TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

EXECUTIVE BRIEF

NATURE OF REQUEST New for Funding

PROJECT TITLE SAFE Project on Philippine Native Animals for Disaster Risk
Reduction in Hazard-Prone Areas of Benguet (SAFE-
PNADRRHAB)

PROPONENT/
PROJECT LEADER Sonwright B. Maddul
Professor VI
Department of Animal Science
Benguet State University (BSU
La Trinidad, Benguet
0916 364 2039
smaddul@gmail.com

DURATION 2 Years

MONITORING DOST-PCAARRD
AGENCY

COOPERATING LGU Itogon, Benguet

AGENCIES

Funding Request Y1 Y2 Total

PS 864336 864336 1728672

MOOE 1996600.2 1448350.2 3444950.4

EO 320000 0 320000

Total 3180936.2 2312686.2 5493622.4

COUNTERPART BSU
FUNDING
LGU Itogon

GRAND TOTAL

BRIEF DESCRIPTION/
RATIONALE This SAFE project is proposed in an attempt to provide
assistance to disaster-prone communities in Benguet both to prevent
large damages and massive animal losses as well as to support in
faster rebuilding following a major crisis event caused by natural
hazards and climate-related disasters. The SAFE project will utilize
the initial outputs of the PCAARRD-funded program on Philippine
Native Pig Conservation, Improvement and Profitable Utilization. It
will operationalize a paradigm shift from reactive emergency relief
to pro-active disaster risk reduction measures.
1

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

The impacts of intense and frequent disasters due to climate

change have implications for livestock production systems. For rural
communities, this means losing livestock assets that can push
livestock dependent households into chronic poverty and have a
prolonged effect on their livelihoods (World Wide Fund for Nature,
2014). In order to mitigate such losses in the future, government
agencies and local government units need to integrate livestock in
disaster risk management (DRM) programs. In emergency situations,
specific livestock-targeted interventions are required to help
households survive the immediate crisis and to support communities
in rebuilding their livelihoods. Livestock interventions typically
cover provision of animal health services, emergency feeding and
water supplies, shelter provision, destocking (marketing,
slaughtering) and restocking (FAO, 2016).

The provision of livestock to rehabilitate livelihoods after

humanitarian disasters has been practiced regularly for over thirty
years. This is often in the form of herd reconstitution for those largely
dependent upon livestock following massive animal mortality. More
recently it has been increasingly used as a form of development for
those not dependent upon livestock, giving few animals in order to
provide an additional source of income. Restocking programs have
evolved and are now no longer restricted to post‐disaster pastoralist
restocking but also wider development for those not entirely
dependent upon livestock (Jones, 2012).

Agricultural livelihoods can only be protected from multiple

hazards if adequate disaster risk reduction and management efforts
are strengthened within and across concerned sectors. These efforts
include but not limited to capacitation of both service agencies and
beneficiaries and development of systems for traceability of
distributed goods or commodities as part of efficient management. As
such, a livestock traceability system would directly benefit risk
management in case of natural disaster. As Hobbs et al. (2007) puts
it, “the system will provide timely, accurate and relevant information
to enhance emergency management, market access, industry
competitiveness industry competitiveness, and consumer
confidence”. Livestock disease management is a significant benefit,
particularly to the producers, but also to society as a whole. Accurate
and timely traceability of livestock can reduce the costs of a disease
outbreak by reducing the scope and scale of the necessary mitigation
responses (e.g. slaughtering potentially affected herds).

OBJECTIVES General: The over-arching goal of the proposed project is to support

disaster-prone communities in reducing vulnerability to the impacts
of threats and shocks by building their adaptive capacities and
resilience.

In general, the SAFE project aims to support disaster-prone

2

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

communities in Benguet both to prevent large damages and massive

animal losses as well as to support in faster rebuilding following a
major crisis event caused by natural hazards and climate-related
disasters.

Specific: The specific objectives of the SAFE project are as follows:

1. To rehabilitate and reinforce the native animal genetic
resources project of BSU and LGU as reliable sources of
livestock for distribution during emergencies and recovery;
2. To build or replace livestock assets through livestock
distribution and provision of veterinary and husbandry
support services;
3. To apply an identification system for the identification,
monitoring, traceability and tracking of distributed livestock;
4. To prevent and control diseases at their source through early
warning, rapid detection and timely reaction, enabling
research, coordination, and communication; and
5. To promote native animal raising among upland communities
as part of integrated disaster risk reduction and management
program in preparation for future hazards while
simultaneously conserving their local livestock.
BENEFICIARIES Indigenous people and women in disaster-prone upland communities.

EXPECTED OUTPUTS Quantity Targets

Y1 Y2
6 different topics of new IEC
Publications materials produced
2 training modules /techno
guides produced
1 publishable article produced
Patents 1 trademark/collective mark 1 geographic indication filed
filed
Products 12 breeder pigs procured by 12 breeder pigs maintained at
BSU as parent stock BSU as parent stock
25 breeder chickens procured 25 breeder chickens maintained at
by BSU as parent stock BSU as parent stock
At least 3 breeders distributed 1 native pig strain developed with
to SAFER farms patent protection
500 native pigs and 500 native
chickens tagged and distributed
1 native animal facility for
People & Services breeding and conservation of
animal genetic resources
rehabilitated at BSU
1 native pig facility 1 native chicken established in the
established in the municipality municipality
At least 30 farmer cooperators At least 30 farmer cooperators
trained trained
At least 5 technical personnel At least 5 technical personnel

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

trained trained
At least 2 trainings/workshops At least 2 trainings/workshops
conducted conducted
Places & Partnership 1 farm cross visit 1 technology field day
At least 2 linkages established At least 2 linkages established
and or strengthened and or strengthened
30 project sites established 30 project sites maintained
1 sustainability and 1 sustainability and development
development plan drafted plan finalized
1 MOA signed among 1 MOU signed among
stakeholders stakeholders
Policies 3 policy recommendations 2 policy recommendations
developed/advocated developed/advocated
From Evaluating
Council/Division:

Technical Merit

Technologies that will be

Generated

Socio-Economic Benefit/
Environmental Impact/
Tangible Benefits

Institutional Arrangement
(if any)

Remarks/Recommendations

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

DOST FORM No. 1

PROJECT PROPOSAL OUTLINE FOR S&T PROMOTION AND LINKAGES

I. PROJECT PROFILE
A. Title of the Project:
SAFE Project on Philippine Native Animals for Disaster Risk Reduction in Hazard-
Prone Areas of Benguet (SAFE-PNADRRHAB)

B. Proponent:
Sonwright B. Maddul
Professor VI
Department of Animal Science
Benguet State University (BSU
La Trinidad, Benguet
0916 364 2039
smaddul@gmail.com

C. Project Site: Bektey, La Trinidad, Benguet and Itogon, Benguet

D. Project Duration: 2017 - 2019 (2 years)
E. Total Project Cost:

1. Amount Requested: 5,493,622.4

2. BSU Counterpart:
3. Itogon LGU Counterpart:

II. PROJECT PROPOSAL

A. Rationale

Climate change poses many risks for ecosystems and agro-ecosystems, food systems,
incomes and trade, livelihoods, and all four dimensions of food security. Extreme events are
increasing in frequency and intensity, threatening the agriculture sectors and the livelihoods
they support. In developing countries, they are severely affecting the livelihoods and food
security and nutrition (FSN) of vulnerable households and communities due to their lower
adaptive capacities. Beyond 2030, the impacts of climate change on the productive capacity
of the agriculture sectors and thus FSN will become increasingly severe in all regions (FAO,
2017). The Philippines is one of the countries most exposed to climate change risks with
weather-related disasters accounting for 90% of annual economic damage from all natural
disasters. An average of 19 typhoons enter the country annually, of which 9 or 10 typhoons
make landfall. While there were fewer typhoons (above 115 kilometers per hour), stronger
typhoons (above 150 kilometers per hour) affected the country from 1951 to 2013 (Cinco et
al., 2016). For a country that is used to being battered by typhoons every year, the devastation
was staggering. NEDA (2013) estimated the total damage and loss due to Typhoon Haiyan,
locally known as Yolanda, at ₱101.79 billion (equivalent to $2.3 billion) or 0.9% of gross
domestic product.

From 2001 to 2010, the highest number of typhoons in the Philippines occurred in
Luzon, particularly in the Cagayan Valley, Ilocos Region, Cordillera Administrative Region
5

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

(CAR), Central Luzon, and the Bicol Region (Israel and Briones, 2013). Typhoons lead to
soil erosion. A study of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
showed that CAR is among the top 10 landslide prone areas in the Philippines. The provinces
of Benguet and Mountain Province assumed the first and second slots, respectively. This
situation is attributed to the natural characteristics of the region wherein 90% of its total land
area of 1,821,691.98 hectares is characterized by steep to very steep slope. The mountainous
nature is contributory to the region’s vulnerability to rain-induced landslides (CorDis RDS,
Inc., 2011).

The impacts of intense and frequent disasters due to climate change have implications
for livestock production systems. For rural communities, this means losing livestock assets
that can push livestock dependent households into chronic poverty and have a prolonged
effect on their livelihoods (World Wide Fund for Nature, 2014). In order to mitigate such
losses in the future, government agencies and local government units need to integrate
livestock in disaster risk management (DRM) programs. In emergency situations, specific
livestock-targeted interventions are required to help households survive the immediate crisis
and to support communities in rebuilding their livelihoods. Livestock interventions typically
cover provision of animal health services, emergency feeding and water supplies, shelter
provision, destocking (marketing, slaughtering) and restocking (FAO, 2016).

The provision of livestock to rehabilitate livelihoods after humanitarian disasters has

been practiced regularly for over thirty years. This is often in the form of herd reconstitution
for those largely dependent upon livestock following massive animal mortality. More
recently it has been increasingly used as a form of development for those not dependent upon
livestock, giving few animals in order to provide an additional source of income. Restocking
programs have evolved and are now no longer restricted to post‐disaster pastoralist restocking
but also wider development for those not entirely dependent upon livestock (Jones, 2012).

PCAARRD has launched the SAFE program as its formal emergency response
program and as an institutional system for both emergency or hazard-related R&D and
technology transfer. This SAFE Program is envisioned to establish an institutional approach
to develop S&T strategies and technology convergences in response to various emergencies
and hazards in the AANR sectors. Incidentally, the SAFE Program will also serve as
PCAARRD's direct contribution to disaster risk reduction and management as well as post-
disaster community rehabilitation and reinforcement in the country.

Although international aid can mitigate the effects of natural disasters, in the long term,
it may not be sustainable relative to the rebuilding costs and may also reduce the incentives to
invest in adaptation. Redirecting investments toward adaptation measures as well as
additional financing for climate-resilient initiatives can be done to cope with disasters (Alano
and Lee, 2016). While the available evidence suggests that the livestock and poultry sector is
significantly affected by natural disasters, it is currently less considered, as attention is
presently focused on crops. It may now be high time to provide concrete assistance to this
sector, in particular the provision of defensive investments and rehabilitation expenditures to
cope with these natural disasters (Israel and Briones, 2013).

Agricultural livelihoods can only be protected from multiple hazards if adequate

disaster risk reduction and management efforts are strengthened within and across concerned
sectors. These efforts include but not limited to capacitation of both service agencies and

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

beneficiaries and development of systems for traceability of distributed goods or

commodities as part of efficient management. As such, a livestock traceability system would
directly benefit risk management in case of natural disaster. As Hobbs et al. (2007) puts it,
“the system will provide timely, accurate and relevant information to enhance emergency
management, market access, industry competitiveness industry competitiveness, and
consumer confidence”. Livestock disease management is a significant benefit, particularly to
the producers, but also to society as a whole. Accurate and timely traceability of livestock can
reduce the costs of a disease outbreak by reducing the scope and scale of the necessary
mitigation responses (e.g. slaughtering potentially affected herds).

This SAFE project is therefore proposed in an attempt to provide assistance to disaster-

prone communities in Benguet both to prevent large damages and massive animal losses as
well as to support in faster rebuilding following a major crisis event caused by natural
hazards, food chain breakdown and climate-related disasters. Utilizing the initial outputs of
the PCAARRD-funded program on Philippine Native Pig Conservation, Improvement and
Profitable Utilization, it is an effort to increase the resilience of smallholders’ livelihoods and
their communities and reduce human suffering and the financial costs associated with threat
and shocks.

B. Project /Activity Description

The province of Benguet tops the landslide-prone areas in the Philippines. In 2005,
Benguet was listed as one of five Philippine provinces with a “very high risk” of being hit by
earthquakes and landslides, according to the Manila Observatory’s disaster vulnerability
study. Benguet is also a host to various hydroelectric dams and mines that pose natural
hazards and risks to river ecosystems (Chen et al., 2010), and to the public, especially to
children and those living in the vicinity of heavily polluted mining areas (Li et al., 2014).
Annually, the Benguet pine forest areas are prone to forest fires during the hot, dry months
which affected community livelihoods and assets. While such hazards occur on a seasonal
basis, the severity is increasing due to changes in the climate. Year in, year out, the province
experiences calamities that had badly affected the natural resources and disrupted the socio-
economic developments in the communities. Disaster preparedness is imperative due to high
vulnerability of rural areas to the harsh impacts of climate change.

The proposed SAFE project involves the following components:

1. SAFE Iwas
1.1.Rehabilitation of the BSU Animal Genetic Resources Project
1.2.Stocking of Local Government Unit-Itogon

2. SAFE Ligtas
2.1.Livestock Interventions with S&T
2.1.1. Livestock distribution before and during emergencies
2.1.2. Provision of veterinary services
2.1.3. Provision of husbandry support services
2.2.Knowledge Building and Awareness Raising
2.2.1. Trainings, seminars and workshops
2.2.2. Farm visits
2.2.3. Technology field day
7

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

The proposed SAFE project will be implemented in the upland communities of

Benguet, in collaboration with local disaster risk reduction and management office
(DRRMO) and various agencies such as Department of Science and Technology-CAR
(DOST-CAR), and the affected local government units. This project involves the strategy of
shifting from reactive crisis response to proactive, anticipative risk reduction and
management.

Livestock is crucial for resilience and contributes to daily subsistence through food
production, income generation, moveable assets and storing wealth, women’s empowerment,
among others. But hazards, conflicts, food system and economic breakdown, and natural
disasters affect livestock rearing activities in a variety of ways: disruption of livestock
markets and value chains; disruption of veterinary services and access to inputs;
disruption of livelihoods; and death of animals. These impacts lead to increased expenses
and reductions in income, and if not addressed, can result in significant loss of
productive assets, compromising the capacity of populations to recover and cope with future
shocks.

Restocking programs are either conducted after the crisis where widespread livestock
mortality has occurred, or form part of a development program where poverty alleviation is
desired but no sudden crisis has occurred (Jones, 2012). Thus, initial restocking activities will
be concentrated on the latter involving those most dependent on livestock and individuals,
often women who are less experienced and not dependent on livestock, helping them to
develop an additional source of food and income. The livestock distribution program aims to
provide more resilient breeds and production systems or to make communities more resistant
to future disasters and shocks. During emergencies, specific interventions involving livestock
will be instituted in collaboration with the local government units.

The project activities will include organizing the SAFE Project Team; coordinating
with selected local government units and agencies; strengthening the capacity of BSU and
LGU-Itogon to produce and deliver the native animal stocks; developing an animal
identification, information and early-warning system for a quick trace back and monitoring of
livestock in the event of crisis; distributing livestock to individuals and communities; and
providing support services to recipient households and communities. The on-going
PCAARRD-supported program on Philippine Native Pig Conservation, Improvement and
Profitable Utilization which is implemented by BSU will provide the breeder pigs for
restocking including technical assistance.

The municipality of Itogon is identified as initial project site since, like all
municipalities of Benguet, it is prone to natural calamities. Itogon is also predisposed to
potential risks posed by the Binga Hydroelectric plant and of the mining companies such as
Benguet Corporation, Philex Mining Company, Atok Gold, and Itogon Suyoc Mining
Company. With the presence of animal raisers in the locality, the local government unit is
very supportive of farming activities for the development of native animals in the
communities.

In selecting recipients, the following criteria will be used:

1. Able to provide shelter for livestock.
2. Able to provide feed.
3. Able to provide veterinary care.
8

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

4. Unable to restock themselves.

5. Had lost a sow during the disaster.
6. Did not previously own a sow but deemed suitable being vulnerable and having at
least five children under 12 years old.
7. Other requirements as may be prescribed by community.

Conceptual Framework

A conceptual framework for the proposed SAFE project is presented in Table 1. The
framework is designed to link on-going R&D activities on the area of native animals
conservation and improvement with technology transfer for mitigation in emergency
situations.

Table 1. Conceptual framework for the S&T Action Frontline for Emergencies and Hazards
(SAFE) project

Technology Transfer
Expected Outputs Desired Outcomes and Impacts
Initiatives
1. SAFE Iwas

1.1. Strenghtening 1 native pig and chicken
of BSU animal house rehabilitated;
genetic resources 10 gilts and 2 boars
facility purchased as replacement
stock; 25 native chickens
as parent stock; 1
geographic indication
granted; 1 native pig strain
developed with patent
protection
1.2. Stocking the 1 animal stockyard
LGU established;
10 gilts and 2 boars
purchased as breeder
stock
2. SAFE Ligtas
Improved capacity of BSU for
effective response during and after
livestock emergencies;
Production of purified native pigs as
parent stock;
Increased proportion of genetically
improved native pigs within the
native pig population; and
Increased productivity, production
efficiency and product quality of
native pigs
LGU-Itogon is empowered to
operate native animal breeding herds
for the production of pure lines of
native pigs and chickens;
LGU is capacitated to provide
effective response during and after
livestock emergencies;
Increased proportion of genetically
improved native animals under local
government care in Itogon; and
Increased local government revenue
from breeder pig production

2.1. Livestock 30 farmer cooperators Increased proportion of genetically

Interventions with involved in the project; improved native animals within the
S&T 500 native pigs and 500 communities in Itogon;
9

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

native chickens tagged Prevention and control of animal

and distributed diseases at their source through early
warning, rapid detection and timely
response;
Increased productivity, production
efficiency and product quality of
native animals through S&T; and
Acquired livestock assets and
increased farm income from native
pig and chicken production
2.2. Knowledge 10 technical personnel and Created awareness and promotion of
Building and 30 farmer cooperators native animal raising among upland
Awareness Raising trained; 6 different topics communities as part of integrated
of new IEC material disaster risk reduction and
produced ; 3,000 copies of management program in preparation
new IEC material printed for future hazards while
and distributed; 2 training simultaneously conserving their
modules /techno guides local livestock;
printed; 1 scientific paper Encouraged establishment of native
published pig nucleus herds by entrepreneurs
for the production of pure lines of
breeder native pigs and chickens;
and
Advocacy for the adoption of free
range production of native pigs and
chickens

C. Objectives

The over-arching goal of the proposed project is to support disaster-prone communities

in reducing vulnerability to the impacts of threats and shocks by building their adaptive
capacities and resilience.

In general, the proposed project aims to provide assistance to disaster-prone

communities in Benguet both to prevent large damages and massive animal losses as well as
to support in faster rebuilding following a major crisis event caused by natural hazards and
climate-related disasters.

The specific objectives of the SAFE project are as follows:

1. To strengthen the capacity of BSU and LGU-Itogon as reliable sources of livestock
for distribution during emergencies and recovery;
2. To build or replace livestock assets through livestock distribution and provision of
veterinary and husbandry support services;
3. To apply an identification system for the monitoring, traceability and tracking of
distributed livestock;
4. To prevent and control diseases at their source through early warning, rapid detection
and timely reaction, enabling research, coordination, and communication; and

10

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

5. To promote native animal raising among men and women in upland communities as
part of integrated disaster risk reduction and management program in preparation for
future disasters while simultaneously conserving their local livestock.

D. Methodology

The SAFE project will be implemented by carrying out the following activities:

1. Pre-implementation

1.1. Focus Group Discussion and Work Meetings with LGU. A focus group
discussion with the municipal agriculturist and municipal DRRM officer about
the proposed SAFE project will be held in Itogon. Work meetings shall be called
to gather additional information and recommendations. A field visit of possible
sites for the project will be carried out.
1.2. Consultation and Approval. A consultation meeting with the municipal mayor
and representatives of target communities will be held in the municipal hall of
Itogon for presentation of the SAFE project. After validating and gathering final
inputs, the endorsement and approval of the project by the mayor and municipal
council will be obtained.
1.3. Organization of the SAFE Project Team (SPT). The SPT shall be organized to
consist of the project leader, technical expert from the Benguet State University
as Partner Member Agency, two representatives from the LGU (i.e. MA and
MDRRMO), a representative of the DOST-CAR/PSTU, and one farmer
representative. The functions and responsibilities of each member will be
explicitly defined to ensure efficient project implementation.
1.4. Formalization of the SAFE Project. The SAFE project on Native Animals will be
formalized through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to be forged between
PCAARRD and BSU. Separate agreements, specifying the respective
obligations/ responsibilities for the entire duration of the project will be signed
between BSU and LGU-Itogon, and other agencies as partners.
1.5. Conduct of Inception Meeting. This activity will be coordinated by BSU.
PCAARRD representatives will meet with the SAFE Project Team, community
leaders, and concerned BSU administrative staff. The group will be briefed on
the approved proposal and the requisites for a smooth implementation of the
program. Community leaders and local authorities will also be informed and
made to understand the exit strategy at the end of the program.

2. Implementation and S&T Interventions

2.1. Strengthening of the BSU Animal Genetic Resources Project. Restocking is a

favored option in supporting livelihoods after a disaster. Sourcing sufficient
livestock locally has proved problematic for many projects post-disaster.
Therefore, it is likely that livestock for distribution to affected communities will
continue to be imported from external settings and ecosystems (Heffernan, 2009).
By necessity, BSU will be a provider of purified native animals for the restocking
programs of local government units in Benguet and elsewhere before and after a
crisis.

11

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

Reinforcing the institutional capacity of BSU to implement disaster risk

reduction for food security in livestock includes infrastructure rehabilitation and
stock rehabilitation.

2.1.1. Infrastructure rehabilitation. The existing facilities for breeding and

conservation of animal genetic resources will be improved to enable the
selection, reproduction and maintenance of a large population of native
animals, particularly pig and chicken. The facilities may also be used as
livestock shelters at anytime of emerging threat or crisis.

2.1.2. Stock rehabilitation and breeding. Breeding males and females of the
two species of native animals will be procured as parent stocks. These
stocks will be used in the breeding and conservation of animals adapted
to changed climate conditions. Experiences from and outputs of the
Philippine Native Pig Conservation, Improvement and Profitable
Utilization Program at BSU (i.e. Project 1. Organized breeding and
selection for the establishment of breeding true to type native pig
populations in the Cordillera Administrative Region) will be utilized for
the breeding and improvement of native animals of the SAFE project.
Thus, selection and breeding strategies of the on-going native pig project
will be adopted for the SAFE project.

2.2. Disaster Risk Reduction and Post-disaster Emergency Assessment. This

assessment will be helpful for decision-making, prioritizing and timing of
interventions. One or more launch meeting(s) will be organized so that
targeted communities can learn, discuss and agree on all aspects of the
intervention. The following are common areas requiring clarification:
geographical scope; selection criteria; what will (and will not) be provided by
the intervention – number and type of animals to be distributed; how will the
animals be selected and distributed; ownership of the distributed animals;
responsibilities of the program to the beneficiaries; responsibilities of the
beneficiaries for looking after the animals; payment for animal health services;
sale and disposal of animals and their offspring; details of any repayment
scheme – cash amounts, number and type of animal for in-kind repayment
schedules, etc.; schedules for local meetings; monitoring and evaluation plan;
procedures for how disputes and disagreements are handled.

Drawing on the findings of the initial assessment, the Participatory

Response Identification Matrix (PRIM) of LEGS (2014) will be used to decide
which livestock interventions are most appropriate and feasible. A group of
local stakeholders (including male and female community representatives) will
complete the PRIM, as presented in Appendix 1, in a workshop setting.

The PRIM crosschecks the three LEGS objectives of providing

immediate livestock-based benefits, protecting assets and rebuilding assets
against the range of possible technical interventions. In most disasters and
emergencies affecting livestock, the range of interventions falls into the
following categories:

12

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

2.2.1. During emergencies: destocking, provision of veterinary and husbandry

services, provision of feed, provision of water, livestock shelter and
settlement

2.2.2. During recovery: restocking by direct distribution (project to

beneficiary) and re-distribution (project to LGU to beneficiary), and
training and support to the beneficiaries on basic husbandry and animal
health before and after animals have been received. Restocking is
necessary to supply livestock owners with breeding animals to rebuild
their herd (which has been lost or decimated) over time. It is a method of
asset-building aimed at families who have recently lost most of their
stock, providing high quality livestock-derived foods, such as milk or
eggs, while helping them reconstitute their economic assets. Restocking
with local animals has proved the most successful approach: these
animals are accustomed to the local conditions, there is no risk of
introducing new diseases, and the local economy also benefits.

2.3. Distribution of Livestock/Restocking. The concerned local government unit

should have its own native animal facility to serve as stockyard. One purpose of
the animal stockyard is to maintain a reserve of native animals for ready
distribution to recipients/cooperators. The LGU of Itogon will obtain the
required number of native animals (Improved Benguet Native Pig and native
chicken) from BSU for multiplication and for distribution to recipients.
Consequently, the selection and breeding strategies and practices at the BSU
native pig project will be adopted by the LGU and farmer cooperators.

2.3.1. Replacing livestock assets for farmers. Providing displaced

smallholders with animals according to their needs allows them to
resume many of their former livelihoods activities.

2.3.2. Building livestock assets as a new livelihood activity. In some

situations, very vulnerable households may be introduced to livestock
for the first time or to species they have not kept before. However,
livestock provision will always be accompanied by a support package
that includes training for beneficiaries in livestock management.

2.4. Tagging for ID and Traceability of Livestock. Each breeder pig will be
provided permanent ID by ear tagging. For chickens, leg rings or bands will be
used. Animal monitoring, tracking and identification systems are some of the
application areas where the ID system is used effectively to prevent theft and
fraud, to increase efficiency, and to facilitate data collection on performance and
health.

2.5. Information and Early-Warning System. An early warning system should be

understood as an information system designed to facilitate decision making of the
relevant institutions and to enable vulnerable individuals and groups to take
actions to mitigate the impacts of an impending hazard. The focus is not only on
improving hazard monitoring and prediction but also on improving coordination
13

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

among relevant parties, such as the scientific organizations that forecast hazard
events (DOST, DA, etc.), the national and local management agencies that assess
risk and develop response strategies (OCD, DRRMO), and the public
communication channels used to disseminate warning information (Fig. 2). It will
be networked with the early warning system of the DOST, the livestock disease
surveillance system of the DA, and the joint FAO–OIE–WHO Global Early
Warning System for major animal diseases. All the information from these
relevant sources will be used as input for the local DRRM office and the SAFE
Project Team for appropriate response strategies in the event of an imminent
hazard or emergency.

Figure 2. Diagram of the components of an effective disease early

warning system (NAS, 2001)

2.6. Application of Artificial Insemination (AI). In ensuring populations and

individuals to produce offspring of known provenance and appropriate genotype
in native animals, assisted reproductive technologies including artificial
insemination will be applied. AI will be resorted to for the rapid multiplication of
improved genotypes.

2.7. Use of Deep Bed Litter Floor for Pigs. A deep bed litter flooring system
allows for fecal waste to be absorbed and rapidly broken down while at the same
time provides a stimulating environment for the pigs raised on it. The floor
bedding is built using a mix of materials such as rice hulls and peanut hulls. Other
suitable materials may be used, short chopped straw / hay, sawdust, peat,
mushroom compost or any other material that can absorb moisture while
remaining dry and is naturally degradable. The general mix comprises of: Rice
hulls / husks (dry protective casings of rice seed): approximately 100 sacks; used
mushroom compost: approx. 5 - 10 sacks; cow manure: approx.10 - 30 sacks; oil:
approx.: 5-10 sacks; charcoal : approx. 1-5 sacks; egg shells: salt : 2 kg; IMO
concentrate / compost: 1 sack; FFJ/FPJ solution with water; rice bran powder: 2
sacks.

2.8. Establishment of Feed Gardens. As implementing agency, BSU will assist the
LGU and beneficiaries to establish animal feed gardens consisting mainly of
Madre de agua (Trichanthera gigantea), Wild Taro (Colocasia esculenta ) and

14

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

Sweet Potato (Ipomea batatas). Other local plants will be also be grown as feed.
Trichanthera will be propagated through cuttings which can be grown either in a
plastic bag and transferred in the field after three months or directly to the
prepared field at 0.5-1 m spacing intervals. Trichanthera leaves are harvested as
fodder six months after every planting. Subsequent cutting can be done at an
interval of 90 days and the cutting height is about a meter above the ground. This
fodder can be fed either in fresh form or processed into leaf meal to substitute
about 20 to 30 percent of the commercial growing-finishing feed diet of the pigs.
Research shows that six kilograms of fresh leaves consumed by pigs per day is
equivalent to one kilogram of mixed feeds saved. Trichanthera can also be fed to
chickens up to 10 percent of the diet. Madre de agua can be planted as a live
fence and used to prevent water erosion.

Suckers taken from the roots of Taro will be planted at 35 cm between

plants in the row and 45 cm between rows. The Taro plant is known for its
itchiness (acridity) due to calcium oxalate content. Thus, leaves and petioles will
be ensiled under anaerobic conditions for 3 weeks before feeding to pigs. Sweet
potato will be cultivated for its tubers and foliage both as pig and chicken feed.

2.9. Provision of Veterinary and Animal Health Care. This intervention will
support the local government veterinary functions. Initially, primary clinical
veterinary services (e.g. for examination and treatment of individual animals or
herds, or mass treatment or vaccination programs) will be made available to
farmers by the project. Then, public sector veterinary functions will be
strengthened (e.g. veterinary public health and disease surveillance) so that
farmers can protect their livestock and maintain the benefits of livestock
ownership or access.

3. Knowledge Building and Awareness Raising.

Consultations with beneficiaries will also include training needs assessment.

However, to achieve the project objectives, the following trainings will be conducted for
their learnings:

3.1. Documentation and recording

3.2. S&T, Social values formation and change
3.3. Organization, sustainability and development planning
3.4. Native pig production and management
3.5. Native chicken production and management
3.6. Other training needs

4. Economic Analysis

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) will be used as an analytical tool to evaluate different
types of disaster mitigation intervention. Two barangays will be selected in Itogon to
represent the project scenario to be assessed. In order to analyze the costs and benefits of
livestock interventions (LI), the situation without LI needs to be compared with the
situation with LI as follows:

15

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

• Without LI: What would have been the impact of the hazard on the community
before the intervention had taken place?

• With LI: What is the impact of the hazard on the community now that
intervention had taken place?

The CBA will specifically compare these two scenarios to determine the impact of
LI on the community, calculating the net benefits and costs that accrue from the
intervention/initiative. The study will include micro level impact, primary and secondary
impacts. The micro level impacts are those that occur within the scope of the project
itself, and have an impact on the community being assessed. Primary impacts are those
caused directly by the project, whereas secondary impacts are the knock-on impacts of
project activities. The CBA will also analyze the impact of the LGU animal stockyard on
community preparedness.

5. Social Analysis and Adoption Pathway

Various members of the communities such as indigenous, marginalized and

vulnerable people including persons with disabilities, senior citizens, women, single
parents, and the youth will be involved in the SAFE project not only as beneficiaries but
as stakeholders. These groups will be organized first following the basic methodology in
community organizing for community development. This methodology covers
consciousness raising, organization building and mobilization. During focus group
discussions and meetings, the SAFE project will be presented and discussed with
representatives of these groups. Their concerns, opinions and suggestions will be
incorporated in the improvement of the project. They will participate in setting goals, and
preparing, implementing and evaluating plans and activities, and in policy making as
well. Likewise, the disaster-prone community will be empowered with proper training
and necessary information. The ultimate goal is to prepare a community-based disaster
management (CBDM) plan.

6. Policy Initiation, Development and Advocacy

During the meetings with the organized community, resolutions will be proposed
by the project management as preparatory action for possible legislation into municipal
ordinances. Draft resolutions will include, but not limited to, the following topics:

6.1. Supporting Senate Bill 144 or the proposed Philippine Native Animal Development
Act of 2017
6.2. Supporting Senate Bill 318 or the proposed Local Government Agriculture
Development Act
6.3. Supporting Senate Bill 1444 or the proposed Expanded NIPAS Act of 2017
6.4. Promoting the production of native animals, particularly pigs and chickens, in the
Municipality of Itogon
6.5. Creating a native animal development center in the Province of Benguet to be called
Native Animal Provincial Center

7. Information Awareness and/or Technology Promotion

16

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

The technology field day, adopted from PCAARRD’s Technology Transfer and
Promotion Division, will be conducted in later part of project life to showcase successful
application of S&T interventions in disaster risk reduction. Through this modality, other
farmers who have seen and are convinced on the social, technical, and economic viability
of the project are expected to duplicate/practice the introduced S&T interventions in their
own farms. In addition, it encourages support, cooperation and partnership with LGUs
and other officials from government, NGO and the private sector. Promotional materials
related to the SAFE project and native animal production shall be made available to
entice participants of the field day to adopt and support the S&T interventions. The field
day will be a joint undertaking of HAARRDEC, SAFE project team and LGU of Itogon.

If possible, the farmers will be brought to another SAFE project in nearby province
or region. Likewise, other SAFE teams and farmer cooperators will be invited to visit the
local farms for more personal exchange of ideas and experiences.

8. Emergency/hazard Contingency Planning

Upon completion of the participatory disaster risk reduction assessment, the

community emergency/hazard plan will be prepared. Community members identify risk
reduction measures with the help of local authorities in order to address the hazards and
the vulnerability. In this regard, the following aspects are to be considered:

8.1. Vision of their ideally prepared and resilient community

8.2. Identification of risk reduction measures
8.3. Identification of resource requirements
8.4. Responsibility and schedule

Emergency contingency plan is informed by knowledge of past crises and the types
of response that can be implemented within a given operation fund. It will be linked with
the Early Warning System and accompanied by training of relevant staff and community
members such that pre-planned responses can be rolled out effectively.

9. Project Business Sustainability and Development Planning

A workshop on sustainability and development planning will be conducted for the

farmer cooperators and other stakeholders in the 1st quarter of Year 2. An output of this
workshop is a draft plan for the sustainability of the project including an emergency
contingency plan. For sustainability, it would be desired that the plan includes funding
from taxes when the local government will finally takes over the running of this project.
As new learnings are realized and with new ideas coming from stakeholders and tips from
PCAARRD experts, the draft plan will be enriched and finalized. Ultimately, it will be
presented to the municipal council for approval and funding.

10. IEC Development and Project Documentation

The following topics will be prepared, published and distributed as IEC materials:

10.1. Native Pig Production

10.2. Native Chicken Production
10.3. Deep Litter Method for Pigs and Chickens
17

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

10.4. Propagation and Utilization of Madre de Agua and Wild Taro

10.5. Artificial Insemination in Pigs
10.6. SAFE Project Briefer

Other relevant IEC materials will be prepared as needed to enhance the SAFE
project and the communities’ livelihood.

The SAFE Team shall be responsible for documentation of technical and financial
aspects of the project. Data and information will be recorded in field books while write-
ups, photographs and videos will serve as evidences of activities and events. Records of
all financial transactions relative to the project will be kept at the Office of the
Consortium Secretariat and at the BSU Accounting Office. Project documentation will be
a continuing activity. The 4th quarter of Y2 will be devoted for the finalization and
writing of terminal report.

11. Expected Outputs

At the end of each project year, the following outputs are delivered:

Quantity Targets
6 Ps Y1 Y2
Publication 6 different topics of new IEC
material produced
2 training modules /techno guides 1 publishable article produced
produced
Patent 1 trademark/collective mark filed 1 geographic indication filed
Product 12 breeder pigs procured by BSU as 12 breeder pigs maintained at BSU
parent stock as parent stock
25 breeder chickens procured by 25 breeder chickens maintained at
BSU as parent stock BSU as parent stock
At least 3 breeders distributed to 1 native pig strain developed with
SAFER farms patent protection
500 native pigs and 500 native
chickens tagged and distributed at
the end of the project
People & 1 native animal facility for breeding
Services and conservation of animal genetic
resources rehabilitated at BSU
1 native pig facility established in 1 native chicken facility established
the municipality in the municipality
At least 30 farmer cooperators At least 30 farmer cooperators
trained trained
At least 10 technical personnel At least 10 technical personnel
trained trained
1 farm cross visit 1 technology field day
1 info awareness campaign 1 info awareness campaign
Places & At least 2 linkages established and At least 2 linkages established and
Partnership or strengthened or strengthened

18

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

30 project sites established 30 project sites maintained

1 sustainability and development 1 sustainability and development
plan drafted plan finalized
1 MOA signed among stakeholders 1 MOU signed among stakeholders
Policy 3 policy recommendations 2 policy recommendations
developed/advocated developed/advocated

19

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

E. Activity Schedule

20

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

OBJECTIVES ACTIVITIES Year 1 Year 2 EXPECTED OUTPUTS

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

General:  Organization of the SAFE Team x x At least 30 farmer cooperators from 2

To provide assistance to disaster-  Reconnaissance of project sites barangays involved in SAFE project
prone communities in Benguet both  Signing of MOA among 1 MOA signed among stakeholders
to prevent large damages and concerned agencies 30 project sites established
massive animal losses as well as to  Conduct of inception meeting
support in faster rebuilding
following a major crisis event caused
by natural hazards and climate-
related disasters.

Specific: Infrastructure rehabilitation x x 1 native animal facility for breeding and

1. To strengthen the capacity of BSU
and LGU as reliable sources of
livestock for distribution during
emergencies and recovery
conservation of animal genetic resources
rehabilitated at BSU
Stock rehabilitation and breeding x x x x x x x 12 breeder pigs procured as parent stock
25 breeder chickens procured as parent
stock; 2 native pig strains developed from
selection and breeding

Animal stockyard for the LGU x x 1 animal stockyard established at the LGU

Stocking of LGU and breeding x x x x 12 breeder pigs procured as parent stock

2. To build or replace livestock Distribution of livestock/Restocking x x x x x x 500 native pigs distributed 500
assets through livestock distribution native chickens distributed
and provision of veterinary and
husbandry support services
3. To apply an identification system Tagging for traceability of livestock x x x x x x 500 native pigs tagged 500
for the monitoring, traceability and native chickens tagged
tracking of distributed livestock 21

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

4. To prevent and control diseases
at their source through early
warning, rapid detection and
timely reaction
5. To promote native animal
raising among men and women in
upland communities as part of
integrated disaster risk reduction
and management program
Information and Early-Warning x x x x x x x 1 information and early-warning system
System developed and in place
Provision of veterinary and
animal health care
Community organizing x x x x x x x 1 sustainability and development plan
5 policy resolutions
Capability building x x x x x developed/advocated
At least 4 trainings/workshops
Sustainability and contingency x x conducted
planning At least 10 technical personnel trained
Information awareness x x x x x 1 info awareness campaign
1 native animal provincial center in
Benguet
Farm cross visit x x 2 farm cross visits
1 technology field day
Technology field day x

IEC development x x x x x x 6 different topics of new IEC material

produced and reprinted
3,000 copies of new IEC material
printed and distributed
2 training modules /techno guides
printed

Project documentation x x x x x x x x 1 project terminal report

22

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

F. BUDGET BREAKDOWN

PCAARRD PCAARRD
Counterpart Counterpart
Year 1 of 2 Fund (CPF) Year 1 of 2 Fund (CPF)
Sub- Sub- Total GRAND
ITEM Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Sub-total BSU total Total Y1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Sub-total BSU total Total Y2 (PCAARRD) TOTAL
I. PERSONAL SERVICES
I. PERSONAL
SERVICES
Direct Cost
1 Project Development
Officer 1 (Veterinarian)
@22,892.40/mo. 68677.2 68677.2 68677.2 68677.2 274708.8 274708.8 68677.2 68677.2 68677.2 68677.2 274708.8 274708.8 549417.6 549417.6
Science Research
Assistant @19,814.40/mo 59443.2 59443.2 59443.2 59443.2 237772.8 59442 59442 59442 59442 237772.8 237772.8 475545.6 475545.6
Honoraria 0
1 Project Leader @
8,800/mo. 26400 26400 26400 26400 105600 105600 26400 26400 26400 26400 105600 105600 211200 211200
1 Project Staff @
6000/mo 18000 18000 18000 18000 72000 72000 18000 18000 18000 18000 72000 72000 144000 144000
Sub Total PS 172520.4 172520.4 172520.4 172520.4 690081.6 0 0 690081.6 172520.4 172520.4 172520.4 172520.4 690081.6 0 0 690081.6 1380163.2 1380163.2
II. MOOE
Direct Cost
Travel Expenses 25000 25000 25000 25000 100000 100000 25000 25000 25000 25000 100000 100000 200000 200000
Agricultural Supplies 50000 50000 50000 50000 200000 200000 50000 50000 50000 50000 200000 200000 400000 400000
Veterinary supplies 50000 50000 50000 50000 200000 200000 50000 50000 50000 50000 200000 200000 400000 400000
Tag Applicator 5000 0 0 0 5000 5000 0 0 0 0 0 0 5000 5000
Construction Materials
(for BSU facility) 125000 125000 125000 125000 500000 500000 0 0 0 0 0 0 500000 500000
Office Supplies 22500 22500 22500 22500 90000 90000 12500 12500 12500 12500 50000 50000 140000 140000
Maintenance of Facilities
and Equipment 25000 25000 25000 25000 100000 100000 50000 50000 50000 50000 200000 200000 300000 300000
Gasoline and Oil 15000 15000 15000 15000 60000 60000 15000 15000 15000 15000 60000 60000 120000 120000
Communication Expenses 10000 10000 10000 10000 40000 40000 10000 10000 10000 10000 40000 40000 80000 80000
Representation Expenses 20000 20000 20000 20000 80000 80000 20000 20000 20000 20000 80000 80000 160000 160000
Training Expenses 65000 65000 65000 70000 265000 265000 70000 70000 70000 75000 285000 285000 550000 550000

23

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

Professional Services
1 Farmer Representative 3000 3000 3000 3000 12000 12000 3000 3000 3000 3000 12000 12000 24000 24000

1 BSU Representative 3000 3000 3000 3000 12000 12000 3000 3000 3000 3000 12000 12000 24000 24000

1 DOST Representative 3000 3000 3000 3000 12000 12000 3000 3000 3000 3000 12000 12000 24000 24000

2 LGU Representatives 6000 6000 6000 6000 24000 24000 6000 6000 6000 6000 24000 24000 48000 48000

1 Project Staff 3000 3000 3000 3000 12000 12000 3000 3000 3000 3000 12000 12000 24000 24000
Sub-total MOOE 515500 425500 425500 430500 1797000 1797000 320500 320500 320500 325500 1287000 1287000 3084000 3084000
total PS+ MOOE 731584 641584 641584 646584 2661336 2661336 536584 536584 536584 541584 2151336 2151336 4812672 4812672
Indirect Cost (7.5%) 54868.8 48118.8 48118.8 48493.8 199600.2 199600.2 40243.8 40243.8 40243.8 40618.8 161350.2 161350.2 360950.4 360950.4
Office supply 30000 30000 30000 34600.2 124600.2 124600.2 30000 30000 30000 21350.2 111350.2 111350.2 235950.4 235950.4
Printing and binding 75000 75000 75000 50000 50000 50000 125000 125000
199600.2 199600.2 161350.2 161350.2 360950.4 360950.4
Sub total MOOE 570368.8 473618.8 473618.8 478993.8 1996600.2 0 0 1996600.2 360743.8 360743.8 360743.8 366118.8 1448350.2 0 0 1448350.2 3444950.4 3444950.4
III. CAPITAL/EQUIPMENT OUTLAY 0 0 0
2 Portable Feed mixer @
55000/pc 0 110000 0 0 110000 110000 0 0 0 0 0 0 110000 110000
2 Portable chaff
cutter/chopper
@75000/pc 0 150000 0 0 150000 150000 0 0 0 0 0 0 150000 150000
Laptop Computer 50000 0 0 0 50000 50000 0 0 0 0 0 0 50000 50000
Sub-total 60000 260000 0 0 320000 320000 0 0 0 0 0 0 320000 320000
GRAND TOTAL 846452.8 949702.8 689702.8 695077.8 3180936.2 0 0 3180936.2 576827.8 576827.8 576827.8 582202.8 2312686.2 0 0 2312686.2 5493622.4 5493622.4

24

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

G. Project Management

The project will be managed through the SAFE Project Team (SPT) consisting of the
Project Leader as chair, technical experts, LGU representatives, and one project staff as
members. The SPT shall coordinate and make decisions on all activities relative to the
funding, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project.

The composition of the SAFE Project Team is as follows:

1. Project Leader
2. Technical Expert
3. Technical Expert
4. LGU Representative
5. LGU Representative
6. Farmer Representative
: Sonwright B. Maddul, chairperson
: BSU representative, member
: DOST-CAR representative, member
: MAO-Itogon, member
: MDRRMO-Itogon, member
: Farmer leader, member

The project leader will be responsible for the implementation of the project based on
the work plan, including preparation and presentation of technical and financial reports. The
members will assist the Project Leader in project implementation (Fig. 3).

PCAARRD

SPT Chair

Project
Staff

BSU Expert MDRRMO MA DOST-CAR Farmer Rep

Rep

Figure 3. A chart of the SAFE project management structure

25

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE SAFE PROJECT TEAM:

Project Leader

 Supervises the overall management of operation and budget of the SAFE Project;
 Supervises the implementation of the SAFE Project;
 Participates in the conduct of planning, review and evaluation of the project;
 Leads in the conduct of field visit and other promotional activities of the project;
 Coordinates the involvement of stakeholders;
 Documents the project implementation;
 Submit progress reports (technical and financial) of the project.

Technical Experts

 Provide technical expertise in the establishment and operation of SAFE Project;

 Provide assistance in field visits and the monitoring and evaluation of activities of
the project; and
 Participate in the conduct of meetings, planning, review and evaluation of the
project.

LGU Representative

 Takes lead in the identification of farmer cooperators who will be involved in the
project;
 Serves as link to the LGU regarding policy issues and local counterpart to the
project;
 Facilitates community organizing, promotional activities of the project and
conduct of trainings;
 Assists in the establishment of the SAFE project in the municipality;
 Assists in monitoring recipients, herd growth, and use of livestock;
 Assists in the preparation of accomplishment reports of the project; and
 Participates in the conduct of meetings, planning, review and evaluation of the
project.

Project Veterinarian

 Provides veterinary care and advice throughout the project and liaise with other
veterinarians to optimize animal care;
 Provides technical services on vaccination, parasite control, treatment, and
extension to recipients;
 Assists in monitoring animal health and welfare of distributed livestock;
 Collaborates with government veterinary office in disease outbreak control,
disease prevention, disease surveillance, and disease investigation/diagnosis;
 Provides training support to the research staff, local para-veterinarians/animal
health workers and recipients in animal handling, care and procedures associated
with the species;
 Assists in project documentation and in the preparation of accomplishment reports
of the project; and
 Performs other functions related to livestock interventions.
26

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

Beneficiary Responsibilities

The project team will ensure that recipients are fully informed and understand their
responsibilities which include the following:
1. Any restrictions on the ownership, sale or disposal of the original animals;
2. Any restrictions on the ownership, sale or disposal of subsequent offspring;
3. Any repayment-in-kind schemes: number and sex of offspring, time scale, etc.;
4. Requirements for looking after the animals: feed, water, shelter and animal health;
5. Participation in any monitoring and evaluation;
6. Procedures in the event of death or theft of animals;
7. Responsibilities of the program to the beneficiaries;
8. To whom are the beneficiaries responsible regarding the program (agency, local
authorities, local committee, etc.).

A Memorandum of Agreement will be entered into between the beneficiaries and the
Local Government Unit in setting out the key responsibilities of the beneficiaries and the
implementing agency. A witness from the local committee or a local leader should also
countersign it. It is advisable to ask the local administration to be represented at these
meetings so that everyone is aware of the terms and conditions. Copies of the agreement
should be kept by the program and it is useful for the local administration to retain a copy.

H. Monitoring and Evaluation

Regular monitoring and participatory evaluation of the SAFE project will be quarterly
consistent with PCAARRD guidelines. A form provided by PCAARRD-DOST will be used
to facilitate monitoring of activities. Quarterly, semi-annual and annual accomplishment
reports (composed of narrative, tables, photo documentation) will be prepared and submitted
to PCAARRD.

The SAFE Project Team will conduct field monitoring at the project sites together with
the representatives of the local organization. Field monitoring will be necessary to check on
the implementation of scheduled activities and to determine if targets are being met.
Monitoring is also important to assess actual situations so that changes or adjustments can be
introduced as needed. The M&E can be used to improve the management and implementation
of the project as well.

I. References

ALANO, E. AND M. LEE. 2016. Natural Disaster Shocks and Macroeconomic Growth in
Asia: Evidence for Typhoons and Droughts. ADB Economics Working Paper Series
No. 503. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2894778.

BONTER, D. AND E. S. BRIDGE. 2011. Applications of radio frequency identification

(RFID) in ornithological research: a review. J. Field Ornithol. 82(1):1–10.

27

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

CHEN, S., B. FATH AND B. CHEN. 2010. Ecological risk assessment of hydropower dam
construction based on ecological network analysis. Procedia Environmental Sciences
2:725–728.

CINCO, T., R. DE GUZMAN, A. ORTIZ, R. DELFINO, R. LASCO, F. HILARIO, E.

JUANILLO, R. BARBA, AND E. ARES. 2016. Observed Trends and Impacts of
Tropical Cyclones in the Philippines. International Journal of Climatology 36
(14):4638–50. doi:10.1002/joc.4659.

CORDILLERA DISASTER RESPONSE AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. 2011.

Disaster Situation in the Cordillera Region. http://cordisrds.org/node/22.

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO). 2016. Livestock-related

interventions during emergencies – The how-to-do-it manual. Edited by P. Ankers, S.
Bishop, S. Mack and K. Dietze. FAO Animal Production and Health Manual No. 18.
Rome.

FAO. 2017. Strengthening Sector Policies for Better Food Security and Nutrition Results.
Policy Guidance Note 5. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7217e.pdf.

HEFFERNAN, C. 2009. Biodiversity versus emergencies: the impact of restocking on animal

genetic resources after disaster. Disasters 33 (2):239-252.

HOBBS, J.E., M. T. YEUNG AND W. A. KERR. 2007. Identification and Analysis of the
Current and Potential Benefits of a National Livestock Traceability System in Canada.
http://www5.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/doc/pol/pub/nltsc-sntac/pdf/nltsc-sntac_e.pdf

ISRAEL, D.C. AND R. M. BRIONES. 2013. Impacts of Natural Disasters on Agriculture,

Food Security, and Natural Resources and Environment in the Philippines. ERIA
Discussion Paper Series 2013-15. http://www.eria.org/ERIA-DP-2013-15.pdf.

JONES, T. 2012. Restocking and animal health: A review of livestock disease and mortality
in postdisaster and development restocking programmes.. http://www.livestock-
emergency.net/wp-
content/uploads/LEGS%20Impact%20Assessment%20database%20docs/Other/Knight
-Jones-WSPA-restocking-review.pdf

LEGS. 2014. Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards. 2nd ed. Rugby, UK: Practical
Action Publishing. 296 pages.

LI, Z., Z. MA, T. VAN DER KUIJP, Z. YUAN AND L. HUANG. 2014. A review of soil
heavy metal pollution from mines in China: Pollution and health risk assessment.
Science of The Total Environment. 468–469:843-853.

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (NAS). 2001. Under the Weather: Climate,

Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 160
pages.

28

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NEDA). 2010.

Cordillera Regional Development Plan 2011-2016. 121 pages.
http://www.neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CAR_RDP_2011-2016.pdf

NEDA. 2013. “Reconstruction Assistance on Yolanda (RAY): Build-Back-Better.”

http://yolanda.neda.gov.ph/reconstructionassistance-on-yolanda-ray-build-back-better/

WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE (WWF) – Pakistan. 2014. Disaster Management Plan
for Livestock and Fisheries Sectors of Sindh.
https://www.wwfpak.org/ccap/pdf/DRM_Plan_LivestockFisheries.pdf

29

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

A. Proponent’s Curriculum Vitae

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Name: SONWRIGHT B. MADDUL

Home Address: IA-52, BSU Compound, Betag, La Trinidad, Benguet
Home Telephone: (074) 422-5578
Office Address: Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet
Office Telefax: (074) 422-6504; (074)-422-1656
Mobile: 0916-364-2039
E-mail: smaddul@yahoo.com; smaddul@gmail.com
Birthdate: March 21, 1954
Birthplace: Lamut, Ifugao
Sex: Male
Weight: 64 kg
Height: 163 cm
Civil Status: Married

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION

Degrees Earned Dates Received University Attended

BSc in Agriculture (Animal Husbandry) 1976 MSAC

MSc in Agriculture (Animal Science) 1982 UPLB
PhD in Animal Science 1991 UPLB

EMPLOYMENT RECORD

Inclusive Date Position Employer

June 15, 1976 – November 30, 1982 Research Assistant MSAC

December 1, 1982 – June 30, 1984 Assistant Professor MSAC
July 1, 1984 – December 31, 1986 Assistant Professor V MSAC
January 1, 1987 – May 31, 1989 Associate Professor I BSU
June 1, 1989 – December 31, 1990 Associate Professor II BSU
January 1, 1991 – June 30, 1993 Associate Professor III BSU
July 1, 1993 – October 17, 1994 Professor II BSU
October 18, 1994 – present Professor VI BSU

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE/DESIGNATIONS

Inclusive Date Designation Unit/Office

July 7, 1991 – July 15, Chairman Department of Animal Science,

1993 BSU

30

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

Sept. 1, 1993 – July 20, Secretary Graduate School, BSU

1996
July 21, 1993 – July 21, Dean College of Agriculture, BSU
1999
Aug. 1, 2000 – Aug. 1, Director Institute of Highland Farming
2003 System and Agroforestry, BSU
July 1, 2003 – April 30, VP for Research and Extension BSU
2009
June 9, 2014 – July 31, Dean College of Agriculture, BSU
2016
Jan.5,2004 - July 31, 2016 Consortium Director HAARRDEC

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND EXTENSION INVOLVEMENT

Inclusive Designations Program/Project Sponsor

Dates
June, 1976 – Project Manager Rabbit Project MSAC
Oct., 1978
Nov., 1980 – Project Manager Goat Project MSAC
Oct., 1985
April, 1981 – Project Manager Swine Project MSAC
Oct., 1985
January – Team Member Countryside Technology Packaging for the PCARRD
Dec. 1990 Cordillera
January, Team Member National Pork Research and Development Team, PCARRD
1990 – Dec., and Regional Commodity Research and
1992 Development Team
January, Team Regional Livestock Commodity Research and PCARRD
1993 – Dec., Coordinator Development Team
1998
1997 – 1999 Vice Chair Project Facilitating Team of the BSU-UAP Agro- Ford
Forestry Support Program for Empowering Foundatio
Communities Toward Self-Reliance (ASPECTS) n
January, Team Leader Regional Livestock Commodity Research and PCARRD
1998 – Dec. Development Team
2004
2000 – 2001 Project Leader Agricultural and Livestock Wastes Management DA
and Utilization Project
2001 – 2005 Project Leader Integration of Livestock and Poultry Production BSU
in Highland Agro-Forestry Systems Project
2003 – 2008 Project Leader Highland Pig Conservation and Improvement BSU
Project
2003 – 2008 Program Leader BSU Biodiversity Program BSU
2003 – 2008 Coordinator Project 6: Establishment of Semi-Temperate VLIR
Vegetables R & D Center of the BSU-Philippines
Inter-University Cooperation Programme
2005 – 2008 Project Leader BSU-PHILEX Mines Inc. Livelihood Development PHILEX
Project Mines,
31

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

Inc.
2007 – Member, Regional University System and CHED
present Technical Complementation in the Super Region (North
Working Group Luzon Agribusiness Quadrangle) under the
Higher Education Development Project
2008-present Project Leader The Animal Genetic Resources (TANGERE) BSU
Project
June 1, 2009- Project Leader Value-Adding of Cordillera Ethnic Food Delicacy PCAARRD
June 30, (Etag) for Commercialization
2011
July 2009- Team Member Project Conservation Agriculture for the VLIR
June 2011 Restoration of the Environment of the North-
South-South Cooperation Programme
February 01, Project Leader Certification, Value-Addition and Promotion of PCAARRD
2013-January Organic Arabica Coffee Products in the
31, 2015 Cordillera
July 01, Project Leader Conservation, Improvement and Profitable PCAARRD
2014-June Utilization of the Philippine Native Pig in CAR
30, 2019

B. Names of the Members of the SAFE Project Team

1. Ms. Cheryll C. Launio, PhD - BSU Expert

2. Mr. Sean Paul C. Fiangaan – DOST-CAR Representative

3. Mr. Prudencio Pedro, PhD - Municipal Agriculturist, Itogon LGU

4. Mr. Cyril Batcagan, Engr. – Municipal DRRM Officer, Itogon LGU

5. Mr. Romeo Casilla – Farmer Representative

APPENDIX 1. LEGS Participatory Response Identification Matrix (PRIM)

32

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

Table 1. Rapid onset emergency (during disasters such as in earthquake or flood that hits very
suddenly and sometimes without warning)

Livelihood Objectives Emergency Phases

Technical Immediate Protect Rebuild Immediate Early Recovery
Interventions Benefits Assets Assets Aftermath Recovery
Destocking
Vet support
Feed
Water
Shelter
Provision of
livestock

Table 2. Slow onset emergency (during disasters such as drought or extreme cold season
whose effects are felt gradually)

Livelihood Objectives Emergency Phases

Technical Immediate Protect Rebuild Alert Alarm Emergency Recovery
Interventions Benefits Assets Assets
Destocking
Vet support
Feed
Water
Shelter
Provision of
livestock

Scoring against LEGS livelihood objectives:

***** Very positive impact on objective ** Small impact on objective

**** Good impact on objective * Very little impact on objective
** Some impact on objective n/a Not applicable

Emergency phases:

Appropriate timing for the intervention

33

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

34

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017

35

HAARRDEC
TTPD SAFE Proposal July 2017