disaster response operations procedures - kalahi-cidss · approval. refer to section 4 for details....

1 | P a g e

Disaster Response Operations Procedures

JUNE 2016

FINAL DRAFT

Republic of the Philippines: KALAHI CIDSS - National Community-Driven Development

Program

Department of Social Welfare and Development, Philippines

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents

PART I: THE DISASTER RESPONSE OPERATIONS PROCEDURE (DROP) ………………………… 7

1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

2. Guiding Principles and Objectives ………………………………………………………………….. 9

3. Comparison of the DROP and CEAC ……………………………………………………………….. 10

4. Requirements and Procedures for Triggering the DROP …………………………………. 11

5. Eligible Subprojects ………………………………………………………………………………………… 12

6. Institutional Arrangements …………………………………………………………………………….. 12

PART II: FACILITATORS’ GUIDE ……………………………………………………………………………………. 13

1. Initiating the DROP …………………………………………………………………………………………. 16

1.1 Joint MDRRMC-MIBF Meeting ………………………………………………………………….. 16

2. Social Preparation Stage …………………………………………………………………………………. 21

2.1 Conduct of Rapid Assessment …………………………………………………………………… 21

2.2 Community Consultation ………………………………………………………………………….. 23

2.3 MIBF …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 30

3. Activity Proposal Development Stage …………………………………………………………….. 38

3.1 Activity Proposal and RFR Documents Preparation …………………………………… 38

3.2 Community Consultation ………………………………………………………………………….. 41

3.3 MIAC Meeting for Subproject Final Technical Review and

Approval of Fund Release …………………………………………………………………………. 44

4. Community-Managed Implementation Stage …………………………………………………. 47

4.1 BSPMC Orientation and Planning Meeting ……………………………………………..… 47

4.2 Mobilization of Various Committees for Actual Implementation ………………. 49

4.3 Completion and Turnover of Subprojects …………………………………………………. 49

5. Community Monitoring ………………………………………………………………………………….. 50

5.1 Accountability Reporting ………………………………………………………………………….. 50

5.2 Conduct of Sustainability Evaluation ………………………………………………………… 56

6. Transition from DROP to Regular CEAC ………………………………………………………….. 60

7. Simplified Monitoring and Evaluation …………………………………………………………….. 61

PART III: ANNEXES

1. Enabling Program Policies on DROP Utilization

A. Financial Guidance on Damaged, Suspended and Terminated Subprojects

B. Additional Guidelines on Environmental and Social Safeguards System

C. Procurement

C1. Emergency Procurement

C2. Procurement Activities

D. Community-Managed Implementation of Subprojects

3 | P a g e

E. Formation of Community Organizations for O&M

F. Simplified Monitoring and Evaluation and GRS

G. DSWD Memo Circulars on coordination with various agencies and organizations

2. Community-Based Tools

A. Rapid Assessment Tool

B. Consolidated Rapid Assessment Results Template

C. KC-NCDDP List of Eligible Projects under DROP

3. Tools for CEF, ACT, MIAC Use

A. Activity Proposal Review Checklist for DROP

B. Sample Computation for Ranking and Clustering Barangays

C. Simplified RFR Requirements for KC-NCDDP DROP Implementation

D. Procedures for the Conduct of Sustainability Evaluation

4. Formats for Community, Barangay LGU and Municipal LGU

A. Simplified ESMP

B. Activity Proposal Format

C. Revised MIBF Resolution

Boxes and Figures

Box 1 - Task Instruction on Ranking/Clustering of Barangays ………………….………................. 32

Box 2 - Task Instruction for Grant Allocation ………………………………………………………………….. 34

Box 3 - Guide in Selection of Subprojects for NCDDP Funding ………………………………………… 36

Box 4 - Tips on How to Do Final Review of Activity Proposal ……………………………………….….. 37

Figure 1 – Procedures for Triggering the DROP ………………………………………………………………… 11

Figure 2 – Disaster Response Operations Procedures ...………………………………………………..... 15

4 | P a g e

Acronyms and Terms

AC - Area Coordinator

ACT - Area Coordinating Team

AD - Ancestral Domain

ADB - Asian Development Bank

AOQ - Abstract of Quotation

AR - Accountability Reporting

BA - Barangay Assembly

BAC - Bids and Awards Committee

BAWASA - Barangay Waterworks and Sanitation Association

BDC - Barangay Development Council

BFP - Bureau of Fire Protection

BRT - Barangay Representation Team

BSPMC - Barangay Sub-Project Management Committee

BUB - Bottom-Up Budgeting

CAA - Conflict-Affected Area

CBO - Community-Based Organization

CBPM - Community-Based Procurement Manual

CDD - Community-Driven Development

CEAC - Community Empowerment Activity Cycle

CEF - Community Empowerment Facilitator

CIDSS - Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services

CSO - Civil Society Organization

CV - Community Volunteer

DANA - Damage Assessment and Needs Analysis

DFAT - Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Government of Australia

DILG - Department of the Interior and Local Government

DROP - Disaster Response Operations Procedures

DSWD - Department of Social Welfare and Development

ECPP - Emergency Community Procurement Plan

ESMF - Environmental and Social Management Framework

ESMP - Environmental and Social Management Plan

FA - Functionality Audit

GAD - Gender and Development

GIDA - Geographically-Isolated and Depressed Areas

GRS - Grievance Redress System

ICC - Indigenous Cultural Communities

IDP - Internally Displaced Persons

IO - International Organizations

IP - Indigenous Peoples

5 | P a g e

Acronyms and Terms

IPMR - Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representative

IRA - Internal Revenue Allotment

KALAHI - Kapit Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan

KC - Kalahi – CIDSS

KC-NCDDP - KALAHI CIDSS – National Community-Driven Development Program

LARRF - Land Acquisition, Resettlement, and Rehabilitation Framework

LCC - Local Counterpart Contribution

LDF - Local Development Fund

LDRRMC - Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

LDRRMF - Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund

LGU - Local Government Unit

LPRAT - Local Poverty Reduction Action Team

M&E - Monitoring & Evaluation

MAO - Municipal Agriculture Officer

MCT - Municipal Coordinating Team

MDRRMO - Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office, also Officer

MEO - Municipal Engineering Office

MFA - Municipal Financial Analyst

MIAC - Municipal Inter-Agency Committee

MLGOO - Municipal Local Government Operations Officer

MOA - Memorandum of Agreement

MPDC

MPDO

- Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator

Municipal Planning and Development Office

MSWDO - Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office, also Officer

NCDDP - National Community-Driven Development Program

NCIP - National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

NDRRMC - National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

NGA - National Government Agency

NGO - Non-Government Organization

NHTS-PR - National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction

NPMO - National Program Management Office

O&M - Operation and Maintenance

PAMANA - Payapa at Masaganang Pamayanan

PDNA - Post-disaster Damage Assessment and Needs Analysis

PDW - Project Development Workshop

PINCO - Problems, Issues, Needs, Concerns and Observations

PIT - Project Implementation Team

PNP - Philippine National Police

PO - Peoples Organization

6 | P a g e

Acronyms and Terms

PO - Purchase Order

POW - Program of Works

PPT - Project Preparation Team

PSA - Participatory Situational Analysis

PT - Procurement Team

PTC-A - Parents-Teachers-Community Association

RD - Regional Director

RFQ - Request for Quotation

RFR - Request for Fund Release

RPM - Regional Program Manager

RPMO - Regional Program Management Office

SB - Sangguniang Bayan or the Municipal Council

SET - Sustainability Evaluation Tool

SRPMO - Sub-Regional Program Management Office

SVP - Small Value Procurement

TA - Technical Assistance

TAF - Technical Assistance Fund

TF - Technical Facilitator

WB - World Bank

7 | P a g e

PART I:

THE DISASTER RESPONSE OPERATIONS PROCEDURES

(DROP)

8 | P a g e

1. Introduction

1.1 What is this Manual about?

This manual outlines the Disaster Response Operation Procedures (DROP) to be followed by the Area Coordinating Team (ACT) in implementing the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) KALAHI CIDSS - National Community-Driven Development Program (KC-NCDDP) in areas struck by disasters. The manual is presented in three parts: The first part on the specific measures of DROP implementation; the second part on how to facilitate each activity of the DROP; and, third part the Annex which provides further details to the relevant sections.

1.2 When should this manual be used?

Use of this manual and the procedures outlined herein shall be applicable to all municipalities implementing KC-NCDDP affected by disaster. The use of the DROP shall be triggered by a “declaration of state of calamity” covering a barangay, several barangays, or the entire municipality, and LGU decision to use DROP through a Sangunian Bayan (SB) Resolution, subject to SRPMO validation and RPMO approval. Refer to Section 4 for details. The Disaster Response Operations Procedures shall engage the KC-NCDDP Municipalities and communities in responding to the effects of disasters. Recognizing the disruptions caused by disasters in the lives and livelihoods of communities, the DROP allows KC-NCDDP covered areas to shift its operations from regular developmental activities into a disaster response modality to immediately address issues related to early recovery. Recovery is the process to fully restore the community to pre-disaster level of functioning or better than that, and usually refers to the rehabilitation of livelihoods, restoration of social and economic activities and reconstruction of shelter and infrastructure.

1.3 Who are the intended users of this manual?

This manual is intended primarily for the members of the Area Coordinating Teams (ACT). However, all staff involved in all aspect of disaster operation should be familiar with this manual and use it as reference.

Early Recovery is a

multidimensional process of

recovery that begins in

humanitarian setting. It is

guided by development

principles that seek to build on

humanitarian programmes

and catalyze sustainable

development opportunities. It

aims to generate self-

sustaining, nationally-owned,

resilient processes for post-

crisis recovery. It encompasses

the restoration of basic

services, livelihoods, shelter,

governance, security and rule

of law, environment and social

dimensions, including

reintegration of displaced

populations. (R.A. 10121, Rule

2 – Definition of Terms)

9 | P a g e

1.4 How should this manual be used?

This manual shall be used as a supplemental reference to the CEAC sub-manual as well as other relevant manuals and guidelines of the Program and DSWD issuances. It is divided into three parts: Part I describes the key features of the DROP, Part II contains the facilitators’ guide, and Part III contain the Annexes.

Familiarize yourselves with the key principles of the manual in Part I before proceeding to the detailed procedures outlined in Part II. This will help you interpret and apply the procedures based on the peculiarity of your municipality. Should you have further questions about this manual, consult your SRPMO and RPMO for further guidance. Enhancements to the procedures must be documented by the ACT and submitted to the S/RPMO.

2. Guiding Principles and Objectives

The Disaster Response Operations Procedures remains anchored on the Basic Guiding Principles and Objectives of the Community Empowerment Activity Cycle (CEAC). Given its disaster response nature, key elements have been included to make the procedures simple and fast.

Guiding Principles: Participation: All stakeholders are engaged in an all-encompassing process with

communities' and public's interest given paramount consideration. Transparency: Openness and clarity in the whole process and outcome. Accountability: All stakeholders engaged in the process are held accountable for

decisions and actions taken. Simplicity: Activity implementation in the simplest possible manner without

compromising quality of results. Speed: Activities are implemented in the shortest possible time to speed up

community recovery. Objective: Provides guidance to ACTs in implementing Disaster Response Operations Procedures (DROP) to allow timely and effective delivery of disaster response.

Disaster Response refers to the

provision of emergency services and

public assistance during or

immediately after a disaster in order

to save lives, reduce health impacts,

ensure public safety and meet the

basic sustenance needs of the people

affected. Disaster response is

predominantly focused on immediate,

short-term needs and is sometimes

called “disaster relief. (R.A. No. 10121,

Rule 2 – Definition of Terms)

10 | P a g e

3. Comparison of the DROP and CEAC The DROP is essentially based on the CEAC with key changes that allows for timely and effective disaster response. The Table below presents these changes.

# Regular CEAC Disaster Response Operations Procedure

1 6 to 8 months from Municipal Orientation to Project Approval

Shorter social preparation activities. Refer to Part II, Section 2 for details.

2 Mandatory local cash contribution Mandatory cash LCC waived

3 Flexible criteria setting with inputs from communities and municipal level competition.

Fixed criteria for targeting disaster-affected barangays: (i) population of the barangay (using the results of the latest census – 20% (ii) poverty incidence (to be generated from the DSWD National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR) – 30%, and; (iii) extent of damage as measured by the % of damaged HHs (or other available data that allows comparison across all barangays) – 50%. Barangays will be categorized/clustered into 3 groups: (i) severely damaged/affected, (ii) moderately damaged, and (iii) least affected. Grants are allocated based on severity of damage.

4 Municipal allocation based on income class, poverty incidence and population.

Municipal allocation for regular implementation is doubled.

5 Sub-project funds downloaded in three tranches (50%-40%-10%)

Sub-project funds downloaded in two tranches, where the first tranche will range from 70-90% of the total sub-project cost upon approval of the subproject proposal while the second tranche will range from 10% to 30% of subproject costs upon

subproject completion and assessment by the ACT.

6 Procurement Threshold: - Community Bidding - Community Shopping - Direct Contracting

Shorter timeline for bid invitations and sole source procedures for partners already active in disaster-affected area. Prior review timeline waived. Details of the emergency procurement method are provided in Annex 1.C1.

7 Safeguards instruments developed for sub-project screening focus on voluntary land donation and managing environmental risk

Simplified safeguards instruments and procedures. Refer to Annex 4A for the Simplified ESMP and Annex 1B for Additional Guidelines on Environmental and Social Safeguards.

8 Use of standard Monitoring &Evaluation (M&E) forms and MIS database by Municipal Encoders

Simplified Monitoring and Evaluation forms. Refer to Annex 1F for details.

Both processes shall comply with Program accountability mechanisms on documentation, accounting and recording, internal controls, reporting, and auditing

11 | P a g e

4. Requirements and Procedures for Triggering the DROP The use of the Disaster Response Operations Procedures shall be triggered by a Declaration of a State of Calamity1 supported by a SB Resolution to use DROP, subject to SRPMO validation and RPMO approval. Refer to Part II Section 1 for detailed procedures. The process flow for triggering the DROP is shown in figure 1.

Figure 1. Procedures for Triggering the DROP

1 A Declaration of a State of Calamity may be made at any levels affected by a disaster in

accordance with the IRR of RA 10121.

Procedures for Triggering the DROP Disaster

Event

State of Calamity is Declared

AC meets with LCE, MSWDO, MDRRMO

Conduct of Joint MDRRMC-MIBF Meeting

Secure copy of Rapid Assessment Report/DANA

Joint Resolution endorsing use of DROP to SB

Disaster Response Operations Procedures

(DROP)

Regular CEAC

Use DROP?

Yes

No

SRPMO

Validation

RPMO

Approval

12 | P a g e

5. Eligible Subprojects

Annex 2C provides a revised list of eligible projects under KC-NCDDP DROP. The list

focuses on interventions that will address emergency needs, facilitate immediate

restoration of lifeline services2, and may be temporary in nature. Please note that the list

does not exclude other projects for early recovery that may be selected and prioritized by

communities.

6. Institutional Arrangements

a. ACT training on DROP: Prior to use of DROP, the Regional Project Management Office

(RPMO) orients the ACT and MCT on the procedures to be undertaken in case disaster

affects KC-NCDDP areas. The module on DROP includes an orientation of the

following: (i) key features of RA 10121 and the KC-NCDDP DROP, including

requirements (ii) importance of pre-disaster data gathering and use of data during

disaster operations (including baseline data requirements for disaster operations,

geo-tagging of DSWD investments, and mapping of risk areas), (iii) conduct of rapid

damage assessment, and (iv) DSWD role in relief operations and disaster response.

b. Increasing implementation support, which may involve (i) mobilization of additional

staff to provide facilitation and technical support (staff augmentation); (ii) re-

deployment of staff from other areas to provide support; (iii) Emergency hiring of

additional personnel using TAF among others, and (iv) other arrangements deemed

necessary to efficiently implement DROP.

c. Mandatory Local Government Cash Counterpart Contributions will be waived for

emergency response and early recovery activities to remove potential obstacles to

the participation of the most affected barangays, whose resources may be fully

committed to relief activities. While LCC is not required, in-kind contributions

(equipment, materials) on the part of the LGU and (free labor contributions) on the

part of affected communities are accepted but not mandatory.

d. LGUs shall also waive local fees, permits and licenses. Fees due to NGAs shall be

chargeable against KC Grants.

e. Use of DSWD guidelines for coordination with various agencies and organizations

undertaking humanitarian response, resource mobilization, and information

management. Annex 1G presents the relevant Memo Circulars.

2 Lifeline services refer to

13 | P a g e

PART II:

FACILITATORS’ GUIDE

14 | P a g e

When a disaster hits a KC municipality in the course of implementation, there are at least four

(4) scenarios:

a. Disaster occurs prior to MIBF

b. Disaster occurs after MIBF but SPI not yet started

c. Disaster occurs after MIBF during SPI

d. Disaster occurs with KC areas implementing overlapping cycles and/or varying

SPI in prioritized barangays

Some steps or features may vary depending on the scenario where the barangay is at the time

of the disaster.

Under the DROP, each of the four stages is fast-tracked. There are activities and sub-activities

waived or modified to hasten the process of approval of sub-projects that are helpful for the

community under the new situation. The entire abbreviated process takes a minimum of 31

days and maximum of 131 days per barangay, to include preparatory, actual and post-activity

follow-through. Figure 2 presents an overview of the main stages and corresponding

activities. The detailed activities are further described in the succeeding sections.

15 | P a g e

DisasterResponseOpera onsProceduresDisasterEvent

StateofCalamityisDeclared

ACmeetswithLCE,MSWDO,

MDRRMOtosecurecopy

ofRapidAssessment/DANA

Ini a ngtheDROP

JointMDRRMC-MIBF

Mee ngtoendorseuse

ofDROPtoSB,forappropriate

resolu on

SocialPrepara on

Ac vityProposalDevelopment

Stage

Community-Managed

Implementa on

ConductofRapid

Assessment

CommunityConsulta ontoiden fy

prioritydisaster

responsePPAs

MIBFtorankandcategorizebarangays,

allocategrantandiden fy

priorityprojects

Ac vityProposalandRFR

Documents

Prepara on

CommunityConsulta onto

approveproposal&

RFRdocumentsforendorsementto

MIACandNCDDP

MIACMee ngtoreviewand

endorseproposals

&RFRdocumentstoRPMOfor

funding

BSPMCOrienta onand

Planning

Mee ng

Mobiliza onofVarious

Commi eesfor

ActualImplementa on

Comple onandTurn-overofSPs

CommunityMonitoring

AccountabilityRepor ng

ConductofSustainabilityEvalua on

7-12days1-2days 14-96days 4-6days4-12days1–3days

Figure 2: Disaster Response Operations Procedures (per barangay, to include preparatory, actual and post-activity)

16 | P a g e

1. Initiating the DROP

A formal Declaration of State of Calamity supported by SB Resolution triggers the use of the

DROP, subject to SRPMO validation and RPMO approval.

If the Municipality has on-going implementation of the KC-NCDDP but has been hit by a

disaster and RPMO approved its decision to shift implementation to the disaster-response

procedures, the Area Coordinating Team (ACT) and the LDRMMC will convene the different

stakeholders at the municipal level to orient them on: (i) the shift in modality of KC-NCDDP

implementation process and requirements; (ii) the main steps in the process; (iii) the key

operational changes, and; (iv) the new timeline. Before the scheduled meeting, the ACT will

need to prepare the status of funds in the community accounts, and present the same during

the meeting.

1.1 Joint MDRRMC-MIBF Meeting (Municipal level; 1 day)

a. Objectives:

1. Decide whether or not to use the KC-NCDDP DROP in addressing disaster response

and early recovery efforts, subject to SRPMO validation and RPMO approval.

2. Assess sufficiency of available data for decision-making

3. Discuss and agree on the next steps on the conduct of rapid assessment, if data are

insufficient

4. Plan for the conduct of community consultation, if data are sufficient for decision-

making.

5. Set the schedule for the conduct of MIBF to (i) rank/categorize barangays, (ii) allocate

grants, and (iii) identify priority projects for NCDDP funding.

b. Key Outputs:

1. Minutes of Joint MIBF-MDRRMC Meeting: (i) adopting the use of DROP and endorsing

the same to SB for Resolution, (ii) conduct of rapid assessment to determine extent of

damage per barangay, if data are insufficient, or, conduct community consultation to

prioritize disaster response and early recovery needs per barangay, if data are

sufficient, (iii) forming and naming the members of the rapid assessment team, if

needed, and (iv) schedule of MIBF.

c. Participants:

Chaired by the Municipal Mayor or his/her authorized representative and facilitated by

the MDRRMO or Area Coordinator.

17 | P a g e

Participants to the meeting:

Government Citizens Groups Program Staff

The MDRRMC composed of:

Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator

MDRRMO

Municipal Social Welfare and Development Officer

Municipal Health Officer

Municipal Agriculture Officer

Head of the Gender and Development Office

Municipal Engineer

Municipal Veterinarian

Municipal Budget Officer

Division Head/ Superintendent of Schools of the DepED

Highest-ranking officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) assigned in the area

Municipal Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP)

Municipal Fire Marshall of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP)

President of the Association of Barangay Captains (ABC)

Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) representative

Four (4) accredited CSOs

One (1) private sector representative.

Municipal Vice Mayor

Sangguniang Bayan (SB)

members, and in particular the

SB chairpersons for social

welfare, and appropriations.

Municipal Environment and

Natural Resources Officer

Representative of the National

Commission on Indigenous

People (NCIP) (if the municipality

covers IP areas)

Members of the Municipal

Coordinating Team

Barangay Captains

Leaders of the

Indigenous Peoples

(IP) communities, if

the municipality

covers, either in

whole or in part, a

known ancestral

domain.

Representative of

CSOs, POs, NGOs

operating in the

municipality (not

MDRRMC

members)

At least 50% of the

MIBF members,

with majority of

barangays

represented

Representatives of

the Sub-Regional

Project Management

Office SRPMO

Members of the Area

Coordinating Team

assigned in the

municipality.

18 | P a g e

d. Process and Steps

1. In preparation for the meeting

1.1. Once a State of Calamity is declared, the AC meets with the Mayor and Local

DRRMO3 to: (i) secure copies of Declaration of State of Calamity and data used as

basis for the declaration, (ii) initially discuss KC-NCDDP’s DROP as one of the

options to address disaster response and early recovery needs, and (iii) get the

schedule of, and agree to present in detail the DROP during the MDRRMC Meeting.

1.2. In preparation for the MDRRMC meeting, the Area Coordinator coordinates with

the MDDRM Officer to: (i) assess availability or sufficiency of data on extent of

damages, (ii) consolidate data on damages, (iii) secure copy of LGU contingency

plan4, and; (iv) assist MDRRMC in mapping stakeholders (including services

offered) involved in disaster response operations operating in the municipality.

1.3. In the assessment of data sufficiency, AC shall make available to the MDRRMO pre-

disaster data generated by the Program through the Social Investigation and

Barangay Profiling, and geo-tagging.

1.4. AC informs the S/RPMO the schedule of conduct of MDRRMC Meeting.

1.5. AC, supported by the ACT members, prepares the presentation materials on

DROP.

1.6. Where needed, the ACT provides support to the Barangay Council in mobilizing the

identified community participants to the MDRRMC meeting.

2. During the actual Meeting

2.1 AC attends as a stakeholder in the municipality. MDRRM officer facilitates the

meeting.

2.2 MDRRM officer presents and discusses the: (i) extent of damages in the affected

barangay/s, (ii) MLGU contingency plan and budget for disaster response and early

recovery, and (iii) NGA plans and programs for disaster response and early

recovery. Based on the presentation, the MDRRMO will facilitate the following

MDRRMC decisions:

ii. Whether available data are sufficient for identifying community needs, or

there is a need to conduct rapid assessment to supplement the current

information.

iii. Whether the LDRRMF and commitments from NGAs and other

organizations are sufficient to cover the identified needs, or if there is a

need to explore other options for addressing disaster needs such as the KC-

NCDDP DROP.

3 LDRRMO is composed of: DRRM Officer and assisted by three (3) staff responsible for: (1) administration and training; (2)

research and planning; and (3) operations and warning. 4 Contingency plan refers to the LGU’s plan for the use of the Local DRRM Fund

19 | P a g e

2.3 For an informed decision, the MDRRMC calls on the Area Coordinator to present

the KC-NCDDP DROP.

2.4 AC orients the different stakeholders on the key features of the KC-NCDDP disaster

response operations procedures in the context of addressing needs for disaster

response and early recovery in affected barangays.

2.4.1 AC discusses the following: (i) key features and mechanics of the DROP, (ii)

Eligible subprojects for KC-NCDDP funding under the DROP, (ii) Accelerated

CEAC and implementation timelines, including conduct of Rapid

Assessment, (iii) Procurement Arrangements, (v) Grant allocation and

Financial implications and requirements, (vi) handling of ongoing

subprojects (if under SPI at the time of disaster), (vii) safeguards policy of

the Program and National Government Agencies, and the possibility of

relaxing the same, if applicable,(viii) Grievance Redress System, (ix)

transitioning to the Standard CEAC, and (x) DSWD role (including relief

operations) and possible assistance

to be extended by the Program.

2.4.2 During the presentation, the AC

highlights the implications of using

DROP to NCDDP’s number of

committed cycles to the

municipality, and to the utilization

of the grant. S/he also informs the

Council of the need for the MIBF to

concur the decision due to the

implications to grant and number

of committed cycles.

2.4.3 If composition of the ACT has

changed, the ACT is introduced.

2.4.4 Reactions, questions, and recommendations of participants are solicited

and addressed by the AC.

2.5 Based on the presentation, the MDRRMO facilitates discussion and agreement on

whether or not DROP will be used to

conduct rapid assessment and/or

explored as one of the alternatives for

disaster response and early recover

efforts. The MDRRMO requests the

MDRRMC and MIBF convenor to call for

appropriate resolutions reflecting the Council and Forum’s decision.

One of the key features of the DROP

is the frontloading of grant, subject

to availability of funds. This means

that when DROP is triggered, the

total grant allocation for the

municipality may be consumed in

fewer cycles than the Program’s

committed number of cycles. ACTs

shall ensure that disaster-affected

communities are aware of this

implication. Thus, the need to

secure the MIBF’s concurrence on

the use of DROP.

For areas with on-going KC cycles under

different scenarios as stated in page 14,

orientation shall include implications on using

the grant allocation for regular CEAC to be re-

aligned in the implementation of DROP.

20 | P a g e

2.6 The MDRRMC facilitates the planning for next steps (whether to conduct rapid

assessment or community consultation, whichever is applicable), based on the

decision/s in Item 3.5.

2.6.1 If data are sufficient and there is no need to conduct rapid assessment: The

LGU shares the data with barangays and instructs them to proceed with

validation of damages and identification of priority needs.

2.6.2 If data are insufficient and LGU decides to undertake rapid assessment for

data gathering, the MDRRMO facilitates the formation of rapid assessment

team. The team should be composed of members of the MDRRMC, ACT,

MCT and selected volunteers.

2.7 The expanded procedures for Grievance Redress System (GRS) (Annex 1F) are

explained, and a resolution forming a municipal grievance committee composed of

representatives of barangay grievance committees, is passed.

2.8 The AC facilitates the schedule of conduct of MIBF to rank the barangays and

allocate grants.

2.9 Minutes of meeting detailing the agreements is prepared by the ACT.

3. Post-activity follow-through

3.1. AC to ensure that Joint MDRRMC-MIBF Resolution endorsing to SB use of DROP is

signed by appropriate signatories.

3.2. AC to follow-up issuance of signed SB Resolution endorsing the use of DROP.

3.3. After the MDRRMC meeting, the MDRRMO with assistance from the AC, meets

with the rapid assessment team to: (i) agree on areas of assignment, detailed work

schedule and roles in the FGD, (ii) orient the team on the conduct of the rapid

assessment, (iii) inform the team of focus of data to be generated based on

currently available information, (iv) set the schedule of conduct of assessment and

submission of outputs, and (v) undertake or agree on necessary preparations for

the conduct of rapid assessment.

3.4. AC finalizes the minutes of meeting and submits this to RPMO within seven days

after completing the activity.

21 | P a g e

2. Social Preparation Stage

2.1 Conduct of Rapid Assessment5 (per barangay, 1 to 2 days per barangay)

If MDRRMC has sufficient data, ACT accomplishes the Rapid Assessment Form (Annex 2A) using secondary data. Refer to sub-activity nos. 2.3 to 2.4 under Process and Steps (during conduct of Rapid Assessment). In the event that data are insufficient to determine disaster response and early recovery needs per barangay, rapid assessment will be conducted by the Rapid Assessment Team formed during the MDRRMC meeting. The Rapid Assessment shall be conducted as specified below.

a. Objectives:

1. Determine extent of damage and needs requirement in affected areas as basis for

decision-making

2. Generate initial data on status of lifelines, extent of damages to households and

livelihood per barangay, basic infrastructure facilities, and effects to vulnerable groups

3. Identify the most vulnerable segments of the population that need to be targeted for

assistance;

4. Identify the level of response by the affected community and its internal capacity to

cope with the situation;

5. Identify the level of response from the other organizations;

b. Key Outputs:

1. Initial data on extent of damages, including damages to basic infrastructure, lifelines

and livelihood

2. Priority disaster response and early recovery needs

3. Differentiated effects to vulnerable groups

c. Participants: Rapid assessment shall be undertaken by a composite team formed during

the MDRRMC meeting. Each team is composed of members from the following:

1. Area Coordinating Team

2. Municipal Coordinating Team

5 Rapid Assessment is a process undertaken by MDRRMC during the emergency period to determine extent of damage and needs requirement in affected areas as basis for decision-making. It is usually undertaken in the immediate aftermath of disasters to assess immediate (relief) and early recovery. The rapid assessment is conducted immediately, as soon as it is safe for the assessment teams (done within 36 hours of the declaration of state of calamity)

22 | P a g e

3. LDRRMC members and MDRRMO staff

4. Selected PSA Volunteers (if previous KC area) or selected community

leaders/volunteers (if non-KC areas)

Each team shall cover a number of barangays pre-determined during the MDRRMC

meeting. The team members may be further divided into various puroks or sitios in

the conduct of assessment.

The number of assessment teams will depend on the number of ACT CEFs assigned in

the municipality, or whichever is doable at the municipal level. Provided that, the

teams are comprised as indicated in # 1 and will not cause delay in completion of the

assessment.

In cases that ACT and community volunteers are affected by the disaster, thus are

unable to participate in the assessment, the RPMO will issue a Special Order to

adjacent ACTs not affected by disaster to augment in disaster operations, including

the conduct of rapid assessment.


1. In preparation for the Rapid Assessment

1.1 Rapid assessment teams should have been formed during the MDRRMC

meeting. Assessment teams are oriented on the procedures and tools by the

MDRRMO assisted by the AC. Secondary data should have been generated and

identify sections of the tool which needs further data gathering.

1.2 Assessment teams should coordinate with their assigned barangay for the

schedule of rapid assessment, including logistical and administratve

arrangements with target respondents.

2. During the conduct of Rapid Assessment

2.1 The assessment teams will proceed to their assigned puroks or sitios to conduct

the assessment using the Rapid Assessment Tool in Annex 2A.

2.2 Assessment teams will undertake focused group discussion with target

respondents and/or key informants.

2.3 Where needed, information presented during the MDRRMC Meeting will be

validated through ocular survey or site visits.

2.4 Rapid Assessment Form will be accomplished using data gathered and validated during the FGDs.

3. Post-activity

23 | P a g e

3.1 ACT and MCT CEFs review the filled-up forms and ensure that the same have been

properly and completely filled-up. Inconsistencies and questionable entries should

be quickly addressed.

3.2 ACT and MCT CEFs participate in the MDRRMO-ACT-MCT meeting to consolidate

the report on damages and update the initial LGU rapid assessment report.

e. Standards

1. Broad-based participation to the extent possible while ensuring completion of

activities at shortest time possible.

2. Close coordination with all agencies concerned in data gathering.

3. Highly facilitated activity.

4. Activities have been undertaken with quality and speed demanded for an effective

response.

2.2 Community Consultation (Barangay level; ½ to 1 day)

a. Objectives:

1. Introduce the KC-NCDDP disaster response operations procedures in the context of

addressing needs for disaster response and early recovery in the barangays.

2. Present and validate the result of rapid assessment;

3. Present and discuss the Municipal and Barangay PPAs, and other commitments by

NGAs, NGOs and other organizations;

4. Agree on the criteria to prioritize the disaster response and early recovery needs of

the barangay;

5. Agree on the steps to be undertaken, in case currently implementing an NCDDP

project;

6. Rank the list of unaddressed needs using the agreed criteria, and generate priority list

of unaddressed needs for support by various organizations including NCDDP, including

cash for work activities.

7. Re-confirm elected community volunteers, or elect new volunteers for Barangay

Representation Team, Project Preparation Team.

8. Community decides on NCDDP subprojects depending on ff scenario:

If with ongoing SP: decision on whether or not to continue with currently funded

NCDDP sub-projects (i.e., continued, suspended or terminated);

If with prioritized SP but SPI not yet started: decision to continue with the same

subproject or change priority as a result of the rapid assessment.

b. Key Outputs:

24 | P a g e

1. Community/Barangay Assembly Resolution: (i) validating or confirming the result of

the rapid assessment, (ii) endorsing the priority needs/project ideas for NCDDP

funding using the agreed criteria, (ii) electing (or activating or replacing, if with existing

volunteers) and naming the members of the BRT, PPT members, and (iv) endorsing to

NCDDP the continuation, suspension or termination of project currently being

implemented, whichever is applicable.

2. Activity proposal for identified priority subproject for NCDDP funding. (Refer to Annex

4B for the SP Proposal Form).

c. Participants:

Government Community Program Staff LGU

Barangay

Chairperson

Sangguniang

Barangay members

An NCIP

representative, if the

barangay covers or is

covered by a known

Ancestral Domain,

either in part or in

whole.

Assessment Team (formed in

MDRRMC Meeting)

Representatives of basic

sectors such as, but not

limited to: youth, women,

farmers, fisherfolks, IDPs,

senior citizen, professionals,

PWDs, private/business

organizations

In old KC areas,

representatives of the

BSPMC/ Community

Volunteers

IP tribal leader, if the

barangay covers or is covered

by a known Ancestral

Domain, either in part or in

whole.

CEF MCT CEF

LDRRMC/LDRRMO

representative


1. In preparation for the assembly

1.1. Prior to the meeting, the Community Empowerment Facilitator prepares program

and presentation materials for the assembly, to include (i) consolidated result of

rapid assessment, (ii) Barangay and LGU-NGA-NGO PPA, (iii) list of previously

elected volunteers, (iv) possible list of criteria for ranking projects, (v) matrix of

priority unmet needs for funding by NCDDP and other NGAs.

25 | P a g e

1.2. CEF coordinates with AC to invite MDRRMO, NGA and NGO representatives to

present LGU-NGA-NGO committed plans, programs and activities for disaster

response and early recovery.

1.3. In case the community is implementing an NCDDP project prior to the disaster

event, the ACT and MCT CEFs meet with the BSPMC to prepare an updated status

of subproject implementation (physical and financial progress report), and

prepares the BSPMC in undertaking the presentation during the community

consultation.

1.4. The CEF meets with the Barangay Chairperson and the assessment team to plan

for the consultation, and mobilizes the BLGU in ensuring attendance and

participation of sectoral representatives.

1.5. Coordinates with AC the need to engage relevant agencies and LGU staff in

providing interpretation of generated information to identify appropriate

interventions to be included in the contingency plans and list of projects to be

proposed for funding, if needed.

2. During the actual assembly

2.1. The meeting is opened by the Barangay Chairperson, and the CEF is introduced

as facilitator.

2.2. The CEF assisted by his/her MCT counterpart, presents and discusses the

overview of the NCDDP disaster response operations procedures.

2.3. The Assessment team then presents the consolidated rapid assessment results

of the barangay.

2.4. Reactions, questions, and recommendations of participants are solicited and

addressed by the CEF, his/her municipal counterpart, and the assessment team.

2.5. Invited representatives of relevant agencies and LGU provide interpretation to

the consolidated assessment results, to better guide the community in

identifying priority needs and possible project ideas that will address the needs.

2.6. The CEF then facilitates discussion on criteria, and criteria-based identification

and ranking of problems and early recovery needs. Examples of criteria include

(i) urgency; (ii) the number of HHs (including HHs from vulnerable groups such

as IPs, CAAs, and GIDAs) who are directly affected by the problem or need, or

who will immediately benefit if the need is addressed, and/or; (iii) risk/imminent

danger to affected HHs (including special emphasis on vulnerable populations

such as IPs, women, etc.) if the need remains unaddressed.

26 | P a g e

2.7. If community has priority subproject but SPI has not yet started, the CEF

facilitates discussion for the community to make decision on whether to

continue the subproject, or return funds if no longer needed. Funds can be

accessed by the same barangay to fund a new priority project that will address

disaster-related problems and needs.

2.8. The MDRRMO, NGA, NGO representatives then present their respective

PPAs.The CEF then facilitates cross-matching of problems and needs, with the

Contingency Plans to identify interventions with resource support

commitments.

2.9. Remaining problems and needs not addressed by any activity in the LGU-NGA-

NGO commitments is identified and ranked using criteria defined by the

community. Sample criteria in item 2.5 above may also be used. The LGU

representative should be able to provide initial technical advice on the technical

feasibility and requirements of identified priority project ideas.

2.10. The CEF then facilitates discussion and agreement on the top three (3) needs to

be proposed for NCDDP. Remaining needs can be proposed to other NGAs

and/or the municipal LGU for support.

2.11. The CEF then facilitates discussion on the community projects that may be

implemented to address the top needs

identified, using the list of eligible

projects (Annex 2C).

In addition, the following will also be

undertaken for an informed

community decision-making:

i. Initial advice on the technical

requirements and technical

considerations of the top 3

priority subprojects shall be provided by the Technical Facilitator and/or

Municipal Engineer.

ii. Potential impacts of the top 3 subprojects and corresponding mitigation

measures shall be identified and included in the ESMP prepared during

PDW. Refer to Annex 4A for the Simplified ESMP format.

2.12. The CEF then informs the community of available Technical Assistance Fund

(TAF) that may be used to engage service providers to assist the community in

The KC-NCDDP list of eligible

subprojects under disaster response

operations includes projects and

activities that:

(i) focus on emergency response and

early recovery interventions,

(ii) designed to facilitate immediate

restoration of community lifelines,

and are

(iii) temporary in nature.

27 | P a g e

preparing technical documents and proposals, construction supervision and

other activities needing technical assistance, if needed.

2.13. The CEF then facilitates discussion and agreement on the subproject currently

being implemented by the community prior to disaster (if applicable). Decision

may either be (i) suspension, or (ii) termination of the subproject.

TIP TO THE CEF:

Refer to Annex 1A for the guidelines on suspension and termination of

subprojects due to disaster.

Multi-component projects shall be treated as one project. As such, one project

proposal will be prepared. “Multi-component projects are composed of several,

inter-related subprojects which directly contribute to addressing the same need.

Such that, the non-implementation of one subproject will prolong the

attainment of “state of normalcy”.

However, in case one or more of the sub-components include income-

generating subprojects and other subprojects with tariff, a separate project

proposal will be prepared per each of the subprojects of such type. Separate

Mutual Partnership Agreements will also be executed for each subproject type

under a multi-component proposal.

28 | P a g e

2.14. The need to confirm or elect new CVs for the Barangay Representation Team

(BRT), and Project Preparation Team (PPT) is discussed by the CEF; criteria to be

used for electing CVs are agreed; and election of BRT and PPT, Grievance Redress

Committee is conducted.

2.15. Community is reminded on the grievance redress system of the Program (Annex

1F).

Resolution is passed on the key agreements on (i) the ranked list of priority needs

and projects, (ii) the elected members of the BRT, PPT and GRS Committee, and

(iii) decision to continue or change priority subprojects not yet started, or

suspend or terminate ongoing NCDDP project affected by disaster.


3.1. The ACT and MCT members shall meet after all Community Assemblies have been

completed to review the top 3 priority projects per barangay and determine

which among them could be jointly undertaken to address common priority needs

and/or avoid duplication and ensure complementation. CEF and his/her municipal

counterpart discuss with BRT and community the possibility of undertaking joint

projects.

3.2. CEF and his/her municipal counterpart meet with BRTs and PPTs, and prepare

them for the MIBF. This includes a detailed orientation on their roles and tasks.

CEF and his/her municipal counterpart also orient the CMT members on their

tasks.

3.3. BRTs and PPTs gather additional information on proposed projects, as further

input to prioritizing the subprojects to be funded by NCDDP during the MIBF.

3.4. CEF, with inputs from the Assembly and in consultation with the PPT, prepares

and finalizes the SP Activity Proposal for submission to MIBF for funding, including

estimated cost. Refer to Annex 4B for the Activity Proposal Format.

3.5. All activity proposals should be submitted to concerned MIAC member and

S/RPMO for review, in time for the MIBF. Technical review should look into the

alignment of submitted proposal to the rapid assessment result. Refer to Annex

3A for the Activity Proposal Review Checklist for DROP.

29 | P a g e

3.6. AC informs the SRPMO and RPMO of projected Technical Assistance (TA) and

technical staff augmentation needs based on project ideas being proposed by

communities, if applicable.

3.7. CEFs assist the communities in complying with the requirements of suspending or

terminating the projects being implemented (whichever is applicable).

Notes to AC:

Discuss/flag with S/RPMO financial implication of proposals generated from

disaster-affected barangays and seek guidance.

Sufficient time should be allocated for the preparation of estimated cost per

activity proposal. All estimated costs should be available prior to conduct of MIBF.

30 | P a g e

e. Standards:

1. Activity reports and other documents are submitted within seven (7) days after the

activity.

TIPS/REMINDERS TO CEF:

1. The CEF ensures that rapid assessment forms are completely and properly filled

up prior to consolidation. Assessment results are triangulated with secondary

data.

2. The CEF prepares key questions to focus discussions on critical issues affecting

solutions (i.e. "Are there specific affected groups or areas which have not received

assistance, or for which no commitments have been made?", "Are you (the

community members) aware of these project commitments from NGAs?") prior

to the consultation. This is informed by ocular visits, key informant interviews,

and integration by the CEF with community members (cross sectoral) prior to the

meeting.

3. The CEF together with his/her municipal counterpart conduct dry-run/simulation

and role-play prior to the meeting to identify potential issues and concerns, and

refine the meeting facilitation plan.

4. The assembly is chaired by the Barangay Chairperson.

5. The CEF facilitates the meeting.

6. The CEF ensures that the discussion tackles problems and needs FIRST, before

solutions and projects.

7. The CEF ensures that problems and solutions are described (i.e. how a problem

affects the life of HHs, and/or how a particular solution will benefit affected HHs),

and not just listed/enumerated.

8. Vulnerable groups (women, IP, elderly, PWDs, youth, Pantawid Pamilya HHs,

internally displaced HHs) and all sectors (fisherfolks, farmers, professionals,

private/business organizations) of the community are represented.

9. Reactions to the presentation on the NCDDP are solicited, questions are

adequately answered, and recommendations discussed.

10. Two (2) CVs who are not elected public officials are selected to join the Barangay

Chairperson in the BRT, one of which shall be further designated as the BRT head

(the BLGU chairperson is prohibited from heading the BRT).

11. Three (3) CVs each who are not elected public officials are selected to compose

the PPT and CMT.

12. Gender balance is observed in the selection of CVs.

13. Where IPs is present, an IP CV is selected, using customary practices of the IP

group concerned, to join the BRT and the PPT.

14. A simple reflection session shall be facilitated by the CEF.

31 | P a g e

2. At least 50% of HHs attended the assembly.

3. Broad-based participation to the extent possible while ensuring completion of all

activities at shortest time possible Close coordination with all agencies concerned.

4. Highly facilitated activity.

5. In tackling solutions, the CEF ensures that problems are FIRST matched with solutions

(projects) in the LGU-NGA-NGO matrix of PPAs, before new solutions and projects are

identified.

6. Where needed, separate meetings are conducted, with documentation, for vulnerable

groups (women and IPs) to solicit reactions, questions, and recommendations, including

on potential adverse impact of proposed solutions to affected (and vulnerable)

populations and groups, and suggested mitigation measures.

7. All subprojects to be funded are aligned with the validated rapid assessment result. This

should have been thoroughly assessed during the Technical Review.

8. Selection of subprojects will contribute in the most direct way to emergency response

and early recovery, and aligned with LGU Recovery and Rehabilitation Plan.

9. Processes and activities have been undertaken with quality and speed demanded for an

effective response.

2.3 Municipal Inter-Barangay Forum (Municipal level, 1 day)

a. Objectives:

1. Validate the consolidated rapid assessment result, community priorities, and matrix

of commitments from LGUs (Municipal and Barangay PPAs) and other commitments

by NGAs, NGOs and other organizations;

2. Agree on the criteria to: (i) cluster/rank the barangays based on the severity of

damage, (ii) approve subprojects for prioritized barangays .

3. Approve the list of projects to be funded by the grant in accordance with the criteria.

b. Key Outputs:

1. MIBF Resolution is passed indicating: (i),agreed criteria for clustering/ranking the

barangays, (ii) list of prioritized barangays or group of barangays, title of project/s,

indicative cost, and no. of HHs to be benefitted.

c. Participants:

Government Community Program Staff

An NCIP representative, if

the barangay covers or is

PPT members

BRT members

ACT members

S/RPMO representatives

32 | P a g e


covered by a known

Ancestral Domain, either in

part or in whole.

Representative of NGAs

operating in the

municipality

MCT members

LDRRMC representative

MDRRMO head and staff



covered by a known

Ancestral Domain, either

in part or in whole.

Representative of

NGOs/IOs operating in the

municipality

TAF service providers


1. In preparation for the MIBF:

1.1 MDRRMO and AC meets to prepares and finalizes the agenda together with the

Mayor.

1.2 ACT attends to all logistical and administrative requirements in coordination with

the LGU. (venue, food, invitation, supplies)

1.3 AC and MDRRMO prepare presentation materials: (i) summary of damages from

the rapid assessment per area of assessment, (ii) consolidated LGU, NGA, and

NGO resource commitments to address needs, (iii) remaining unmet needs, and

proposed projects for NCDDP in a municipal map.

1.4 The AC and MDRRMO conducts a dry-run/simulation of the municipal inter

barangay forum. The facilitation plan for the activity is adjusted as needed.

1.5 AC secures result of Technical review of activity proposal by concerned MIAC

member.

1.6 The ACT agrees on who presents the consolidated rapid assessment results and

priorities of the barangays during the MIBF.

2. During the MIBF

2.1 The Forum is opened by the Mayor, and the AC is introduced as the facilitator.

2.2 The consolidated rapid assessment results, priorities of the barangays, and status

of ongoing NCDDP subprojects (to include community decision regarding

continuation, suspension or termination of ongoing SP, and amount of unused

grant), if applicable is presented by designated team member. Refer to Annex 2B

for the Template.

2.3 At the start of the meeting, the MDRRMC chairperson or his/her representative

presents the results of the rapid assessment and the matrix of LGU-NGA-NGO PPA

33 | P a g e

commitments to address disaster response and early recovery needs (this is

prepared by the ACT as part of the preparatory activities for the MIBF).

34 | P a g e

2.4 The AC shall facilitate discussions and agreements on two major agenda: (i)

clustering/ranking of barangays, (ii) approving subprojects for prioritized

barangays.

Box 1: Task Instruction on Clustering/Ranking of Barangays

1. Remind the barangays on the agreed criteria and formula during the joint

MDRRMC-MIBF Meeting

2. Ask the MIBF to select criteria for defining the extent of damage based on results

of rapid assessment.

NOTE: should be highlight of the consolidated rapid assessment result

Remind MIBF that indicator to be used allow for comparison for extent of

damage across barangays

As much as possible, use only 1 indicator that most represents the degree of

damage.

From consolidated rapid result, point out the possible indicators for

measuring extent of damage; ask the MIBF to select indicator to be used from

the list.

3. Enumerate the criteria, adding the extent of damage.

4. Using blackboard or LCD or any visual aid, compute for the ranking based on the

criteria.

5. Present the ranking of the barangays and point out the following highlights: (i)

difference of highest and lowest scores, (ii) minimal differences in scores of

barangays, and (iii) scores of not affected barangays. Validate observations

based on the ranking.

6. Go through the list one by one, citing the individual scores up to a point where

difference in scores becomes insignificant. Ask the MIBF if the barangays could

be grouped together or ranked the same. Then, group the remaining barangays

using the same procedure.

7. Explain the purpose for clustering the barangays (i.e., to ensure that severely

affected barangays gets the needed allocation). Clustering will be undertaken to

respond to minimal differences or same scores among affected barangays.

8. Present and explain the clustering of barangay, based on the result of

computation.

Note: IPs participate in the MIBF and may submit separate proposal.

9. Explain the process for computing the range of scores to determine the

categories of severity of damage. Categories may be: (i) severely affected, (ii)

moderately affected, and (iii) least affected. Annex 3B provides the details for

computation.

10. Using the range in # 9, present the result of clustering of barangays.

11. MIBF to validate and confirm the result to be included in the MIBF Resolution.

35 | P a g e

2.5 After ranking, the AC proceeds with clustering the barangays according to

severity of damage. Categories include: (i) severe, (ii) moderate, (iii) least, and

(iv) not affected, if any.

36 | P a g e

AC explains the formula for determining the range of scores per cluster. Refer to

Annex 3B.

2.6 After determining the clusters, the AC presents the barangays belonging to each

of the clusters and generates comments to the clustering. Clustering may be

adjusted, if there are valid comments.

2.7 The AC or MAC then facilitates discussion and consensus among the participants

on how grants will be allocated considering 3 scenarios. The following are the task

instructions per scenario: (Refer to the Box 2: Task Instruction for Grant Allocation

for details). 2.8 AC summarizes the agreements reached during the MIBF to include: (i) clustering

of barangays and corresponding grant allocation, and (ii) list of approved

subprojects.

2.9 MIBF endorses list of non-prioritized SPs to MDC for inclusion in the MDP/AIP. ACT

gets the list and endorses to S/RPMO for possible support from other sources, to

be included in the MIBF Resolution. Refer to Annex 4C for the Revised MIBF

Resolution.

2.10 MIBF Resolution is passed indicating: (i) concurrence to use DROP, (ii) list of

prioritized barangays or group of barangays, title of project/s, indicative cost,

and no. of HHs to be benefitted, and (iii) the major agreements.

2.11 The schedule and arrangements for the activity proposal and RFR documents

preparation is announced.

2.12 The AC or MAC facilitates short reflection on the proceedings.

2.13 The meeting is adjourned.

37 | P a g e

Box 2: Task Instruction for Grant Allocation

Scenario 1: Disaster Occurs before MIBF

a. Barangay-level Declaration

(If barangays affected by disaster covers at least 60%, proceed to Scenario 1.b (Municipal-wide

Declaration)

1. AC to reiterate importance of targeted disaster-affected barangays, and get MIBF

agreement to provide entitlement/grants to affected barangays.

2. AC to facilitate discussion around the allocation of the grant based on 2 options: (i)

entitlement of brgy/s based on their proposal, or (ii) MIBF to allocate funds to affected

brgys based on per-capita allocation.

3. Facilitate discussion of advantages and disadvantages of the two options. After all

advantages and disadvantages have been discussed, AC to generate agreement on which

option to use.

4. Present the grant allocation based on chosen option.

If Option 1:

a. AC to present the list of barangay proposals with indicative cost.

b. MIBF to clarify certain aspects of the proposals and review acceptability of cost and

technical aspects prior to decision-making.

c. If MIBF approves the proposal, deduct the indicative cost to the total grant.

Presentation proceeds until grant runs out. If there are a lot of questions to certain

proposals, facilitate MIBF conditional approval. In this case, MIBF will form an

Executive Committee to do follow-through.

Note: MIBF may review initial agreements to revise decisions.

If Option 2:

a. Explain the computation of grant allocation per barangay using formula on per-

capita.

b. Barangays to present their respective proposal.

c. MIBF to clarify certain aspects of the proposals and review acceptability of cost and

technical aspects prior to decision-making.

d. If MIBF approves the proposal, deduct the indicative cost to the total grant.

Presentation proceeds until grant runs out. If there are a lot of questions to certain

proposals, facilitate MIBF conditional approval. In this case, MIBF will form an

Executive Committee to do follow-through.

REMINDER:

Agenda for the MIBF will also cover grant allocation, if with remaining grant, for non-

affected barangays under the Regular CEAC.

If consensus on grant allocation cannot be generated, the facilitator generates agreement

such as: (i) revisiting/amending proposals (scale down), (ii) refer to RPMO for guidance on

additional funding.

38 | P a g e

2.14

2.15

2.16

2.17

2.18

39 | P a g e

2.5


Scenario 1: Disaster Occurs before MIBF

b. Municipal-wide Declaration

1. Using the clustering, barangays under the severely affected categories

(according to rank) present their respective proposals.

2. MIBF to clarify certain aspects of the proposals and review acceptability of cost

and technical aspects prior to decision-making.

3. If MIBF approves the proposal, deduct the indicative cost to the total grant.

Presentation proceeds until grant runs out. If there are a lot of questions to

certain proposals, take note of those questions and identify who should respond

to said questions. Facilitate MIBF conditional approval. In this case, MIBF will

form an Executive Committee to do follow-through.

4. MIBF confirms the list of barangay activity proposals and corresponding grant

allocation to be included in the MIBF Resolution.


Scenario 2: Disaster Occurs after MIBF (With approved SP but not yet ongoing,

materials not yet delivered or With Ongoing SPI)

1. Present status of implementation in NCDDP prioritized barangays, and the

decisions made by the communities (whether continue, suspend or terminate).

Presentation includes amount of unused grant per barangay. MIBF to confirm

decisions made by barangays.

NOTE: GUIDANCE ON LOST/DAMAGED MATERIALS; WHAT TO DO WITH

DELIVERED MATERIALS WHICH WILL NOT BE USED IN NEW SP

1. MFA presents the total grant available (unused grant from terminated SPs

and frontloaded amount from the next cycle).

2. Barangays to present their respective proposals, in accordance with

clustering.

3. MIBF to clarify certain aspects of the proposals and review acceptability of

cost and technical aspects prior to decision-making.



certain proposals, facilitate MIBF conditional approval. In this case, MIBF

will form an Executive Committee to do follow-through.

5. If the amount consensus on grant allocation cannot be generated, the

facilitator generates agreement such as: (i) revisiting/amending proposals,

(ii) refer to RPMO for guidance on additional funding.

40 | P a g e


Scenario 3: Disaster Occurs after MIBF (Non-prioritized barangays)

1. Using the clustering, barangays under the severely affected categories

(according to rank) present their respective proposals.

2. MIBF to clarify certain aspects of the proposals and review acceptability of cost

and technical aspects prior to decision-making.



certain proposals, take note of those questions and identify who should respond

to said questions. Facilitate MIBF conditional approval. In this case, MIBF will

form an Executive Committee to do follow-through.

4. MIBF confirms the list of barangay activity proposals and corresponding grant

allocation to be included in the MIBF Resolution.

Box 3: Guide in the Selection of Subprojects for NCDDP Grant Funding

1. Based on the grant allocation per barangay, the BRT and PPT will identify the

subprojects to be funded by the Program. Priorities shall be based on the list

generated during the 1st community consultation. In the identification of

projects to NCDDP funding, the following shall be ensured by the ACT:

a. Proposed projects not within the eligible list is dropped, or proposed to

other agencies for funding.

b. Proposed projects with significant safeguards risks, and for which

mitigation is not possible, or is beyond the capacity of the Program to

address, are dropped.

c. Depending on the grant allocation, the barangays may propose multi-

component subprojects.

d. The AC or MAC will facilitate discussion and agreements on the

following: (i) who will shoulder excess cost in case actual project cost

based on POW is greater than the grant allocation, and (ii) what will be

done in case actual project cost is lesser than the grant allocation.

e. AC or MAC facilitates discussion among BRTs of adjoining barangays on

possibility of undertaking joint projects to address common priority

needs.

41 | P a g e

3 Post-activity follow-through

3.1 The AC ensures that the MIBF Resolution is finalized and duly signed by the

attendees. Signed copies of the Resolution are provided to relevant offices.

3.2 Coordinate with the LGU, NGAs and NGOs operating the municipality to follow-

up delivery of commitments indicated in the PPA matrix.

3.3 Follow-up S/RPMO guidance on additional funding.

3.4 Ensure that documentation of the proceedings are finalized and submitted to

S/RPMO within 7 days of conduct of activity.

3.5 The AC meets with the Mayor and the Vice-Mayor, to plan for endorsing the

consolidated matrix to the Sanggunian for inclusion into the municipal

development plan.

3.6 CEF to meet with PPT of barangays or group of barangays to plan for securing the

TAF, if applicable.

3.7 CEF to guide barangays on completing requirements for

terminated/suspended/damaged NCDDP-funded subprojects in accordance with

Program procedures.

e. Standards:

1. Broad-based participation to the extent possible while ensuring completion of all

activities at shortest time possible Close coordination with all agencies concerned.

42 | P a g e

2. Highly facilitated activities.

3. Preferential attention was provided to the most affected barangays.

4. All subprojects to be funded are aligned with the validated rapid assessment result. This

should have been thoroughly assessed during the Technical Review.

5. Selection of subprojects will contribute in the most direct way to emergency response

and early recovery, and aligned with LGU Recovery and Rehabilitation Plan.

6. At least 50% of the total MIBF members participate in the activity, with all barangays

represented by at least 1 volunteer.

7. Processes and activities have been undertaken with quality and speed demanded for an

effective response.

43

3. Activity Proposal Development Stage

Under this stage, the ACT and MCT with S/RPMO conduct workshop to prepare the activity

proposal and RFR documents, in consultation with the PPT and inputs from BA. Use of

simplified forms (ESMP, activity proposal, RFR requirements) characterizes this stage.

3.1 Activity Proposal and RFR Documents Preparation (at most 5 days per barangay;

conducted simultaneously)

a. Objectives:

1. Finalize activity proposals for priority subprojects and other RFR requirements, for

barangay assembly approval, and review/endorsement of MIAC to RPMO.

b. Key Outputs:

1. Final activity proposal and costs finalized by the ACT/MCT in consultation with Community

Volunteers for presentation to the BA for approval, and RFR documents completed for

endorsement to the MIAC for final technical review and endorsement to the RPMO.

c. Participants:


MCTs

MIAC

Representative of NGAs

operating in the

municipality

Community Volunteers ACT members

SRPMO

RPMO

Technical Assistance (TA)

Providers accessed using

the TAF, if any


1. In preparation for project proposal and RFR documents preparation

1.1. ACT/MCT meet to plan the approach for conducting the project development

workshop. This includes:

orient the MCT members on how the activities will proceed,

clustering of barangays

44

team approach for remote and severely affected barangays (Forming teams

to be deployed to the prioritized barangays. Each team shall comprise ACT

members from other municipalities mobilized to augment during disaster

response, and headed by an ACT member from the municipality).

having session plans for the barangay-based proposal development activity,

1.2. If the community availed TAF, the AC and the TF, together with the Community

Volunteers, meet with the Service Providers and orient them on the proposal

development, their expected roles and tasks, deliverables and timelines.

1.3. AC meets with the RPMO and/or the SRPMO to (i) coordinate on the activities, flow,

process, methodologies, date, and venue of the barangay-based PDW; (ii) ensure

adequate technical staff support will be available, based on the consolidated TA and

staff support augmentation needs from the community consultations/BA;(iii) TAF

service providers have been contracted, and (iv) funds and other logistical

requirements are available and on hand.

1.4. AC meets with the MLGU MIAC and other NGA partners to do groundwork for

technical support provision during the proposal development at barangay level.

1.5. CEFs meet with the respective PPTs to ensure data to be used during the proposal

preparation are on hand and inform them of the detailed arrangements during the

workshop (venue, flow, agenda, logistics).

2. Actual project proposal and RFR documents preparation

Coaching and mentoring on the preparation of activity proposal (Annex 4B) and RFR

documents (Annex 3C) shall be undertaken per barangay. The PPTs and BRTs of two or

more barangays with joint projects shall be gathered in an area strategic to the barangays

involved, wherein coaching and mentoring on the actual preparation of the project

proposal and RFR documents shall be undertaken.

During the barangay-based preparation of documents:

2.1 The ACT gives an overview of the proposal development process as follows:

Objectives and expected outputs of the workshop

Finalizing the activity proposal

Finalizing the Detailed Estimates, POW, technical plans and specifications

Preparing the Simplified ESMP

Preparing the RFR and other requirements

45

2.2 The CEF facilitates finalization of the activity proposal in consultation with community

volunteers, if available.

Review comments and recommendations of the MIBF, MIAC and discuss

necessary changes or revisions

Work through the proposal section by section

After finishing the revisions, go through a final review of the whole document.

2.3 In case the actual project cost per POW is greater than the grant allocation, the

ACT/CEF shall facilitate discussion and agreement on the possible sources of needed

additional funds. Where necessary, the Barangay Captain will be tasked to secure

commitments from the identified potential fund sources.

Tips on How to Do Final Review

- Make sure all items are properly filled-up. In case of blank, indicate

whether N/A, 0/none, or no data.

- Make sure titles are consistent in all documents

- Make sure totals are correct

- Make sure no. of beneficiaries and other figures are consistent in all

documents

- Expected benefits should be consistent with identified disaster-

related needs in proposal

Refer to Annex 3A for the Activity Proposal Review Checklist.

46

2.4 The ACT and MCT, together with TAF service providers (if applicable), conduct

workshops and assist PPTs in finalizing technical plans and program of works using

estimated cost (which were initially prepared as part of preparatory activities) and

other RFR documents.

2.5 CEF prepares the simplified ESMP and IP Plan, if applicable, in consultation with

community volunteers. Refer to Annex 4A for the format and Annex 1B for the

Additional Guidelines on Social and Environmental Safeguards.


3.1. ACT members assigned in the barangay shall ensure that the outputs (i.e., activity

proposal and RFR documents) are complete, consistent and correct.

3.2. ACT and MCT CEFs meet with the BLGU, PPTs and BRTs to finalize plans and schedules

for the community consultation on the final proposal.

3.3. Reflection session with the BRT and the PPT are conducted.

e. Standards:

1. Community volunteers representing concerned barangays are present during the

workshop.

2. Presence of technical advisers/MIAC members during the workshop.


conduct of activity.

3.2 Community Consultation (barangay level; 0.5 to 1 day per barangay)

a. Objectives:

1. Approve the Activity Proposal and RFR documents for endorsement to the MIAC and the

NCDDP.

2. Elect Barangay Subproject Management Committee (BSPMC), the Finance Committee,

and Bids and Awards (BAC) CVs. Where possible, existing CV committees in on-going

NCDDP projects will be mobilized, subject to confirmation of the assembly. CVs who are

not present or cannot function will be temporarily replaced by the assembly.

47

3. Generate assembly approval to open community account as repository of funds for

subproject implementation.

b. Key Output: Assembly resolution is passed: (i) approving the activity proposal and RFR

documents, and endorsing the same to the MIAC and NCDDP; (ii) forming and naming the

members of the Finance Committee, BAC, and BSPMC; (iii) opening a community account and

naming the signatories to the account.

c. Participants: Participants to the consultation should include the following:


Barangay Chairperson

Sangguniang Barangay

members

An NCIP representative,

and/or the IPMR, if the

barangay is covers or is

covered by an Ancestral

Domain.

MCT CEF

BRT and PPT members

Representatives of basic

sectors such as, but not

limited to: youth,

women, farmers,

fisherfolks, IDPs, senior

citizen, professionals,

PWDs, private/business

organizations

In old KC areas,

community volunteers



covered by a known

Ancestral Domain,

either in part or in

whole.

CEF

Other Program staff who

augmented in the

barangay


1. In preparation for the community consultation

1.1. Prior to the meeting, the ACT and MCT CEFs meet with the Barangay Chairperson to

plan for the consultation, and mobilizes the BLGU in ensuring attendance and

participation of sectoral representatives.

48

1.2. Materials, tools, and visual aids to be used in the community consultation are

prepared together with the PPT and BRT.

1.3. The CEF prepares key questions to focus discussions on critical elements of the

proposal (i.e. "Does the proposal address the priority needs agreed in the first

assembly?", "Are there specific groups, especially vulnerable groups, which will be

adversely affected by the proposed project?", "Are there affected groups who will

not benefit or will be excluded from benefiting from the project?", “Should additional

features or elements be included? If so, what?", “Is the site for the proposed project

safe?”, “Will mitigation be needed? If so, what kinds of mitigation?” and other similar

questions) prior to the consultation. This is informed by ocular visits, key informant

interviews (KII), and integration by the CEF with community members (cross sectoral)

prior to the meeting.

1.4. The CEF also develops a glossary of technical terms translated into the vernacular,

prior to the meeting. Where possible, the CEF ensures that key features of the

proposal are written on the board or on Manila paper, in the local dialect, and posted

around the venue for people to freely read.

1.5. CEFs conduct simulation and role-play with the PPTs and BRTs to prepare them for

presenting the proposal to the community for validation and approval.

2. During the actual consultation

2.1. The meeting is opened by the Barangay Chairperson, and the CEF is introduced as the

facilitator.

2.2. The CEF, assisted by his/her MCT counterpart, introduce the BRT and the PPT or

community volunteers present during the project development workshop.

2.3. The CV (i) presents a review of the previous community consultation on the problems

and issues; (ii) recalls the agreements made by the BA on the priority needs, (iii)

provides feedback on the result of the MIBF, and; (iv) presents an overview of the

process undertaken by the PPT in developing the final activity proposal.

2.4. The CV presents the details of the final activity proposal, beginning with the objective

and rationale, expected benefits, components, costs, and implementation

arrangements, and adverse impact and mitigation measures.

2.5. The CEF facilitates discussion on questions, and further clarification.

49

2.6. The CEF turns over the meeting to the Barangay Captain. The Barangay Captain seeks

the BA for: (i) approval of the proposal, and (ii) endorsement of the same to the MIAC

and the NCDDP. The Barangay Captain then requests motion from the floor.

2.7. Once motion is approved, the CEF acknowledges and thanks the community

volunteers for their efforts in developing the proposal.

2.8. The CEF discusses the structure for subproject implementation and the Barangay

Subproject Management Committee (BSPMC). The CEF then facilitates election of the

finance committee, the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), and the BSPMC.

2.9. The CEF then facilitates discussion on the opening of the community account, and

the selection of the signatories. The CEF then requests the Barangay Captain for

motion to approve the opening of the community account and the elected

signatories.

2.10. The CEF then calls for additional issues and concerns from the floor, and facilitates

discussion and resolution of the same.

3. After the consultation

3.1. The CEF and his/her municipal counterpart meet with BRTs and PPTs, and prepare

them for the MIAC technical review meeting.

3.2. Community accounts are opened. The CEF and MFA assist the finance committee in

the opening of community accounts.

3.3. Materials, tools, and visual aids to be used in the MIAC technical review are prepared

together with the PPT and BRT.

3.4. The CEFs conduct simulation and role-play with the PPTs and BRTs to prepare them

for MIAC technical review.

3.5. The CEF guides the PPT in finalizing the RFR documents, and submission to the MIAC.

CEF ensures completeness, correctness and consistency of documents.

e. Standards:

50

1. At least 50% of the total HHs attended the assembly.

2. Where the IPP is prepared, it should be presented and validated by the concerned IP

group. In a mixed IP community, this may necessitate consultation other than the BA.


activity.

3.3 MIAC MEETING for Subproject Final Technical Review and Approval for Fund Release

a. Objectives:

1. Review final activity proposals, designs, safeguards plans (i.e. ESMP), cost estimates, and

other RFR documents, for endorsement to the RPMO for funds release.

2. Process and release funds for proposals that pass quality standards.

b. Key Outputs:

1. Technical Certification of appropriate MIAC member endorsing the subproject proposals

and RFR documents to the Mayor.

2. Final and complete subproject activity proposals and RFR documents signed by the

municipal mayor and submitted to RPMO.

3. Funds are downloaded to community accounts.

c. Process and Steps

The final review and approval will involve two steps: (i) desk review of SRPMO & individual

MIAC, and (ii) convening MIAC Meeting for consolidation of reviews and final approval.

1. In preparation for the technical review

1.1. AC meets with the RPMO and SRPMO to (i) coordinate on the activities, flow, process,

methodologies, date, and venue of the MIAC Technical Review; (ii) ensure RPMO

and/or SRPMO technical staff will be present, and; (iii) funds and other logistical

requirements are available and on hand.

1.2. AC coordinates with the appropriate MIAC member, and provides and orients the

concerned MIAC member on the NCDDP Activity proposal Review Checklist (Annex

51

3A) to be used in the technical review. The simplified RFR documentary requirements

for KC-NCDDP DROP implementation6 is attached as Annex 3C.

1.3. CEFs meet with their respective BRTs and PPTs to ensure proposals and RFR

documents are complete, correct and consistent, and on hand.

1.4. Project proposals and RFR documents are provided to the appropriate MIAC member

at least 2 days prior to the review.

2. During the MIAC Meeting

2.1. The concerned MIAC technical member reviews the proposal based on the KC-NCDDP

RFR Review Guide.

2.2. PPT CVs are on-hand to respond to clarifications or questions which may be raised by

the MIAC technical member.

2.3. AC is present to provide technical assistance to the MIAC member in the review of

proposal and RFR documents.

2.4. The concerned MIAC technical member issues certification and endorses the

proposal and RFR documents to the municipal Mayor, who endorses the same to the

KC-NCDDP RPMO, if there are no findings. Otherwise, MIAC member provides final

comments and recommendations on (i) completeness, (ii) correctness, and (iii)

consistency.

2.5. To determine the appropriate MIAC technical member who will review the proposals,

the ACT may refer to the matrix below:

MIAC Member SP Type

Municipal Engineer (ME) Basic Infrastructures, sub-projects,

clearing of debris

Municipal Social Welfare and

Development Officer (MSWDO)

Feeding Program, Cash for Work,

Transitional shelters and temporary

housing

Municipal Agricultural Officer

(MAO)

Agriculture-related projects and activities

6 As agreed during the 5th ISM, August 15, 2016

52

MIAC Member SP Type

Municipal Environment and

Natural Resources Officer

(MENRO)

Environmental-related projects and

activities, and compliance

Municipal Planning and

Development Coordinator

(MPDC)/Municipal Assessor

Compliance to land acquisition and

resettlement requirements

Municipal Health Officer (MHO) Water and sanitation facilities in

emergency and transitional shelter and

temporary housing

3. Post activity follow-through

3.1. The ACT transmits complete proposal and other RFR documents to the SRPMO within

2 days after the MIAC Meeting.

3.2. ACT to follow-up with RPMO to ensure downloading of funds to community

accounts7 within 5 days after submission of the RFR.

3.3. The CEF and his/her municipal counterpart meet with the BLGU and BSPMC to finalize

plans and schedules for the pre-procurement conference.

3.4. CEFs instruct the BSPMC to safekeep the RFR documents.

d. Standards:

1. MIAC Technical review shall be principally guided by responsiveness and timeliness of the

proposed sub-project.

2. Given the emergency nature and/or immediate need for the projects, RFR review,

processing and downloading shall be done within 5 working days after submission to

RPMO.

4. Community-managed Implementation Stage

Community-managed project implementation involves a multi-activity process conducted at

the barangay level, consisting of: (i) BSPMC Orientation and Planning Meeting, including

orientation on newly approved subproject and pre-procurement conference, (ii) mobilization

7 Contracts equal to or higher than P2 million will require “no objection” from the RPMO.

53

of various committees for actual implementation, and (iii) completion and turnover of

subprojects.

4.1 BSPMC Orientation and Planning Meeting

4.1.1 Orientation on Newly-approved Subproject

a. The CEF, TF, and MFA, together with their municipal counterparts, orient

the BSPMC and its various work committees, the BAC, the Finance Team,

and the O&M committee on their specific tasks following the approved

workplan.

b. Present approved activity proposal.

c. Discuss key features and enhancements to the DROP.

d. In case CVs are new, undertake training on community procurement,

community finance management, subproject implementation and/or

construction (if projects involve small rural infrastructure), and

monitoring activities following the workplan and schedule.

e. Work schedules by committees are finalized.

Committees Outputs Frequency of

Reporting Planned Progress Report

BAC Work Schedule CPP Progress Report

(refer to CBPM)

PT Community

Procurement Plan

PIT Deployment Plan

(refer to infra

manual)

Employment Record

Sheet

Weather Chart

Weekly or

Monthly

(depending on

payment

schedule)

Daily

MIT Monitoring and

Inspection Plan

(refer to infra

manual)

Minutes of BSPMC

Meeting, highlighting

Status Report

ESMP Monitoring

Report

Finance Group Payment plan (refer

to CBFM)

Bookkeeper Expense Report

54

Committees Outputs Frequency of

Reporting Planned Progress Report

Treasurer List of Disbursement

Voucher

Status of SP Fund

Utilization Report

AIT Audit and Inventory

Plan (refer to CBFM)

Audit Report

O&M O&M Plan

Functionality Audit

(if applicable)

Sustainability

Evaluation (if

applicable)

O&M Report

FA Result

SE Result/Report

Before Turn-over

6 months after

project

completion, and 1

year thereafter

4.1.2 Pre-procurement Conference

a. ACT and MCT discuss with the community volunteers the procurement at

hand, and ensure understanding of the emergency procurement

procedure. In case the ongoing subproject is still relevant (as discussed in

the community assembly) to continue/complete the SP, the ACT/MCT

facilitates the review and updating of existing Community Procurement

Plan (CPP) as a result of the disaster.

b. Project TFs and MFAs, together with TAF service providers, and with

guidance from and in close coordination with the CEF and PPTs, coaches

the Community Volunteers (particularly the PPTs and BRTs) on community

procurement and community finance. The actual, hands-on activity shall

lead to the preparation of Planned Procurement Packaging Plan, which will

be attached as RFR requirements.

4.2 Mobilization of Various Committees (actual implementation)

a. Mobilization of various committees shall be done simultaneously based on

workplan and closely monitored by the CEFs.

55

b. ACT members are able to provide timely technical assistance to the committees in

their respective fields of expertise.

c. Convene regular meeting for progress reporting and problem solving.

4.3 Completion and Turn-over of SPs

a. CEF and TF undertake Functionality Audit prior to turn-over.

b. O&M arrangements (O&M group, policies, funding sources and agreements) are

discussed, roles agreed upon and executed. Agreements are included in the MPA.

c. Inauguration/Turn-over of completed subproject

d. Accounts closed.

Refer to Annexes 1C, 1D and 1E for the detailed processes on Procurement Activities and

Emergency Procurement, CMI, and Formation of Community Organizations for O&M,

respectively.

5. Community Monitoring

5.1 Accountability Reporting Transition from DROP to Standard CEAC will be triggered by the conduct of the Municipal Accountability Reporting. The accountability reporting shall discuss the highlight of the performance of the barangays using DROP. The AR will commence after completion of all subprojects in the municipality. The Accountability Reporting will still be done in two (2) levels, first in all barangays followed by the Municipal Level AR. 5.1.1 Barangay Accountability Reporting (Barangay level; 1 – 2 days)

a. Objectives:

1. To inform the community members on the status of the subproject and for public disclosure of all aspects of the implementation including synthesis from GRS and actions taken.

2. Review and assessment of commitments made and delivered by the MLGU and other stakeholders relative to the implementation of the sub-project.

3. Identification of lessons in implementing DROP in the barangay and municipality, and recommendations for succeeding implementation using the DROP.

b. Key Outputs:

56

1. Documentation of learning and assessment of the implementation of DROP. 2. Barangay Resolution to (i) provide support to O&M; (ii) authorizing transition from

DROP to Regular CEAC implementation. 3. Barangay Action Plan to complete the subproject (if applicable).

c. Participants:


Representatives from the MDRRMC

MCT members

BLGU Members

Community Monitoring Team

BRT and PPT members

BSPMC

O&M Committee members

Community Volunteers and Community residents

IP tribal leader, if the barangay covers or is covered by a known Ancestral Domain, either in part or in whole.

AC

CEF

TF

MFA


1. In preparation for the barangay accountability review (AR):

1.1 The AC submits report to the SRPMO that the municipality is already eligible to

facilitate the transition. The SRPMO endorses the report to the RPMO and both validates the report. The RPMO issues “No Objection” to the municipality upon validation.

1.2 The RPMO provides guidance to the SRPMO on how to facilitate the transition and conduct of Accountability Reporting and the SRPMO coaches the ACTs prior to the activity.

1.3 The AC meets with the MDRRMC and orients them on the accountability review activities, and discusses their role and participation in the various accountability activities.

1.4 The CEF meets with the Barangay Chairperson to plan for the AR, and mobilizes the BLGU in ensuring attendance and participation of CVs.

57

1.5 The CEF meets with the Community Monitoring Team, BRT and the BSPMC to prepare them for their roles in the meeting, and conducts dry-run, simulation, and role-play with the CVs.

1.6 Additional technical assistance is tapped from the RPMO and/or SRPMO prior to the meeting, if needed.

2. During the actual barangay AR

2.1 The head of the Community Monitoring Team presents a historical review of the

activities conducted at the community beginning with the MDRRMC Meeting and the Community Consultation. Emphasis is given on the Rapid Assessment matrix presented during the community consultation. Presentation ends with a review of the commitments made by the MLGU, BLGU, and other NGAs and NGOs to support the disaster response and early recovery of the community.

2.2 The BSPMC Chairperson presents an update of status of subproject implementation activities.

2.3 The BLGU and MDRRMC representative presents updates on status of commitment from other partners and stakeholders.

2.4 The CEF facilitates assessment of (i) experience using DROP and commitments and activities undertaken; (ii) surfaces problems, issues, and gaps; (iii) generates recommendations to address existing gaps and issues; (iv) surfaces lessons, and; (v) generates recommendations for improving activities and processes for the next cycle.

2.5 CEF requests the Barangay Captain for motion to present the results of the review to the municipal accountability reporting.

3. After the barangay AR

3.1 The CEF meets with the Barangay Captain to firm-up commitments on BLGU support

(including fund support) for: (i) operation and maintenance of subprojects; (ii) transitioning to Standard CEAC implementation; and (iii) issuance of Barangay Resolution on commitments above.

3.2 The CEF and his/her municipal counterpart meet with Community Monitoring Team, BRTs, and BSPMC Chairperson and prepare them for the municipal accountability reporting and succeeding activities.

3.3 AC informs the SRPMO and RPMO the needed Technical Assistance (TA) for the municipal AR, and prepares plan for the conduct of the activity.

e. Standards: The following standards should be observed in conducting barangay AR:

1. The CEF prepares key questions to focus discussions on critical elements of the review (i.e. "Is DROP an effective strategy to address emergency and early recovery needs? What could have been done better? What areas need improvement? What are your suggestion and recommendation to improve DROP implementation? What were the critical commitments of other agencies and partners on the emergency and early recovery of the

58

barangay?", "Were these delivered adequately?", "Did those who commit deliver?", "Were there challenges to participation of women and other vulnerable groups? Were these challenges addressed adequately?", and similar questions) prior to the consultation. This is informed by ocular visits, key informant interviews, and integration by the CEF with community members (cross sectoral) prior to the meeting.

2. The CEF, with assistance of CMT members, also develops simple visual aids such as flowcharts of key activities undertaken, graphs to show accomplishments and delivery of commitments, and a glossary of technical terms, translated into the vernacular, prior to the meeting. Where possible, the CEF ensures that workflows, and planning templates and tools are written on the board or on manila paper, in the local dialect, and posted around the venue for people to freely read, and serve as basis for assessment.

3. The CEF together with his/her counterpart conduct dry-run/simulation and role-play prior to the meeting to identify potential issues and concerns, and refine the meeting facilitation plan.

4. The AR is chaired by the Barangay Chairperson. 5. The CEF facilitates the meeting. The CMT head presents the report. 6. The CEF ensures that the language used in the discussion is simple and in the vernacular

so that it is easily understood. 7. Vulnerable groups (women, IP, communities in GIDAs, Pantawid Pamilya HHs, Conflict-

Affected Areas (CAAs), and HHs affected by land acquisition and resettlement Program activities, if any, are adequately represented.

8. Reactions to the presentation are solicited, questions are adequately answered, and recommendations discussed. Where needed, separate meetings are conducted for vulnerable groups (women and IPs) to solicit reactions, questions, and recommendations.

9. Additional consultations are conducted (at sitio, purok, or tribe) in IP, conflict areas, and GIDAs to ensure wide dissemination of information and maximum participation of vulnerable groups.

10. Simple reflection is facilitated to (i) evoke observations, including feelings, of participants on the proceedings, the process of how decisions are made, and the decisions themselves; (ii) soliciting reflections and insights out of what was observed/felt during the proceedings; and, (iii) generating resolve to (decisions) undertake action and next steps.

11. Activity reports and other documents are submitted within seven (7) days after the activity.

5.1.2 Municipal Accountability Reporting (1 day)

a. Objectives:

1. To inform the community members on the status of the subproject and for public disclosure of all aspects of the implementation including synthesis from GRS and actions taken.

2. Review and assess commitments made and delivered by the MLGU and other stakeholders.

59

3. Identify lessons in Program implementation using the DROM in the barangay and municipality, and recommendations for implementation of succeeding cycles using the accelerated CEAC process.

b. Key Outputs:

1. Documentation of learning and assessment of the cycle based on shared reports and

assessment. 2. Municipal Resolution to provide support to O&M and implementation of succeeding

cycles. 3. Barangay Resolution to (i) provide support to O&M; (ii) authorizing transition from

DROP to Regular CEAC implementation.

c. Participants:


Municipal Mayor

Municipal Vice Mayor

Sangguniang Bayan members

MIAC/LPRAT/MDRRMC members

MCT

NCIP representative, and IPMR, in municipalities with known ancestral domains.

Community Monitors

BRTs

IP leaders, in municipalities with known ancestral domains.

ACT members

SRPMO and RPMO representatives


1. In preparation for the municipal accountability reporting

1.1 The ACT consolidates the barangay AR reports, NGA PPA commitments, and proposed

projects for the NCDDP, in a municipal map.

1.2 The AC meets with the MCT, Municipal Planning and Development Officer (MPDO) and other members of the MIAC/MDRRMC to discuss the consolidated results of the Barangay AR, and conduct a dry-run/simulation of the Municipal AR. The facilitation plan for the activity is adjusted as needed.

2. During the actual municipal AR

60

2.1 The MDRRMO presents a historical review of the activities conducted in the municipality, beginning with the MDRRMC Meeting and the Community Consultation Assembly. Emphasis is given on the consolidated LGU-NGA PPA matrix developed from the result of the Rapid Assessment. The presentation ends with a review of the commitments made by the MLGU, BLGU, and other NGAs and NGOs to support the disaster response and early recovery of the barangays.

2.2 The MCT MAC presents an update of the status of subproject implementation activities. S/he also presents the status of other projects to address needs identified in the consolidated NGA-LGU PPA matrix, including integration of other needs into the MDP.

2.3 The AC facilitates: (i) assessment of commitments and activities undertaken; (ii) surfaces problems, issues, and gaps; (iii) generates recommendations to address existing gaps and issues; (iv) surfaces lessons, and; (v) generates recommendations for improving activities and processes for the next cycle.

2.4 AC requests the Municipal Mayor for motion to approve the recommendations made. 2.5 AC facilitates formation of the Multi-Stakeholders Inspectorate Team (MSIT) who will

conduct the Sustainability Evaluation Test for early recovery subprojects six (6) months after subproject completion and turn-over.

2.6 The AC facilitates short reflection session on the activity and proceedings.

3. After the AR

3.1 The ACT, with the assistance of the RPMO and/or SRPMO, meets with the Municipal Mayor to discuss enhancements to the NCDDP Specific Implementation Arrangements (SIA) for the succeeding cycle implementation using the standard CEAC or LGU-led modality, including compliance with environment, involuntary resettlement, and Indigenous Peoples safeguards, and Gender guidelines.

3.2 The draft SIA is presented to the Vice Mayor as chairperson of the Sangguniang Bayan, for review and issuance of municipal resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the revised SIA.

3.3 The ACT, MCT, and MIAC prepare implementation plan for the succeeding cycle using the standard CEAC or LGU-led modality (whichever is applicable), based on the recommendations from the municipal AR.

e. Standards: The following standards should be observed in facilitating the municipal

accountability review:

1. The Mayor opens the meetings. 2. The AC facilitates the meeting and discussions. 3. The community facilitators prepare a barangay-level synthesis of the results of the

barangay level review. 4. The AC prepares key questions to focus discussions on critical elements of the review (i.e.

"Is DROP an effective strategy to address emergency and early recovery needs?” “What could have been done better?”, “What areas need improvement?”, “What are your

61

suggestion and recommendation to improve DROP implementation?”, “What were the critical commitments of other agencies and partners on the early recovery and rehabilitation of the barangay?", "Were these delivered adequately?", "Did those who commit deliver?", "Were there challenges to participation of women and other vulnerable groups?”, Were these challenges addressed adequately?", and similar questions) prior to the consultation. This is informed by ocular visits, key informant interviews, and integration by the AC with MLGU members (cross sectoral) prior to the meeting.

5. The ACT also develops simple visual aids such as flowcharts of key activities undertaken, graphs to show accomplishments and delivery of commitments, and a glossary of technical terms, translated into the vernacular, prior to the meeting. Where possible, the AC ensures that key Program policies and work breakdown structures, workflows, and planning templates and tools are written on the board or on manila paper, in the local dialect, and posted around the venue for people to freely read, and serve as basis for assessment.

6. Barangay Participants for this activity (BRT and CMT) are selected during the community consultations under the social preparation stage.

7. Reactions to the presentations are solicited, questions are adequately answered, and recommendations discussed.

8. Where an IP community covers more than one barangay, consider separate meetings of IP leaders.

9. MSIT is headed by the MPDC, and composed of the members of the MIAC. The ACT provides technical and facilitation support to the team. The MSIT will be organized by subproject typology (Schools and Day care, Health Stations, Water Systems, Post-harvest Facilities, Roads and Bridges, etc.)

10. Simple reflection follows of (i) evoking observations, including feelings, of participants on the proceedings, the process of how decisions are made, and the decisions themselves; (ii) soliciting reflections and insights out of what was observed/felt during the proceedings; and (iii) generating resolve to (decisions) undertake action and next steps.

11. The AC works in close coordination and partnership with the MDRRMC, MLGOO and the MPDC in ground working MIAC members for follow-through activities.

12. Activity reports and other documents are submitted seven (7) days after the forum. 5.2 Conduct of Sustainability Evaluation (per subproject; 1 – 2 days per subproject)

a. Objectives:

1. To assess sustainability performance and actual utilization of completed subproject

(planned vs. actual)

2. Evaluate quality of community sustainability program and activities along various

components (including organizational effectiveness, financial management, physical-

technical conditions, and benefits of sub-projects); and

62

3. To identify and address issues affecting sustainability of the facility and services provided

through the facility.

b. Key Outputs:

1. Subprojects are validated to be technically functional.

2. Subproject O&M arrangements are validated to be sustainable.

c. Participants:


MSIT members composed

of:

- Mayor’s

representative

- MPDC

- ME

- Representatives

from MIAC, SB, PLGU

- Barangay

Chairperson, other

BLGU officials

MCT

NCIP representative, and

IPMR, in municipalities

with known ancestral

domains.

O&M group officers and

members

Representatives from non-

prioritized barangays

CSOs operating in the

barangay or municipality

IP leaders, in

municipalities with known

ancestral domains.

AC

DAC

CIO

NPMO and RPMO

representatives


1. In preparation for the sustainability evaluation

1.1 Multi-Stakeholders Inspectorate Team (MSIT) is formed during Municipal

Accountability Reporting session. ACT and MCT meet with the MSIT to: (i) orient them

on their roles and functions, (ii) discuss the objectives and procedures of the

sustainability evaluation including the tools, (iii) plan for the sustainability evaluation,

(iv) level-off on concerns such as composition of evaluation teams and methodology

63

in filling-up rating forms (consensus or individual method), and (v) finalize the

schedule and other logistics and administrative preparations. Annex 3D provides the

Procedures for the conduct of SE and the sustainability evaluation tools (SET).

1.2 AC meets with the municipal Mayor to ensure support for the activities of the MSIT.

1.3 The AC mobilizes technical assistance support from the RPMO and SRPMO for the

conduct of SE.

1.4 The ACT and MCT meet with the RPMT to (i) generate a list of all completed

subprojects in the municipality; and, (ii) gather and review documents on file about

the subprojects (i.e., subproject completion report, previous SE results, etc.).

1.5 ACT and MCT meet to plan for the conduct of sustainability evaluation to: (i) attend

to, and finalize logistics and administrative requirements and coordination

arrangements, and (ii) ensure documents and other reference materials have been

secured/prepared by the MSIT/MSIT Secretariat.

2. During the SE:

2.1. The O&M group representatives are convened by the MSIT members, and oriented

on the objectives of the activity, procedures of evaluation and their roles.

2.2. The MSIT, together with the O&M group representatives, undertake actual

inspection of structures and sub-structures. FGD will follow to generate responses to

the indicators under study.

2.3. After generating the computation of the Final Rating, the MSIT shall conduct an exit

conference with the FGD participants to: (i) present the findings, observations and

recommendations to the O&M group, and (ii) jointly analyze with the O&M groups

the gaps and weaknesses identified during the evaluation.

2.4. After the discussions, the FGD participants shall proceed to the preparation of an

Action Plan to address the findings presented during the exit conference.

2.5. The agreements are then summarized, placing emphasis on the critical follow-

through activities. Before dispersing, the group shall set the schedule of the next

sustainability evaluation.

3. After the SE:

3.1 ACT and MCT assist the MSIT in consolidating the evaluation results.

64

3.2 If adverse findings are found, the MPDC and the appropriate MIAC member meet

with the BLGU, BRT, and O&M group leaders of the identified subproject, and prepare

action plan to resolve the issue and restore and/or enhance the service.

3.3 ACT and MCT sit down with the MSIT Secretariat or the designated documenter to

finalize the documentation.

3.4 ACT gathers copies of the Process Documentation, summary of SE results and Action

Plan per subproject and file these neatly for future reference.

3.5 Furnish the RPMO and NPMO a copy of the Process Documentation,

consolidated/summary of SE result and Action Plan per Subproject within one week

of the conduct of the activity, and duly accomplished and signed SET within two

weeks of the conduct of the sustainability evaluation.

3.6 Ensure that the MSIT and the CEF in-charge of the Barangay monitor the

implementation of the Action plan using the monthly O&M monitoring tool.

3.7 The ACT and MCT facilitate a short reflection session on the conduct of the


e. Standards:

1. Technical Assistance is provided to community O&M groups by concerned/identified

organizations/individuals to address observed gaps to ensure sustainability of sub-

projects.

2. SE is conducted six (6) months after subproject completion and turn over, and one year

thereafter, in accordance with the procedures outlined in Annex 3D.

3. The SE is undertaken for all completed subprojects.

4. SE reports (Process Documentation, consolidated/summary of SE result and Action Plan

per Subproject) are submitted within one week of the conduct of the activity, and duly

accomplished and signed SET within two weeks of the conduct of the sustainability

evaluation.

65

6. Transition from DROP to Regular CEAC

The DROP is treated as an interim procedure. This means that there is just one CEAC, the Regular

CEAC. The DROP is a temporary procedure that can be adopted to facilitate a responsive

implementation when a disaster strikes an NCDDP municipality. After implementing the

emergency response and early recovery activities, communities will go back to the Regular CEAC.

Transition from DROP to Regular CEAC will be triggered by the completion of the activities or

projects with Program intervention. As a wrap-up activity for the DROP, a simplified Municipal

Accountability Reporting (MAR) will be conducted. The MAR shall include: (i) discussion of

highlights of the performance/experiences of the barangays and municipality using DROP, and

(ii) municipal meeting to launch the implementation of the succeeding cycle. A Municipal

Resolution shall support the decision of the MLGU to transition from DROP implementation to

Regular CEAC, to be generated during the conduct of the MAR.

The AR will commence after completion of all subprojects in all barangays. The Accountability

Reporting will still be done in two (2) levels: first, completed in all barangays then followed by

the Municipal Level AR.

Where DROP was used as an interim procedure and after the conduct of the AR, communities

shall resume the same cycle on the specific CEAC activity which was interrupted due to the

triggering of the DROP (that is, if not all barangays were disaster-affected). Otherwise,

resumption of CEAC will be for the succeeding cycle.

66

7. Simplified Monitoring and Evaluation

Procedures and tools for the major activities in KC-NCDDP Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) will

be simplified under disaster response operations. Refer to Annex 1F for the details.

The ACT should also actively include in their agenda any problems, issues, needs and concerns

(PINCOs)/grievances that arise during the implementation and feedback them to the Regional

Grievance Monitor. Grievance Monitors shall also ensure that all program staff are fully aware of

the KC-NCDDP GRS through provision of GRS Handbooks, conduct of trainings and continuous

provision of technical assistance at all levels.

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1:

ENABLING PROGRAM POLICIES ON DROP

UTILIZATION

Annex 1A: Financial Guidance on Damaged, Suspended and Terminated Sub-Projects (Community-Based Finance Manual, pages 43 – 45) What Happens when On-Going Sub-Project is Damaged by Disaster or Calamity? In case on-going sub-project is damaged by disaster, the BSPMC shall undertake the following steps: A. For Sub-Projects Implemented through Community Force Account (CFA)

1. Determine estimated cost of damages with the assistance of the DAC. 2. If rehabilitation cost is within the Contingency Fund provided in the POW, the

community shall immediately request for the release of said funds or incorporate with the immediately succeeding tranche RFR. A Certification by the BSPMC Chairperson that the sub-project was damaged by disaster before completion, confirmed by the Punong Barangay, AC and the RPM must be attached. The certificate should indicate the amount needed to complete damaged portion of the sub-project.

3. If rehabilitation cost is more than the Contingency Fund provided in the POW, the community shall access additional funds from local government units or other funding sources. Otherwise, suspend sub-project implementation and follow procedures set forth in the Disaster Response Operations Manual (DROM). Upon suspension, the following documents must be submitted to the DSWD-RO through the ACT: a. A Certification by the BSPMC Chairperson or any member that the subproject was

damaged by disaster before completion, confirmed by the Punong Barangay and AC. This certification must be supported with estimated cost of damages.

b. Sub-Project Physical Accomplishment Report after disaster with photos of damages.

B. For Sub-Projects Implemented through Contract Follow provisions set forth in the Community-Based Procurement Manual on Variation Order or Contract Termination due to force majeure. What Happens when On-Going Sub-Project Not Damaged but Needs to be Suspended due to Disaster or Calamity? In case on-going sub-project although not damaged but need to be suspended because access (i.e. roads, bridges) to the sub-project site is damaged by disaster or calamity rendering it unreachable by suppliers of goods and services and restoration of these access are beyond the Program timeline, the following activities must be conducted: 1. Acquire certification from the Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council

(MDRRMC) that access to sub-project site are damaged by disaster or calamity. 2. Conduct final inspection of the sub-project. 3. Conduct Barangay Assembly to report and discuss the situation based on the MDRRMC

Certification and agree on the suspension. Actual physical and financial status must be reported during this gathering including remaining funds for refunds to the DSWD and/or LGUs.

4. Process refunds of DSWD and/or LGUs grant funds.

5. Execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the Municipal and Barangay Local Government Units providing their commitment to complete the suspended subproject once access are restored.

6. Submit the following documents to the ACT: a. MDRRMC Certification b. Final Inspection Report c. BA Resolution suspending Sub-Project implementation and approving refunds of

unutilized grants d. Memorandum of Agreement e. Financial documents and reports among others:

• Status of Sub-Project Fund Utilization Report • Bank Statement • Bank Reconciliation Statement • Original set of Disbursement Vouchers and supporting documents • Final PCF Liquidation Reports

What Happens when On-Going Sub-Project Needs to be Terminated due to Disaster or Calamity? In case on-going sub-project needs to be terminated because the site is declared risky or hazardous to the beneficiaries due to disaster or calamity, the following activities must be conducted: 1. Acquire certification from the Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council

(MDRRMC) declaring the sub-project risky or hazardous 2. Conduct final inspection of the sub-project. 3. Conduct Barangay Assembly to report and discuss the situation based on the MDRRMC

Certification and agree on the suspension. Actual physical and financial status must be reported during this gathering including remaining funds for refunds to the DSWD and/or LGUs.

4. Process refunds of DSWD and/or LGUs grant funds. 5. Execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the Municipal and Barangay Local

Government Units providing their commitment to complete the suspended subproject once access are restored.

6. Submit the following documents to the ACT: a. MDRRMC Certification b. Final Inspection Report c. BA Resolution terminating Sub-Project implementation and approving refunds of

unutilized grants d. Memorandum of Agreement e. Financial documents and reports among others:

• Status of Sub-Project Fund Utilization Report • Bank Statement • Bank Reconciliation Statement • Original set of Disbursement Vouchers and supporting documents • Final PCF Liquidation Reports

Annex 1B: Additional Guidance on Social and Environmental Safeguards1

The use of KC-NCDDP for post-disaster response may result in different types of sub-projects

where the nature and scope of activities is intended to respond to the early recovery of the

areas affected by the disaster. The guidance provided in the KC-NCDDP Safeguards Sub-

Manual will continue to apply to the KC-NCDDP disaster response operations modality.

The NCDDP disaster response operations procedures is designed for enabling an accelerated

response to disaster scenarios, which - by their very nature – usually cause substantial

negative environmental and social impacts. The procedures include a range of mitigation,

repair and restoration measures to restore pre-disaster conditions, if possible with a higher

degree of resilience. The disaster event with the highest likelihood of occurrence during the

project implementation period would be a tropical storm (typhoon), with extremely high wind

speeds, and high amounts of precipitation.

The main primary impacts caused by this scenario would include coastal and inland flooding,

erosion, landslides and mudflows, damage of river bank protection and hydrotechnical

installations, uprooting of trees, damage to infrastructure, roads, dwellings and other

buildings, deposition of mud, sediments and debris over large areas, including agricultural

plots.

Modification in allowable and disallowed subprojects and activities

Due to the widespread damage associated with an extreme weather event the following

additional activities are envisaged and would be allowed for under the contingent disaster

response sub-component:

1. Repair of rural and local roads, and repair/reconstruction of small bridges with a maximum span of up to 15m.

2. Backfill, reshaping and landscaping of areas affected by erosion 3. Repair of existing riverbank protection systems and earth-fill dykes up to 5m height if

supervised by a qualified engineer 4. Construction of temporary bypass roads up to 500 m length, if not located in sensitive

habitats and land acquisition follows the provisions of the main ESMF and bypasses are completely removed and the alignment restored to its original conditions once the need for their service has expired

5. Repair / reconstruction of communal irrigation and water supply systems and of facilities that they have been completed with project funding.

6. Collection and removal of technogenic debris (building parts, mixed waste, timber) such as uprooted trees and plant debris from public infrastructure, public spaces and

1 This section is likewise included in the KC-NCDDP Environmental and Social Safeguards Framework (ESMF) as Annex B, entitled “Safeguards Provisions under the Disaster Response Operations Procedures of the National Community-Driven Development Program”

agricultural areas, and its deposition in pre-existing waste management facilities that are operating under national licensing and regulations and compliant with normal practices in the country.

7. Repair of public buildings (including barangay halls, school buildings, daycare centers, government offices, tribal halls, meeting hall, multi-purpose centers and places of congregation used as administrative spaces for disaster and relief operations and information dissemination) and infrastructure (e.g. transmission lines, street lighting, traffic signs, bus stops)

8. The procurement of tools and equipment for purposes of removal of debris (i.e. chain saws and/or bolt/wire cutters), provided that the purchase is approved by, and the tools are subsequently registered with the appropriate regulatory agencies.

9. Shelter, including emergency and transitional shelter and temporary housing, and support for permanent shelter repair in safe areas

10. Setting up of temporary facilities to deliver basic service needs of affected communities, such as field schools, temporary health facilities, and water facilities.

Required safeguards requirements for the above-mentioned sub-projects are enumerated in

Annex A.

Activities listed above would only be carried out in the event of an emergency (i.e they are

not part of NCDDP’s regular project menu). The scope of these activities as well as the

simplified implementation procedures that would apply to all NCDPP contingent sub-

component activities are outlined in greater detail in the Disaster Response Operations

Manual.

The list of eligible subprojects (Annex 2) has been compiled to include certain activities

associated with disaster response and post-disaster reconstruction that fulfill one or more of

the following criteria: (i) environmentally risky, (ii) may create impacts that require more

sophisticated planning and preparation of mitigation measures, (iii) have technical

complexities and requirements that would go beyond the capacity normally available in a CDD

project environment, (iv) would trigger additional safeguards policies or change the project’s

safeguards category, (v) are not aligned with public interests or do not benefit common goods

or public services.

Applying the above criteria to the anticipated context of the contingent disaster response

sub-component, the following list of activities has been identified to be ineligible for support

under the program:

repair of facilities storing hazardous substances (e.g. fuel depots), except simple clearing of debris or landslide materials on access roads and perimeters;

major repair or reconstruction of damaged waste management facilities, except the collection of spilled and dispersed waste from the facility and returning it to its original position on the facility, or a safe temporary repository on the perimeter;

repair of privately owned production facilities;

any “salvage logging” operations (which might be undertaken as result of storm damage to forests);

repair of dykes or dams that are higher than higher than 5 m, or store water volumes larger than 1,000,000 m3;

construction of new temporary or permanent infrastructure to bypass devastated areas which have a segment length of > 500 m, and a cumulative length of 2,000 m within a corridor of 10 km or less;

construction of new, or substantial expansion of existing flood protection works involving the conversion of floodplains, riverine forests, and mangrove;

bulk purchase of fuel, lubricants, pesticides, herbicides or other hazardous substances;

any activity in a sensitive or protected natural habitats as defined by OP4.04, except the removal of debris and the repair of pre-existing infrastructure, e.g. access roads or park ranger buildings.

Additional Safeguards Provisions

Under the disaster response operations procedures no activities are anticipated that would

require provisions and mitigation measures that are significantly different from the main

NCDDP. All key relevant provisions for environmental and social management are already

contained in the ESMF and would remain fully applicable to disaster response operations.

The additional activities described in the positive list would not change the project’s

safeguards category or trigger additional safeguards policies.

The following provisions refer to selected aspects of the positive list that warrant specific

considerations, and should be seen as guidance to increase readiness and facilitate

implementation should the disaster response procedures be triggered. The additional

provisions will not require substantial additional resources, skills or capacity.

Provisions for road repair and bypass construction works: The repair and reconstruction of

roads, as well as of temporary bypasses should follow general good practice in engineering

and environmental management, as described e.g. in the World Bank’s “Handbook on Roads

and the Environment” (technical paper No. 376). Special attention should be paid to the

following issues:

Where road embankments have been damaged by flooding the reason may be insufficient dimensioning of the original drainage system. In the course of repair and reconstruction the placement of new culverts should be considered to avoid the damming and accumulation of precipitation that can cause erosion and collapse of embankments. This measure, combined with diligent repair and maintenance (cleaning) of drainage ditches and existing culverts would help to increase the resilience against future storm and flood events.

If temporary bypasses are required due to damaged bridges, landslides, collapsed embankments etc. they should be constructed in a manner to maximize their functionality and minimize negative environmental impacts. Their length would be

limited to 500 m per segment (and to 2,000 m within a 10 km stretch of road corridor) and they would not be allowed in or adjacent to protected areas or sensitive habitats. They would be constructed to allow complete removal after decommissioning, e.g. by placing a layer of geotextile under the temporary embankment, and using geotextile to maximize structural stability while economizing on material demand. Often suitable coarse aggregate may be difficult to find, in which case geotextile layering (“reinforced earth”) would be a both technically and environmentally suitable solution for temporary road construction.

The fill material required for temporary bypass construction should be minimized and sourced from either pre-exiting, licensed borrow areas, or from the earth and debris deposited by floods and / or landslides.

Temporary embankments should be bunded and / or equipped with silt barriers drainage ditches and sedimentation ponds to avoid excessive siltation of the immediate surroundings. This will be especially important in areas of agricultural use and near settlements.

After the repair of the original road sections the bypass must be completely removed and the area restored to its original condition.

If any temporary bridges are constructed they must allow free flow of water, avoid the narrowing of the cross section of the watercourse and resulting change of flow speed, and minimize disturbance of the river bed and resulting turbidity (deploy silt barriers, minimize vehicle movement in and close to river bed). Complete removal and restoration of the river banks must be ensured after the bypass ceases to be required and is decommissioned.

Provisions for waste management: Mineral substances (earth, sand, gravel, rocks), organic

waste and “technogenic” waste (resulting from goods, objects or structures made of artificial,

synthetic materials) should be separately collected and treated in the manner described

below:

Mineral substances are considered environmentally harmless and should - as far as their geotechnical properties are sufficiently acceptable - be reused as backfill for damaged earthworks (e.g. embankments, dykes) or as fill for landscaping areas. Fine materials with poor geotechnical quality could still be used to fill depressions and raise ground to increase local flood resilience. Superfluous materials that cannot be reasonable reused should be deposited in a safe, stable, unused area outside zones prone to flooding or landslides. They should be emplaced with stable slope angles, lightly compacted and vegetated.

Organic waste, such as wood, timber, plant debris, should be collected and as far as possible separated. Reusable and recyclable items (timber, wood as construction material or fuel) should be extracted, and only the remaining plant debris deposited in a safe area for composting. The compost could later be reused in agricultural activities. If biofuel burning power plants, or biogas reactors are in the affected area these would also be potential recycling pathways.

Technogenic waste should be collected and recyclables (e.g. plastic bottles, glass, metals) as well as reusable items as far as possible extracted. The remaining fraction should be deposited at a pre-existing waste management facility that is licensed under domestic regulations and operated according to prevailing good practice in the

Philippines. While this could constitute a deviation from the World Bank Group’s EHS (environment, health and safety) guidelines, which demand the implementation of GIIP2 it would be deemed acceptable under the circumstances because: (i) not collecting the waste would carry a negative impact of larger magnitude; (ii) the incremental negative impact of contributing to an existing facility not operated according to GIIP would be negligible; (iii) there may be no technically or economically feasible alternatives; (iv) compliance with national regulations would be ensured; (v) the waste segregation before deposition would minimize its quantity, and (vi) none of the expected waste types are deemed hazardous.

Provisions for works in or near protected areas: All allowable works in protected areas must

be supervised by qualified personnel from the park service, nature protection agency or

environmental protection agency. Also the project’s environmental specialist should receive,

review and approve a detailed work plan (including maps and drawings) that specifies the

exact nature, location, dimensions, and footprint of the works, as well as the planned

environmental and social management and mitigation measures and the special provisions

and precautions to be followed. The works would be absolutely restricted to the repair of

small scale, pre-existing community and park infrastructure.

Provisions for repair of dams and dykes: All works on dams and dykes designated as water

retention structures above 3m height need to be supervised by an experienced and qualified

civil engineer. The maximum allowable height of dams and dykes that may be carried out

under the project would be 5m, or the maximum allowable storage volume 1,000,000 m3.

Monitoring and Supervision

All arrangements for safeguards monitoring and supervision that are in place for the main project would also be applicable to disaster response operations; including internal and external monitoring of sub-grant tranches, technical completion reports and technical audits, and sustainability evaluations. In the event of more complex or potentially sensitive subprojects, CFs and ACTs would seek advice from relevant RPMO and NPMO staff, and the World Bank’s and ADB’s environmental and social specialists during activity preparation and implementation. Examples of such types of subprojects include:

1. repair / reconstruction of small bridges (span up to 15 m); 2. construction of temporary bypass roads up to 500 m length, if (i) not located in

sensitive habitats and (ii) land acquisition follows the provisions of the main ESMF and (iii) the bypasses are completely removed and the alignment restored to its original conditions once the need for their service has expired;

3. Repair of river bank protection systems and earth-fill dykes up to 5m height if supervised by a qualified civil engineer;

4. works near waste management facilities or other installations with elevated environmental risk levels;

2 Good international industry practice.

5. works in or adjacent to national parks or sensitive or critical habitats and within IP ancestral lands/domains.

The Simplified Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) is included as Annex 4A of

the main document. Additional guidelines on Safety form Hazards and Development Activities

are likewise included as Attachment B.

Annex A: List of Allowable Activities and Corresponding Safeguards Requirements

List of Allowable Activities ESMP

(Simplified

Version)

Indigenous People

Environment

LARR

1. Repair of rural and local roads, and repair/reconstruction of small bridges with a maximum span of

up to 15m.

Yes BDRMMC Resolution

2. Backfill, reshaping and landscaping of areas affected by

erosion

Yes

3. Repair of existing riverbank protection systems and earth-fill

dykes up to 5m height if supervised by a qualified engineer

Yes BDRRMC Resolution

4. Construction of temporary bypass roads up to 500 m length, if not located in sensitive habitats and

land acquisition follows the provisions of the main ESMF and

bypasses are completely removed and the alignment restored to its original conditions once the need

for their service has expired

Yes Highlights of

Consultation Conducted

BDRMMC Resolution (if

within environmentally

critical area)

Usufruct Agreement


(Simplified

Version)

Indigenous People

Environment

LARR

5. Repair / reconstruction of communal irrigation and water supply systems and of facilities that they have been completed

with project funding.

Yes Highlights of


BDRRMC Resolution

6. Collection and removal of technogenic debris (building parts,

mixed waste, timber) such as uprooted trees and plant debris

from public infrastructure, public spaces and agricultural areas, and

its deposition in pre-existing waste management facilities that

are operating under national licensing and regulations and

compliant with normal practices in the country.

Yes

7. Repair of public buildings (including barangay halls, school

buildings, daycare centers, government offices, tribal halls,

meeting hall, multi-purpose centers and places of congregation used as

Yes BDRRMC Resolution


(Simplified

Version)

Indigenous People

Environment

LARR

administrative spaces for disaster and relief operations and

information dissemination) and infrastructure (e.g. transmission lines, street lighting, traffic signs,

bus stops)

8. The procurement tools and equipment for purposes of

removal of debris (i.e. chain saws and/or bolt/wire cutters),

provided that the purchase is approved by, and the tools are

subsequently registered with the appropriate regulatory agencies.

9. Shelter, including emergency and transitional shelter and temporary

housing, and support for permanent shelter repair in safe

areas

Yes Highlights of


Usufruct Agreement

10. Setting up of temporary facilities to deliver basic service needs of affected communities, such as field schools, temporary health facilities, and water facilities.

Yes Highlights of


Usufruct Agreement

Annex B: Guidelines for Safety from Hazards and Development Activities

Guidelines for Safety from Hazards and Development Activities in the Implementation of

KC-NCDDP Community Identified Projects

Section 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Kalahi CIDSS - National Community Driven Development Program is committed to

helping communities in post Yolanda rehabilitation thru a CDD-based approach that

accentuates the role of citizens in DRRM. Global experience shows that communities that are

encouraged to participate directly in decision-making and implementation using key elements

of the community-driven development approach, has a greater chance to rebuild more

sustainably after a disaster.

1.2 The World Bank in 2005 indicated that over a third (36%) of the population in the

Philippines was exposed to three or more hazards and nearly three quarters (74%) was

exposed to two or more hazards. About 70 percent of the total population live in coastal

communities, which is considered high risks to climate-induced hazards including storm

surges, sea level rise, and extreme events.

1.3 Typhoon Yolanda struck the Philippines on November 9, 2013. According to an official

document of NEDA (Reconstruction Assistance for Yolanda: Implementation for Results),

about 490,000 homes were totally damaged by Yolanda and 520,000 homes partially

damaged. The high numbers is said to be mainly due to the poor quality of construction, and

the location of affected sites, being positioned in coastal areas where the storm surge hit.

1.4 As part of the overall government response to address needs resulting from the damage

from Typhoon Yolanda, while at the same time ensuring that rehabilitation efforts are

consistent with the principles of building back better as well as ensure improved resiliency

from future disasters, the Joint DENR-DILG-DND-DPWH-DOST Memorandum Circular NO.

2014-01, issued on 05 November 2014 and with subject: Adoption of Hazard Zone

Classification in Areas Affected by Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) and Providing the Guidelines

for Activities Therein (herein attached as Annex A), provides specific guidance on the Hazard

Zone Classification and Recommended Action (Section 6), and Criteria for Hazard Zone

Classification (Section 7).

1.5 To ensure consistency with government rehabilitation efforts, the KC-NCDDP hereby

adopts the above-named JMC, and in particular Sections 6 and 7 therein, in (i) determining

suitable locations for community subprojects to be proposed for KC-NCDDP support, and; (ii)

providing guidance to Area Coordinating Teams (ACT) in assisting communities to make

decisions on subprojects, as well as appropriate subproject design options, to address

hazards.

Section 2: POLICY BASIS

2.1 These guidelines are based on the following relevant national laws and policies;

a. Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of the Philippines, Section 20 (c):

“The local government units shall, in conformity with existing laws, continue to prepare their respective comprehensive land use plans enacted through zoning ordinances which shall be the primary bases for the future use of land resources: Provided, that the requirements for food production, human settlements, and industrial expansion shall be taken into consideration in the preparation of the plans. “

b. Republic Act No. 386, the Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 638: “The banks of rivers

and streams, even in case they are of private ownership, are subject throughout their entire length and within a zone of three meters along their margins, to the easement of public use in the general interest of navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage.”

c. Republic Act No. 8371, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act;

i. Section 7 on Rights to Ancestral Domains: “The rights of ownership and

possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains shall be recognized and protected.”

ii. Section 8 on Rights to Ancestral Lands: “The rights of ownership and possession of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral lands shall be recognized and protected.”

iii. Section 29 on Protection of Indigenous Culture, Traditions and Institutions: “The State shall respect, recognize and protect the right of ICCs/IPs to preserve and protect their culture, traditions and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation and application of national plans and policies.”

iv. Section 34 on Right to Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices and

Develop own Science and Technologies: “ICCs/IPs are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership and control and protection of their cultural and intellectual rights. They shall have the right to special measures to control, develop and protect their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations, including human and other genetic resources, seeds, including derivatives of these resources, traditional medicines and health practices, vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals, indigenous knowledge systems and practices, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literature, designs, and visual and performing arts.”

d. Presidential Decree No. 1067, the Water Code of the Philippines, Article 51: “The

banks or rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3) meters in urban areas, twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas and forty (40) meters in forest areas, along their margins, are subject to the easement of public use in the interest of recreation, navigation, floatage,

fishing and salvage. No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than what is necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage or to build structures of any kind.”

e. Presidential Decree No. 1096, the National Building Code of the Philippines, Section

105 on Site Requirements: “The land or site upon which will be constructed any building or structure, or any ancillary or auxiliary facility thereto, shall be sanitary, hygienic or safe. In the case of site or buildings intended for use as human habitation or abode, the same shall be at a safe distance, as determined by competent authorities, from streams or bodies of water and or sources considered to be polluted; from a volcano or volcanic site and/or any other building considered to be a potential source of fire or explosion.”

f. Presidential Decree No. 705, the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, Section 16:

“Areas needed for forest purposes. The following lands, even if they are below eighteen per cent (18%) in slope, are needed for forest purposes, and may not, therefore, be classified as alienable and disposable land, to wit:

i. Twenty-meter strips of land along the edge of the normal highwaterline of

rivers and streams with channels of at least five (5) meters wide; ii. Strips of mangrove or swamplands at least twenty (20) meterswide, along

shorelines facing oceans, lakes, and other bodies of water, and strips of land at least twenty (20) meters widefacing lakes;

g. Republic Act No. 10121, the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act

of 2010, Section 2 (g): “Mainstream disaster risk reduction and climate change in development processes such as policy formulation, socio-economic development planning, budgeting and governance, particularly in the areas of environment, agriculture, water, energy, health, education, poverty reduction, land use and/or urban planning, and public infrastructure and housing, among others.”

h. Joint DENR-DILG-DND-DPWH-DOST Memorandum Circular: “Adoption of Hazard Zone

Classification in Areas Affected by Typhoon Yolanda” (Annex A) particularly Section 6. Hazard Zone Classification and Recommended Activities, and; Section 7. Criteria for Hazard Zone Classification”

i. Environment Management Bureau Memorandum Circular 005 series of 2014:

“Revised guidelines for coverage screening and standardized requirement under the Philippine EIA system particularly section 3b, Technical Definition of Environmentally Critical Area and Corresponding Operations Guide

Section 3: OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND COVERAGE

3.1 This document aims to provide guidance to the ACTs in facilitating community decision-

making around selecting subprojects, determining appropriate location, and determining and

agreeing on options for subproject design, consistent with existing national laws and policies

and the principles of building back better, and shall be used in conjunction with processes and

activities outlined in the Accelerated and Standard Community Empowerment Process (CEAC)

of the Kalahi CIDSS – National Community-Driven Development Program (KC-NCDDP).

3.2 All RPMOs are directed to follow the specific steps, objectives, and general guidelines

enumerated in this guidance note.

Section 4: DEFINITION OF TERMS 4.1 Unless otherwise explicitly stated, the following terms as used in these guidelines shall carry the meanings as described below; Adaptive Capacity - ability to adjust to climate change to moderate damage, take advantage of opportunities or cope with consequences. Adaptive capacity is a function of the relative level of a society’s economic resources, access to technology, access to climate information, skills to make use of the information, institutions and equitable distribution of resources. In ecosystems, adaptive capacity is closely linked to biodiversity . Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development Protection Plan (ADSDPP) – is defined in the NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2004 as the consolidation of the plans of ICCs/IPs within an ancestral domain for sustainable management and development of their land and natural resources as well as development of human and cultural resources based on their indigenous knowledge, systems and practices. Comprehensive Land Use Plan – refers to a document that shall determine the specific uses of land and other physical and natural resources, both private and public, within their territorial jurisdiction including areas co-managed with the national government and, as appropriate, management plans for ancestral domains, critical watersheds, river basins, and protected areas. (HLURB CLUP Guidebook Volume 1, 2013) Community Empowerment Activity Cycle (CEAC) – refers to the five stage community mobilization process of the KC-NCDDP, involving (i) Social Preparation and Participatory Situation Analysis; (ii) Community Planning and Subproject Development and Approval; (iii) Community-managed Implementation and Community-Based Organization (CBO) Formation; (iv) Community Monitoring, and; (v) Transition. Comprehensive Rehabilitation and Recovery Plan (CRRP) – articulates the over-all strategic vision and integrated short-term, medium-term and, long-term plans and programs across the 171 priority cities and municipalities that were heavily affected by TS Yolanda. Controlled Zones – for purposes of this guidance notes, these are areas identified in local government zoning ordinances and/or comprehensive land use plans, for controlled use and development due to existence of multiple hazards but where development can be undertaken subject to appropriate mitigating measures and/or engineering interventions.

Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) – the document that presents KC-NCDDP’s environmental and social safeguards policies, standards, procedures, tools and monitoring that must be considered for every CDD project proposed and implemented by the community. Exposure - Character, magnitude and rate of hazard or climate signal to which a system is exposed, normally based on location. Hazard – a dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihood and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage. Hazard Zones – areas identified in the hazard maps as susceptible to natural hazards such as flooding, rain-induced landslides and storm surges. Hydro-meteorological hazard map – map indicating the level of susceptibility of areas to natural hazards such as flooding, landslides, storm surge, etc. Indigenous Knowledge, Systems, and Practices (IKSP) – is defined in the Implementing Rules

and Regulations of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), to refer to systems,

institutions, mechanisms and technologies comprising a unique body of knowledge evolved

through time that embody patterns of relationships between and among peoples, their lands

and resource environment, including such spheres of relationships which may cover social,

political, cultural, economic, religious spheres, and which are the direct outcome of the

indigenous peoples' responses to certain needs consisting of adaptive mechanisms which

have allowed indigenous peoples to survive and thrive within their given socio-cultural and

biophysical conditions.

No-Build Zone – these are the easement areas defined by the water code, civil code and revised forestry code of the Philippines) except for critical government infrastructure in support of economic development (i.e. ports, fish landings etc). No Dwelling Zone –areas not recommended for human habitation Reconstruction Assistance on Yolanda (RAY) - the Government’s strategic plan to guide the recovery and reconstruction of the economy, lives, and livelihoods in the affected areas. The objective of the plan is to restore the economic and social conditions of these areas at the very least to their pre-typhoon levels and to a higher level of disaster resilience.3 Risk – the combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences on lives, property, natural resources, infrastructures, livelihood and assets. Risks are classified

3 www.neda.gov.ph

as high, medium or low depending on the magnitude of consequence or potential impact of the event. Safe Zone or Suitable Areas – areas identified outside hazard zones and not covered by existing regulations (i.e. water code, civil code, revised forestry code) on human activity and use. Susceptibility – or sensitivity degree to which a human or natural system can be affected, negatively or positively, by changes in climate Zoning Ordinance – a legally binding set of rules and regulations affirming the usage of the land in a city/municipality. The preparation of a zoning ordinance is based on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and is enacted by the Local Sanggunian through a resolution. Vulnerability - is the degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with adverse effects of climate change. Vulnerability is a function of exposure to climate stresses, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Vulnerability increases as the magnitude of climate change or sensitivity increases, and decreases as adaptive capacity increases.

Section 4: SPECIFIC GUIDELINES

4.1 The following table provides specific guidance to the Area Coordinating Team (ACT) in

ensuring that resiliency standards and safe settlements issues are surfaced, discussed, and

addressed by communities, along the CEAC.

STAGE 1: SOCIAL PREPARATION

Activity Key Steps Tools/Forms

1.1 Municipal Orientation (MO)

1.1.1 Prior to the conduct of Municipal Orientation, the Area Coordinating Team (ACT) shall gather data on (i) existing hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities of barangays within their assigned municipality, using available multi-hazard maps, resource assessments and vulnerability assessments undertaken by government and development organizations; (ii) land use classification of specific, hazard-prone areas, using the updated Comprehensive Land Use Plan when available, Zoning Ordinance, and other relevant information.

1.1.2 During the MO, the RPMO with the MDDRMO shall present, discuss, and show examples of areas that are hazard-prone or exposed to risk, and vulnerable areas in the municipality, and the possible issues and concerns that may arise related to locating sub-projects in these areas, as part of the presentation on KC-NCDDP Safeguards Framework and Policies. The RPMO shall also ensure presence of LGU department heads namely the MPDC, MENRO, MSWDO, and Municipal Engineer (ME).

Hazard Maps

Comprehensive Land Use Map

ADSDPP (where relevant)

OECD Barangay-Based Disaster Management Action Plan

OPLAN LISTO LGU plans to integrate DRR in LGU planning.

KC-NCDDP Safeguards Policies Orientation Materials


1.2 Consultation Meeting (CM)

1.2.1 Prior to CM, the ACT with the assistance of the S/RPMO together with the LGU resource persons (MDRRMO, MPDC, MENRO, MSWDO) shall facilitate analysis of the multi-hazard maps, resource assessments, and vulnerability assessments (if available), to be able (i) to determine the hazard-prone and risk-exposed areas within the municipality, and; (ii) if there are settlement areas/barangays that fall under the following classification:

No build Zone

No dwelling Zone

Safe Zone

To facilitate analysis, the ACT may prepare a presentation material, or request the MDRRMC to prepare a visual presentation on the information above. The presentations should also capture the impact of the recent disaster.

1.2.2 In areas where the above information are limited or not available, the ACT shall facilitate discussion among participants on identifying risky and vulnerable areas, using the “Simple Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Tool” (Annex B). Locations of high, medium, and low risk areas, in relation to settlements and built-up areas shall be pinpointed on a municipal map.

1.2.3 During the CM, the AC shall explain to the validation team (composed of ACT, MLGU, NGA, CSO and BRT members) that their task will be to validate with community members the results of the analysis of risks and vulnerabilities during the 1st Barangay Assembly.

Hazard Maps

Joint DENR-DILG-DND-DPWH-DOST Memorandum Circular: “Adoption of Hazard Zone Classification in Areas Affected by Typhoon Yolanda”

EMB Memorandum Circular 005, 2014

1.3 Community Consultation (1st Barangay Assembly)

1.3.1 During the BA, the MDRRMC representative, assisted by the CEF, shall present and discuss findings on of the analysis on risks and vulnerabilities made during the CM, and the hazards and risks to settlements and other built-up areas in the barangay. Because risk and vulnerability are location specific, the CEF must gather community inputs to the analysis results, which shall be integrated into the hazard maps. To ensure inclusion of vulnerable groups, separate consultations with women, Indigenous People (IP), persons with disabilities, and others should be conducted, for this purpose. In the absence of official hazard maps, the community shall determine the extent of risks and vulnerabilities of settlement sites in their barangay that are posed by hazards. The Criteria for Hazard Zone Classification, as contained in Section 7 of the JMC (Annex A), may be used for this purpose.

1.3.2 In facilitating discussion on possible subprojects to address post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation needs, the CEF shall facilitate screening of sub-project ideas using the “Decision Tool for Determining Allowable Activities based on Site Risks and Vulnerabilities” (Annex C), and show to the community the range of activities that may be “allowable” and “not-allowable”, based on the degree of risk and vulnerability posed by specific locations. If the proposed site is identified as within the hazard zone, the ACT should refer to the Hazard Zone Classifications Matrix (Section 6 of the JMC) for corresponding mitigating measures that should be observed and integrated into the subproject design. This matrix shall also be presented to the community during the 1st BA to help them identify the appropriate location or in the absence of other area, the appropriate design for their sub-project.

1.3.3 Settlements shall not be allowed on the no build zones and hazard zones with high risk.

Hazard Maps

Section 6 and 7 of the Joint DENR-DILG-DND-DPWH-DOST Memorandum Circular: “Adoption of Hazard Zone Classification in Areas Affected by Typhoon Yolanda”

MGB Threat Advisories on rain-induced landslides, flooding, and others.

Susceptibility Maps (DOST-NOAH)

Information from the NAMRIA Geo-Portal.

Other relevant maps (i.e. IP community maps) where available.

STAGE 2: COMMUNITY PLANNNG AND PROJECT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT


2.1 Municipal Forum 2.1.1 During the MF, the MDRRMO, assisted by the AC, shall discuss and present the results of the validation during the 1st BA. This is to present, in visual form through maps, the presently existing as well as potential hazards in the municipality, and ensure that all proposed SPs are feasible in terms of safety of site/location, by considering these information in community planning.

List of priority sub-projects


2.2 Project Proposal Development

2.2.1 In the proposal preparation stage, beginning with the Project Development Workshop (PDW), the ACT shall ensure that all SPs with location under the hazard zone with low and moderate risks shall take into account the guidelines provided on Section 6.1 of the JMC. During the PDW and site visits, the CEF, with the assistance of the Technical Facilitator and representatives of the MDRRMC, shall facilitate screening of sub-project ideas/concepts using the “Community-based Rapid Risk and Vulnerability Checklist” tool (Annex D), to identify factors that need to be considered and integrated into the final choice and/or technical design of subprojects.

2.2.2 Because identified high risk and no build zones are not safe locations for settlements, the ACT together with the MDRRMC and the MLGU, shall facilitate community-led identification of suitable alternative locations, giving due consideration to the Program’s safeguards policy on Land Acquisition, Resettlement, and Rehabilitation (LARR), as described in the Environmental and Social Management Framework.

2.2.3 The TF shall ensure the structural soundness of the project as well as the consistency of the sub-project design in accordance with applicable standards and codes adapted by the KC-NCDDP.

2.22. The CEF, with the assistance of the TF, shall likewise ensure that the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) is properly filled out by the PPT (Annex E), with the first draft prepared during, and submitted immediately after the PDW.

Section 6.1 of the Joint DENR-DILG-DND-DPWH-DOST Memorandum Circular: “Adoption of Hazard Zone Classification in Areas Affected by Typhoon Yolanda”

Environmental and Social Management Plan


2.3 Community Consultation (2nd Barangay Assembly)

2.3.1 The PPT, with the assistance of the CEF, presents the final project proposal with specified location and design for endorsement to the MIAC.

2.3.2 The CEF shall facilitate realistic time planning and detailed schedule preparation; taking into consideration factors that may require significant programming (i.e. some projects may require materials that are not easily available locally due to new standards). Does this consider the seasonality of some hazards – such as flooding during habagat, etc.

2.3.3 If projects are located in no-dwelling zones or medium to high risk areas, the CEF shall facilitate discussion and community decision-making on formulating local policies to ensure safety of people availing of services from these facilities, including establishing rules on regulating access and use of such facilities, in consideration of seasonality of extreme events, and increasing capacity for disaster preparedness (e.g. policy to closing-off or declare “no-entry” or “limited access to specific persons” during extreme weather events such as typhoons). Such policies should be incorporated into the final Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plan.

1.1 Subproject Final Technical Review and Approval for Fund Release

1.1.1 The PPT presents to the MIAC the final project proposal. The MIAC conducts final technical review of proposals, with a due attention to consistency of (i) the SP technical design, and; (ii) the SP location, with the guidelines described herein.

STAGE 3: COMMUNITY MANAGED IMPLEMENTATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL FORMATION

AND DEVELOPMENT


3.1 Community-Managed Implementation of Projects

3.1.1 The ACT shall ensure that the mitigating measures reflected in the ESMP are undertaken, and sub-project implementation follows approved design and location.

3.1.2 The TF, in close coordination with the Municipal Engineer (ME) and representatives of the MDRRMC, shall undertake close monitoring and supervision of SPs implemented in “no-dwelling” and medium-risk areas. Because the weather may affect implementation activities, the TF, together with the CEF and ME, shall facilitate discussion on policies on “work stoppage” and/or limited work activities during extreme weather events (i.e typhoons). This should be factored into the scheduling of work of CVs.

Approved ESMP

SP Design

Work Schedules

3.2 Formation of Community Organization for Operation and Maintenance

3.2.1 The ACT shall include disaster preparedness in the CV orientation and training program. This shall include local policies of the community on regulations on the “no or limited use” of facilities during extreme weather events.

STAGE 4: COMMUNITY MONITORING AND TRANSITON


4.1 Accountability Reporting

4.1.1 The Accountability Reporting sessions at the end of each cycle shall incorporate discussion of issues arising from new experiences of communities in projects for recovery and rehabilitation with consideration on safety and standards. These lessons shall be considered in formulation of relevant policies for succeeding KC-NCDDP cycles in the municipality.

4.2 Functionality Audit and Sustainability Evaluation

4.2.1 The Functionality Audit immediately after subproject completion, and subsequent Sustainability Evaluation Tests six month and one year after completion shall include assessment of utilization of projects in no-habitation zones or

medium risk areas to draw relevant policy implications.

Annex 1C: Procurement

Annex 1C.C1 Emergency Community Procurement Procedures

The emergency procurement procedures for KC-NCDDP as set out in this section of the DROM

are intended to accelerate and simplify the procurement process taking into account the

more challenging implementation conditions in post-disaster settings while ensuring that the

above mentioned principles are maintained.

Preparation of Emergency Community Procurement Plan (ECPP)

The ACT or MCT Technical Facilitator/s (TFs) in coordination Community Empowerment

Facilitators (CEFs), the Community Procurement Team (PT) shall prepare an Emergency

Community Procurement Plan (ECPP) by undertaking the following:

From the sub-project proposal or program of works, identify and group the items

to be procured into goods (supplies and materials) and works (skilled and unskilled

labor, as well as technical and complex phases of infrastructure sub-projects that

would require contracting the services of contractors who are technically capable

of performing the procurement at hand).

In cases of existing SPs, review and update the existing Procurement Plan to check

appropriateness of packaging;

Determine which items are available within the community and, if not available,

potential sources outside the community. List down all possible suppliers both

within and outside the community.

Similar to the process of PACKAGING under the regular community based

procurement procedure as stated in the revised CBPM, determine the most

appropriate method of procurement to be used for each package. The ECPP will be

presented to the Community Assembly4 for validation and confirmation.

The Procurement Team (PT) presents the proposed ECPP to the Community

Assembly. The presentation of the ECPP allows the community to be informed. The

Community Assembly also makes a decision on the proposed procurement plan. All

agreements shall be reflected in the minutes of the Assembly Meeting. The

Procurement Team with the assistance of ACT/MCT finalizes ECPP. After approval

of the sub-project the Procurement Team then proceeds with the procurement

4 Similar to Barangay Assembly only that due to the disaster the house hold number may have been reduced

based on the approved ECPP and in coordination with the Project Implementation

Team (PIT).

Emergency procurement facilitation

The timeline for every step shall be waived due to the need to facilitate the implementation

of the identified subproject in order to restore the functionality of basic services. The ACT and

MCT shall closely assist the BSPMC on all procurement activities to ensure that procurement

at hand are delivered as soon as possible.

Any member of the BSPMC or ACT/MCT could perform procurement functions if the

Procurement Team (PT) members are not available or could not function as a result of the

disaster.

Emergency procurement methods and procedures

Under the disaster response operation procedures (DROP), the following adjustments to the

procurement procedures are to be followed. The adjustments in the community

procurement shall be in-force until the completion of the sub-project. If a project began under

the emergency mode, the emergency procurement process will continue until the project is

completed, even if the declaration of emergency is lifted or has lapsed.

Table 2: Emergency Procurement Methods and Applicability Conditions

A. DIRECT CONTRACTING applicability conditions

For Works and for Goods

One eligible (technically and financially capable) supplier/contractor;

BSPMC to Government Agency (e.g. LGU, NGA such as TESDA, others)

- Justification that it is more practical and advantageous to engage LGUs, NGAs,

GOCCs and other government agencies who has the capacity and are mandated

to perform functions relevant to the needed services

Adjacent or contiguous with ongoing KC-NCDDP Project. Justification that it is more

practical to engage the contractor/supplier provided the contractor/supplier has the

capacity to perform the contract and the cost is within available budget.

Through Repeat Order (for goods only);

- 100% of the cost of the original contract/PO previously procured under DROP;

- Applicable within 60 days from the date of the original contract

- Same or lower quantity and unit costs of the same items of the original

PO/contract

- allowable once only ??

No limit to contract value due to the emergency nature of procurement.

Prior review by the RPMO for direct contracts equal or higher than P2M

For works contracts costing P1,000,000.00 or higher, 10% retention in every billing shall

be deducted to cover any damage as a result of poor performance, with 6 months

defect liability period. Upon consultation with the Community Assembly, a retention

shall be required for contracts below P1.0M as justified in the assembly.

B. COMMUNITY SHOPPING applicability conditions

For Works and for Goods

More than one eligible (technically and financially capable) supplier/contractor in the

area. If there are only two eligible suppliers or contractor who submitted quotation,

evaluation of the request for quotation (RFQ) can proceed. If quotation found to be

responsive, proceed with the contract/PO award

Similar to direct contracting, there is no limit to contract value due to the emergency

nature of the procurement.

For works contracts costing P1,000,000.00 or higher, 10% retention in every billing shall

be deducted to cover any damage as a result of poor workmanship within 6 months

defect liability period. Upon consultation with the Community Assembly, a retention

shall be required for contracts below P1.0M as justified in the assembly.

Shopping contracts are subject to post-review

C. SMALL VALUE PROCUREMENT(SVP) applicability conditions

Small Value Procurement refers to a method for the procurement of goods, services, works

and consulting services where direct purchase is used for items of small quantities and

value since it is more practical and economical to do so. The decision to resort to small

value/off-the-shelf procurement must be reflected in the ECPP. Splitting of contracts to

evade or circumvent the requirements (i.e. competitive) of this manual using this method

is not allowed.

There are three types of small value procurement:

1. Off-the Shelf Goods

Off-the-Shelf Goods Procurement applies to the purchase of readily available goods

from local market outlets/stores. This may include the purchase of food, perishable or

non-perishable items, agricultural products, office supplies, hand tools, or other items

necessary for the implementation of the sub-project, among others.

2. Short Term Services

Short Term Services procurement refers to the purchase or acquisition/engagement of

non-consultancy service requirements available in the local community and requiring a

very limited period of time. This may include hiring of caterers for workshops, training

or meetings, transportation or trucking services, repair of vehicles and other project

related equipment, hiring of resource persons for training, rental of hand tools and

equipment, or other services necessary for the implementation of the sub-project,

among others.

In the rental of hand tools that are commonly used in construction projects and

included in the POW, the PT must determine the required duration of use and assess

whether it is more economical to rent or to purchase such items. If the cost of renting

such tools exceeds the threshold provided above, then the PT should consider

purchasing such items either through community bidding, shopping or direct

contracting as goods or equipment, as applicable, provided that: this is included in the

ECPP; the procedures for operation and maintenance of such tools and equipment are

clearly established including its turn-over and custody after project completion; and a

cost comparison is submitted/attached as part of the readiness filter.

3. Small Works

Small Works procurement refers to the purchase of construction related service

requirements available in the local community and requiring a very limited period of

time and skilled labor such as painting, repair or renovation of roofs, walls, plumbing or

electrical works, fabrication of small structures or other services necessary for the

implementation of the sub-project which would be more economical to procure as

small works rather than pakyaw contract. In this case, the C/BSPMC directly engage

worker/s in the community with known capacity to perform the job. The cost and scope

of works should have been established in the POW or as discussed in the C/BSPMC

meeting or at the Barangay Assembly (BA). Payroll, accomplishment report prepared by

the PIT and checked by the TF/engineer in-charge and Timesheets or a photocopy

logbook will be the supporting documents for payment.

D. PAKYAW CONTRACT applicability conditions

Pakyaw Contract refers to a system of hiring a group of skilled or unskilled workers

within the community or its vicinity by the community itself for the performance of a

specific work incidental to the implementation of the project where tools and local

indigenous materials may or may not be furnished by the community. It is an alternative

method of procurement where the partial or full implementation of an infrastructure

project or items of work for its completion is carried out by labor from the community

or its vicinity.

Pakyaw contracts are used to complete items of work defined by a specific quantity or

output (e.g. excavation, clearing and grubbing). Where available, the community

through the C/BSPMC may also supply needed equipment to complete the work. This

may be done by organizing and hiring its members to supply labor under “pakyaw”

contracts; through the direct provision of construction and other needed materials; or

through the use of its own or the leasing of construction equipment, or Labor only; or

any of these combinations.

Payment will be based on the scope of works quantity output derived from the POW

and reflected in the statement of works accomplishment. Particular scope of works,

quantities, schedule and corresponding costs will be prepared and attached to the

Pakyaw Agreement. For the specific works output, a lump-sum payment may be made

based on a statement of work accomplished either through the group leader or divided

among the pakyaw workers and disbursed using a payroll system through the

C/BSPMC/Barangay treasurer. A list or payroll that reflects the cost due to every

member of the Pakyaw should be provided as an attachment to the disbursement

voucher. The payroll shall then be concurred by the member to indicate

acknowledgement of the payment expected. The method for paying community based

labor under the pakyaw contract should be discussed and agreed upon during the

Barangay or community Assembly.

Emergency procurement methods and prior-review

Table 3: Emergency Procurement Methods Threshold for Prior Review

Procurement Method Threshold Amount

(P)

Prior Review Requirement Threshold

(P)

RPMO NPMO

Community Shopping

- Works None ≥2.0 M Random

- Goods None ≥2.0 M Random

Community Direct Contracting

- Sole source None Post review Post review

- BSPMC to Government Agency None Post review Post review

- Adjacent and contiguous with

ongoing KC Projects

None

- Repeat Order (Goods) 100% of previous

contract

≥500,000 Post review

Small Value Procurement (SVP)

Off-the-Shelf (Goods), Small works

and Short term services 50,000.00

Pakyaw Contract

- Works (Labor including local

materials such as aggregates,

500,000.00

boulders, lumbers and other

indigenous materials)

Variation Order for Works

In case of additive/deductive and

extra work orders

Up to 20% of

original contract

All

Procedures:

Key Activities Description

1. Pre-Procurement ACT/MCT to convene the community volunteers to discuss the

procurement at hand. In case of ongoing subprojects, where it’s still

relevant (as discussed in the community assembly) to

continue/complete the SP, review the existing Community

Procurement Plan (CPP) and update it if necessary should there be

revision as a result of the disaster. It is very important that

community volunteers understand the emergency procedure of the

procurement.

The market condition shall be discussed to determine the availability

of resources, suppliers and service providers. This is important in

preparing the emergency community procurement plan (ECPP)

The ACT shall closely assist the community volunteers in the

preparation of the procurement documents. This include the conduct

of market survey (material and labor); emergency procurement plan,

RFQs, abstract of quotation (AOQs), purchase order (POs) and other

procurement activities and documents.

For Small Value Procurement, the items/list shall be prepared using

the forms for small value procurement in the annexes.

2. Preparation of the

Request for Quotation

(RFQ)

Fill-up the RFQ based on the ECPP and ensure that all information

required and signatories are complete.

Any member of the BSPMC can represent the community in the

procurement if the Procurement Team (PT) members are not

available. The Community Empowerment Facilitator (CEF) or any

member of the ACT shall facilitate the preparation of the RFQ. The

ACT can serve as the Procurement Team in case members of the

BSPMC are not available as a result of the calamity.

For SVP, the survey form will serve as the RFQ.

3. Serving the Request

for Quotation (RFQ)

Before serving the RFQ, the Procurement Team should already have

an idea where to serve it. Only suppliers/contractors that carry the

complete line of materials or equipment required shall be served

with the RFQ. Members of the ACT/MCT shall assist the CVs in

serving the RFQ.

Suppliers/Contractors shall acknowledge receipt of the RFQ.

For SVP, the PT directly canvass prices and fill-out the SVP survey

form.

4. Evaluation of the

Request for Quotation

(RFQ)

If the BSPMC Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) is not functional, at

least two (2) members of the BSPMC and one (1) member of the

ACT/MCT shall conduct the evaluation to check the completeness

and responsiveness of the quotations received. Reflect the

evaluation in the abstract of quotation (AOQ)

The most capable and responsive supplier based on the primary

criteria of a) prices; and b) ready availability of the materials for

immediate delivery based on the POW and schedules will be

determined. Before the award of the contract, the Procurement

Team will also review the reasonableness of the price by comparing

it to prices of same items procured by other barangays or the MLGU

under the emergency situation.

RPMO NOL is required for procurement of Goods amounting to PhP

2,000,000.00 or higher and for Works amounting to PhP 2,000,000.00

or higher.

Abstract of Quotation attached.

For SVP, the PT shall evaluate the prices as canvassed. If prices found

to be responsive, the PT will let the supplier signed the survey form.

For Goods, the survey form will now serve as the Purchase Order

(PO).

5.Issuance of Purchase

Order (P.O.)/Contract

The ACT shall ensure that correct information is reflected in the

Purchase Order (P.O.) or Contract.

For Works contract, a Notice to Proceed will be issued.

For SVP on small works and short term services, use the forms in the

annexes.

GENERAL NOTES: 1. Considering the emergency nature of procurement, the

contract/PO can be awarded within a day as soon the complete

process is conducted.

2. Some information in the forms and terms and conditions may be

modified to suit the requirement of the procurement at hand;

3. Should there be clarifications and substantial modification that

involves policies on the use of this guidelines, clearance from the

NPMO shall be obtained.

Annex 1C.C2 Procurement Activities

The procurement activities is composed of (i) pre-procurement conference, (ii)

preparation of Request for Quotation, (iii) serving of the RFQ, (iv) evaluation of the RFQ,

and (v) issuance of Purchase Order or Contract. These activities are all done at the

barangay level.

Activity Duration: Due to the emergency nature of the procurement, the timeline for the

activities shall be waived. Indicatively, the entire procurement activities may be

completed within one day to maximum of 5 days per barangay, depending on the nature

of the project, proximity of barangay to suppliers and availability of materials. Considering

geographic distances and access constraints, and other preparations, a CEF is given a

maximum of seven (7) days to complete one Procurement Activity in one barangay. A CEF

with 3 barangays have a maximum of 21 days to complete all procurement activities in all

of his or her assigned areas.

a. Objectives:

1. Review and update the Community Procurement Plan

2. Prepare the procurement documents

3. Facilitate serving and evaluation of Request for Quotations, and issuance of Purchase

Orders/Contract

b. Key Outputs:

1. Procurement documents (i.e., market survey, emergency procurement plan, Request

for Quotation, abstract of quotation, purchase order/contract) and other

procurement activities and documents prepared.

2. Purchase Order/Contract issued to winning supplier/s

c. Participants:


Barangay Chairperson

Sangguniang Barangay

members

Barangay Treasurer

Barangay Secretary

MCT members

BSPMC Chair

Finance Committee

BAC members

Procurement Team

ACT members


1. In preparation for the Procurement activities

1.1. ACT coordinates with the RPMO through the SRPMO to ensure downloading of

funds to community account.

1.2. The ACT and MCT CEFs meet with the Barangay Chairperson and BSPMC Chair to

plan for the procurement, and mobilizes the BLGU in ensuring full participation of

the concerned community volunteers.

1.3. Technical Facilitators and Municipal Financial Analysts are mobilized for the

procurement activities.

2. During the actual Procurement

2.1 ACT and MCT convene the community volunteers for the conduct of pre-

procurement conference. In the conference:

2.1.1 The BRTs inform the BSPMC committees of the projects to be funded by

the NCDDP grant, and subsequent downloading of funds to the community

account.

2.1.2 The ACT and MCT thoroughly explains the procurement documents and

procedures for filling-up, and assists the community volunteers in

preparing the documents.

2.1.3 After preparing the documents, the ACT/MCT facilitates discussion on

serving the Request for Quotations (i.e., where and when to serve)

2.2 Actual Procurement Activity

2.2.1 Once Request for Quotations have been secured from suppliers, the

BSPMC BAC convenes to evaluate the completeness and responsiveness of

the quotations based on the primary criteria (prices, and ready availability

of the materials for immediate delivery based on the POW and schedules).

2.2.2 Procurement Team also reviews the reasonableness of the price.

2.2.3 Purchase Orders or Contracts are issued if procurement documents are

found to be in order.


3.1 BSPMC, with assistance of the ACT and MCT, ensures that materials and goods are

delivered as indicated in the PO/contract.

3.2 BSPMC and BLGU safekeeps the procurement documents.

e. Standards

1. The ACT and MCT shall closely assist the community volunteers in the preparation of

the procurement documents.

2. Any member of the BSPMC can represent the community in the procurement if the

Procurement Team (PT) members are not available. The CEF or any member of the

ACT shall facilitate the preparation of the RFQ. The ACT can serve as the Procurement

Team in case members of the BSPMC are not available as a result of the calamity.

3. Only suppliers/contractors that carry the complete line of materials or equipment

required shall be served with the RFQ. Members of the ACT/MCT shall assist the CVs

in serving the RFQ. Suppliers/Contractors shall acknowledge receipt of the RFQ.

4. If the BSPMC Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) is not functional, at least two (2)

members of the BSPMC and one (1) member of the ACT/MCT shall conduct the

evaluation to check the completeness and responsiveness of the quotations received.

Evaluation shall be reflected in abstract of quotation (AOQ).

5. The most capable and responsive supplier based on the primary criteria will be

determined. Before the award of the contract, the Procurement Team will also review

the reasonableness of the price by comparing it to prices of same items procured by

other barangays or the MLGU under the emergency situation.

6. Issuance of Purchase Order or Contract is in accordance with the Emergency

procurement guidelines (presented in Chapter 6), including prior review by NPMO

and/or Donor agencies, if applicable.

7. The ACT shall ensure that correct information is reflected in the Purchase Order (P.O.)

or Contract.

8. Considering the emergency nature of procurement, the contract/PO can be awarded

within a day as soon the complete process is conducted.

9. Some information in the forms and terms and conditions may be modified to suit the

requirement of the procurement at hand;

10. Should there be clarifications and substantial modification that involves policies on

the use of this guidelines, clearance from the NPMO shall be obtained.

Annex 1D: Community-managed Project Implementation

a. Activity Duration: The entire process covers two (2) weeks to three (3) moths, depending

on the complexity of the project, geographic distance and access, weather, and other

factors.

b. Activity Facilitator: The CEF acts as the main facilitator in ensuring effective community

management of subproject implementation. The TF provides critical implementation

technical assistance support.

c. Objectives:

1. Complete community subprojects on time and within specified quality and cost.

d. Key Outputs:

1. Completed community subprojects in accordance with technical and program

guidelines and specifications.

e. Participants:


MIAC

The Barangay Chairperson,

Treasurer, and other

members of the BLGU.





Domain.

BSPMC

BAC

Finance Committee

O&M Committee

members

Community Volunteers

Community residents



covered by a known

Ancestral Domain, either

in part or in whole.

AC

CEF

TF

MFA

RPMO and SRPMO

Technical Staff

f. Process and Steps

1. In preparation for community-managed Project implementation

1.1 The AC, TF, and MFA meets with the MPDO, municipal engineering office, and

other members of the MIAC, discuss their roles and enlist their support in

monitoring and TA provision to communities during subproject implementation.

1.2 The ACT meet with the RPMO and/or SRPMO to plan and prepare for conduct of

community volunteer training on community procurement, community finance,

organization formation and development, and other needed capability building

activities.

1.3 After procurement of the project requirements, the Project Implementation Team

(PIT) and the winning contractor or service provider with the assistance of the TF,

sit together to define roles, responsibilities, deliverables and procedures to ensure

that the project is implemented properly and in accordance with the project goals

and objectives. TF discusses: (i) project implementation arrangements, and

procedures and processes for the community-managed subproject

implementation under the DROP.

1.4 The CEF meets with the Barangay Chairperson, the Barangay Treasurer, and other

members of the BLGU, and discusses their roles and enlists their support in

monitoring and providing technical assistance to CVs in subproject

implementation.

1.5 The CEF conducts area visit and groundwork with community members and key

leaders, putting special emphasis on IP leaders, conflict areas, GIDAs, and women-

headed HHs.

2. During subproject implementation

2.1. The ACT CEF, Engineer, and FA, together with their municipal counterparts,

conduct monitoring and supervision activities, including (i) site visits; (ii) periodic

meetings with CVs; (iii) coaching sessions, and; (iv) fiduciary reviews.

2.2. The ACT conducts additional training of community volunteers on community

procurement, community finance, and organizational development for

operations and maintenance (for early recovery projects only).

2.3. CEF facilitates formation of O&M groups and tighten O&M arrangements, for

early recovery projects (Refer to Step 5.3.3 for details).

2.4. The CEF, TF, and MFA assist communities in preparing RFR documents for

succeeding tranches.

2.5. The SRPMO conduct field visits for monitoring of subproject implementation

activities and implementation of ESMPs.

2.6. The CEFs facilitates resolution of grievances, as they arise, or endorses the

grievance to appropriate levels for proper resolution.

2.7. The CEF conduct reflection sessions with community volunteers after every

gathering.

3. After completion of implementation

3.1. CEF and TF conducts Functionality Audit, in consultation with the appropriate

respondents, prior to project turn-over. Guidance on the conduct of Functionality

Audit is included as Annex C.

3.2. The CEF prepares the community for project turn-over.

g. Standards: The following standards should be observed in facilitating community-

managed implementation of subprojects

1. ACT members prepare individual supervision and technical assistance provision plan,

where activities are based on, and are calibrated to address risks identified through a

risk assessment conducted jointly with the MCT and MIAC.

2. ACT and MCT/MIAC monitoring and TA provision is coordinated following a separate,

agreed TA provision plan. Coordination with the MIAC and the BLGU officials in the

monitoring of subprojects implementation is observed.

3. Subproject implementation activities follow standards and procedures outlined in the

community procurement, community finance, environmental and social safeguards,

and other manuals and guidelines.

4. The CEF, TF, and MFA ensure subproject implementation policies and guidelines are

communicated to CVs and observed. Appropriate ACT staff conduct preparation

activities with community volunteers, coach CVs in conduct of actual activities,

conduct additional training activities as needed, and conduct post-activity assessment

and reflection sessions to ensure learning.

5. Participation of women, IPs, poor, and other vulnerable households in paid labour

activities is ensured.

6. Volunteer teams submit Monthly Work Schedule and Physical Progress Report that

reflects activities conducted for the period and encountered problems.

7. Grievances are captured, Grievance Committees are mobilized, and issues are

addressed following standards in the Grievance Redress System (GRS) manual.

8. Community projects completed with quality, on time, and within specified cost.

9. Reflection follows this format: (i) evoking observations, including feelings, of

participants on the proceedings, the process of how decisions are made, and the

decisions themselves; (ii) soliciting reflections and insights out of what was

observed/felt during the proceedings; and (iii) generating resolve to (decisions)

undertake action and next steps.


activity.

Annex C: Guidance on Conduct of Functionality Audit

What is Functionality Audit?

The Functionality Audit is an existing tool in KALAHI-CIDSS which provides a snapshot of

subproject functionality at a given time. It is usually conducted during the operation and

maintenance (O&M) stage, wherein subprojects have been turned over to the communities

and/or O&M groups. Results usually trigger the conduct of Sustainability Evaluation to

generate detailed status of subproject functionality.

Under the KC-NCDDP, the Functionality Audit was re-defined to suit Program requirements.

Functionality Audit shall be defined as “a Program mechanism which determines functionality

of completed subprojects and organizational preparedness prior to turnover to

barangays/communities”.

The Functionality Audit provides the following information:

1. Status of Structures and sub-structures, those that are in good condition and which

needs to be rectified or improved to ensure maximum benefit derived from the

subproject;

2. O&M tools and equipment which are already available, and which needs to be

procured; and

3. Organizational areas which are in place and which needs to be complied with.

Results of the Functionality Audit will trigger the following:

1. Turnover of the subproject, or further compliance with Program standard.

2. Revision/enhancement of the Mutual Partnership Agreement to incorporate the

measures to address such findings.

What are the Purposes of Functionality Audit?

Functionality audit aims to:

1. Ensure that subproject is functional upon turnover; and

2. O&M group is prepared to undertake O&M responsibilities

Who will Undertake Functionality Audit? How will it be undertaken?

This shall be a joint undertaking of the Technical Facilitator and Community Empowerment

Facilitator.

1. CEF shall undertake the Assessment of Organizational Preparedness, in consultation

with the O&M group. It could be in the form of a meeting or focused group discussion.

2. Functionality of Subproject shall be determined by the Technical Facilitator in

reference to the result of the Final Inspection Report (FIR) and in consultation with the

BSPMC Chair, Project Implementation Team (PIT) and Monitoring and Inspectorate

Team (MIT). The Final Inspection shall be undertaken as indicated in the Infrastructure

Manual.

Means of verification supporting the responses shall be attached to the accomplished FA tool.

Table 1 presents the Means of Verification per item.

Will all subprojects be subjected to Functionality Audit?

No. Only income-generating and common service facilities subprojects will be subjected to

Functionality Audit. These includes water system, irrigation system, pre- and post-harvest

facilities, facilities intended for livelihood, and other similar subprojects which usually entail

the collection of tariff.

Completed subprojects not covered by the Functionality Audit shall, however, still comply

with the following Program requirements:

O&M committee/group established

O&M policies crafted and approved by the Barangay Assembly

Subprojects completed in accordance with approved specifications and standards

How will FA be treated? When will FA be conducted?

The accomplished Functionality Audit tool shall serve as additional attachment to the

Subproject Completion Report (SPCR). It will be conducted prior to turnover of completed

subprojects to the barangays/communities.

FUNCTIONALITY AUDIT TOOL

(For Subprojects with Tariff)

Name of Subproject: ______________________________________________________

Location: ______________________________________________________

Date of Functionality Audit: __________________________________________________

I. Organizational Preparedness

Key Area Yes No Remark

(Explanation for “No”

Answers)

a. O&M Group Formed

b. O&M Group Recognized, Registered or Accredited

a. O&M Group trained on Operation and Maintenance (includes technical, organizational and financial management)

d. O&M Group with clear Organizational Direction (Vision, Mission, Goal, Objectives and Annual Plan)

e. Policies, Systems and Procedures in place (Organizational/By-laws and subproject O&M policies)

SUB-TOTAL

INTERPRETATION:

Subproject will not be turned over if any item above has “No” answers. CEF shall

facilitate activities leading to the accomplishment of the desired outputs.

II. Functionality of Subproject

Key Areas Yes No Remark

(Explanation for “No”

Answers)

1. Subproject completed as planned/designed: All work items were completed based on Program of Works, Plans and specifications)

2. Workmanship: 2.1 Work quality acceptable to community 2.2 Subproject passed Engineering quality

3. Serviceability: All structures and sub-structures are functioning

INTERPRETATION:

If Item 1 has “No” Answer (that is, completed “as-built” or with variation order):

Subproject will be turned over to community. However, the BLGU/community is

required to complete the subproject as stipulated in the Subproject Agreement.

This will be contained in the revised Mutual Partnership Agreement (MPA).

If Item 2 has “No” answer: Subproject will be turned over to community,

provided, the O&M group commits to undertake improvement once they are

generating income from subproject.

If Item 3 has “No” answer: Subproject will NOT be turned over to the

community. Require implementer (i.e., contractor or BSPMC, whichever is

applicable) to do rectification works to ensure functionality of subproject prior to

turnover.

Table 1

Means of Verification

Key Area Means of Verification

a. O&M Group Formed

Minutes of Meeting citing the formation of O&M Group

Attendance Sheet

b. O&M Group Recognized, Registered or Accredited

Certificate of Registration

SB Resolution on Recognition or Accreditation

c. O&M Group trained on Operation and Maintenance (includes technical, organizational and financial management)

Activity Proposal

Training Report

Attendance sheet

d. O&M Group with clear Organizational Direction

Minutes of, or General Assembly Resolution ratifying the VMGO and annual plan

e. Policies, Systems and Procedures in place

Minutes of, or General Assembly Resolution ratifying the Constitution and By-laws, O&M policies and tariff

f. Functionality of Subproject Duly signed Final Inspection Report

For Workmanship on Engineering standards – Certification of Technical Facilitator or Municipal Engineer attesting that subproject passed Engineering quality

Annex 1E: Formation of Community Organization for Operation and Maintenance

Activities to form community organizations for Operation and Maintenance are conducted at

the barangay level, involving community residents and volunteers. This activity will only apply

to early recovery projects or activities such as repairs of existing or construction of new

structures with tariff funded under the DROP. Emergency response activities and projects

such as clearing and cash for work are exempted from O&M group formation.

a. Activity Duration: O&M organization formation will take two (2) to three (3) months to

complete, starting from the community assembly and action planning for subproject

implementation. Follow-through organizational development and management activities

shall be provided during the transition to Regular CEAC and in succeeding cycles, to ensure

that O&M groups are capable of taking on their O&M responsibilities.

b. Objectives:

1. Establish community associations that will manage the operation and maintenance,

and ensure sustainability of completed early recovery projects funded under the

NCDDP DROP.

2. Tighten O&M arrangements for project sustainability.

c. Key Outputs:

1. O&M Accreditation documents

2. Organizational By-Laws and O&M Policies

3. Approved LGU accreditation policies and procedures

d. Participants:


MCT

MIAC members





Domain.

BSPMC

O&M Committee members

Community Volunteers and

Community residents



covered by a known

Ancestral Domain, either in

part or in whole.

AC

CEF

e. Process and Steps

1. In preparation for formation of O&M organizations

1.1. The AC and CEFs meet with the MLGU to discuss CBO accreditation of O&M

groups.

1.2. The CEF familiarizes him/herself on the different forms of O&M organizations for

specific subproject types (i.e. Parent-Teachers-Community Association or PTCAs

for school buildings and daycare centers; Barangay Water Association or BAWASA

for water systems; community enterprise groups for post-harvest facilities; users

associations for other basic service facilities; peoples organizations for

environmental protection projects, and other forms), and the different processes

and requirements for forming and formalizing these groups for

accreditation/registration.

1.3. The ACT meets with the RPMO and/or SRPMO to plan for conduct of

organizational formation, development and management training for O&M

groups.

2. During formation of organization for operation and maintenance

2.1. CEFs, together with their municipal counterparts, conduct general orientation on

operation and maintenance and forming O&M groups, and facilitate planning

workshop and tasking of O&M committee CVS.

2.2. The CEFs and their counterparts conduct monitoring and technical assistance

activities to form the O&M group, based on the plan developed under item 1.

These can include conduct of house to house visits, small meetings, preparation

of O&M policies and guidelines, drafting of organizational by-laws, CV meetings

with accrediting NGAs, and general assemblies. CEFs, together with the MIAC,

conduct coaching, supervisions, and additional training activities, as needed, to

further guide CVs in the conduct of organizational development activities.

2.3. The CEFs facilitate conduct of Barangay Assembly/General Assembly to (i) pass

the organizational by-laws; (ii) discuss and approve the O&M policies, and; (iii)

elect leaders of the O&M group.

2.4. The CEFs facilitate planning of operation and maintenance activities by the CV

leaders of the O&M association.

2.5. O&M activities, Functionality Audit (prior to turnover) and Sustainability

Evaluation Tests (SET) are conducted following the plan, with SET conducted six

(6) months after subproject completion and turn-over, and every year thereafter.

3. Post-organizational formation follow-through

3.1. The CEF links O&M groups to CSOs, NGAs, and institutions for support.

3.2. The ACT conducts inter-organization learning forums to encourage exchange of

experiences and learning, and collective problem solving and support.

3.3. The CEF and his/her municipal counterpart facilitates (i) provision of support by

the BLGU to O&M needs of organizations, and; (ii) inclusion of O&M groups in the

Barangay Development Council (BDC).

3.4. AC and MAC facilitate (i) provision of support for operation and maintenance to

O&M groups, and; (ii) inclusion of O&M groups in the Municipal Development

Council (MDC).

f. Standards: The following standards should be observed in forming O&M groups:

1. Action Plans are based on clear vision articulating the organization's basis of unity,

mission, and strategic directions.

2. O&M tasks are undertaken by O&M groups with clear functions and roles.

3. O&M groups are encouraged to link with existing organizations in the area with similar

interests.

4. Organizational design follows the function of the organization for operating,

managing, and sustaining subprojects. Organizations are not over-designed.

5. Policies are approved by majority of members in assemblies.

6. Gender balance is observed in the composition and leadership of organizational

committees and leadership bodies. Women are encouraged to take leadership

positions.

7. If IPs is present, IP leaders are encouraged to take leadership positions in the

organizations formed.

8. O&M groups are registered with appropriate regulatory bodies, and accredited by the

LGU. LGU accreditation policies and procedures are publicly shared/disclosed

9. The Barangay Captain or Barangay Council representative serves as Adviser to the

Board of Directors of the O&M groups.

Annex 1F: Simplified Monitoring and Evaluation

Procedures and tools for the following major activities in KC-NCDDP Monitoring and

Evaluation (M&E) will be simplified under disaster response operations.

1. Program Monitoring

Area Coordinators, Community Empowerment Facilitators (CEF), and other members of the

ACT will conduct monitoring of field operations and delivery of assistance to communities

based on inputs, process and output standards of KC, including compliance to gender and

Social and Environmental Safeguards. Program Monitoring includes: results-based

monitoring, operations monitoring, grievance monitoring and community monitoring.

For Operations Monitoring, the ACT will undertake recording of activities implemented using

(i) select KC forms for quick capture of critical data; (ii) scanning of MOVs and encoding of

critical data for tracking progress against critical targets, and processing and consolidation;

(iii) geo-tagging of community projects and other mapping information and instruments, and;

(iv) preparation of focused management reports using mission-critical information for

management feedback and decision-making, public accountability, and public disclosure and

use.

Particularly for disaster-affected areas, geo-tagging of proposed sites for sub-project

implementation is critical to ensure the risks are properly mitigated or alternative sites are

identified. RPMO M&Es are to distribute hazard maps to ACTs and other program

implementers to facilitate informed decision-making of communities and local governments.

2 Community Monitoring

Community Monitoring (CM) aims to involve community members not only in planning and

implementation but also in monitoring activities in their locality. Every sitio/purok is to have

one volunteer Community Monitor. They prepare their own Monitoring Plan and Workplan,

taking in consideration the major activities and expected outputs by the end of the cycle.

Community Monitors also look into the KC-NCDDP implementation and the delivery of

community and municipal commitments under the Program. These are presented during the

Barangay Activity Reporting and are discussed by the rest of the community members to

identify lessons and issues that affect their development. Findings are then consolidated and

presented by the Barangay Representation Teams at the Municipal Accountability Reporting.

In all these, ACTs and SRPMO/RPMO staff provide guidance and technical support, while LGU

and MCT staff likewise provide necessary data and technical assistance.

The findings from CM are expected to contribute in designing local activities to promote

community development. However, it should be noted that this information is also valuable

to the Program itself and is included in the database system as reference information to

monitor KPIs and for future enhancements in Program design and implementation. Given this,

it is expected that M&E Officers from the SRPMO level up to the NPMO level periodically

check on the activation of the CM systems in Program areas, and extend technical assistance,

as necessary. The Community Monitoring Toolkit is presented as Annex D.

3. Project Evaluation.

Evaluation of interventions under the Disaster Response Operations will aim to measure

outcomes of disaster response operations as part of the over-all design of the KC-NCDDP, to

extract lessons to arrive at better ways in implementing the project, and assess other

measures of project success, best practices and lessons learned.

Internal evaluation of activities under the DRO will be conducted through the Municipal

Talakayan, an activity that aims to get a snapshot of the level of development of an area based

on key indicators such as access to services, governance, empowerment and core local

poverty indicators; designed to bring local stakeholders to a municipal-level democratic

dialogue to increase local stakeholders’ awareness of development status in the municipality,

provide venue for systematic face-to-face feedback from stakeholders, promote the use of

information at the local level to support better planning and reporting outcomes and clarify

experiential lessons learned and plan for local actions going forward.

4. Reporting, data sharing, and Social Accountability.

This shall include preparation of regular reports including management reports, monitoring

and other information disclosure compliance reports, and procurement and reports on

contracts and legal covenants and requirements for public accountability, including an

enhanced grievance redress system described in section 9 below.

The Community Facilitators and Area Coordinators assigned at concerned levels will be

responsible for data collection. Recording and documenting of field activities using existing

KC Forms and encoding of information in database will be the responsibility of the staff hired

for the project or the ACT in the municipality. While regular KC-NCDDP forms will generally

be utilized for data intake, encoding will focus on critical information. To avoid data loss,

MOVs will also be scanned for future encoding of other entries. Municipal database will be

regularly uploaded into the national server immediately after encoding for consolidation and

reporting to NPMO. Regional M&Es are to submit monthly and quarterly reports to NPMO

and feedbacks to partner LGUs. The NPMO will submit quarterly accomplishment reports to

oversight agencies and development partners every 60 days after the end of the quarter.

4.1. Third Party Monitoring.

In line with the overall design of the KC-NCDDP, independent Third Party Monitoring will be

actively encouraged for monitoring of project execution at the field level. The third party

monitoring will provide for accurate and comprehensive monitoring of component outputs

and technical compliance of components through site visits, as well as data management for

auditing and reference purposes.

4.2. Data Management and Capacity Building.

The KC Program Information Management System gathers information on progress, outputs

and intermediate outcomes across different levels which are consolidated at the national

level. The NPMO M&E unit will develop a database system for disaster response operations

to be used by the region to capture project accomplishments and milestones. This will be

integrated to the overall database system of KC-NCDDP to simplify and streamline the

reporting process, while ensuring that information is made available to all stakeholders. The

National and Regional M&E Units will also provide support activities for database

management and internal data quality assessments and strengthening capacity of staff and

local counterparts on M&E.

Table 4 provides a summary of M&E activities:

Table 4. Summary of M&E Activities

5. Grievance Redress

The Grievance Redress System is a feature of KC-NCDDP to promote social accountability. It allows the Project to be fully responsive to its beneficiary communities. This mechanism was designed to attend to complaints, problems and issues that arise out from project implementation. These issues may include misuse of funds and allegations of corruption; inappropriate intervention by outside parties (in making decisions, determining allocations, in procurement etc.); and violation of project policies, principles or procedures. It will also respond to simple requests for information to clear up a misunderstanding. The Grievance Redress System under Disaster Response Operations will follow the same

principles under the KC-NCDDP, particularly the following:

Table 5: Grievance Redress System Principles

Principle Description

Transparency Concerned parties must be kept informed

on the progress made in resolving the

grievances

Simple and accessible

Uncomplicated/informal means of filing

grievances.

Resolving grievances at the lowest level

possible.

Quick and proportional

action

Response to grievance and comments is ensured within an acceptable timeline and that the corresponding action is responsive and commensurate to the complaint or comment. The system does not over-react to problems and strives to provide solutions which shall address the problem rather than penalize the people or communities

Anonymity and security The grievance system ensures that the identities of those complaining are kept confidential.

5.1 Installation

The Grievance Redress System must be accessible to everyone who wants to file a grievance or ask clarifications regarding the project. Grievance installation should be done starting from Municipal Orientation. The GRS is considered installed once the following key activities are completed:

GRS Orientation at the municipal and barangay levels provided

GRS information materials made available

Grievance Committees at the barangay and municipal levels established

Means or reporting grievances are available

5.2 Structure

The following are involved in the KC-NCDDP GRS:

Barangay Level

Barangay Grievance Committee – composed of three Grievance volunteers per

barangay, coming from different sitios/puroks

Barangay-based Institutions – Existing structures and community-based modes of

dispute/grievance resolution such as: Barangay Council, Lupon Tagapamayapa and

Council of Elders

Community Empowerment Facilitator

Municipal Level

Municipal Development Council or Municipal Inter-agency Committee – to serve

as the Municipal Grievance Committee

Area Coordinator

SRPMO/RPMO Level

Regional Program Director

Regional Program Manager as Regional Grievance Officer

Regional Program Coordinator

Sub-regional Program Coordinator

Regional M&E Officers as Regional Grievance Monitors

Fact-finding body – to designated by the Regional Grievance Officer (RPM) to

conduct validation of facts related to the grievance. The function may also include

provision of technical assistance to clarify issues in the project

DSWD Retainer Lawyer

NPMO Level

National Program Director and Deputy National Program Director

National Program Manager

National Grievance Monitors

Fact-finding body - to designated by the National Program Manager to conduct

validation of facts related to the grievance. The function may also include provision

of technical assistance to clarify issues in the project

5.3 Handling

Similar to the KC KC-NCDDP, handling of grievances under disaster response operations

will involve the following key activities. Because of the urgent nature of disaster response

operations, grievances under the DRO are to be addressed as quickly and expeditiously as

possible, within the timeframe specified below.

Anyone with a complaint against the Project, its implementation and the project staff may

file a grievance through

Letters

E-mails

Text messages

Verbal narration from walk-in complainants

Phone calls

Suggestion boxes to be placed in non-political/religious institutions

Reports on visits to project offices and sites by project staff, independent monitors, supervision teams, government officials, or any interested persons or special groups like IPs, elderly, etc.

Reports of staff, consultants, NGOs, LGUs and journalists

Any program staff may receive and intake grievance. Upon receipt, the following processes

will be conducted depending on the type of grievance:

Type of Grievance Processing Timeline

Type A: Non-contentious

queries/Clarifications on the

project

Examples:

Clarification on roles and

responsibilities of

volunteers;

inquiry on schedule and

timeline of project

Responded to at the point

of intake at any level of the

project or referred to

appropriate office/person

who can address the

inquiry.

Should be addressed within

5 days from the date of

receipt.

Type B: Compliance with

project processes, MOA and

other KC-NCDDP

implementation

arrangements

SRPMT/RPMO or next

higher level to conduct fact-

finding.

Composition of fact-finding

group to be designated by

head of office.

Should be addressed

within 15-30 days from

the date of receipt

Type of Grievance Processing Timeline

Scope: Involving project

staff

Example: Project staff

manipulated decision-

making activity.

Head of office to decide.

Type C: Conformance with

KC-NCDDP procurement and

finance guidelines

Scope: Involving one

barangay

Example: Brgy BAC favored a

certain supplier

ACT/SRPMT together with

brgy grievance committee

to conduct fact-finding.

Results of fact-finding to be

presented in a community

consultation or barangay

assembly for validation.

Head of office to decide.

Should be addressed

within 30-60 days from the

date of receipt.



finance guidelines

Scope: Involving 2 or more

barangay

ACT informs MIAC/EMDC of

Grievance MIAC/EMDC

together with

SRPMT/RPMO to conduct

fact-finding.

Results of findings to be

presented in Municipal

Forum for validation.

Head of Office to decide.

Should be addressed


the date of receipt.



finance guidelines

Scope: Involving project

staff

Example: Forgery of

documents

SRPMT/RPMO or next

higher level to conduct fact-

finding.

Composition of fact-finding

group to be designated by

head of office.

Head of Office to decide

Should be addressed


the date of receipt.

5.4 Support System

The ACT should also actively include in their agenda any problems, issues, needs, and

concerns (PINCOs) /grievances that arise during the implementation and feedback them to

the Regional Grievance Monitor. Grievance Monitors shall also ensure that all program staff

are fully aware of the KC-NCDDP GRS through provision of GRS Handbooks, conduct of

trainings and continuous provision of technical assistance at all levels.

Annex 1G: DSWD Memo Circulars on Coordination with Various Agencies

ANNEX 2:

COMMUNITY-BASED TOOLS

Annex 2A: Rapid Assessment Tool

Instructions to Rapid Assessment Team:

1. Before doing the rapid assessment, coordinate with various offices and agencies at the municipal level to generate available relevant data. Refer to the matrix below for the possible sources of data.

Data Type Source/s

Affected Population, Effects to Population

MDRRMC, NGOs

Evacuation Centers and related information

MSWDO, NGOs

Damages to Shelter, Lifelines and Critical Facilities, Basic Service Infrastructure

MDRRMC, MEO, NGOs

Agriculture, Fishery, Livestock MAO, MARO, NGOs

Response Operations NGOs, LGU, DSWD

2. Fill-up the Rapid Assessment Tool based on data generated from No. 1.

For Agriculture: List down three major and minor crops/products before doing FGD.

Include only crops/products that are major sources of income and/or food.

For Shelter Damage (High-Risk Areas): Get the Hazard map from MDRRMC. Using the hazard map, identify the high-risk areas and indicate no. of corresponding HHs residing in such areas, if available. During FGD, ask the respondents how many in the puroks are residing in such areas. (Note: High-ris k areas are areas with high probability of landslide, flood and/or storm surge.)

3. Validate data generated from these offices/agencies during FGD.

A. General Information

Disas

ter Event

and Date of

Occurrence:

Province:

Total # of

Population

:

Date

Conducted

(dd/mm/yy)

:

Municipality: Total # Households (HHs):

Assessment Team Members:

Barangay:

Total # of

Evacuation

Centers

(ECs)

activated:

Which population group is considered most affected by the situation? (rank top 3: 1= most at risk; 2=second most at risk; 3=third most at risk)

____ Female

____ Male

____ Children

____ Older persons

____ Persons with disabilities

____ Specific ethnic, indigenous, religious or social groups

Specify_______________________)

____ Other (Specify : ______________________________)

____ Don’t Know

B. Evacuation Centers

Sitio/Puro

k

No.

of

activ

e EC

Schoo

l

Pop. w/n the

compound, inside

closed structures

Pop. w/n

compound, in the

open

No. of evacuees

from other

barangays/areas

Area of

origin

(Brgy/

Municipalit

y

Purok/Sitio/

zone)

Total Pop.

Y N Familie

s

Person

s

Familie

s

Person

s

Familie

s

Person

s

Familie

s

Person

s

B.1 Effects to Population

Affected Purok/Sitio/Zone

No. of Person/s affected

No. of Person/s displaced/evacuated

No. of Dead

No. of Injured

No. of Missing

What are the main causes of death and injury of the population in this location since the emergency? (Check all that apply)

Have there been deaths after the disaster? ___ Yes __ No

Of these deaths, how many are disaster-related? ____

What are the cause/s of death? _________

Have there been any incidence of violence or abuse? _______

What are the mechanisms for reporting incidence of violence or abuse?

__________

Section C: Shelter Damage

Target respondent/s: Barangay Captain, BDC members, purok leaders, Pantawid parent

leaders, community volunteers, or similar officials who are knowledgeable of the situation

in the barangay.

C. Shelter Damage and Resettlement Assessment

Purok/ Sitio No. of HHs No. of

Families

Population No. of Damaged Houses No. of HHs

in high-risk

areas * Partially

Damaged Totally

Damaged

* using hazard map.

Section D. LIFELINES AND CRITICAL FACILITIES AND BASIC SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE

DAMAGE

Target respondent/s: Barangay Captain, BDC members, purok leaders, Pantawid parent

leaders, health workers, teacher-in-charge, barangay electrician, community volunteers, IP

leaders, or similar officials who are knowledgeable of the situation in the barangay.

Type of Facility Name of

Facility/

Sub-

Project

Location Damage Assessment (Please check)

Partially

damaged

(useable)

Major Damage

(non-usable,

for

rehabilitation)

Total damage (for

reconstruction)

a. Road/Pathway

b. Bridges

c. Communication Networks

d. Health Facilities

e. Electricity Network

f. Water Supply System

2. Basic Service Infrastructure Damage

a. Market

b. School Building

b.1 Elementary

Please insert additional rows as needed

Section E: AGRICULTURE / FISHERIES /LIVESTOCK

Target respondent/s: Barangay Captain, BDC members, purok leaders, or similar officials

who are knowledgeable of the situation in the barangay.

Sector Type Area Affected * No. of HHs affected

Crops/Trees

(focus on major and

minor crops and

vegetables)

Rice

Corn

Coconut

Fisheries

Livestock and Poultry

* Hectares, no. of trees, no. of head, etc.

Section F: Response Operations

Target respondent/s: Barangay Captain, BDC members, or similar officials who are

knowledgeable of the situation in the barangay.

RESPONSE OPERATIONS Agency/Organization Name Assistance Provided

National/Local Government

NGOs/International Orgs.

b.2 Secondary

c. Day Care Center

d. Barangay Hall

e. Multi-Purpose

Hall/Training

Center/Evacuation Center

f. Church/ Places of Worship

g. Tribal Hall

h. Others (please specify)

Annex 2B: Consolidated Rapid Assessment Results Template

Top 3 Most Affected Population

Barangay Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3

Barangay 1

Barangay 2

TOTAL

* insert additional rows as needed

Evacuation Centers

No. of Active ECs

Population, within Compound

Population, in the open

Total Population in ECs

School Others Families Persons Families Persons Families Persons

Barangay 1

Barangay 2

TOTAL * insert additional rows as needed

Shelter Damage

No. of HHs

No. of Families

Total Population

No. of Damaged HHs No. of HHs in high-risk

areas Partially Damaged

Totally Damaged

Barangay 1

Barangay 2

TOTAL


Lifelines and Critical Facilities and Basic Service Infrastructure Damage

A. Lifeline and Critical Facilities Damage

Barangay Road/ Pathway

Bridges Communication Networks

Health Facilities Electricity Network Water Supply System

Partially Damaged

Major Damage

Totally Damaged

Partially Damaged

Major Damage

Totally Damaged

Partially Damaged

Major Damage

Totally Damaged

Partially Damaged

Major Damage

Totally Damaged

Partially Damaged

Major Damage

Totally Damaged

Partially Damaged

Major Damage

Totally Damaged

Barangay 1

Barangay 2

TOTAL


B. Basic Service Infrastructure Damage

Barangay School Building Day Care Center Brgy. Hall Multi-Purpose Hall Churches/ Places of Worship

Tribal Hall Market

Partially Damaged

Major Damage

Totally Damaged

Partially Damaged

Major Damage

Totally Damaged

Partially Damaged

Major Damage

Totally Damaged

Partially Damaged

Major Damage

Totally Damaged

Partially Damaged

Major Damage

Totally Damaged

Partially Damaged

Major Damage

Totally Damaged

Partially Damaged

Major Damage

Totally Damaged

Barangay 1

Barangay 2

TOTAL * insert additional rows and columns as needed

Agriculture/Fisheries/Livestock

A. Crops

Barangay Crop 1 Crop 2 Crop 3

Area Affected

No. of HHs affected

Area Affected

No. of HHs affected

Area Affected

No. of HHs affected

Barangay 1

Barangay 2

TOTAL


B. Fisheries

Barangay 1: ________

2: ________ 3: ___________

Area Affected

No. of HHs affected

Area Affected

No. of HHs affected

Area Affected

No. of HHs affected

Barangay 1

Barangay 2

TOTAL


C. Livestock and Poultry

Barangay Livestock 1: ________ Livestock 2: ________ Livestock 3: ________

No. of Head

No. of HHs affected

No. of Head

No. of Head

No. of Head

No. of Head

Barangay 1

Barangay 2

TOTAL


Response Operations

Barangay No. of Agencies Operating in the Area Types of Assistance Provided

NGAs NGOs IOs

NGAs NGOs IOs

Barangay 1

Barangay 2


Annex 2C: KC-NCDDP List of Eligible Projects under Disaster Response Operations

1. In relation to work under Disaster Response Operations using the Accelerated

Community Empowerment Activity Cycle (CEAC), the Program shall fund projects and activities that will focus on emergency response and early recovery interventions designed to facilitate immediate restoration of lifelines of the community and are temporary in nature, which includes but not necessarily limited to the following:

a. Repair of rural and local roads, and repair/reconstruction of small bridges with a maximum span of up to 15m

b. Backfill, reshaping and landscaping of areas affected by erosion c. Repair of existing riverbank protection systems and earth-fill dykes up to 5m

height, subject to risk assessment, and if supervised by a qualified engineer d. Construction of temporary bypass roads up to 500m length, if not located in

sensitive habitats and land acquisition follows the provisions of the main Environmental and Social Management Framework or ESMF, and bypasses are completely removed and the alignment restored to its original conditions once the need for their service has expired.

e. Repair / reconstruction of communal irrigation and water supply systems and facilities that have been completed with project funding.

f. Collection and removal of technogenic debris (building parts, mixed waste, timber) such as uprooted trees and plant debris from public infrastructure, public spaces and agricultural areas, and its deposition in pre-existing waste management facilities that are operating under national licensing and regulations, and compliant with normal practices in the country.

g. Repair of public buildings (including barangay halls, school buildings, day care centers, government offices, tribal halls, meeting hall, multi-purpose centers and places of congregation used as administrative spaces for disaster and relief operations and information dissemination) and infrastructure (e.g. transmission lines, street lighting, traffic signs, bus stops).

h. The procurement of tools and equipment for purposes of removal of debris (i.e. chain saws and/or bolt/wire cutters), provided that the purchase is approved by, and the tools are subsequently registered with the appropriate regulatory agencies.

i. Shelter, including emergency and transitional shelter and temporary housing, and support for permanent shelter repair in safe areas,

j. Setting-up of water and sanitation facilities in emergency and transitional shelter and temporary housing; and

k. Setting up of temporary facilities to deliver basic service needs of affected communities, such as field schools, temporary health facilities, and water facilities.

l. Collection of spilled and dispersed waste from the facility and returning it to its original position on the facility, or a safe temporary repository on the perimeter

m. Fishing boats within the prescribed weight limit set by Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) used for transportation purposes

2. In compliance with the NCIP AO 3, series of 2012 - Part III, Section 25 on “Excluded Areas”, the following areas are likewise excluded from any activity except for the exclusive purposes for which they are identified.

a. Sacred grounds and burial sites of indigenous communities b. Identified international and local cultural and heritage sites c. Critical areas identified or reserved by the ICCs/IPs for special purposes, and d. Other areas specifically identified by ICCs/IPs in their Ancestral Domain

Sustainable Development Protection Plan, or ADSDPP

ANNEX 3:

TOOLS FOR CEF, ACT, MIAC USE

Annex 3A: Activity Proposal Review Checklist for DROP

ACTIVITY PROPOSAL REVIEW CHECKLIST

(For Disaster Response Operations Procedures)

Instruction: Check “Yes” if the information under each section of the key areas was provided in the

proposal, or “No” if the information were not provided or are unclear. Indicate the specific findings in

the “Remarks” portion.

KEY AREAS YES NO REMARKS

General Information

1. Community situation, problems and needs clearly explained or described; includes description of effects to community and vulnerable groups (women, men, IPs)

2. Expected benefits of proposed subproject to community and vulnerable groups clearly established/articulated

3. Target beneficiaries clearly identified and sex disaggregated; beneficiaries include 4Ps, SLP, IPs, # of families, # of HHs, population

4. Sections/items are completely filled-up

5. Sections/items are correctly filled-up

Technical Description

6. Physical target, Scope of works and components clearly indicated

7. Manpower and equipment requirements, and sources, clearly identified

8. Procurement method clearly identified

9. Total estimated cost of project within the cost parameter; or with justification if more than the cost parameter



12. Information provided are correct and consistent

Financial Aspect

13. Total estimated cost, direct cost and indirect cost are correct

and consistent with POW

14. Local Counterpart Contribution are within the Program

requirements (if applicable)





Compliance to Program Safeguards 18. Subproject location/site not within the high-risk or no-build

zones, or reservation area

19. Proposed subproject poses no adverse impact (e.g., displacement, relocation) to IPs, vulnerable groups and other community members, and the environment

20. Appropriate lot acquisition documents generated

21. If safeguards are triggered: mitigation measures are in place

22. Necessary permit/s (i.e., ECC, CNC) accomplished or secured




Sustainability/Abandonment

For Disaster Response Projects 26. Plans for maintaining the project in the Interim clearly

defined (for disaster response projects)

27. Plans for abandonment clearly stated

For Early Recovery Projects (Including Repair) 28. Plans to sustain proposed subproject clearly defined

a. Unit or group that will handle O&M clearly identified (i.e., MLGU, BLGU, O&M group, others)

b. If O&M Group: b.1 Relationship with BLGU on O&M arrangements

clearly defined (i.e., mainstreamed committee of

LGU, or registered organization)

b.2 Plans to prepare O&M group undertake its

responsibilities clearly defined

c. Source of Funds for O&M clearly indicated (i.e., MLGU, BLGU allocation, tariff collection, or combination of the 3)

d. If with tariff: d.1 Potential beneficiaries are willing to pay tariff

d.2 Tariff is affordable to potential beneficiaries

e. O&M activities for sustainability (technical, financial and organizational aspects) clearly defined/stated





Signatories

32. Boxes are completely filled-up

33. Boxes are signed by appropriate signatories

Completeness of Supporting Documents

34. RFR Documents/attachments are available and correct:

a. Request for Fund Request Slip

b. Approved Obligation Request

c. Notarized Subproject Agreement

d. SP Site/Lot Notarized Supporting Documents

e. MIBF Resolution

f. Program of Works

g. Bank Snap Shot or Bank Certification

h. Photographs of the proposed site

i. Safeguards Instruments (e.g., Environmental and Social Safeguards Checklist, Environmental and Social Management Plan, IP Plan, Resettlement Plan, Certificate of Non-Coverage, Environmental Compliance Certificate)

Annex 3B: Sample Computation for Ranking and Clustering Barangays

Annex 3C: Simplified RFR Requirements for KC-NCDDP DROP

Regular RFR Requirements RFR Requirements under DROP

Type 1: Repair of Existing Structures/

New Structures * (incl

shelter kits)

Type 2: Const. of Temporary Structures

(Tents, by-pass roads)

Type 3: Non-Infra (e.g., cash for work,

psycho-social training)

1. Request for Fund Release Slip

✓ ✓ ✓

2. Approved Obligation Request

✓ ✓ ✓

3. Notarized SPA Signed SPA Signed SPA No

4. SP Site/Lot notarized supporting documents

No, provided include provision in SPA and

MIBF Reso. allowing

repair (if LGU-owned)

No, provided include provision in SPA and

MIBF Reso. allowing

const. (if LGU-owned)

No

5. MIBF Resolution ✓ ✓ ✓

6. Program of Works ✓ ✓

Estimated Cost

7. Bank Snap Shot or Bank Certification

✓

✓

No

8. Photographs of the proposed site and

structure

✓ ✓

No

9. Environmental and Social Safeguards Checklist,

ESMP, IPP (if IP area),

CNC or ECC

Simplified ESMP

Simplified ESMP

No

10. Community Proposal Final Activity Brief/Proposal

Final Activity Brief/Proposal

Final Activity Brief/Proposal

Annex 3D: Procedures for the Conduct of Sustainability Evaluation

(Note: As part of demonstration to the LGU, the KC AC shall lead in the conduct of the Sustainability

Evaluation during the implementation of the Project in covered areas. Eventually, the SET shall become

an institutional tool by the MDC led by the MPDC.)

1. Preparing for the Sustainability Evaluation

Preparation for sustainability starts during the Project Identification, Selection and

Planning Stage, specifically during the Project Development Stage, wherein design

considerations and technical specifications are observed to ensure functionality of

subprojects. Compliance with the design and specifications are monitored/ensured

during construction (Subproject Implementation Stage). These are complemented by

the Operation and Maintenance stage wherein community stakeholders are

capacitated on the proper operation and maintenance.

The main person responsible for the effective conduct of the Sustainability Evaluation

is the KC Area Coordinator (AC), in close coordination with the Municipal Area

Coordinator (MAC). In preparing for the sustainability evaluation, the AC together with

the ACT and MCT should undertake the following tasks:

a. Gather documents and other reference materials. Meet with the RPMT to (i)

generate a list of all completed subprojects in the municipality; and, (ii) gather and

review documents on file about the subprojects (i.e., subproject completion

report, previous SET results, etc.);

b. Form (or expand) the MSIT. Meet with the mayor or his/her designated

representative, and the MCT to discuss plans for the formation of Multi-

Stakeholders Inspectorate Team. Municipal representatives will be the

‘permanent’ inspectorate members in all subproject evaluation in the Barangays.

The suggested composition of the MSIT is as follows:

MSIT Member No.

MPDC and Municipal Engineer 2

(MSIT Team Leader/alternate)

AC/DAC 1

(Co-Team leader)

Representative from MIAC 1

MSIT Member No.

(depending on subproject )

Mayor’s representative 1

SB Representative 1

Barangay Chairperson 1

Representative of Association/BSPMC 1

Representative from another/

non-prioritized barangay

1

PLGU Representative 1

CSO Representative 1

NPMO and RPMO representatives (if

available)

2

Existing MSIT may be expanded to include other members mentioned above.

The MSIT shall designate a secretariat composed of two or more members for the

conduct of subproject Sustainability Evaluation. Members of the MSIT Secretariat

can come from the MIAC and MCT. The secretariat shall perform the following

functions:

1. Prepares official communication to MSIT members, O&M groups and other stakeholders

2. Prepares logistics and coordinates activity 3. Ensure reports preparation and transmittal 4. Prepares or assists in the preparation of the process documentation 5. Other related secretariat functions

c. Orient the MSIT and Plan for Sustainability Evaluation. Meet with the MSIT to: (i)

orient them on their roles and functions, (ii) discuss the objectives and procedures

of the sustainability evaluation including the tools, (iii) plan for the sustainability

evaluation, and (iv) finalize the schedule and other logistics and administrative

preparations.

The AC, MAC, and ACT/MCT should ensure that during the planning meeting,

agreements are reached on the following concerns:

Schedule of actual conduct of sustainability evaluation.

List of Participants and sending of invitations signed by the Mayor.

Preparation of Program and other needed materials for the activity.

Logistics and administrative preparations, including tasking.

Other specific concerns.

d. Prepare for the conduct of sustainability evaluation. Ensure that the following

tasks are accomplished before the actual sustainability evaluation:

i. Attended to, and finalized, logistics and administrative requirements and

coordination arrangements

List of participants have been prepared, invitation letters are

distributed, and attendance of participants confirmed. The conduct of

sustainability evaluation has been coordinated with the O&M group.

Note: FGD participants should not exceed 15 participants to promote maximum participation among respondents. FGD participants shall compose of organization officers, selected direct beneficiaries and members of the Barangay council.

Information on the sustainability evaluation are disseminated/posted

in public places, and different means are used to generate awareness

about the event.

Selected date and time, and venue of the sustainability evaluation are

confirmed. The venue is ready and well-arranged; enough tables and

chairs, chalkboards/whiteboards, and sufficient space for small group

discussion are available.

Activity flow and program are prepared and finalized.

Logistics and administrative preparations (MSIT team composition,

refreshments, supplies, sound systems, tasking, funding and other

requirements) have been attended to.

A documenter has been assigned.

ii. Documents and other reference materials have been secured/prepared

by the MSIT/MSIT Secretariat. Documents include:

Inventory of completed subprojects, and O&M and financial

arrangements per subproject (i.e., O&M may be mainstreamed under

the LGU. In this case, supporting documents include (1) minutes of

Barangay Assembly meeting approving such arrangement, (2) LGU

resolution accepting the responsibility of taking care of the operation

and maintenance, and (3) O&M funds appropriated in the B/AIP).

Copy of the Subproject Completion Reports. MSIT Secretariat shall fill-

up the Basic Information section of the SET using the SPCR.

Copy of the previous sustainability evaluation. This shall be the basis

of determining compliance with recommended areas for

improvement.

Sustainability evaluation tool printed in manila paper. The ‘blow-up’

SET form will be posted on a wall. This will focus attention of

respondents - community O&M groups, Barangay Council and other

participating beneficiaries.

iii. Team building of the MSIT has been conducted to level-off on all concerns

needed for the activity. During the team building, the MSIT members

should have decided on the following:

Composition of evaluation teams (in cases where there is more than one team which will conduct sustainability evaluation) and tasks of each team member during the actual conduct of SET have been identified.

Methodology to adopt during the filling up of rating forms (i.e., consensus method or individual method). The Consensus method requires the group to deliberate the observations then agree on what appropriate rating would correspond to the indicator/s. In Individual method, each member is required to have his/her own rating, after which, results will be consolidated by taking the average to come up with the final rating for each indicator.

2. Conducting the Sustainability Evaluation

It is envisioned that the conduct of Sustainability Evaluation and O&M monitoring shall

be replicated and sustained by the Multi-Inspectorate Team, even after phase-out of

KALAHI-CIDSS. KALAHI-CIDSS Project shall continue to assist the communities and

LGUs during the 2nd and 3rd cycle. This period provides adequate time to orient and

capacitate the MSITs.

a. Be at the venue early. All MSIT members/secretariat are at the venue early to

ensure that all is set for the activity, and unforeseen problems/issues are

addressed.

b. As much as possible, start the activity on time. The suggested activity flow is

detailed below:

i. Opening Program

Request the present Barangay Official or O&M group officer holding

the highest position to give his/her opening remark and, together with

the AC, acknowledge the participants.

Introduce the members of the MSIT.

ii. Present the objectives of the activity

Explain the objectives of the activity clearly, preferably using the local

dialect to promote better understanding among participants.

In line with the transparency principle of the KC project, emphasize the

importance of generating accurate information in the areas for

evaluation to arrive at the true status of the subproject and O&M

group. Also, emphasize that the sustainability evaluation does not

intend to find faults in the O&M but rather identify the areas for

improvement in the components being evaluated.

Enjoin everyone to speak freely on the areas of evaluation and on the

status of the subprojects being evaluated to surface good practices as

well as problem areas which need to be addressed for continued

benefits derived from the subprojects.

iii. Explain the procedures of the activity and their participation

Explain that inspection of subprojects, Focus Group Discussions (FGD),

Plenary and meetings shall be used to collect data, information, and to

verify observations made. Also explain how the Team intends to carry

out the sequencing of activities.

Mention that record review shall also be done to check the soundness

and responsiveness of required documents. Records include

organizational requirements such as VMGO, Constitution and By-laws,

operational policies, ordinance; financial records, O&M plan, and other

pertinent documents as may be applicable. Emphasize that the

presence or absence of such documents will affect the individual scores

of pertinent indicators.

Inform the participants of their expected roles in each of the

procedures.

iv. Undertake actual inspection of all structures and sub-structures

Actual inspection of all structures and sub-structures of the subproject

should be conducted to assess its physical-technical condition. Ideally,

the group should do the activity as one team for them to understand

and appreciate the process.

Depending on the complexity (e.g., roads and water system) and

location of the subprojects, the team may divide into smaller groups to

allow the simultaneous conduct of the physical-technical evaluation.

Each sub-group must have a technical representative, or one that could

understand the sub-project structures, to guide the sub-group

members in understanding the technical conditions.

Ideally, a maximum of half-day shall be spent for one subproject.

Include photo documentation.

v. Do the Focused group discussion

Explain to the participants the components of the tool, and generate responses for each of the indicator. Translate technical terms to facilitate understanding by the participants. Thoroughly explain the questions to generate the appropriate responses.

Answers may be written first in meta cards prior to consolidation of answers.

FGD participants should not exceed 15 participants to promote maximum participation among respondents.

vi. Conduct exit conference

Immediately after generating the computation of the Final Rating, the

MSIT shall conduct an exit conference with the FGD participants.

The MSIT shall present the findings, observations and

recommendations to the organization/O&M group/community.

Lessons learned and challenges should be provided with reflection-

analysis and proper guidance. Observed gaps and action points shall

serve as inputs during the Action Planning.

The MSIT and O&M groups jointly analyze the gaps and weaknesses

identified during the evaluation. The group reflects on the causes and

the ill effects of such deficiencies to subproject sustainability, and come

up with recommendations and agreements.

The facilitator should encourage the participants to share their

experiences, thoughts and comments on the evaluation activity.

He/she should encourage sharing of techniques, ways and means

applied to a resolve problem or issue. The facilitator should stimulate

discussion by encouraging participants to affirm or reinforce

experience shared or to present other experiences where different

techniques or ways of dealing with the identified problem proved to be

a success. Factors that made the techniques/measures a success or

failure should be surfaced by the facilitator.

vii. Conduct Action Planning and Tactic Session

After the discussions, the FGD participants shall proceed to the

preparation of an Action Plan to address the findings presented during

the exit conference.

The Action Plan (format attached) should detail the

activities/recommendations, materials and resources needed,

timeframe to address the need or gaps, and responsible person/group

needed to accomplish the planned activities.

viii. Wrap-up/Summarize Agreements and schedule the succeeding evaluation

Wrap-up the activity by summarizing the agreements reached during

the activity and placing emphasis on the critical follow-through

activities. Before dispersing the group, set the schedule of the next


c. It is important that documenters record the lessons learned and the good/best

practices that surfaced throughout the activity. This can be replicated to the other

Barangays, as may be applicable.

3. Conducting the post-Sustainability Evaluation activities

Immediately after the conduct of the sustainability evaluation, the AC/MAC shall:

1. Call on the MSIT members for a brief meeting to reflect on the conduct of the

sustainability evaluation. During the meeting, learning and insights shall be gathered,

gaps identified, and recommendations for improving the conduct of future

sustainability evaluations generated.

2. Assist the MSIT in consolidating the evaluation results. Sit down with the MSIT

members to finalize the evaluation findings and recommendations. Assist the MSIT

members come up with a comprehensive report.

3. Ensure that the proceedings have been properly documented. Sit down with the MSIT

Secretariat or the designated documenter to finalize the documentation. Assist the

documenter in filling out details that may have been missed or overlooked.

4. Gather copies of the Process Documentation, summary of SET results and Action Plan

per subproject and file these neatly for future reference. Where possible, store copies

digitally.

5. Furnish the RPMO and NPMO a copy of the Process Documentation,

consolidated/summary of SET result and Action Plan per Subproject within one week

of the conduct of the activity, and duly accomplished and signed SET forms within two

weeks of the conduct of the sustainability evaluation.

6. Ensure that the MSIT and the CF in-charge of the Barangay shall monitor the

implementation of the Action plan using the monthly O&M monitoring tool.

86

ACTION PLAN

For the period ______________________

Name of Subproject: _____________________________________

Location: _____________________________________

Date of Evaluation: _____________________________________

Components/ Key Areas

Findings Recommended Actions/

Specific Activities

Timeframe Materials/Tools

Needed

Amount Source of Fund

Responsible Person

Subproject

Utilization

Institutional

Support

Organization

and

Management

Financial

Management

Physical/Techn

ical

Prepared by: Noted by:

_________________ _______________________ ______________________

O&M Group Secretary President/Chairperson MSIT Leader

87

ANNEX 4:

FORMATS FOR COMMUNITY, BARANGAY LGU AND

MUNICIPAL LGU

88

Annex 4A: Simplified ESMP

Background:

The Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) is the safeguards instrument which identifies the risks and corresponding mitigating measures related with the location and nature of a proposed sub-project. Based on the ESMF, the document still applies under disaster operations. However, as the typologies of sub-projects to be funded under DROP will either (i) only involve repairs of existing structures or (ii) construction of temporary structures, the ESMP template was simplified.

Instruction:

In accomplishing the simplified ESMP template, consider the potential risks or impacts of the proposed sub-project to both the people and environment. Check relevant items under (i) Potential Impacts, (ii) Mitigation/Enhancement Measures and (iii) Monitoring Parameter, as applicable and provide needed information under the two remaining columns.

89

Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) and Mitigating Measures for Eligible Sub-projects under the KC-NCDDP

Region: ________________________________ Sub-Project Title: ________________________________ Province: _______________________________ Sub-Project Total Cost: _________________ Municipality: ____________________________ Fund Source: __________________ Barangay: ______________________________ Cycle: _____________ Modality: _________________

Potential Impacts Mitigation/Enhancement Measures Monitoring Parameter

Time Frame/Schedule for the Implementation of

Mitigation/Enhancement Measures

Status of Compliance with Mitigation/Enhancement

Measures

A. Environment

Cutting of trees Acquisition of tree cutting permit

Compliance with conditions in secured permits

Presence of permit

Soil/Land contamination due to improper solid waste disposal

Water/Air quality degradation

Implement proper segregation, collection and disposal of domestic wastes

Provide bins for solid wastes

Strictly enforce good housekeeping practices

Presence of waste segregation facilities

90





Measures

Improper removal and disposal of temporary structures

Appropriate dismantling and disposal of materials from temporary structures

Inspection Report

B. Social

Less participation of

IPs/Difficulty in ensuring

participation of IPs

Conduct of separate

consultation with IP groups

Ensure IP representation in all

DROM activities

Attendance Sheet, Minutes of the Meeting

Proposed project for repair is

located in high risk or no build

zone area

Technical design to include retro-

fitting of the proposed structure

(not just restoration to former

design)

Preparation and posting of

disaster contingency/evacuation

plan

Strictly enforce no dwelling

Signed and approved technical design

Prepared and posted disaster contigency/ evacuation plan

Temporary structures may

pose physical and social

hazards

Appropriate information dissemination on potential hazards

Presence of signages, list of precautionary measures

z

z

v

91





Measures

Increased risk to

community/personal health

and safety during

construction activities

Provide appropriate warning

signs and lighting

Use of personal protective

equipment (PPE) during

construction

Presence of signages and lighting

Possible land conflict in

transitional projects

Execute agreement between the

Project and LGU

Signed and notarized agreement

Annex 4B: Activity Proposal Form

Instructions to ACT/MCT:

1. Before filling up the form, the ACT/MCT members meet with the BRTs and PPTs of their

assigned barangays to discuss the details of the proposed subprojects and generate all

information needed to fill-up the activity proposal form.

2. Based on the information generated in No. 1, the ACT/MCT accomplishes the Activity

Proposal Form.

3. Supporting documents shall also be prepared as a result of the meeting.

ACTIVITY PROPOSAL

For Disaster Response Operations

Barangay: ___________Municipality: ____________Province: ___________ Region:

________

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

Name of proposed subproject:

Category: Public

Goods

______

Enterprise

______

Human

Resource Dev’t

______

Environmental

Protection &

Conservation _____

Demographics:

Male Female Total

Population

Pantawid

SLP

IPs

Households

Families

What disaster-related needs of the community will the proposed subproject address?

1.

2.

3.

What are the expected benefits of the subproject?

1.

2.

3.

Who will benefit from the proposed subproject? How many? ______________________

________________________________________________________________________

Current expenses without the proposed SP:

Expected expenses after completion of proposed SP:

B. TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION

Physical target: ______________ Cost Parameter: ______________

Proposed scope of works to be undertaken:

Manpower requirement/sources

Skilled

Unskilled

Equipment requirement

Equipment Type Source

Other component/s included in the proposal (e.g., trainings) _______________________

________________________________________________________________________

Procurement Method/s to be adopted: ________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

C. FINANCIAL ASPECT

Total Estimated Cost (during 1st Community Consultation): Php ______________

Total Estimated Cost (during MIBF): Php ______________

Total Estimated Cost (during PDW): Php ______________

DIRECT COST

Item of Work Unit Cost Total Cost

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Sub-total

INDIRECT COST

1.

2.

3.

Sub-total

TOTAL Project Cost

Cost Sharing Arrangement: Direct Cost Indirect Cost Total % Total

Grant Amount

LCC: BLGU

Community

MLGU

PLGU/Others

Sub-total

TOTAL LCC Cash

TOTAL LCC In-kind

D. SAFEGUARD CONCERNS

Subproject will cause displacement or relocation of

community members during implementation

Yes __ No __

Acquisition of proposed

site/location?

Deed of

Sale __

Donated __

LGU Owned __

Others:

(Specify) ___

Proposed site within a

natural reservation or

protected area?

Yes ___ No ___

Necessary permit/s

accomplished? (e.g ECC,

CNC)

Yes ___ No ___ EMP Only ______

What are the measures to be undertaken to mitigate the environmental impacts of the

subproject?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

E. SUBPROJECT SUSTAINABILITY/ABANDONMENT

E.1 For Disaster Response

In case of infrastructures, what are the plans for maintaining the project in the interim?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

What are the plans for abandonment?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

E.2 For Early Recovery Projects (Including Repair of KC-funded Projects)

Who will maintain the subproject? ___ MLGU ___ BLGU ___ O&M Group

___ Others (specify)

Where will funds for O&M be sourced? ___ MLGU ___ BLGU ___ O&M Group

___ Others (specify)

What are the plans to ensure that O&M groups (if applicable) are capable of undertaking

the roles and responsibilities?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

What O&M activities will be undertaken to ensure subproject sustainability? Who are

responsible?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared by:

____________________________

Head, Project Preparation Team

Approved for endorsement to the MIBF

____________________ ____________________

Brgy. Chairperson BSPMC Chairperson

Approved for endorsement to KALAHI-

CIDSS

____________________________

Municipal Mayor

Technical Verification by:

___________________ _____________________

Area Coordinator MIAC Representative

Annex 4C: Revised MIBF Resolution

MIBF RESOLUTION

(MIBF-PRA for NCDDP)

Republic of the Philippines

Province of _________________

MUNICIPALITY OF _________________

-oOo-

EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MUNICIPAL INTER-BARANGAY FORUM FOR

PARTICIPATORY RESOURCE ALLOCATION (MIBF-PRA) OF THE KC-NCDDP HELD AT THE

(VENUE, ADDRESS) ON (DATE) AT (TIME: START) TO (TIME: END).

PRESENT: Please see attached Attendance Sheet

MIBF RESOLUTION NO. ___

Series of ____

“A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE RESULT OF THE MIBF-PRA AND ENDORSING

THE SUBPROJECT PROPOSALS OF THE PRIORITIZED BARANGAYS TO KC-NCDDP IN

(MUNICIPALITY), (PROVINCE) AS RECOGNIZED AND DULY ADOPTED BY THE MIBF AS WINNING

SUB-PROJECTS, AND APPROVING THE PROGRAMMED PROJECTS FOR GRASSROOTS

PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING PROCESS (GPBP) AND OTHER FUNDING SOURCES .”

WHEREAS, the Municipal Inter-Barangay Forum (MIBF) for NCDDP implementation convened by the

Hon. ___________________ and facilitated by Area Coordinator ___________________ deliberated on

the subproject proposals and evaluated them based on the following criteria:

(Insert Table)

WHEREAS, the duly appointed Barangay representatives presented their respective priority subprojects

and ranked by the MIBF in the following order:

Rank Barangay/Location Subproject Name

TOTAL

WHEREAS, after thorough deliberation, the MIBF members voted on the proposals, excluding its own

proposal, in accordance with the mechanics for prioritization, by a simple majority vote, have prioritized

the following subprojects for NCDDP funding and implementation as programmed:

No. Barangay/

Location

Subproject

Name

Subproject Cost Indicative

Year to be

Implemented Grant LCC Total

TOTAL

WHEREAS, the following subprojects have been approved for implementation under the Grassroots

Participatory Budgeting Process (GPBP) and other funding sources as programmed:

No. Barangay/

Location

Subproject

Name

Subproject

Cost

Fund Source Indicative

Year to be

Implemented

TOTAL

NOW, THEREFORE, upon mass motion, seconded by all members present during the MIBF, resolved,

as it is hereby resolved to submit the MIBF-approved subprojects to the Department of Social Welfare

and Development for funding by the KC-NCDDP.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the programmed subprojects for funding by GPBP and other national

agencies be implemented as planned, subject to the result of validation prior to implementation.

RESOLVED FINALLY, that the non-prioritized subprojects be elevated to the Local Poverty Reduction

Action Team (LPRAT), Municipal Development Council (MDC) and other funding sources for possible

funding.

Approved this ___ day of ____ 201___.

We hereby certify the correctness of the above resolution:

Municipal Mayor / Convenor

MIAC Members

Other participants (BRT, ACT/RPMO, CSO representatives)

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_____________________________ _____________________________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Republic of the Philippines )

Province of ) S.S.

MUNICIPALITY OF )

At _______________________ this _________ day of ____________ 201___ personally appeared

_________________________, known to me and to me known to be the same person who executed the

foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same is his/her own free act and deed.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. ______

Book No. ______

Page No. ______

Series of 201___

Annex

SAMPLE COMPUTATION

RANKING OF BARANGAYS

100%

2010 POP

(NSCB)

BRGY POP ÷

TOTAL POP

RATING

(C*20%)

POOR

HH

(NHTS)

BRGY POOR

HH ÷ TOTAL

HH

RATING (F*30%)

DAMAGE

AFFECTED

HH (DANA)

BRGY

DAMAGE

AFFECTED

HH ÷ TOTAL

HH

RATING

(I*50%)

TOTAL

RATING

(E+F+K)

TOTAL

SCORE (M *

100%)

Barangay 1 1,978 0.055188192 0.011037638 202 0.0311632 0.009348966 419 0.06464054 0.032320272 0.05270688 5.27

Barangay 2 3,212 0.089618035 0.017923607 286 0.0441222 0.013236655 242 0.03733416 0.018667078 0.04982734 4.98

Barangay 3 2,710 0.07561173 0.015122346 168 0.0259179 0.007775378 273 0.04211663 0.021058315 0.04395604 4.40

Barangay 4 1,740 0.048547753 0.009709551 148 0.0228325 0.006849738 338 0.05214440 0.026072200 0.04263149 4.26

Barangay 5 1,970 0.054964984 0.010992997 222 0.0342487 0.010274607 266 0.04103672 0.020518359 0.04178596 4.18

Barangay 6 1,943 0.054211657 0.010842331 211 0.0325517 0.009765504 273 0.04211663 0.021058315 0.04166615 4.17

Barangay 7 1,705 0.047571217 0.009514243 194 0.0299290 0.008978710 279 0.04304227 0.021521135 0.04001409 4.00

Barangay 8 1,454 0.040568065 0.008113613 124 0.0191299 0.005738969 335 0.05168158 0.025840790 0.03969337 3.97

Barangay 9 1,487 0.041488798 0.00829776 165 0.0254551 0.007636532 288 0.04443073 0.022215366 0.03814966 3.81

Barangay 10 1,368 0.038168578 0.007633716 162 0.0249923 0.007497686 291 0.04489355 0.022446776 0.03757818 3.76

Barangay 11 1,349 0.037638459 0.007527692 146 0.0225239 0.006757174 280 0.04319654 0.021598272 0.03588314 3.59

Barangay 12 1,078 0.030077286 0.006015457 135 0.0208269 0.006248072 230 0.03548288 0.017741438 0.03000497 3.00

Barangay 13 1,134 0.031639742 0.006327948 139 0.0214440 0.006433200 214 0.03301450 0.016507251 0.02926840 2.93

Barangay 14 1,045 0.029156553 0.005831311 138 0.0212897 0.006386918 216 0.03332305 0.016661524 0.02887975 2.89

Barangay 15 851 0.023743757 0.004748751 126 0.0194384 0.005831533 181 0.02792348 0.013961740 0.02454203 2.45

Barangay 16 894 0.0249435 0.0049887 91 0.0140389 0.004211663 183 0.02823203 0.014116014 0.02331638 2.33

Barangay 17 1,323 0.036913033 0.007382607 95 0.0146560 0.004396791 143 0.02206109 0.011030546 0.02280994 2.28

Barangay 18 944 0.026338551 0.00526771 141 0.0217525 0.006525764 141 0.02175255 0.010876273 0.02266975 2.27

Barangay 19 720 0.020088725 0.004017745 91 0.0140389 0.004211663 156 0.02406665 0.012033323 0.02026273 2.03

Barangay 20 934 0.026059541 0.005211908 128 0.0197470 0.005924098 110 0.01697007 0.008485035 0.01962104 1.96

Barangay 21 672 0.018749477 0.003749895 70 0.0107991 0.003239741 141 0.02175255 0.010876273 0.01786591 1.79

Barangay 22 659 0.018386764 0.003677353 91 0.0140389 0.004211663 123 0.01897562 0.009487812 0.01737683 1.74

Barangay 23 755 0.02106526 0.004213052 125 0.0192842 0.005785251 91 0.01403888 0.007019438 0.01701774 1.70

Barangay 24 585 0.016322089 0.003264418 63 0.0097192 0.002915767 136 0.02098118 0.010490589 0.01667077 1.67

Barangay 25 728 0.020311933 0.004062387 88 0.0135761 0.004072817 106 0.01635298 0.008176489 0.01631169 1.63

Barangay 26 565 0.015764069 0.003152814 66 0.0101820 0.003054613 125 0.01928417 0.009642086 0.01584951 1.58

Barangay 27 377 0.01051868 0.002103736 61 0.0094107 0.002823203 94 0.01450170 0.007250849 0.01217779 1.22

Barangay 28 372 0.010379175 0.002075835 56 0.0086393 0.002591793 79 0.01218760 0.006093798 0.01076143 1.08

Barangay 29 369 0.010295472 0.002059094 19 0.0029312 0.000879358 94 0.01450170 0.007250849 0.01018930 1.02

Barangay 30 423 0.011802126 0.002360425 63 0.0097192 0.002915767 56 0.00863931 0.004319654 0.00959585 0.96

Barangay 31 222 0.006194024 0.001238805 39 0.0060167 0.001804998 71 0.01095341 0.005476705 0.00852051 0.85

Barangay 32 275 0.007672777 0.001534555 39 0.0060167 0.001804998 61 0.00941068 0.004705338 0.00804489 0.80

35,841 6,482 0 6,482

Range Determinant: (Highest Score - Lowest Score) ÷No. of Categories = 1.49

Therefore, Ranges of Categories are: Least Affected 0 - 1.49

Moderately Affected 1.5 - 2.99

Severely Affected 3 and above

CRITERIA

BARANGAYS

20% 50%

POPULATION DAMAGE AFFECTED HH

30%

POOR HH