Upload
dinhdang
View
221
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Evaluation of the European Commission’s Cooperation with the Philippines
Final Report
Volume 1
June 2011
Evaluation for the European Commission
Italy
Framework contract for
Multi-country thematic and regional/country-level strategy
evaluation studies and synthesis in the area of external co-operation
Aide à la Décision
Economique
Belgium
LOT 4:
Evaluation of EU geographic co-operation strategies for
countries/regions in Asia, Latin America, the Southern
Mediterranean and Eastern Europe (the area of the New
Neighbourhood Policy)
PARTICIP GmbH
Germany
Ref.: EuropeAid/122888/C/SER/Multi
Request for Service: 2009/223108
Deutsches Institut für
Entwicklungspolitik
Germany
Evaluation of European Commission cooperation with the Philippines
Overseas
Development Institute,
United Kingdom
European Institute
for Asian Studies
Belgium
FINAL REPORT
Istituto Complutense
de Estudios
Internacionales
Spain
Vollume I
A consortium of
Particip-ADE–DRN-DIE–ECDPM-ODI
c/o Particip GmbH, leading company:
Headquarters
Merzhauser Str. 183
D - 79100 Freiburg / Germany
Phone: +49-761-79074-0
Fax: +49-761-79074-90
Belgium office
Avenue des Arts 10-11 (4th floor))
B-1210 Bruxelles / Belgium
Phone: +32-2-5501160
Fax: +32-2-5501169
June 2011
This evaluation was carried out by
The core evaluation team comprised of: Joern Dosch
(team leader), Landis MacKellar, Dirk van Esbroeck,
Maurice Coenegrachts.
The evaluation is being managed by the DEVCO
evaluation Unit.
The author accepts sole responsibility for this report,
drawn up on behalf of the Commission of the European
Communities. The report does not necessarily reflect
the views of the Commission.
Evaluation of the European Commission’s Cooperation with the Philippines
Country Level Evaluation
Final Report
The report consists of two volumes:
Volume I: FINAL REPORT
Volume II: ANNEXES
VOLUME I: FINAL REPORT
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. Country Context
3. EU Strategic Objectives and Priorities in the Philippines
4. Findings
5. General Conclusions and Recommendations
VOLUME II: ANNEXES
1. List of Documents Consulted
2. Overview of Evaluation Questions
3. List of Contacts
4. Country Context
5 Strategic Objectives and Priorities in the Philippines
6. Information Matrix
7. Geography of EC interventions in the Philippines
8. Overview of evaluation methodology
9. Summary of seminar in the Philippines
10. Terms of References
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page i
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ xiv
1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose of the evaluation ...............................................................................................1
1.2 Evaluation Process ..........................................................................................................1
2 Country Context......................................................................................................5
3 EU Strategic Objectives and Priorities in the Philippines ........................................ 12
3.1 Global EU development policy strategic objectives and priorities ................................... 12
3.2 ALA regulations (1996-2006) .......................................................................................... 12
3.3 DCI regulations (2007-2013) .......................................................................................... 13
3.4 Regional strategic objectives and priorities .................................................................... 13
3.5 EU Strategic Objectives and Priorities in the Philippines: Overview ................................. 14
3.6 The First Country Strategy Paper, 2002-2006 .................................................................. 14
3.7 The Second Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013 .............................................................. 16
3.8 Regional programmes in the Philippines ........................................................................ 17
3.9 Thematic / horizontal funding in the Philippines ............................................................ 17
3.10 Partnership Cooperation Agreement ............................................................................. 18
3.11 Detailed Intervention Logic............................................................................................ 18
4 Findings ................................................................................................................ 20
4.1 EQ1 – To what extent has the EU cooperation programme in the Philippines
been designed and implemented with a view to addressing the needs of the
poorest/vulnerable groups? .......................................................................................... 20
4.1.1 Findings by JC ..........................................................................................................................21
4.1.2 Synthesised EQ Answer: .........................................................................................................26
4.1.3 Conclusions: ............................................................................................................................27
4.1.4 Recommendations: .................................................................................................................28
4.2 EQ2 – To what extent has EU support to the Philippine Health Sector Programme
contributed to an improved provision of basic health care services?............................... 28
4.2.1 Findings by JC: .........................................................................................................................30
4.2.2 Synthesised EQ Answer: .........................................................................................................38
4.2.3 Conclusions: ............................................................................................................................39
4.2.4 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................41
4.3 EQ3 – To what extent has EU support in the area of rural development
contributed to improved living standards for the poor? ................................................. 42
4.3.1 Findings by JC: .........................................................................................................................43
4.3.2 Synthesised EQ Answer...........................................................................................................46
4.3.3 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................47
4.3.4 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................48
4.4 EQ4 – To what extent has EU support contributed to improved trade and
economic partnership with the Philippines and the country’s further integration
into the international trade system? .............................................................................. 49
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page iii
4.4.1 Findings by JC: .........................................................................................................................50
4.4.2 Synthesised EQ Answer: .........................................................................................................52
4.4.3 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................52
4.4.4 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................53
4.5 EQ5 – To what extent has the EU support promoted and strengthened better
governance? ................................................................................................................. 53
4.5.1 Findings by JC: .........................................................................................................................54
4.5.2 Progress made in the major clusters supported through EU programmes ............................57
4.5.3 Conclusions: ............................................................................................................................60
4.5.4 Recommendations: .................................................................................................................61
4.6 EQ6 – To what extent was the EU’s mix of financing instruments and aid
modalities appropriate to the national context and EU cooperation objectives? ............. 62
4.6.1 Findings by JC: .........................................................................................................................62
4.6.2 Synthesised EQ Answer: .........................................................................................................65
4.6.3 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................66
4.6.4 Recommendations: .................................................................................................................67
5 General Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................... 68
List of Tables:
Table 1 Evaluation Questions ...................................................................................................... 2
Table 2 Evaluation criteria addressed per EQ ............................................................................. 2
Table 3 Approach to Triangulation of this Evaluation ................................................................. 4
Table 4 Common Principles and Objectives of European Consensus on Development ...........12
Table 5 Thematic programmes under ALA and DCI respectively ..............................................18
List of figures
Figure 1 Political System of the Philippines .................................................................................. 6
Figure 2 Structure of Special Forms of Local Government and Regional Administration ............ 7
Figure 3 Distribution of Grants by Funding ................................................................................10
Figure 4 Multi-Annual Indicative Programme 2007-2010 allocation by focal sector .................17
Figure 5 Poverty in the Philippines .............................................................................................21
Figure 6 EU cooperation spending on Mindanao in % ...............................................................25
Figure 7 Perception of Public Sector corruption in the Philippines ........................................... 59
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page iv
List of Acronyms
Acronym Full title
ACB ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity
ACPC Agricultural Credit and Policy Council
AD Ancestral Domain
ADB Asian Development Bank
ADHIP Ancestral Domain Investment Planning for Health
AECID Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation
AENEAS Association established to represent R&D actors on Nanoelectronics in Europe
AEO Authorized Economic Operator
AFD Agence Française de Développement
AFP Armed Forces of the Philippines
AJ Access to Justice for the Poor
ALA Asia-Latin America
ALDA ARC Level of Development Assessment
AML Anti-Money Laundering
AMLP Anti-money laundering project
AO Administrative Order
AOP Annual Operations Plan
APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
APED Agricultural Production and Enterprise Development
APRIS II ASEAN-EU Programme of Regional Integration Support II
ARC Agrarian Reform Community
ARMM Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ASEM Asia Europe Meeting
ASLA Alternative Savings and Loan Assemblies
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development
BAC Provincial Government Bids and Awards Committee
BASAWA Barangay Water and Sanitation Associations
BDP Barangay Development Plan
BEmONC Basic Emergency Obstetric and Neonatal Care
BFAD Bureau of Food and Drug
BFAR Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
BHS Barangay Health Station
BIHC Bureau of International Health Cooperation
BLHD Bureau of Local Health Development
BnB Botica ng Barangay
BoC Bureau of Customs
BS Budget Support
CADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim
CAR Cordillera Administrative Region
CASCADE Caraballo and Southern Cordillera Agricultural Development
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page v
CBG Case based payment
CBMS Community Based Monitoring Systems
CECAP Central Cordillera Agricultural Programme
CEmONC Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric and Neonatal Care
CEPERD Consolidation and Expansion of the Philippines-EU Rural Development
Programme
CHD Centre for Health Development
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
CO Central Office
COA Commission on Audit
CP Corruption Prevention
CPP Corruption Prevention Project
CRIS Common RELEX Information System
CS Civil Society
CSO Civil Society Organisation
CSP Country Strategy Paper
CTB Belgian Technical Cooperation
CY Calendar Year
DA Department of Agriculture
DAC Development Assistance Committee
DAO Departmental Administrative Order
DAR Department of Agrarian Reform
DBM Department of Budget and Management
DC Development Cooperation
DCI Development Cooperation Instrument
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DG Directorate General
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DoH Department of Health
DoJ Department of Justice
DPNS Draft of Philippine National Standards
DRG Diagnostic Related group
DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
EAMR External Assistance Management Report
EC European Commission
ECAP EU-ASEAN Intellectual Property Rights Cooperation Programme
ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection
EU-TA European Union Technical Assistance
EIDHR European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights
EmONC Emergency Obstetric and Neonatal Care
ENRTP Thematic programme for environment and sustainable management of natural
resources including energy
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page vi
EQ Evaluation Question
ERP-
CASCADE
Economic Self Reliance Programme, Caraballo and Southern Cordillera
Agricultural Development
ESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
EU European Union
EU LVD European Union Low Voltage Directive
F1 FOURmula ONE
F16 Initial 16 convergence provinces include in the health reform
F44 Group of 44 provinces in the 2nd (national) roll-out
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
FDA Food and Drug Administration NOT FOUND
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
FHSIS Field Health Services Information System
FIES Family Income and Expenditure Survey
FIMO Field Implementation Management Office
FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade
FMIS Financial Management Information Systems
FP Family Planning
FTA Fast Track Initiative
GAA General Appropriations Act
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIDA Geographically Isolated and Depressed Areas
GM Genetically Modified
GNI Gross National Income
GoJ Government of Japan
GoP Government of the Philippines
GPPP Good Procurement Practice in Pharmaceuticals
GSO General Services Office
GTZ German Agency for International Cooperation
HCE Health Care Expenditure
HCF Health Care Financing
HDI Human Development Index
HHRDB Health Human Resources Development Bureau
HIV Human immunodeficiency virus
HPDPB Health Policy Development and Planning Bureau
HPI Human Poverty Index
HR Human Resources
HRH Human Resources for Health
HSEF Health Sector Expenditure Framework
HSPSP Health Sector Policy Support Programme
HSRA Health Sector Reform Agenda
HQ Head Quarter
IA Irrigation Association
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page vii
IA Internal Audit
IAS Internal Audit Service
ICC International Criminal Court
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
ICVP Information Communication and Visibility Plan
IDP Internally Displaced People
IfS Instrument for Stability
ILHZ Inter-Local Health Zone
ILO International Labour Organisation
IP Indigenous People
IPR Intellectual Property Rights
IPRA Landmark Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act
IRA Internal Revenue Allotment
IRR Implementing Rules and Regulations
JAC Joint Appraisal Committee
JAI Justice and Home Affairs
JAPI Joint Assessment and Planning Initiative for FOURmula One
JC Judgment Criteria
JEM Joint Environmental Management
JICA Japanese Agency for International Cooperation
KfW German Bank for International Development
KOICA Korea International Cooperation Agency
LCE Local Chief Executive
LGC Local Government Code
LGU Local Government Unit
LHA Local Health Accounts
LRIC Local Reform Implementation Coordinator
LRRD Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development
LSI Living Standard Index
LUB-BDP Land Used Based Barangay Development Planning
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MCA Millennium Challenge Account (bilateral U.S. development assistance
programme)
MCH Mother and Child Care
MCP Maternity Care Package
MDG Millennium Development Goal
ME3 Monitoring Evaluation for Equity and Effectiveness
MEDco Mindanao Economic Development Coordination Office
MFI Micro Finance Institution
MHSPSP Mindanao Health Sector Policy Support Programme
MICS Multi-year indicator cluster survey
MILF Moro Islamic Liberation Front
MIMAP Micro Impacts of Macroeconomic Adjustment Policies
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page viii
MIP Multi-year Indicative programme
MNCHN Maternal, neonatal, and child health and nutrition
MoA Memorandum of Agreement
MoA-AD Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain
MS Member State
MTEF Medium-Term Expenditure Framework
MTF Multi-donor trust fund
MTF Mindanao Trust Fund
MTF-RDP Mindanao Trust Fund - Reconstruction and Development Programme
MTPDP Medium Term Philippine Development Plan
MTR Mid-term review
NACPA National Anti-Corruption Program of Action
NCHFD National Centre for Health Facilities Development
NCIP National Commission for Indigenous People
NDHS National Demographic and Health Survey
NEDA National Economic and Development Authority
NGA National Government Agency
NGAS New Government Accounting System
NGO Non-governmental Organisation
NHHTS National Household Targeting System
NHIP National Health Insurance Programme
NIP National Indicative Program
NIPAP National Integrated Protected Areas Programme
NOSCA Notice of Organization, Staffing, and Compensation Action
NSA Non-State Actors
NSCB Philippine National Statistical Coordination Board
NSSHRP National Systems Strengthening Health Reform Program
NSW National Single Windows
NZAID New Zealand’s International Aid and Development Agency
ODA Official Development Assistance
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
OMB Office of the Ombudsman
OOP Out Of Pocket
OPB Out Patient Benefit
OPIF Organizational Performance Indicator Framework
PAGC Presidential Anti-Graft Commission
PBMP Philippine Border Management Project
PCA Partnership and Cooperation Agreement
PCA Philippine Coconut Authority
PCD Policy Coherence for Development
PCFC Peoples Credit and Finance Corporation
PDF Philippines Development Forum
PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page ix
PFM Public Financial Management
PHC Primary Health Care
PHIC Philippine Health Insurance Corporation or PhilHealth
PhilHealth Philippine Health Insurance Corporation
PHO Provincial Health Office
PHP Philippine Peso
PHTL Provincial Health Team Leader
PIDS Philippine Institute for Development Studies
PIPH Province-wide Investment Plan for Health
PITC Philippine International Trading Corporation
PLGU Provincial Local Government Unit
PMT Proxy Means Testing
PMU Project Management Unit
PNHA Philippines National Health Accounts
PO People’s Organisation
POM Program Operations Manual
PP Procurement Practices
PPI Pro Poor Integrity Program
PPMP Provincial Procurement Monitoring Plan
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper NOT FOUND
PTFPP Palawan Tropical Forest Protection Programme
PWI Procurement Watch Inc.
RA Republic Act
RDP Reconstruction and Development Program
READI Regional EU-ASEAN Dialogue Instrument
RELEX European Commission External Relations
RHU Rural Health Unit
RO Regional Office
ROHS Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances
ROM Result-Oriented Monitoring
RRM Rapid Reaction Mechanism
RP Republic of the Philippines
RSP Regional Strategy Paper
SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SARO Savings Allotment Release Obligation
SBS Sector Budget Support
SDAH Sector Development Approach to Health
SEA South East Asian
SGL Super green lane
SLA Service Level Agreement
SaLA Savings and Loan Associations
SLG Saving and Loan Group
SME Small and Medium Enterprises
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page x
SOM Senior Official Meeting
SPD Systems and Procedures Design
SPF Small Project Facility, renamed Strategic Project Facility
SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures
STARCM Support to Agrarian Reform Communities in Central Mindanao
STE Short Term Expert
STI Sexually Transmitted Infection
STRIDE-
Mindanao
Strengthening Response to Internal Displacement in Mindanao
SWAp Sector-wide Approach
SWS Social Weather Stations
SZOPAD Special Zone for Peace and Development
TA Technical Assistance
TACT Technical Assistance Coordinating Team
TB DOTS Tuberculosis – Direct Observed Treatment Strategy
TBT Technical Barriers to Trade
TF Trust Fund
TIUS NEDA Trade, Industry and Utilities Staff
ToR Terms of Reference
TREATI Trans-regional EU-ASEAN Trade Initiative
TRTA Trade-Related Technical Assistance
UBA Upland Barangay Associations
UDP Upland Development Programme for Southern Mindanao
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNAIDS United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNFPA United Nations Fund for Population Activities
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
USD United States Dollar
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WB World Bank
WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronical Equipment
WESAMAR Western Samar Agricultural Resource Development Programme
WFP World Food Program
WHO World Health Organisation
WTO World Trade Organisation
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page xi
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page xii
Note on the use of terms:
For clarity the acronym EU (European Union) is used throughout this report regardless of whether the
text refers to pre-1992 issues and events (when the correct term was European Community) or post-
1992 developments. At the same time, in the context of this report EU only covers the activities of the
European Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS), the term used since 1
December 2010, but not the EU Member States. Occasionally the acronym EC is used to refer explicitly
to the European Commission.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page xiii
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page xiv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. Objectives of the Evaluation
The evaluation of the Commission’s co-operation with the Philippines is part of the 2009 evaluation
programme as approved by External Relations and Development Commissioners and aiming at
ensuring accountability for the management of the allocated funds as well as promoting a lesson-
learning culture throughout the organisation.
The main objectives of the evaluation are:
to provide the relevant external co-operation services of the European Commission and the
wider public1 with an overall independent assessment2 of the Commission’s past and current
cooperation relations with the Philippines (2002-2009); and
to identify key lessons in order to improve the current and future strategies and programmes
of the Commission.
II. Country Context
Comprising about 7,100 islands, the Philippines is the second largest archipelagic state in the world,
after Indonesia. It is estimated to have 110 ethnic groups and 170 spoken languages of which seven
are main languages. The country is divided into three island groups: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.
Metro Manila, the capital, is the 11th most populous metropolitan area in the world. The Philippines
is predominantly a Roman Catholic country, but Muslims constitute about 5% of the population. A
per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of US$ 1,752 in 2009 ranks the Philippines as a low-middle
income country. However, economic activity is highly uneven, and concentrated particularly in the
national capital Manila. Together with the two adjacent regions, it produces about 55% of the
country’s GDP.
As a signatory to the Millennium Declaration of 2000, the Philippines is committed to achieving the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015. However, in early 2010, five years away from the
2015 deadline, the Philippines was still off-track in more than 40 % of the 21 indicators of the MDGs,
including poverty, hunger, infant mortality and maternal health. For example, poor performance in
key areas of human development is particularly acute in regard to women's and children's health and
nutrition.
With an Official Development Assistance (ODA) amount of US$ 7 per capita, the Philippines is among
the least aid dependent countries in Asia. EU-Philippines Development cooperation began in 1976. In
1984 the EU-Philippines Framework Agreement was signed, outlining the general conditions for
providing EU technical assistance and co-operation. A few bilateral projects were financed in the
early 1980s, but a more substantial and structured development co-operation began only in 1986,
1 In this context, ‘wider public’ is understood as the European public and public in the beneficiary country.
2 In this context, ‘independent assessment’ is understood as an assessment conducted by evaluators external to
the EU services, without any conflict of interest, and thus, ‘independent’.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page xv
with the Aquino administration’s commitment to democratic development. Since 1976 The EU's total
cooperation funding for the Philippines has been just over € 1 billion, or some Philippine Peso PHP 65
billion in total. Of this, € 625 million (60%) has been in grant funding, and € 413 million (40%) in loans
from the European Investment Bank.
EU development co-operation with the Philippines has focused from the outset on combating
poverty and raising standards of living of the poorest groups in the country. This has included
support for rural development and for agrarian reform; for the health sector; for decentralisation,
local governance and governance as a cross-cutting issue; for the promotion of human rights,
democracy and the rule of law; and a contribution to peace-building. Since 2005, the EU co-operation
programme has primarily supported equitable access to social services, with particular attention to
quality health services through a sector-wide approach and budget support mechanism. Since 1
December 2009 development cooperation with the Philippine has to be conducted within new legal
framework of the Treaty of Lisbon, which states that the reduction and the eradication of poverty is
the primary objective of the EU’s development cooperation policy. This issue was first raised in the
European Consensus on Development in 2005.
III. Evaluation Methodology
Structuring stage (January-March 2010): During the Structuring Stage of the evaluation, the EU’s
intervention logic for the period 2002-2009 and most important areas of cooperation were
identified. Preliminary evaluation questions (EQs), judgement criteria (JCs) and related indicators
were specified based on the intervention logic.
Desk phase (April-August 2010): During the Desk Phase, document review (documents and Results
Oriented Monitoring Reports) and consultations with Reference Group members were employed to
prepare preliminary answers to EQs, identify data and information gaps, and specify hypotheses to
be explored during the Field Phase.
Field phase (September 2010): During the Field Phase in September 2010, the Evaluation Team
conducted dozens of interviews with persons concerned with EU cooperation, several discussion
groups, a focus group discussion and several group discussions. The overall aim of the focus group
with representatives of Manila-based NGOs was to add to the evidence base on EQ1 regarding the
relevance of EU programming in the Philippines in terms of addressing the needs of the poor and
vulnerable groups. Interviews and group discussion were conducted in the following provinces and
cities visited: Metro Manila, Davao City, North Cotabato, South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat,
Compostella Valley, Ifugao, Nueva Vizcaya, Nueva Ecija. Eight project field site visits took place.
Final Report: Following the field stage, a draft final report was prepared. This report will be discussed
with Philippine stakeholders, who have been involved in the EU-Philippines cooperation programme
and the EU Delegation at a country dissemination seminar in Manila on 15 April 2011. Feedback from
the seminar will be considered for the final report.
IV. Overall assessment
The overall assessment of EU strategy in the Philippines is positive. The EU cooperation programme
during the assessment period has been closely aligned with the Philippine Government’s policies
with regard to poverty, health, rural development, governance and trade. The evaluation has not
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page xvi
found any striking contradictions between EU priorities and strategies and Government of the
Philippines (GoP) policy-making. The EU cooperation programme in the Philippines has been
adequately designed and implemented with a view to addressing the needs of the poorest and
vulnerable groups. The Country Strategy Papers 2002-2006 and 2007-2013 both expressed a clear
vision on poverty reduction. The major shift was to strengthen the focus on Mindanao, a sound
decision from a poverty point of view. The decision to phase out of rural development and to
concentrate support to the social sector on health, as opposed to on health and education was based
on some considerations of donor coordination and the division of labour. While successes in poverty
reduction in several regions are evident and can be linked to EU interventions, the overall picture of
poverty in the country remains bleak. Poverty statistics released recently show no improvement, and
over 50 % of families in the Philippines now self-assess themselves as “poor.”
Though the start had been slow, through the Sector Budget Support (SBS) the EU has developed a
sector approach to health, together with all stakeholders, including Local Government Units (LGUs);
and helped to bridge the gap, bringing all stakeholders together to shape the health reform. The
Health Sector Policy Support Programme (HSPSP) is fully consistent with the poverty reduction EU
development policy and is in accordance with the EU’s commitment to the MDGs. The HSPSP is
implemented within the sector approach, pursued by the Philippine Government under its “Sector
Development Approach for Health (SDAH)” strategy and is emphasising coordination and
complementarity with donor partners as well as harmonisation of aid is in line with the Paris
Declaration. Likewise the Mindanao Health Sector Policy Support Programme (MHSPSP) fully
contributes the poverty reduction by assisting LGUs to identify indigent families and enrol them in
Philippine Health Insurance Cooperation (PhilHealth).
EU support in the area of rural development has contributed to improved living standards for the
poor. For example, all projects have produced relevant and quality outputs (rural infrastructure,
improved farming technologies, improved natural resources management, increased PO and LGU
capacities). Only in the domain of rural finance have projects substantially failed to meet their
targets. However, the four major (and now completed) rural development projects show different
records in terms of effectiveness and benefits sustainability. In addition, the type of activity
determines to a large extent the level of sustainability generated. Activities that produce highly
valued benefits are more sustainable as the communities but also their leaders attach more
importance to their continuity. All projects failed however to focus adequately on post production
issues. Although all projects worked in conflict areas, none of them has designed and implemented a
policy on how their action could contribute to conflict resolution, peace building and integration of
various (initially conflicting) interests.
The cooperation programme has also given prominent attention to the role of trade in the
development process. Today the Philippines is in a better position to participate in international
trade (not at least with the EU) and deal with the challenges of regional and global integration than
at the beginning of the evaluation period in 2002. Attribution gaps always exist when it comes to an
assessment of the effectiveness of interventions in the trade-sector as changes to the latter are
always the result of a myriad of domestic and external factors. However, the existing data are
sufficiently robust to demonstrate an instrumental role of the EU. Improvement to customs
procedures is one of the best documented examples in this regard. However, a persisting
shortcoming of trade support is a lack of an explicit environmental focus.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page xvii
The EU managed to establish high visibility (both vis-à-vis the Philippine Government and other
donors) in some key areas of governance, including human rights and the anti-corruption agenda,
and emerged as the key stakeholder in the Philippine Development Forum (PDF). The EU is seen as
having been particularly successful in linking “human rights and corruption”. Due to the EC's and
(also UNDP’s) efforts, there is now political high level commitment to this agenda. Overall, EU
support for the promotion and strengthening of better governance has been – to about equal
degrees - the result of, first, projects which directly focussed on improving governance through
capacity-building and other means and, second, the mainstreaming of governance in all other
programmes. The vast majority of interventions have achieved significant results/outcomes and
effectiveness. However, results vary across the spectrum of projects. One of the main challenges in
achieving tangible results and impact through governance-related projects is the largely diffuse and
uncoordinated nature of anti-corruption efforts in the Philippines. Lack of coordination leads to gaps
and overlaps in anti-corruption policy development, enforcement and system improvement. This is
also means that there is only very limited performance tracking to determine how far the country has
come in achieving its anti-corruption goals and objectives.
In the Philippines, as elsewhere, the EU has moved from a project approach to sector –based support
and participation in multi-donor initiatives including trust funds, in line with its Paris Declaration
commitments. A rich mix of approaches and instruments has been used. We conclude that, by and
large, the EU’s mix of financing instruments and aid modalities has been appropriate to the national
context and EU cooperation objectives.
Institutionalised (formal) and informal coordination mechanisms exist in virtually all cooperation
sectors and in relations between both the EU and EU Member States (MS) and the EU and non-
European donors. However, the specific dynamics of Member States’ (MS) national interests towards
the Philippines, the financial volume of bilateral programmes that often change significantly from
year to year as well as other factors limit strategic planning and division of labour under the EU Code
of Conduct.
V. General Conclusions
The evaluation has given rise to six general conclusions (sector specific conclusions are given in the
main text).
1. The EU programme has been highly relevant to poverty reduction in the Philippines.
However, several nuances or points of attenuation have emerged. For example, the main
projects on rural development did not engage in analysing structures and mechanisms
perpetuating poverty. High priority.
2. Although the start of the EU support to HSPSP was slow and it took time to match sector
budget support with the context of decentralisation, the Technical Assistance (TA) has
invested capacity and succeeded in several provinces. In a similar vein, the MHSPSP has
contributed fully to the EU’s poverty reduction objective. High priority.
3. The EU enjoys high visibility and credibility with regard to governance particularly concerning
to the anti-corruption and human rights agenda. Medium priority.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page xviii
4. EU dialogue with civil society on strategy and CS involvement in the cooperation programme
itself is seen as exemplary. The series of MTR consultations that the EU Delegation held with
CSOs in 2009 is a case in point. Low priority.
5. Projects as part of both bilateral and regional programmes as well as thematic budget lines
have had a strong focus on training and capacity-building and have performed strongly at the
output level. However, there are insufficient attempts at monitoring and assessing
outcomes/result of capacity-building. In many cases capacity-building seems to be seen as an
end in itself. Medium priority.
6. Overall the Philippines is in a better and stronger position to participate in international
trade than at the beginning of the evaluation period in 2002. However, synergies between
and among the bilateral EU-Cooperation cooperation programme and regional EU-ASEAN
(Association of Southeast Asian Nations) projects only exist to a limited extent and
coordination mechanisms are not formally institutionalised. Low priority.
VI. General Recommendations
The conclusions are linked, in turn, to six recommendations (sector-specific recommendations are
given in the main text):
1. To EU headquarters and EU Delegation: Projects aiming at reducing poverty should carefully
address who they are actually reaching and with what effect, and devise well elaborated
systems that are able to monitor progress in terms of poverty reduction on a regular basis.
From C1, high priority.
2. To EU headquarters and EU Delegation: Using its access to the Government and existing
dialogue mechanisms, the EU should consider assisting GoP in improving governance in the
health sector and increasing participation of civil society and private sector involvement.
Both can be attained through more efficient local health systems based on Inter-Local Health
Zones and partnerships with the private sector. From C2, medium priority.
3. To EU headquarters and EU Delegation: Both projects in direct support of governance and
the practise of mainstreaming governance in all cooperation sectors should continue. Giving
prominent attention to good governance as a cross-cutting issue and making sure that all
projects have a strong and direct focus on governance issues is as important and potentially
effective as explicit governance projects. Both approaches work best in tandem. From C3,
high priority.
4. To EU Delegation: The involvement of civil society organisations in strategy consultations is
already exemplary. It should be considered to increase the frequency of official interactions
between the EU Delegation and CSOs, for example in form of an annual dialogue forum.
From C4, low priority.
5. To EU Delegation: More effort should be put into monitoring the effectiveness of training
and capacity-building components of projects in all sectors. It is insufficient to just document
the output of these activities (number of officials trained, etc.). In many cases, it is not clear
how trained stakeholders (both with regards to Government and Civil Society) use the newly
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page xix
acquired knowledge and skills within their respective organisations and, thus, how capacity
building is related to overall project outcomes/results. From C5, high priority.
6. To EU headquarters and EU Delegation: The formalising and institutionalisation of project
coordination between bilateral EU-Philippines and regional EU-ASEAN programmes/projects
should be considered to achieve more synergies between bilateral and regional interventions
that address similar sectors. From C6, high priority.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the evaluation
The evaluation of the Commission’s co-operation with the Philippines is part of the 2009 evaluation
programme as approved by External Relations and Development Commissioners and aiming at
ensuring accountability for the management of the allocated funds as well as promoting a lesson-
learning culture throughout the organisation.
In the context of the programmes of the so-called RELEX (European Commission External Relation)
Family of Directorates-General (DG) and of greater concentration of external co-operation and
increasing emphasis on result-oriented approaches, particular attention needs to be paid to the
provision of the reliable evaluation of impact.
We understand that the main objectives of the evaluation are:
to provide the relevant external co-operation services of the EU and the wider public3 with
an overall independent assessment4 of the Commission’s past and current cooperation
relations with the Philippines (2002-2009); and
to identify key lessons in order to improve the current and future strategies and programmes
of the Commission.
1.2 Evaluation Process
Based on the methodology developed by the EU's Joint Evaluation Unit, the Country Strategy
Evaluation for the Philippines followed a five-phase methodological approach:
a Preparation Phase;
a Desk Phase;
a Field Phase;
a Synthesis Phase bringing together the results of the field and desk phases;
a Feedback and Dissemination Phase.
During the Preparation Phase, the principle foci of this evaluation were set. This was achieved
through a review of pertinent policy documents, the elaboration of the context of EU cooperation in
the country, a short exploratory field visit, a look at relevant funding flows, and the careful
reconstruction of the EU intervention logic. Preliminary evaluation questions (EQs), judgment criteria
(JCs) and, to some extent, potential related indicators were drafted based on the intervention logic,
and then discussed with members of the Reference Group and the Evaluation Manager. The resulting
redrafted EQs and JCs provide a clear direction to the evaluation, allowing for a focused investigation
into the most important areas of cooperation. The EQs are given in table 1 below:
3 In this context, ‘wider public’ is understood as the European public and public in the beneficiary country.
4 In this context, ‘independent assessment’ is understood as an assessment conducted by evaluators external to
the EU services, without any conflict of interest, and thus, ‘independent’.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 2
Table 1 Evaluation Questions
EQ1 - Poverty/vulnerable groups - To what extent has the EU cooperation programme in the
Philippines been designed and implemented with a view to addressing the needs of the
poorest/vulnerable groups?
EQ2 - Health - To what extent has EU support to the Philippine Health Sector Programme contributed
to an improved provision of basic health care services?
EQ3 - Rural Development - To what extent has EU support in the area of rural development
contributed to improved living standards for the poor?
EQ4 - Trade - To what extent has EU support contributed to improved trade and economic
partnership with the Philippines and the country’s further integration into the international trade
system?
EQ5 - Governance - To what extent has the EU support promoted and strengthened better
governance?
EQ6 - Mix of Instruments - To what extent was the EU’s mix of financing instruments and aid
modalities appropriate to the national context and EU cooperation objectives?
Table 2 Evaluation criteria addressed per EQ
Evaluation Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6
DAC Evaluation Criteria
Relevance X X
Effectiveness X X X X
Efficiency X
Impact X
Sustainability X
EU Evaluation Criteria
Coherence X
EU value added X X X
EU Evaluation key issues
3Cs X
Cross-cutting issues X X
EU visibility X
During the Desk Stage, efforts were made to gather as much documentary evidence and information
as possible, to provide preliminary assessments of the JCs and preliminary answers to the EQs. A
detailed literature review was carried out, taking into account all available policy documents,
implementation and evaluation reports, mid-term reviews, Result Oriented Monitoring (ROM)
reports and a variety of further sources. Missing documentation was identified and noted and gaps
were filled where possible. Further to the literature review, a number of interviews were carried out
with key informants via telephone with EU staff both in Brussels as well as Manila. These interviews
have provided valuable information on the EQs, and have helped to identify and at time already fill
gaps in the data available up to this point. They have also been useful in identifying contacts for
further interviews during the field phase. Overall, the Desk Report provided a synthesis of the
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 3
progress made and information gathered based mainly on documents and a small number of
interviews with EU officials in Brussels and Manila.
During the Field Phase in September 2010, the Evaluation Team conducted dozens of interviews with
persons concerned with EU cooperation, several discussion groups, and two focus group discussions
(Interviews and focus group discussion were conducted in the following provinces and cities visited:
Metro Manila, Davao City, North Cotabato, South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Compostella Valley,
Ifugao, Nueva Vizcaya, Nueva Ecija).
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 4
Table 3 Approach to Triangulation of this Evaluation
Evaluation Question
De
lega
tio
n
Nat
ion
al
Go
vern
me
nt
Lo
cal G
ove
rnm
en
t
Civ
il So
cie
ty
Be
ne
fici
arie
s
Data collection methods
EQ 1
To what extent has the EU
cooperation programme in the
Philippines been designed and
implemented with a view to
addressing the needs of the
poorest/vulnerable groups?
■O ■O ■O ■O ■
Data and Document analysis,
interviews, group discussions, focus
group
EQ 2
To what extent has EU support
to the Philippine Health Sector
Programme contributed to an
improved provision of basic
health care services?
■O ■O ■O ■O ■
Data and Document analysis,
interviews, group discussions, field
visits, focus group
EQ 3
To what extent has EU support
in the area of rural
development contributed to
improved living standards for
the poor?
■O ■O ■O ■ ■
Data and document analysis,
interviews, group discussions, field
visits
EQ 4
To what extent has EU support
contributed to improved trade
and economic partnership
with the Philippines and the
country’s further integration
into the international trade
system?
■O ■O O ■O ■ O Data and document analysis,
interviews, group discussions
EQ 5
To what extent has the EU
support promoted and
strengthened better
governance?
■O ■O ■ Data and document analysis,
interviews, group discussions
EQ 6
To what extent was the EU’s
mix of financing instruments
and aid modalities appropriate
to the national context and EU
cooperation objectives?
■O ■O ■O Data and document analysis,
interviews, group discussions
■= Primary Sources (Interviews, Focus Groups), O = Secondary Sources (Evaluations, studies, project reports)"
In terms of limitations, a constraint was the limited availability of government officials in some
sectors, during the field phase but also the tight timeframe for the field stay. Some Government
agencies did not respond to repeated requests for interviews. Another limitation was the spatial bias
towards current and former project sites in the Provinces due to time constraints on the part of both
consultants and interviewees. In other words, given the short time that was available for trips out of
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 5
Manila, the team mainly interacted with stakeholders who were in easy reach of main roads.
However, these limitations have not had any negative impact on the evaluation as the team was still
able to gather sufficient information from interviews and primary sources to triangulate findings.
This Final Report presents the fourth written output of the evaluation, following the Inception Report
the Desk Report and the Draft Final Report. The latter was disseminated and discussed at a seminar
in Manila on 15 April 2011. The seminar was attended by 76 guests from Philippine government
institutions led by the National Economic and Development Authority, United Nations Agencies,
donor organisations, the private sectors, NGOs and Civil Society Organizations, officials of the EU
Delegation in Manila and the media. Stakeholder feedback has been incorporated in the Final Report.
The analysis is structured according to the three-tiered logic from Indicator (Ind), to Judgement
Criteria (JC), to Evaluation Question (EQ). The evaluation team proceeded by collecting data at the
level of Indicators, which were then analysed to arrive at a first result at the level of the JCs, and
based on the combination of JCs, an answer to the EQs was drafted. Generally, the Draft Final Report
is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 provides a synthetic overview of the evaluation progress, an
introduction to the country context and EU cooperation programme in the Philippines, and findings
on the EQs and JCs (with references to indicators in Vol. 2). Volume 2 includes an overview of the
evaluation questions, JC and Indicators, the detailed findings on each Indicator and JC (information
matrix), a list of the sources of information, a list of contact people, and a geographical overview of
EU interventions in the Philippines.
2 COUNTRY CONTEXT
In this section, we describe the general political, economic and socio-economic situation in the
Philippines during the assessment period 2002-2009. This is not meant to be a detailed analysis but a
brief overview of the main issues affecting the Philippines and its relations with international donors.
For a more detailed county context see Volume 2.
Comprising about 7,100 islands, the Philippines is the second largest archipelagic state in the world,
after Indonesia. It is estimated to have 110 ethnic groups and 170 spoken languages of which seven
are main languages. The country is divided into three island groups: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.
Metro Manila, the capital, is the 11th most populous metropolitan area in the world. The Philippines
is predominantly a Roman Catholic country, but Muslims constitute about 5% of the population. A
per capita GDP of US$ 189 billion in 2010 ranks the Philippines as a low-middle income country.
However, economic activity is highly uneven, and concentrated particularly in the national capital
Manila. Together with the two adjacent regions, it produces about 55% of the country’s GDP.
The Philippine islands were ruled by Spain from 1565 until 1898, when the US took control. Having
been occupied by the Japanese and experienced savage combat during World War II, the country
became independent in 1946. The 21-year rule of Ferdinand Marcos (1965-86) was characterised by
economic mismanagement and martial law. In the wake of the “People Power Revolution” of 1986 a
democratic system was re-established under Corazon Aquino (1986-92), maintained under Fidel
Ramos (1992-98) and consolidated with the election of Joseph Estrada as president in 1998.
However, the refusal of Estrada’s congressional allies to investigate corruption allegations against
him led to the second “People Power Revolution” in 2001, which saw Estrada removed from office
and placed under house arrest on anti-corruption charges, subsequently pardoned by president
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who, as his vice-president replaced him in 2001 and went on to win the
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 6
presidential election in May 2004. The most recent national and local executive and legislature
elections took place in May 2010. The incumbent President Arroyo, was barred from seeking re-
election pursuant to the constitution. The new President, Benigno 'Noynoy' Aquino III, who won the
elections with 42 % of the vote, took office on 30 June 2010.
Figure 1 Political System of the Philippines
Political structure: The Philippines has a presidential system of government. The president is limited
to one six-year term of office. Congress (the legislature) is modelled on the US system and comprises
two directly elected bodies – the Senate (the upper house), with a maximum of 24 seats, and the
House of Representatives (the lower house), which has up to 250 seats. Political institutions in the
Philippines fundamentally perform their functions, although policy-making and -implementation are
largely shaped by political considerations between the executive and legislative branches of
government. The president has to rely on coalition-building to permanently secure majorities in both
chambers and to push a legislative agenda through. In light of what some perceive as the clientelist
nature of the party system, the president also depends on local elites for electoral mobilisation.
Through Congress, the bastion of local power in the national government, local elites bargain with
the president for access to state resources in exchange for legislative and electoral support. The
fragmented political structure and politicisation of the government bureaucracy is seen as one of the
constraints to promote and implement reforms. In recent years, a number of reforms to strengthen
the institutional capacity of the state have been launched, often with strong support from civil
society. The work of civil society, both in advocacy and in project implementation and monitoring,
has contributed to the successful promotion of specific reforms, especially in the fields of
procurement, textbook delivery, budget transparency, community infrastructure, etc.5
5 Bertelsmann Transformation Index 2010, Country Report Philippines, http://www.bertelsmann-
transformation-index.de/122.0.html?L=1;
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 7
Decentralisation: The Philippines is divided into a hierarchy of local government units (LGUs): 81
provinces, 136 cities (of which 24 are considered highly urbanised), 1,495 municipalities, and 41,995
barangays (the smallest political unit). A Philippine province is headed by a Governor. A Provincial
Council (Sangguniang Panlalawigan) is composed of a Vice Governor (Presiding Officer) and Provincial
Board Members. A Philippine city or municipality is headed by a Mayor. A City Council (Sangguniang
Panlungsod) or Municipal Council (Sangguniang Bayan) is composed of a Vice Mayor (Presiding
Officer) and City or Municipal Councillors. A barangay is headed by a Barangay Captain, who is also
the presiding officer of the barangay council.
Figure 2 Structure of Special Forms of Local Government and Regional Administration
The province is the primary unit of local government and is largely modelled on the three branches of
central government. The provinces are grouped into 17 regions for administrative purposes at central
government level. Two regions have political jurisdiction as recognised autonomous groupings of
provinces, namely the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao in the south west (adjacent to
Malaysia) and the Cordillera Administrative Region of the indigenous Igorot in the north.
Decentralisation was adopted after the ousting of the authoritarian Marcos regime fuelled demand
for legitimate, local representation. The country’s 1987 Constitution embraced decentralisation and
local autonomy. In 1991, the Local Government Code (LGC) mandated significant devolution to local
governments. This included the transfer to LGU of a wide range of functions and services, and
divided responsibility for their provision among the various local tiers. It also specified a division of
responsibility with regard to revenue assignment. The LGC placed LGUs at the forefront of
development and poverty alleviation. However, assignments of service delivery responsibilities
across different levels of government remain ambiguous for some services and, generally, the full
implementation of decentralisation is still lacking.6 While there has been recognition of the
6 World Bank, Philippines - Country assistance strategy for the period FY2010-2012, Report No. 47916-PH,
Manila, 2 April 2009; Hadiz, Vedi R.(2007) 'The Localization of Power in Southeast Asia', Democratization, 14: 5,
873-892; Balisacan, Arsenio M. et al. Regional Development Dynamics and Decentralization in the Philippines:
Ten Lessons from a ‘Fast Starter’, Asia Pacific Policy Center, Quezon City, Manila 2007. See discussion below on
difficulties in decentralisation in the area of health.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 8
shortcomings of the decentralisation process and the law provided for a periodic review of the code
(every five years), such a review has never been carried out. A number of amendments to the Code
have been proposed to strengthen decentralisation. These were in the areas of fiscal
decentralisation, developing performance standards, strengthening civil society participation, and
encouraging amalgamation among local governments for improved service delivery.
Population: With an estimated population of 96.1 million in 2009, the Philippines is the world’s 12th
most populous country. The Philippines is the fastest urbanizing country in East Asia: fuelled by
internal migration and natural population growth, the urban population has already passed the 50 %
mark and is expected to rise to 75 % of the country’s population by 2030. The annual population
growth rate was 2.04% for 2000–2007, down from 2.36% for 1995–2000. Rapid population growth
translates into a high youth dependency ratio and places pressure on the Government to deliver
basic social services, such as education and health. Rapid growth of the labour force also places a
premium on jobs creation. The Government recognised this in the Medium-Term Philippine
Development Plan (MTPDP) 2004–2010. Family planning has been a highly contentious political issue,
and the Philippines has not experienced spectacular and rapid fertility declines as have a number of
other Asian countries.7
Indigenous People in the Philippines account for approximately 16% of the population and live
primarily in the mountainous areas of northern and central Luzon and in Mindanao. Although no
specific laws discriminate against IPs, the remoteness of the areas that many inhabit as well as
cultural bias has prevented their full integration into society.
MDGs: As a signatory to the Millennium Declaration of 2000, the Philippines is committed to
achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015. However, in early 2010, five years
away from the 2015 deadline, the Philippines was still off-track in more than 40 % of the 21
indicators of the MDGs, including poverty, hunger, infant mortality and maternal health, according to
a tripartite report by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(ESCAP), United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and Asian Development Bank (ADB). The
report shows that of the 11 countries in Southeast Asia, the Philippines is among those with the
highest percentage of missed progress deadlines. For example, poor performance in key areas of
human development is particularly acute in regard to women's and children's health and nutrition,
reflected in the figure of 28% underweight 0-5 year olds and a maternal mortality rate of 162 per 100
000 live births, which is not on course for attaining MDG 5 by 2015. However, the country is on track
in achieving under-5 mortality, reducing HIV prevalence and providing access to sanitation.8
For the past six years the Government’s development planning has been based on, and guided by,
the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP), a roadmap towards achieving poverty
reduction through job creation and enterprise linked to the MDGs. The plan covers nine chapters to
accelerate growth and job creation, namely 1) Trade and Investment; 2) Agri-business; 3)
7 Asian Development Bank et al. Paradox and Promise in the Philippines. A Joint Country Gender Assessment,
Manila 2008; National Economic and Development Agency, Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan
(MTPDP), http://www.neda.gov.ph/ads/mtpdp/MTPDP2004-2010/PDF/MTPDP2004-2010.html; UNDP
Philippines, Millennium Development Goals Philippines, http://www.undp.org.ph/?link=4 8 Philippines Midterm Progress Report on the Millennium Development Goals, 2007,
http://www.undp.org.ph/midterm_mdg_report.pdf; UNDP, Human Development Report 2009; 'Country
specific strategic analysis for reaching the health related MDGs in the Philippines', Unicef, 2008.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 9
Environment and Natural Resources; 4) Housing/Construction, 5) Tourism, 6) Infrastructure, 7) Fiscal
Strength, 8) The Financial Sector and 9) Labour.9
Human Development and Poverty: In the 2009 UNDP Human Development Report, the Philippines
registered a Human Development Index (HDI) value of 0.751, placing it 105th out of 182 countries. In
terms of the Human Poverty Index (HPI), the country registered a 12.4 value, which ranked it 54th
out of 135 developing states. The high incidence of poverty and social exclusion can be attributed to
income inequality, dominance by the elite and inadequate government responses, which continue to
consist of short-term, visible interventions. Yet, the Philippines compares favourably with other
countries in the region in terms of gender equality and women’s empowerment.10 At the same time
the Philippines has the highest unequal wealth distribution, with a Gini coefficient of 0.45. This is also
reflected geographically with Mindanao's poverty level, at 45.5%, considerably higher than the
national average, while more than half (55.8%) of all families in the Autonomous Region of Muslim
Mindanao (ARMM) are considered poor.
While the Philippine economy has markedly improved in recent years (GDP grew only by 0.9% in
2009 but this followed robust growth in previous years: 3.8% in 2008; 7.1% in 2007 - the highest
growth in 31 years; 5.3% in 2006)11, optimism is tempered by the fact that the growth appears not to
have translated into poverty reduction.12 Poverty remains a central developmental issue in the
Philippines. The Social Weather Stations (SWS) nationwide survey of subjective poverty shows that
that 53% of all families rated themselves as poor in 2008. Self-rated food poverty figures also show
that there is a large percentage of families in the country that have experienced involuntary hunger;
in 2007, the figure was 38%, while it increased significantly in 2008, to 42%.13 In the poorest area,
conflict-ridden Mindanao, self-rated poverty went up from 59 % in 1983 to 68 % in 2008.14
ODA:
Table 4: Total ODA Disbursement (all donors), 2002-2009, constant US$ million
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Disbursement 569.19 721.91 448.94 567 564.8 609.62 47.55 310.04
Source: OECD, International Development Statistics
Grants: In 2009, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) accounted for the
biggest share of the grants portfolio at 29 % or US$ 308 million (49 projects). The Australian Agency
9 Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP), http://www.neda.gov.ph/ads/mtpdp/MTPDP2004-
2010/PDF/MTPDP2004-2010.html 10
UNDP, Human Development Report 2009, Factsheet Philippines,
http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_PHL.html 11
World Bank Philippines, Philippines Quarterly Update, Manila, February 2010, p. 29. 12
World Bank, ‘Philippines leads peers with 7.3% GDP growth but slowdown
expected for 2008’ (news release); Quimpo, Nathan Gilbert, 'The Philippines: predatory regime, growing
authoritarian features', The Pacific Review, 22: 3 (2009), 335 — 353. 13
Bertelsmann Transformation Index 2010, Country Report Philippines, http://www.bertelsmann-
transformation-index.de/122.0.html?L=1 14
Lim, Joseph Anthony, Evaluating (chronic) poverty reduction strategies in the Philippines, Chronic Poverty
Research Centre, Working Paper, No. 138, March 2009.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 10
for International Development (AusAID) came in second with 17 % amounting to US$ 178 million (6
projects) while the United Nations System, which includes UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA and UNIDO,
accounted for the third largest share at 12 % or US$ 130 million (35 projects). The WB and CIDA
provided US$ 99 million (42 projects) and USS$ 90 million (16 projects), respectively in grants
assistance. The Other Sources category (EU, GTZ, Czech Republic, Spain/AECID, ADB, KOICA, KfW and
NZAID, MCA) contributed 24 % share to the portfolio or US$ 253 million (125 projects). The grant
amount for the 144 JICA-assisted projects will be determined upon project completion.15
Figure 3 Distribution of Grants by Funding
Source: National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) 5
2009 ODA Portfolio Review, p. 9
Loans: The trend in the last five years indicates that loan portfolio size is around US$ 10 billion. The
share of program loans to total net commitment is generally increasing. Total net commitment in CY
2009 amounted to US$ 9.637 million (for 100 projects supported by 106 loans), supplemented by
GoP counterpart amounting to PhP 125.748 billion. Around 24 % of infrastructure budgets of all
national government agencies (NGA) are implemented under foreign-assisted projects. The
Government of Japan (GOJ) was the biggest source of ODA loans in 2009 accounting for 36 % of the
ODA loans or an aggregate amount of US$ 3.465 billion. In the past 10 years, the GOJ accounted for
an average of 53 % of ODA loans.16
15 National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), 2009 ODA Portfolio Review, Manila 2010.
16 National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), 2009 ODA Portfolio Review, Manila 2010.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 11
Table 5 ODA Loans 2009
Source: National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) 5 2009 ODA Portfolio Review, p. 5.
Donor coordination: With an ODA amount of US$ 7 per capita, the Philippines is among the least aid
dependent countries in Asia.17 The “Philippines Development Forum (PDF)” is the primary
mechanism of the Government for facilitating substantive policy dialogue among stakeholders on the
country’s development agenda. It also serves as a process for developing consensus and generating
commitments among different stakeholders toward critical actionable items of the Government’s
reform agenda. The PDF has evolved from the traditional Government-Donors Consultative Group
(CG) process, which was expanded into a multi-stakeholder forum that facilitates substantive policy
dialogue on the country’s development agenda among participants from national and local
government units, civil society, academia, private sector, and the international development
partners. The PDF evolved from the Consultative Group Meetings, which were co-chaired by the
Philippine Government, represented by the Department of Finance, and the World Bank, and which
were convened every 18 months or so among the Government and members of the international
development partners community.
The PDF process involves continuous dialogue on thematic areas through working groups, which are
expected to hold meetings in between the formal PDF meetings to follow-up on the issues and
agreements at the last meeting. Currently, the PDF has eight working groups, each focused on one of
the following themes: MDGs and social progress; growth and investment climate; economic and
fiscal reforms; governance and anti-corruption; and decentralisation and local government;
sustainable rural development; Mindanao; and infrastructure. The working groups facilitate wide
consultations across a broad range of stakeholders on these specific themes; each is led by a
Government agency as lead convener (represented by the head of that agency) with a development
partner as co-lead convener.18 The EU is currently co-lead convener of the sub-group on health in the
working group on MDGs and Social Progress, where the EU has focused on enhancing the policy-
dialogue.19 The EU has also played a pro-active role in almost all the PDF working groups except in
the infrastructure group.
17 http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/54.html
18 Philippines Development Forum (PDF), http://pdf.ph/about.htm
19 http://pdf.ph/downloads/PDF%20WG%20Contact%20Information%20updated%20May%202009.pdf
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 12
3 EU STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES IN THE PHILIPPINES20
3.1 Global EU development policy strategic objectives and priorities
Article 177 of the Amsterdam Treaty (entry into force 1st of May 1999) defines the EU development
policy priorities, as follows:
Sustainable economic and social development in favour of developing countries;
with a particular emphasis on the most disadvantaged countries. Progressive and
harmonious integration of developing countries in the world economy; and
Fighting poverty in developing countries.
The European Consensus on Development signed 20th December 2005 is intended to guide both
Community and Member State development cooperation and sets out common objectives and
principles for development cooperation.21
Table 4 Common Principles and Objectives of European Consensus on Development
3.2 ALA regulations (1996-2006)
The main legal basis for cooperation with the Philippines over the evaluation period was EU
Regulation 92/432, the “Asia-Latin America” or ALA regulation.22 This covered financial and technical
assistance and economic cooperation. ALA included partnerships with states, regions (e.g., Asia
regional programmes), decentralised authorities, regional organisations (e.g., ASEAN), public
agencies, local or traditional communities, private institutes and operators, including cooperatives
and non-governmental organisations. Whereas reducing poverty did not become official EU
development policy until 2000, the ALA regulation highlighted that aid should target primarily the
poorest sections of the population and the poorest countries in the two regions. The Regulation
specified a long list of priority sectors, from drugs to the environment to rural development to
democracy and human rights. The main interventions specified are economic cooperation and
technical and financial assistance, both take the form of grants. The Regulation specified that
20 For a more detailed account see Volume 2, annex.
21 The European Consensus on Development, 20 December 2005, p. 4
22 http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992R0443:EN:HTML
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 13
economic cooperation should be in the mutual interest of the EU and the partner country or
organisation. No similar requirement was stated for financial and technical assistance.
3.3 DCI regulations (2007-2013)
The regulation establishing the DCI was adopted on 18 December 2006. The geographic part of it
replaces the ALA regulation for developing countries in Asia. The instrument is valid for the period
from 2007 to 2013.
The overall goal of the instrument is the eradication of poverty in partner countries and regions in
the context of sustainable development, including pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs), as well as the promotion of democracy, good governance and respect for human rights and
for the rule of law.
In Asia, priorities stated by DCI are: pursuing MDGs in the field of health, including HIV/AIDS, and
education; as well as addressing governance issues to help build an active and organised civil society,
and to enhance the protection of human rights, including the rights of the child.
Priorities are country-specific. Funds are allocated following country strategy papers which include
multi-annual indicative programmes specifying the priority objectives and the indicative multi-annual
financial allocations.
Further, the European Commission prepares annual action programmes which specify the objectives
pursued the fields of intervention, the expected results, the management procedures and total
amount of financing planned. They contain a description of the operations to be financed, an
indication of the amounts allocated for each operation and an indicative implementation timetable.
3.4 Regional strategic objectives and priorities
There are three types of multi-country programmes in Asia23:
Asia-wide horizontal programmes;
Regional programmes for ASEAN and SAARC; and
Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM).
In this evaluation, we consider all except the SAARC programme, which is not relevant to the
Philippines. According to the CSP 2007-2013, horizontal budget lines and regional programmes have
been supporting many projects in the Philippines over the years. There are 8 thematic and horizontal
budget lines, 4 Asia wide programmes and 4 ASEAN programmes that were operational alongside the
CSP 2002-2006 and NIP 2005-2006. In terms of thematic budget lines, there have been 40 projects
(since 2000) with total EU contributions amounting to about €46 million. Furthermore, there are 19
Asia-wide and 3 ASEAN projects with a combined budgetary commitment of over €15 million.24
23 Countries eligible for assistance under the ALA regulation are Afghanistan Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma /
Myanmar, Cambodia, China, East Timor, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, North
Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam 24
CSP 2007-2013, p. 22.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 14
3.5 EU Strategic Objectives and Priorities in the Philippines: Overview
Development co-operation with the Philippines began in 1976. For the first time, funds were
committed to co-finance NGO grassroots development actions in the country. In 1984 the EU-
Philippines Framework Agreement was signed, outlining the general conditions for providing EU
technical assistance and co-operation. A few bilateral projects were financed in the early 1980s, but a
more substantial and structured development co-operation began only in 1986, with the Aquino
administration’s commitment to democratic development. Since 1976 The EU's total cooperation
funding for the Philippines has been just over € 1 billion, or some PHP 65 billion in total. Of this, € 625
million (60%) has been in grant funding, and €413 million (40%) in loans from the European
Investment Bank.
EU development co-operation with the Philippines has focused from the outset on combating
poverty and raising standards of living of the poorest groups in the country. This has included
support for rural development and for agrarian reform; for the health sector (including women's
health); for decentralisation, local governance and governance as a cross-cutting issue; for the
promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law; and a contribution to peace-building.
Since 2005, the EU co-operation programme has primarily supported equitable access to social
services, with particular attention to quality health services through a sector-wide approach and
budget support mechanism. It has also aimed to foster sustainable development, which meets the
needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs. The EU approach of treating environment, human rights and indigenous people as cross-
cutting concerns emphasises its place as an integral part of operations rather than as a sector with
isolated projects that could fade away once funding priorities shift. Gender equity is another
important cross-cutting issue. Gender mainstreaming is practiced throughout the programming cycle
to ensure that EU operations benefit women and men equally.25
Since 1 December 2009 development cooperation with the Philippine has to be conducted within
new legal framework of the Treaty of Lisbon, which reaffirms the European Consensus on
Development of 2005 and states that the reduction and the eradication of poverty is the primary
objective of the EU’s development cooperation policy.26
3.6 The First Country Strategy Paper, 2002-2006
In the context of an EU-Philippines Senior Official Meeting (SOM) it was agreed that the EU would
undertake a global review of its past and present development cooperation with the Philippines. The
global review preparatory mission found that EU-supported projects had a positive impact on
development of the targeted areas. It cited as particular strengths of the EU programmes the
assistance to capacity-building for partner Local Government Units, and the empowerment of
grassroots-level organisations that are inherent in the participatory, community-based approach
espoused by the projects.
Based on the lessons learnt of the pre-2002 cooperation programme, the overarching objective of EU
co-operation under the EU-Philippines Country Strategy Paper (CSP) 2002-2006 was to support the
25 Delegation of the European Union to the Philippines, EU-Philippines Relations: An Overview,
http://www.euphil.org/index.cfm?pagename=eu-phil 26
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 15
sustainable - economic, social and environmental - development of the Philippines. The main areas of
concentration for the co-operation programme were assistance to the poorest sectors of society and
to facilitate the integration of the Philippines into international trade. Other, non-focal, areas for co-
operation included support to human development and rights, as well as to stability and security in
the Philippines, which was identified as a precondition for sustainable development.27 Cross-cutting
issues included capacity-building, human resource development, civil society as well as gender and
conflict prevention. The sectors and crosscutting issues corresponded closely to the Government’s
overall development agenda and were in line with EU priorities.
The CSP identified dialogue as an essential element of EU co-operation. A strengthened dialogue on
political, as well as on sectoral policy matters would be pursued, centred on the EU-Philippines Senior
Officials' Meeting (SOM). The second SOM, held in Brussels in November 1999, laid down pragmatic
orientations for co-operation that took into account possibilities and constraints for both partners.
While recognising the still-important poverty alleviation needs, the SOM concluded that the
Philippines could no longer be considered a priority country for EU development aid in the region. In
this connection, an indicative budgetary allocation of € 63 million of EU technical co-operation,
including development and economic, was foreseen for the period 2002-2006.
In particular, regarding development co-operation the following principles agreed in the second
SOM, applied to the 2002-2006 CSP:
Poverty reduction remained a priority: EU co-operation maintained its focus on poverty
reduction through development projects in the country's poorest regions.
Geographical focus was to be narrowed down: In terms of geographical focus, projects were
limited to a number of selected regions. In this regard, Mindanao was still to be a priority,
given the less favourable social and economic conditions in the region and the need to
consolidate the peace process;
Consolidation of achievements of existing projects: Particular components of rural
development programmes where implementation experience had been built up by past
projects, were considered for further consolidation and extension; and
Exploration of sectoral approach: In the longer-term a shift to the programme approach was
to be explored under which government sectoral policies would be supported in
collaboration with international donors.28
The mid-term review (MTR) for the Philippines cooperation programme was carried out during the
first quarter of 2003 and included an assessment of the social, political and economic changes in the
Philippines. It confirmed the continued validity of the priorities outlined, but concluded that
amendments to the NIP 2002-2004 were needed in view of new and evolving circumstances, in
particular concerning peace-building in Mindanao. Based on the MTR, a revised NIP 2002-2004 was
agreed. An internal strategic review of the EU cooperation in the Philippines in 2005 concluded that
the right priorities were chosen. The review also concluded that the EU should remain active in rural
development since it “is the most important sector of the Philippines’ economy providing the
27 http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/philippines/csp/02_06_en.pdf.
28 CSP 2002-2006, p. 18-19; NIP 2005-2006
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 16
livelihood for the vast majority of the population.”29 However, the Delegation received instructions
from RELEX to shift its focus to the social sector.
Based on the CSP, the MTR findings, the renewed focus on Mindanao and the dialogue with
stakeholders and other donors, it was decided that the NIP 2005-2006 would concentrate on focal
area 1 of the Country Strategy Paper – Assistance to poorest sectors of society through two actions:
Support to the Health Sector Support Programme, and Support to MTF-RDP (Mindanao Trust Fund-
Reconstruction and Development Programme). Focal area 2 (Assistance to Trade and Investment)
was already taken in the previous NIP, and actions were prepared for the SPF and TRTA. The overall
objective of the NIP 2005-2006 was to reduce poverty by improving the health status of the
population through more effective, efficient and equitable health care and risk pooling and to
contribute to the reconstruction and development of conflict-affected areas in Mindanao.30
3.7 The Second Country Strategy Paper, 2007-2013
Under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) an indicative allocation of € 130 million was
earmarked for the Philippines for the period 2007-2013. These resources may be supplemented by
projects and programmes financed under the regional programmes for Asia and under various
thematic programmes. EU cooperation for the period 2007-2013 is directed to:
Focal sector: Helping the Philippines meet its MDGs by supporting a more equitable access to
quality basic social services through budget support and sector-wide approaches (with a
focus on health under the first NIP 2007-2010);
Non Focal Sector: Other actions and themes helping the Philippines in its economic, social
and political reform processes, by providing support to boost trade and investment flows,
while paying due attention to the social dimension of globalisation, to restore peace,
especially in Mindanao, and to deepen dialogue on governance with and among all sectors of
society.
Given the envisaged concentration of assistance, cross-cutting issues such as improvement of
governance, human rights issues, gender, children and indigenous peoples’ rights, the social
dimension of globalisation, cultural issues, environmental protection and conflict prevention will be
systematically mainstreamed in all development endeavours covered by this CSP. Activities carried
out in the field of higher education are financed within the context of the regional programming for
Asia. The CSP is in line with the priorities outlined in the current Medium-Term Philippine
Development Plan (MTPDP). EU assistance is mainly provided through sector policy support, so as to
ensure effective policy dialogue, enhance Government ownership and co-ordination with other
donors while keeping transaction costs low. The outcome of the Peace Process in Mindanao will have
an influence on the overall strategy towards the country and may entail further fine tuning of the
priorities laid down in the CSP.
Based on discussions with the Reference Group, it may be noted, that there appears to have been
clear instructions from RELEX to limit the number of focal sectors to only one in this programming
cycle. The evaluation will take a look at the decisions taken in light of the needs (see Volume 2,
29 Guillaume, Serge et al., Strategic Review and Pre-programming Mission to the Philippines, Study
carried out for the EU, Final Report, June 2005, p. 6-7. 30
NIP 2005-2006.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 17
Annex 4, EQ1 for details), EU added value (also based on past cooperation) and complementarity
(sectors covered by other donors).
Figure 4 Multi-Annual Indicative Programme 2007-2010 allocation
by focal sector
Strategic Projects Facility
Trade-related assistance
Multi-donor trust fund for Mindanao
Access to quality basic social services - Health
Recreated from source: Delegation of the European Union to the
Philippines,http://www.euphil.org/index.cfm?pagename=program
me_bilateral
3.8 Regional programmes in the Philippines
The Philippines have long benefitted not only from bilateral EU cooperation, but also regional
programming. In the period between 1986 and 1999, such aid amounted to approximately € 25
million. Most regional programmes are demand-driven, and up until the CSP 2002-2006, the
Philippines has participated in programmes covering energy, environment, transport, education and
communication technology. Furthermore, the Philippines was associated with EU-Asia horizontal
cooperation programmes such as Asia-URBS, Asia-Invest and JEM, the training programme for Junior
Managers.31
During the 2002-2006 programming cycle, the Philippines continued to engage in multiple regional
programmes. The CSP 2007-2013 states that there are 4 Asia-wide programmes and 4 ASEAN
programmes that were operational alongside the CSP/NIPs. In terms of projects, there were 19 Asia-
wide and 3 ASEAN projects amounting to approximately € 15 million in total funds.32 Currently, the
Philippines is involved in the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) and the ASEAN-EU Programme of
Regional Integration Support II (APRIS II).
3.9 Thematic / horizontal funding in the Philippines
Apart from geographical programming, the Philippines benefitted from a substantial amount of EU
thematic and horizontal funding and programmes. The CSP 2007-2013 mentions support to the
Philippines through 8 thematic and horizontal budget lines, with a total number of 40 projects
funded through thematic budget lines since 2000, totalling about € 46 million.
31 CSP 2002-2006, Annex 5.
32 CSP 2007-2013, p. 22
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 18
The table below provides a simplified overview of the thematic and horizontal programmes:
Table 5 Thematic programmes under ALA and DCI respectively
3.10 Partnership Cooperation Agreement
In June 2010, the EU and the Philippines initiated the text of a new Partnership and Cooperation
Agreement (PCA). The Philippines is the second ASEAN country, after Indonesia, to complete
negotiations on a PCA with the EU. The agreement provides the legal basis for both parties to
cooperate in a wide range of areas, serving effectively as the foundation for EU-Philippine relations in
the years ahead. The PCA is not a free-trade agreement. While it enhances cooperation in various
trade matters it does not include specific trade concessions by either party. However, should the EU
and Philippines decide to negotiate an FTA, the PCA would facilitate its conclusion33.
3.11 Detailed Intervention Logic
The following diagram presents an understanding of the intervention logic of EU cooperation with
the Philippines.
The diagram schematically represents the reconstructed overarching intervention logic, including
(bilateral) programmes in the main sectors of cooperation falling under the whole evaluation period
(2002-2009). It is based on the overarching programming documents (CSPs/NIPs), but amended with
the help of programme logframes and other programme documents to fill in gaps.
Due to the complexity of actual programmes, this diagram is highly simplified. As such, it does not
represent the intervention logic of each sector, but helps to understand the breadth and aims of the
bilateral cooperation programme as a whole.
The evaluation questions clearly relating to one sector (i.e. EQ2-4) are located in the overarching
diagram, to reveal which part of the logical chain they pertain to most. EQ1 (poverty) and EQ6 (mix of
instruments) cannot be easily represented in the diagram, as they pertain to all sectors of the
cooperation programme, at the strategic & programming, and implementation levels, respectively.
EQ1 is presented as covering the programme vertically, since it deals primarily with the chosen
thematic combination of interventions; and EQ6 is presented in a horizontal dimension, as it covers
mainly the processes from input to outcome (those more closely linked to the EU sphere of
influence).
33 Press Release, EU and Philippines initial Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, 25 June 2010.
Final Report June 2011 Page 19
Insurance cover and access of poor to improved health services extended (including at rural level)
Improved operational efficiency and service provision of public hospitals and RHUs improved
Greater public confidence; Less corruption in GOP agencies;
Strengthened border security and management
Increased prevention and reduction of money laundering
Improved capacity of LGUs
Improved capacity at producers’ level
Financial sustainability improved
Cohesive PHC package created
Capacity developed at level of public hospitals & in Mindanao at level of RHUs
Improved regulations regarding health care related products, facilities and services
Improved quality, accessibility and safety of health care related products, facilities and services
Health
To contribute to the overall improvement of the health status of the population especially the poor, the women and other vulnerable groups and to achieve health-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Increased utilization of affordable and financially sustainable essential health services and population programs by the poor
Support to Health Financing Reform
Support to Service delivery
Support to Regulatory reform
Support the health sector Governance Governance of health sector improved in terms of:-Improved rational delivery of local health services;-Increased availability of reliable data-Increased accountability of the public health service-Improved medium term strategic & financial planning
Improved financial management, monitoring and reporting, and planning capacity
Formation of public(ILHZ) - private partnerships
Supported the on-going reform processes
Enhanced involvement of the CSOs in strategic areas
Reinforced EU Philippines partnership, mutual understanding & dialogueSmall project facility (SPF 1):
Assist the Philippines in building an enabling economic environment and to improve economic governance
TRTA 1
TRTA 2
Further integration into the international trade system.
Enhanced conditions for international trade and investment & improved access of experts to EU market
Trade
Small projects implemented & information disseminated
Improved capacity of officials, private sector, civil society, academy
Strategic Projects Facility 2Catalyzed actions of stakeholders to improve quality of local governance
Local governance improved
Support to corruption prevention
Prevention of corruption
Support to Access to Justice Increased awareness of poor regarding rights Improved justice systemStrengthened and more accessible provision of justice to the poor
PBMP: Activities for capacity building of GOP
Increased capacity of various GOP institutions and civil society (monitoring role)
Contributed to peace & securityAnti-Money Laundering
Governance
Improved good governance
HSPSP & MHPSP
EQ2
Contributed to the alleviation of rural poverty and economic disparities in target areasSTARCM
Improved rural infrastructure & facilitiesAgricultural production and the household income from rural enterprises secured and increased
Improved financial services
Increased self-reliance, livingstandards and quality of life oftarget communities
Sustained uplands resource base
ERP-CASCADE
Strengthened institutional framework
Increased enterprise development
Natural resources in target provi.sustainably managed
Rural Development
EQ3
UDP
CECAP 2
Expected results Specific impacts Intermediary impactsActivities
Simplified Intervention Logic of EC cooperation with the Philippines (2002-2009) with mapping of sector-specifc EQs
Global Impact
EQ4
EQ5
Support of sustainable-
economic, social and environ
mental-
developm
ent of the Philippin
es
EQ1
EQ6
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 20
4 FINDINGS
The following section provides the findings arrived at for each EQ. The detailed evidence, which is the
basis for the findings presented here, are included in Annex 4 of Volume 2 of the report. References
to the indicators of Volume 2 are given in parentheses. In the following, EQ2 is presented in slightly
more detail than the other EQs due to the centrality of the health sector in the cooperation
programme.
4.1 EQ1 – To what extent has the EU cooperation programme in the Philippines been designed
and implemented with a view to addressing the needs of the poorest/vulnerable groups?
Summary: The failure of the Philippines to share in the “Southeast Asian economic miracle,”
represents an extraordinary opportunity missed. Poverty assessments reveal that household poverty
levels in the Philippines increased between 2003 and 2006, back to the roughly one-third estimated
on 2000. Poverty statistics released recently show no improvement, and over 50 % of families in the
Philippines now self-assess themselves as “poor.” There has been reduction since the early 1990s,
but that is cold comfort in comparison to the achievements elsewhere in the region and the fact that
initial conditions in the Philippines were favourable. In the Philippines, the empirical record is that
the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.
In addressing this EQ, we found that the EU programme was highly relevant to the needs of the
poorest and most vulnerable groups and was appropriately targeted, both geographically and in
terms of sectors supported. However, impact has been limited, largely because of governance issues.
Poverty reduction is at the heart of the EU’s development cooperation programme, and performance
on this EQ is crucial to an overall assessment of the EU’s engagement with the Philippines. At the
country strategy level, we have found that strategic documents successfully incorporated the poverty
dimension. Most EU assistance was targeted at provinces inhabited by the poorest and most
vulnerable, including indigenous peoples. It is difficult, however, to say how much assistance reached
vulnerable and remote areas, which are the worst afflicted by poverty. The concentration on
Mindanao and conflict-affected areas within Mindanao increased the poverty focus of the EU’s
program. Focus on the health sector was a sound decision from a poverty point of view, and also
reflected a degree of coordination, since other donors are active in education, the other major social
sector, which was a strong candidate for support. More focus on maternal and child health would
have been desirable, although the EU and other donors have strongly lobbied Government to pay
more attention to this area. In general, the impact of EU assistance targeting poverty was limited by
weak governance, especially at the LGU and PLGU levels where resource allocation decisions are
made. It has also emerged that there are significant issues regarding the accuracy and availability of
data related to poverty.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 21
Figure 5 Poverty in the Philippines
Source: www.nscb.gov.ph\poverty
4.1.1 Findings by JC
4.1.1.1 The selected sectors of cooperation and related interventions target the
poorest/vulnerable groups and are in line with their principal needs
We were particularly concerned with the geographical distribution of EU support (1.1.1); the spatial
dimension is complex and the devil is in the scale. Most EU support went to Mindanao and the
Cordillera Administrative region, both very poor. We reached favourable conclusions regarding
support, both bilateral and thematic budget line, to Mindanao. Yet, at the project level assessments
found that some areas benefiting were among the best-off in the Philippines. Nonetheless, these
contained significant pockets of poverty.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 22
At the macro scale, there is no question that the geographical distribution of EU support
corresponded with the geographical distribution of poverty. At the medium-scale, i.e. the province,
there is no evidence that the distribution of EU support corresponded with the distribution of
extreme poverty. At the micro-scale, a number of project evaluations suggested that significant
amounts of EU support went to relatively well-off areas; nonetheless these areas contain pockets of
poverty and the question becomes not so much one of geographical targeting but household-level
targeting.
The major EU strategic documents (CSP 2002-2006 and 2007-2013, as well as NIPs/MIPs) properly
focus on poverty reduction and target support to achieve maximum impact (1.1.2). The decision to
focus on Mindanao post-9/11 was sound from a poverty point of view. CSPs contained an adequate
description of the poorest / most vulnerable groups, although the special needs of vulnerable groups
were not explicitly placed in the foreground. However, the overall focus on poverty reduction is not
to be faulted. Overall, consultation with stakeholders appears on evidence to date to have been
adequate, with some exceptions (e.g., the Mindanao Health Sector Policy Support Programme).
We have no real evidence to date as to how effectively EU support at the project level was directed
at remote or isolated areas (1.1.3), apart from de facto evidence based on the fact that aid focused
on Mindanao and the CAR. We also recognize that tradeoffs must be considered: targeting extremely
remote or isolated spatial units could negatively affect impact and sustainability.
All bilateral projects adopted an integrated-needs approach which suggests that assessments were
adequate (though progress is unbalanced; e.g. STARCM and the Health Sector Policy Support
Programme).
Neither high-level strategic documents nor projects appear to have strongly emphasised the needs of
women as opposed to those of men (1.1.5). This is not entirely to be criticised; the Philippines scores
well in standard assessments of gender equality. The inadequate attention to maternal and child and
sexual and reproductive health has been noted in a number of places. Increased attention would
significantly improve the relevance of the EU programme, not only to women, but to promoting
economic growth and reducing poverty in general. There are some signs that the new Government
intends to come to grips with these issues.
Indigenous and Minority Populations
Project-level evaluations gave mediocre marks on attention to indigenous and minority populations
(1.1.7 and 1.1.8). However, the statistical fact is that large sums of EU support were devoted to areas
dominated by groups by IPs. The concentration on Mindanao disproportionately benefited
vulnerable ethnic groups (as well as women, particularly vulnerable to the conflicts that best that
troubled island). Moreover, the EU Delegation has made progress in the last three years, through its
Human Rights Strategy and in adhering to UN conventions on the rights of indigenous peoples.
A NGO focus group discussion revealed overall satisfaction with international donor support,
including the EU, but at the same time intense dissatisfaction with the clientelist political culture of
the Philippines.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 23
Discussions with municipality health officers in Mindanao province provided an excellent example of
the political barriers faced. The EU, through the Mindanao Health Sector Policy Support project
provided state of the art training in human resource allocation yet, ultimately, decisions were taken
by Municipality mayors on the basis of patron-client relationships. The effectiveness (and even,
perhaps, the relevance) of the EU intervention was thus impaired.
4.1.1.2 The design of the interventions targeting the poorest / vulnerable groups takes into
account interrelations between various dimensions of poverty / vulnerability
The quality of the discussion of poverty in the two CSPs is of high quality and avoids reductionism
(1.2.1). Nonetheless, there is no real discussion of inter-linkages, for example, synergies between
education, women’s empowerment, and health. The major strategic shift over the evaluation period;
from rural development to delivery of basic social services was essentially a pragmatic one, and
included consideration of donor coordination. The second, major strategic shift from less
geographically focused interventions to interventions favouring Mindanao in particular, was
motivated by rising post 9/11 alarm at the dire impacts of poverty in that troubled region. .
At the sector and project level, programme design has been multi-dimensional, although progress
has been uneven across intervention areas in both rural development and health. The Health Sector
Support Programme, in particular, is to be noted for the equal priority placed on its four intervention
areas (following, however, the GoP’s lead) and, in particular the equal weight assigned to improving
service delivery and achieving universal coverage through health care finance reform. Far more
progress, as the mid-term review noted, needs to be made on the latter. This includes raising
capacity for targeting the poor. The surprisingly weak quality of data in the Philippines – one of the
major findings to emerge from the field phase – is partly to blame for this. On the issue of choice of
modalities for effectiveness in reaching the poor (1.2.2), an important distinction needs to be made
between the near term and the long term. The major shift in the Philippines, as elsewhere over the
evaluation period, was away from project-based approaches to sector approaches consisting of
budget support and participation in multi-donor trust funds. In the near term, this shift has probably
affected effectiveness adversely, as illustrated by the case of the health SWAP. In the longer term,
however, the shift may well enhance effectiveness by improving policy dialogue, working through
national systems, and bolstering sustainability.
MCH and SRH services are seriously inadequate in the Philippines (1.2.3), especially for adolescents,
and there is a clear statistical correlation between family size and poverty status. Maternal health is
unacceptably bad. While the EU has supported a number of projects dealing with MCH and there is
reference to these issues in the CSPs, the entire nexus appears to have received insufficient
attention. Field interviews indicated that the EU and other donors have engaged Government on
these issues in policy dialogue, more regarding mother and child health than regarding economic
impacts of population growth.
4.1.1.3 EU strategy and engagement in coordinating groups ensure that the needs of the
poorest/vulnerable groups in sectors that are not the focus of EU cooperation, are
nevertheless addressed
Both CSPs paid attention to work being done by other donors, including Member States (1.3.1).
However, the table provided in the CSP 2007-2013 is not fully informative, since it gives only
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 24
commitments in a single year. In some areas where the EU made large commitments in other years,
therefore, the table leaves the erroneous impression that the EU was not active, and the same
applies to other donors. The JC specifies the role of coordination (1.3.2). There is clearly a great deal
of constructive information sharing, as well as evidence (from field interviews with responsible
officials) that resources are allocated in order to maximise coverage and complementarity. There was
explicit division of labour with Germany and Spain in Mindanao, and that the decision not to fund
sector support in education was based on the fact that other donors were active in the area (1.3.3).
4.1.1.4 EU cooperation programmes have aimed at enhancing the capacity of the government to
assess the needs of and to identify the poorest/vulnerable groups
Poverty data: a crucial issue
Research into poverty including data analysis, is first-class in the Philippines (1.4.1), however,
interviews revealed that the basic inputs -- social sector data -- are surprisingly weak for a country
with such a rich statistical history (1.4.2). Much of the blame appears to reside with the Census.
Weak data are related to governance issues, we the budgetary allocation process encourages local
government officials to inflate population estimates. There is need for capacity building, as well. For
example, the mid-term review of the Health Sector Policy Support Programme found serious
deficiencies in the capacity of LGUs and PLGUs in the area of management and found that all along
the chain, from local level to the central level, capacity was lacking to target the poor and to put in
place the procedures and processes needed to ensure universal coverage.
The timeliness of poverty data is also an issue. Family Income and Expenditure survey poverty data
are reported only with a three year lag; for example, 2009 data will not be made available until the
first quarter of 2011 and the latest official data posed anywhere are for 2006 – making them almost
useful for real-time policy making. Annual poverty estimates are not regarded as reliable. The WTO
representative at the evaluation’s country dissemination seminar confirmed this finding: “The quality
and utility of data on poverty and its collection methodology and transparency are not too good and
it surely remains a challenge and an opportunity for improvement”. A senior official of DSWD agreed
that capacity building interventions and technical assistance were needed to train the technical staff
of concerned national government agencies (DSWD, DOH, LGU, PHIC) with the objective of removing
countervailing influences in the majority of LGUs on improving the quality and utility of poverty data
and its use in poverty and health status improvement initiatives.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 25
4.1.1.5 Extent to which the EU cooperation programme has taken into account the particular
challenges faced by the vulnerable groups in the Mindanao region.
Figure 6 EU cooperation spending on Mindanao in %
Source: Particip, CRIS analysis
About 40 % of EU bilateral cooperation spending was directed to Mindanao over the evaluation
period, as well as 25 % of thematic budget line expenditure. Taken together, roughly a third of EU
cooperation over the period was directed to Mindanao. This as a significant achievement and a sign
of effective poverty targeting (1.5.1).
The EU has participated in policy dialogue regarding the Mindanao conflict (1.5.2), including issuing
one statement from the European Council and offering to participate in the International Monitoring
Team.
Mix of instruments
The mix of intervention sectors and instruments has been appropriate (1.5.3). Bilateral rural
development cooperation, thematic budget line support for uprooted and displaced persons, the
trust fund approach to rehabilitation and reconstruction through the MTF, and budget support
through the Mindanao Health Sector Policy Support Programme have all been deployed. The World
Bank and EU experienced a certain amount of stress over operating procedures in the early days of
the MTF, but significant progress has been made in improving the working relationship.
In general, project evaluations leave the impression that the special needs of women and ethnic
minorities were not sufficiently fore grounded in project design (1.5.4). The Mindanao Health Policy
Support Programme was criticised for insufficient consultations with decentralised stakeholders at
the design stage. However, the fact that the EU supported interventions in some of the poorest
provinces in Mindanao, including areas largely inhabited by ethnic minorities, suggests, ipso facto,
that needs of the most vulnerable were addressed, as does the significant number of interventions
aimed at internally displaced persons. Effective integration of LRRD into activities in Mindanao has
also bolstered relevance.
EU-supported projects are active in MILF-regions (as well as in “red” areas in Western Mindanao. The
isolation of international agency officials (not only in the EU Delegation, but in the World Bank
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 26
Country Office, as well) is a significant impediment to enhancing the relevance of the Mindanao Trust
Fund.
4.1.2 Synthesised EQ Answer
JC 1.1 asked whether sectors of cooperation (as well as the geographical distribution of support)
corresponded to needs. Geographical evidence is rather weak because of issues of scale, but leaves
an overall positive assessment. Most EU assistance over the evaluation period was directed to
Mindanao and the Cordillera Administrative region, the poorest in the country. At the provincial
level, by contrast, detailed statistical evidence has not found strong evidence that the very poorest
provinces were targeted. There may be valid reasons, many confirmed by a field visit to Mindanao,
for this. For example, well-off provinces may nonetheless contain pockets of extreme poverty (e.g.,
IDPs). At the project level, some evaluations found that interventions were sometimes in relatively
well-off areas, but again, there may be sound reasons. Remoteness and isolation may raise the
marginal cost of intervening to the extent that efficiency and, ultimately, impact and sustainability
are seriously impaired. At the regional scale, there is no question that EU assistance in Mindanao has
concentrated on the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable.
At the strategic level, the CSPs 2002-2006 and 2007-2013 both expressed a clear vision on poverty
reduction. The major shift, post 9/11, was to strengthen the focus on Mindanao, a sound decision
from a poverty point of view. The decision to phase out of rural development and to concentrate
support to the social sector on health, as opposed to on health and education was (i) pragmatic and
(ii) based on some considerations of donor coordination and the division of labour.
While CSPs identified vulnerable groups, e.g., women and ethnic minorities, their special
vulnerabilities were not a major theme. However, the Philippines scores rather well on gender issues.
At project level both in rural development and health, reviews and assessments have found that
special needs of women and ethnic minorities could have been dealt with better.
While the overall quality of discussions of poverty in the CSPs is good, there is not much explicit
treatment of linkages and tradeoffs between different sectors on intervention. The mid-term review
of the Health Sector Policy Support Programme drew attention to serious deficiencies in the areas of
maternal and child health, sexual and reproductive health (especially of adolescents) and family
planning. Increased attention would have not only increased the relevance of the EU’s support to
women and vulnerable groups (e.g. adolescents; commercial sex workers) but might have had
positive long-term impacts on economic growth and poverty reduction. However, field phase
interviews suggest that there was significant policy dialogue (i) in the context of the HSPSP and (ii) at
the highest policy level on MCH/SRH/FP issues.
In the Philippines, as elsewhere, the EU has moved from a project approach to sector –based support
and participation in multi-donor initiatives including trust funds, in line with its Paris Declaration
commitments. A rich mix of approaches and instruments has been used. In the near term, moving
away from the project modality may reduce effectiveness. In the longer term, though, the
strengthened policy dialogue made possible and reductions in transaction costs may make for
greater effectiveness. We express some concern that the large representation of thematic and
regional programmes tends to favour those groups who have good access to information and the
capacity to act upon it. However, the Philippines has also benefited from a large number of
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 27
interventions dealing specifically with persons affected by conflict, a particularly vulnerable group.
LRRD was well integrated into the EU programme in Mindanao.
The challenge that emerges is that, in a budget support environment, donor agencies (however tight
the policy matrix) subordinate themselves, not only to mundane operating procedures, but to the
political culture itself of resource allocation. It has repeatedly emerged, in the process of answering
this EQ that decentralised resource allocation decisions are dominated by the clientelist political
culture of the Philippines. The inescapable conclusion is that poverty reduction in the Philippines is
closely tied to, if not even at the mercy of, improvements in governance.
The EU has coordinated well with the poverty reduction strategies of other donors.
In a paradox, poverty analysis and research in the Philippines are world-class, while the data on
which they are based are often rather shoddy. This problem is, itself, not divorced from governance
issues. GoP capacity to gather poverty statistics and use them in policy-relevant research, including
local-area programming and targeting, is excellent in theory bur sometimes absent in practice (e.g.
the HSPSP). Moreover, political bias in basic data appears to be rampant. Political culture also
fundamentally weakens the effectiveness, even the relevance, of capacity building, because technical
skills built up pale beside the political challenges that civil servants face.
The EU programme has correctly focused on the special problems of Mindanao. A third of EU support
over the evaluation period was directed to that region, a proportion that will increase sharply as the
Mindanao Health Sector Policy Support Programme and the MTF come on stream. Given that
absorptive capacity on the island is a challenge, the one-third statistic is reasonable. Normal stresses
associated with a new working relationship had some impact on the MTF in its early days, but there
has been significant improvement and the parties report that they are now more comfortable with
each other.
In our view, based on evidence examined to date, the EU cooperation programme in the Philippines
has been adequately designed and implemented with a view to addressing the needs of the poorest
and vulnerable groups.
4.1.3 Conclusions
1. Poverty data recently released show little change in poverty levels in 2003-2006, and self-
assessed poverty recently passed 50 % of households. High priority.
2. The quality of poverty data is not high. Users point to the long lag (3 years) for the Family
Income and Expenditure Survey and complain that the Annual Poverty and Income Survey is
unreliable. Most worrisome, the Census may significantly over-report population, especially
in remote and impoverished barangays. High priority.
3. Interviews frequently turned to worsening income inequality as a source of poverty.
Consumption as estimated in the national accounts has consistently grown faster than
consumption as estimated based on the FIES. This can only mean that consumption is
increasingly concentrated among households under-represented in the FIES, i.e. the well to
do. High priority.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 28
4. Local politics skews development efforts. Local chief executives have enormous power too,
e.g., channel PhilHealth subsidies to friends and supporters, decide on the assignment of
health workers, etc. Poverty, governance, and the clientelist political culture of the
Philippines are inextricably related. High priority.
5. EU projects were active in the very poorest areas of Mindanao. Data constraints did not
allow downscaling the spatial analysis to the municipal level. Low priority.
6. Many projects were active in areas related to Indigenous Peoples. There has been progress in
the EU on aligning with international definitions and conventions. Definitional issues persist
in the Philippines, however, focus group participants representing indigenous peoples’
organisations were of the view that, while the definition of IPs in legislation is inadequate,
discussions on definitional issues are not very productive. Low priority.
7. The donor community in general, including the EU, have consistently raised issues of
population growth and sexual and reproductive health with Government. Low priority.
4.1.4 Recommendations
1. Increase support to basic data. We assign this recommendation high priority in part because
it is so easy to implement in the near term. The project currently being formulated to
harmonize and standardize data collected by various agencies in the area of international
migration and development is an example of a project which could have high payoff at local
cost. Improved data are also key to understanding better the distributional processes that
appear to be the main cause of failure to make inroads against poverty. From Conclusions 1
and 2, high priority.
2. Concentrate less on direct poverty reduction; more on governance improvements. This
includes governance aspects of data. We have found that many otherwise valid direct
poverty reduction actions are weakened by poor governance. The efficiency and
effectiveness of “soft” assistance and institution strengthening may be greater than that of
expensive direct interventions, especially over the long term. This is especially true in the
poorest areas of the Philippines, where destructive local political culture and poverty go
hand in hand. From Conclusions 1, 3, and 4, high priority.
3. Continue promising focus on Mindanao in collaboration with WB and other donors. We
assign this low priority not because focusing on Mindanao is a poor strategic choice, but
simply because the continuing focus is assured by inertia built into the cooperation process.
From Conclusions 4 and 5, low priority.
4.2 EQ2 – To what extent has EU support to the Philippine Health Sector Programme
contributed to an improved provision of basic health care services?
Summary: The EU’s support to the health sector in the Philippines is fully consistent with the poverty
reduction EU development policy and is in accordance with the EU’s commitment to the Millennium
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 29
Development Goals. The EU TA supported the preparation of the Medium-Term Expenditure
Framework (MTEF) as an important step toward budget support. Adapting to the context of a highly
decentralised health system, the EU-TA also facilitated communication lines between DoH, DBM, and
the provinces to conduct the planned PFM reforms, with the commitment of local government
structures (LGUs), and involving the CHD to assure DoH’s stewardship.
However, despite all efforts, health spending and effective rational use of resources has not yet
sufficiently increased. EU TA has invested a lot into PhilHealth but the latter still has inadequate staff
and managerial absorptive capacity to implement programme and policy recommendations of the
technical assistance. Yet, capacity building without political will and clear decision lines is not
enough.
Overall, the EU TA has invested huge capacity and succeeded in several provinces. The task has been
taken up to a different extent in each of the provinces, and on different thematic areas of the health
reform. Capacity of the Provincial Health Teams increased with support of the CHD and LRICs
(national TAs), but opportunities of replication were left unexploited by DoH. The results vary
according to the developed theme and type of support and CB in each province and LGU, from
excellent to non-evident.
Support to the health sector was a key component of the EU cooperation strategy throughout the
evaluation period. Public funding for health in the Philippines has declined over time and health
financing is characterised by large gaps, resulting in substantial out-of-pocket payments.
The first CSP (2002-2006) foresaw a possible focus on either basic health or education as an avenue
to provide assistance to the poorest sectors of society. The first NIP (2002-2004) confirmed the focus
on the health sector (instead of education), and a Health Sector Policy Support Programme (HSPSP)
was planned to contribute to the implementation of the government’s Health Sector Reform Agenda
(HSRA). The MTR in 2004 supported the choice of the health sector, and advocated for a greater
amount / concentration of funding. The initial commitment of € 20 million was increased to € 27 and
finally € 33 million and due to delays, the EU health programme was shifted to the NIP 2005-2006.
In 2005, the Department of Health (DoH) formalised an overall framework for the sector reform
coined ‘FOURmula ONE (F1)’ for Health, which is structured around four pillars: 1) health financing;
2) regulations; 3) service delivery; and 4) good governance. The EU’s HSPSP supports this framework
through an array of aid modalities, ranging from very specific Technical Assistance to Sector Budget
Support. Furthermore, in addition to the HSPSP, the EU launched a € 12 million health sector support
programme specifically targeting Mindanao (MHSPSP). This programme is complementary to the
HSPSP and supports the sector reform in conflict affected areas (CAAs). The CSP 2007-2013 and
Mandate Implementation Plan (MIP) 2007-2013 reaffirm EU commitment to support health sector
reforms into ‘phase 2’ of the process. The MIP places greater emphasis on the role of budget
support.
It was not the purpose of the current Country Strategy Evaluation to fully evaluate the set of EU
health interventions during the period under investigation, but rather, to focus on a number of
strategic issues. Two such issues identified are: 1) how does sector budget support to the health
sector work in a challenging decentralised institutionalised environment (relevance of design and to
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 30
some extent effectiveness), and 2) what improvements (if any) in terms of basic service availability
can already be observed at this stage (also effectiveness,). Both of these issues are of strategic
importance, the decision for second phase for HSPSP has been signed.
In evaluating EU support to the HSPSP, it needs to be kept in mind that while the EU can be held
directly accountable for the quality of the TA provided, this can not be said of the results of the
overarching health sector reform (FOURmula 1), which is fundamentally a GoP health strategy
supported by the EU. During the evaluation process for this particular EQ, special attention was paid
to already previously identified areas of excellence, gaps, developments occurred and challenges.
The criteria to select candidates for interviews and key documents for review, as well as for field
visits, included the availability during the mission period, role/position covered in the programme,
consultation with the “key stakeholders” and any diverse professional skills and batches to ensure
the most complete and relevant set findings.
4.2.1 Findings by JC
4.2.1.1 Extent to which the design and start up of the HSPSP sector support instrument (including
the mix and timing of Sector Policy Dialogue, capacity building, TA, etc.) was adapted to
the political and institutional context
In both its design and start up, the HSPSP is fully consistent with the EU development policy centred
on poverty reduction, and is in accordance with the EU’s commitment to the Millennium
Development Goals. The HSPSP is implemented within a sector approach, pursued by GoP under its
''Sector Development Approach for Health (SDAH)34'' and is emphasizing coordination and
complementarity with donor partners as well as harmonisation of aid (2.1.3).
The EU reinforced the relevance of its choice for SBS, while supporting the setting up the Joint
Assessment and Planning Initiative (JAPI); which assesses the progress of reform implementation,
and contributing to donor coordination and policy dialogue(2.1.4). The start up TA concluded that
Public Finance Management (PFM) systems were strengthened along the lines of an overall PFM
reform encompassing the improvement of medium term financial planning, and public finance
management and procurement (2.1.4). The health sector expenditure framework provides a forecast
for the needs in the different programmes (2.1.1 and 2.1.5).
There was a general increase in participating PLGUs’ annual budgets for health between 2007 and
2008, from 3% to 7%. These increases were on top of the HSPSP budget support to the provinces.
Local Chief Executives (LCEs) appeared encouraged to step up local investments on health as a result
of the programme (2.1.3), which can be viewed as an added value resultant from the specific
programme design. Where decentralisation resulted in the fragmentation of the policy development
process, support to the health reform needed to take into account potentially conflicting thrusts of
the health SWAp and the ongoing capacity development at the decentralised level (2.1.7).
The HSPSP was designed to match the decentralised context, including the choice of mixing two
financing modalities to provinces, budget support (BS) and trust fund support (TF), based on the
results of the EU- and WB-financed diagnostics (ind 2.1.2). However, both aid modalities faced the
34 This is the GoP variant for SWAp
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 31
same degree of delays in disbursement (2.1.3). The Provincial Investment Plan for Health (PIPH)
approval process, caused delays when the CHDs were not totally involved (2.1.3), leading to delays in
the delivery of equipment for services. WB procedures ensure the fiduciary accountability of grant
recipients, at the same time impeding smooth payment where fiduciary capacity is weak (2.1.3). And
many local health officials felt that the planning framework used by the DOH in the preparation of
the PIPH and AOP was too narrow and highly focused on national health priorities. (2.1.8).
Programme fund releases and utilisation were low in 2007 and 2008 when the DOH and JAC
considered that some provincial plans did not meet the quality requirements (2.1.5), but some
provinces felt lack of LGU support for administrative requirements. Systemic impediments to fluent
disbursement from the DBM to the DoH were at the origin of many of the transfer problems and
delays, including in the designated DoH component from the EU of 1 Million (2.1.2 an 2.1.3). The
DBM only disburses funds if a project is included in the PIPH, and thus recognised as part of the
provincial annual budget. In its third round the Mindanao TF faces still problems (2.1.3). Thus, it can
be surmised that the design of the budget support in light of the existing institutional setup was
possibly too optimistic, particularly in terms of perceived capacity to meet demanding administrative
requirements.
EU-TA’s intervention in health finance was relevant, and supported the DoH’s stewardship of the
PHIC through the monitoring of PHIC performance against established indicators. Still, PhilHealth has
inadequate staff and managerial absorption capacity to implement programme and policy
recommendations generated by the technical assistance (2.1.2). At the time of the MTR and with the
fee-for-service payment system in place, PhilHealth did not actively negotiate more reasonable prices
with providers based on patient volumes. And PhilHealth still has not made the move to become a
strategic purchaser of services and to come up with national fees for services (2.1.8). The design of
EU support in this case is relevant, but problems of governance within PhilHealth and its particular
place in the line of command challenge the health reform on a larger scale.
ILHZs with their boards and technical management committees could favour participatory decision-
making processes at the local levels. To address the fragmentation in the delivery of services, the
DOH launched initiatives35 to increase LGU accountability for health sector results (2.1.7). It is
implementing minimum service standards and using LGU scorecards to track progress. The EU TA
provided relevant support to the institutional setup, with the CHDs and with LRIC accompaniment, to
coordinate LA’s health planning and service delivery.
Demand-based TA was provided to the LGUs, creating an appropriate setup so that EU support could
continually adapt to the specifics of the decentralised context36, and as there was relevant support to
the formulation of a provincial Financial Management Information Systems (FMIS) in cooperation
with the provincial PFM team (2.1.7).
In the MHSPSP, although the CHD is not sponsored the CHD takes part in capacity building processes
during EU-TA activities (2.1.1). This capacity building is relevant and could have been included at
35 the Health Sector Reform Agenda in 1999 and the F1 in 2005
36 For example, the EU-TA LGU PFM team designed coordinating arrangements between the LGUs and the DBM
Regional Office (DBM RO) and supported reinforcement of the DBM’s role of PFM plan verification and
oversight of the implementation of the planned activities (2.1.7).
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 32
design stage. In non-ARMM areas, grants are allocated to a Provincial Trust Fund, but the TA works
with municipal and community level service providers. In ARMM areas, a project approach is applied,
with the community stakeholders now better consulted (2.1.8). This shows the importance of
combining other aid modalities which are more adapted to crisis and conflict areas.
All in all, the design and start up of EU support and EU policy dialogue were adapted to the
institutional context, and appeared to be relevant. However, some assumptions did not fully
calculate the risks of specific governance issues as in PhilHealth, but also in the fragmentation caused
by decentralization and resulting in resistance to ILHZ.
4.2.1.2 Extent to which the EU strategy including but not limited to SBS resulted in
improvements related to selected major systemic issues. Synthesis of findings:
Drugs and medicines. There are vast differences between various parts of the country and provinces
in many fields, and this includes the extent to which there exists bulk drug purchasing with
transparent tender mechanisms (this can be province wide and/or ILHZ wide) and LGU capacity to
develop their rationalisation plans. Much is related to LGU’s management capacities, but local
politics also plays a role. As a result, the choices to be made within the provincial plans are not
always straightforward. (2.2.4).
EU TA has contributed to Good Drug Management Systems and procurement (GPPP) at the local
level intending to improve efficiency and performance of pharmaceutical supply management
systems, with more focused selection of essential medicines, transparent and cost efficient
procurement, and rational use of drugs. According to the WB report, availability of essential and
generic medicines in the public sector is still low and procurement prices are too high in most LGUs.
Some LGU hospitals are buying branded generics at 13-40 times of the international reference prices
and originator brands at 60-70 times the reference prices. The Cheap Medicines Act is approved but
not applied by the Government, and procurement remains extremely fragmented (2.2.1). According
to some interviewees, drugs account for 67% of costs, staff for 19%, and investment 5%. Proper
demand management could reduce consumption (2.2.1).
The central Government implements two programmes for cheap drugs, namely the BnB and P100 (in
hospitals). Some progress has been made as PhilHealth is reimbursing the P100 drugs in provincial
hospitals and only if the patient is admitted, but stock-outs and low consumption of P100 drugs are
remaining problems. Unfortunately, the P100 scheme has a limited list of medicines and is further
limited to few outlets (public hospitals) limiting the impact. BnB, faces problems with re-supply from
PITC Pharma (2.2.1 and 2.2.5).
Health finance. The PhilHealth Out Patient Benefit (OPB) reform is supposed to lead to greater
access to cost-effective primary care. According to the DoH, the OPB package is far from
comprehensive. The patient needs more substance in the Universal Health Care Package. In 2008,
only 63 % of PHIC (PhilHealth) users claimed the already limited package of (ill-known) benefits, and
only 44.4 % of PHIC members needing care actually availed of PhilHealth benefits. (2.2.1).
In a key contribution, the EU TA has designed an OPB package, identified pilot sites and a route map
for Case based payment in 2008 in partnership with GTZ health project including introduction of
DRGs (2.2.1 and 2.2.5). Furthermore, in the last year, the EU-TA supported the preparation of a PHIC
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 33
Board resolution, increasing premiums and benefits, the development of a pro-poor budgeting
scheme for drugs for retained hospitals, and the policy framework (2.2.1). Improved financial
protection through the PHIC inpatient package should lead to decreased percentages of Out-of-
pocket (OOP) payments. At the end of the HSPSP, there is expected to be a roll out plan preparing
the full implementation of the CBG system for the first batch of hospitals but such a reform will take
several years before it is widely implemented.37
Focus on poorest. The slightly increased PhilHealth enrolment does not match enrolment of the truly
poor. The roll out of the NHHTS has now reached 10% of the country, according to DoH. PhilHealth’s
inadequate policy and time-consuming tools prevent it. EU TA has invested a lot into PhilHealth, but
capacity building without political will and clear decision lines is not enough (2.2.5).
In pilot provinces, the MHSPSP is supporting Municipal LGUs (MLGUs) in undertaking formal poverty
mapping to assist the MLGUs to identify true indigent families and enrol them in PhilHealth. The
MHSPSP-TA seems on track in re-focusing more than the original design indicated, on the
community, the poor, and particularly the IPs in GIDA. The MHSPSP-TA is working in a sustainable
way on establishing a baseline for future rationalisation plans and health information services (base
also for scorecard, AOP and PIPH, and OOP) (2.2.5).
Human resources for health. As for Human Resources, the TA supported the preparation of HR
components in the rationalisation plans. After a HRH (Human Resources for Health) summit, three
legislative bills were presented: the Institutionalisation of the HRH network, a bill on residency
training, and a wages bill. Also as a consequence of the summit, the Professional Regulations
Commission has adopted a resolution to have competency based licensure exams for all eleven
health-professions (2.2.2).
LRICs provided support for the “Support to Human Resource Management in Local Health Systems”
with the implementation of rationalisation plans, incorporated into the 2010 AOPs. The
implementation guidelines have an impact on local HRH, with consistent support from the provincial,
city and municipal human resource units. But for example quality reproductive health services
require further capacity building of HR to really influence programme implementation (2.2.2).
Moreover, DBM’s limitation on the personal services expenditures is a challenge. Not all facilities
have the recommended number of health professionals as well as the recommended level of health
care services, thereby failing on health care service provision (2.2.6).
The MHSPSP developed plans to assist CHDs and relevant ARMM health officials to strengthen HRH
management and develop HR plans, with attention on retention strategies and focusing on BEmONCs
and CEmONCs (2.2.2). However, development partners claim that the same structural problems
within DBM and DoH are impeding smooth execution and transfer of funds (2.2.2 and 2.2.3).
Rationalisation and planning. As part of the health reform, and with the contribution of the EU, the
AOPs have become effective and realistic working documents and contribute effectively to PIPHs,
and with the support of the LRICs and since EU TA is closely following progress of preparation and
approval, the AOPs and supplementary plans are on track. The F16 provinces had their 2010 AOPs
approved in December 2009, and they included implementation plans for health facilities
37 19 pilot hospitals have been trained. PHIC is intending to start paying hospitals based on case mix in 2012
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 34
rationalisation. As a result they also benefited from additional DOH funding for health facility
enhancement and BEmONC improvements in RHUs and BHSs (2.2.3).
In Mindanao (MHSPSP) municipal focal persons are appointed as part of the project’s task force. This
ownership puts project planning and implementation in line with actual LGU priorities. There is an
improvement from the Mindanao project being identified without consulting the DoH-ARMM and
FIMO (Field Implementation Management Office), which could have harmed the sustainability. The
MHSPSP-TA meets and plans regularly with local authorities and development partners, tribal
leaders, the National Commission on Indigenous Populations (NCIP), the Office of Islamic Affairs, the
Mindanao Economic Development Coordination Office (MEDco), and experts of the EU HSPSP TA.
Close coordination is done with FIMO, DoH-ARMM and CHDs to find adequate responses to
particular problem issues, e.g. pharmaceutical supply.(2.2.4). Different provinces across the country
display different degrees of ILHZ (inter local health zone) implementation. But the problem is that no
ILHZ has yet legal entity and many mayors are resistant, with as a result fragmented decentralisation
where political interests prevail on public interest (2.2.4).
Monitoring and audit. It is a requirement of the Government of the Philippines that the LGUs
establish an internal audit (IA) function. EU-TA provided TA both in the areas of M&E and Internal
Audit Service (IAS). Externally funded activities (projects/programs) have a M&E function inbuilt, but
the provinces did not have a M&E function for their entire portfolio of activities. The tools built and
lessons learnt with the support of the MHSPSP-TA could be applied in other provinces (2.2.6).
The audit functions in the DOH and the LGUs improved at both central and LGU levels. The DBM
strengthened its involvement in PFM systems of the LGUs38. Where before DRM ROs were only
monitoring the budgeting process, they need to expand towards more active involvement in M&E
and Internal Audit Service (IAS). The active participation/involvement of the Commission of Audit
(COA) in the improvement of the audit functions within the DOH and the LGUs helps building internal
audit capacities at the central and LGU levels, and improved accountability within (2.2.6).
4.2.1.3 The EU-supported Philippine HSPSP contributed to strengthened financial management
and procurement functions at provincial level (in target provinces).
The aid modalities to set up EU support contributed to the strengthening of PFM and procurement
functions. With the EU TA support for AOP implementation, including the rationalisation plan, LGU
scorecard, PFM plan implementation and support to CHDs were given greater emphasis by the
reform implementation officer and coordinators (2.3.1). The DBM is developing an additional tool for
PFM plan implementation monitoring39, and thus accompanying and preparing SBS. The DBM is also
to build the capacity of PLGUs and their component LGUs in PFM.40 The EU-TA prepared the Local
Health Accounts manual, to estimate local health spending, by using local capacity, rather than
relying on expensive national level TA of limited availability.
The TA has also stepped up assistance to the provinces in the preparation of the different plans
(AOPs, Training-, Procurement-, Rationalisation- plans) and advocating for closer communication
38 EU TA helped DBM in the LGU PFM reform for the Road Map and PFMA
39 LGU PFM reform policy formulation (Road Map & PFMA)
40 according to the MOA signed April 15, 2008 with the DOH
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 35
between the DOH and LGUs. The DOH rationalisation could facilitate some of the procurement-
related concerns on accountability and capability of the CHD and hospital levels. The LRICs supported
finalisation of Program Procurement Monitoring Plan (PPMP), inserting technical specifications into
the provincial procurement plans, with the intention to comply with the DBM requirements (2.3.2)
Despite all the efforts undertaken, there is not much evidence of increasingly effective rational use of
resources (2.3.4). And although the rollout of F1 to the F15 and all the F44 provinces has gone
according to time-schedule, the quality and completeness of PIPHs and AOPs and the actual reform
measures introduced by many of the provinces have not increased at an equal pace. Some AOPs do
not have supplemental PPMPs or procurement, and training activities are not yet implemented. The
PPMP is a vital tool to effective resource allocation and in achieving economy and efficiency in
project operation. Adherence to the reform by participating LGUs may have been sacrificed for the
sake of political expediency to some extent (2.3.2).
The MHSPSP-TA coordinates a project procurement management plan for goods and services of the
provinces with the BLHD, and assists in the development of LGU annual procurement plans (2.3.2).
Procurement of drugs at the LGU level seems to be inefficient. Only very few of the LGUs cooperate
with their Inter-Local Health Zone (ILHZ) for bulk drug purchases, buying expensive from
pharmaceutical representatives instead (2.3.3). Within LGUs, pharmaceutical procurement planners
and therapeutic committees are aware of the factors underlying inefficient procurement of
medicines. The importance of good distribution practices for pharmaceuticals has become clear,
including inventory management and storage conditions, and suppliers’ performance monitoring will
be addressed. The EU-TA delivered management tools to the provinces like the Inventory
Management Assessment Tool, ABC analysis of annual procurement and forecasting needs tools.
However, update of these tools is unclear to this date. To date no province or CHD has implemented
any GPPP additional training course (2.3.3).
While some progress has been seen since 2008 in terms of income retention and PHIC coverage, and
while Government allocation slowly increases, there is no progress in reducing OOP expenditures,
nor in the provision of financial protection and/or access. Data indicate an even higher burden on
household out-of-pocket spending at the provincial level, which, at 63% of total health expenditure,
is over three times the targeted 20% under health sector reform for health financing. Public health
expenditure accounted for 14% of total spending, while 49% was spent on curative care, and 32%
was spent on medical goods. According to the DoH, PhilHealth cares about treatment and
rehabilitation, and less about (health and cost-saving) prevention. There is little investment in
vaccination. Although 40% of the National Budget (source DoH) goes to LGUs, the proportion of the
IRA going to health is not nearly enough to fund the cost of devolved health functions, and of the 30
Billion Pesos allocated by the DoH, 60% go to hospitals, and 40% to PHIC (2.3.4)
The published Health Accounts of the GoP, provide no proof for increased health spending and
effective rational use of resources41 (2.3.4). In fact, it is apparent that the public share of total Health
spending is decreasing, while the Out-of-Pocket (OOP) share has increased42. Only 20% of the poorest
41 www.nscb.gov.ph, in April updated latest HA 2005-2007
42 Evolution 1995-2007 discussed by the WB Health Sector Review
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 36
quintile is covered by PHIC. Private OOP bears 48.41% of burden of payment for health care. Social
Health insurance accounts for 10.65% of the total Health Care Expenditure (HCE). The National
government accounts for 15.85% of HCE. Local governments account for a little 12.87% of HCE. In
Mindanao, households contribute more than half of the total spending for health (2.3.4).
The EU-TA proposed to support harmonizing licensing, accreditation and to support certification
processes to reduce procedures and steps in obtaining accreditation and certification of health
facilities, such as accreditation of pharmacy providers for PHIC, using the BFAD Quality Seal system to
dispense quality, low cost medicines to beneficiaries of the PHIC outpatient benefit package. But no
progress is reported here. Accreditation of health services is not harmonised. And the annual
renewal of accreditation explains the high expiry rate of accredited LGU providers. Distinction is
made for different packages of RHU accreditation: OPB, MCP and/or TB DOTS. PhilHealth accredits
only 48.9 % of the 2,226 RHUs in the country (source: WB). PhilHealth’s delayed accreditation of LGU
health facilities jeopardizes the Sponsored Program. The situation of drug procurement and elevated
drug prices is alarming43 (2.3.5).
In Mindanao, PhilHealth coverage was only 38%, in 2008, and is gradually increasing in the visited
provinces. Some poor municipalities seem to enrol on Emergency PhilHealth, where 300 of the 600Ps
go back to the LGU to increase the enrolment of the poor (clarification is still needed as of legality of
this). In order to increase enrolment of vulnerable people, some initiatives update birth certificates
for GIDA and IPs.
The MHSPSP is working to increase the number of accredited RHU for OPD, EmONC and TB DOTs.
The development of birthing centres, even if not accredited, has drastically increased facility-based
delivery. However, mortality will not be reduced just as registration of complicated case improves. In
Sultan Kudarat for example, 60% goes to salaries and only 20% is for development. Three of the
twelve RHUs are not TB DOTS accredited. Three are accredited for MCP (4 in application stage) and
nine for OPB. Within those limited resources, Sultan Kundarat gains from organised of ILHZs sharing
resources, but mayors often stick to municipal and restrained individual and political priorities.
(2.3.5)
In conclusion, the mix of BS, TF, and supportive Technical Assistance have proved efficient to
intervene in systemic issues. Nevertheless, in the context of decentralized government and
PhilHealth management, and without TA in the future, the probability of achieving both
improvements to covering the health needs of the poor and increasing efficiency in purchase and
provision of accessible health by economy of scale, have little chance to materialize.
4.2.1.4 Extent to which EU support, including SBS, contributed to improved availability of basic
health care services of reasonable quality (in target provinces).
The EU TA has made various efforts to contribute to improved access to basic health care services.
Unfortunately, late recruitment of TA on service delivery initially led to failure to sufficiently monitor
and track changes in service delivery at the local level.
43 see PIDS and WB study, and latest EHP-Essential Health Package report
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 37
Health insurance. The Health Service Delivery component linked available quality health services at
the primary- and referral levels with increased enrolment of the poor in social health insurance. But
the PhilHealth programme has neglected to offer attractive benefits to its members and to give
attention to developing the benefits, while continuing its drive to enrol informally and sporadically
employed. Quality health services in LGUs could arrest the decline of first line health services44
(2.4.1).
Access to medicines. The growth of village and municipal drug outlets (Botika ng Barangay, Botika ng
Bayan) was rapid but with unequal regional distribution. Deprived regions continue to be ill-served,
and frequently re-supply is difficult, record-keeping is poor and pharmacy supervision is infrequent in
most BnBs. The EU-TA intended to address the inefficiencies in performance at PITC through a
process analysis including organisational management, sales and marketing, financial management,
human resources and strategic management (2.4.2).
The EU-TA advised DoH and LGUs on how to improve quality of Health Services, but the record
remains insufficient in many municipalities, BnBs cannot assure continuing quality and supplies by
lack of follow up, and essential basic services as FP (and MCP) are not provided. The existing
potential is not used. In collaboration with the MHSPSP, the EU TA also supported the
implementation of a comprehensive monitoring system for the BnB drug distribution (2.4.2).
Generally speaking, the BnB and P100 programs are a limited answer to the problem of access to
medicines, as generally drugs in these programs are still paid out of pocket (2.4.2).
Patient safety. A five-year development plan for patient safety is currently in the process of being
developed with DOH-retained hospitals and other stakeholders. Short-term expertise is developing
guidelines for handling patient complaints and providing feedback on adverse events (2.4.1).
Reproductive and maternal health. The quality of services relates directly to increased deliveries and
decreased Maternal Mortality. While lying-in facilities are developed at high pace, with equipment
provided by EU-funds and UNFPA, and with increasing Basic Emergency Obstetrics & Neonatal Care’s
(BEmONC) recognition, the insufficient staffing hampers the accreditation on Maternity Care Package
(MCP). Many municipalities do not employ enough midwives to assure shifts. Although some ILHZ
explore other paths these are not sufficiently replicated and exploited: e.g. Women’s health teams,
facilitated (ambulance) or subsidised transport, delivery-waiting hostels, radio communication for
GIDA, satellite-birthing homes for GIDA barangay clusters (2.4.1).
Poor, minorities and women. Particularly striking is the lack of access of the poor, ethnic minorities
and women, to quality basic health services. Paying particular attention to this inequality, the
MHSPSP-TA accompanied the NCIP, to integrate civil society, including IPs, in the planning process
and address the health needs of the poor, minorities and women through the revision of the
Ancestral Domain Investment Planning for Health (ADHIP) and harmonizing with the PIPH, while
heading for increased LGU investment in IPs. (2.4.4)
Information systems. It is evident, that quality basic health services can only be rendered, if there is
sufficient information available to establish and provide the required services. The EU-TA supports
44 as confirmed in the latest National Objectives for Health, issued by the DOH
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 38
DoH, LGUs and CHDs in M&E, financial reporting, and the use of the LGU scorecard for reporting
minimum service standards, along with other FOURmula1 scorecards used for annual planning. The
Field Health Services Information System (FHSIS) provides good and reliable information on clients
who come to the health facilities for services but other systems of data collection are needed to help
local health managers make evidence-based decisions. The EU-TA supported DOH to develop
information systems at the primary level of care and at the ILHZ level. Those systems are to be rolled
out in the provinces as part of technical support packages which LGUs can avail of through the CHDs
(2.4.3).
All in all, the contribution of the EU TA to improved availability of basic health care services of
reasonable quality, gave a large boost through improved access to drugs and improved monitoring
and information (Scorecards), including through some improvement in drug regulation. The main
impediment to access, however, is the lack of dynamics and professionalism in PhilHealth in spite of
substantial EU-TA inputs in terms of know-how.
4.2.2 Synthesised EQ Answer
The EU’s support to the health sector in the Philippines is fully consistent with the Poverty reduction
EU development policy and is in accordance with the EU’s commitment to the Millennium
Development Goals.
HSPSP fund releases and utilisation were low in 2007 and 2008 when DOH and JAC considered that
some provincial plans did not meet the quality requirements (2.1.5), and some provinces felt a lack of
LGU support on administrative requirements. Both modalities of aid BS and TF, faced the same
degree of delays in disbursement, the WB only adding another layer of procedures, where weaker
provinces would have benefited more from a pro-active support. While the situation has improved in
the HSPSP provinces, in Mindanao (MHSPSP), delayed releases of EU budgets still cause funding gaps
within the annual provincial health plans, and delay delivery of equipment for services.
The EU TA supported preparation of the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) as an
important step toward budget support. Adapting to the context of a highly decentralised health
system, the EU-TA also facilitated communication lines between DoH, DBM, and the provinces to
conduct the planned PFM reforms, with the commitment of local government structures (LGUs), and
involving the CHD to assure DoH’s stewardship.
In the F16 provinces, the EU-TA bridged the gap between DoH and their regional CHD on the one side
and LGUs, municipalities and provinces on the other side; thus facilitating the development of Annual
Operational Plans (AOP) with the support of the LRICs. In many provinces, the AOPs have now
become effective and more realistic working documents contributing effectively to PIPHs, and
increasingly include health facility rationalisation plans. However, not all provinces have yet
produced such rationalisation plans and some AOPs still do not include a Program Procurement
Monitoring Plan (PPMP). Addressing workforce planning, the EU-TA supported the preparation of a
component on Human Resources (HR) as part of the rationalisation plans.
Good Drug Management Systems and procurement (GPPP) supported by the EU TA intends to
improve the efficiency and performance of pharmaceutical supply management. However, the
situation of drug procurement continues to be alarming. The availability of essential and generic
medicines in the public sector is still low and procurement prices in most LGUs are too high and
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 39
variable. The Cheap Medicines Act is approved but not applied by the Government and a reduction of
drug consumption does not occur due to a lack of demand management.
Despite all efforts, health spending and effective rational use of resources has not yet sufficiently
increased. In Mindanao, the budget dedicated to health, as expected in an unstable environment, is
more critical, but also Donor Support is more intensive there. The MHSPSP works on a baseline for
future rationalisation plans and health information services, and focuses its actions on the
community level, the poor, and IPs in GIDA, more than the original design indicated.
EU TA has invested a lot into PhilHealth but was not able to overcome governance issues in and
around PhilHealth, the latter still having inadequate staff and managerial absorptive capacity to
implement programme and policy recommendations of the technical assistance. On the one hand
capacity building without political will and clear decision lines is not enough, but on the other hand
without the previous efficient TA, chances to realize health access for the poor is even lower. The
slightly increased PhilHealth enrolment does not match enrolment of the truly poor, nor does
PhilHealth actively negotiate more reasonable prices with providers based on patient volumes and
has not become a strategic purchaser of services with nationally agreed fees for services.
The Health Service Delivery component of the program has made a clear link of available quality
health services at the primary and referral levels of care and increased enrolment of the truly poor,
to be an efficient social insurance. The Out-of-Pocket (OOP) share of total health spending has
increased while the public share is decreasing. PhilHealth’s delayed accreditation of LGU health
facilities jeopardizes the Sponsored Program and the TB DOTS, MCP, OPB packages.
Different provinces have different degree of functioning ILHZs and none yet has become a legal
entity. The EU-TA has given support to broaden ILHZ functions, including monitoring and supervision;
stimulating the use of common resources. ILHZs with their boards and technical management
committees could favour participatory decision-making processes at the local levels, but it appears
that political interests prevail over public interest in many cases.
The EU supported growth of village and municipal drug outlets (Botika ng Barangay, Botika ng Bayan)
was rapid but has unequal regional distribution, and re-supply is difficult. Monitoring, supervision,
and support systems, which are essential to assure follow up are lacking. Private sector actors are
now invited to be involved in the P100 procurement.
To conclude, the EU TA has invested huge capacity and succeeded in several provinces. The task has
been taken up to a different extent in each of the provinces, and on different thematic areas of the
health reform. Capacity of the Provincial Health Teams increased with support of the CHD and LRICs
(national TAs), but opportunities of replication were left unexploited by DoH. The results vary
according to the developed theme and type of support and CB in each province and LGU, from
excellent to non-evident.
4.2.3 Conclusions
1. Although the start of EU support to the health reform agenda was slow and it took time to
match sector budget support with the context of decentralisation, the TA has invested
capacity and succeeded in several provinces. Demand based TA led to developments of
different levels of advance in the different provinces. Advanced provinces could have
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 40
triggered replication initiatives elsewhere, especially considering that HSSP moved from 16
provinces to cover now 38 provinces. Ownership of the LGU scorecard by provinces and
CHDs has increased, both using the scorecard in program reviews for annual planning. High
priority.
2. Provinces’ dedicated budgets for health for 2010 are on the increase, but still do not reach
the target of LGU scorecards (12-15%). In EU TA supported F16 provinces, AOPs have become
more realistic working documents and contribute effectively to the PIPH. More AOPs include
implementation plans for health facility rationalisation. Structural problems within the DBM
and DoH continue impeding smooth execution and the transfer of funds. In its context of
limited absorptive capacity, the DoH prioritizes spending its own budget, with as result
delayed expenditure of the € 1 million grant to the DoH. The Mindanao TF is already in its
third round of grants, but still has difficulties to function efficiently. Until now, no EU budget
has been released through the WB TF, resulting in delays of equipment supply for services.
High priority.
3. The MHSPSP contributes to the EU priority of poverty reduction by assisting LGUs to identify
true indigent families and enrol them in PhilHealth. The MHSPSP-TA integrates civil society
(and IPs in coordination with the NCIP) in the planning process to better address their health
needs. The MHSPSP takes into account cultural context, beliefs and traditions to reduce
maternal and neonatal mortality. Civil society involvement is needed in public health to
promote BHSs and RHUs as centres for personal health care, including prevention services
and vaccination. Medium priority.
4. Numerous requirements like procurement of equipment and other goods and commodities,
influence programme implementation to build the capacity of health staff to fulfil quality
standards of reproductive health services. Procurement remains extremely fragmented.
Much of bulk drug purchasing with transparent tender mechanisms and LGU capacity of
developing the rationalisation plan, is related to LGU management and organisational
capacity. A number of provinces has not yet produced health facility rationalisation plans and
in certain cases the AOPs do not have supplemental PPMPs. Medium priority.
5. The PhilHealth Out Patient Benefit (OPB) reform should lead to greater access to cost-
effective primary care, but the OPB is far from comprehensive. The patient needs more
substance in the Universal Health Care Package. There is no progress in reducing OOP
expenditures or in the provision of financial protection. In Mindanao, households contribute
more than half of the total spending for health. Medium priority.
6. The availability of essential and generic medicines in the public sector is low and
procurement prices in most LGUs are too high. Variation in drug prices is huge. The Cheap
Medicines Act is approved but not applied by the government. Reduction of drug
consumption is difficult, due to a lack of demand management. According to the PIDS review,
there are inefficiencies in the procurement of important drugs and supplies at the LGU level.
To date no province or CHD has implemented any Good Procurement Practice in
Pharmaceuticals (GPPP) additional training course. Medium priority.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 41
7. In spite of continuous TA support to PhilHealth, the organisation is not sufficiently enforcing
the policy of proper identification and enrolment of the real poor in the provinces. It relies on
LGU governance with no incentives or control. According to the DoH, the law on PhilHealth
has been amended to use the National Household Targeting System (NHHTS), but is not
generally implemented and presently used in only 10% of the country. Social Health
insurance accounts for only 10.65% of the total Health Care Expenditure (HCE). Although TA
support to HSP and MHSP are central to this evaluation, future decisions are not within its
scope. However, questions can be raised on how to move ahead on the deployment of
FOURmula ONE in all provinces, especially regarding communication, decentralization and
development of PhilHealth. Low priority.
8. Accreditation of health services and services within (TB DOTS, MCP,OPB) moves slowly and
challenges the efficiency of the social insurance, with strong regional differences according to
the dedication of local officials and politicians. Accreditation on Maternity Care Package
(MCP) is too slow, mainly due to deficient staffing up to the norms. Quality of services relates
direct to increased deliveries and decreased Maternal Mortality. Low priority.
4.2.4 Recommendations
1. When moving to full budget support with performance based grants, some support to weak
managerial capacity in poorer provinces, must be built-in to avoid that exactly provinces fall
out of the boat for the performance based variable tranches (SLA), and are driven in a vicious
downward cycle. This can be done by providing an advisor in health financing also to link
between the government and EU-Delegation. Adjustment indexes could be applied for
poverty targeting as used in the IRA. And service level agreements could be adapted
according to a factor of managerial capacity and development. Before funds shall flow,
support for DoH and CHD should be the focus. From Conclusions 1 and 2, high priority.
2. The DPs should insist on PhilHealth to be part of dialogue at the highest political level and
priority to assure sustainability. Here as well there is a role to play for the financial advisor,
specialized in health economics and health insurance. Covering the total cost of PhilHealth’s
sponsored program premiums by the national government would increase enrolment. EU
policy dialogue and other EU aid modalities could seek to improve civil society involvement,
through advocacy and health awareness campaigns, and thus increase demand and access to
health services . From Conclusion 5 and 7. Medium priority.
3. EU and DPs have a role to play to improve governance in the health sector, with closer
participation of the civil society and private sector involvement. This can be attained through
more efficient local health systems based on e.g. ILHZs or other types of partnerships with
the private sector. Any adapted and socially adopted type of legal entity of grouped
municipalities and health institutions will exceed the present fragmentation of decentralised
health delivery. As a result grouped tendering and purchase of drugs could be facilitated. It
would also facilitate purchaser-provider contracts with national health insurance including
prevention in one single package. ILHZ seemed to function where social equitable interest
and efficiency of health delivery prevail on political agendas. From Conclusion 3 and 4,
medium priority.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 42
4. To cope with health workforce numbers (e.g. not enough midwives for shifts), other paths
need to be explored with alternative EU-aid modalities (NGO budget lines and project
support) as women’s health teams, facilitated (ambulance) or subsidised transport, delivery-
waiting hostels, radio communication for GIDA, satellite-birthing homes for GIDA barangay
clusters. All options could be shared with other barangays and villages to become more
efficient. From Conclusion 8. Low priority.
4.3 EQ3 – To what extent has EU support in the area of rural development contributed to
improved living standards for the poor?
Summary: EU support in the area of rural development has contributed to improved living standards
for the poor. The four projects– all having disposed of considerable resources over quite a long
period – show however different records in terms of effectiveness and sustainability. The type of
activity determines to a large extent the level of sustainability generated. Activities that produce
highly valued benefits are more sustainable as the communities and their leaders attach more
importance to their continuity.
Key achievements of the projects include the creation and/or strengthening of numerous POs and
LGUs, improved production and productivity, and economic diversification to a lesser extent. The
achievements in the area of rural infrastructure and irrigation are commonly considered as the most
tangible effects of the projects, even if in some cases their maintenance is not optimal. Major
weaknesses of the projects include their performance related to rural finance development and their
failure to adequately develop post-production issues.
After the mid-term review of the 2002-2004 NIP, the EU decided to drop rural development
interventions within the geographical budget line. The indicative budget foreseen was €22 million
(NIP 02-04). This was reduced to € 7 million after the Mid-Term Review. The programme was
ultimately cancelled due to low performance and the lack of agreement with the government. Yet,
several programmes launched before the CSP 02-06 were still running in the period covered by the
evaluation. This was the case for:
the “Support to Agrarian Reform Communities in Central Mindanao” programme – STARCM
(16,7 m€ disbursed);
the “Upland Development Programme for Southern Mindanao” - UDP (16,3 m€ disbursed);
the “Economic self-Reliance Programme, Caraballo and Southern Cordillera Agricultural
Development” - ERP-CASCADE (12,6 m€ disbursed); and
the “Central Cordillera Agricultural Programme” - CECAP (22 m€ disbursed).
This evaluation question assesses the performance of the four above mentioned integrated rural
development projects that are quite similar in scope and approach. They all aim to contribute in a
sustainable way to increased self-reliance, improved living standards and quality of life. As such, this
question deals with effectiveness, impact and sustainability. JCs stretch to gather data at a variety of
levels, ranging from JC 3.1, which focuses on results (outcomes), to JC 3.2, which focuses more on
impacts and JC 3.3 on the sustainability of the achieved results (outcomes) and impacts.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 43
Considering the fact that the four projects had all closed down (some already for more than 5 years)
at the time of this evaluation, the EQ answer relied to an important extent on the critical study of
project reports (annual reports, final reports, pre- and post completion reports and studies). In
addition, during the field visit, some relevant statistical data and also a few impact studies were
obtained and interviews conducted with their authors. Further, an important number of interviews, a
focus groups and a few group interviews to identify the most significant changes were held with key
stakeholders, both at the national level and in the four project areas. Due to time constraints, a
certain geographical bias could not be avoided when visiting locations of project beneficiaries.
4.3.1 Findings by JC
4.3.1.1 EU support contributed to improved production, production base and conditions
All projects analysed contributed with varying degrees of effectiveness and sustainability to
improved production, production base and conditions. They did so by focussing both on ‘soft’ issues
(such as training and capacity building) and ‘hard’ issues (construction of basic infrastructure).
Capacity development strategies of the projects all focused on both POs (People’s Organisations) and
LGUs as they considered both types of institutions – at least implicitly – as necessary to ensure
improved production and underlying framework conditions. The projects’ capacity development
approaches have been quite similar, but some of them had mainly a functional focus (narrowly
related to the sub-projects being implemented), whereas others more explicitly framed their capacity
strengthening efforts in a broader developmental perspective. There is strong evidence that, at least
at the moment of project completion, all projects had succeeded in creating and/or strengthening
POs in such a way that they disposed of the necessary technical and managerial skills to plan,
implement and maintain development actions at their level. The level of success and sustainability of
project efforts seems to vary with the capacity of the projects to find institutionally and culturally
adapted methods, the initial level of capacities in the communities and, above all, with the
importance of the benefits as perceived by local communities (3.1.1).
To a varying degree, all projects made of strengthening of LGUs a major strategic consideration. As
such, an impressive series of actions have been undertaken to strengthen LGU capacities. Though all
projects set up parallel structures and disposed of big project implementation teams, they closely
cooperated with LGU level institutions and were able mobilise counterpart funding for their sub-
projects from LGUs, enhancing LGU ownership and longer-term commitment with regard to project
initiated activities. Such relations were however not or only marginally established with the technical
departments at provincial level, more in particular with DA (Department of Agriculture), DENR
(Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and DAR (Department of Agrarian Reform), and
to a certain extent also at municipal (with DENR, DAR) level (3.1.1).
All projects documented changes in production/productivity, processing and marketing, which have
all been achieved via substantial training and extension efforts. In terms of improved production and
productivity, UDP and CECAP seem to have been most successful in designing and transferring well
adapted technological innovations, often using highly interactive methods of learning. Marketing has
however received relatively limited attention. It appeared that farmers and their organisations have
not always been able to cope with marketing challenges. However, improved rural infrastructure in
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 44
particular (see below) and better access to credit (only in CECAP) played a positive role in this regard.
(3.1.2)
For all projects improved rural infrastructure has been a major component. Road rehabilitation and
maintenance has been the major action in this regard, but much attention was also given to the
construction of foot trails, roads and footbridges. Road maintenance included both technical
(training, provision of equipment) and institutional (set up of maintenance mechanisms, inclusion of
road maintenance in LGU budgets …) aspects. Despite these efforts, post completion missions all
concluded that road conditions had deteriorated but also that these roads continued to provide
highly valued services to the people. Two projects also provided substantial amounts of post harvest
facilities that largely are still functioning adequately (3.1.3).
The rehabilitation and construction of small irrigation systems has been another important rural
infrastructure component that has been highly valued by the beneficiaries and produced immediate
tangible effects in terms of increased production and productivity, and strengthening of irrigation
associations (3.1.4).
The achievements in the area of rural infrastructure and irrigation are commonly considered as the
most tangible effects of the projects, even if in cases their maintenance is not optimal.
The development of the rural finance component has been seriously hampered by design flaws in
two projects (STARCM and UDP) which could only partially be corrected later. Their effects, outreach
and sustainability hence have remained rather limited. The achievement of a third project (CECAP) in
developing rural finance institutions is however positive. An impressive number of sustainable SLGs
have been formed and successful efforts undertaken for consolidation and up-linking of these SLGs
with formal rural finance institutions (3.1.5).
All projects have at least indirectly contributed to the diversification of economic activities, mainly by
broadening the number and types of crops and livestock being produced. Little diversification has
however taken place in terms of other economic activities (such as processing and marketing) (3.1.7).
4.3.1.2 EU support contributed to improved living standards of the rural poor in targeted areas
The projects’ contributions to poverty reduction and increased income (in both cash and non-cash
communities) are for obvious reasons (attribution problems) not easy to determine let alone to
quantify. The STARCM completion report mentions decreasing poverty levels in its working area, but
admits it is difficult to distinguish its effects from that of other factors. An impact study found that
STARCM succeeded in decreasing poverty levels and increasing ownership of assets; these findings
were confirmed by the results of DAR’s own monitoring system that recorded a substantial progress
in development level in the STARCM supported ARCs (Agrarian Reform Communities). The UDP Final
Report states that there are strong indications that farmers exposed to the extension services have
increased their income. An ERP-CASCADE impact study estimates that the income of project
beneficiaries would have increased by 27% and an external impact study at the level of barangays
benefiting from a newly constructed or rehabilitated irrigation scheme indicated substantial
production increases and high profitability. CECAP has been able to provide convincing evidence
through its effectiveness assessment study that found that an important number of project
beneficiaries considered to have made progress and increased their income. Finally, NSCB (Philippine
National Statistical Coordination Board) data show a better than average performance related to
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 45
poverty reduction in the three provinces where the rural development projects have been most
prominently present (3.2.1).
STARCM is the only project to have invested substantially in improving health services. Improved
access to qualified health services during the project period is convincingly documented and all
health centres are said to function adequately in the post project period (3.2.2). With the exception
of UDP, all projects improved access to potable water via the construction of water supply schemes
that were in general fairly maintained, also in the post-project period (3.2.3).
Three projects (UDP, ERP-CASCADE and CECAP) often worked in isolated areas with a low economic
and social development level, where important numbers of Indigenous People are living. By adopting
inclusive approaches and focussing much on the strengthening and empowerment of POs and on
liaising them with LGUs, an important contribution has been provided to the beneficiaries’ social and
political integration (3.2.4).
4.3.1.3 The sustainability of the rural development activities supported by EU interventions have
been effectively addressed
All projects have routinely built in sustainability issues via adopting various methods and approaches
including participation and ownership by beneficiaries, raising policy support via liaising with key LGU
actors, promoting appropriate technology, showing sensitivity for socio-cultural and gender issues
and promoting environmental protection. As such, three of the four projects (UDP, ERP-CASCADE,
UDP) did not define a clear phasing out strategy but this shouldn’t be considered as a major
weakness in as far as the projects really succeeded in consistently mainstreaming sustainability in
their strategy and approaches. In particular the environmental and institutional dimensions of
sustainability seem to have been well addressed, while economic viability has been often
disregarded. Different from the other projects, CECAP has used its extension period in a way that has
been highly instrumental to ensuring better sustainability prospects of project benefits (3.3.1).
All projects have been implemented in close cooperation with the LGUs and used regular and
intensive dialogue mechanisms. However, as all projects opted to set up their own (big) project
implementation units, technical agencies, though being the formal project partners, have not been
closely associated in project implementation and, hence, neither in the preparation of the projects’
closure. Ownership of project results and commitment to take care of the momentum created by the
projects is, understandably, substantially less at the level of these institutions compared to the
municipal and barangay LGUs (3.3.2).
As already mentioned earlier, the continuity of key infrastructure (irrigation schemes, water supply,
roads) is well assured by LGUs and beneficiaries, in particular because these schemes play an
important role in the people’s daily life. Although the quality of road maintenance cannot be entirely
ensured, road maintenance is a key consideration for all municipalities and these roads continue to
provide highly valued services. Evidence with regard to sustained adoption and dissemination of
improved agricultural and livestock production techniques is mixed. UDP in particular has been
successful in promoting LGU development planning and implementation schemes that were not only
maintained but also replicated on a substantial scale, even on a national level (3.3.3).
All projects have made substantial efforts to improve the technical and, to a minor extent also the
financial capacities of POs and government partners to continue interventions in the post project
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 46
period. Much of the momentum, both at PO and LGU level, has been maintained after project
closure, in particular in those domains/areas where tangible benefits were realised. In many cases
however the same level of support cannot be provided to the communities because of lack of
resources (and also because municipal officers often have to devote their attention to new projects)
(3.3.4).
4.3.2 Synthesised EQ Answer
Overall, EU support in the area of rural development has contributed to improved living standards for
the poor. The four projects– all having disposed of considerable resources over quite a long period –
show however different records in terms of effectiveness and benefits sustainability. The type of
activity determines to a large extent the level of sustainability generated. Activities that produce
highly valued benefits are more sustainable as the communities and their leaders attach more
importance to their continuity.
There is strong evidence of the projects contributing, with varying degrees of effectiveness and
sustainability, to production improvement and a more solid production base and conditions. A first
key achievement in this regard has been the creation and/or strengthening of numerous POs, whose
actions in most projects were adequately supplemented by those of LGUs that equally were
strengthened in different ways. The momentum, both at PO and LGU level, could be maintained in
the post project period in an important number of cases.
All projects have at least indirectly contributed to the diversification of economic activities, mainly by
broadening the number and types of crops and livestock being produced by the farmers, but little
diversification has taken place in terms of the development of other economic activities (processing,
marketing).
The projects’ contributions to poverty reduction and income increase are, for obvious reasons
(attribution problems), not easy to determine. For two of the projects (UDP and CECAP) no solid
externally obtained data have been found related to poverty reduction and income increase. Overall,
there seems however to exist substantial evidence that the four projects achieved progress in these
areas.
All projects failed however to focus adequately on post production issues, which implies that in many
cases the potential of increased production is not optimally tapped and that even problems like
market saturation could not be addressed. Finally, SNCB data show a better than average
performance related to poverty reduction in the three provinces where rural development projects
have been most prominently active, but it is impossible to determine to which extent this change can
be attributed to the projects.
With the exception of UDP, all projects improved access to potable water via the construction of an
important number of water supply schemes that were in general fairly maintained, also in the post-
project period.
Three projects (UDP, ERP-CASCADE and CECAP) often worked in isolated areas with a low economic
and social development level, where important numbers of Indigenous People are living. By adopting
inclusive approaches and focussing much on the strengthening and empowerment of POs and liaising
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 47
them with LGUs, an important contribution has been provided to the beneficiaries’ social and
political integration, which has also been triggered by the economic progress achieved.
All projects have routinely built in sustainability issues via adopting various methods and approaches
including participation and ownership by beneficiaries, raising policy support via liaising with key LGU
actors, promoting appropriate technology, showing sensitivity for socio-cultural and gender issues
and promoting environmental protection, etc. As such, three of the four projects, did not define a
clear phasing out strategy, which should not be considered as a major weakness in as far as projects
really succeeded in consistently mainstreaming sustainability in the project strategy and approaches.
In particular the environmental and institutional dimensions of sustainability seem to be well
addressed, but not economic viability.
All projects from the start have been implemented in close cooperation with the LGUs and used
regular and intensive dialogue mechanisms with these LGUs. However, as all projects opted to set up
their own (big) project implementation units technical agencies, though being the formal project
partners, have not been closely associated to project implementation and, hence, neither to the
preparation of the projects’ closure.
4.3.3 Conclusions
1. All projects have been able to produce relevant and quality outputs (rural infrastructure,
improved farming technologies, improved natural resources management, increased PO and
LGU capacities). Only in the domain of rural finance have projects substantially failed to meet
their targets. Three of the four projects achieved this performance in areas that are
predominantly inhabited by Indigenous People. Local stakeholders including government
officials stated that the achievements of these ‘special projects’ were much better of that of
other similar projects. High priority.
2. The presence of project funded rural infrastructure (e.g. irrigation, potable water supply,
farm to market roads, bridges, etc.) appears to be by now – i.e. several years after the
closure of the projects - the most significant contribution to progress in the rural areas. In
addition, their continuity and maintenance seem to be reasonably assured by a combination
of factors: the existence of community based and LGU support, the importance attached to
these infrastructures by the local political elite and, sometimes, the possibility to attract
extra support from other agencies and institutions. Medium priority.
3. The good achievements at output level allow some optimism related to the achievement of
higher-level objectives. In all project areas qualitative but convincing evidence has been
gathered related with regard to the positive influence on the people’s welfare. Medium
priority.
4. However, the projects’ focus has been rather on producing outputs than on consistently
trying to optimise their resources to achieve poverty reduction. The projects did not engage
in analysing structures and mechanisms perpetuating poverty (tenurial systems, exploitative
and interrelated credit and marketing mechanisms, etc.), nor did they consistently monitor
the actual effects of their actions on their target groups (who has been effectively reached to
obtain which benefits?) and on poverty reduction. High priority.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 48
5. Related to the previous point, have projects failed to consistently address post-production
issues. This implies that the potential gains of the projects’ actions have not been optimised
so far and that in some cases serious marketing problems (saturation) occurred impacting
negatively on the farmers’ income. Medium priority.
6. Overall the projects adopted a too fragmented approach, which failed to capitalise on the
momentum and self-confidence created by key components of the project. Medium Priority
4. Although all projects worked in conflict areas, none of them has designed and implemented
a policy on how their action could contribute to conflict resolution, peace building and
integration of various (initially conflicting) interests. High priority
5. Overall performance of the projects has been compromised by the fact that the projects
have opted to work with big implementation teams that liaised well with municipal and
barangay staff, but not with personnel of the technical departments. Medium priority
4.3.4 Recommendations
1. Projects that aim to contribute to poverty reduction should have a broader and more
strategic focus than the rather output oriented rural development projects supported in the
past. As such, they (1) should develop activities that address the mechanisms that presently
perpetuate poverty, (2) convert the traditional focus on production into a value chain
approach that empowers producers, in particular in accessing profitable marketing. From
Conclusions 3 and 4, high priority.
2. Projects aiming at reducing poverty should carefully address who they are actually reaching
and with what effect, and devise well elaborated systems that are able to monitor progress
in terms of poverty reduction on a regular basis. From Conclusion 3, high priority.
3. While rural development projects should continue to deal with local communities in an
integrated way, they should better ensure coherence and synergies of their actions at the
local (municipal, barangay) level in such a way that progress is not dependent on the varied
effects of a series of rather isolated micro-projects, but rather the effect of a well elaborated
and locally owned programme of interrelated interventions. From Conclusion 5, medium
priority.
4. Projects in (post-) conflict areas should refrain from ignoring the conflict reality and from
working around the conflict, but should on the contrary integrate the conflict in their
analysis, approach and implementation. As such, they should try to use the potential offered
by development actions to influence positively the conflict dynamics and improve the
relationship among previously opposing parties. From Conclusion 6, high priority.
5. In the context of the EU’s cooperation strategy with the Philippines and considering the
substantial gains rural development projects have achieved in conflict areas and ecologically
fragile regions, avenues should be explored to consolidate these gains and to capitalise on
the achievements for further progress. The EU’s interest in work the areas of conflict
prevention and climate change seems to offer interesting opportunities in this regard. From
Conclusion 6, medium priority.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 49
6. At a broader policy and political level, efforts should be undertaken to improve the design
and approach of integrated rural development. At this moment an amalgam of
uncoordinated actions and interventions (by donors, government, NGOs, individuals,
parliamentarians, etc) is determining the scene and ‘quick gains’ are often jeopardising
efforts towards sustainability. Defining a clear vision, policy framework and subsequently
decentralised action plans on how to reduce poverty, achieving prosperity and ensure peace
and development with attention for location specificity (geographically, culturally, etc)
should lay down the framework for any actor to define its contribution. From Conclusion 7,
medium priority.
4.4 EQ4 – To what extent has EU support contributed to improved trade and economic
partnership with the Philippines and the country’s further integration into the international
trade system?
Summary: There can be little doubt that trade-related projects or components of broader defined
interventions at both the bilateral level (TRTA, SPF) and within the regional context (ECAP, APRIS, EU-
ASEAN Regional Economic Cooperation Programme on Standards, Quality, and Conformity
Assessment etc.) have achieved their objectives to a great extent as outlined under the two
Judgement Criteria and based on robust quantitative data presented in Volume 2. TRTA 1 was
particularly successful with regards to the fishery sector but failed to improve the situation of
coconut growers in the domestic and export market. However, the lessons were learned and the
mistakes and shortcomings of TRTA1 have been avoided in TRTA2 which, inter alia, tries to help the
Philippines in meeting the EU’s health and safety standards for poultry products to enable Philippine
chicken exports to the EU market.
In order to support the sustainable development of the Philippines, the CSP 2002-2006 outlined the
facilitation of trade and investment as one of two main areas of concentration for EU-Philippines co-
operation (alongside assistance to the poorest sectors of society). Support to trade is one of the
priorities for the EU development policy. The 2005 European Consensus on Development in general
and PCD in particular highlight trade as a crucial element of the broader development policies
pursuing the Millennium Development Goals. In October 2007 the EU adopted a joint Aid for Trade
Strategy to help developing countries to better integrate into the rules-based world trading system
and to more effectively use trade in promoting the overarching objective of poverty reduction. In line
with this priority, the CSP 2007-2013 identifies support to boost trade and investment flows, as one
of three non-focal sectors. The strategy focuses on a number of the country's constraints in the areas
of international trade while paying close attention to the social dimension of globalisation.
The aim of the question is to assess to which extent the EU has contributed to trade facilitation in
general and improved Philippines-EU trade and investment relations in particular and improved the
Government's capacity to formulate trade policy, particularly with regards to WTO issues. The EQ
covers both bilateral EU-Philippines and regional EU-ASEAN programmes, such as APRIS. ECAP, and
Standards, Quality, and Conformity Assessment.
JC4.1 focuses on the quantitative and qualitative improvements in EU-Philippines trade and
economic relations which have been targeted by EU interventions (results/outcome level). JC4.2
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 50
looks at the capacity of government agencies and non-state actors to implement deeper integration
into the international trading systems (mainly ASEAN, WTO).
The EQ answer is based on assessments of project evaluations, documents and statistics of the
Philippine Government and the EU, media reports and stakeholders interviews with Philippine
government official, the EU and other donors and civil society organisation and a group discussion
with representatives of EU Member States Embassies and the Australian Embassy in Manila.
4.4.1 Findings by JC
4.4.1.1 Enhanced conditions for trade
The cooperation programme has been particularly effective in enhanced the conditions for Philippine
trade, particularly – but not limited to – in relations with the EU. Evidence for effectiveness is most
robust with regard to customs procedures (4.1.1).
Evidence for Effectiveness
As a result of TRTA 1 the customs process improved markedly: cargoes or shipments targeted for
yellow or red-lane (medium and high risk products) inspection have declined from 80 % to 20 %
over the duration of the project. Moreover, clearance time has been reduced to less than 8 hours
for “green lane” (low risk) entries. Increases in IPRs, Standards and Quality Assurance administration
and enforcement have been primarily visible with regards to IPR as the result of the Philippines
participation in ECAP II. Improvements have been achieved in the three areas of IPR Administration,
IPR Enforcement and IPR Awareness.
Evidence for effectiveness was also found in relation to the way Philippine government agencies and
firms were informed about, and adjusted to, EU regulations influential for trade development.
According to NEDA among the accomplishments of TRTA 1 were the upgrading of the Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures (SPS) regulatory framework,
improved awareness of safety in the fishery and coconut food and feed chains, and improved
knowledge of EU market access for exporting electrical and electronic goods. With the
accomplishments on TBT and SPS as well as on the increased EU market access, exports of fishery
products grew by 31.5 % in 2007 from 19.8 % in 2006. The number of companies accredited for
export of fishery products to EU also increased by 18 % in 2007. Relevant Administrative Orders
(AOs) prepared are also now in line with international and EU standards (4.1.2 and 4.1.3).
The Philippines also benefitted from the EU-ASEAN Regional Economic Cooperation Programme on
Standards, Quality, and Conformity Assessment (1998-2005) which focused on further economic
cooperation by adoption of internationally compatible technical regulations and standards;
conformity assessment procedures, quality structures and practices within ASEAN. In 2006-2007 the
related project on Upgrading the capacity of selected ASEAN member countries to implement the
ASEAN Harmonised Cosmetic Regulatory Scheme tried to build a bridge between the EU-ASEAN
Standards Programme that ended in September 2005, and the ASEAN Programme for Regional
Integration Support Phase II (APRIS II) that started in December 2006, in an effort to keep continuity
in the provision of specific training activities.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 51
4.4.1.2 The capacity of selected government agencies and non-state actors in the Philippines has
been enhanced to implement deeper integration into the international trading systems
Important results/outcomes were achieved with regards to the capacity of selected government
agencies and non-state actors in the Philippines to implement deeper integration into the
international trading systems. The focus here is on ASEAN, WTO, and the proposed EU-ASEAN FTA.
Negotiations for the latter, however, have stalled and are unlikely to be resumed.
The capacity needs of key Philippine government stakeholders, mainly the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI), on trade in services statistics, integrated trade database, trade impact assessment
methodologies, multi-stakeholder consultation techniques, trade negotiations skills and other areas
had been effectively addressed by TRTA 1 and continue to be focused on under TRTA 2 (4.2.1).
Given that the cooperation programme pays particular attention to helping Philippine exporters
meet EU technical and regulatory standards, including a strong focus on SPS measures, one would
expect to see an increase in Philippines exports to the EU market in the food sector where SPS are a
trade hurdle, e.g. fishery products and fruits/vegetables Indeed, Philippine food exports to the EU
have increased markedly between 2003 and 2008, with an average annual increase of almost 15%,
reaching around €265 million in 2008 (PhP 18.5 billion, or about 5% of total RP exports to the EU).
This can be seen as evidence for effectiveness in the enhancement of standards in Philippine exports
(4.2.2).
However, against the backdrop of TRTA 1’s specific purpose (‘Assist the Philippine Authorities to
enhance conditions for international trade and investment and improve access of Philippine
exporters to the expanded EU market by increasing their compliance with TBT and SPS
requirements’), the achievements were uneven: exports for fishery products increased but exports of
coconut products declined. The upgrading of the legislative and regulatory framework through TRTA1
was highly relevant to the needs of the fishery sector, but of minimal relevance to the coconut
sector. Furthermore, despite TRTA’s significant input into increasing the quality of coconut products
– and thereby improving compliance with SPS requirements and helping farmers to achieve higher
prices for their products – this objective was not achieved. There is evidence that the lessons of the
coconut sector were learned and similar problems are being avoided under TRTA 2 (4.2.3).
The role of regional EU-ASEAN programmes
The two regional EU-ASEAN programmes ECAP (II and III) and APRIS (I and II) have also made a
contribution to further integrate ASEAN countries, including the Philippines which prominently
participated in all regional programmes, into the global economy and world trading system. At the
same time there is a clear overlap among the three intervention’s objectives, outputs and expected
results. However, aspects of coordination among these interventions and potential synergies (or
potential conflicts) are not addressed in the project documentations. According to stakeholder
interviews, information-sharing and meetings among programme officers of the regional projects
and TRTA take place and the EU Delegation is informed about activities under the regional
programmes in the Philippines, coordination happens ad hoc and is neither formalised nor
institutionalised (4.2.1).
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 52
4.4.2 Synthesised EQ Answer
Today the Philippines is in a better and stronger position to participate in international trade (not at
least with the EU) and deal with the challenges of regional and global integration than at the
beginning of the evaluation period in 2002. Attribution gaps always exist when it comes to an
assessment of the effectiveness of interventions in the trade-sector as changes to the latter are
always the result of a myriad of domestic and external factors. However, the existing data are
sufficiently robust to demonstrate an instrumental role of the EU. Improvements to customs
procedures is one of the best documented examples in this regard. Problems and challenges do not
primarily exist in project implementation (at least not to a significant extent) but potentially in terms
of, first, unrealistic expectations as to ASEAN capacity to achieve a high level of economic integration
and, second, a lack of coordination between national and regional projects.
A persisting shortcoming of TRTA is a lack of an explicit environmental focus. While the TBT and SPS
components of TRTA 1 dealt with standards, sanitary and phytosanitary issues (and were thus linked
with environmental issues) the Financing Agreement did not specify environment as a cross-cutting
issue. This seems rather unusual for a recent project directed at trade facilitation and given the EU’s
leading global role on in the field sustainable development and environmental protection. Despite
the recommendation of the TRTA1 final evaluation to consider environmental issues more explicitly
this has not happened under TRTA2.
4.4.3 Conclusions
1. Overall the Philippines is in a better and stronger position to participate in international
trade than at the beginning of the evaluation period in 2002. High priority.
2. While EU support has a) effectively contributed to an improved trade and economic
partnership with the Philippines and b) the country’s further integration into the
international trade system, evidence for a is stronger than for b). High priority.
3. TRTA 1 produced mixed results. While the project, inter alia, was very effective in improving
the Philippine customs procedures and strongly contributed to an increase in the export of
fishery products, the anticipated improvement to the quality of coconut products was not
achieved. Consequently the project failed to better the position of coconut growers. The
lessons of TRTA1 were learned a repetition of the ‘coconut problem’ has been avoided in
TRTA 2. High priority.
4. Generally TRTA 2 has been improved over its predecessor in terms of greater flexibility in
responding to the changing and emerging needs of Philippine stakeholders. TRTA2 includes a
rapid response facility as the project’s fourth component with the budget of € 700,000 (of a
total € 5 million). Medium priority.
5. Synergies might exist between and among the bilateral cooperation programme and regional
EU-ASEAN projects, such as ECAP and APRIS. The claim that synergies exist and that
coordination between bilateral and regional programmes/projects take place is regularly
made by EU stakeholders but neither project documents nor project evaluation reports
normally elaborate on these synergies in any empirically sound and robust way. Medium
priority.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 53
6. Neither TRTA1 nor TRTA2 have explicitly addressed the link between trade and environment.
Low priority.
4.4.4 Recommendations
1. Formalise and institutionalize project coordination between TRTA2 and regional EU-ASEAN
programmes to achieve more synergies between bilateral and regional interventions that
address similar sectors. From Conclusion 5, high priority.
2. Strengthen the environmental focus of TRTA2 either through the project’s rapid response
facility or in a follow-up programme . From Conclusion 6, low priority.
4.5 EQ5 – To what extent has the EU support promoted and strengthened better governance?
Summary: Both the designs of interventions and the actual implementation of projects provide
ample evidence for direct EU support to the promotion and strengthening of better governance in
the Philippines with a particular focus on transparency, accountability and corruption in a number of
key areas: access to justice for the poor, fight against corruption, human rights, border management
and fight against money laundering. Regional and global projects have focused on illegal migration,
fight against human trafficking, and urban management and governance. Overall, EU support for the
promotion and strengthening of better governance has been – to about equal degrees - the result of
first, projects which directly focussed on improving governance through capacity-building and other
means and, second, the mainstreaming of governance in all other programmes. Governance has
been addressed as a cross-cutting issue in all sector programmes, particularly health and trade and to
a lesser extent rural development. Generally, the EU is seen as having been particularly successful in
linking “human rights and corruption”. Due to the ECs and (also UNDP’s) efforts there is now political
high level commitment to this agenda.
In line with the Philippine Government’s Medium Term Development Plan (MTDP), 1999 – 2004 in
which reforming governance was a priority area the CSP 2002-2006 addressed governance with a
focus on achieving a more equitable sharing of responsibilities and resources with local governments
units, reinforcing the partnership with NSAs and private sector and addressing criminality and
corruption. The EU did not opt for governance projects in the 2007-2010 NIP other than the SPF II
and mainstreaming governance in all other programmes, since the large governance projects of the
2006-2006 CSP had only been coming on stream at that time.
In the CSP 2007-2013, support to governance is a non-focal sector with a focus on supporting the
dialogue on governance, and on enhancing the participation and capacities of non-state actors in
such reforms. The EU handbook on promoting good governance recognizes six major governance
clusters: support for democratisation; promotion and protection of human rights; reinforcement of
the rule of law and the administration of justice; enhancement of the role of civil society and its
capacity building; public administration reform, management of public finances and civil service
reform; decentralisation and local government reform / capacity building. In the Philippines the EU
has supported governance through bilateral projects in a number of key areas within these clusters:
access to justice for the poor, fight against corruption, border management, fight against money
laundering, support to decentralisation policies and promotion of good local governance. Regional
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 54
projects have focused on illegal migration, fight against human trafficking, and urban management
and governance.
The aim of this question is to assess to which extent the EU has contributed to improved governance
both at national and local levels through specific interventions. As governance is covering a broad
panel of issues, the analysis focuses on issues in which the EU has engaged most. Decentralisation
will not be part of the analysis as it is already being covered in the context of health in EQ 2.
The JC 5.1 focuses on EU contribution towards improved governance at the programming /
formulation phases while JC 5.2 focuses on the implementation and evaluation phases. JC 5.3
concentrates on capacity building activities and JC 5.4 assesses main effects on the certain relevant
clusters of governance addressed by the cooperation programme (e.g. anti-corruption measures;
dialogues with Government; empowerment of civil society etc.).
Methodologically this EQ is based on several hundred documents, including project documentation,
monitoring and evaluation reports, minutes of meetings, press releases and other written material,
as well as stakeholder interviews (both individual interviews and group discussions) with EU officials
in Brussels and Manila, Philippine government officials, CSO and NGO workers, and representatives
of EU Member States and both EU and non-EU donor organisations.
4.5.1 Findings by JC
4.5.1.1 Strategic documents and project designs identify and analyse relevant governance issues
The CSP 2002-2006 introduced governance as a cross-cutting issue and discusses governance in
detail throughout the strategy as does the CSP 2007-2013. Generally, project/programme designs
and the actual implementation of projects give evidence for direct EU support to the promotion and
strengthening of better governance in the Philippines with a particular focus on transparency,
accountability and corruption in a number of key areas: access to justice for the poor, fight against
corruption, border management and fight against money laundering. Regional and global projects
have focused on illegal migration, fight against human trafficking, and urban management and
governance. The specific focus on governance as a cross-cutting theme was first prominently spelled
out in the NIP 2002-2004 (5.1.1).
Governance issues have explicitly been addressed and/or taken into account in both project design
and implementation of the following interventions:
Health Sector Policy Support Programme (HSPSP);
Mindanao Health Sector Policy Support Programme (MHSPSP) TRTA 1 and 2;
Access to Justice for the Poor (AJ); Corruption Prevention Project (CPP);
Central Cordillera Agricultural Programme (CECAP);
Philippine Border Management Project (PBMP)
Anti-Money Laundering Project
Mindanao Trust Fund (MTF); and the
MTF Reconstruction and Development Program (MTF-RDP) (5.1.2).
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 55
However, while governance-related risks to implementation are now routinely identified in project
and programme documents, they tend to be formulated in a rather sketchy way confined mainly to
elite capture of benefits and corruption and in the specific case of Mindanao, a break down in the
peace talks that could result in a significant escalation of violence. For example in the case of the
Corruption Prevention Project (CPP), the project design phase did not anticipate significant risks
which began to manifest themselves in the project implementation phase. There is generally
insufficient reflection on the extensive patronage networks and clientelism in Philippine politics – not
just at the national but also at the local level - that potentially hamper outcomes/results and impact
of projects in all sectors (5.1.3).
4.5.1.2 During implementation, EU sector cooperation programmes have integrated major issues
of governance
Governance has been taken into account as a cross-cutting issue in all sector programmes,
particularly health and trade and to a lesser extent rural development. However, the effectiveness of
governance-related project activities is difficult to assess due to the absence of clear monitoring
indicators at the macro (state) level. Most monitoring and evaluation reports present anecdotal
evidence to prove effectiveness of governance mainstreaming (5.2.1). Interviews with both
government and CSO stakeholders confirmed the existence of this challenge. The lack of appropriate
monitoring of governance indicators and/or lack of coordination on governance monitoring is a
general problem that was stressed in interviews by all stakeholder groups (GoP, EU, CSO, other
donors). NEDA considers the vastly different approaches to monitoring among donors as a major
challenge. At the same time, leading NGOs with a track record of monitoring governance, such as the
Social Weather Stations (SWS), point out the fact that neither GoP nor donors sufficiently take
reputable NGO studies and surveys on governance into account. On a few occasions NGOs have
participated in the monitoring of governance indicators at the local level in the context of EU-funded
projects – for example the Social Weather Stations (SWS) in the Province La Union – but this is far
from being a regular and systematic approach (5.2.3).
Access to Justice for the Poor (AJ) and the Corruption Prevention Project (CPP) deserve particular
attention as they promoted governance issues in a direct way. The ‘Final Evaluation of Governance
Bilateral Project for the Philippines’ *sic+ concluded that the CPP had noticeable success. Among
these were the social marketing activities of Component 3, which aimed to raise awareness of
corruption in the Philippines. However, outcomes/results of interventions that are targeted directly
at improving governance are to a great extent dependent on the commitment of national
counterparts. For example, support for good governance in NEDA is fragmented. And cooperation
with the Office of the Ombudsman has risen and fallen with the quality of the actual
Ombudsman/woman in charge. All donors with a good governance agenda face a similar problem in
identifying the most suitable partner(s) for such interventions. There is no clear answer to the
question as to whether projects in direct support of good governance should mainly involve
government stakeholders or CSO. Against the backdrop of the uncertainties involved in achieving
significant results through direct good governance projects, the EU made the right decision not to
include governance projects in the 2007-2010 NIP (other than the SPF II) since the large governance
projects of the 2006-2006 CSP had only been coming on stream at that time.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 56
Donor Coordination on Governance
During both the desk phase and the field stay clear evidence could be found for the existence of
networking and multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms. According to detailed information
provided by the EU in the External Assistance Management Reports (EAMRs) the promotion of
coordinated cooperation occurs at the Governance and Anti-corruption Working Group of the PDF, at
specific platforms such as the Supreme Court-led donors’ group or the Anti-Money Laundering
donors group, organised by the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Council. The EU has also sought
coordination with other major stakeholders where there is no Government-led group (e.g. Philippine
Border Management Project, where EU has convened coordination meetings with AUSAID and
USAID). However, beyond a general commitment to networking, monitoring and evaluation reports
and interviews revealed little about attempts to coordinate projects of different donors in the same
sector. For example it is unclear if and to what extent project activities as part of the two
governance-focused projects AJ and CPP were coordinated with the pro-governance efforts of other
donors. It seems that CPP was not coordinated with the ABD- and OECD-funded National Anti-
Corruption Program of Action (NACPA, 2006-2008). Both CPP and NACPA were implemented by the
Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) (5.2.2).
An important aspect of this JC relates to the extent with which management systems and tools of EU
financed interventions take governance issues into account. In other words: does the EU set a good
example for transparency, accountability and anti-corruption? There can be no doubts whatsoever
that EU projects have followed strict procurement rules to guarantee transparency and
accountability and minimize the risk of graft and corruption. The MTF has been exemplary in linking
good governance criteria with project management: economic and social recovery is assisted by the
provision of grants to barangays/communities and municipalities for sub-projects, where access to
funding is contingent on compliance with defined sub-project appraisal criteria requiring socially
inclusive planning, equitable access to benefits, contributions towards capital and
operation/maintenance costs and observance of technical and safeguard policy standards. Among
both government and CSO stakeholders EU rules and procedures are seen as very rigorous, even
‘tedious’, and time-consuming to deal with when it comes to grant applicants, project
administration/management and reporting. However, these high EU standards (on procurement etc.)
set a good example for good governance as they increase transparency and accountability and
reduce the risk of corruption (5.2.4).
4.5.1.3 Strengthened capacity of institutions including local government units, decentralised
public agencies, the Judiciary and NGOs.
Needs analyses for the capacity building of local government units, decentralised public agencies, the
Judiciary and NGOs have evidently taken place in the case of the governance-related capacity
building projects CPP and AJ and also with regard to HSPEP, Bureau of Customs (BoC) within TRTA 1,
the Anti-Money Laundering Project and the Philippine Border Management Project (5.3.1).
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 57
Training and Capacity Building: output versus effectiveness
There can be little doubt about the fact that all governance-related interventions have performed
exceptionally well at the output level (x number of officials trained...). Training has indeed been
provided at different levels both with regard to government agencies and civil society organisations.
Government stakeholders include the Supreme Court and Municipal Courts, the Philippine National
Police and the Philippine National Police Academy, the Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
However, in many cases capacity-building seems to be seen as an end in itself. This is also the view of
national stakeholders and counterparts, including NEDA. Or as one government official put it “We are
drowning in training” (5.3.2).
The assessment gets more difficult when it moves beyond the output-level towards the effectiveness
of capacity building. Has the capacity of Non-state Actors/ LGUs to participate in policy dialogue,
programme implementation and advocacy been enhanced? This has evidently been achieved in the
case of CPP and CECAP. Apart from these two projects, evidence is sketchy though ( 5.3.3).
Participants of the country dissemination seminar strongly agreed with these findings. A senior
government official argued the urgent need to cross-validate and reconcile the differing capacity
building approaches of the EU and other donors and re-align and synchronize these activities with
the priorities of the LGUs. The DILG/ LGU Local Development Academy are willing to provide support
to these initiatives of converging capacity building and training on social development and poverty
reduction initiatives at the LGU level. Specifically, the official emphasized the need to look into the
correlation of governance capacity indicators vis-à-vis sectoral development objectives, for example
in the health sector, rural development or education sectors.
4.5.1.4 Progress made in the major clusters supported through EU programmes
A combination of horizontal and thematic instruments has been used to engage with civil society in
the Philippines in a variety of governance processes, including monitoring of the decentralisation
process, human rights and labour standards. These programmes have made an important
contribution to the empowerment of civil society organisations and improvements to their
operational capacity. Results (in terms of targeted actions resulting from dialogue with NSA and
LGUs) in the field of human rights are particularly noteworthy. The pro-active role of EU in human
rights issues, especially on the issue of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances and the
abolition of the death penalty stands out as an area where significant progress could be achieved
(5.4.1).
The governance dialogue has also increased EU visibility and Philippine awareness of European
perspective on governance issues (5.4.2). The Corruption Prevention Project (CPP) was the first
comprehensive anti-corruption public education programme in the Philippines and resulted in an
important increase in EU visibility with regard to the anti-corruption agenda. The Small Projects
Facility (renamed Strategic Project Facility SPF) also proved to be an appropriate tool to support
small, innovative and visible projects in areas of strategic importance for the Philippines and the EU,
and has generated considerable interest on part of both State and non-State actors. The EU has been
able to gain strong visibility on human rights, particularly on the abolition of the death penalty. In the
case of the Anti-Money Laundering project there have been positive developments in terms of
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 58
increased activity in anti-money laundering (investigations, prosecutions, etc). Good EU visibility with
regards to governance is not only due to mainstreaming of governance and direct project support in
the cooperation programme but also the result of high-profile and well-coordinated EU political
statements and initiatives among the different European stakeholders in the country; e.g. the EU MS
Embassies and EU Delegation.
National anti-corruption efforts have gained momentum at least partly due to EU intervention
although it is impossible to quantify the EU contribution. Successes could also be the result of other
donor projects including the ABD/OECD funded National Anti-Corruption Program of Action (NACPA)
since both CPP and NACPA were implemented by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). In 2007, the
Sandiganbayan (anti-graft court) convicted 103 public officials, more than doubling the cumulative
convictions of corrupt government officials since 2005. At the same time there have been annual
increases in the conviction rate in corruption cases of government officials. For example, the
conviction rate rose to 40 % in 2007 from 33 % in 2005. However, a culture of impunity, stemming in
part from a case backlog in the judicial system, hampers the fight against corruption. More high-
profile cases have been filed in recent years, and several civic organisations have emerged to combat
corruption, but cases take an average of six to seven years to be resolved in the Sandiganbayan
anticorruption court (5.4.3).
Improvements can also be found with regard to government procurement. EU funding contributed to
these advances mainly through the ASEM Trust Fund and the CPP (5.4.4). The World Bank, through
its ASEM Trust Fund grant facility, provided the seed money to establish Procurement Watch (PWI)
as an NGO to advocate for a new procurement law and to monitor enforcement of the law after it
was enacted. In 2003, PWI’s advocacy efforts assisted passage by the national legislature of a new
procurement law – perhaps the first time in the country’s history that a civil society group
successfully advocated for a law on a subject that required a high degree of technical expertise. The
CPP was instrumental in the training of procurement monitors and observers and successfully put in
place a cadre of people competent to work on corruption prevention in a critical area.
According to the 2009 SWS Surveys on Corruption (the most authoritative and respected survey on
this topic in the Philippines) the proportion of surveyed enterprises saying that “most/almost
companies in my line of business give bribes to win public sector contracts” declined from 54% in
2005 to 48% in 2009.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 59
Figure 7 Perception of Public Sector corruption in the Philippines
Source: Transparent Accountable Governance: The 2009 SWS Surveys on Corruption,
Mahar Mangahas., Social Weather Stations. A presentation for the “Forum on the SWS
2009 Surveys of Enterprises on Corruption and Anti-Corruption Strategies” 19 February
2010, Makati City.
Governance and the PDF
Governance issues clearly received enhanced attention as the results of the EU’s role in the PDF. The
PDF, as an institution, has evolved from the Consultative Group Meetings of Development Partners.
The PDF is organised into seven sub-working groups representing key thematic policy issues,
including governance and anti-corruption, central to the reform efforts of GoP. The EU is the only
PDF member that participates in all working groups and plays a “highly visible role” in the forum,
according to documentary evidence (EAMRs and first interviews). The EU has played a key role in
anti-corruption coordination, particularly in the area of anti-corruption and need for more rule of law
for the poor, and is described as a very vocal (and well heard) donor in the Governance Working
Group. The EU has also been the most outspoken of the PDF stakeholders on limiting factors to good
governance, including corruption. In their written statements to the 2008 PDF only the World Bank,
USAID and the EU addressed corruption, with the EU being the most critical.
However, there are currently two shortcomings of the PDF process. First, there has not been a
general PDF meeting since 2008. While some PDF sub-working groups (for example on sustainable
rural development) live a life on their own and seem to be working efficiently but others (on
governance and PFM) suffer from a lack of interest/steer from the government. Second, there is no
focus on local government PFM in the PDF constituting a clear gap in addressing governance issues
(5.4.5).
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 60
4.5.2 Synthesised EQ Answer
The designs of interventions and the actual implementation of projects provide evidence for direct
EU support to the promotion and strengthening of better governance in the Philippines. The
particular focus has been on transparency, accountability and corruption in a number of key areas:
access to justice for the poor, fight against corruption, human rights, border management and fight
against money laundering. Regional and global projects have focused on illegal migration, fight
against human trafficking, and urban management and governance. Overall, EU support for the
promotion and strengthening of better governance has been – to about equal degrees - the result of
first, projects which directly focussed on improving governance through capacity-building and other
means and, second, the mainstreaming of governance in all other programmes. Governance has
been addressed as a cross-cutting issue in all sector programmes, particularly health and trade and to
a lesser extent rural development. Generally, the EU is seen as having been especially successful in
linking “human rights and corruption”. Due to the ECs and (also UNDP’s) efforts there is now political
high level commitment to this agenda.
All focal areas were well identified and selected in line with the Philippines’ development needs and
there is no evidence of any gross misjudgements in terms of assessing relevance or even failure of
projects or major projects components. All governance-related interventions have performed
outstandingly at the output level. Training has been provided at different levels both with regard to
government agencies and civil society organisations. Government stakeholders include the Supreme
Court and Municipal Courts, the Philippine National Police and the Philippine National Police
Academy, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Social Welfare
and Development (DSWD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). At the same time it is important that
capacity-building is not seen as an end.
It can safely be concluded that the vast majority of interventions have achieved significant
results/outcomes and effectiveness. However, results vary across the spectrum of projects and in
some cases ‘attribution gaps’ are hard to ignore. At the same time it is important to note that the EU
managed to establish high visibility (both vis-à-vis GoP and other donors) in some key areas of
governance, including human rights and the anti-corruption agenda, and emerged as the key
stakeholder in the Philippine Development Forum (PDF).
One of the main challenges in achieving tangible results and impact through governance-related
projects is the largely diffuse and uncoordinated nature of anti-corruption efforts in the Philippines.
Lack of coordination leads to gaps and overlaps in anti-corruption policy development, enforcement
and system improvement. This is also means that there is only very limited performance tracking to
determine how far the country has come in achieving its anti-corruption goals and objectives. At the
same time EU projects have tried to introduce and establish their own approaches to the monitoring
of governance-related lessons learned indicators, including but not limited to such approaches in
projects under the umbrellas of SPF, CPP, HSPSP and MTF-RDP.
4.5.3 Conclusions
1. The EU enjoys high visibility and credibility with regard to governance particularly concerning
to the anti-corruption and human rights agenda (abolition of the death penalty). This is due
to a) high-profile and well-coordinated EU political statements and initiatives among the EU
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 61
Member States’ Embassies and the EU Delegation and b) mainstreaming of governance and
direct project support in the cooperation programme. High priority.
2. EU support for the promotion and strengthening of better governance has been most
effective where it went beyond general awareness raising an training/capacity-building and
directly addressed existing challenges and bottlenecks: customs, Ombudsman, and
strengthening the monitoring/watchdog capabilities and opportunities of CSO; strengthening
of participatory and transparent political decision-making at the local level. High priority.
3. High EU standards on transparency on accountability in the project implementation,
(procurement etc.) set a good example for good governance as they reduce the risk of
corruption. Medium priority
4. Government-focused projects as part of both bilateral and regional programmes as well as
thematic budget lines have performed strongly at the output level ‘but there are insufficient
attempts at monitoring and assessing outcomes/result. In many cases capacity-building
seems to be seen as an end in itself. Medium priority.
5. The existence of formalised coordination mechanisms (PDF and MTF), in which the EU plays a
prominent and visible role, is a positive feature but these forums are not in the position to
synchronize the manifold donor interventions on governance. Some PDF sub-working groups
(for example on sustainable rural development) live a life on their own and seem to be
working efficiently but others (on governance and PFM) suffer from a lack of interest/steer
from the government. Medium priority.
4.5.4 Recommendations
1. More effort should be put into monitoring the effectiveness of training and capacity-building
components of projects in all sectors. It is insufficient to just document the output of these
activities (number of officials trained, etc.). In many cases is not clear how trained
stakeholders (both with regards to Government and Civil Society) use the newly acquired
knowledge and skills within their respective organisations and, thus, how capacity building is
related to overall project outcomes/results. One way of monitoring effectiveness would be
to survey a representative sample of participants in a capacity-building activity six month or a
year after the completion of the activity. From Conclusion 4, high priority.
2. The EU should encourage the inclusion of local government PFM in the PDF process.
Furthermore, It might be time for the PDF to go beyond being a “talking and sharing” forum.
Its proactive role may have to be institutionalised and formally recognised by NEDA and
other agencies such DILG, DPWH, DOH, etc. From Conclusions 1 and 2, medium priority.
3. In close collaboration with the Philippine Government the EU should consider initiating a
more formalised approach towards the coordination of governance-related projects among
donors. While informal exchanges and network-building takes place, there is an inherent risk
of duplicating efforts towards better governance in the absence of institutionalised co-
ordination mechanisms. The existing fora, such as the PDF, are not yet in the position to
facilitate such mechanism. From Conclusion 5, medium priority.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 62
4.6 EQ6 – To what extent was the EU’s mix of financing instruments and aid modalities
appropriate to the national context and EU cooperation objectives?
Summary: By and large, the EU’s mix of financing instruments and aid modalities has been
appropriate to the national context and EU cooperation objectives. The EU cooperation programme
during the assessment period has been closely aligned with GoP policies with regard to poverty,
health, rural development, governance and trade. We have not found any striking contradictions
between EU priorities and strategies and GoP policy-making. A comparative analysis of monitoring
and evaluation reports as well as stakeholder interviews show that the mix of instruments has been
conducive for the cooperation programme.
The mix of financing instruments and aid modalities chosen for the cooperation programme may
have significant influence on the relevance and efficiency of the programme’s implementation. The
choice is a strategic one, and should take into account the national context, programme priorities
and potential avenues to achieve them, as well as a careful consideration of actors’ capacity and the
advantages / disadvantages of employing single instruments and aid modalities, or of even
combining them.
The focus of the evaluation question is on the mix of instruments and aid modalities chosen during
the evaluation period in terms of relevance, coherence, efficiency and EU added value. JC 6.1
investigates the extent to which approaches were consistent with the needs and capacities of
implementing partners; JC 6.2 examines the extent to which the mix promotes efficiency; and JC 6.3
looks at the extent to which the mix allows for potential EU added value.
This EQ draws on the findings of the other EQs as well as extensive documentation as provided by
the EU and other donors in addition to interviews with EU officials, EU MS Embassies and other
donor organisations.
4.6.1 Findings by JC
4.6.1.1 The extent to which approaches were consistent with the needs and capacities of the
implementing partners
The EU cooperation programme during the assessment period has been closely aligned with GoP
policies with regard to poverty, health, rural development, governance and trade. We have not found
any striking contradictions between EU priorities and strategies and GoP policy-making. The
assessment gets more difficult when it comes to the cooperation programme’s alignment with GoP
processes and systems. It could be argued that some GoP processes and systems were not conducive
for efficient and effective project implementation and therefore slowed down implementation. For
example, in the case of TRTA II procurement is not under EU procurement rules due to an
incompatibility of the EU’s and GoP’s respective systems (6.1.1).
Overall, dialogue with GoP has been described as good at national, sector, and project levels.
Evidence of good consultations with GoP during the CSP preparation process is also present.
Promotion of GoP ownership/leadership is highest in fields where the cooperation agenda as such is
uncontroversial, e.g. where GoP and EU do not differ on objectives, project designs and
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 63
implementation modalities and, equally important, all relevant national stakeholders involved do
agree on the ‘direction of travel’. Here, the prime example is trade. Under the umbrella of TRTA the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) took the ownership to redesign the WTO training activities to
address the fundamental needs of trade negotiators. We also found clear evidence for the promotion
of LGU’s ownership in project implementation. With the exception of STARCM, all projects from the
start have been implemented in close cooperation with the LGUs and using regular and intensive
dialogue mechanisms (on project planning and implementation, on the involvement of LGUs, e.g.
financially, in project activities,) as these LGUs that formed intrinsically part of the project approach.
At the same time the promotion of GoP ownership and leadership at LGU level is often hampered by
a fragmentation of activities and a lack of coordination or even communication among different
government agencies (6.1.2).
Monitoring Reports, mid-term reviews and final programme/project evaluations as well as interviews
provide clear evidence that existing capacities (at at least at the start of a project) are insufficient to
facilitate smooth implementation and regularly single out LGUs in this regard. In the case of the
governance projects serious concerns have been voiced about the capacities of some GoP partners to
implement projects in line with EU rules and procedures. Furthermore, LGU capacities and
capabilities are more often than not directly related to the personal role of the chief executive and
other key stakeholders. Often, local development planning (barangay development plans) is not to
the required standard and often resembles more a “wish lists” than sound planning. Not enough
attention is given to the sustainability of interventions at LGU level (for example improvement to
institutionalised participatory, transparent and efficient local decision-making processes aimed at the
achievement of localised MDGs).
Weak partner capacities have led to a situation that projects need to provide appropriate – and often
high - funding to strengthen implementing capacities. Overall, however, one cannot generalise. The
capacity level of partners does not follow a strict pattern. In the case of STARCM, for example, the
capacities of POs to plan, implement and maintain projects varied heavily from one Agrarian Reform
Community (ARC) to another (6.1.3).
In a broader sense of assessing NGOs and CSO as partner organisations we find that a combination of
horizontal and thematic instruments has been conducive to engage with civil society in the
Philippines in a variety of governance processes, including monitoring of the decentralisation
process, human rights and labour standards. This, in turn, has formed an important contribution to
project implementation as monitoring of key indicators is a significant part of pro-governance
interventions. It should also be mentioned here that – in a focus group meeting – CSOs, expressed
their satisfaction with the scope and quality of EU-CSOs consultations that took place prior to the
drafting of the CSP 2007-2013 and in the process of the Mid Term Review (and planning for the NIP
2010-2013) in 2009 (6.1.5).
4.6.1.2 The mix of financing instruments and aid modalities promotes efficiency
As a starting point we looked at the comparative assessment of different instruments according to
monitoring and evaluation reports and found that the mix of instruments had been conducive for the
cooperation programme. For example a combination of horizontal and thematic instruments has
been used to engage with civil society in a variety of governance processes, thereby empowering and
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 64
improving the operational capacity of civil society organisations. This positive finding of the desk
report was confirmed during the field phase (6.2.1).
Based on our assessments under EQ1, 2, and 3 we conclude that the EU can legitimately claim to
have been working towards achieved synergies between EU support to health and support to the
delivery of other social services, including education, as well as to extension of social protection
coverage where possible, as prescribed in the MIP 2007-2010 (6.2.2). Significant overlap or
duplication among EU interventions seems to have largely been avoided, with the exception of some
bilateral and regional projects in the trade sector, as outlined under EQ 4 (6.2.3).
Efficiency Scorings
The efficiency scorings in the ROM system paint a positive picture overall. 31 Monitoring Reports
have been consulted. In the overwhelming majority of cases (21) a B score (good) was awarded; in 3
cases the efficiency score was A (very good), in 5 cases C (problems) and in 2 cases D (serious
deficiencies). Those that achieved A scores were CASCADE in 2000 and 2002 respectively and the
Upland Development Programme in Southern Mindanao (UDP) in 2002. Most C scores and the two D
scores were confined to the governance projects. The most frequently factors that led of
downgrading on efficiency were difficulties drafting tendering documentation living up to EU
requirements and extensive tendering procedures;
inputs are not provided and available on time to implement activities;
difficulties of forming sub-projects, contracting, implementing through local
partners/participants, meeting EU regulations, closing contracts;
GoP procurement regulations;
weak implementing capabilities of LGU; and
problems with the project management (6.2.4).
As for coordination mechanisms between donors (division of labour under the EU Code of Conduct),
there can be little doubt that information sharing and coordination among donors, e.g. between EU
and MS; EU Delegation and MS Embassies; between EU and non-European donors, takes place. This
was confirmed in stakeholder interviews with EU MS Embassies, non-EU embassies such as Australia
as well as UNDP, WB, ADB, GTZ and other donor/implementing organisations. The EAMRs provide
ample evidence for – in many cases EU-initiated – coordination in all cooperation sectors as
described in great detail under Indicator 6.2.5 in Vol. 2. However, no real effort is made by neither
the EU nor MS to publicly present any existing attempts for coordination and complementarity of the
respective cooperation programmes. Neither the website of the EU Delegation in Manila nor the
website of the main MS Embassies present any information on potential cooperation or synergies
between the EU and respective MS in the Philippines. None of the websites features links to
information on the cooperation programme or projects of other EU stakeholders. Furthermore, we
should not blind ourselves to the fact that the specific dynamics of MS’s national interests towards
the Philippines, the financial volume of bilateral programmes that often change significantly from
year to year, different instruments of aid delivery as well as changing priorities in development
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 65
cooperation in general at the level of MS limit long- or even mid-term strategic planning and division
of labour under the EU Code of Conduct.
4.6.1.3 Extent to which the combination of financing instruments and aid modalities allowed the
EU to exploit its particular comparative advantage based on the European Consensus on
Development (e.g. Policy Coherence for Development/PCD, best practice, harmonisation,
values and participation)
The key role that the EU plays in the PDF points in the direction of a privileged position and this was
confirmed by other donors and PDF participants. There is indication that GoP strongly values the EU
as a dialog partner in the field of governance. The Corruption Prevention Project (CPP) was the first
comprehensive anti-corruption public education programme in the Philippines and resulted in an
important increase in EU visibility and donor status with regard to the national anti-corruption
agenda. The Small Projects Facility (renamed Strategic Project Facility SPF) also proved to be an
appropriate tool to support small, innovative and visible projects in areas of strategic importance for
the Philippines and the EU, and has generated considerable interest on part of both State and non-
State actors. The EU has been able to gain strong visibility and the respect of many state and non-
state actors on human rights, particularly on the abolition of the death penalty (6.3.1).
As already outlined under EQ1, we can conclude that in the Philippines, as elsewhere, the EU has
moved from a project approach to sector –based support and participation in multi-donor initiatives
including trust funds, in line with its Paris Declaration commitments. The rich mix of approaches and
instruments that has been used has been conducive to strengthening the effectiveness of the
cooperation programme. Looking at the efficiency and effectiveness scores of the ROM system there
does not seem to be any correlation between a specific aid instruments and the efficiency and
effectiveness of implementation. Rather, both the degree of efficiency and effectiveness is primarily
related to the capabilities of partner organisations (in addition to PMUs) (6.3.2)
4.6.2 Synthesised EQ Answer
The simple and straightforward answer to this EQ is that, by and large, the EU’s mix of financing
instruments and aid modalities has been appropriate to the national context and EU cooperation
objectives.
The EU cooperation programme during the assessment period has been closely aligned with GoP
policies with regard to poverty, health, rural development, governance and trade. We have not found
any striking contradictions between EU priorities and strategies and GoP policy-making. A
comparative analysis of monitoring and evaluation reports as well as stakeholder interviews show
that the mix of instruments has been conducive for the cooperation programme. For example a
combination of horizontal and thematic instruments has been used to engage with civil society in a
variety of governance processes, thereby empowering and improving the operational capacity of civil
society organisations. Furthermore, significant overlaps or duplication among EU interventions
seems to have largely been avoided, with the exception of some bilateral and regional projects in the
trade sector. The efficiency scorings in the ROM system also show a predominantly positive picture
of the cooperation programme. The key role that the EU plays in the Philippine Development Forum
(PDF) points in the direction of a privileged position of the EU among donors but more views and
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 66
perceptions need to be gathered to come to any conclusive findings. At the same time we found
clear evidence that GoP strongly values the EU as a dialog partner in the field of governance.
We find that Institutionalised (formal) and informal coordination mechanisms exist in virtually all
cooperation sectors and in relations between both the EU and EU Member States and the EU and
non-European donors. Simply put: the EU Delegation and MS Embassies/donor implementing
agencies do their best to achieve aid delivery in a collaborative effort. However, the specific
dynamics of MS’s national interests towards the Philippines, the financial volume of bilateral
programmes that often change significantly from year to year, different instruments of aid delivery
as well as changing priorities in development cooperation in general at the level of MS limit long- or
even mid-term strategic planning and division of labour under the EU Code of Conduct. At the same
time neither the EU nor MS make sufficient efforts to publicly present their attempts at coordination
and achieving complementarity of the respective cooperation programmes.
The EU has undoubtedly played a key role in the PDF and GoP strongly values the EU as a dialog
partner in the field of governance. However, there is not much evidence available that would allow
us to conclude that the EU is a privileged dialogue partner relative to other partners such as EU MS,
the US, Australia, Japan etc. No consistent picture emerged during the field phase. While most
government stakeholders claimed that the EU was a preferred partner, it was easy to sense that
interviewees were careful not to make any negative comments about the EU particularly in situations
when EU Delegation officials were present at individual or group interviews.
4.6.3 Conclusions
1. The EU’s mix of financing instruments and aid modalities has been appropriate to the
national context and EU cooperation objectives. High priority.
2. There are no striking contradictions between EU priorities and strategies and GoP policy-
making. High priority.
3. EU interventions clearly promote GoP ownership and leadership at LGU level but this is often
hampered by a fragmentation of activities and a lack of coordination or even communication
among different government agencies. Medium priority.
4. LGU capacities and capabilities are more often than not directly related to the personal role
of the chief executive and other key stakeholders. Often, local development planning
(barangay development plans) is not to the required standard (“wish lists”). Not enough
attention is given to the sustainability of interventions at LGU level (for example
improvement to institutionalised participatory, transparent and efficient local decision-
making processes aimed at the achievement of localised MDGs). Medium priority.
5. EU dialogue with civil society on strategy and CS involvement in the cooperation programme
itself is seen as exemplary (positive feedback in focus group). The series of MTR consultations
that the EU Delegation held with CSOs in 2009 is a case in point. Medium priority.
6. Overlap or duplication among EU interventions has been avoided, with the exception of
some bilateral and regional projects in the trade sector. Medium priority.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 67
7. Institutionalised (formal) and informal coordination mechanisms exist in virtually all
cooperation sectors and in relations between both the EU and EU Member States and the EU
and non-European donors. However, the specific dynamics of MS’s national interests
towards the Philippines, the financial volume of bilateral programmes that often change
significantly from year to year as well as other factors limit strategic planning and division of
labour under the EU Code of Conduct. Low priority.
4.6.4 Recommendations
1. The flexibility in the process of project implementation and allocation of funds should be
increased to enable stakeholders to respond to sudden changes in framework conditions or
to emerging needs. The rapid response facility of TRTAII provides a good example and model
in this regard. From Conclusions 3 and 5, medium priority.
2. An organisation’s web presence is its window to the world. Visibility is increasingly linked to
information provided on the internet. It is important that the EU Delegation’s website is
regularly updated and refreshed. Currently, several links are broken and data and project
information are not current in many cases. It is equally important that both the Delegation’s
website and EU Member States’ websites feature cross-references and links to each others’
projects. From Conclusion 7, high priority.
3. The involvement of civil society organisations in strategy consultations is already exemplary.
It should be considered to increase the frequency of official interactions between the EU
Delegation and CSOs, for example in form of an annual dialogue forum. From Conclusion 5,
low priority.
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 68
5 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The evaluation has given rise to six general conclusions in decreasing order of priority. The conclusions are linked, in turn, to seven general recommendations
(sector-specific conclusions and recommendations are given in the main text). These are:
General Conclusions
General Recommendations
1. The EU programme has been highly relevant to poverty reduction in the
Philippines. However, several nuances or points of attenuation have emerged.
For example, the main projects on rural development did not engage in
analysing structures and mechanisms perpetuating poverty. High priority.
1. To EU headquarters and EU Delegation: Projects aiming at reducing
poverty should carefully address who they are actually reaching and with
what effect, and devise well elaborated systems that are able to monitor
progress in terms of poverty reduction on a regular basis. High priority.
2. Although the start of the EU support to HSPSP was slow and it took time to
match sector budget support with the context of decentralisation, the TA has
invested capacity and succeeded in several provinces. In a similar vein, the
MHSPSP has contributed fully to the EU’s poverty reduction objective. High
priority.
2. To EU headquarters and EU Delegation: Using its access to the Government
and existing dialogue mechanisms, the EU should consider assisting GoP in
improving governance in the health sector and increasing participation of civil
society and private sector involvement. Both can be attained through more
efficient local health systems based on Inter-Local Health Zones and
partnerships with the private sector. Medium priority.
3. The EU enjoys high visibility and credibility with regard to governance
particularly concerning to the anti-corruption and human rights agenda.
Medium priority.
3. To EU headquarters and EU Delegation: Both projects in direct support of
governance and the practise of mainstreaming governance in all cooperation
sectors should continue. Giving prominent attention to good governance as a
cross-cutting issue and making sure that all projects have a strong and direct
focus on governance issues is as important and potentially effective as explicit
governance projects. Both approaches work best in tandem. High priority.
4. EU dialogue with civil society on strategy and CS involvement in the 4. To EU Delegation: The involvement of civil society organisations in strategy
Evaluation of the European Commission Cooperation with the Philippines
DRN-ADE-PARTICIP-DIE-ODI-EIAS- ICEI
Final Report June 2011 Page 69
cooperation programme itself is seen as exemplary. The series of MTR
consultations that the EU Delegation held with CSOs in 2009 is a case in point.
Medium priority.
consultations is already exemplary. It should be considered to increase the
frequency of official interactions between the EU Delegation and CSOs, for
example in form of an annual dialogue forum. Low priority.
5. Projects as part of both bilateral and regional programmes as well as
thematic budget lines have had a strong focus on training and capacity-
building and have performed strongly at the output level. However, there are
insufficient attempts at monitoring and assessing outcomes/result of capacity-
building. In many cases capacity-building seems to be seen as an end in itself.
Medium priority.
5. To EU Delegation: More effort should be put into monitoring the
effectiveness of training and capacity-building components of projects in all
sectors. It is insufficient to just document the output of these activities
(number of officials trained, etc.). In many cases, it is not clear how trained
stakeholders (both with regards to Government and Civil Society) use the
newly acquired knowledge and skills within their respective organisations and,
thus, how capacity building is related to overall project outcomes/results.
High priority.
6. Overall the Philippines is in a better and stronger position to participate in
international trade than at the beginning of the evaluation period in 2002.
However, synergies between and among the bilateral EU-Cooperation
cooperation programme and regional EU-ASEAN projects only exist to a
limited extent and coordination mechanisms are not formally institutionalised.
Low priority.
6. To EU headquarters and EU Delegation: The formalising and
institutionalisation of project coordination between bilateral EU-Philippines
and regional EU-ASEAN programmes/projects should be considered to achieve
more synergies between bilateral and regional interventions that address
similar sectors. High priority.