External Monitoring Report on Indigenous Peoples Safeguards

Monitoring Period Covered: 2014- 2017 (Midterm)

Philippines: KALAHI-CIDSS National Community-Driven Development Project

Prepared by Jane DC. Austria-Young for the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the Asian Development Bank

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank ACT Area Coordinating Team ADSDPP Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection

Plan CADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title CDD Community Driven Development CEAC Community Empowerment Activity Cycle CEF Community Empowerment Facilitator CNO Certification of Non-Overlap CP Certification Pre-condition DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan FPIC Free Prior Informed Consent GRS Grievance Redress System HAGURA Hanunuo Gubatnon Ratagnon IPPF Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework IP Indigenous Peoples IPP Indigenous Peoples Plan KC-NCDDP Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan (Linking Arms against

Poverty)–Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (KALAHI–CIDSS) National Community-Driven Development Project

LGU Local Government Unit MIAC Municipal Inter-Agency Committee MIBF Municipal Inter-Barangay Forum M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCT Municipal Coordinating Team NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples NPMO National Program Management Office NTWG National Technical Working Group RPMO Regional Program Management Office RTWG Regional Technical Working Group SRPMO Sub-Regional Program Management Office TA Technical Assistance

This report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

CONTENTS Page

I. EXTERNAL MONITORING ON KC-NCDDP IP SAFEGUARDS ................................................. 1

A. Project Background ....................................................................................................................... 1

B. Facilitating KC-NCDPP in Indigenous Peoples Areas ............................................................. 2

C. External Monitoring Framework: Making the Evaluation Process Culture Sensitive .......... 3

D. Methodological Approach ............................................................................................................ 4

E. Brief Ethnographic Descriptions of the Evaluation Sites ......................................................... 5

II. MEASURING THE PROGRAM’S PERFORMANCE IN SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS OF

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ............................................................................................................ 7

A. Relevance and Effectiveness of Integrating IP Perspectives in KC-NCDDP ...................... 7

B. Effectiveness of the Program’s Intervention ........................................................................... 11

C. Measuring Project Efficiency ..................................................................................................... 19

D. Assessing Sustainability of the Program for Integrating IP Perspectives ........................... 22

III. OVERALL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................... 25

A. The KC-NCDDP Model for Integrating Culture Sensitive Facilitation: Lessons Learned. 26

B. Key Issues to Address in Future KC-NCDDP Activities Involving Indigenous Peoples ... 28

ANNEX 1: Terms of Reference for KC-NCDDP External Monitoring on Indigenous Peoples ..... 32

ANNEX 2: External Monitoring and Evaluation Plan .......................................................................... 37

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: List of ADB-Funded KC-NCDDP Program Areas with IP Populations Table 2: Subproject Status In Barangay Caw-i, Batad, iloilo Table 3: Subproject Status in Lundag, Pilar, Bohol Table 4: Subproject Status in Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro Table 5: Subproject Status in Burdeos, Quezon Table 6: Subproject Status in San Luis, Malitbog, Bukidnon Table 7: Participation rate in Barangay Lundag, Pilar, Bohol Table 8: Barangay San Luis Barangay Assembly Participation Rate (Average) Table 9: Overall Project Rating

1

I. EXTERNAL MONITORING ON KC-NCDDP IP SAFEGUARDS1

A. Project Background

1. The loan to the Republic of the Philippines for the Emergency Assistance for KALAHI–CIDSS National Community-Driven Development Project (the project) will support the implementation of the Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan (Linking Arms against Poverty)–Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (KALAHI–CIDSS) National Community-Driven Development Project (KC-NCDDP) to restore basic social services and rebuild communities affected by Typhoon Yolanda (international name: Haiyan).2 The project is aligned with the Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) Disaster and Emergency Assistance Policy by assisting the government restore and rebuild economic, social and governance activities in typhoon-affected communities. It is also aligned with ADB’s sector and thematic assessments, which stress strengthening capacity for disaster risk management, and promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment. The project aims to improve the resiliency of poor communities to natural hazards. Its outcome will be expanded access to services and infrastructure for communities in affected provinces and their full participation in more inclusive local disaster risk reduction and management planning, budgeting, and implementation. The project has the following output targets:

(i) Output 1: Community-driven development (CDD) subprojects selected, implemented, and completed. Planning and investment grants will be provided to more than 6,000 barangays, benefiting an estimated 900,000 households. Investment grants will support subprojects and activities that respond to community priorities. Rehabilitation and recovery efforts will emphasize building back better and disaster-resilient community infrastructure. Subproject eligibility will be based on an open menu and subject to an exclusion list. The open menu will include community proposals for disaster response and risk reduction. Community planning will be facilitated in barangays. KC-NCDDP staff will undertake community organization and facilitation in cooperation with community volunteers trained in participatory planning and subproject preparation and implementation. Community subprojects will be identified and selected for submission to a municipal forum. Community leaders and volunteers selected by barangay residents will represent their barangay in the forum where subprojects will be prioritized based on size of the investment grant allocated to the municipality and locally agreed upon selection criteria. Program staff will undertake due diligence on subprojects before funding is committed. Barangays with prioritized subprojects will organize implementation teams to supervise and administer the subprojects.

(ii) Output 2: Institutional and organizational capacity strengthened. The project will

support capacity development of municipal Department of Social Welfare and

1 The external monitoring program is designed to evaluate KC-NCDDP’s compliance with established IP

safeguards which ensure indigenous peoples’ participation in project planning, budgeting, implementation, operation, maintenance, monitoring and evaluation. This report includes an assessment of the project’s engagement with local partners— the LGUs and the National Commission on Indigenous People. The consultant examined the efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability of the different safeguards instruments, including the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) and the Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP). 2 The project background is lifted from the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework, safeguards framework document,

prepared by the Department of Social Welfare and Development for the Asian Development Bank in 2013.

2

Development (DSWD) program staff, who will provide facilitation support, technical assistance, subproject oversight, and local coordination. About 4,000 program staff and their local government unit (LGU) counterparts will be trained in CDD, development planning and management, conflict resolution, mediation within and between barangays, quality review, local poverty assessment, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The project will undertake capacity development activities that will enhance program and financial management systems, particularly suited for disaster response. Program staff and KC-NCDDP stakeholders will be trained to (i) develop competencies in disaster-risk management; (ii) apply environmental and social safeguard policies; (iii) respond to special circumstances such as vulnerability to natural hazards and climate change, presence of indigenous communities, and areas affected by conflict; (iv) facilitate community organization to ensure the inclusion and participation of marginalized groups in subprojects; and (iv) embed participatory approaches in government systems and processes. The project will strengthen the KC-NCDDP grievance redress, social accountability mechanisms, and knowledge development and exchange.

(iii) Output 3: Program management and monitoring and evaluation systems

enhanced. The project will strengthen program management and M&E systems by supporting the development and maintenance of a management information system in DSWD for tracking, measuring, and reporting progress using key performance indicators. The system will include national and regional electronic file management of community requests for fund release and supporting documents. The project will also support third party M&E, at least one special study, and capital expenditure requirements for program management. The KC-NCDDP operations manuals have been updated and harmonized with ADB policies and procedures.

B. Facilitating KC-NCDPP in Indigenous Peoples Areas 2. The overall objective of KC-NCDDP is to empower communities in target municipalities to achieve improved access to basic services and to actively participate in inclusive local planning, budgeting, project implementation, and disaster risk reduction and management. Program administration and staff strive to ensure that KC-NCDDP is responsive to the unique needs of indigenous communities, and guarantee they are able to: (i) provide input during local planning activities that determine development priorities; (ii) participate and take the lead in the design, development, and implementation of community subprojects, and (iii) provide feedback on subproject implementation and its benefits and risks to their economic, social, and cultural systems. 3. Eight out of nine regions affected by Yolanda have barangays with indigenous peoples (IP) populations. Indigenous communities are expected to benefit from the project as shown by the experience of the DSWD in the implementation of KC-NCDDP. These indigenous peoples’ areas may either belong to ancestral territories or have a presence of indigenous populations outside of their ancestral lands. Table 1 shows the list of ADB areas with indigenous populations.

3

Table 1: List of ADB-Funded KC-NCDDP Program Areas with IP Populations

Region Province No. of Provinces

No. of Municipalities

IV-A Quezon 1 17

IV-B Marinduque, Occidental Mindoro, Oriental Mindoro, Palawan, Romblon

5 62

V Albay, Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur, Catanduanes, Masbate, Sorsogon

6 92

VI Aklan, Antique, Capiz, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental

6 117

VII Bohol, Cebu, Negros Oriental, Negros Island Region, and Siquijor

4 72

VIII Biliran, Eastern Samar, Leyte, Northern Samar, Samar (Western Samar), Southern Leyte

6 136

X Bukidnon, Camiguin, Lanao del Norte 3 7

XI Compostela Valley, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental 3 10

Caraga Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Dinagat Island, Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur

5 41

9 39 554

Source: DSWD

4. Because of the large number of indigenous people involved, safeguards components have been strengthened, giving special emphasis to ensuring indigenous communities are not adversely affected by program activities and guaranteeing their informed and meaningful participation in all community activities. Program documents that provide a set of enhanced social safeguards policies and procedures for engaging indigenous peoples and ensuring compliance with project safeguards requirements were developed. These include the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) and Environmental and Social Management Framework. Program administration and staff strive to ensure that KC-NCDDP is responsive to the unique needs of indigenous communities, and guarantee they are able to: (i) provide input during local planning activities that determine development priorities; (ii) participate and take the lead in the design, development, and implementation of community subprojects, and (iii) provide feedback on subproject implementation and its benefits and risks to their economic, social, and cultural systems. C. External Monitoring Framework: Making the Evaluation Process Culture Sensitive 5. The external monitoring process includes the following areas of investigation, which provide a framework to systematically analyze the interventions for safeguarding the rights of indigenous peoples during program implementation.

4

6. Fieldwork was conducted by an independent consultant on indigenous peoples October 16 – November 29, 2017. Evaluation processes were facilitated with the goal of accurately assessing program interventions as experienced by the indigenous communities. In order to achieve an objective assessment, the evaluator incorporated the perspectives of project staff, regional management teams, community volunteers, LGU staff, and other agencies involved in the implementation of KC-NCDDP in IP areas. The monitoring activity provided an opportunity to discuss and reflect on the most effective and appropriate approaches for facilitating community driven development in the context of indigenous peoples. 7. The results of the monitoring program include a set of recommendations, which if adopted, will enhance protections for indigenous peoples in KC-NCDDP projects, ensure their meaningfully participation in subproject implementation, and provide that project staff are culturally sensitive and able to safeguard the rights and interests of indigenous communities. D. Methodological Approach 8. Guided by the external monitoring framework, varied data gathering techniques were employed to ensure the perspectives of all stakeholders are represented in the results of the external monitoring. Non-traditional data gathering methods that include story telling were used so indigenous people would feel comfortable sharing their experiences and opinions about the project. Facilitated workshop-style sessions incorporating dialogical methods were incorporated throughout the data gathering activities. A review of documents provided a balance between qualitative and quantitative data and insight into existing program strategies for integrating IP perspectives in KC-NCDPP. Individual and group interviews furnished a deeper understanding of the main issues raised during the participatory workshop sessions. Another important data collection method used was participant observation. The external evaluator was immersed in the community during the field work, affording her a comprehensive appreciation of the social, economic, and cultural contexts of the indigenous group through observation and conversing with people, in both informal and formal contexts. 9. The external monitoring assessments include the following: (i) the program’s relevance, i.e., whether it is aligned with the country’s development priorities in improving the welfare of indigenous peoples; (ii) the effectiveness of the safeguard instruments to minimize and mitigate adverse project impacts on indigenous peoples; (iii) whether the program is implemented in an efficient manner, where human and fiscal resources are maximized, and (iv) determining whether

Area of Inquiry 1

•How effectively do the IPP and ESMP minimize and mitigate adverse project impacts on indigenous peoples?

Area of Inquiry 2

•Has the program established systems to ensure the meaningful participation and effective engagement of indigenous communities throughout the Community Empowerment Activity Cycle?

Area of Inquiry 3

•To what extent does the DSWD have the capacity and resources needed to implement IP-related activities based on the findings of its internal monitoring systems?

Area of Inquiry 4

•What progress has the KC-NCDDP program made in establishing policies to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples to receive culturally compatible social and economic benefits and to ensure they are not adversely affected during the development process?

5

the program can be sustained in the future without external funding assistance. These assessment criteria are detailed in the document, ADB Guidelines for the Evaluation of Public Sector Operations, which includes a rating scale that helped the evaluator ensure the objectivity of the assessment given the qualitative nature of the data gathered. 10. To ensure they are representative of indigenous communities nationwide, the selection of field sites identified for external monitoring took into consideration the following criteria: (i) communities where all households are indigenous people; (ii) communities where the majority of households are indigenous people, but there is a significant non-indigenous minority; (iii) communities where the non-indigenous population is the majority, but indigenous peoples comprise a significant minority; (iv) communities where the non-indigenous population is the majority and the indigenous peoples comprise a small minority; (v) within ancestral domain areas, covered by a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) or an existing Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC); (vii) within ancestral domain areas but without tenurial instrument (CADT or CADC); (viii) communities with an Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP). The communities chosen for evaluation represent a range of the selection criteria. 11. Five sites were identified for the first set of evaluation activities– communities located in the following regions: Region IV-A, Burdeos, Quezon; Region VI, Batad, Iloilo; Region VII, Pilar, Bohol; Region X, Malitbog, Bukidnon; and Region IV-B, Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro. There are 5 sites targeted for the second set of field visits to be conducted in Region XI (Compostela Valley), Region V (Bicol), and Region VIII (Caraga). E. Brief Ethnographic Descriptions of the Evaluation Sites 12. The first field visit was to the Agta-Dumagat communities in the municipality of Burdeos on Polilio Island, Quezon Province. The Agta-Dumagat are in the process of claiming their rights over their ancestral domain by applying for a CADT with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). In all KC-NCDDP areas in Burdeos, the Agta-Dumagat comprise a small minority of the population. “The Dumagat communities of Burdeos and the Ati in Batad, Iloilo belong to the phenotype generally referred to as Negrito. They are different from the majority of Filipinos because of their dark skin, curly hair, and their strong emphasis on foraging. Historically, they chose their location according to proximity and access to natural resources for the best hunting, gathering, trapping, and fishing (Jocano 2005). Their life is dependent on the natural resources within an area, and when those resources become scarce, they relocate.”3 13. The second field visit was to the Ati communities in Batad, Iloilo, Region VI. When resources became scarce in the municipality of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, a few Ati families searched for livelihood opportunities elsewhere, which brought them to Barangay Caw-i, Batad, about 25 kilometers from Barotac Viejo. After several years, other family members from Barotac Viejo followed, also settling in Caw-i. At present, all the Ati who relocated are officially recognized as members of the barangay and registered voters in the municipality of Batad. They are recipients of standard government services, such as health, education, emergency assistance, and social protection programs, including KC-NCDDP. The Ati in Caw-i comprise a minority in both the barangay and in the municipality. Because of their mobility, they have no roots in Caw-i and the land they occupy is technically owned by a non-IP. But because of the good relationships they

3 Austria-Young, Jane DC. 2012. Developing an IP Lens in Development Projects: A Study of KALAHI-CIDSS Projects

with Indigenous Peoples in Preparation for a National Community Driven Development Program (NCDDP): Philippines.

6

cultivated, they are being allowed to stay on a plot of land owned by the barangay captain for a minimum of twenty five years. 14. The third site visited was Lundag, a barangay situated in the mountains of the municipality of Pilar, Bohol in Region VII. The Eskaya indigenous group comprises the majority population in the barangay, but they are a minority in the municipality. Historically, there were controversies with regards to the identity of the Eskaya as a genuine indigenous ethnolinguistic group, but in 1996 President Fidel Ramos awarded them a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim covering 3,173 hectares in five municipalities. Today, they are officially recognized as an indigenous group by the NCIP. The main economic activity of the Eskaya is agriculture, including the planting cash crops such as cut flowers, with additional income from non-timber forest products like wild honey. Recent road construction has provided easier access to markets, significantly improving the economic status of the Eskaya. Their religious practices are rooted in the tradition of the Independent (Aglipay) Church. They maintain their own language, writing system, and other cultural practices. With the incursion of modern influences, some of their customary practices are no longer practiced by the younger generation. There is a notable decline of people who can speak iniskaya, so there is an effort to revitalize the culture and language by establishing a tribal school for children and those who are interested in learning the Eskaya culture, language, and writing system. The Eskayan men and women are treated equally in terms of decision making in the household in the public sphere. Women hold important positions as cultural educators and members of tribal councils. 15. The fourth field visit was to Barangay San Luis, in the municipality of Malitbog, Bukidnon. The majority of the population in the barangay is comprised of Higaonon, but the inter-marriage to non- Higaonon and introduction of Christianity has diluted their cultural values and identity. The Higaonon can be found in the mountainous areas of Bukidnon Province. Their main source of livelihood is subsistence shifting cultivation, the excess produce of which is sold for cash. In the past, the sole leadership structure consisted of the datu system, the datu being the main figure in decision making and conflict resolution. But with the introduction of mainstream governance, the Higaonon now recognize the role of local government units. 16. The last field visit was conducted in Barangay Paclolo, Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro. The indigenous groups there are collectively called Mangyan, but what is significant about the indigenous peoples of Magsaysay is the presence of the three distinct indigenous groups in one municipality—the Hanunuo, Gutbanon (a sub-group of the Hanunoo), and Ratagnon, who have united to form the indigenous peoples organization, HAGURA. After a long struggle to gain official recognition of their ancestral lands, in 2010 President Aquino awarded the Hanunoo, Gubatnon, and Ratagnon a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) covering approximately 18,700 hectares. It was an important milestone for the HAGURA communities to have their rights to their ancestral domains recognized. In addition to their long struggle to protect their rights to their traditional territories, HAGURA is also promoting their own self-governance, but they recognize that it is important to participate in mainstream development processes. 17 These brief ethnographic descriptions of the indigenous groups that participated in the external monitoring exercise provide a picture of how indigenous peoples constantly adapt and adjust to modern day realities.

7

II. MEASURING THE PROGRAM’S PERFORMANCE IN SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

18. This section focuses on measuring the performance of KC-NCDDP in safeguarding the rights of indigenous peoples, which is determined by the extent to which the goals and objectives of safeguards mechanisms have been achieved. Also considered is the relevance of integrating indigenous perspectives in the program, and how efficient, effective, sustainable and complete the integration has been. A. Relevance and Effectiveness of Integrating IP Perspectives in KC-NCDDP 19 The relevance of the program was assessed by examining the following: (i) whether it is aligned with the country’s development priorities in improving the welfare of indigenous peoples; (ii) whether the project outcomes were aligned with ADB’s policy on indigenous peoples; (iii) whether the project design integrated innovative features and was transformational in improving the well-being of indigenous communities and (iv) whether the program has produced good practices and lessons learned in effectively engaging indigenous communities in a culturally sensitive manner. 20. The external evaluator found that DSWD has made significant progress in systematically integrating indigenous peoples’ perspectives in KC-NCDDP by formulating clear program strategies at the institutional and program levels. The integration of an IP framework represents an important step toward recognizing indigenous peoples’ rights to their land, culture, and pursuit of their economic and social development. DSWD has made culture sensitivity one of the core requirements for facilitating community empowerment processes. One of its impacts has been that indigenous people actively participate in decision making at both the local and municipal levels. By participating in barangay and municipal assemblies, they have the opportunity to voice their concerns and gain a feeling of empowerment. The following strategies were used to integrate IP perspectives in KC-NCDPP:

(i) Systematic implementation of a capacity building program to develop culturally competent project staff a) Capability building activities are conducted with sessions that include

culture sensitivity, orientations on the Indigenous Peoples Framework, the Environmental and Social Management Framework, and the legal framework that defines indigenous peoples’ rights. Special emphasis is placed on indigenous peoples safeguards including:

Training on the Community Empowerment Activity Cycle (CEAC) process with a special focus on ensuring the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples during all stages of the cycle.

A systematized coaching and mentoring program featuring learning sessions during cluster meetings, area spot visits, and area simulation activities.

Coaching and mentoring of ACTs and feedback sessions with the MCT, which help ensure indigenous peoples’ participation in determining impacts identified in the ESMP.

b) ACTs conduct consultation meetings with communities to discuss the impacts of the project on indigenous peoples’ social, economic, and cultural systems utilizing the following:

8

Separate consultations with indigenous communities are conducted to identify community needs and evaluate potential impacts of subprojects.

During ESMP workshops involving community volunteers, potential negative impacts of the subproject are identified during the Project Development Workshop phase of the CEAC. Mitigating measures are identified and presented to the Barangay Assembly.

Assistance by the CEF allows communities to prepare project documents before and during project implementation.

c) The IP Facilitation Guide, Implementing Culture Sensitive Community Empowerment Activity Cycle (CEAC) with Indigenous Communities: A Field Guide, was disseminated to all ACTs working with indigenous communities. The Guide was created as a resource for ACTs to help them facilitate CDD in a manner that strengthens indigenous culture and institutions, enabling genuine self-determined development where communities fully participate in all decision making processes.

d) For projects that involve infrastructure, an IP-sensitive pre-construction conference with the technical facilitators—engineers and other technical staff—is held to ensure that subprojects are designed and agreed upon by the indigenous communities.

e) The RPMOs believe that capacity building is critical to the success of the program, so they often conduct trainings and orientations whether or not there are funds allocated for IP activities. Trainings, orientations, and the IP congress are all integrated in the capacity building program of the regions. During 2016 and 2017, Region VI held an IP Congress and Region VII an IP Summit, both which raised awareness of IP issues and helped DSWD staff gain a more realistic and informed perspective on IP issues.

(ii) Establish structures and processes to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples a) In the five regions that are the subject of this review, there are established

partnerships between NCIP and DSWD defined by a memorandum of agreement for the implementation of KC-NCDDP in areas with indigenous populations.

b) A National Technical Working Group and Regional Technical Working Groups (RTWG) were formed to coordinate and facilitate regional level activities, to address issues related to the implementation of KC-NCDDP, and harmonize the partnership between NCIP and DSWD.

c) The RTWGs serve as a venue for the sharing of data, the resolution of programmatic concerns, and provision of logistical support for the assessment and validation of subprojects. The agencies strive to maintain open lines of communication to address issue concerning validation, expedite the issuance of certification (CP/CNO), and other operational challenges.

9

d) Mechanisms were established at the regional level to ensure the integration of IP perspectives in program implementation. For example, an IP focal person is designated for every subproject.

e) NCIP has allocated resources for subproject validation and program activities, but their funds are usually quite limited and when this is the case, KC-NCDDP often makes up for the shortfall.

(iii) Establish internal monitoring systems for effective tracking of the progress of subproject and ESMP implementation and the identification of any problems encountered a) The Project has established a unified tracking tool/database for ESMP that

includes project safeguards documents and an IP directory.

b) Monitoring forms have been recently enhanced and the database now includes:

The indigenous leadership structure

Average income of IP households

Sex-disaggregating number of IP attendees in assemblies

Number of IP beneficiaries per project

Number of IP workers involved in subproject construction, the payment received, and nature of jobs performed

c) RPMOs hold weekly specialist meetings and quarterly ACT tactic sessions;

the SRPMOs meet to discuss the current status of project implementation and any issues or concerns that may have arisen.

d) As a result of workshops held on the IP Framework, internal monitoring procedures were developed to ensure that community development officers encourage IP-culture sensitive subproject designs.

e) The RPMO has created an IP task force to address IP concerns at the regional level.

21. Based on the above findings, it can be concluded that the project has made significant progress toward achieving Output 2: Institutional and organizational capacity strengthened and Output 3: Program management and monitoring and evaluation systems enhanced. Project outcomes are strategically aligned with the government’s priorities of making development inclusive and ensuring program interventions take into consideration indigenous peoples’ distinct economic, social, and cultural contexts. These are evident in the following key observations made during the field visits:

(i) National and regional staff are very familiar with the IP framework and possess the capacity to integrate cultural sensitivity in the program. Encouraged by their enhanced competence (due to training) to effectively engage indigenous communities, program staff introduced programmatic innovations that allow indigenous representatives to influence decision making, especially in the allocation of project resources. The ACTs invested time to build the capacity of indigenous leaders to effectively express themselves during assemblies, to

10

articulate their needs, and ultimately, influence other stakeholders during the MIBF.

(ii) There were clear indications that the Program was successful in incorporating the IP Framework, an effort that began in earnest in 2012. These efforts were accompanied by defined strategies that emphasize the importance of effectively engaging indigenous communities in a culturally sensitive manner. The following observations describe the capacity building initiatives: a) Capacity building initiatives for project staff and stakeholders proved to be

a good investment of Program resources toward the development of an IP sensitivity lens among KC staff. The efforts resulted in the formulation of a sound IP Framework for implementing KC-NCDDP with indigenous communities.

b) The ESMP training was effective in ensuring that indigenous peoples safeguards are integrated throughout the project cycle. Properly oriented, ACTs are equipped with the proper tools to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples throughout all phases of the KC-NCDDP program. They strive to guarantee that indigenous peoples’ economic, social, cultural systems are not negatively affected during subproject design and implementation.

c) By explaining how to facilitate Program components in a way that strengthens indigenous culture and institutions, ensures meaningful participation, and allows equal representation of indigenous communities in decision making processes, the IP Facilitation Guide helped the ACTs make the CEAC processes more culture sensitive.

d) National and regional structures (NTWG, RTWG, IP Focal) played a crucial role in the implementation of the IP Framework and the operationalization of institutional partnerships and coordination mechanisms at the national, regional, and field office levels.

(iii) M&E units collect data on marginalized groups a) Quantitative data is collected on the participation of indigenous people by

means of forms and attendance sheets that indicate the number of IP participants in barangay assemblies, trainings, and other activities. This has resulted in better tracking of program impacts for indigenous peoples.

b) New data is collected from the field to validate population, ethnicity, and geographic coverage of indigenous communities in project areas. The data is helpful to better understand the situation of the indigenous peoples in Program area.

22. In conclusion, KC-NCDDP management developed innovative approaches for facilitating CDD in the context of indigenous peoples. Realizing that to be effective, project implementers need a thorough understanding of indigenous culture and practices, so the project invested resources to establish a capacity building program for its staff. The Community Empowerment Activity Cycle was developed to allow communities to participate meaningfully in all stages of the

11

project. During the CEAC, indigenous peoples’ decision making and leadership patterns were acknowledged and respected, which is an important recognition of the basic rights of indigenous peoples. In their efforts to institutionalize culture sensitivity, KC-NCDDP developed cutting edge strategies to facilitate community driven development based on the social and cultural contexts of indigenous peoples. As a result, indigenous communities developed a sense of empowerment and the subprojects helped improve the well-being of indigenous communities. 23. The project is aligned with ADB’s country and sector strategy as specified in the Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS) of 2009, which outlines ADB’s operational procedures and approaches for engaging indigenous peoples in development projects. By ensuring that the facilitation process for the screening and selection of subprojects is sensitive to the social and cultural realities of indigenous communities, KC-NCDDP has proven relevant and responsive to the present needs of marginalized indigenous groups. Using ADB’s guidelines for rating project performance, the consultant therefore concludes that the project involving indigenous peoples in KC-NCDPP is Highly Relevant4 for the following reasons: (i) intended project outcomes were largely aligned with country development priorities and pertinent to ADB country strategies; (ii) project design was appropriate and able to achieve the desired outcomes; and (iii) the project results was sound, and project design deficiencies were addressed in time during implementation. B. Effectiveness of the Program’s Intervention 24. The extent to which the project conforms to the needs and priorities of the target indigenous groups was examined, as were the importance of the program interventions to the indigenous communities and whether subprojects truly address their needs and interests. Also assessed was whether DSWD has the capacity to provide facilitation and technical support to: (i) respond effectively and appropriately to the needs of indigenous peoples; (ii) apply environmental and social safeguards; (iii) develop and maintain a quality monitoring and evaluation system that reflects the true situation of indigenous peoples; (iv) implement a grievance redress system that respects and integrates indigenous conflict resolution practices; (iv) facilitate community organization to ensure the inclusion and participation of marginalized groups in subprojects. 25. The external monitoring evaluation found that the project achieved its target outputs, an assertion supported by the fact that the indigenous communities state that KC-NCDPP subprojects have resulted in improvements to their economic and social status. The following are among the bases for their claim:

(i) Their farm-to-market road subproject has resulted in increased income for the Eskaya in Pilar, Bohol. It has also eased access to social services, (e.g., transporting the ill to the hospital, increased attendance in schools, and easier access for meetings at the municipal level). The other community subproject also proved beneficial. The multi-purpose hall serves as an evacuation center during typhoons and the venue for cultural education, where the classes on the oral and written language and other indigenous practices of the Eskaya are held. These are important activities for the young generation.

(ii) The housing project in Caw-i has enhanced the social and cultural cohesiveness of the Ati community. The program provided them the opportunity to participate in community meetings and give voice to their needs. The second cycle solar lighting

4 Table 2 Project Rating, p. 29. ADB Guidelines in Evaluating Project. April 2016.

12

project allowed them to increase their income by making it possible for the women to work at night, producing medicinal oils and bracelets to be sold on market days.

(iii) The balay tirigsunan (tribal hall) project of the Mangyan in Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro is not considered by the communities as simply another infrastructure project, but embodies the collective identity and solidarity of the Hanunoo, Gubatnon, and Ratagnon Mangyan ethno-linguistic groups. The establishment of signs within their ancestral domain, as a component of the subproject, represents the assertion of the indigenous people of their ownership rights to their ancestral territory by informing outsiders that the land is titled in their name.

(iv) For the Higaonon indigenous communities in Malitbog, Bukidnon, the school buildings built under KC-NCDDP provide a venue for the education of indigenous youth, decreasing the incidence of early marriage and school drop-outs.

(v) The Agta-Dumagat comprise the minority population in several barangays of Burdeos, Quezon, and like many indigenous communities worldwide, have experienced historical discrimination. In the past, during community consultations they were constrained to freely express themselves, especially during large meetings involving many non-IPs. Because of feelings of inadequacy, the Agta-Dumagat felt they could not stand up for their rights or assert themselves in the presence of a Tagalog majority. They have difficulty asserting themselves in public meetings and are sometimes cynical of development programs since historically, there have been few projects that have benefitted them. But during the CEAC process separate consultations were held for the Agta-Dumagat, where they participated uninhibited by the presence of non-IPs. The subprojects, especially those involving empowerment and ancestral domain delineation, represented a big step toward the recognition of their rights as indigenous people.

26. Tables 2-6 show the subprojects selected and implemented by the indigenous communities in the evaluation sites. As a result, indigenous communities have better access to basic services and they are better able to participate in decision making process in the barangay and municipality. The benefits provided by the subprojects are enjoyed by all members of the community—men, women, children, and elders. Both men and women are involved in paid labor and both participate in decision making and managing the projects.

Table 2: Subproject Status in Barangay Caw-i, Batad, iloilo

Name of Subproject Location Budget

Date of

Commencement

and Completion

Remarks

Cycle 1- Improving Socio

Economic Activities, Security

and Safety through

Community-managed of IP

Shelter and Repair of Farm-

to-Market Road

Brgy. Caw-I,

Batad, Iloilo

(Shelter)

613,500 Dec 2, 2015 to

June 16, 2016

Completed

Brgy. Caw-I,

Batad, Iloilo

(Road)

Jan. 17, 2016 to

Feb. 12, 2016

Completed

Cycle 2- Improving Quality through Basic Service, through Community-

Brgy. Caw-i, Batad, Iloilo

290,000 Dec. 7, 2016 to Dec. 17, 2016

Completed

13

Name of Subproject Location Budget

Date of

Commencement

and Completion

Remarks

managed Installation of Household Solar Panel with Lightings

Cycle 2- Improving Access to Basic Services through Community-managed Concreting of Barangay Road

Brgy. Caw-I, Batad, Iloilo

1,027,000 Jan. 5, 2017 to April 10, 2017

Completed

Table 3: Subproject Status in Lundag, Pilar, Bohol

Name of Subproject Location Budget Date of

Commencement and Completion

Remarks

Cycle 1: Repair and Rehabilitation of 5.3x13.8

Barangay Hall

Brgy. Lundag, Pilar, Bohol

1,187,000 Start Date: August 19, 2015 Date of

Completion: Jan. 9, 2016

Completed

Cycle 2: Concreting of 0.175 Km. Access Road

Brgy. Lundag, Pilar, Bohol

794, 000 Start Date: Nov. 16, 2016 Date of

Completion: Feb. 15, 2017

Completed

Cycle 3: Concreting of 0.200 Km. Access Road

Brgy. Lundag, Pilar, Bohol

940, 000 Start Date: Nov. 3, 2017

Target Date of Completion:

January 18, 2018

On-going

Table 4: Subproject Status in Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro

Name of Subproject

Location

Budget

Date of Commencement and Completion

Remarks

Cycle 2: Balay Tirigsunan (Multi-purpose Hall) Establishing signs within the ancestral domain

Paclolo, Magsaysay

PhP 3,043,076.59

Grant: 2,799,102

LCC: 243,975 Cash: 200,000

In Kind: 43,975

On-going procurement at the time of visit

Birthing Center

Paclolo, Magsaysay

PhP 1,800,000

14

Table 5: Subproject Status in Burdeos, Quezon

Name of SP Location Budget Date of Commencement

Remarks

Cycle 1: Construction of Tribal Hall (IP Project)

Anibawan Php 195,074 November 29, 2015 to May 30, 2016

Completed

Likas Kayang Pangkabuhayan (Hog Raising Project)

Bonifacio Php 51,316 February 10, 2016 to June 29, 2016

Completed

Pagpapaunlad ng Produksiyon ng Palay (IP Project)

Cabungalunan

Php 159,373 February 16, 2016 to March 15, 2016

Completed

Likas Kayang Pangkabuhayan (IP Project)

Carlagan Php 282,040 February 13, 2016 to April 28, 2016

Completed

Likas Kayang Pangkabuhayan (IP Project)

Mabini Php 117,485 February 15, 2016 to June 17, 2016

Completed

Likas Kayang Pangkabuhayan (IP Project)

Poblacion Php 196,250 February 13, 2016 to June 29, 2016

Completed

Pangsasakapangyarihan sa Loob ng Lupaing Ninuno at Pagpapaunlad ng Pamayanan (IP Project)

Rizal Php 161,672 February 10, 2016 to April 10, 2016

Completed

Cycle 2: Delineation of Ancestral Domain

Mabini Php 797,787.87

March 2, 2017 to December 31, 2017

Completed

Cycle 3: Pagpapaunlad sa Produksyon ng Palay

Anibawan Php 1,364,000.00

June 10, 2017 to June 30, 2017

Completed

Construction of Tribal Hall Cabungalunan

Php 131,800.00

May 9, 2017 to July 15, 2017

Completed

Construction of Tribal Hall Carlagan Php 131,800.00

June 8, 2017 to July 15, 2017

Completed

Fabrication of Paddle Boats Mabini Php 100,000.00

June 10, 2017 to August 15, 2017

Completed

Table 6: Subproject Status in San Luis, Malitbog, Bukidnon

Name of SP Location Budget Date of commencement and Completion

Remarks

Cycle 1: Construction of 1 Unit 1 Classroom Bldg.

Sitio Logdeck, San Luis , Malitbog , Bukidnon

1,223,317.00 Started: 5/4/2015 Completed : 9/30/2015

Completed

15

Name of SP Location Budget Date of commencement and Completion

Remarks

Construction of 1 Unit 1 Classroom Bldg.

Sitio Kagahuman , San Luis, MAlitbog , bukidnon

1,221,200.70 Started: 5/4/2015 Completed : 9/30/2015

Completed

Rehabilitation of Farm to Market Road

Sitio Lake , San Luis, Malitbog, Bukidnon

482,000.00 Started: 5/4/2015 Completed : 9/30/2015

Completed

Cycle 2: Construction of 1 Unit Day Care Center

Sitio Kauswagan, San Luis , Malitog, Bukidnon

920,000.00 Started :9/29/2016 Completed : 9/30/2015

Completed

CCL Construction of 1 Unit 2 Classroom Sch. Bldg

Sitio Kagahuman,San luis, Bukidnon

1,556,000.00 Started : 10/24/2107

On-going

Construction of 1 Unit 2 Classroom Sch. Bldg.

Sitio Victory , San Luis, Malitbog, Bukidnon

1,556,000.00 Started :10/25/1017 On-going

27. The consultant concludes that KC-NCDDP is effective in ensuring that the program is inclusive and participatory. There is a high sense of accomplishment among indigenous communities that have conceptualized, advocated for, and implemented their own subprojects. They actively participated in local decision making processes, and were able to wield influence, which has bolstered their confidence. Following are the key findings during the focus group discussion with stakeholders that support the conclusion that KC-NCDDP effectively integrates IP perspectives. Culture Sensitive Engagement with Indigenous Communities 28. A major contributing factor to the favorable program outputs was the fact that the Area Coordinating Teams integrated culture sensitive facilitation approaches for engaging indigenous communities during the various stages of the CEAC, which included:

(i) Written communication sent to the barangay and tribal officials are in the local language since the indigenous community members can understand and speak the language spoken in the municipality, though it may not be their native tongue.

(ii) ACTs conduct house-to-house visits, making sure that the indigenous communities in the barangay are well informed about the program.

(iii) Visual aids and presentations used during activities and discussions are in the local language.

(iv) ACTs adapt their facilitation methods depending on whether the indigenous people comprise either a majority or a minority in a barangay or municipality:

Where the IPs are a minority, ACTs specifically engage their leaders and conduct separate consultations with the IP communities where non-IP members of the barangay are not present.

16

Where the IPs comprise the majority, there is no need for ACTs to conduct separate consultations, but they make sure that isolated communities are informed.

(v) Communities feel that ACTs are helpful and able to provide adequate assistance

during CEAC activities

CEFs and ACs are approachable, facilitative, and patiently guide communities to complete project requirements.

(vi) ACTs ensure the presence and participation of indigenous representatives in

CEAC activities. They explain the details of KC-NCDPP so IP representatives are able to understand its processes and play an active role in decision making.

CEFs assist the IPs throughout the CEAC stages, making sure they are able to speak out and express their concerns during assemblies.

Members of indigenous communities attend key CEAC activities, such as the PSA and project identification workshops at the barangay and municipal levels.

Indigenous leaders are able to influence major decisions concerning project prioritization at the barangay and municipal levels (e.g. Criteria Setting Workshop and Municipal Inter-Barangay Forum (MIBF)).

Activities are scheduled during times that do not conflict with the IPs’ traditional activities.

(vii) ACTs exert efforts to respect indigenous peoples’ political structures, leadership

patterns, and decision making processes.

CEFs consult tribal leaders, who are respected and depended on by community members, to better ensure indigenous members’ participation in CEAC activities.

Indigenous leaders represent their communities and are tasked to speak for them during assemblies and major decision making processes throughout the CEAC.

In barangay assemblies and municipal forums indigenous representatives are always given the opportunity to share their perspectives and express their concerns.

(viii) Frequent involvement in KC activities often helps indigenous communities develop

confidence in dealing with non-IP programs, institutions, and individuals.

Separate consultation meetings for indigenous communities provide them the opportunity to freely express their ideas and sentiments.

The municipal and barangay assemblies are opportunities for indigenous representatives to express themselves in public meetings.

29. Aside from the qualitative findings of the positive impact of culture sensitive facilitation for meaningful participation of indigenous communities, Tables 7-8 reflect the participation rates of the communities visited during barangay assemblies.

17

Table 7: Participation rate in Barangay Lundag, Pilar, Bohol

Barangay Assembly 1st Cycle 2nd Cycle 3rd Cycle

1stBrgy. Assembly 85% 84% 91%

2ndBrgy. Assembly 85% 87% 88%

3rdBrgy. Assembly 98% 89% 89%

4thBrgy. Assembly 88% 89%

5thBrgy. Assembly 92% 85%

AVERAGE 89.3% 88% 88.4%

Table 8: Barangay San Luis Barangay Assembly Participation Rate

KC-NCDDP Project Cycle Average Participation Rate (1st to 5th Barangay Assembly )

Cycle 1 80.33%

Cycle 3 85.20%

Cycle 3 87.2%

Implementing Indigenous Peoples Safeguards

30. All KC projects involving indigenous communities within ancestral domains undergo a consultative process involving tribal leaders, who must grant their consent and ensure that no culturally significant sites will be disturbed by the project. The RPMO provides technical assistance and initiates capability building activities to enhance the skills of ACT members to facilitate CDD in a culturally sensitive manner. Capacity building places special emphasis on indigenous peoples safeguards including:

(i) Training on the CEAC process with a special focus on ensuring the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples during all stages of the cycle.

(ii) Coaching and mentoring of ACTs and feedback sessions with the MCT, which help ensure indigenous peoples’ participation in determining impacts identified in the ESMP.

31. ACTs conduct consultation meetings with communities to discuss the impacts of the project on indigenous peoples’ social, economic, and cultural systems utilizing the following:

(i) Separate consultations with indigenous communities are conducted to identify community needs and evaluate potential impacts of subprojects.

(ii) During ESMP workshops involving Community Volunteers, potential negative impacts of the subproject are identified during the Project Development Workshop phase of the CEAC. Mitigating measures are identified and presented to the Barangay Assembly.

(iii) Assistance by the CEF allows communities to prepare project documents before and during project implementation.

32. DSWD’s partnership with NCIP to fast-track the validation process presented challenges, but project implementers at both the national and regional levels exert their best efforts to address bottlenecks and ensure that subprojects secure Free and Prior Informed Consent. In implementing the Free Prior Informed Consent, NCIP, in collaboration with DSWD, validates

18

proposed subprojects as defined in NCIP Administrative Order No. 3 Series of 2012. The process ensures that:

(i) The project was decided on by the indigenous community in accordance with their social and cultural practices and in all activities, maintaining respect for the indigenous community’s values, customs and traditions is of utmost importance.

(ii) Separate consultations with indigenous communities and their leaders are conducted to discuss anticipated and unanticipated impacts of subprojects.

Establishing culture-sensitive grievance redress mechanisms (i) Grievance Redress System (GRS) intake forms are provided to the ACT and are

available for use by the community. Currently, only the standard KC form is used; an instruction on how to register a grievance is displayed on posters in every barangay. The posters list the grievance hotlines, and IEC materials are disseminated during the first barangay assembly. The GR box and additional IEC materials are placed in strategic locations in the barangay.

(ii) Grievances are resolved by the barangay GRS committee. If the grievance cannot be resolved at the barangay level, it will be forwarded to the SRPMO and RPMO.

(iii) Community members are aware that a grievance committee exists and is prepared listen to their problems and help find solutions.

(iv) GRS mechanisms are in place in IP communities. If the violation is involves only IPs, traditional conflict resolution practices are used. But if the complaint concerns the project, the Kalahi GRS will be used. In the five sites evaluated, there has yet to be a major grievance filed. Most concerns involve questions about project implementation, and these are immediately addressed by the CEF/ACT.

(v) There is a database of grievances maintained at the RPMO. Minutes of meetings and other project documents capture grievances, including those of indigenous communities, if any should arise.

33. The integration of IP perspectives in the CEAC is a crucial program component that has made significant contributions to achieving improved access to basic services for indigenous communities, which is a major project outcome. The CEAC process provides the opportunity for the indigenous peoples to critically assess their needs and priorities, and identify community subprojects that are based on indigenous values and aspirations. Only such projects can be truly responsive to the development needs of communities. With clear guidelines for facilitating CDD in IP areas, ACTs were able to: (i) disseminate information about NCDDP in a way that the indigenous communities could easily understand and in a culturally appropriate manner; (ii) facilitate separate and culture specific consultations for indigenous communities and (iii) prepare community volunteers to represent their communities in the various committees and major decision making process (e.g., the PSA and general assembly meetings). Various stakeholders now realize the importance of indigenous political structures and IP-specific social inclusion criteria that guarantee the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in barangay decision-making processes. 34. The consultant observed that DSWD provided quality technical support to ensure that ACTs effectively facilitate the IPP and ESMP to minimize and mitigate adverse project impacts

19

on indigenous peoples. Indigenous communities were able to analyze proposed subprojects and predict potential impact on their social, cultural, and economic systems. They were capable of formulating detailed ESMPs that included the application of environmental and social safeguards. There is also an internal monitoring system in place that effectively tracks the progress of subprojects and identifies any gaps in ESMP implementation. Monitoring includes regular meetings to analyze, interpret and synthesize findings based on safeguards documentation and site visits. Grievances usually involve questions about the project and are addressed during assembly meetings and community visits. C. Measuring Project Efficiency 35. This section presents a qualitative assessment of the program’s efficiency. Examined are: (i) the quality of the Technical Assistance (TA) provided for the integration of IP perspectives in KC-NCDDP; (ii) supervision and coordination mechanisms; (iii) the timeliness of the intervention and impact of the TA; (iv) monitoring system whether the TA is applicable based on the context and the need of the ACT and (iv) DSWD’s capacity to implement safeguards. The quality of technical assistance provided was examined based on the relevance and usefulness of the intervention. There are two levels of technical assistance— one provided by the NPMO, where the intended beneficiary is the regional staff/RPMO, and in the second level, the RPMO provides technical assistance to ACTs. The following were the challenges assessing the capacity building activities provided by the NPMO to support to the regional program staff focused on enabling the ACTs to engage indigenous communities in a culturally appropriate manner.

(i) The lack of consistent guidelines and directives issued by the NPMO to RPMOs has resulted in a perceived lack of clear direction from management. Guidance from the NPMO reportedly changes constantly, causing a ripple effect through the RPMO down to the ACT level.

(ii) Communication protocols are sometimes bypassed. As an example, the RPMO would directly communicate with the ACT without consulting the CDOs or the SRPMOs, resulting in confusion about program guidelines and requirements.

(iii) Some specialists in the NPMO are new to KC-NCDDP, while there are RPMO staff who are seasoned veterans of the Program and have extensive experience implementing CDD. In most cases, when novice NPMO program staff visit the regional offices they are able to provide helpful input concerning the technical aspects of the Program but little having to do with program direction. The regions have valued past input of the NPMO, including initiatives such as the IP Summit, which gives IP representatives the opportunity to express their concerns, build partnerships, and build strategies for the introduction of innovations to improve the way the Program engages indigenous communities.

(iv) RPMO staff value, and are very knowledgeable in the workings of the IP Framework; they understand the how the safeguards meant to protect the rights of indigenous people work. But ACTs have a limited understanding and appreciation for integrating IP perspectives in the CEAC.

(v) The trainings on cultural sensitivity and integrating IP perspectives in KC-NCDDP are sometimes conducted too late in the project cycle and no longer relevant for the ACTs.

20

(vi) There are no monitoring systems in place to determine whether the knowledge and skills gained during the IP-related trainings are being applied at the ground level.

Challenges Encountered in the ESMP and the IPP Objectives, Approaches, and Implementation Strategies, Including Institutional Issues

(i) Safeguards involve too much paperwork

a) Indigenous communities find that Kalahi projects entail numerous requirements that demand an inordinate amount of time and energy to comply with.

b) The Environment and Social Management Plan is a document prepared during the initial phase of a project, but Community Volunteers have difficulty filling in the information since the form is in English.

c) CEFs exert efforts to explain the ESMP, but the process is time consuming, especially in isolated IP communities where few know how to read or write.

(ii) The ESMP template is complicated and some parts of it are not applicable.

The ESMP template is very detailed and covers many aspects of safeguards and subproject implementation. But there are parts of the template that are not applicable to most subprojects and ACTs feel the template needs to be revised.

(iii) There is a lack of experience and understanding of indigenous peoples’ culture

and the unique issues they face. a) Because of their limited exposure to IP culture and the situations

indigenous peoples face, ACTs are not confident filling out the ESMP tool, especially when it comes to the legal framework and other social safeguards issues.

b) ACTs receive training on the CEAC, but due to their lack of orientation on the culture and overall situation of indigenous people, they are not prepared to provide the technical assistance indigenous communities need.

(iv) Rapid turnover of KC-NCDPP staff

ACTs are oriented on the ESMP, but due to rapid staff turnover, safeguards instruments need to be constantly reviewed and new staff oriented.

(v) Discrepancy in the level of understanding of safeguards processes at the

community level

Communities claim they are consulted during all stages of subprojects, but in terms of understanding laws and other relevant policies, such the IPRA and FPIC, only the Datus and other tribal leaders are familiar with the statutes.

Challenges in Establishing Systems to Ensure the Meaningful Participation and Effective Engagement of Indigenous Communities

21

(i) The time allotted for CEAC activities is too limited. CEAC activities are sometimes rushed because the amount of time allocated by the program management for their completion is inadequate. Because of the limited time allotted for each CEAC process, activities from successive processes often overlap, resulting in fast tracking of activities in order to comply with the specified time line. Fast tracked activities sometimes result in poor quality implementation and facilitation.

(ii) Many Community Volunteers feel that KC-NCDDP processes are overly tedious,

with an abundance paper work to complete and documents to prepare. The amount of paperwork the job requires, in addition to the many community members to visit and meetings to facilitate or attend, causes some volunteers to resign.

Area Coordinating Teams feel that the KC’s many documentary requirements keep them from spending quality time in the community, and compromises their effectiveness.

The large number of barangays each CEF is responsible for, and the volume of paperwork required of them, does not allow for truly facilitative engagement with communities. Basically, CEFs do not have enough time to visit project areas regularly.

(iii) The lack of human resource on the part of NCIP makes it difficult to fast track the

validation process mandated by the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. Coordination between NCIP and DSWD personnel is generally good, but due to NCIP’s budgetary and human resource constraints final validation is often delayed, which contributes to setbacks in subproject implementation.

Community Volunteers and ACTs facilitate the securing of the Certificate of Non-overlap (CNO) and Certificate of Precondition (CP) from NCIP, placing pressure on them as they try to adhere to the project timeline.

36. The evaluator found that KC-NCDDP has made substantial progress toward its goal of effectively facilitating CDD in the context of indigenous peoples. However, the project timeline limits the amount of time program staff have to deliver quality interventions to indigenous communities. Additionally, delays in the implementation of capacity building activities have reduced the efficiency of area coordinating teams to provide quality interventions based on the needs of the communities. The physical isolation of many indigenous communities poses challenges for the project staff, as lengthy travel takes away from the time they have to spend in the communities, which in itself is often limited due to the paperwork and other project requirements they need to accomplish. 37. Culture sensitivity training has been a beneficial strategy, but there is still a large gap in the cultural competence5 between trained staff and those who are new to the program and have not yet undergone training to prepare them to work with indigenous communities. The readiness and capacity of LGUs to sustain the IP Framework and continue promoting self-defined, culturally appropriate development for indigenous communities is a concern. Based on these findings and using the criterion of efficiency, the program is rated as less than efficient in terms of process

5 Cultural competence is defined as having an awareness of one’s own cultural identity and views about difference, and the ability to learn and build on the varying cultural and community norms of indigenous peoples.

22

efficiency in ensuring quality facilitation for engaging indigenous peoples, timeliness of the assistance, and supervision. D. Assessing Sustainability of the Program for Integrating IP Perspectives 38. The sustainability assessment focused on the institutional capacity of DSWD to sustain the progress it has made and address the challenges in integrating IP perspectives in future projects. The institutional assessment examined the agency’s ability to retain project staff trained to work with indigenous people, the continuity of the project after the support of external funders lapses, the capacity to institutionalize the integration of an IP lens in all development programs within the department, and the capacity of local government units to provide effective and relevant programs for indigenous peoples. 39. There are ongoing initiatives to ensure the integration of IP perspectives in KC-NCDDP, including trainings to develop competent, culture sensitive staff, and the use of culturally sensitive facilitation processes. But these strategies are in their initial stages of implementation and not yet mainstreamed in the program. There is an apprehension that when support from international financial institutions ends, KC-NCDDP as it is today may cease to exist, losing not only its structure but the ongoing initiatives that promote the empowerment of indigenous communities. Many also feel that the project-based staff who were trained in cultural competency will leave the agency. Following are challenges to the sustainability of integrating IP perspectives in KC-NCDDP:

(i) The program has produced staff trained to develop and implement the IP Framework using culture sensitive approaches to engage indigenous communities. But since staff are project based, they will only remain employed by DSWD for as long as KC-NCDDP exists as a government program. At present, KC-NCDPP has no clear strategy to develop the capacity of LGUs to design and implement an IP framework.

(ii) The role of the LGUs is crucial for the sustainability of KC-NCDDP projects. LGUs

must be trained in cultural sensitivity and appreciate the critical role played by the IP Framework. LGU permanent staff should be trained as focal persons committed to I P work. Culture sensitivity training should focus on Municipal Inter-Agency Committee (MIAC) members, since they hold permanent positions in the municipality rather than the Municipal Coordinating Team (MCT), who come and go depending on the current administration.

(iii) There is a feeling of uncertainty at the regional level concerning the direction of the

Program when it comes to IP concerns and the mainstreaming of IP perspectives in KC-NCDPP. The regional offices get their directives that define the thrust of the Program from the DSWD Central Office, especially the NPMO. There was a general feeling at the regional level in the five evaluation sites that the change of leadership that transpired in 2017 has posed challenges to the continuation of prior initiatives to integrate IP perspectives in KC-NCDDP.

(iv) Bottlenecks in the implementation of the DSWD-NCIP MoA

a) The major bottleneck in the validation process is the limited number of

NCIP staff compared to the large number of subprojects needing validation/FPIC. Despite the internal mechanisms in place meant to fast

23

track the validation process, the task remains a challenge as most NCIP Service Centers lack human and financial resources. A regional NCIP staff member said, “The NCIP should revisit its procedures at the regional level. Validations should be assigned to a division, or there should a designated team to undertake the validation activities rather than leaving everything to the service centers.”

b) Delayed validation by NCIP results in the delay in the document review process on the part of DSWD, which in turn causes delays in the implementation of subprojects. A manager in a regional DSWD office complained, “We—DSWD and NCIP—have an established system for validation but where is the NCIP? How can we release the funds to the community if there are missing requirements?”

c) Lack of coordination and delay on the part of DSWD in accomplishing the requirements needed for the CP/CNO

Delays are often caused by the lack of documents. There have been instances where documentary requirements were partially fulfilled and turned in to NCIP, but the remaining documents were never submitted because a new KC staff was assigned to the area who was unfamiliar with the process and ignorant of what had already transpired. The lack of proper turnover causes delays in completion and submission of documents to the NCIP.

40. Concrete strategies and institutional arrangements to develop a unified framework to ensure culture sensitive facilitation of the program based on indigenous peoples’ notion of development have been in place for the last four years. Recognizing that most of these strategies are in their initial phase and questions remain for how to sustain them, decision makers and key players in KC-NCDDP have suggested the following enhancements in order to sustain the Program:

(i) Institutionalize the capacity building program for facilitating CDD in IP areas

a) Continue to train and build the capacity of staff to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples in development projects. There should be efforts to retain trained, culturally competent program staff who have experience working with indigenous communities.

b) Systematize the coaching and mentoring program to provide further support those who were trained and have the knowledge, skills, and attitude needed to work effectively with indigenous communities.

c) Provide orientations on IP safeguards and culture sensitivity for those who are new to the program and develop enhancement training program on ESMP with special focus on the IP Framework and other safeguards mechanisms designed to protect indigenous peoples.

d) Develop culture-specific training designs to address the particular situations and cultural contexts of the different indigenous groups in KC areas.

24

e) Document successful capacity building programs to assess their effectiveness in developing the capabilities of staff to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples.

f) Develop a capability building program for IP communities that focus on subproject operations and maintenance taking into consideration their leadership and indigenous political structures.

(ii) Ensure the commitment of LGUs to improve the overall situation of indigenous

peoples in their locality

a) Provide culture sensitivity training for local government officials to raise their awareness of the importance of engaging indigenous communities with respect, sensitivity toward their lifeways, and the goal of inclusive development as paramount.

b) Focus on building the capacity of focal persons and permanent LGU staff, ensuring they develop the skills and commitment needed to advance the interests of the indigenous communities in their municipality.

c) Conduct orientations for local government officials to inform them about the real situation and the problems encountered by indigenous communities in their municipalities. Often, LGU personnel have a different perspective of the issues facing indigenous people, not fully understanding their concerns from the viewpoint of the indigenous communities. With a better appreciation of their situation, LGUs will be more committed to support development programs for IP communities.

d) Identify local champions and supporters from the LGUs to advance the interests of indigenous communities at the local level.

(iii) Revisit the partnership between NCIP and DSWD for the implementation of KC-

NCDDP in IP areas

a) Review the existing MoA and reexamine the responsibilities and commitments of both agencies.

b) Amend the MoA based on the actual situation at the local and regional levels, to better achieve the following:

A clear delineation of roles, functions and responsibilities

Improved mechanisms for coordination between DSWD and NCIP

(iv) NCIP should conduct a post validation evaluation after project completion to determine if all required conditions have been met and assess whether indigenous communities truly benefitted from the project.

(v) M&E units and social marketing arms should give particular attention to the social and cultural contexts of indigenous groups

a) Establish a baseline that describes the situation of indigenous peoples in

the project areas (population, ethnicity, livelihood, income, etc.). When

25

analyzed, the data will help inform decision makers, allowing them to improve Program implementation in indigenous communities.

b) Best practices and innovations made by program staff while engaging indigenous communities should be researched and documented and the lessons shared in all regions that implement KC-NCDDP in areas with indigenous populations.

(vi) Improve the compliance to environment and social safeguards

a) The ESMP template should focus on the effects of subprojects on IP

culture, rather than on the identification of specific laws concerning indigenous peoples.

b) The ESMP template should be simplified. Parts of the ESMP template cite laws and policies dealing with indigenous peoples, which makes it difficult for ACTs with no background working with IPs and the issues they face.

c) The mitigating measures specified in the ESMP should be better monitored to ensure compliance.

41. The Program proved that safeguarding the rights of indigenous peoples in development programs can be achieved given the appropriate institutional arrangements and commitment to culture sensitivity. As of the time of the external monitoring, IP perspectives have yet to be fully integrated in KC-NCDDP but concrete results have been achieved, directly benefitting indigenous communities. Though there are challenges for improving the quality of the interventions for facilitating CDD in indigenous communities, the program for integrating IP perspectives in KC-NCDDP was found to be relevant and effective in achieving its outputs and project outcomes. Though the overall process was found to be less than efficient, the program will likely be sustainable if the following actions are taken:

(i) Fully institutionalize the capacity building program for facilitating CDD in the context of indigenous peoples.

(ii) Build the capacity and commitment of local government units to engage indigenous communities with respect, sensitivity, and with the goal of promoting inclusive development.

(iii) Improve compliance with environmental and social safeguards, focusing on impacts and mitigating measures rather than the legal technicalities.

III. OVERALL ASSESSMENT 42. Using ADB’s project rating system, the overall assessment is that KC-NCDDP has successfully integrated indigenous perspectives in the program. Though there are goals that were not fully achieved, the project is relevant and crucial to ensuring that indigenous peoples have equal access to development programs. It was found that there were concrete project impacts in terms of promoting the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in decision making process, allowing their voices to be heard throughout the CEAC, and ensuring they have

26

access to project resources to implement subprojects based on their own aspirations and identified needs. Table 9 details the overall project rating.

Table 9: Overall Project Rating

Criterion Rating

(%)

Definition Rating

Description

Rating

Value

1. Relevance 25 The consistency of the project impact and outcome with country and sector priorities and ADB’s strategic objectives, as well as the adequacy of its design in addressing identified development constraints.

Highly Relevant

3

2. Effectiveness 25 The extent to which the project outcome as specified in the DMF (either as agreed at approval or as subsequently modified) was achieved.

Effective

2

3. Efficiency 25 How resources were converted to results, using cost–benefit analysis. Intended outcomes were achieved within the planned costs or implementation period.

Less than efficient

1

4. Sustainability 25 The likelihood that institutional, financial, and other resources are sufficient to sustain the project’s outcome over its economic life in an environmentally and socially sustainable way.

Likely sustainable

2

Overall Assessment

(weighted average of

above criteria)

Highly successful: Overall weighted average is greater than or equal to 2.50. Successful: Overall weighted average is greater than or equal to 1.75 and less than 2.50. Less than successful: Overall weighted average is greater than or equal to 0.75 and less than 1.75. Unsuccessful: Overall weighted average is less than 0.75.

Successful 2

Source: Asian Development Bank Guidelines for the Evaluation of Public Sector Operations

A. The KC-NCDDP Model for Integrating Culture Sensitive Facilitation: Lessons

Learned 43. Providing the opportunity for indigenous communities to play a major role in decisions that govern development projects that affect them represents a significant contribution to people’s empowerment. Throughout the development process, indigenous decision making practices were respected. By involving community members in decision making, self-determined development based on the existing social, cultural, and political contexts of indigenous communities was achieved. The KC-NCDDP model for integrating culture sensitive facilitation is anchored on the availability of trained project staff with the necessary skills and attitude. Staff must have an adequate understanding the complexities of indigenous societies be able to develop appropriate communication strategies. There is a clear-cut framework consisting of capacity building activities,

27

internal monitoring systems, and safeguards mechanisms for integrating indigenous perspectives in KC-NCDDP. Commitment of DSWD to Culture Sensitive Strategies Critical for Effective and Appropriate Development Projects for Indigenous Peoples 44. The evaluator found a solid commitment on the part of DSWD to develop a framework to effectively engage indigenous peoples in development initiatives. For KC-NCDDP, this was manifested by investing in the development of culturally competent staff capable of facilitating the program in a culturally sensitive manner. There are clear program directives to ensure indigenous peoples’ perspectives are integrated at all levels of program implementation. Systems and structures were instituted both at the national and regional levels to raise awareness of the realities faced by indigenous communities and provide guidance for field staff that work with indigenous communities. Different Facilitation Approaches to Ensure Meaningful Participation and Indigenous Representation 45. Facilitation methods vary based on the context of the communities involved. Two of the most important factors that determine how indigenous communities must be engaged are (i) whether the indigenous people comprise the majority in a barangay or municipality or (ii) whether they are in the minority. In areas where the majority of the population is indigenous and the project staff implementing the program are from the same or a closely related indigenous group, separate consultations are not held, but staff explain project components using indigenous terms and involve the community in decision making throughout the project. 46. In areas where indigenous people comprise the minority population, separate consultations are held with the indigenous communities. This is to ensure they are comfortable and do not feel intimidated by large numbers of non-indigenous residents, which would discourage their participation in the meeting and leave their voices unheard. The practice has bolstered the confidence of indigenous representatives, allowing them to influence local officials and barangay assemblies, raising awareness of the challenges faced by indigenous communities and resulting in IP-favorable subproject prioritization criteria. 47. Both facilitation approaches proved effective in empowering indigenous communities to develop community subprojects based on their own aspirations and development needs. Allocating Funds for Subprojects Managed and Implemented by Indigenous People Who Are the Minority Population 48. In the municipality of Burdeos, where the minority population Agta-Dumagat have been marginalized for decades, the ACT dedicated considerable time to build the capacity of indigenous leaders to effectively express themselves during assemblies. Awareness raising was not limited to the indigenous communities but extended to the LGUs, where efforts were made to raise the consciousness of local officials concerning the true situation of the indigenous people in their municipality. The information drive was necessary, as most of the Agta-Dumagat communities are quite isolated and seldom if ever visited by personnel from the LGU. 49. The ACT met with barangay captains and other local government officials, explaining the challenges faced by indigenous communities and the need to be responsive to their needs. The RPMO also made a concerted effort to conscienticize the local officials, encouraging them to

28

include critical issues in meetings, orientations, and other project activities. As a result of the increased awareness, during the MIBF the barangay officials, in addition to the assembly, decided to allocate funds specifically for indigenous communities without subjecting them to the usual competitive process. This was a direct result of the groundwork done by DSWD staff and advocacy by the tribal leaders, who realized when they voice their concerns and participate in decision-making, they can have their fair share of the pie. Addressing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights to their Ancestral Domain 50. A critical element of the culture sensitivity training for project implementers was the inclusion of a systematic orientation on the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, focusing on the four “bundles of rights” it grants indigenous peoples. As a result, project implementers recognized that indigenous peoples are rights holders and not simply receivers of development interventions. Armed with an appreciation of the laws that define indigenous peoples’ rights, community facilitators helped communities identify the root cause of their poverty. The ACT was open to addressing issues involving rights to ancestral domain and using the ADSDPP as an entry point for identifying the development needs of indigenous communities. 51. It is significant that subprojects in two of the sites visited did not involve the usual infrastructure or basic social services, but community grants were invested in the delineation of ancestral domain (Burdeos, Quezon) and the erection of signs identifying the boundaries of the communities’ ancestral territory (Magsasay, Occidental Mindoro). These examples demonstrate the value of integrating IP perspectives in KC-NCDDP—that when the facilitation process allows indigenous communities to identify their most urgent needs, they can “think outside of the box,” opting not only for traditional infrastructure projects, but for ways to address issues stemming from the historical injustice they have experienced. Implementing IP Safeguards in CDD Projects 52. A valuable lesson learned from implementing KC-NCDDP in IP areas was how important it is to invest the time through trainings and workshops to translate the technical jargon of the Environmental and Social Management Plan and other safeguards tools into terms and concepts that can be readily understood by communities. When they understand the safeguards concepts, communities are able to identify possible negative impacts of subprojects and design their own mitigating measures. The process moves beyond being just another project requirement to be complied with to an exercise where safeguards concerns provide communities the opportunity to critically analyze the potential outcomes of their proposed subprojects. B. Key Issues to Address in Future KC-NCDDP Activities Involving Indigenous Peoples 53. The following issues were identified during the field investigations and will be validated during the assessment of the remaining sites targeted for evaluation.

Quality of Technical Assistance

(i) Guidance from the NPMO reportedly changes constantly, causing a ripple effect through the RPMO down to the ACT level. Communication protocols are sometimes bypassed. As an example, the RPMO would directly communicate with the ACT without consulting the CDOs or the SRPMOs, resulting in confusion about program guidelines and requirements.

29

(ii) The lack of consistent guidelines and directives issued by the NPMO to RPMOs

has resulted in a perceived lack of clear direction from management.

(iii) Some specialists in the NPMO are new to KC-NCDDP, while there are RPMO staff who are seasoned veterans of the Program and have extensive experience implementing CDD. In most cases, when novice NPMO program staff visit the regional offices they are able to provide helpful input concerning the technical aspects of the Program but little having to do with program direction. The regions have valued past input of the NPMO, including initiatives such as the IP Summit, which gives IP representatives the opportunity to express their concerns, build partnerships, and build strategies for the introduction of innovations to improve the way the Program engages indigenous communities.

(iv) RPMO staff value, and are very knowledgeable in the workings of the IP Framework; they understand the how the safeguards meant to protect the rights of indigenous people work. But ACTs have a limited understanding and appreciation for integrating IP perspectives in the CEAC.

(v) The trainings on cultural sensitivity and integrating IP perspectives in KC-NCDDP are sometimes conducted too late in the project cycle and no longer relevant for the ACTs. There are no monitoring systems in place to determine whether the knowledge and skills gained during the IP-related trainings are being applied at the ground level.

Implementing ESMP, IPP Objectives, and Approaches

(i) The ESMP template is complicated and some parts of it are not applicable. The ESMP template is very detailed and covers many aspects of safeguards and subproject implementation. But there are parts of the template that are not applicable to most subprojects and ACTs feel the template needs to be revised.

(ii) Safeguards involve too much paperwork. Indigenous communities find that Kalahi projects entail numerous requirements that demand an inordinate amount of time and energy to comply with. CEFs exert efforts to explain the ESMP, but the process is time consuming, especially in isolated IP communities where few know how to read or write.

(iii) There is a lack of experience and understanding of indigenous peoples’ culture and the unique issues they face. Because of their limited exposure to IP culture and the situations indigenous peoples face, ACTs are not confident filling out the ESMP tool, especially when it comes to the legal framework and other social safeguards issues. ACTs receive training on the CEAC, but due to their lack of orientation on the culture and overall situation of indigenous people, they are not prepared to provide the technical assistance indigenous communities need.

(iv) Rapid turnover of KC-NCDPP staff. ACTs are oriented on the ESMP, but due to rapid staff turnover, safeguards instruments need to be constantly reviewed and new staff oriented.

30

(v) Discrepancy in the level of understanding of safeguards processes at the community level. Communities claim they are consulted during all stages of subprojects, but in terms of understanding laws and other relevant policies, such the IPRA and FPIC, only the Datus and other tribal leaders are familiar with the statutes.

Process Efficiency: Ensure the Meaningful Participation and Effective Engagement of Indigenous Communities

(i) The time allotted for CEAC activities is too limited. CEAC activities are sometimes

rushed because the amount of time allocated by the program management for their completion is inadequate. Because of the limited time allotted for each CEAC process, activities from successive processes often overlap, resulting in fast tracking of activities in order to comply with the specified time line. Fast tracked activities sometimes result in poor quality implementation and facilitation.

(ii) Many Community Volunteers feel that KC-NCDDP processes are overly tedious,

with an abundance paper work to complete and documents to prepare. The amount of paperwork the job requires, in addition to the many community members to visit and meetings to facilitate or attend, causes some volunteers to resign.

Area Coordinating Teams feel that the KC’s many documentary requirements keep them from spending quality time in the community, and compromises their effectiveness.

The large number of barangays each CEF is responsible for, and the volume of paperwork required of them, does not allow for truly facilitative engagement with communities. Basically, CEFs do not have enough time to visit project areas regularly.

Partnership with NCIP

(i) The lack of human resource on the part of NCIP makes it difficult to fast track the

validation process mandated by the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. Coordination between NCIP and DSWD personnel is generally good, but due to NCIP’s budgetary and human resource constraints final validation is often delayed, which contributes to setbacks in subproject implementation.

(ii) Community Volunteers and ACTs facilitate the securing of the Certificate of Non-

overlap (CNO) and Certificate of Precondition (CP) from NCIP, placing pressure on them as they try to adhere to the project timeline.

(iii) Lack of coordination and delay on the part of DSWD in accomplishing the

requirements needed for the CP/CNO. Delays are often caused by the lack of documents. There have been instances where documentary requirements were partially fulfilled and turned in to NCIP, but the remaining documents were never submitted because a new KC staff was assigned to the area who was unfamiliar with the process and ignorant of what had already transpired. The lack of proper turnover causes delays in completion and submission of documents to the NCIP.

31

Sustaining the IP Perspectives in Facilitating CDD in IP areas (i) The program has produced staff trained to develop and implement the IP

Framework using culture sensitive approaches to engage indigenous communities. But since staff are project based, they will only remain employed by DSWD for as long as KC-NCDDP exists as a government program. At present, KC-NCDPP has no clear strategy to develop the capacity of LGUs to design and implement an IP framework.

(ii) The role of the LGUs is crucial for the sustainability of KC-NCDDP projects. LGUs

must be trained in cultural sensitivity and appreciate the critical role played by the IP Framework. LGU permanent staff should be trained as focal persons committed to I P work. Culture sensitivity training should focus on Municipal Inter-Agency Committee (MIAC) members, since they hold permanent positions in the municipality rather than the Municipal Coordinating Team (MCT), who come and go depending on the current administration.

(iii) There is a feeling of uncertainty at the regional level concerning the direction of the

Program when it comes to IP concerns and the mainstreaming of IP perspectives in KC-NCDPP. The regional offices get their directives that define the thrust of the Program from the DSWD Central Office, especially the NPMO. There was a general feeling at the regional level in the five evaluation sites that the change of leadership that transpired in 2017 has posed challenges to the continuation of prior initiatives to integrate IP perspectives in KC-NCDDP.

32

ANNEX 1: Terms of Reference for KC-NCDDP External Monitoring on Indigenous Peoples

I. Project Background 1. The Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services – National Community-Driven Development Program (KC-NCDDP) is a poverty alleviation program of the national government implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Development. It is the expansion into a national scale of the operations of Kalahi-CIDSS (Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services), which was implemented in two phases from 2003 to 2014. 2. The program development objective of KC-NCDDP is to have communities in the target municipalities become empowered to achieve improved access to basic services and to participate in more inclusive local planning, budgeting, implementation and disaster risk reduction and management. 3. Twelve out of the fourteen regions or around 264 municipalities being covered by the Program have barangays with Indigenous Peoples (IP) populations and areas that overlap with known ancestral domains. In response, the Program has strengthened its safeguards components where special emphasis was given on ensuring informed and meaningful participation of IPs in all community activities and that they are not adversely affected during the development process. Program documents were also prepared such as the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) and Environmental and Social Management Framework that provides for the set of enhanced social safeguards policies and procedures for engaging Indigenous Peoples and ensuring compliance with project safeguards requirements. 4. Specifically, the KC-NCDDP shall undertake activities to empower IP communities, ensure the program is responsive to their needs, and ensure that IPs in Program-covered areas are able to:

(i) Provide input to local planning data and activities used and undertaken to determine development priorities;

(ii) Actively and meaningfully participate and lead in the design, development, and implementation of community sub-projects; and

(iii) Provide feedback on sub-project implementation, and benefits and risks to IP groups.

5. After more than a year of implementation, the KC-NCDDP National Program Management Office is issuing this Terms of Reference (TOR) to engage the services of a Consultant-Expert on Indigenous Peoples to conduct an external monitoring of the Program’s compliance with Indigenous Peoples safeguards. II. Objectives and Scope 6. The general objective of the external monitoring and evaluation are to independently assess (i) the extent to which Indigenous Peoples (IP) safeguards have been implemented in accordance with the policies and procedures described in the IPPF and ESMF (ii) the extent to which its objectives are being met; and (iii) determine the need for corrective/mitigation measures

33

if any. This monitoring program shall focus on the implementation of KC-NCDDP in IP areas, specifically within ancestral domains, and communities where there is an indigenous population. Specifically, the objectives of the external monitoring and evaluation are to:

(i) Evaluate the relevance of all IPP activities, whether they are appropriate to minimize and mitigate adverse/negative impacts on IPs;

(ii) Determine the level of engagement of indigenous groups in various activities along the Community Empowerment Activity Cycle (social preparation, sub-project identification and development, prioritization, and sub-project implementation);

(iii) Assess the capacity of executing and implementing agency in handling IP activities, including thorough review and verification of internal monitoring systems and findings; and

(iv) Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the ESMP6, IPP objectives and approaches, implementation strategies, including institutional issues, and provide suggestions for improvements in future project IP planning and implementation.

III. Tasks 7. The consultant would undertake the following activities:

(i) Conduct desk review of all relevant documents at the NPMO including the CEAC Manual, IPPF, ESMF, data capture forms, data in the IP safeguards database, technical reports and results of internal monitoring;

(ii) Interview relevant NPMO Technical staff/consultants to understand the program and social safeguards policies and procedures for engaging Indigenous Peoples;

(iii) Based on reviews and interviews conducted, prepare a detailed methodology to accomplish the assignment objectives (data collection tools/instruments and analysis plan), including criteria for selecting sites and work schedule/plan;

(iv) Identify appropriate set of indicators for gathering and analyzing information on IP safeguards implementation, given the specific activities and timelines in the ESMP (provisions/activities related to IPs) and/or IPP;

(v) Review results of internal monitoring and conduct field visits to assess whether IP objectives as described in ESMP and/or IPP have been generally met. Involve the IP community and concerned community groups in assessing the impact of the ESMP, IPP for Monitoring and Evaluation purposes;

(vi) Conduct both individual and community level impact analysis through the use of formal and informal surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, community public meetings, to assess how effectively ESMP, IPP objectives have been met;

(vii) Validate findings from ADB review of sub-project proposals and safeguards documents, determine corrective measures that have been undertaken by concerned RPMOs, and suggest recommendations for remedial actions with time-based outputs

(viii) Determine effectiveness of grievance redress mechanism (accessibility, documentation, process, resolution)

(ix) Identify lessons learned; and

6 ESMP provisions, activities related to IPs

34

(x) Prepare independent monitoring reports. IV. Deliverables

(i) Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (including work schedule)

(ii) Field Assessment/Monitoring report to be submitted within a week after monitoring activities. The reports should contain (i) a summary of the progress of ESMP7 and IPP implementation, including any deviations from the provisions of the ESMP, IPP; (ii) identification of problem issues and recommended solutions so that implementing agencies are informed about the ongoing situation and can resolve problems in a timely manner; (iii) a report on progress of the follow-up of issues and problems identified in the previous report; and (iv) assessment of progress in IP safeguard implementation, with reference to the assignment objectives and tasks specified in section II and III of this TOR.

(iii) Draft and Final Monitoring and Evaluation Report

(iv) PowerPoint Presentation highlighting key findings for stakeholder dissemination meeting

V. Duration of the Assignment 8. The external monitoring is expected to commence on the 4th quarter of 2016. External monitoring activities will be carried out for a period of one (1) year, on as semi-annual basis. VI. Deliverables, Timeline and Payment Schedule

First Semester:

Tasks Deliverables Timeframe Schedule of Payment

% of Contract

1. Desk Review of Relevant Documents, Identification of Appropriate Set of Indicators and Detailed Methodology

Submission of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (including work schedule) addressing the four (4) specific objectives mentioned in the Part II of this TOR

January 2017

1st Tranche (end of January 2017)

10%

2. Conduct of Field Visits to identified sites

Submission of Field Assessment/ Monitoring Report

February to April 2017

2nd Tranche (end of April 2017

20%

3. Analysis of findings Submission of Draft and Final Monitoring and Evaluation Report, PowerPoint Presentation highlighting key findings for stakeholder dissemination meeting

May to June 2017

3rd Tranche (end of June 2017)

20%

Second Semester:

7 ESMP actions relevant to IPs

35

Tasks Deliverables Timeframe Schedule of Payment

% of Contract

1. Desk Review of Relevant Documents, Identification of Appropriate Set of Indicators and Detailed Methodology

Submission of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (including work schedule) addressing the four (4) specific objectives mentioned in the Part II of this TOR

July 2017 4th Tranche (end of July 2017)

10%

2. Conduct of Field Visits to identified sites

Submission of Field Assessment/ Monitoring Report

August to October 2017

5th Tranche (end of October 2017)

20%

3. Analysis of findings Submission of Draft and Final Monitoring and Evaluation Report, PowerPoint Presentation highlighting key findings for stakeholder dissemination meeting

November to December 2017

6th Tranche (end of December 2017)

20%

VII. Desired Qualification of the Consultant 9. KC-NCDDP will recruit qualified and experienced external experts to conduct external monitoring for the project. The qualifications of the consultant include:

(i) Education: The consultant must have an advanced degree in Anthropology, Development Studies, Community Development and other related social science disciplines

(ii) Experience: (i) A minimum of five (5) years of progressive experience in identifying and addressing indigenous peoples (IP) issues in development projects; (ii) Expertise in the areas of research, advanced data analysis, program development, statistics; and

(iii) Others: Excellent written and oral communication skills 10. Presented below are the evaluation criteria and corresponding points:

Evaluation Criteria Points Percentage Actual Score

A. Education 30%

1. Has advanced degree in Anthropology, Development Studies, Community Development and other related social science disciplines

Doctoral = 10 Masters = 7 Bachelors = 5

30%

B. Experience 60%

1. Has a minimum of five (5) years of progressive experience in identifying and addressing indigenous peoples (IP) issues in development projects

10 years and above = 10 7 to 9 years =7 5 to 6 years = 5

30%

2. Has at least five (5) years of experience in managing quantitative and qualitative researches

10 years and above = 10 7 to 9 years =7 5 to 6 years = 5

30%

C. Others 10%

36

Evaluation Criteria Points Percentage Actual Score

1. Has excellent written and oral communication skills

Maximum Score = 10 10%

Total Score 100%

Passing Score 85% Source: DSWD

VIII. Approved Budget 11. The approved budget for this engagement amounts to One Million Pesos (Php 1,000,000.00) inclusive of all the consultant’s costs and profits and including any tax obligation that may be imposed on the consultant. IX. Reporting and Working Arrangements 12. Roles of the DSWD KC-NCDDP NPMO:

(i) DSWD shall make available to the consultant all relevant information, documents, etc. both in hard and electronic copies (when necessary). All documents provided will remain the property of the DSWD. The consultant may not dispose of or otherwise make use of such documents without the prior written approval of DSWD.

(ii) The DSWD shall work closely with the consultant to ensure that agreed deliverables and outputs in this TOR are delivered as scheduled.

(iii) Facilitate administratively the conduct of meetings and other similar activities which is beyond the scope of the consultant.

13. All documents submitted with amendments, further inputs/recommendation from KC-NCDDP NPMO based on group reviews and desk reviews shall be further finalized and re-submitted to the project management team.

37

ANNEX 2: External Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

I. Project Background 1. Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services – National Community-Driven Development Program (KC-NCDDP) is a poverty alleviation program of the national government implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Development. The overall objective of KC-NCDDP is to empower communities in target municipalities to achieve improved access to basic services and to actively participate in inclusive local planning, budgeting, project implementation, and disaster risk reduction and management. 2. Twelve out of the fourteen regions covered by the program, which include 264 municipalities, have barangays with Indigenous Peoples (IP) populations and areas that overlap with known ancestral domains. Because of the large number of indigenous people involved, safeguards components have been strengthened, giving special emphasis to ensuring indigenous communities are not adversely affected by program activities and guaranteeing their informed and meaningful participation in all community activities. Program documents that provide a set of enhanced social safeguards policies and procedures for engaging indigenous peoples and ensuring compliance with project safeguards requirements were developed. These include the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) and Environmental and Social Management Framework. 3. Program administration and staff strive to ensure that KC-NCDDP is responsive to the unique needs of indigenous communities, and guarantee that they are able to: (i) provide input during local planning activities that determine development priorities; (ii) participate and take the lead in the design, development, and implementation of community subprojects, and (iii) provide feedback on subproject implementation and its benefits and risks to their economic, social, and cultural systems. 4. The KC-NCDDP National Program Management Office has engaged the services of a consultant-expert on indigenous peoples to conduct an external monitoring review of the program’s compliance with indigenous peoples safeguards. The consultant will use internal monitoring data, as well as gather primary data, to assess whether IP safeguards procedures and objectives have been met during the program’s implementation. The consultant will examine the efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the different safeguards instruments, including the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) and the Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP). At the end of the monitoring process, she will provide inputs and recommendations for best practices to effectively engage indigenous peoples in a culturally sensitive manner. A. Coverage of the External Monitoring Activities 5. Monitoring activities will focus on subprojects in areas where KC-NCDDP is supported by funds from the Asian Development Bank. It will cover programs in ten municipalities spread across nine regions.

Table 1: List of ADB-Funded KC-NCDDP Program Areas with IP Populations

Region Province No. of Provinces

No. of Municipalities

IV-A Quezon 1 17

38

IV-B Marinduque, Occidental Mindoro, Oriental Mindoro, Palawan, Romblon

5 62

V Albay, Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur, Catanduanes, Masbate, Sorsogon

6 92

VI Aklan, Antique, Capiz, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental

6 117

VII Bohol, Cebu, Negros Oriental, Negros Island Region, and Siquijor

4 72

VIII Biliran, Eastern Samar, Leyte, Northern Samar, Samar(Western Samar), Southern Leyte

6 136

X Bukidnon, Camiguin, Lanao del Norte 3 7

XI Compostela Valley, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental 3 10

Caraga Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Dinagat Island, Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur

5 41

TOTAL 9

39 554

6. The sites selected for monitoring must meet at least one of the following criteria:

(i) Communities where all households are indigenous peoples; (ii) Communities where the majority of households are indigenous peoples, but there

is a significant non-indigenous minority; (iii) Communities where the non-indigenous population is the majority, but

indigenous peoples comprise a significant minority; (iv) Communities where the non-indigenous population is the majority and the

indigenous peoples comprise a small minority; (v) Within ancestral domain areas, covered by a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title

(CADT) or an existing Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC); (vi) Within ancestral domain areas but without tenurial instrument (CADT or CADC);

and (vii) Communities with an Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection

Plan (ADSDPP).

II. Methodological Approach

7. The consultant will provide the analytical tools that will assist project staff, management teams, and affected communities to reflect on their experiences with program implementation and assess the effectiveness of KC-NCDDP in helping indigenous communities achieve their vision for improving their lives. The consultant will gather experiential accounts describing program activities as perceived by the program staff, management teams, and indigenous communities. In addition to a review of documents, she will use various participatory approaches, including facilitated workshop-style focus group discussions and individual and group interviews to gain an understanding of the specific approaches utilized during social preparation, subproject identification and development, prioritization, and subproject implementation. 8. The external monitoring exercise will have the following objectives:

(i) Evaluate the relevance of all IPP activities and determine whether they effectively minimize and mitigate any adverse project impacts on indigenous communities;

39

(ii) Determine the level of engagement of indigenous groups in various activities throughout the Community Empowerment Activity Cycle (CEAC): social preparation, subproject identification and development, prioritization, and subproject implementation;

(iii) Assess the capacity of the implementing agency (DSWD) to handle program activities involving indigenous communities, including a thorough review and verification of internal monitoring systems; and

(iv) Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the ESMP and IPP approaches and implementation strategies, determine relevant institutional issues, and provide recommendations for improvements for future IP planning activities and overall program implementation.

9. At the end of the external monitoring engagement the consultant will propose a set of recommendations for improving the program’s safeguards components with a specific focus on the informed and meaningful participation of indigenous communities in all stages of the CEAC. Emphasis will be placed on ensuring that indigenous peoples are not adversely affected by KC-NCDDP and that project staff are culturally sensitive and able to safeguard the rights and interests of indigenous communities. A. External Monitoring Framework 10. The monitoring initiative will focus on the following four areas of inquiry:

(i) Area of Inquiry 1:

How effectively do the IPP and ESMP minimize and mitigate adverse project impacts on indigenous peoples? Indicator Performance Measurement

Each subproject’s ESMP includes a detailed list of measures for avoiding adverse environmental and/or social impacts, especially on indigenous peoples.

Each subproject’s ESMP contains an effective mitigation strategy that is feasible and with enough resources to implement the mitigation measures.

Indigenous communities are able to analyze and predict the impacts of a proposed subproject on their social, cultural, and economic systems.

Responsible stakeholders and indigenous communities are able to implement the activities specified in the ESMP within the agreed-to timeframe.

(iii) Area of Inquiry 2:

Has the program established process to ensure the meaningful participation and effective engagement of indigenous communities throughout the Community Empowerment Activity Cycle?

Indicator Performance Measurement

Guidelines are in place detailing how to integrate culture sensitive approaches for engaging indigenous communities, taking into

During social preparation, the ACT, especially the CEFs, are able to:

Disseminate information about KC-NCDDP in a way that the indigenous communities can easily understand and in a culturally appropriate manner.

40

Indicator Performance Measurement

consideration their specific development needs.

Understand the true situation and development needs of communities based on indigenous values and aspirations.

Facilitate separate and culture specific consultations for indigenous communities.

Prepare community volunteers to represent their communities in the various committees and major decision making process (e.g. PSA and general assembly meetings).

Facilitate a common understanding among the LGU, NCIP, and DSWD concerning the IP Framework and culture sensitive service delivery.

Different stakeholders realize the importance of IP-specific social inclusion criteria that guarantee the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in barangay decision-making processes.

Community Planning and Project Proposal Development

Tribal leaders and indigenous community members express appreciation for the value of participation in decision making processes during critical CEAC activities.

Indigenous leaders or community representatives are actively involved in community volunteer committees and able to define the criteria for subproject prioritization and proposal development.

ACTs utilize clear-cut, well developed approaches for assisting indigenous communities to formulate project proposals that truly reflect their needs and aspirations.

ACTs coordinate with the NCIP Provincial Offices and/or Community Service Centers to facilitate the validation of IP subprojects as defined by the NCIP Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) guidelines.

The existence of clear policies and work plans that include the participation of indigenous communities in all stages of project implementation. Indigenous political structures are recognized and respected in subproject implementation.

Community-managed Implementation and Organization Formation and Development

Indigenous communities acknowledge that subprojects fit their social and cultural contexts, which include appropriate access to labor and manner of payment, culturally sensitive project design, and schedule of project implementation.

Indigenous community volunteers are active members of major committees during all phases of the CEAC.

CEFs have a thorough understanding of indigenous leadership patterns and decision making processes, which will ensure that the program-related organizations formed are in harmony with indigenous political structures.

(iv) Area of Inquiry 3:

To what extent does the DSWD have the capacity and resources needed to implement IP-related activities based on the findings of its internal monitoring systems?

41

Indicator Performance Measurement

A capacity building program to increase the capability of program staff in terms of the knowledge, skills, and attitude required to effectively engage indigenous communities has been systematically implemented.

The National Program Management Office (NPMO) provides high quality technical and capacity building support to the regional program staff focused on enabling the ACTs to engaging indigenous people in a culturally appropriate manner.

The NPMO has a monitoring system in place at the regional level to systematize the coaching and mentoring of ACTs, concentrating on culture sensitive facilitation and quality engagement with indigenous communities.

Capacity building and training activities are completed on schedule.

Structures and processes are in place to safeguard the right of indigenous peoples to be consulted before initiating any development initiative within their ancestral domain.

DSWD and NCIP focal persons regularly communicate concerning key activities, keeping each other informed of the progress of the program’s implementation.

The National Technical Working Group (NTWG) and the Regional Technical Working Group (RTWG) have regular meetings to ensure that the agreed to activities in the Memorandum of Agreement8 are being implemented based on the established targets and time frame.

NCIP personnel in the region are open to new approaches for fast tracking the mandated validation process of securing the consent of the IP communities in the affected ancestral domain.

Grievance redress mechanisms established by the project are culturally appropriate and socially inclusive.

Project staff ensure the integration of indigenous systems of dispute resolution in the establishment of grievance committees at the municipal and barangay levels.

Indigenous communities are aware of the grievance procedures and are not afraid to file grievances arising from project implementation.

Internal monitoring systems are in place for effective tracking of the progress and identification of any gaps in subproject and ESMP implementation.

The NPMO holds regular meetings to analyze, interpret and synthesize findings based on safeguards documentation, monitoring visits, and ESMP implementation.

(v) Area of Inquiry 4:

What progress has the KC-NCDDP program made in establishing policies to safeguard the right of indigenous peoples to receive culturally compatible social and economic benefits and to ensure they are not adversely affected during the development process?

8 MOA between NCIP and DSWD for Facilitating KC-NCDDP in IP areas. July 22, 2015. Manila

42

Indicator Performance Measurement

Decision-makers and key players of the program are aware of the benefits of and challenges in integrating indigenous peoples’ perspectives during program implementation.

1. Decision-makers and key players can identify the strengths and weakness of the ESMP and IPP objectives and approaches. They are able to critically analyze both plans’ implementation strategies, recognize institutional issues, and make suggestions for improvements in future projects involving indigenous peoples.

B. Data Collection and Planning Matrix

Objective Indicator How to Measure Data Needed Data Gathering Method

Source of Data

a) Evaluate the relevance of all IPP activities and determine whether they effectively minimize and mitigate any adverse project impacts on IP communities

Each project’s ESMP includes a detailed list of measures for avoiding adverse environmental and/or social impacts, especially on indigenous peoples.

1. Each subproject’s ESMP contains an effective mitigation strategy that is feasible and with enough resources to implement the mitigation measures. (i) Each project’s ESMP

clearly identify possible impacts and appropriate mitigation measures.

(ii) Number of community volunteers (CV) trained in the preparation of safeguard instruments.

2. Indigenous communities are able to analyze and predict the impacts of a proposed subproject on their social, cultural, and economic systems. (i) During formal and

informal discussions, participating communities express their opinions on how subprojects may affect their lives, both positively and negatively.

(ii) Indigenous community members can articulate the importance of the

Situation of the community, both prior to and after the completion of the subproject

(i) access to health, education, utilities and other social services

(ii) land use and other resource ownership and utilization patterns

(iii) income sources

PSA results, which will serve as a reference point and provide a baseline for assessing program impacts and changes in peoples’ lives.

Accomplished Environment Social Management Plan (ESMP) with detailed mitigation plans if indigenous people will be adversely affected by the project

Review of project documentation and monitoring reports (ESMP, PSA, attendance forms, summary of consultations, community profiles, and others) Secondary data—location, ethnic group, skills level, access to cultural sites and events, and value of all assets forming entitlements and resettlement entitlements. Participatory workshop discussions with RPMO, ACT and community volunteers in the 10 monitoring sites identified Direct observation during formal and informal discussions

ACT/CEF, Affected groups in the 10 monitoring sites RPMO-RCDS, CDO, Cap Build, M&E, and NCIP Regional Office

44

Objective Indicator How to Measure Data Needed Data Gathering Method

Source of Data

ESMP, not as a mandatory project requirement, but as a tool that can help safeguard their community from possible undesired impacts of a subproject.

3. Responsible stakeholders and indigenous communities are able to implement the activities specified in the ESMP within the agreed-to timeframe. (i) CVs and other

stakeholders in the project confirm that all mitigating measures for each identified impact were implemented based on the agreed-to schedule.

b) Determine the level of engagement of indigenous groups in various activities throughout the Community Empowerment Activity Cycle (CEAC): social preparation, subproject

SOCIAL PREPARATION Guidelines are in place detailing how to integrate culture sensitive approaches for engaging indigenous communities taking into consideration their specific development needs.

1. During social preparation the ACT, especially the CEFs, are able to disseminate information about KC-NCDDP in a way that the indigenous communities can easily understand and in a culturally appropriate manner.

(i) ACTs develop a team approach to provide clear talking

List of indigenous leaders of the indigenous group(s) in the area

Description of where the indigenous peoples are, who they are, and what issues and concerns they face

Focus group discussions with ACT and community volunteers in the 10 identified sites Key informant interviews with regional NCIP staff, LGUs, tribal leaders, and PSA community volunteers.

ACT/CEF, Affected groups in 10 sites NCIP Regional Office LGUs (barangay captain) Tribal leaders

45

Objective Indicator How to Measure Data Needed Data Gathering Method

Source of Data

identification and development, prioritization, and subproject implementation

points, creative presentations, and use the local language, avoiding the use of technical jargon.

(ii) The ACTs/CEFs understand and are able to explain the traditional political structures and decision-making process of the indigenous communities they work with.

2. Program staff understand the true situation and development needs of communities based on indigenous values and aspirations. (i) The ACT possesses

a list of the genuine leaders of the indigenous group(s) in the area. Also documented are where the indigenous peoples reside, what specific group they belong to, and what issues and concerns they face.

(ii) The ACTs/CEFs have definitive data

Direct observation during formal and informal discussions with indigenous leaders, women, youth and elders in the community

Affected indigenous communities

46

Objective Indicator How to Measure Data Needed Data Gathering Method

Source of Data

on the development needs of the indigenous communities that can inform problem analysis and strategic decision-making processes.

3. The ACTs/CEFs can confidently facilitate separate and culture specific consultations for indigenous communities.

(i) Direct outreach, including one-on-one conversations, informal group discussions, and community meetings are held to increase communities’ awareness of KC-NCDDP.

4. Prepare community volunteers to represent their communities in the various committees.

(i) ACT/CEFs are respected by indigenous leaders and community members, who can share experiences of how the ACT/CEFs assisted them to meaningfully participate in key program activities.

47

Objective Indicator How to Measure Data Needed Data Gathering Method

Source of Data

5. The ACT can facilitate a shared understanding among the LGU, NCIP, and DSWD concerning the IP Framework and culture sensitive service delivery.

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PROJECT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT Different stakeholders realize the importance of IP-specific social inclusion criteria that guarantee the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in barangay decision-making processes.

1. Tribal leaders and indigenous community members express appreciation for the value of participation in decision making processes during critical CEAC activities.

(i) Tribal leaders and members of the indigenous group are satisfied with their involvement in the CEAC activities.

2. Indigenous leaders or

community representatives are actively involved in community volunteer committees and able to define the criteria for subproject prioritization and proposal development.

Identified subprojects in areas with indigenous populations supported by clear quantitative and qualitative data.

Number of indigenous community volunteers in each of the subprojects at each stage of the CEAC activities

Documentation of field and validation visits

Participatory workshop discussions with community volunteers from the indigenous communities and ACTs in the 10 monitoring sites Desk review and analysis of data based on project documentation

ACTs and community volunteers from the indigenous communities

48

Objective Indicator How to Measure Data Needed Data Gathering Method

Source of Data

(i) Community volunteers from the indigenous communities can describe the process involved in identifying their subproject, which is informed by quantitative and qualitative data.

(ii) Community volunteers articulate the strategies and innovations they utilize for influencing subproject prioritization, criteria setting and identification of subprojects.

3. ACTs utilize clear-cut, well developed approaches for assisting indigenous communities to formulate project proposals that truly reflect their needs and aspirations. (i) ACT members share

the strategies and facilitation techniques they employ, which are based on their comprehensive understanding of indigenous peoples’

49

Objective Indicator How to Measure Data Needed Data Gathering Method

Source of Data

culture, leadership patterns, and decision making processes.

4. ACTs coordinate with the NCIP Provincial Office and/or Community Service Center to facilitate the validation of IP subprojects as defined by the NCIP Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) guidelines. (i) ACTs assess their

partnership with NCIP, identifying its strengths and weaknesses, including bottlenecks in the validation process.

COMMUNITY-MANAGED IMPLEMENTATION AND ORGANIZATION FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT The existence of clear policies and work plans that include the participation of indigenous communities in all stages of project implementation.

1. Indigenous communities acknowledge that subprojects fit their social and cultural contexts, which include appropriate access to labor and manner of payment, culturally sensitive project design, and schedule of project implementation.

(i) Leaders and community members share how their participation helped shape the crafting of

Documentation of indigenous people’s participation in subproject implementation with specific issues and concerns, and the proposed recommendations to address them, all clearly recorded.

Policies and guidelines for subproject implementation that

Participatory workshop discussions with community volunteers from the indigenous group and ACT in 10 sites Desk review and analysis of data based on project documentation Direct observation of subprojects during field visits

ACT and community volunteers from the affected indigenous group

50

Objective Indicator How to Measure Data Needed Data Gathering Method

Source of Data

Indigenous political structures are recognized and respected in subproject implementation.

policies, guidelines, and the drafting of bylaws that clearly define their contribution to the management of the project.

(ii) Members of indigenous communities share how their participation helped shape the program’s vision, mission, and policies that are in line with the collective aspirations of their community.

2. Indigenous community volunteers are active members of major committees during all phases of the CEAC. (i) Functioning and

well-maintained subprojects with accountability on the part of community members clearly defined

3. CEFs have a thorough understanding of indigenous leadership patterns and decision making processes, which will ensure that the program-related organizations formed are

fit the situation of indigenous peoples.

51

Objective Indicator How to Measure Data Needed Data Gathering Method

Source of Data

in harmony with indigenous political structures.

c) Assess the capacity of the implementing agency (DSWD) to handle program activities involving IP communities, including a thorough review and verification of internal monitoring systems.

A capacity building program to increase the capability of program staff in terms of the knowledge, skills, and attitude required to effectively engage indigenous communities has been systematically implemented.

1. The number of culture sensitivity trainings and coaching sessions for ACTs that were provided

2. Regional Community Development Specialist and Capacity Building Officer validate that programs for developing culturally competent staff are systematically integrated in the program.

3. Community empowerment facilitators show sensitivity to indigenous culture and demonstrate confidence in mobilizing communities to participate meaningfully in the program.

4. The IP Facilitation Guide is being used regularly by ACTs as a guide for facilitating culture sensitive approaches in IP areas.

Safeguards monitoring report

Culture sensitivity training reports and documentation

Mentoring and coaching report

Frequency that the IP Facilitation guide and other materials are being used in the field

Capacity building activities specific for IP communities

Project monitoring plans

Review of needs assessments and situation analyses, safeguards monitoring reports, and project results Review of project documentation and reports Review of project monitoring plans Focus-group discussion with NPMO, RPMO and key project staff Key informant interview with CEFs and Area Coordinators

NPMO, RPMO and ACT

Structures and processes are in place to safeguard the right of indigenous peoples to be consulted before initiating any development initiative

1. Both DSWD and NCIP focal persons confirm that their partnership is based on common objectives, shared motivation and a commitment to allocate

Documentation of inter-agency meetings

Documentation of field investigation activities

Interview with the NCIP IP Focal persons at the national and regional offices

NCIP, NPMO, and RPMO

52

Objective Indicator How to Measure Data Needed Data Gathering Method

Source of Data

within their ancestral domain.

financial resources for ensuring that safeguards for indigenous peoples are in place.

2. Both the National Technical Working Group and the Regional Technical Working Group are functioning and active; relevant issues are being addressed at the regional and national levels.

3. New approaches for fast tracking the validation process of securing the consent of IP communities have been developed.

Interview with key members of the NTWG/RTWG Focus group discussion with the social safeguards specialist, safeguards officers, and community development officers

Grievance redress mechanisms established by the project are culturally appropriate and socially inclusive.

1. The CEFs are familiar with the justice system and conflict resolution practices of the indigenous communities they work with.

2. Indigenous community members are represented in the GRM at the municipal and barangay levels and are able to integrate indigenous systems of dispute resolution in the grievance committee.

3. Indigenous community members confirm that the GRM procedures are

Documentation of the types of grievances filed, cases resolved, and complaint trends.

Documentation of indigenous practices used in resolving project related conflicts.

Interview with project staff and members of GRM committees.

GRM committees at the municipal and barangay levels

53

Objective Indicator How to Measure Data Needed Data Gathering Method

Source of Data

not intimidating and easy to follow.

Internal monitoring systems are in place for effective tracking of the progress and identification of any gaps in subproject and ESMP implementation

Clear lines of communication exist between the national safeguards specialist and regional safeguards officers, who coordinate the flow of information to ensure close collaboration in safeguards implementation.

Documentation of mission findings, monitoring visits, and ESMP on-ground implementation

Interview with the National Safeguards Specialist and M and E Specialist

National Social Safeguards Specialist/Officers; Monitoring and Evaluation Team

d) Identify the strengths and weakness of the ESMP, IPP objectives and approaches, implementation strategies, including institutional issues, and provide suggestions for improvements in future project IP planning and implementation.

Decision-makers and key players are aware of the benefits of and challenges in integrating indigenous peoples’ perspectives during program implementation.

1. Decision-makers and key program staff critically analyze policies and strategies to determine their appropriateness for ensuring IP safeguards in KC-NCDDP.

(i) Implementation of ESMP

(ii) IPP objectives, approaches, and implementation strategies

(iii) Institutional and program level concerns

KC-NCDPP Operations Manual

Project Administration Manual

Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework

Focus-group discussion with NPMO, RPMO and key project staff Review of project operations manual and framework

National Social Safeguards Specialist/Officers; Monitoring and Evaluation Team Island Clusters

III. Work Plan

11. The schedule of the monitoring activities for each field site covers roughly 5 days of data gathering. Following is the detailed work plan for the first five of the ten areas to be monitored.

Activity Output Time Persons Involved

PREPARATORY WORK

1. Desk review of all relevant documents at the NPMO including:

CEAC Manual

IPPF

ESMF

data capture forms

data in the IP safeguards database

technical reports

results of internal monitoring

Systematic review of available documents. Documents will be gathered and organized; relevant information will be synthesized in order to gain an understanding of the context of each site and identify data gathering priorities, trends, and data gaps that need to be filled during the field work.

May-June ADB and National Safeguards Specialist

2. Develop a detailed evaluation methodology with an appropriate set of indicators best suited for monitoring the implementation of indigenous peoples safeguards.

Monitoring and evaluation plan that includes detailed description of the methodology to be used, data collection tools, instruments, and site selection and work schedules

End of June IP External consultant

3. Interview relevant NPMO Technical staff/consultants to gain an understanding of the program and existing social safeguards policies and procedures for engaging indigenous peoples;

Interviews conducted and group discussions held with the following staff:

National Social Safeguards Specialist and officers

Monitoring and Evaluation Team

Island Clusters

July to August National Social Safeguards Specialist/Officer;

Monitoring and Evaluation Team

Island Clusters

4. Communicating and planning activities with regional staff

Memo and work plan approved by regional teams

July DSWD and external consultant

FIELD VISITS

5. Conduct field visits to identify strengths and challenges in achieving objectives described in the ESMP and IPP for safeguarding the rights of indigenous peoples in development programs.

Site 1: Region IV-A

Site 2: Region IV-B

Site 3: Region VI

Site 4: Region VII

Data collection at the regional and municipal levels

Interview with regional staff (RCDS, RCDO, and M and E)

Interview with AC and CDO

Focus group discussions with community members to assess how effectively ESMP and IPP

August to September

External consultant and RPMO/SRPMO

1

Activity Output Time Persons Involved

Site 5: Region VIII

objectives have been met and their impacts.

Validate findings from the ADB review of sub-project proposals and safeguards documents to determine corrective measures that have already been undertaken by concerned RPMOs, and make recommendations for remedial action with time-based outputs.

Determine the effectiveness of grievance redress mechanisms by assessing their accessibility and examining relevant documentation, existing practices, and resolution dispute resolution results.

Identify the lessons learned

FINAL REPORT

6. Prepare an independent monitoring report for the five monitoring areas

Field assessment October

External Consultant

7. Consolidation and presentation of report

Key findings presented and final report for the five areas submitted

October-November

DSWD and External Consultant

IV. Data Collection Instruments A. Participatory workshop discussion guide with female and male community

volunteers and the Area Coordinating Team

12. The evaluation process will be facilitated workshop-style with the goal of establishing a reference point to judge the extent that the indigenous communities have gained an increased awareness of the importance of identifying impacts of subprojects in their lives, socially, economically, and culturally. The discussion will focus on assessing the relevance of all IPP activities at the ground level by seeking the perspectives of female and male community volunteers. A separate group process with the Area Coordinating Team will be conducted to solicit the viewpoints of the project implementers. 13. The process questions posed during the workshop will provide direction for the discussion, but the facilitator has the flexibility to adapt the questions to best fit the situation in each site. The

2

questions below will be used to assess the first objective of the assignment during the first session of the day.

Key Components Process Questions

Level of awareness of the importance of identifying impacts of the subprojects

1) How do the indigenous communities identify potential negative impacts of a proposed subproject on their social, political, economic and cultural systems?

2) What are the processes involved in identifying environmental and social issues of a proposed subproject?

3) How do communities reach a consensus when deciding on measures to mitigate negative project impacts?

4) Do communities have the proper training and skills to accomplish the ESMP template?

5) Do communities go through the process of formulating an ESMP mainly to comply with project requirements, or do they believe that they have the responsibility to address and mitigate any negative impacts of subprojects?

Project impacts with special focus on cultural and livelihood systems

1) What changes have taken place in key social and cultural parameters relating to the living standards of indigenous people in the project area?

2) What changes have occurred in income and expenditure patterns compared to the pre-project situation? What have been the changes in cost of living compared to the pre-project situation? Has the situation of the indigenous people improved or remained the same after completion of the project?

3) Are indigenous women reaping the same benefits as indigenous men?

4) Are negative impacts proportionally shared by indigenous men and women?

Customary rights of access to land and the utilization of natural resources

1) What steps does the community take to ensure a proposed subproject is in line with their vision and goals for protecting their ancestral domain?

2) How do the community and the project implementers ensure that a subproject will not disturb sensitive localities such as sacred or local cultural heritage sites, burial grounds, or critical areas identified by the indigenous community?

3) What efforts do the indigenous communities take to safeguard their rights to their ancestral land?

4) Are special measures to protect indigenous culture, traditional resource rights, and resources in place? How are these being implemented?

14. The second part of the session will consist of a reflection exercise focusing on how indigenous representatives and community members assess their level of engagement during social preparation, subproject identification, prioritization, and implementation. The results of the session will provide the answer to the following critical questions: Were the voices of indigenous communities heard throughout all phases of the KC-NCDDP project cycle? Were they satisfied with their level of engagement in the decision making processes of the project? What strengths are demonstrated by the involvement of indigenous communities? What challenges remain? What needs to be improved to maximize the participation of indigenous communities in the program?

3

15. The exercise will help the ACT to reflect on whether they ensure that subprojects are implemented using culture sensitive facilitation processes. Do the CEFs and Area Coordinators respect customary political structures and traditional decision making processes? 16. The following questions will address the second objective of the assignment and will be used during the afternoon session:

Key Areas to Investigate Process Questions

Facilitating meaningful consultations with indigenous peoples during the various stages of the CEAC

How does the Area Coordinating Team ensure they: 1) Disseminate information about KC-NCDDP in a way that the

indigenous communities can easily understand and in a culturally appropriate manner?

2) Exert effort to reach out to indigenous communities to involve them in all program activities?

3) Conduct separate consultations for indigenous communities, especially if they constitute a minority in the barangay?

4) Use a local language that can be understood by the minority groups in the barangay?

5) Provide a venue for indigenous representatives to express their viewpoints? Are they are able to influence decisions in subproject selection? Can they express what is socially and culturally appropriate for them?

6) Organize consultations that are inter-generationally exclusive, gender fair, free from external coercion and manipulation, done in a manner appropriate to the customs of the affected indigenous community and with proper disclosure?

7) Respect customary laws in the conduct of consultations, during IPP activities, and in the resolution of conflicts?

8) Invite representatives of the NCIP for the municipal orientation, community validation, and other critical CEAC activities?

Indigenous peoples’ willingness to participate in all CEAC activities

1) Do indigenous representatives and community members feel comfortable during general assemblies or critical CEAC activities where major decisions are made? Do they feel they are listened to and understood?

2) Do they feel at all intimidated during large meetings? Are the venue and setup appropriate to allow indigenous communities to feel comfortable during the meeting, especially in cases where they comprise a minority in the barangay?

3) Do they feel that the Community Empowerment Facilitator and the Area Coordinating Team can be easily approached if there are questions or confusion about the program?

4) Do indigenous communities feel that each of the critical processes of the CEAC provides enough time for them to adequately reflect on the process, or do activities always seem to be rushed?

B. Focus group discussion guide for consultations with the NPMO and RPMO/SRPMO

4

17. The objective of this session with key program staff from the NPMO, RPMO, and SRPMO is to assess, based on the findings of their internal monitoring systems, whether the implementing agency has the resources and the capacity needed to implement IP-specific program activities. 18. The following process questions will address the third objective of the external monitoring assignment and will be used during the first session of the second day of the field visit:

Key Areas to Investigate Process Questions

Internal monitoring system 1) How do you assess the existing mechanisms designed to ensure the effective tracking of the program’s progress and the identification of gaps in subproject/ESMP implementation? (For example, how effective are the technical team, process team, and safeguards team?)

2) What systems are in place to ensure that the safeguards specialists and officers, as well as the operations staff, have established effective lines of communication and a smooth flow of information to enable close collaboration in implementing social and environmental safeguards?

3) What are their suggestions to better improve existing systems and policies for more effective ESMP implementation?

Developing culturally competent project staff

1) How do you ensure that you provide high quality technical support to the program staff for building their capacity to effectively engage indigenous communities in a culturally sensitive manner?

2) What are your efforts to systematize the coaching and mentoring of project staff focusing on culture sensitive facilitation and quality engagement with indigenous communities?

3) Have all the planned capacity building and training activities been completed on schedule?

4) Does the management have a clear program directive that ensures indigenous peoples’ perspectives are integrated at all levels of program implementation? What are the structures in place, both at the national and regional levels, to make this a reality?

5) Are there enough human and financial resources to make this initiative work?

Safeguarding the rights of indigenous peoples to be consulted before the implementation of any development project in their ancestral domain

1) How does the program ensure that communities’ free and prior informed consent is obtained?

2) What do program staff and management think of their partnership with NCIP? What are the strengths and the bottlenecks in the implementation of the DSWD-NCIP MOA for facilitating KC-NCDDP in IP areas?

3) What recommendations can they make to improve the partnership with NCIP, both at the national and regional levels?

Grievance redress mechanisms 1) How much do indigenous communities know about the grievance procedures and conflict resolution mechanisms of the program? Do the mechanisms integrate indigenous conflict resolution practices?

2) How has the program addressed the common perception that project authorities will not act on their grievances?

5

Key Areas to Investigate Process Questions

3) How do the program implementers utilize communication strategies to make it easier for the indigenous communities to file complaints?

4) Have any of the members of the indigenous communities made use of the grievance redress procedures? What were the outcomes? Have conflicts been resolved?

5) Are the complaints and grievances of affected indigenous communities being documented?

19. The following process questions are designed to identify the strengths and weakness of the ESMP and the IPP objectives, approaches, and implementation strategies, including any institutional issues. The goal is to provide suggestions for improvements in future planning and implementation of projects that involve indigenous people.

Monitoring Indicators Process Questions

Key players are aware of the strengths and challenges of integrating indigenous peoples’ perspectives in the program.

1) What strategies are designed to enable the integration of indigenous peoples’ perspective at the institutional and program levels of KC-NCDPP?

Developing culturally competent project staff

Clear directives for applying IP perspectives in program implementation, such as ensuring the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in major decision making processes, equal representation in committee work, and culturally appropriate subproject design

Clear indicators designed to measure the culture sensitivity of the Community Empowerment Activity Cycle participated in by indigenous communities

2) What are the strengths and challenges in integrating IP perspectives in program implementation?

IPP objectives, approaches, and implementation strategies

ESMP implementation at the ground level (training of CVs, training materials on safeguards)

3) What are the suggestions for improvements and enhancements in future projects involving indigenous people?

C. Key Informant Interview Guide

National and Regional NCIP Officials

20. The objective of the interviews is to give NCIP officials an opportunity to reflect on the collaboration of their agency with the DSWD in facilitating CDD in IP areas. The DSWD-NCIP MOA that was signed in November 2015, which detailed the roles and commitments of the two agencies, will be the main tool used to assess the partnership.

(i) What progress has been made concerning the partnership between NCIP and DSWD in engaging indigenous peoples and recognizing their capacity to strengthen their distinct social, economic, political and cultural systems? The discussion will focus on the three main objectives of the collaboration:

6

a) Ensure culture sensitive facilitation of KC-NCDDP in IP areas b) Validate free and prior informed consent of IP communities for

subprojects to be implemented in, or have an impact on IP communities c) Establish and operationalize institutional partnerships and coordination

mechanisms at the national and regional/field office levels

(ii) Did you establish internal mechanisms at the national and regional levels to coordinate key activities based on the agreed-to targets and timeframe stated in the MOA? What structures are in place to facilitate the collaboration?

(iii) Were enhancements or adjustments made at the national and regional levels to

enable the development of region-specific validation processes? (iv) How did these modifications help to fast-track the process for securing the

consent of the indigenous communities involved? (v) What are the strengths and bottlenecks in the implementation of the MOA? (vi) What recommendations would you make to improve the partnership with DSWD,

both at the national and regional levels?

Tribal leaders and local officials

(i) What do you think of KC-NCDDP as a program that provides services to alleviate poverty and empower disadvantaged communities seeking an improved quality of life? Has the program helped your barangay to achieve this goal?

(ii) How does the program help to ensure that the marginalized and voiceless

members of your community have an opportunity to take part in the decision making processes in the barangay?

(iii) How do you assess the level of participation of the community, especially

indigenous people? Are they able to take advantage of the safeguards designed to guarantee meaningful participation in the decision making and problem solving processes used to determine development priorities and initiate and manage subprojects?

(iv) What is the role of the barangay and tribal leaders in ensuring that indigenous

communities are critically aware of the impacts of a subproject on their economic, social and cultural systems?

(v) How do you ensure that the indigenous communities in your area are aware of

the grievance procedures and are not afraid to file complaints arising from the project?

GRM committee members at the municipal and barangay levels

(i) How familiar are the indigenous communities with the grievance and conflict

resolution procedures of the program? Are indigenous conflict resolution practices integrated in the program?

7

(ii) How has the program addressed the common perception that project authorities

will not act on their grievances?

(iii) How do the program implementers utilize communication strategies to make it easier for the indigenous communities to file a complaint?

(iv) Have any members of the indigenous communities taken advantage of the grievance redress mechanisms? What were the outcomes? Were the conflicts resolved?

(v) Are complaints and grievances of affected indigenous community being documented?

D. Social and Cultural Checklist 21. This tool will be used to gain an understanding of the social, economic, and cultural contexts of the indigenous group by observation and conversing with people, in both informal and formal contexts. It will include personal interpretations of what transpired during the field visit.

Data Set Particulars

1. Basic information on IP households

(i) Location (ii) Composition and structure, age, education, and skill level (iii) Gender of head of household (iv) Ethnic group (v) Access to health, education, utilities and other social

services (vi) Land use and other resource ownership patterns (vii) Occupation and employment patterns (viii) Income sources and levels (ix) Participation in neighborhood or community groups (x) Level of communities’ integration with the mainstream

society (xi) Access to cultural sites and events (xii) Value of all assets forming entitlements and resettlement

entitlements

2. Subsistence and Economics

(i) Predominant type of subsistence

Crops and agricultural practices

Ten most important crops

Five major domestic animals

Fish and fishing techniques

Game and hunting techniques

Food gathered

Seasonal availability of food (ii) Food Storage (iii) Building and construction (iv) Market (v) Trade (vi) Political and Economic Incorporation

Level of effective political incorporation

Wage labor activities

Wage labor locations

Forms of economic organization

3. Political Organization (i) Community leadership

Type of leaders

Selection of leader

8

Data Set Particulars

(ii) Stratification (if any)

Type of stratification

Land tenure

Land transfer rules (iii) Law and Order

Instituting of societal rules

Mechanisms to enforce social rules

Dispute settlement

Forms of punishment

Personnel who enforce penalties

4. Social Welfare

(i) What aspects of their culture people are most proud of (ii) Social problems (iii) Social services

E. Secondary Data

(i) Collection of quantitative data from the Monitoring and Evaluation Team at both the national and regional offices

data capture forms

data in the IP safeguards database

results of internal monitoring systems

internal monitoring indicators

(ii) Capacity building

national and regional staff trainings conducted

plans for future capacity building

(iii) Data from ACTs

Status of the subproject

Sample ESMP

PSA reports

Attendance records focusing on participation of indigenous people

Summary of consultations

Community profiles