Evaluation Detail

Terminal Evaluation of the Indigenous Communities Conservation Areas Project

Evaluation Plan:: 2019-2023, Philippines
Evaluation Type:: Final Project
Planned End Date:: 09/2019
Completion Date:: 08/2019
Status:: Completed
Management Response:: Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):: 45,000

Document	Type	Language	Size	Status	Downloads
Philippine ICCA TE Terms of Reference.pdf	tor	English	1390.93 KB	Posted	286
Philippine ICCA TE Final Evaluation Report.pdf	report	English	803.62 KB	Posted	463

Title

Terminal Evaluation of the Indigenous Communities Conservation Areas Project

Atlas Project Number:

00090663

Evaluation Plan:

2019-2023, Philippines

Evaluation Type:

Final Project

Status:

Completed

Completion Date:

08/2019

Planned End Date:

09/2019

Management Response:

Yes

UNDP Signature Solution:

1. Sustainable

Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)

1. Output 2.4.1 Gender-responsive legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions strengthened, and solutions adopted, to address conservation, sustainable use and equitable benefit sharing of natural resources, in line with international conventions and national legislation

SDG Goal

Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

SDG Target

15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements
15.4 By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development

Evaluation Budget(US $):

45,000

Source of Funding:

Project funds

Evaluation Expenditure(US $):

45,000

Joint Programme:

Joint Evaluation:

Evaluation Team members:

Name	Title	Email	Nationality
Jose Galindo	International Consultant	jose@mentefactura.com
Felicisimo David, Jr.	National Consultant	jundavid320@gmail.com

GEF Evaluation:

Yes

GEF Project Title:	Strengthen the conservation and management of key biodiversity sites in the Philippines, by institutionalizing ICCAs as a sustainable addition to the national PA estate.
Evaluation Type:	Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area:	Biodiversity
Project Type:	MSP
GEF Phase:	GEF-5
GEF Project ID:	5826
PIMS Number:	5389

Key Stakeholders:

Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (DENR – PAWB), National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), Koalisyong ng Katutubong Samahan ng Pilipinas (KASAPI), Philippine Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID)

Countries:

PHILIPPINES

Lessons
Findings
1.	The Project follows a logical process that articulates at least 10 years of UNDP- GEF support to create and strengthen PAs in the Philippines. The Project design was in alignment with the Philippine Development Plan (2017-2022) strategic actions under Subsector Outcome 1: Strengthen sustainable management through the issuance of appropriate tenure and management arrangement. Tenurial instruments were proposed to clearly establish the accountability of communities in the management of forestlands and PAs. It is also consistent with the strategic actions outlined in the Philippine Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan (2015-2028). The Project conforms closely to the GEF’s Operational Strategy, objectives and eligible activities under the Biodiversity Focal Area (FA) Strategy. More specifically, it supports directly Strategic Objective 1, “To improve the sustainability of protected area systems”, mainly through Outcome 1.1: Improved management effectiveness of existing and new protected areas. Tag: Strategic Positioning Indigenous people Site Conservation / Preservation Effectiveness Relevance Programme/Project Design Results-Based Management
2.	3.1.2 Assumptions and Risks In terms assumptions and risks, design was careful to acknowledge that achieving policy reform and harmonization will require work which goes beyond the life of the Project. The mitigation actions were appropriate, positioning the Project as a resource center for timely information, technical papers and constant consultation with key stakeholders. Tag: Relevance Global Environment Facility fund Programme/Project Design Results-Based Management Risk Management Indigenous people
3.	3.1.3 Lessons from other Projects With relation to lessons from other Projects and linkages with other interventions, the Project bridges the gap left by NewCAPP. The project builds on the results of NewCapp and scaled up the approach by strengthening the policy environment and improvement of capacities of key support organizations in the 10 ICCA sites. It further explored and provided sustainability to the national processes initiated in terms of exploring opportunities to expand the conservation area through innovative and inclusive approaches. NewCAPP generated a momentum for exploring new conservation approaches. Tag: Environment Policy Site Conservation / Preservation Knowledge management Capacity Building Indigenous people
4.	3.1.4 Planned stakeholder’s participation With regards to stakeholder’s participation, the Project design considered wide stakeholder participation schemes such as the RIAC, providing a forum for stakeholders at the national, regional and local level. The Project Board allowed large participation of different institutions involved directly and indirectly, although it could perhaps had been more effective to convene a more compact Board complemented by a larger Technical Advisory Group. The Project acknowledged and supported the sustainability of BUKLURAN, which was originally created as an IP specialized task force for ICCAS during NewCAPP. Tag: Sustainability Bilateral partners Country Government Indigenous people
5.	3.1.5 Replication Approach The project design had a replication and scaling dimension direct up of the establishment of ICCAs. This was achieved through embedding ICCA recognition and support to these areas in the policies of both NCIP, BMB and BFAR. Tag: Site Conservation / Preservation Bilateral partners Country Government Capacity Building Indigenous people
6.	3.1.6 UNDP Comparative Advantage UNDP possess a longstanding tradition of biodiversity conservation Projects worldwide, including the Philippines. It offers a valuable network overseen hundreds of Projects that provide quality support services during Project design and implementation. This allows opportunities for capacity building, learning and exchange of information that no other GEF implementing partner can equal so far. Though this is a clear comparative advantage there is yet still space to optimize information transfer, dissemination of lessons learned and networking capacities across the national and regional portfolio. Tag: Relevance Strategic Positioning Country Government UN Agencies
7.	3.1.7 Linkages Between Project and Other Interventions Within the Sector The project had established links with the DA BFAR in the documentation of marine protected areas in the Balabac site in Southern Palawan and in BFARs recent initiatives/program that targets to improve the economic conditions of Indigenous Peoples. The ongoing 4K program (Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran ng Kababayang Katutubo) will provide livelihood and agricultural productivity projects in the ancestral domains of IPs. The ICCAs Community Conservation Plans livelihood projects maybe supported by the 4K program. Tag: Coherence Impact Bilateral partners International Financial Institutions
8.	3.1.8 Management Arrangements The Project followed a National Implementation arrangement, allowing an adequate level of appropriation and control from national authorities fueled with a more expedite an efficient procurement process from UNDP. The following Project structure reflects the complexity related to engaging multiple stakeholders at central and site levels. Tag: Implementation Modality Procurement Coordination
9.	3.2 Project Implementation 3.2.1 Adaptive management The Project execution was not homogenous throughout the implementation period. Therefore, in terms of adaptive management two differentiated moments could be identified, characterized by different challenges and management teams: Tag: Human and Financial resources Implementation Modality Monitoring and Evaluation Procurement Project and Programme management
10.	3.2.2 Partnership arrangements As the Project was run under a national implementation modality (NIM), the signed Project document formalized the partnership arrangements with the lead implementing partner, the DENR-BMB, and responsible partners such as NCIP and DILG. The work activities completed under the various outputs were arranged through contracts with service providers or individual consultants, and mostly based upon competitive bidding. Tag: Bilateral partners Country Government
11.	3.2.3 Feedback from M&E activities used for adaptive management The ICCA Project Board meetings served as the venue for monitoring progress of activities, formulate corrective actions and deciding on measures proposed by the Project Team. These frequent meetings were the main decision-making mechanisms used for adaptive management and were fed by M&E sources to assess the status of different outcomes and outputs. It was reported that the participation was consistently good, and issues were openly and constructively discussed. The PB is composed of designated representatives of agency partners, UNDP, NEDA, DENR, NCIP, HLURB, DILG, DA-BFAR, BUKLURAN, PAFID, IPO. Alternate permanent representatives were officially designated to represent the principal Project Board member in the meetings. The PB has participated in the project implementation reviews (PIRs) and annual progress reports (APRs). These reports were sufficiently detailed, with input provided by key implementation stakeholders. Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation
12.	3.2.4 Project Finance The original GEF budget for the Project as stated in the PRODOC ascends to USD 3.6 million, but it was reduced at USD 1.75 million for the 4 years of implementation. The reduction is due to the removal of Outcome 3. Up to first quarter 2019, USD 1.5 million has been executed, equivalent to 86% of the total available resources. Almost 90% of these resources (USD 1.13 million) have been allocated to Outcome 2, while 70% (USD 204 thousand) were executed for Outcome 1 (Figure 1). Available budget was a central issue for the Project, it posed an extraordinary challenge for implementation considering the geographic extent, the cultural and logistical challenges and the relative weakness of implementing partners at the field level. The Project provided an opportunity to pilot the concept of inclusive conservation with important replication opportunities, however available funding did not allow to embrace a large learning and systematization exercise, as well as to move forward towards scaling up the ICCA model to cover development of sustainable financing for the ICCAs. Tag: Efficiency Global Environment Facility fund Human and Financial resources Operational Efficiency Project and Programme management
13.	3.2.5 Monitoring and Evaluation Overall Quality of Monitoring & Evaluation is rated as: Moderately Satisfactory M&E Design at entry is rated as Moderately Satisfactory The M&E plan was put together using the template for GEF-financed Projects, contains sufficient details and funds were allocated. The ProDoc specified the budget for Audit and Final evaluation and annual Project budgeting process provided allocation for M&E activities (e.g. measurement of means of verification and field validation). Tag: Human and Financial resources Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management Results-Based Management
14.	3.2.6 UNDP and Implementing Partner implementation / execution coordination, and operational issues Quality of Implementing Agency (UNDP) Execution is rated as: Moderately Satisfactory UNDP has a strong comparative advantage, which allowed the lessons learned and best practices of other projects within the framework of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Conserved Areas and Territories, to be considered in the design and the implementation of the Project. In addition, UNDP's extensive experience and seriousness places it in a favorable position before the Government of the Philippines. In relation to the execution of the Project, UNDP provided regular technical, political and administrative support, including active participation in the project governance and assistance in procurement, logistics and financial reports. A satisfactory rate could had been considered; however, overall rating is affected due to the delay at start up. Tag: UN Agencies Coordination
15.	Quality of the Implementing Partner Execution is rated as: Moderately Satisfactory High level and consistent participation by the Biodiversity Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources was reported, chairing the project board and providing regular assistance to the implementation team. Although the mandate of DENR-BMB is relatively limited with respect to IPs, its capacity and experience in the implementation of projects with international cooperation is highlighted, which contributed to the development of the Project. The DENR assumed a leadership role, articulating the different stakeholders and providing adequate guidance to the PMU. It provided guidance for implementation to be flexible and adaptive to national and site-based challenges. Execution was affected specially in Outcome 1, due to the fact that most policies and decision making were out of DENR´s competency. A satisfactory rate could had been considered; however, overall rating is affected due to the delay at start up. Tag: Implementation Modality Ownership Country Government
16.	Overall quality of Project outcomes: Moderately Satisfactory 3.3.1.1 Outcome 1: Policy Harmonization and Implementation The ICCA Project design identified four (4) outcome indicators to gauge progress of achievement with each of the indicators having corresponding outputs and set of activities. The complete objective statement for outcome 1: “Legal and regulatory framework and administrative procedures that harmonize the mandates, plans and activities amongst all key stakeholders such as NCIP, BMB, BFAR and relevant local government units are established and effectively implemented for the identification, mapping, recognition, and management of ICCAs”. The Project’s progress on all four indicators (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, & 1.4) will be achieved by the end of Project. For indicator 1.1, the average reduction in duration (from 3.5) to officially recognize an ICCA will be reduced to about 3 years. All the sites have completed in less than 3 years, respective Community Proclamation of their ICCAs in the presence of key partners (NCIP, DENR, LGU officials, HLURB, DA & government agencies, LRPs/NGOs/CSOs and the private sector). The ICCA documentations produced satisfies the requirement of the national ICCA registry. Moreover, the LRPs have already submitted the ICCA documents for registration in the UNEP-WCMC International ICCA Registry. Tag: Effectiveness Rule of law Procurement Results-Based Management Country Government UN Agencies
17.	3.3.1.2 Outcome 2: Capacity building for effective governance and management of ICCAs This outcome has 5 indicators to show achievement of the objective: Capacity of key stakeholders for the effective governance and management of ICCAs strengthened. It is directed at establishing the system of recognizing ICCAs in the national Protected Area system led by DENR and NCIP. The Project covered 10 ICCAs and has progressed well in implementing the menu of activities leading to the completion of the requirements for ICCA registration in the National ICCA Registry or UNEP-WCMC. The registration/recognition of all the 10 ICCA sites in the National ICCA Registry will be achieved by end of Project. The participatory process of ICCA site documentation involving: resource inventory, IKSP documentation on traditional resource management, community mapping, and ICCA declaration by the community will be completed in the ten sites including the expansion site of Philippine Eagle Foundation (PEF), a Local Responsible Partner. The total ICCA documented area is 154.868.60 hectares. The planned ICCA area identified during the design (99,999 has) was significantly expanded with the expressed interest of the IP communities to cover additional areas important for their traditional practices. Tag: Natural Resouce management Protected Areas Effectiveness UN Agencies Capacity Building
18.	3.3.2 Relevance Relevance is rated as: Relevant The Project is highly relevant, it contributed to strengthening IP´s tenurial rights and traditional governance system, bridging their gaps and specific needs to strengthen the legal and institutional frameworks, as well as the capacities needed to effectively identify, map, recognize and support the governance and management of ICCAs. The project produced several guidelines and procedures for official ICCAs recognition and mainstreaming in national agencies and LGU’s planning processes. The Project responds to national priorities to implement alternative conservation strategies to achieve Aichi Targets. The Philippines, as many other countries worldwide, face serious difficulties to expand their current area under conservation. Traditional protected areas proved to be difficult to create, since they involve substantial financial capacity and political capital. The Project provides an alternative approach towards cost effective achievement of the Aichi Targets for the country. Tag: Relevance Strategic Positioning Country Government UN Country Team Capacity Building Agenda 2030 Biodiversity Protected Areas
19.	3.3.3 Effectiveness & Efficiency Effectiveness is rated as: Moderately Satisfactory The effectiveness refers to the progress in the fulfilment of the activities planned, in relation to its percentage of progress towards the fulfilment of the different milestones and key processes. Figure 7 relates actual investments with progress in achieving indicators at Output levels. Despite the fact that indicators 1.4, 2.3 and 2.5 have not been assessed yet, progress achieved by Outcome 2 is evident; two out of its 5 indicators have reached and even exceeded their targets. In the case of Outcome 1, only one if its four indicators were able to reach the expected target by the end of the Project. This could be also explained by the relative higher complexity involved in introducing policy changes whose timing and decision making usually falls out of the control of the PMU. Tag: Effectiveness Efficiency Policies & Procedures
20.	Efficiency is rated as: Satisfactory Since the beginning of implementation, the Project was not able to achieve the yearly budgets as presented in Figure 8, the absorption capacity never achieved 100%, considering that it only received half of the original expected budget. Outcome 2 proved to be more efficient in the use of resources, with the highest percentage of budget execution to date. Notwithstanding, the value for money of this Project is remarkable considering what has been achieved with such limited resources and the capacity demonstrated to mobilize additional funding from different sources. Tag: Efficiency Project and Programme management
21.	3.3.4 Country Ownership The Project is aligned to national policies and it was led by national institutions whose commitment and appropriation was in general terms adequate, even though greater involvement could have been expected from key actors such as the NCIP. Country ownership was adequate at the national, regional and site levels. The national government recognized the importance of ICCAs in expanding the protected areas in the country and the experience gained in ICCA documentation under the NewCAP project served as a springboard for the design of the ICCA project. Key government officials and civil society organizations were involved in the design and implementation of the project. To demonstrate country ownership, the following maybe cited: 1) strong commitment of the national government to incorporate ICCAs in the planning process of NCIP for IPs in Ancestral domain areas, and 2) inclusion of ICCAs in the HLURB planning guidelines for LGUs Land Use Plans. Implementing partners, beneficiaries and civil society organizations were mobilized and endorsed its institutional capacity towards the achievement on Project´s objectives. During Project design and implementation, the key country representatives were involved, including governmental officials, civil society representatives, and academic professionals. Tag: Relevance Sustainability Ownership Civil Societies and NGOs Country Government
22.	3.3.5 Mainstreaming The Project objective is in conformance with the agreed priorities in the UNDP country program, specifically on environmental and natural resource management, disaster risk reduction and climate change mainstreamed into public policies and development processes, which includes the aim of highlighting the poverty-reducing potential of sound natural resource management practices. Tag: Poverty Reduction Protected Areas Site Conservation / Preservation Sustainability Country Government Capacity Building Indigenous people Jobs and Livelihoods
23.	3.3.6 Sustainability The Project is probably more relevant now than 6 years ago when it was originally designed. The success in piloting the ICCA model is most likely to increase demand from IPs. It has been confirmed to the evaluators that nowadays almost all CADTs want at least a percentage of their territories to be an ICCA. This is unfortunately not consistent with the existing capacities both at the national and CSO level to cope with the increasing demand. Therefore, the expected ICCAs long term and strategic planning is a fundamental sustainability tool that should be considered as a key legacy of the Project, stating national priorities for future ICCAs as well as follow up and strengthening from the ones created by the Project. Tag: Strategic Positioning Indigenous people Site Conservation / Preservation Sustainability
24.	Socio-Economic Risks: Likelihood that benefits will continue to be delivered after project closure: Moderately Likely By the time this report was issued, the Project did not have a clear exit strategy. Considering the time lost during the startup process, the team efforts were oriented towards achieving the expected outputs. Capacities developed at the site level mostly addressed ICCA registration, leaving a gap for capacity building related to implementing the CCPs and further consolidating the newly created ICCAs in areas such as governance, reporting, patrolling, sustainable livelihood opportunities. Therefore, there is a risk that after the momentum reached by the Project these communities’ loose interest, as they do not see concrete benefits or change, and forget about the ICCAs over time. This is precisely why sustainability is highly dependent on mainstreaming ICCAs in CLUP and CDP, which only so far has only happened in few Project sites. In this context, most of the short-term sustainability relies in LRPs commitment and capacities to identify new opportunities to further collaborate with IP´s in CDP consolidation and implementation. Tag: Impact Sustainability Risk Management Capacity Building Jobs and Livelihoods
25.	Institutional Framework and Governance Risks: Likelihood that benefits will continue to be delivered after project closure: Moderately Likely Almost all interviews point at the national policies such as the ICCA Bill as the most fundamental element for sustainability. The Bill has already been discussed twice by National Congress and proponents expected the results of recent elections to schedule the final submission for approval. Apparently, it seems that there is political support and interest to approve the Bill, however there is no clear indication about when it will happen. It is important to account that the Bill was originally discussed prior to the Project, it received input and technical assistance during Project implementation and would surely need further support for its final approval. Tag: Biodiversity Site Conservation / Preservation Sustainability Ownership Country Government
26.	Environmental Risks: Likelihood that benefits will continue to be delivered after project closure: Likely The Project worked with national agencies for the issuance of polices addressing gaps in recognizing and supporting ICCAs. The studies and technical inputs supported by ICCA Project resources produced the revised ADSPP guidelines, HLURB supplemental guidelines interfacing Community Conservation Plans in the LGUs Comprehensive Land Use Plans, DENR guidelines on NIPAS recognizing ICCAs in Protected areas. These outputs are either in draft form or in final stages of preparation. The ICCA Project will complete the guidelines and manuals including drafts of the directives, circulars or administrative orders but actual issuances of the official directives to implement the policies may not be feasible by the end of Project and would need continuous accompany until they could be realized. Tag: Environmental impact assessment Natural Resouce management Protected Areas Site Conservation / Preservation Indigenous people
27.	Financial resources: Likelihood that benefits will continue to be delivered after project closure: Moderately Likely The most critical barrier for CADTs to achieve an ICCA will be financial, only those benefited from donors and international cooperation Projects may be able to undertake an ICCA registration. This is a reason to stress the need to ensure the approval and adoption of the guidelines proposed by the Project, which are key to scale up in a more efficient manner by facilitating that planning for ICCAs and CCPs are incorporated in the ADSDPP process. Financial sustainability for ICCAS is still uncertain, and the Bill could facilitate mobilizing funding from national and local budgets. It has been confirmed that DENR-BMB are interested in incorporating ICCAs in regional budgets starting 2020, but this would need further lobby support to realize it. On the other hand, it has been confirmed that NCIP would not have a budget in the short and mid-term to support sustainability and replication. Key spaces such as BUKLURAN currently depend on the Project for funding and there are no perspectives to ensure basic means for operation in the short and midterm. Tag: Effectiveness Efficiency Human and Financial resources
28.	3.3.7 Impact The Project has achieved an even exceeded impact in relation to the most important Project indicator which is the “increase in hectares of national PA state as a result of institutionalizing ICCAS as an additional conservation category in the Philippines”. The Project target was exceeded by 2.66%, which means that additional 48,712 has. were added to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of resources in the Philippines. This result alone should be considered remarkable giving the pioneering spirit of ICCAs and the limited availability of time and financial resources. Regarding Indicator 2 “Improved capacities illustrating institutional support to ICCAs”, partial results of progress have been shared to the evaluation team so far, however, according to the interviews there is clear indication that the target is likely to be achieved in the case of BMB. Tag: Protected Areas Site Conservation / Preservation Impact Results-Based Management Capacity Building Indigenous people

Recommendations
1	1. The ICCAs sustainability plan should be a long-term planning exercise involving a larger constituency, proposing strategic targets, implementation costs and concrete commitments to move the process forward.
2	2. Consider a closing event targeted to donors and key government agencies to present the sustainability plan and achieve commitments.
3	3. Achieve a political agreement to clarify who will take the lead after the Project ends.
4	4. Find opportunities to include in new Project´s and donor´s budgets resources to keep alive key spaces such as BUKLURAN, Project Board, RIAC.
5	5. Mainstream the ICCA establishment process (resource inventory, IKSP, mapping and boundary setting, community mapping, documentation, registration), in the line budgets of NCIP and DENR. Look for support from BIOFIN to prepare a business case and provide support for mainstreaming ICCAs in governmental budgets.
6	6. There is a need to achieve an inter-institutional commitment to take the lead after the Project is over, to follow up on key decision-making processes such as the ICCAs Bill, ADSDPP guidelines, ICCAs Registry.
7	7. The different participation spaces such as the Project Board and RIAC should be kept alive and operational to ensure Projects sustainability. This suggest the need to institutionalize these spaces and handle the lead to governmental authorities.
8	8. The exit strategy should consider the need for continuous support and follow up to realize the different guidelines, manuals as well as the Bill. Assuming these will be politically approved, there should be a period to generate capacities, teams and institutional structures for supporting implementation.
9	9. Engage the Biodiversity Friendly Enterprises Program to explore scaling up and sustainability opportunities for the livelihood initiatives.
10	10. Continue to link the ICCAs to other BMB Projects that facilitates the establishment of Payment for Ecosystems Services (PES) for Projects included in the CCPs. The revenue flows from PES offers opportunities to sustain or expand the conservation and protection of ICCA areas.
11	11. Continue M&E of the implementation of the Community Conservation Plans including the priority livelihood Projects supported by the Project or incorporated in the plans/budget of the LGUs or supported by national government agencies, and NGOs/CSOs.
12	12. Avoid last minute execution of livelihood funding in sites where resources were not allocated. Assist the local community in Dipaculao, Aurora to enter into partnership with private sector or NGO partner for the planned livelihood project (coffee production).
13	13. Mobilize PMU to provide hands-on site-based support to ensure quality reporting and delivery in less advanced LRPs.
14	14. CCPs would need to be upgraded to become adequate negotiation tools, providing a proper budget for implementation as well a description of the sectors benefitting from the environmental services produced by these territories.

Management Response Documents

UNDP-MANAGEMENT-RESPONSE_ICCA Terminal Evaluation.pdf

1. Recommendation:

1. The ICCAs sustainability plan should be a long-term planning exercise involving a larger constituency, proposing strategic targets, implementation costs and concrete commitments to move the process forward.

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/27] [Last Updated: 2020/12/12]

1. Agree with Recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
1.1 DENR Conference on Institutionalizing ICCAs [Added: 2019/12/27]	DENR Regional and Field Offices, Local Responsible Partners (LRPs), and Partner Communities	2019/04	Completed	The PMU organized this conference precisely for the purpose of discussing possibilities and strategies for institutionalizing ICCAs as an effective area-based conservation measure in addition to the existing protected areas estate of the Philippines. This is in light of the fact that this Project is limited in scale and time. There is no guaranty that the DENR, NCIP, and other concerned agencies will approve the draft policy recommendations submitted to them. The project implementation is due for completion in August 2019 and there is no assurance of continuity for the services and activities initiated under this Project. To address these issues, the Project initiated this Conference to pursue local actions that would de facto institutionalize ICCA activities in the DENR Regional and Field Offices. The DENR regional and field personnel, together with their respective partner communities and Local Responsible Partners (LRPs), crafted sustainability plans to continue the partnerships on ICCA and even expand to new sites and partners.

2. Recommendation:

2. Consider a closing event targeted to donors and key government agencies to present the sustainability plan and achieve commitments.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Agree with recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
2.1 Third National ICCA Conference [Added: 2020/11/25]	Local Responsible Partners, Partner Communities, PMU, CSO partners	2019/07	Completed	As early as 2018, the PMU has already planned to hold the 3rd National ICCA Conference as a culminating activity of the Philippine ICCA Project (PICCAP). This activity was conducted on 09 – 11 July 2019. Key project stakeholders participated in the conference. These include the IP leaders from BUKLURAN; government representatives from NCIP, DENR, and HLURB, NEDA, and DILG; non-government organization partners from PAFID, PEF, NTFP-EP, KEF, CIFP, ANGOC, FPE and Forest Foundation Philippines; congressional staff from the House of Representatives and the Senate; and representatives from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), among others. They all expressed willingness to support the community’s sustainability efforts in various capacities even after the project formally PICCAP formally closes in August 2019. The conference was held at the Pearl Hall of SEAMEO Innotech. It opened with a ribbon cutting ceremony led by UNDP Country Resident Representative Titon Mitra; Commissioner Norberto Navarro of NCIP; DENR-BMB Division Chief Norma Molinyawe; and BUKLURAN President Giovanni Reyes. The first day of the conference was devoted to presenting the project accomplishments and best practices. There was also a symbolic turnover of the enhanced draft of the Philippine ICCA Bill to the representatives from the Senate and the House of Representatives. The second day of the conference concluded with a donors’ forum. It was attended by a number of donor and support agencies and organizations including the PEF, FPE, FFP and the CIFP. The last day of the Conference focused on BUKLURAN’s planning activities and steps moving forward based on the results of Days 1 and 2 discussions. Mr. Giovanni Reyes facilitated the discussion on conference assessment, specifically the identification of opportunities for engagement and ways forward regarding the sustainability of existing ICCA sites and the documentation of other ICCAs. This was followed by the formalization of the Philippine ICCA Working Group; presentation of the Communications and Strategic Plan for the Lobbying and Advocacy of the ICCA Bill, courtesy of Ms. Kate Galido of NTFP-EP; and discussion facilitated by PAFID and BUKLURAN to create mechanisms for the interagency working group for ICCA policies. The three-day conference covered a lot of ground in terms of agenda and objectives.

3. Recommendation:

3. Achieve a political agreement to clarify who will take the lead after the Project ends.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Agree with recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
3.1 9th Project Board Meeting [Added: 2020/11/25]	Philippine ICCA Project Board, PMU	2019/09	Completed	During the 9th Project Board (PB) Meeting on 11 September 2019, the PB has agreed that the NCIP will be taking the lead after the Project. The rest of the partner agencies will just play the supporting roles.
3.2 Formation of the Philippine ICCA Working Group of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) [Added: 2020/11/25]	NTFP – EP, BUKURAN, PAFID, ANGOC, FPE, ALG, KAISAHAN, PMU	2019/07	Completed	In December 2019, the PMU has initiated a series of meetings with its Civil Society partners to explore the possibility of forming a working group that will continue to push for the institutionalization of ICCAs in the Philippines after the closure of the Philippine ICCA project. The formation of the working group was supported by the Forest Foundation of the Philippines (FFP). The group is comprised of representatives from the Asian NGO Coalition (ANGOC), BUKLURAN, PAFID, NTFP-EP, Haribon, Alternative Law Group (ALG), KAISAHAN, Conservation International Philippines Foundation (CIFP), Foundation for the Philippine Environment (FPE), and the Global ICCA Consortium, among others. The group agreed to have Mr. Teddy Baguilat as the Convener, and the NTFP as the Secretariat. Ms. Kate Galido of NTFP-EP was also chosen as coordinator. The Philippine ICCA Working Group was formalized during the 3rd National ICCA Conference where the group presented its Communications and Strategic Plan for the Lobbying and Advocacy of the ICCA Bill and the other related policies, courtesy of Ms. Kate Galido of NTFP-EP.

4. Recommendation:

4. Find opportunities to include in new Project´s and donor´s budgets resources to keep alive key spaces such as BUKLURAN, Project Board, RIAC.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/12/12]

Agree with recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments
4.1 Formation of the Philippine ICCA Working Group of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) [Added: 2020/11/25]	NTFP – EP, BUKURAN, PAFID, ANGOC, FPE, ALG, KAISAHAN, PMU	2019/07	Completed	The PMU initiated and organized meetings with CSO partners to explore the possibility of establishing partnerships to continue providing support to BUKLURAN in the advocacy for institutionalizing ICCAs in the Philippines. After a series of meetings, the Philippine ICCA Working Groups of CSOs has been formed to support BUKLURAN. The members of the working group include the Asian NGO Coalition (ANGOC), KAISAHAN, NTFP – EP, ALG, FFP, FPE, PAFID, and BUKLURAN. The Convener of the group is former Rep. Teddy Baguilat, who is also the incumbent President of the Global ICCA Consortium. NTFP-EP has also accepted the challenge of being the lead organization in the advocacy for the Philippine ICCA Bill. The formation of the Philippine ICCA Working Group was reaffirmed on the last day of the 3rd National ICCA Conference on 11 July 2019.
4.2 DENR Conference on Institutionalizing ICCAs [Added: 2020/11/25]	DENR Regional and Field Offices, Local Responsible Partners (LRPs), and Partner Communities	2019/04	Completed	Part of the sustainability plans that were crafted during the DENR Conference was the commitment to continue hosting and holding the meetings of the RIACs. The DENR Regional offices has expressed that the RIAC has been instrumental in coordinating the partnerships with indigenous peoples and other agencies.
4.3 Inter-Agency Working Group on ICCAs (IAWG) [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2021/03/25]	DENR, BMB, DILG, NEDA, HLURB, DA-BFAR, NCIP, PMU	2020/12	Completed	Special Order has been signed and is being tapped for the finalization of the ICCA bill.

5. Recommendation:

5. Mainstream the ICCA establishment process (resource inventory, IKSP, mapping and boundary setting, community mapping, documentation, registration), in the line budgets of NCIP and DENR. Look for support from BIOFIN to prepare a business case and provide support for mainstreaming ICCAs in governmental budgets.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/12/12]

Agree with recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
5.1 Training on ICCA Documentation for DENR Personnel [Added: 2020/11/25]	DENR, BMB, PMU	2019/08	Completed	This training was conducted on 12 – 18 August 2018. A total of 25 DENR regional and field office personnel were provided with the skills to properly conduct an effective and culturally sensitive ICCA mapping and documentation. They were trained on the various PRA tools and methodologies that could be useful and appropriate for community profiling and a comprehensive discussion of the history, practice and ethics of community-based participatory mapping. These include the whole cycle of a community mapping exercise and technical inputs on the proper data input and lay-out of maps, resources inventory, and IKSP documentation. The objective of the training is to enable the DENR personnel to respond should there be any requests from IP communities for the documentation and mapping of their ICCAs.
5.2 Training on ICCA Documentation for NCIP Personnel [Added: 2020/11/25]	NCIP, PAFID, PMU	2019/09	Completed	This training was conducted on 01 – 06 September 2018. A total of 22 NCIP regional and field office personnel were provided with the skills to properly conduct an effective and culturally sensitive ICCA mapping and documentation. They were trained on the various PRA tools and methodologies that could be useful and appropriate for community profiling and a comprehensive discussion of the history, practice and ethics of community-based participatory mapping. These include the whole cycle of a community mapping exercise and technical inputs on the proper data input and lay-out of maps, resources inventory, and IKSP documentation. The objective of the training is to enable the NCIP personnel to respond should there be any requests from IP communities for the documentation and mapping of their ICCAs.

6. Recommendation:

6. There is a need to achieve an inter-institutional commitment to take the lead after the Project is over, to follow up on key decision-making processes such as the ICCAs Bill, ADSDPP guidelines, ICCAs Registry.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Agree with recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments
6.1 Formation of the Philippine ICCA Working Group of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) [Added: 2020/11/25]	PMU	2019/07	Completed	The PMU initiated and organized meetings with CSO partners to explore the possibility of establishing partnerships to continue providing support to BUKLURAN in the advocacy for institutionalizing ICCAs in the Philippines. The working groups has already begun supporting BUKLURAN. As a matter of fact, ANGOC and PAFID just started a new project with BUKLURAN aimed at enhancing the participation of IP communities under the ENIPAS Act. The working group has taken the lead and has begun working with legislators at the Senate of the Philippines and House of Representatives for the re-filing of the Philippine ICCA Bill in the 18th Congress.
6.2 Consultation-Workshop on the Preparation of the Manual of Operations for the Revised ADSDPP Guidelines [Added: 2020/11/25]	PMU	2019/06	Completed	This workshop consultation was conducted at the B Hotel in Quezon City. A total of 30 participants from the NCIP Central and Regional Offices participated in this workshop. They included the Executive Director, Bureau Directors, and Regional Directors. The workshop discussed and drafted the proposed Manual of Operations (MOO) for the NCIP Revised ADSDPP Guidelines. The participants agreed that they will take the lead in making sure that the draft MOO will be submitted and approved by the relevant NCIP authorities.
6.3 NCIP Validation Workshop on the draft Manual of Operations (MOO) of the NCIP Revised ADSDPP Guidelines [Added: 2020/11/25]	PMU	2019/07	Completed	This activity was conducted at the Sulo Riviera Hotel to validate the draft MOO. It was attended by at least 18 NCIP personnel who took the challenge of owning and presenting the draft MOO to the relevant authorities in their agency for the approval of the Manual.

7. Recommendation:

7. The different participation spaces such as the Project Board and RIAC should be kept alive and operational to ensure Projects sustainability. This suggest the need to institutionalize these spaces and handle the lead to governmental authorities.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Agree with recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
7.1 DENR Conference on Institutionalizing ICCAs [Added: 2020/11/25]	DENR Regional and Field Offices, Local Responsible Partners (LRPs), and Partner Communities, BMB, PMU	2019/04	Completed	As part of the sustainability plans crafted during the conference, the DENR has committed to continue hosting the RIAC and sustain the engagement with the partner communities to support the ICCAs. The plans even included expansion sites. These will be part of their regular programs and activities.

8. Recommendation:

8. The exit strategy should consider the need for continuous support and follow up to realize the different guidelines, manuals as well as the Bill. Assuming these will be politically approved, there should be a period to generate capacities, teams and institutional structures for supporting implementation.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Agree with recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
8.1 Formation of the Inter-Agency Working Group (IAWG) on ICCAs [Added: 2020/11/25]	DENR, BMB, PMU	2019/09	Completed	The DENR issued Special Order 2019 – 677 creating the IAWG on 18 September 2019. The formation of the IAWG is originally part of the strategy to push for the approval of the draft policies that will be produced under Outcome 1 of the Project. It is composed of representatives from the partner agencies
8.2 Formation of the Philippine ICCA Working Group of CSOs [Added: 2020/11/25]	NTFP – EP, BUKURAN, PAFID, ANGOC, FPE, ALG, KAISAHAN, PMU	2019/07	Completed	The Philippine ICCA Working Group of CSOs has started working with the 18th Congress of the Philippines. The Philippine ICCA Bill has already been re-filed for consideration in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. This working group is also working with the DENR and the NCIP to ensure that IP participation ion conservation as manifested in their ICCAs will be given due recognition and support under the ENIPAS Act.

9. Recommendation:

9. Engage the Biodiversity Friendly Enterprises Program to explore scaling up and sustainability opportunities for the livelihood initiatives.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/12/12]

Agree with recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
9.1 Evaluation of the livelihood activities implemented under the Philippine ICCA Project [Added: 2020/11/25]	PMU, BMB, BDFE Core Group	2019/10	Completed	This was part of the work plan for 2019. The evaluation was supposed to have been conducted in January 2019 but did not push through. The evaluation is included again in the project closure activities in October 2019. Hopefully the DENR-BMB BDFE Core Group will be available.

10. Recommendation:

10. Continue to link the ICCAs to other BMB Projects that facilitates the establishment of Payment for Ecosystems Services (PES) for Projects included in the CCPs. The revenue flows from PES offers opportunities to sustain or expand the conservation and protection of ICCA areas.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/12/12]

Agree with recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments
10.1 Formation of the Inter-Agency Working Group (IAWG) on ICCAs [Added: 2020/11/25]	DENR, BMB, NCIP, HLURB, DILG, NEDA, DA-BFAR, BUKLURAN, PAFID	2019/09	Completed	The DENR issued Special Order 2019 – 677 creating the IAWG on 18 September 2019. The formation of the IAWG is primarily for the purpose of creating a forum for discussing all matters related to ICCAs, including the support for implementing the CCPs and other schemes such as the PES to provide benefits to communities contributing to biodiversity conservation.
10.1 Formation of the Inter-Agency Working Group (IAWG) on ICCAs [Added: 2020/11/25]	DENR, BMB, NCIP, HLURB, DILG, NEDA, DA-BFAR, BUKLURAN, PAFID	2019/09	Completed	The DENR issued Special Order 2019 – 677 creating the IAWG on 18 September 2019. The formation of the IAWG is primarily for the purpose of creating a forum for discussing all matters related to ICCAs, including the support for implementing the CCPs and other schemes such as the PES to provide benefits to communities contributing to biodiversity conservation.
10.2 Formation of the Philippine ICCA Working Group of CSOs [Added: 2020/11/25]	PMU	2019/07	Completed	The Philippine ICCA Working Group of CSO has been working with the partner communities on these and other related advocacies.

11. Recommendation:

11. Continue M&E of the implementation of the Community Conservation Plans including the priority livelihood Projects supported by the Project or incorporated in the plans/budget of the LGUs or supported by national government agencies, and NGOs/CSOs.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/12/12]

Agree with recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
11.1 Meeting with DENR field offices [Added: 2020/11/25]	PMU, CENRO, PENRO	2020/08	Completed	Completed under the initiative of the DENR-FASPS. The meeting with the concerned Regional offices, BMB and the former Project Management Unit was conducted online on August 5, 2020. The PMU has been meeting with the respective PENRO/CENRO personnel to pursue the collaboration with the partner communities. Among the agreements is for the PMU to provide these agencies with copies of the Community Conservation Plans (CCPs) so they will have a reference for further support and monitoring the progress of the plans, including the implementation of the livelihood activities. In some project sites, the LRPs have also agreed to continue collaboration with the partner communities and monitor the progress of the livelihood activities. This is true for Magpet (PEF), AGMIHICU (NTFP), Tinglayan (MCCI), and KEF.

12. Recommendation:

12. Avoid last minute execution of livelihood funding in sites where resources were not allocated. Assist the local community in Dipaculao, Aurora to enter into partnership with private sector or NGO partner for the planned livelihood project (coffee production).

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/12/12]

Agree with recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
12.1 PMU Meeting with Daluhay [Added: 2020/11/25]	PMU	2019/06	Completed	Following this recommendation, the PM communicated with DALUHAY that implementation can no longer commence given that the project is in the closing stage. DALUHAY sent a direct petition to UNDP complaining that the PM is not allowing them to implement livelihood activities. It even prepared a petition signed by the DETA chieftains. The PM brought up the matter with the Project Board (PB). The PB advised the PM to negotiate. Hence, this meeting. The PM agreed to have a no-cost extension for DALUHAY until 30 June 2019 to buy them time to implement the livelihood support activities. THE BMB Director approved the no-cost extension.

13. Recommendation:

13. Mobilize PMU to provide hands-on site-based support to ensure quality reporting and delivery in less advanced LRPs.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Agree with recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
13.1 Philippine ICCA Project Site Report Writeshop and Monitoring [Added: 2020/11/25]	LRPs, PMU	2019/05	Completed	This activity was conducted with the LRPs in the Mindanao to provide technical assistance to the Local Responsible Partners (LRP). This is in line with the objective of the Project Management Unit (PMU) to help the LRPs meet the required outputs, reports, and other deliverable. The PMU has intensified efforts to make the outputs and deliverable compliant with requirements of the project as indicated in the Terms of References (TOR) of the LRPs. This write shop and technical assistance activity is intended to provide a venue for the LRPs and the PMU to work together on improving the quality of the outputs and reports. As a direct result of this intervention, the LRPs in Mindanao was able to has satisfactorily complied with the requirements of the Project.

14. Recommendation:

14. CCPs would need to be upgraded to become adequate negotiation tools, providing a proper budget for implementation as well a description of the sectors benefitting from the environmental services produced by these territories.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Agree with recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action	Responsible	DueDate	Status	Comments	Documents
14.1 Review of the CCPs [Added: 2020/11/25]	LRP, BMB, PMU	2019/09	Completed	The Project has laid down the minimum requirements and contents of the CCPs. Only those plans that have complied with these requirements are accepted and approved for payment.

Terminal Evaluation of the Indigenous Communities Conservation Areas Project

Share

Management Response: [Added: 2019/12/27] [Last Updated: 2020/12/12]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/12/12]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/12/12]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/12/12]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/12/12]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/12/12]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/12/12]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Key Actions:

Management Response: [Added: 2020/11/25] [Last Updated: 2020/11/26]

Key Actions:

Evaluations by Unit

Latest Evaluations

Evaluation Snap Shot

Contact us