Micro-Livelihood Support Program and Expanded Micro-Livelihood Support Program

These tables analyze the project's success using KPA tools. You can also view the executive summary of the project.

Capital/Assets and Vulnerabilities Before the Project

Assets/Capital Vulnerabilities
STAKEHOLDER capital
  • + Partnership with DTI facilitated skills training programs, i.e., meat processing or cosmetology, for selected members.
  • + Continuous access to LBP loans and additional loans availed through NLSF.
FINANCIAL Capital 
  • + Net income in 2002 was PhP145,000. CBU generated = PhP943,000
  • + Credit line of P5M with LBP.
  • - Financial liability with LBP amounted to P2.8M. The outstanding production loan was restructured and the GDMPC had to make amortization payments of P500,000 per year.
STRUCTURAL Capital
  • + Broader membership base. In 1999, the GDMPC had 183 members who are mostly from barangays Gata Daku and Kinangay Sur. In 2002, a total of 679 members came from eleven brgys. in Clarin.
  • + LACCAS software used for financial monitoring: provides Local Area Networking (LAN) and generates various financial reports needed for monitoring.
  • - Absence of policies and procedures on MF
HUMAn Capital
  • + Highly motivated manager: takes the initiative in teaching herself the ways of making a cooperative more effective and efficient; resourceful in finding institutions that extends financial support; continuously upgrading her skills; and, capable of teaching the staff.
  • + Younger & more educated staff (e.g., bookkeeper has a computer science diploma) who share the common goal of “sacrificing” for the cooperative, e.g., not receiving overtime pay, being paid below the daily minimum wage.
  • + Familiarity among staff and officers since they all come from contiguous barangays
  • - Inadequate knowledge and skills of staff and officers of GDMPC in running a micro-finance project.
  • - “Dole-out” attitude of old members who were recipients of old government credit services like the Masagana 99.
  • - Microentrepreneurs are dependent on credit for their capital needs and would not hesitate to go to moneylenders who charge usurious interest rates.
  • - Only a few among the rural entrepreneurs can have savings from their income because for most, the main income is derived from farming or low-paying jobs, e.g., as a laborer, carpenter
SOCIAL Capital 
  • + Tradition of self-help through cooperative enterprises has been handed down to the younger generation. The GDMPC staff are already the second generation members.
  • + Association of coop managers provided a venue for sharing common concerns. The GDMPC manager was elected in 2003 as treasurer of the Zamboanga del Sur and Misamis Occidental Cooperative Network (ZMCN).
  • + Strong social ties typical of small rural communities (kinship, intermarriage, common lineage, e.g., Boholano or Cebuano).
  • - Dominance of “5/6” moneylenders, the alternative to commercial bank loans since they do not require any collateral.
NATURAL Capital 


  • - Clarin is prone to flooding due to the faulty structure of the irrigation system. During heavy rains, the water drains out onto the barangay roads and flows back to the rice fields.

Interplay of Capital During Project Implementation

ASSETS/CAPITAL USED
Structural Capital
  • written manual on policies and procedures on group lending;
Social Capital
  • trust established between GDMPC and members
Stakeholder Capital
  • continued support from PEF;
Human Capital
  • leadership qualities of manager;
  • desire of micro-entrepreneurs to see their business prosper;
  • younger and more educated staff.
Access to Technology
  • LACCAS software that was customized to improve monitoring of accounts;
VULNERABILITIES ADDRESSED
Human Capital
  • members are not able to pay on time while some completely renege on their agreements;
  • dishonest AOs;
  • only few micro-entrepreneurs are able to set aside savings;
  • 'dole-out' attitude of old members;
  • inadequate skills of staff in MF operations.
Financial Capital
  • inadequate funds to sustain financial services for members and to respond to potential clients' needs;
Social Capital
  • dominance of '5/6' operators;
  • tendency of some coop officers to stir up animosity among members;
  • entry of 'competitors' (coop/private companies also offering MF products);
INTERVENTIONS ON THE ASSETS AND VULNERABILITIES
Structural Capital
  • more efficient organizational flow, e.g., monitoring system reinforced through the position of an area coordinator;
  • instituting an incentive system as part of motivating the centers to aim for zero delinquency
  • innovations in dealing with delinquencies such as facilitating a common income-generating venture for a center with delinquency problems;
  • utilizing MIS in determining projects that needed support and those that are no longer viable;
Financial Capital
  • extending livelihood loans to old members who still have outstanding loans with LBP;
Social Capital
  • utilized trust built between the manager & BOD in re-gaining harmonious relationships;
  • used peer pressure in instilling discipline on weekly payments and forced savings;
  • tapping expertise and knowledge of MOFECO and ZMCN in enhancing skills of staff (e.g., bookkeeping and customer service)
  • enhanced members' values regarding loan payments thru the weekly center meetings.
 Stakeholder Capital
  • tapped LGU support during medical outreach conducted for members;
  • training facilitated by PEF to equip AOs and manager with necessary skills for MF project

Changes in Assets/Capital After the Project

GDMPC Member/community
FINANCIAL CAPITAL
2004 2006
Net income P232,588 1,079,801
CBU 747,533 954,609
Savings 478,594 478,594
(Income & CBU are based on audit reports)
  • Common gains reported:
    • expanded business, e.g., from
    • making charcoal plus sari-sari store;
    • set aside savings from income;
    • increase in inventory of goods;
    • expanded space for store;
    • invested in farm, real estate and
    • commercial space for rent;
  • twenty-six old members were assisted in paying for their outstanding balance with LBP’s production loan. MF loans were  used for income generation other than farming.
STRUCTURAL CAPITAL
  • A broader membership base that translates into additional income. From 679 members in 2002, the membership grew to 6,861 in 2007; of this number, 2,192 became members because of the project.
  • MF policies and procedures are used for the cooperative’s own lending services. The system has helped the coop manage and monitor individual loans.  
  • Clearer delineation of tasks and responsibilities due to hiring of additional staff. The manager could now look into improving human resource development and in training secondliners.
  • Poor entrepreneurs are able to save thru the weekly savings policy.










HUMAN CAPITAL
  • Staff and officers developed skills in managing microfinance projects.
  • Gained knowledge in entrepreneurship;
  • Cut off dependency on ‘5/6’;
  • Gained confidence. Members feel confident Especially when they have reached the 5th or 7th cycle;
  • Able to sustain business;
  • Have become more disciplined in managing finances.
SOCIAL CAPITAL
  • Gained trust of wider community. GDMPC has expanded to a neighboring town, which is the boundary between Mis Occ and Zamboanga del Sur
  • Group lending has created a ‘network’ of microentrepreneurs; coop membership created a sense of belonging to a larger community.
STAKEHOLDER CAPITAL
  • The project added to track record of GDMPC. It now has a partnership with PACAP in a livelihood project for residents living near the Labo river.
  • PEF continued its support thru ASAP, which extended a P5M loan that will specifically assist rural women entrepreneurs.