection

50

D. Project intervention areas

Map 1. Project coverage in Leyte (visited areas in italic)

Map 2. Project coverage in Iloilo

A. Selection of Beneficiaries

Tabontabon

Santa Fe

Pastrana

Dagami

La Paz

Estancia

San Dionisio

51

E. Log frame of the Project

The table below shows the project’s log frame:

Intervention Logic Objectively Verifiable

Indicators

Target

Provide access to food security and livelihoods

(FSL) and shelter services that incorporates

disaster risk reduction (DRR) in order to speed

up the recovery of most affected populations in

targeted remote and underserved communities

of Leyte and Iloilo Provinces, Philippines

% of targeted households

are able to meet basic needs

through sustainable

livelihood activities

90%

% of households have

incorporated risk reduction

measures in the repair or

rebuilding of their homes

90%

% of women and girls are

benefiting from, and

participating in food security

and livelihoods, shelter and

DRR activities

30%

Short-term food security and livelihood needs

of targeted vulnerable households are met

Number of targeted

households that have

immediately restarted quick-

impact livelihoods

6,220

Number of targeted

households which are able

to access and maintain

productive assets

6,220

Number of households that

have received capacity

building inputs including

sustainable agriculture and

disaster risk reduction

9,180

Shelter recovery by targeted vulnerable

households is adequately supported

Number of households that

received shelter repair kits

that meet technical and

performance standards,

including Cluster standards

1,500

Number of households that

have received information

on better construction

practices and building back

safer homes

1,765

52

F. List of FGDs Participants

DAGAMI, LEYTE

NAME SEX AGE ASSISTANCE FROM

PROJECT

BARANGAY

Livelihood Shelter Kit

1. Cherry S. Dometita F 36 � � Cabariwan

2. Eunice C. Villarta* F 39 � � Cabariwan

3. Enrique Bayona M 44 � � Cabariwan

4. Benedicto Bayona F 41 � � Cabariwan

5. Erlinda Tajarros F 68 � � Cabariwan

6. Rosita S. Superales F 72 � � Cabariwan

7. Shemie C. Lotilla F 35 � � Banayon

8. Marianita C. Alter F 58 � � Banayon

9. Erlinda C. Superales F 52 � � Banayon

10. Rita L. Lomtong F 41 � � Banayon

11. Wilfredo Mendoza M 55 � Banayon

12. Nathaniel S. Ramos M 26 � � Maca-alag

13. Cristeta Villablanca F 38 � � Maca-alag

14. Lorna R. Manasis F 51 � � Maca-alag

*Community Facilitator and Member of Roving Team

DAGAMI, LEYTE

NAME SEX AGE ASSISTANCE FROM

PROJECT

BARANGAY

Livelihood Shelter Kit

1. Juan Blones M 38 � � Los Martires

2. Vilma M. Dolor F 43 � Bolirao

3. Florida R. Bertos F 40 � Bolirao

4. Marbelina M. Maguio F 51 � � Bolirao

5. Evelyn T. Justimbaste F 43 � � Bolirao

6. Porfirio G. Justimbaste M 54 � � Bolirao

7. Ma. Nilda A. Omoy F 45 � � Tagkip

8. Ma. Paz G. Badeo F 32 � � Tagkip

9. Silverio Omoy M 58 � � Tagkip

LA PAZ, LEYTE

NAME SEX AGE ASSISTANCE FROM

PROJECT

BARANGAY

Livelihood Shelter Kit

53

1. Dolly M. Odo F 38 � � Mag-aso

2. Elvira E. Andrade F 51 � � Mag-aso

3. Utmi B. Gabrino M 36 � � Mag-aso

4. Nelia Rabalo F 44 � � Bagacay West

5. Rogelio Calsado M 58 � � Bagacay West

6. Liza C. Agrava F 36 � � Bagacay West

7. Francisca A. Soriano F 45 � Calabnian

8. Yolanda Y. Hijana F 49 � Calabnian

9. Noel P. Luanos M 46 � Calabnian

MUNICIPALITY OF LA PAZ IN LEYTE PROVINCE

NAME SEX AGE ASSISTANCE FROM

PROJECT

BARANGAY

Livelihood Shelter Kit

1. Lerma G. Llames F 31 � � Bagacay East

2. Melinda E. Perida F 25 � � Bagacay East

3. Aida A. Canete F 42 � � Bagacay East

4. Ana Joy A. Maballo F 36 � � Bagacay East

5. Trinidad J. Calooy F 61 � Sta. Ana

6. Jenneth E. Pingol F 45 � Sta. Ana

7. Gloria P. Tanega F 58 � Sta. Ana

8. Danilo L. Mella M 44 � � Bongtod

9. Rosalita L. Cajoto F 40 � Qui-ong

10. Ellen C. Resma F 46 � Sta. Ana

11. Chona C. Ero F 42 � Mag-aso

12. Marlene B. Asis F 46 � � Bongtod

TABONTABON, LEYTE

NAME SEX AGE ASSISTANCE FROM

PROJECT

BARANGAY

Livelihood Shelter Kit

1. Jefferson G. Apetas M 30 � � Cambucao

2. Ruel P. Cuayzon M 34 � � Cambucao

3. Analita C. Garcela F 47 � � Cambucao

4. Nieva E. Sequito F 36 � � Cambucao

5. Gina O. Valdez F 45 � � Mercaduhay

6. Marissa R. Tatoy F 46 � � Mercaduhay

7. Nora D. Remandaban F 43 � � Mercaduhay

8. Edna D. Trecene F 47 � � Mercaduhay

9. Cecilia R. Villamor F 44 � � Mering

10. Nelia M. Bibar F 47 � � Mering

11. Concordio T. Budog M 54 � � Mering

12. Erwin C. Gausin M 33 � � Mering

54

SAN DIONISIO, ILOILO

NAME SEX AGE ASSISTANCE FROM

PROJECT

BARANGAY

Livelihood Shelter Kit

1. Elsie N. Jordan F 42 � � Batuan

2. Jenelyn Bautista F 47 � � Batuan

3. Nick Basong* M 30 � � Batuan

4. Edwin S. de la Cruz* M 44 ** � Batuan

5. Enrique Cerveza* M 48 � � Tamangi

6. Nixon Medel M 45 � � Tamangi

7. Jhonny Villamor M 31 � � Tamangi

8. Joycel Villamor* F 29 � � Tamangi

9. Nancy Medel F 40 � � Tamangi

10. Regina Sanan F 34 � � Tamangi

11. Rhodora S. Ociel F 53 ** ** Poblacion

12. Aquiles Rogador Sr. M 53 ** ** Poblacion

13. Rosemarie B. Rogador F 51 ** ** Poblacion

14. Lorna E. Constantino F 53 ** ** Poblacion

15. Judith R. Carpio F 34 ** � Poblacion

16. Erlinda P. Bagadion F 62 ** � Poblacion

17. Clara J. Matenc F 58 ** � Poblacion

18. Vilma R. Hechanova F 49 ** � Poblacion

*Member, Roving Team (RT)

**Barangay Poblacion received shelter kits and DRR training only. Those who did not receive shelter kits were not

qualified because they were members of the Barangay Council, but they participated in the DRR training. In areas

where livelihood assistance was provided, government employees and those with relatives who were Overseas

Filipinos Workers (OFWs) or in general, with relatives abroad, were exempted.

ESTANCIA, ILOILO

NAME SEX AGE ASSISTANCE FROM

PROJECT

BARANGAY

Livelihood Shelter Kit

1. Josephine Ramirez F 49 ** � Tabu-an

2. Perla Casabuena F 66 ** � Tabu-an

3. Delia Bernas F 65 ** � Tabu-an

4. Maribeth Del Rosario F 40 ** � Tabu-an

5. Arlyn D. Ramirez F 31 ** � Tabu-an

6. Melissa V. Villa F 26 ** � Lonoy

7. Remar S. Celedonio M 28 ** � Lonoy

8. Careen P. Castillo F 28 ** � Lonoy

9. Merly Barana F 22 ** � Lonoy

10. Marissa Aguilar F 21 ** � Lonoy

55

11. Joy Patente F 56 ** � Lonoy

12. Jenelyn Amistoso F 43 ** � Lonoy

13. Mario Amistoso* M 59 ** � Lonoy

14. Betty S. Gayacan F 69 ** � Lonoy

15. Rosemarie Rebadomi F 46 ** � Lonoy

16. Felamae Bornales F 21 ** � Lonoy

17. Jose Bornales* M 50 ** � Lonoy

18. Dallia Repollo F 29 ** � Lonoy

19. Dionito Baniagas M 67 ** � Lonoy

20. Melchor Amistoso M 52 ** � Lonoy

21. Ulricah Mosqueda F 62 ** � Lonoy

22. Regina Badiang F 35 ** � Lonoy

23. Hennie Bacay F 53 ** Lonoy

24. Analiza D. Baniagas* F 41 ** � Lonoy

25. Pia Alleno F 38 ** � Lonoy

26. Ellen B. Tadyo F 28 ** � Lonoy

27. Hasim S. Marcelo M 41 ** � Lumbia

28. Abelardo A. Paner M 66 ** � Lumbia

29. Venus S. Mosqueda* F 35 ** � Lumbia

30. Nena P. Magbanua F 48 ** � Lumbia

31. Risa P. Dollentes F 44 ** � Lumbia

32. Selfa P. Borgonia F 47 ** � Lumbia

33. Marivic Sobrevega F 33 ** � Lumbia

*Member, Roving Team (RT)

**Estancia received shelter kits and DRR training only. However, FGD participants said that livelihood assistance

was provided by Save the Children. Among those who attended the FGD, only said that she did not qualify for the

shelter kits because her house was evaluated as made of strong materials; but she attended the DRR training.

56

G. List of Key Informants

KEY INFORMANTS

NAME POSITION MUNICIPALITY,

BARANGAY or

ORGANIZATION

Vincent Bano Councilor San Dionisio, Iloilo

Gerry Imperial Head, HR and Personnel and concurrent

MDRRMO Officer

Dagami, Leyte

Leo Nevaliza Municipal Agriculture Officer (MAO) Dagami, Leyte

Zolita Besa MAO Tabontabon, Leyte

Randy Baido Acting MDRRMO Officer Estancia, Iloilo

Analita C. Garcela Barangay Captain Cambucao, Tabontabon,

Leyte

Chona C. Ero Barangay Captain Mag-aso, La Pa, Leyte

Ma. Cecile A. Hipolito Barangay Captain Poblacion, San Dionisio, Iloilo

Nona J. Mateus Barangay Kagawad (Council Member)

and Barangay Secretary

Poblacion, San Dionisio, Iloilo

Ma. May B. Lumawag Barangay Kagawad (Council Member) Poblacion, San Dionisio, Iloilo

Luma A. Toquillo Barangay Kagawad (Council Member) Poblacion, San Dionisio, Iloilo

Nora D. Renamdaban Barangay Captain Mercaduhay, Tabontabon,

Leyte

Erie C. Ramirez Barangay Captain Tabuan, Estancia, Iloilo

Benito Inocencio Barangay Captain Lonoy, Estancia, Iloilo

Frankie P. Lanaque Barangay Kagawad (Council Member) Lumbia, Estancia, Iloilo

Jones Dizon Team Leader for Projects OXFAM

Gladys Montales Programme Coordinator Save the Children

Rodrigo Luego Livelihood Sector Head Food for the Hungry

Marietta L. Alcid Executive Director ACCORD

Ma. Teresa Bayombong Director for Programmes CARE PHL

Synadicta Nkrumah Finance Director CARE PHL

Ma. Adelma Montejo Monitoring & Evaluation, Accountability

and Learning (MEAL) Manager

CARE PHL

Athena Gepte Emergency Response Coordinator CARE PHL

Jerome Lanit Area Coordinator, Region VIII CARE PHL

Magdaleno Bargamento Area Coordinator, Panay CARE PHL

Antonette Barlisan MEAL Officer, Region VIII CARE PHL

Macy Sally Daproza MEAL Officer, Panay CARE PHL

57

H. Schedule of Evaluation Process

Activity Deliverables # of days Timeframe

1. Preparatory activities

a. Briefing with CARE and ACCORD

b. Desk review

c. Submission of inception report, including

initial review and analysis of program

accomplishments and gaps based on

available documents, and evaluation

instruments/tools

Inception

Report

4 4th week January

2016

2. Field visit/data collection Field Data 11 1st week

February 2016

3. Report writing and submission of draft report

including case study

Draft Report

of Evaluation

10 2nd and 3rd week

February 2016

4. Report presentation Powerpoint

Presentation

1 1st week March

2016

5. Preparation of the final report Final Report

of Evaluation

2 2nd week of

March 2016

Total # of days 28

I. Itinerary: Field Work

AREA

2016 Feb

1 Mon Dagami (38 minutes from Tacloban City)

2 Tues Tabon-Tabon (36 minutes from Tacloban City)

3 Wed La Paz (1 hr from Tacloban City)

4 Thu Interview with CARE, and ACCORD field staff, other NGOs based in

Tacloban

8 Mon San Dionisio (1 hr 11 min from Roxas City)

9 Tues Estancia (57 minutes from Roxas City)

10 Wed Interview with CARE and ACCORD field staff, other NGOs based in

Estancia

J. On-Site Programme: 1,2,3,8 and 9 February 2016 TIME ACTIVITY WITH WHOM/WHERE

8:30 A.M.

10:00

9:00

FGD No. 1

For Dagami and La Paz (Leyte) where two

(2) Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) will be

held.

FGD No. 2 in Dagami and La Paz

Women and senior citizens fairly

represented; beneficiaries from nearby

barangays will be represented; maximum

of 12 participants per FGD; snacks to be

prepared.

58

For Tabontabon (Leyte), Estancia and San

Dionisio (Iloilo), only one (1) FGD

11:00 Key Informant Interview (KII) Barangay Captain(s); shelter roving team;

shelter and livelihood group leaders

12:30 P.M LUNCH

1:30 P.M. Ocular Inspection On site: Results of shelter and livelihood

3:00 Key Informant Interview (KII) LGUs (Mayor and/or head of relevant

offices/committees such as planning,

DRRM, agriculture and social welfare and

development---latter can be convened as

one group)

5:00 END

59

K. Photos of SHO programme implemented by CARE

Dagami, Leyte

Estancia, Iloilo San Dionisio, Iloilo

A good roof. Correct spacing of roof nails.

Barangay Mag-aso, La Paz, Iloilo. Building strong foundations was emphasized as well.

60

Barangay Cabariwan, Dagami, Leyte. Barangay Cambucao, Tabontabon, Leyte

Barangay Lonoy, Estancia, Iloilo

Stakeholders' meetings in Panay. Municipal officials, barangay leaders, and ordinary community members have committed to

support the project. (ACCORD Photos)