TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION 1
Rationale 2
Objective 2
Scope 2
Methodology 3
Figure 1. The Process Flow of the Conduct
of SEAMS at CENRO Level

II. RESULTS 4
Profile of Protected Area 4
Table 1. Land Area of the Eight (8) Barangays in AWFR
Biophysical Description (Location/Zoning/Land Cover Map) 4-5
Demographic Profile 6
Table 2. Total Number of Households 6
Table 3. Population Structure (Age and Labor Force Distribution) 6
Table 4. Dependency Ratio 7
Table 5. Sex Distribution and Ratio per Barangay 7
Social Profile 8
Table 6. Educational Attainment by Barangay 8
Figure 2. Graphical Representation of Table 6 8
Table 7. Top Causes of Illness/Morbidity by Barangay 9
Figure 3. Graphical Representation of Table 7 10
Table 8. Top Causes of Death/Mortality by Barangay 10
Figure 4. Graphical Representation of Table 8 11
Table 9. Access to Clean/Safe Water by Type of Water Source 11
Figure 5. Graphical Representation of Table 9 12
Economic Profile 12
Table 10. Total Annual Revenue Profile from 13
Livelihood by Barangay
Figure 6. Graphical Representation of Table 10 14
Table 11. Average Annual Household Expenditure by Barangay 15
and by Type of Expenditure
Figure 7. Graphical Representation of Table 11 16
Table 12. Total Annual Cost Profile from Livelihood Sources 17
Table 13. Average Annual Household Savings by Barangay 18
Table 14. Economic Rent Estimate from Resources 19
Figure 8. Graphical Representation of Table 14 20
Institutional/Perceptions 21
Table 15. Knowledge of Respondents per Barangay 21
on Relevant Organizations
Tenured Migrants 22

III. ISSUES AND CONCERN ENCOUNTERED 23

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 23-24
V. APPENDIX
Maps (Homelots & Farmlots)
Certification of Unsurveyed Households w/ Ungeotagged Homelots & Farmlots
Photo-Documentation
I. INTRODUCTION

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) recently

developed a framework for assessing social and economic impacts of
protected areas to ensure that on-going conservation efforts are effective
and could further contribute to human well-being and poverty reduction.
The Survey and Registration of Protected Area Occupants (SRPAO) form is the
current main elicitation form in gathering information from anyone residing in
a protected area and/or extracting the resources of the protected area. The
form basically lists the demographic profile and basic resource use
information as livelihood of the occupants. However, the level of details in the
current SRPAO is not sufficient to come up with a comprehensive socio-
economic assessment of the areas. Furthermore, most variables are more
appropriate for terrestrial protected areas, rather than coastal or marine
protected areas.

Therefore, to fill these gaps, pursuant to Republic Act 7586 otherwise known
as the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992, DAO
2008-26, the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations, and in order to
enhance DAO 2013-20, “Revised Guidelines on the Survey and Registration of
Protected Area Occupants”, particularly the socio-economic data as basis in
protected area management planning, guidelines on Socio-Economic
Assessment and Monitoring System (SEAMS) had been developed.

The DENR, through its Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB), came up with
a set of guidelines on Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System
(SEAMS) designed to gather data or information that will serve as basis for
monitoring the benefits of protected areas to local communities, especially
the indigenous peoples (IPs). SEAMS is a tool for a comprehensive assessment
of socio-economic condition of communities within and adjacent to
protected areas under National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS)
Act of 1992. It provides information included in the conventional survey and
registration of protected area occupants and other relevant data on
demographic, socio-cultural, economic, physical, and institutional
characterization of the protected areas (PA). The areas to be surveyed can
go beyond those within PA boundaries to determine the extent of users and
utilization of PA resources relevant to a comprehensive and effective
management.
Andanan Watershed Forest Reserve (AWFR) located in the connecting area
of the City of Bayugan and Municipality of Sibagat, Agusan del sur, as an
initial component of NIPAS Act of 1992, underwent this comprehensive
enhancement on socio-economic assessment.

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 1

Rationale

The SEAMS conducted in Andanan Watershed Forest Reserve (AWFR) aimed

to provide the Protected Area Superintendents and field implementers a
standardized method of assessing and monitoring the socio-economic
condition of occupants in protected areas. The results of the SEAMS shall be
used in protected area planning and in carrying out management
interventions which include the recognition of qualified tenured migrants for
the issuance of Protected Area Community Based Resource Management
Agreement (PACBRMA) and other appropriate tenurial instruments. These will
also be used to determine the ecosystem services, values and benefits of
protected areas to the communities.

Objectives

The conduct of SEAMS within AWFR specifically aimed to:

1) Characterize the socio-economic condition of occupants in the

protected area and nearby areas;
2) Identify and locate sources and values of the various ecosystems in the
protected area;
3) Determine the degree of degradation or improvement in ecosystem
services, uses, and values;
4) Identify ecosystem pressures and threats, and their causes; and
5) Identify tenured migrants within Andanan Watershed Forest Reserve
(AWFR).

Scope

Situated within Andanan Watershed Forest Reserve (AWFR) are eight (8)
barangays, i.e., Brgy. Sta. Irene, Brgy. Calaitan, Brgy. Mt. Carmel, Brgy. Mt.
Ararat, Brgy. Berseba, Brgy. San Juan, Brgy. Santo Ñino, and Brgy. New
Tubigon.

For C.Y. 2017, however, only five (5) barangays were covered by the
employment of SEAMS, i.e., Brgy. Calaitan, Brgy. Mt. Carmel, Brgy. Mt. Ararat,
Brgy. Berseba, and Brgy. San Juan. The remaining three (3) barangays (Brgy.
Sta. Irene, Brgy. Santo Ñino, and Brgy. New Tubigon) are to be assessed in
C.Y. 2018.

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 2

Methodolgy

For the realization of the SEAMS in Andanan Watershed Forest Reserve

(AWFR), the Community Environment and Natural Resources of Bayugan City,
Agusan del Sur (CENRO-Bayugan) employed an assessment team who were
responsible for the actual conduct of the SEAMS from data collection,
encoding, processing, and analysis. The collection of data to analysis and
reporting spent roughly six (6) months from June until early December, 2017.

Prior to the actual conduct, the assessment team had undergone capacity
development training on the following:

1. Data collection using the SEAMS form and geotagging application.

2. Data cleaning, encoding, and processing using the SEAMS Automated
Utility Tool (SAUT).

Further, coordination and consultations were also undertaken to inform local

officials and community leaders about SEAMS and NIPAS Act. Meetings and
dialogues with the AWFR occupants were properly scheduled in coordination
with appropriate local government officials and POs.

Figure 1. The Process Flow of the Conduct of SEAMS at CENRO Level.

•SEAMS Automated Utility Tool (SAUT) Operation

Capacity
Development
•Geotagging
Training

•Meetings w/ Stakeholders: BLGU, POs, & Community

Leaders
Community
Consultation •CEPA about the SEAMS & NIPAS Act

•Household Interview
Data Collection
•Geotagging of Homelots & Farmlots

•Encoding
•Processing
Data
Management •Analysis

•Narrative Report w/ attachments:

•Maps
•Encoded SEAMS Form (Forms 2&3)
Reporting
•List of Tenured Migrants

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 3

II. RESULTS

Profile of PA --- Andanan Watershed Forest Reserve (AWFR)

Andanan Watershed Forest Reserve with an area of 15,097 hectares was

established by virtue of Presidential Proclamation No. 734 signed by President
Corazon C. Aquino on May 29, 1991.

AWFR is an initial component of the NIPAS and had been proposed as

Andanan Natural Park under NIPAS. However, as per Protected Area
Suitability Assessment (PASA) conducted in C.Y. 2015, AWFR is now being
proposed in the category of a Protected Landscape under NIPAS which also
has a total expanded area of 22,519 hectares.

AWFR is comprised of eight (8) barangays within: seven (7) for the City of
Bayugan and one (1) for Municipality of Sibagat. These barangays, however,
have no actual area boundary due to lack of proper demarcation on the
ground. Moreover, no Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) is yet
established within AWFR.

Table 1. Land Area of the Eight (8) Barangays in AWFR

Barangays in the City of Bayugan Land Area (Hectares)

Calaitan 1,090
Berseba 2,801
Mt. Ararat 2,586
Mt. Carmel 3,504
Sta. Irene 1,246
San Juan 7,716
Santo Nino 4,976
Barangay in the Municipality of Sibagat
New Tubigon 7,232
Total 31,151

Biophysical Description: Location/Zoning/Land Cover Map

AWFR is situated in the Municipality of Sibagat and City of Bayugan, Province

of Agusan del Sur, Island of Mindanao 125˚44’01.4” and 8˚45’27.2” in the
North; 125˚48’43.9” and 8˚46’24.2” in the South; 125˚53’42.1” and 8˚50’52.8” in
the East; and 125˚44’27.3” and 8˚49’18.8” in the West.

Area zoning, i.e., Strict Protection Zone (SPZ) & Multiple Use Zone (MUZ), has
not been established due to lack of intensive biological profiling of the area.

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 4

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 5
Demographic Profile

Table 2. Total No. of Household Surveyed

Barangay No.of HH Surveyed

San Juan 450
Berseba 268
Calaitan 373
Mt. Ararat 132
Mt. Carmel 439
Total 1662

Barangay San Juan harbors the largest households among others due to
flourishing logging industry in the past decades. Otherwise, Mt. Ararat harbors
the lowest due to its remote location and very poor accessibility condition. A
total of 1,662 households are accounted during the survey.

Table 3. Population Structure: Age and Labor Force Distribution by Barangay

Barangay Ages Total Population

Age <15 Ages 15-64
>64
San Juan 989 1,364 85 2,438

Berseba 476 763 51 1,290

Calaitan 707 1,061 89 1,857

Mt. Ararat 249 336 29 614

Mt. Carmel 706 1,193 102 2,001

Ages 15-64 (working Total

Barangay % Working Population
population) Population
San Juan 1,364 2,438 55.95%
Berseba 763 1,290 59.15%
Calaitan 1,061 1,857 57.14%
Mt. Ararat 336 614 54.72%
Mt.
1,193 2,001 59.62%
Carmel

Brgy. San Juan has the highest total population followed by Brgy. Mt. Carmel,
next is Brgy. Calaitan, then Brgy. Berseba, and lastly Brgy. Mt. Ararat.
However, in spite that Brgy. San Juan also has the largest labor force of 1364,
it only ranks third (3rd) with Brgy. Mt. Carmel in the lead with 59.62% working
population followed by Brgy. Berseba with 59.15% as the second. And
apparently, Brgy. Mt. Ararat at the least with 54.72%.

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 6

Table 4. Dependency Ratio and Labor Force

Age 15-64 (Labor Dependency

Barangays Age <15 and >64
force) Ratio

San Juan 1,074 1,364 79%

Berseba 527 763 69%

Calaitan 796 1,061 75%

Mt. Ararat 278 336 83%

Mt. Carmel 808 1,193 68%

The larger the population of dependent individuals (i.e. ages below 15 and
above 64) the greater the dependency rate will be. Brgy. San Juan has the
largest dependency ratio of 79% due to its large population of infants and
aged people which almost paralleled the labor force population. Brgy. Mt.
Carmel is the least with 68% dependency rate due to far larger population of
labor force than the dependents.

Table 5. Sex Distribution and Ratio per Barangay

Barangay Male Female Ratio

San Juan 1,273 1,166 1.09

Berseba 675 617 1.09

Calaitan 992 865 1.15

Mt. Ararat 317 297 1.07

Mt. Carmel 1,058 984 1.08

The table shows that the ratio between male and female population is
somewhat proportional to each other--- a relatively 1:1 male-female ratio.

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 7

Social Profile
Table 6. Educational Attainment by Barangay

Barangay San Juan Berseba Calaitan Mt. Ararat Mt. Carmel

No Grade (0) 431 160 190 63 202
Elementary
902 471 609 226 691
Undergraduate (1)
Elementary
361 225 239 83 284
Graduate (2)
Highschool
324 212 416 120 402
Undergraduate (3)
Highschool
185 138 201 71 252
Graduate (4)
Post-Secondary
25 9 14 2 9
Undergraduate (5)
Post-Secondary
69 20 45 4 24
Graduate (6)
College
69 39 89 23 21
Undergraduate (7)
College Graduate
38 22 40 15 36
(8)
Post Baccalaureate
1 1 0 0 1
(9)
Total 2,405 1,297 1,843 607 1,922

Figure 2. Clustered Column Showing Comparison Between Barangays

Educational Attainment
40.00

35.00

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

San Juan Berseba Calaitan Mt. Ararat Mt. Carmel

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 8

Regardless of their differences in numbers of population, Brgy. San Juan posts
the highest rate of No Grade attainment with roughly 18% of its total
population, while Brgy. Calaitan and Brgy. Mt. Ararat posts the least with
roughly 10% of its total population. Same for the attainment with Elementary
Undergraduate, Brgy. San Juan is the highest with roughly 38% and Brgy.
Calaitan is the least with roughly 33%. For Elementary Graduate: Barangay
Berseba has the highest rate with roughly 17%, while Brgy. Calaitan has the
least with roughly 13%. For High School Undergraduate: Brgy. Calaitan has the
highest rate with roughly 23%, while Brgy. San Juan has the least with roughly
13%. For High School Graduate: Brgy. Mt Carmel has the highest rate with
13%, while Brgy. San Juan has the least rate with 8%. The succeeding
educational attainment for all the barangay reflects very minimal with an
average rating of 3% from its individual barangay population.

The trend of the diagram shows that most of the population are elementary
undergraduate and only few go to high school. Moreover, a very minimal
rate goes to college and almost none reaches post baccalaureate.

Table 7. Top Causes of Illness/ Morbidity by Barangay

Types of Illness Brgy. San Brgy. Brgy. Brgy. Mt. Brgy. Mt. Total Rank of
Juan Berseba Calaitan Ararat Carmel Illness

Acute
th
respiratory 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
infection
Acute lower th
0 0 1 0 1 2 6
respiratory
th
Bronchitis 0 0 0 0 1 1 7
th
Hypertension 0 0 3 0 5 8 4
Acute watery th
0 0 0 0 1 1 7
diarrhea
Influenza 0 338 1 0 54 393 1st
nd
UTI 0 0 1 1 13 15 2
rd
TB 0 0 3 0 8 11 3
th
Injuries 0 0 0 0 1 1 7
Disease of the
0 3 0 0 0 3 5th
heart

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 9

Figure 3. A Chart Showing the Top Causes of Illness/ Morbidity by Barangay

Disease of the heart

Injuries

TB

UTI

Influenza

Acute watery diarrhea

Hypertension

Bronchitis

Acute lower respiratory

Acute respiratory infection

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Brgy. Mt. Carmel Brgy. Mt. Ararat Brgy. Calaitan Brgy. Berseba Brgy. San Juan

The chart shows that among types of illness, influenza posts the top morbidity
for all the barangay; followed by UTI, and TB. Influenza has significant
prevalence of cases in Brgy. Berseba and Brgy. Mt. Carmel with a total
morbidity of 393 individuals.

Occupants in AWFR are farmers generally: overworking in their farms through

hot and cold weather contributes greatly in acquiring the illness. UTI has
something to do with regular salty meals, e.g., “Ginamos” or “Bulad”, in which
farmers have been used to serve with rice to boost appetite.
Table 8. Top Causes of Death/Mortality by Barangay
Causes of Brgy. San Brgy. Brgy. Brgy. Mt. Brgy. Mt. Rank of
Total
death/mortality Juan Berseba Calaitan Ararat Carmel death/mortality

Disease of the heart 0 1 0 0 3 4 1st

Disease of the
0 0 0 0 0 0
vascular

Pneumonia 0 0 0 1 0 1 3rd
Malignant vascular 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cancers 0 0 0 0 0 0

TB 0 0 0 0 0 0

Accidents 0 1 1 0 0 2 2nd

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 10

Chronic 0 0 0 0 0 0

Diabetes 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nephritis 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 4. A Chart Showing the Top Causes of Death/ Mortality by Barangay

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

Brgy. San Juan Brgy. Berseba Brgy. Calaitan Brgy. Mt. Ararat Brgy. Mt. Carmel

While influenza posts the top morbidity, heart disease ranks first (1st) in
mortality, while accidents comes second (2nd), and pneumonia ranks third
and the least.
Table 9. Access to Clean/ Safe Water by Type of Water Source

Safe water by Type of Brgy. San Brgy. Brgy. Brgy. Mt. Brgy. Mt.
Total
Water Source Juan Berseba Calaitan Ararat Carmel

River 2 1 3 3 7 16
Spring 448 267 356 129 387 1,587
Deep well 0 0 10 0 12 22
Rainfed 0 0 1 0 0 1
Small water
0 0 1 0 9 10
impounding facility
Irrigation/ Local water
0 0 2 0 24 26
system

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 11

Figure 5. A Chart Showing the Accessibility to Types of Water Source

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
Brgy. San Juan Brgy. Berseba Brgy. Calaitan Brgy. Mt. Ararat Brgy. Mt. Carmel

River Spring Deep well Rainfed Small water impounding facility Irrigation/ Local water system

The type of water source commonly and largely accessed by the occupants
is spring water. This implies that the area is abundantly resourced with springs.
Local water system access comes next but with a large difference on users
compared to spring source users. A few uses deep well and some access on
rivers.

This implicates that majority occupants in AWFR do not have access to an

established water supply system which provides a clean access of water
source.

Economic Profile

The common sources of income in each barangay are agriculture, forestry

(timber), livestock, service-based industry (wholesale & retail trade and
personal household goods, education, gov’t. employee, private employment
and social works); and other revenue sources: remittances (local & abroad),
retirement, 4Ps beneficiary, and senior citizen membership.

The AWFR has no established ecotourism, fisheries (salt and fresh water),
trading, processing and manufacturing, electricity, construction, and
financial intermediation income sources.

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 12

Table 10. Total Annual Revenue Profile from Livelihood by Barangay
Brgy. San Brgy. Brgy. Mt. Brgy. Mt.
Type of Income Sources Brgy. Calaitan Grand Total
Juan Berseba Ararat Carmel

Agriculture 5,654,219
1,280,268 867,004 2,705,467.00 501,296 300,184
Livestock and Poultry 2,203,900
17,850 18,200 24,530.00 1,354,445 788,875
Forestry (Timber) 22,320,424
617,724 92,200 55,100.00 0 21,555,400

Forestry (Non-Timber) 63,850

12,000 0 0 0 51,850

Wildlife Collection 26,500

22,000 0 0 0 4,500
Mining and Quarrying
5,000
Industry 0 0 0 0 5,000

wholesale 10,396,200
3,813,600 2,034,000 962,400 1,063,200 2,523,000
hotel&restaurants
0 0 72,000 0 0 72,000

transpo 187,200
0 0 96,000 48,000 43,200
financial 0 0 0 0 0 0
public ad/govt.
10,414,572
employee 1,661,280 2,104,212 540,000 420,000 5,689,080

education 2,394,240
1,008,000 1,111,440 0 94,800 180,000
health,wellness&social
672,000.00
work 0 396,000 6,000 0 270,000

private households with

445,200
employee persons 0 0 0 60,000 385,200

private employment 15,178,320

5,505,360 4,690,800 1,519,200 132,000 3,330,960
Remittances (local) 1,324,018
112,000 432,000 84,018 36,000 660,000
Remittances (abroad) 2,690,600
480,000 471,000 822,000 300,000 617,600
Retirement 156,000
16,800 0 0 0 139,200

4p's beneficiary 8,335,900

1,772,700 2,262,300 1,512,900 638,100 2,149,900

senior citizen 57,700

4,500 32,000 2,000 12,000 7,200

*Note: Revenues are in Pesos

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 13

Figure 6. A Chart Showing the Significant Annual Income Sources
Brgy. Mt. Carmel Brgy. Mt. Ararat Brgy. Calaitan Brgy. Berseba Brgy. San Juan

senior citizen
4p's beneficiary
Retirement
Remittances (abroad)
Remittances (local)
private employment
private households with employee persons
health,wellness&social work
educ
public ad/govt. employee
financial
transpo
hotel&restaurants
wholesale
Mining and Quarrying Industry
Wildlife Collection
Forestry (Non-Timber)
Forestry (Timber)
Livestock and Poultry
Agriculture

0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000

The graphical representation of table 10 shows income sources common to

five (5) barangays which have significant value and contribution to their
annual revenue. Noticeable in the projection of bars are income sources of
agriculture, livestock, forestry (timber), wholesale of goods, government
employment, education, private employment, remittances (locals &
abroad), and 4Ps.

Expected as it is, occupants in AWFR are generally farmers (i.e., agricultural or

tree farmers). For that, Barangay Calaitan has the most annual revenue for
agriculture with 2,705,467.00 pesos, while Brgy. Mt. Carmel has the lowest with
300,184.00 pesos.

Brgy. Mt. Carmel is very noticeable because of its highest revenue for forestry
(timber) with 21,555,400.00 pesos. Brgy. Mt. Carmel has the most dense forest
cover in AWFR and occupants also have been tree planters and tree growers
for quite a time.

The table also shows significant revenue from government employment with
Brgy. Mt. Carmel as having the highest with 5,689,080.00 pesos, while Brgy. Mt.
Ararat has the lowest with 420,000.00 pesos.

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 14

Private employment among barangays shows substantial revenue with Brgy.
San Juan having the highest with 5,505,360.00 pesos and Brgy. Mt. Ararat the
lowest with 132,000.00 pesos.

Further, remittances local and abroad contribute considerable revenue to

the barangays. Furthermore, occupants inside AWFR have been largely
benefiting from the 4Ps with an average of million-peso revenue in a year.

Table 11. Average Annual Household Expenditure by Barangay and by Type

of Expenditure

Type of
Brgy. San Juan Brgy. Berseba Brgy. Calaitan Brgy. Mt. Ararat Brgy. Mt. Carmel
Expenditure

food 44,949.78 34,292.83 18,005 25,064.61 34,214.08

alcoholic
3,047.956 3,177.81 783.110 1,902.413 3,241.02
beverages

tobacco 2,251.529 1,741.14 386.838 2,362.42 1,242.59

clothing and
4,814.286 2,453.52 803.834 2,044.909 4,221.34
footwear
furnishings,
household
equipment and 3,280 35,097.64 337.212 1,649.88 7,944.734
routine household
needs

health 2,751.87 2,118.09 481.95 3,212.270 3,994.02

housing 16,000 0 6.43 960 1,420

water 1,366.53 169.4594 43.79 1,344 288.321

electricity 2,840.51 1,765.442 1,076.48 1,839.90 2,273.98

gas & other fuels 3,861.22 1,422.020 286.05 1,469.26 3,950.53

transportation 2,155.656 2,068.056 546.84 2,650.95 3,429.96

communication 2,344.71 866.66 80.88 971.54 1,014.809

recreation&culture 2,800 18,000 63.27 794.482 7,116.19

education 6,255.64 4,521.669 1,756.09 6,336.739 7,738.39

accomodation
19,737.5 5,603 31.77 1,332.608 4,829.16
services
taxes 2,857.14 10,006 14.86 3,117.7114 10,287.5

miscellaneous
goods and
services (e.g. 4,833.715 3,464.31 800.67 2,727.63 5,514.697
occasional
expenses
other expenditure
(e.g. interest 4,833.33 1,000 25,505.49 2,750 7,115
payments)

Number of
450 268 373 132 430
households
Total annual
26,952,935 11,155,201 19,026,784 5,348,676.96 21,274,01
expenditure

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 15

 Average annual
1,418,599.11 41,779.78 51,010.14 41,143.67 51,016.81
expenditure

*Note: Expenditures are in Pesos

Figure 7. A Chart Showing the Average Annual Household Expenditure

50,000.00

45,000.00

40,000.00

35,000.00

30,000.00

25,000.00

20,000.00

15,000.00

10,000.00
Brgy. San Juan

5,000.00 Brgy. Berseba

Brgy. Calaitan
0.00
furnishings, household equipment and routine household…

Brgy. Mt. Ararat

electricity
water
tobacco

health
housing

recreation&culture
gas & other fuels

taxes

Number of households
clothing and footwear

transportation

accomodation services
communication
food

education
alcoholic beverages

other expenditure (e.g. interest payments)

miscellaneous goods and services (e.g. occasional expenses

Brgy. Mt. Carmel

The chart shows that food tops the highest average annual expenditure
among all household expenditures; followed by expenditure for education;
household furnishings and equipment; other expenditure (e.g. interest
payments); taxes; recreation & culture; accommodation services;
miscellaneous goods; clothing and footwear; alcoholic beverages; health;

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 16

gas & other fuels; transportation; electricity; tobacco; communication;
housing, and water.
Table 12. Total Annual Cost Profile from Livelihood Sources

Type of income
Brgy. San Juan Brgy. Berseba Brgy. Calaitan Brgy. Mt. Ararat Brgy. Mt. Carmel
source

Agriculture

i. Materials 3,100 60,325 59,092 81,496 158,634

ii. Equipment 2,000 34,650 36,850 27,340 66,057
iii. Labor 6,750 30,500 233,409 254,750 121,522.7
iv. Transportation 1,100 8,750 5,650 0 75,735
v. Others 8,876
Total 12,950 134,225 335,001 363,586 430,825

Livestock and Poultry

i. Materials 0 0 22,830 23,762 2,030

ii. Equipment 0 0 0 0 0
iii. Labor 0 0 0 0 0
iv. Transportation 0 0 0 0 0
v. Others 0 0 0 3,780 0
Total 0 0 22,830 27,542 2,030
Forestry (Timber)

i. Materials 4,470 11,550 28,560 0 40,330

ii. Equipment 1,440 5,500 6,500 0 14,294
iii. Labor 6,750 8,259 35,250 0 0
iv. Transportation 180 0 0 0 880
v. Others 0 0 0 0 0
Total 12,840 25,309 70,310 0 55,504

Forestry (Non-Timber)

i. Materials 0 0 0 0 1,300

ii. Equipment 0 0 0 0 2,120

iii. Labor 0 0 0 0 1,100
iv. Transportation 0 0 0 0 250
v. Others 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 4,770
Wildlife Collection

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 17

i. Materials 1,000 0 0 0 0
ii. Equipment 500 0 0 0 450
iii. Labor 70 0 0 0 0
iv. Transportation 0 0 0 0 0
v. Others 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1570 0 0 0 450

*Note: Costs are in Pesos

Table 12 shows that agriculture ranks top for the most annual cost followed by
forestry (timber), livestock and poultry, forestry (non-timber), and the least
with wildlife collection.

Table13. Average Annual Household Savings by Barangay Summarizing the

Annual Income, Expenditure, and Savings

Brgy. San Brgy. Brgy. Brgy. Mt. Brgy. Mt.

Grand Total
Juan Berseba Calaitan Ararat Carmel

a. Total
number of 450 268 373 132 439 1,662
household
b. Total
annual 8,401,615
16,324,082 14,511,156 4,659,841 38,701,149 82,597,843
household
income
c. Total
annual
26,952,935 11,155,201 19,026,784 5,348,676.96 21,274,010 83,757,606.96
household
expenditures
d. Total
annual -
−10,628,853 3,355,955 164,364.04 17,427,139 306,563.96
household 10,625,169
savings
e. Average
annual
−23,619.673 12,522.22 -28,485.71 1,245.182 39,697.355 1,359.37
household
savings
*Note: Income, Expenditures, and Savings are in Pesos

Barangay Mt. Carmel has the largest annual household income with
38,701,149.00 pesos due to its large revenue generated from forestry (timber)
livelihood (see Table 10, page11). It also has the highest average annual
household savings with 39,697.36 pesos. On the other hand, Brgy. Mt. Ararat
has the lowest annual household income with 4,659,841.00 pesos and the
least average annual household savings with 1,245.182 pesos. Brgy. San Juan
though second to Brgy. Mt. Carmel in total annual household income, it has a
deficit in average annual household savings with -23,619.673 pesos due to
much bigger annual household expenditures on food consumption. The
same for Brgy. Calaitan which has a deficit of -23,485.71 pesos annual
SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 18
household savings due to bigger annual household expenditures on interest
payments. Brgy. Berseba, somehow, has an average household savings of
12,522.22 pesos.
Table 14. Economic Rent Estimate from Resources

Resource rent is defined as surplus value. It is the difference between the

price at which a resource can be sold and its production cost. Furthermore, it
can be viewed as the potential indicator of social productivity levels attained
by the working population. The higher the surplus value (resource rent) the
higher the net income and through this the standard of living of the residents
can also be determined.

In this table, all income sources, i.e., major livelihood, other industries, service-
based industry, and other revenue sources, are included in the overall
resource rent accounting.

Type of
Brgy. San Brgy. Brgy. Brgy. Mt. Brgy. Mt.
Income Over-all
Juan Berseba Calaitan Ararat Carmel
Sources

Agriculture 1,075,277.8 602,728.4 1,964,645.95 62,515.6 -175,668.6 3,529,499.15

Livestock and
15,172.5 15,470 -1,979.5 1,123,736.25 668,513.73 1,820,912.98
Poultry

Forestry
512,225 53,061 2,203 0 18,219,022 18,786,511.00
(Timber)

Forestry (Non-
10,200 0 0 0 39,302.5 49,502.50
Timber)

Wildlife
18,700 0 0 0 3,375 22,075.00
Collection

Mining and

Quarrying 0 0 0 0 4,250 4,250.00

Industry

wholesale 1,200,984 986,100 527,940 868,820 7,765,250 11,349,094.00

hotel&restaura 16,250.00
0 0 16,250 0 0
nts

transpo 0 0 5,660 39,800 6,480 51,940.00

financial 0 0 0 0 0 0

public
1,292,088 1,110,598.2 191,388 344,800 3,586,174 6,525,048.20
ad/govt.

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 19

employee

education 856,800 668,724 0 59,780 45,000 1,630,304.00

health,wellnes 473,200.00
0 312,600 3,100 0 157,500
s&social work
private
households
with 0 0 0 50,988 -32,580 18,408.00
employee
persons

private
4,350,756 4,229,120 980,780 109,200 998,916 10,668,772.00
employment

Remittances
71,200 231,600 -2,984 30,600 429,000 759,416.00
(local)

Remittances
408,000 346,350 36,900 211,800 344,960 1,348,010.00
(abroad)

Retirement 0 0 397,800 0 -8,880 388,920.00

4p's
1,449,195 763,155 275,935 995 1,816,768 4,306,048.00
beneficiary

senior citizen 3,825 -25,200 -15,780 4,200 -6,160 -39,115.00

11,264,423.30 9,294,306.60 4,381,858.45 2,907,234.85 33,861,222.63 61,709,045.83

Total
*Note: Resource Rents are in Pesos

Figure 8. A Chart Showing the Resource Rents

20,000,000.00

15,000,000.00

10,000,000.00

5,000,000.00

0.00
Brgy. San Juan Brgy. Berseba Brgy. Calaitan Brgy. Mt. Ararat Brgy. Mt. Carmel

-5,000,000.00

Agriculture Livestock and Poultry Forestry (Timber)

Forestry (Non-Timber) Wildlife Collection Mining and Quarrying Industry

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 20

Top 5 income sources with largest overall resource rents come from: first (1st),
forestry (timber) with 18,786,511.00 pesos; second (2nd), wholesale of
household goods with 11,349,094.00 pesos; third (3rd), private employment
with 10,668,772.00 pesos; fourth (4th), government employment with
6,525,048.20 pesos; and fifth (5th), agriculture with 3,529,499.15 pesos.

Among barangays, Brgy. Mt. Carmel has the largest total resource rent with
33,861,222.63 pesos; however, it shows deficit in agriculture resource rent with
-175,668.6 pesos. Brgy. Mt. Ararat has the least total resource rent with
2,907,234.85 pesos.

For livelihood sources, i.e., agriculture, timber (timber & non-timber), livestock
& poultry, wildlife collection, and mining and quarrying industry, there is a
total resource rent of 24,212,750.63 pesos.

Nonetheless, there is an overall resource rent of 61,709,045.83 pesos.

Generally, the resource rent output in this assessment shows fairly benefited
resource users from resource utilization within AWFR.

Institutional/Perceptions

Table 15. Knowledge of Respondents per Barangay on Relevant

Organizations
PA Effective PA LGU Government Delivery of social
Barangay Private Support
Importance Mgt. Programs support Services

San Juan
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 39 118 116 194 121 119
4 400 1,213 1,205 1,984 1,284 1,284
5 7 28 21 21 21 21
No
0 0 0 0 0 0
answer
Average 148.68 447.33 733 475.33 474.67
Berseba
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 238 714 717 1,188 718 718
4 29 92 87 143 103 103
5 1 4 3 3 3 3
No
0 0 0 0 0 0
answer
Average 268 270 269 444.67 274.67 274.67
Calaitan
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 30 136 110 106 13 8
4 339 1,019 951 1,693 1,350 1,350
5 0 0 0 0 0 0
No
0 0 0 0 0 0
answer
Average 3.918 3.131 2.876 4.86 3.99 3.98
Mt.
Ararat

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 21

 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 5 4 6 4 4
3 28 82 57 139 86 85
4 99 378 200 495 189 287
5 1 4 2 3 1 3
No
0 0 0 0 0 0
answer
Average 32.5 117.25 65.75 160.75 70 94.75
Mt.
Carmel
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 7 22 24 33 23 23
4 366 1,182 1,157 1,822 1,352 1,356
5 61 303 303 305 257 255
No
0 0 0 0 0 0
answer
Average 144.6 502.3 494.67 720 408 544.6

The table shows that respondents have rated frequently in the range of 4
which signifies a high importance. It further implies that most respondents
have knowledge and have given relevance to the existence and
intervention of the given subjects.

Tenured Migrant

A tenured migrant is a male or female protected area occupant who has

been actually and continuously occupying portion of the protected area for
five (5) years before its designation as protected area and solely dependent
therein for subsistence.

In this assessment, SEAMS has identified a total of 736 household heads

qualified as tenured migrants.

Barangay Tenured Migrants

San Juan 66
Berseba 195
Calaitan 176
Mt. Ararat 191
Mt. Carmel 108
Total 736

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 22

III. ISSUES AND CONCERNS ENCOUNTERED

The implementation of SEAMS within AWFR was a tedious process particularly

on data collection, i.e., geotagging of farmlots, which consumed most of the
time during the conduct due to their sporadic locations. Further, terrain and
weather condition dragged accomplishments on fieldworks. Furthermore,
there were households not interviewed with homelots and farmlots unvisited
specifically in Brgy. San Juan, Brgy. Berseba, and Brgy. Mt. Carmel due to
peace and order situation in the area.

As for the action taken regarding the issue encountered, the assessment
team secured certification from the concerned barangay and military
attesting the veracity of peace and order situation in the area. (See
attached certification in the appendix.)

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The employment of Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System

(SEAMS) elicits clearer baseline information regarding actual resource
utilization and revenue accumulation from identified livelihood sources within
Andanan Watershed Forest Reserve (AWFR). Further, it discloses general
condition of the resource users along with their impact on the whole natural
resources.

The socio-economic assessment shows that occupants are having other

significant income source (i.e., wholesale and retail of household goods;
government and private employment; remittances (local & abroad); and
government assistance like 4Ps) though basically they are resource
dependents to AWFR through tree farming and agricultural farming.

As with demographic aspects, the assessment shows that roughly 57% of the
total population of the five (5) barangays are working population. This reflects
that relatively half of the total population are dependents. It can be seen
that a bigger force is needed to be exerted and to be utilized to adequately
support the needs of the other half (dependents). It directly affects the
resource utilization within AWFR which, without proper management and
interventions, can degrade the whole resource value of AWFR.

The social profile of the occupants particularly their educational attainment

shows a very low success rate at all levels. Attendance on educational levels
shows disproportion compared to its actual total population. Most of the
population are within elementary level. Percentage of professionals
produced nearly drops to zero. This instance can be referred to its minimal
expenditure on education. Individuals tend to stop pursuing high educational
attainment and instead make a living to sustain family needs. Lesser
SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 23
professionals in the community could indirectly mean greater exploitation of
the available natural resources of the occupied area for daily subsistence.

While overall resource rent of five (5) barangays shows fair paybacks to
resource users, however, it is not equally circulated all over the protected
area because it is only concentrated to some part of it. Some barangays
sustained deficits on major livelihood, e.g., Brgy. Mt. Carmel for its agriculture;
and if this is what will always occur, the scenario will be: farmers will tend to
increase its occupied farmlots through slash and burn not minding the
eventual impacts to the whole environment just to cope up the desired
earnings.

Occupants perception on institutional intervention (e.g., government and

private support; LGU programs; delivery of social services; importance of PA
and its effective management) shows a significant indication that they are
now aware and recognizing the importance of such interventions.

Recommendations

The whole ecology within Andanan Watershed Forest Reserve (AWFR) needs
proper intervention and management. Thus, the following categorical
actions are recommended:

1. Conduct of needs assessment in the barangays within AWFR.

2. Continuing advocacy and IEC for environmental protection, conservation
of resources, and sustainable development especially to Indigenous
People.
3. Implement more livelihood programs and projects with fund allocation.
4. Introduce sustainable farming technology to reduce widespread of forest
clearance for agricultural purposes.
5. Support development of land tenurial systems.

SEAMS | Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring System 24

APPENDIX
MAPS
 PHOTO-
DOCUMENTATION
Community Consultation
Actual Household Survey
 Barangay Calaitan

Barangay Berseba

Barangay San Juan

Encoding and Analysis