Terminal Evaluation: Recovery and Resilience in Selected Typhoon Yolanda-affected Communities in the Visayas

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2012-2018, Philippines
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
Completion Date:
Management Response:
Evaluation Budget(US $):


Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR_Terminal Evaluation_Project RECOVERY.pdf tor English 1561.80 KB Posted 1019
Download document Terminal Evaluation Report_Project-RECOVERY_Final Report.pdf report English 4396.04 KB Posted 1477
Title Terminal Evaluation: Recovery and Resilience in Selected Typhoon Yolanda-affected Communities in the Visayas
Atlas Project Number: 00077295
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2018, Philippines
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 05/2018
Planned End Date: 02/2018
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Crisis Prevention & Recovery
  • 2. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 6.1. From the humanitarian phase after crisis, early economic revitalization generates jobs and other environmentally sustainable livelihoods opportunities for crisis affected men and women
SDG Goal
  • Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
SDG Target
  • 11.b By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels
Evaluation Budget(US $): 27,000
Source of Funding: Project funds
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 35,150
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Nationality
Ramon Noriel Sicad Evaluation Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: EU, NEDA, DTI, OCD, TESDA, DA, PCA, DENR, City/Municipal/Barangay LGUs and Individual/Group Beneficiaries

On Resilient Infrastructure (Component 1)

  1. 1.  Design of buildings for CEC should take into account the climatic and weather conditions prevailing in the locality, which were not addressed in the building orientation of the CEC in Ormoc City.

  2. 2.  Need to ensure balance of achieving the twinDobjective of providing skills training and pakyaw contract of beneficiaries with optimum timelines and budget on the completion of site development and housing in resettlement areas, with reference to the different challenges encountered in the implementation of the three (3) resettlement areas.

3. Implementation of programs and projects in postDdisaster recovery was influenced by factors that were outside the control of the project such as the timing and duration of the CFW, which influenced the work attitude of beneficiaries on resettlement housing and livelihood components. A review by the government, on extended implementation of CFW with other programs, beyond one (1) year after the disaster, as part of the key elements on the coordination of postDdisaster recovery efforts.

On Sustainable Livelihood (Component 2)

  1. 1.  Livelihood programs targeting medium and agriDbased industry enterprises, with strong elements of value chain upgrade as compared to micro and individual crop production, seem to be more promising in terms of economic returns and sustainability, as demonstrated in the livelihood programs on cassava and seaweeds. The value adding activities in the form of semiDprocessing and marketing support, generated additional incomes to community groups. It also strengthened the entrepreneurial capacities of the community groups with use of tools such as business plans, financial targets and organizational development.

  2. 2.  The linking of different livelihood groups across the project areas provided opportunities for additional incomes and sustainability. The linking of graduates on skills training (constructionD related skills) with the shelter construction was a good initiative on local employment generation. This approach however, as mentioned during the FGD, should have been more elaborately planned and implemented at the earlier stage to optimize opportunities for community contracting D not only for the shelter component but also on the community evacuation centers (CEC) towards creating enormous employment opportunities.

  3. 3.  The provision of several livelihood interventions (farm inputs, tools, skills training, starter kits and postDharvest and marketing support) was well acknowledged during the FGD, as an effective strategy for the recovery of livelihoods and increasing incomes of households. This multiDtargeted approach reduced the economic vulnerability of the beneficiaries (strengthening resiliency) by diversifying their livelihood assets (human resource or skills assets, physical assets), optimization of natural resource assets (water, land) and social assets (increased access to information and services both from the duty bearers and other nonDgovernment entities) that demonstrated a clear response to the principle of “building back better.”

  4. 4.  Conduit scheme or partnerships with NGOs and other entities with the needed expertise provided better opportunities for sustainability and impact of projects with the provision of longer term livelihood services such as the following: (a) organizational development; (b) financial and project management; (c) product development; (d) marketing; and (e) savings mobilization. This approach was clearly demonstrated in the partnerships of Project RECOVERY with the PCF and the PRRM.

  5. 5.  Expanding the intervention efforts with the private sector might have expanded the impact and sustainability of the livelihood projects through dialogues between the business sector and the government. The private sector could then identify and align measures in stabilizing public employment services and in restoring the disrupted labor market as well as greater participation in recovery planning and implementation. The government may consider policy support for recovery incentives, such as tax holidays and fastDtracking business permit processing, among others.

6. The livelihood program restored the economic activities of the beneficiaries while also contributed in creating a sense of hope and dignity, among the beneficiaries, in starting a transition from relief mode to a more permanent and longDterm economic activities.

On Resettlement Housing (Component 3)

  1. 1.  The resettlement program is a large development initiative that involves a considerable amount of land, labor and capital in its implementation. It involves social, economic and physical infrastructure interventions that must the planned and implemented jointly by the development actors to effectively achieve the desired results. Where different offices are involved, (i.e., EUD UNDP PMO and LGU) an acceptable integrating and coordinating mechanism must be formulated in orchestrating and synchronizing the different activities of all the stakeholders.

  2. 2.  The UNDP and the Government to continually pursue the sharing of the knowledge gained and lessons learned in ongoing and completed projects that were implemented in Eastern Visayas.

On DRRM Capacity Building (Component 4)

  1. 1.  Intervention on the CLUP makes a big difference in building resiliency and DRRM capacity of the LGUs. The case, for example, of Salcedo municipality wherein technical assistance on the preparation of their CLUP resulted into multiple results and outputs. Through the CLUP intervention, risks and hazard mapping (vulnerability assessment) and zoning plan were improved making their sectoral and social programs more resilient. The CDP on the other hand, was expected to make their communities, places, infrastructure and environment more sustainable and safe. The CLUP process likewise became the mechanism in promoting DRRM principles and plans at a wider public scale of stakeholders.

  2. 2.  The combination of hardware support (equipment for emergency operations center) and the trainings on DRR, emergency response and drills on community preparedness made the project holistic and responsive to the needs of the LGUs. The FGDs with the LGUs and community groups showed that the results and effects of the DRRM assistance had surpassed their preDYolanda capacities in terms of knowledge, skills, emergency response efficiency, contingency and DRRM planning.

  3. 3.  DRRM is not as a sectoral concern but rather a crossDcutting issue that should be incorporated in all aspects of recovery and development planning. The project inputs on DRRM and contingency planning that also influenced sectoral plans such as infrastructure, social, environmental and institutional are good accomplishments and manifestations of mainstreaming DRRM. As such, the role of the OCD in terms of its postDdisaster coordination mandate as well as in linking humanitarian work to recovery must be maximized. Logistical support, especially when capacity is lacking or impaired by the impacts of disaster should be considered as one of the priorities.

  4. 4.  The DRRM component has likewise contributed to facilitating seamless transition and managing emergency relief to early recovery and recovery program. The integration of DRRM component in the overall project package has enabled the other components (livelihoods, public infrastructure and shelter) to focus and adhere towards the objective in improving capacities for resiliency, sustainability and safety.


Project RECOVERY was satisfactorily carried out in support to the complementation efforts of the government, INGos and international development community on post disaster recovery and preparedness. The achievement of its outcome was based on the two indicators mentioned in the original logframe/results framework, namely: (a)duty holder (LGUs) capacitiated to address disaster risks (to respond for post-disaster recovery and preparedness); and (b) communities with economic activities nearing pre-Typhoon leverls.


1. On Resilient Infrastructure: Designers of future CECs and related infrastructure should integrate knowledge of local conditions such as prevailing wind conditions during rainy season. As such, local engineers or engineering firms should be involved in the design of infrastructure that will be responsive to the needs of local communities in times of disastrous events.

1. Recommendation:

1. On Resilient Infrastructure: Designers of future CECs and related infrastructure should integrate knowledge of local conditions such as prevailing wind conditions during rainy season. As such, local engineers or engineering firms should be involved in the design of infrastructure that will be responsive to the needs of local communities in times of disastrous events.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/11/29]

This recommendation and accepted and will be taken into consideration for future projects that will have Community Evacuation Centers as one of its outputs.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This recommendation will be applied to future projects that will have Community Evacuation Centers as one of its outputs. The evaluation and its recommendations will be shared with the Inclusive and Sustainable Development Unit for application in Project RAPID.
[Added: 2018/11/29]
CO, Resilience and Peace Building Unit 2018/12 Completed

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213