"Population-Environment IEC Programme"
PHI/89/P05
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
Prepared by:
Ms Teresa Habito-Stuart
Mr Robert E Moore
Mr Francisco H Roque
Manila, Philippines
21 November 1994
Table of Contents
Page
Acknowledgements 3
List of Relevant Abbreviations 4
I. Summary of Main Findings and Recommendations 5
II. Introduction 9
III. Background to the Project 11
IV. Assessment of Project Objectives and Design 16
A. Justification 16
B. Objectives 16
C. Project Design 17
V. Assessment of Implementation 19
A. Project Budget and Expenditure 19
B. Activities and Outputs 19
C. Government Support 31
D. Project Management 32
E. Technical and Operational Backstopping 33
VI. Assessment of Results 34
A. Effects and Impact 34
B. Major Factors Affecting the Project Results/Lessons Learned 34
C. Sustainability 37
VII. Findings and Recommendations 39
Annexes
1. Mission's Terms of Reference
2. DENR's Organizational Structure
3. Schedule of Activities
4. Key Persons Met by the Mission
5. List of Documents and Other References, Materials Consulted by the Mission
6. IEC Materials Developed and Produced under PHI/89/P05 (1990 - 1994)
7. Training Activities under PHI/89/P05 (1990 - 1994)
8. PHI/90/P05 in Diagram
────────────────────── Final Evaluation, 1-21 November 1994
Acknowledgements
The Evaluation Team would like to thank Dr Angel C Alcala, Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Dr Ben Malayang, Undersecretary for Field Operations, Dr Ricardo V Serrano, National Project Director of PHI/89/P05 and concurrently Regional Executive Director of the National Capital Region (NCR), Mr George Walmsley, Country Director, UNFPA Manila, and Mr Peer Hijmans, Representative, FAO Manila, and their technical staffs headed by Ms Bridge Jayme (UNFPA), Mr Krishna Shrestha (FAO), Ms Sabrina R Cruz, Mrs Rose Capulong and Edgardo Manalansan (PAO/DENR) for the invaluable time and facilities provided to the Team throughout the duration of the evaluation.
Also, the openness and the accommodating attitudes extended to us in the course of our field visits and interviews in Regions III, VI, NCR, and X covering Nueva Ecija, Bataan, Zambales, Bacolod and Camiguin provinces by the heads of PENROs, CENROS, CDOs and CDAs, partner agencies from Department of Health (DOH), Commission on Population (POPCOM), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM), and the people of the upland areas we visited, jointly and separately, to fully understand and appreciate the implementation of the project.
Finally, the team would like to thank Dr Delia Barcelona, Development Support Communication Consultant, and Prof Danilo Santos, Field Coordinator, for their substantive contribution and efficient way of helping us.
List of Relevant Abbreviations
CENRO - Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer
CDO - Community Development Officer
CDA - Community Development Assistant
CO - Community Organizing
DA - Department of Agriculture
DAR - Department of Agrarian Reform
DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DOH - Department of Health
DSC - Development Support Communication
FGD - Focus group discussion
FP - Family Planning
FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization
FLE - Family Life Education
IEC - Information, Education and Communication
ISF - Integrated Social Forestry
KRA - Key result area
LGU - Local Government Unit
MCH/FP - Maternal and Child Health/Family Planning
MOA - Memorandum of Agreement
NCR - National Capital Region
NGO - Non-Government Organization
PAO - Public Affairs Office
PENRO - Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer
PIO - Public Information Officer
POPCOM - Commission on Population
POP-IEC - Population-Information, Education and Communication
PRRM - Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement
RED - Regional Executive Director
RHU - Rural Health Unit
RPAO - Regional Public Affairs Office
RTD - Regional Technical Director
TBS - Technical backstopping
TPR - Tripartite Project Review
UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund
I. Summary of Main Findings and Recommendations
Project PHI/89/P05 "Population-Environment IEC Programme" began implementation in 1990 and is scheduled to terminate in December 1994. The project is aimed at increasing awareness among leaders, DENR staff and uplands inhabitants on the interrelationship between resources, environment and population. Activities undertaken include research, training, production of IEC materials, holding of seminars and workshops and culminated in campaigns in the project's five pilot provinces and 34 project sites.
The terminal evaluation, undertaken (1 - 21 November) less than two months before the scheduled project end, was intended to draw lessons for the future and advise on measures required for project sustainability, including future assistance requirements if any.
The evaluation team consisted of Mr. Francisco H. Roque (Team Leader) representing UNFPA, Mr. Robert Moore representing FAO and Mrs. Teresa Habito-Stuart representing the Philippine Government.
The main findings were as follows:
The project was found to be relevant to several important development problems of the Philippines and sought to address these problems in an integrated manner through an IEC campaign. However, project design suffered from a lack of precision in what was meant by "an integrated IEC programme", overly ambitious targets in terms of geographic coverage and poor sequencing of events. Institutional strengthening could have usefully been a more specific focus in the project design.
Project implementation was troubled, with slow progress up until mid-1993. The project made a number of modifications at that time which permitted much better achievement in the last 1 1/2 years. However, there is a danger of loss of momentum, since only one campaign will have been implemented before the scheduled termination date. Throughout implementation, the project has been well documented and has even improved in this area over the last one and one-half years.
The two research surveys which were undertaken were not used for training or IEC materials design. Given the relatively simple messages meant to be conveyed, informed local knowledge combined with focus group discussions, rather than expensive research studies, would have been more cost-effective.
It is too early to assess the effectiveness of the IEC materials because the campaigns are still on-going. The mission's impression, however, is that interpersonal communication is effective, especially when reinforced by print media and plugs recorded on cassette which are played at meetings.
Training implemented before mid-1993 was rather unfocused. Training carried out since mid-1993 has been better, particularly the training needs assessment workshop and training on integrating IEC materials.
In anticipation of the campaigns in the five project provinces, good field implementation linkages were developed with PRRM. DOH was more involved in the early stages of the project, before the decision was taken to focus on regions where service delivery could be assured by PRRM. DOH would have to be involved in any expansion of the project outside the relatively limited number of areas where PRRM is active.
Monitoring information is not available on the number of attendees at village meetings, broken down by age and gender. In terms of the direct beneficiaries (DENR staff and associated agencies), women are very well represented at all sites, generally in the majority.
There has been little contact between this project and the other three UNFPA-funded, FAO-executed projects in the Philippines, aside from the UNFPA-convened meetings held in 1992 and 1993 (a third meeting is scheduled for 28-29 November 1994).
While there is no way to accurately assess the amount of staff time being spent on project activities, it seems that enough is available at all levels to ensure the conduct of the campaigns.
Technical support from UNFPA and FAO in the last two years of the project has been good. Technical comments from FAO, although sometimes received late, have been detailed and useful. Technical backstopping visits by FAO have been frequent since 1993 and the technical inputs of the local DSC consultant and field coordinator were instrumental in the improved implementation of the project. Some administrative and technical problems were experienced due to changes in procedures for project disbursements and unfamiliarity with FAO regulations, and clearance of IEC materials which delayed implementation.
Due to the fact that site launchings really only got started in October 1994, it is not possible to comment with authority on the effectiveness of the campaigns. However, the impression is that they are being conducted in a professional manner with adequate materials - in terms of message if not number.
At field level, there is good cooperation and positive reinforcement between the three "pillars" of this project - the Population IEC component and ISF component under DENR and the Rural Organization component under PRRM. If so decided by REDs, Population IEC (POP-IEC) could easily be integrated into ISF training programmes. Project sustainability will be ensured by including POP-IEC as a KRA at regional level.
Expansion in the near future can be considered, but it should be done cautiously, taking advantage of the staff which has already been trained.
In brief, the major factors for the slow progress in the early states of project implementation may be summed up as follows: lack of realism in the project document, inexperience of DENR with the DSC/IEC process, uncertainties and political conflicts in the early stages of devolution of authority, unclear project management structure, absence of a critical mass of skill project staff, insufficient priority given to the project and weak technical support.
On the other hand, the major factors which contributed towards achieving project goals from mid-1993 to the end of the project were: the mid-term evaluation results which provided the direction for project modification, the management's positive attitude to carry out the evaluation findings, the challenges brought about by TBS interventions to the project, the recruitment of DSC consultant and field coordinator with field experience, the reorientation of field staff personnel, the decentralized planning and implemntation after mid-1993, the effective networking at field level with partner agencies, and the full support and cooperation of field workers at all level as well as their positive response to perform more -- and better.
The mission recommendations for the immediate future are limited. They are:
1. FAO should extend the present project for three months into 1995 and re-phase funds, as requested by the project, for the Communications Management Workshop and the National Symposium on Population and Environment.
2. The results of the second baseline survey should be written up in popular fashion as an information material of particular interest to CDOs and CDAs, who do not receive information of this type.
3. The final tripartite review of this project, currently scheduled for 1 December, should be postponed until after the Workshop. This would permit consideration of both this evaluation report and the recommendations of the Workshop, before decisions are taken on the future.
For the longer term, the mission is concerned about future sustainability in the absence of further international support. While the indicated Government counterpart contribution for 1995 may cover travel expenses, the mission is concerned that there may be insufficient funds to cover food and accommodation and especially materials production, given the low number of materials produced thus far. Furthermore, given the absence of DENR in-house expertise on materials production, campaign organization and monitoring and evaluation, part-time consultancy services would be required. The mission therefore recommends a new or extended project, aimed at developing the capacity of DENR to implement POP-IEC programmes in the uplands, with a focus on expansion of the number of sites in Regions III, VI and X.
A more ambitious alternative for follow-up would be for development of DENR capacity to implement POP-IEC programmes in both the uplands and coastal areas, the latter in the context of DENR's Coastal Environmental Programme which operates with a similar participatory, community-based methodology to the ISF Programme.
Finally, the mission recommends to DENR the establishment of a clearing house function for IEC materials, most appropriately to be located in PAO.
II. Introduction
At the February 1994 Tripartite Project Review, it was decided to conduct terminal evaluation of the five-year Population-Environment IEC Programme, a project implemented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), towards the end of its final year of implementation. The evaluation was designed to draw lessons from DENR's experience in integrating population and environment concerns in an information-education-communication or IEC scheme into upland communities under the DENR's Integrated Social Forestry (ISF) Programme. The project is an innovative one, being a first attempt to systematically address through IEC, the interrelationships of population, resources and environment in the Philippines. The mission was asked to assess the extent to which the approach used was successful and to examine the steps that are necessary to ensure the sustainable application and expansion of successful aspects of the approach in the Philippines. (Refer to Annex 1 for the Mission's Terms of Reference.)
Mid-Term Project Evaluation in 1993
The terminal evaluation was the second independent, external review conducted of the project.
A mid-term evaluation in March 1993 noted various problems in project implementation and made recommendations toward the improvement of project objectives and design, project management and institutionalization scheme, field implementation, technical backstopping, and materials development and production.
Key recommendations of the mission were to:
1. Extend the project up to December 1994;
2. Recruit a qualified national DSC consultant to restate project objectives, improve project design, and draw up a workplan and a clear IEC strategy;
3. Assign three full-time senior technical staff;
4. Limit the number of pilot provinces from 34 to 18 in the same six regions as originally targeted, to better guarantee service delivery by either the Department of Health (DOH) or the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM).
5. Upgrade the status of POP-IEC activities to become one of the major components of the ISFP;
6. Strengthen the linkage between the project and the service delivery agencies, DOH and PRRM, particularly in the project sites;
7. Strengthen the institutional linkage of the project with other related projects (in particular, other FAO executed UNFPA projects) and participation of the project in inter-agency advisory committees on IEC to get advise on its activities;
8. Include the field implementation of the project as one of the key result areas (KRA) in the performance evaluation of the RED, PENRO, CENRO, CDO, CDA, including implementing staff from the PAO and ISFP.