Country Level Impact Assessment (CLIA) The Philippines

strategies had shifted to a focus on how to enhance the country’s portfolios human developmentlevels and International competitiveness.UNDP support to national development priorities over this period evolved from a number of sectoralthrusts in the late 1980s to the more recent programmatic themes of sustainable humandevelopment, environmental protection and regeneration, governance and social initiatives forsustaining human development. Between 1972 and 2001, UNDP supported 316 projects andprogrammes in the Philippines with a combined cumulative total cost of nearly US 229 million. Thethematic focus has tended to shift with government priorities and UNDP mandates.1MAJOR FINDINGSFrom the country programme portfolios of 1972- 2001 (Fig –1) phase I analysis collected perceivedimpacts across a number of project and programme areas comprising the following: regionaldevelopment planning, environment and sustainability, peace and development (Mindanao),macroeconomic reform, the annual poverty indicators survey and scholarships. These impacts werefurther analysed in terms of crosscutting or thematic areas. The findings by thematic area arehighlighted below.Impact Perceptions generated In Phase ICapacity DevelopmentIt is interesting to note that most of the UNDP supported projects and programmes since 1972 werein capacity building. UNDP was perceived to have supported several dimensions of capacity buildingin the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) by: assisting in regional developmentplanning; strengthening the Regional Development Councils and NEDA Regional Offices; trainingcentral and regional staff; preparing manuals; establishing a library; and supporting various systems.However, as one senior government official commented, while capacity development of governmentorganizations was satisfactorily carried out, this was perhaps achieved at the expense of buildingdomestic investment and development management capacities in the private sector.Policy Advice and Advocacy. The UNDP supported high-level (Krugman and Sachs) policyadvisory missions on economic management in the early 1990s. According to respondents, thissupport demonstrated UNDP’scapacity and comparative advantage in bringing a neutral perspectiveand multi-disciplinary expertise to the then sensitive area of socio-economic reform. However, otherinterview respondents felt that outcomes would have been similar with or without the Krugman andSachs high-level missions.Governance. In the context of the Mindanao Peace and Development programme, stakeholderswere unanimous in their perceptions that the project and UNDP support were important as promotingpeace in Mindanao, as well as for the development of the region’s economic potential. An unintendedperceived negative effect was the perception of some stakeholders that the multi-donor programmewas a donor rather than a government programme.Environment and Sustainable Development. From a range of environmental projects andprogrammes UNDP has supported over the years, “Capacity 21” was singled out as a successfulexample of UNDP policy support in raising broad-based public awareness on sustainabledevelopment issues in the country. Stakeholders perceived the short UNDP project cycles as anegative factor that prevented deepening the process and possibly undermined sustainability of theoutcomes.Partnerships, Donor Coordination and Resource Mobilization. Through various participatory andconsultative approaches in most of the selected programme areas, UNDP was perceived to have1The Programme Map, developed during this study and contained in Annex E, presents a snapshot of the number and type ofprojects and the shift in thematic areas of focus between 1972 and 2001. Figure (1) also provides an overview of UNDP’smain areas of support over the period 1972-2001.(vii )

been an effective catalyst in building partnerships and strengthening collaboration among keystakeholders. The Capacity 21 programme for example was seen as a unifying factor in bringingtogether government, civil society and the private sector to share their collective vision of thisparadigm – groups that had previously pursued individual agendas.UNDP was perceived to have attained some degree of success in coordinating donor support to keythematic programmes such as Agrarian Reform and Peace and Development in Mindanao. It took thelead role in mobilizing support from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Australia, the Netherlands,Spain and the World Bank (WB) to fund development initiatives in territories held by the MindanaoNational Liberation Front (MNLF).Based on the initial findings, Phase II zeroed in on the validation of a small set of sub-programimpacts in two thematic areas of focus: regional development planning and policy advice onmacroeconomic reform.Phase II: Validation of Impact Perceptions Generated in Phase IRegional Development Planning Programme. Of the 15 impact perceptions collected in Phase I ofthe CLIA analysis, five were selected for validation in Phase II. Key respondents were generallyguarded in their assessment of the perceived impacts. There were contrary opinions about attributionof impacts to the UNDP-supported project, but three of the five impact perceptions were found to begenerally valid. For instance, there was some consensus that the UNDP assistance was at leastpartly responsible for various direct and indirect impacts related to development of institutional andstaff planning capacities at NEDA central and regional offices and in different government agencies.There was likewise agreement that regional planning served as a mechanism for actively involvinglocal politicians, NGOs and Regional Offices of Line Agencies (RLAs) in the planning processesinvolving in their areas. A respondent was also however quick to point out that governmentdecentralization had eroded the value of regional development planning and investmentprogramming.The validity of the perception that regional planning mechanisms were relevant to national prioritiesduring the 1970s was contested. There was concurrence with the assessment that UNDP assistancehad been timely and relevant in the 1970s, providing technical inputs when they were most needed,but less agreement with respect to the adaptability of the mechanisms put in place. There were somecredible respondents who cited efforts to adapt the regional development planning process tochanges in governments in power. Others, however, held the view that resistance to changes inplanning paradigms and the little value that was conferred on regional development planning hadundermined the effectiveness of the changes.Of the five perceived impacts, the most difficult to validate was the statement that implementation ofthe regional plans led to the development of the region. It was found that outside of foreign-assistedprojects there was no effective monitoring of regional planning initiatives. It was, therefore, difficult toascertain whether or not Regional Development Investment Programme (RDIP) projects had beenfunded or whether the budgeting process had been driven by national priorities. At the communitylevel, residents could not relate to any regional plan or project, but it is the view of the team that thevalidation results might have been different had the CLIA analysis focus group discussions beenconducted in areas that had been directly affected by a regional project.Macroeconomic Reform Programme. The initial perceptions gathered on the impact of theKrugman high-level mission on macroeconomic reform were somewhat mixed. Some felt that themission had generated a positive impact on reforms while others felt that the reforms would havetaken place even if the mission had not been carried out. The validation process further refined theimpact perceptions a thorough review of project documentation, an analysis of newspaper articlesand, most importantly, through interviews with high-level and authoritative individuals who had beenactively involved in the Krugman mission.The results of the validation showed that both the Krugman mission process and the mission’s finalreport deepened the awareness and understanding of the issues and the macroeconomic policyoptions available to the government of dynamics. This was certainly the case within academia, the(viii )

“non-economic” levels of government (the President, the Cabinet and Congress), the businesscommunity and the general public. It was also shown that the Krugman Report presented a legitimateand credible treatment of selected policy issues and reforms that were subsequently reflected in the1993-1998 Medium Term Philippines Development Plan (MTPDP). The high-level mission resulted inthe design and implementation of the follow-up UNDP-supported macroeconomic reform programmeand the channelling of significant UNDP funds to support the area. Economic management andreform became one of the major themes in the UNDP 5th Country Programme.The impact assessment validated that the UNDP-supported Krugman mission was an innovative andsuccessful initiative in the area of policy advocacy and advice on the part of both the sponsoringgovernment organization (NEDA) and UNDP. The success of the mission was attributed first to thecredibility, independence and quality of the Krugman mission team, and, second, to the neutrality andresponsiveness of UNDP in its facilitation role.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe pilot CLIA for the Philippines documented and demonstrated UNDP’s contribution todevelopment outcomes and impacts for a small set of programme and thematic areas. Theassessment of the Regional Development Planning programme showed that there is a need to reviewand develop a more strategic approach to regional planning. A strategic approach to regionalplanning should not only: develop the capacity of regional planners to mechanically draft regionalplans but also to analyze issues and steer strategic planning activities that are of regional interest;generate support for local governments interventions; delineate and mobilize support for strategicinterventions with wider impact; and identify what the regions can do for the country’s development.The Krugman high-level mission proved that policy advice/advocacy is an area where UNDP has hadsignificant success in the past. The repeated message from key respondents is that there continuesto be a need to link macroeconomic policies with poverty and governance: all areas are highly interrelated, but this seemed to be not well understood or articulated. UNDP policy support to governance,poverty alleviation and sustainable human development should be closely related to macroeconomicissues, especially given the increasingly complex challenges of globalization.Factors Influencing Impacts. The Philippines CLIA study uncovered a number of external andinternal factors perceived by stakeholders to have both positively and negatively influenced outcomesand impacts of the selected UNDP-supported programmes. The external factors that were found tohave had a positive influence on results included the monitoring support provided by UNDP toexecuting agencies, the presence of champions in executing agencies, the establishment ofmanagement support structures and multi-agency participation. Factors identified as having anegative influence on results were: government capacity limitations; constraints inherent in NationalExecution (NEX) especially the extensive bureaucracy; and changes in government leadership and inheads of offices (leading to limited internalization of knowledge and systems and limiting thesustainability of outcomes).Internal factors seen to have had a positive influence on results were: UNDP’s leadership, itsneutrality and responsiveness; and resource mobilization capacity; participatory processes (includingnetworks and contacts). Internal factors were seen to have had a negative influence were lack offocus (especially UNDP’s spreading of resources thinly and constantly changing mandates andcorporate directives); the recent single project emphasis (i.e. Mindanao); and the tendency to lay onemphasis internal process/procedures rather than results.On Promoting a Results Orientation With respect to the efficacy of the CLIA methodology, thePhilippines revealed that it is neither practical nor cost-effective to carry out a complete assessmentcovering the entire UNDP portfolio in the country over a long period of time. Evidence from the studysuggests that efficiencies could be gained by first developing a framework for the assessment andadopting a more strategic approach to assessing and measuring impacts. Focus on investigating thecumulative or aggregate impact from all programmes or projects in a sector and/or region may bemore cost effective and manageable than country level coverage.(ix )

The credibility of impact perceptions understandably depends on the credibility of those providingperceptions. In cases where there may be considerable and legitimate variability in perceived impacts(e.g. regional planning), a broad cross-section of individuals from all sectors of society would need tobe engaged. In other cases, such as upstream policy advice, authoritative and credible individualswho are closest to the issue should be selected.From the UNDP corporate perspective, the Philippines pilot has overall demonstrated potential for thebroader application of the CLIA concept. There is definitely some merit in the Evaluation Officepursuing discussions with other donors, development institutions and programme countries on howimpact assessments might best be pursued from a RBM methodological perspective and as a way ofstrengthening coordination and programme funding perspective at the country level. With respect tothe existing draft methodology, clearly much work will be required to refine it, building on the lessonsand experiences of all three pilot CLIAs. Specifically, the question of how much can be done withlimited resources and within limited time frames needs to be addressed. The issue of how historicalproject based approaches to programming might be reconciled with current UNDP thinking will alsoneed to be examined.(x )

Figure (I) Evolution of UNDP’s Major Sectors, Thrusts and Themes Over the Period 1972-2001(Summarized from the Country Programmes and 01THEMES2002-2006 ?80Projects/programs.US 41 million50Projects/programs.US 39 million51Projects/programs.US 24.6 million57Projects/programs.US 34.6 million37Projects/programs.US 38 million41Projects/prgrms.US 52 EANDNATURALRESOURCESAGRICULTUREECONOMIC REFORMSAND MANAGEMENTSUSTAINABLE HUMANDEVELOPMENTEMPOWERMENTTHE POOROFINDUSTRY,ENERGYAND SCIENCE ANDTECHNOLOGYINDUSTRY,ENERGYAND SCIENCE ATIONSOFLASTING PEACE ANDDEVELOPMENT IN OPMENTWATER LOPMENTANDGENERALREGIONALDEVELOPMENTANDIMPROVED PLANNINGAND MANAGEMENT OFDEVELOPMENTATTHE NATIONAL ANDLOCAL OMMUNICATIONSPOWERINDUSTRIALDEVELOPMENTANDFORNote: Sectors, Objectives, Thrusts and Themes are listed in the order in which they are presented in therespective four Country Programmes (1972-1990) and the more recent Country Cooperation Frameworks(1997-2001 and draft outline for 2002 ).(xi )

(xii )

1.0INTRODUCTION1.1BACKGROUND AND CONTEXTA fundamental question to be asked is: “What impact has UNDP had at the country level, givenits relatively low level of resources and the fact that it is a small player in the country?”The Philippines Country Level Impact Assessment (CLIA) seeka to explore answers to this andrelated questions. This report provides a summary of the findings of the CLIA conducted in thePhilippines by the Evaluation Office (EO) in collaboration with UNDP-Manila between May 2001and March 2002. In 1999, the EO launched the CLIA with a view to assessing the impact ofUNDP’s programmes at the country level while developing and strengthening a new methodologyfor capturing end results.1 The objective was to empirically assess UNDP’s overall contribution tooutcomes and impacts and ultimately, development effectiveness, and at the same time,strengthen the Results Based Management (RBM) methods and tools.The objectives of the CLIA, as described in the Terms of Reference (Annex A), are:zto document and demonstrate UNDP’s contribution to development outcomes andimpacts in core strategic areas of focus at the national level;zto document where any combination of projects, programmes and “soft” areas of supportprovided by UNDP and other development partners have had a significant impact andqualify this impact with a fair degree of plausibility;zto ide

Development in the Philippines over the past 30 years can be divided into two broad periods, each heavily influenced by major shifts in the political, economic, social and physical environment. . planning; strengthening the Regional Development Councils and NEDA Regional Offices; training central and regional staff; preparing manuals .