SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECT

IN SELECTED BARANGAYS
COTABATO CITY, PHILIPPINES

Parents are fond of telling their kids “clean-up your mess.” Perhaps it is more appropriate
that kids tell the adults to “clean-up your mess, don’t leave it for us to do.”

EXTERNAL EVALUATION
(September 2010)

by
Walter Welz
“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

-Albert Einstein

Center of Cotabato City, Philippines

1
 TABLE OF COMMENTS1

ACRONYMS 3
BEFORE WE BEGIN ...
“What are Barangays, BSWMCs, CPHSGs, MSEs, MRFs & RA 2003?” 4
ONE MINUTE (read: “PAGE”) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
TO SUM IT ALL UP 6
METHODOLOGY 8
PRACTICAL BACKGROUND 10
PRE-PROJECT ASSESSMENT & DESIGN 12
MONITORING 15

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES

THE EVALUATOR’S DAC RATINGS 19
BSWMC (BARANGAY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE) 20
CPHSG (COMMUNITY PRIMARY HEALTH SUPPORT GROUP) 22
MSE (MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE) 28
MRF (MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY) 32
PEDAL CARTS 36
SCHOOL INTERVENTION 38

PHOTO COLLAGE - URBAN WASTE RECEPTACLES

& OTHER MATERIAL SUPPORT 39

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT RESULTS

THE EVALUATOR’S DAC RATINGS 40
Result 1: Solid Waste Management at the Household Level is Improved 41
Result 2: Primary Solid Waste Management at the Barangay is Improved 43
Result 3. Secondary Solid Waste Management at the City Level is Improved 45

GENDER (a.k.a. “GENDER DIVERSIFICATION) 48

SUGGESTED LOGICAL FRAMEWORK 50
COLLECTION OF GARBAGE FEE UNSUSTAINABLE AND MISPLACED 52
HEALTH TRAINING LINKAGE UNCLEAR 54
RECAP OF RECOMMENDATIONS 56
BIBLIOGRAPHY 58
LIST OF ELECTRONIC ANNEXES 59
About the Evaluator... 60

1
The evaluator did notice the apparent typo - “Table of Comments,” but the more he thought about it, “Table of
Comments” could be an appropriate title, so it remains.

2
 ACRONYMS

3 R’s Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

ACF Action Contre la Faim (Action Against Hunger)
a.k.a. also known as
CBM Community Based Monitoring
CBO Community Based Organizations
CPHSG Community Primary Health Support Group
CSWMB City Solid Waste Management Board
DAC Development Assistance Committee
FGD Focus Group Discussions
HH Household
iNGO International Non-Governmental Organization
KAP Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MRF Material Recovery Facility
MSE Micro Small Enterprise
NA Not Applicable
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OGS Office of General Services
OVC Orphans and Vulnerable Children
OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicator
PhP Philippine Peso
RA 9003 Republic Act 9003
SWM Solid Waste Management
ToT Training of Trainers
USAID United States Agency for International Development
UTD Unable to Determine

3
 BEFORE WE BEGIN...
“What are Barangays, BSWMCs, CPHSGs, MSEs, MRFs & RA 9003?”

Reviewers of this evaluation will see the above words or acronyms often. Thus it may be helpful
to give a brief explanation of each.

Barangays - Semi-autonomous administrative units of Philippine cities. Cotabato City has 37

Barangays. The project targeted 12 Barangays. The Barangay administration (government) was
the principal partner of ACF in the implementation of the project, as well as being the direct
beneficiary.

BSWMC - Barangay Solid Waste Management Committee. BSWMCs were formed or

reactivated in all of the targeted Barangays as part of the project design. BSWMCs are
statutorily authorized and consist primarily of Barangay officials with representation from other
segments of the Barangay including education and the general public.

CPHSG - Community Primary Health Support Group. CPHSGs were formed in all of the
targeted Barangays as part of the project design and implementation. CPHSGs consist of
volunteer members from the Barangay that were recommended or vetted by the Barangay
administration. The CPHSG members were the recipients of the project’s SWM and health
Training of Trainers (ToT), and the primary mechanism for the project’s SWM messaging,
information dissemination, and awareness campaigns. The project trained 20 CPHSG members
in each beneficiary Barangay.

MSE - Micro Small Enterprise (a.k.a. “garbage collector”). A private individual chosen and
vetted by the Barangay administration to collect the Barangay’s solid waste. Typically, each
Barangay has about five MSEs. Personally, this evaluator does not feel that there should be any
shame in collecting the garbage, so the terms solid waste and garbage are interchangeable in this
report, as so are the terms MSE and garbage collector.

MRF - Material Recovery Facility. Low-cost, low-tech structures constructed by the project.
The purpose of the MRF was to “bulk the recyclables” collected by the MSEs, so that they could
be later marketed at increased profit margins. Perhaps, more importantly, the creation of MRFs
are legislated by RA 9003.

RA 9003 - REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000). The
Philippine legislation passed in the year 2000 governing the management of solid waste. The
titled description of the act is “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ECOLOGICAL SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, CREATING THE NECESSARY INSTITUTIONAL
MECHANISMS AND INCENTIVES, DECLARING CERTAIN ACTS PROHIBITED AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.”

4
5
 ONE MINUTE (read: “PAGE”) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

If you break down all the facets of this project to a single core purpose - to reduce solid waste in
Cotabato City - then the project has been successful. As in most multi-faceted development
programs, many aspects or activities face challenging sustainability challenges, and this project
is no different. However, a few of the central themes of this project will be sustainable, due in
some part to the project, and in other part to conditions or opportunities external to the design
and implementation of the project.

Incomplete pre-project assessment of the 12 target Barangays, and more importantly Cotabato
City’s “SWM scene,” is the one factor that had reverberations throughout the project and its
various activities. The differences between Barangays were apparently not taken into
consideration as the package of services and goods delivered during implementation was the
same across all the Barangays, despite the distinctive challenges of each specific Barangay.
However, the greater ramification of the incomplete pre-project assessment was the apparent
oversight or underestimation of the Cotabato City “recyclables trade.” In turn, this has resulted
in less than the planned utilization of the intertwined MSE and MRF components of the project.

It is oft-stated in this evaluation that political will and leadership are critical to effective and
sustainable solid waste management (borne out in literature [internet] search), and the BSWMC,
along with the Barangay Chairman, who chairs the BSWMC, are key to ensuring such in each
Barangay. The members of the CPHSGs are genuinely engaged, enthusiastic, and very
conversant on many of the key topics of the SWM. In general, the MSEs are working well but
not as a “public-private partnership.” The pedal cart is probably the most critical piece of
equipment for successful garbage pick-up in the Barangays. The pedal cart allows the MSE to
traverse his garbage pick-up route in the Barangay in a timely, low-cost, and efficient manner,
especially given some of the narrow streets and alley-ways in parts of the city. “Appropriate
technology” that is not only appropriate, but also effective, and efficient. An exciting potential
success of the school intervention is that science and “technology & livelihood” curriculums are
being revised to incorporate SWM information and messaging.

The project has effectuated some behaviour changes at the household level using the motivating
technique of messaging, information, and education (a.k.a. “awareness”). The CPHSGs were the
primary “agents of change” for the SWM awareness and information campaigns, thus they
deserve the bulk of the credit and gratitude for the job well done, though others did provide
invaluable assistance and contributions such as the BSWMC members and other Barangay
leadership. It is evident that those Barangays that exhibited a tight or affable relationship
between the stakeholders experienced a greater degree of success and impact. The project did an
admirable job in helping to create and then foster this spirit of teamwork.

The City Government exhibited significant levels of cooperation and collaboration for the
project, and more importantly for improved solid waste management. Continued progress in the
City’s solid waste management depends primarily upon political will and leadership. At this

6
point in time it appears to this evaluator that the political will and leadership are strong and due
in significant part to the contributions of the project to the City and its Barangays.
TO SUM IT ALL UP

A summation is often located at the end of an evaluation. However, in an attempt to make this
report more interesting and enjoyable, this evaluator will attempt to vary typical report
formatting just a little bit, while at the same time maintaining the typical elements of a
development project evaluation. Furthermore, this evaluator will render his opinions on the
overall success of the project’s components in this initial summation, so that the reviewer clearly
knows where the evaluator
“stands.” There is nothing worse
than an evaluation written in a If you break down all the facets of this project to a
manner where the reviewer is single core purpose - to reduce solid waste in
unable to determine the Cotabato City - then the project has been successful...
evaluator’s opinions.

If you break down all the facets of this project to a single core purpose - to reduce solid waste in
Cotabato City - then the project has been successful, though there are not numerous and strong
indicators to validate that conclusion. However, this was a development project - not a research
project. Participatory comments from the focus group discussions, key informant interviews,
and round tables were unanimously positive:

-“Before the project, the truck was totally filled during garbage pick-up, now it is only
half-filled;”

-“I estimate there has been a 30% reduction in residual waste;”

-“... a 50% reduction in residual waste;”and

“The streets and alley ways of the Barangay are significantly cleaner and free of garbage
than before the project,” just to name a few.

Though the project’s indicators will be discussed later, there are a few output and impact
indicator results that are helpful in helping validate the above comments, even if only indirectly
and through liberal deduction.

Result and Indicator or “subset indicator” Achievement

Result 1: Solid waste management at the HH level is improved 90%
Streets shall be kept clean by occupants or owners of properties living along the street from
the line of the property to the middle of the street and from one property to another.
Result 1: Solid waste management at the HH level is improved 77%
Beneficiary households apply improved practices in waste management (reduce, reuse,
recycling) and composting.
Result 2: Primary solid waste management at the Barangay is improved 100%
Barangays have organized and functional Barangay Solid Waste Management Committees.

7
As reviewers proceed through this evaluation, some may interpret the tone of the discussion or
the nature of the findings contrary to the opinion of the project’s success. Generally speaking,
ACF implementation of the project’s activities was excellent. Achievement of output indicators
was precise as one would expect of a reputable international NGO like ACF. The impact
indicators did not lend themselves to strong validation of findings, due in significant part to the
design of certain components of the projects, which in turn was the result of incomplete pre-
project assessment of the specific intervention areas, namely the project’s target Barangays of
Cotabato City.

Throughout this evaluation, the

modified DAC criteria will be
The most desired, yet most elusive objective of all
appropriately brought into the
discussion; however a few development programming is sustainability.
words on sustainability will be Sustainability that goes beyond the cynical “who is
entered at this juncture. The going to help (read: “fund”) you when we don’t,” to
most desired, yet most elusive where the individual, community, or some level of
objective of all development government can successfully carry-on critical
programming is sustainability. programming and be the masters of their own
Sustainability that goes beyond
the cynical “who is going to development path.
help (read: “fund”) you when
we don’t,” to where the individual, community, or some level of government can successfully
carry-on critical programming and be the masters of their own development path. As in most
multi-faceted development programs, many aspects or activities face challenging sustainability
challenges, and this project is no different. However, a few of the central themes of this project
will be sustainable, due in some part to the project, and in other part to conditions or
opportunities external to the design and implementation of the project.

However, regardless of
the discussion, findings,
recommendations and ...laudable levels of local government leadership and
opinions herein, this dynamic and enthusiastic project implementation by ACF.
evaluator comes back to The role of leadership and enthusiasm can never be over-
the above stated opinion estimated in development programming.
of the success of the
project in reducing solid
waste in Cotabato City. Many of the challenges of assessment, design, and results monitoring,
were countered by laudable levels of local government leadership and dynamic and enthusiastic
project implementation by ACF. The role of leadership and enthusiasm can never be over-
estimated in development programming.

As in all development programming, the project enjoyed successes, as well as a share of “it did
not go as well as anticipated,” with most achievements falling between the two extremes.
However, this evaluator believes that the overall level of accomplishment falls closer to the
“success end of the spectrum,” than the opposite.

... the level of accomplishment falls

closer to the “success
8 end of the
spectrum,” than the opposite.
9
 METHODOLOGY

The evaluator wishes he could say that he employed some new, revolutionary, cutting-edge
project evaluation techniques - but that would not be the truth. The evaluator took the time-
tested path of project evaluation. Hopefully, the evaluator’s choice to go down that well-worn
path was a wise and appropriate technical decision, and not a reflection of the fact that the
evaluator himself is “time-tested.”

Document Review

Documents reviewed included the project’s annual internal evaluations, quarterly reports, a
comparative Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices survey, project proposal and amendments
(addendums), as well as internet research in regards to solid waste management, just to name a
few. For those documents, reports, or data sources not mentioned here, this is not due to neglect
or are such being “minimalized,” but the evaluator is trying to minimalize dry and boring text
dealing with a very common and widely-understood evaluation or assessment techniques.

Briefings/Meetings

The evaluator was briefed by project personnel,

who are no longer with ACF or the partner
Handicap International as the project has ended
and all said personnel were projected-funded
positions. Thus the evaluator takes this
opportunity to sincerely thank them for their time
and willingness to provide invaluable information
to the evaluation process. Furthermore, I met with
Cotabato City’s Mayor, the Secretary to the
Mayor, and the Director of the City’s Office of
General Services. The Mayor informed the
evaluator that at the upcoming seminar with the
Barangay Chairmen, his number two priority issue
after Peace and Order would be solid waste
management.
The evaluator was briefed by
project personnel, who are no
longer with ACF or the partner
Handicap International as the
project has ended and all said
personnel were projected-funded
positions. Thus the evaluator takes
this opportunity to sincerely thank
them for their time and willingness
to provide invaluable information
to the evaluation process.

The Mayor informed the evaluator that at the upcoming seminar with the
Barangay Chairmen, his number two priority issue after Peace and Order would be
solid waste management.

10
Field Visits (Participatory Techniques)

The evaluator opines that regardless of how many days you have for an evaluation it is never
enough. If you had 20 days to conduct an evaluation, you wish you had 25. If you had 25, you
would wish for 30, and so on...

The field participatory evaluation techniques consisted primarily of Focus Group Discussions
(FGDs) with CPHSG members, as well as Key Informant Interviews with Barangay Chairmen,
members of the BSWMCs, and Barangay health center personnel in eight of the project’s 12
beneficiary Barangays. One impromptu and brief “person-on-the-street” interview were
conducted in each of the eight Barangays visited. Additionally, round-table discussions were
conducted with the coordinating committees of two of the project’s 21 target schools. A decision
was made to visit only two of the schools because the school intervention was a lower-profile
activity of the project. More importantly, professional educators are very experienced in
comprehending and conveying information and behavior change messaging, thus it was not
necessary to hold similar conversations over a number of schools.

“The DAC”

The main issues considered in this evaluation were guided by the Development Assistance
Committee (DAC) criteria, nicknamed by the evaluator as “The DAC.” The DAC criteria are
Impact, Coherence, Coverage, Relevance/Appropriateness, Effectiveness, Efficiency and
Sustainability. However, the evaluator has taken the liberty of slightly revising the criteria.
“Coherence” has been expanded to “Coherence, Cooperation, and Collaboration” and renamed
the “The 3 C’s.” Furthermore, Sustainability has been expanded to include “Replicability.”

11
 PRACTICAL BACKGROUND

More detailed background can be found in the electronic annexes to this report, but this evaluator
will attempt to contextualize in a short concise manner.

Cotabato City is a small city, or large town depending upon

your perspective, with a population of about 260,000, and a
...Cotabato City faces
rapid growth rate (6.5% annually). During a key informant
interview with a city official, he mentioned that Cotabato unique challenges and
City’s compliance with RA 9003 in regards to dump sites obstacles
and landfills was lacking. Furthermore, according to an
October 2009 article by a Filipino news agency (abs- ...located in a delta at the
cbnNews), national compliance with RA 9003 stands at convergence of two rivers
only 13.1%. Thus most cities and towns throughout the and is bordered to the west
Philippines are incompliant with the national solid waste by the sea.
management legislation that was enacted nearly a decade
ago. Obviously, from a practical standpoint, the Philippine 70% of the city’s area is
Government cannot take enforcement action against most below sea-level.
of the country’s cities for not being in compliance with the
law. The city’s dump site is
overfilled, and there is no
However, Cotabato City faces unique challenges and environmentally suitable
obstacles in these regards. It is located in a delta at the
space to place a new
convergence of two rivers and is bordered to the west by
the sea. 70% of the city’s area is below sea-level. Though landfill.
regular flooding was not a common occurrence during the
...City has been
design of the project, it appears that it now is. The city’s
dump site is overfilled, and there is no environmentally unsuccessful in negotiations
suitable space to place a new landfill. Furthermore, the to purchase or lease land in
City has been unsuccessful in negotiations to purchase or neighboring jurisdictions...
lease land in neighboring jurisdictions for the location of a
landfill. ...those fleeing the
insecurity, are generally the
Meanwhile, the city continues its rapid growth, part due to most marginalized and
the natural “urbanization trend” and part to conflict and settle, often illegally, in the
insecurity forcing rural residents to flee to the city for most environmentally
safety. Unfortunately, those fleeing the insecurity are
generally the most marginalized and settle, often illegally, sensitive areas, usually on
in the most environmentally sensitive areas, usually on the
river and channel banks and in wetlands.

It is against this critical backdrop that the project was designed and implemented. Though it can
be perceived in a variety of ways, the basic strategy of the project was to build the solid waste

12
management institutional capacity of local governments, effectuate SWM related behavior
change amongst the population through the creation, capacitation, and mobilization of
community volunteer groups, and develop a public-private partnership to tap into the economic
value of garbage (recyclables primarily) as a sustainability measure.

13
 PRE-PROJECT ASSESSMENT & DESIGN

It was apparent to this evaluator within a few days in the field, if not within the first hours, that
each of the 12 target Barangays has unique demographic, socio-economic, and geographic
characteristics. Some Barangays are predominately business areas while others are almost
exclusively residential. The population of one Barangay was visibly more affluent, where as
others were marginalized. A few of the target Barangays were on the periphery of the city, thus
still very rural in nature where agriculture is one of the more important livelihoods. Some are
located in areas that are now prone to the recent phenomena of flooding, whereas at least one is
located on one of the few hills in the city.

The differences between

Barangays were apparently not
taken into consideration as the The differences between Barangays were apparently
package of services and goods not taken into consideration as the package of
delivered during services and goods delivered during implementation
implementation was the same was the same across all the Barangays, despite the
across all the Barangays, distinctive challenges of each specific Barangay. In
despite the distinctive
short, the development package was “one size fits all.”
challenges of each specific
Barangay. In short, the
development package was “one size fits all.” The more effective approach is a standardized
package, but with appropriate options or alternatives, and the flexibility for adoption or adaption
depending upon the special characteristics and needs of the specific intervention areas. In
fairness, there was some flexibility exhibited in regards to some of the infrastructure provided,
namely the MRFs and waste receptacles.

However, the greater

ramification of the pre-project To repeat, under-utilization of the MSE and MRF
assessment was the apparent components of the project is not due to
oversight or underestimation of implementation short-comings, but of inappropriate
the Cotabato City “recyclables
design caused by an incomplete pre-project
trade.” In turn, this has resulted
in less than the planned
utilization of the intertwined MSE and MRF components of the project. “Junk Shops” as they
are locally called, or “recyclables traders” if you wish, were already well established in Cotabato
City before the project. Furthermore, at a more basic-level, there are the “scavengers” (who are
usually pre-adolescent children) that roam a number of the City’s Barangays where there is
traditionally more recyclables to either pick from the trash left for collection or from general
litter. Not to state the obvious, but these scavengers then sell what they collect to the junk
buyers. Additionally, many of the Barangay households sell their recyclables directly to the junk
buyers.

14
It appears that when the project was designed, the reality or scope of the pre-existing recyclable
marketing structure was not factored into the plan. A strategy was developed where in effect the
project would help create and promote a “private sector” structure, namely the MSEs, which
would collect the garbage in the Barangays and take possession of any discarded recyclables.
Then to facilitate greater marketing opportunities for the MSEs, in the hopes of promoting SWM
sustainability, the project provided the Barangays with MRFs where the MSEs could then bulk
the recyclables. When the MSEs collected a “critical mass” of recyclables they could then be
marketed at significantly enhanced profit margins.

The above marketing theory is sound, but only for an environment where the private sector is
week or limited, and where there is little competition for the “commodity” which in this case is
the recyclables. But, what you have in Cotabato City, much of which pre-dated the project, is a
somewhat thriving recyclable market with ten registered junk shops and maybe a dozen or so
unregistered buyers according to officials at City Hall, an untold amount of children-scavengers
that roam the streets searching for marketable recyclables, and households themselves that sell
directly to the junk dealer as opposed to discarding the recyclables. In short, in many of the
Barangays the quantities of discarded recyclables is very minimal, a good thing in regards to
SWM, but not so good for the MSEs' income generation opportunities nor the longer-term
sustainability of “garbage collection system” in the Barangays.

Of course the logical thought procession is if the MSEs are not collecting the quantity of
recyclables envisioned, then the MRF structures are being underutilized, and such a conclusion is
sound. Again in fairness, one Barangay has shown considerable success in living-up to the
theory (that story will be highlighted in another part of this evaluation), and a few other
Barangays are exhibiting potential.

To repeat, under-utilization of the MSE and

MRF components of the project is not due
to implementation short-comings, but of
inappropriate design caused by an
incomplete pre-project assessment. The
desired public-private partnership should
have been a mutually beneficial relationship
between the Barangay governments and the
so called “junk shops.” Furthermore, given
ACF’s social concern for the most
marginalized and vulnerable of society, it is
possible that SWM programming could
have included an Orphans and Vulnerable
Children (OVC) intervention targeting these
“children-scavengers.”
The desired public-private partnership
should have been a mutually beneficial
relationship between the Barangay
governments and the so called “junk
shops.” Furthermore, given ACF’s social
concern for the most marginalized and
vulnerable of society, it is possible that
SWM programming could have included
an Orphans and Vulnerable Children
(OVC) intervention targeting these
“children-scavengers.”

This evaluator does not feel that it is his responsibility to question why the pre-project
assessment(s) were not more complete, nor who had the responsibility to perform them.
However, what is clearly obvious is that a project should not create an entirely new “private
sector” when there is already an existing and adequately functioning private sector. When

15
working with the private sector, whether trying to forge or strengthen a public-private
partnership, or intervening exclusively with the private sector, the development goal is enhance
the effectiveness of the private sector creating a “pull-up effect.” (If you are more of a cynic, you
may say “trickle-down.”)

RECOMMENDATIONS

In virtually all developing nations, children play an informal role in the “garbage
culture” of the cities and towns. Their role is usually one of survival, often
forced, and may come at the expense of their health, education, or childhood.
This evaluator believes SWM programming targeting the general population,
even if indirectly, must be “OVC-considerate.”

A “one size fits all” development package is more appropriate for rural areas that
consist primarily of subsistence agriculturalists. Development interventions that
target geo-political units within a urban area, which range from peri-urban
agricultural to center city cosmopolitan as Cotabato City, require project designs
that allow for the adaption and adoption of options or alternative development
services and deliverables, depending on the specific needs of each target or
beneficiary unit.

This recommendation is a “no-brainer.” Check, double-check, and maybe even

triple-check the assessments and assumptions before designing a project around
them.

16
 MONITORING

Though development programming falls under the broad definition of a “social science,” it must
be kept in mind that development projects are not scientific experiments or research projects.
Statistical methodologies and computer software have been developed especially to measure the
impact of development programming. However, even these methodologies would not meet the
rigors of measurement and analysis of the “hard sciences.” Nevertheless, they can be resource
intensive. Statistically valid surveying is costly. Even the participatory phase of a project
evaluation costs money (consultants).

The cost of collecting data for an indicator should not

...it must be kept in mind that
development projects are not
scientific experiments or
research projects.
The cost of collecting data for an
indicator should not exceed the
management utility of the data
collected.
... rule-of-thumb is performance
monitoring and evaluations
should normally range between
three and ten percent of the total
budget...
exceed the management utility of the data collected.
While projects should not incur exorbitant data
collection costs, they should expect to incur
reasonable costs to collect useful performance data. I
realize that this project is not USAID-funded, but the
USAID rule-of-thumb is performance monitoring and
evaluations should normally range between three and
ten percent of the total budget for the program.
Though it is not usually desirable to allocate a
significant share of the budget for M&E in smaller
projects, it is important to be able to determine an
approximate level of budgetary, personnel,
equipment, material or other resources that contribute
to the project’s M&E. Other than a line item for the
final evaluation, the evaluator was unable to garner a
sense of the implementer’s resource commitment to
M&E from the project’s budget

This project’s indicator data has posed a challenge to the evaluator. An external evaluator whose
work is highly participatory in nature, will use the impact data to help shape or guide the tone of
the focus group discussions, key informant interviews, round-tables, and community interviews
during the field research. Impact data is critical to reinforce information gathered during the
participatory field research, or shed light on significant discrepancies between the data and
beneficiary or stakeholder perceptions. Furthermore, from a report formatting perspective, the
insertions of “data visuals” not only help validate the assertion or findings, but also break-up the
monotony of long blocks of text.

Obviously, the project’s output indicators are thorough and precise. However, there is a “fog”
around the impact indicators, especially:

Indicator 4: 70% of HH aware and comply with solid waste management ordinance;

17
 Indicator 6: 60% of HH aware of common infectious diseases related to improper waste
disposal.

Indictors 4 consists of several SWM ordinance compliance requirements, with the apparent
philosophy (or hope) being that 70% of the households would comply with each requirement. It
may be unrealistic to think that when the objective is
to encourage the ultimate beneficiary to adopt or
The more appropriate measure
comply with numerous practices, technologies, or
regulation, that the particular beneficiary (household of impact would be the
in this case) will adopt or comply with each. The percentage of households that
more appropriate measure of impact would be the adopted a finite, yet realistic
percentage of households that adopted a finite, yet number of the promoted
realistic number of the promoted practices. For practices.
example, under Indicator 4, there were initially
seven specific requirements. Instead of the target ...an alternative indicator may
being 70% of households complying with all seven have been “70% of the
of the specific requirements, an alternative indicator
households comply with four or
may have been “70% of the households comply with
four or more of the requirements”. more of the requirements.”

70% Target?

The 70% target for Indicator 4 (compliance with the SWM ordinance) appears to be overly
ambitious. Furthermore, the evaluator has not been able to verify through document review and
discussion, the nexus of the 70% target. Not to be cynical, but it appears that the 70% target
represents someone’s “dream” or “wish list” target, and has no basis in assessment, experience,
or development (or SWM) theory.

The Baseline

This evaluator has a different perspective on the value of a baseline that hopefully adds another
dimension on the utility and importance of a baseline. The obvious utilization of a baseline is to
measure project performance and beneficiary progress. However, the baseline, or the baseline
survey or study to be exact, helps verify many of the precepts on which the project was designed.

...the baseline survey or study to be exact helps verify many of the precepts on
which the project was designed. If the baseline study indicates a status or
condition of the target beneficiaries that is not consistent with the assessments,
assumptions, or data on which the program was designed, it gives the project
implementer and the donor one last chance to modify the design of the project
before it proceeds “too far down the road”...

18
If the baseline study indicates a status or condition of the target beneficiaries that is not
consistent with the assessments, assumptions, or data on which the program was designed, it
gives the project implementer and the donor one last chance to modify the design of the project
before it proceeds “too far down the road” after which modifications are often made on the
realization, after several months or even years of implementation, that a certain program
component or approach was not effective or meeting expectations.

Apparently a baseline was not conducted for Indicator 6. Near the end of the project a
comparative KAP (Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices) survey was conducted using two of the
project’s target Barangay’s and two control group Barangays. This evaluator does not doubt the
findings or survey methodology, and they are referred to in other parts of this evaluation, and the
survey is an electronic attachment to this report. This evaluator does not question the motivation
of the project’s implementers to determine the impact of the activities that contributed to
Indicator 6. This evaluator does not feel that it is his purview to query and investigate why a
baseline was not conducted for Indicator 6 at the beginning of the project. How...

...ever

As this section began, a development program is not a science experiment or research project.
Though recognizing the desire, perhaps the need, to demonstrate impact, and the only way it can
be done is through comparison to a control group, the surveying and study of a control group is
spending development resources (money) on a group that were not beneficiaries of the project.

There are some in the

development field that
believe that spending On a lighter, but truthful note, evaluators and
precious and scarce implementers can always use the tool of “suggestion”
development dollars (or when discussing potential impact and trends in projects
whatever currency you where baseline or impact data is inconsistent. However,
wish) on the study of a
when you apply a formalized study with control groups,
control group, borders on an
inappropriate use of proper methodology, and such, you take away that tool of
development funds. “suggestion.”
Perhaps, unfortunately for
ACF in regards to this section of the evaluation, this evaluator is one of those persons that
strongly believes such. This evaluator was once a donor representative responsible for a
portfolio of numerous iNGO programs. In those instances where a baseline was not conducted
for a program, or some indicators within a program, the rule was that the indicator would not be
compared to a baseline or a control group - it would just be measured and monitored.

On a lighter, but truthful note, evaluators and implementers can always use the tool of
“suggestion” when discussing potential impact and trends in projects where baseline or impact
data is inconsistent. However, when you apply a formalized study with control groups, proper
methodology, and such, you take away that tool of “suggestion.” The above KAP comparative
survey does exactly that. Now there is far less to talk about!

19
SMART

By the end of this program, nearly a third of Cotabato City’s Barangays (12 of the 37), were
target Barangays. As this evaluation stated early, if you break down all the facets of this project
to a single core purpose it would be to reduce solid waste in Cotabato City.
In Retrospect (a country
where everyone has the gift
...Retrospect (a country where everyone has the gift of
of hindsight, and everything
is either black or white with hindsight, and everything is either black or white with no
no shades of gray), it would shades of gray)...
have been relatively easy
for the City Government to count the number of loads of garbage they were taking to the dump
site during prescribed monitoring periods, possibly just a few days in each quarter. They did not
need to weigh the garbage or determine the specific type of garbage, they just needed to know
the volume that the trucks hold, and multiply it by the number of loads during the monitoring
period. Though the garbage trucks may pick-up wastes from multiple Barangays, with nearly a
third of the City’s Barangays involved with the project by its end, that is more than enough to
make it a proxy indicator, even if indirect, to measure impact of the project.

RECOMMENDATIONS
If the ultimate goal is to reduce solid waste (garbage), then it is not a difficult, time
consuming, or costly monitoring tool to count the number of trucks disposing of
waste at the dump site on a prescribed monitoring schedule, especially considering
the project intervention targets a significant portion of the “SWM catchment area.”

Develop a broader appreciation for the baseline survey. The baseline survey helps
verify many of the precepts on which the project was designed. If the baseline
study indicates a status or condition inconsistent with the program design, it gives
the implementer another chance to modify the design before too many resources
are invested.

If funds for statistically valid sampling are insufficient, then you may consider
“mini-surveys” where only a fraction of a valid sampling pool is surveyed
(generally 10% to 20%). Though not statistically valid, if applied consistently
throughout the program beginning with the baseline, they can be “strongly
suggestive” of trends and impact.

If as above there are budget constraints, where intervention areas “enter the
project” in a staggered schedule (three or four per year), perhaps consideration
should be given to measure and monitor impact for only one of the three or four
that entered the program any particular year.

20
 DISCUSSION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES

THE EVALUATOR’S DAC RATINGS

for
Specific Project Activities and “Deliverables”

Please note that more detailed discussion of the project activities and DAC criteria will be
discussed in the appropriate sections throughout this evaluation. However, due to project or
evaluation emphasis, each criterion may not be discussed for each specific activity.

+++ - high / ++ - medium / + - low / UTD - unable to determine

Appropriateness/
Specific Project

Sustainability/
“Deliverable”

Effectiveness

Replicability
Activity or

Relevance

Efficiency
The 3 C’s
Coverage

Overarching Comments
Impact

BSWMC ++ +++ +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ Political will and leadership

will be required for continued
impact.
CPHSG ++ +++ +++ +++ ++ ++ + Citizen groups generally
become non-functional when
there is no external motivating
force to provide resources,
organization, or training.
MSE +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ + Minimal contribution as a
“private sector” partner.
Sustainability and
Replicability depends upon
budget resources and political
will.
MRF + +++ +++ + + + + MRFs are an appropriate,
effective, and sustainable
technology. However, within
the context of the design of the
project, their contribution was
minimal.
Pedal Carts +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ UTD First pedal carts put into usage
about three years ago are
nearing their projected “expiry
dates.”
School +++ +++ +++ +++ UTD UTD UTD Dependent upon success of
Intervention efforts to incorporate SWM
information into the
curriculum.

21
 DISCUSSION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
BSWMC (BARANGAY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE)

THE NUMBERS OF BSWMC
Result 1
Solid waste management at the
household level is improved
Activity 5
Training on waste utilization &
composting to BSWMC and
CPHSG members
Achieved: 100% completed
What is a BSWMC?
Barangay Solid Waste Management Committees (BSWMCs)
were formed or reactivated in all of the targeted Barangays as
part of the project design. BSWMCs are statutorily authorized
and consist primarily of Barangay officials with representation
from other segments of the Barangay including education and
the general public.
DAC - Impact & Relevance/Appropriateness

Result 2
Primary solid waste management
at the Barangay is improved
Activity 11
Technical trainings on public-
private partnership in solid waste
management to BSWMC and
MSE members
Achieved: 100% completed
Activity 12
Field exchange visits for BSWMC
and CPHSG members
Achieved: 100% completed
It has been oft-stated in this evaluation that political will and
leadership are critical to effective and sustainable solid waste
management (borne out in literature [internet] search), and the
BSWMC, along with the Barangay Chairman, who chairs the
BSWMC, are key to ensuring such in each Barangay. Though
most of the BSWMC personnel are non-elected Barangay
officials, they nevertheless, collectively and individually, can
be forces of technical and administrative knowledge, as well as
moral suasion that can help shape the policy direction of a
Barangay. And without saying, once the policy has been
determined, the BSWMC becomes the driver to implement the
policy within the Barangay.

Activity 14 It is difficult to measure the impact of a committee such as the

Trainings on MSE operation to BSWMC, other than rightfully attributing to them the pivotal
BSWMC and MSE members role they play in the effectiveness and success of the
Achieved: 100% completed Barangay’s solid waste management. However, the converse
Activity 18 is also valid in that they bear a level of responsibility when the
Trainings on MRF operation to Barangay’s solid waste management does not live up to
BSWMC and MSE members expectations, standards, or regulation.
Achieved: 100% completed
DAC - Effectiveness & Efficiency
Source: Project’s final report.
Data not verified by the
evaluator. As with impact, it becomes difficult, if not impossible to
determine the effectiveness or efficiency of a policy and
administrative committee. During the evaluator’s participatory
research he was generally pleased with the apparent level of
BSWMC commitment and contributions to solid waste management in their respective
Barangays. Most participated in the ACF sponsored trainings of the various technical activities

22
of the project. More impressively, many
BSWMC members participated in the door-
ACF 2010 Functionality Ratings
to-door awareness and messaging of Target Barangays’ BSWMC
campaigns of the CPHSGs. However there Barangay ACF Rating
is one data visual that may help reinforce a Poblacion 1 82% (Satisfactory)
positive picture of the BSWMCs. Across Poblacion 5 85% ( Satisfactory)
the 12 target Barangays there was Poblacion 6 70% ( Poor )
Poblacion 7 71% ( Poor )
significant differences in participatory
Poblacion MB 76% ( Fair )
observations and impressions. Though the Tamontaka 1 70% ( Poor )
evaluator’s findings in regards to the Tamontaka MB 76% ( Fair )
BSWMC were generally positive, there was Poblacion 8 75% (Fair)
one particular Barangay where the word Bagua Mother 74% (Fair)
“satisfactory” does not do justice to its Kalanganan MB 74% (Fair)
readily observable level of excellence. Rosary Heights 1 Not evaluated
Rosary Heights 13 Not evaluated
Unfortunately, the evaluator recalls another Source: 2010 Internal Monitoring
Barangay that..... (This evaluator does not and Evaluation Report
have to be overly negative as the astute
reviewer will easily understand his tone.)
But, despite the lesser ACF ratings of a few of the target Barangays’ BSWMCs, in general the
ratings bear out the positive participatory findings.

DAC - Sustainability/Replicability

Depends upon political will and leadership, sometimes within, and sometimes from above, and
sometimes from a grassroots groundswell - not much else to add.

RECOMMENDATION

The BSWMC is a statutorily authorized committee and as such there may be

prescriptive guidance on “membership” and participation on the committee.
However, if there is flexibility in the authorizing language, the evaluator
recommends that membership be expanded to include a few more members from
the “general public” (residents) of the Barangay. The evaluator realizes that it is
extremely difficult to convince members of the general public to volunteer and
actively serve on committees. He also realizes that the Barangay officials on the
BSWMC are residents of the Barangay. But their respective roles on the
committee are due primarily to their technical and administrative capacities, not
because of residency. Furthermore, there are already some provisions for non-
Barangay officials to serve on the BSWMC, such as the representative of the
homeowners’ association. However, what a few additional “general public
members” would bring to the BSWMC would be increased opportunities for
Barangay-resident interaction in numerous areas including awareness,
information, compliance and even advocacy.

23
 DISCUSSION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
CPHSG (COMMUNITY PRIMARY HEALTH SUPPORT GROUP)
THE NUMBERS OF CPHSG
Result 1
Solid waste management at the
household level is improved
Activity 5
Training on waste utilization &
composting to BSWMC and
CPHSG members
Achieved: 100% completed
Activity 6
Creation of CPHSG in each
target Barangay
Achieved: 100% completed
Activity 7
Primary health training on
hygiene and sanitation to each
CPHSG
Achieved: 100% completed
Activity 8
Disease and disability prevention
training to each CPHSG
Achieved: 100% completed
Activity 9
Community-based monitoring
installed in each target Barangay
Achieved: 100% completed
Result 2
Primary solid waste management
at the Barangay is improved
Activity 12
Field exchange visits for BSWMC
and CPHSG members
Achieved: 100% completed
Source: Project’s final report.
Data not verified by the
evaluator.
What is a CPHSG?
Community Primary Health Support Groups (CPHSGs) were
formed in all of the targeted Barangays as part of the project
design and implementation. CPHSGs consist of volunteer
members from the Barangay that were recommended or vetted
by the Barangay administration. The CPHSG members were
the recipients of the project’s SWM and health Training of
Trainers (ToT), and the primary mechanism for the project’s
SWM messaging, information dissemination, and awareness
campaigns. The project trained 20 CPHSG members in each
beneficiary Barangay.
Even though the duties of the CPHSG were numerous, it all
can be summed in one clear purpose; they were the tool
utilized to address the most difficult challenge in all
development programming - to effectuate behavior change -
behavior change in regards to the management of household
solid wastes, the 3 R’s, and health and hygiene practices.
Behavior change is usually “generational” in nature and it is
difficult to achieve widespread significant impact in the short
span of a typical development project. Even more difficult
that achieving behavior change impact is to measure the
impact (or lack thereof). In general, people are good at
absorbing information through trainings, messaging,
information dissemination and awareness campaigns, thus they
usually excel at providing the surveyor or evaluator the
“correct” or positive feedback for which they are looking.
Yet, despite knowing the right thing to do - they often do not
do it. It is human nature and not specific to development
programming or solid waste management.
DAC - Impact & Effectiveness
The members of the CPHSGs that the evaluator met and
conversed with (FGDs, key informant interviews) were
genuinely engaged, enthusiastic, and very conversant on many
of the key topics of the SWM training such as segregation of
household solids wastes (biodegradables, non-biodegradables,
recyclables), and even composting. They knew the MSE
collection times, the sites in the Barangays for the dumping of
24
the residuals where the City would pick it up. They were familiar with the scheduled times for
City collection of the garbage and could tell you with confidence how the City was performing in
these regards. More importantly, they possessed a good feel on changes, or lack thereof, on the
solid waste practices in the Barangay households. Most opined that those residents that lived on
the river or canal banks were the least responsive in changing solid waste discard practices. This
evaluator assumes that the mentality must be that if the flowing water carries it away then it must
not be a problem.

This evaluator lauds the CPHSGs for their intensive door-to-door awareness campaigns (and
follow-up), assisted by members of the BSWMC.

In light of this enthusiasm, dedication, and training, were

the CPHSGs able to effectuate any positive behavior
change? In most target Barangays the impact was palpable
to varying degrees as attested by leadership and the
evaluator’s observation. But, as can be expected, in a few
Barangays there was little to no visible impact, and even
members of those Barangays’ CPSHG admitted that all did
not go as well as hoped. The main reason cited for the less
than anticipated impact was the lack of support by
Barangay leadership. This evaluator did not delve deep
into comments than may be politically motivated in nature
(as their politics are their politics not mine or ACF’s, as
our roles must be purely apolitical). But the leadership
comment would be consistent with a literature (internet)
search that cited leadership as the key factor in successful
solid waste management. Thus by inference, a lack of
committed leadership results in less than successful solid
waste management.

There are some data visuals that may suggest positive

behaviour change. There are also some data visuals than
seem to suggest no behaviour change. This evaluator will
present the reviewer with this data so that he or she may
make up his/her own mind. The evaluator is not shirking
his responsibility, as he believes that the CPHSGs, in
general, did some very good work in the Barangays which
has led to positive behaviour changes in regards to SWM.
These changes were not universal across all the Barangays,
or even within a Barangay. There is still much to do, but
as I have stated there seems to be a reduction in solid waste
as well as an increase in recyclables.

25
 Awareness on Type of Waste Container as per City Ordinance
Type of Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Receptacles/Containers Internal Internal Internal
Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
3 Barangays 7 Barangays 10 Barangays
a. in a sealed container 29% 6% 15% 43%
b. in a cellophane bag 22% 42% 18% 16%
c. in a black trash bag 8% 8% 6% 6%
d. in separate bags/containers 4% 8% 15% 16%
according to type of waste
e. in a cardboard box 0 2% 4% 1%
f. don’t know 27% 8% 5% 11%
g. Others (nylon sack) 6% 18% 48% 19%
Source: 2010 Internal Monitoring and Evaluation Report

The above data visual seems to suggest that more people are aware of the City ordinance in
regards to waste containers than they were at the baseline. (The desired behaviour changes are
“a. sealed container” and “d. separate containers by type of waste.”) But remember, this is just a
measure of awareness, not actual practice.

Types of Garbage Containers Used by households

Type of Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Receptacles/Containers Internal Internal Internal
Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
3 Barangays 7 Barangays 10 Barangays
a. Black Plastic Trash Bag 6% 8% 1% 4%
b. Cellophane Bag 33% 48% 32% 32%
c. Hard Container with a Lid 4% 4% 7% 21%
d. Nylon Sack 37% 42% 57% 44%
e. Open Pit 0 0 2% 9%
f. Discard into 6% 1% 3%
street/river/canal 0
g. Other 24% 24% 7% 3%
Source: 2010 Internal Monitoring and Evaluation Report

The immediate previous data seems to indicate that more people are using hard containers with a
lid to store their garbage, which is one of the desired practices. However the use of nylon sacks
and cellophane bags remains unacceptably high. But they have one huge advantage over the
hard container as well as the black plastic trash bag - they are free. You usually have to directly
pay for a hard container, which may be read as a metal or durable plastic garbage can, as well as
the black plastic trash bags. But the cellophane bags are given out in quantity every time one
goes to the shop, supermarket, or market. The larger nylon bags are given out when you buy a
large quantity (usually 20kg to 50kg) of a variety of products such as rice, sugar, fertilizer, just to

26
name a few. We all know that cellophane bags and nylon sacks are not really “free,” it is just
that the customer does not have to pay anything above the stated or negotiated price of the
products in those bags. In short - this is also another very valid reason why people may not
adopt a behaviour change even though they know the correct practice - economics.

Then you have the following sets of data.

Waste Disposal Practices of Households

Disposal Practice Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Internal Internal Internal
Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
3 Barangays 7 Barangays 10 Barangays
Discard 46% 52% 44% 48%
Reuse in the house 9% 14% 17% 11%
Sell to junkshop or collector 17% 20% 25% 28%
Compost 0.05% 0% 3% 1%
Feed to animals 0.6% 5% 5% 6%
Store in your house 0.4% 3% 3% 2%
Burned 15% 4% 3% 12%
Source: 2010 Internal Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Waste Segregation Scheme Practiced by Households

Type of Waste Segregation Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Internal Internal Internal
Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
Results Results Results
Type A (biodegradable &
44% 23% 18%
non-biodegradable)
Type B (biodegradable, non-
0% 16% 20%
bio degradable and residual )
Type C (segregation of
biodegradable, recyclable, 0% 5% 2%
residual, special/hazardous )
Source: 2010 Internal Monitoring and Evaluation Report

The top data seems to suggest little, except that more households are now selling their
recyclables, which is a positive behaviour change. The bottom data can be interpreted in two
ways. The desired type of waste segregation is Type C. Thus it can be said that over the life of
the project people have been migrating towards Type B (better) and Type C (best) segregation,
which is also a positive behaviour change trend. However, one can also ask the question “What
are the other 60% of the households doing?”

A final word on impact comes from the KAP comparative study that is electronically attached.
One of the study’s findings of the two project target Barangays it analyzed against a control
group of two nearby non-project Barangays was that the project Barangays were less likely to
burn solid waste than the control group. This held true in their management of tree leaves and

27
branches, paper, and cartons. The project’s awareness campaign advocated against the open
burning of solid waste.

DAC - Relevance/Appropriateness & Sustainability/Replicability

The well-accepted and well-established development modality, regardless of the sector, is

service and product delivery through the organized group. It does not matter if we talk of micro-
financing, agricultural marketing or solid waste management. Organized groups are required to
access the service or product as well as being crucial in information dissemination, awareness,
and even “self-policing” (or community based monitoring [CBM] if you prefer). This evaluator
likes to call these groups “citizen” or “community groups” regardless of their means of
livelihood, legal standing, or purposes for banding together.

Communities are usually enthusiastic and excel at organizing themselves when there is an
external force to provide them assistance, resources, or training. Generally, these citizen groups
do good work during the project, in part due to the guidance of the NGO or other providers of
assistance. However, when that activity has ended, the citizen group gradually falls into a state
of inactivity, if not a coma, only to awaken when they are presented with an another opportunity
from an external force.

There needs to be a complete reversal of strategy. Currently, the objectives of the

development project are “the end,” and organized groups are “the means” to that
end. This evaluator strongly suggests that longer-term development and
sustainability would be far better ensured if “the means” is the project activity, and
the desired objective or “the end” is strong proactive community groups. They will
then be better equipped and organized (empowered) to go forth and search for
their own development opportunities as opposed to just waiting for the next
government or donor funded program.

There needs to be a complete reversal of strategy. Currently, the objectives of the development
project are “the end,” and organized groups are “the means” to that end. This evaluator strongly
suggests that longer-term development and sustainability would be far better ensured if “the
means” is the project activity, and the desired objective or “the end” is strong proactive
community groups. They will then be better equipped and organized (empowered) to go forth
and search for their own development opportunities as opposed to just waiting for the next
government or donor funded program.

Have the project’s CPHSGs fared any better than the philosophical ramblings of the evaluator in
regards to the sustainability of community groups? Will the inference that the further you move
away in time from the project intervention, the more inactive the groups will become, usually
due to the critical loss of member involvement and enthusiasm, hold?

28
Unfortunately the
CPHSG Members in Targeted Barangays
data visual seems
Barangay Year Total CPHSG Active as of
to bear out the all- Members this date
too-common reality Poblacion 1 Year 1 20 5
of development Poblacion 5 2007 20 4
programming in Poblacion 6 20 9
regards to
sustainability. Poblacion 7 Year 2 20 20
2008
However, the Poblacion MB 20 13
evaluator does Tamontaka MB 20 9
strongly stand by
Tamontaka 1 20 10
his findings based
upon his Poblacion 8 Year 3 20 15
participatory field 2009
Bagua MB 20 16
research that the
Kalanganan MB 20 11
CPHSGs did have
a positive impact in RH-1 Additional 20 18
Barangays
regards to SWM RH-13
2010
20 18
behavior change at
the household Total 240 148
level. Source: 2010 Internal Monitoring and Evaluation Report

29
 DISCUSSION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
MSE (MICRO SMALL ENTERPRISE)

What is an MSE?

THE NUMBERS OF MSE
Result 2
Primary solid waste management
at the Barangay is improved
Activity 11
Technical trainings on public-
private partnership in solid waste
management to BSWMC and
MSE members
Achieved: 100% completed
Activity 13
Creation of organized MSE in
each target Barangay
Achieved: 100% completed
Activity 14
Trainings on MSE operation to
BSWMC and MSE members
Achieved: 100% completed
Activity 18
Trainings on MRF operation to
BSWMC and MSE members
Achieved: 100% completed
Indicator 7
Goal: 90% of the primary waste
collection managed by MSE
effectively and efficiently
Achieved: 65% of waste
collection managed by MSE
effectively and efficiently; Rating members, had positive praise for the work of the MSE, and
obtained good to excellent
Source: Project’s final report.
Data not verified by the evaluator.
river, or canal was so close. All commented that the streets of the Barangay are significantly
cleaner and free of garbage and litter as opposed to just a few years ago. However, they also
noted that discarding of garbage into the river and canals remains a major problem.
MSEs were private individuals chosen and vetted by the
Barangay administration to collect the Barangay’s solid waste.
Typically, each Barangay has about five MSEs. It may be
important to note that even though MSE stands for “Micro
Small Enterprise,” each individual garbage collector, or MSE,
is actually independent of each other in regards to business or
“employment.” Thus each MSE is an “enterprise unto
himself.” The MSE is not an enterprise, cooperative, or
association composed of the Barangay’s MSEs, or garbage
collectors. But perhaps thought should have been given to that
concept during the design stage of the project as “collective
business” can often be more efficient and profitable.
However with that said, the MSEs are working together with
the Barangay in organizing and harmonizing garbage
collection, usually on a daily basis, throughout the Barangay.
So there is no competition for routes or areas amongst the
MSEs, but each MSE is left to his own marketing abilities in
regards to selling any recyclables collected.
DAC - Impact: MSEs Working Well
In general the MSEs are working well in most of the target
Barangays. Obviously there are some exceptions, but the point
of a final evaluation is to emphasize the successes or
shortcomings of the project as a whole.
Barangay Chairmen, BSWMC members, as well as CPHSG
especially the organized MSE system. They commented that
before the project the residents themselves had to take their
garbage to designated spots for City pick-up. Though the spots
(“dump sites”) were numerous throughout the Barangay,
reliability of City pick-up was not. Even worse, many
residents were lax or inconsistent in taking their household
solid waste to the collection point, especially when the street,

30
As stated throughout this report, there is
not a wealth of impact data that helps Percentage of Primary Waste Collection
validate participatory findings. However, Managed by MSEs
there is some that may be suggestive of the Percentage
validity of the perceptions of the Barangay coverage
stakeholders and beneficiaries. Indicator 7 Poblacion 1 100%
data in the previous page blue number Poblacion 5 86%
block (65% of waste collection managed by Poblacion 6* 71%
Poblacion 7* 94%
MSE effectively and efficiently; Rating
Poblacion MB* 74%
obtained good to excellent) as well as the Tamontaka 1* 31%
generally high percentage of the garbage Tamontaka MB* 82%
collected by the MSE as depicted in the Bagua MB* 75%
table is helpful in conveying a positive Población 8** -
experience of the Barangays in the MSEs Kalanganan MB** -
and MSE system of garbage collection. Source: 2010 Internal Monitoring
and Evaluation Report
* Waste collection in these Barangays
DAC - Impact: MSEs Not Working Well started in the later part of 2009.
** Waste collection in these has not started
Wait a minute... did the evaluator just say yet during the data gathering period.
in the previous sub-section that the MSEs
were working well?

Yes, he did, but let him explain. Most of the target Barangays now has a satisfactory functioning
MSE system and that was a key objective of the project. However, the other objective of the
MSE system was sustainability, in that the MSEs were to take possession of the marketable
recyclables in the garbage they collected and store them at the project constructed MRFs so as to
take advantage of marketing recyclables in bulk, which is highlighted in the next section of this
report on MRFs. Unfortunately, some of the Barangays have scavengers (usually children) that
remove the recyclables from the household garbage before the MSEs can collect it, or more often
than not the household will sell the recyclables to the junk shops themselves. Furthermore, if
there are any marketable recyclables collected by the MSEs, most of the MSEs sell them that day
to the junk dealers as opposed to bulking them in the MRF (assuming it is operative, which a few
are not). It is difficult to “bulk” marketable commodities for a better sale price down the road
when you need the money today - the same obstacle that virtually all bulking schemes face when
designed to assist impoverished households or individuals.

Thus, with a few exceptions, and this report contains a success story of one, there may not be the
amount of marketable recyclables in the garbage as anticipated, and with the limited amount that
is collected, most is sold directly to the junk shops, not bulked in the MRFs. This is the third
reiteration of this issue in the report, so the evaluator will not continue other than just adding
once more that the public-private partnership as signified by the MSE and MRF activities of this
project has not been fully realized due to an incomplete pre-project assessment that did not
recognize, understand, or appreciate the recyclable trade that was already adequately functioning.
Furthermore, since the individual economic sustainability of the MSE through the sale of
recyclables is limited, he has become very dependent upon the “honorarium” given to him by the

31
Barangay government (assuming he is provided one). In effect, it would not be “a stretch” to say
that the MSE is a “de facto employee” of the Barangay.

Further DAC Comments

Despite this evaluator's harsh words for the project design in regards to the public-private
partnership concept, the MSE system it is an effective, efficient, relevant, and appropriate
activity to get the garbage collected door-to-door ,on a daily basis, in the Barangays, especially
in those Barangays with good leadership and a commitment to SWM. As previously mentioned,
most of the feedback from stakeholders and beneficiaries has been positive. If you look at the
MSE system with the single focus of collecting the Barangay’s garbage, then they are getting the
job done.

However, in most part, the MSEs are not “private

...the MSE system it is an sector.” The MSE lies closer to being a Barangay
employee than an independent business or contractor. If
effective, efficient, relevant,
the Barangay decides against or is unable to pay the
and appropriate activity to honorarium to the MSEs, then most will drop out of the
get the garbage collected activity, with the result being that many of the gains
door-to-door, on a daily made during and immediately after the project will be
basis, in the Barangays... lost. Thus, sustainability of the MSE system depends
upon Barangay leadership and political will to dedicate
sufficient budgetary resources to the effective continuation of the activity. Furthermore,
budgetary commitment is more than just paying honorariums to the MSEs, as there are also the
pedal carts that have proved effective and necessary to collect the garbage. ACF estimated that
the anticipated life of a pedal cart was 30 months. This evaluator inspected a few of the pedal
carts that were given to the Barangays that entered the
project in its first year, thus making the pedal carts two to
three years old. Sure enough, the 30-month life-
However, in most part, the
expectancy seemed to be accurate as these older pedal
carts were just barely functioning, and they will soon MSEs are not “private
need replacing. Unfortunately, in many developing sector.” The MSE lies closer
nations you can hire people to work relatively to being a Barangay employee
inexpensively, but manufactured items are often relatively than an independent business
expensive. or contractor.

The Success Story of a Family

There always seems to be one that moves boldly forward, when most others just inch ahead, if at
all. In some development sectors that person may be referred to as the “positive deviant.” Tony
Dioticio, 46, of Poblacion 5, is the MSE that has been able to quickly comprehend and grasp the
opportunities that the MSE component of the project presented. To be transparent, even before
the solid waste management project, Tony was already a junk shop operator in Cotabato City.

32
 Tony Dioticio (2nd from left), his wife and three of their four children
The MSE training he
received gave him better
organizational skills that
would allow him to
expand his junk business.
But more importantly, he
realized that the project’s
awareness campaign in
the Barangay would
result in a higher level of
solid waste management
consciousness and
compliance with the City
ordinance, which meant
there would be more
recyclables available to
him for marketing -
precisely what transpired.

Tony is “private sector,” and was so before the project. His partnership with the project has not
only benefited himself and his family, but his fellow MSEs in Barangay Poblacion 5 as well.
They all store their recyclables at the Barangay MRF which is part of an old warehouse. He
purchases the recyclables from his colleagues and pays them once a week. He is able to pay
them a little bit more than what they would be able to receive from other junk buyers because of
the bulking function of the MRF, as well as the fact that payment is made only once a week
rather than everyday, which allows him to manage his cash outflows more efficiently. This is the
classic case of the desired “pull-up” effect when strengthening the private sector. When Tony
has accumulated enough recyclables, he hires a transport truck and takes the recyclables to
Davao, about six hours away, where the recyclables are sold and processed.

Tony is also a pragmatist as well as an entrepreneur. Many in the “garbage business” might say
that they work hard so that their kids can get a good education and become a doctor, lawyer, or
other professional. Tony works hard (and smart) so that his kids can get a good education, but he
hopes that they will become involved with the garbage business - as there is good money in
garbage.

It is important to note, as previously mentioned, that Tony was a junk dealer before the project,
and thus he already had a base of experience and knowledge. However he sold newspapers on
the street until he was 29 years-old, so he did not come from a background of relative economic
advantage. Furthermore, Barangay Poblacion 5 is in the center of the city thus there are greater
amounts of recyclables that are available to the MSEs as there may be in Barangays that are
residential or peri-urban. But the principal of improving the performance of the “private sector,”
Tony, in this case, has both a pull-up effect on his fellow MSEs, as well as improving
efficiencies in achieving the ultimate goal of the project in reducing garbage in the city.
DISCUSSION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES

33
 MRF (MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY)
&
THE JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER

What is an MRF?

A Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is a low-cost,

low tech structure that serves as a depot area for
recyclable materials, namely plastic, metal and tin, THE NUMBERS OF MRF
and cardboard, that is collected by the respective
Result 2
Barangay’s micro small enterprises (MSE). The Primary solid waste management
placement and technical specifications of MSEs were at the Barangay is improved
conducted in consultation with the beneficiary
Barangays and the City Government. Though most Activity 17
of the MRFs are similar in nature to the below photo, Goal: 9 MRF constructed
Achieved: 100%
it is important to note that each MRF was designed
according to the assessed technical needs of the Source: Project’s final report.
location. Furthermore, one of the MRFs is actually
space acquired in a pre-existing warehouse. Four of
the project’s 12 Barangays were not recipients of
MRFs under the project as there was a scarcity of space, or a lack of a technically feasible site, or
they were in more rural areas thus the type and amount of waste generated in these areas is less
compared to the urban areas. These four Barangays were provided with concrete garbage
receptacles.

Not only do the MRFs serve as

depots for recyclables, they are
also “bulking centers” to use a
term from agricultural marketing
development programming.
Though this is covered under the
discussion of MSEs and in other
topics, recyclable materials are
marketable especially when in
sufficient quantity to facilitate
efficient transportation and
enhance competitive
opportunities. In short, the
bulking of the recyclables is the
key link in the “value chain” to
making the MSEs profitable, and
by extension ensuring the
sustainability of the MRFs, and by further extension the collection of the Barangay garbage and
recyclables.

34
DAC - Impact

Perhaps the most vital impact of a development

intervention, especially when that intervention is a
tangible object (output) such as a structure, is the Perhaps the most vital impact
attention and visibility it brings to a problem and a of a development
potential component of that problem’s resolution. intervention, especially when
Furthermore, it goes without saying that in order to be
that intervention is a tangible
seen location is everything.
object (output) such as a
Some of the Barangay’s MRFs are in locations that tend structure, is the attention and
to make it a focal point in regards to a community’s visibility it brings to a
waste management efforts. While one MRF is so far problem...
removed from the population and in such an inaccessible
area, that not only can it not be seen, but cannot be used
for the intended purpose as a recyclable depot. Furthermore, during the design of the project, the
earlier years of implementation, and the assessment for the sighting of the MRFs, flooding was a
previously rare occurrence. However, over the past two years, flooding in many of the city’s
Barangays, including some of the project’s Barangays, has become a regular occurrence that has
the potential to foster or exacerbate public health issues. (Read: Some of the MRFs are now
prone to flooding.)

In fairness to ACF, the project, and the Barangays, Cotabato City, though a relatively small city
is densely populated and growing, thus space for even the smallest of a structure such as a MRF
is scarce and usually comes at a premium. Thus this evaluator will not be render further
judgement or opinion that cannot already be inferred from the above comments. The placement
of the MRFs was dictated in most part by the limited availability of space, none of which could
truly be classified as “ideal.” Furthermore, the unanticipated flooding, of which there was no
previous experience in the Barangays, was beyond the manageable interest of the stakeholders.

However, a few of the MRFs are being fully utilized, while

the others are in various stages of utilization. But again in The quality of the building is
fairness, the effective utilization of the MRFs is a not nearly as important as
reflection of the activity and participation of the MSEs and the quality of the program
Barangay leadership, though the MRF is a significant and inside the building.
necessary facilitating element. This will be discussed
under the MSE section of the evaluation. Ironically, the
most effective utilization of an MRF observed by this evaluator was in the MRF that occupied a
small portion of an existing old warehouse, where the project’s monetary investment into the
facility was very minimal as compared to the appropriately low-cost new MRF structures. The
quality of the building is not nearly as important as the quality of the program inside the
building.

Seeing is Believing

35
Being an urban project in a relatively small city, it was possible to visit all the MRFs to
determine what is actually happening with these facilities during the time of the field research for
this final evaluation (Mid-September 2010).

Status of MRF Use during the Final Evaluation

Barangay Status of MRF
Poblacion 1 Inoperative as MRF is located in a remote and difficult to access location
due to the fact that there was no available land to place it in a more suitable
place. Additionally it is prone to flooding.
Poblacion 5 Fully operational. An associated MSE and the MRF are the “success story”
of the MSE and MRF activities
Poblacion 6 Though operational, utilization is less than optimal as there are few
recyclables for storage as the scavengers generally access the recyclables
from the household and business garbage before the MSEs are able to pick
it, or the households themselves sell the recyclables to the junk buyers.
Poblacion 7 Inoperative as prone to flooding.
Bagua Mother Barangay Though operational, utilization is less than optimal as there are few
recyclables for storage as the scavengers generally access the recyclables
from the household and business garbage before the MSEs are able to pick
it, or the households themselves sell the recyclables to the junk buyers. The
CPSHG of one Barangay has registered as a CBO (with a new name) and
have applied for a grant from the national government agency for labor and
employment. The plan is to establish an economic venture centered around
the marketing of recyclables and other potential marketing “SWM
opportunities” (e.g. sale of compost, charcoal briquettes)
Rosary Heights 1 Temporarily inoperative as thieves broke into the MRF and stole
recyclables presumably to sell to the junk buyers. The Barangay
administration is trying to strengthen the structure so as to mitigate the
possibility of further thefts.
Rosary Heights 13 Though operational, utilization is less than optimal as there are few
recyclables as the households themselves sell the recyclables to the junk
buyers.
Tamontaka Mother Barangay Inoperative as prone to flooding.
People’s Palace (City Hall) Stores only recyclables generated at City Hall.

DAC - The 3Cs

In general, there appears to have been strong collaboration between ACF and the City and
Barangay governments in regards to the need, placement (sighting), and design of the MRFs. In
a perfect world it would have been very refreshing to have seen a significant cost-share from the
local governments - but the world is not always perfect. Furthermore, in those Barangays where
placement of a MRF was not possible due to space constraints, or as in one Barangay the MRF
was located in such a remote area it makes it inoperative, this evaluator does not believe that
there was not an appropriate space for the MRF, but rather the individuals that controlled
appropriate spaces did not permit it.

This evaluator is a firm believer that even in the most impoverished or marginalized areas, there
are always a few that have achieved a level of affluence or influence that far exceeds those
around him or her. Those individuals have a moral obligation to employ their influence or
sacrifice a bit of their affluence for the common good. However, a few of the MRFs were placed

36
on sites where the person(s) that did control the space, did make a personal sacrifice for the
benefit of many.

DAC - Relevance/Appropriateness, Efficiency & Effectiveness

Simply put, the provision of MRFs was an extremely appropriate, relevant and necessary project
activity as a key concept of the project was to bulk recyclables to take advantage of increased
profit margins from bulk marketing. However, since the public-private component was designed
upon an incomplete pre-project assessment, and thus weak assumptions, most of the MRFs in
this project are not being fully utilized, and a few are not being utilized at all, though
unanticipated flooding has played a partial role in these regards. The only MRF observed by the
evaluator that was serving its intended purpose was that in Barangay Poblacion 5, and this is due
to one MSE (who is highlighted in the previous section in the discussion of MSEs), who appears
to be the only good example of a public-private partnership of this project.

DAC - Sustainability/Replicability

As previously mentioned, the MRFs are low-tech, low-cost structures, appropriate for the task of
storing and bulking recyclables which can be then be more profitably marketed due to volume.
If structures can be categorized as a “technology,” then the MRFs would be excellent examples
of an “appropriate technology.” The MRFs are both easily sustained (maintained) and replicable
at very modest to minimal cost, if there is the political will within the Barangay or City
Government. However, political will is far beyond the manageable interest or purview of ACF
or any international NGO.

It may be interesting to ponder the level of responsibility

born by a project implementer to help cultivate If structures can be categorized
sustainability? In this evaluator’s mind, if the activity, or as a “technology,” then the
structure (MRF) in this case, is to be turned over to MRFs would be excellent
government, even government at the most basic level, examples of an “appropriate
then the implementer has little to no responsibility to that technology.”
government’s financial strategy for sustainability.
However, if the structure, technology, or program is to be turned over to a CBO, cooperative, or
even possibly a local NGO, then the project implementer bears a significant level of
responsibility in transferring knowledge to help foster sustainability.

The Juvenile Detention Center

The evaluator arrived at one MRF facility and three young boys (maybe ten to 12 years-old)
were “locked inside” and it appeared they were resting or lounging. Since the MRF was next to
the Barangay Hall, I asked one of the officials what were these boys doing. They had been
caught stealing some plastic recyclables and were “incarcerated” in the MRF until the Barangay
Chairman returned to call in their parents and give them a good scolding. The incidence
reaffirmed the premise that there is “money in garbage” as well as demonstrating the “multi
functionality” of the MRFs.

37
 DISCUSSION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
PEDAL CARTS (A.K.A. PEDI-CABS)

What are Pedal Carts?

Result 2
Primary solid waste management
at the Barangay is improved
Activity 15
Equipment for MSE
Achieved: 100% completed; 50
pedicabs for ten Barangays
Source: Project’s final report.
Data not verified by the
evaluator.
Pedal carts or
“pedi-cabs” as they
are known locally,
are bicycles with a
side cart attached
so that the MSEs
can travel through
the Barangay to
pick up the solid
waste.

In the Barangays
they are well-used and do not stay brand-new for long.

DAC

As simplistic as it may seem, the pedal cart is

probably the most critical piece of equipment for
successful garbage pick-up in the Barangays. The
pedal cart allows the MSE to traverse his garbage
pick-up route in the Barangay in a timely, low-cost,
and efficient manner, especially given some of the
narrow streets and alley-ways in parts of the city.
“Appropriate technology” that is not only
appropriate, but also effective, and efficient.

DAC - Sustainability/Replicability

According to AC F’s 2010 Internal Monitoring and Evaluation Report, they estimated an
economic life of two and one-half years for a pedal cart. Furthermore, they estimated a
replacement cost for the equivalent of USD $325 ($270 was the original acquisition cost). It
must be remembered that most Barangays are utilizing five MSEs and five pedal carts, so
replacement cost of a Barangay’s entire “fleet” of pedal carts would be in excess of USD $1600.

This evaluator inspected a few of the pedal carts that were given to the Barangays that entered
the project in its first year, thus making the pedal carts two to three years old. Sure enough, the
30-month life-expectancy seemed to be accurate as these older pedal carts were just barely
functioning, and they will soon need replacing.

38
Perhaps the reviewer of this report feels that inclusion of the cost and expected economic life
data are in preparation of some sort of “cost-benefit analysis.” No. The anticipated public-
private partnership through the MSE and MRF activities is not functioning as a public-private
partnership, so there is no economic benefit there. The MSEs should be considered an employee
or contractor of the Barangay, as for most that is the only regular income they receive as an
MSE. Thus the appropriate frame of reference is to consider the collection of the garbage as a
government provided service, and as stated elsewhere in this report, garbage collection is one of
the most critical responsibilities of City governments. When government provides services to
the people, the “common good” or “welfare” of the people is predominate to cost-benefit
considerations. So the question becomes that when the pedal carts need replacing, and that time
is already here, or at least very near for some of them, will the BSWMCs find the political will to
make it happen?

39
 DISCUSSION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
SCHOOL INTERVENTIONS

The school-based intervention of the project was a lower-profile activity. Furthermore, school
based interventions usually lend themselves better to output indicators, as imposition of impact
indicators could result in undesirable competition with the approved curriculum. However, with
that said, this evaluator’s one regret about the school intervention component of this project is
that it was not more widespread and regular. This evaluator is not signifying that more SWM
programming be conducted in individual schools in the course of a school year, but rather all
schools, including private and parochial, have access to such programming, and that the
programming be regular (year-to-year). 21 schools, 14 elementary and seven secondary, were
project beneficiaries.

As stated in other sections of this evaluation, improved

solid waste management at the household and
individual level is primarily a matter of behavior This evaluator also hopes that
change, where success may only be measured from one education helps avoid some of
generation to the next. Though development projects
the challenges of the future
are usually designed to address today’s problems, most
of which took generations to create, education and by breaking the chains of
awareness are critical to help ensure that the next negative thought and actions
generation does not follow the same bad practices that only perpetuate problems
which lead to the problem in the first place. It is often or create even bigger ones.
said that education prepares young people for the
challenges of the future. This evaluator also hopes that education helps avoid some of the
challenges of the future by breaking the chains of negative thought and actions that only
perpetuate problems or create even bigger ones.

An exciting potential
success of the school
intervention is that An exciting potential success of the school intervention is
science and “technology that science and “technology & livelihood” curriculums are
& livelihood” curriculums being revised to incorporate SWM information and
are being revised to messaging.
incorporate SWM
information and messaging. Though this evaluator did not delve into the intricacies of the
educational curriculum process in the public schools of Cotabato City and the Philippines, the
SWM coordinating committees (teachers and administrators) of the two schools that the
evaluator visited were optimistic. Other school-based interventions included the establishment
of mini-MRFs and compost areas, as well as awareness raising and information dissemination at
student and parent gatherings.

40
 PHOTO COLLAGE
URBAN WASTE RECEPTACLES & OTHER MATERIAL SUPPORT

The project provided two garbage disposals in public markets, which seemed to be serving the
intended purpose, as well as large metal garbage receptacles in those Barangays that did not
receive MRFs. Furthermore, the project provided various items of material support, some of
which are highlighted below in the collage.

41
 DISCUSSION OF PROJECT RESULTS

THE EVALUATOR’S DAC RATINGS

by
Project Purpose and Result

Please note that more detailed discussion of the results, project purpose and DAC criteria will be
discussed in the appropriate sections throughout this evaluation. However, due to project or
evaluation emphasis, each criterion may not be discussed.

+++ - high / ++ - medium / + - low / UTD - unable to determine / NA - not applicable

Result 1* Result 2* Result 3* Project Purpose*

SWM practices The primary The secondary To reduce the
at HH improved. SWM at SWM at City environmental health
Barangay improved. risks of 12,443
improved. households in 12
Barangays in a
sustainable manner
through improved
waste management
practices
Impact +++ ++ +++ +++
Coverage +++ +++ NA +++
The 3 C’s +++ ++ +++ +++
Appropriateness/ +++ ++ +++ ++
Relevance

Effectiveness +++ ++ UTD ++

Efficiency +++ ++ UTD ++

Sustainability/ ++ ++ UTD ++
Replicability
Overarching The project was Public-Private At this juncture The project has
Comments very successful in partnership in history, solid greatly assisted the 10
effectuating component of the waste Barangays in reducing
positive behavior project was only management is a solid waste and
change at the nominally very high significantly
household level. utilized due to priority for the improving awareness
design based on City and behavior change
incomplete pre- Government. amongst the residents
project and businesses.
assessment and
assumptions.
*Result and Project Purpose descriptors have been shortened for formatting purposes.

42
 DISCUSSION OF PROJECT RESULTS
Result 1: Solid Waste Management at the Household Level is Improved

HOUSEHOLD NUMBERS HOUSEHOLD NUMBERS

Result 1
Solid waste management at the
HH level is improved
Activity 4
Awareness raising campaign
Achieved: 93% of HH covered
Activity 5
Waste utilization & composting
training of BSWMCs and
CPHSGs in each target Barangay
Achieved: 100% completed
Activity 6
Creation of CPHSG in each
target Barangay
Achieved: 100% completed
Activity 7
Primary health training on
hygiene and sanitation to each
CPHSG
Achieved: 100% completed
Activity 8
Disease and disability prevention
training to each CPHSG
Achieved: 100% completed
Source: Project’s final report.
Data not verified by the evaluator. individual is persuaded to change behavior yet it is
This also holds true for monetary reward as the individual is less likely to “cash-in” on a
“behavior-change reward” if it is inconvenient or results in a “net-loss” to do so, thus the desired
practice will not be adopted.
As mentioned frequently,
behavior change is quite
possibly the most
difficult development
undertaking there is.
Individuals (households
consist of individuals)
generally only change or
modify their behaviors
due to one of three
reasons, or a combination
thereof; repeated
messaging, information
and education (though
such can take years if not
generations); monetary
reward (though usually
in terms of cash earned,
not cash saved); and,
popular trend (though
this evaluator opines that
household solid waste
management will never
be considered “trendy”).
Furthermore, you have to
make the implementation
of the behavior change convenient for the individual. If the
inconvenient to do so, then he/she will probably not do so.
Result 1
Solid waste management at the
HH level is improved
Activity 9
Community-based monitoring
installed in each target
Barangay
Achieved: 100% completed
Indicator 4
Goal: 70% of HH aware and
comply with SWM ordinance
Every HH shall segregate waste
Achieved: 49%
Separate container for each type
of waste
Achieved: 23%
Every HH should pay 20PhP per
month for solid waste collection
Achieved: 34%
Source: Project’s final report.
Data not verified by the
evaluator.

Some would contend that potential punishment or harm might be motivating factors for behavior
change. However, this evaluator further opines that does not usually seem to be the case. If it
were true, the world’s prisons would not be bursting at the seams, and people would not be
engaging in dangerous and harmful practices and behaviors.

43
DAC - Impact

Not wishing to wear-out the “copy and paste” buttons on MSWord, this evaluator will not
reiterate what has been previously mentioned on several occasions of the generally positive
impact of the project in reducing solid waste, most of which comes from the households (though
not to discount waste from businesses). Thus, the project has effectuated some behaviour
changes at the household level using the first motivating technique of messaging, information,
and education (a.k.a. “awareness”). Furthermore, though the project did not offer any cash
incentives, the “green” row of the following data visual indicates a steadily increasing amount of
households “becoming greener” as well as turning some of that garbage (the recyclables) into
cash. Thus a positive consequence of the project was “to grow” the realization that there is
money in garbage, an assertion that has been repeated and demonstrated throughout this report.
Additionally, the project made it convenient to adopt improved practices due to the “door-to-
door” (curb side) daily collection of the solid wastes by the MSE with their pedal carts.
Exchanging garbage (recyclables) for some needed cash was also relatively convenient due to
the accessibility of the numerous junk shops in Cotabato City. However, as expected, the project
was not able to effectuate any positive behaviour change by convincing people that solid waste
management is trendy.

Waste Disposal Practices of Households

Disposal Practice Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Internal Internal Internal
Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
3 Barangays 7 Barangays 10 Barangays
Discard 46% 52% 44% 48%
Reuse in the house 9% 14% 17% 11%
Sell to junkshop or collector 17% 20% 25% 28%
Compost 0.05% 0% 3% 1%
Feed to animals 0.6% 5% 5% 6%
Store in your house 0.4% 3% 3% 2%
Burned 15% 4% 3% 12%
Source: 2010 Internal Monitoring and Evaluation Report

DAC - Effectiveness & Sustainability/Replicability

As stated in the discussion of the CPHSGs, they were the primary “agents of change” for the
SWM awareness and information campaigns, thus they deserve the bulk of the credit and
gratitude for the job well done, though others did provide invaluable assistance and contributions
such as the BSWMC members and other Barangay leadership. Furthermore, the CPHSGs could
not have accomplished what they did without the training and motivation provided by the
project. Citizen or community groups (volunteers), if capacitated and motivated can be
extremely effective, as demonstrated in this project. Unfortunately, as also previously
mentioned, sustainability and replicability are always difficult once the external motivating force
is no longer involved.

44
 DISCUSSION OF PROJECT RESULTS
Result 2: Primary Solid Waste Management
at the Barangay is Improved
BARANGAY NUMBERS

Result 2
A functional and active BSWMC, as well as a dedicated Primary solid waste management
political leadership are at the Barangay is improved
BARANGAY NUMBERS the most critical
elements of success in Activity 17
Construction of 9 MRF
Result 2 the implementation Achieved: 100% completed
Primary solid waste and sustainability of
management at the Barangay is
improved
solid waste Activity 18
management systems Trainings on MRF operation to
Activity 11 at the Barangay level. BSWMC and MSE members in
Technical trainings on public- each target Barangay
This is not only a base Achieved: 100% completed
private partnership in SWM for finding of this
BSWMC and MSE in each target
Barangay
evaluator, but one that Activity 19
Achieved: 100% completed has been reaffirmed Transformation of parts of
through a literature community informal dumping site
into public places
Activity 12 (internet) search as Achieved: 100% completed; 25
Field exchange visits for well as the project
BSWMC and CPHSG members informal dumps closed; signage
Achieved: 100% completed
implementer’s own installed
experiences.
Activity 13 Source: Project’s final report.
Creation of MSE in each target Data not verified by the evaluator.
Furthermore,
Barangay commitment to solid
Achieved: 100% completed
waste management at
Activity 14 the Barangay level can only achieve its full potential impact in
Trainings on MSE operation to the presence of the political will and commitment at the City
BSWMC and MSE members in government level as City government is ultimately responsible
each target Barangay for collecting the garbage. Meanwhile, improved solid waste
Achieved: 100% completed
management at the household level can only be achieved
Activity 15 through behavior change. The more proactive and visible the
5 pedicabs for each target leaders of the Barangays and the City are in regards to SWM,
Barangay the more the people will adopt the practices of proper waste
Achieved: 100% completed management advocated through awareness campaigns.
Activity 16
Equipment of garbage container DAC - Impact, Effectiveness, and Sustainability
for public market areas/schools -
2 units of receptacles for the The evaluator will not reiterate verbatim or paraphrased, what
city; bins and cleaning materials has already been mentioned in the discussion of the various
for schools
Achieved: 100% completed
activities of the project that contribute to the Barangays efforts
to improve solid waste management, these activities being the
Source: Project’s final report. BSWMCs, the CPHSGs, the MSEs, as well as the “appropriate
Data not verified by the
45
technologies” of the MRFs and pedal carts. However, what is essential for impact, continued
effectiveness, and sustainability, is the manner in which these various activities fit and work
together, especially the human elements.

Notwithstanding the issues previously mentioned, namely the challenging sustainability of the
CPHSGs, MSEs that are not truly representative of a “public-private partnership,” and that
BSWMC and leadership commitment was not universal or uniform throughout the 12 target
Barangays, it is evident that those Barangays that exhibited a tight or affable relationship
between the three entities, and the personalities involved with each, experienced a greater degree
of success and impact than those Barangays where each entity is somewhat insular. You could
call it “teamwork.” The project did an admirable job in helping to create and then foster this
spirit of teamwork due to the nature of the many joint trainings and learning experiences.

Barangays need the BSWMC to provide policy, administrative, and perhaps even technical
guidance to the Barangay’s solid waste management efforts. The CPHSG members are essential
in bringing the message to the people through awareness and information dissemination to
effectuate positive behavior change. The MSEs are key in the day-to-day workings of the system,
making sure the garbage does get collected and the recyclables separated out, not merely left to
be added to the already over-filled city dump site. It is now up to the BSWMC members and the
Barangay political leaders to continue to sustain a sense of teamwork or community around solid
waste management, or to develop such a sense within their Barangay if they have not done so
already.

RECOMMENDATION
Barangay leadership should formalize regular informal gatherings of the
Barangay’s “SWM team.” “Formalize” in the sense that they will gather on a
regular, but not onerous basis, in an informal manner. And in these “formalized
informal” gatherings over some coffee and a piece of cake, discuss what is really
going on with the Barangay’s solid waste management system. For example, it is
really only the MSEs that know what people are throwing out in their garbage as
they are picking it up every day. On the other end, we have the BSWMC that
knows what should and should not be going into the trash as prescribed by
ordinance or policy. In the middle we have the CPHSG that can be very helpful
to narrow that gap between what should be happening (BSWMC) and what is
happening (MSE) in regards to the household solid waste and the associated
behavior changes (or lack thereof).

46
 DISCUSSION OF PROJECT RESULTS
Result 3. Secondary Solid Waste Management at the City Level is Improved

Solid waste management or “garbage collection” is one of the most critical functions of city
government in many cities, big and small, of the world. In western nations the “garbage
contract” is often one of the most coveted, competitive, and lucrative city tenders, just another
reaffirmation of that which is already known – “there is money in garbage.”

As stated earlier in this report, the performance of city government, in any sector not just SWM,
is dependent upon leadership and political will, which is beyond the manageable interests of an
iNGO. However an iNGO is able to assume the role of a “catalyst” in assisting or facilitating
improved performance through the provision of relevant training and of appropriate levels of
material support. However, donors and their partner iNGOs must tread cautiously and
conservatively when providing material support to
CITY NUMBERS governments, so as not to create dependency nor displace
government funds so that such can be diverted to less critical
Result 3 needs.
Secondary solid waste
management at the city level is
improved At the very least the presence of an iNGO can be a visible force
of moral suasion, especially when the iNGO can build a
Activity 20 cooperative and collaborative relationship with government. It
Trainings to OGS and CSWMB was very evident that the relationship between the relevant
Achieved: 100% completed
offices and personnel of Cotabato City Government and ACF
Indicator 12 was professional, personable, and amicable right up the Mayor
Goal: 90% of OGS personnel himself. To the lay person it may seem that such relationships
trained would be natural. But as a former donor representative, this
Achieved: 91% evaluator spent a lot of time and energy in smoothing out
Goal: 50% CSWMB utilize
relationships between iNGOs and host governments. Thus a
training positive relationship between an iNGO and government should
Achieved: 85% participate in never be assumed.
completion of city ecological
solid waste management plan DAC - Impact
Indicator 13
Goal: Efficiency of collection is The nature of a collaborative and cooperative relationship with
improved by 30% City Government does not lend itself well to impact indicators.
Achieved: 50% reduction in Though one can accurately say, given City Government’s
garbage pick-ups in the city responsibility for solid waste management in the city, that City
Activity 21
Government contributes in some manner to successful SWM,
Goal: 4 field exchange visits and unfortunately the converse is also true.
Achieved: 75% completed
However, there is some data that may suggest a positive trend
Source: Project’s final report. in the city’s performance in solid waste management, or more
Data not verified by the evaluator.
specifically better efficiencies in garbage pick-up.

47
Unfortunately, the “data visuals” are difficult to understand as they contain elements of “counter-
intuitiveness.” Usually data visuals that are difficult to follow are bad data visuals. Nevertheless
it is the only data available in these regards.

Cotabato City Government Efficiencies in Garbage Collection

Indicator 13
Goal: Efficiency of collection is improved by 30%
Achieved: 50% reduction in garbage pick-ups in the city

Intuitively one may think that the goal is to have the garbage picked-up more often, not less.
However, the objective is to make city garbage collection more efficient, yet at the same time
provide better service to the people. The below data visual represent survey results of the
residents of three of the target Barangays in regards to their perceptions on the frequency of
city garbage collection in their respective Barangays. In general, it appears that perception
is trending positively.
Waste Collection in the Target Barangays
Barangay Baseline Year 3
Internal Evaluation Results
Respondent answers to Respondent answers to regularity of waste
regularity of waste collection collection by City
by City
Poblacion 1 43% (1x a day) 94% (1x a day)
35% (1x a week) 0% (1x a week)
2% (2x a week) 0% (2x a week)
Poblacion 5 91% (1x a day) 80% (1x a day)
0% (1x a week) 0% (1x a week)
1% (2x a week) 1% (2x a week)
Poblacion 6 77% (1x a day) 83% (1x a day)
6% (1x a week) 0% (1x a week)
0% (2x a week) 7% (2x a week)
Source: 2010 Internal Monitoring and Evaluation Report

The final data visual depicts the reduction in the number of dumping sites (where the City
picks-up the garbage) in some of the target Barangays. In short, the MSEs, pick up the
garbage daily at the residences and businesses of the Barangay, remove the recyclables if
any, and then deposit the garbage at designated collection sites. Since the recyclables are
removed, there is less residual garbage. Furthermore, since the Barangay’s garbage
collection system is now organized, fewer collection points are required, thus facilitating
more efficient garbage collection.

Reduction of Dumping Sites

in Some of the Target Barangays
Barangay Total Dumping Existing
sites Dumping Sites
(2006) (2009)
Poblacion 1 2 1
Poblacion 5 42 15
Poblacion 6 41 31
Poblacion 7 3 0
Poblacion MB 15 5
Total 103 52
48 and Evaluation Report
Source: 2010 Internal Monitoring
DAC - The 3Cs and Relevance /Appropriateness

As previously mentioned, the City Government exhibited significant levels of cooperation and
collaboration for the project, and more importantly for improved solid waste management.
Furthermore as also noted earlier the Mayor informed the evaluator that at the upcoming seminar
with the Barangay Chairmen, his number two priority issue after Peace and Order would be solid
waste management.

Additionally the Mayor requested that the evaluator mention in his report the City’s
deep appreciation to ACF and the donor.

Continued progress in the City’s solid waste management depends primarily upon political will
and leadership. At this point in time it appears to this evaluator that the political will and
leadership are strong and due in significant part to the contributions of the project to the City and
its Barangays.

49
 GENDER (a.k.a. “GENDER DIVERSIFICATION)

“Gender” as a component or cross-cutting theme in

development programming is in most part a conscious
effort to promote gender equity in developing countries ... as many, if not most (or all)
which are generally “patriarchal” in nature. However, economic, political, social,
this evaluator prefers to broaden the more traditional and cultural development
perspective of gender in development as many, if not challenges may be better
most (or all) economic, political, social, and cultural addressed with the
development challenges may be better addressed with meaningful participation of
the meaningful participation of both genders. In most both genders.
developing nations the male is usually the primary
income earner, thus fairly common development interventions, and rightfully so, often include
economic empowerment or income generating activities focusing on women.

However, this evaluator observes that the development community is a “bit lax” in striving for
better gender participation in female dominated sectors of society and culture, such as the home
and family. Just as a woman can and should be able to add to the family’s economic
wherewithal that goes beyond her traditional role of taking care of the home and the family
members, men should also play a greater role when it comes to matters of home and family that
goes beyond their traditional role of “earning the money.” It is within this expanded “gender
frame” that the evaluator prefers to view and comment on gender issues.

Gender specific participation in the city and Barangay activities of the intervention, namely the
CSWMB and the BSWMCs, was beyond the manageable interest of ACF. The configuration of
the CSWMB and the BSWMCs were based on political decisions (e.g. elected positions) and the
statutory nature of each which determined the bulk of the participation which was primarily
relevant Barangay or City officials. However, the CPHSG was the one programming component
where ACF could have applied some influence or moral suasion in order to encourage a more
gender diverse participant base or membership. The primary responsibility of the CPHSGs was
to effectuate “SWM behavior change” at the household level (in practical effect the “woman of
the household” given the traditional role of women as managing the household). However, it
was important for the project to convey the message that proper solid waste management at the
household level was the responsibility of both sexes, thus it had to be seen that the “message
delivery vehicle” be gender diversified.

During four of the FGDs, the

CPHSGs were queried in regards to
During four of the FGDs, the CPHSGs were
the number of male members with the
queried in regards to the number of male
result being about twenty percent
members with the result being about twenty
(21.25% to be precise). What this
percent...
evaluator did not do is to query the
project implementer, ACF, if they felt

50
that male participation in the CPHSGs was vital, or if their focus was on the oft-typical gender
goal of ensuring more equitable participation of women. In either case, “by design or default,”
this evaluator strongly opines that this level of gender diversification was exemplary given the
overwhelming predominance of women as the direct recipients of the CPHSGs awareness and
information dissemination campaigns.

One could also logically make the “gender case” that women should have been given a greater or
more equitable role in the MSE activity of the project, considering that the MSE component was
designed with an income generating potential. However, despite this evaluator’s opinion on the
importance of gender diversification in development programming, he also believes that in such
matters, real and sustainable change takes a long-time and is usually better served with gentle,
but consistent nudges from the agents of change, as opposed to “violent shoves” that may result
in resistance or backlash. It would have been nice to see some women MSEs, but it may have
resulted in a cultural discomfort that served no particular purpose in regards to the objectives of
this project, other than satisfying a general development mindset.

51
 SUGGESTED LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

A logical framework that justifies a development intervention and which around a project is
designed, must be specifically tailored for the unique demographic, environmental, and political
characteristics of the target area and its population. Without saying, the most critical determinate
in the construction of the framework is the nature of the needs and the problems. One of the
tasks of this evaluation is to suggest potential logical framework revisions. To do so the
evaluator has to assume that the context of the framework would be similar to that of Cotabato
City.

City and Barangay Government

Garbage collection is a function of local governments, thus as in this project, improving the
capacity of the local governments in the policy, technical, administrative and “systems” aspects
of solid waste management would be the ultimate goal. The framework components for the ACF
project in these regards was very appropriate for the objective of creating capacity, though this
evaluator would not include “private sector creation” under the over-arching government focused
results. Government has a role in creating a favorable environment for the private sector, and a
duty to assure that private sector actions are beneficial or neutral (never detrimental) to the
welfare of the population as a whole. But it is not the role of government to create a private
sector.

Though the evaluator recognizes the unique roles of the two levels of local government in the
Philippine context, he believes the basic objective of “creating institutional capacity” should be
one result. In regards to material support activities under this result, this evaluator would limit
such support to appropriate technologies (e.g. “pedi-cab”) that directly assist the government in
collecting the garbage door to door (actually “curb side”).

For Consideration - Money in Garbage and Education

The evaluator now puts forward two alternative logical framework results. He is not contending
that these results are superior or more appropriate than those of the project, but only offers them
for consideration and thought. These potential logical framework results are borne out of a
common theme that kept popping up during the course of this evaluation - that there is money in
garbage, and the fact that the evaluator believes you need a strong education (school) initiative as
behavior change is often generational in nature.

52
Result
Commercialization
opportunities of solid wastes
increased
Improved household and
individual solid waste
management practices
consistently promoted through
the formal education processes
Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI)
Existing recyclable (junk) traders be formally organized
to improve buying and marketing efficiencies
“Appropriate technologies” introduced to add
commercial value to solid wastes that currently have no
or limited commercial value
Households through CBOs (formal and informal), linked
to solid waste management markets (buyers)
SWM practices demonstration sites be developed on
school grounds (elementary, secondary, and tertiary;
public, private, and parochial)
SWM practices material be developed and incorporated
into the relevant class curriculums
School-centered public activities focusing on SWM be
developed and facilitated
SWM relevant environmental internships (tertiary level)
be developed and facilitated
53
 COLLECTION OF GARBAGE FEE
UNSUSTAINABLE AND MISPLACED

Institution of and the collection of household and business garbage fees in the Barangay, usually
PhP 20 or PhP 30 per month, so as to assist in sustainability and SWM budgeting, met with
varying degrees of success over the project’s 12 target Barangays.

This evaluator congratulates the

Barangays that have high compliance
levels in the payment and collection of Percent of Households
the garbage fee as it indicates strong Complying with Garbage Fee Payment
Barangay organization and awareness (January 2010)
of the critical importance of proper Barangays (%)
solid waste management by the Poblacion 1 100%
Barangay’s residents and businesses. Poblacion 5 83%
However, this evaluator does not cast Poblacion 6 50%
aspersions on those Barangays that Poblacion 7 78%
have not been able to establish garbage Poblacion MB 18%
fees or have only achieved nominal Tamontaka 1 -*
levels of compliance as poverty, much Tamontaka MB 15%
of it abject, may not permit even the Poblacion 8 -*
most minimal of payment. Bagua MB 17%
Kalanganan MB -*
Despite the success of some of the
Rosary Heights 1 50%
Barangays with the compliance of the
Rosary Heights 13 60%
garbage fee ordinance, the present
Source: 3rd Internal Evaluation of the Project
modality is unsustainable over the *not collecting garbage fee
longer-term, especially in regards to
“collection efficiencies.” If collection
of the fee is door-to-door, that is very inefficient in terms of human and time resources. If the
garbage fee is to be paid at a central payment point, then levels of compliance will decrease as
some people will not show-up to pay the fee.

But more importantly than the sustainability issue resulting from inefficient or ineffective
collection and payment modalities, is the fact that as discussed in other sections of this report,
garbage collection (solid waste management) is a function of government, whether it be the
Barangay or City government. When government provides a service, even when that service
requires additional revenue to pay for the costs of providing the service, any “fees” imposed
upon the community or the recipients of the service would best be considered as a “tax.” But
this evaluator recognizes that many taxing authorities and governments around the world will
often use the word “fee” rather than “tax,” possibly because that the word “fee” has a softer
connotation. A rhetorical question - what is the difference between a “mandatory fee” and a
tax?

54
Taxing authorities, especially in developing nations, needs structures and mechanisms that take
into account two equally important collection/payment principals. One is the fact that the
collection/payment mechanism results in the payment of the tax or fee by all that are subject to
the fee or tax. The other being that the mechanism and structures for tax and fee
collection/payment is efficient for the taxing authority, as the unit cost of collection should not
be more than the unit of revenue generated.

It is neither the purview nor the responsibility of this evaluator to be knowledgeable of the tax
policies, structures and mechanisms in the Philippines, regardless of the level of government.
However, it is clear that at the Barangay level, to go from door-to-door every month to collect
garbage fees is extremely inefficient and most likely unsustainable over the long term. It is also
strongly believed that if payment of the garbage fee is to be made at a designated payment point
every month, then levels of compliance will drop significantly. Thus it is recommended that the
relevant Barangay and City officials begin to explore possibilities to incorporate the “garbage
fee” into other taxes or collection/payment mechanisms in order to ensure high levels of
compliance as well as collection/payment cost efficiencies.

With that said, this evaluator is well aware of the challenges that developing nations face in the
collection of taxes, and the subsequent issues of accountability and transparency after the tax is
collected. Furthermore, even in the richer countries, most taxes and fees collected by
governments usually go into a “general fund.” Often (read: usually) the allocation of revenue
from the general fund is not proportionate to the levels and specific nature of the taxes and fees
that constitute the general fund. However, these are issues of governance, fairness,
appropriateness, and prioritization. What no nation can afford to do over the long-run is to create
a separate fee or tax collection/payment mechanism to pay for the cost of every new, expanded,
or improved service for the people, in this case solid waste management, only because there may
be a lack of capacity in the current system, or a lack of confidence in that system.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the relevant Barangay and City officials begin to explore
possibilities to incorporate the “garbage fee” into other taxes or
collection/payment mechanisms in order to ensure high levels of compliance as
well as collection/payment cost efficiencies.

55
 HEALTH TRAINING LINKAGE UNCLEAR

Although the term “health training” is used for the training provided to the CPHSG members by
ACF’s partner Handicap International, that training also consisted of hygiene, sanitation, and
some solid waste handling training This activity was also “Training of Trainers” (ToT), not
direct training to the ultimate beneficiaries which were the residents of the target Barangays.
However, for the sake of simplicity, this evaluator will use the term “health training.” The health
training as provided in this project is in its own right critically important in developing nations,
especially for those households and communities in the lesser-advantaged socio-economic levels.
Thus this evaluator is always a strong proponent of health and hygiene development activities.

However, with that said the linkage between the health components of the project, implemented
as it seems to have been, with the primary focus of the project - solid waste management - is
unclear to this evaluator. Unclear to the point that it seems the health component and the solid
waste management component were two separate development interventions under one umbrella,
but as if sharing that umbrella with a stranger, not a friend or a loved-one. It is not evident to
this evaluator that the health training complements or reinforces the project’s activities that were
designed and implemented to improve solid waste management at the Barangay and City levels.

The health training may have been helpful in improving solid waste management at the
household level, but this evaluator was not able to determine such through the participatory
research. In fact, one of this evaluator’s findings is that the participants in FGDs and key
informant interviews had only limited recall or prioritization of health trainings. However, the
KAP comparative study, which is attached electronically, of two target project Barangays
compared to two non-project Barangays (control group) did show three behavior differences
between the groups that may be attributable to the project:

KAP Comparative Study

1. The intervention group tends to throw solid waste for collection more than the
control group. This is true in the management of left-over food, paper, carton,
cans and old broken furniture which can be attributed to the existence of a
functioning barangay level collection system in the intervention group.

2. The intervention group has fewer tendencies to burn solid waste than the
control group. This is true in their management of tree leaves and branches,
paper and cartons which can be due to the project’s campaign against open
burning of solid waste.

3. The intervention group has a greater tendency to wash hands after defecating
compared to the control group. The timing of hand washing is one of the key
messages to households given by CPHSGs who were trained on the proper
timing of hand washing.
56
Notwithstanding the KAP comparative study, the evaluator is hesitant to “coerce” his
participatory observations and intuitiveness to a position that may be more amenable to a more
favorable perspective of the linkage of the health component to the rest of the project. The
evaluator’s theory (based upon the original log frame) is that it was anticipated that
“environmental health” would be an important aspect in this project. However, as it evolved, it
was realized that correlations between environment health and solid waste management are not
always strong or conclusive. Thus the envisioned (though vaguely) “environmental health”
component evolved into a more typical health, hygiene, and sanitation intervention. As
previously stated, health, hygiene, and sanitation, are critical development interventions.
However, they do not seem to link clearly to the solid waste management goal of this project.

The evaluator has said enough on this subject as he has probably upset a number of reviewers!

57
 RECAP OF RECOMMENDATIONS

for City and/or Barangay Governments...

It is recommended that the relevant Barangay and City officials begin to explore possibilities to
incorporate the “garbage fee” into other taxes or collection/payment mechanisms in order to
ensure high levels of compliance as well as collection/payment cost efficiencies.

The BSWMC is a statutorily authorized committee and as such there may be prescriptive
guidance on “membership” and participation on the committee. However, if there is flexibility
in the authorizing language, the evaluator recommends that membership be expanded to include
a few more members from the “general public” (residents) of the Barangay. The evaluator
realizes that it is extremely difficult to convince members of the general public to volunteer and
actively serve on committees. He also realizes that the Barangay officials on the BSWMC are
residents of the Barangay. But their respective roles on the committee are due primarily to their
technical and administrative capacities, not because of residency. Furthermore, there are already
some provisions for non-Barangay officials to serve on the BSWMC, such as the representative
of the homeowners’ association. However, what a few additional “general public members”
would bring to the BSWMC would be increased opportunities for Barangay-resident interaction
in numerous areas including awareness, information, compliance and even advocacy.

Barangay leadership should formalize regular informal gatherings of the Barangay’s “SWM
team.” “Formalize” in the sense that they will gather on a regular, but not onerous basis, in an
informal manner. And in these “formalized informal” gatherings over some coffee and a piece
of cake, discuss what is really going on with the Barangay’s solid waste management system.
For example, it is really only the MSEs that know what people are throwing out in their garbage
as they are picking it up every day. On the other end, we have the BSWMC that knows what
should and should not be going into the trash as prescribed by ordinance or policy. In the middle
we have the CPHSG that can be very helpful to narrow that gap between what should be
happening (BSWMC) and what is happening (MSE) in regards to the household solid waste and
the associated behavior changes (or lack thereof).

for ACF, Specific for SWM Programming...

In virtually all developing nations, children play an informal role in the “garbage culture” of the
cities and towns. Their role is usually one of survival, often forced, and may come at the
expense of their health, education, or childhood. This evaluator believes SWM programming
targeting the general population, even if indirectly, must be “OVC-considerate.”

If the ultimate goal is to reduce solid waste (garbage), then it is not a difficult, time consuming,
or costly monitoring tool to count the number of trucks disposing of waste at the dump site on a
prescribed monitoring schedule, especially considering the project intervention targets a
significant portion of the “SWM catchment area.”

58
for ACF, Design and Monitoring...

Develop a broader appreciation for the baseline survey. The baseline survey helps verify many of
the precepts on which the project was designed. If the baseline study indicates a status or
condition inconsistent with the program design, it gives the implementer another chance to
modify the design before too many resources are invested.

If funds for statistically valid sampling are insufficient, then you may consider “mini-surveys”
where only a fraction of a valid sampling pool is surveyed (generally 10% to 20%). Though not
statistically valid, if applied consistently throughout the program beginning with the baseline,
they can be “strongly suggestive” of trends and impact.

If as above there are budget constraints, where intervention areas “enter the project” in a
staggered schedule (three or four per year), perhaps consideration should be given to measure
and monitor impact for only one of the three or four that entered the program any particular year.

This recommendation is a “no-brainer.” Check, double-check, and maybe even triple-check the
assessments and assumptions before designing a project around them.

for ACF, Rural Vs Urban Development Programming...

A “one size fits all” development package is more appropriate for rural areas that consist
primarily of subsistence agriculturalists. Development interventions that target geo-political
units within a urban area, which range from peri-urban agricultural to center city cosmopolitan as
Cotabato City, require project designs that allow for the adaption and adoption of options or
alternative development services and deliverables, depending on the specific needs of each target
or beneficiary unit.

59
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACF Documents: 2008, 2009, 2010 Internal Evaluation Reports, APEC SWM Final Report,
Initial Assessment of Solid Waste and Waste Water System in Urban and Peri-Urban Areas of
Cotabato City, and various other project documents.

Boyose-Nolasco Ivy, Michael Arieh P. Medina. June Comparative Questionnaire on the

Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices on Hygiene, Sanitation and Solid Waste Management
among households in selected Barangays in Cotabato City. A Survey Report for Handicap
International. 2010.

Henry Rotich K., Zhao Yongsheng, Dong Jun. Municipal solid waste management challenges in
developing countries - Kenyan case study College of Environment and Resources. Jilin
University, Changchun 130026, China. 2005. http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd43/jun.pdf

Ogawa Hisashi. Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries. WHO Western
Pacific Regional Environmental Health Centre (EHC). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
http://www.gdrc.org/uem/waste/swm-fogawa1.htm

Performance Monitoring and Evaluation TIPS: GUIDELINES FOR INDICATOR AND DATA
QUALITY. USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation 1998, Number 12.

Performance Monitoring and Evaluation TIPS USING RAPID APPRAISAL METHODS.

USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation 1996, Number 5.

Romero, Purple S., abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak. LGUs, LLDA blamed for floods.

10/05/2009. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/10/05/09/lgus-llda-blamed-floods

Ulrich Glawe, C. Visvanathan, M. Alamgir. Solid Waste Management in Least Developed Asian
Countries - A Comparative Analysis. http://www.swlf.ait.ac.th/data/pdfs/SWMgt1.pdf

Zurbrugg Chris, SANDEC / EAWAG. Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries.

http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/sandec/publikationen/publications_swm/downloa
ds_swm/basics_of_SWM.pdf

60
 LIST OF ELECTRONIC ANNEXES

Annex 1 KAP SURVEY

Annex 2 2008 INTERNAL EVALUATION without annexes

Annex 3 2009 INTERNAL EVALUATION without annexes

Annex 4 2010 INTERNAL EVALUATION without annexes

Annex 5 FINAL REPORT without annexes

Annex 6 TOR EVALUATION

61
About the Evaluator...

Walter E. Welz

Walter Welz spent almost ten years with USAID, nearly eight of those with USAID/Uganda as
its Food Aid, Food Security, and Humanitarian Relief Officer (a.k.a. “Food for Peace Officer”).
Previous careers experiences include 12 years with the Farm Bureau, the largest farm and
agricultural advocacy organization in the United States, as well as other agriculturally related
positions in Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, and the American state of Florida. He has
performed various short-term consulting assignments in Africa (Mozambique, Uganda, and
Rwanda), Latin America (Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Guatemala), Eastern Europe
(Russia and Bulgaria), Tajikistan in central Asia, and the Indian Ocean/South China Sea area of
Asia (India, Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and the Maldives).

62