EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Program, “Typhoon Haiyan Response,” is a three-year (November 2013 - December 2016) initiative implemented by CARE Philippines. It supports the emergency relief and recovery of people affected by Typhoon Haiyan that struck the Visayas Region in November 2013. The Program aims to assist affected communities (men, women, boys and girls) in Regions 6 and 8 to recover, build back safer and increase resilience.
The Program has three phases. Phase 1 is the emergency phase, which covered the period November 2013 to February 2014. Activities were focused on the provision of emergency food, emergency shelter kits (tarps, repair kits), and non-food items. Phase 2 is the early recovery phase, which covered the period February – December 2014. Support were focused on self-recovery for safe shelter, food security and livelihoods augmentation. Phase 2 livelihood interventions include household level cash grants (HHCT) provided in two tranches: Php 3,000 for the first tranche to jump start quick-impact livelihood and Php 5,000 for the second tranche to expand and diversify livelihoods.
Phase 3 is the medium-term recovery phase, which covers the period January 2015 – November 2016. Financial assistance was provided to group-owned and women-managed enterprises through two funding facilities: Community Enterprise Facility (CEF) and Women Enterprise Fund (WEF). Support to enterprises also included capacity building and technical assistance. CARE uses the value chain approach to strengthen communities’ links to the market.
Project areas are in the provinces of Aklan, Antique, Capiz and Iloilo (Region 6), and Leyte and Samar (Region 8). In the delivery of assistance, CARE collaborated with the following partners:
Assistance and Cooperation for Community Resilience and Development, Inc. (ACCORD) in Eastern Leyte and Iloilo, Sara Multi-Purpose Cooperative (SMPC) and Business Fair Trade Consulting (BizFTC) in Iloilo, Uswag Development Foundation (UDF) in Aklan, Pontevedra Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (PVDCI) and Sigmahanon Development Foundation, Inc. (SDFI) in Capiz, Laua-an Multi-Purpose Cooperative (LMPC) and Antique Development Foundation (ADF) in Antique, Leyte Center for Development (LCDE) in Western Samar and Samar, Metro Ormoc Community Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (OCCCI) in Western Samar and Western Leyte, and Rural Development Initiatives (RDI) and Fatima Multi-Purpose Cooperative (FMPC) in Leyte.
The evaluation focused on the livelihood recovery assistance program during the early to medium-term recovery phases. Emergency sectors such as food and shelter and non-food items have been adequately covered in previous assessments and evaluations.
The livelihood program is funded by various donors such as Aktion Deutschland Hilft (ADH) in Germany, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ministere des Affaires Etrangeresor MAE) in Luxemburg,
H&M Conscious Foundation in Netherlands, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC), Global Affairs Canada (previously DFATD), Foundation of Dutch Cooperating Aid Organizations (SHO), European Commission Humanitarian Aid (ECHO), funds from the people of Austria, Australia, Germany, UK, and the USA, and from private foundations such as InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG) and French private companies.
The objectives of the Final Evaluation as per Terms of Reference (ToR) are the following:
Assess the overall achievement of results of the response program based on the logframe and focusing on the livelihoods recovery component, specifically pointing to evidence that the program was able to contribute to positive changes in communities’ lives.
Evaluate program performance under the four major themes – program delivery model, integration of gender equality and disaster risk reduction (DRR), partnership strategy, and accountability principles and practices. The four main evaluation criteria used are effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.
Identify lessons learned, good practices and any particular challenges in the implementation of the program and achievement of results 4. Provide recommendations to improve future programming.
The Evaluation employed the combination of utilization-focused and participatory approaches in the collection and analysis of results. The latter was realized through the involvement of a substantive sample of stakeholders for the livelihoods component in surveys, focus group discussions (FGDs), and key informant interviews (KIIs).
Overall Achievements of Results
The following are the output achievements of the Program:
27,415 men and women who have used cash grants to jump start quick-impact livelihoods and attended income-generating activity (IGA) planning and money management orientation. Top five livelihoods that beneficiaries embarked on were rearing pig and chicken, sari-sari (retail) store, retail trading (various types), and tied to fifth place are vegetable farming and food vending.
25,330 men and women who received additional cash grants to expand and diversify livelihoods
284 community enterprises accessed livelihood support funds covering 16 types of commodities (rice, cassava, other rootcrops, abaca, tikog, other materials for handicraft, herbs, vegetable, vermicompost, seaweeds, ginger, banana, native chicken, aqua/marine, other agri crops, others) at four stages of the value chain (input supply, production, processing, and marketing, including logistics/transport)
38,566 men and women participated in community enterprise projects
912 women’s enterprises expanded and diversified. Majority of the beneficiaries are engaged in food vending. The rest are in agriculture (agricultural crop, marine/aquaculture, poultry/livestock), handicraft, textile products, and services.
39,478 men and women engaged in community and women-owned enterprises participated in trainings such as community-based enterprise development (C-BED), gender, disaster risk reduction, and business planning The livelihood component has contributed to the achievement of Program objectives. The financial assistance, complemented by capacity building and technical assistance, has increased the capacity of men and women to implement profitable and sustainable enterprises.
Survey in December 2016 showed that a little over half of beneficiaries (55%) were even able to diversify their respective livelihoods. For women entrepreneurs in particular, 80% have increased confidence in managing their respective enterprises compared to 31.5% in June 2016. Women played a substantial role in the strategic business decision-making process.
Moreover, 80% were able to establish market linkages. The types of markets are walk-in buyers (21%), retailers (6%), wholesalers (4%), institutional buyers (1%), and various/multiple (55%).
Market transactions are primarily happening at the barangay level (31%). Households implementing the three tracks of livelihood support have earned income: 73% of household cash transfer beneficiaries earned income with a monthly net average of Php 2,785.15 compared to the previous Php 2,000 per month; 100% of women enterprise beneficiaries with a monthly net average of Php 4,382.09 compared to Php 412 before; and 36% of households participating in community enterprises with monthly net average of Php 42,050 compared to Php 40,850 before.
From their income, beneficiaries were able to acquire household assets such as appliances and electronic gadgets (52%), furniture and fixtures (18%), and motorcycle (30%). They were also able to acquire productive assets: 63% own small livestock, 53% farm equipment (non mechanized), 5% farm equipment (mechanized), and tools (49%). Acquisition of assets was made possible either through the financial grant or income from CARE-assisted enterprises.
Three years after typhoon Haiyan, affected communities are on their way to recovery and resilience as shown by the following:Households were able to meet or attain basic needs such as food (95%) and education (97%) compared to the pre-typhoon levels. On the other hand, health (93%) and shelter (88%) were partially improved/met while debt payment (48%) and savings (81%) are not improved or not yet met.
Use of negative coping mechanisms was reduced. The percentage of people employing each of the nine negative coping mechanisms was reduced after the introduction of CARE’s program. As CARE was the major implementer of livelihoods in each Barangay, it is reasonable to assume that CARE’s intervention contributed to this reduction. Much fewer people are modifying food consumption of the households such as limiting meal portions, purchasing less preferred items, reducing number of meals eaten in a day, and borrowing food from others. Likewise, there has also been reduction in the use of nonfood negative coping mechanisms such as decreasing health/education/incomegenerating expenditures. Very few respondents used erosive coping mechanisms such as sale of assets or sending family members away to work.
Households were able to employ livelihood protection mechanisms through cash transfers by CARE (shelter and livelihoods), and through replacement or rebuilding of assets either through the financial assistance from CARE and through the income from their enterprise operations.
Program Performance
The following are the findings related to program performance:
The vulnerability of the beneficiaries were generally characterized by lack of disposable income, a limited asset base and livelihood opportunities. Efforts to address these issues mainly took the form of providing financial assistance, building human capacity (through trainings), group formation, and linking to financial services. Providing both financial and capacity development assistance helped in increasing local capacity in managing enterprises.
Some livelihood activities are more appropriate or are the better option for some local economic and environmental contexts at particular points in time. During the early recovery phase, the goal was to provide quick-impact, low-capital livelihood activities through household cash transfers. For medium-term recovery, the goal was to promote market-oriented livelihood, or micro or small business enterprise through the CEFs and WEFs. Cash transfer pooling was one of the more exceptional and fruitful ways of starting a group-owned micro-enterprise. The collaborative micro-enterprises showed some scale up and sustainability potentials that eventually developed through the CEF.
The use of the value chain approach supports the ongoing effort to increase revenue, to access a range of livelihood assets, and to reduce operating costs of micro-enterprises.
WEF and CEF projects have been increasingly directed towards enterprises that have strong market scale-up potential through greater backward, forward and horizontal linkages. A more market-oriented livelihood assistance provided to the households played an important means in recovery especially in places where farming and fishing could not be immediately resumed. Moreover, the Program has identified and engaged partners to complete a network that provides beneficiaries with access to a range of livelihood assets, e.g., marketing, technical and business development support services, financing, and risk protection services such as insurance and risk mapping.Partnership with competent facilitating partners has enhanced the importance of community facilitators who are experts in enterprise management, understand the local value chain and know key industry players. For example, CARE benefitted from BizFTC that is knowledgeable on enterprise risk management, or from Antique Development Foundation that has a wealth of experience in community enterprise development and local government networks. Fatima Cooperative has post-harvest facilities and network system for savings build-up. It facilitated the work of CARE and the Program beneficiaries making productive use of local resources like cassava in building capital from their own savings.
Important partners from the government and private sector were identified for the beneficiaries with the adoption of the value chain approach. Contracting agreements for training and coaching activities, provision of farm machineries and equipment, and marketing partnerships were made to ensure more long-term results. In partnership agreements with the government, the Program ensured that there is no duplication but instead complementation of programs.
The gender strategy was very relevant and appropriate to the livelihood recovery as well as to the longer-term challenges beneficiaries face in building competitive, growthoriented and sustainable livelihoods. The gender-responsive value chain analysis facilitated the identification of gender issues and identified ways and means of integrating women’s and men’s needs and opportunities in the enterprises. The integration of gender in needs assessment, proposal development, activities and outcomes was done promptly.
The disaster risk reduction – climate change adaptation (DRR-CCA) practices adopted particularly in the value chain analysis and enterprise activities contributed to minimizing enterprise risks and maximizing results. Mainstreaming climate change and disaster risk reduction involved mobilizing beneficiaries and communities to increase their awareness of local DRR-CCA issues and the importance of environmental sustainability, and develop a shared approach to addressing community enterprise priorities.
CARE exercises ‘do no harm’ policy and communicate key accountability principles throughout the phases of the program cycle. CARE and local facilitating partners made a deliberate effort to identify and prioritize households that needed most help. They consulted these households about their needs for livelihoods recovery. Protocols for communicating beneficiaries’ complaints and grievances to CARE and the local facilitating partners provided particular assistance needed.
The evaluation identified the following key challenges:While the shifts from HHCT to WEF and CEF were noted and successes were reported, these were achieved not without overcoming challenges. Among the challenges encountered were: a) low production level due to lack of good equipment; b) inability to reach demand requirements of the market; and c) upgraded enterprise management skills of the CEF project management that meet the standards of the markets.
Lessons Learned
The following are the most meaningful lessons from the Program that can provide decision makers with relevant information for future programming:
A sustainable livelihood program can improve the poor’s ability to protect and promote their economic conditions when this includes a comprehensive analysis of vulnerability context of their livelihood conditions. Based on HHCT experience, vulnerable households tend to allocate their scarce resources to maintain consumption levels and reduce risk rather than to maximize profit or income as in the case of WEF beneficiaries.
In designing inclusive and market-oriented livelihood intervention, the use of value chain approach for priority sector could guide the beneficiaries in identifying opportunities in the market, and consider the constraints to exploiting these opportunities. To provide a foundation for analysis and technical guidance, the assistance from facilitating partners in undertaking a detailed value chain analysis is one good approach.
Providing business advisory support services, including access to market information, financing facilitation, technology transfer, business counselling, marketing and product development, rather than working with traditional business support systems, is important to the success of these enterprises. However, available resources and capacity should match the level of enterprise development of the beneficiaries.
Engaging with national and local government, non-government organizations and the private sector facilitates the sustainability of these initiatives as these institutions can provide the necessary support services, particularly in the provision of technical and financial assistance for the scaling of production and business operations.
A holistic approach to gender mainstreaming is important for livelihood intervention of any kind to build deeper attitudinal and behavioural changes and greater levels of economic empowerment and participation in enterprise decision-making.
Intensive monitoring and evaluation is important to track that beneficiaries and partners graduate to the next level of results. Monitoring will keep track of progress of the beneficiaries’ enterprises and provide much-needed focused support.
Recommendations
The following recommendations will enhance the future programming:
An integrated livelihood program employing market-oriented approaches is an appropriate response to ensure resilience of the livelihood enterprises. To ensure its sustainability, a comprehensive support of value chain analysis and upgrading and technical expertise on entrepreneurship, and results-based monitoring and evaluation approaches should be provided through competent facilitating partners or service facilitators or providers.
The existing collaboration of individual and community enterprises with government agencies and private sector players can still be strengthened for better impacts. These include coordination with local stakeholders to provide more efficient and effective delivery service and to link beneficiaries with business support systems such as markets, technology and finance.
Capacity-building efforts must focus on the delivery of the business support services as well as in managing risks. Institutions that are not able to manage risks effectively can quickly become overwhelmed, seriously jeopardizing their ability to continue to provide services.
Improve program monitoring and evaluation systems and tools, and ensure their integration with facilitating partners’ tools and systems. Weaknesses in tracking results should be addressed through additional training and technical assistance for partners to adopt appropriate tools for monitoring and evaluation at the project level. Additional support is needed for program staff to improve analysis of monitoring and evaluation results.