16.11.2012 Views

Annex Volume 3 - Common Fund for Commodities

Annex Volume 3 - Common Fund for Commodities

Annex Volume 3 - Common Fund for Commodities

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

COMMON FUND FOR COMMODITIES<br />

Stadhouderskade 55. 1072 AB Amsterdam<br />

The Netherlands<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Completion Report<br />

On<br />

MEAT COMMODITY DIVERSIFICATION AND UPGRADING<br />

OF MEAT PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES IN ASIA-<br />

PACIFIC (FIGM/08)<br />

By<br />

T.A. ABILAY<br />

Submitted By<br />

Southeast Asian Regional Center <strong>for</strong> Graduate Study and<br />

Research in Agriculture (SEARCA)


Table of Contents<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................1<br />

Background In<strong>for</strong>mation ..............................................................................................1<br />

Main Findings/Accomplishments ................................................................................1<br />

Lessons Learnt .............................................................................................................3<br />

Major Recommendations .............................................................................................4<br />

II. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................6<br />

Background In<strong>for</strong>mation ..............................................................................................6<br />

Period and Place(s) of Evaluation................................................................................7<br />

Composition of the Evaluation Team ..........................................................................8<br />

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT.9<br />

Brief Description of the Commodity Covered.............................................................9<br />

Problems Addressed by the Project ...........................................................................10<br />

The Means Applied to Solve the Problems................................................................11<br />

Stated Beneficiaries ...................................................................................................11<br />

Results Achieved .......................................................................................................12<br />

The Main Players Involved........................................................................................15<br />

IV. ANALYSIS OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES...................................17<br />

Importance of the Problems Addressed <strong>for</strong> the Commodity and the Beneficiaries...17<br />

Relevance to Poverty Alleviation and to National / International / Regional<br />

Development Strategy(ies)...................................................................................18<br />

Suitability of the Means to Address the Problems.....................................................18<br />

V. IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS .................................................20<br />

Management of the Project and its Activities, including Work Plan.........................20<br />

Timeliness of Implementation, Achieving Milestones ..............................................21<br />

Factors Favorable and/or Detrimental to Project Implementation.............................22<br />

Appropriateness of Adjustments made during Implementation ................................23<br />

Realization of Co-Financing and Counterpart Commitments....................................24<br />

Adherence to Budgets ................................................................................................24<br />

ii


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

VI. IMPACT ANALYSIS....................................................................25<br />

Project Results Against Objectives and Targets ........................................................25<br />

Economic (and Social) Importance of Project Results ..............................................26<br />

Impact on Other Factors (if any), Such as Environment............................................26<br />

Reaching the Direct and Indirect Beneficiaries, Including the Effectiveness of<br />

Dissemination of Project Results .........................................................................27<br />

Sustainability and Replicability of Project Results....................................................28<br />

VII. LESSONS LEARNT....................................................................29<br />

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................31<br />

IX. PICTORIAL PRESENTATION ....................................................33<br />

REFERENCES...................................................................................47<br />

List of <strong>Annex</strong>es<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> A. Key In<strong>for</strong>mants and Persons Contacted (September 21 – October 31, 2006) ..50<br />

iii


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> B. List of Selected Project National Directors and TCP Regional Trainee-<br />

Participants Sent Letter-Questionnaires <strong>for</strong> the Impact Evaluation Study........55<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> C. List of Services Rendered by APDC Under the Asia-Pacific Meat Project from<br />

January to December, 2005...............................................................................60<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> D. List of Services Rendered by APDC Under the Asia-Pacific Meat Project from<br />

January to December, 2004...............................................................................62<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> E. Types of Services Rendered at APDC Under the Asia-Pacific Meat Project<br />

from January to June, 2006. ..............................................................................64<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> F. Supplemental List of Services Rendered at APDC under the APMP from July –<br />

December, 2006. ...............................................................................................67<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> G. Per<strong>for</strong>mance Accomplishment of APDC During the Three-Year<br />

Implementation of APMP From 2003 – 2006...................................................68<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> H. List of Services Rendered by APDC Under the Asia-Pacific Meat Project from<br />

January to December, 2005...............................................................................69<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> I. Comparative Per<strong>for</strong>mance of APDC Rendered Services Be<strong>for</strong>e and During<br />

Implementation of APMP (2002 and 2005)......................................................70<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> J. Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview of Peter Hautzinger, Chief Technical Adviser, Asia<br />

Pacific Meat Project ..........................................................................................71<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> K. Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview of Project Implementation Team, Selected APDC<br />

Staff and Former Trainee-Participants..............................................................79<br />

Abbreviations and Acronyms<br />

AGAL/FAO FAO-AGA Livestock In<strong>for</strong>mation, Sector Analysis and Policy<br />

Branch<br />

iv


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

AGAP/FAO FAO-AGA Animal Production Services<br />

APDC Animal Products Development Center<br />

APHD Animal Production and Health Division (Samoa)<br />

APMP Asia Pacific Meat Project<br />

BAI Bureau of Animal Industry<br />

BETP Board <strong>for</strong> Export Trade and Promotion<br />

BLRI Bangladesh Livestock and Research Institute<br />

BNS Basic Needs Services Philippines Inc.<br />

BORDA Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association<br />

CALABARZON Cavite-Laguna-Batangas-Rizal-Quezon<br />

CARD Center <strong>for</strong> Agricultural Research and Development<br />

CFC <strong>Common</strong> <strong>Fund</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Commodities</strong><br />

CIM Centrum fur Internationale Migration Entwicklung (Center <strong>for</strong><br />

International Migration and Development<br />

CTA Chief Technical Advisor<br />

DA Department of Agriculture<br />

DAAO Department of Agriculture Administrative Order<br />

DEWATS Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems<br />

DTI Department of Trade and Industry<br />

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations<br />

FIGHF FAO Intergovernmental Group on Hard Fiber<br />

FIGMDP FAO Intergovernmental Group <strong>for</strong> Meat and Dairy Products<br />

GMP Good Manufacturing Practices<br />

GTZ Deutsche Gessellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH<br />

(German Technical Cooperation Agency)<br />

HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point<br />

HSI Humane Society International<br />

HSPD High Pressure Sap Displacement<br />

ICB International Commodity Body<br />

KII Key in<strong>for</strong>mant Interview<br />

LBVD Livestock Breeding and Veterinary Department (Myanmar)<br />

LEAD Livestock Environment and Development Initiative<br />

LGUs Local Government Units<br />

MT Metric Ton<br />

NGOs Non-Government Organizations<br />

NIMTC National Industrial Manpower Training Council<br />

NMIS National Meat Inspection Service<br />

NPC National Project Coordinator<br />

NPD National Project Director<br />

NTA National Technical Assistant<br />

NSCB National Statistical Coordination Board<br />

OJT On The Job Training<br />

OFWs Overseas Filipino Workers<br />

v


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

PAMPI Philippine Association of Meat Processors, Inc.<br />

PCC Philippine Carabao Center<br />

PEA Project Executing Agency<br />

PhP Philippine Peso<br />

PHILSUCOM Philippine Sugar Commision<br />

PIAs Project Implementing Agencies<br />

PIT Project Implementation Team<br />

POEA Philippine Overseas Employment Administration<br />

PSB/SB Project Supervisory Board / Supervisory Board<br />

QC Quality Control<br />

R&D Research & Development<br />

SEARCA Southeast Asia Regional Center <strong>for</strong> Graduate Study and Research in<br />

Agriculture<br />

SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises<br />

TCP Technical Cooperation Programme<br />

TOR Terms of Reference<br />

UNDP United Nations Development Programme<br />

UNOPS United Nations Office <strong>for</strong> Project Services<br />

USD US Dollar<br />

vi


I. Executive Summary<br />

Background In<strong>for</strong>mation<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

This project coded as CFC/FIGMDP/08 or UNOPS/RAS02R72 was entitled “Meat<br />

Commodity Diversification and Upgrading of Meat Processing Technologies in<br />

Asia-Pacific.” This three-year project that started on October 01, 2003 supported<br />

the establishment of a regional meat training and development network consisting<br />

of a main center at the Animal Products Development Center (APDC) in the<br />

Philippines and satellite centers located at the Livestock Breeding and Veterinary<br />

Department (LBVD) in Myanmar, the Bangladesh Livestock and Research<br />

Institute (BLRI) in Bangladesh, and the Animal Production and Health Division<br />

(APHD) in Samoa. Most project activities are carried out at the main center APDC,<br />

where the project CTA is based. This involves development and implementation of<br />

training programs, product development and promotion works, introduction of a<br />

pilot integrated waste management scheme and development/testing of small-scale<br />

equipment and tools are undertaken. On a smaller scale, similar activities are also<br />

done at the satellite centers, supervised by the CTA and supported by technical<br />

main center staff. The project should have ended on September 30, 2006 but<br />

extended until December 31, 2006.The <strong>Common</strong> <strong>Fund</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Commodities</strong> (CFC)<br />

awarded the impact evaluation study to the Southeast Asian Regional Center <strong>for</strong><br />

Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA). The purpose was to<br />

examine systematically the elements of success and failure in the project design<br />

and implementation with a view of drawing lessons from the experience.<br />

Main Findings/Accomplishments<br />

The findings and accomplishments of the project are as follows:<br />

(1) A functionally operated network was established between the main training<br />

center (APDC) and three satellite centers, supported with improved facilities<br />

and equipment and capable training staff on meat processing technology.<br />

(2) Four TCP regional training program courses were conducted on meat<br />

processing technology with 72 international participants from 19 countries.<br />

(3) Locally fabricated equipment <strong>for</strong> meat processing were tested from different<br />

manufacturers <strong>for</strong> work quality, per<strong>for</strong>mance, af<strong>for</strong>dability, and<br />

sustainability, resulting in the selection of a set of locally fabricated<br />

equipment from Sun Machtrade <strong>for</strong> further standard testing and refinements.<br />

This set of locally fabricated equipment was replicated and distributed to<br />

each of the three satellite centers.<br />

(4) Collected survey data from meat vendors in wet markets during regional<br />

visits in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao on local traditional and modern meat<br />

products. The findings showed that the most preferred and bought meat<br />

product was longganisa, followed by tocino and hotdog. Sensory evaluations<br />

of longganisa samples from six provinces were undertaken based on seven<br />

1


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

indicators. Mindoro longganisa passed the criteria <strong>for</strong> saltiness, sweetness,<br />

tenderness, juiciness, flavour, and general acceptability.<br />

(5) The surveyed meat vendors processed their meat products in market stalls,<br />

while others brought their leftover meat at home where they did the<br />

processing. Processing meat products in the market area is unhygienic and<br />

requires attention <strong>for</strong> possible cross contamination. The respondent meat<br />

vendors/processors expressed interest <strong>for</strong> further training in hygienic meat<br />

handling and basic meat processing to improve the quality and extend their<br />

products’ shelf life.<br />

(6) The “wet” or public market survey indicated that 56% of the respondent<br />

customers spend PhP200-300/kg or two of processed meat products,<br />

(preferably longganisa) per week as walk-in customers. However, 71% of<br />

customers spend PhP100-300/week and 31% spend PhP310-600/week from<br />

buying processed meat products (hotdogs, corned beef, luncheon meat or<br />

meat loaf) from supermarkets.<br />

(7) Sensory evaluation of fish products (tuna ham, tuna loaf, tuna “siomai” and<br />

tuna “embutido”) sampled in the market was conducted using ten sensory<br />

indicators to established product profiles. The resulting profiles provided the<br />

idea to develop new products: tuna hotdogs and tuna burgers. Sensory<br />

evaluation of three trials of fish hotdog production with different<br />

<strong>for</strong>mulations and one trial of fish burgers using three recipes resulted in final<br />

preference of recipe #2 <strong>for</strong> tuna hotdog and recipe #2 <strong>for</strong> tuna burger.<br />

(8) Development of buffalo meat and beef processed products in cooperation<br />

with Philippine Carabao Center in the Philippines. Sensory evaluations of<br />

fresh meat and processed meat products were conducted. Based on color,<br />

flavor, juiciness, tenderness, saltiness, sweetness, and general acceptability,<br />

fresh meat and processed meat products (beer ham sausage, beerwurst, meat<br />

loaf, buffalo ham and pastrami) from buffalo meat and beef were comparable<br />

in sensory characteristics. The study was presented during the World Buffalo<br />

Congress held in Manila in October 2005. A booklet with recipes <strong>for</strong> use of<br />

buffalo meat in processing and cooking was prepared and is now currently<br />

being distributed.<br />

(9) Low-cost meat products (skinless sausage, hamburger, smoke sausage,<br />

hotdog, bologna, luncheon meat, quick cured ham, structured ham, pork<br />

nuggets, and chicken breast stick) were evaluated <strong>for</strong> sensory attributes.<br />

These products need to be further modified to meet consumers’ expectations.<br />

Likewise, low-cost meatballs, dried meat (pork flakes “adobo” style) and<br />

buffalo meat hotdogs with extended shelf life under ambient temperature<br />

were also developed. Sensory evaluation of meatballs showed 99%<br />

respondents’ acceptability based on taste and texture. Meat flakes was<br />

promising, but needs further modifications, while hotdog shelf life test is still<br />

ongoing.<br />

2


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

(10) Eight (8) training modules and manuals were developed <strong>for</strong> the regular<br />

training courses on slaughtering, meat cutting, meat processing, and byproduct<br />

utilization <strong>for</strong> leather.<br />

(11) Various technical training courses on slaughtering techniques <strong>for</strong> pigs/cattle,<br />

meat cutting, meat retailing, meat processing, and by-product utilization <strong>for</strong><br />

leather were conducted in 2003-2006. The training courses were conducted<br />

<strong>for</strong> 53 batches with 649 participants. As compared to targets, the<br />

accomplishment rate was 139%. The beneficiaries were heterogeneous<br />

groups consisting of cooperative members, meat shop workers, butchers,<br />

prospective entrepreneurs, meat plant staff., overseas Filipino workers,<br />

private and government employees.<br />

(12) Seminars, lecture-demonstrations, plant tours, and technical assistance were<br />

provided to about 4,000 visitors of varied interests and professions, many of<br />

whom were interested on proper handling of food animals, slaughtering, meat<br />

processing, hygiene and sanitation and waste management.<br />

(13) The use of APDC slaughtering facilities and meat processing plant were<br />

linked with eight (8) meat companies <strong>for</strong> R & D activities, and <strong>for</strong> safe and<br />

hygienic meats and processed products.<br />

(14) Several exhibitions were participated in <strong>for</strong> meat product presentation/display<br />

and tasting in public areas (BAI, DA, etc.). This created public awareness on<br />

processed meat products and their general acceptability.<br />

(15) A pilot waste management system was designed and implemented in APDC,<br />

using a suitable waste minimization approach, and the “Decentralized<br />

Wastewater Treatment Systems” (DEWATS) technology. The model system<br />

was inaugurated in September 2006 and receives many visitors..<br />

Lessons Learnt<br />

(1) The selection of the Project Executing Agency (UNOPS) was a crucial decision<br />

in the implementation of APMP. Its absence in the countries of project<br />

operation, and the lack of technical experience/expertise to understand and<br />

appreciate the technical requirements of APMP made coordination and<br />

implementation of the project difficult and complicated. All project funds<br />

needed to be channeled through UNDP country offices, thus causing<br />

interference and delays.<br />

(2) The initially requested reporting period of 3-months resulted in far too many<br />

technical and financial reports and presented an unnecessary burden <strong>for</strong><br />

technical staff at the main and satellite centers. Often in<strong>for</strong>mation could not be<br />

obtained in time from the satellite centers, causing delays in submission of<br />

reports and new releases of urgently needed funds. It was later agreed that only<br />

two reports should be prepared (semi-annual progress report and annual<br />

progress report), but still reports came in late. Substantial progress was only<br />

made when the CTA agreed in May 2005 to coordinate the technical and<br />

financial reporting.<br />

3


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

(3) APMP with its multi-funding support has shown that different donor agencies<br />

can work together successfully by sharing the overall project budget<br />

complemented with counterpart government funds and contributions in kind<br />

and accomplish their common goal. In this project, complementation had<br />

worked with CFC, FAO/TCP, FAO/AGAL, GTZ/CIM, HSI and the<br />

governments of the Philippines, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Samoa.<br />

(4) The loan was an intrinsic component of the project (earmarked <strong>for</strong><br />

USD100,000). Un<strong>for</strong>tunately, despite all ef<strong>for</strong>ts made by the PIT, no lending<br />

institution in the Philippines was willing to handle the loan component and the<br />

decision on the loan issue needed to be postponed to the midterm review<br />

meeting. Two major problems occurred in all negotiations with potential<br />

lending institutions: (i) amount too small and (ii) restrictions too many.<br />

Major Recommendations<br />

On the technical aspects:<br />

(1) Phase II Project is highly recommended to sustain the Asia Pacific Meat<br />

Project Training Network operation at the main center (APDC in the<br />

Philippines) and the three satellite centers (BLRI in Bangladesh; LBVD in<br />

Myanmar and APHD in Samoa). The network operation of these centers has<br />

just begun this year in providing in-house and outreach training and other<br />

technical services to small and medium meat processors in Asia Pacific region.<br />

The centers have upgraded infrastructure facilities and equipment, developed<br />

training courses; and competent technical staff <strong>for</strong> skills development and<br />

practical knowledge dissemination, product diversification, promotion of<br />

appropriate technology, and overall capacity building in the meat processing<br />

industry. Further strengthening of the newly established network requires<br />

continuing fund support <strong>for</strong> the regional training network to operate in the<br />

concerned four countries. Simultaneous FAO-funded TCP programs could be<br />

granted to these four countries to continue their collaboration in the network<br />

<strong>for</strong> training courses in humane slaughtering, meat cutting, meat processing and<br />

by-product utilization <strong>for</strong> leather, involving the highly experienced trainors<br />

from the four centers and selected participants from Asia Pacific region.<br />

Hence, the sustainability of APMP network would be secured.<br />

(2) The re-programming of the CFC loan fund of USD100,000 or more is also<br />

recommended <strong>for</strong> APDC’s continuing activities. This would allow an approved<br />

NGO accredited micro-finance organization on a counterparting arrangement<br />

to handle the micro lending to members engaged in meat vending, processing,<br />

or fabrication of local equipment. APDC could screen the qualified NGOs;<br />

assist in training to certify the members qualified as pre-condition to loan<br />

release; assist in setting loan mechanics and guidelines; and monitor loan<br />

implementation of NGOs. The NGOs would implement the fund micro-credit<br />

program by processing and approving the loan application of qualified<br />

members in identified project area and by promoting the meat processing<br />

technology to the members.<br />

4


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

(3) TCP regional training should be organized in the network of training centers<br />

with well-equipped facilities and highly trained and experienced technical staff<br />

<strong>for</strong> maximum results.<br />

On management and administrative aspects:<br />

(1) Two basic criteria should be considered carefully in identifying and selecting<br />

the Project Executing Agency (PEA). The PEA should have the technical<br />

expertise on the project to be implemented and it should be well represented in<br />

all countries where the project would be executed, like the other CFC-funded<br />

commodity projects (sugar cane and coco-wood) implemented in the<br />

Philippines.<br />

(2) Technical progress and financial account reports, as well as the fund<br />

transfer/replenishment, should be prepared annually, with short semi-annual<br />

progress reporting <strong>for</strong> projects similar to this nature. This would give more<br />

time <strong>for</strong> the project implementation team to work and coordinate project<br />

activities in the outreach training centers rather than spend more time preparing<br />

reports. Having said that, quarterly reporting should be avoided <strong>for</strong> its being<br />

time-consuming.<br />

(3) The management of the centers should secure further donor inputs in a timely<br />

fashion <strong>for</strong> projects with multi-funding support, following the work plan of<br />

project implementation. Likewise, donor agencies should not get involved<br />

directly with day-to-day operations of the project. They should maintain their<br />

role in the proper way.<br />

5


II. Introduction<br />

Background In<strong>for</strong>mation<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

The project coded as CFC/FIGMDP/08 or UNOPS/RAS02R72 was entitled “Meat<br />

Commodity Diversification and Upgrading of Meat Processing Technologies in<br />

Asia-Pacific” [with Asia Pacific Meat Project (APMP) as the project working<br />

title]. The wider objectives were “to make better use of meat resources in<br />

Asia/Pacific and to facilitate and strengthen production, marketing and trade<br />

through appropriate means of handling towards value adding of meat and product<br />

diversification”.<br />

As provided <strong>for</strong> in the project’s terms of reference, the following were the project’s<br />

specific objectives:<br />

(1) Modify existing and develop new meat products suitable to Asia/Pacific<br />

markets;<br />

(2) Provide technical solution <strong>for</strong> small- to medium-sized meat processors in meat<br />

equipment and environmental sectors;<br />

(3) Capacitate meat processors in commercializing meat products and processing<br />

equipment;<br />

(4) Train meat industry personnel on issues as stated in (1) and (2) above; and<br />

(5) Promote technologies on the meat products and equipment developed.<br />

The project was implemented by the Animal Products Development Center,<br />

Bureau of Animal Industry, Republic of the Philippines, together with the satellite<br />

centers in Myanmar (Livestock Breeding and Veterinary Department), Bangladesh<br />

(Bangladesh Livestock and Research Institute) and Samoa (Animal Production and<br />

Health Division). The project duration was three years, starting on October 01,<br />

2003. The completion date was in September 2006, but extended until December<br />

31, 2006. The total project cost was in the amount of USD 2, 300,679, with the<br />

CFC fund grant of USD 831, 095 and a CFC Loan fund of USD 100, 000.<br />

Additional fund came from co-financing, amounting to USD 562, 000. The<br />

breakdown included USD 100,000 from GTZ/CIM Germany; USD 447,000 in<br />

kind from FAO; and USD 15,000 in kind from Humane Society International.<br />

Counterpart contributions were provided from the governments of the Philippines<br />

(USD 772,584), Bangladesh (USD 15,000), and Myanmar (USD 20,000) in the<br />

total amount of USD 807,584 (in cash and kind).<br />

The purpose of this impact evaluation study was to examine systematically the<br />

elements of success and failure in the project design and implementation with a<br />

view of drawing lessons from experience. This would include: (1) the extent to<br />

which the project objectives were met; (2) the impact of the project on the intended<br />

beneficiaries and (3) the lessons learned from the design, appraisal and<br />

6


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

implementation experience that would serve as a guide <strong>for</strong> future projects financed<br />

by the <strong>Common</strong> <strong>Fund</strong><br />

Based on the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the Impact Evaluation Study, the<br />

following specific tasks were carried out:<br />

(1) A description of the main elements of the project;<br />

(2) Analysis of project objectives;<br />

(3) Implementation analysis;<br />

(4) Impact analysis;<br />

(5) Lessons learnt and recommendations; and<br />

(6) Preparation of the evaluation report.<br />

Period and Place(s) of Evaluation<br />

The project evaluation was supposed to begin on 20 September 2006, with the<br />

mobilization and briefing of the five-member consultant team of evaluators on the<br />

Terms of Reference of five CFC-funded commodities’ projects at SEARCA office<br />

in Los Banos, Laguna. However, the impact evaluation of the Asia-Pacific Meat<br />

Project (APMP) was delayed As the Chief Technical Adviser of the project was on<br />

mission in Myanmar. Moreover, Laguna and some parts of the Philippines were<br />

ravaged by the worst typhoon that caused serious property damage. Hence, the<br />

evaluation period was rescheduled <strong>for</strong> the period 4 October 2006 until 15<br />

December 2006.<br />

The main location of the project evaluation in the Philippines was the Bureau of<br />

Animal Industry’s Animal Product Development Center (BAI-APDC) at Marulas,<br />

Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Consultation meetings were held with BAI, APDC<br />

Staff, the Philippine Carabao Center (PCC), National Meat Inspection Service<br />

(NMIS), and some institutional client-beneficiaries and trainee-participants<br />

(October 4-31, 2006).<br />

Moreover, selected trainees and institutional officials who cooperated in the<br />

framework of the project were interviewed. The concerned stakeholders visited and<br />

interviewed during the evaluation period are listed in <strong>Annex</strong> A of the evaluation<br />

report.<br />

The technical consultant, likewise, prepared two sets of key in<strong>for</strong>mants’ questions.<br />

One set was sent through e-mail to the National Project Directors of the three<br />

satellite centers of APMP (Bangladesh, Myanmar and Samoa), and another set, to<br />

selected <strong>for</strong>eign participants of the four batches of FAO-TCP regional training on<br />

meat technology held at APDC, Philippines in 2003 and 2004.<br />

7


Composition of the Evaluation Team<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

The impact evaluation study was awarded to the Southeast Asian Regional Center<br />

<strong>for</strong> Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA) by the <strong>Common</strong> <strong>Fund</strong><br />

<strong>for</strong> <strong>Commodities</strong> (CFC). Dr. Teodoro A. Abilay was commissioned by SEARCA<br />

as the technical evaluator of APDC-APMP cum team leader of the five-man<br />

technical team assigned to evaluate the impacts of the five CFC-funded projects.<br />

The technical consultant, among other experiences, has been working in the animal<br />

science research and development, animal/products regulation, as well as in<br />

livestock and poultry production, institutional/community development and<br />

agribusiness ventures spanning over 40 years of government service, academic<br />

functions, consultancy engagements, and corporate management works.<br />

8


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

III. Description of the Main Elements of the Project<br />

Brief Description of the Commodity Covered<br />

Processed meat refers to meat that has been further modified from its primary state.<br />

Processed meat products, usually derived from livestock such as pig, cattle, and<br />

chicken, include four major products: luncheon meat, frankfurters, bacon, and<br />

others (sausage, ham, and other deli meat). The favorite processed products<br />

nationwide and of almost every age group are corned beef, hotdogs and longganisa<br />

(BETP, 2003).<br />

As of 2005, NMIS reported that there are four hundred (400) accredited meat<br />

establishments in the country classified into abattoir (slaughterhouse) (124),<br />

poultry dressing plant (75), meat processing plant (129); cold storage (31), and<br />

others (41). Other meat processors have focused on supplying the requirements of<br />

institutional buyers, while some fast-food chains have operated their own meat<br />

processing facilities.<br />

Report from DTI-NIMTC (2005) shows that meat-processing technology varies<br />

with the type of processors, as follows:<br />

(1) Large-scale processors have modern facilities, using highly mechanized<br />

process. Hence, they have the capacity and the technology to offer premium<br />

quality products to the upper-class consumers in terms of pricing and<br />

moderately priced products <strong>for</strong> low-end consumers.<br />

(2) Middle-scale processors cater to the middle or the lower classes.<br />

(3) Small-scale or backyard producers/processors are all over the country that<br />

serve the needs of the lower-end market. These are mostly enterprising<br />

housewives that produce the native meat products, such as tocino and<br />

longganisa and sell them to the local “wet” or public market.<br />

The study further noted that high percentage of micro- and small-scale meat<br />

processors in the provinces have managed to survive despite the stiff competition<br />

prevailing in their local markets. Out of 128 respondent-enterprises, 48% (or 54<br />

enterprises) was cognizant of the expanding market trend of the processed meat<br />

sector and has expressed their expansion plans. These include creation and<br />

promotion of new products, increasing their plant capacity <strong>for</strong> old and new<br />

products, putting up branches in other locations, increasing number of<br />

workers/employees, increasing volume of production on a particular product, and<br />

acquisition of additional machines/equipment.<br />

The National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB, 2004) identified the workers<br />

in the meat-processing sub-sector as follows: managers, supervisors, administrative<br />

staff, quality control/laboratory technicians, and production workers. The<br />

production workers are further categorized into hand packers and other<br />

manufacturing laborers, butchers and related food preparers, food preservers, food<br />

and related products machine operators, and meat processing machine operators.<br />

9


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

The meat-processing sub-sector needs the support, strong commitment and<br />

consolidated ef<strong>for</strong>ts of all the stakeholders to ensure high product quality and<br />

safety. The micro- or backyard enterprises, which comprised the majority of the<br />

survey respondents (DTI-NIMTC, 2005), must always emphasize as their primary<br />

concern the maximum food safety and security as well as the overall well being of<br />

consumers. This means high quality raw meat materials (and others) and clean<br />

workplace and facilities.<br />

The raw meat materials required in meat processing are derived mainly from<br />

livestock and chicken. The production of these animals can stimulate the growth<br />

and development of the processed meat industry<br />

Problems Addressed by the Project<br />

The Project has identified the following constraints to meat development of the<br />

developing countries in Asia-Pacific Region, as follows:<br />

(1) Unsatisfactory premises and technologies <strong>for</strong> slaughtering, meat cutting, and<br />

further processing of meat. This is associated with the inefficient sanitary<br />

control and meat inspection in the interest of consumer protection and<br />

prevention of the spread of animal diseases,<br />

(2) Lack of trained personnel in all fields in the meat sector, and<br />

(3) Environmental problems caused by meat plants, in particular abattoirs.<br />

As identified in the project TOR, the inherent problems addressed by APMP are<br />

attributed to the following:<br />

(1) Substantial meat losses due to inappropriate slaughter procedures.<br />

(2) Unhygienic meat handling and processing that lead to short shelf-life of meat<br />

and results to spoilage.<br />

(3) Difficulty of producing cheap yet quality and culturally acceptable meat and<br />

meat products due to lack of cost efficient technologies.<br />

(4) Lack of training <strong>for</strong> small technologists and small and medium scale<br />

processors on proven processing techniques.<br />

(5) Limited access to micro credit facilities <strong>for</strong> small-scale meat processors and<br />

local equipment fabricators.<br />

(6) Fewer options among processors to utilize meat and by-products <strong>for</strong> the<br />

production of shelf-stable meat products due to lack of hygienic raw<br />

materials.<br />

(7) High cost of production from the use of imported inputs (equipment,<br />

machines, and ingredients) <strong>for</strong> meat processing which are not locally<br />

available.<br />

10


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

(8) Inadequate solid and liquid waste management facilities <strong>for</strong> abattoir and meat<br />

processing plants that give rise to environmental contamination.<br />

(9) Locally produced meat and meat products which are inferior in quality and<br />

cannot compete with imported meat products.<br />

(10) Meat products that do not meet the requirements of the intended clientele.<br />

(11) Utilization of scarce <strong>for</strong>eign exchange reserves in many Asia-Pacific<br />

countries <strong>for</strong> the importation of meat and processed meat products.<br />

The Means Applied to Solve the Problems<br />

The problems identified in the Asia-Pacific meat sector are addressed through the<br />

following measures:<br />

(1) Upgrading meat plants<br />

(2) Capability building<br />

(3) In<strong>for</strong>mation awareness<br />

(4) Training<br />

(5) Research and development on existing and new meat products, and<br />

(6) Waste management.<br />

The above measures are contained in the APMP main components and their<br />

specific activities:<br />

(1) Establishment of Regional Meat Training/ Product Development Network,<br />

(2) Meat Products Development and Market Research,<br />

(3) Training and Capability Building in Meat Processing, and<br />

(4) Technology Promotion and Commercialization.<br />

Stated Beneficiaries<br />

The APMP has the following direct and indirect beneficiaries:<br />

(1) The APDC main center in the Philippines and the three satellite centers in<br />

Bangladesh, Myanmar and Samoa are the first group of beneficiaries. These<br />

four (4) centers have benefited from APMP through institutional capacity<br />

building (i.e. physical improvement of the building, facilities and installed<br />

equipment) and the technical capacity/training of their respective project staff,<br />

who are now well trained, more knowledgeable and has improved skills.<br />

11


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

(2) The next group of beneficiaries is the micro-cottage, small- and medium-scale<br />

processors. This group supplies the other half of the processed meat market.<br />

These are the self-trained backyard meat processors distributed all over the<br />

country who have no <strong>for</strong>mal training at all on meat processing. They need<br />

training, knowledge and skills, require technical advice on appropriate facilities<br />

and equipment, and seek in<strong>for</strong>mation on product presentation and product<br />

quality.<br />

(3) The third group of beneficiaries includes the production workers of small- and<br />

medium-scale meat processors who require training, knowledge and skills of<br />

the meat processing industry.<br />

(4) The fourth group of beneficiaries is the local meat equipment fabricators. The<br />

project has encouraged and promoted the local fabrication of meat equipment.<br />

The improvement of the meat processing industry will redound to the increase<br />

in demand <strong>for</strong> cheap and efficient locally fabricated equipment.<br />

(5) The last group of beneficiaries is the meat product consumers. They are<br />

benefited by the availability of safe, hygienic and af<strong>for</strong>dable meat products,<br />

with simplified and tested product <strong>for</strong>mulation and nutritional composition.<br />

Results Achieved<br />

The following results were achieved from the implementation of APMP main<br />

components:<br />

Project Component 1: Establishment of Regional Meat Training (one Main and<br />

Three Satellite Centers) Network<br />

(1) Upgraded slaughter and meat processing facilities fully functional <strong>for</strong> product<br />

development and training in slaughter and meat processing technology and<br />

hygiene <strong>for</strong> the dissemination of skills, knowledge and in<strong>for</strong>mation at the Main<br />

Center (Animal Product Development Center) in the Philippines.<br />

(2) Three equipped and staffed Satellite Centers able to conduct training <strong>for</strong> local<br />

meat industry personnel.<br />

(3) Project website (http://www.apmpwebinfo.net) established in December 2005.<br />

It has provided in<strong>for</strong>mation tools <strong>for</strong> main and satellite centers to strengthen the<br />

network and to keep all centers updated with project developments. The<br />

website also contains selected in<strong>for</strong>mation about the project and its<br />

background, its targets and design, description of four centers,<br />

accomplishments, sections on activities, cooperation, and has a technology<br />

corner supported with photos.<br />

Project Component 2: Meat Products Development and Market Research<br />

(1) Collected survey data from meat vendors in wet market during regional visits<br />

in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao on local traditional and modern meat<br />

products. The findings showed that the most preferred and bought meat product<br />

12


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

was longganisa, followed by tocino and hotdog. Sensory evaluations of<br />

longganisa samples from six provinces were undertaken based on seven<br />

indicators. Mindoro longganisa passed the criteria <strong>for</strong> saltiness, sweetness,<br />

tenderness, juiciness, flavor and general acceptability.<br />

(2) The surveyed meat vendors processed their meat products in market stalls,<br />

while others brought their leftover meat at home where they did the processing.<br />

Processing meat products in the market area is unhygienic and requires<br />

attention <strong>for</strong> possible cross contamination. The respondent meat<br />

vendors/processors expressed interest <strong>for</strong> further training in hygienic meat<br />

handling and basic meat processing to improve the quality and extend their<br />

products’ shelf life.<br />

(3) The “wet” or public market survey indicated that 56% of the respondent<br />

customers spend PhP200-300/kg or two of processed meat products (preferably<br />

longganisa) per week as walk-in customers. However, 71% of customers spend<br />

PhP100-300/week and 31% spend PhP310-600/week buying processed meat<br />

products (hotdogs, corned beef, luncheon meat or meat loaf) from<br />

supermarkets.<br />

(4) Sensory evaluation of fish products (tuna ham, tuna loaf, tuna “siomai” and<br />

tuna “embutido”) sampled in the market was conducted using ten sensory<br />

indicators to establish product profiles. The resulting profiles provided the idea<br />

to develop new products: tuna hotdogs and tuna burgers. Sensory evaluation of<br />

three trials of fish hotdog production with different <strong>for</strong>mulations and one trial<br />

of fish burgers using three recipes resulted in final preference of recipe #2 <strong>for</strong><br />

tuna hotdog and recipe #2 <strong>for</strong> tuna burger.<br />

(5) Developed buffalo meat and beef processed products in cooperation with<br />

Philippine Carabao Center in the Philippines. Sensory evaluations of fresh meat<br />

and processed meat products were conducted. Based on color, flavor, juiciness,<br />

tenderness, saltiness, sweetness, and general acceptability, fresh meat and<br />

processed meat products (beer ham sausage, beerwurst, meat loaf, buffalo ham<br />

and pastrami) from buffalo meat and beef were comparable in sensory<br />

characteristics. The study was presented during the World Buffalo Congress<br />

held in Manila in October 2005. A booklet with recipes <strong>for</strong> use of buffalo meat<br />

in processing and cooking was prepared and is now currently being distributed.<br />

(6) Low-cost meat products (skinless sausage, hamburger, smoke sausage, hotdog,<br />

bologna, luncheon meat, quick cured ham, structured ham, pork nuggets, and<br />

chicken breast stick) were evaluated <strong>for</strong> sensory attributes. These products need<br />

to be further modified to meet consumers’ expectations. Likewise, low-cost<br />

meatballs, dried meat (pork flakes “adobo” style) and buffalo meat hotdogs<br />

with extended shelf life under ambient temperature were also developed.<br />

Sensory evaluation of meatballs showed 99% respondents’ acceptability based<br />

on taste and texture. Meat flakes was promising, but needs further<br />

modifications, while shelf life test <strong>for</strong> hotdog is still ongoing.<br />

(7) Sponsored three national meat processing contests at the main center annually<br />

(2004-2006). The winners of the regional meat processing contests from the 16<br />

13


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

regions of the country participated in the contest. The contest has developed<br />

low-cost meat products making use of a designated main raw meat material<br />

(pork, chicken, or buffalo meat), extenders and fillers, thereby bringing out<br />

benefits of meat processing/value adding. The quality of products, recipes and<br />

presentations had improved through the introduction of more professional<br />

procedures.<br />

(8) Locally fabricated equipment <strong>for</strong> meat processing were tested from different<br />

manufacturers <strong>for</strong> work quality, per<strong>for</strong>mance, af<strong>for</strong>dability, and sustainability,<br />

resulting in the selection of a set of locally fabricated equipment from Sun<br />

Machtrade <strong>for</strong> further standard testing and refinements. This set of locally<br />

fabricated equipment was replicated and distributed each to the three (3)<br />

satellite centers.<br />

Project Component 3: Training and Capability Building in Meat Processing<br />

(1) Eight training modules and manuals were developed <strong>for</strong> the regular training<br />

courses on slaughtering, meat cutting, meat processing, and by-product<br />

utilization <strong>for</strong> leather.<br />

(2) Four TCP regional training program courses were conducted covering topics<br />

on proper slaughtering techniques, meat processing, carcass and meat grading,<br />

and waste management procedures. These training programs were participated<br />

in by 72 international participants from 19 countries (<strong>Annex</strong> B).<br />

(3) APDC and satellite centers’ technical staff participated in in-house training<br />

sessions conducted by CTA. Some qualified staff had the opportunity to join in<br />

the IFFA study tour in Germany, and some were selected <strong>for</strong> the FAO TCP<br />

training course.<br />

(4) Various technical training courses on slaughtering techniques <strong>for</strong> pigs/cattle,<br />

meat cutting, meat retailing, meat processing, and by-product utilization <strong>for</strong><br />

leather were conducted in 2003-2006 (<strong>Annex</strong>es C to F). The training courses<br />

were conducted <strong>for</strong> 53 batches with 649 participants. As compared to targets,<br />

the accomplishment rate was 139% (<strong>Annex</strong> G). The beneficiaries are of<br />

heterogeneous composition consisting of overseas Filipino workers, private and<br />

government employees, cooperative members, meat shop workers, butchers,<br />

prospective entrepreneurs, and meat plant staff.<br />

Project Component 4: Technology Promotion and Commercialization<br />

(1) Locally fabricated equipment from Sun Machtrade after passing standard tests<br />

and refinements were recommended/promoted to small- and medium-scale<br />

meat processors.<br />

(2) A pilot waste management system was designed and implemented, using the<br />

“Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems” (DEWATS) technology at<br />

APDC. The model system was inaugurated in September 2006. New waste<br />

minimization practices were introduced.<br />

14


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

(3) Seminars, lecture-demonstrations, plant tours, and technical assistance were<br />

served to about 4,000 visitors of varied interests and professions (<strong>Annex</strong> G).<br />

Many of them were interested on proper handling of food animals,<br />

slaughtering, meat processing, hygiene and sanitation, and waste management.<br />

(4) The use of APDC slaughtering facilities and meat processing plant were linked<br />

with eight meat companies <strong>for</strong> R & D activities, and <strong>for</strong> safe and hygienic<br />

meats and processed products (<strong>Annex</strong> H).<br />

(5) TCP–lead consultant, CTA, and the APDC staff produced the final version of<br />

the detailed handout on meat processing technology.<br />

(6) APMP technical staff at APDC are preparing technical papers <strong>for</strong> contribution<br />

in an FAO Technical Publication on “Meat Processing Technology <strong>for</strong> Small<br />

and Medium Enterprises in Developing Countries” <strong>for</strong> submission by end of<br />

2006.<br />

(7) APMP prepared a technology promotion and research paper on “The<br />

Establishment of an Integrated Waste Management Scheme <strong>for</strong> Small and<br />

Medium Scale Slaughterhouses” at APDC main center.<br />

(8) Several exhibitions were participated in <strong>for</strong> meat product presentation/display<br />

and tasting in public areas (BAI, DA, etc.). This created public awareness on<br />

processed meat products and their general acceptability.<br />

The Main Players Involved<br />

The Project Executing Agency (PEA) <strong>for</strong> the APMP was entrusted to the Asia<br />

Office of the United Nations Office <strong>for</strong> Project Services (UNOPS). Project<br />

Agreement between the <strong>Fund</strong>, the PSB and UNOPS was signed in January 2003.<br />

UNOPS, as the PEA, was responsible <strong>for</strong> the coordination and implementation/<br />

administration of the project.<br />

The FAO Intergovernmental Group on Meat (IGM) was designated as the Project<br />

Supervising Body (PSB) mandated to conduct external reviews of the project (per<br />

CFC regulations). The AGAP/FAO was designated further to provide PEA<br />

technical advisory and support services to the project (under a separate agreement<br />

between UNOPS/PEA and AGAP/FAO).<br />

The collaborating institutions in the implementation of the project were:<br />

(1) Deutsche Gessellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH/Centrum fur<br />

Internationale Migration Entwicklung (GTZ/CIM) [German Technical<br />

Cooperation Agency/Center <strong>for</strong> International Migration and Development].<br />

(2) The Bureau of Animal Industry-Animal Products Development Center (BAI-<br />

APDC), Government of the Philippines.<br />

(3) The Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute, Bangladesh.<br />

15


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

(4) The Livestock Breeding and Veterinary Department, Ministry of Livestock and<br />

Fisheries, Government of the Union of Myanmar.<br />

(5) Animal Production and Health Division, The Ministry of Agriculture, Forests,<br />

Fisheries and Meteorology, Government of Samoa.<br />

GTZ/CIM provided the long-term technical (Meat Technology) expert, the Chief<br />

Technical Adviser, Mr. Peter Hautzinger. BAI as the supervisory body of APDC<br />

provided the National Project Director (NPD), Dr. Davinio Catbagan (<strong>for</strong>merly Dr.<br />

Jose Q. Molina), and APDC provided the National Project Coordinator (NPC)<br />

through its acting Center Chief, Ms. Josefina A. Contreras. The satellite centers<br />

appointed their respective NPDs, National Project Counterparts and Project<br />

Assistants.<br />

Technically, the CTA, NPC, the unit heads of slaughtering, meat processing, and<br />

quality control, together with the support administrative staff composed the Project<br />

Implementation Team (PIT) at the main center.. It provided the management to<br />

implement the project.<br />

16


IV. Analysis of Project Objectives<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Importance of the Problems Addressed <strong>for</strong> the Commodity and the<br />

Beneficiaries<br />

The present evaluation shows that the problems originally addressed by the project<br />

are still of utmost relevance <strong>for</strong> the project beneficiaries. Three years after project<br />

application, the general problems in the meat sector in Asia stated in the project<br />

proposal that were to be addressed by APMP are still existent during the present<br />

evaluation. However, the project with its limited timeframe and financial resources<br />

has accomplished a lot and made a significant contribution to the development of<br />

the sector. Many training programs on appropriate slaughter and meat processing<br />

technologies were conducted, always with special emphasis on hygiene and<br />

sanitation practices. A very practical pilot integrated waste management system <strong>for</strong><br />

small and medium slaughterhouses was developed and introduced at APDC and is<br />

utilized <strong>for</strong> specialized training and demonstrations. A total solution to all<br />

problems mentioned in the project document would need much more than the<br />

project life (three years) and require a joint ef<strong>for</strong>t of all stakeholders involved in<br />

the meat sector. It is a long process and the project has surely stimulated a change.<br />

The primary problem addressed in APMP--the unsatisfactory premises and<br />

technologies <strong>for</strong> slaughtering, meat cutting, and further processing of meat--has<br />

become even more important today than three years ago. The survey findings<br />

showed that 140 (82%) out of 170 meat vendors, were engaged in meat processing<br />

business, producing “longganisa, tocino”, meatballs, “tapa”, burger and corned<br />

beef. These meat vendors/processors have been engaged in meat vending and<br />

processing business, from one to more than 16 years. However, they make use of<br />

their stalls as their processing place, while others bring their leftover meat at home<br />

where they do the processing. The practice of producing the processed meat<br />

products in the market area was very unhygienic and this would require giving<br />

more attention to prevent cross-contamination of their processed products<br />

Thus, these meat vendors/processors wanted to improve or upgrade their products,<br />

extending storage life and avoiding spoilage and losses. An outreach service<br />

program was identified <strong>for</strong> these people. No pro-active plan of outreach training,<br />

however, was part of the original project document to address the needs of the<br />

micro meat vendors and meat processors in the wet market. However, a series of 3day<br />

regional outreach meat processing training courses were conducted in Regions<br />

2 (Tuguegarao City), 7 (Dumaguete City) and 11 (Davao City) in October,<br />

November and December 2006, respectively as penultimate activities in the phaseout<br />

of the project. The venues were determined through the three regional winners<br />

in the APMP-sponsored Competence Building Challenge Contest, which was<br />

participated in by the 13 regional coordinators attending the 10th Consultative<br />

meeting last 30-31 August 2006 at APDC.<br />

The primary problem of unsatisfactory premises and technologies, meat cutting,<br />

and further processing of meat was correctly identified. However, the related<br />

problems of lack of trained personnel in all fields in the meat sector and the<br />

environmental problems caused by meat plants, particularly abattoirs, are partly<br />

17


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

addressed. The training beneficiaries covered by the centers are still limited to<br />

create an appreciable impact to the processed meat industry.<br />

The project has just created a new image <strong>for</strong> the four (4) training centers of the<br />

regional network. APDC, in particular has conducted training courses that already<br />

surpassed the project target, just simply responding to the increasing demand of<br />

clientele (<strong>Annex</strong> I). However, the impact of training centers to the beneficiaries of<br />

the meat industry can be more evident after few years of the project.<br />

Relevance to Poverty Alleviation and to National / International / Regional<br />

Development Strategy(ies)<br />

APMP is a technical assistance project directly related to poverty alleviation in the<br />

Philippines, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Samoa.<br />

The contribution of APMP technologies in meat processing will be the provision of<br />

low-cost quality source of protein <strong>for</strong> the low-income population groups in both<br />

urban and rural areas. This means an increased utilization of safe and quality<br />

processed meat products (hotdogs, hamburgers, sausages, meat loaf, ham, etc.) in<br />

which meat materials from pigs, chicken, cattle, goats, and water buffalo are used<br />

and processed. This will have the consequential effect of alleviating poverty and<br />

meeting the nutritional requirements of this sector.<br />

The project has application to the majority of persons participating in the valueadded<br />

chain through meat processing, including meat vendors as well as micro-,<br />

small and medium meat processors, as well as the workers in processed meat<br />

trade/meat processing industry and other related sectors. However, the exact<br />

figures on the number of people active in the value-added chain of processed meats<br />

are not available. The sample survey in the Philippines of 128 respondententerprises<br />

showed that the respondents are employing a total of 4,166 workers<br />

involved in the meat industry (DTI-NIMTC, 2005).<br />

The continuing training program and capability building component of APMP on<br />

meat technologies can raise the competency level and improve the technical<br />

knowledge and skills of trainee-beneficiaries. The important effect is employment<br />

generation, either locally or abroad; putting up meat stalls <strong>for</strong> business or getting<br />

promotion and the consequent income multiplier effect to share with their families.<br />

This is expected from the stimulation of domestic economic activities. Some<br />

trainees even managed to get jobs overseas. POEA (2006) reported that 64 of the<br />

trainees who attended the training on slaughtering techniques <strong>for</strong> pigs/cattle are<br />

now deployed in Australia. Each additional work place, by experience, can<br />

generate an income to support an average family size of 5-8 members.<br />

Suitability of the Means to Address the Problems<br />

(1) The use of locally fabricated meat processing equipment in upgrading the four<br />

(4) training centers is a suitable means to address limited cost and to enhance<br />

local capability. The project hoped that the local meat equipment fabricators<br />

who were exposed to this capacity building challenge could appreciate the<br />

standard requirements, per<strong>for</strong>mance and quality expectations generated from<br />

18


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

the project. This will encourage the fabricators to supply cheap, locally<br />

fabricated, but appropriate and efficient equipment <strong>for</strong> the meat industry.<br />

(2) The conduct of the International training courses (Technical Cooperation<br />

Program) on meat processing technology in the project was off-timed. The<br />

funding came when the APDC was not yet ready and the project was in the preoperational<br />

stage. The FAO TCP regional training courses, however, was<br />

strategically started as an early preparation <strong>for</strong> capacity building/training of the<br />

project staff involved in the four centers and <strong>for</strong> other international participants<br />

in Asia Pacific countries.<br />

(3) Regular and specialized training modules on slaughter techniques, meat<br />

cutting, meat processing, quality control, and waste management <strong>for</strong> Philippine<br />

conditions were conducted to address appropriately the needs of clientele in the<br />

meat industry.<br />

(4) In<strong>for</strong>mation campaigns through workshops, publications, audio-materials, and<br />

the project website were done; with the latter, however, lacking regular<br />

updating.<br />

(5) An integrated waste management system <strong>for</strong> small-scale slaughterhouses, using<br />

a suitable waste minimization approach and the “Decentralized Wastewater<br />

Treatment System (DEWATS) Technology” was developed in 2006. Its<br />

application <strong>for</strong> small and medium scale processors in the meat industry needs<br />

further promotion.<br />

19


V. Implementation Analysis<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

The implementation of the project was documented in the inception mission report,<br />

one interim report (first 3 months), three progress reports (every first 6 months of<br />

the year), two annual reports (2004 and 2005), a mid-term mission report<br />

(December 2005) and four training reports. The project completion report is still<br />

under preparation <strong>for</strong> submission by the end of 2006. Additional secondary<br />

in<strong>for</strong>mation was available from the minutes of meetings of the Project<br />

Implementation Team. The key in<strong>for</strong>mant interview (KII) of the CTA, Mr. Peter<br />

Hautzinger is shown in <strong>Annex</strong> J. Likewise, the KIIs of the NPD, NPC, PIT<br />

assistants, selected APDC staff, and some <strong>for</strong>mer TCP and regular training<br />

participants are summarized in <strong>Annex</strong> K. The KIIs were conducted to validate<br />

some findings and generate detailed in<strong>for</strong>mation on the implementation of the<br />

various project components’ activities.<br />

Management of the Project and its Activities, including Work Plan<br />

(1) The Project Executing Agency of APMP was entrusted to the Asia Office of<br />

the United Nations Office <strong>for</strong> Project Services (UNOPS), with FAO<br />

Intergovernmental Group on Meat (IGM) given the supervisory responsibilities<br />

and AGAP/FAO serving as the technical advisory and support services. The<br />

implementation arrangement, which was clear and simple, turned out difficult<br />

and complicated with UNOPS <strong>for</strong>ced to operate through UNDP offices and<br />

with lack of technical expertise in the execution of the APMP as a technical R<br />

& D project.<br />

(2) The internal transition phase of UNOPS, where portfolio managers kept<br />

changing and their moving of offices from Malaysia to Thailand caused further<br />

delays. Project fund release was problematic, which caused delay<br />

implementation of work plan activities scheduled <strong>for</strong> the first year. The<br />

satellite centers should have been developed as early as the first or second year<br />

as planned, but was only completed towards the third year. The problem could<br />

be attributed to the UNOPS’s lack of technical appreciation of the APMP or<br />

caused by an over-burdened organization, too busy attending to simultaneous<br />

calamity/emergency projects (tsunami crisis, Afghanistan crisis, etc.). This is<br />

reflected in the absence of PEA’s officer in the first technical and<br />

administrative mission of the CTA and FAO official in March 2004 to the<br />

satellite centers in Myanmar, Bangladesh and Samoa. This was repeated in<br />

succeeding missions of the CTA in 2005 be<strong>for</strong>e the completion of the centers.<br />

(3) Technical report submission and fund replenishment followed a circuitous<br />

process. Reports would emanate from the countries NPC and NPDs, and NTCs.<br />

CTA would review and integrate the report. A copy would be <strong>for</strong>warded to<br />

AGAP/FAO <strong>for</strong> technical clearance be<strong>for</strong>e transmittal to UNOPS (PEA). Final<br />

copy of the report would be submitted to CFC, with copy furnished the SB<br />

(FAO/IGM). The UNOPS action would wait on AGAP/FAO technical<br />

clearance. On the other hand, project funds would be released from CFC<br />

through UNOPS request and these would be transferred to UNDP and then, to<br />

20


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

the project account/depository bank of the project. The process flow caused a<br />

lot of delay in the delivery of project fund and outputs.<br />

(4) The regional training activities were not implemented as planned because of<br />

time constraints. The FAO made available a TCP fund, intended as a facility<br />

<strong>for</strong> rapid and urgent responses in emergency situations within the biennial<br />

period (2002-2003). However, the project had not <strong>for</strong>mally started and all<br />

training activities should have been done when all the centers’ facilities are<br />

operational. In spite of these constraints, two of the five originally proposed<br />

TCP regional training courses were implemented, when the APDC, the main<br />

center, was not yet fully renovated as a regional training center. Another TCP<br />

training was held after project start up in the renovated APDC facilities in<br />

2003. The funding period had ended, but AGAP/FAO assured the Inception<br />

team that one additional training course would be granted. Only four TCP<br />

regional training courses were approved by FAO, instead of the original five<br />

TCP regional training proposal. The target of 100 regional participants was<br />

reduced to 72 participants from 19 countries.<br />

(5) Project work plans were established and milestones of accomplishments were<br />

defined. During the project execution, all the required reports were prepared<br />

containing almost all-important in<strong>for</strong>mation. They allowed the facilitation of<br />

the project during the various stages of execution.<br />

(6) The project component on meat product development and market research was<br />

likewise redesigned due to budgetary constraints. The original project<br />

component proposal listed 11 activities. However, the implemented component<br />

had retained only four (4) activities.<br />

(7) The management <strong>for</strong>mation of the Project Implementation Team to implement<br />

the project component activities at the main center has contributed to improved<br />

operational efficiency. This was considered to be an excellent strategic<br />

decision.<br />

(8) The technical and administrative missions of the CTA and FAO technical<br />

officer, together with the APDC technical staff visit serving as trainer, had<br />

strengthened and facilitated the establishment of the satellite centers (in terms<br />

of the building facilities, equipment procurement and installation and the<br />

capability building/training of staff).<br />

Timeliness of Implementation, Achieving Milestones<br />

(1) The project encountered considerable delay during start up caused by extended<br />

project contract negotiation completion with the PIAs. CFC approved the<br />

project in 2000, while the project management structure was defined in January<br />

2003. The APMP started operations in October 2003 with a project life span of<br />

36 months ending in September 2006. The project was however extended until<br />

December 2006.<br />

(2) The FAO TCP training fund was available as early as November 2002 (much<br />

earlier than the start up of APMP itself). Four TCP training courses were<br />

21


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

conducted, instead of the original plan of holding five proposed TCP training<br />

courses spread over three years.<br />

(3) The project has achieved most of the targets and the centers have attracted a lot<br />

of attention and interests from the stakeholders, particularly the main center,<br />

APDC, which has created a new image as the only regional training center on<br />

meat processing technology in Asia Pacific located in the Philippines.<br />

Factors Favorable and/or Detrimental to Project Implementation<br />

Favorable Factors<br />

(1) The smooth working relationship between NPD, NPC, PIT, CTA and technical<br />

staff at all centers brought APDC, LBVD, BLRI, and APHD together as a<br />

network. The functioning network has improved capacities <strong>for</strong> training and<br />

other technical services to the meat processing industry in Asia Pacific region.<br />

(2) The full support and commitment of government agencies: BAI, Philippines;<br />

BLRI, Bangladesh; the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, Myanmar; and the<br />

Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Fisheries and Meteorology, Samoa in<br />

providing counterpart funds, in kind and cash had contributed to the<br />

improvement of centers’ facilities needed in the successful execution of the<br />

project..<br />

(3) The change in implementation policy by the PEA, where fund advance and<br />

reconciliation/reporting was changed from 3-months periods to 6-months<br />

periods had eased up the project workload and was popularly appreciated by all<br />

technical people involved.<br />

(4) The multi-funding support from international development-oriented agencies:<br />

CFC, FAO, GTZ/CIM, and HSI had contributed highly to the successful<br />

completion of the various components of the project<br />

(5) The technical advisory and support services of AGAP, the experience of the<br />

CTA, the active participation of the Project SB and the committed involvement<br />

of the PIT ensured the smooth implementation of project component activities.<br />

(6) The training capacity, enthusiasm, and dedication to work of project staff had<br />

contributed greatly to the development of the training center network on meat<br />

processing technology in Asia-Pacific region.(7)The <strong>for</strong>mation of the Project<br />

Implementation Team (composed of the CTA, NPC and APDC unit heads) to<br />

locally manage the project operation over three years had greatly contributed to<br />

its success as it encouraged teamwork and team spirit.<br />

Detrimental Factors<br />

(1) Budget constraints in project implementation. The depreciation of the local<br />

currency had impacted on the increased costs of equipment.<br />

22


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

(2) The initial PEA policy that imposed submission of quarterly technical and<br />

financial accounting reports had negative effect to the PIT on the smooth<br />

implementation of project component activities and could be labeled as micromanagement.<br />

While tight control in monitoring project execution has certain<br />

advantages, the nature of this project with outreach network of satellite centers<br />

in Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Samoa would not be practical and fair to the<br />

PIT.<br />

(3) The postponement of the loan component issue (USD100,000) <strong>for</strong> micro-credit<br />

assistance (PIT meeting # 06, 19 December 2003) and re-addressing it during<br />

the project mid-term review in December 2005 was not <strong>for</strong> the best interest of<br />

the project, despite considerable ef<strong>for</strong>ts spent initially.<br />

(4) The policy of government to require all government departments and all their<br />

attached agencies to turnover all revenues and related income to the National<br />

Treasury was counter-productive to APDC’s sustainability and could affect the<br />

attainment of objectives.<br />

(5) The impending reorganization of government bureaucracy at the Department of<br />

Agriculture, including its attached agencies/centers could demoralize the staff.<br />

Appropriateness of Adjustments made during Implementation<br />

The decision of the PIT during the Inception and mid-term missions meetings to<br />

re-allocate the budget to support the establishment of the satellite centers was<br />

highly appropriate. This was not included in the original proposal, but strongly<br />

recommended by the CTA to strengthen the inputs from the satellite centers,<br />

(1) Modifying the meat product development thrust (due to time limitations, lack<br />

of testing equipment and budgetary constraints) to re-focus more its strategy in<br />

making use of this, as a tool in capacity building/training was an appropriate<br />

adjustment due to budgetary constraints. It was <strong>for</strong> inculcating the systematic<br />

procedure, the methodology of sampling, monitoring processes, and quality<br />

control of meat product <strong>for</strong>mulation.<br />

(2) Cutting short the market survey study after the initial baseline data gathering at<br />

the wet/public markets was justified due to budgetary constraints. Nationwide<br />

survey of supermarkets and meat stalls through the preset questionnaires,<br />

which could be accomplished by DA Regional Extension Coordinators on meat<br />

processing, and <strong>for</strong>mer TCP trainees would require more project fund.<br />

(4) (3) The conduct of the TCP regional training courses ahead of schedule be<strong>for</strong>e<br />

<strong>for</strong>mal project start-up was not ideal, but shortcomings (lack of facilities and<br />

equipment, ongoing rehabilitation works, etc) were presented and discussed<br />

openly with training participants, thus giving them a real-life experience on<br />

how to improve facilities and operations. This can now be seen as strategic in<br />

capacity building of the four centers technical staff.The capacity building of<br />

satellite centers staff through frequent exchange, visit and special training at<br />

APDC main center and participation in IFFA study tour on high tech meat<br />

23


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

processing equipment in Germany was vital in the building of the centers’<br />

network, which was not part of the original proposal.<br />

Realization of Co-Financing and Counterpart Commitments<br />

(1) The CFC project was <strong>for</strong>mulated as multi-donor funded project with CFC as<br />

the major donor, providing the bulk of the project budget <strong>for</strong> the rehabilitation<br />

of facilities, procurement of equipment and tools and support to project<br />

operation. The sharing of financial resources to bring the donors together in a<br />

big project was an advantage. Although each agency had its own purpose,<br />

views and ideas, as long as they complement each other with one and common<br />

goal, the arrangement would work well and succeed. The coordination<br />

requirement was a good challenge and it offered opportunities to achieve<br />

something above par.<br />

(2) The governments of the Philippines, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Samoa had<br />

contributed counterpart funds to support the establishment and operation of the<br />

network of training centers in Asia Pacific region.<br />

(3) The CFC loan fund was never used due to lack of identified conduit institution<br />

willing to manage the USD100,000 fund <strong>for</strong> micro-lending operation with<br />

small meat processors or food equipment fabricators.<br />

Adherence to Budgets<br />

No important deviations from the approved budget occurred. The PIT and the PEA<br />

took note of any necessary internal realignment of itemized expenditures and<br />

approved them during the inception and midterm missions and workshops. The<br />

project has not only saved fund from the purchase of locally fabricated meat<br />

processing equipment from accredited meat equipment fabricators, but also<br />

ensured the sustainability of the use of the equipment due to the availability of<br />

local spare parts <strong>for</strong> replacements. The three-month extension without additional<br />

appropriation was made possible from the unused fund of the project to cover its<br />

remaining activities, mainly the conduct of the final workshop and preparation of<br />

the project completion report.<br />

24


VI. Impact Analysis<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Project Results Against Objectives and Targets<br />

The project was able to achieve most of the overall and the specific objectives:<br />

Objectives Project Results<br />

1. To establish a meat training and<br />

Development Network composed of a<br />

Regional Meat Training and<br />

Development Center which will<br />

support the three (3) satellite centers.<br />

2. To develop and test modified or new<br />

meat products suitable <strong>for</strong> Asian<br />

countries; to include the 10 low cost<br />

meat products earlier developed bv the<br />

regional center, four (4) shelf-stable<br />

meat products from other Asian<br />

countries and a minimum of four (4)<br />

new low-cost/shelf-stable meat<br />

products.<br />

3. To augment the capability of the<br />

regional training center <strong>for</strong> manpower<br />

training in meat processing and<br />

Commercialization.<br />

4. To train the core staff who will man the<br />

three (3) satellite centers and the<br />

national/regional meat industry<br />

personnel and extension workers.<br />

5. To conduct training <strong>for</strong> local and/or<br />

regional participants.<br />

6. To promote products (i.e. processed<br />

meat products, local equipment, waste<br />

(a) 100% accomplished.<br />

(a) Evaluated 10 products <strong>for</strong><br />

sensory attributes. Need further<br />

modification to meet consumers’<br />

expectations.<br />

(b) Sensory attributes of five meat<br />

products from buffalo meat and beef<br />

were similar.<br />

(c) New meat products: tuna hotdogs<br />

and tuna burgers were tested <strong>for</strong><br />

sensory attributes. One recipe each<br />

passed the test.<br />

(a) Technical staff participated<br />

during in-house training sessions<br />

conducted by CTA; some qualified<br />

staff joined the IFFA study tour in<br />

Germany and some were selected <strong>for</strong><br />

the FAO TCP training courses.<br />

(b) Implemented exchange visit of<br />

technical staff between APDC and<br />

satellite centers.<br />

(a) Trained 72 TCP regional<br />

participants from 19 countries.<br />

(b) Conducted regular training<br />

courses <strong>for</strong> 53 batches with 649 local<br />

participants. Accomplishment rate is<br />

139%.<br />

(a) Promoted locally fabricated meat<br />

equipment after testing <strong>for</strong> small<br />

25


treatment facilities) through various<br />

communication and delivery systems<br />

and enhance the capacity of the private<br />

sector in commercializing the meat<br />

products and meat processing<br />

equipment.<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Economic (and Social) Importance of Project Results<br />

meat processors.<br />

(b) Conducted seminars, lecture<br />

demonstrations and plant tours to<br />

about 4,000 visitors.<br />

(c) Piloted DEWATS technology at<br />

APDC.<br />

The project results will have the following socio-economic importance:<br />

(1) The outputs of the project will help stimulate the growth and development of<br />

the livestock industry through increase demand <strong>for</strong> and consumption of<br />

processed meat. The cumulative benefits generated from the project in terms of<br />

contributing to increase market demand <strong>for</strong> processed products could<br />

encourage livestock raisers to improve production. The demand <strong>for</strong> processed<br />

foods, including processed meat products had increased at a much faster rate<br />

with the population growth and fast-paced lifestyle (PAMPI, 2000).<br />

(2) Increased awareness and interest of small- and medium-scale meat processing<br />

entrepreneurs based in the provinces in adopting the project’s meat processing<br />

technology and plant design and locally fabricated equipment to expand their<br />

plant capacities and meet industry demand. This awareness of APDC is made<br />

possible though the <strong>for</strong>mer participants of TCP regional training and the<br />

numerous regular training courses offered at APDC.<br />

(3) Improved competence and skills of workers and OFWs on humane<br />

slaughtering, meat cutting or meat processing increase opportunity <strong>for</strong> job<br />

placement as butcher or meat inspector (Australia), position promotion or<br />

business venture (meat vendor/processor).<br />

(4) The ef<strong>for</strong>ts of the project to promote meat product <strong>for</strong>mulation that are<br />

af<strong>for</strong>dable, wholesome, nutritious, and shelf-stable could result in contributing<br />

better nutrition and quality of life to the people.<br />

(5) The project will also stimulate the increase in demand <strong>for</strong> cheap and locally<br />

fabricated, but appropriate and efficient equipment. The improvement of the<br />

meat processing industry will have a significant spill-over influence that will<br />

lead to the development of this domestic sector. Replacing imported equipment<br />

with locally available fabricated ones at lower cost will ultimately result in the<br />

lowering of the production cost and the market price of meat products.<br />

Impact on Other Factors (if any), Such as Environment<br />

(1) The project has promoted the maintenance of favorable and stable environment<br />

in slaughterhouses and meat processing plants. As a component, the project<br />

conducted:<br />

26


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

• An evaluation of present waste handling and disposal practices <strong>for</strong> solid<br />

and liquid wastes;<br />

• The collection, handling and characterization of present slaughterhouse<br />

waste stream;<br />

• The development of an integrated waste management scheme based on<br />

the findings and the construction of the Decentralized Wastewater<br />

Treatment Systems (DEWATS); and<br />

• The evaluation of the developed integrated waste management scheme<br />

through the characterization of waste streams.<br />

(2) Waste management was a key lecture topic in the entire regular training<br />

courses offered at the main regional training center (APDC).<br />

(3) The LEAD-AGA/FAO-funded pilot integrated waste management scheme, in<br />

combination with the GTZ-funded biogas digester and the BORDA-BNS<br />

designed wastewater treatment facilities (DEWATS technology), with waste<br />

separation and collection station, resulted in minimization and trans<strong>for</strong>mation<br />

of liquid and solid wastes. The integrated systems could lower effectively the<br />

biological oxygen demand (BOD)/pollution load to meet national standards <strong>for</strong><br />

wastewater generated in the slaughterhouse and the meat processing plant.<br />

(4) The pilot waste management scheme at APDC was recently inaugurated<br />

(September 2006). This served as a showcase on a national and regional level.<br />

The potential impact of this system on the environment would be great. This<br />

will not only be in the daily operation of APDC complex. But, it will also be on<br />

its indirect influence to the numerous training participants, visitors and guests<br />

who tour the facilities; to those who attend the lectures and seminars on waste<br />

management and to other concerned stakeholders. Their appreciation of this<br />

model hopefully could materialize in the near future the replication of this<br />

system in the meat industry <strong>for</strong> the sake of the environment.<br />

Reaching the Direct and Indirect Beneficiaries, Including the<br />

Effectiveness of Dissemination of Project Results<br />

The beneficiaries were reached through:<br />

(1) The TCP regional training courses offered.<br />

(2) The various training courses offered on slaughtering techniques <strong>for</strong> pigs/cattle,<br />

meat cutting, meat retailing, meat processing and utilization of frog skin as<br />

source of leather.<br />

(3) Lecture-demonstrations, plant tours and technical assistance served.<br />

(4) Linkage with meat companies in the use of APDC slaughtering facilities and<br />

meat processing plant.<br />

27


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

(5) Exhibitions where meat product presentation/display and tasting were held in<br />

public areas (BAI, DA), creating public awareness on processed meat products<br />

and their general acceptability.<br />

Sustainability and Replicability of Project Results<br />

The entire project had achieved the following sustainable project results with direct<br />

impact on the small- and medium-scale meat processors in Asia Pacific region.<br />

(1) The project had elevated the image of APDC as a regional center <strong>for</strong> training<br />

and other technical services in the Asia Pacific region. The refurbishing and<br />

upgrading of facilities and equipment, the development of training modules and<br />

manuals, the organization of well-trained, experienced and capable staff, and<br />

the various training courses conducted, together with other technical services<br />

rendered, have made the center the number one partner of the meat industry.<br />

The center is now capable of expanding its services to serve the increasing<br />

demand of stakeholders in the industry. The training fees generated from<br />

training programs are now deposited in a special trust fund to pay <strong>for</strong> the<br />

center’s training activities.<br />

(2) The project also had established three (3) satellite-training centers in<br />

Bangladesh, Myanmar and Samoa. Through the project, the centers’ facilities<br />

and equipment were refurbished and upgraded; training programs and manuals<br />

were developed and well-trained, experienced and capable staffs were<br />

organized with the support of the main center. The satellite centers have just<br />

started this year their in-house training and other technical services. They now<br />

have contacts with the local meat processing entrepreneurs and other<br />

stakeholder <strong>for</strong> linkages in the industry. The service activities in these centers<br />

have increased, reflecting their potential sustainability as a training network in<br />

the region.<br />

(3) The project’s use of tested and certified locally fabricated meat processing<br />

equipment at af<strong>for</strong>dable cost is another sustainable contribution to the center<br />

network. The recommended equipment is locally sourced and can be adjusted<br />

to specifications. In cases of repair, the spare parts are locally available and<br />

very af<strong>for</strong>dable.<br />

(4) The project has established a functioning training centers’ network, serving<br />

effectively now the small and medium meat processors in countries of the Asia<br />

Pacific region. It has a project website, some printout materials (handouts and<br />

flyers) <strong>for</strong> distribution and sponsored seminars and workshops. The<br />

communication network of the four (4) centers is open and continuing.<br />

Administrative aspects, training and other services, work planning, and other<br />

operations are well coordinated through the network. <strong>Fund</strong>ing support <strong>for</strong> a<br />

phase 2 will be required <strong>for</strong> an aggressive regional training program of the<br />

network in Asia Pacific.<br />

28


VII. Lessons Learnt<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

(1) The selection of the Project Executing Agency UNOPS was a crucial decision,<br />

which had created some inefficiency in the implementation of APMP. This<br />

could be accounted <strong>for</strong> by UNOPS’ lack of technical experience/expertise to<br />

understand and appreciate the technical requirements of APMP. Likewise,<br />

UNOPS had no representatives in the four (4) countries where the project<br />

operates. It had to operate and channel fund through UNDP offices, thus<br />

causing interference and delays..<br />

(2) The initially requested reporting period of 3-months resulted in far too many<br />

technical and financial reports and presented an unnecessary burden <strong>for</strong><br />

technical staff at the main and satellite centers. Often in<strong>for</strong>mation could not be<br />

obtained in time from the satellite centers, causing delays in submission of<br />

reports and new releases of urgently needed funds. It was later agreed that only<br />

two reports should be prepared (semi-annual progress report and annual<br />

progress report), but still reports came in late. Substantial progress was only<br />

made when the CTA agreed in May 2005 to coordinate the technical and<br />

financial reporting.<br />

(3) APMP with its multi-funding support has shown that different donor agencies<br />

can work together successfully by sharing the overall project budget<br />

complemented with counterpart government funds and contributions in kind<br />

and accomplish their common goal. In this project, complementation had<br />

worked with CFC, FAO/TCP, FAO/AGAL, GTZ/CIM, HSI and the<br />

governments of the Philippines, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Samoa.<br />

(4) The CFC loan fund, (earmarked <strong>for</strong> USD100,000), was an intrinsic component<br />

of the project (Activity 07 of project component 03), which would have an<br />

important impact on its overall success. It was envisaged to have encouraged<br />

utilization of small meat processing in the region. During the inception<br />

meeting, the loan was approved to support three components under this project:<br />

(i) Local equipment (USD50,000); (ii) Biogas (USD20,000) and (iii) Credit <strong>for</strong><br />

potential small-scale meat processing entrepreneurs (USD 30,000). The PIT<br />

had exerted a lot of ef<strong>for</strong>ts to put the fund to good use, but it approached the<br />

wrong conduit windows (government financial institutions- Quedancor and<br />

Land Bank of the Philippines), with a wrong premise (i.e. “being the only<br />

authorized banks to handle loans of this nature”). Other development agencies<br />

offered were also not interested (i.e. GTZ, DED and INWENT). The inability<br />

of PIT to link the fund to a lending institution, aggravated by the decision to<br />

postpone the loan issue by setting aside the project component activity <strong>for</strong> two<br />

years (2004-2005) had reduced the time opportunity <strong>for</strong> its successful<br />

implementation. The PIT should have looked at the Micro-Finance Council of<br />

the Philippines or the Philippine Council <strong>for</strong> NGO Certification <strong>for</strong> a list of<br />

accredited micro-finance organizations that were successful in implementing<br />

the micro-credit program in the country. A short-listing of these NGOs, would<br />

possibly result in “Punla” Foundation, “Ahon sa Hirap”, Inc.; “Tulay sa Pag-<br />

Unlad, Inc.; “Kaalalay” Foundation; and CARD-MRI. Selection could be based<br />

on existing capitalization, counterparting arrangement, membership coverage,<br />

29


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

area of operation and those that have members involved in meat vending, meat<br />

processing and fabrications of local equipment <strong>for</strong> the meat industry, preferably<br />

operating in National Capital Region and/or the CALABARZON region.<br />

30


VIII. Recommendations<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

The recommendations are categorized into two major aspects:<br />

On the technical aspects:<br />

(1) Phase II is highly recommended to continue the Asia Pacific Meat Project<br />

Training Network operation at the main center (APDC in the Philippines) and<br />

the three (3)satellite centers (BLRI in Bangladesh; LBVD in Myanmar and<br />

APHD in Samoa). The network operation of these centers have just begun this<br />

year in providing in-house and outreach training and other technical services to<br />

small and medium meat processors in Asia Pacific region. The centers have<br />

upgraded infrastructure facilities and equipment, developed training courses;<br />

and competent technical staff <strong>for</strong> skills development and practical knowledge<br />

dissemination, product diversification, promotion of appropriate technology,<br />

and overall capacity building in the meat processing industry. Further<br />

strengthening of the newly established network requires continuing fund<br />

support <strong>for</strong> the regional training network to operate in the concerned four<br />

countries.. Simultaneous FAO-funded TCP programs could be granted to these<br />

four (4) countries to continue their collaboration in the network <strong>for</strong> training<br />

courses in humane slaughtering, meat cutting, meat processing and by-product<br />

utilization <strong>for</strong> leather, involving the trainers from the four (4) centers and<br />

participants from Asia Pacific region. Hence, the sustainability of APMP<br />

network would be secured.<br />

(2) The re-programming of the CFC loan fund of USD100,000 or more is also<br />

recommended <strong>for</strong> APDC’s continuing activities. This would allow an NGO<br />

accredited micro-finance organization on a counter-parting arrangement to<br />

handle the micro lending to members engaged in meat vending, processing, or<br />

fabrication of local equipment. APDC could screen the qualified NGOs, assist<br />

in training to certify the members qualified as pre-condition to loan release,<br />

assist in setting loan mechanics and guidelines, and monitor loan<br />

implementation of NGOs. The NGOs would implement the fund micro-credit<br />

program, by processing and approving the loan application of qualified<br />

members in identified project area, and promote the meat processing<br />

technology to the members.<br />

(3) TCP regional training should be organized in the network of training centers<br />

with well-equipped facilities and highly trained and experienced technical staff<br />

<strong>for</strong> maximum results.<br />

(4) The training centers focus on meat product development should undergo<br />

paradigm shift. Formulating and developing new meat products of low cost <strong>for</strong><br />

the market would be no longer tenable considering the market was already<br />

flooded with low cost meat products. However, the centers could use the<br />

technology to develop and train small meat processors on the systematic<br />

procedure of product development using available standard and low cost<br />

products.<br />

31


On management and administrative aspects:<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

(1) Two basic criteria should be carefully considered in identifying and selecting<br />

the Project Executing Agency. The project-executing agency should be<br />

technically experienced on the project to be implemented and it should be well<br />

represented in all countries where the project would be executed, like the other<br />

CFC-funded commodity projects (sugar cane and coco-wood) implemented in<br />

the Philippines.<br />

(2) Technical and financial account reports, as well as the fund transfer/<br />

replenishment should be done on annual basis, with short semi-annual progress<br />

reporting <strong>for</strong> projects similar to this nature. This would give more time <strong>for</strong> the<br />

project implementation team to work and coordinate project activities in the<br />

outreach training centers, rather than spending more time preparing reports.<br />

Quarterly reporting should be avoided.<br />

(3) The PIT should submit the required technical and financial accounting reports<br />

on time by giving enough time-allowance to avoid delays in fund<br />

replenishment and transfer to the project depository account. Likewise, the<br />

PEA should request promptly <strong>for</strong> the release of fund from CFC without<br />

unnecessary delay to meet the funding requirements of the project work plan<br />

scheduled <strong>for</strong> the period,<br />

(4) The management of the centers should secure further donor inputs in a timely<br />

fashion <strong>for</strong> projects with multi-funding support, following the work plan of<br />

project implementation. Likewise, donor agencies should not get involved<br />

directly with day-to-day operations of the project. They should maintain their<br />

role in the proper way.<br />

32


IX. Pictorial Presentation<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Main Center (APDC) Building and Structures<br />

Project Office Facilities<br />

Lecture Demonstration Area Lecture Area<br />

33


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Meat Processing Facilities with Technical Staff Preparing Some Processed Products<br />

Longganisa Production<br />

34


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Floor Drainage MPU Canning Equipment & Weighing Scale<br />

Quality Control Facilities<br />

Meat Processing Equipment<br />

35


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Pig Slaughter Line<br />

Pig Scalding Facility<br />

Trimming and Dispatching of Whole Pig Carcasses<br />

36


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Hoisting Cattle<br />

Cattle Cutting Equipment<br />

37


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Technical Assistance to Private Companies (Source: APDC)<br />

38


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Buffalo Meat Product Development <strong>for</strong> Phil. Carabao Center (Source: APDC)<br />

39


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Testing of Locally Fabricated Equipment (Source: APDC)<br />

40


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Equipment <strong>for</strong> Distribution to Bangladesh, Myanmar and Samoa<br />

(Source: APDC)<br />

41


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

APMP Market Survey (Source: APDC)<br />

42


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

TCP Regional Training on Meat Processing Technology (Source: APDC)<br />

43


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

TCP Training on Meat Products Presentation (Source: APDC)<br />

44


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

National Meat Processing Contests (Source: APDC)<br />

45


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Waste Management Facilities (Source: APDC)<br />

46


References<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Animal Products Development Center - BAI. 2003. Annual Accomplishment Report<br />

December 16, 2002 – December 15, 2003. Marulas, Valenzuela City.<br />

Animal Products Development Center - BAI. 2004a. Annual Accomplishment Report.<br />

December 16, 2003 – December 15, 2004. Marulas, Valenzuela City.<br />

Animal Products Development Center - BAI. 2004b. Meat Commodity Diversification and<br />

Upgrading of Meat Processing Technologies in Asia-Pacific (RASOZR72). Annual<br />

Progress Report (Main Center). January – December 2004. APDC, Marulas,<br />

Valenzuela City.<br />

Animal Products Development Center - BAI. 2005. Annual Accomplishment Report.<br />

December 16, 2004 – December 15, 2005. Marulas, Valenzuela City.<br />

APDC-BAI. 1999. Meat Commodity Diversification and Upgrading of Meat processing<br />

Technologies in Asia-Pacific: A Proposal.<br />

APDC - BAI. 2002. Annual Report. December 16, 2001 – December 15, 2002. Marulas,<br />

Valenzuela City.<br />

APDC-BAI. 2003. Progress Report (First Quarter). Meat Commodity Diversification and<br />

Upgrading of Meat Processing Technologies in Asia-Pacific (RAS/02/R72).<br />

October – December 2003. APDC. Marulas, Valenzuela City.<br />

APDC-BAI. 2003 – 2004. List of Participants to Regional Training in Meat Processing<br />

Technology. TCP/RAS 0172 and TCP/RAS 2910 (T). APDC, Marulas, Valenzuela<br />

City, Philippines.<br />

APDC-APMP. 2004. Philippine Meat Industry Sector Market Research. Wet Market<br />

Level. Marulas, Velenzuela City.<br />

APDC-BAI. 2004 (August). Progress Report. Meat Commodity Diversification and<br />

Upgrading of Meat Processing Technologies in Asia-Pacific. APDC-APMP.<br />

January – June, 2004, Marulas, Valenzuela City.<br />

APDC-BAI. 2004. Meat Retailing Certificate Course: Level I. July 29 – November 11,<br />

2004. Sponsored by Cattle Feedlot Association of the Philippines (CFAP), Meat<br />

and Livestock Australia (MLA), Live Corp and APDC-APMP. Marulas,<br />

Valenzuela City (15 sessions; 4 Hrs/session).<br />

APDC-BAI. 2004 – 2005. Meat Retailing Certificate Course: Level II. November 18 –<br />

February 24, 2005.. Sponsored by CFAP, MLA, Live Corp and APDC-APMP.,<br />

Marulas, Valenzuela City (10 sessions; 3.5 Hrs/session).<br />

APDB– BAI. 2005a. Annual Report Meat Commodity Diversification and Upgrading of<br />

Meat Processing Technologies in Asia-Pacific (RAS02R72). February 2005.<br />

APDC, Marulas, Valenzuela City.<br />

47


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

APDC-BAI. 2005b. Establishment of an Integrated Waste Management Scheme <strong>for</strong> Small<br />

and Medium Scale Slaughterhouses at APDC <strong>for</strong> Technology Promotion and<br />

Research. September 2005. APDC, Marulas, Valenzuela City.<br />

APDC-BAI. 2005c. Progress Report. Meat Commodity Diversification and Upgrading of<br />

Meat Processing Technologies in Asia-Pacific RAS/02/R72). January – June 2005.<br />

APDC. Marulas, Valenzuelas City.<br />

APDC-BAI. 2005d. Meat Retailing Certificate Course: Level III. March 17 – April 18,<br />

2005. Sponsored by CFAP, MLA, Live Corp and APDC-APMP. Marulas,<br />

Valenzuela City (6 sessions; 3.5 Hrs/session).<br />

APDC-BAI. 2006a. Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (DEWATS). APDC,<br />

Marulas, Valenzuela City.<br />

APDC-BAI. 2006b. Pilot Integrated Waste Management Scheme <strong>for</strong> Small and Medium<br />

Scale Slaughterhouses. APDC-BAI, Marulas, Valenzuela City.<br />

APDC-BAI. 2006c. Progress Report. Meat Commodity Diversification and Upgrading of<br />

Meat Processing Technologies in Asia-Pacific (RAS/02/R72). August 2006.<br />

APDC. Marulas, Valenzuela City.<br />

APDC-BAI. 2006d. Recipes. APDC-APMP, BAI, Marulas, Valenzuela. City<br />

APDC-BAI. 2006e. Tenth Consultative Meeting <strong>for</strong> Regional Animal Products and By-<br />

Products Utilization (APBPU) Coordinators. August 30-31, 2006. APDC, Marulas,<br />

Valenzuela City.<br />

BETP 2003. Product Profile: Processed Meat.<br />

Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association (BORDA). 2005. Preliminary<br />

Concept of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems <strong>for</strong> the Bureau of<br />

Animal Industry, Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (DEWATS).<br />

Quezon City, Philippines.<br />

Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. 2005a Cattle Industry Per<strong>for</strong>mance Report, January –<br />

December 2004. Quezon City.<br />

Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. 2005b. Chicken Industry Per<strong>for</strong>mance Report. January –<br />

December 2004. Quezon City.<br />

Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. 2005c. Swine Industry Per<strong>for</strong>mance Report. January –<br />

December 2004. Quezon City.<br />

DAAO No. 23. 2004. Amending Revised Schedule of Fees and Charges <strong>for</strong> the Services<br />

Rendered by the Animal Products Development Center (APDC) of the Bureau of<br />

Animal Industry (BAI). Quezon City, Philippines.<br />

DTI. 2006. Policy Resolutions and Implied Policy Directives (For Industrial HRD and<br />

Related Aspects). Meat Processing Sector. September 2006. Makati City.<br />

48


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Lopez, E.A.; KMP Fortes and M.K.T. Momville. 2005. Utilization of Buffalo Meat from<br />

Philippine-Murrah Crossbred (Phillipine Carabao x Murrah) and Beef from Native-<br />

Brahman (Philippine Native x Brahman) Into High Value Meat Products. APDC-<br />

APMP, Marulas, Valenzuela City.<br />

National Industrial Manpower Training Council (NIMTC)-DTI 2005. Manpower<br />

Situationer on Meat Processing Sub-Sector. DTI. Makati City.<br />

National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB). 2004 Philippine Standard Occupational<br />

Classification.<br />

NMIS 2005. Report of Accreditation, Registration and En<strong>for</strong>cement Division. Quezon<br />

City.<br />

PAMPI. 2000. Supporting The Government’s Food Security Program. Philippine<br />

Association Of MEAT Processors, Inc. Pasig City, Metro Manila<br />

PCC-DA and APDC-BAI. 2006. Buffalo Meat Recipes. Science City of Muñoz, Nueva<br />

Ecija, Philippines 3120.<br />

POEA. 2006. List of Trainees Who Attended the Training on Slaughtering Techniques <strong>for</strong><br />

Pigs / Cattle at APDC, now deployed in Australia (As of 31 March, 2006 per<br />

POEA In<strong>for</strong>mation)<br />

49


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> A. Key In<strong>for</strong>mants and Persons Contacted (September<br />

21 – October 31, 2006)<br />

Persons/Institutions<br />

Date and Time<br />

Contacted and Location<br />

September 21, 2006 (8:00am- � Dr. Davinio Catbagan,<br />

10:00am)<br />

Director, Bureau of Animal<br />

Industry (BAI) Cum National<br />

Project Director<br />

(CFC/FIGM/08)<br />

� Dr. Victor Atienza, Assistant<br />

Director, BAI<br />

� Mr. Francisco Moog, Chief,<br />

Research Development<br />

Division<br />

(10:30am – 3:00pm) � Ms. Josefina Contreras,<br />

Acting Chief, Animal<br />

Products Development<br />

Center Cum National Project<br />

Coordinator (CFC/FIGM/08)<br />

October 04, 2006 (9:00am-<br />

3:00pm)<br />

October 06, 2006 (8:30am-<br />

12:00noon)<br />

� Meeting with the Chief<br />

Technical Adviser (CTA)<br />

Peter Hautzinger, APMP<br />

(CFC/FIGM/08) (UNOPS<br />

RAS/02/R72) on data/report<br />

gathering<br />

� National Project Coordinator<br />

Josephine Contreras,<br />

together with<br />

� Katrina Mae P. Fortes and<br />

Maria Salve D. Chavez, Meat<br />

Processing Unit<br />

� Florie Mellomida and Marie<br />

Karen Momville, Quality<br />

Control (QC) Laboratories<br />

� Dr. Eduardo Jose Manuel,<br />

Jr., Slaughterhouse Unit,<br />

APDC<br />

TOPICS / REMARKS<br />

� Courtesy meeting and project<br />

orientation<br />

� Presented the Terms of Reference,<br />

particularly the criteria and results to<br />

be checked.<br />

� In<strong>for</strong>med of the scheduled visits to<br />

APDC and APMP<br />

� Presented credentials <strong>for</strong> the project<br />

evaluation<br />

� Explained the Terms of Reference<br />

and the collection of data, in<strong>for</strong>mation,<br />

and project reports<br />

� Discussed succeeding scheduled<br />

visits and key in<strong>for</strong>mants interview<br />

� Referred to CTA and UNOPS <strong>for</strong><br />

approval of project evaluation and<br />

data collection at APDC-APMP<br />

� Briefing on APDC functions and<br />

operations<br />

� Discussion on the implementation of<br />

APMP, its impacts and results<br />

� Discussed procedure and contents of<br />

the APMP impact evaluation, the<br />

criteria and results to be checked<br />

� Explained period of evaluation from<br />

October 04 to November 10, 2006<br />

� Reported on status of APMP<br />

implementation and the multi-fund<br />

sources arrangements<br />

� Collection of project data and reports<br />

� Guided tour of APDC facilities,<br />

laboratories and equipment<br />

� Inspection of meat processing<br />

facilities and equipment<br />

� Observed hotdog production<br />

� Discussed and toured the QC<br />

facilities and equipment<br />

� Showed and explained the<br />

slaughterhouse facilities and the<br />

slaughtering process <strong>for</strong> cattle<br />

� NPC Contreras showed and<br />

explained the recently inaugurated<br />

waste management facilities at APDC<br />

50


Persons/Institutions<br />

Date and Time<br />

Contacted and Location<br />

(1:00pm – 4:00pm) Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with:<br />

1. Ms. Dina Aloria-Pascua,<br />

Head R&D and QC, DEALCO<br />

Farms, Inc. (TCP Regional<br />

Trainee Participant)<br />

October 11, 2006 (9:00am-<br />

11:30am)<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

2. Dr. Armando Morenos,<br />

Veterinarian Practitioner,<br />

Meycauayan, Bulacan<br />

(Trainee on Slaughtering<br />

Techniques of Pigs/Cattle<br />

and Undergoing On-the-Job-<br />

Training (OJT) and the<br />

Slaughtering Unit)<br />

3. Dr. Katrina Mae Fortes, OIC,<br />

Meat Processing Unit, APDC<br />

Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with Mr.<br />

Peter Hautzinger, CTA, APMP<br />

(CFC/FIGM/08)<br />

(1:00pm – 2:00pm) Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with Ms.<br />

Marie Karen Momville, Quality<br />

Control Unit, APDC (Trainee-<br />

Participant, First TCP Regional<br />

Training)<br />

(2:00pm – 3:00pm) Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with Ms.<br />

Emelina A. Lopez, Head,<br />

Training Unit, APDC-APMP,<br />

Member, Project Implementation<br />

Team (PIT)<br />

TOPICS / REMARKS<br />

� Activities involvement in the meat<br />

industry<br />

� Benefits of TCP regional/regular<br />

training<br />

� TCP regional/regular training impacts<br />

to trainee-participants<br />

� Future activities or plans <strong>for</strong> career<br />

development<br />

� APMP impact on meat processing<br />

unit<br />

� Project activities per<strong>for</strong>med<br />

� Who are the beneficiaries?<br />

� What are the project results?<br />

� Other services rendered to clients<br />

Perceptions on APMP implementation,<br />

particularly on:<br />

a) Technical and administrative support<br />

b) Approved budgetary support and<br />

releases<br />

c) Target beneficiaries<br />

d) Results and accomplishments<br />

e) Beneficial and/or detrimental factors<br />

to project implementation<br />

f) Poverty alleviation, economic and<br />

social importance of project results<br />

g) Sustainability and replicating of<br />

project results<br />

h) Project impact, lessons learnt and<br />

recommendations<br />

� Career development and<br />

benefits/impact of the TCP regional<br />

training<br />

� Roles and functions in the APMP<br />

implementation<br />

� Beneficiaries of acquired training<br />

� Recommendations<br />

� Career development opportunities at<br />

APDC under the APMP<br />

� Linkage with private companies and<br />

institutions involved in meat industry<br />

� Types of services rendered to<br />

interested clients<br />

� Sustainability of APDC-APMP<br />

activities<br />

51


Persons/Institutions<br />

Date and Time<br />

Contacted and Location<br />

(3:00pm – 4:00pm) Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with:<br />

Ms. Maria Salve D. Chavez,<br />

Meat Processing Unit Senior<br />

Staff, APDC-APMP<br />

(4:00pm – 5:00pm) Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with: Dr.<br />

Angel M. Guno, Head,<br />

Slaughterhouse Unit and<br />

Member, Project Implementation<br />

Team (PIT), APMP<br />

October 12, 2006 (9:00am-<br />

11:00am)<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Lecture Session Observation of:<br />

a) Dr. Angel Guno<br />

b) Dr. Katrina Mae Fortes<br />

(1:00pm – 2:30pm) Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with Mr.<br />

Gilbert Manapil, Supervisor,<br />

Marketing Live Cattle and Cut<br />

Meat, Del Monte (Phils.), Inc.,<br />

Manolo-Fortich, Bukidnon<br />

(2:30pm – 3:10pm) Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with Dr.<br />

Florie G. Mellomida,<br />

Veterinarian, OIC of Quality<br />

Control Unit, APDC<br />

(3:15pm – 4:45pm) Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with Dr.<br />

Eduardo DL. Torme, Head,<br />

Tannery and By-Products Unit,<br />

October 17, 2006 (9:00am-<br />

10:00am)<br />

(10:00am – 11:00am)<br />

APDC<br />

Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with Ms.<br />

Melinda Oliquiño, Production<br />

Supervisor, LIMCOMA Batangas<br />

Prime, Inc., San Jose, Batangas<br />

(Trainee-Participant, Second<br />

FAO-<strong>Fund</strong>ed TCP Regional<br />

Training)<br />

Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with Ms.<br />

Lorena Hernandez, Production<br />

Supervisor, LIMCOMA Batangas<br />

Prime, Inc., San Jose, Batangas<br />

(Trainee-Participant of Regular<br />

Training Program on<br />

Slaughtering of Hogs/Cattle and<br />

Meat Processing)<br />

TOPICS / REMARKS<br />

� APMP impact on APDC personnel<br />

career development<br />

� Some perceptions in the selection of<br />

training participants and conduct of<br />

training program<br />

� Training beneficiaries<br />

� Facilities improvement under APMP<br />

at the stockyards holding area and<br />

slaughterhouse <strong>for</strong> pigs/cattle and<br />

small ruminants<br />

� Staff development program under<br />

APMP<br />

� Services rendered by the Unit under<br />

APMP<br />

� Project beneficiaries of the Unit under<br />

APMP<br />

Meat Retailing Competency Course<br />

a) Control systems <strong>for</strong> unsafe conditions<br />

b) Meat storage<br />

� Company business profile<br />

� Company linkage with APDC<br />

operation<br />

� Impact of present arrangements<br />

� Target beneficiaries<br />

� Personnel capability building at<br />

APDC<br />

� APMP impact on QC Unit operations<br />

and facilities<br />

� QC role in slaughtering and meat<br />

processing under APMP<br />

� QC beneficiaries<br />

� APMP impact on the Unit<br />

� Unit role/activities in the APMP<br />

implementation<br />

� Unit impact to target beneficiaries<br />

� Impact of TCP regional/regular<br />

training on the participants’ corporate<br />

position and functions<br />

� Services provided to the company<br />

during APMP implementation<br />

� Impact of APDC-APMP on the<br />

institutional development of a new<br />

meat processing plant in Sto. Tomas,<br />

Batangas<br />

� Indirect beneficiaries of APMP<br />

through the trainees<br />

� Commercial processed meat<br />

products produced by the company<br />

52


Persons/Institutions<br />

Date and Time<br />

Contacted and Location<br />

(1:00pm – 3:00pm) Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with Ms.<br />

Nenita Lualhati, Meat<br />

Processing Head, Sorosoro<br />

Ibaba Development<br />

Cooperative, Batangas City<br />

(Trainee-Participant of APDC<br />

Regular Training on Meat<br />

Processing and Sausage<br />

Manufacturing)<br />

(3:30pm – 4:30pm) Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with Dr.<br />

Nenita Escandor, Head, Training<br />

Unit on meat Processing,<br />

International Training Center <strong>for</strong><br />

Pig Husbandry (ITCPH), Lipa,<br />

Batangas<br />

October 21, 2006 (10:00am-<br />

11:00am)<br />

October 25, 2006 (9:00am-<br />

1:00pm)<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with Mr.<br />

Francisco Moog, Chief,<br />

Research and Development<br />

Division, BAI (APDC is Part of<br />

the Division)<br />

Meeting with Acting Chief Cum<br />

NPC, APDC-APMP Josefina<br />

Contreras<br />

(1:30pm – 3:00pm) Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with Ms.<br />

Nenita R. Estante, Quality<br />

Control Head, APDC (member<br />

of PIT, APMP)<br />

(3:30pm – 4:00pm) Meeting with Director Davinio<br />

Catbagan, BAI Director Cum<br />

NPD<br />

TOPICS / REMARKS<br />

� Training impact on the participant’s<br />

position and functions in the<br />

cooperative<br />

� Institutional services provided by<br />

APDC to the cooperative’s new meat<br />

processing plant<br />

� Impact of APMP on the product lines<br />

and <strong>for</strong>mulations of commercialized<br />

processed meat products<br />

� Market outlets and indirect<br />

beneficiaries<br />

� Trainors trained on meat processing<br />

at APDC and other institutions<br />

� Beneficiaries of meat processing<br />

training<br />

� Impact of training on livelihood of<br />

beneficiaries<br />

� Training Sponsors<br />

� Role in APMP Project<br />

� Perception on the sustainability of<br />

APDC functions<br />

� View on DA-reorganization and<br />

APDC future<br />

� Requested photocopies of other<br />

documents and materials on APDC<br />

and APMP still not provided<br />

� Clarified some in<strong>for</strong>mation on the<br />

trainings conducted through some<br />

outside sponsors<br />

� Verified the schedule of Outreach<br />

Training Program in three regional<br />

areas in the country<br />

� Discussed project impacts on<br />

beneficiaries<br />

� Perception of the project impact to<br />

QC in particular and APDC in general<br />

� Project impact on APDC staff<br />

� Beneficiaries of APDC-APMP<br />

� Sustainability of APDC operation<br />

after APMP<br />

� Discussed the project impact to the<br />

beneficiaries<br />

� Sustainability of APDC program and<br />

activities after APMP<br />

� Status of DA-reorganization<br />

� <strong>Fund</strong> sources <strong>for</strong> BAI and APDC<br />

53


Persons/Institutions<br />

Date and Time<br />

Contacted and Location<br />

(4:20pm – 5:00pm) Meeting with Ms. Manolita<br />

Gaerlan, Supervising<br />

Agriculturist, Market<br />

development Division, BAI<br />

October 30, 2006 (9:00am-<br />

11:00am)<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Meeting with Mr. Rufino<br />

Lardizabal, Jr.,<br />

Proprietor/Manager, Sun Mach<br />

Trade, Phils. (Local Fabricator of<br />

APDC-APMP Equipment)<br />

(11:20am – 11:50 am) Dr. Minda S. Manantan, Acting<br />

Executive Director, National<br />

Meat Inspection Service (NMIS)<br />

(2:00pm – 3:00pm) APDC-APMP Ms. Josefina<br />

Contreras, National Project<br />

Coordinator, APDC-APMP<br />

October 31, 2006 (9:00am-<br />

11:00am)<br />

Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview with Dr.<br />

Arnel del Barrio, Director,<br />

Philippine Carabao Center<br />

(PCC) at UPLB, College,<br />

Laguna<br />

TOPICS / REMARKS<br />

� Discussed the animal handlers<br />

licensing program linkage with APDC<br />

� Impact of training on the beneficiaries<br />

� Yearly number of animal handlers<br />

attending training<br />

� Perception on being accredited to<br />

fabricate the APDC-APMP meat<br />

processing equipment <strong>for</strong> main and<br />

satellite centers<br />

� Impact on the meat processing<br />

equipment fabrication business<br />

� Problem areas and issues<br />

encountered in local equipment<br />

fabrication <strong>for</strong> meat processing<br />

� Linkage of NMIS with APDC activities<br />

� Mandated functions of NMIS<br />

� Past collaborative activities<br />

� Impact to meat industry<br />

� Project photo documentation<br />

� Waste management systems<br />

documentation<br />

� Discussed linkage of PCC with APDC<br />

� Specific activities conducted<br />

� Impact of linkage activities<br />

� Target beneficiaries<br />

54


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> B. List of Selected Project National Directors and TCP<br />

Regional Trainee-Participants Sent Letter-<br />

Questionnaires <strong>for</strong> the Impact Evaluation Study.<br />

Country Name / Contact Address E-mail Address<br />

National Directors:<br />

Bangladesh Dr. MD. JAHANGIR ALAM KHAN<br />

Director General<br />

Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute<br />

(BLRI)<br />

Savar, Dhaka – 1341<br />

Bangladesh<br />

Myanmar DR. THAN DAING<br />

Deputy Director General<br />

Livestock Breeding and Veterinary<br />

Department<br />

Insein, Yangon, Myanmar<br />

Samoa TIATIA FELEUPOLU TEVITA<br />

Assistant Chief Executive Officer<br />

Animal Production and Health Division<br />

(APHD)<br />

Ministry of Agriculture (MOA)<br />

Apia, Samoa<br />

Regional Training Participants:<br />

Bangladesh MR. MD. NIAZ HOSSAIN<br />

Supervisor (Meat)<br />

Rahimafrooz Superstores Limited<br />

Arzed Chamber 13 Mohakhali<br />

Dhaka – 1212, Bangladesh<br />

MR. TOUFIQ IMAM<br />

Supervisor (Meat<br />

Rahimafrooz Superstores Limited<br />

13 Mohakhali, Arz Chamber, Mohakhali<br />

Dhaka – 1212, Bangladesh<br />

MR. MAHMUDUR RAHMAN MUKUL<br />

Director (Admin)<br />

Panial Pukur, Kishorgong,<br />

Nilphamary, Bangladesh<br />

MR. MD. MOTIUR RAHMAN<br />

Supervisor<br />

Rahimafrooz Superstores Limited<br />

13 Mohakhali, Arz Chamber, Mohakhali<br />

Dhaka – 1212, Bangladesh<br />

Cambodia EANG CHUONG<br />

Laboratory Officer<br />

Department of Agro-Industry (MAFF)<br />

#242, Preah Norodom Blvd.<br />

Phnom Penh, Cambodia<br />

KUNTHY HAK<br />

Researcher<br />

Royal University of Agriculture (MAFF)<br />

26 PhumDeytmey Khan Toul Khork<br />

Phnom Penh, Cambodia<br />

CHUON MONY ROTH<br />

Processing Management Officer Vice<br />

Chief<br />

Department of Agro-Industry<br />

dgblri@bangla.net<br />

lbvd@mptmail.net.mm;<br />

thandaing@mail2Doctor.com<br />

fttev@lesamoa.net;<br />

apmp_samoa@yahoo.com.au<br />

agora@rahimafrooz.com<br />

agora@rahimafrooz.com<br />

mrmukul@yahoo.com<br />

motiurrhaman@hotmail.com;<br />

helpdesk@rahimafrooz.com<br />

chuong@mail.ru;<br />

thuong_eang@yahoo.com.uk<br />

agro_hakkunthy_kh@yahoo.com<br />

chuon_monyroth@yahoo.com<br />

55


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

#242, Preah Norodom Blvd.<br />

Phnom Penh, Cambodia<br />

LAY TER<br />

#16 District Chicreng Province Reap<br />

Siemriep, Cambodia<br />

China YUBO WU<br />

Officer<br />

National Animal Husbandry and<br />

Veterinary Service<br />

#20 – 411 Maizidian St., Chaoyang<br />

District, Beijing, China - 100026<br />

DPR Korea RI CHOL MIN<br />

QC Manager<br />

Rakwoun Food Com<br />

84 Chongru-dong Daidonggang<br />

District Pyongyang, DPR Korea<br />

RI YONG NAM<br />

Laboratory Officer<br />

Pyongsong Meat Processing Product<br />

Com.<br />

Pyongsong District<br />

Pyongyang, DPR Korea<br />

Fiji ALANIETA VUKIMOALA<br />

Managing Director<br />

Fresha Fine Foods Ltd.<br />

P.O. Box: 4545 Samabula<br />

Suva, Fiji<br />

India DR. JAYANTA CHOWDHURY<br />

Assistant Superintendent of Livestock<br />

Animal Resources Development<br />

Department<br />

Meat Plant, Haringhata Farm, P.O.<br />

Mohonpur District Nadia 741246<br />

West Bengal, India<br />

DR. PONDUGULA VENKATESHWAR<br />

REDDY<br />

Assistant Director<br />

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad –<br />

28 A.P.<br />

Veterinary Section<br />

6 th Fl., Municipal Complex Hyderabad<br />

Andhra Pradesh State, India<br />

Indonesia NATAAMIJAYA GOZALI ACHMAD<br />

Researcher<br />

Indonesian Agricultural Technology<br />

Assessment<br />

and Development Institute<br />

JL. Tentara Pelajar No. 10, Bogor 16114<br />

Indonesia<br />

DODDY FAIRDYANCE<br />

Quality Control Supervisor<br />

PT. Ciomas Adisatwa<br />

JL. Raya Popoh DS Semanbung<br />

Wonoayu Sidoarjo 61261<br />

Indonesia<br />

KRISNANDANA<br />

Technical Officer<br />

Directorate of Veterinary Public Health<br />

DG Livestock Services<br />

ter_lay_kh@yahoo.com<br />

wuyb88@hotmail.com;<br />

Zbc504@126.com<br />

ksctc151@co.chesin.com<br />

ksctc151@co.chesin.com<br />

freshfoods@connect.com.fj<br />

asokmala@vsnl.net;<br />

dir-ah@wb.nic.in<br />

apldaa@sify.com<br />

bp2tp@indo.net.id<br />

hellofairdyan@yahoo.com;<br />

dody@sda.japfacomfeed.com.id<br />

azhar.deptan@go.id<br />

56


Ministry of Agriculture<br />

JL. Harsono Rm. 3, Ragunan<br />

Jakarta, Indonesia<br />

Lao PDR BOUNHEUANG KOUNNAVONG<br />

Pavina Market<br />

Thadeua Rd., Km. 3<br />

Vientiane, Lao PDR<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

BOUNKHAM SIACKHASONE<br />

Deputy Chief of Livestock and Fisheries<br />

Technical Division<br />

Department of Livestock and Fisheries<br />

P.O. Box 811, Vientiane, Lao PDR<br />

Malaysia LIANKEE ANG LEE<br />

QC Executive<br />

Perak Duck Food Industries Sdn. Bhd.<br />

3525, Kampung Nibong, Temerloh<br />

Trong, Taiping, Perak, Malayasia<br />

Mongolia JANCHIV BADRAL<br />

Meat Technologist<br />

Bagakhangai Meat Processing Plant<br />

Mongolia<br />

BATJARGAL BANZAI<br />

Meat Technologist<br />

“Darkhan Meat Expo” Company<br />

Mongolia Darkhan 3-R BAG<br />

OTGON RENTSEN<br />

Meat Technologist<br />

Mach Impex<br />

Songino Hairhan District<br />

Mach Impex Company<br />

Mongolia<br />

DOLGORJAV TUYA<br />

Sausage Production Technologist<br />

Makh-Impex J.S.C.<br />

Ulaanbaatar – 25 Mongolia<br />

BAYARSAIKHAN SARUUL<br />

Manager<br />

Eviin Huch L.L.C.<br />

24 Bor-Under Town, Mongolia<br />

Myanmar MIN BO THEIN<br />

Assistant Director<br />

Livestock Breeding and Veterinary<br />

Department<br />

LBVD Compound, Insein Town<br />

Myanmar<br />

SOE WIN<br />

Assistant Director<br />

Livestock Breeding and Veterinary<br />

Department<br />

LBVD Compound, Insein Town<br />

Myanmar<br />

Nepal GAYATRI GURUNG<br />

Assistant Production Manager<br />

Nepal Sausage Factory P. Ltd.<br />

P.O. Box 478, Gangabu<br />

Nepal<br />

NABIN KHADGI<br />

Production Supervisor<br />

Quality Meat Products<br />

bounheuang@yahoo.com<br />

euloadlf@laotel.com<br />

liankeea@yahoo.com;<br />

duckling@tm.net.my<br />

mtsm@magicnet.mn<br />

makhexpo@mongol.net<br />

machimpex@mongol.com<br />

tuya_69@yahoo.com;<br />

makhimpex@mongol.net<br />

uyanga247@magicnet.mn;<br />

evlinkhuch@magicnet.mn<br />

lbvd@mptmail.net.mm<br />

lbvd@mptmail.net.mm<br />

gita555@hotmail.com;<br />

nsausage@ntc.net.np<br />

a_nabin@hotmail.com<br />

57


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Kathmandu, Thankwot<br />

Nepal<br />

SUJAN KHADGI<br />

Production Supervisor<br />

Kakani Badhsala Private Ltd.<br />

Kakani, Kathmandu, Nepal<br />

SURYA PRASAD PAUDEL<br />

Assistant Livestock Development Officer<br />

Department of Livestock Service<br />

Lalitpur, Nepal<br />

ANISH PRAKASH SINGH PRADHAN<br />

Food Technologist and Technical<br />

Coordinator<br />

Everest Foods Limited<br />

Naya Bazar, Nepal<br />

SURENDRA PRASAD SUWAL<br />

Production Controller<br />

Prasuma’s Delicatessen (P) Ltd.<br />

Tinthana-4, Naikap<br />

Kathmandu, Nepal<br />

Pakistan MUHAMMAD IMRAN<br />

Process Controller<br />

K&N’s Foods (Pvt.) Limited<br />

Plant K&N’s Foods 6 Km., Manga Road<br />

Raiwind District, Kaseer<br />

Pakistan<br />

ABDUL KARIM KHAN<br />

Production Manager<br />

Euro Classics Pakistan<br />

Plot #111, Industrial Estate<br />

Jamrud Road, Peshawar<br />

Pakistan<br />

ARSHAD MAHMOOD<br />

Technician<br />

Tasty Point<br />

1-B Abu Bakar Ng.t Lahore 54600<br />

Pakistan<br />

LUQMAN TABSSUM RABBANI<br />

Senior Manager Q/A R&D<br />

Flury’s Food Products<br />

7 Km., Multan Road, Lahore<br />

Pakistan<br />

Philippines MS. DINA B. ALORIA<br />

Head<br />

R&D / Q&A Department<br />

DEALCO Farms, Inc.<br />

2 nd Fl, VIB Bldg, Vitas St.<br />

Tondo, Manila<br />

Philippines<br />

MS. MARIE KAREN T. MOMVILLE<br />

Agriculturist I<br />

Animal Products Development Center<br />

A. Fernando St., Marulas, Valenzuela<br />

City<br />

Philippines<br />

MS. RAHIMA K. SILONGAN<br />

Training Coordinator<br />

Federation of United Mindanawan<br />

Bangsamora Women, MPC<br />

shakursujan@hotmail.com<br />

paudelsurya@yahoo.com<br />

anishpsp@hotmail.com;<br />

ratnaorg@wlink.com.np<br />

suwal_4@hotmail.com;<br />

prasuma@ccsl.com.np<br />

imran_156@hotmail.com;<br />

info@foods_kandNs.com<br />

euro@brain.net.pk<br />

sultanshakoor@hotmail.com<br />

ugman01@yahoo.com;<br />

flurys-lhr@cyber.net.ph<br />

dbaloria@yahoo.com;<br />

dealcofarms@headoffice.com<br />

kmomville@yahoo.com;<br />

apdc@manilaonline.net<br />

black_lyt24@yahoo,com<br />

58


Bgy. Kakar, Poblacion 8, Cotabato City<br />

Philippines<br />

Samoa MR. TONY AIOLUPO<br />

Senior Meat Inspector<br />

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry<br />

Fisheries and Meteorology<br />

P.O. Box 1028, Apia<br />

Samoa<br />

MS. AMELIA TREVOR<br />

Shop and Farm Owner<br />

P.T. Livestock Supply<br />

P.O. Box 110, Apia<br />

W. Samoa<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

MR. HARRY TAUATI CHAN TUNG<br />

Farm Managing, Director<br />

Paradise Farms<br />

P.O. Box 659, Apia<br />

Samoa<br />

Sri Lanka WICKRAMACHCHI<br />

WITHANARALALAGE<br />

ARUNA NISANTHA<br />

Production Executive<br />

Cargills Quality Foods<br />

Mattakkuliya Colombo 15<br />

Sri Lanka<br />

Thailand NARTTAYA CHOMMANARD<br />

Scientist<br />

Department of Livestock Development<br />

Phayathai Rd., Tachatavee, Bangkok<br />

Thailand 10400<br />

BUNDIT MUENRUAKHAM<br />

The Royal Project Demonstration Farm<br />

of<br />

Her Majesty the Queen (Meat<br />

Processing Unit)<br />

122 Huaykhaew Rd., T. Changphauk<br />

A. Muang, Changmai 50300<br />

Thailand<br />

Vietnam THIEN TRUNG LE<br />

Assistant Lecturer<br />

University of Agriculture and Forestry<br />

Thu Duc District, Ho Chi Minh City<br />

Vietnam<br />

THAO HUONG TRAN<br />

Engineer (R&D)<br />

Nam Phong Food Processing Ent.<br />

344 No Trang Long St., Binh Thanh<br />

District<br />

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam<br />

taiolupo2002@yahoo.com<br />

ptlivestock@ipasifika.net<br />

alik001@sges.auckland.ac.nz;<br />

liki@lesamoa.net<br />

caffactory@sltnet.lk<br />

narthaya@yahoo.com<br />

mrbundit@hotmail.com<br />

letthien@yahoo.com;<br />

lehungnguyen@yahoo.com<br />

thaocasper@yahoo.com<br />

59


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> C. List of Services Rendered by APDC Under the Asia-Pacific Meat Project from January to<br />

December, 2005<br />

Type of Services<br />

No. of<br />

Batches<br />

Participants<br />

Total Type<br />

Sponsor<br />

Duration<br />

(Total Hours)<br />

A. Training Courses:<br />

1. Five-Day Slaughtering Techniques <strong>for</strong> Pigs/ 10 128o<br />

Private and Government Employees Regular Course / Yangwha<br />

384Livelihood Program / Skills Improvement<br />

Cattle<br />

o Butchers who will Work in Australia<br />

o Municipal Veterinarians<br />

Human Resource Corporation /<br />

Pax Integrated Technologies<br />

2. Meat Retailing Cerificates (Level 2 and 3) 2 24Meat Industry Entrepreneurs, Workers & Cattle Feedlot Association of the<br />

47Meat Industry School (MIS) Course<br />

Sales Personnel<br />

Philippines (CFAP)<br />

Certificate/Skills Improvement<br />

3. Cutting Edge Meat Retailing Competency 1 20Meat Shop Workers and Sales Personnel Meat World International, Inc. 43Competency Certificate<br />

4. Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and<br />

3 42o<br />

Cooperative Members<br />

Luntian MP Cooperative, Pax<br />

72Start a Meat Shop/Processing Business,<br />

Meat Cutting<br />

o Butchers who will Work in Australia<br />

o Red Dragon Farm Staff<br />

Integrated Technologies and Red<br />

Dragon Farm<br />

Skills Improvement and Application of<br />

Hygiene and Sanitation Practices<br />

5. Two-Day Meat Processing 5 55Prospective Entrepreneurs, Students, Regular Course / DA-RFU VII,<br />

88Skills Improvement<br />

Private and Government Employees Cebu City<br />

6. Utilization of Frog Skin as Alternative Source<br />

of Leather<br />

B. Lecture on:<br />

2 8Prospective Entrepreneurs Regular Course 44Business Development<br />

1. Proper Handling of Food Animals 14 478Livestock and Meat Handlers from All BAI - Marketing Development<br />

28Course Licensing<br />

Regions of the Philippines<br />

Division<br />

2. Good Manufacturing Practices, Meat<br />

5 156Housewives, Fish Vendors, Processors, BFAR, NMIS and Adamson<br />

17Community Livelihood, Awareness<br />

Processing, Waste Management and<br />

Students and LGU's Meat Inspectors University<br />

Program or Part of Meat Inspection<br />

Utilization of Bighead Carp into Leather<br />

Course<br />

Purpose<br />

60


Type of Services<br />

C. Lecture - Demo / With Hands-On on Meat<br />

Processing, Slaughtering of Hogs/Cattle,<br />

Hygiene and Sanitation<br />

D. Plant Tour of Slaughterhouse, Meat Processing,<br />

Quality Control Laboratories, Tannery and<br />

Waste Management Facilities<br />

E. Exhibition on APDC - APMP Activities, Meat<br />

Products Presentation / Display and Tasting<br />

F. Use of Slaughtering Facilities <strong>for</strong> Pigs/Cattle;<br />

Slaughter and Meat Processing Laboratory <strong>for</strong><br />

Product Development<br />

No. of<br />

Batches<br />

Participants<br />

Total Type<br />

18 674Teachers/Professors, Students,<br />

Prospective Entrepreneurs, Government<br />

and Private Employees, Housewives,<br />

Single Mothers, Canteen Staff, Butchers<br />

and Parents<br />

17 347Veterinarian, TESDA Staff, Private<br />

Employees, Government Agency<br />

Employees (DTI, BAI, etc.), Company<br />

Staff, University Professors, Veterinary,<br />

Agricultural and Vocational Students,<br />

Food Technology Students, Medical<br />

Students, and Cooperative Members<br />

3<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Sponsor<br />

BAI, Universities, Hog Farmers,<br />

Inc., DA, Private Organizations,<br />

Other Government Agencies,<br />

and Private Companies<br />

Multipurpose Cooperatives;<br />

Universities (DLS, UP, BASC,<br />

DMMMSU, Tarlac-CA); TESDA<br />

or Private Individuals<br />

Duration<br />

(Total Hours)<br />

Purpose<br />

80Awareness Program, Course<br />

Requirement, Livelihood Program,<br />

Poverty Alleviation Program as Source of<br />

Income or Skills Improvement<br />

34Course Requirement, Familiariazation<br />

Program, Skills Improvement Program,<br />

Business Venture or Collaborative<br />

Program<br />

Not Walk-in Consumers, Animal and Meat<br />

Monitored<br />

Product Producers, Delegates from<br />

APDC - APMP and BAR 40Awareness Program during Celebration<br />

of BAI's Foundation; Agriculture and<br />

Animal Industry, Officials from DA, NMIS,<br />

Fisheries Technology Forum "Agraryong<br />

LDC, and BAI<br />

Pangkabuhayan"<br />

3 14Employees and Clients<br />

o Del Monte 1/<br />

o Consol Farm 2/<br />

o Givaudan, Phils.<br />

TOTAL 83 1946 877<br />

NOTE: Regular Client <strong>for</strong> Slaughtering; Pigs (2/) and Cattle (1/).<br />

Slaughtering and Meat Processing<br />

Services<br />

61


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> D. List of Services Rendered by APDC Under the Asia-Pacific Meat Project from January to<br />

December, 2004.<br />

A.<br />

B.<br />

Type of Services<br />

No. of<br />

Participants<br />

Batches<br />

Total Type<br />

Sponsor<br />

Duration<br />

(Total<br />

Hours)<br />

Purpose<br />

Training Courses:<br />

1. Meat Retailing - Level 1 1 17Meat Retailers Cattle Feedlot Association of the Jul. 24 - Nov. Course Certificate / Skills<br />

Phils. (CFAP)<br />

4, 2004Improvement<br />

2. Pig, Slaughtering, Cutting and Processing 1 8NSB Piggery Farms' Members National Swine Board Jan. 19-30, Skills Improvement<br />

2004<br />

3. Meat Processing<br />

4. Introductory: Slaughtering Techniques <strong>for</strong><br />

Cattle<br />

1 21Agricultural Technicians, RICs, 4H<br />

Leaders from Pampanga, Bulacan and<br />

Tarlac Provinces<br />

5. Cattle/Carabao Slaughtering Procedures<br />

and Waste Management and Minimization<br />

6. Slaughterhouse Operation and Quality<br />

Control Procedures<br />

7. Utilization of Frog Skins as an Alternative<br />

Source of Leather<br />

Lecture - Demonstration on:<br />

1. Meat Processing of Different Meat Products<br />

and Pork Cutting<br />

DA - ATI - RFU III in San<br />

Fernando City, Pampanga<br />

24Skills Improvement / Income<br />

Generating Program<br />

1 10Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) Private Group 56For Employment in Australia<br />

1 29Prospective Meat Inspectors DA - NMIS 16Part of Meat Inspection Training<br />

Course<br />

1 1Company Employee Cargill Phils., Inc. 16Skills Improvement <strong>for</strong> Job<br />

Assignment<br />

2 10Prospective Entrepreneurs Regular Course 16For Income Generating Livelihood<br />

10 412Village Constituents, Women Groups,<br />

Housewives, Convention Guests,<br />

Interested Publics, Parents, Ministry<br />

Beneficiaries<br />

o Private Corporation<br />

o BAI<br />

o DA - RFU IVA<br />

o NFHR<br />

30Awareness Program / Income<br />

Generating Program<br />

62


C.<br />

Type of Services No. of Batches<br />

Lecture On:<br />

1. Meat Processing and<br />

Slaughtering Techniques, Meat<br />

Cutting and Packaging<br />

Participants<br />

Total Type<br />

5 161Women Groups in Pulilan, Bulacan;<br />

Local Government Technicians;<br />

Farmers; Students; Professionals;<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Sponsor<br />

o Cargill Phils., Inc.<br />

o DA - RFU VI<br />

o NMIS Region IV<br />

Company Families and Employees in<br />

o IBC-Channel 13<br />

Villasis, Pangasinan; Prospective<br />

Meat Inspectors and Housewives<br />

Duration<br />

(Total<br />

Hours)<br />

Purpose<br />

10Awareness Program / Income<br />

Generating Program / Skills<br />

Improvement<br />

D. Technical Assistance on Slaughtering, Meat<br />

3 17o<br />

Dealco Farms, Inc. Workers o Dealco Farms, Inc.<br />

--Skills Improvement, GMP and<br />

Processing and Tannery Technologies and Plant<br />

Designs and Standard Specifications<br />

o ABS-CBN Employees<br />

o Cooperative Supervisors<br />

o LIMCOMA<br />

Batangas Prime, Inc.<br />

o ABS-CBN<br />

Techniques, Construction of<br />

new Meat Plant, Frog Skin<br />

Tanning<br />

E. Plant Tour / Visit<br />

o Slaughterhouse and Meat Plant<br />

10 169o<br />

Students o DLS - GAUF 20o<br />

Familiarization Program<br />

Facilities<br />

o DA - CAR Employees o DA - CAR o Orientation Program<br />

o NMIS Trainees o T U P o Course Requirement<br />

o Private Company Owners o P U P o Expansion /or<br />

Establishment of Pig<br />

o NMIS<br />

o Private<br />

Corporations<br />

Slaughterhouse<br />

F. On-the-Job-Training on Meat Processing 2 12Students<br />

o CSSAC (12 weeks) o Skills Improvement<br />

o I S U<br />

o Course Requirement<br />

TOTAL 38 867 188(excluding those not in hours)<br />

63


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> E. Types of Services Rendered at APDC Under the Asia-Pacific Meat Project from January<br />

to June, 2006.<br />

Type of Services<br />

No. of<br />

Participants<br />

Batches<br />

Total Type<br />

1. On-The-Job Training (OJT) 4 11o<br />

Prospective Entrepreneurs o Batangas State University 952o<br />

Course Requirement<br />

o Slaughtering Pigs/Cattles o Food Industrial Engineering Students o UP Diliman<br />

o Prospective Business Enterprise<br />

o Meat Processing o Food Technology Students<br />

o UST<br />

o Tannery<br />

o Bonecraft Making<br />

o Private Entrepreneur<br />

2. Lectures on Proper Handling of Food Animals 7 199Livestock and Meat Handlers From All BAI - Marketing Development<br />

14Licensing Certification<br />

Regions of the Country<br />

Division<br />

3. Plant Tour 12 182University Students, Private Company o DLSU 25o<br />

Curriculum Requirement<br />

o Slaughter House Staff, Government Office Staff<br />

o UST o Fish Leather<br />

o Tannery and By-Product Unit o UP Diliman<br />

o Slaughtering and Meat Processing<br />

o Meat Processing Center o DMMMSU<br />

o Sienna College<br />

o BFAR - Region IV<br />

o Congr. Dimaporo Office<br />

o CJ Phil.<br />

Type of Services<br />

No. of<br />

Batches<br />

Sponsor<br />

Participants Sponsor<br />

Duration<br />

(Total<br />

Hours)<br />

Duration<br />

(Total<br />

Hours)<br />

Purpose<br />

Purpose<br />

64


4.<br />

5.<br />

Total Type<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

Lecture-Demo on Meat Processing / and 16 668Teachers, Students, Prospective o Lung Center of the Phils. 60.5o<br />

Course Requirment in Curriculum<br />

Waste Management<br />

Training Courses:<br />

Entrepreneurs, Employees,<br />

Parishoners, Housewives, Cooperative<br />

Members, Government Personnel, and<br />

Prospective Meat Plant Staff<br />

o Phil. Broadcasting Service<br />

o Love Package Project<br />

o UE Alumni Assoc.<br />

o Private Sponsors<br />

o Government Dept (DA) /<br />

Agencies (BAI, NMIS,<br />

NIA, AFIS)<br />

o San Juan de Dios Parish<br />

o Sienna College<br />

o Lanao Foundation, Inc.<br />

o Regular Courses<br />

o Income Generation Livelihood<br />

o Awareness Program<br />

o Business Opportunities<br />

o Slaughter Techniques <strong>for</strong> Pigs/Cattle 6 67OFW Applicants<br />

o Regular Courses/Midfield<br />

International, Inc.<br />

264Skills Improvement<br />

o Meat Cutting 3 36OFW Applicants Midfield International, Inc. 88Skills Improvement<br />

o Meat Processing 1 10Prospective Meat Plant Staff Lanao Foundation, Inc. 24Skills Improvement<br />

o Meat Retailing 2 40Company Staff Meat World International, Inc. 137Retailing Course Certificate<br />

T O T A L 51 1,213 1,564.50<br />

65


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> F. Supplemental List of Services Rendered at APDC<br />

under the APMP from July –December, 2006.<br />

Type of Services<br />

A. Training Courses:<br />

1. 10-Day Training on Slaughter Techniques <strong>for</strong><br />

Pigs/Cattle<br />

No. of<br />

Batches<br />

Total No. of<br />

Participants<br />

2 20<br />

2. 10-Day Cutting Edge Meat Retailing 1 20<br />

3. 3-Day Meat Cutting and Meat Processing<br />

Training <strong>for</strong> Meat Dealers/Vendors in<br />

Makato, Aklan<br />

4. 10-Day Meat Processing Training <strong>for</strong><br />

Agricultural Institutions (GTZ-Edel Project)<br />

5. 3-Day Awareness Training on Slaughter<br />

Techniques <strong>for</strong> Pigs/Cattle<br />

6. 3-Day Meat Processing Outreach Training in<br />

Regions II (Tuguegarao City), VII<br />

(Dumaguete City) and XI (Davao City)<br />

7. 1-Day Meat Processing Training <strong>for</strong> LDC<br />

Employees<br />

B. Lecture – Demo:<br />

1. Meat Processing (Ham, Embutido, Tapa,<br />

Tocino, Skinless Longganisa, Hamburger,<br />

and Chicken Kikiam and Hamburger)<br />

1 10<br />

1 5<br />

1 18<br />

3 45<br />

1 10<br />

5<br />

More 282<br />

(Channel 13,<br />

NIA-GAD,<br />

Housewives)<br />

2. Fish Skin Processing at TESDA, Rizal 1 15 Fisherfolk<br />

C. Lectures:<br />

1. Proper handling of Food Animals, - BAI 1 44<br />

2. Forum on Business Enterprise at SM Mall in<br />

Asia<br />

1 --<br />

D. Plant Visit: /Tour<br />

1. Slaughterhouse<br />

2. Waste Treatment Facility<br />

1 22<br />

� La Union / BORDA Group, ECO Asia 2 51<br />

Group<br />

E. Training Needs Assessment of Multiline Food<br />

Processing Plant at Santa, Ilocos Sur (2-Day<br />

Visit)<br />

1 10<br />

67


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> G. Per<strong>for</strong>mance Accomplishment of APDC During the Three-Year Implementation of APMP<br />

From 2003 – 2006.<br />

Type of Services<br />

No. of<br />

Batches<br />

Target Accomplished % Accomplishment<br />

Total<br />

Participants<br />

No. of<br />

Batches<br />

Total<br />

Participants<br />

Batches Participants<br />

A. Training Courses:<br />

1. Slaughtering Techniques <strong>for</strong> Pigs/Cattle 16 222 23 281 128 127<br />

2. Meat Cutting 8 88 8 96 100 109<br />

3. Meat Retailing 4 70 8 142 200 203<br />

4. Meat Processing 8 64 12 145 150 227<br />

5. Utilization of Frog Skin as Source of Leather 3 24 4 18 133 75<br />

Sub – Total 39 468 53 649 136 139<br />

B. Lecture – Demonstration:<br />

(Slaughtering Meat / Processing / Hygiene and Sanitation /<br />

and Waste Management)<br />

C. Lecture on Proper Handling of Food Animals, Slaughtering<br />

Techniques / Meat Cutting / GMP / Meat Processing /<br />

Packaging / Waste Management / By-Products Utilization<br />

into Leather<br />

D. Plant Tour / Visit of Slaughterhouse and Meat Plant Complex<br />

Facilities<br />

E. On-The-Job-Training on Slaughtering Pigs/Cattle / Meat<br />

Processing / Tannery and Bonecraft Making<br />

F. Technical Assistance: Slaughtering, Meat Processing,<br />

Tannery Technology and Plant designs and Standard<br />

Specifications<br />

G. Use of APDC Slaughtering Facilities and Meat Processing<br />

Lab.<br />

H. Exhibition of APDC-APMP Activities, Meat Products<br />

Presentation / Display and Tasting<br />

(As Need<br />

Arises)<br />

(As Need<br />

Arises)<br />

(As Need<br />

Arises)<br />

(As Need<br />

Arises)<br />

(As Need<br />

Arises)<br />

(As Need<br />

Arises)<br />

(As Need<br />

Arises)<br />

(As Need<br />

Arises)<br />

(As Need<br />

Arises)<br />

(As Need<br />

Arises)<br />

(As Need<br />

Arises)<br />

(As Need<br />

Arises)<br />

(As Need<br />

Arises)<br />

(As Need<br />

Arises)<br />

50 2,051 -- --<br />

33 1,038 -- --<br />

42 771 -- --<br />

6 23 -- --<br />

7 30 -- --<br />

3 14 -- --<br />

3 Walk-In Guests -- --<br />

68


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> H. List of Services Rendered by APDC Under the Asia-Pacific Meat Project from January to<br />

December, 2005.<br />

Type of Services<br />

Institutional Technical Service Assistance:<br />

1. Hands-On Training on Meat Material<br />

Preparation, Meat Processing and New<br />

Product Formulation Testing<br />

2. Meat Processing: Product Development<br />

3. Research and Efficacy of Food Additives<br />

on Local Hotdogs<br />

Frequency of<br />

Service<br />

Products<br />

Total Quantity<br />

(Kg)<br />

Sponsor Trainees Purpose<br />

6 times o Hotdog Production 645.82Arce<br />

Production Product Formulation and<br />

o Tocino 30.00Staff<br />

Testing<br />

o Longanisa 30.00<br />

T o t a l 705.82<br />

8 times o Meat Loaf 30.00PCC<br />

Staff Development of Processed<br />

o Beerwurst 30.00<br />

Products from Buffalo Meat<br />

o Coarse Ham Sausage 15.00<br />

o Lyoner Paprika Sausage 15.00<br />

o Frankfurters 30.00<br />

o Cooked Ham 20.00<br />

o Keftedes 10.00<br />

o Hungarian Goulash 20.00<br />

T o t a l 170.00<br />

1 time Food Additives Testing --PURAC R&D<br />

4. Meat Retailing Certificate Course 3 times -- --M I S Certificate Course<br />

69


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> I. Comparative Per<strong>for</strong>mance of APDC Rendered<br />

Services Be<strong>for</strong>e and During Implementation of<br />

APMP (2002 and 2005).<br />

List of Services<br />

No.<br />

2002<br />

Participants No.<br />

2005<br />

Participants<br />

A. Conduct of Research 3 -- 6 --<br />

B. Piloting of Mature Technology 1 -- -- --<br />

C. Training Courses 7 164 23 277<br />

1. Meat Processing 4 94 5 55<br />

2. Trainors Training 1 29 -- --<br />

3. GMP / Hygiene Sanitation, Quality Control /<br />

Meat Cutting and Waste Management<br />

1 21 3 42<br />

4. Hides / Skins Processing and Leathercraft<br />

Making<br />

1 20 2 8<br />

5. Meat Retailing -- -- 3 44<br />

6. Slaughtering Techniques <strong>for</strong> Cattle / Pig -- -- 10 128<br />

D. Lecture – Demo<br />

Techniques of Slaughtering Cattle / Hog & Meat<br />

Cutting / Meat Processing<br />

17 1,336 18 674<br />

E. Lecture 6 248 22 661<br />

1. Techniques of Slaughtering Hog/Cattle and<br />

Meat Cutting<br />

2 150 2 33<br />

2. Hides/Skins Preservation 1 15 1 80<br />

3. Animal Waste Management 3 83 1 17<br />

4. Proper Handling of Food Animals -- -- 14 478<br />

5. Good Manufacturing Practices -- -- 5 156<br />

6. Proper Cleaning and Disinfection -- -- 1 60<br />

No. Carcass Wt. No. Carcass Wt.<br />

Slaughtered (MT) Slaughtered (MT)<br />

F. Hog Slaughtering Service 649 58.705 765 46.502<br />

G. Cattle Slaughtering Service 928 214.692 914 202.492<br />

No. Products<br />

Quantity<br />

(MT)<br />

No. Products<br />

Quantity<br />

(MT)<br />

H. Meat Processing Service 13 2.901 22 1.64<br />

I. Hides / Skins Processing Service<br />

6 8 pieces 11<br />

220<br />

pieces<br />

No. Batches<br />

No.<br />

Students<br />

No. Batches<br />

No.<br />

Students<br />

J. Practicum Students Accommodative 2 15 5 21<br />

K. Plant Visit / Tour 5 121 17 347<br />

No. Activities No. Activities<br />

L. Other Activities / Participants / Training of Staff 28 70<br />

M. Phone-In / Walk-In Inquiries -- 125<br />

N. Total Income Generated<br />

(Philippine Pesos)<br />

394,444.65<br />

(Philippine Pesos)<br />

813,141.16<br />

1. Slaughtering Fees:<br />

a. Cattle (1,421) 319,988.12 280,178.34<br />

b. Hog (554) 48,948.12 66,015.45<br />

2. Meat Processing 24,308.41 27,983.28<br />

3. Use of Facilities 1,800.00 92,654.13<br />

4. Training Fee -- 346,150.00<br />

5. Hides/Skin Processing Fee -- 160.00<br />

70


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> J. Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview of Peter Hautzinger,<br />

Chief Technical Adviser, Asia Pacific Meat<br />

Project<br />

A. Is the Design of APMP implementable?<br />

The project proposal was done in a very professional way. The design was very simple<br />

and straight<strong>for</strong>ward and largely based on a similar project very successfully implemented<br />

by FAO in Uganda 1996-1999. Also this new project was tailor-made to be implemented<br />

by an agency with representations in all countries which are actively involved in the<br />

project. If, <strong>for</strong> example, FAO or GTZ were the Project Executing Agency, most of the<br />

many initial problems encountered could have been avoided. This refers mainly to the<br />

routing of technical and financial reporting, transfer of funds from the PEA to the centers<br />

and direct monitoring of expenditures, but also to shipment and importation of equipment<br />

and machinery, where country offices could have surely facilitated the work.<br />

When the United Nations Office <strong>for</strong> Project Services (UNOPS) was contracted as the<br />

Project Executing Agency (PEA), the absence of direct representations created tremendous<br />

problems in 2003/2004. Not only had UNOPS to operate through UNDP offices and those<br />

showed no interest at all, but at the same time UNOPS was in a transition phase and<br />

moving offices from Kuala Lumpur to Bangkok. When the project finally started<br />

operations in October 2003, four different portfolio managers took over during the first six<br />

months. More time had to be spent by us explaining the project background to all of them<br />

which caused substantial delays and problems and only the personal ef<strong>for</strong>ts of individuals<br />

made the project start possible. Most of these concerns however were settled later with the<br />

appointment of a permanent portfolio manager and substantially expanded TOR <strong>for</strong> the<br />

CTA.<br />

The ef<strong>for</strong>ts of UNOPS to deal with this, <strong>for</strong> their organization unusual, regional project<br />

should be recognized and the current portfolio manager and assistant have <strong>for</strong>med a good<br />

team. It just seems that project design and UNOPS modus operandi are simply not<br />

compatible.<br />

B. How is the APMP Reporting Process Done?<br />

Since May 2005, the process involves the centers sending all their reports to the main<br />

center, the CTA reviewing the technical content and <strong>for</strong>warding the report to UNOPS,<br />

with copy to AGAP/FAO <strong>for</strong> technical clearance. With the inputs from AGAP/FAO, the<br />

CTA is provided technical backing. Since the midterm review, the CTA also checks the<br />

financial statements provided by main and satellite centers and verifies as much as<br />

possible the expenses.<br />

C. How is APMP managed?<br />

The project is managed quite well up to now, largely due to the tremendous support<br />

received from individuals from all project partners involved. It had good counterpart staff<br />

in all four locations and often the FAO country offices were indirectly involved in<br />

supporting project ef<strong>for</strong>ts when need arises. For example, communicating directly to the<br />

Myanmar center is sometimes difficult and channeling such communication through<br />

71


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

UNDP resulted in nothing at all. Using the FAO representation, immediate connection<br />

with the satellite center counterparts was ensured at all times. These favors were more<br />

personal than following official protocol.<br />

D. How are the Project Objectives Met?<br />

Most of the objectives of the project document were clear and straight<strong>for</strong>ward. Few<br />

adjustments were made in the implementation. The local equipment fabrication is one<br />

issue to highlight. Importing sophisticated and expensive equipment from Europe, or the<br />

USA, or any industrial country would have been easy, but maintenance of this equipment<br />

later would create headache to the project counterparts, if most of the spare parts are to be<br />

imported also. If this imported equipment is recommended to SMEs, the sustainability of<br />

such ef<strong>for</strong>t is questionable.<br />

The project approached this problem by identifying core equipment and local fabricators<br />

who would work together with the project to develop this equipment in the Philippines.<br />

After passing extensive test <strong>for</strong> standards and quality, these locally fabricated machines<br />

were distributed to the satellite centers. However, since conditions are different in the<br />

satellite centers, the installed equipment required some minor adjustments, which was<br />

done locally.<br />

The activity needs to be seen as sustainable. Most spare parts can now be ordered and<br />

equipment repaired and maintained locally. By this approach, we assure that the centers<br />

can continue operating after the end of the project and are able to contribute greatly to the<br />

development of the meat sector in the respective countries.<br />

E. What were the things you changed from the inception report to the actual<br />

implementation?<br />

We had to slightly change the approach on the market survey and product development<br />

activities. Such activities require a lot of financial resources, time and manpower, which<br />

we needed <strong>for</strong> other more important project activities. Besides, in a market already flooded<br />

with low cost products, it would be pointless to try with our limited resources to position a<br />

set of newly developed products.<br />

Instead, we focused on developing capacity building/training to inculcate the systematic<br />

procedure of product development. This approach showed the methodology, including<br />

sampling, monitoring of processes and systematic work. This makes people aware how<br />

important it is to pay attention to details, to follow a scheme, and to meet deadlines. All<br />

these require the involvement of an active quality control unit, which was not a common<br />

procedure at APDC be<strong>for</strong>e. Nevertheless, APDC still developed quite a sizable number of<br />

modified and/or new meat product <strong>for</strong>mulations ready to be introduced in the market by<br />

the private sector.<br />

F. Is it easy to set up a Regional Network?<br />

The first part is quite easy: Setting up suitable facilities in different countries, employing<br />

and tasking the management staff and delegating somebody to coordinate and facilitate.<br />

The difficult part is to bring them all together to <strong>for</strong>m a network.<br />

We encouraged this by circulating technical staff among the satellite centers to the main<br />

72


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

centers. This helps them get started in setting up their operations and training programs.<br />

Such exchange of expertise is vital to building the network. We have also created special<br />

training in addition to those specified in the original work plan.<br />

Another amendment was expanding the budget allocation to the satellite centers. By<br />

realigning the budget, we have encouraged more activities in these centers. In the long run,<br />

I’m worried on how this network will continue when the project ends and when donor<br />

funds are exhausted.<br />

I’m pretty sure that APDC could lead the network, guide the colleagues and provide<br />

technical assistance. Its staff has gathered now enough experience to plan and coordinate<br />

activities. The network currently exists. We have an exchange of expertise and<br />

cooperation. But funding is essential in keeping the network alive.<br />

Two options to keep the centers and the network going are possible. The most favorable<br />

would be that the four governments realize the importance of this kind of cooperation and<br />

set funds <strong>for</strong> its continuation aside. They could also identify an agency, which provides the<br />

centers with all kinds of activities, <strong>for</strong>cing them to cooperate, work together and keep the<br />

network alive. In a first post-project phase, I recommend short projects simultaneously<br />

conducted in four centers that can be technically guided/supported by the main center.<br />

This could guarantee an exchange of expertise and keep the network alive. A very good<br />

option would be the conduct of simultaneous FAO-TCP components, requiring technical<br />

expertise provided by the centers. I also hope CFC could create or stimulate a kind of a<br />

second phase of the project to keep this coordination alive.<br />

G. How do you characterize the 3-year project implementation?<br />

If the project could have been implemented without delay in the release of funds at the<br />

start of the project, we could have established the network faster. To compensate <strong>for</strong> this<br />

delay, we had to reshuffle some activities. We had to implement the TCP training<br />

component much earlier than planned, because it had to be completed within 2003/2004.<br />

Initially the training was supposed to start only when all centers were fully operational.<br />

But in spite of the delays, we managed to keep things on track.<br />

Going back on this issue, I think most of our problems could be eliminated if there was a<br />

proper identification process of the project-executing agency. I’m specifically not blaming<br />

UNOPS, but the process of identifying them as PEA. Their organizational setup seems to<br />

just not being compatible with the regional project design. There was a lot of confusion<br />

and we wasted a whole year explaining and refocusing, when we could have worked on<br />

developing and improving the network.<br />

The main center and all the satellite centers are now fully operational. At the center in<br />

Bangladesh, development was delayed because of the change in management, but things<br />

could be ironed out.<br />

I just came back from Myanmar. The interest in the industry and in other government<br />

agencies on project activities and future services of the center is tremendous. The potential<br />

<strong>for</strong> this network member to contribute with its operations is tremendous.<br />

H. Can you enumerate the impact of the project per project component?<br />

73


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

The activities from each component are all interrelated that it is hard to separate them and<br />

talk about individual impacts. The real impacts are more like a snowball, getting bigger<br />

and bigger and bigger, thus resulting into an avalanche, here in the most positive sense.<br />

For us, it was important to create a name <strong>for</strong> all the centers. The main center at APDC has<br />

created a name <strong>for</strong> itself now, which is totally different from the reputation it had four<br />

years ago. Now we get requests coming in from all over the country and requests from the<br />

satellite centers asking <strong>for</strong> technical guidance. Former trainees from the TCP training<br />

courses keep on contacting APDC <strong>for</strong> technical assistance.<br />

TCP has played an important role from the start. We covered the Training and Capability<br />

Building aspect with the TCP training courses. Based on the experience gained, APDC<br />

staff took initiative and is conducting many trainings now at APDC, that we have already<br />

surpassed the project targets. Here we are simply responding to the demand created. If we<br />

would just do what is required in the project proposal, we would neglect the potential and<br />

make all ef<strong>for</strong>ts unsustainable.<br />

I. Does the APDC training generate income <strong>for</strong> operation?<br />

Trainings generate income but in the past such funds needed to be remitted to the central<br />

office (BAI). Direct use of such funds would make the main center financially more viable<br />

and its operations more sustainable. Since our successful discussions with BAI, some of<br />

the income can now be utilized at the center as part of its operating funds to support<br />

APDC training activities.<br />

J. Is there a Post-TCP Training monitoring process of Participants?<br />

Trainees <strong>for</strong> any TCP course are selected through the usual FAO system: An FAO<br />

representative in a participating country requests his government counterparts to identify<br />

individuals from both private sector (SMEs) and government. After the training, usually<br />

FAO technical staff on a mission in that country has the opportunity to follow up on the<br />

trainees. In our case, also the CTA and some technical staff had the chance to visit them in<br />

their workplaces and talk to their superiors. Most trainees from Bangladesh were<br />

promoted. One was head of the quality control unit in his company, showing a lot about<br />

the quality of the TCP training. In countries where we don’t have scheduled missions, we<br />

try to circulate in<strong>for</strong>mation through Internet and e-mail lists.<br />

K. Did you have difficulties training people at APDC in “semi-complete”<br />

facilities?<br />

Not really, in fact we turned a negative thing into something positive. We were very<br />

honest with our participants. We oriented them on the current state of events: where we<br />

(project/facilities) came from, this is now the state we are in, and this is where we are<br />

going. We discussed with the participants how the facilities could be upgraded and<br />

explained how they can use this knowledge to upgrade their own facilities. It was an<br />

effective training tool, especially <strong>for</strong> trainees coming from developing countries facing<br />

similar problems at home.<br />

When the third training commenced, the infrastructure and equipment were complete and<br />

up to specifications. All participants also had the chance to attend field visits so that they<br />

can see the whole sector setup.<br />

74


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

L. What is being done <strong>for</strong> the technology promotion aspect?<br />

We were developing the project website. It was meant to be a group ef<strong>for</strong>t. But due to the<br />

increased workload and resulting lack of sufficient time, inputs from PIT members to<br />

constantly update the website did not come <strong>for</strong>ward.<br />

M. How about promoting commercialization?<br />

APDC facilitated by the project can only assist on a very technical level. As APDC is not<br />

a private business entity, it cannot introduce new products on the market or provide funds<br />

<strong>for</strong> a company who wishes to commercialize. The private sector has to take that initiative<br />

and APDC provides them with the needed technical backing. But it takes more time than 3<br />

years to establish proper relationships and convince the private sector to make any<br />

investment.<br />

N. What are the tangible accomplishments of the project?<br />

First of all, we managed in a tremendous team ef<strong>for</strong>t to establish all 4 centers. Equipment<br />

was locally fabricated in the Philippines and distributed and technical staff from all centers<br />

trained at APDC. The process of stimulating active interaction between the centers is<br />

producing its first promising results. At the main center we also succeeded to create strong<br />

ties with the private meat sector and this cooperation is growing daily. The 4 regional<br />

FAO/TCP projects could be completed in time with 67 international participants training.<br />

Using additional external funding, we also managed to develop and disseminate a pilot<br />

waste management scheme <strong>for</strong> municipal abattoirs.<br />

O. Was the entire APDC staff integrated with the project when the project<br />

started?<br />

No, because life at APDC did not stop when the project came. There was a lot of ongoing<br />

work already. On top of that, It would have also been a logistical nightmare <strong>for</strong> us to bring<br />

everybody on board.<br />

We <strong>for</strong>med a project implementation team (PIT), which involves senior staff, unit heads<br />

and administrative support staff, all working on a part-time basis in the project. On a later<br />

stage when APDC was established as the main center, others were included in activities as<br />

need developed.<br />

P. Was the loan allotted <strong>for</strong> micro credit released?<br />

No, despite a lot of ef<strong>for</strong>ts by PIT members to put the loan component money to good<br />

use, nobody authorized to do so was willing to deal with the loan as the amount was seen<br />

as too small (not even covering the admin expenses).<br />

My recommendation would be that CFC relaxes its rules and regulations to make it a little<br />

bit easier to access this money and <strong>for</strong> the government financial institutions to show more<br />

interest in small bunches of money, provided <strong>for</strong> the development of the small-scale<br />

private sector.<br />

In our concrete case, I strongly recommended converting this amount into a revolving<br />

75


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

fund distributed among the centers. However, up to now no serious ef<strong>for</strong>t on this was<br />

made by any of the project partners.<br />

Q. Who are the beneficiaries in this project here?<br />

The most direct beneficiaries are the four centers and their qualified technical staff. All are<br />

per<strong>for</strong>ming more professionally now, due to technical innovations and institutional and<br />

technical capacity building brought about by the project.<br />

The next set of beneficiaries is the SMEs. In Asia Pacific, big commercial companies<br />

dominate the meat processing industries. These companies do not need any advise from<br />

us, they hire consultants <strong>for</strong> that job, and the benefits translate to profits <strong>for</strong> that company.<br />

The small-scale entrepreneurs and self-trained wet market/backyard operators, who have<br />

limited financial resources and no <strong>for</strong>mal training at all, can’t af<strong>for</strong>d such international<br />

consultants and need an af<strong>for</strong>dable source of in<strong>for</strong>mation, advice and training. The centers<br />

can provide these services.<br />

Another level of beneficiaries is the consumer. Consumers benefit from all our ef<strong>for</strong>ts<br />

because they are given safer and af<strong>for</strong>dable meat products produced by better trained<br />

people. Another group is the traders and shop owners who market these products and earn<br />

additional income. They also make better consumers.<br />

R. Are there favorable factors that enhance the project?<br />

National staff – we appreciate their commitment. This project can’t be implemented<br />

successfully without their inputs and ef<strong>for</strong>ts. This applies to Main and Satellite Staff<br />

Government agencies involved – our national counterparts. In the Philippines, BAI<br />

provided us with tremendous support throughout project implementation, to the extent that<br />

they injected additional funds from their budget to improve the facilities.<br />

International agencies – additional inputs from FAO on all levels (communication,<br />

facilitation in the satellite centers, additional funds <strong>for</strong> some activities, technical inputs;<br />

GTZ and private sector inputs <strong>for</strong> small research work and improvement of facilities<br />

(HSI). I can’t <strong>for</strong>get my original organization, GTZ/CIM, they extended my contract.<br />

S. What is the project’s contribution to poverty alleviation?<br />

It is difficult to quantify the project’s contribution to poverty alleviation, since we are only<br />

in the technical stages <strong>for</strong> now. In writing, poverty alleviation should be one of the main<br />

goals of any development project. If the centers continue to operate as they do now, they<br />

will provide enough training assistance to the SMEs and this will certainly trickle down to<br />

the needy.<br />

We provide only the “tools” and hope that our beneficiaries, in ten years time, will have<br />

their own meat stall, and generate their own income, and their families will be better off.<br />

If they expand their operation, they will provide employment <strong>for</strong> other people. We help<br />

people start a small enterprise <strong>for</strong> themselves or help them get employed by upgrading<br />

their skills.<br />

76


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

T. One thing unique about this project is that there is multi-funding support.<br />

Would you see that as an advantage as compared to a single source funding?<br />

Yes, it is an advantage. Each agency has it own views and mandate. By considering these<br />

different mandates in all our activities and through constant exchange of ideas,<br />

complementation surely results in a better outcome. Sharing the finance, you can bring a<br />

bigger project with one aim together as soon as you agreed on the goals.<br />

During implementation, this is sometimes challenging in terms of coordination; meaning<br />

to have all donor inputs ready at the right time, so that the logical sequence of events is not<br />

lost. But that is mainly the job of the PEA, in our case I had to take care of it most of the<br />

time.<br />

Of course, this is not the first time I worked with such a set-up. The first one was quite<br />

straight<strong>for</strong>ward, was financed by 3 partners, CFC, FAO and GTZ/CIM and executed by<br />

FAO. The second project now added an external Project Executing Agency at a very last<br />

moment which caused some turmoil. But at the end of the day we have to say, that the<br />

project is at the last phase, we have covered all aspects and we have used up the funds<br />

allocated to us. Only the loan component could not be covered. This was not the fault of<br />

individual project partners, but in my opinion simply a system error.<br />

U. How do you find the reporting cycle?<br />

Reporting was very confusing and in very short periods in the beginning. You could say,<br />

that the PEA was trying to micro-manage us technical people in the centers by asking <strong>for</strong><br />

quarterly reports and quarterly fund transfers, which was simply a nightmare. Later this<br />

procedure was relaxed and brought back to sensible periods with one annual report and a<br />

shorter semi-annual progress report. The actual responsibility was also transferred from<br />

the PEA to the CTA. On my part, reporting was not too strenuous as long as everybody<br />

fed me with the right in<strong>for</strong>mation at the right time. To me, the reporting process <strong>for</strong> our<br />

project must be seen as a team ef<strong>for</strong>t. Sometimes we encountered severe delays in the<br />

submission of in<strong>for</strong>mation from the satellite centers.<br />

<strong>Fund</strong> transfers and reports should be done on an annual basis, with a short progress report<br />

after each 6 months. Then we could work instead of sitting there and complaining that we<br />

don’t have any in<strong>for</strong>mation to report.<br />

Donor agencies should not interfere with day-to-day operations, but leave this to the PEA<br />

and CTA. Especially in multi-donor projects, everybody must understand their role to<br />

avoid unnecessary complications. Communication must also be organized. We should not<br />

communicate behind the back of others. This is not fair and causes a lot of problems, as<br />

seen in the beginning of the project. For the last two years, everything went more or less<br />

smoothly.<br />

V. One of your project goals was waste management. How did you address this?<br />

The issue of waste management was addressed in the second phase of project<br />

implementation after rehabilitation of facilities was completed. Under the supervision of<br />

the NPC a pilot scheme was developed and FAO/AGAL/LEAD provided additional funds<br />

to install a better system (DEWATS). Waste management is a key topic in regular training<br />

courses organized by the center.<br />

77


W. What is your Overall Accomplishment?<br />

Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

It is easy to say that we have accomplished 100%. But we have shuffled activities, in the<br />

process. We have given priority to some and neglected others. In principle, we have<br />

surpassed most of our goals. The project has surely exceeded my personal expectations.<br />

X. What are the Lessons Learnt from the Project?<br />

Avail all donor inputs on time and in accordance with the agreed workplan, that project<br />

implementation can take place smoothly.<br />

Agree on sensible reporting periods, transparent communication procedures and a clear<br />

chain of command.<br />

Use a project-executing agency, which has direct representations in all countries actively<br />

involved in the project.<br />

78


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> K. Key In<strong>for</strong>mant Interview of Project Implementation<br />

Team, Selected APDC Staff and Former Trainee-<br />

Participants<br />

A. Project Implementation Team (PIT)<br />

1. Ms. Josefina A. Contreras. Acting Chief of APDC, and National Project Coordinator,<br />

Project Implementation Team of APMP.<br />

Ms. Contreras had provided a briefing on the operation of APMP during the three-year<br />

period. She cited the project documents prepared in the project. These included the<br />

original project proposal, the 2003 inception mission report, four progress reports (one<br />

quarterly and three semi- annually), two annual reports, mid-term mission report, four<br />

training reports and accountability reports. The project had improved the<br />

facilities/equipment of the slaughterhouse, the meat-processing unit, the quality control<br />

unit, the by-product utilization unit, the animal holding area, and the waste<br />

management system.<br />

She discussed the slaughterhouse rated capacity <strong>for</strong> cattle and pigs and the service<br />

arrangement with Del Monte Phil. and Console Foods, Inc. <strong>for</strong> cattle and pigs<br />

slaughtering, respectively. She talked briefly about the training courses offered at<br />

APDC: slaughtering techniques, meat cutting, meat processing, meat retailing, and byproduct<br />

utilization <strong>for</strong> leather. She also discussed the recently inaugurated integrated<br />

waste management scheme using the decentralized wastewater treatment systems<br />

(DEWATS) technology. The designing of the system utilized data gathered from the<br />

fields on the present waste handling and disposal practices <strong>for</strong> solid and liquid wastes<br />

and the slaughterhouse waste stream. Testing and evaluation of the system is on going<br />

until December 2006.<br />

Four TCP regional training courses were conducted at APDC in 2003-2004 with 72<br />

international participants coming from 19 Asia Pacific countries. The training,<br />

however, started ahead of the APMP start-up.<br />

The main center (APDC) had assisted technically in the capacity building/training of<br />

the technical staff of the three satellite centers. About 20 technical staffs from the<br />

network centers were trained in November 2004 on meat processing technology.<br />

The loan fund of USD 100,000 was unused. Quedancor and Land Bank of the<br />

Philippines were not interested to serve as conduit window of the fund. The fund was<br />

relatively small <strong>for</strong> their portfolio.<br />

She believes APDC had done most of the component activities of the project. That the<br />

project has created impact on the <strong>for</strong>mer trainees, in terms of job placements,<br />

improved rank and position, or business opportunities (putting a meat shop or stall) in<br />

the meat industry is still early to see. It would require another detailed study<br />

monitoring their activities, perhaps, after 3-5 years later.<br />

79


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

2. Ms. Emelina A. Lopez. Training Unit Head and Former Meat Processing Unit Head,<br />

APDC and National Project Assistant, Project Implementation Team (PIT) of APMP.<br />

She had completed her BS Food and Nutrition from Centro Escolar University (CEU)<br />

in 1977, took 36 units in MS Food Science, and got a 3-month training scholarship in<br />

Australia on meat processing, product storage, and packaging. She was part of a group<br />

that attended the IFFA 2004 Tour in Germany to get exposure to modern meat<br />

processing equipment and advanced meat processing from all over the world.<br />

The sustainability of APDC after the project would depend on being able to get<br />

external funding. The suggestion was to prepare a proposal document as soon as<br />

possible to get funding from FAO to ensure continuity of the project activities.<br />

Another suggestion was through bilateral government assistance. The Italian<br />

government through the Department of Finance in the Philippines has offered an<br />

assistance program on post-harvest technology. APDC and BAI-Livestock Research<br />

Division are preparing a proposal document. Another source would be the training<br />

fees charged by APDC to every training participant in the regular or specialized<br />

training courses. By special arrangement in the project, these fees could be placed<br />

under a Trust <strong>Fund</strong> and used to support APDC’s project operation (training activities).<br />

This would be able to augment the limited government fund, annually appropriated to<br />

support APDC.<br />

APDC could continue collaborating with the private sector with APDC providing<br />

technical assistance. Many companies had requested <strong>for</strong> assistance from APDC,<br />

where the <strong>for</strong>mer would shoulder the costs of training, travel, accommodations and<br />

materials. Two technical staffs were invited in Aklan recently to provide technical<br />

assistance and training to local meat dealers/vendors in the area. Topics were on<br />

awareness, meat cutting, meat processing, and hygiene and sanitation. The office had<br />

been overwhelmed with many requests that booking list could extend <strong>for</strong> four months.<br />

On product development and <strong>for</strong>mulation, She was in agreement with the CTA<br />

Hautzinger that there were too many products developed and <strong>for</strong>mulated already at<br />

APDC. It would be a matter of selecting what could be improved and tested <strong>for</strong><br />

possible adoption by our beneficiaries. Many clients would ask APDC to help with<br />

their product <strong>for</strong>mulation. APDC could teach them the process of basic <strong>for</strong>mulation<br />

and ask them to adopt it, and make modifications to improve the marketability of the<br />

product. Doing basic research at the center would no longer be practical, since the<br />

procedures were already known and the budget requirement would be prohibitive. She<br />

would recommend that the clients “play around” with recipes. She also would<br />

advocate the use of locally fabricated equipment. Since there have been a lot of meat<br />

products in the market now, it would not be necessary to list the top ten product lines.<br />

Most of these would fall on the premium class. There would still be those who would<br />

prefer af<strong>for</strong>dable products.<br />

APDC-APMP had developed a linkage with the Philippine Carabao Center in the use<br />

of the slaughterhouse, the meat cutting facilities; and the meat-processing unit.<br />

Product lines from buffalo meat (“carabeef”) were <strong>for</strong>mulated and prepared <strong>for</strong> the<br />

2005 Buffalo Congress. Likewise, the APDC-PCC linkage had shared in sponsoring<br />

the national meat processing contests, held annually, where the <strong>for</strong>mer trained the<br />

80


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

participants at APDC on meat processing, as well as the capability training <strong>for</strong> regional<br />

coordinators. This would be a part of APDC’s continuing role in establishing<br />

outreach-training programs in the regions. The national meat-processing contest had<br />

been always co-sponsored by big companies in the meat industry.<br />

3. Dr. Angel M. Guno. Head, Slaughterhouse Unit, APDC and National Project<br />

Assistant, Project Implementation Team, Asia Pacific Meat Project.<br />

Dr. Angel Guno is a veterinarian from the Gregorio Araneta University Foundation<br />

(GAUF, now De La Salle University), graduated with a DVM degree in 1978. He<br />

joined APDC-BAI in 1990. He has accumulated 16 years of hands-on experience in<br />

the service.<br />

Be<strong>for</strong>e APMP, the buildings, facilities and equipment at APDC were old, dilapidated<br />

and in a sad state requiring immediate repair. With the implementation of APMP, the<br />

entire APDC has worn a new image, with improved receiving and unloading ramp <strong>for</strong><br />

animal welfare, renovated stockyard with pipe walls <strong>for</strong> cattle, improved chute with<br />

roofing, improved drainage system of stockyard, and reduce animal density in holding<br />

area to avoid stress. The slaughterhouse also underwent physical renovation with<br />

improved stunning area, procurement of additional stunning gun (captive bolt pistol)<br />

<strong>for</strong> cattle and electric stunner <strong>for</strong> pigs, electric stimulator, sterilizers <strong>for</strong> knives and<br />

splitting saw, washing facilities <strong>for</strong> offals, and dial-type weighing scale. The drainage<br />

canal was also improved and mechanical roof ventilators were installed. Workers<br />

wear uni<strong>for</strong>m coded attires with knives and tools in the work area. The workers are<br />

distributed into two groups; two are in the clean area and four, in the dirty area, with 1<br />

quality control staff and 1 meat inspector from NMIS. The beef half-carcasses are<br />

quartered, weighed and transferred to the reefer van chiller; while pork whole<br />

carcasses are transferred to the chiller be<strong>for</strong>e pick-up.<br />

The slaughterhouse unit has a good manufacturing compliance (GMP) certification.<br />

The slaughtering techniques training courses <strong>for</strong> pigs/cattle are scheduled monthly,<br />

with three-day awareness course and 10-day regular course. On-the-Job<br />

training/apprenticeship is accepted on a limited number <strong>for</strong> improvement of<br />

knowledge, skills and work attitude.<br />

The slaughterhouse unit has also served other clienteles, both government institutions<br />

(TESDA, PCC, etc.) and the private sector (CFAP, Dealco, Console Farm, Del Monte,<br />

Phil., etc.) <strong>for</strong> the development of the meat industry.<br />

4. Ms. Nenita R. Estante. Head, Quality Control Unit, APDC and National Project<br />

Assistant, Project Implementation Team, Asia Pacific Meat Project.<br />

She obtained her BS Chemistry at MLQ in 1978, with some units of MS Chemistry in<br />

1984. She completed her MBA degree at Adamson University in 2001 (partly thru a<br />

Civil Service Program). She had received also training on Good Manufacturing<br />

Practices (GMP), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP), Sensory<br />

Evaluation, one-week training on Food Control (Singapore), one-month training on<br />

Shelf Stable Meat Products (China), and one-month training on Regulatory and<br />

Quality Infrastructure Development <strong>for</strong> Food Safety and Quality (Sweden). She<br />

81


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

started working at BAI in 1990 and moved to work at APDC in 1996 until now as<br />

Senior Agriculturist. She is a well experience, well trained, and highly capable senior<br />

personnel at APDC.<br />

APDC, be<strong>for</strong>e APMP in 2002, had no money to have a decent operation of the center.<br />

No fund to buy supplies <strong>for</strong> research; the slaughterhouse and meat labs were<br />

dilapidated; and the QC Lab had not enough supplies and equipment. With the<br />

project, APDC has been given a new life. The slaughterhouse, meat lab and the QC<br />

were upgraded, repaired, and refurbished with new facilities, equipment and tools<br />

under the CTA supervision. The project has been a great help, especially when CTA<br />

Hautzinger started on-the-job training of the technical staff and conducted<br />

demonstration on meat processing (frankfurters and meat loafs, etc.). The CTA is<br />

outstanding, highly knowledgeable and has lots of bright ideas because of his hands-on<br />

and good exposure in a German University. He is a good writer too of reports. APDC<br />

is now GMP certified and has an AA category <strong>for</strong> NMIS evaluated slaughterhouses.<br />

The center is on its way <strong>for</strong> HACCP accreditation.<br />

The QC has contributed to the APMP in terms of providing lectures in regular training<br />

on sensory evaluation, QC, GMP; demonstration and hands-on in microbiological<br />

works.<br />

The QC also has assisted APDC in providing technical services to private companies<br />

requiring the center’s expertise. Some of these include Limcoma’s Batangas Prime,<br />

Sorosoro Ibaba Development Cooperative, Red Dragon Corporation, Dealco, etc.<br />

The beneficiaries of APDC implementation of APMP include the centers’ network,<br />

corporate meat operators, small-scale vendors/processors, cooperatives, housewives,<br />

and butchers. The project impact on poverty alleviation could be attained through the<br />

in-house training and demonstration activities with the above beneficiaries as well as<br />

some outreach services with the private sector in the meat industry.<br />

5. Dr. Katrina Mae P. Fortes. Head, Meat processing Unit, APDC and National<br />

Technical Assistant, Project Implementation Team, APMP.<br />

She obtained her DVM degree at Dela Salle University (<strong>for</strong>merly GAUF) in 1990.<br />

Employed at APDC in 1994. Dr. Fortes replaced Ms. Lopez as head of Meat<br />

Processing Unit in 2005. She extended technical support in 2006 by visiting the<br />

satellite centers and conducting training on meat processing technology with the<br />

technical staff of BLRI center in Bangladesh and those of LBVD center in Myanmar.<br />

Under her leadership, the meat processing unit at APDC has served a lot of clients<br />

through the regular training on meat processing; conducted lecture-demo to many<br />

visitors and guests; and extended technical services to many beneficiaries (small-scale<br />

meat processors) in the meat industry.<br />

B. APDC Staff<br />

1. Ms. Maria Salve D. Chavez. Meat Processing Unit Staff, APDC.<br />

82


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

She obtained her BS Industrial Technology, major in Food Technology at Sorsogon<br />

State College in 1987 and took 33 courses <strong>for</strong> a Masteral Program at GAUF. She<br />

joined APDC in 1990. She believed the APMP has improved staff capability and<br />

experience through hands-on training during project implementation. Based on her<br />

experience, she believed that the meat-processing course should be extended from two<br />

to five days to expose the trainees to more hands-on and practical works. The lecture<br />

and practical should have a ratio of 20:80 in favor of more hands-on. The previous<br />

problem of mixing participants of different experience from a batch of trainees in<br />

Regions 2 and 8 could be avoided through proper screening and selection of<br />

participants <strong>for</strong> homogeneity.<br />

2. Dr. Florie G. Mellomida. Quality Control Unit Staff, APDC.<br />

She obtained her DVM degree at GAUF in 1990. She joined APDC IN 1993 and<br />

worked in the QC unit <strong>for</strong> 10 years. She had a 3-month training (Japan) on<br />

Agricultural (meats) Processing Techniques at Hokkaido Center in 2004.<br />

The APMP has provided great contribution to the QC Unit in terms of equipment<br />

acquisition and personnel capability building. Its contribution in APMP has been the<br />

provision of hygiene and sanitation protocols in all aspect of APDC activities (training,<br />

demonstration, technical services, etc.).<br />

3. Dr. Eduardo DL. Torne. Head, Tannery and By-Products Unit, APDC<br />

Dr. Torne is a veterinarian. He compared the Tannery and By-Products Unit be<strong>for</strong>e<br />

and during APMP implementation. Be<strong>for</strong>e the project, the unit was located in a<br />

dilapidated building of APDC. Activities were very limited because of fund<br />

constraints. During the project, the unit was upgraded and relocated in the new<br />

building behind the APDC dormitory. The unit was refurbished with new facilities<br />

and locally fabricated equipment (stainless steel tanning drum, table and tanning<br />

room). The staff had carried out in-house researches, provided processing services to<br />

the private sector (<strong>for</strong> sheep, ostrich, snake, and fish) and conducted specialized<br />

training courses on tanning techniques and leather goods production.<br />

C. Former APDC Trainees in TCP and Regular Courses<br />

C.1 TCP Regional Trainee- Participants<br />

1. Ms. Marie Karen Momville. Quality Control Unit Staff and Formerly Meat<br />

Processing Unit Staff, APDC, Philippines<br />

Ms. Momville graduated with a BS Food Technology degree from U P Diliman<br />

and an MS in Environmental Science (lacking thesis only). She was <strong>for</strong>tunate<br />

to be one of the three Filipinos selected <strong>for</strong> the first TCP regional training on<br />

83


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

meat processing technology held at APDC in April-May 2003. Eighteen (18)<br />

international trainees from seven (7) countries in Asia Pacific region attended.<br />

She participated actively and with enthusiasm in the various components of the<br />

TCP training, involving slaughtering techniques <strong>for</strong> pigs, cattle, and small<br />

ruminants; meat cutting, meat processing, waste management and by-products<br />

utilization <strong>for</strong> leather. The training was complemented with field visits to<br />

Mother Earth in Angeles City, Pampanga; Cavite State University in Indang,<br />

Cavite, and International Training Center <strong>for</strong> Pig Husbandry (ITCPH) in Lipa<br />

City, Batangas.<br />

She has been active as a trainer on quality control of the APMP regular and<br />

outreach training courses, a co-author of the reference materials being prepared<br />

<strong>for</strong> FAO publication, and a member of the technical group providing services<br />

to existing and prospective meat processors/entrepreneurs in the meat industry.<br />

2. Ms. Dina B. Aloria. Head, Research and Development and Quality<br />

Control, DEALCO Farms, Inc., Philippines<br />

Ms. Aloria graduated with a BS Chemistry degree in 1997. She was the second<br />

Filipino among the three selected <strong>for</strong> the first batch of the TCP regional<br />

training on meat processing technology held at APDC in April-May 2003 with<br />

18 international participants. She vouched <strong>for</strong> the importance of the TCP in<br />

her life, how it effectively influenced and helped her as a person and as a<br />

practitioner in the field of meat establishment. She had high respect to the<br />

training course and to the persons comprising the training pool.<br />

She claimed that the TCP course had a very good balance, since the lectures<br />

were also demonstrated afterwards during practical/hands-on. It was during the<br />

hands-on/ practical where all participants became so excited. She was able to<br />

determine and qualify things that she had to adopt and rectify when she got<br />

back to her work at the plant. Every topic where her plant could relate to was<br />

important. Th basic topics she learned included the effect of preconditioning<br />

slaughter animals, hygienic slaughtering, the quality assurance considerations,<br />

proper meat cutting and trimming to eliminate losses of/save high value cuts.<br />

Her prime interests were basically all about slaughtering processes/ techniques<br />

and meat processing.<br />

The FAO consultants Dr. Gunther Heinz and Peter Hautzinger were claimed<br />

very capable and equipped with everything the participants need. Their tandem<br />

was very good. They provided the trainees the “tools” that could be used when<br />

they returned to their work place. She felt after the training that “she already<br />

knows everything”. The training had boosted personally her confidence to<br />

deliver her duty in her workstation. Likewise, she also claimed that the local<br />

trainers were also experts in discussing their specific topics. Their strictness to<br />

the house rules was a way of imposing the values on discipline. These<br />

included Drs. Angel Guno and Eduardo Torne, and Ms. Josefina Contreras who<br />

were great lecturers willing to share their expertise. She sentimentally felt she<br />

loved them all. FAO TCP had been a dignified training.<br />

84


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

As head of the Quality Department and Research and Development of<br />

DEALCO Farm, Inc., her job is to ensure that meat products are safe <strong>for</strong> human<br />

consumption. It is her job to set up standards and specifications per product.<br />

The company is focused mostly on “fresh meat”, she is very concerned on the<br />

hygienic slaughtering practices following GMP and SSOP rules.<br />

Sharing her training experience with co-workers was being done. Besides reechoing<br />

the technology, these people, particularly butchers were sent <strong>for</strong> series<br />

of genuine technical training to APDC on meat cutting, The goal of the<br />

company was to professionalize the butchers in their own field.<br />

She believes that the training program has impacted to the local meat<br />

processing industry and to the socio-economic conditions of the people, in<br />

terms of employment, business engagement, or improvement of positions in the<br />

meat industry.<br />

3. Ms. Melinda Oliquino. Production Supervisor, Limcoma Batangas Prime,<br />

Inc., Philippines<br />

Ms. Oliquino graduated with a BS Food Technology degree at UPLB in 1985.<br />

Be<strong>for</strong>e joining Limcoma Batangas Prime in 2002, she had series of<br />

employment in fish canning, Philippine Fisheries Development Authority<br />

product development R & D, and foods export. She was one of the three<br />

Filipinos that participated in the Second TCP regional training on Meat<br />

Processing Technology at APDC in September 2003 with 18 international<br />

participants. The one-month training had developed her confidence on the<br />

technical aspects of meat processing. She appreciated very much the training<br />

<strong>for</strong> influencing her career development and the beginning of the linkage with<br />

the company.<br />

The Limcoma Batangas Prime, Inc. started in 1994. For 12 years now, its meat<br />

plant has a capacity of 800 kg/day processed meat, consisting of 13 products,<br />

of which hotdog constitutes 20-25 % (the main product). During the<br />

renovation of the plant, APDC was requested <strong>for</strong> technical assistance. The<br />

CTA Peter Hautzinger was invited to assist in the renovation design. Twice<br />

Ms. Oliquino visited APDC <strong>for</strong> technical consultation. The new meat plant<br />

was conceived in 2004 and constructed in 2005-2006 at the new site in San<br />

Roque, Sto Tomas, Batangas. The new plant is projected to be operational in<br />

January 2007. The plant capacity has expanded into 6.5 metric tons fabricated<br />

meat cuts and 3.5 metric tons of processed meat per day.<br />

Ms. Oliquino provides briefing to sales agent on finished products handling.<br />

The management hires outside resource person <strong>for</strong> GMP seminars of workers.<br />

The Limcoma Multi-purpose Cooperative operates the pig slaughterhouses in<br />

Lipa City and Sto Tomas, Batangas. The cooperative supplies the pig carcass<br />

requirement of the plant, 6-7 head/batch at 2-3 times per week. The plant<br />

85


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

expansion was based on the APDC Plant model. Batangas Prime has 25<br />

employees. This number will expand when the new plant becomes operational<br />

in January 2007.<br />

4. Thien Trung Le. Assistant Lecturer, University of Agriculture and<br />

Forestry, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.<br />

Mr.Tien was one of the two Vietnamese trainee-participants of the fourth TCP<br />

regional training on meat processing technology at APDC in April 2004.with<br />

22 total participants. As a lecturer at the Faculty of Food Science and<br />

Technology, he was assigned to assist in courses on meat and milk technology.<br />

His professor-supervisor on these fields recommended him <strong>for</strong> the TCP<br />

training. His insights on the TCP training were as follows: that it has very<br />

good and practical lessons, the staffs were very helpful, and the facilities and<br />

instruments/equipment were very good <strong>for</strong> a training course. The significant<br />

lessons learnt from the TCP were the basic knowledge from the animal<br />

collection, slaughtering process, storage and processing meat products, hygiene<br />

and sanitation principles in processing area, and quality control testing. He<br />

was impressed with the DEWATS technology <strong>for</strong> managing plant waste at<br />

APDC.<br />

After the TCP, he pursued his Master study in Belgium and continued his<br />

studies doing Ph.D. research. The training course provided him useful<br />

knowledge and experiences in meat processing, which will be necessary <strong>for</strong> his<br />

job in the future. He was able to share his training experience, in a limited<br />

time, to his students be<strong>for</strong>e leaving <strong>for</strong> Belgium. He could <strong>for</strong>esee the impact<br />

of his training in the future when he completes his PHD education and return<br />

home from study abroad.<br />

5. Mr. Tony Aiolupo. National Project Counterpart/Coordinator, Animal<br />

Production and Health Division (APHD) Satellite Center, APMP, Samoa<br />

Mr. Aiolupo was selected <strong>for</strong> the TCP regional training on meat processing<br />

technology. He is the project technical staff <strong>for</strong> the Samoa Satellite Center. His<br />

participation was indeed necessary and important. He was one of the four<br />

Samoans selected <strong>for</strong> the four TCP training courses. He was the only Samoan<br />

in the second batch of TCP regional training participated in by 18 international<br />

trainees from 11 Asia Pacific countries. His impression of the TCP training<br />

was that the one-month duration was good enough <strong>for</strong> people who are new in<br />

this field of meat processing. The technical content of the course was relevant<br />

in equipping participants with the basic meat processing knowledge. The<br />

entire training course was arranged in a very organized manner and did reflect<br />

its importance and impacts in serving the trainees. For him, the training had<br />

provided the experience and the capability building he needed when he<br />

returned and assumed the job responsibilities of his position, despite being<br />

newly introduced into most of the fields studied.<br />

86


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

His job responsibilities included the following: carry out meat inspection<br />

duties, design section work program and management planning program, as<br />

well as taking part as a trainer in livestock production and health aspects. As<br />

lecturer, he re-echo his training knowledge and experience with his colleagues<br />

and training participants. He believed the TCP had impact, since the<br />

participants seemed satisfied with the issues and subject discussed and<br />

demonstrated during the training program. The general awareness and interest<br />

on meat hygiene and meat processing had slowly become important as a result<br />

of TCP conducted.<br />

6. Mr.Abdul Karim Khan. Assistant General Manager from Production<br />

Manager, Euro Industries (Pvt), Ltd., Pakistan<br />

Mr. Khan was selected by management in response to the invitation received<br />

from FAO to participate in the APMP-TCP regional training at APDC in<br />

November-December 2003. He believed the one-month TCP regional training<br />

was a very knowledgeable program, which enriched his experience and<br />

enhanced his On-the-Job per<strong>for</strong>mance. He learnt proper way of slaughtering<br />

cattle without damaging the skin, proper meat cutting, avoiding wastage of<br />

precious meat and controlling the quality of meat.<br />

His duties and assignments in the company include the preparation of spicing,<br />

control of mincing, control of chopping, control of meat quality, storage of<br />

meat, and control of cooking of meat products. He shared his training<br />

experience with colleagues, since he was the focal point of learning after his<br />

TCP. The training program had created impact, first to him where he was<br />

promoted from Production Manager to Assistant General Manager. Secondly,<br />

to the co-workers that he had trained in the company and lastly to the<br />

consumers of processed meats that the company produced and market.<br />

C.2 Regular Training Courses<br />

1. Ms. Nenita Lualhati. Head, Meat Processing, Sorosoro Ibaba Development<br />

Cooperative (SIDC), Batangas City.<br />

She graduated from Centro Escolar University (CEU) with a BS Food and<br />

Nutrition degree in 1977. Be<strong>for</strong>e joining SIDC in 2003 as full-time employee<br />

on meat processing, she previously worked as municipal health nutritionist in<br />

Bauan, Batangas; as faculty at CEU; and later at the University of Batangas;<br />

and as part-time staff of the cooperative.<br />

She attended the 3-day training course on meat processing (sausage<br />

manufacturing) at APDC in November 2005 with about 17 local participants.<br />

The training had improved her technical confidence, understood the labeling<br />

requirements of BFAD, and learnt the quality control protocols focusing on<br />

safety and sanitation in meat plant operation, and the material ingredients in<br />

meat processing. The training also brought the cooperative closer to APDC,<br />

87


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

where she linked the technical requirements of the cooperative meat plant with<br />

APMP. She sought technical assistance from CTA Hautzinger and the project<br />

implementation team on meat processing, product <strong>for</strong>mulations, and the design<br />

of the cooperative’s new meat plant in Batangas City.<br />

Sorosoro Ibaba Development Cooperative started as a multi-purpose<br />

cooperative with consumers’ and credit coop in 1969 and contract growing in<br />

1972 of hogs and poultry with members in Batangas City. It had grown to date<br />

with 4,000 regular members and about 5,000 associate members. Since its<br />

operation, it had expanded its business in feed milling (1987), pig multiplier<br />

farm (1995), savings and loan merger with credit coop (2002), and Petron gas<br />

station operator (2005). The cooperative also had established artificial<br />

insemination centers, communal farm, common waste disposal system of<br />

members <strong>for</strong> biogas, rice mill in Mindoro, six (6) meat shops and four (4) coop<br />

marts, aqua fair (water refilling) outlet, and a new meat plant. It also has<br />

operated the Batangas City abattoir since 2001 with AA standard.<br />

The new meat plant costs about PHP2.2 million. It would expand operation<br />

from the seven product lines into commercial volume (undefined quantity) of<br />

fresh meat cuts and processed meat products. The meat processing personnel<br />

of seven, consisting of 2 regular, 3 contractual and 2 part-time employees<br />

would likewise expand (undefined number).<br />

2. Ms. Lorena Hernandez. Production Supervisor, Limcoma Batangas Prime,<br />

San Jose, Batangas.<br />

She obtained her BS Food Technology at UP Los Banos oin 1995. She joined<br />

the company in 2003 after a seven-year work experience at Goldilock and Del<br />

Monte. She had participated the training at APDC on slaughtering techniques<br />

and meat processing in January 2004. She had the opportunity to join the field<br />

tour at Mother Earth and Mekeni plants in Pampanga, and DEALCO, Rustan<br />

and SM meat shops in Metro Manila. The training experience was very useful,<br />

giving her more technical confidence in the present job.<br />

3. Dr. Armando I. Morenos. Veterinary Practitioner, Meycauayan, Bulacan.<br />

He finished his DVM at GAUF in 1989. He is a practicing veterinarian,<br />

together with his veterinarian wife, in Bulacan. He attended the 3-day and the<br />

10-day training courses on slaughtering techniques <strong>for</strong> pigs and cattle<br />

(awareness and intensive courses, respectively) in September 2006 with about<br />

10 participants. He believed the courses should be taught that with more handson<br />

(80%) and less lecture (20%). He learnt a lot, particularly the flaying process<br />

in cattle and the importance of electrical stimulation on the carcass quality.<br />

After his training, he applied <strong>for</strong> and given the on-the-job training at APDC<br />

starting on September 22, 2006 until this writing to further enhance his skills in<br />

slaughtering pigs and cattle prior to his job placement in Australia. He believes<br />

in the capacity of APDC as a training institution, with upgraded facilities and<br />

88


Impact Evaluation of CFC-<strong>Fund</strong>ed Projects in the Philippines<br />

<strong>Annex</strong> <strong>Volume</strong> 3<br />

well-trained and experienced technical staff in providing services to the small<br />

processors and other clients in the meat industry.<br />

D. Institutional Linkages<br />

D.1 Government Agencies<br />

1. Director Davinio Catbagan. Director, Bureau of Animal Industry<br />

As National Project Director of APMP at APDC, Philippines, he provided<br />

counterpart fund in project operation. He provided policy direction and<br />

government support in the execution of the project. He felt the APMP had<br />

contributed a lot of improvements at APDC and its capacity as a regional<br />

training center in Asia Pacific region. He would not worry about the DA<br />

reorganization to affect APDC operation, since this will still undergo a series of<br />

review under the new management in the department.<br />

2. Ms. Manolita Gaerlan. Marketing Development Division, BAI.<br />

She in<strong>for</strong>med about the linkage with APDC in the training of animal handlers<br />

applying <strong>for</strong> their annual license at the Marketing Development Division of the<br />

BAI. Annually more than a thousand applicants are given a lecture on proper<br />

handling of food animals by a technical staff of APDC.<br />

89

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!