Rosalina Bistoyong Jesus Galvan Hans Alcantara Marietta Thomasina Angeline Porio

1. Philippine Country Presentation on Results-Based Management for Public Sector Excellence Rosalina Bistoyong Jesus Galvan Hans Alcantara Marietta Thomasina Angeline Porio

2. Outline of Presentation • Country Profile • II. Results-Based Management Framework • III. Organizational Performance Indicator Framework (OPIF) • IV. Continuing Challenges • V. Next Steps

3. Country Profile: The Republic of the Philippines QUICK GLANCE: Official Name : Republic of the Philippines Location : Southeastern Asia, archipelago between the Philippine Sea and South China Sea, east of Vietnam Islands : 7,107 Area :300,000 square kilometers Capital : Manila Climate : Tropical Marine/Monsoon Population : 88.5 Million Literacy : 92.6% Religions : Roman Catholic 80.9% Muslim 5%, Evangelical 2.8% Basic Ed Cycle : 10 years Medium of Inst. : English except for Filipino Subject No. of Dialects Spoken: Over 200 native languages and dialects

4. Philippine Government Structure Senate (Upper Chamber) President Constitutional Bodies Cabinet Secretaries (23) House of Representatives (Lower Chamber) Provision of Public Services Departments, e.g. Provision of Public Services Executive Legislative Department of Education (DepEd) CSC COMELEC Expenditures Department of Agrarian Reform CITIZENS/STAKEHOLDERS Expenditures COA Judiciary Revenues Department of Finance OMB Supreme Court Revenues Department Budget and Management CHR Court of Appeals National Economic and Development Authority Lower Courts REGION 17 Local Government Units: Provinces 80 Levels of Governance Local Government Units:Municipalities (1,511) or Cities (120) Local Government Units: Barangays (42,008)

5. Agency Strategic Plan Organizational Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF) Agency Performance Management System (PMS) Career Executive Service Performance Evaluation System (CESPES) Office Performance Evaluation System (OPES) Performance Evaluation System (PES) Results-Based Management FrameworkLinkages of a PMS Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP)

6. Uses of Results Based Management Depicts thelogical linksbetween the various results levels (impact, outcome, output) and activities (inputs) Guides results-oriented steering of an intervention towards its defined objectives Basis for monitoring & evaluation by defining indicators for all level of the results chains e.g. FY 2008 Budget Performance Assessment (BPA) Form the basis for results-oriented reporting to financiers, stakeholders, the public. Promotes a high-performance culture in the public sector workplaceby aligning individual objectives to the organizational objectives

7. The Organizational Performance Indicator (OPIF) Framework An approach to expenditure management that enables an agency to focus its resources to core and vital functions A tool that measures agency performance by key quality and quantity indicators It is an avenue to install results-based management in the bureaucracy

8. Why Adopt OPIF • Broad international debate on gearing project implementation to results (effects / outcomes / impact) instead of inputs, activities and outputs What have we done vs. What have we achieved in terms of results RESULTS • Nourished by MDGs and the question of how development cooperation contributes to the attainment of these MDGs / MDG indicators • Complements the effectiveness of bilateral development cooperation Value for Money

9. Career Executive Service – Performance Evaluation System (CESPES) Office Performance Evaluation System for Units and Division Chiefs Performance Evaluation System (PES) for Individual Staff The Office Performance Evaluation System OPES

10. Why Measure Office Performance? • Directly translates the agency’s strategic direction into more specific and measurable objectives • Serves as mechanism for better alignment of individual objectives to agency objectives • Enhances objectivity of individual performance evaluations which serve as basis for incentives for civil servants

11. RBM-OPIF Definition of terms

12. POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT • Percentage contribution to poverty reduction in the rural areas • ARB households with income above the poverty threshold SOCIETAL GOAL • Reduced number of agrarian conflicts • ARBs maintained ownership of the awarded lands • Reduced skewedness on land ownership (more tillers are owning land) • Increased household income • Increased assets of ARB households • Increased yield of crops • Sustained management of ARBs/ARBs organizations’ profitable enterprises • Enhanced socio economic condition of the ARB households and the entire community • Satisfaction with the benefits • Jobs generated • Sustained profitability of agri-business endevours DAR’s Results-Based Organizational Performance Indicator Framework*_/ DAR’s Results-based OPIF SECTOR GOALS AGRARIAN PEACE AND COUNTRYSIDE STABILITY SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR ARBs AND LANDOWNERS AGRI-BASED RURAL INDUSTRIALIZATION IMPROVED LAND TENURE SECURITY OF THE ARBs IMPROVED FARM PRODUCTION, INCOME AND WELL-BEING OF ARB HOUSEHOLDS ORG’L OUTCOME DIRECT BENEFITS A B This is specific for DAR-OPIF. A CARP-OPIF is with PARC Secretariat.

13. A B ORG’L OUTCOME USE OF OUTPUTS IMPROVED LAND TENURE SECURITY OF THE ARBs IMPROVED FARM PRODUCTION, INCOME AND WELL-BEING OF ARB HOUSEHOLDS • For the ARBs to take ownership, control and use of awarded lands • For the ARBs to have greater access to agricultural credit/microfinance, techno- logy, market support services, physical infrastructures to profitably manage an enterprise or agribusiness endevour • ARBs continued cultivation of the awarded lands (actual tillers) • ARBs managed the awarded lands (with hired laborers) • ARBs paid the land amortizational regularly • ARB organizations have been functional for support services delivery • ARBs accessed agricultural credit and microfinance • ARBs adopted appropriate and environment-friendly farm production and post-production technologies • ARBs produced commercial agri- and non-agri-products • ARBs accessed physical infrastructures • For the landowners to receive just compensation of their lands and invest in rural industries • Landowners invested in specific type of rural enterprises/industries • Landowners have been paid by the Land Bank of the Philippines • For the ARBs to have better access to basic social services • ARB households used health services and facilities • ARB households accessed continuous education • ARB households used potable water supply • ARB households used power supply Land Tenure Instruments Awarded to Landless Farmers and LOs Compensation Facilitated Legal Assistance Provided to ARBs and LOs Support Services Implemented, Facilitated and Coordinated for Delivery to ARBs MFOs

14. Land Tenure Instruments Awarded to Landless Farmers and LOs Compensation Facilitated Legal Assistance Provided to ARBs and LOs Support Services Implemented, Facilitated and Coordinated for Delivery to ARBs MFOs a. Land Acquisition and Distribution a.1 Area ( in hectares ) distributed a.2 No. of ARBs covered a.3 Area (in hectares) of new lands with approved survey plans a.4 Area (in has.) of LBP-compensable lands with Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition b. Leasehold Implementation b.1 Area ( in hectares ) under leasehold agreement b.2 No. of ARBs with leasehold contracts c. Other Land Tenure Improvement Services c.1 Subdivision of issued Collective CLOA into Individual Titles - Area (in hectares) of collective CLOA surveyed - No. of ARBs covered - Area (in hectares) of individual CLOA redocumented and registered - No. of ARBs covered c.2 Redocumentation of Distributed Not Yet Paid (DNYP) Distributed Not Yet Documented (DNYD) Lands - Area (in hectares.) involved - No. of Claim Folders processed c.3 Installation of uninstalled ARBs - No. of ARBs installed - Area (in hectares) involved c.4 Generation of Land Distribution and Information Schedule (LDIS) - No. of LDIS generated - Area (has) and No. of ARBs involved - No. of LDIS forwarded to LBP - Area (has) and No. of ARBs involved c.5 ARB Carding - No. of ARBs profiled - No. of ARBs issued with ID cards a. Adjudication of Agrarian Cases - Total no. of cases resolved - No. of affected ARBs - No. of landowners involved - Area involved, in hectares - Percentage reduction in pending cases b. Agrarian Legal Assistance b.1 ARB Representation in Court Cases b.1.1 Judicial Courts and Prosecutors Office - Total no. of cases disposed - No. of ARBs represented - Area involved, in hectares - Percentage reduction in pending cases b.1.2 Quasi-Judicial Courts - Total no. of cases disposed - No. of ARBs represented - Area involved, in hectares - Percentage reduction in pending cases b.2 Resolution of Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases - Total no. of cases resolved - No. of ARBs involved - Area involved, in hectares - Percentage reduction in pending cases b.3 Conduct of Conciliation/Mediation to assist ARBs and other parties to amicably settle agrarian disputes - No. of disputes settled/disposed - No. of ARBs involved a. Social Infrastructure and Local Capability Building (SILCAB) a.1 Institutional Development Interventions - No. of new ARCs confirmed by NARCTF* - Total No. of ARBs covered (ARCs, SARCs, expansion areas) - No of ARC clusters with development plans - No. of development plans integrated in the local development plans of Local Government Units - No. of ARC clusters confirmed by the NARCTF No. of ARCs No. of non-ARC barangays - No. of ARC clusters with development plans - No. of ARC clusters with functional implementing structure a.2 Capacity Development of ARBs/ARB organizations SARCs - No. of SARCs with development plans - No. of programs/projects implemented in SARCs w/ relevant agencies, organizations, institutions (DSWD, DOT, NDCC, DILG, TESDA, NCIP, etc.) - No. of ARBs benefitted - No. of unserved/underserved ARBs outside ARCs, outside the clusters, and outside SARCs provided with minimum interventions (trainings, credit, and membership in organizations) ARB Training - No. of ARBs trained In ARC clusters (ARCs and non-ARCs) In ARCs outside clusters In SARCs ARB Membership in Organizations - No. of ARB Organizations (cooperatives, associations, irrigators associations, women’s groups, etc.) assisted - No. of new ARB members in organizations - Total no. of ARBs in organization /coops (cumulative) Partnership Development/Linkaging - No. of new partnerships for the implementation of PBD programs and projects Number of Infrastracture PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PER PROGRAM

15. DAR’s RBM-OPIF SOCIETAL GOAL POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT • Percentage contribution to poverty reduction in the rural areas • ARB households with income above the poverty threshold SECTOR GOALS AGRARIAN PEACE AND COUNTRYSIDE STABILITY SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR ARBs AND LANDOWNERS AGRI-BASED RURAL INDUSTRIALIZATION ORGANI- ZATIONAL OUTCOME IMPROVED LAND TENURE SECURITY OF THE ARBs IMPROVED FARM PRODUCTION, INCOME AND WELL-BEING OF ARB HOUSEHOLDS USE OF OUTPUTS For the ARBs to take ownership control and use of awarded lands For the landowners to receive just compensation of their lands and invest in rural industries For the ARBs to have greater access to agricultural credit /microfinance, technology, market support services, physical infrastructures to profitably manage an enterprise or agribusiness endeavor For the ARBs to have better access to basic social services MFOs Land Tenure Instruments Awarded to Landless Farmers and LOs Compensation Facilitated Legal Assistance Provided to ARBs and LOs Support Services Implemented, Facilitated and Coordinated for Delivery to ARBs

16. Program Beneficiaries Development Strategic Outcome: Increased Productivity, Food Sufficiency and Income of Farmers

17. The Agrarian Reform Communities’ Level of Development Assessment (used by DAR) The CAP-Scan Other RBM Instruments currently being Used in Philippine NGAs

18. The Agrarian Reform Communities’ Level of Development Assessment • Another results-based management tool developed by the DAR is the ALDA. Its is a development meter that measures the outcomes of CARP in the lives of the agrarian reform beneficiaries. • With the use of the ALDA tool, the 2,105 ARCs and 5,000 ARB organizations assisted by DAR in the entire country can be categorized into high level, medium and low level of development.

19. The CAP Scan • In relation to pursuing Managing for Development Results (MfDR) management strategy, the DAR , through Secretary/Minister Nasser C. Pangandaman, expressed interest and willingness to undertake the Capacity Scan (CAP-Scan) in response to the World Bank’s call for countries regarding the CAP-Scan tool application. • The DAR management believes that MfDR management strategy provides a coherent framework for development effectiveness in which performance data are used for improved decision-making. The framework includes practical tools for strategic planning, risk management, progress monitoring, and outcome evaluation

20. Specifically, CAP-Scan is a short-term, broad and high-level diagnostic review to identify and prioritize needs in the five central pillars of MfDR: (1) leadership, (2) accountability and partnerships, (3) monitoring and evaluation, (4) planning and budgeting, and (5) statistical capacity. To discuss the organizational arrangements and other details for the possible conduct of CAP-Scan in CARP, Ms. Ingwell Kuil and John Patterson of the World Bank-Washington had a video conference with the key officials of DAR. The CAP Scan

21. Continuing Challenges There is a… • Need to link existing government processes/systems across various levels of governance from national, regional, provincial, municipal/city, to the barangay, the Philippines’ smallest political unit; • Need to establish a ‘universal’ database to facilitate sharing of information for planning and decision-making purposes; • Need for top level decision-makers to use results-based management as basis for more realistic resource allocation across departments and all levels of governance;

22. Continuing Challenges • Need to facilitate an enabling environment conducive to a systematic building of linkages of desired results to the achievement of national development goals;

23. Next Steps • Assess existing results-based management instruments/tools and adopt/formulate a new model that will be responsive to the needs and uniqueness of the Philippines as a country • Advocate for the adoption of a ‘Whole-of-Government (WOG) Approach/Framework in Managing Desired Results

24. Next Steps • Assess existing results-based management instruments/tools and adopt/formulate a new model that will be responsive to the needs and uniqueness of the Philippines as a country • Advocate for the adoption of a ‘Whole-of-Government (WOG) Approach/Framework in Managing Performance towards desired results

25. Continuing Challenges • Review and evaluate further the applicability of CAP-Scan that is reflective of the peculiarities of each country

26. End of Presentation Maraming Salamat Po MABUHAY!