CARPIA-II MESO Final Report Part 1 13dec07

AANN AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT OOFF TTHHEE CCOOMMPPRREEHHEENNSSIIVVEE AAGGRRAARRIIAANN RREEFFOORRMM PPRROOGGRRAAMM AANNDD IITTSS IIMMPPAACCTTSS OONN RRUURRAALL CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTIIEESS IIII:: MMEESSOO PPEERRSSPPEECCTTIIVVEE

Department of Agrarian

Reform

CCoolllleeggee ooff EEccoonnoommiiccss aanndd MMaannaaggeemmeenntt ((CCEEMM)) CCoolllleeggee ooff PPuubbll iicc AAffffaaiirrss ((CCPPAAff)) UUPPLLBB FFoouunnddaattiioonn,, IInncc.. NNoovveemmbbeerr 22000077

AANN AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT OOFF TTHHEE CCOOMMPPRREEHHEENNSSIIVVEE AAGGRRAARRIIAANN RREEFFOORRMM PPRROOGGRRAAMM AANNDD IITTSS IIMMPPAACCTTSS OONN RRUURRAALL CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTIIEESS IIII:: MMEESSOO PPEERRSSPPEECCTTIIVVEE

FFFIIINNNAAALLL RRREEEPPPOOORRRTTT

Prudenciano U. Gordoncillo Merlyne M. Paunlagui Linda M. Peñalba Filomena A. Javier Emeterio S. Solivas Josefina T. Dizon Cesar B. Quicoy Tiffany P. Laude Julieta A. Delos Reyes Miriam R. Nguyen Yolanda Benedicta D. Mendoza

November 2007

PROJECT STAFF Full-time Umali, Rommel M. Escalona, Mena L. Buhat, Gallardo Jose G. Malenab, Karen J. Habana, Rachel R. Eusebio, Kristine Jayne L. Puhawan, Rolito Jr. M. De Castro, Jerome L. Part-time Celeste, Marcelino M. Grande, Aida O. Guiaya, Susan S. Martinez, Eldy Z. Sanchez, Flordeliza A. Velasco, Rosita L. Administrative Support Staff Aquino, Doris D. Javier, Angelica C. Nayle, Estelita G. Manalo, Luciana B. Mendoza, Enonie C. Del Rosario, Ernesto L. Bathan, Danilo M. Camingawan, Ernesto E.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The project was commissioned by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) through the Policy and Strategic Research Service (PSRS) and was implemented by the Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Economics and Management (CEM) of the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB). This was done in collaboration with the various units of UPLB including the Institute of Agrarian and Rurban Development Studies, Institute of Strategic Planning and Policy Studies and Institute of Community Education of the College of Public Affairs and Institute of Statistics, College of Arts and Sciences. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of PSRS through Director Martha Carmel C. Salcedo and her staff for their technical and editorial comments and suggestions. We also give thanks to Dr. Serlie Jamias for editing the final report; however, any error is the full responsibility of the authors. The authors are very grateful to the following: 1) the respondents for their patience and sustained interest during the lengthy interview, 2) the research staff who supervised the data collection and processing; and 3) the administrative staff who provided clerical and logistic support throughout the project duration.

Executive Summary 1 Introduction

The general objective of the MESO component of the CARP-IA Phase II is to provide the principal empirical evidence for determining the impact of the CARP on agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) and non-ARBs and on agrarian reform communities (ARCs) and non-ARCs between the years 2000 and 2006. The most immediate concern is to determine if the positive impact of CARP on ARBs and ARCs demonstrated in the first round studies has been sustained and reinforced in the last six years. A related objective is to determine any additional direct and indirect benefits, positive impact or new problems or difficulties that may have emerged in the last six years.

2 Methodology

Respondents of the 2000 study were resurveyed. Of the 432 households interviewed in 2006, a total of 405 respondents were included for a true panel analysis. The six study sites composed of Echague, Isabela; San Antonio, Quezon; Pili, Camarines Sur; La Carlota City, Negros Occidental; Mabini and Pantukan, Compostela Valley; and Tupi, South Cotabato. These sites represented the different agricultural commodity groups like rice, corn, coconut, sugarcane, pineapple, and banana. For each study site, ARC and non-ARC barangays were taken as study areas.

A combination of primary and secondary data was collected. Primary data were gathered using quantitative and qualitative methods. For the quantitative method, a modified version of the 2000 questionnaire was used to resurvey the 2000 respondents. Meanwhile, focus group discussions (FGD) and key informant interviews (KII) were conducted for an in-depth understanding of the impact of CARP on ARBs and non-ARBs and ARCs and non-ARCs. Participants to the FGDs were barangay leaders, officers, and members of the cooperative/organizations, and other ARBs and the non-ARBs. Among others, local government unit officials (LGUs) and staff of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) at the municipal and provincial levels served as key informants. Secondary data were sourced from the different offices of the municipality, cooperatives, and the DAR office.

3 Summary of Findings

3.1 Overall Findings CARP implementation resulted in a more equitable distribution of access to land and broader landownership base. In the six case study sites, a total of 7,097 hectares belonging to 177 landowners were already distributed to 2,429 ARBs. As a result, the average farm size was reduced significantly from 40 hectares per landowner to 2.9 hectares per ARB.

Monocropping is still largely practiced in most study sites but crop diversification is gaining popularity, particularly in the coconut ARC. The most visible change in the coconut study area of Bulihan, San Antonio, Quezon was the change from monocropping coconut to intensive intercropping and multi-cropping. Black pepper, citrus, bananas, and short-term vegetable crops have become part of

their agricultural production system. Livestock raising, which used to be for household consumption, is now for both household and for the market. The breed and the manner of raising livestock; the kind of crop to plant; the seeds; and the farm culture practiced have been very much influenced by the trainings and extension services provided by the different government agencies, notably the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) in coordination with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO). In Bulihan, the cropping system has changed and agricultural technologies have been adopted when the former tenants became ARBs. Aside from crop diversification, organic farming technologies like organic fertilizer, organic sprays, and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) were adopted in Bagong Sirang ARC, Pili Camarines Sur. The use of organic fertilizers, particularly chicken dung, was also introduced in the banana plantations in Tagnanan ARC, Mabini Compostela Valley although this was not due to CARP. Meanwhile, in the Bongabong non-ARC of Pantukan, Compostela Valley, the banana plantation is known for its less-chemically treated Cavendish bananas. In the pineapple study site of Tupi, South Cotabato and in the coconut study site in San Antonio, Quezon, crops became diversified when the farmers became ARBs because they can now decide what crop to plant that could generate for them the highest profits. These changes could be attributed to the capacity-building activities (e.g., trainings) they received from DAR, DA, and other public and private agencies. The pattern of change in average farm size differed among the study sites. While the average farm size in the corn, rice, and pineapple study sites decreased from 2000 to 2006, it increased for the sugarcane and banana sites. The decrease could be attributed to the transfer of land from the original ARB to either the spouse or children and to the practice of selling and mortgaging of lands, particularly for privately-owned lands. On the other hand, the increase in farm size indicated the ARBs’ activities of buying or acquiring mortgaged lands. The pattern of productivity was also divergent. While production decreased for corn and rice in Isabela, rice productivity increased for ARBs only but declined for non-ARBs in Bagong Sirang. Meanwhile, the coconut farmers in Bulihan and Niing complained of the nuts getting smaller and smaller through the years. Lack of capital was the most commonly reported problem related to agricultural production in all the study sites. Pests and diseases were also reported to be a problem in the rice study site. On the other hand, the most cited problem in marketing was the low price of corn, coconut, and other agricultural products. Mortgaging rather than selling was commonly practiced in the study sites. However, it was not rampant and involved mostly privately-owned lands. In the banana study site, there were cases of mortgaging of privately-owned lands at PhP25,000 per hectare among the ARBs. There were also three cases in the banana non-ARC where the ARBs gave up their share in favor of the cooperative because of unpaid loan. In the rice community where selling of land was reported, the value of land sold ranged from PhP103, 000 to PhP200, 000 per hectare. There were other forms of mortgaging in the sugarcane and coconut study sites. In the sugarcane study site, the land was commonly used as collateral by farmers who wanted to loan for farm inputs from private persons. In Bulihan ARC, the fruits of trees were used as collateral without interest.

Generally, the social and physical infrastructure improved across the study sites. There were improvements in the access road, source of water, and post harvest facilities in the ARC sites, which were beneficiaries of infrastructure projects from agrarian reform projects like the Agrarian Reform Infrastructure Support Project (ARISP), the Agrarian Reform Community Development Project (ARCDP), and Plan International. In the Tagnanan ARC, farm-to-market roads connecting Tagnanan Proper and Mampising were constructed and a Level II water system was also funded. Similarly, an 8.5-kilometer access road was funded by ARISP in the Bagong Sirang ARC. Meanwhile, LGUs and local politicians have developed infrastructure in areas where there were no agrarian reform projects. Examples of these areas were the San Manuel ARC in Echague, Isabela where portions of the barangay road and multi-purpose pavement were constructed and the Bulihan ARC in San Antonio, Quezon where more than two kilometers of the main road were cemented in addition to an almost kilometer of asphalted road. Better road and communication system and increased social facilities like day care center and rural health units (RHU) were also reported in the Nagasi ARC and Haguimit non-ARC. Infrastructure development has also contributed to the type and number of vehicles servicing the study sites. After the construction of the access road, more tricycles and jeepneys began plying the Barangay Sirang to Pili town proper and vice-versa increased. A tricycle is now servicing sitio Mampising, Tagnanan which used to be solely served by “habal-habal.” The better physical and social facilities were also matched by increased social services. In the sugarcane ARC, the number of visits by medical health personnel has doubled in a month. This was in addition to the permanent midwife assigned to the RHU. As a result, more mothers and children visited the health unit in 2006 compared to 2000. It should be noted that only Bulihan or the coconut ARC did not have a RHU. Except for the rice non-ARB in the non-ARC, the mean total asset increased for ARBs and non-ARBs in both ARC and non-ARC between 2000 and 2006. In 2000, the rice non-ARB in a non-ARC had the highest mean total asset followed by corn ARB, followed by banana and pineapple non-ARBs in a non-ARC and ARC, respectively. By 2006, the banana ARB and corn ARB in the ARC had the highest total mean asset, closely followed by the banana non-ARB in the ARC and the pineapple ARB in the non-ARC. The increase in the total mean asset was highest among corn ARBs and non-ARBs in the ARC. In the non-ARC, the sugarcane ARBs and non-ARBs had the highest investment in mean total asset between 2000 and 2006. Unlike in the mean total asset, the pattern of change on mean total income varied by respondent and by community. As of 2000, the corn ARBs and non-ARBs in the ARC had the highest mean total income. On the other hand, the lowest mean total income was reported by a non-ARB in the ARC. By 2006, the banana non-ARB in the ARC had the highest mean total income, followed by the corn ARB in the ARC. In the non-ARC community, the mean total income across respondents was not as variable as those in the ARC community in 2006.

The increment in mean total income appeared to be more consistent among the non-ARBs in both ARCs and non-ARCs. Moreover, the highest increment in total mean income was experienced by the rice and banana non-ARBs in the ARC between 2000 and 2006. Among the ARBs in the ARC, only the total mean income of the corn ARBs increased from 2000 to 2006 while it declined for the sugarcane, rice and pineapple ARBs in the non-ARC. Translating the mean household income into real per capita income revealed an increasing pattern for the ARBs in the ARC in the four study sites of Bulihan, San Antonio, Quezon; Bagong Sirang, Pili, Camarines Sur; Nagasi, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental; and Tagnanan, Mabini, Compostela Valley from 2000 to 2006. The highest increase was experienced by the sugarcane workers where the real per capita income of PhP12, 769 in 2000 rose to PhP19, 173 in 2006. The increase in mean real per capita income ranged from 11 percent in Tagnanan, Mabini to around 50 percent in Bulihan ARC, San Antonio and Nagasi ARC, La Carlota City. On the other hand, the decline in real per capita income in the San Manuel ARC, Echague, Isabela was very slight at 5 percent from 2000 to 2006 while it was more than a quarter (26%) in the Kablon ARC, Tupi, South Cotabato. Access to utilities like water and electricity and toilet increased from 2000 to 2006. For instance, respondents with water-sealed toilets increased, particularly in the Tagnanan ARC and Bongabong ARC where the Antipolo type of toilet was replaced by water-sealed toilet. More respondents also began using Level II water system and electricity. However, there were also ARBs and non-ARBs who did not have access to electricity. Wood was the most commonly used fuel in cooking for all the study sites. In most study sites, households using liquefied petroleum gas decreased from 2000 to 2006. In most study sites, the LGUs supported the ARBs and non-ARBs in both ARC and non-ARCs through agricultural programs and projects. These projects included dispersal of livestock, distribution of fruit tree seedlings, and provision of capacity building activities like trainings, seminars, and workshops. In rice and banana study sites, the LGU provided the needed counterpart for the infrastructure project. Also in the banana study site, the LGU provided rice and canned goods when the ARBs went on strike. To assist agrarian reform, the LGU of Echague helped DAR in resolving agrarian conflicts. The barangay chairman of San Manuel was more actively involved in resolving agrarian conflicts as well as in soliciting financial support. Further, there was closer collaboration between DAR and the ARC in San Manuel compared to Sta. Maria. Membership in organizations has been declining and some cooperatives and organizations have become inactive for various reasons. In Bulihan, only 20 percent of the ARBs were cooperative members; the members remained conservative in their business venture; and the women’s organization became inactive and requested the MARO for its delistment but was not approved. The women’s organization became inactive because the members of the women’s organization were also members of the cooperative and they liked to maintain membership with the cooperative only. In contrast, in the non-ARC, the only organization which was revived through the help of the MARO has continued to operate and expand its business. In San Manuel or the corn ARC, the cooperative needed the help of the DAR to restructure its overdue loans and to revitalize the organization.

In other study sites like the sugarcane and banana sites, membership was not only declining but also the participation in the discussion and the deliberation during meetings. Moreover, in another cooperative in the banana ARC, membership has shifted from cooperative to other civic and religious organizations because of social and economic services being offered. For example, a religious organization provided loan for social and business purposes. CARP’s contribution to employment generation and migration was more visible in the pineapple and banana plantations. Ownership of land through the CARP has enabled farmers to engage either in contract growing or leaseback arrangement/joint production arrangement with multinational companies. In other sites, such as Nagasi or the pineapple ARC, the CARP has had no considerable impacts on migration. In Haguimit, the new migrants were brought by a landowner to work in the hacienda while two moved out to search for other income sources. 3.2 Synthesis of Findings by Case 3.2.1 Echague, Isabela (Corn) There are no concrete indications that the SSD interventions introduced by DAR in San Manuel ARC before 2000 have made significant positive impacts on the socio-economic status and well-being of the ARBs. The livelihood options presented to the community were not sustained-not one enterprise was established in the community. Nevertheless, San Manuel residents and the community itself were better-off than in Sta. Maria. Only about 20 percent of the Sta. Maria residents (non-ARC) were relatively in good economic condition compared to 80 percent in San Manuel (ARC). The earlier agrarian reform programs and projects and the combined support of the LGU and the Isabela State University have contributed to the socio-economic improvement of San Manuel. The San Manuel respondents were better off or had higher income than the Sta. Maria respondents. In 2000, San Manuel respondents had a real per capita income of PhP23,256.00 while Sta. Maria respondents only had PhP21,179. In 2006, the per capita real income of both San Manuel and Sta. Maria respondents declined but the decline in San Manuel (27%) was less than that of Sta. Maria respondents (41%). The real per capita income of San Manuel ARBs (PhP35,942) was much higher than that of the Sta. Maria ARBs (PhP21, 989) in 2000. This income difference grew wider in 2006 as San Manuel ARBs real per capita income declined by only about PhP1,932 while that of the Sta. Maria ARBs declined by about PhP10,774. In 2000, the ARBs in both barangays were much better-off than the non-ARBs per capita income. In 2006, San Manuel ARBs were able to maintain their superiority over the non-ARBs. However, during the same year, Sta. Maria non-ARBs reported an increase in per capita real income by PhP12,171 while that of the Sta. Maria ARBs declined by about PhP10,774. Thus, it is recommended that within its limited budget, DAR should help ARBs in both communities to improve their socio-economic condition and protect LTI gains. The MARO can review the applicability, appropriateness, and acceptability of the programs implemented by the BARBD (e.g., Marketing Assistance

Program which linked the ARBs to market outlets and the DAR-Punla sa Tao Foundation which built the ARBs capacity to establish, operate, and manage a microfinance project) in the regular ARCs. DAR can re-assess the fielding of one development facilitator (DF) per ARC to enhance the latter’s efficiency; to continue giving them information and education campaigns (IEC) about their financial obligations (i.e., real property taxes and amortization payment) as ARBs; and educate them on alternative livelihood to improve the productivity of their agrarian reform acquired-land. 3.2.2 San Antonio, Quezon (Coconut) The income and asset value of the non-ARBs of Niing was higher than that of the ARBs in the Bulihan ARC. This was because in Niing, landownership was predominantly small and owner-cultivated, and trading agricultural products had been going on for a long time. On the other hand, farmers in Bulihan were predominantly tenants before 1990, thus they were limited to maintaining the coconut plantation and were prohibited by the landlord to plant other crops or to raise livestock for added income. Another factor could be that while all the sitios of the non-ARBs had similar levels of socio-economic development, the sitios of Bulihan ARC were diverse. Bulihan Centro, the more progressive sitio, was comparable to Barangay Niing in cropping system and in access to agricultural and basic services. Another sitio, Hacienda Roxas, which was covered by CARP in 1990 and eventually declared part of the Bulihan ARC, has been slowly catching up. Castillo Estate located in another sitio has remained the least developed. In Bulihan ARC, only after becoming ARBs were the farmers able practice intercropping/multi-cropping and raise livestock for their household consumption and for the market. Citrus pepper, papaya, banana, ampalaya, tomato, taro (gabi), and violet taro vine variety were common intercrops after 1990. The improvement of the ARBs in the Bulihan ARC could be attributed to farmers becoming landowners because of CARP as well as their support services from DAR, other national government agencies, and the LGU. Under the Social Infrastructure and Local Capability Building (SILCAB) Thrust of the ARC program of development, the officers and members of the cooperative were recipients of capability building activities to improve their financial and organizational management capacities. The ARC Bulihan was also selected as the implementation site of the program under the auspices of the PCA, the International Plant Genetic Resource Institute (IPGRI), and the International Coconut Genetic Resources Network (COGENT) Project Coconut-Based Product Diversification to Reduce Poverty in Coconut-Growing Communities, funded by the DA’s-Bureau of Agricultural Research (BAR) in collaboration with the local LGU and the Office of the Congressman to which all the livelihood interventions of the said agencies were to be channeled. The livelihood trainings included organic piggery, goat production, coffee rejuvenation, banana farm tissue culture, citrus juice and virgin coconut oil processing, and buko pie and bukayo making were conducted between 2000 and 2006. The ARBs themselves reported that they received more extension activities than in 2000.

The Bulihan ARBs may not be economically at par with the farmers of Niing; however, they were more highly satisfied with their level of living and that they perceived their lives consistently improving since 1990. During the focus group discussion (FGD), the ARBs in Bulihan rated their socio-economic status at 3 in 2000; 4 in 2005; and 5 in 2010. On the other hand, Niing’s rating of 4 in 2000

went down to 3 in 2005; further, it did not give any rating in 2010 because of the uncertainty of government assistance. Castillo Estate’s gains in becoming an ARB and for the community to become an ARC could be further enhanced if the estate could be improved by building a road and bridge connecting the sitio with the other sitios. Also, a corrective survey of the AR-covered area of Roxas Estate should be done soon. It was found out in many cases that the area indicated in the CLOA did not match the actual land being tilled by the ARBs. 3.2.3 Pili, Camarines Sur (Rice) The results of the FGDs and household re-survey showed that generally the CARP had positive impacts on the areas studied. More specifically, it improved the pattern of landholding distribution in Bagong Sirang ARC although it was still below the targeted accomplishment. The accomplishments of its non-ARC counterpart were more in lands acquired and distributed, in 2005 and 2006. The availability and level of social and physical infrastructures in the ARC and non-ARC increased in 2006 at almost the same level. The level of living in both areas improved with the ARBs in the ARC generating higher income than the ARBs in the non-ARC. However, the non-ARBs in the non-ARC area generated higher income than the non-ARBs in the ARC. Even then, it can be said that the ARC was able to perform better. Asset-wise, considerable improvements in the total value of assets were noted in both barangays for both ARBs and non-ARBs with the non-ARC reporting consistently higher values than the ARC. Thus, the non-ARC can be considered the better achiever in this aspect. On the other hand, in terms of dwelling units, the ARC was better off as evidenced by more residents with water-sealed toilets, with strong roofing materials, and with strong wall materials. In the ARC, the percentage of ARBs whose primary occupation was farming has been declining because some have shifted to professional employment while it remained the same in the non-ARC. In contrast, the non-ARBs in the ARC whose primary occupation was farming remained at 66.7 percent but it declined from 83.3 percent in 2000 to 66.7 percent in 2006 in the non-ARC. This indicates that the ARC has been improving more than the non-ARC. The level of participation in community development projects both in the ARC and the non-ARC has deteriorated, but went lower in the non-ARC because of the respondents’ prevailing dole-out mentality. There were noted illegal selling and mortgaging of portions of the agrarian reform-acquired lands in both areas, but these were not officially documented by the DAR. Landowners made no investments on their retained lands. Out-migration from both barangays was just temporary as many out migrants looked for better paying jobs in Manila or abroad but would eventually come back for good. While the social and physical infrastructure and community development indicators in 2001 declined, recoveries were experienced in the following years. Moreover, the average rating per category has been consistently higher for the ARC than the non-ARC except for employment generation which was given an equal rating by both barangays during FGDs. Such result is not surprising since the ARC has been a recipient of infrastructure projects, livelihood programs, and capability-building activities by the Plan International and the Agrarian Reform Support Program (ARSP) several years back.

3.2.4 La Carlota City, Negros Occidental (Sugarcane) The positive impacts of CARP were reflected in the following: 1) landholding distribution in the Nagasi ARC has changed from single ownership of the Hacienda Esperanza by the Benedicto family to multiple ownership; the same piece of land has been subdivided into three lots benefiting 182 beneficiaries; 2) the present level of physical infrastructure facilities and services in both communities like roads, irrigation facilities, vehicles, education, and health have improved; 3) the level of living of ARBs and non-ARBs in the ARC and non-ARC improved; the income of ARBs and non-ARBs in both barangays, total household assets, and total value of assets increased; and 4) CARP has contributed to employment generation, social facilities and services, physical infrastructure, and community development. In addition, the LGU through its city and municipal offices, has assisted farmer-beneficiaries in animal dispersal programs and livelihood trainings. Despite these positive impacts, some issues were also identified such as 1) the lack of capital; 2) limited assistance from the MAO; 3) rampant leasing out of land; 4) lack of alternative income sources; 5) limited LGU support; 6) declining PO membership; and 7) factionalism among the farmer-beneficiaries. Some of the recommendations to address these issues were: (1) provision of loan packages with soft terms on repayment; (2) crafting of extension program for sugarcane farmers by the MAO; (3) exploration of sugarcane-based biofuel as alternative income sources; (4) strengthening of the PO; and (5) conflict resolution among the factions. Weighing the positive impacts vis-a-vis the issues cited above, the ARBs in Nagasi were better off in 2006 than in 2000. In fact, only about 45 percent of them said that they were poor in 2006 compared to the 66 percent who said so in 2000. However, among the non-ARBs, the percentage did not change. In the non-ARC, the ARBs who considered themselves poor increased in 2006 while the percentage remained the same among the non-ARBs. 3.2.5 Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pa ntukan, Compostela Valley

(Banana) Tagnanan ARC and Bongabong non-ARC are both plantation sites for Cavendish banana. However, Tagnanan ARC was more advanced in physical and selected social infrastructures, which was largely due to the projects funded by the ARCDP. The road and bridge projects made access to the main road quicker and in between sitios easier. Moreover, the number of habal-habal servicing the area also increased. The Level II water system of the ARCDP not only provided safe drinking water for the households but would also facilitate and expand the operation of their beach resort enterprise. More residents in the Tagnanan ARC were employed in the banana plantation not only because the size of operation was three time larger than in the non-ARC but also because the ARBs, particularly those in Mampising, were able to bargain with the plantation management in hiring employees. Moreover, the cooperatives were engaged in plantation-related enterprises like hauling of banana stalks and chicken dung; trading of banana chips; and operating the beach resort that provided additional employment for those not employed in the banana plantation. The benefits of becoming an ARC could be greater and sustainable if the conflicts between the management and the cooperatives could be resolved

soonest. While the differences are being settled, the cooperatives should be prepared for their new role as ‘growers’. They should be trained in organizational and financial management and prove their capability before they are allowed to run the plantation on their own. This is a must given the limited delivery of services by the cooperatives as evidenced by the closure of their consumer store and declining membership. The DAR should mediate and facilitate in resolving the conflicts; coordinate and provide capacity building to the ARBs; and advise the ARBs on the advantages and disadvantages of becoming growers. Meanwhile, the LGU had in the past relied on the banana plantation for livelihood opportunities. However, there were also barangay residents who were not part of the plantation and the ARBs also had farms to operate. Thus, the LGU should provide these residents assistance in agricultural production, post harvest, and marketing. Finally, the retention area for agricultural production which is managed by the cooperative on behalf of the ARBs, should be subdivided and distributed to the ARBs. With annual amortization coming from the annual rental from the leaseback arrangement, the distributed lands could serve as additional source of income to the ARBs and to address the demand of the breakaway group calling for its subdivision and distribution. 3.2.6 Tupi, South Cotabato (Pineapple)

Despite the minimal implementation of CARP on rural pineapple communities from 2000 to 2006, it has generally made Kablon, an ARC, better off compared to Acmonan, a non-ARC community. Ownership of land plus capacity building through CARP have given the ARBs in Kablon the opportunity to engage in contract growing with DOLE Philippines in South Cotabato. This, to some extent, has been brought about by their ability to carry out negotiations more confidently on their own. There were more Kablon farmers selling directly to the public market in Tupi and neighboring towns in South Cotabato, thus receiving higher prices for their products. The capacity-building activities such as trainings on crop diversification received from DAR, DA, and other public and private agencies imply that ARBs can decide what crop to plant that could generate for them the highest profits.

Although the development rating (ALDA) of Kablon has been declining, ARBs had more optimistic views about their social welfare than the non-ARBs. Because they owned the land they were tilling, they were more confident that they would be able to support the basic needs of their families. Across respondents, ARBs were better off as they had higher income compared to non-ARBs. In addition, their welfare has improved as evidenced by more ARBs using electricity for lighting compared with non-ARBs in both communities. Thus, not only did CARP increase the income and welfare of farmers in the Kablon ARC, but it also had an overall positive impact on ARBs in the pineapple communities in Tupi, South Cotabato.

The impact on the development of the ARC can be sustained by continuously providing selected support services particularly needed in the community. Furthermore, the LGU can support in the sustained implementation of CARP through the Upland Development Program (UDP), which allowed the concentration of activities and support services in the villages where they were most needed.

The needs or urgent concerns of the ARC must be a continually assessed. The DAR should continue assisting the ARC until it can function effectively by itself. The assistance could be carried out through a participatory approach which involves the DAR, the LGU, POs, and other stakeholders of the program. As a strategy, DAR delivers the needed support services to the ARC through the POs. It was unfortunate that the existing cooperative in Kablon ARC is no longer active as it was in the early implementation of CARP in the community, hence affecting the identification of appropriate interventions and delivery of needed services. The role of POs and cooperatives in serving as conduits for operationalizing and sustaining support services is crucial. As such, cooperatives should be strengthened and the development of viable POs should be continually supported. However, the effectiveness of using POs in delivering support services to the ARCs should be reassessed. In addition, an alternative strategy to facilitate the implementation of different programs in the ARC could be developed.

Overall, the impact of CARP on the Kablon ARC has been sustained through time, as evidenced by the current agrarian transformation, of empowerment, improved socio-economic condition of the ARC, and the optimistic vision of the people living in the ARC as well.

4 Integrative Analysis of ARC Approach: Lessons From the Case Studies

4.1 Positive Effects The results of the case studies indicate the positive impacts of agrarian reform on farmer-beneficiaries. Overall, the real per capita income was consistently higher for ARBs than non-ARBs in 2000 and 2006, except in Quezon. In cases where the real per capita declined from 2000 to 2006, the ARBs’ level of real per capita income was still higher than their non-ARB counterparts. Further, the optimism of ARBs about their socio-economic condition was reflected in the higher proportion of ARBs than non-ARBs who considered themselves non-poor. Particularly in Quezon, the economic gain of ARBs was lower than the non-ARBs; however, the social and political gains were exceedingly valued by the ARBs because they were able to decide what to plant and adopt modern technologies upon becoming farmer-beneficiaries. The results of the study highlighted the importance of externally-funded projects for the physical and social improvements of the ARCs. They enabled the farmer-beneficiaries to have better access to better transportation services, market, social facilities and utilities, e.g., safe drinking water and sanitation facilities. Moreover, more ARB households in the ARCs had access to electricity and better housing facilities. The support of DAR together with the other national government agencies and LGU in the ARCs has contributed to the organizational and financial strengthening of cooperative and other grassroots organizations, particularly the officers of the cooperatives; however, its impact was less consistent as the level of maturity of the organization varied widely. There were also livelihood trainings provided by the LGUs, e.g., organic farming, livestock production, coffee rejuvenation, banana farm tissue culture, citrus juice and other entrepreneurial activities. These capability-building activities, if properly done, can also boost the morale of the farmers, as in Bulihan.

These positive impacts, however, could only be sustained if the emerging issues are addressed and responded to by the concerned agencies. These issues are discussed in details with the corresponding recommendations in the following sections.

4.2 Constraints Limiting Success of ARCs 4.2.1 Inactivity, Limited Organizational and Management Capability of

Cooperativ es and Declining Membership In the San Manuel ARC, the cooperative was no longer active and the loan facility was closed because the members have not been able to pay their external loans. While cooperatives were still active in some study sites, they no longer provided previous services such as operating a consumer store and extending loans to its members. A related issue was the limited organizational and management capability of the leaders to manage and operate the banana plantation as “growers”. ARBs were technically capable because majority of them were skilled in the production, processing, and packaging of banana. However, the main concern was the cooperative’s ability for organization and management to ensure the business’ viability. Another related issue was the declining membership in cooperatives in selected ARCs and non-ARCs (e.g., banana, pineapple, and rice study areas). This has implication on the usual practice of coursing assistance provided to the community through the PO. 4.2.2 Lack of Capital for Agricultural Production

In nearly all the meso study sites, lack of capital has been the number one problem, particularly in 2006. This implies that the problem has not been fully addressed despite the availability of credit sources. Data showed that even if the ARBs knew of credit sources and lacked capital for production, majority did not avail of loans because of their inability to repay. The household survey showed that the cooperatives were no longer important sources of credit in 2006. Lack of capital was also related to the credit-marketing tie-up with traders. Farmers sold their produce mostly to traders who could provide them the needed capital for agricultural inputs instead of selling directly to the market. The government’s program of broadening and deepening ARCs and other beneficiary development programs should incorporate this important problem of lack of capital and lack of access to credit to agricultural producers, especially since microfinance is a cornerstone program of the government. 4.2.3 Accuracy of Accomplishment Report Some inaccurate reports were observed in the meso study. In Isabela, some lands that should be covered by CARP were not included in the original scope. In Hacienda Roxas of the Bulihan ARC, the farm size indicated in the Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) was inconsistent with the actual farm area being cultivated by the ARBs. In the banana non-ARC, a portion of the land reported to be distributed was actually undistributed. The latter was only discovered when another property belonging to the same landowner was being processed in 2006.

Moreover, there was actually no acquisition under compulsory acquisition (CA) in 2000 as indicated in the accomplishments. Further, much of the accomplishments after Operation Land Transfer (OLT) were under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Voluntary Land Transfer (VLT) in the corn ARCs and non-ARCs. 4.2.4 Limited Employment Opportunities Another reason why the ARBs remained tied to the traders for credit was that the farmers did not have other sources of income in which the traders did not exert some form of control. This is particularly important in case of crop failure as in the rice study area in Bagong Sirang and del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur. The lack of employment opportunities was also commonly mentioned in the FGDs, even in the pineapple and sugarcane study sites where sugarcane and banana plantations should have provided employment. In the sugarcane study area, there were no alternative income sources during lean months. It is therefore important to consider plans to incorporate off-farm and non-farm activities in the programs and plans of ARCs and other beneficiary development programs. 4.2.5 Irregular and Low Repayment and Non-Payment of Land Amortization Irregular, low repayment, and non-payment of amortization were caused by factors unique to meso sites. For instance, the Bulihan ARC paid amortization irregularly because the farmers were uncertain if the size of their awarded landholding vis-à-vis their actual farm tilled was accurate. ARBs in the banana plantation did not pay any amortization because the terms and conditions of the joint production agreement were not acceptable to them. ARBs in the rice ARC were also unable to pay land amortization although the reason was not clear. 4.2.6 Lack of Support from the Local Government Units (LGUs) The LGUs supported the ARCs and non-ARCs through livestock and crop dispersal, equity fund for externally-funded projects, and to a limited extent, mediation in conflict between landowners and the ARBs. However, the respondents rated these support to be insufficient. In the Haguimit ARC, the farmers perceived the Municipal Agricultural Office (MAO)’s assistance to have decreased in the last five years because of the office’s alleged thrust towards staples like rice and corn. In the Tagnanan ARC, the banana plantation was a source of information for banana production and post harvest technologies for ARBs. The latter then applied these to lands covered by a collective CLOA, which were planted to Cardava banana and intercropped with corn and short-term vegetables. 4.2.7 Limited Presence of DAR in non -FAPs ARC and non -ARCs Despite the lighter load of land acquisition and distribution (LAD) activities and the limited Program Beneficiary Development (PBD) activities to help DAR partners whenever they work with the community, there is room to increase the Development Facilitator’s (DF’s) workload and improve his/her efficiency by covering non-ARCs. In line with the vision of former DAR Secretary Garilao when he launched the ARC approach, the DF should be a manager who will explore the economic opportunities for the ARC and not be a passive development program coordinator.

4.2.8 ARBs’ Lack of Entrepreneurial Skills and Full Appreciation of Government

Assistance Corn farmers, particularly the former tenants, have long been subsistence farmers. They have also developed institutional arrangements with traders and market outlets. These practices have been found to constrain the success of support services and interventions. This again should be incorporated in the plans and programs of ARCs and beneficiary development programs. 4.2.9 Inconsistency in the ARC Level of Development ( ALDA) and the

Economic Status of the Community. For the Kablon ARC, the secondary and primary data established that the ALDA rating of the cooperative has declined but the overall economic status of the community has been improving. This conflicting situation could be due to the strained relations between management and farmer cooperatives, especially in plantations, as in the case of Tagnanan.

5 Recommendations 5.1 Revive and Revitalize the Cooperatives DAR has to continue strengthening the POs through trainings and seminars, emphasizing the roles and responsibilities as well as the accountability of the cooperative’s officers and members. The support could be provided collaboratively among the POs, NGOs, DAR, CDA, and other concerned government units. DAR can also develop a livelihood prototype for specific types of farmers, e.g., ARBs were linked to market outlets, developed by the Bureau of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development (BARBD). In addition to the capability-building activities, the DAR should assist the cooperative in restructuring its loan from the Land Bank. To address the limited organizational and financial capacity of the cooperative in the banana plantation, the ARBs, in general, and the officers of the cooperative, in particular, should be trained to help manage the organization’s processes and finances effectively. For example, the officers of the cooperative should be trained on the organizational and financial aspects of running the plantation. Through the initiative of the DAR in coordination with the LBP, CDA, and NGOs, a series of capability building activities on organizational and financial management should be undertaken. The cooperative should prove its capacity to run the plantation before its loan is released. Another option is for the cooperative to hire a management team during the initial stage of becoming a “grower”. The management team will also serve as a coach to develop the ability of the board members and officers to run and manage the plantation. Whatever scheme will be pursued by the cooperative, the DAR and the LBP should have a part in educating the members of the cooperative on the advantages and disadvantages of the various options. While there is a provision that the DAR is not allowed to meddle in the negotiation between the farmers and the prospective partner, it is now time for the DAR to participate in educating the ARBs. As mentioned earlier, the ARBs complained that they were not properly guided when they entered into contract with the banana plantation management.

Finally, the effectiveness of using POs in delivering support services to the ARCs should be assessed. In addition, an alternative strategy should be developed to facilitate the implementation of the different ARC programs.

5.2 Provide Loan Packages with Soft Terms In response to the lack of capital, there must be loan packages with soft repayment terms to enable farmers to access loans for capital to be used in production. Once production capital is available, mortgaging and leasing back will be stopped.

5.3 Review DAR Official Statistics and Allocation of Funds

There is a need to review the official DAR statistics based on the information computerization systems (ICS) results and to institute accountability and transparency in data management. There is also need to the strengthen data management system. To reconcile the size of the awarded lands and the actual land tilled, funds must be allocated for the corrective resurvey of the CARP-awarded land. Besides, the resurvey would identify approximately 53 potential beneficiaries in Barangay Bulihan.

5.4 Improve the Efficiency of the Development Facilitator (DF)

The DAR should institute measures to further improve the efficiency of the DF through a system of rewards and incentives. The DF should closely monitor the pilot project, explore the market potentials of produce, and help interested ARBs access basic support services. The DF should also study the applicability and acceptability of the various livelihood options that have been successfully implemented by the BARBD in other regular ARCs and find out how these models were implemented without external financial support. The concerned MARO should study the BARBD’s (PBD) models and to find out if these are applicable and acceptable to the ARBs.

5.5 Expand Livelihood Opportunities

Other GOs and NGOs should be tapped in developing alternative livelihoods in the barangays particularly during the lean months. There were limited animal dispersal projects implemented but these were unsuccessful. The crop diversification being started by the Nagasi Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Multipurpose Cooperative should be replicated in study sites wherever applicable. Planting of short-term crops like rice and corn and livestock raising can help augment household needs during the lean months. Entrepreneurial seminars, hands-on trainings on viable economic/business projects, and actual observation of successful projects through Lakbay-aral could show to the ARBs windows of opportunities. The ARBs could be enticed to access additional capital to venture on business projects with proper guidance from knowledgeable people and organizations. These include GOs, NGOs such as the Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP) and the academe with expertise on entrepreneurial development.

The government’s program on biofuel can be introduced to the farmers as an alternative livelihood. This can also be the subject of seminars and trainings which the DA and the DAR can implement.

5.6 DAR Should Have Continuous Advocacy Efforts for Increased Land

Repayment

There is a need for a continuous information campaign among the ARBs explaining the penalties (e.g., additional interest charges) for not paying amortization. Perhaps it would be more effective if the farmer-leaders themselves can be tapped to monitor the ARBs’ payments and remind the ARBs of their payment schedule through a common bulletin board. The DAR should improve its payment monitoring system. The LBP, on the other hand, should speed up its computerization so that an updated database of payments can be accessed and reminders can be given to those lagging behind in paying. Further, the files of DAR and LBP should be reconciled for more effective monitoring.

5.7 LGUs Should Have Focused and Enhanced Roles in Providing

Support Services

The LGUs should focus their agricultural services to the needs of the specific study site. They should craft extension programs that address the technical and management requirements of the crop and livestock grown by farmers.

Moreover, the needs and urgent concerns of the ARC must be assessed continually. The DAR should continue assisting the ARC until it can function effectively by itself. However, the assistance should be done through a participatory approach which involves DAR, the LGU, POs, and other stakeholders of the program.

5.8 The DAR should allow the Subdivision and Distribution of the Collectively Managed Land

The DAR should allow the subdivision and distribution of the collectively managed land to the ARBs to increase their productivity. The cooperative can buy and collectively market the produce for better prices. However, the DAR should closely monitor the ARBs so that they do not sell and mortgage the subdivided land. Subdividing and distributing the land will also help resolve the dwindling membership in the cooperatives and encourage the ARBs to attend meetings and to participate in the discussions. As noted earlier, one source of disgruntlement for some ARBs was the disapproval of DAR to subdivide the land. 5.9 Review the Parameters in the Computation of ALDA

The ALDA methodology must be reviewed to reconcile the inconsistency in the ALDA trend and the situation in the community. Two possibilities can be explored. One is to examine the maturity of the organization relative to the overall ALDA rating. The other could reflect the general observation that as the community progresses, the cooperative as an organization becomes less significant.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Number Title Page

1.0 RATIONALE 1

2.0 OBJECTIVES 1

3.0 METHODOLOGY 2

3.1 Sample Respondents 2

3.2 Data Collection 2

3.3 Data Analysis 3

4.0 RESULTS OF THE STUDY 4

4.1 San Manuel and Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela (Corn)

3

4.1.1 Profile of Corn Communities 3

4.1.2 Agrarian Transformation 8

4.1.3 Agricultural Production System 10

4.1.4 Level of Living 12

4.1.5 Economic Transformation 15

4.1.6 Access to Basic Support Services 17

4.1.7

4.1.8

LGU Support to CARP and Community Development

Empowerment

19

19

4.1.9 Values, Attitudes, and Perceptions 21

4.1.10 Lessons Learned from CARP Experiences 23

4.1.11 Facilitating and Constraining Factors 25

4.1.12 Summary of Findings 26

4.1.13 Issues 27

4.1.14 Recommendations 28

4.2 Bulihan and Niing Non-, San Antonio, Quezon (Coconut)

28

4.2.1 Study Sites 28






4.2.7 Empowerment 50


4.2.9 Facilitating/Constraining Factors 57


4.2.11 Issues 62


4.3 Barangay Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur (Rice)

65

4.3.1 The Study Sites 65





Number Title Page






4.3.11 Issues 101


4.4 Barangay Nagasi and Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental (Sugane)

103











4.4.11 Issues 135


4.5 Barangays Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley (Banana)

137






4.5.6 Access to Basic Support Service and Facilities 156

4.5.7 Providers of Support Services 161




4.5.11 Issues 176


4.6 Barangay Acmonan and Kablon, Tupi, South Cotabato (Pineapple)

179











4.6.11 Issues 227


Number Title

Page

5.0 SYNTHESIS 228

5.1 Summary of Findings 228

5.2 Main Issues 231

5.3 Recommendations 234

6.0 CASE SPECIFIC SYNTHESIS 236

6.1 Echague, Isabela (Corn) 236

6.2 San Antonio, Quezon (Coconut) 237

6.3 Pili, Camarines Sur (Rice) 238

6.4 La Carlota City, Negros Occidental (Sugane) 239

6.5 Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley (Banana)

240

6.6 Tupi, South Cotabato (Pineapple) 241

7.0 REFERENCES 242

LIST OF TABLES

Table Number Title Page

3.1 Distribution of respondents by type, and non-, 2006 2

4.1.1.1 Biophysical characteristics, San Manuel and Barangay Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela, 2005

3

4.1.1.2.1 Socio-demographic characteristics, San Manuel and Barangay Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela, 2000 and 2006

4

4.1.1.2.2 Occupation of respondents, San Manuel and Barangay Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela, 2001 and 2005

5

4.1.1.3.1 Types of respondents, San Manuel and Barangay Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela, CARPIA, 2000 and 2006

5

4.1.1.3.2 Socio-economic characteristics of respondents, San Manuel and Barangay Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela, 2000 and 2006

6

4.1.1.4 Social and physical infrastructure, San Manuel and Barangay Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela, 2000 and 2006

7

4.1.2.1 CARP scope and accomplishments, San Manuel and Barangay Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela, 2000-2007

8

4.1.2.2 Distribution of landholding by mode of land acquisition, San Manuel and Barangay Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela, 2000 – 2007

9

4.1.3.2 Average farm size by type of respondents, San Manuel and Barangay Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela, CARPIA 2000 and 2006

10

4.1.3.3 Crop yield by type of respondent, San Manuel and Barangay Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela, CARPIA, 2000 and 2006

11

4.1.4.1 Total assets by type of respondents, San Manuel and Barangay Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela CARPIA, 2000 and 2006

12

4.1.4.2.1 Mean Income by source and by type of respondents, San Manuel and Barangay Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela, CARPIA, 2000 and 2006

13

4.1.4.2.2 Mean value of major expenditure items by type of respondent, San Manuel and Barangay Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela, CARPIA, 2000 and 2006

15

4.1.8.1.a Membership of SMMPCI by gender and respondents, 1999 and 2006.

19

4.1.8.1.b Financial status of SMMPCI,1999 and 2006 19

4.1.8.1.c SMMPCI’s outstanding loans as of April 2007 20

4.1.9.2 Level of satisfaction by type of respondents, San Manuel and Barangay Sta. Maria, Echague, Isabela, CARPIA 2000 and 2006

22

4.2.1.1 Geographic location of Barangays Bulihan and Niing, San Antonio, Quezon, 2006

29

4.2.1.2 Population and number of households, Barangay Bulihan and Barangay Niing, San Antonio, Quezon, 2005

30

4.2.1.3.1 Road network and bridges, Barangay Bulihan and Barangay Niing, San Antonio, Quezon, 2006

31

4.2.1.3.2 Social infrastructures and other facilities, Barangay Bulihan and Barangay Niing, San Antonio, Quezon, 2006

33

Number Title Page

4.2.1.3.3 Preventive health care and curative medicine programs, activities and services available, Bulihan and Niing, San Antonio, Quezon, 2006

34

4.2.2.1 Scope of AR coverage, Bulihan , San Antonio, Quezon, 2006 35

4.2.2.2 Distribution of respondent by type and by number of pels, Barangay Bulihan and Barangay Niing, San Antonio, Quezon, CARPIA 2000 and 2006

37

4.2.3.3 Distribution of respondents by type and by size of landholding, Barangay Bulihan and Barangay Niing, San Antonio, Quezon, CARPIA 2000 and 2006

39

4.2.4.1 Comparative mean value of assets by type of respondents, Barangay Bulihan and Barangay Niing, San Antonio, Quezon, CARPIA 2000 and 2006

40

4.2.4.2.1 Comparative mean value of household income by type of respondents, Barangay Bulihan and Barangay Niing, San Antonio, Quezon, CARPIA 2000 and 2006

42

4.2.4.2.2 Comparative mean value of household expenditure by type of respondents, Barangay Bulihan and Barangay Niing, San Antonio, Quezon, CARPIA 2000 and 2006

42

4.2.5.1 Animal population in Bulihan as of December 2004 44

4.2.5.3 Rural land market transactions, Barangay Bulihan and Barangay Niing, San Antonio, Quezon, 2006

45

4.2.6.2 SARED related trainings conducted/provided to Bulihan , San Antonio, Quezon, 2004-2006

47

4.2.6.3 Support services, production and livelihood programs extended to Bulihan , San Antonio, Quezon

48

4.2.7.1.1 SILCAB trainings conducted/provided in Bulihan , San Antonio, Quezon, 2003 - 2005

51

4.2.7.1.2 ALDA Status of Bulihan, San Antonio, Quezon, 2001-2005 51

4.2.7.1.3 Explanations given for the scoring and corresponding rating of various KRAs

52

4.2.8.4 Perceived socio-economic status, in 2000, 2005, and 2010, Barangay Bulihan and Barangay Niing, San Antonio, Quezon,

56

4.2.9.2 Proposed road and bridges for construction, Bulihan , San Antonio, Quezon, 2006-2010

59

4.3.1.1.1 Agricultural indicators, Barangays Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

66

4.3.1.1.2 Population by barangay, Barangays Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili Camarines Sur, 2000-2006

67

4.3.1.1.3 Mean age of respondents by barangay, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

68

4.3.1.1.4 Household size of respondents by barangay, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

68

4.3.1.1.5 Number of deaths by age bracket, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000-2006

69

4.3.2.1 LAD scope and accomplishment in hectares, Bagong Sirang , Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000-2006

70

Number Title Page

4.3.3.1.1 Cropping system, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

72

4.3.3.1.2 Users of chemical fertilizer, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

73

4.3.3.1.3 Users of certified seeds, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

73

4.3.3.3 Average size of landholding (in hectares), Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

74

4.3.3.4 Yield by commodity, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

75

4.3.4.1 Assets by type, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

76

4.3.4.2 Income by type, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

77

4.3.4.3 Dwelling units indicator, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2005

79

4.3.5.1.1 Primary occupation, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

80

4.3.5.1.2 Secondary occupation, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

81

4.3.6 Basic social services indicators, Bagong Sirang , Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000-2007

83

4.3.6.5.1 Water and power supply indicators, Bagong Sirang , Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2005

86

4.3.7.2.1 Frequency of attendance to PO meetings, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

88

4.3.7.2. 2 Participation in actual deliberation of issues in meetings by type of respondents, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

89

4.3.7.3 Benefits derived from the POs by barangay, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

90

4.3.8.1 Influential person in the community, Barangay Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, CARPIA 2000 and 2006

91

4.3.8.1.2 Number of registered voters, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

92

4.3.8.1.3 Number who voted during the last election, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

92

4.3.8.3 Level of satisfaction by category, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

93

4.3.8.4.1. Rating on the quality of life, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

95

4.3.8.4.2 Change in economic conditions, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

96

Number Title Page

4.3.8.5.1. Awareness about agrarian reform, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

96

4.3.8.5.2 Understanding of agrarian reform, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

97

4.3.8.5.3 In favor of agrarian reform, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

98

4.3.8.5.4 Perception on the success of CARP, Bagong Sirang and Del Rosario, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000 and 2006

99

4.4.2.1.1 Land acquisition and distribution scope and accomplishments, Nagasi, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2005

107

4.4.2.1.2 Land acquisition and distribution scope and accomplishments, Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2005

108

4.4.2.2.1 Total CARP scope in Barangay Nagasi, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2000

108

4.4.2.2.2 CARP scope in Barangay Nagasi, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2006

109

4.4.2.2.3 Status of CARP implementation in Barangay Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2000

111

4.4.2.2.4 Status of CARP implementation in Barangay Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2004

111

4.4.2.2.5 Types of land tenure arrangement/scheme, Barangays Nagasi and Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2000 and 2006

112

4.4.3.4 Mean crops yield (mt), Barangays Nagasi and Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2000 and 2006

116

4.4.4.1.1 Changes in mean total farm assets (PhP) among ARBs and non-ARBs in Nagasi and Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2000 and 2006

119

4.4.4.1.2 Changes in mean total household assets (PhP) among ARBs and non-ARBs in Nagasi and Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2000 and 2006

119

4.4.4.1.3 Changes in mean total household assets (PhP) among ARBs and non-ARBs in Nagasi and Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2000 and 2006

120

4.4.4.2.1.1 Changes in farm income (PhP) among ARBs and non-ARBs in Nagasi and Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2000 and 2006

120

4.4.4.2.1.2 Changes in off-farm income (PhP) among ARBs and non-ARBs in Nagasi and Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2000 and 2006

121

4.4.4.2.1.3 Changes in non-farm income (PhP) among ARBs and non-ARBs in Nagasi and Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2000 and 2006

121

4.4.4.2.1.4 Changes in total income (PhP) among ARBs and non-ARBs in Nagasi and Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2000 and 2006

122

4.4.4.2.2 Changes in total annual expenses (PhP) among ARBs and non-ARBs in Nagasi and Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2000 and 2006

122

4.4.7.3 Level of community development, Nagasi, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2001-2006

130

Number Title Page

4.4.8.5 Percentage of farmer beneficiaries who believe that their quality of life is on the line, Nagasi and Haguimit, La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, 2000, 2006 and 2010.

133

4.5.1.2.1 Distribution of respondents, Tagnanan , Mabini and Barangay Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2006

139

4.5.1.2.2 Educational attainment by type of respondent, Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2006

139

4.5.1.2.3 Primary occupation by type of respondent, Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006

140

4.5.1.2.4 Household size by type of respondent, Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006

140

4.5.1.2.5 Household structure by type of respondent, Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

141

4.5.2.1.1 Landowners and size of landholdings in Tagnanan, Mabini, Compostela Valley, 2006

141

4.5.2.1.2 Scope of agrarian reform, Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2007

142

4.5.3.1 Cropping pattern by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compotela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

146

4.5.3.2 Average size of farm by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

147

4.5.3.3 Tenurial status by type of respondents, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

147

4.5.3.4 Major problems in agricultural production by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

148

4.5.4.1 Mean asset by type and type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

149

4.5.4.2 Mean income by source and by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

150

4.5.4.3 Expenditure by type and by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

153

4.5.4.4.1 Strong housing material by type of respondent Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

153

4.5.4.4.2 Toilet facility by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

154

4.5.4.4.3 Cooking fuel used by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

154

. 4.5.6.2.1 Awareness and availment of credit by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

156

Number Title Page

4.5.6.2.2 Source of loan by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

157

4.5.6.3 Access to agricultural support services by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

158

4.5.6.4.1 Enrollment by grade level and year, Don William Gemperlie Elementary School, Tagnanan, Mabini, Compostela Valley, 2001-2007

159

4.5.6.4.2 Enrollment by grade level and year, Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2001-2006

160

4.5.6.5 Distance to nearest economic and social service facilities by respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2006

161

4.5.8.2.1 Membership in organizations by type of respondent, Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

165

4.5.8.2.2 Type of organization by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

165

4.5.8.2.3 Benefits from membership to PO by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

166

4.5.8.2.4 Frequency of attending meetings by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

166

4.5.8.2.5 Participation in actual deliberation of issues in meetings by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

166

4.5.8.5 Most influential person in the community by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

167

4.5.9.3

Level of satisfaction by respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

171

4.5.9.4.1 Awareness of CARP by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

172

4.5.9.4.2 Understanding of CARP by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

172

4.5.9.4.3 Source of information on CARP by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

173

4.5.9.4.4 Reasons for favoring CARP, by type of respondent, Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

174

4.5.9.4.5 Reasons why CARP has succeeded, by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

175

4.6.1.1.1 Land use in Barangay Kablon, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2006 179

Number Title Page

4.6.1.1.2

Population and number of households in Barangay Kablon, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000-2006

180

4.6.1.1.3 Population and number of households in Barangay Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000-2006

182

4.6.2.1.1 Land acquisition and distribution status, Barangay Kablon, Tupi, South Cotabato

184

4.6.2.1.2 CARP scope, accomplishment, and balances, Barangay Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato

185

4.6.2.2.1 Landownership structure in Barangay Kablon, Tupi, South Cotabato before OLT

185

4.6.2.2.2 Landownership structure in Barangay Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, as covered by OLT

186

4.6.2.2.3 Distribution of landholdings acquired and distributed by DAR, Barangay Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato

186

4.6.2.2.4 Land valuation of OLT farms in Barangay Kablon, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000

187

4.6.3.1.1 Distribution of respondents by type of cropping patterns and type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

188

4.6.3.1.2 Distribution of respondents by main crop planted and type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

189

4.6.3.2.1 Area planted to major crops, Barangay Kablon, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2005

190

4.6.3.2.2 Livestock and poultry population, 2005 190

4.6.3.3 Average landholding of the respondents by period and type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato

191

4.6.3.4.1 Average yield of major crops by type of crop and respondent, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

192

4.6.3.4.2 Distribution of respondents by type of production-related problems and type of respondents, Barangay Kablon, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

193

4.6.4.1 Value of assets of farmer respondents, by source and type of respondent, Barangay Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

194

4.6.4.2.1 Total household farm, off-farm, and non-farm income by type of respondent and across barangays, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

196

4.6.4.2.2 Average expenditure of respondent by category by respondent, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, Philippines, 2000 and 2006

198

4.6.4.2.3.1 Distribution of respondents by type of roofing and respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

199

Number Title Page

4.6.4.2.3.2 Distribution of respondents by type of lighting facilities and

type of respondents, Barangay Kablon, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

200

4.6.4.2.3.3 Distribution of respondents by type of wall and type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

202

4.6.4.2.3.4 Distribution of respondents by type of toilet facilities and type of respondent, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

203

4.6.5.1 Agriculture profile of Barangay Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2007

204

4.6.6.1.1 Distribution of respondents by source of credit and type of respondent, Barangay Kablon, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

206

4.6.6.1.2.1.1 Distribution of respondents by market outlet and by type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

208

4.6.6.1.2.1.2. Distribution of respondents by reason of choice of market outlet and by type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

209

4.6.6.1.2.2 Distribution of respondents by marketing problems encountered and by type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

211

4.6.6.2.1

Distribution of respondents by facilities and type of respondent, Barangay Kablon, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

212

4.6.6.2.2 Distribution of respondents by facilities and type of respondents, Barangay Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

212

4.6.6.2.3 Distribution of respondents by facilities and type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

213

4.6.6.3 Distribution of respondents by secondary occupation and type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

215

4.6.7.1 Membership in organization of respondents by type of respondent and organization in Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

216

4.6.8.1 Percent distribution of respondents who are satisfied by category and type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

218

4.6.8.2.1 Distribution of respondents by their rating of the quality of life at present and by type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

219

Number Title Page

4.6.8.2.2 Distribution of respondents by their rating of the quality of life in 2000 and by type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

220

4.6.8.2.3 Distribution of respondents by their rating of the quality of life in the future and by type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

221

4.6.8.3.1 Distribution of respondents by source of information about CARP and by type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi , South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

222

4.6.8.3.2 Distribution of respondents by reason why CARP will succeed and type of respondents, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, 2000 and 2006

224

4.6.8.3.3 Percent distribution of respondents by understanding of agrarian reform by barangay, Barangays Kablon and Acmonan, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000 and 2006

225

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Number

Title Page

4.1.1.1 Map of Echague, Isabela 4

4.2.1.1 Sketch map of Bulihan showing land use and dispersal of dwelling units

30

4.2.1.3.1 Sketch map of Bulihan showing proposed roads and spillway 32

4.2.2.1 Sketch map of Bulihan showing CARP coverage 36

4.2.2.2 Pellary map of Bulihan , San Antonio, Quezon 37

4.3.2.2 Land tenure improvement, ALDA, 2000-2006 71

4.3.4.2.1 Economic, physical and infrastructure support, Bagong Sirang , Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000-2006

78

4.3.4.2.2 Farm productivity and income, Bagong Sirang , Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000-2006

78

4.3.6.5 Basic social services, ALDA, 2000-2006 86

4.3.7.2.1 Organizational maturity, Bagong Sirang, Pili, Camarines Sur, 2000-2006

87

4.3.7.3.1 Gender and development, Bagong Sirang, Pili, Camarines Sur, 90

4.4.2.2.2 Landholding distribution in Hacienda Esperanza, Nagasi , La Carlota City, Negros Occidental

110

4.4.3.1 Planting calendar in Nagasi , La Carlota City, Negros Occidental 114

4.4.8.3.1 Hacienda Esperanza before CARP 131

4.4.8.3.2 Hacienda Esperanza in 2006 132

4.4.8.3.3 Hacienda Esperanza 10 years from now 132

4.5.1.1 Study sites: Barangays Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley

138

4.5.1.2 Mean age by type of respondent, Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000

139

4.5.3.1 Crops planted, Tagnanan, Mabini, Compostela Valley, 2000 (in percent)

146

4.5.3.2 Crops grown, Barangay Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley,2001 (in percent)

146

4.5.4.1 Mean asset by type and type of respondent, Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006

149

4.5.4.2.1 Total income by type of respondent, Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006

150

4.5.4.2.2 Income by source by type of respondent, Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

151

4.5.4.3.1 Mean expenditure by type of respondent, Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in thousand pesos)

151

4.5.4.3.2 Total expenditure by type and by type of respondent, Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006 (in percent)

152

4.5.6.2 Average amount of loan by type of respondent, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006

158

4.5.8.1 Income by source, TCBC, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2006

162

4.5.8.6 Level of development ratings by key result areas, Tagnanan, Mabini, Compostela Valley, 2000-2006

168

4.5.9.2 Perception of being poor by type of respondent Tagnanan, Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000, 2006 and 2010

170

4.5.9.4.1 Proportion of respondents favoring CARP by type of respondent, Tagnanan, Mabini and Barangay Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley, 2000 and 2006

173

4.5.9.4.2 Perceptions whether CARP has succeeded, Tagnanan , Mabini and Bongabong, Pantukan, Compostela Valley

174

4.6.2.2.1 Trend in LTI index, Kablon ARC, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000-2006

187

4.6.4.3 Trend in economic, physical and infrastructure support, Kablon. Tupi, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000-2006

203

4.6.6 Basic social services, ALDA, Barangay Kablon ARC, Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000-2006

214

4.6.7.2 Organizational maturity, Kablon ARC Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000-2006

217

4.6.7.3 Trend of GAD index, Kablon ARC , Tupi, South Cotabato, 2000-2006

218

Documents

CARPIA-II MESO Final Report Part 1 13dec07