Sustainable Upland Development - · PDF fileSustainable Upland Development ... DECS Department of Education, Culture and Sports ... EC European Commission EU European Union

ii

CONTENT PAGE ACRONYMS iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS 6 III. UDP OBJECTIVES 6 IV. STRATEGIES 6 V. KEY DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES 11

V.1 Land Use-Based Barangay Development Planning 11 V.2 Sustainable Agricultural Management Promoting Diversified Farming Systems through Upland Agricultural Extension 14 V.3 Barangay Forest Protection and Management 17 V.4 Labor-Based Routine Barangay Road Maintenance 19 V.5 Rural Financial Services 20 V.6 Upland Village Enterprise Development 22 V.7 LGU Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation of Schemes (PME) 24

VI. ORGANIZATIONAL SET-UP 26 VII. INDICATIVE BUDGET, INCOME GENERATED 28 VIII. CONCLUDING REMARKS 35 ANNEXES 36

iii

Annexes 1. Criteria used by UDP for upland barangay selection 2. Example of GIS generated barangay landuse map 3. List of outstanding municipalities in respect of sustainable upland development 4. Upland Extension System Delivery 5. List of key institutions and Organizations with experience in upland development 6. Locations of learning sites on DFS 7. Tree seedling inventory for uplands 8. Indicative activity and time schedule for upland development in a barangay

iv

ACRONYMS AEZ Agro-Ecological Zoning AIS Agricultural Infrastructure Support AMIS Agricultural Marketing Information System AT Agricultural Technician ATI Agricultural Training Institute BDC Barangay Development Council BEW Barangay Extension Worker BDP/BLUP Barangay Development Plan/Land-use Plan BDS Business Development Services B/MLGU Barangay/Municipal Local Government Unit CADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title CALT Certificate of Ancestral Land Title CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis CBFMA Community Based Forest Management Agreement CBME Community Based Monitoring and Evaluation CDA Cooperative Development Authority CEFE Competency based Economies through the Formation of

Entrepreneurs CEFENET Competency based Economies through the Formation of

Entrepreneurs Network CENTRAB Centre for Training in Rural and Agricultural Banking CENRO Community Environment and Natural Resources Office CIDE Community Institutional Development and Extension CO Community Organising CSC Certificate of Stewardship Contract CSO Civil Society Organization CUES Co-operative Union for Empowerment and Strengthening CWP Community Watershed Plan DA Department of Agriculture DAR Department of Agrarian Reform DECS Department of Education, Culture and Sports DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DFS Diversified Farming System DILG Department of Interior and Local Government DTI Department of Trade and Industry EAC Environmental Awareness Campaigns EC European Commission EU European Union FPIC Free and Prior Informed Consent FSC Financial Services Centre FTG Farmer Trainers Group GFI Government Financial Institution GIS Geographic Information System

v

GPS Geographic Positioning System GO Government Institution GOP Government of the Philippines HA Hectare IB Institution Building ICRAF International Centre for Research on Agro-forestry IEC Information and Education Campaign IP Indigenous People IRA Internal Revenue Allotment IRR Internal Rate of Return ISF Integrated Social Forestry JMC Joint Memorandum Circular LGU Local Government Unit MAO Municipal Agricultural Office MDC Municipal Development Council M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MED Marketing & Enterprise Development MPDC Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator MPDO Municipal Planning and Development Office MIS/GIS Management Information System/Geographic Information

System MLGU Municipal Local Government Unit MPT Municipal Project Team MOA Memorandum of Agreement MPDC Municipal Planning Development Council MPDO Municipal Planning Development Office MTDP Medium Term Development Plan M&R Maintenance and Repair NCIP National Commission for Indigenous Peoples NEDA National Economic Development Authority NEDA-HLURB/LUPC National Economic Development Authority-Housing and

Land Use Regulatory Board/Land Use Policy Council NGO Non-Government Organization NPV Net Present Value NVS Natural Vegetative Strip PFI Partner Financial Institution PFP Physical Framework Plan PhP Philippine Peso PM&E Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation PO People’s Organization RFS Rural Financial Services RM Resource Management SAD Sustainable Agricultural Development SEC Securities and Exchange Commission SLG Savings and Loan Group SMAP Southern Mindanao Agricultural Programme

vi

SWCM Soil and Water Conservation Measure STOP Slope Treatment Oriented Practices SUD Sustainable Upland Development TA Technical Assistance TAMA Trust Account Management Agreement TOT Training of Trainers UBA Upland Barangay Association UCO Upland Community Organization UDLF-FO Upland Development Loan Fund-Field Officer UDP Upland Development Programme in Southern Mindanao UDTF Upland Development Trust Fund

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Mindanao uplands, with their direct link with the lowland and coastal zones, are an integral part of the ecological system and must be conserved for the survival and development of the Philippines. Their destruction has resulted in decreasing production and revenue in the prime lowland ecological zones. Furthermore, undeveloped uplands in the Philippines are the locale of destabilising forces against peace and security (Castillo 1994). The uplands face huge development challenges due to the magnitude of destruction from their original state when they were still fully intact, with a rich bio-diversity. This situation cannot be ameliorated within a short period of time and will require major expense and concerted effort. In response to this, the Upland Development Programme (UDP) in Southern Mindanao (Region XI and XII) has developed and tested a model for sustainable upland development in more than a hundred upland barangays. It has produced tangible results in the field, which are recognised by the upland farmers, development practitioners and local government officials. The model could be applied in any upland barangay in the country where rampant and unsustainable agriculture is still on-going. The purpose of the following document is to outline the Sustainable Upland Development (SUD) Model and to detail in general terms its implementation through its schemes. Objectives The twin objectives are to achieve sustainable development in the upland areas with emphasis on preservation of the natural resources by strong community organisations and secondly to achieve higher incomes for the upland communities specifically those who make a living out of farming that would prevent further encroachment into forestlands by upland farmers. Approach In a community based, “grass roots” approach, the development effort is spearheaded by the LGUs concerned, particularly the municipal and barangay LGUs. It is streamlined and simplified in line with capacities that may be expected from the LGUs and communities involved. Private financial institutions such as Rural Banks and Credit Co-operatives for providing savings and credit services and private sector entities for the marketing of upland produce, also play a role in the model. The Sustainable Upland Development Model encompasses four key schemes that are implemented by LGUs and upland communities and two support schemes, implemented in collaboration mainly by partners from the private sector. The four key schemes are: Land-use based Barangay Development Planning; Agricultural Extension resulting in proper land care and the application by upland farmers of Diversified Farming Systems as a response to the prevailing mono-cropping; Barangay level Forest Protection and Routine Road Maintenance for barangay roads. The two support schemes are on Rural Financial Services and Village Enterprise Development. The schemes are complementary to each other and are considered the key to sustained development in upland areas. Except for the Land-use based Barangay Development Planning, which should always come first, schemes could be implemented one after the other in case of capacity/capability constraints of the implementing agencies and communities.

2

Benefits of the SUD Model Based on calculations made by the UDP, whereby only quantitative returns resulting from increased farm income are included, investment in upland agriculture following this model can still be highly profitable. The benefits such as sustaining the upland resource base, less siltation and flooding in the lowlands and coastal areas, that result from protecting the uplands cannot be overemphasised and it is likely that these benefits will even be far greater than the direct income benefits to farmers. As an integral part of the ecological system, with its direct link with the lowland and coastal zones, the conservation of the uplands is essential for the survival and development of the Philippines. The devastating effects of illegal logging and over-clearing of natural vegetation have been witnessed repeatedly in this country at enormous human and economic cost. Sustainable farming and development in the uplands will assist greatly in preserving upland resources, controlling and minimising the destabilising forces against peace and security, and allow communities to lead more productive, fulfilling and dignified lives.

3

I. INTRODUCTION The uplands, with their direct link with the lowland and coastal zones, are an integral part of the ecological system and must be conserved for the survival and development of the Philippines. Their destruction will result in decreasing production and revenue in the prime lowland ecological zones. Furthermore, undeveloped uplands in the Philippines are the locale of destabilizing forces against peace and security (Castillo 1994). The Mindanao uplands face huge development challenges due to the magnitude of destruction from their original state. Since this destruction has to be more or less equated with ameliorative efforts, an historical account of what has happened with the Mindanao uplands should be considered. Fifty years ago the Mindanao uplands were covered with primary forests and inhabited by Indigenous Peoples (IPs). Upland areas were still fully intact and very rich in biodiversity. Inasmuch as environmental conditions in the uplands are directly linked to those in the lowlands and coastal areas, the lowland environment was sound and coastal areas, with productive coral reefs and mangroves, carried abundant fish resources. In recent decades, this well-preserved interdependent natural environment of upland, lowland and coastal area has dramatically changed for the worse (see graph on next page showing the transformation of forestlands in the Philippines over time). One reason for this is the indiscriminate legal and illegal logging in the past. In addition, population pressure has forced lowlanders to occupy areas already cleared through logging and encouraged unsustainable farming there. Another reason may have been the taking over by large agri-business concerns of vast tracts of gently sloping lowland plantations, forcing many poor communities with no other option than to expand cultivation onto steep to very steep slopes. The original IP inhabitants practiced the slash and burn farming while the migrant lowlanders practiced lowland technologies not suited to steep uplands. This has resulted in severe soil erosion, low productivity and therefore very low income and quality of life. The fierce erosion has also resulted in extreme “poverty” in terms of biodiversity in the Mindanao uplands1. And what happens in the uplands has a direct effect on the lowlands. Lowland dwellers, farmers and fishermen, have suffered badly due to the damaging effects of severe floods and siltation, which have occurred as a result of this erosion. The Mindanao uplands, including natural parks, are currently almost all inhabited and used as farmlands with little regard to prevention of damage. The situation is very serious particularly to immediate stakeholders - the people and the local leaders - who should agree on and enforce appropriate upland land use, institute the practice of sustainable agriculture, reforest suitable areas, and protect remaining patches of forest. The critical issue however, is how to mobilize resources and build capabilities to make the upland farmers protect their land and generate sufficient income. Some programmes, foremost of which is the Upland Development Programme (UDP) in Southern Mindanao (Region XI and XII), have addressed the serious concerns of Mindanao upland degradation. The problem is huge though and cannot be solved within a short period of time and requires major expense and concerted efforts to ameliorate such conditions.

1 See Haribon Foundation, Power Point Presentation “ The Scary Story”, 2001

4

5

The UDP has developed and tested a model for sustainable upland development (SUD). The European Commission (EC) and the Government of the Philippines (GOP) jointly formulated the Programme. It is implemented by the Department of Agriculture with financial support and technical assistance from the EC2. Within six years of implementation and towards the end of the programme, it has produced tangible results in the field, which are recognized by the upland farmers, development practitioners and local government officials. As a modelling programme, UDP is restricted by time and coverage to a limited number of municipalities in six provinces of Southern Mindanao. Besides, it is foreign-funded. However the described model is designed in such a way that it can be replicated through local initiatives and resources if stakeholders, particularly the concerned Local Government Units (LGUs) are willing to allocate a fair share of their resources and commitment to ensure sustainable upland development. A number of assumptions and conditions have been used in building the model. Most of these attributes have successfully been applied elsewhere and also work in the uplands. The first assumption is that sustainable upland development can only be achieved if the upland communities are fully involved and empowered to take up their own development activities. This implies a participatory approach towards the development process and the need for a relationship of trust between the upland communities and available support institutions like the LGUs. Experience shows that community organizing and building trust and confidence can best be established through concrete activities and projects that generate economic and/or social benefits for the concerned community at an early stage of programme implementation. Secondly, local governments at the barangay, municipality and provincial levels as well as local financial institutions, must play a facilitating role in assisting upland communities in line with their functions. Security of tilling the land is a vital prerequisite for farmers to invest and sustain the uplands. A tenurial instrument would also be a valid base for LGU taxation to enable the collection of taxes to provide for increased services delivery to the uplands. Vital also, are the availability of good access roads, clean drinking water and basic health and educational services. This requires the linking up of upland barangays with municipality and provincial LGUs, relevant national government agencies and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) that can provide these services. The model is based on six years of experience with UDP implementation in more than hundred and forty upland barangays in Southern Mindanao. It encompasses a forward-looking scenario whereby the development effort with upland barangay communities is spearheaded by the LGUs concerned, particularly the municipal and barangay LGUs. Private financial institutions such as Rural Banks and Credit Co-operatives and private sector entities for the marketing of upland produce, also play an important role in the model. The model still carries the original UDP philosophy and programme elements except for the heavy emphasis on outside funding and technical assistance. It is also streamlined and simplified in line with capacities that may be expected from the LGUs and communities involved. It encompasses four key schemes: the Barangay Development and Land Use Planning; Agricultural Extension; Barangay Forest Protection and the Routine Road Maintenance for barangay

2 The Financing Agreement between the European Commission and Government of the Philippines was on 20 October 1998 but the actual start of UDP was on 19 January 1999

6

roads. There are two support schemes one on Rural Financial Services and one on upland Village Enterprise Development. A schematic overview of the sustainable upland development model is provided on the next page. Definitions of some key terms and the objectives of the UDP are given in Chapter II and III respectively. Chapter IV has the strategies on how to achieve the objectives. In Chapter V the development schemes of the model are described. The recommended organizational framework is provided in Chapter VI. An indicative barangay based budget estimate is discussed in chapter VII where also expected costs and benefits of investing in uplands following the SUD model and possible financing modes are provided. Chapter VIII ends with some concluding remarks.

7

8

II. DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS Uplands All sloping lands that are more than 100 meters above sea level including high lands or forestlands3. Sustainable upland development (SUD) Development in an upland area that strikes a proper balance between ecological and economic concerns in a way that the natural resource base is maintained or improved while at the same time economic activities such as farming generate sufficient income for the inhabitants residing and making a living in the uplands. Target area The upland barangay is considered to be the model area. Example of a GIS generated land use map of an upland barangay is in Annex 2. III. OBJECTIVES

The twin objectives are to achieve sustainable development in upland areas with emphasis on preservation of the natural resources by strong community organizations and secondly to achieve higher incomes for the upland communities specifically those who make a living out of farming. This will be reflected in well-protected remaining forest pockets; in reforestation/ agro-forestry of fallow lying non-agricultural lands; in diversified farming on already farmed land, following an agreed barangay land use plan that delineates what areas are for agricultural development and what areas for protection and reforestation. Furthermore this is reflected in farmers applying appropriate soil and water conservation measures and in strong community organizations taking the lead in sustainable upland development.

IV. STRATEGIES

The strategies described below are best practices based on six years of UDP experience as well as on the experience of other institutions with which the Programme has been collaborating and that have contributed most to achieving the Programme objectives. A list of key collaborating institutions is in Annex 3 and 4. The strategies involve:

• Environmental Awareness Campaigns (EACs) • Supportive legal framework • LGU/Community capacity building for Landuse Planning and for quality extension • Community participation through trust building such as for example in labour based

barangay road maintenance and drinking water system improvements • Land security • Model farms/learning sites in each upland barangay and sitio • Access to financial services

3 Principal criteria for upland barangay selection in annex 1

9

Environmental Awareness Campaigns (EACs)

There need to be intensive and continuous awareness campaigns through community organizations, schools, churches, LGUs, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and other suitable channels for the municipal population in general and for the upland barangay population in particular. Such campaigns should emphasize preservation and protection of the natural upland resources in the following areas4:

• The application of soil and water conservation measures (SWCMs) on all sloping farmed lands

• Protection and conservation of remaining forest pockets • Planting of trees along riverbanks, around springs and in fallow lying grass and non-

agricultural lands suitable for reforestation Inherent in such campaigns is the need to create capacity and skills with these support institutions for them to be effective in EACs. Such capacity building can be provided by the various institutions and organizations the UDP has tapped. For a list of such support institutions see Annex 3 & 4. Supportive legal framework

There is a need to put in place a legal framework with concerned LGUs for preservation and protection of the natural upland resources derived from a barangay land-use plan as part of the Barangay Development Plan (BDP). This should be established in a participatory manner and agreed upon and subsequently enforced by stakeholders such as the community organizations and the Local Government Unit/Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Community Environment Natural Resources Office-National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (LGU/DENR-CENRO-NCIP). The adoption of appropriate ordinances/ resolutions by LGU councils and barangay community organizations and putting in place facilities for enforcement, are essential to support the EACs. LGUs willing to adopt the drive for sustainable upland development will reflect their commitment in their development and investment plans and budgets. LGU/Community Capacity building for Quality Extension5

To put in place trained, capable, committed and effective extension workers from the LGU as well as from the barangay community itself, are crucial strategies to achieve the objectives of sustainable upland development. In the model, extension workers are employed by LGUs (municipal and barangay) that is, the Agricultural Technician (AT) and the Barangay Extension Worker (BEW) respectively, and by the upland community organizations through model farmers called the Farmers Trainers Group (FTG) which consist of at least one model farmer per sitio. The extension workers coach and empower the upland communities and individual farmers to help them build/strengthen a strong community organization that will be able to attract the services they need. Working with their local governments, they facilitate the formulation of the land-use plan for the barangay. They also help farmers with farm planning, the application of on-farm soil and water conservation and with crop diversification

4 Campaign materials and EAC Programme documentation can be found in the UDP/DA library and website 5 Extension details, manuals etc. can be accessed from UDP/DA library and website

10

leading to increased incomes. The barangay appointed extension workers and FTG members have their own farms to show the proper technologies to his/her community. Training of extension staff, community leaders and the farmers themselves should mostly be hands-on, with relevant exposure trips to outstanding resource management and diversified farming/learning sites playing a vital role although, some Trainings of Trainers for extension workers may require classroom trainings as well. Exposures trips have proven to be very effective in improving extension services and particularly in the transfer of appropriate technologies. A list of exposure sites in Southern Mindanao for sustainable upland development is provided in Annex 5. Community participation through trust building

To ensure that the upland communities take the lead in their barangay development/ land-use planning and its implementation, maximum participation is a must. In the case of Indigenous Peoples (IP) communities a Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) needs to be acquired before starting activities or projects to ensure that a maximum number of the upland populace will participate. In this connection a trust-worthy relationship between the community and support institutions is essential. The Programme conducted Information and Education Campaigns (IECs) and Environmental Awareness Campaigns (EACs) through seminars, extension and hands-on trainings, radio programmes, and the dissemination of leaflets and posters. Extension, hands-on trainings and radio programmes appeared to be most effective. However experience also shows that a communal trust building project designed and implemented in co-operation with the community can be very instrumental in establishing/strengthening effective community/people’s organizations (POs) with committed members. The trust building project is linked to a commitment and obligation of farmers to the preservation and conservation of their upland areas. Effective barangay and sitio based community organizations/POs are necessary pre-requisites to sustain the development efforts and to attract LGU support for it. To make such organizations effective takes time though and depends to a large extent on the capabilities of the extension workers to facilitate the community institution building process. It has been UDP’s experience that with concrete economic activities on hand, such organizations flourish. Communal projects to be managed by the community organizations/POs could be in the areas of village enterprise, protection of the upland resource base, basic infrastructure development and its maintenance and repair, and joint marketing. In case of trust building infrastructure projects, sustainable maintenance schemes of upland infrastructure may be taken care of right from the start by community organizations/POs with support from their LGUs, to ensure continuous community cooperation. A guideline for and how to facilitate agencies and mobilize extension workers with regard to community organizing (CO) is available in UDP/DA library and on the website: www.saveuplands.org Land security

Land security for farmers in the uplands is seen as fundamental in order to pursue proper land care and investment in medium and long-term crops that preserve the uplands. UDP’s

11

experience with the awarding of existing tenurial instruments such as Community Based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA), is discouraging though. The awarding process is tedious and lengthy and the responsible agencies have funding and other constraints, which hamper them being able to implement effectively. The result has been that existing CBFMAs are poorly executed with respect to preserving the uplands. For ancestral domain areas there are the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) and Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT) instruments. The awarding agency, the National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), has very few resources to conduct the required activities that will lead to giving these land titles. However, in Alienable and Disposable Lands (A&D), that is, in the lower, less steep portions of uplands, the awarding of tenurial instruments has been more successful as the instrument is individual. UDP’s findings are also that upland communities prefer individual instruments and titles. Within the present difficult if not confusing land security situation in upland areas, the model gives a bigger role to the LGUs6. In addition to existing individual land tenure instruments such as Certificate of Stewardship Contract (CSC) or Integrated Social Forestry (ISF) for areas within the mandate of the DENR and CALTs for areas where the NCIP is the awarding agency, it is recommended that in the absence of such instruments and to ensure at least a minimum security to till the land, the LGU could help by surveying individual farm lots. Based on the survey result, the LGU could then issue tax certificates to individual households in the upland areas. Model farms/learning sites

To achieve the dual objective of preservation and income generation on farmed land, the Programme adopted the strategy of model farms/learning sites. First one per municipality was facilitated, and then one in each barangay and ultimately one in each Programme covered sitio. The model farm/learning site strategy has proven to be effective in transferring technologies to and their adoption by farmers. The model farms/farmer can show proper farm planning and appropriate farming technologies (particularly in terms of Soil and Water Conservation and in diversified farming). Hands-on training by ATs, BEWs and FTGs take place here and relevant information on markets etc. can also be disseminated through these model farms/learning sites. Appropriate and diversified farming by the upland farmers will guarantee higher income and will prevent further encroachment into forestlands and hence support preservation of the upland resource base. A list of learning sites/model farms is in Annex 5. Access to Financial Services

Like elsewhere, the sustained delivery of financial services is crucial in uplifting economic development in the uplands. In the SUD model, rural banks, credit co-ops and Micro Finance Institutions (MFIs) deliver financial services in demand by upland farmers, households and upland off-farm entrepreneurs. Services demanded are facilities to deposit savings and for obtaining loans in areas such as micro-finance, production and marketing of upland produce. The more remote areas are difficult to serve due to lack of volume of business, scattered clientele, perception of greater risks, limited access and security concerns.7 UDP’s experience is that massive and costly capacity building, including incentives, is needed to attract rural banks, MFIs and co-ops to deliver the required financial services to upland clients in very remote areas.

6 See “Study on the implications of UDP support to facilitate land security and control by upland farmers”, Patrick Dugan, Joy Cabo, Ismael Estaban, 2000 7 Upland Rural Financial Services models, manuals are available in UDP/DA libraries

12

The implementation of all these strategies requires strong support from the concerned municipal and barangay LGUs, Private Financial Institutions willing to extend their services to upland households, as well as from other relevant Government Organizations (GOs) and qualified NGOs. Hence it was found that it is crucial to invest substantially in building capacity within LGUs, upland community organizations and other key stakeholders to create favourable conditions resulting in proper understanding of the need for sustainable upland development and the commitment of manpower, resources and in the case of LGUs, legislative support, to make it all happen.

13

V. KEY DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES

V.1. Land-Use Based Participatory Barangay Development Planning through LGU and Community Capacity Building (LUB-BDP)

Rationale

A brief analysis of local development plans in Southern Mindanao done by the Upland Development Programme in Southern Mindanao (UDP) yielded the following observations:

• At the barangay level, the mandated multi-sectoral comprehensive development plans were not fully in place. Most of the readily available barangay development plans were listings of projects determined by a few. Those that had these plans limited the formulation to fit with some sectoral concerns and the time frame was suited to the length of tenure of a group of local officials (political platforms rather than the genuine barangay development plans). Moreover, the available documents contained only the annual investment plans, an indication that barangay local government units had not looked at sources of funds beyond their Internal Revenue Allocations (IRA).

• At the municipal level, BDPs were not fully integrated into the municipal development plans. Barangays get funding support from the municipal LGUs based on municipal priorities. Municipal land-use plans reflected what the municipal level functionaries perceived to be the roles played by the barangays in municipal development, sometimes with disregard to barangay aspirations and potential.

• At the provincial level, the Physical Framework Plan (PFP) had limited direct input from the barangays. The PFP indicated merely the roles that municipalities play in their contribution to provincial development.

The central planning framework is deeply set in the orientation of local development planners in this country. For a long period, national government would set, through the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTDP), the programme thrusts of every administration, leaving the regional and local entities the responsibility to translate these sectoral plans into specific annual targets. This scenario leaves much to be desired in terms of local government units being able to exercise their creativity and very little space to reflect people’s sentiments and aspirations. The passage of Republic Act 7160 (the Local Government Code of 1991) provided opportunities for barangay/municipal/provincial LGUs to constitute their local special bodies, one of which is the local development council tasked to formulate multi-sectoral and comprehensive development plans. This puts emphasis on the democratisation process, broadens people’s participation and provides an opportunity to harmonize national concerns and thrusts with unique, site-specific concerns for self-determination of localities and the constituents. The Upland Development Programme in Southern Mindanao, as part of its effort to come up with a replicable model for the uplands, initiated the sitio-based Community Watershed Planning (CWP). The processes here, involved land-use planning and inputs/attempts to get communities organized to ensure CWP implementation.

14

Purpose

After a cycle of implementation, the need to have the CWPs integrated into a long-term sustainable kind of barangay development plan was highlighted whereby all parties, that is the upland barangay community, the B/MLGU and the DENR-CENRO/NCIP would need to agree on the sustainable use of the natural resources in the concerned barangay. The conclusion was that through participatory land-use based barangay planning, a land-use plan within the context of an agreed Barangay Development Plan (BDP) should be agreed upon and adopted by all stakeholders, particularly the upland barangay community, as the basis for any development activities in a barangay. Therefore capacities have to be built within the Municipal Local Government Units (MLGUs) to facilitate the planning process of the barangays.

Approach

UDP focused its local government capability building activity on participatory planning primarily with the Municipal Planning and Development Teams of its partner LGUs. The rationale for this rests on the fact that the barangays seek technical assistance at the municipal level when they formulate their plans. However, the Municipal Planning and Development Office (MPDO) of MLGUs is often undermanned. Thus, the constitution of an MPDO Team that includes not just those staff from the MPDO but also representatives from different offices of an LGU. Harmonizing Top-Down – Bottom-Up Approaches

Land-use based participatory barangay development planning is both a technical and political exercise for the barangay. The participatory processes, during thematic mapping activities in order to arrive at a sound land-use plan, enables the community to arrive at a consensus on how to rationally utilize and manage their natural resources on a sustainable basis: clearly delineating the agreed forest protection areas, agricultural, settlement, institutional and other uses of the barangay’s natural/land resources. Once formulated and agreed upon through a Barangay General Assembly, the barangay is able to identify its primary actors i.e. the Barangay Development Council (BDC) committees for the implementation of a Barangay development Plan (BDP) covering the next six years. The land-use based BDP identifies the barangay mobilisers for each program/project to begin implementation including accessing technical and financial support from the higher level LGUs and the private sector. Part of the BDC committee’s structure is a monitoring and evaluation group that sees to it that the BDP is reviewed and updated annually. Once discussed at the MDC level, the land-use based programs and projects identified in the BDP are integrated into the municipal priorities for funding and investment by the municipal LGU. After adoption by the Sangguniang Bayan (SB), the proposed forest protection areas and other uses of the upland resources are legitimised by the municipal LGU to harmonize with the government’s mandated use of the uplands under the supervision of either the Provincial Environment and Natural Resource Office or the DENR.

15

Activities

Once composed, the MPDO team undergoes a 40-day training course on land-use based participatory barangay development planning. The capability building activity has both theoretical inputs and practical aspects at one barangay practicum site. At the end of the activity, the MPDO Team’s main indicator that they have enhanced their facilitation skills on land-use based participatory planning is the 5-year land-use based barangay development plan with an investment program and with said document endorsed by the Barangay Development Council, approved by the Sangguniang Barangay, endorsed by the Municipal Development Council and adopted by the Sangguniang Bayan. In this process, the MPDO Team learns how to facilitate land-use based participatory planning processes; gets first hand experience in community mobilization and realizes that communities indeed need their technical expertise specially in critiquing and validating the formulated plans. Hand in hand the barangay development council of the practicum site barangay also acquires land-use based barangay development planning. In some instances, the barangay planning facilitators are able to help the MPDO Teams co-facilitate their neighbouring barangays’ planning sessions. Requisites

• Minimum data requirements to include a clear inventory of the natural (bio- physical), socio-economic, cultural and political aspects of a barangay;

• Participatory tools to gather information on the abovementioned aspects including a manual detailing the process of land-use planning

• The use of a base map for land-use planning. This base map is a result of a perimeter survey done by trained LGU staff with community leaders and which helps identify boundaries and landmarks;

• Broad community participation: all sitios and all sectors are well-represented; a Barangay Development Council (BDC) with expanded membership to allow the creation of various communities that can implement specific projects later on;

• An array of participatory tools for data gathering and an emphasis on consensus building in plan formulation;

• A strong belief on the part of the facilitators that communities can be genuine authors of their development plan through a community writeshop including a community writeshop guide;

• Mobilization skills on the part of the facilitators to have the formulated plan adopted by the Sangguniang Bayan.

The land-use based BDP serves as the barangay’s self-determination instrument. With the Constitution and LGC ’91 provisions for consultation and dialogue prior to any development intervention in a barangay, this lowest level of governance is able express through a legitimate and popular process, community apprehension about certain types of development intervention, aspirations or initiatives to attain a higher level and quality of development8.

8 Information materials and manuals on how to go about participatory landuse based barangay development planning will be available in UDP/DA library and website.

16

V.2 Upland Agricultural Extension Service Delivery leading to Diversified Farming System (DFS)9 Rationale

Very steep slopes and infertile, shallow, highly erodible soils unsuitable for the sustainable production of annual crops, dominate much of the uplands. There are also distinct climatic differences between Regions. Diversified farming helps promote viable smallholder livelihoods in poorly endowed biophysical and socio-economic environments. However it also requires recognition that the land itself imposes limitations on what is ecologically sustainable. Diversified Farming Systems (DFS) have the potential to ensure food security, both in terms of increased production and productivity and in terms of income generation.

Purpose

The purpose of this scheme is to introduce diversified farming systems to upland farmers that increase productivity and hence reduce the need to open up more lands, particularly in forest areas. The ultimate aim is that all steep slopes presently farmed with short-term crops like corn, will ultimately be converted into tree (fruit and forest) cropped lands.

Approach

Under the SUD model the application of DFS is based on Slope Treatment Oriented Practices (STOP). The STOP can assist extension workers identify site-specific solutions that take into account the wide range of soil and environmental conditions, farm sizes and farmer objectives. This approach has evolved as the best solution to protect the upland resource base against erosion and at the same time generate more income for upland farmers; with the ultimate goal that farmers will fully shift from short-term crops to tree crops, which of course are most appropriate for upland, sloping watershed areas.

Under the DFS approach the farmer grows short (to address his/her immediate cash requirements), medium (for income needs in the medium term) and long-term crops (for farmers’ pension). This lessens dependence on a single crop, promotes moving to dualistic cropping systems with an ever-increasing area under perennial crops and switching to better marketable crops as well as diversifying into small animal production. Justification for DFS & Benefits

The advantages of diversifying into medium- and long-term crops are obvious. A combination of one unit of lanzones, four units each of bananas, mango and durian, with six units of pineapple, and a vegetable patch of one unit each of egg plant and okra, can earn the farmer PhP 100,000 compared to PhP 4,800 from the same area of 8,300 sq m if he grows cassava. See Table 1. below6.

9 Manuals, guidelines, STOP technology information etc. available in UDP/DA library and website 6 For example, San Miguel Corporation (SMC) needs one million ha of cassava to supply their product requirements. Newspapers (e.g. TODAY, Jan 27 2005 edition) report that farmers are being told they can earn up to P45,000/ha/yr at a farm gate price of P3.0/kg of dried cassava. But this requires fresh weight yields of 50 tonne/ha/yr of cassava, whereas the national average production of cassava dropped from 8.4 t/ha/yr in 2000 to 7.0 t/ha/yr in 2002. (BAS/ PCARRD).

17

Table 1. Crop yields vs. prices and areas needed to generate one month's income of PhP 4,800 (production costs not included).

Crop

(year of data)

Ave. Yield Mt/ha/yr

Farmgate price

(PhP/ kg)

Av. Yield (kg/10m2/yr)

Income (PhP/10m2)

Area of UNIT needed to earn one month’s income of

PhP 4,800 (sq m)

Cassava (2000) 1

6.42 * 3.55 1.93 (dry roots)

5.78 (SMC price)

8,307

Cotton (2003) 2

0.9 19.00 0.90 17.10 2,807

Corn (2004) 2

4.0 (from 2 harvests)

7.00 4.00 28.00 1,710

Lanzones (2003) 1

3.04 20.53 3.04 62.41 769

Eggplant (2000) 1

8.31 8.34 8.31 69.31 693

Papaya (2003) 1

14.67 5.85 14.67 85.82 559

Okra (2003) 1

9.00 9.58 9.00 86.22 557

Banana (2003) 1

13.10 6.70 (lakatan)

13.10 87.77 547

Mango (2003) 1

6.42 18.55 (carabao)

6.42 120.02 400

Durian (2003) 1

3.45 42.65 3.45 147.14 326

Pineapple (2003) 1

35.61 6.73 (Hawaiian)

35.61 239.66 200

1 Source of Data: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS), DTI-BETP Online Database, FAOStat Online Database

2 UDP field observations * Average yield for Camarines Sur, fifth highest yielding province Okra, eggplants and bananas can become monthly income generators. Adding goats, pigs, fishponds, etc. will give the farmer extra income. The wider the range of production units the less the impact on the household’s income should there be a drop in the price of several of the products. Farmers with only very steep slopes to cultivate are being encouraged to switch from corn to bananas and fruit trees. Widespread and continuous cultivation of corn and cassava on steep

18

slopes is reducing soil depths by 2-4 cm per year. If this continues, there is a danger that there may be insufficient soil left to support any crop.

Diversification of crops is easier for farmers whose land includes minor valleys, where irrigated vegetable production is feasible, and gently sloping hilltops and ridges, which can be terraced. Unfortunately, the destruction of forests is reducing the potential for irrigated vegetable production annually as streams and springs dry up. Farmers who only have access to steep slopes are encouraged to adopt multi-storey tree crop production, in which a range of trees of various heights is planted to cover the slopes. Nonetheless, where slopes are too steep or soils too shallow, it is in the public interest that attempts to exploit these slopes be curtailed.

Activities

Crucial is that farmers have access to quality extension services on how to establish a DFS. Extensive capacity building though training and exposure of Agricultural Technicians, Barangay Extension workers and Farmers Training Groups, is therefore a necessary condition. Establishment of learning sites/model farms is another important activity under this scheme and provision of seedlings as incentives to farmers to adopt, particularly soil and water conservation technologies, is essential too. Farmer cross-visits have shown to be quite effective in the transfer of appropriate technologies for upland farming. Distribution of extension materials, farmer gatherings to exchange experiences, and field days where producers, buyers and service providers are brought together are also effective means of achieving the purpose of the scheme. In addition, awareness campaigns for LGU officials and upland communities on the need for sustainable farming are also necessary. Radio programmes in this respect have proven to be well received.

Requisites

The promotion and success of DFS with upland farmers is very dependent on the strength and quality of the extension services available (see also under strategies in chapter IV). Hence there is a need to really build up effective but affordable technical services for the farmers. The LGUs as per their mandate under the Local Government Code are to provide such services to their farming communities supported by the Provincial Agricultural Office and the DA Regional Field Units and their affiliated bureaus. However the service delivery by LGUs through the office of the Municipal Agriculturist (MAO) was found to be poor for upland farmers. Hence substantial capacity building is a pre-requisite for effective service delivery. Secondly, even then the LGU extension is not enough to introduce DFS on a massive scale in the uplands. The LGU extension services need to be complemented by the services of community based extension workers like BEWs and FTGs who are at the same time both model farmers and managers of learning sites. Obviously this also requires considerable capacity building.

Effective, quality extension services are crucial in the SUD model that aims at massive adoption of DFS in upland areas. The Programme has tapped various institutions for this purpose, first of all for Training of Trainers (TOT) training of extension workers by the Agricultural Training Institutes (ATIs) of the DA, but also NGOs like the International Centre for Research on Agro-forestry (ICRAF) to do the hands-on coaching of the ATs, BEWs and model farmers. The establishment of farmer learning sites/model farms is not only as venues for trainings and cross visits, nurseries etc. but they are also resource centres able to provide technical services as well as farmer-to-farmer contact and farmer field days where

19

stakeholders are brought together. These activities have proven to be quite successful in promoting sustainable and profitable agriculture in uplands. V.3 Barangay Forest Protection10 Rationale

The Barangay Forest Protection and Management Scheme was conceptualised by UDP to address the ongoing further destruction of the remaining forests in the uplands. The main causes for this situation are the continuous expansion of farming activities and encroachment into remaining forestlands as well as other on-going destructive activities such as illegal logging. In UDP’s experience this situation has been caused by irresponsible behaviour, either deliberate or ignorant. Perhaps another reason is the limited function of barangay local government units in protecting and managing the forests and being overruled by executive orders given out by the central government without consultation with the barangay LGU and communities. Surveys show that most land within upland barangays in Southern Mindanao (80%) has lost its vegetation due to massive farming - only fragmented landscapes remain. The remaining forest pockets are generally small to medium size patches of natural and second growth forests surrounded by massive grazed- and croplands. Nevertheless these remaining forests are seen as both a relic of natural ecosystems, and, even more now, having critical ecological functions that affect the other sub-ecosystems in the entire barangay, which are also fragile. Given the situation, the Programme feels the urgent need for a more “rational” land-use policy in the uplands. Although in stark violation of existing policies, the situation of massive farming in the uplands cannot be ignored any longer, nor scaled down for various reasons such as poverty which is partly due to the lack of effective and appropriate extension services for farmers to increase their productivity and income from existing farm lands. This lack of guidance and coaching of upland communities in protecting and regulating the use of their forestlands in the barangay is a similar reason for the sad state of forests in the uplands. Lack of alternative employment for upland communities in the lowlands can be cited too. It would be better to accept the reality and try to ensure that no further destruction of the upland resource base takes place by: • Introducing better farm technologies such as DFS, that increase productivity and hence

should prevent further opening of farmland in forests • Effective protection of remaining forest pockets, particularly on the steeper slopes,

around springs and riverbanks through alternative options that are achievable by LGUs and upland barangay communities.

Purpose

The purpose of the scheme is:

• To protect the remaining forestlands from further expansion of farming and other destructive activities;

10 Details on the scheme like agreements, implementation schedule in UDP/DA library

20

• To organize and mobilize the Barangay Local Government Units and the local community organizations in protecting and managing the remaining forest lands in the barangay;

• To introduce appropriate community-based and site-specific forest management activities and to forge strong co-management partnerships between BLGU, MLGU, DENR-NCIP and the local community organizations in managing the forestlands in the barangay through devolving forest management functions to the barangay level.

Approach

The on-site forest management approach aims at empowering the Barangay Local Government Units and the Local Upland Communities in managing the natural resources within the barangay by incorporating forest management functions into the barangay governance systems and structures. The guidelines for this scheme are based on the devolved functions of the DENR-DILG JMC 98-01 and 2003-01.There are actually no management functions and responsibilities devolved to the barangay (section 5.4.1. of JMC 98-01). However, recognizing that the barangay LGUs play an important role in protecting the forest and in rehabilitating degraded forest lands within their territorial coverage, the circular allows the DENR to designate or deputize barangay officials to perform environmental functions upon prior consultation with the local chief executives of the MLGUs (sections 5.4.2. and 5.4.3). The scheme therefore aims at empowering the BLGUs and upland communities in managing the natural resources by embedding such functions in existing local governance systems and structures through integrating barangay land-use planning into the barangay development planning process. A lot of emphasis is given to empower the barangay community as the major user of the forest resources through strengthening the barangay organizations and Peoples Organisations (POs). Given all these, the approach adopted is that of a co-management scheme with the partners mentioned, to protect the remaining forest pockets and reforest areas agreed upon in the adopted land-use plan. The scheme therefore attempts to rationalize and embrace the co-management concepts at the barangay level emphasizing the key roles of the barangay LGU and Local Communities in forest management.

Activities

A thorough orientation with all stakeholders is fundamental as well as medium term EACs for the same and particularly for the occupants of the forest. Capacity building of the LGUs and community organizations including training of forest guards in achieving the objectives is crucial. Crucial also is the formal appointment of and support by a Municipal Environmental Officer. In many MLGUs this is still a side job of the Municipal Agricultural Officer, which is seen as insufficient. Furthermore the areas have to be identified, delineated and clearly marked and a formal declaration has to be made of the identified sites as protected zones based on the Barangay Land Use Plan integrated in the Barangay Development Plan. A Memorandum of Agreement between the BLGU, MLGU, DENR-CENRO or NCIP with the local community organization being the partners in the co-management scheme, has to come into force. A barangay forest management committee should be established to formulate and oversee the implementation of the forest management plan. The committee also has to facilitate the appointment/ recognition/accreditation of forest guards tasked to implement certain activities under the plan.

21

Requisites

To achieve the purpose of the scheme the establishment of an effective extension service delivery system is seen as crucial. To establish such systems, support from a committed LGU, DENR-NCIP and NGO is required. A strong community organization is another prerequisite. V.4 Routine Maintenance of Barangay Roads11 Rationale

Access to markets and services are crucial for sustainable agricultural development and service delivery. In the uplands roads to and within upland barangays are often old logging roads of poor design and badly maintained. This leads to very high transport costs resulting in high prices of upland produce in non-barangay based markets thereby eroding the competitiveness of upland farm produce. Services brought to the uplands are also disproportionately costly for upland dwellers. The almost total lack of effective maintenance schemes to address the grossly inadequate state of farm to market roads in the uplands, is seen as the main cause. Sustainable routine road maintenance is vital to ensure good access to markets and services and fundamental to the upland barangay economy including farm- as well as the off-farm enterprises. Hence there is a great need to improve and maintain through labour-based equipment supported technology, the farm to market roads in the uplands.

Purpose

The scheme aims to put a system in place in the barangay that will ensure that important farm to market roads are upgraded and maintained properly by and within the capacities and capabilities of the barangay LGU and community with support from the MLGU. Approach

The community, represented by a local peoples organisation (PO), is contracted to assist with upgrading and maintaining the selected road(s). For that purpose a permanent maintenance crew, responsible for a certain stretch of road, is put in place with the support of the B/MLGU concerned. An underlying reason for contracting the community is to strengthen and empower its organizations so they can deal with their LGU on an equal footing and attract support. If the road maintenance model is properly adopted by the LGUs it ensures that there is sufficient budget allocated for road maintenance and the chances that roads are maintained properly is maximised.

Activities

Key activities focus on the following. Extensive awareness campaigns on the need to maintain the roads for LGUs and communities should be carried out. Agreements must be forged to establish permanent maintenance crews headed by a foreman, on vital barangay roads. Capacity building of the municipal engineers to supervise and train the maintenance crews in technologies appropriate for the uplands must be carried out. Training of crews by LGU engineers and the provision of tools is essential. To ensure maintenance programs are effective, monitoring and supervision by LGU engineers of actual implementation is critical.

11 Memorandum of Agreements, contract formats etc, manuals and costing available in UDP/DA library

22

Requisites

There must be a strong commitment of B/MLGU to allocate financial and human resources to improve and maintain upland farm to market roads. V.5 Rural Financial Services Rationale

Access to formal financial institutions, whether banks or cooperatives, is very limited in upland sitios. It was found that very few banks are providing services in the upland barangay centres and almost none in sitios. Other informal savings and credit associations are also rarely found in upland areas, especially amongst the tribal communities Main issues and concerns to deal with are:

1. Savings as such do not often occur in the upland sitios. On the contrary, most people depend on 'cash advances' from local traders to survive till the next harvest.

2. Most people complain about the lack of (access to) finance for increasing the fertility of the land and for other inputs

3. Almost nobody has money to deal with emergency cases 4. Financial institutions remain very hesitant about expanding their services in the

uplands Purpose

This Scheme deals with establishing a savings-based credit delivery system that provides micro finance, agricultural production loans and savings services on reasonable terms to upland farmers, enterprises and communities. The ultimate aim is to provide increased opportunities to engage in livelihood activities and enterprises through the availability of capital; to give access to affordable interest and appropriate loan as well as savings facilities; and to create opportunities for micro finance institutions to service upland clients; and to establish and strengthen upland cooperatives as financial intermediaries.

Approach

In the model various Partner Financial Institutions (PFIs) including rural banks, Micro-Finance Institutions (MFIs) and existing and newly established cooperatives, are encouraged to service upland clients by giving them incentives in areas of institution-building and loans for retailing in upland markets. Under the Rural Financial Services Scheme, PFIs and formalized and accredited Cooperatives are linked to a Government Financial Institution (GFIs), which provide regular capacity building and credit funds to these retailers. For that purpose trust funds are established with the Land Bank of the Philippines and with the Peoples Credit and Finance Corporation (PCFC) as these GFIs were assessed as the most appropriate GFIs for upland financial service delivery. The trust funds are called Upland Development Trust Fund (UDTF) and Upland Micro-Finance Trust Fund (UMTF) and have two components, Institution Building (IB) and a Credit revolving fund. The IB component aims at

23

strengthening the PFIs to make them viable and sustainable financial institutions to service the upland clientele in partnership with their respective GFIs. Activities

• Key activities to encourage the development of rural financial services are: • Financial market surveys in the upland area concerned • Marketing contracts to ensure secured financing • Organization and capacity building of particularly newly established cooperatives,

MFIs and rural banks that expand to upland markets • Provision of loans and savings services

Requisites Experience shows that massive and costly capacity building including incentives are needed to attract rural banks, MFIs and co-ops to deliver the required financial services to upland clients. Reasons given for reluctance to do this are the perception of greater risks with upland clientele, limited access to the areas, and security concerns. These have resulted in a lack of business opportunities because of the need to apply high interest rates due to high-incurred servicing costs. Micro finance services have proven to be most viable. In the case of agricultural loans the policy should be that loans will only be extended if there is a marketing contract with an institutional buyer to help prevent financial disaster. V.6 Village Enterprise Development Rationale

The above mentioned activities of road rehabilitation and maintenance, sustainable agricultural production, resource management, barangay development and land-use planning, extension service delivery and rural finance services, are instrumental in creating an environment that encourages some of the basic conditions for the eventual development of a farm business or village enterprise in an upland barangay.

The concept of a village enterprise development program calls for the establishment of producers’ or processors’ groups to work as the marketing arm of the communities. The producers’ group should internally generate capital from among the members and may borrow additional capital from the Financial Institutions explained above. Use of products in lieu of cash or cashless generation of capital among members of the producers’ groups has been a common practice in almost all of the village enterprises.

The village enterprise concept is flexible as to the form of organization that the producers’ group may adopt. Community participation and decision-making in the process of organizing to ensure ownership and maximum cooperation from the members is essential. At present, a majority of the producers’ groups have adopted the cooperative form of organization though some remain as an association operating like a cooperative. Based on experience, it is preferable that the cooperative form of organization set the schemes for internal generation of capital and the eventual distribution of net income and patronage refund. Those schemes, which are easily understood by the members, encourage greater participation.

24

Purpose

The scheme is established to increase incomes of upland farmers through consolidating the crops produced by individual farmers to achieve a quantity that enhances their competitive advantage and allows negotiation for higher prices and the institutionalisation of markets.

Approach & Strategy

To encourage the development of the farmer entrepreneurs, it is recommended to implement Entrefarm Training to help farmers to switch from merely subsistence farming to farm business managers. The Entrefarm training is anchored in real experiential learning activities on the farm and appropriately designed to match the education level of the farmers to ensure higher comprehension and absorption of the new knowledge. It is a recommended that a CEFENET (Competency Based Economics through the Formation of Entrepreneurs Network) accredited institution and trainers should handle this training program to ensure quality service.

As a strategy to further encourage the development of village enterprises, UDP adopted the ‘Business Development Service’ (BDS) approach to servicing the barangays. In the BDS approach institutions are tapped to provide BDS services. In another adopted strategy to facilitate exchange of good practices and successful business operational concepts, the Programme embarked on exchange visits between barangays with common products and similar business approaches. A community producing banana in a certain municipality might visit another community producing the same product in another municipality or Province. Activities

To achieve the objective of increased incomes for upland farmers the first step is to provide them with the five days Competency based Economics through the Formation of Entrepreneurs (CEFE) training in the basics of enterprise development and management. Leaders from among producers’ groups or POs are identified as participants for this training. They in turn echo and implement the knowledge gained when they get back to their communities. Evaluation activities to validate whether the Entrefarm training approach is effective in transferring entrepreneurial skills and knowledge is an integral part of the entire process. In the case of the BDS, the activities implemented include the analysis of the enterprise, preparation of business plans and operations manuals, organizational development, and coaching services and initial setting up of the enterprise. In all of the services required from the BDS providers, maximum participation of the communities is a must.

The BDS providers are further required to base an enterprise development expert in the community during the entire engagement period. Cross-visits to successful farmers and village enterprises elsewhere are also seen as important means to achieve the objective of this scheme.

Monitoring of the activities is based on the agreed schedules of major activities. A more detailed validation process involves setting up of basic success indicators and actual visits and interviews with the farmer entrepreneurs in the barangays. Requisites and Major Factors for Sustainable Village Enterprise

While several groups or associations may be actually involved in the development of a village enterprise in the upland, it is significant to note that based on experience, the sustainability of any

25

village enterprise does not rely on any of the development players. It is also a great advantage and helps instigate self-determination when the community is given autonomy and the development players take a less prominent role, providing support only when needed. For a village enterprise in the upland to succeed, basic infrastructure like an all-weather road to transport produce, and communication facilities to contact buyers are minimum requirements.

Most importantly, the farmers must have the products that can be consolidated for marketing purposes. There should be sustained backward linkages with environmentally acceptable upland farming practices. Consolidation means a greater volume of products that can be sold in the market at a given time. This affords producers more leverage in bargaining for better prices and other market arrangements, as having the volume means greater control over the supply of products. Having the right product in terms of quality and farm production practices, for example vegetables that are free from chemicals, is also an advantage that can be used to negotiate higher prices in the market.

Given suitable quantity and quality products, the next most important factor that helps ensure sustainability of the enterprise is the existence of medium to long-range market agreements with win-win arrangements with buyers. Based again on experience, the common factor in all the existing village enterprises that have proven their sustainability, is the existence of buyers who can readily absorb the products of the barangays.

The market arrangements are diverse amongst the different village enterprises. There are village enterprises that have maintained consolidation centres and market arrangements between the barangay consolidation centre and bigger consolidation centres in the cities or between the barangay consolidation centre and wholesalers in the public markets of other cities & municipalities. Another village enterprise may market its produce, say banana, through an existing marketing contract with an export oriented banana chip processor.

One market arrangement that is also distinct from all the others is the ‘Maligang’ experience where the market consolidator has created additional employment opportunities due to the initial processing requirements of the buyer for abaca strips12. The producer group has also expanded its raw material sources because of the increasing volume for the product as required by the export-oriented buyer.

With the products consolidation concept of the enterprise and market arrangement as critical factor for sustainability, there should be sound management of inventories & finances by the producers’ groups. The village enterprises that have sustained operations have laid down policies and procedures as reference in daily operations. Policies and procedures have been formed with the participation of the group members. Organizations where there is active participation of both members and officials in all of the endeavours of the organization have a much greater chance of being maintained.

Maximum transparency in the transactions of the group is a common trait in all of the successful village enterprises. It is significant to note that there are producers’ groups, which have sustained their organization through the leadership of credible pillars within the organization, and there are those, which have been sustained through the strong leadership of just one person but with strong support from the members. Better price and higher income for the farmers are the primary benefits targeted for all the village enterprises developed in upland communities. 12 Maligang is a barangay in the municipality of Kiamba, in Sarangani Province

26

V.7 LGU Planning & Monitoring and Evaluation of schemes

Having good tools to measure quality against agreed standards and to reliably monitor on-going performance are essential for the responsible parties to ensure successful programmes. It is UDP’s experience in Southern Mindanao that LGUs there have some sort of M&E system, albeit often in rudimentary form and improvement is desirable. Although the schemes above could somehow be planned, monitored and evaluated within existing systems, there is no doubt that many more benefits could be gained if, particularly LGUs, upgrade their PME systems. Hence some assistance for this purpose may be required. This will also help secure/justify proper funding from the LGU’s development funds as utilization of such funds can be linked to concrete output through the M&E system.

LGU and Community

The UDP prioritized the establishment of a Management Information System (MIS) with selected LGUs. This MIS programme can process data collected through monitoring of LGU development plans. The reports and databases generated by the MIS are a major input in the evaluation of approved and implemented projects and activities. A Geographic Information System (GIS) was also introduced to facilitate land-use based barangay development planning. A number of maps per barangay were produced that form the basis undertaking development activities. This has proven highly beneficial not only for effective implementation of the SUD outlined above, but also for general utilization by the LGU. Both MIS and GIS are customized for LGUs to properly store and retrieve information on their barangay plans and profiles, annual investment plans including monitoring of the resource allocations.

For an M&E system to be effective, three specific related tools are encouraged: (1) a baseline indicators mechanism that can be used to assess strengths and weakness, (2) a complementary set of monitoring and reporting tools to measure and manage ongoing performance and (3) an assessment tool to evaluate performance.

LGUs can use these tools to assess the impact of the schemes specifically on agricultural extension service delivery/DFS, Barangay Forest Protection and Routine Maintenance. Through the use of the MIS and the GIS, LGUs are able to detect problems encountered not only in the design but also in the implementation of activities and projects so that remedial action can be taken. Relevant for LGUs is to facilitate the establishment of a system of regular consultation with communities, not just on a community-by-community level but also on a multi-community basis. In these consultations, beneficiaries, community leaders and members of upland associations including LGU extension teams, are encouraged to get together and talk about the schemes and their effect on their lives. The farm plan and the approved BDP (with the barangay land-use plan) is the basis for monitoring and evaluating their progress.

Another effective way is the tapping of extension workers, the barangay extension workers (BEWs), agricultural technicians (ATs) and farmers’ training groups (FTGs), in the collection and generation of information. This regularly collected information can then be given to the municipal and/or provincial LGUs for analysis and encoding in their MIS/GIS. Data and data analysis should flow in both directions. The LGUs should create a condition for extension workers and communities to put emphasis and importance on the collection, processing and sharing of these M&E data and its interpretation.

27

The LGU based MIS and GIS provide and produces summary data. Through a feedback system the LGUs should provide the communities the data via community meetings and consultations. The feedback mechanism makes way for the communities to form their own analysis on the effects of projects and activities in their community. Likewise, the LGUs can get the necessary information needed for better monitoring of projects and activities in the barangays especially when the MIS and GIS are designed to look at all the key features of the barangay development and land-use plans (LUB-BDPs). The LGUs, through the system, can identify the strengths and weaknesses in their monitoring and reporting systems, existing capacity gaps and functional integration in the overall sector management process with regard to the key upland schemes. The data generated by the MIS and the GIS also provides LGUs a clearer, more rational basis for designing capacity development programs and pinpointing mainstreaming weaknesses that need to be addressed. It also supports LGUs divisions in their dialogue with the Mayor, Municipal Council and concerned agencies on how best to deploy scarce resources and achieve better outcomes. Additionally, if open access to reports about current activities is provided to a broad range of stakeholders, it will enhance transparency and accountability and allow civil society and the business community to become more actively involved in the enforcement of the existing LGU systems and regulations.

Methodology for Measuring and Monitoring Performance

A set of performance measurement indicators needs to be adopted by the LGU, Crucial is that MLGUs develop a system that will ensure the regular inputting of data in their MIS and GIS so regular reports can be generated and where relevant action taken in respect of performance. The methodology presented is considered to contribute to the oversight and management needs as well as to the information needs with regard to assessing performance and progress of projects and activities in LGUs. A minimum set of performance measurement indicators has been defined but can be modified or expanded as the MIS/GIS further develops and matures. The performance measurement indicators help track changes in actual performance and were instrumental in strengthening the LGUs M&E system. This enables concerned LGUs to make informed decisions that help focus resources and foster greater reliance on the system.

Performance Assessment System

This System introduced by UDP to the LGUs uses qualitative as well as quantitative data. It is intended to be a management tool by LGUs, enabling them to identify their areas of strength and weakness and to monitor changes in performance. In addition, the results generated by the system can be collected for analysis by the provincial/ municipal LGUs as a means of monitoring the performance of all BLGUs. The resulting performance assessment provides an important management and quality enhancement tool by LGUs and it allows comparisons to be made between LGUs in relation to their BDPs.

Time frame

Depending on the capacity and capability of the LGU the time to establish the development process in a barangay covering all the four key schemes mentioned above is estimated to be at least two-three years. Additional coaching to have the upland development process sustain

28

itself is estimated at another one and a half years13. It may be more appropriate to establish and sustain the schemes using a staggered implementation plan. The LUB-BDP process should be done first, always, for one barangay this may take 6 months. The LUB-BDP scheme is a one-time affair. Not so the establishment of the other 3 key schemes. The UAED/DFS establishment and start up may last 12 months and for the BFPMs and LBRM the same period may be required. After this period, all these three schemes are on the rails and would then continue to run. VI. ORGANISATIONAL SET UP In the model the key development stakeholders are the upland communities and their barangay and the municipal governments supported by institutions such as national government agencies and non-government organizations, and private organizations like micro-finance institutions, rural banks and credit cooperatives. Six years of UDP's experience show that LGUs require a lot of facilitation and coaching for quite some time to generate a conducive environment and conditions for upland development. Hence in case an LGU wants to replicate the SUD model in one or more of their upland barangays, the engagement of a capable organization or institution as Service Provider (SP) to provide assistance is critical and fundamental for success. Facilitating/coaching organisations to support the LGUs, should be experienced and familiar with the SUD model. They could include the Regional offices of the DA and their training arms the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI), Non-Government Organisations and financial Institutions linked to the LBP and PCFC that are familiar with the model and have been involved in SUD for a couple of years14. LGUs

The collaboration to implement sustainable upland development following the SUD model in upland barangays should be spelled out in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) including detailed implementation guidelines and budgets between the Municipality and Barangay LGU and possibly the provincial LGU as well and the facilitating/coaching agencies mentioned above. Some barangay and municipality LGUs may finance the investment in upland development from their own means; others may call upon their Provincial Government, Congressmen/women, national agencies like the DA, DAR, DENR etc. Of course donor support can be very helpful in if not a pre-condition for expanding the SUD model and its schemes in many more upland barangays. Facilitating Organizations for LGUs

In the model, facilitating organizations (the NGOs/Service Providers, Line Agencies familiar with the model) deliver technical assistance and coaching services to LGUs to capacitate them to effectively implement the relevant schemes under the SUD model i.e. land-use based barangay development planning; agricultural extension to introduce diversified farming systems; barangay forest protection and labour-based barangay road maintenance.

13 For an indicative schedule and timing of the above Activities see Annex 8 14 List of key institutions and organizations with experience in upland development in annex 3 and 4

29

VII. INDICATIVE BUDGET, INCOME GENERATED Introduction The SUD model for LGU implementation consists of the following schemes: 1. Landuse-Based Barangay Development Planning (LUB-BDP) 2. Upland Agricultural Extension Delivery for introducing Diversified farming

Systems with upland farmers (UAED-DFS) 3. Barangay Forest Protection and Management (BFPM) of remaining forest pockets

and ecologically critical areas in a barangay 4. Labour-Based Routine Barangay Road Maintenance and Repair (LBRBMR) of

economically vital barangay roads It is recommended that scheme one LUB-BDP, must be done first and always. The subsequent other schemes may be done jointly or one after another. For an MLGU to establish the complete SUD model i.e. all four, or only one or more of its schemes in a barangay, there are three types of costs:

1. Municipal level investment costs 2. Barangay level investment costs 3. Barangay level recurrent costs

Assumptions15

5 upland barangays per municipality 50 hectares of forest to be protected 100 farmers per barangay to be supported 5 kms of barangay road per barangay to be maintained

15 Please note the more barangays covered, the lower the cost per barangay

30

Details on one time municipal level investments, one municipality

LUB-BDP Item Cost in peso (2007 prices)

1 Agreements with LMP/MOA etc. 10,000 2 Equipments, software for map production (Computer

+ plotter, GPS, GIS software) 310,000

3 Training cost of MPDO team in Southern Mindanao including travel/or hiring of consultants

50,000

4 MLGU orientation by MPDO team to brief and get support from SB, LCE others

5,000

5 One time coaching by Service Provider (SP) for 1st barangay or hiring of Consultant

50,000

6 Facilitators training by SP or Consultant 40,000 7 Installation of MIS on BDP-AIP Software 5,000 8 Technical assistance 6 months x 35,000 210,000 9 LGU Staff salaries etc., (estimated) 360,000 Total one time investment MLGU 1,040,000 Details on one time barangay level investment, one barangay

LUB-BDP Item

Cost in peso (2007 prices)

1 Perimeter survey of barangay boundaries and production of base-map

10,000

2 Actual barangay consultations: profiling (PRA), community mapping, planning, general assemblies

19,000

3 Writeshop/packaging 10,000 4 Digitization and printing of maps 6,000 5 Culmination activity/legitimization/approval 5,000 6 Billboard (display of Approved Landuse Plan) 10,000 Total investment for one LUB-BDP BLGU 60,000

31

Details on municipal level investments, one municipality

UAED-DFS Item

Cost in peso (2007 prices)

1 Agreements with LMP/MOA etc. 10,000 2 Overall Orientation by LMP to LGUs 10,000 3 Resolutions on UAED-DFS adopted by Councils,

consultations done 10,000

4 Exposure trip in Southern Mindanao including travel

50,000

5 Planning/system dev. workshops and Formulation Municipal Barangay Extension Plans

15,000

6 Formal MLGU staff appointment for UAED-DFS 7 Technical Training MAO staff (ATs) 25,000 8 Technical assistance 6 months x 35,000 210,000 9 LGU staff salaries, etc. (estimated) 360,000

Total 690,000 Details on barangay level investment, one barangay

UAED-DFS Item Cost in peso (2007 prices)

1 Establishment and training of Community Based Extension Team (CBET)

70,000

2 Farm development of CBET members (6 extension workers per barangay)

60,000

3 Support for farmers in barangay (seedlings, goats), 100 farms x Peso 6000/farm

600,000

Total per barangay 730,000 Details on Barangay level recurrent costs

UAED-DFS Item Cost in peso (2007 prices)

1 AT annual costs including transport 200,000 2 Barangay Extension Worker (BEW) incentive 10,000 3 Refresher course for extension workers 15,000 4 M&E and review of MEP 10,000 Total Barangay level recurrent costs for Agricultural extension 235,000

32

Details on municipal level investments, one municipality

BFPM Item Cost in peso (2007 prices)

1 Agreements with LMP/MOA etc. 10,000 2 Overall Orientation by LMP to LGUs 10,000 3 Resolutions on BFPM adopted by Councils,

consultations done 10,000

4 Exposure trip in Southern Mindanao including travel

50,000

5 Planning/system dev. workshops and Formulation Municipal Barangay Extension Plans

15,000

6 Formal MLGU staff appointment for BFPM 0 7 Technical Training MENRO staff 25,000 8 Technical assistance 6 months x 35,000 210,000 9 LGU staff salaries, etc. (estimated) 360,000 Total 690,000

Details on barangay level investment, one barangay

BFPM Item Cost in peso (2007 prices)

1 Perimeter survey and data collection 7,000 2 Actual barangay consultations/meetings: forest inventory,

negotiations etc.) 5,000

3 Actual barangay consultations/meetings: forest inventory, negotiations etc.

10,000

4 Appointment and training by MENRO for Forest Guards 10,000 5 MOA signing/legal documentation 3,000 6 BFPMS implementation Plan, site management

agreements in place 10,000

7 EACs, IEC activities like seminars etc. 5,000 8 Culmination/Actual Declaration of protected area 5,000 9 Fencing 30,000 10 Billboard 10,000 11 Refreshed trainings 35,000 12 Inspections 10,000 Total Per Barangay 140,000

Barangay level recurrent costs

BFPM

Item Cost in peso (2007 prices) 1 Refresher trainings BLGU officials 25,000 2 Refresher trainings Forest Guards 15,000 3 M&E through ocular inspection of the protected area 10,000 Total Barangay level recurrent costs for BFPMs 50,000

33

Details on municipal level investments, one municipality

LBRRM Item Cost in peso (2007 prices)

1 Agreements with LMP/MOA etc. 10,000 2 Overall Orientation by LMP to LGUs 10,000 3 Resolutions on LBRM adopted by Councils,

consultations 10,000

4 Exposure trip in Southern Mindanao including travel

50,000

5 Planning/system dev. workshops and Formulation Municipal Barangay Road Maintenance Plan

15,000

6 Formal staff appointment for LBRM 0 7 Technical Training MEO staff 25,000 8 Technical assistance 6 months x 35,000 210,000 9 LGU staff salaries, etc. (estimated) 360,000 Total 690,000

Details on barangay level investment, one barangay, 5 KM

LBRRM Item Cost in peso (2007

prices) 1 Technical trainings (two days) of BLGU and

Community Organization Officials on LBRM 3000

2 Organisation of maintenance crews 5,000 3 Technical training of maintenance crews 12000 4 Provision of hand tools 10,000 5 Rehabilitation of road to bring it up to a maintainable

level 150,000

6 Cost of implementing Labour contract routine maintenance between BLGU and Community Organization

250,000

Total per barangay 430,000 Barangay level recurrent costs

LBRRM

Item Cost in peso (2007 prices)

1 Cost of implementing Labour contract routine maintenance between BLGU and Community Organization (wages)

250,000

Total barangay level annual recurrent cost, one barangay, 5 KM

250,000

34

SUMMARY INVESTMENT PER MUNICPALITY In Peso, January 2007 prices Per Municipality Per Barangay1. Land-use based BDP P 300,000 P 60,0002. Agricultural Extension services/DFS including

seedlings/ seeds (100 farms/barangay) 3,650,000 730,000

3. Forest Protection scheme 700,000 140,0004. Labour-based Routine barangay road

maintenance 2,150,000 430,000

Total Investment (approximate) P 6,800,000 P 1,360,00016

RECURRENT COST PER MUNICPALITY AND BARANGAY PER YEAR In Peso, January 2007 prices Five (5) Barangays Per Barangay1. Agricultural Extension services/DFS including

seedlings/ seeds (100 farms/barangay) P 1,175,000 P 235,000

2. Forest Protection scheme 250,000 50,0003. Labour-based Routine barangay road

maintenance 1,250,000 250,000

Total Investment approx. P 2,675,000 P 535,000

16 Pl note the more barangays covered, the lower the cost per barangay

35

17%

54%

15%14%

LUB - BDP

UAED/DFSBFPMS

LBBRRM

Total Investment per barangay –P1,463,000

0%

43%

9%

48%

LUB - BDP

UAED/DFS

BFPMS

LBBRRM

Total annual operational costs, barangay level – P535,000

Benefits One HA of the usual growing practice in the uplands i.e. mainly corn, on an average generates around 15,000 peso per year and is declining due to productivity reductions as a result of dwindling top soil. One HA of a diversified farm consisting of a small cornfield for subsistence plus short-term crops (tomatos, sweet peper, egg plant), medium term crops (bananas) and long term crops (lanzones, rambutans, durian) for commercial purposes, generates in terms of additional net income (labour and other input costs of farmer already taken into account) approximately in:

36

Year 2: Peso 15,000 Year 3: 20,000 Year 4: 22,000 Year 5: 31,000 Year 6: 46,000 Year 7: 63,000 Year 8: 85,000 Year 9 100,000 Year 10: 115,000 Assuming a farmer would till this one HA following the DFS, total additional income generated in 2007 prices over 10 years would be around Peso 500,000.

0

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

year 2 year 3 year 4 year 5 year 6 year 7 year 8 year 9 y

THE BENEFITS1 hectare of mainly corn = P15,000/year income for a farmer1 hectare of diversified farm will generate in terms of additional net income approximately in

Looking at the SUD model from a public point of view, one might relate the LGU investment per barangay to the socio-economic-environmental benefits arising from such investment in that barangay and elsewhere. Such benefits are extra income generated by the farmers and general returns as a result of, and reduced costs due to, better environmental management (less soil erosion and floods, sustained water supply and coastal fishing to mention a few). The environmental benefits and costs however are complicated to calculate. Therefore what has been calculated here are only those benefits per barangay arising from increased farm output. Assuming again 100 farms per barangay, the direct additional net annual income generated would be as indicated above x 100 = Peso 50 million over a 10 year period. As given above the investment per barangay is around 1,500,000 and annual LGU operating costs amount to Peso 535,000.

37

The socio-economic cost-benefit analysis i.e. LGU investment costs per barangay compared to the net income from the 100 HAs of DFS farms in that barangay and over a 10 year period, shows a NPV (at 14 %) on the BLGU investment of around Peso 1,500,000, of approximately Peso 15 million with an IRR of more that 30%. Which seems to be very much profitable. For the MLGU to recover investment and operational costs, that is another thing. This will depend on how effective tax collections can be from those upland farmers that increase their incomes as a result of the LGU intervention. VIII. CONCLUDING REMARKS Based on calculations made by the Programme, whereby only quantitative returns resulting from increased farm income are included, investment in upland agriculture following this model can still be highly profitable. Investors however could say “But if I invest the same money in the low lands, my returns would be even higher.” This may be true for the direct and short term financial benefits; however the other qualitative benefits from, for example, reduced erosion due to protection measures by the farmers, keeping natural forests intact and reforestation programmes, are not included due to the complexity of calculation. The same is true for increased coastal fish stock, as fishing grounds would improve as a result of reduced erosion. Currently, costs for extension personnel are covered from regular fund sources available with the LGUs. The main LGU concern perhaps is how to pay for the investment costs. Taking the magnitude of investment into account, the financing of the scheme can in principle, in theory, be realized from IRA funds of the municipal and barangay jointly, if the LGUs give priority to upland development. Participation of the PLGU would help more. In practice though, MLGUs cannot really make available this investment due to so many other commitments that made in the past like loans for equipment, constructing markets etc. UDP’s experience is that a major size of the IRA is eaten up by such obligations. This implies that rehabilitating the uplands will go very slowly if LGUs solely have to rely on their own resources. Alternatively the MLGU could borrow from the Landbank for example, to finance the specified investment of around PhP 7,500,000 million for 5 barangays or around Peso 1,500,000/barangay. In case operating costs would be financed from regular LGU sources, yearly loan servicing (annual payment of instalment and related interest) per barangay would amount to about PhP 250,000 during a 10-year loan repayment period, with an interest rate of 12 %. In case annual operating costs would be included in the loan, annual loans servicing costs would be must more and around 1.100,000 per barangay. It should be clear though that the benefits from protecting the uplands against further degradation cannot be overemphasized and it is likely that these benefits will even be far greater than the direct income benefits shown above, meaning that not only MLGUs should be paying for rehabilitating the uplands. As an integral part of the ecological system, with its direct link with the lowland and coastal zones, the conservation of the uplands is essential for the survival and development of the Philippines as a whole. The devastating effects of illegal logging and over-clearing of natural vegetation have been witnessed repeatedly in this country at enormous human and economic cost. Sustainable farming and development in the uplands will assist greatly in controlling and minimizing the destabilizing forces against peace and security, and allow communities to lead more productive, fulfilling and dignified lives. Hence it seems fair to say that Local as well as National Governments should contribute to Sustainable Upland Development.

ANNEXES

Annex 1

UDP CRITERIA FOR WATERSHED SELECTED

Particular Municipality Barangay Sitio Watershed 1. Elevation > 100 masl

> 30% = upland > 100 masl upper watershed

> 100 masl upper watershed

> 100 masl

2. Slope/Soil 30% = >18% Highly erodible Highly erodible Highly erodible 3. Erosion Have hot spots Have hot spots (e.g.

severe erosion) Have hot spots (e.g. severe erosion)

Degraded/degrading

4. Contiguity > 2 barangays > 2 barangays Same larger watershed 5. Number = 4 brgy/mun = 4 sitio/brgy = 1 watershed 6. Size 4 sitio Each part ~ 30 ha 7. Distance to road > 2km from municipality 8. Upland Population 20% upland = 200 hh upland = 200 hh upland = 75% HH income

derive from watershed 9. Farm Income Class 2-5 = P5000/mo. P5000/mo. 10. Farm size = 3.0 has = 3.0 has = 3.0 has 11. Land Tenure Instrument (LTI) Opportunity

YES, individual LTI YES, communal LTI

12. Protected Areas (PA No No 13. Mining No mining No mining No mining 14. Other project as UDP

None None None

15. Willingness of Farmers

YES YES YES

16. Willing of LGU YES YES YES 17. Barangay/sitio/watershed with existing CBFM, CADC/CADT, ISF or similar Land Tenurial Instruments approved or in process can be included 18. Accessibility. Barangay is reachable by at least 4 hours by any mode of transportation from the municipality. Sitio is reachable by at least 4 hours by any mode of transportation from the barangay. 19. Peace and order situation. The barangay or sitio should not be a permanent home base of any armed militant group. 20. Land ownership and residency. 75% of total area of the barangay and sitios are owned and actually tilled by members of the community. On timber lands, ownership refers to valid claimants as defined under LOI 1260 and for Alienable and Disposable Lands (A&D) lands, ownership refers to those with land tax declaration or those with titled properties. NOTE:

1. The watershed selection criteria was developed and approved by the Regional Technical Working Group (RTWG) and the Regional Consultative Oversight Committee (RCOC) of Region XI and XII composed of members form the DENR, UDP and NCIP.

2. Prepared for UDP thru the Resource Management Component.

Annex 2

Annex 3

List of Outstanding Municipalities in Respect of Sustainable Upland

a. Laak, Compostela Valley Province b. Nabunturan, Compostela Valley Province c. San Isidro, Davao del Norte Province

d. Mati, Davao Oriental Province e. San Isidro, Davao Oriental Province f. Tarragona, Davao Oriental Province g. Malalag, Davao del Sur Province h. Magsaysay, Davao del Sur Province i. Alabel, Sarangani Province j. Maasim, Sarangani Province k. Glan, Sarangani Province l. Tampakan, South Cotabato Province m. Lake Sebu, South Cotabato Province

Annex 4

1

The Regional Agricultural Research & Development and Extension Network

(RARDEN) in UDP Covered areas

CommunityMLGU

Prov’l, Reg’l, Nat’l

ATMA/MAO

CBET

Developing Community-Based Extension Teams: An evolving approach to sustainable upland local extension systems

2

RARDENis

LED BY ATIs REGION XI & XII

TO address the capacity building and research needs of the CBETs in areas of extension, land management and and increasing agricultural productivity

3

The LGU/COMMUNITY BASED EXTENSION NETWORK

(CEBET)

Municipal Agriulturist (MA)⇑⇓

Agricultural Technician (AT)⇑⇓

Barangay Extension Worker (BEW) ⇑⇓

Farmer Training Group (FTG) with members from each sitio

4

LCE/SB

MA

AT

BC/SB

BEW/FTG

BarangayMunicipal

The structure of CBET

CBET

UBA/UCO

5

Geographical responsibilities

Technician

BEW

FTG member(sitio A)

FTG member(sitio B)

FTG member(sitio C)

FTG member(sitio D)

Municipal

Barangay

Sitio

Agricultural extension: (devolved) responsibility of LGUs

6

The concept(ion) of CBET

TeamworkParticipatory developmentComplementationConvergenceIntegration/WebbingVolunteerism

7

The goal with CBET

An extension service that is -AccessibleResponsiveResponsibleEffectiveSUSTAINABLETimely

(ARREST environmental degradation & poverty)

8

How big has CBET grown in UDP Covered areas?

Summary of six provinces in Southern Mindanao:

No. of CBETs organised: 211Total membership : 1,404

ATs : 161BEWs : 175*

FTG members: 1,068No. of Learning Sites/Satellites: 522

*Excluding 109 in Sarangani Prov. & 34 in Maco, ComValwho were identified by PLGU & MLGU, respectively.

9

Trainings given to FTGs & BEWs

1. Basic trainer’s course on extension2. Land management – SWC, STOP & DFS3. Crop/livestock/fish production technologies

(within the context of DFS)4. Nursery establishment and management

5. Organic farming6. Entrepreneurial farming7. IPM (through FFS)8. OthersDeveloping Community-Based Extension Teams: An evolving approach to sustainable upland local extension systems

10

CBET extension activities

1. Promoting DFS2. Hosting cross visits & TOTs3. Establishing techno-demos4. Coaching & assisting other farmers5. Propagating & distributing planting

materials6. Livestock dispersal7. Facilitating Farmers Field days

11

RESULTS

1. More than 2500 farms applying Soil & Water Conservation measures and practicing Diversified Farming Systems with emphasis on fruit tee crops

2. More than 2500 farmers enhanced productivity and increase their incomes gradually (see graph next slide)

3. 182 barangay and sitio learning sites established

12

THE BENEFITS1 hectare of mainly corn = P15,000/year income for a farmer1 hectare of diversified farm will generate in terms of additional net income approximately in

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

year 2 year 3 year 4 year 5 year 6 year 7 year 8 year 9 year 10

Annex 5

Name of NGO/Foundation Address Contact Numbers Area of Concern Covered Municipality

Agricultural Training Institute (ATI)Datu Abdul, Panabo City (Reg. XI); San Felipe, Tantangan, South Cotabato (Reg. XII)

083-229-10239 (Tantangan) / 084-822-1138 (Panabo)

Agricultural Extension (Capacity Building) Programme-wide

Upland Village EnterpriseMalapatan, Sarangani Province; Tampakan South Cotabato

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning

Sibulan, Davao del Sur; Tantangan, Tupi & Lake Sebu, South Cotabato

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning

Magsaysay & Malita, Davao del Sur

Upland Village EnterpriseMagsaysay, Malita & Jose Abad Santos, Davao del Sur

BizAid Consultancy & Company Banco de Oro, J.P. Laurel Branch, Davao City 63-(082) 227-8424 Upland Village EnterpriseNew Bataan & Laak Compostela Valley

Business Center Davao, Inc.Ground Flr. BCD Training Center, Corner SME-Union Ave., Bangkal, Davao City 63-(082) 297-0739 Upland Village Enterprise

Kapalong, Asuncion & New Corella, Davao del Norte

Cabo Andrin & Network (CAN) Konsult, Co. Camia St., Ultra Homes, Matina Aplaya, Davao City 63-(082) 298-1734 Upland Village EnterpriseBanay-banay & Lupon, Davao Oriental

Community Health and Development Center, Inc.

029 Kayumangi St., Blk. 2, Dadiangas Heights Subd., General Santos City 63-(083) 552-3776

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning Maitum, Sarangani

Davao Provinces Rural Dev't Institute, Inc.1381 Sobrecarey St., Tagum City, Davao del Norte Province 63-(084) 400-4020

Barangay Forest Protection & Mgt. Scheme

Asuncion, Carmen & Kapalong, Davao del Norte

Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) 2/F Carlos Villa Abrille Bldg 6, Jacinto, Davao City 63-(082) 226-4792 Upland Village Enterprise Tupi, South Cotabato

Development Consulting GroupZosa Compound, San Isidro Parish, Talamban, Cebu City

63-(032) 416-121; 63920-205356 Upland Village Enterprise

Tupi, South Cotabato; Glan Sarangani

Dual Vocational Training Institute, Inc. (DVTI)

BCD Training Center Cor. SME-Union Ave., Bangkal, Davao City 63-(082) 297-0739 Upland Village Enterprise

Asuncion, San Isidro & Carmen, Davao del Norte

Families in the Holy Spirit Mabuhay Multi-Purpose Cooperative

Rene Pamintuan Residence, Gonzales Subd., General Santos City 63-920925-5447 Upland Village Enterprise

Glan & Malapatan, Sarangani Province

Forest Products Research Development Institute (FPRDI)

Department of Science and Technology, College of Laguna 63-(049) 536-3630 Upland Village Enterprise

Mati, Banay-banay & Lupon, Davao Oriental

General Santos Foundation, Inc. (GSFI) Bulaong Campus, General Santos City63-(083) 554-6285; 552-3008 Upland Village Enterprise Maitum & Malungon, Sarangani

Balay Davao Sur, Inc. Mabini 5th St., Digos City 63-(082) 553-6560

Associates in Community Environmental Development, Inc. Doña Segunda Bldg., C.M. Recto St., Davao City 63-916235-4977

LIST OF KEY ORGANIZATIONS WITH EXPERIENCE IN UPLAND DEVELOPMENT

Name of NGO/Foundation Address Contact Numbers Area of Concern Covered Municipality

Horizon Associates' Network for Development Services (HANDS) Mercado Compound, NLSA Rd., General Santos City 63-917548-8278 Upland Village Enterprise

Tampakan & Tupi, South Cotabato; Sta. Cruz & Don Marcelino Davao del Sur; Kiamba, Maitum, Malungon, Sarangani

Horizon Integrated Management and Allied Services (HIMAS) Lt. 1 Blk. 4, Pilot Subd., Tupi, South Cotabato

63-919418-2829; 63-928242-6612 Upland Village Enterprise

Tampakan, South Cotabato; Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur

Institute for Community Services & Development-Cor Jesu College Cor Jesu College, Sacred Heart Ave., Digos City

63-(082) 553-5741; 553-8389 Upland Village Enterprise

Magsaysay & Malalag, Davao del Sur

Institute for Primary Health Care-Davao Medical School Foundation (IPFC) Circumferential Rd., J.P. Laurel, Davao City

63-(082) 226-2344; 221-3527

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning

Mabini & Maragusan, Compostela Valley Province

Institute for Small Farmers Industry (ISFI) Ateneo de Davao University, Davao City 63-(082) 227-3091 Documentation Programme-wide

Integral Development Services, Inc. Integral Development Services, Inc. (IDSI)Poblacion 8, Midsayap, Cotabato

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning Malalag, Davao del Sur

InterDev Consulting, Inc.L.22 Blk. 5 Narra Corner Lawaan Sts., Awhag Subd., Garcia Heights, Davao City 63-(082) 221-5828 Upland Village Enterprise

Magsaysay, Davao del Sur; Laak, Maco, Mabini, & Nabunturan, Compostela Valley

International Center for Research in AgroForestry (ICRAF) Malaybalay, Bukidnon 63-917718-0066 Agricultural Extension Programme-wide

Kahublagan Sang Panimalay Fnd., Inc. Diamond Apartment, #80 Km 4, McArthur Highway, Matina, Davao City 63-(082) 229-4010

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning

New Corella & San Isidro, Davao del Norte

Kaliwat Theatre Collective 115 Pluto St., GSIS Hts., Subd., Matina, Davao City

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning

Baganga, Davao Oriental; Pantukan, Compostela Valley

Kapasidad Sustainable Livelihood Center203 McArthur Hi-way, Davao Executive Homes, Matina, Davao City 63-(082) 299-3829 Upland Village Enterprise

Malita, Davao del Sur; Glan, Sarangani

Kasilak Development Foundation, Inc.2nd Flr Bldg. 5 Dole-Stanfilco Compound, Doña Socorro St., Belisario Hts., Lanang, Davao City 63-(082) 234-0241 loc. 4294

Barangay Forest Protection & Mgt. Scheme Malungon, Sarangani Province

Kinaiyahan Foundation, Inc Artiaga St., Davao City 63-(082) 298-4140

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning Asuncion, Davao del Norte

Mahintana Foundation, Inc. (MAHINTANA) Cannery Housing, Polomolok, South Cotabato 63-(083) 500-2731 Upland Village Enterprise Tampakan, South Cotabato

Name of NGO/Foundation Address Contact Numbers Area of Concern Covered Municipality

Mayo Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative (MAGREBEMCO) MAGREBEMCO, Mati, Davao Oriental 63920-416-9225 Upland Village Enterprise

Lupon, Banay-banay & Mati, Davao Oriental

Mindanao Center for Research and Development (MCRD)

09 5th Ave., Fortune Executive Homes, Bo. Pampanga, Davao City

63-918232-2404; 0917660-5999

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning Malapatan, Sarangani Province

Mindanao Communications Network, Inc. Mr. Efren Elbanbuena, President 63-918920-2950 Studies/Assessment Programme-wideLand Use Based - Barangay Development Planning

Glan, Malungon & Malapatan, Sarangani Province

Studies/Assessment Programme-wide

Mindanao Rural Assistance Programme (MINRAP), Inc. Lower Bliss, Sainz, Mati, Davao Oriental

63910-339-5347; 63918-789-8317

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning

Cateel & Manay, Davao Oriental

Movement for a Clean Environment & Green Mountain Forest, Inc. 05 Medalla Milagrosa, Buhangin, Davao City

Barangay Forest Protection & Mgt. Scheme

San Isidro & New Corella, Davao del Norte

Oriental Development Consultants, Inc. (OIDCI)

3/F Rm. 309 Central Plaza, J.P Laurel Ave., Davao City 63-(082) 222-7475

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning Alabel, Sarangani Province

Orient Integrated Dev't Consultants, Inc. (OIDCI) FSS Bldg., 89 Scout Castor St., Quezon City

63-(082) 221-0833; 222-7475

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning Alabel, Sarangani ProvinceLand Use Based - Barangay Development Planning

Caraga, Davao Oriental; New Bataan, Compostela Valley

Barangay Forest Protection & Mgt. Scheme

New Bataan, Compostela Valley Province

People Collaborating for Environmental & Economic Mgt. in Davao (PCEEM, Davao) Fnd., Inc.

Rm. 204 2nd Flr., Lee Bldg. Corner Juan Luna & Juan dela Cruz Sts., Davao City

63-(082) 227-8774; 227-8775

Barangay Forest Protection & Mgt. Scheme Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur

People's Alternative Development Center, Inc. (PADCI)

Door 1 Deocampo Bldg., Suazo Extension, Davao City 63-(082) 300-4691

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning Carmen, Davao del Norte

Philippine Association for Intercultural Dev't, Inc.

213 Mercedes Benz Ave., Davao Executive Homes, Matina, Davao City 63-(082) 296-0407

Barangay Forest Protection & Mgt. Scheme Malita, Davao del Sur

Paglilingkod Batas Pangkapatiran Fnd., Inc. 493 Mt. Apo Extension, Gen. Luna St., Davao City

63-(082) 226-2059; (082) 305-6936

Mindanao Training and Resource Center (MTRC) Circumferential Rd., J.P. Laurel, Davao City 63-(082) 226-2344

Name of NGO/Foundation Address Contact Numbers Area of Concern Covered Municipality

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning

Lupon, Davao Oriental; Mabini, Compostela Valley

Barangay Forest Protection & Mgt. Scheme Banay-banay, Davao Oriental

PROTEAMRm. 301, 3rd Flr. Apartelle de Davao, No. 6 Juna Ave., Matina, Davao City 63-(082) 298-2566

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning

Don Marcelino & Malalag, Davao del Sur

Research Institute for Mindanao Culture Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City 63-(088) 857-4817 Studies/Assessment Programme-wideSocial Health Environment Development, Fnd. c/o Mindanao State University, General Santos City 63-9193502438 Studies/Assessment Programme-wide

SILDAP Southeastern Mindanao, Inc.463 Pk. Camia, Mirafuentes District, Magugpo North, Tagum City 63-(082) 400-3561

Barangay Forest Protection & Mgt. Scheme

Pantukan, Laak & Nabunturan, Compostela Valley Province

Small Economic Enterprise Development (SEED)

Unit SW93 Tower B, The Goldloop Towers Condominium, JM Escriva Drive, San Antonio Village , ortigas Center, Pasig City 63-(02) 634-0120 Upland Village Enterprise

SUCCEED, Inc.203 McArthur Hi-way, Davao Executive Homes, Matina, Davao City 63-(082) 299-3829 Upland Village Enterprise

San Isidro & Carmen Davao del Norte

Technical Assistance Center for the Development of Rural and Urban Poor

413 Aguho Cor., Champaca Sts., Juan Luna Subd., Matina, Davao City 63-(082) 297-2215

Barangay Forest Protection & Mgt. Scheme

Magsaysay & Malalag, Davao del Sur

The Philippine Eagle, FoundationVAL Learning Village, Ruby St., Marfori Hts., Davao City

63-(082) 224-3021; 224-3022

Barangay Forest Protection & Mgt. Scheme

Tarragona, Baganga & Cateel, Davao Oriental

University of the Philippines in Mindanao Bago Oshiro, Tugbok District, Davao City 63-917711-4263 Studies/Assessment Programme-wide

Volunteer Workers Association of Bondok Peninsula, Inc. (VWAB)

182-b Nazareth St., St. Anthony Village, Lanang, Davao City; Nabatasan St. Poblacion 8, Catanuan Quezon Province 63-920651-4479

Land Use Based - Barangay Development Planning

gNew Bataan, Nabunturan, Laak, Tarragona, Caraga, Mati, Manay, San Isidro, Baganga, Lupon, Cateel, Davao Oriental; Carmen & Kapalong, Davao del

Water Care MindanaoMezzanine Flr., Liwayway Community Library, Brgy. Liwayway, Banga, South Cotabato

63-928797-7630; 927750-3685 Upland Village Enterprise

Lake Sebu &Tantangan, South Cotabato

Women Foundation for Economic & Environmental Development of Mindanao (WFEED) Tambler, General Santos City Upland Village Enterprise Kiamba, Sarangani Province

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA-Mindanao) 727 F. Torres St., Davao City

63-(082) 221-3789; 227-6747

Name of NGO/Foundation Address Contact Numbers Area of Concern Covered Municipality

Women Indigenous Focus for Enhancement, Inc. (WIFE) Odi St. Pantua Village, Koronadal City 63-(083) 228-4641 Upland Village Enterprise Tantangan, South Cotabato

YAMOG Renewable Energy Dev't Group, Inc.

Rm. 302, GB Cam Bldg. Monteverde Cor. Alvarez Sts., Davao City 63-(082) 227-4031

Barangay Forest Protection & Mgt. Scheme

Malapatan & Glan, Sarangani Province

Annex 6

Important Exposure Sites that Demonstrates Sustainable Upland

Compostela Valley Province: Sarangani Province: a. Kilagding, Laak a. Sufatubo, Glan b. San Isidro, Nabunturan b. Kablakan, Maasim c. Pamintaran, Maragusan Davao Oriental Province: South Cotabato Province: a. Taguibo, Mati a. Palo 19, Tampakan b. Aragon, Cateel b. Tinongcop, Tantangan Davao del Sur Province: a. Pitu, Malalag b. Kilalag, Malita

Annex 7

Locations of Learning Sites on Diversified Farming Systems (DFS)

Compostela Valley Sarangani Province

a. Purok 6, Malamodao, Maco a. Rancho, Libi, Malapatan

b. Purok 3, Pangibiran Mabini b. New Alegria, Rio del Pilar, Glan

c. Camili, Kingking, Pantukan c. Libi, Kablakan, Maasim

d. Purok 1, Kilagding, Laak d. Malayo, Maligang, Kiamba

e. Purok 3, San Isidro, Nabunturan e. Antam, Upo, Maitum

f. Gmelina, Pamintaran, Maragusan f. Kinabalan, Brgy. Poblacion, Malungon

g. Pagsilaan, Andap, New Bataan g. Muling, Alegria, Alabel h. Purok 3, Mapaang, Maco Davao Oriental South Cotabato Province

a. San Vicente, Panikian, Banay-banay a. Upper Linan, Linan, Tupi

b. Banikanhon, San Isidro, Lupon b. Melina, Lampitak, Tampakan

c. Bacong, San Miguel, San Isidro c. Purok Non, Tinongcop, Tantangan

d. Dungga, Sto, Rosario, San Isidro d. Ferdoan, Brgy. Poblacion, Tantangan

e. Tawas, Taguibo, Mati d. Outlet, Lake Seloton, Lake Sebu

f. Maitum, Tubaon, Tarragona

g. Anayuan, del Pilar, Manay

h. Sugabao, San Pedro, Caraga

i. Palina, Binondo, Baganga

j. Tuowan, Aragon, Cateel Davao del Sur Davao del Norte

a. Piping, Sibulan, Sta. Cruz a. Purok 5, Tibulao, Carmen

b. Santol, Tacul, Magsaysay b. Cadena de Amor, Mamangan, San Isidro

c. Banayaw, Pitu, Malalag c. Purok 3, Tibulao, Carmen

d. Maylaya, Kilalag, Malita d. Sitio Lublob, del Monte, New Corella

e. Guintalos, Lapuan, Don Marcelino e. Rizal, Binancian, Asuncion

f. Salugsog, Caburan Small, Jose Abad Santos

g. Manungga, Datu Danwata, Malita

Annex 8

TREE SEEDLING INVENTORY IN UDP COVERED AREAS

Total number of forest trees planted (as Dec. 2004) - 903,733(RM projects like: reforestation, riverbank projects, agroforestry Total number of forest trees survived - 361,493 List of Forest Tree species planted: I. Introduced Species

Common Name Scientific Name Bagras (native) Eucalyptus deglupta Bagras (introduced by ICRAF) Eucalyptus toriliana Mangium Acacia mangium Mahogany Swietania macrophylla Falcata Adenanthara falcate Neem tree Azadiracta indica Gmelina Gmelina arborea Teak Tectonia grandis II. Indigenous Species

Common Name Scientific Name Bagtikan Parashorea malaanonan Mayapis Shorea palosapis Lawaan Shorea contrata Guijo Shorea guiso Molave Vitex parviflora Haguimit Ficus minahassae Agoho Casuarina spp.

Annex 9

Implementation of LUB-BDP in the Municipality of ………..

Proposed sequence of activities Mar-07 semester 1 semester 2 semester 3

Responsible Activities party m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

I Overall Capacity building M/BLGU-Agreement between MLGU and Service Providers (SP) M/BLGU-LMP-General orientation and prepration-Initial orientation on LUB-BDP and SUD-intensive orientation workshops for LGU officials, MPDC, MAO, MENRO,MEO and Barangay officials/POs concerned regarding LUB-BDP/SUD-Appointing of municipality coordinator (MPDC) and LUB-BDP teams-Mun./brgy LGU draft and adopt resolutions in respect of LUB-BDPSUD-Exposure trips for LGU officials to model LGUs in Southern Mindanao

MPDO training in FACILITATING LUB-BDP FORMULATION in MPDT/BLGU/POs/LMPthe selected brgys such as GIS/GPS/MIS and actual Training ProvidersFormulation of Landuse based BDPs, legislated by SB provided by

LMP

Tenure awarding when relevant MLGU/MENRO/DENR/NCIP

Supervision, monitoring and reporting M/B/LGU/PO/LMP

Implementation of UAED-DFS in the Municipality of ………..

Proposed sequence of activities Mar-07 semester 1 semester 2 semester 3 semester 4

Responsible Activities party m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Overall Capacity building M/BLGU Agreement between LMP-MDC and MLGU (MOA) M/BLGU-LMP General orientation and preparation Field exposure Set-up UAED-DFS Team headed by the Municipal Agriculturist

(MA) by Administrative Order Municipal/barangay LGU draft and adopt resolutions in respect

of UAED-DFS Orientation and planning/system development workshops for

MLGU and barangay officials and PO representatives Formal appointing of the key staff Selecting, appointing and briefing the community based

extension teams (CBETs) Training of Trainers municipal agricultural staff

Institutional arrangement

Capacity building of CBETs Technical trainings for CBET and exposure MA/DA/DENR

Model farm/learning site establishment MA/CBET Selection/organisation of farmers CBET

Actual service delicvery to upland farmnes for DFS Seedling support to farmer adopters MA/CBET

> Continuing extension service delivery CBET/FARMERS

SUPERVION, MONITORING AND REPORTING M/B/LGU/PO/LMP

Implementation of BFPM in the Municipality of ………..

Proposed sequence of activities Mar-07 semester 1 semester 2 semester 3 semester 4

Responsible Activities party m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Overall Capacity building M/BLGU Agreement between LMP-MDC and MLGU (MOA) M/BLGU-LMP General orientation and preparation Field exposure Set-up BFPM Team headed by the Municipal Agriculturist (MENRO) by Administrative Order Municipal/barangay LGU draft and adopt resolutions in respect of BFPM Orientation and planning/system development workshops for MLGU and barangay officials and PO repres. Training of Trainers municipal MENRO staff

> Institutional arrangements at MLGU level

Barangay level activities MENRO, BFPM comm. Selecting, appointing and briefing the BFPM committee and its forest guards conduct of environmental awareness seminar and preliminary community mapping, 1 month conduct of perimeter survey and community mapping preparation of site management agreement (sma) and conduct of information drive to forest occupants formulation of a barangay ordinance for the declaration of a forest protected area formulation of memorandum of agreement on co-management of forest protected area declaration of forest protected area, moa and site management agreement signing post-workshop and assessment planning on bfpms conduct of capability building activities

ACTUAL PROTECTION AND REFORESTATION conduct of various activities related to barangay forest protection and rehabilitation

SUPERVION, MONITORING AND REPORTING M/B/LGU/PO/LMP

Implementation of LBRM in the Municipality of ………..

Proposed sequence of activities Mar-07 semester 1 semester 2 semester 3 semester 4

Responsible Activities party m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Overall Capacity building M/BLGU-Agreement between MLGU and Service Providers (SP) M/BLGU-LMP-General orientation and prepration-Initial orientation on LBRM and adoption of resolutions-Field exposure-intensive orientation workshops for LGU officials, MEO, MPDC, etc.and Barangay officials/POs concerned regarding LBEM planning, budgetting and implementation-Formal appointing of municipality LBRM Team-Technical training MEO-Technical training barangay officials/PO-Technical training maintenance crews and provision of tools

ACTUAL EXECUTION OF WORKS- Upgrading road sections up to maintainable level-Actual LBRM

SUPERVION, MONITORING AND REPORTING M/B/LGU/PO/LMP