PAKISAMA-CSA Project Mid-Term external evaluationcsa-be.org/IMG/pdf/pakisama-csa_proj_mid-term_external... · 2020. 5. 4. · DSWD DTI Department of Social Welfare and Development

Diana D. Arboleda

PAKISAMA-CSA PROJECT MID-TERM EXTERNAL

EVALUATION 2019

PAKISAMA-CSA Project Mid-Term External Evaluation 2019 1

Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ 3

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................. 6

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................. 6

1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 7

2. Introduction and Rationale of the Mid-term External Evaluation ...................................................... 9

3. Evaluation Process .............................................................................................................................. 11

3.1. Evaluation Objectives .................................................................................................................. 11

3.2. Evaluation Process ....................................................................................................................... 11

3.3. Methodologies and Tools of Analysis .......................................................................................... 13

3.4. Limitation of the Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 15

4. Presentation of Data and Analysis ..................................................................................................... 15

4.1. Project Accomplishments ............................................................................................................ 16

4.1.1. Outcome Result ................................................................................................................... 16

4.1.1. Result 1 ................................................................................................................................ 20

4.1.2. Result 2 ................................................................................................................................ 37

4.1.3. Result 3 ................................................................................................................................ 43

4.1.4. Other Considerations .......................................................................................................... 48

4.1.5. Observed Changes vis-a-vis the Project’s Theory of Change .............................................. 49

4.2. Factors that Contributed and Limited the Success of Project Implementation .......................... 53

4.2.1. Contributing Factors ............................................................................................................ 53

4.2.2. Limiting Factors ................................................................................................................... 54

4.3. Status of Fund Utilization and Management .............................................................................. 55

4.3.1. Budget Allocation ................................................................................................................ 55

4.3.2. Expenditure Rate ................................................................................................................. 57

4.3.3. Project Financial Management ............................................................................................ 58

4.4. Project Management ................................................................................................................... 59

4. Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................................. 62

4.1. Relevance .................................................................................................................................... 63

4.2. Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................ 64

4.3. Efficiency ..................................................................................................................................... 65

4.4. Sustainability ............................................................................................................................... 65

4.5. Gender ......................................................................................................................................... 66

4.6. Climate Change ............................................................................................................................ 67

4.7. Lessons of Stakeholders .............................................................................................................. 67

4.7.1. Cooperative Members ......................................................................................................... 67


5.7.2. Cooperative Chairpersons and Managers ........................................................................... 67

5.7.3. Cooperative Partners ........................................................................................................... 68

5.7.4. PAKISAMA Secretariat/Donors ............................................................................................ 68

6. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 70

6.1. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 70

6.1.1. Achievement of objectives .................................................................................................. 70

6.1.2. Relevance of PAKISAMA Approach and partnership between CSA and PAKISAMA ........... 71

6.1.3. Factors Affecting Project Success and Failure ..................................................................... 72

6.2. Recommendations by Primary Actors and Partners ................................................................... 73

4.1. Consultants’ Recommendations.................................................................................................. 79

6.3.1. Overall Project Implementation .......................................................................................... 79

6.3.2. Capacity Building ................................................................................................................. 80

6.3.3. Network Building or Federation Work ................................................................................ 80

6.3.4. Business/ Enterprise Financing ............................................................................................ 81

6.3.5. Project Management ........................................................................................................... 81

6.3.6. Project Financial Management ............................................................................................ 84

Annexes ....................................................................................................................................................... 85

Annex 1: Terms of Reference ...................................................................................................................... 85

Annex 2: KII and FGD Questionnaires ......................................................................................................... 90

Annex 3 – FGD Participants and KII Respondents ..................................................................................... 107

Annex 4: Status of Fund Utilization ........................................................................................................... 111

Annex 4.1. Approved versus Actual Budget, Summary ......................................................................... 111

Annex 4.2. Fund Balance Statement, Detailed ...................................................................................... 112


Acronyms and Abbreviations

AFA Asian Farmers Association for Sustainable Rural Development AFARBAMCO Araneta Farmers Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose

Cooperative AgriCOOPh Agri-cooperative Philippines ALDA AL Rahman

ARC’s Level of Development Assessment (DAR) Al-Rahman Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative

AMT Area Management Team APCO Agus Pinoy Producers Cooperative ARB Agrarian Reform Beneficiary AsiaDHRRA Asian Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural

Areas BDS Business Development Services BOD Board of Directors BOI CB

Bureau of Investment (DTI) Capacity Building

CAVOFAMCO Cagayan Valley Organic Farmers Marketing Cooperative CCT Conditional Cash Transfer CDA Cooperative Development Authority CEO CNOFA

Chief Executive Officer Casiguran Natin Organic Farmers Association

CSA Collectif Stratégies Alimentaires CSOA Community-Supported Agriculture CSAC Community Sustainable Agriculture Committee CSNMPC Carmen Samahang Nayon Multi-Purpose Cooperative CSO Civil Society Organization DA Department of Agriculture DACO DiCaDi Agriculture Cooperative DAR Department of Agrarian Reform DGD DOLE DRRM

Directorate-General for Development Cooperation & Humanitarian Aid (Belgium) Department of Labor and Employment Disaster Risk Reduction Management

DSWD DTI

Department of Social Welfare and Development Department of Trade and Industry

ED EU FA

Executive Director European Union Farmers’ Association

FGD Focused-Group Discussion FO FSSI

Farmers Organization Foundation for Sustainable Societies Inc.

FT Farmer Technician GAAP GAs

Generally-Accepted Accounting Principles General Assemblies

GGMC Golden Grains Marketing Corporation GPPC Golden Parauma Producers Cooperative HVC IB IDOFS

Highly Value Customer Inclusive Business Integrated Diversified Organic Farming System

IFAD International Fund for Agriculture Development ISLACO Island of Samar and Leyte Agriculture Cooperative


JCA Joint Context Analysis KII Key Informant Interview KLMPE Knowledge and Learning Market and Policy Engagement KM Knowledge Management KRA LAMPUFACO LBP LEISA LGBTQIA+

Key Result Areas Lumad sa Adjawan Farmers Multi-purpose Cooperative Land Bank of the Philippines Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual

LGU LIFICO

Local Government Unit Linoan Farmers Integrated Cooperative

MAO Municipal Agriculture Office MBOs Member-Based Organizations MGDD MIEDECO

Membership and Gender and Development Department Malabog Integrated Enterprises Development Cooperative

MIS MFI

Management Information System Microfinance Institution

MFFMPC Mambusao Federation Multi-Purpose Cooperative MMS Makugihong mga Mag-uuma sa Sindangan M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MPT MS NAMACA

Membership Profiling Tool Microsoft Nagkakaisang Magsasaka ng Caibiran

NATCCO National Confederation of Agri-cooperatives NCIP National Commission of Indigenous People NFA National Food Authority NGA National Government Agency NIA National Irrigation Administration NMDFC NOA NOAB

National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation National Organic Agriculture National Organic Agriculture Board

NOAP National Organic Agriculture Program NSCC OD PCAF

Nueva Segovia Consortium of Cooperatives Organizational Diagnosis Philippine Council for Agriculture and Fisheries

PAKISAMA Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka PATANOM Pagduso sa Agricultura sa Tingub nga Aksyon sang mga

Organisasyon sang Mangunguma PCC PCI

Philippine Cooperative Center Performance Capacity Index

PCO PDC

Provincial Cooperative Office Pecuaria Development Cooperative, Inc.

PEF Peace and Equity Foundation PERAC Pamplona Esperanza Riverside Agricultural Cooperative PGB Pigsalabukan Gukom de Bayog Php Philippine Peso PhilRice Philippine Rice Research Institute PM PMEL PMES

Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Program Manager Pre-Membership Education Seminar

PA PRAD

Policy Advocacy Policy Research and Advocacy Department

PSP Policies, Systems and Procedures RSAAD Resilient and Sustainable Agriculture and Aquaculture Development SAC SALIKA Agriculture Cooperative


SALIKA SEC

Samahan para sa Likas Kayang Agrikultura Securities and Exchange Commission

SMAC Sandigan ng Magsasaka Agriculture Cooperative SMEs SMS SOEMCO

Small Medium Enterprises Supply and Marketing Services Socorro Empowered Peoples’ Cooperative

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences TESDA Technical Education and Skills Development Authority TFMPC TUMALALOD Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative TOC Theory of Change TOR Terms of Reference TRAIN Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion VMG Vision, Mission and Goals


List of Tables Table 1. Key Informants and Participants to Data Gathering Activities ...................................................... 13

Table 2. Size of Organic Rice Agri-cooperatives and Accreditation Status in LGUs and NGAs .................... 17

Table 3. Partnerships Established and Resources Generated ..................................................................... 18

Table 4. Organic Rice Agri- cooperatives with Types of Membership and Composition, Oct 2019............ 21

Table 5. Organic Rice Agri-cooperatives by Gender, Oct 2019 ................................................................... 22

Table 6. PCI Indices of Organic Rice Agri-cooperatives ............................................................................... 23

Table 7. PCI Rating or Organic Rice Agri-cooperatives, as of October 2019 ............................................... 24

Table 8. Classification of Agri-cooperatives, by PCI Stages ......................................................................... 25

Table 9. PIC Ratings, Organizational Capacity ............................................................................................. 25

Table 10. PCI Organizational Capacity, Strengths and Weaknesses ............................................................ 26

Table 11. PIC Ratings, Enterprise Capacity .................................................................................................. 28

Table 12. PCI Enterprise Capacity, Strengths and Weaknesses .................................................................. 28

Table 13. CSA Rapid OD Tool Ratings of Organic Rice Agri-cooperatives ................................................... 30

Table 14. CSA Rapid OD Scores ................................................................................................................... 31

Table 15. Comparison of PCI and CSA Tool Rating ...................................................................................... 32

Table 16. Comparison of Actual 2019 PCI and CSA OD Tool Ratings .......................................................... 32

Table 17. Status of Agri-Coops Membership Profiling in 2018-2019 .......................................................... 36

Table 18. Business Plans and Corresponding Contracts Gained ................................................................. 39

Table 19. Number of Farmer Technicians Per Agri-cooperative, 2019 ....................................................... 41

Table 21. Observed Changes at Different Levels of Project Actors and Partners ....................................... 50

Table 22. Project Budget and Budget Changes ........................................................................................... 55

Table 23. Fund Balance Statement, Total Budget vs. Total Expenditures ................................................... 57

Table 24. Fund Balance Statement, by Year ................................................................................................ 57

Table 25. PAKISAMA-CSA Primary Actors and Partners’ Recommendations .............................................. 73

List of Figures Figure 1. Organic Rice Agri-Cooperatives Covered by the Project in 2019 ................................................. 10

Figure 2. Theory of Change of the PAKISAMA-CSA Project ......................................................................... 15

Figure 3. Comparison of PCI and CSA OD Tools .......................................................................................... 32

Figure 4. Project Management Structure .................................................................................................... 60

Figure 5. Proposed PAKISAMA Organizational Structure ............................................................................ 62

file:///C:/Users/Fuellos/Documents/PAKISAMA/REPORT/Revised/PAKISAMA-CSA%20Proj%20Mid-Term%20External%20Evaluation,%20FinalR.docx%23_Toc25315128file:///C:/Users/Fuellos/Documents/PAKISAMA/REPORT/Revised/PAKISAMA-CSA%20Proj%20Mid-Term%20External%20Evaluation,%20FinalR.docx%23_Toc25315130file:///C:/Users/Fuellos/Documents/PAKISAMA/REPORT/Revised/PAKISAMA-CSA%20Proj%20Mid-Term%20External%20Evaluation,%20FinalR.docx%23_Toc25315132


1. Executive Summary

The Project, Strengthening the Cooperative System and Enabling its Socio-Economic Environment for the Benefits of the Family Farmers Involved in the Organic Rice Value Chain in 3 Regions in the Philippines, that is implemented by Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA) and with support from Collectif Strategies Alimentaires (CSA), is mid-way into its implementation that will end by 2021. The Project aims towards the generation of greater incomes for farmers, as well as greater recognition of the key role of agri-cooperatives in the economic development of rural areas. Guided by its strategy involving the development of full value chain development of the organic rice industry, the Project focused on capacity development strategies towards the achievement of more inclusive, equitable and sustainable alliance or collaboration of stakeholders involved in organic rice value chains to address farmers’ poverty and accompanying environmental, social and economic goals. Project implementation involved 18 organic rice agri-cooperatives in 2019 from Luzon (7), Visayas (5), and Mindanao (6) which are at various stages of development in terms of their organizational growth and enterprise management. With Project activities undertaken since January 2017, PAKISAMA and CSA have realized the need to take stock of its achievement, assess its relevance and determine the factors that facilitated successes or failures or what did not go well, and highlight insights and lessons learned for the remaining duration of the Project and for knowledge management. The mid-term assessment employed participatory techniques such as focused group discussion (FGD) and key informant interviews (KII) with the cooperative leaders and members, key program implementers at PAKISAMA Secretariat, PAKISAMA Board and key partners. The Evaluation Consultant also reviewed numerous documents and reports related to the implementation of the Project. The evaluation reveals that the Project is found to be highly relevant at this time with the presence of unfavorable policy environment for organic rice production such as the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) Law and the Rice Tariffication Law that limit space for farmers attaining growth. The Project’s Theory of Change (TOC) aims to address poverty and food insecurity through well-managed and democratically governed agri-cooperatives providing full value chain development to family farmer-members so that they can improve production, enlarge their market access, and access to various government programs. It can be concluded that the Project is on the right track when it comes to the realization of its TOC by developing the capacity of 18 agri-cooperatives through employing a research or evidence-based planning, and scientifically and appropriate farming systems, and the setting up of an organic rice cooperative forum and a National Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives through AgriCOOP Philippines or AgriCOOPh on a permanent basis. Through the Project, many of the agri-cooperatives were able to define their business strategies and models along the organic rice value chain. Most of the cooperatives were also able to access various resources for developing their cooperative enterprises, such as technical, financial and logistical and material support from government agencies, local government units, and private social investors. Through resources, the agri-cooperatives were better able to provide services to their farmer-members.


Through network building and advocacy, the Project has also successfully built its mass base on organic rice production through its Rice Forum that provide the democratic space to discuss issues, opportunities and alternative actions. It has also paved the way to the establishment of the AgriCOOPh which primarily focuses on the development of the value chain for agri-cooperatives in the Philippines. Despite the big leap towards creating the space for the recognition of the need to develop agri-cooperatives and focus on the organic rice farming and facilitating the creation of a national organization focusing on agri-cooperatives, the Project, is not without any challenge. PAKISAMA, primarily being an advocacy group, must learn the ropes of the trade when it comes to providing services for value chain development and focusing on business development. Internally, it must adjust and shift its mindset, structure, and ways of doing things with the corresponding attention to the conditions that its human resource complement require vis-à-vis the workloads at hand. This adjustment takes time and resources. Slow, but sure, PAKISAMA would need to manage necessary organizational changes within its Secretariat and the entire confederation. The Project also had shortcomings when it comes to the details of implementation, which can be addressed by appropriate organizational policies, systems and procedures and structure. Adjustments in internal coordination and convergence of services, where the partner agri-cooperative is at the center, will allow the Secretariat not to lose track of the Project and the realization of its objectives. On this note, there is a need to further review the Project’s goals, objectives and targets, and the strategies that go with it. There is a need to re-calibrate targets, as well as redirect some focus guided by priorities and available financial, technical and human resources.


2. Introduction and Rationale of the Mid-term External Evaluation The Collectif Strategies Alimentaires (CSA), a Belgian NGO active in the area of agriculture and food security in 32 years, supports the Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA) and its ongoing program which aims to support and strengthen 21 agricultural agri-cooperatives located in the 3 major regions of the Philippines to include Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, all active in the production of organic rice. It was in 2010 that CSA became a member of AgriCord1, a network of 12 global agri-agencies and has been active in the Philippines since 2013. A 5-year PAKISAMA-CSA Project has commenced in January 2017 and jointly supported by CSA along with other donor partners including the European Union (EU) and the Directorate-General for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid (DGD). The Project, Strengthening the Cooperative System and Enabling its Socio-Economic Environment for the Benefits of the Family Farmers Involved in the Organic Rice Value Chain in 3 Regions in the Philippines, has for its reinforcement activities grouped into 4 categories, namely: member management; advocacy; development of production techniques; and economic development of farms. This was based in the findings that many of the causes that create poverty and food insecurity in the Philippines could have been addressed if farmers had been better and broadly organized as organic rice agri-cooperatives, professionally-managed and governed democratically. Where these organic rice agri-cooperatives exist and provide value chain services to members, farmers can improve production, enlarge their market access, and access various government programs and services.

With the aim of helping build a broad agri-cooperative movement and strengthening PAKISAMA’s capacity to serve its member organizations, the Project aims towards the generation of greater incomes for farmers, as well as greater recognition of the key role of agri-cooperatives in the economic development of rural areas. As designed, the Project is intended to contribute to the establishment of more inclusive, equitable and sustainable alliance or collaboration of stakeholders involved in organic rice value chains to address farmers’ poverty and accompanying environmental, social and economic goals. Central to this Project is the capacity building of farmers themselves and their agri-cooperatives to become effective players and negotiators with private and public stakeholders involved in the production, manufacturing, processing and marketing of agriculture commodities. It includes the introduction of producing organic rice utilizing the Integrated Diversified Organic Farming System (IDOFS) as it responds to the challenges of climate change.

The Project, while helping to build a broad agri-cooperative movement and strengthening PAKISAMA’s capacity to serve member organizations has aimed to focus its activities on the support of 21 member cooperatives producing organic rice. PAKISAMA’s interventions will facilitate the strengthening of the cooperatives’ governance, the increase in quality and quantity of their members’ production and processing activities, leading to a greater access to market. It will also contribute to the establishment of synergies between agri-

1 AgriCord is a global alliance of agri-agencies mandated by farmers' organizations. Since 2007, AgriCord implements the Farmers Fighting Poverty Programme. Over 200 farmers' organizations per year are supported in more than 50 developing countries. Farmers Fighting Poverty is a delivery mechanism established in 2007 by which support is provided to farmers' organizations.


cooperatives and with general cooperatives as well and it will facilitate the recognition of their voice in the decision-making processes of government mandated to serve rice farmers.

With Project activities undertaken since January 2017, PAKISAMA and CSA have realized the need to take stock of its achievement, assess its relevance and determine the factors that facilitated successes or failures or what did not go well, and highlight insights and lessons learned for the remaining duration of the Project and for knowledge management. Thus, a proposal was submitted by an Evaluation Consultant to PAKISAMA to carry out the mid-term external evaluation of the Project.

Province Name of Cooperative & a Network

Luzon

1 Aurora DiCaDi Agriculture Cooperative (DACO) (Borne from Casiguran Natin Organic Farmers Association (CNOFA)

2 Camarines Sur Golden Parauma Producers Cooperative (GPPC)

3 Camarines Sur Pamplona Esperanza Riverside A Cooperative (PERAC)

4 Camarines Sur Pecuaria Development Cooperative, Inc. (PDC )

5 Isabela Cagayan Valley Organic Farmers Cooperative (CAVOFAMCO)

6 Mindoro Oriental Samahan para sa Likas Kayang Agrikultura (SALIKA)

7 Sorsogon Sandigan ng Magsasaka Agriculture Cooperative (SMAC) Visayas

8 Bohol Carmen Samahang Nayon Multi-purpose Cooperative (CSNMPC)

9 Capiz

Tumalalod Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (TFMPC) (Replaced Mambusao Federation Multi-Purpose Cooperative - MFFMPC)

10 Eastern Samar Island of Samar and Leyte Agriculture Cooperative (ISLACO)

11 Iloilo Pagduso sa Agricultura sa Tingub nga Aksyon sang mga Organisasyon sang Mangunguma (PATANOM)

12 Biliran Nagkakaisang Magsasaka ng Caibiran (NAMACA) Mindanao

13 Agusan del Sur Agusan Pinoy Producers Cooperative (APCO)

14 Bukidnon Araneta Farmers Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association Multi-Purpose Cooperative (AFARBAMCO)

15 Davao de Oro Linoan Farmers Integrated Cooperative (LIFICO)

16 Maguindanao Al Rahman Farmers Multi-purpose Cooperative

17 Zamboanga del Sur Pagsalabukan Gukom Dig Bayog (PGB)

18 Zamboanga del Norte

Makugihong Mag-uuma sa Sindangan or Sindangan Federation (MMS)

Figure 1. Organic Rice Agri-Cooperatives Covered by the Project in 2019


3. Evaluation Process

3.1. Evaluation Objectives

The objectives for the PAKISAMA-CSA Project mid-term external evaluation2 are as follows:

1. Take stock of the achievements of the Project: a. assess the overall progress based on the results of the Project (considering the

indicators and the baseline situation); b. check whether allocated funds have been used effectively and efficiently, and if

the budgets have been well-allocated and possibly make proposals for better budget allocation; and

c. determine the attention given to gender and young farmers. 2. Characterize the observed changes, based on the approach, detailed in the fourth

point, hereunder; 3. Assess the relevance of the PAKISAMA approach, partly funded by CSA, as well as

the partnership between CSA and PAKISAMA; 4. Highlight the factors determining the success and failures of the undertaken actions:

a. identify factors impacting positively and negatively the implementation of the Project and assess the way the risks are managed;

b. determine the coordination of the Project at the program level; and c. identify recommendations for the continuation of the Project in order to minimize

negative factors and maximize positive factors. 5. Highlight lessons learnt from the remaining duration of the Project and for knowledge

management.

3.2. Evaluation Process Based on the Terms of Reference (TOR), the PAKISAMA-CSA mid-term evaluation employed a variety of data gathering processes and methods that included the review of all available Project-related documents, reports and records, communications and media engagements by an Evaluation Consultant, Ms. Diana D. Arboleda. Conducted as well were data gathering activities to include key informant interviews (KIIs) and focused-group discussions (FGDs)3 involving leaders of cooperative-members of PAKISAMA (Chairpersons or Managers), partners, and members of pre-selected agri-cooperatives in provinces in three (3) regions of the country. Also included were staff members of the PAKISAMA Secretariat with the Program or Thematic Managers and their respective teams e.g., Resilience Sustainable Agriculture and Aquatic Development (RSAAD), Business Development Service/Supply and Marketing Service (BDS/SMS), Advocacy, Knowledge Management (KM), Finance, etc.; and the Area Manager Teams (AMTs) for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.

2 See Annex 1 for the Full Terms of Reference. 3 See Annex 2 for the KII and FGD Questionnaires.


Given the limited resources of the Project for this mid-term evaluation, only 3 agri-cooperative members (one at each region) were visited by the Evaluation Consultant. In each of the provinces, 2 KIIs were conducted to include the Cooperative Manager; a partner and an FGD with agri-cooperative officers and members with consideration on having adequate gender representation and young farmers. To ensure that appropriate participants were invited for the FGDs, the Consultant managed to agree with the PAKISAMA management team the sectors of the organic rice agri-cooperatives that must be represented. Identified to complete the targeted 15 participants were at least 2 producers who are with the production cluster and a family member each; 2 from non-rice production cluster or other commodities; 2 young farmers; and agri-cooperative officers preferably the Agri-coop Manager, the Chairperson or a Board Member and a Farm Technician (FT). The three (3) organic rice agri-cooperative members visited were as follows:

1. Luzon: Aurora (DACO Agriculture Cooperative that was visited) and 2 Camarines Sur (Pamplona Esperanza Riverside A Cooperative or PERAC and Pecuaria Development Cooperative, Inc. or PDC with their leaders interviewed at the PAKISAMA Study Tour or event in Agusan del Sur4);

2. Visayas: Iloilo (Pagduso sa Agricultura sa Tingub nga Aksyon sang mga Organisasyon sang Mangunguma or PATANOM that was visited) and Bohol (Carmen Samahang Nayon Multi-Purpose Cooperative or CSNMPC for KII whose Coop Manager was interviewed via skype); and

3. Mindanao: Agusan del Sur (Agus Pinoy Producers Cooperative or APCO that was visited); and Bukidnon (Araneta Farmers Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association Multi-Purpose Cooperative or AFARBAMCO with its agri-cooperative Manager who was interviewed at the PAKISAMA Study Tour in Agusan del Sur).

The evaluation is expected to characterize the changes that have been observed and to understand and analyze the processes and strategies that have allowed these changes with reference to the Project’s TOC at different levels to include: i) at the level of producers and their families; ii) production clusters; iii) level of cooperatives; iv) supporting structures (PAKISAMA Secretariat); and v) at the level of the Federation at the broader level of the municipalities at local level and NGA (National Government Agencies) directly or indirectly involved in the action. The changes and processes of change should primarily concern (but this list is not exhaustive): a) the replication/mainstreaming of the actions, the approach / principles of action by the producers, their cooperatives / associations and more broadly by the actors and partners of the Project; b) the evolution of the autonomy and the strengthening of capacities of organizations, in its various dimensions, and the people involved in the action (producers, associations, cooperatives) but also technicians and people in charge of the support of FOs); and c) the harmonization and standardization of the processes through e.g. production of manuals, policies systems and procedures (PSPs), etc. The Evaluation Consultant had the opportunity to participate in PAKISAMA’s study tour with the aim of obtaining updates on the Project, to meet and interview the participating

4 With a theme, “Exploring Business Models within the Rice Cooperative Enterprise Value Chain” held on September 15-20, 2019 at the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI) of the Department of Agriculture in Los Angeles, Agusan del Sur, the study tour is part of an annual project activity designed to bring together the Managers of cooperative-members to have sharing sessions involving updates and concerns related to organic rice business enterprise and other related business models that the cooperatives are engaged with.


agri-cooperative managers. Moreover, to conduct an actual field visit to APCO to interview its Cooperative Manager, a partner and an FGD with members of APCO. Following the objectives and expected outputs as reflected in the Project’s logframe, the mid-term evaluation covered projects and activities undertaken between January 2017 and the end of the evaluation period, October 2019. 3.3. Methodologies and Tools of Analysis The conduct of KIIs and FGDs was based on an agreed upon set of questionnaires developed for this evaluation, and on the number of participants to be involved as of the part data collection activities. It was agreed upon with PAKISAMA to contend to a minimum of 20 informants for KIIs and 4 FGDs. In the agri-cooperatives that will be visited, the Evaluation Consultant will interview the agri-cooperative Manager and at least one partner preferably from the Municipal Agriculture Office (MAO) under the Department of Agriculture (DA). As already described, the expected number of participants for the FGDs was a minimum of 15 per FGD with representatives from producers who are members of the production clusters, and from non-rice clusters, young farmers, and a farmer technician (FT) and agri-cooperative officers with female and male representatives. The Evaluation Consultant was able to interview a total of 28 key informants comprised of 12 (43%) female and 16 (57%) male and a total of 60 participants with 31 (52%) female and 29 (48%) male in 5 FGDs conducted. Overall, there was a total of 88 respondents during the evaluation. In consultation with the PAKISAMA management team, the Consultant managed to ensure that all key participating sectors or actors of the Project were represented in the data gathering activities. The Consultant exceeded the targeted number of participants interviewed covering 28 out of 20 targeted key informants (KIIs) and 5 out of 4 FGDs were conducted. Most of the informants were active that questions asked were tackled satisfactorily and with a balanced representation from female (49%) and male (51%) members or partners of the Project. Please see Annex 3 for the list of key informants and FGD participants.

Table 1. Key Informants and Participants to Data Gathering Activities Data Gathering Activities &

Groups Met Total Gender

Female Male Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) PAKISAMA Donor/CSA 2 1 1 PAKISAMA Federation (President) 1 1 PAKISAMA Secretariat 12 6 6 AgriCOOPh 1 1

Sub-total 16 7 9 Organic Rice Agri-cooperatives Chairpersons 4 1 3 Managers 4 1 3

Sub-total 8 2 6 Partners AgriCord – AsiaDHRRA 1 1 Municipal Agriculture Office (MAO) 2 2 Regional DAR Office 1 1

Sub-total 4 3 1


In addition to the documents received from the PAKISAMA Knowledge Management or KM Manager (Ms. Violeta Corral), who served as the focal point for the mid-term evaluation, the data or information described in this report were partly drawn up from the documents or records reviewed at the early stage of the consultancy engagement. And equally important were those that were drawn up from the key informants interviewed (KIIs) and the participants during the FGDs. Both the KIIs and FGDs have contributed widely and substantively to the conclusions of the results of the Project’s implementation on the period of review (January 2017 to September 2019). All the persons and/or groups met were responsive and cooperative in responding or providing information to questions asked, and with adequate or an almost balanced representation from the perspective of female (49%) and male (51%) informants. Moreover, most or 16 (89%) out of the 18 agri-cooperatives members covered by the Project were involved as informants or participants to the evaluation although at varying extent considering that only 3 agri-cooperatives were visited. The primary and secondary data analysis was used to characterize the changes that have been observed and to understand and analyze the processes and strategies that have allowed these changes (cf. Theory of Change), and this at different levels: at the level of producers and their families; at the level of production clusters; at the level of cooperatives; at the level of supporting structures (PAKISAMA Secretariat); and at the level of the Federation at the broader level of the municipalities at local level and

NGA directly or indirectly involved in the action. Changes and processes of change was also considered to formulate the recommendations for: the replication/mainstreaming of the actions, the approach/principles of action by the

producers, their cooperatives/associations and more broadly by the actors and partners of the Project;

the evolution of the autonomy and the strengthening of capacities of organizations, in its various dimensions, and the people involved in the action (producers, associations, cooperatives) but also technicians and people in-charge of the support of Farmers Organizations or FOs); and

harmonization and standardization of the processes through e.g. production of manuals, policies systems and procedures (PSPs), etc.

Total 28 12 or 43% 16 or 57% Focused-Group Discussions (FGD) APCO, Agusan del Sur 13 5 8 DACO, Aurora 12 5 7 PATANOM, Iloilo 15 8 7 Agri-cooperative Leaders at BDS Study

Tour 12 8 4

PAKISAMA Management Committee 8 5 3 Sub-total 60 31 or 52% 29 or 48%

Total 88 43 or 49% 45 or 51%


3.4. Limitation of the Evaluation

In the conduct of the PAKISAMA-CSA Project mid-term evaluation the following were the limitations encountered by the Evaluation Consultant: Due to limited budget allocation for the conduct of the Project’s mid-term evaluation,

the number of organic rice agri-cooperatives that were to be visited was decreased to only 3 out of the 18 agri-cooperatives with at least one agri-cooperative in each region (Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao) that involved 2 KIIs (with Agri-cooperative Manager or Chairperson and a partner) and 1 FGD only - another FGD was added involving the agri-cooperative Managers and Chairpersons present at the PAKISAMA-CSA Study Tour in Agusan del Sur;

The data or reference materials needed were not made available to the Consultant at one time but on a staggered basis depending on the availability of PAKISAMA team members; and

Some persons who provided additional data or information to the Consultant were not fully aware and/or have a varying understanding about the Project.

4. Presentation of Data and Analysis This Section of the report presents the data drawn up from the Project’s documents and from those that were collected from key informants (KIIs) and FGD participants. The description of accomplishments were based on the targeted results following Outcome 1 of the Project with clearly defined Causal Links and specific Activities accordingly. These are presented in the Project’s Theory of Change (TOC) as illustrated below. Figure 2. Theory of Change of the PAKISAMA-CSA Project


In taking stock of the Project’s achievements, the Evaluation Consultant utilized the above TOC as basis with consideration to the pre-determined causal links and targeted activities. It is from the abovementioned aspects of development that questions asked to informants and participants were derived from. It were aimed at realizing the following:

1. To strengthen the governance and management capacities of organic rice agri-

cooperatives; 2. Strengthen agri-cooperative members database; 3. Support the development of the organic rice agri-cooperatives’ business plan; 4. Strengthen the agricultural practices of agri-cooperative members and facilitating

their access to organic inputs in order to ensure a quality supply for the cooperative processing units;

5. Support the agri-cooperatives in their identification of financing opportunities, collective and marketing activities and contracting with private consolidators and through public purchase programs;

6. Set-up organic rice agri-cooperatives forum and the National Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives; and

7. To build and enabling environment for organic rice agri-cooperatives and organic farming.

4.1. Project Accomplishments 4.1.1. Outcome Result OUTCOME 1. Strengthening the Cooperative System and Enabling its Socio-Economic Environment for the Benefit of Family Farmers5 involved in Organic Rice Value Chain in 3 Regions in the Philippines.

Indicator 1. The agri-cooperatives have sustained their registration with CDA and have been accredited by other government agencies as potential partners and recipients of public programs. Target: 15 Cooperatives

Summary of Accomplishments:

End-of-Project: 17 (81%) of the targeted 21 agri-cooperatives sustained registration with CDA and have various accreditations and partnerships with NGAs, LGUs and CSO/development financing institutions.

As of 2019, this represents 113% of the targeted 15 cooperatives Status of Accomplishment:

2019 Targets: Fully Achieved for 15 targeted agri-cooperatives, but 94% based on the actual 18 agri-cooperatives. EOP Target: 81% Accomplishment

5 As adopted from an FAO definition of Family Farming (which includes all family-based agricultural activities) as a “means of organizing agricultural, forestry, fisheries, pastoral and aquaculture production which is managed and operated by a family and pre-dominantly reliant on family labor, including both women and men. The family and the farm are linked, co-evolve and with combined economic, environmental, social and cultural functions”.


As mentioned, the Project has partnered with 18 organic rice agri-cooperatives for the past 2.5 years since its Project inception in 2017. Table 2 shows the status of its accreditation and partnership with LGUs and NGAs. Table 2. Size of Organic Rice Agri-cooperatives and Accreditation Status in LGUs and NGAs

Partner Agri-cooperatives Sustained Registration

with CDA Institutional Partners/ Accrediting Agency

LUZON

DACO, Aurora Yes (May 2018) LGU, DA, DOLE, FSSI

GPPC, Camarines Sur Yes LGU, DA

PERAC, Camarines Sur Yes (June 2018) LGU, DA

PDC, Camarines Sur Yes NFA (2016), LGU, DA, DAR

CAVOFAMCO, Isabela Delisted DA

SALIKA, Oriental Mindoro Yes – Newly registered DTI

SMAC, Sorsogon

VISAYAS

CSNMPC, Bohol Yes DA

TUMALALOD, Capiz Yes LGU, DA, DTI

ISLACO, Eastern Samar Yes PGO

PATANOM, Iloilo Yes LGU, DA, DAR

NAMACA, Biliran Yes LGU

MINDANAO

APCO, Agusan del Sur Yes NFA (2016), DA, DSWD

AFARBAMCO, Bukidnon Yes DA, DAR

LIFICO, Davao de Oro Yes LGU, DA, DAR

Al Rahman, Maguindanao Yes LGU

PGB, Zamboanga del Sur Yes LGU

Of the 18 organic rice agri-cooperatives covered by the Project in 2019, 17 have sustained their accreditation with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA). Notably, at least three (3) of the partner agri-cooperatives (i.e. CAVOFAMCO, DACO and SALIKA) were formerly farmers’ association which transformed into an agri-cooperative. DACO was a spin-off from CNOFA as its economic arm. CNOFA could not fully engage in an enterprise, thus they created DACO to handle economic and business activities. Meanwhile, SALIKA, decided to become a cooperative after a series of organizational reviving and strengthening activities through the Project. Only one, CAVOFAMCO was delisted by the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA). It was found that the delisting was allegedly political in nature because of some internal forces who wanted to control the facilities (e.g. rice mill) received by the Project from the government. CAVOFAMCO made a formal appeal to CDA but no positive response yet from the latter. If the appeal has no positive result, then the Project will replace the cooperative. The Luzon AMT is looking at SAMBALAND Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative Agrarian Reform located in Cagayan province. All the 18 partner agri-cooperatives have been accredited in either local government units or government line agencies. This means that they can do advocacy work and influence policies, access resources (financial, technical services and material/ capital outlay) from various government sources. At least one (1) cooperative was able to access financing from a private development financing institutions, i.e. DACO’s partnership with Foundation for Sustainable Societies, Inc. (FSSI).


Indicator 2. Number of policy and budget obtained at national, provincial &local levels to support agri-cooperatives’ development. Target: Php100 Million (2019); Php200 Million (2021)

Accomplishments:

Seven (7) or 39% of the 18 agri-cooperatives have recorded and validated transactions with various government agencies, government financial institutions and development financing institutions.

A total of Php 93.11 million. This represents 93% of the 2019 target. Technical assistance in various forms like training and mentoring has been

availed by the agri-cooperatives. Status of Accomplishment: 2019 Target: 93% Accomplishment EOP Target: 47% Accomplishment

The Project helped facilitate several initiatives for the agri-cooperatives to access various financial and technical assistance, pre- and post-harvest facilities and equipment. The table below provides the summary and update of these initiatives.

Table 3. Partnerships Established and Resources Generated

Cooperative Partners

(Government or Private/CSOs/FIs)

Nature and Purpose of Partnership

Amount (in Php) Status

DACO Provincial Cooperative Office

Grant for rice trading 300,000 Approved, On-going

Singapore-based Investor

Proposal on Rice Trading and Marketing Business Incubation to submit to a Singaporean-based private investor

1,400,000 Did not push through

Foundation for Sustainable Societies, Inc. (FSSI)

Rice Trading (2019) - 3.5 M proposal;

500,000 FSSI initially approved Php0.5 million at zero interest credit line with maturity on May 2020; For drawdown Pipeline: Php3 million

Department of Agriculture (DA) Region 3

Rice transplanter; and Vacuum sealer

150,000.00 75,000.00

Approved and released

APCO Department of Agriculture (DA) –Caraga Region

Initial capitalization of Php6.5 million under Corporate Rice Farming Program

6,500,000 Approved and granted to API (Faced a major problem implementation due to alleged corruption by former Chairperson)

Department of Agriculture (DA) – Caraga Region

Brand new KIA bongo (Hauler truck)

1,500,000.00 Approval documents has already been signed by the Mayor of San Francisco. For release with the condition that the LGU will keep the truck for safekeeping and will only handover to APCO as soon as the coop is operational in October 2019 as planned.

SALIKA Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)

Certification to fully operate its organic fertilizer enterprise

Ongoing application


Cooperative Partners

(Government or Private/CSOs/FIs)

Nature and Purpose of Partnership

Amount (in Php) Status

CAVOFAMCO Department of Trade and Industry

DTI’s ‘Negosyo Kapatid’ program which is supporting the cooperative to become an agri-preneur

No data Availed

AFARBAMCO Department of Trade and Industry

Availing of ‘Mentor-Me’ Program in the preparation of “AFARBAMCO Healthy Rice” Business Plan

No data Availed

Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)

Plans to avail of the rice trading fund

No data Planning Stage

Department of Agriculture (DA)

Pre-and post-harvest facilities

No data Proposal Stage

Department of Agriculture (DA) – Region X

Free range chicken project No data Proposal Stage

Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)

Loan proposal No data Proposal Stage

Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)

Project proposal No data Proposal Stage

GPPC Department of Agriculture (DA)

Solar dryer 1 Million Installed

OVP through LGU

Green house; and inputs for vegetable production

2 Million On-going

PATANOM DA – NOAP Various resources (organic inbred seeds-palay, vegetables, organic fertilizer + training)

3,600,000 For release 4th Qtr. 2019

LBP Agrarian Production Credit Program; and Marketing contract with NFA for about 40,000-50,000 metric tons.

72M Approved, in progress

DAR 1 rice harvester; and 1 farm tractor

1.6 Million 3.6 Million

Approved. released

Agriterra Expansion of organic fertilizer plant

285,000.00 Approved. released

Total Approved 93.11 Million Total Pipeline 3 million DACO

At least seven (7) or 39% of organic rice agri-cooperatives were able to access various resources from both the government and development financing institutions for enterprise mentoring and coaching, trading, post-harvest and processing facilities, production inputs, formal training and other technical assistance. Some of these were successful, but some are still on process, subject to compliance with some conditions (i.e., DACO’s grant with FSSI) and further pursuing of proposals to agencies. The Area Management Teams (AMTs) are also in the process of developing proposals to be submitted to the National Organic Agriculture Program (NOAP) to cover various projects related to the development, trading and technical assistance on organic rice production and marketing.

One of the advocacies of PAKISAMA is for the partner agri-cooperatives focusing on organic rice production to access NOAP funds. PAKISAMA advocacy ensures that PAKISAMA members, specifically those who are engaged in organic farming,


can have access to the fund. Funds obtained from NOAP is intended for organic inputs/resources to their IDOFS production. It was also noted that some non-financial support reported did not have a monetary value.

4.1.1. Result 1

R1. Organic rice agri-cooperatives have strengthened their governance and management capacities.

Indicator 1. Increase of Performance Capacity Index (PCI)6 of each cooperative followed by the project (1-4) with a specific attention to women membership. Target: +1 Accomplishments: 15 or 83% of the 18 agri-cooperatives have PCI ratings

o Increase of PCI rating: 2/15 or 13% PATANOM: (4) Sustainable to (5) Matured CNOFA/DACO: from 2-3

o No Change: 3/15 or 20% CSNMPC (Stage 4 - Sustainable) AFARBAMCO (Stage 3 - Expanding). LIFICO (Stage 4 - Sustainable)

o Decrease in PCI Rating 2/15 or 13% PDC (Stage 4 - Sustainable to Stage 3-Expanding); APCO (Stage 4 - Sustainable to Stage 3-Expanding);

o Baseline Only: 4/15 or 27% SALIKA (Stage 3 - Expanding) Al Rahman (Stage 4 - Sustainable) MMS (Stage 4 - Sustainable) PGB (Stage 4 - Sustainable)

Gender: 5 of 18 cooperatives have relatively gender-balanced membership o

Status of Accomplishments: 2 of 15 (13%) with PCI ratings only had +1 rating Overall: outreach and general membership is relatively gender-

balanced; 5 (28%) of 18 agri-cooperatives have relatively gender balanced membership.

Agri-cooperative Membership Composition. Since its inception in 2017, the Project has partnered with 18 organic rice agri-cooperatives to date - seven (7) in

6 The PCI assessment tool was introduced to PAKISAMA by the Partnership for Development Assistance in the Philippines, Inc. (PDAP) - a Filipino and Canadian consortium of NGOs with the aim of alleviating poverty and inequalities in the Philippines. It was used by Consultants hired by PAKISAMA’s BDS to do the assessment of organic rice cooperatives and farmers associations (FAs) in 2014. The PCI looks at the capacity of the cooperative both at its organizational and enterprise levels (including production, marketing, financing, technology management, etc.) based on a set of indicators.


Luzon, five (5) in the Visayas, and six (6) in Mindanao, with a total membership of 10,455.7

Table 4. Organic Rice Agri- cooperatives with Types of Membership and Composition, Oct 2019

Agri-cooperatives

Total

Types and Number of Membership

Regular Associates Young Farmers

No. Female Male No. Female Male Total Female Male Ratio

Luzon DACO 45 45* 30 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

GPPC 35 15 4 11 20 13 7 10 5 5 29%

PERAC 53 53 25 28 0 0 0 8 4 4 15%

PDC 418 365 47 318 53 27 26 14 7 7 3%

CAVOFAMCO 31 31 10 21 0 0 0 2 - 2 6%

SALIKA 136 52 18 34 84 44 40 48 12 36 35%

SMAC 86 54 34 20 32 21 11 8 3 5 9%

Sub-total 804 615 168 447 189 105 84 82 28 54 10%

Percentage 76% 27% 73% 24% 56% 44% 10% 34% 66% Visayas CSNMPC 2433 1609 832 777 824 376 448 462 205 257 19%

TUMALALOD 2640 2640 1,717 923 0 0 0 453 220 233 17%

ISLACO 702 499 239 260 203 150 53 75 33 42 11%

PATANOM 997 917 414 503 80 27 53 50 22 28 5%

NAMACA 431 431 90 341 0 0 0 24 6 18 6%

Sub-total 7,203 6,096 3,292 2,804 1,107 553 554 1,064 486 578 15%

Percentage 85% 54% 46% 15% 50% 50% 15% Mindanao APCO 160** 160 50 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

AFARBAMCO 98** 98 40 58 0 0 0 5 1 4 5%

LIFICO 224 224 67 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Al Rahman 192 192 0 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

PGB 50 50 25 25 0 0 0 15 5 10 30%

MMS 1,724*** 1724 776 948 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Sub-total 2,448 2,448 958 1,490 0 0 0 20 6 14 1%

Percentage 100% 39% 61% 0 0 0 Overall Total 10,455 9,159 4,418 4,741 1,296 658 638 1,166 520 646 11%

88% 48% 52% 12% 51% 49% 11% 45% 55% * With 8 non-farmers/ARBs and 1 LGBTQIA++ ** With 1,100 non-farmers/ARBs (760 females; 340 males); APCO with 70 ARBs; AFARBAMCO with 62 ARBs; & LIFICO with 189 ARBs *** MMS is a federation with 27 FAs and 65 other sectoral groups including fishermen, women, etc.

In terms of outreach, the Project has reached a total of 18 organic rice agr-cooperative partners. This can be summarized as follows:

Of the total membership, 9,159 or 88% are regular members, while 1,296 or 12% are associate members. Young farmer members comprise 11% of the total membership outreach.

o Outreach is highest in the Visayas (69%) and lowest in Luzon (8%); and

o Associate membership is at most 12%, with highest in Luzon at 24%.

Young Farmer-Members o The greatest majority (91%) of young farmers come from the

Visayas followed by Luzon with 7%, and Mindanao at only 2%.

7 Sources of this most recent data on the membership status of the agri-cooperatives were the AMTs and the Chairpersons or Managers who were present during the PAKISAMA Study Tour in September 2019 and via telephone calls e.g. Mr. Jeremias Sanchez for CAVOFAMCO although the AMT Manager for Luzon cited that during her last visit to the agri-cooperative, she was informed that only few members were active in CAVOFAMCO’s activities.


o Mindanao young farmer members comprise only less than one (1) percent (0.8%) of the total Mindanao membership. On the other hand, the ratio is highest in the Visayas (15%) and Luzon (10%) of the total membership per area.

Table 5. Organic Rice Agri-cooperatives by Gender, Oct 2019

Agri-cooperatives

Total

Gender Young Farmer Members

Female Male Female

% Male

% Diff

(F-M) Total Female Male

Female

% Male

% Diff

Luzon DACO 45 30 15 67% 33% 33% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%

GPPC 35 17 18 49% 51% -3% 10 5 5 50% 50% 0%

PERAC 53 25 28 47% 53% -6% 8 4 4 50% 50% 0%

PDC 418 74 344 18% 82% -65% 14 7 7 50% 50% 0%

CAVOFAMCO 31 10 21 32% 68% -35% 2 - 2 0% 100% -100%

SALIKA 136 62 74 46% 54% -9% 48 12 36 25% 75% -50%

SMAC 86 55 31 64% 36% 28% 8 3 5 38% 63% -25%

Sub-total 804 273 531 34% 66% -32% 82 28 54 34% 66% -32%

10% 34% 66% Visayas CSNMPC 2433 1208 1225 50% 50% -1% 462 205 257 44% 56% -11%

TUMALALOD 2640 1717 923 65% 35% 30% 453 220 233 49% 51% -3%

ISLACO 702 389 313 55% 45% 11% 75 33 42 44% 56% -12%

PATANOM 997 441 556 44% 56% -12% 50 22 28 44% 56% -12%

NAMACA 431 90 341 21% 79% -58% 24 6 18 25% 75% -50%

Sub-total 7,203 3,845 3,358 53% 47% 7% 1,064 486 578 46% 54% -9%

Percentage 53% 47% 15% Mindanao APCO 160 50 110 31% 69% -38% 0 0 0 AFARBAMCO 98 40 58 41% 59% -18% 5 1 4 20% 80% -60%

LIFICO 224 67 157 30% 70% -40% 0 0 0 Al Rahman 192 0 192 0% 100% -100% 0 0 0 PGB 50 25 25 50% 50% 0% 15 5 10 33% 67% -33%

MMS 1,724 776 948 45% 55% -10% 0 0 0 Sub-total 2,448 958 1490 39% 61% -22% 20 6 14 30% 70% -40%

Overall Total 10,455 5,076 5,379 49% 51% -3% 1,166 520 646 45% 55% -11%

49% 51% 11% 45% 55%

Gender

o Overall, 49% are females; and 51% are males; o By Region: Among regular members

Luzon: 34% are females, and 66% are males Visayas: 53% are females and 47% are males Mindanao: 39% are females and 61% are males

Young farmer members o Overall: 45% are females, and 55% are males o By Region:

Luzon: 34% are females, and 66% are males Visayas: 53% are females and 47% are males Mindanao: 30% are females and 70% are males

Gender Balance:8 o Overall, membership is generally and relatively gender balanced at 49%

(female) and 51% male;

8 This is determined by the +/-10 difference of percentage of females and males. Any Difference that fall within the 10% range difference may be considered to have achieved or in the process of achieving a “gender balanced” membership.


o Gender balance is achieved in the following cooperatives: GPPC, PERAC, SALIKA, CSNMPC, and MMS (5 out of 18 agri-cooperatives);

o Majority is female in the following: DACO, SMAC, TUMALALOD and ISLACO; and

o Majority is male in the following: PDC, CAVOFAMCO, PATANOM, NAMACA, APCO, AFARBAMCO, LIFICO and Al Rahman.

Performance Capacity Index. The Project was able to administer the Performance Capacity Index (PCI) assessment tool to 15 or 83% of the 18 agri-cooperatives covered by the PAKISAMA-CSA Project. The table below indicates further details:

Table 6. PCI Indices of Organic Rice Agri-cooperatives

Organic rice agri-cooperatives

20159 2017 Change 2018 Change 2019 Change

1 CAVOFAMCO Inc. 2

2 DACO10 2 (CNOFA) 3 (CNOFA)

NR 3

3 GPPC 3 Inc.11 3 2

4 PDC 4 3 NR NR

5 PERAC 2 2

6 SALIKA (SAC) Inc. 3 NR = 7 SMAC

8 PATANOM 4 NR 5

9 ISLACO 2 2 = 10 CSNMPC 4 4 = NR NR

11 TFMPC

12 NAMACA

13 AFARBAMCO 3 3 = 3 = 14 AL-RAHMAN N/A N/A N/A 4

15 APCO 4 4 = NR 3

16 LIFICO 4 4

17 MMS N/A N/A N/A 4

18 PGB N/A N/A N/A 4 Legend 1: Stage 1=Start-up | Stage 2=Developmental | Stage 3=Expanding | Stage 4=Sustainable | Stage 5=Matured; Legend 2: Inc=Incomplete PCI |NR=No Rating | =Increase | =Decrease | = No Change

The table above shows that SMAC, TFMPC, and NAMACA. The rest of the agri-cooperatives were diagnosed either in 2017, 2018 or 2019. Only AFARBAMCO has been assessed consistently throughout the Project’s life. Changes in PCI Ratings. The following changes in the assessments include the following:

Increase in PCI rating: 2 Agri-cooperatives o CNOFA increased from stage 2 developmental to stage 3 expanding;

However, there is no basis for comparison in 2018-2019 where DACO was still undergoing organizational change; and it cannot be compared with CNOFA which is a totally different legal entity and organizational nature and structure, systems, policies and procedures despite its being managed by same set of individuals.

9 Baseline based on the initial agri-cooperatives included in the Project and presented for comparison purposes only. 10 CNOFA was rated as Stage 3 (Expanding). 11 Incomplete: No Financial Statements.


o PATANOM was not part of the initial agri-cooperatives rated in 2015; Also, it had no rating in 2018 but it had an assessment in 2017. Assessment in 2019 showed increase in level from stage 4 sustainable to stage 5 matured organization.

No Change in PCI Rating o CSNMPC was consistently rated as stage 4 sustainable between 2015 and

2017, but it had no rating on 2018. As of reporting, the organizational diagnosis (OD) session of CSNMPC was conducted in October. CSNMPC was able to maintain its stage rate.

o AFARBAMCO has been consistent as stage 3 (Expanding). o LIFICO has no change (stage 4 Sustainable since 2018).

Decrease in PCI Rating o PDC had a lower rating from 2015 to 2017 from stage 4 sustainable to stage

3 expanding. o APCO had a consistent performance in 2015 to 2017. There was no rating

in 2018, but 2019 rating showed lowering of stage of maturity from its baseline of stage 4 sustainable to stage 3 expanding. This may be due to the alleged some mismanagement that happened in early 2017 and non-operational status of its rice processing center facilities (RPC 3), hence they had to reorganize.

Baseline Only: o SALIKA was rated as 3 (Expanding) in 2018, no follow-on rating was

recorded/ undertaken; o The new Project partners that include Al Rahman, MMS and PGB are rated

as stage 4 sustainable organizations.

Cannot be established were that of SMAC, TFMPC, and NAMACA as there is no PCI rating as of October 2019.

To note, three (3) organizations, namely CNOFA, CAVOFAMCO, SALIKA were assisted by the Project to transition into formally registered agriculture agri-cooperatives to fully engage in business enterprises. All these organizations were transformed into cooperative but CAVOFAMCO was delisted by CDA.

Stages of Capacity. Based on the latest PCI ratings available, the following table describe the current levels of capacity of the 15 agri-cooperatives which had undergone organizational diagnosis using the PCI Tool.

Table 7. PCI Rating or Organic Rice Agri-cooperatives, as of October 2019

Organic Rice Agri-Cooperatives

Total Scores (%)

Overall Rating Descriptive Score

CAVOFAMCO 35.8 2 Developmental DACO 46.5 3 Expanding GPPC 30 2 Developmental PDC (2017) 57.1 3 Expanding PERAC 37.5 2 Developmental SALIKA (SAC) (2018) 40.2 3 Expanding PATANOM 54.8 5 Matured ISLACO 39.74 2 Developmental CSNMPC (2017) 81.1 4 Sustainable


Organic Rice Agri-Cooperatives

Total Scores (%)

Overall Rating Descriptive Score

AFARBAMCO 41.8 3 Expanding AL-RAHMAN 65.2 4 Sustainable APCO 41.1 3 Expanding LIFICO 65.2 4 Sustainable MMS 70.7 4 Sustainable PGB 68.7 4 Sustainable Average 51.696 3 Expanding Target Capacity Level 100 5 Matured

The individual cooperative PCI ratings are further classified according to their respective stages of development. Please see table below.

Table 8. Classification of Agri-cooperatives, by PCI Stages Stages Organic Rice Agri-cooperative Total Percentage

Start-up None 0 - Developmental CAVOFAMCO, GPPC, PERAC

ISLACO 4 27%

Expanding DACO, PDC, SALIKA, AFARBAMCO, APCO

5 33%

Sustainable CSNMPC, AL RAHMAN, LIFICO, MMS, PGB

5 33%

Matured PATANOM 1 7% 15

The following are the observations:

Four (4) or 27% of agric-cooperatives are at “Developmental Stage;” Five (5) or 33% of rated agri-cooperatives are at “Expanding Stage;” Five (5) or 33% are at “Sustainable Stage,” and Only one (1) or 7% is at the “Matured Stage.”

Organizational Capacity. The following table shows the different scores of the agri-cooperatives across five (5) organizational competencies.

Table 9. PIC Ratings, Organizational Capacity

Organic Rice Agri-Cooperatives Planning Membership

Leadership & Management MIS

External Networks & Affiliations

CAVOFAMCO 2 2.4 3.5 1.6 2 DACO 1.5 5.6 7 4.8 3 GPPC 1.5 6.7 5 1.6 4 PDC (2017) 2.5 4.4 6 4.8 4 PERAC 1.5 5.4 7 4.8 4 SALIKA (2018) 2 3.6 4 1.6 2 PATANOM 1.5 4.6 9 6.4 5 ISLACO 1.5 8.64 7 6.4 1.8 CSNMPC (2017) 4 8.6 9 8 5 AFARBAMCO 2.5 7.3 5 1.6 3 AL-RAHMAN 3 10.1 8 4.8 3 APCO 2.5 6.4 3 1.6 3 LIFICO 3 10.1 8 4.8 3 MMS 3 11.4 9 4.8 3 PGB 3 10.9 7.5 4.8 3 50% Mark 2.5 6 5 4 2.5


Organic Rice Agri-Cooperatives Planning Membership

Leadership & Management MIS

External Networks & Affiliations

Target Capacity Level (Perfect Score)

5 12 10 8 5

Note: Target Capacity Level is based on the percentage allocation in the PCI.

Comparing individual cooperative score per ideal competency/capacity level (the pre-determined percentage allocation score in the PCI ratings tool) or the ideal rating, would show that, generally, considering the organizational age, composition, leadership and membership, enterprises, and other factors, all the agri-cooperatives, have yet to reach the ideal level of capacity for each competency. There are agri-cooperatives as well, that have scored high in the organizational competencies. Organizational Capacity – Strengths and Weaknesses. In terms of their individual linear progress, the succeeding tables will show their individual strengths and weaknesses and “borderline” competencies.12

Table 10. PCI Organizational Capacity, Strengths and Weaknesses Organic Rice

Agri-Cooperatives

Strengths Borderline Weaknesses

CAVOFAMCO Planning Membership Leadership and Management Management Information

System (MIS) External Networks and

Affiliations DACO Leadership and

Management MIS

MIS External Networks and

Affiliations

Planning Membership

GPPC External Networks and

Affiliations Membership Leadership and

Management MIS

Planning

PDC (2017) External Networks and Affiliations

Planning MIS Leadership and

Management

Membership

PERAC Leadership and Management

External Networks and Affiliations

MIS

Planning Membership

SALIKA (2018) Planning Membership Leadership and Management MIS External Networks and

Affiliations PATANOM Leadership and

Management Planning

Membership

12 To determine the linear progress on the competency of each cooperative, we use the 50% mark (median score) of each ideal score. The 50% mark will determine, how far or how close they are to achieving the perfect score. The table above shows scores in red, which fall below the 50% mark. Scores in black means, above the median score, scores in blue means they are borderline competencies, and those in red are did not yet pass the 50% mark. The borderline score is +/- 1 of the median score.


Organic Rice Agri-

Cooperatives Strengths Borderline Weaknesses

MIS External Networks and

Affiliations

ISLACO Membership Leadership and

Management MIS

Planning External Networks and

Affiliations

CSNMPC (2017) Planning Membership Leadership and

Management MIS External Networks and

Affiliations

AFARBAMCO Membership

Planning Leadership and

Management External Networks and

Affiliations

MIS

AL-RAHMAN Membership Leadership and

Management

Planning MIS External Networks and

Affiliations

APCO Planning Membership External Networks and

Affiliations

Leadership and Management MIS

LIFICO Membership Leadership and

Management


Affiliations

MMS Membership Leadership and

Management


Affiliations

PGB Membership Leadership and

Management


Affiliations

The following were observed:

CAVOFAMCO and SALIKA have weaknesses in all aspects of the agri-cooperatives’ organizational capacity;

Except for PATANOM, ISLACO and CSNMPC, the rest of the cooperatives need to improve their information systems;

CSNMPC is the sole agri-cooperative that has strong competencies in all aspects of the organizational capacities as required based on the tool used; and

Based on the scores, there are borderline ratings (just a little below or above the median score), which the AMTs must be adequately informed about as they need to design the appropriate interventions with the agri-cooperatives and provide the necessary technical support, when needed.


Enterprise Capacity. The following table shows the different scores of the agri-cooperatives across five (5) enterprise competencies.

Table 11. PIC Ratings, Enterprise Capacity Organic Rice Agri-

Cooperatives Entrepreneurial

Management Abilities

Enterprise/ Business Systems

Fund Source and

Management Enterprise

Performance Enterprise Linkages

CAVOFAMCO 6.2 4.5 3.6 4 6 DACO 5.2 3 2.4 8 6 GPPC 2.8 2 0.4 0 6 PDC (2017) 7 6 2 10.4 10 PERAC 4.6 3 1.2 2 4 SALIKA (2018) 4.6 5 8.4 5 4 PATANOM 8 5.5 4.8 4 6 ISLACO 7.2 3.12 1.48 0.6 2 CSNMPC (2017) 10 6.5 6.4 15.6 8 AFARBAMCO 2.6 3 3.6 9.2 4 AL-RAHMAN 6 5.5 8.8 12 4 APCO 4.6 3 2 7 8 LIFICO 6 5.5 8.8 12 4 MMS 6 5.5 8 14 6 PGB 6 5.5 8 14 6 Median Score 5 5 5 10 5 Target Capacity Level

10 10 10 20 10

Note: Target Capacity Level is based on the percentage allocation provided in the PCI.

The following were observed: PDC is the sole agri-cooperative that has fully-developed its capacities to

establish the Enterprise Linkages needed; CSNMPC is the sole agri-cooperative that has fully developed

Entrepreneurial Management Abilities, and All agri-cooperatives, apart from the two abovementioned observations, are

yet to fully develop their enterprise capacity in all aspects.

Organizational Capacity – Strengths and Weaknesses. In terms of their individual linear progress, the succeeding tables will show their individual strengths and weaknesses and “borderline” competencies.13

Table 12. PCI Enterprise Capacity, Strengths and Weaknesses

Organic Rice Agri-


CAVOFAMCO Entrepreneurial Management Abilities

Enterprise Linkages

Enterprise/Business Systems

Fund Source & Management Enterprise Performance

DACO Enterprise Linkages Entrepreneurial Management Abilities

Enterprise/Business Systems Fund Source & Management

13 To determine the linear progress on the competency of each cooperative, we use the 50% mark (median score) of each ideal score. The 50% mark will determine, how far or how close they are to achieving the perfect score. The table above shows scores in red, which fall below the 50% mark. Scores in black means, above the median score, scores in blue means they are borderline competencies, and those in red are did not pass the 50% mark. The borderline score is +/- 1 of the median score.


Organic Rice Agri-


Enterprise Performance GPPC Enterprise Linkages Entrepreneurial Management

Abilities Enterprise/Business Systems Fund Source & Management Enterprise Performance

PDC (2017) Entrepreneurial Management Abilities


Enterprise Linkages

Enterprise Performance

Fund Source & Management

PERAC Entrepreneurial Management Abilities


Fund Source & Management Enterprise Performance Enterprise Linkages

SALIKA (2018) Enterprise/Business Systems

Fund Source and Management

Entrepreneurial Management Abilities

Enterprise Performance Enterprise Linkages

PATANOM Entrepreneurial Management Abilities

Enterprise Linkages




ISLACO Entrepreneurial Management Abilities

Enterprise/Business Systems Fund Source & Management Enterprise Performance Enterprise Linkages

CSNMPC (2017)





Enterprise Linkages

AFARBAMCO Enterprise Performance


Enterprise/Business Systems Fund Source & Management Enterprise Linkages

AL-RAHMAN Entrepreneurial Management Abilities




Enterprise Linkages

APCO Enterprise Linkages Entrepreneurial Management Abilities

Enterprise/Business Systems Fund Source & Management Enterprise Performance


Organic Rice Agri-


LIFICO Entrepreneurial Management Abilities




Enterprise Linkages

MMS Entrepreneurial Management Abilities



Enterprise Linkages


PGB Entrepreneurial Management Abilities



Enterprise Linkages


The following were noted:

CSNMPC is the sole agri-cooperative that has strong competencies in all

aspects of the entrepreneurial capacities required; and Generally, all agri-cooperatives have the entrepreneurial and management

abilities, they have the enterprise network and linkages, sources of funding or capitalization; however, they must work on their enterprise systems.

CSA Rapid OD Tool. It was reported that 12 (67%) of the 18 agri-cooperatives have been diagnosed using the CSA Rapid Organizational Diagnosis (OD) Tool. For 2017, it was reported that there were six (6) agri-cooperatives were diagnosed using the tool. This includes CAVOFAMCO, CNOFA (which had DACO as spin-off cooperative) and GPPC, as well as other PAKISAMA member agri-cooperatives namely, PUBAC, LIFICO and MIEDECO, which are founding members of AgriCOOPh. The initial administration of the tool was faced with many problems as there were some questions in the questionnaire used that does not reflect Philippines’ realities. Hence, there was a review of the tool conducted in 2018 that resulted on agreed changes in the questionnaire. Table 13. CSA Rapid OD Tool Ratings of Organic Rice Agri-cooperatives

Agri-cooperatives 2017 201814 2019 CAVOFAMCO DACO 15 16 GPPC 1 PDC

14 Includes other PAKISAMA member cooperatives: PUBAC, LIFICO and MIDIECO (Level 3). 15 Assessed as CNOFA. 16 Can’t open file


Agri-cooperatives 2017 201814 2019 PERAC 1 SALIKA (SAC) 1 SMAC PATANOM 2 ISLACO 2 CSNMPC TFMPC NAMACA AFARBAMCO 2 2 AL-RAHMAN 1 APCO 1 1 LIFICO 1 MMS 1 PGB 1

For the year 2019, more agri-cooperatives (12) were assessed using the revised tool. The result showed that the agri-cooperatives are in Levels 1 and 2. A more detailed result is presented on the table below.

Table 14. CSA Rapid OD Scores

Agri-cooperatives

Level of Formali-zation

Govern-ance

Quality

Financial Mgt.

Operational Mgt.

Scope of Activities

Level of Autonomy

External Relations

OVERALL RATING

CAVOFAMCO NR

DACO NR

GPPC 4 3 1 0 1 3 2 1

PDC NR

PERAC 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 1

SALIKA (SAC) 4 0 0 1 1 3 2 1

SMAC NR

PATANOM 2 2 4 3 0 3 3 2

ISLACO 4 0 4 3 1 4 1 2

CSNMPC NR

TFMPC NR

NAMACA NR

AFARBAMCO 4 3 4 1 0 2 1 2

AL-RAHMAN 4 2 3 3 1 2 1 1

APCO 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 1

LIFICO 4 1 4 4 0 2 1 1

MMS 2 2 1 4 0 2 2 1

PGB 2 1 1 4 0 2 2 1

The agri-cooperatives have a certain level of formalization in terms of their organization, financial management system and operating at various degrees and a certain level of autonomy. Moreover, in terms of scope of activities (primarily cooperative business-related), the agri-cooperatives must deal with their revenue, increased participation and development of their members, as well as the presence of income sharing in the form of dividends and patronage refund. Comparison of Results of PCI and CSA Tools. At this point, it is difficult to statistically correlate the results because even though there are similarities in terms of some areas of the organizational development aspects, the specific questions in each of the items are different. On this note, an attempt to have a parallel comparison of the competency/organizational system areas that the two tools attempt to measure can be observed in the figure below.


In terms of ratings, the comparison is as follows: Table 15. Comparison of PCI and CSA Tool Rating

PCI Tool CSA Rapid Tool Stage 1 Start-up Level 0 Emerging Structure: No defined objectives; formed and

expecting a support Stage 2 Developmental Level 1 Defined Organization; With legal personality; lacks

management tools Stage 3 Expanding Level 2 With Action Plan and Activities; with management tools but

lacks M&E system; literate officers; lacks autonomy Stage 4 Sustainable Level 3 Active and has basic tools; has contracts ans partnerships;

member of federation Stage 5 Matured Level 4 Professional; addresses members needs; active membership

In summary, the following table shows the comparison of ratings: Table 16. Comparison of Actual 2019 PCI and CSA OD Tool Ratings

Cooperative Overall Rating (PCI) Overall Rating (CSA) CAVOFAMCO 2 Developmental NR Level 1:

This is the level reached by an agri-cooperative when it meets its real definition. This means that it has clearly defined objectives. It is well formalized, has written legal documents and minimum organizational bodies e.g. a Board,

DACO 3 Expanding NR GPPC 2 Developmental 1 PDC (2017) 3 Expanding NR PERAC 2 Developmental 1 SALIKA (SAC) (2018) 3 Expanding 1

Figure 3. Comparison of PCI and CSA OD Tools


Cooperative Overall Rating (PCI) Overall Rating (CSA)

PATANOM Matured 2

Control Commission, etc. But it lacks coherence and relevant annual plan of action and program of activities. There is also a management deficiency such as: the management tools are missing.

ISLACO 2 Developmental 2 Level 2: This level refers to an agri- cooperative that has an actual action plan and a program of activities. It has management tools that are well-handled, but it lacks a monitoring and evaluation syst