FINAL NARRATIVE REPORT

Philippines Thematic window

Democratic Economic Governance

Programme Title:
Enhancing Access to and Provision of Water
Services with the Active Participation of the
Poor

September 2013
Prologue

The MDG Achievement Fund was established in 2007 through a landmark agreement signed
between the Government of Spain and the UN system. With a total contribution of
approximately USD 900 million, the MDG-Fund has financed 130 joint programmes in eight
Thematic Windows, in 50 countries around the world.

The joint programme final narrative report is prepared by the joint programme team. It reflects
the final programme review conducted by the Programme Management Committee and
National Steering Committee to assess results against expected outcomes and outputs.

The report is divided into five (5) sections. Section I provides a brief introduction on the socio
economic context and the development problems addressed by the joint programme, and lists
the joint programme outcomes and associated outputs. Section II is an assessment of the joint
programme results. Section III collects good practices and lessons learned. Section IV covers the
financial status of the joint programme; and Section V is for other comments and/or additional
information.

We thank our national partners and the United Nations Country Team, as well as the joint
programme team for their efforts in undertaking this final narrative report.

M DG -F Se cre ta riat
 MDG:F
MDG ACHIEVEMENT FUND

FINAL MDG-F JOINT PROGRAMME

NARRATIVE REPORT

MDG F 1919 JOINT PROGRAMME ON

ENHANCING ACCESS TO AND PROVISION OF WATER SERVICES WITH THE ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION OF THE POOR

Participating UN Organization(s) Sector(s)/Area(s)/Theme(s)

United Nations Development Programme Philippines: Democratic Economic Governance
(UNDP) (DEG)
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)

Joint Programme Title Joint Programme Number

MDG F 1919 Joint Programme on Enhancing MDG F 1919
Access to and Provision of Water Services with
MDTF Atlas Project No:
the Active Participation of the Poor

Joint Programme Cost Joint Programme [Location]

[Sharing - if applicable]

[Fund Contribution): USD 5,675,000 Region (s): Region II, Region V, Region IX,
Region X, and Region XIII

Govt. Contribution: USD Governorate(s): Region II: Cagayan, Isabela;

Agency Core Contribution: Region V: Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur;
Regiona IX: Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga
del Sur, Zamboanga Sibugay; Region X: Misamis
Oriental, Misamis Occidental, Bukidnon, Lanao
del Norte; Region XIII: Agusan del Sur
Other: District(s): Cagayan: Abulog, Ballesteros,
TOTAL: USD 5,675,000 Allacapan, Pamplona, Sta. Teresita, Sto. Nino;
Isabela: Palanan; Camarines Norte: Basud,
Capalonga; Camarines Sur: Garchitorena, Siruma;
Zamboanga del Sur: Lapuyan, Midsalip, Tigbao;
Zamboanga del Norte: Mutya, Jose Dalman,
Kalawit, Katipunan, Siayan, Siocon, Sirawai;
Zamboanga Sibugay: Alicia, Payao, Titay,
Tungawan; Misamis Oriental: Claveria; Misamis
Occidental: Baliangao, Sinacaban; Bukidnon:
Dangcagan, Don Carlos, Kadingilan, Kibawe,
Kitaotao; Lanao del Norte: Colambgan; Agusan
del Norte: La Paz, Sibagat

Final Joint Programme Evaluation Joint Programme Timeline

Final Evaluation Done Yes No Original start date : 1 June 2009

Evaluation Report Attached 'Yes No
Refer to Annex A for the Final Evaluation Report Final end date : 31 June 2013
Date of delivery of (including extensions for final evaluation and for
final evaluation report: 19 July 2013 additional grant

1
 Participating Implementing Line Ministries and/or other organisations (CSO, ctc)

• National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), as lead implementing agency

• Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)
• National Water Resources Board (NWRB)
• Provincial and municipal local government units
• Other national agencies: National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC)
• Civil Society:
- National Water and Sanitation Association of the Philippines (NAWASA)
- Philippine Water Partnership (PWP)
- Streams of Knowledge
- Center for Social Concerns and Development (CESCOD)
Xavier Agricultural Extension Service (XAES)
- Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM)
- Philippine Federation of Credit Cooperative (PFCCO)
- Coalition for Bicol Development (CBD)
- Propegemus Foundation Inc.
• Academic Institutions:
- University of the Philippines — National College of Public Administration and
Governance (UP-NCPAG)
- Xavier University — Ateneo de Cagayan
- Father Saturnino Urios University (FSUU)
- Cagayan State University (CSU)
- Jose Rizal Memorial State University (JRMSU)
- Bicol University
- Others: Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, Ateneo de Manila University, Assumption
College, Colegio de San Juan de Letran, College of Saint Benilde-School of Design and
Arts, Mapua Institute of Technology, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, San
Sebastian College-Recoletos, Silliman University
• Private Sector:
- Veepo Global Resources
Maynilad Water Services, Inc.

Report Formatting Instructions:

• Number all sections and paragraphs as indicated below.
• Format the entire document using the following font: 12point _ Times New Roman.
 I. PURPOSE

a. Provide a brief introduction on the socio economical context and the development
problems addressed by the programme.

Approximately 16 million Filipinos still do not have access safe drinking water, with almost 1 in
every 5 Filipinos sourcing water from doubtful sources such as unprotected wells, developed
springs, undeveloped springs, rivers, streams, ponds, lakes or dams, rainwater, tanker truck or
peddlers, among others. In terms of area served, there are pronounced disparities between rural
and urban areas and poor and rich households. Latest data show that access to safe water among
the poorest 30 percent of the population is only 71.8% compared to 86.9 percent in the higher
income group. Regional disparities both in access to safe water and sanitation reflect the
patterns shown in poverty incidence.
Philippines ' 81.4
S
87,4
• CAR 75.7
51.2 - 76.5 40.

ril 7 6 6 - 81.3
81 4 - 67.4
• II 92.8
.• lil 91.9
NEI 87.6 - 92.8
11(R 84 1
IVA 87.7
IVR 73.8
V 73.3
VIII 79.7
- • VI 80.6
VII 77.0
CARAGA 83.6
• X 76.5
IX 70.1
XI 79.2
' x11 80.9
ARf.1M 51.2

Source: MDG Progress Report 2010

In 2004, about 432 municipalities outside of Metro Manila were identified as waterless.
Waterless being defined as less than 50% of the population having access to safe drinking water.
The President's Priority Program on Water (P3W) was implemented to provide water
infrastructure in these waterless areas. However, 5 years after the P3W implementation, 342
municipalities remain waterless, with some municipalities provided assistance under the
program not able to sustain the operations of the systems provided or worse, not able to use the
systems at all due to poor planning and design.

The case of P3W best illustrates the findings of the Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap
(Roadmap), which serves as the blueprint to addressing the problems that are preventing the
efficient and sustainable delivery of water supply services in urban and rural areas in the country
particularly those outside Metro Manila. The Roadmap findings indicate that the "soft" aspects
of water supply provision pose a big problem area for the sector. For one, institutional set-up for
the water supply sector is characterized as weak and fragmented, with a multitude of actors
playing uncoordinated and sometimes overlapping roles. There is no one single coordinating
government body/agency that will coordinate the efforts in the sector or champion the water
supply cause. There are about thirty (30) agencies which are in one way or another involved in
the water supply sector, including NEDA for coordinating the preparation of the national
development plan which enunciates the sector policies and strategies; the National Water
Resources Board for regulating water resources and operations of private water utilities (with
the exception of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System) and consenting local

3
 government unit (LGU)-run utilities; the Department of the Interior and Local Government
(DILG) for capacity building of LGUs; the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) for
coordinating the implementation of the President's Priority Program on Water (P3W), which
was succeeded by the Sagana at Ligtas na Tubig sa Lahat (Salintubig); the Local Water Utilities
Administration (LWUA) for providing technical advisory services and financial assistance to
water districts, technical and institutional support to LGUs and water service providers, setting
design standards for water facilities operated by water districts and other service providers, and
regulating water districtsl; the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) for
technical support to LGUs upon request including implementation of Level I and II projects2;
the Department of Finance (DOF) for financing support for the sector both in terms of financing
access (through the Municipal Development Fund Office) and financing policy reforms;
government financing institutions (GFIs) for providing financing for the sector; and a host of
actors at the local/community level.

LGUs, through the Provincial/Municipal Water and Sanitation (WATSAN) Development

Councils, are responsible for the planning and implementation of water supply and sanitation
programs, and monitoring of local sector performance. Water service providers, including water
user associations/community-based organizations, are in charge of the management of local
water supply facilities. Latest estimates show that water supply service in the country is
provided by some 580 water districts, 1000 LGUs, 500 rural water supply associations
(RWSAs), 3100 barangay water supply associations (BWSA), 200 cooperatives, and 900 private
utilities. The Roadmap consultations, however, indicated that these local level actors are more
often than not unable to perform satisfactorily as they do not have the capacity to undertake the
functions that are expected of them.

The Roadmap concluded that a major problem in water supply delivery is not so much the
installation of infrastructure but sustaining these services, minimizing institutional conflicts and
providing better coverage. This is not to say, however, that the "hard" or infrastructure
component of water supply provision is not as important. There is a need to integrate and
cohesively link the "soft" components (i.e., establishing a coherent institutional and regulatory
framework nurtured in a decentralized and enabling policy environment; developing capacities
for water supply provision actors; and building strategic alliances with various stakeholders)
with the infrastructure component to enhance water supply delivery.

b. List joint programme outcomes and associated outputs as per the fmal approved version
of the joint programme Document or last agreed revision.

The Joint Programme aims to contribute to the attainment and sustaining the gains achieved
thus far by the Government of the Philippines with respect to Millennium Development Goal 7,
Target 3 on halving the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking
water and basic sanitation by 2015.

Over a period of four years, two expected outcomes of the Joint Programme are: 1) to establish
investment support mechanisms for poor communities/municipalities; and 2) to increase local
capacities to plan, develop, implement, operate and manage water supply systems.

The specific outputs of the Joint Programme as approved include:

Output 1.1 Incentives mechanisms and partnership modalities developed and enhanced for
public and private investments in "waterless" and poor communities;
Output 1.2 Financing and programming policies in the sector reviewed and amended (as
necessary) to rationalize assistance and increase ownership and accountability, with sub-outputs

LWUA continues to undertake economic regulation of water districts while NWRB is still building its capacity to assume this function over
water districts.
2
Level I - a protected well or a developed spring with an outlet but without a distribution system, normally serving 15 households. j...evel II -
a system composed of a source, a reservoir, a piped distribution network and 2 or more communal faucets, with each faucet serving 4 to 8
households

4
 (a) NG-LGU cost sharing policy reviewed and amended, as necessary; and (b) Programming
policies for waterless areas reviewed and amended, as necessary;
Output 1.3 36 Local WATSAN councils and water user associations organized to effect
participative provision of water supply services;
Output 1.4 Tariff-setting guidelines adjusted for small water service providers;
Output 2.1 Capacity building for local stakeholders undertaken, with sub-outputs (a) successful
mentoring practices assessed and piloted, (b) LGU capacities assessed and mentoring modules
developed, and (c) WATSAN toolbox developed and rolled out;
Output 2.2 36 improved sector plans formulated and monitoring mechanisms established;
Output 2.3 36 Localized Customer Service Codes (LCSC) developed; and
Output 2.4 Information, education and communication (IEC) programs implemented.

Following the recommendations of the Mid-Term Evaluation, the formulation of (a)

Operationalization and Development Plan for the National Water Resources Management
Office, which is aimed at addressing the institutional fragmentation besetting the sector; and the
IEC Manual which will become part of the toolbox, as well as forging a partnership with
Salintubig were included.

In addition, under the additional grant assistance the following outputs are included:
Research on Investment Requirements to meet and sustain the MDG 7 target on water supply,
meet the Salintubig targets by 2016 and achieve universal coverage by 2025;
Recording of results at the local level to be used in the Regional sharing of knowledge and
experiences, aimed at encouraging uptake by other LGUs for upscaling;
Rating and ranking of LGUs using a scorecard system that will be developed to measure the
performance of LGUs over a range of capacities related to water supply and sanitation
governance; and
Rollout of the Toolbox to learning training institutes and partners through the development of
regional hubs to assist DILG provide assistance to other LGUs.

c. Explain the overall contribution of the joint programme to National Plan and Priorities

The Joint Programme is consistent with the Roadmap as it puts emphasis on the "soft" aspects
of water supply provision. It is also consistent with national priorities as it targets waterless
municipalities.

In putting emphasis on the soft aspects of water services provision, the JP has contributed to:
1. Bringing to fore the need for the apex body or lead agency for the water resources sector;
2. Articulation of a pro-poor policy framework;
3. Engaging other government and non-government organizations at national and local levels
in the policy discussions;
4. Strengthening LGU capacities to access additional funds;
5. Enhancing the sustainability of water systems by
a. developing local plans;
b. ensuring that LGUs/communities are better equipped to operate and maintain water
systems; and
c. raising awareness and acceptability of water service providers and their customers
of their accountabilities and responsibilities;
6. Initiating the establishment of WATSAN hubs which will provide assistance in
capacitating other LGUs; and
7. Informing decision-makers and other development partners on the investment
requirements needed to meet the targets in the sector so that appropriate and adequate
interventions may be implemented.

d. Describe and assess how the programme development partners have jointly contributed
to achieve development results
At the programme management level, key development and implementing partners under
the joint programme were members of the Programme Management Committee (PMC)
chaired by the Assistant Director General of NEDA and co-chaired by the Country Director of
UNDP. Members of the Programme Management Committee also included a representative
from DILG, NWRB and UNICEF.

The PMC is assisted by a Technical Working Group (TWG) composed of technical staff and
personnel of the implementing agencies. The TWG meets a week prior to PMC meetings and
as frequent as necessary to identify constraints to implementation and identifies solutions to
address the issues. As necessary, the issues and corresponding recommended solutions are
then raised to the PMC during its meetings for discussion and approval, or through an Aide
Memorandum for approval via ad referendum. As the Final Evaluation noted, the partners
found the mechanism to be effective and efficient.

In terms of programme implementation coordination, activity implementation was vested

and integrated into the functions of the participating national institutions. The Programme
Officer and Outcome Officers were organic personnel of the national implementing partners.
Within NEDA, each output under Outcome 1 has a focal technical person from the NEDA
Infrastructure Staff, assigned to coordinate the activities of the consultants engaged for the
output, reviews the reports of the consultants and solicits and consolidates comments from
other agencies. For the local activities, particularly under Outcome 2, personnel from the
DILG- Water Supply and Sanitation Division were assigned either as regional coordinators or
as output coordinators, and regularly met to plan for the implementation of a certain output
activity in a specific region. Two other divisions - Planning and Monitoring and Evaluation
Division, and the Field Operation, Administration/Fund Management Division - whose
integral functions are project planning and monitoring, and budget and financial management
respectively also provided direct support to the Joint Programme in addition to their integral
functions. Meanwhile, taking advantage of its personnel's experience in formulation customer
service codes (albeit for Level III systems), NWRB, as responsible party for Output 2.3,
assigned dedicated personnel, along with partners from civil society, to assist LGUs in the
formulation of the LCSC for Level II systems.

At the regional level, the DILG Project Development Management Units (PDMUs) in the
regions also assisted in coordinating region-specific activities and provided assistance to
WATSAN Councils in implementing programme activities.

At the provincial level, water and sanitation teams from the concerned DILG provincial
development offices assisted the regional coordinators and regional offices in coordinating the
participation of local stakeholders and the implementation and monitoring of activities and in
municipalities/LGUs within their jurisdiction.

At the LGU level, the WATSAN Councils, which were either established or re-activated under
the Joint Programme, were directly involved as beneficiaries of the capacity building activities
and as coordinator of activities at the sub-LGU (barangay, community) level. The WATSAN
Council is usually chaired by the local chief executive (LCE)/mayor with other LGU
officials/personnel members (e.g., Planning Officer, Municipal Engineer, Municipal Health
Officer, etc.).

The Final Evaluation reported that the "integration of activity implementation into the integral
functions of national institutions is a good practice, which strengthened institutional capacities,
and also provided a venue for institutional memory and the sustainability of JP processes and
results."

At the policy level, the NEDA Sub-Committee on Water Resources (SCWR), which is
composed on water-related government agencies and representatives from the civil society,
served as the venue for the review of outputs of policy studies.

6
 At the activity level, other partners were engaged in varying levels in ensuring the
achievement of the programme output and outcomes. Civil society organizations (CS0s) were
tapped for community mobilizing at the local level. Academic institutions were involved in the
awareness-raising and advocacy activities, such as the World Water Day celebrations, the
postcard campaign, the Local Water Governance Forum and the National Executive-
Legislative Dialogue.

II. ASSESSMENT OF JOINT PROGRAMME RESULTS

a. Report on the key outcomes achieved and explain any variance in achieved versus
planned results. The narrative should be results oriented to present results and illustrate
impacts of the pilot at policy level.

In terms of outcomes, as of the date of the Final Evaluation, it was estimated that the Joint
Programme has directly benefitted households within the range of 1,290 to 44,136. This,
however, is best explained by the fact that the Joint Programme is not providing water systems
but merely providing the means by which LGUs can increase investments for water systems.
The 36 municipalities have been allotted about US$8 million for water supply systems under
Salintubig, and have allocated about US$800,000 counterpart funds for sanitation.

The Final Evaluation estimation of the 1,290 figure was based on an LGU which preferred to
undertake a big Level 3 project. The LGU's Salintubig funds were only adequate for source
development and transmission to the nearest barangay. It is noted, however, that other LGUs
planned for smaller Level 2 systems, which would entail lower costs and spread the Salintubig
funds over a larger population.

The 44,136 figure, on the other hand, was computed based on the increase in coverage of
existing systems in another LGU as a result of the capacity building initiatives. This, however,
does not include increase in coverage due to the new infrastructure under Salintubig, access to
which has been facilitated by the Joint Programme interventions.

The Joint Programme was dependent on the resources that Salintubig could provide to the
participating municipalities. This meant that the programme implementers did not control the
timing of infrastructure inputs to the project. The synchronization of the software and
hardware components of the water project was affected. The LGU water supply projects,
funded through Salintubig, are currently under varying stages of implementation, and the
number of households provided with sustainable access to water supply can only be
determined after completion of said projects. And even then, the sustainability of the systems,
which is partly what the Joint Programme wants to address, can only be assessed during the
operations stage of the systems. Capacity development for operation and maintenance was not
optimized simply because the infrastructure was not yet available.

Further, the numbers do not capture the other results of the Joint Programme related to better
service, such as, increased number of hours of availability, increased pressure, enhanced safety
of water, increased level of service (from communal tap to household connection), etc.

In terms of the outputs, all outputs have been delivered with some deliverables exceeding the
targets.

Outcome 1: Investment support mechanisms for poor communities/municipalities established

• Under Salintubig, the 36 LGUs were allocated about US$8 million for the
construction/development of water supply systems. In Basud, Camarines Norte, an
additional US$21,000 was invested by the LGU based on the planned water supply
system. The LGU of Kalawit, Zamboanga del Norte, meanwhile, further invested about
US$190,000, 44% of which comes from the LGU funds and 56% from a non-government
organization. In Claveria, Misamis Oriental, the LGU augmented in Salintubig funds with
7
 about US$45,000 from its Municipal Development Fund to install 800 household meters to
upgrade users from Level II to Level III, and to expand the water supply system to four
additional barangays.
• The Joint Programme developed policy studies that informed and supported the collective
advocacy for scaling up pro-poor water service delivery.

Output 1.1 Incentives mechanisms and partnership modalities developed and enhanced for
public and private investments in "waterless" and poor communities
• A paper on what incentives mechanisms and partnership modalities may be adopted by
waterless LGUs has been approved by the SCWR. This became part of the WATSAN
Toolbox to inform LGUs what they may adopt.

Output 1.2.1 NG-LGU cost sharing policy reviewed and amended, as necessary
• An NG-LGU cost-sharing arrangement for water supply projects in waterless
municipalities was approved. However, government has suspended the NG-LGU cost-
sharing scheme for all government projects, not only for water supply, subject to review by
relevant agencies. The report produced under the Joint Programme will serve as a
reference material for said review.

Output 1.2.2 Programming policies for waterless areas reviewed and amended, as necessary
• Recommended improvements on the programming policies were approved by the SCWR,
and some of these have been adopted by Salintubig.

Output 1.3 36 Local WATSAN Councils and 36 water user associations organized to effect
participative provision of water supply services
• 36 WATSAN Councils have been established/revived and 65 water users' associations
were organized. These WATSAN Councils, capacitated under Outcome 2, are expected to
sustain and replicate the pilot initiatives in other barangays/communities. The 65 water
users' associations have also been capacitated so they may be able to sustain the operation
and management of local water systems.

Output 1.4 Tariff-setting guidelines adjusted for small water service providers
• Recommended simplified procedures and requirements for regulating water service
providers in waterless areas were approved by the SCWR. The same have been used in the
capacity building of partners for rollout in Salintubig areas.

Outcome 2: Local capacities to plan, develop, implement, operate and manage water supply
systems increased
• Majority (28 out of 36) of the Joint Programme LGUs have replicated pilot initiatives in
their areas on their own.
• Improved service delivery has been observed (details below).
• Involvement of local stakeholders, including women and indigenous people, in water
services provision have increased as a result of various activities such as community
mobilizing, LCSC and IEC.
• Schoolchildren in the Sibagat Elementary School in Sibagat, Agusan del Sur now enjoys
water supply in their classrooms as it was prioritized by the Sibagat Water District (which
is a recipient of the Godparent Mentoring Scheme pilot implementation) upon hearing of
the children's participation in the Ripples of Hope postcard campaign.
• The capacity building outputs and methodology have been used to capacitate 142 other
Salintubig LGUs, 285 Bottom-Up Planning and Budgeting (BUPB) recipient-LGUs, and
82 LGUs under the Transition Investment Support Program (TISP)-ARMM.

Output 2.1 Capacity building for local stakeholders undertaken, with sub-outputs (a)
successful mentoring practices assessed and piloted, (b) LGU capacities assessed and
mentoring modules developed, and (c) WATSAN toolbox developed and rolled out
• The Godparent mentoring scheme was recommended as a successful practice.
8
• An assessment of LGU capacities was undertaken and based on the results, modules were
developed and the mentoring scheme was piloted in Sibagat, Agusan del Sur, which has
shown positive results since, including improved tariffs, increased collection efficiency
and better maintenance of facilities.
• The WATSAN Toolbox was developed integrating the capacity building modules, together
with other modules on municipal water and sanitation plan formulation, LCSC formulation
and community-organizing using the human rights-based approach (HRBA).
• While the WATSAN Toolbox was being formulated, the modules therein were used to
capacitate 36 municipalities and an additional 7 municipalities.

Output 2.2 36 improved sector plans formulated and monitoring mechanisms established
• The 36 Joint Programme LGUs were able to develop their Municipal Water Supply,
Sanitation and Sewerage Sector Plans (MW4SPs) which laid down the strategies and
targets that the LGUs intend to implement/achieve with regard to water supply provision
within their jurisdiction. The plans were supported by a Local Investment Plan.

Output 2.3 36 Localized Customer Service Codes (LCSC) developed

• 36 LCSCs were formulated, adopted and implemented in the Joint Programme areas. Their
adoption have positively impacted on the sustainability of water facilities as a result of
increased collection efficiency, increased membership, efficient use of water and increased
participation of consumers in the management of the system.

Output 2.4 IEC programs implemented.

• The various IEC activities of the Joint Programme have been effective in renewing
discussions at the national and regional levels on the issues facing the sector, increasing
awareness on the issues, increasing participation of marginalized groups (women and
indigenous peoples), and getting media attention on the issues (interviews with
newspapers and television stations). A partnership with the private sector in an advocacy
activity resulted in assistance for typhoon relief operations in Region X, as well as the
distribution of temporary source of drinking water (via use of portable water filters) in far-
flung areas.

As for the other outputs:

Operationalization and Development Plan for the National Water Resources Management
Office
• The study, which was co-funded by World Bank (WB), was aimed at addressing the
institutional fragmentation besetting the sector. The recommendations, along with a draft
Executive Order also prepared under the activity, are now serving as reference in high-
level discussions for the creation of the apex body.
• These ongoing efforts to address the institutional fragmentation of the water sector has
renewed and increased interest in the development of the sector.

IEC Manual
• An IEC Manual was formulated to facilitate scale up of IEC capacity building and activity
implementation in other areas. It has been integrated in the Toolbox.

Research on Investment Requirements

• The research was aimed at estimating the investment requirements to meet and sustain the
MDG 7 target on water supply, meet the Salintubig targets by 2016 and achieve universal
coverage by 2025. The estimates have been used to build a business case to inform
decision-makers and donor partners, and have been used by other studies of DPWH and
WB.

Recording of results and regional sharing

• At the local level, results of the Joint Programme initiatives have been documented and
used by DILG in the regional sharing workshops conducted to encourage other LGUs to
9
 implement the same in their areas. The results have also been marketed/showcased by
NEDA and DILG to donor partners for possible adoption in their programs (e.g., LCSC
with US Agency for International Development).

Rating and ranking of LGUs

• A scorecard was developed to measure the performance of LGUs over a range of
capacities related to water supply and sanitation governance. This will be used to
rationalize future assistance for LGU water supply and sanitation projects.

Rollout of the Toolbox to learning training institutes and partners

• Under the Joint Programme, 10 regional hubs were developed by setting up a network of
training providers. About 40 institutions (22 academic institutions, 9 water districts and 9
civil society partners) were trained on the rollout of the Toolbox. These hubs/networks
will be tapped to assist DILG in rolling out the Toolbox to other LGUs.

h. In what way do you feel that the capacities developed during the implementation of the
joint programme have contributed to the achievement of the outcomes?

Strengthening capacities of duty bearers and claim holders is the Joint Programme. Providing
training of trainer's, coaching and mentoring activities is the essence of the programme and
was undertaken with strategic partners such as Salintubig implementing partners, DILG
personnel, WATSAN Councils and barangay water associations to ensure the quality,
ownership and sustainability of the programme interventions. Civil society partners and
academic partners, among others, were also trained/mentored so they may expand the network
of DILG in providing capacity building to other LGUs.

Since Salintubig partners will be responsible for assisting waterless municipalities address
their water supply gaps, they have been trained on how to set tariffs, evaluate proposals, and
program funds. DILG personnel, from the national to the provincial level, were also
capacitated since DILG is mandated to provide capacity building to LGUs. Under the Local
Government Code of the Philippines, LGUs are primarily responsible for providing water
supply services to their constituents, thus, LGUs are critical in the achievement of the
programme outcomes. The WATSAN Councils, although typically led by the LCE/mayor,
have regular LGU staff as members to ensure that the knowledge and skills gained from the
Joint Programme stand changes in leadership. The WATSAN Councils have been
established/revived with a clear idea of what is expected of them, that is, to lead the
formulation of the MW4SPs and LIP, IEC and advocacy activities on water and sanitation and
provision of technical assistance to other barangays not covered by the Joint Programme in
terms of community-mobilizing, LCSC formulation, etc. The Recording of Results report
stated that most LGUs have been able to replicate some activities on their own.

The community's participation in the activities has also been crucial to the Joint Programme.
It has positively changed the perspective towards water and sanitation, specifically on issues
concerning water use, conservation, roles, rights, and responsibilities as users and providers,
and the protection of water sources. It has also fostered trust and confidence on their local
government, providing them a high sense of ownership in managing their own water systems.
For instance, in the formulation of the LCSC, the involvement of the consumers has increased
the understanding and trust between community members and the service provider as the
vision, responsibilities and accountabilities set in the LCSC were mutually agreed upon by
both parties. Thus, during the implementation of the LCSC, consumers are paying their water
fees on time. Further, the community members' involvement as community tap watchers
(against leaks and pilferage) has resulted in the efficient use of water and, accordingly, in the
sustainability of the water system.

The mentees under the Joint Programme are now able to mentor other communities within the
LGU. For example, the Sibagat Water District mentored the Tag-oyango Cooperative, which
became a recipient of the Salintubig program.
10
 The dedication and commitment of both national and local partners largely contributed to the
success of the Joint Programme and to the sustainability and replication of the initiatives from
which they have benefitted so others may also benefit.

c. Report on how outputs have contributed to the achievement of the outcomes based on
performance indicators and explain any variance in actual versus planned contributions
of these outputs. Highlight any institutional and/ or behavioural changes, including
capacity development, amongst beneficiaries/right holders.

The Final Evaluation reports that the Joint Programme delivered all the expected outputs.
Policy outputs were developed that informed a pro-poor policy framework and supported the
collective advocacy for scaling up pro-poor water service delivery. These includes the review
and recommendations for improving the financing and programming policies in the sector
particularly the government programs for waterless municipalities, the National and Local
Government Cost Sharing arrangements for water supply programs for waterless
municipalities, strengthening economic regulation including the articulation of light handed
regulation and the adjustment of NWRB's tariff-setting guidelines for small water service
providers and the development and enhancement of incentives mechanisms and partnership
modalities for public and private investments in "waterless" and poor communities.

Further, the undertaking on the development of the operational and implementation plan for an
apex body in the water resources sector, supported by the research on investment requirements
to meet water supply targets, has renewed discussion and interest in the sector from the
legislative and executive branches of government and from the donor community.

Similarly, for the local level outputs, 36 WATSAN Councils and 65 users' associations were
organized/revived; mentoring modules were developed based on the recommended mentoring
practices and practitioners and on an assessment of capacities of beneficiary
LGUs/communities; 36 MW4SPs, 36 LCSCs and 36 local IEC plans (with collaterals and
activities, and funds therefor) were developed with the participation of the WATSAN
Councils and the users' associations (who learned by doing); and a WATSAN Toolbox and an
IEC Manual were developed incorporating the modules used for capacity building.

The outputs contributed to the outcomes in terms of ensuring the readiness, in terms of
technical and governance capacities, of the LGUs/communities to receive, implement and
manage water systems, thus, ensuring the sustainability of any investment (past and current)
put in by national government, the LGUs themselves or other partners. DILG reports that the
Joint Programme LGUs are amongst the better performing LGUs under the Salintubig as they
are able to access funds; develop water projects faster; and able to support expansion to other
barangays. The Recording of Results noted the following positive changes:

• Change in perspective and behavior towards water and sanitation, i.e., water is a
basic right, protection of water sources, sustainability of water systems, and the
practice of good hygiene and proper sanitation, among others. Prior to the Joint
Programme implementation, LGUs reveal that their attitude towards water has been one
that is negligent primarily because they view water as free and unending. Beneficiaries
have come to accept that in order to sustain water availability, there is a need to pay basic
fees to maintain water supply facilities and protect their water sources, and the obligation
to conserve water. At the community level, it has cultivated ownership (as co-
implementers) to the project and renewed their trust and confidence on water service
providers contrary to their previous experience where water systems are politicized being
LGU-run.

• Increased awareness on the issues and concerns relating to water and sanitation, i.e.,
roles and responsibilities as consumers and water service providers, status/condition
of the municipality's water and sanitation, capacities needed to improve water
11
 service delivery, etc. LGUs have reported that because of the programme interventions,
specifically the conduct of the Baseline Survey and development of MW4SPs, LCEs have
renewed their priorities on water and sanitation, evident in their support for expansion of
coverage and up-scaling. It has served as an eye opener for many chief local executives on
the real and existing water and sanitation situation of their locality. This enabled them to
better plan for projects, i.e., identify and prioritize areas where funds should be allocated
for the development and/or rehabilitation of water systems. Communities were also re-
educated on the importance of water and its proper use, the roles and responsibility as
consumers and providers, and the need to practice proper hygiene and sanitation.

• Increase in collection efficiency on water fees/tariffs. Participant water associations saw

considerable increase (20-30% at an average) in the collection of water fees. Furthermore,
collected fees have been managed and utilized properly evident in the repairs undertaken
in their facilities. In turn, these positive changes encouraged LGUs to replicate the same in
other barangays not covered in the Joint Programme. In connection with this, there has
also been recorded increase in memberships in the associations, demonstrating a clear
demand for organized water service delivery.

• Increased participation of indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups (e.g.,

women, children, and the elderly), exercising the same rights and obligations on
water use. In municipalities where there is a large population of indigenous peoples (40-
60%), the challenge to generate interest and participation has been at the forefront. But the
issues relating to water and sanitation are common to all groups whether mainstream or
not. What is remarkable during the project implementation was the interest and
cooperation generated among indigenous peoples, not only as beneficiaries but as co-
implementers of the activities. This was manifested in the increase in number of
indigenous peoples participating in advocacy activities like the hand-washing and actually
applying good sanitation practices as water users and members of organized associations
who willingly pays water fees; indigenous peoples entering into agreements for the
protection of water sources that are considered sacred by the group; and indigenous tribe
leaders serving as main contact for dissemination of information and coordination of the
activities.

• Increased local capacities in the areas of organizing water user associations,

development of localized customer codes, localized IEC materials on water and
sanitation, and development of project proposals, among others. Majority of the LGUs
have said that they can replicate the project interventions on their own. Specifically, in
mobilizing the communities to partake in the implementation process, organizing water
user associations, developing LCSCs, and conducting orientation and trainings on water
and sanitation advocacies. Majority of the LGUs have already expanded areas of coverage
developing LCSCs, and organizing barangay water associations and/or cooperatives to
manage and deliver water services. Service providers have acquired capacities in records
keeping, financial management, among others.

• Increase in LGU initiatives to expand coverage of project interventions in their

municipalities. With the increase in local capacities, LGUs are more confident to continue
with the project interventions on their own and explore other opportunities thru other
financing sources. In advocating for water and sanitation, municipalities have developed
their own local information materials to conduct trainings and orientations, and these are
gradually being integrated in their existing local programs. With the previous success in
the target barangays where the LCSCs were initially developed, many LGUs have decided
to adopt and replicate the LCSC to ensure sustainability of the water facilities in other
waterless barangays. Furthermore, local ordinances were passed to facilitate
implementation and prioritize water and sanitation projects and related programs (e.g.,
watershed protection).

12
 • Renewed discussions and interest in the sector. With the use of the policy outputs and
recommendations, the following ensued:
During the 2013 Philippine Development Forum, an agreement was reached to
augment the funds for water supply in poor areas beyond the Salintubig;
The draft Mid-Term Update of the 2011-2016 Philippine Development Plan (PDP)
indicates the need to provide adequate water supply infrastructure and capacity
development support to the 455 Salintubig waterless areas, to augment programs for
water supply provision for rural and hard-to-reach areas, and to come up with a lead
agency for the sector;
The Office of the President through the Office of the Cabinet Secretary convened
water-related agencies to discuss the draft EO creating the lead agency for the sector;
and
While the creation of the lead agency is pending, heads of infrastructure-related
agencies have agreed to come up with a common policy framework, including the
coordination mechanisms and financing policies. This will take off from existing
studies/recommendations/reports that will include the NG-LGU cost-sharing, the
programming policies, incentives mechanisms, the investment research, the apex body
recommendations, among others.

As may be discerned from above, the Final Evaluation report correctly observed that the
policy studies have yet to yield concrete results or were not optimized for capacity
building (due to seeming lack of convergence with the capacity building component).
This is because policies take time to yield results, as results would only manifest in the
form of projects that adopt the policies. In addition, from the conceptualization of the Joint
Programme, the idea was to integrate the study recommendations (e.g., incentives
mechanisms, partnership modalities, cost-sharing) into the Toolbox, so that LGUs (which
are autonomous units) may be informed of these options that they can adopt in their
planning and programming. However, start-up, procurement and approval delays resulted
in delayed delivery of study outputs, and making the capacity building component
contingent on the availability of the study outputs would compromise the capacity building
component's delivery within the 3-year implementation period. As a compromise, it was
agreed that the study outputs will be disseminated to all LGUs and integrated in the
Toolbox.

d. Who are and how have the primary beneficiaries/right holders been engaged in the joint
programme implementation? Please disaggregate by relevant category as appropriate
for your specific joint programme (e.g. gender, age, etc)

The Joint Programe's primary beneficiaries are the LGUs through the WATSAN Councils and
users' associations. The LGU/LCE commitment has been made official through a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between DILG and the LGU. The WATSAN Councils
and users' associations have been engaged in the programme implementation, particularly the
capacity building component, from their creation/revival. Their creation/organization
deliberately included marginalized groups. A woman representative sits in the WATSAN
Council, while everyone (women, elderly, persons with disabilities, indigenous people) are
represented in the users' associations.

Local chief executives (LCEs) declared and signed their commitment to increase or allocate a
minimum percentage of their development fund for water supply provision during the Local
Water Governance Forum (LWGF). Some of these LCEs, such as Claveria in Misamis
Oriental, Basud in Camarines Norte, and Kalawit in Zamboanga del Norte, have already
delivered on these commitments.

The WATSAN Councils were involved in the design of, planning for, implementation and
monitoring of the local activities. With the capacity building provided to them, they were able
to formulate their own sector plans, LCSCs, and IEC plans, and mobilize the communities,

13
 which include women, children, people with disabilities, elderly and indigenous peoples, to
participate in the activities.

The communities, through the users' associations, were mobilized to take part in the
implementation of the activities, such as in the formulation of the MW4SP and LCSC, and in
the IEC activities.

e. Describe and assess how the joint programme and its development partners have
addressed issues of social, cultural, political and economic inequalities during the
implementation phase of the programme:

i. To what extent and in which capacities have socially excluded populations been
involved throughout this programme?

The Joint Programme adopted the HRBA in the design and implementation of its
activities. HRBA is founded on the principle that development initiatives should be
focused on the poor, not only as beneficiaries but as important actors in development. At
the outset, the Joint Programme focuses on waterless municipalities, which are typically
rural areas where the poor are found. As they are considered non-viable investment areas
for private sector and water districts, it usually falls on the LGU to provide water supply
services to the population. Hence, the Joint Programme has deliberately engaged the LGUs
to be involved as beneficiaries/trainees and as local implementing partners.

During the Local Water Governance Forums, LCE participants committed to increase
investments in water supply, protect watersheds, regulate mining and logging activities in
their areas (which affect water sources), improve solid waste management (as part of
sanitation and also to protect water sources), intensify IEC, and pay water bills on time.
They also expressed support for national policies on, among others, (1) adoption of the
Integrated Water Resources Management principle; (2) the creation of NWRB satellite
agencies and eventually, a single economic regulatory body; (3) benchmarking and ring-
fencing; and (4) revisiting the financing guidelines for water projects in waterless
communities.

The community members were mobilized to take part in the implementation of the
activities. In all 36 LGUs, children participated in the Ripple of Hope postcard campaign.
Persons with disabilities and the elderly provided valuable information on how the LGU
should plan for, prioritize and design water supply systems that are accessible and
responsive to their needs. In Don Carlos, Bukidnon, the Manobos, being familiar with the
land, identified potential sources on water. In the case of Claveria, Misamis Oriental, the
indigenous people (Lumads) belonging to the Higaonon tribe of Mat-I were engaged to
monitor the water source to ensure that it is being used properly and sustainably. This is
part of the MOA between the LGU and the tribe for the water system that was being put
up. In Basud, Camarines Norte, a woman representative heads the users' association.

ii. Has the programme contributed to increasing the decision making power of excluded
groups vis-a-vis policies that affect their lives? Has there been an increase in
dialogue and participation of these groups with local and national governments in
relation to these policies?

As already mentioned earlier, the Joint Programme is essentially an intervention for poor
waterless municipalities, to empower them, including the communities, to do something
about the condition of their water supply and sanitation. Through the Joint Programme,
these waterless municipalities provided their inputs during consultation for the various
policy studies and participated in the Local Water Governance Forums which surfaced
local issues as affected by national issues. Further, local communities, through the users'
associations, were able to participate and influence municipal decisions and plans with
regard to water supply provision.
14
 The LCSC is a mutually agreed upon contract between service providers as duty bearers
and consumers as claim holders. Its formulation is critically dependent on the dialogues
between both parties and coming up with a consensus on what should be included in the
LCSC.

In Claveria, Misamis Oriental, free, prior and prior consent of the Lumads (Higaonon
tribe) was solicited prior to development of the water source. The LGU took into
consideration the needs and culture of the tribe in the undertaking. As a result,
implementation of the project ran smoothly with the assistance and cooperation of the
indigenous people.

iii. Has the programme and its development partners strengthened the organization of
citizen and civil society groups so that they are better placed to advocate for their
rights? If so how? Please give concrete examples.

Citizens' organizations or users' associations were organized in the 36 municipalities. The

empowerment of communities/users' associations (which include women, the elderly,
persons with disabilities and indigenous peoples) to claim their rights was a primordial
concern of the Joint Programme and their enhanced participation in understanding their
situation and the awareness of their rights was crucial to engage them productively in the
process of decision making with the local government units. This process helped put in
place transparency and accountability and the promotion of justice in water service
delivery.

The civil society was involved in the implementation of some Joint Programme activities,
particularly in the IEC and in community mobilizing. Some organizations were also
capacitated under the regional hubs in the roll out of the Toolbox so they may be able to
assist DILG in capacitating other LGUs, in support of their advocacy for safe drinking
water for all.

Some organizations were engaged in the numerous consultations that were conducted for
the policy studies. The Streams of Knowledge and NAWASA were heavily involved in the
development of the LCSC. The NAWASA issued a resolution adopting HRBA in the
planning for small water supply facilities. In Sibagat, Agusan del Sur, a church-based
organisation, Integrity - Watch for Water Anti-Corruption Group (IWAG), was involved in
monitoring corruption in water governance.

iv. To what extent has the programme (whether through local or national level
interventions) contributed to improving the lives of socially excluded groups?

Initial results have shown that the Joint Programme has contributed to improving the lives
of the poor through the provision of safe drinking water. Where water systems are already
in place, poor people have better access to water supply in terms of longer hours of
availability, better quality and better service. Where the water systems are yet to be
completed, we expect the same results as the LGUs have shown initiative to adopt, apply,
implement and replicate the interventions in their areas.

The capacity building provided to communities provided a means and increased

opportunities to socially excluded groups to participate in decisions and activities that can
improve their lives. For instance, women are now represented in WATSAN Councils, and
in some cases, head users' associations. Indigenous peoples have been reported to actually
been applying good sanitation practices, as manifested by their participation in hand-
washing activities. As water users and members of organized associations, they have been
willingly paying water fees (only a minimal fee is required given their economic
situation). Some tribes have entered into agreements for the protection of water sources

15
 that are considered sacred by the group, and their leaders served as main contact of the
group for dissemination of information and coordination of the activities. In one
municipality, the cooperation established with the indigenous tribe has provided livelihood
to a number of tribe members who were appointed as guardians of the water source.

While not specifically targeted in the Joint Programme, having access to water supply is
deemed to contribute to increased health benefits to women and children, and enhanced
economic, recreational and other self-development activities for women who have more
free time from not fetching water over long distances and not having to care frequently for
sick family members beset with water-borne diseases.

f. Describe the extent of the contribution of the joint programme to the following
categories of results:

i. Paris Declaration Principles

• Leadership of national and local governmental institutions

Leadership of the national and local government institutions was demonstrated

throughout the duration of the programme and manifested in many occasions. NEDA
chaired the PMC meetings, with the active participation of DILG and NWRB, and
together with the UN agencies steered the direction and pace of the programme. In
addition, NEDA also led the TWG which met frequently to identify constraints to
implementation and identifies and recommends (to PMC) solutions to address the
issues. NEDA and DILG ensured that the issues challenging water supply provision in
the Philippines are raised to the consciousness of high ranking officials from both the
legislative and executive branches of government through activities such as the World
Water Day celebrations and the National Executive-Legislative Dialogue.

The DILG's influence down to the municipal level is very evident, and was critical in
making LGUs commit to the Joint Programme. The local level ownership of the
programme is a clear manifestation of the leadership of government, and this
ownership translated into how the LGU beneficiaries of the Joint Programme have
either increased funds for water supply projects or replicated some of the interventions
in other barangays within their areas.

• Involvement of CSO and citizens

As already mentioned, because the Joint Programme is essentially a right-based

capacity building programme, citizens have been mobilized, encouraged and
empowered to participate in the activities. Their inputs were critical in the formulation
and carrying out of local sector plans and service codes.

About 200,000 local stakeholders, particularly the schoolchildren and the youth, were
mobilized for the advocacies on providing water supply to Filipinos in waterless areas.
Through the postcard campaign, the schoolchildren of Sibagat, Agusan del Sur let their
voice, or in this case, their pens and pencils, be heard by the water district, which
provided the school with water connection.

CSOs were seen as important partners for the community mobilization, in the LCSC
formulation, in raising awareness and advocating for needed reforms in the sector, and
in providing inputs to the numerous consultations that were conducted for the policy
studies. Further, the Joint Programme trained some CSOs in the rights-based approach
to capacity building as they are sees as an important network for DILG in replicating
the Joint Programme initiatives in other LGUs. In fact, NAWASA already issued a
resolution adopting HRBA in the planning for small water supply facilities.

16
 IWAG was involved in monitoring corruption in water governance in Sibagat, Agusan
del Sur, in such aspects as ensuring regular meetings of the WATSAN Council,
transparency in the bidding process for the procurement of materials and timely
payment of water dues.

It is worthwhile to note that the President of a water association in Sibagat, which was
a recipient of the LCSC and mentoring is a member of the IWAG. He has been tapped
by the Joint Programme to champion the pilot initiatives in various forums and has
been tapped to mentor other associations in Sibagat.

• Alignment and harmonization

The Joint Programme was well aligned to MDG Target 7, that is, to halve, by 2015, the
proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic
sanitation. The 2011-2016 PDP identified nine priority areas, among them,
"acceleration of infrastructure development" which included water supply. The PDP
prioritizes water supply for waterless municipalities.

It is similarly harmonized with the priorities and strategies of the government. The
Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap (PWSSR) recommended that the soft
aspects of water services provision should be given equal importance as the hard
infrastructure. Further, it identified the weak and fragmented institutional framework
and policies as a major issue besetting the sector. This situation caused significant gaps
in policy implementation and enforcement, particularly the inability to deliver the
commitments set under existing laws and implement targets within set timeframes. The
weak regulatory environment and inadequate support for service providers resulted in
low performance levels and dismal service delivery. The lack of information on sector
performance and benchmarks for providers made it difficult to hold providers
responsible for service improvement.

The MDG Progress Report also noted that water supply investments were significantly
low relative to the overall public infrastructure spending.

• Innovative elements in mutual accountability (justify why these elements are

innovative)

The Joint Programme mechanism, in itself, is a first in the country where national
agencies and UN agencies are both involved from conceptualization to implementation
to management to monitoring of the programme, as well as in promoting the
replication of the Joint Programme outputs. The creation of the TWG whereby
representatives from both the government and UN sides discuss issues and agree on
solutions facilitated the resolution of issues before they become bigger.

The Joint Programme processes established a governance perspective into water supply
and service delivery by strengthening community participation and introducing a social
contract between providers and users, the LCSC. The LCSC is a social contract
mutually agreed upon by a service provider and its consumers, and reflects their
aspirations, roles and accountabilities. Its implementation has shown great results
critical to the sustainability of service provision such as increased membership,
implementation of mutually agreed-upon tariffs, increased collection, increased
involvement of community members in the monitoring and maintenance of the system
and more efficient use of water.

ii. Delivering as One

3 MDG Progress Report, 2010, page 160

17
• Role of Resident Coordinator Office and synergies with other MDG-F joint
programmes

The role of the Resident Coordinator's Office was strategic in ensuring that the
information and communication channels were open between the MDG F Secretariat
and the UN RCO's office. In most cases, its coordinative function was adequate
providing guidance on guidelines and standards that were applicable across Joint
Programmes. Another important role of the RCO was as co-chair of the National
Steering Committee (NSC) which provided policy guidance, monitored the joint
programmes and ensured that strategic decisions were made and implementation
bottlenecks were addressed upon the recommendation of the PMC.

However, efforts should be doubled to overcome the fragmentation challenges posed

by vertical, agency-specific systems and processes that link individual UN agency
country representatives to their respective headquarters. A more decentralized
approach would enable country offices to exercise more flexibility and relevance to
local conditions, which will make the UN better respond to the country's priority
needs.

Limited, also, were the opportunities to share information or analyze lessons learned
across the MDG-F joint programmes. In some occasions, the RC Office's
implementation of the Focus Country Initiative (FCI) work plan had little added-value
nor appeared to have any connection since it did not provide inputs to enhance or
complement the work of the Joint Programmes. This could be largely due to limited
consultation with the Joint Programmes about FCI activities.

• Innovative elements in harmonization of procedures and managerial practices

(justify why these elements are innovative)

The Joint Programme used funds downloading and direct payment modalities in the
implementation of activities. Direct payment was mostly employed by DILG to
facilitate procurement. NEDA, on the other hand, used the mode sparingly. In fact, it
was used only towards the end of the Joint Programme (for the final evaluation and
MDG-F market place/forum) when the contracts of NEDA's financial and
administrative officers have elapsed. While direct payment seems to have allowed for
faster implementation than downloading (although implementation was still delayed
due to procurement issues), downloading is more relevant to the principles of the Paris
Declaration.

For local activities, DILG also used downloading of funds to NWRB (as responsible
party for the LCSC) and to LGUs and direct payment either by DILG or by the
concerned UN agency. NEDA also downloaded funds for some IEC activities such as
the postcard campaign and the Local Water Governance Forum. The downloading was
effected through the signing of MOAs with concerned local partners (e.g., academic
institution, LGU). These types of internal agreements facilitated joint activities and
strengthened collaborative work among the agencies at the national level and at the
local level.

• Joint United Nations formulation, planning and management

The joint programme is an attempt to showcase joint UN programme formulation,

planning and management. It has since demonstrated both advantages and
disadvantages which can be used for future initiatives to work together and use agency
comparative advantages to create more impact and increase efficiency. Currently, the
same principles of joint programming and management are being used in the
development of the UNDAF and other joint programmes in the development stage.

18
 Nonetheless, since each agency has its own Country Programme and interventions are
usually designed according to funding opportunities. It can only be assumed that the
UN Country Team will identify opportunities to capitalise on the comparative
advantage of each agency and adopt the lessons learned.

III. GOOD PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED

a. Report key lessons learned and good practices that would facilitate future joint
programme design and implementation

The Recording of Results identifies the following good practices and lessons learned:

• Majority of the good practices are connected to localized and/or community-based

initiatives and strategies of the LGU beneficiaries in developing and replicating earlier
project outputs. This emphasizes the importance of buy-in of communities in project
interventions.

• Local partners to the program have reported that they continue to conduct related
activities, e.g., preparation of LCSCs, community organizing and mobilization, advocacy,
among others on their own through trained personnel during the program implementation,
and even through their own budget. They were able to be creative and resourceful in
integrating Joint Programme activities in their own work program and regular activities.
These are manifested in the following outputs and/or activities:
Localized or community-based information materials developed by the WATSAN
Councils;
Replication of the LCSC to other barangays without further assistance from the
program;
Organization of water users' associations in other barangays not covered in the
program;
Sharing of resources and local investments to increase coverage beyond project targets;
Tapping on existing local capacities to facilitate implementation; and
Continued promotion of good hygiene and sanitation practices through existing health
programs.

• LGU beneficiaries have agreed that there is still a need to deepen and sustain cooperation
among communities to ensure the successful implementation of programs and projects on
water and sanitation.

• Commitment is viewed as the key factor for sustainability of previous initiatives. And this
can be encouraged by tapping on more local capacities (such as the WATSAN Councils)
in the design, management and execution of project interventions, specifically on
community organizing.

• It is important that LCEs fully understand the program especially its requirements.

• The availability and timely submission of technical reports and other documentation by
consultants would have facilitated the implementation process, specifically, keeping
project activities and deliverables on track. In relation to this, monitoring and reporting
procedures were not strictly followed and implemented. LGU beneficiaries admitted to
have neglected this important aspect in the project. Issues and concerns would have been
addressed earlier if these were periodically reported to program implementers.
Nevertheless, they have expressed to keep this in mind in future project implementation.
Although these negative experiences may have added to the challenges of project
implementation, LGUs are still positive that these can be transformed to lessons learned

19
 and can be used as references (to do things better) for future projects on water and
sanitation.

The following were also culled from the Final Evaluation report:

• The most significant accomplishment of the programme was in raising awareness that
water is not just an engineering concern for installation of pipes and faucets, but a basic
human right and governance issue.

• The programme provided demonstrable evidence that the poor were willing and able to
pay for water supply services, as long as there is sufficient transparency and accountability
in the governance system, as well effective community mobilization. It is when the
community actively participates in running their own water systems that accessibility is
increased and collection of fees is enhanced. In addition, communities also demonstrated
that they were capable of mentoring and transferring knowledge to other waterless
communities through mentoring and 'god-parenting.

• While the establishment of the apex body would be a strategic outcome, more efforts
towards developing capacity of LGUs on innovative resource mobilization such as private-
public partnerships, and developing proposals could have enhanced the Joint Programme's
contribution to the overall programme objective. This is because policies take time to
translate into results, and putting more focus on activities while working within the
existing policy or, in this case, institutional environment would have yielded more direct
results given the limited period of implementation (3 years).

• The MW4SPs identified the required investments, thus making them useful tools for
resource mobilization while the LCSCs provided a binding social contract between the
water service providers and consumers. However, to ensure sustained implementation, a
monitoring system would need to be established and institutionalized in DILG.

• The WATSAN regional hubs also constituted an innovative initiative with a potential to
upscale and replicate the programme's good practices to a broader coverage of waterless
municipalities. While the regional hubs are initially designed as a supply side mechanism
to develop capacities of LGUs, providers and users, with services either offered free or
funded by donors, the hubs are seen towards supporting demand-driven programming
where they are paid for their services as a sustainability mechanism and social
responsibility for their clients. Approaches to capacity building, including peer-mentoring
and god-parenting, provide effective alternatives to the traditional seminar and workshop
methodologies.

• Since the Joint Programme funds were channeled through UN agencies, the accountability
and reporting mechanisms for fund management should reside within the UN systems and
structures. However, all other programme implementing and coordinating mechanisms
should reside in national systems, so that these processes and results can be continued after
the end of the joint programme.

• The provision and supply of safe water is a devolved function, which is a responsibility of
municipal governments. In order to improve the efficiency, access, affordability and
quality of water services for the rural poor, municipal governments should take the lead
and use innovative approaches in mobilizing resources to build water facilities. LGUs
should have capacity to explore alternative funding sources including public private
partnerships and debt financing.

• Numerous government agencies are involved in planning and policy formulation for the
water sector. The government has for a long time recognized that national and local targets
in the water sector can only be achieved if there is reliable data to support scientific and

20
 evidence-based decision-making for provision of water-related infrastructure. Support
should be continued for the creation of an independent authority with sufficient powers
and resources to formulate national policies on water resources management, regulation
(quantitative, economic and service-efficient), usage, planning and conservation.

In addition, while the Final Evaluation report suggests that there was an apparent lack of
convergence of the outcomes and cited as an example that the policy paper on 'Incentives
Mechanisms and Partnership Modalities' in Outcome 1 could have been a module in local
capacity building on innovative resource mobilization and private-public partnerships, this has
actually been the idea from the start. However, start-up delays and procurement delays
resulted in delays in the delivery of Outcome 1 outputs that would have delayed the capacity
building had it had to wait for said outputs. Nevertheless, the outputs were made part of the
Toolbox.

Moreover, it may be worth considering prescribing the use of MS Project or similar M&E
software in Joint Programming where you have several agencies implementing their own
activities, but which activities are actually contingent on each other. This will assist the
management team identify a common critical path for the whole programme linked to each
outcome's activities, trace activities which will be affected by a problem in one activity, and
make necessary adjustments.

In relation to the adequacy of the 3-year implementation period, there may be also merit in
possibly undertaking baseline activities prior to the official implementation of the Joint
Programme in the same manner that the inception stage was provided funds prior to the
official start of the programme. This is to ensure that appropriate targets are set, adequate and
appropriate monitoring mechanisms are in place, and activities dependent on the baseline
results will not be delayed.

The HRBA framework is permeating throughout the project cycle where communities are
empowered to participate in planning and decision making processes in improving their access
to safe and potable water supply.

b. Report on any innovative development approaches as a result of joint programme

implementation

Innovative development approaches that resulted as part of the joint programme

implementation are as follows:

i. Community-based and right-based interventions are effective in establishing

accountabilities, transparency and trust between LGUs/service providers and
constituents/consumers, resulting to increased, improved and sustainable access to water
services. The success of such community-based initiatives shows proof that the soft
aspects of water services provision are equally as important as infrastructure provision.

ii. Joint programme implementation underscored the critical importance of coordination (i.e.
horizontally and vertically), and complementation of expertise and resources among UN
agencies and also importantly within government implementing partners at national and
local government level. This seemingly simple concept, but in reality more complicated,
provided an avenue also for check and balance. It also promoted synergy among efforts
versus those that are implemented by one single organization.

c. Indicate key constraints including delays (if any) during programme implementation

i. Internal to the joint programme

Administrative difficulties were among the key constraints which caused delays to
programme implementation. These are as follows: 1) lengthy procurement procedures
21
 significantly delayed implementation; 2) requirements (e.g., UNDP requirement for
calendar year financial work plan on top of the MDG-F-required fiscal year work plan)
other than what was required under the MDG-F Implementation Guidelines for
transfer/release of funds to government agencies; 3) lack of a focal person from UNICEF
who was involved from conceptualization to closure; and 4) protracted review by partner
agencies of reports/outputs/TORs (e.g., one month to review vis-à-vis the one week
indicated in workplans).

Scheduling of activities proved to be a challenge especially during the catch-up period

that some personnel (both from the national counterparts and the local/LGU counterparts)
had difficulty accommodating activities on top of their regular work.

Being designed to address the soft component of water supply provision, the Joint
Programme partners were burdened with managing expectations of local partners (i.e.,
provision of hard infrastructure under the programme).

ii. External to the joint programme

Beyond the programme's control, external difficulties in the implementation of activities were
encountered as follows:
• The national elections in May 2010 and the local elections in October 2010 resulted in
difficulties in coordinating and conducting local activities during the campaign period
particularly in (i) scheduling and siting of workshops/consultations, (ii) confirming
participation, (iii) availability of local government personnel (some were running for
office).
• Scheduling of presentation and discussion of policy outputs in has been difficult as the
approval of the Philippine Development Plan was the top priority in the agenda during
the last quarter of 2010 until the 1st quarter of 2011.
• The availability of members of relevant approving committees (e.g., Committee on
Infrastructure/SCWR) has set back the presentation, discussion and decision on some
outputs.
• The typhoons which hit some of the target areas have also impeded the timely
implementation of local activities (e.g., Palanan, Isabela was isolated for a long period
of time due to typhoon Pablo).
• Peace and order issues delayed activities in Zamboanga areas.
• Changes in the administrative/financial system of UNICEF in the third year of
implementation while on catch-up mode resulted in delay in release of funds.
• Adoption/approval of the recommendations on the apex body is with the Office of the
President.
• The evolving institutional set-up in the water supply sector continues to be a problem
for the programme (e.g., capacity building for the Department of Health/DOH). DOH
was originally part of the Salintubig program but was excluded in 2012. As a result,
DOH seemed to have lost interest in the training despite the numerous follow ups
through letter and email to schedule the training.
• For the final evaluation, in most cases, the results of the capacity building and
especially the policy outputs are yet to materialize because it takes a longer gestation
period to construct facilities and/or apply the knowledge/skills gained in the operation
and management of the constructed facilities.

d. Main mitigation actions implemented to overcome these constraints

i. Internal to the joint programme

In general, to catch up on implementation which was hampered by delays, planning

exercises were undertaken on a semi-annual basis to ensure completion of activities
within the 3-year implementation period.

22
 In the review of output deliverables, where a joint review by the TWG is not feasible,
NEDA and DILG are strictly imposing one-week deadlines, with the understanding that
should there be no comments/recommendations received before said deadline, the
outputs/deliverables are deemed acceptable. To avoid future delays in the approval of the
work plans, the PMC instructed the TWG to conduct the planning exercise earlier in the
year (at least 2 months prior to due date) so as to have the same ready for PMC and NSC
approval within one month from due date.

A permanent focal person from UNICEF has been assigned to the JP, and has agreed to
take on both responsibilities. An agreement was reached with the UNICEF and UNDP
focal persons that all communications requiring immediate technical or administrative
inputs from said agencies will be provided to the focal persons to facilitate
response/action.

The NSC has issued a Memorandum Circular urging the JPs to use the procurement
process (UN or government) which will be more facilitative. In addition, the PMC urged
the government partners to commence procurement as early as possible drawing on
lessons learned in using UN procurement.

An agreement was reached with the UNICEF AND UNDP focal persons that all
communications requiring immediate technical or administrative inputs from said
agencies will be provided to them to facilitate response/action.

Additional DILG national and regional personnel have been mobilized to catch up on the
delayed activities.

ii. External to the joint programme

To avert major delays from the election, the study teams have changed methodology from
focus group discussions to key informant interviews, which are easier to coordinate and
schedule.
Flexibility was exercised in the implementation of activities hampered by the evolving
institutional set-up in the sector. In the case of the non-participation of DOH, which was
originally part of SALINTUBIG, assistance of UN partners (particularly UNICEF) was
solicited to engage DOH. This, however, proved to be unsuccessful.
As necessary, contract extension at no additional cost was resorted to to ensure
completion of activities in conflict areas in Zamboanga.

e. Describe and assess how the monitoring and evaluation function has contributed to the:
i. Improvement in programme management and the attainment of development results
ii. Improvement in transparency and mutual accountability
iii. Increasing national capacities and procedures in M&E and data
iv. To what extent was the mid-term evaluation process useful to the joint programme?

The MDG-F Implementing Guidelines required the Joint Programme M&E Framework to
include three monitoring tools: the Bi-annual Report; the Quarterly Color-coded report;
and the PMC mechanism. These tools promote mutual accountability and transparency, as
well as allow partners to react immediately to any potential issue/problem. In addition, the
Joint Programme adopted the TWG, which meets more frequently than the PMC, as
another means for monitoring progress, albeit informally.

The PMC and TWG played an important role in the M&E process in terms of providing
and validating information. Local implementing partners submit information to the DILG
Outcome Officer through the regional coordinators and focal persons. The NEDA
Outcome Officer, on the other hand, gathers information from the focal persons of the
studies. The Programme Officer consolidates the information from the DILG and NEDA
23
 Outcome Officers and submits the draft reports for review of the TWG. Any comment and
recommendations are integrated prior to endorsement to the PMC for approval. This
strategy strengthens mutual accountability. To avoid delays in submission of the reports,
the TWG and PMC are made to follow a strict deadline.

A simple progress monitoring program was developed for the Joint Programme. It is
basically based on the outputs delivered, where 100% is given for an output delivered and
0% if not yet delivered (even if activities have already been conducted). This facilitated
and simplified monitoring and reporting of the physical progress of the programme.

At the start of the Joint Programme, a baselining activity was undertaken for the 36
municipalities. DILG personnel, both national and regional, were capacitated in baseline
data gathering via "learning-by-doing" with the assistance of the consultant hired.

The Mid-term Evaluation and the Final Evaluation provided an independent review of the
programme, which allowed for a more critical, less biased and fresher perspective in the
analysis of the design, processes of implementation, and results of the programme.

f. Describe and asses how the communication and advocacy functions have contributed to:
i. Improve the sustainability of the joint programme
ii. Improve the opportunities for scaling up or replication of the joint programme or any of
its components
iii. Provide information to beneficiaries/right holders

The IEC activities both at the national and local level increased awareness on the
importance of water supply and sanitation, and the issues that the sector is faced. The
World Water Day 2011 celebrations brought to the attention of the President the issues as
well as the plight of waterless Filipinos straight from children through real-time video
conferencing and through the Ripples of Hope postcard campaign. The recommended
policy reforms and actions, resulting from the National Executive and Legislative
Dialogue and the Local Water Governance Forums were also presented to him.

The Water Stories told the stories of millions of Filipinos without access to clean water as
through videos by youth filmmakers. One video was used in an international competition.
The videos were also used by the Bacolod City Water District as a means to raise
awareness amongst students.

The Water is Life photos, meanwhile, were largely used in various forums (e.g., Byaheng
Pinoy, League of Municipalities General Assembly, NAWASA General Assembly) and
utilized by agencies including the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) for IEC activities. Together with other collaterals (e.g., factsheets), interest was
generated to replicate the same in other LGUs. The same were also presented in bilateral
discussions with donors with some interest expressed by USAID.

Presentations of good practices and testimonials by local champions during the MDG
Forum and Marketplace entitled "Forging Cooperation and Promoting Tools to Achieve
the Millennium Development Goals" under the Focus Country Initiative also generated
interest from other potential partners.

The IEC collaterals developed at the local level were also utilized by the LGUs for their
related campaigns (e.g., hand washing activities).

g. Please report on scalability of the joint programme and/or any of its components
i. To what extend has the joint programme assessed and systematized development results
with the intention to use as evidence for replication or scaling up the joint programme or
any of its components?
ii. Describe example, if any, of replication or scaling up that are being undertaken
24
iii. Describe the joint programme exit strategy and asses how it has improved the
sustainability of the joint program

The Joint Programme developed an Exit Strategy and Sustainability Plan that outlined the
integration of sustainability mechanisms and advocacy for replication/up-scaling of
interventions piloted under the programme. In addition, the Joint Programme received an
additional US$300,000 to further strengthen and enhance the achievement and sustainability of
results of the programme.

The training of trainors from DILG, NEDA, NWRB and Salintubig partners (partnering
with Salintubig has also increased the programme outputs' replicability in other waterless
municipalities) is in itself a sustainability mechanism of the programme. The Local
Government Academy (LGA) has also been trained and provided the Toolbox so it can be
shared amongst its network of capacity building service providers.

The biggest scale up activity of the Joint Programme is the establishment of regional hubs,
with 10 hubs created and capacitated under the programme. With these hubs, DILG's
reach and capacity nationwide in terms of providing capacity building (rollout of the
Toolbox) to LGUs has increased. The draft Mid-Term Update of the 2011-2016 PDP lists
strengthening of the hubs as a strategy towards improving access to water supply.

Through the combined promotion and advocacy efforts of the implementing partners in
the Philippine Development Forum (PDF) — Infrastructure Working Group — Sub-
Working Group on Water Supply and Sanitation, support for additional hubs or additional
strengthening of hubs has been solicited (UNDP and USAID funds). UNICEF has also
pledged to complete the Toolbox with sanitation tools/modules. Donor partners and
concerned line agencies are also made aware of the magnitude of investment requirements
needed to meet water supply targets by 2016 and by 2025 so they may align their
assistance/programs accordingly.

Coordination with potential "godparents" (e.g., Local Water Utilities Administration,

Water Districts) has been initiated for mentoring of small water service providers.

The knowledge products (factsheets, study reports), documentation of results and regional
sharing activities were aimed at presenting compelling evidence of the gains that can be
achieved by also addressing the soft aspects of water supply provision. These were
showcased to a wide range of potential partners for up-scaling/replication, which include
LCEs, politicians, service providers, civil society representatives, donors and other
potential investors.

At the local level, having observed the actual gains from the activities under the Joint
Programme, some of the LGU-beneficiaries have started replicating the initiatives on their
own using their own funds.

25
 IV. FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE JOINT PROGRAMME

a. Provide a final financial status of the joint programme in the following categories:
1) Total Approved Budget; 2) Total Budget Transferred; 3) Total Budget Committed and 4) Total
Budget Disbursed

UN Agency Total Budget Total Amount Total Amount

Transferred (US$) Committed (US$) Disbursed (US$)
UNDP 4,134,813.00 4,134,813.00 4,134,530.34
1,540,187.00 1,540,186.95 1,493,170.13
UNICEF

5,675,000.00 5,674,999.95 5,627,700.47

Total

b. Explain any outstanding balance or variances with the original budget

For UNDP, the difference between disbursed and budget transferred is merely the maintaining
balance for the DILG account, the closing of which is currently being processed.

For UNICEF, the difference between the committed amount and the disbursed amount is based
on payments of contracts for services that need to be settled soon as invoices are issued,
specifically, for the final evaluation consultant and additional printing of the manuals and
guidebooks.

V. OTHER COMMENTS AND/OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The Joint Programme has received various recognitions as follows:

(1) Invitation to speak in at least 3 global forums (World Water Forum, Water Integrity Forum,
Stockholm International Water Institute Water Month);
(2) Included in an upcoming UN Sourcebook on human rights mainstreaming as one of the best
practices using HRBA; and
(3) Global citation as best project on sector-focused anti-corruption initiative through its water
integrity component (Global Partnership Against Corruption and Development Effectiveness
or PACDE).

VI. CERTIFICATION ON OPERATIONAL CLOSURE OF THE PROJECT

By signing, Participating United Nations Organizations (PUNO) certifies that the project has been
operationally completed.

UN NAME TITLE SIGNATURE DATE

AGENCY

UNDP Toshihiro Tanaka Country Director of at1 2416

UNICEF Tomoo Hozumi Representative, Philippine ( .F.. i-.
Country
ry Office CIF
F 7 eic 2. 5-4.

-Tim 6 trt

26