Integrated Summary Report-Population Pressure and Migration: Implications for Upland Development

PHILIPPINEINSTITUTEFOR DEVELOPMENTSTUDIES Working Paper 86-02 INTEGRATEDSUMMARY REPORT: POPULATIONPRESSURE AND MIGRATION: IMPLICATIONSFOR UPLAND DEVELOPMENT by MA. CONCEPCIONJ. CRUZ

This report is si[Rulr,._n_oeJsly released as Center for Policy and Development Studies, University of the PL_ilippinesat Los Banos, Workin9 Paper No. 86-07째

INTEGRMED SUMMARYREPORT: POPULATIONPRESSUREAND MIGRATION.'.. ]NPLICATIONS FOR UPLANDDEVELOPMENT

Ra. Concepcion

!.

d. Cruz**

INTRODUCTION

Project Background The

problem

specifically

of over-exploitation

in forests and woodlands,

four components

that comprise

of natural is analyzed

the research

and Development

Philippines

atLosBanos

Studies

in terms of the

agenda of the program

"Economic Pol icy for Forest Resources Management" Policy

of the center for

(CPDS) of the University

affecting

of the

(UPLB). The agenda focuses on four topics:

(.1)land use and commercial forest .resourcemanagement, nomic policies

resources,

forestry_..(3) soil erosion

(2) macroecoand watershed

management, and (4) population and migration factors affecting upland developmert.

"k

Integrated Summary and Conference Report of the project "Population Pressure and Migration: ]implications E.or.Upland Development," (IDRC/PiDS No. 85-.,:_._02) of the Center for Policy and Development. Studies (CPDS) and fundeg by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PiDS) ar;d the Social Sciences Division, International Development. Resea_-chCentre (iDRC). _,

Assistant Professor a_dChairperson, Graduate Program on Environmental Studies, LIPL_. The otheF principal investigators of the project are Mrs. Imelda Zosa-Feranil of the Population 'Institute,U.P. Diliman, and Ms. Cristel'a L. Goce of the Department of Economics, College of Development Economics and Management (CDEM), UPLB.

Thi_ fourth (i)

report

topic_.

contains The

the

study

Upl and. Population

are.as . and

and Migra'_.ion

Institute,

University

of

Of

Migration.

Using

Upland

results

the

c,f studies,

conducted

principal

ir_vestigators

!L)oP.,} Diliman;

National

Data

--Cristela

L.

of Eceno_-_ic._> C.DEB; UPLB; and (3) Case Studies

Migration

---Ma.

or

Studies.

the Philippine Cooperating

from

the

of

Deve!opmei'vt

of Economics,

for

researchers

Department

Forestry

Jo

data

for

E.orest

are described. of up3ar_d areas

forest

uses.

in

Pa_t

In

presented

using.national

results.

presented

Project The the

Objectives major

uplands

' P_irt

o_ th.e

po].icy

the

.V,ana_ement

(FRM) and

the

of Forestry,

the

(CDEM),

Technology..

approach,

methodology

t__e methodology

c_o_latior;

1980 C_qsus

Part

impiications

Department

and Management

i;rO the existirig

data.

CPDS

come

of

for of

and migration

is

Population

and

functions

V summarizes

and-a

and

allocation

_.,_sinc_m_.croo.migration

cens_s

from

on

(PIDS). in

Ii,discusses

of vJpl_d

Program

program

general

in re!atior_

T'_', a model

Lastly,

in, Part

topics

Economics

the

5ased

Housing.

study

part

other

an_ Agro-_Industria!

A profile 1ii

Graduate

Stu¢lies

Goce,

of Upland

may be obtained

.Resources

sections,

delineation

provided

the

of Development

following

land

report

Ce;_t:._!r (FDCI, Co"] lege

Cellege

sources

UPL.3

Development

and the Col 1.ege of Engineeri_g In the

Cruz_

The complete

Institute

are:

_2) A Model

U,:epartment

Environmental

the

--.. line; da _[esa.._Ferani I , Population

Philippit_es

Col_cepcion

under

research

i.s

the"case agenda:are

VI_,

and Description goal

in order

of"the

project

to provide

is

a ba-sis

t.o deter,mine for. the

the

population

develepment

of

of socia.l

•

forestry related programs. at a reliable

estimate

The specific objectives _re: (1).to arrive

of current

population

avai.lable census data; (2) to determine upland

areas

in terms

of

in the uplands

the extent

the actual

number,

(3) to analyze

and environmental

ofupland

evaluate

the

dynamics

socioeconomic

and

of migration

environmental

of migration

distribution,

direction of population movements; determinants

factors

to and

the .socioeconomic

migration;

behavior

using

and (4) to

and the

effects

influencing

of

population

movements.

The

population

estimates

are

used

to assess

the. extent

of

demographic pressure on forest resources. These estimates include the number and distribution of persons currently residing in the uplands, the actual

volume

socioeconomic

and environmental

Three reasons study

significance

of up}and

a'" upland,

over

rate

i4,4

undertaking

The first

million

people

the country.

30 percent

reside

growth

in

rate

19¢8 to 1970 is 2,5 percen%, population

a systematic

of

the

Our findings

growing

show that, classified

Pililippine

population

of upland

population

which means that

ip, the

the

c'_mmunities

of _]le total

The annu_I

and the

has to do with

number and proportion) in

were to continue,

patterns,

of movement,

at

movements.

dwellers

in !980.

period

effort

absolute

representing

of 48 million the

both

the migration

deteminants

this

population

(in

as of 1980,

for

motivate

of upland

population

of migration,

uplands

would

if

double

such a in 27

years.

The problems

second associated

reason with

_s

the

urgency

demegt'aphic

of

stress

resolving on forest

the

critical

resources.

A

greater

effor:t

protection into

;_t

eF_f)rc!r_g

pol ici_,'_

easily

migrants

and poverty

%ech_iques

is the

especially

since

upland

Cruz,

al,,.

(1985)

which

is

et

belonging

to

observation

encroachment In

from

addition.,

those

sui.ted

_Or

the

poverty

ar,nual

cut-off

bottom-_O..percent

is noted in Cwyer

Sur,

income

of ]ow

income •

hav_,_,been found

and Cruz,

'in Camarines average

of waterways..

_}roblems

res.idents

(Q_isumbing

indicates.an

below

;_nd clogg_n_

upland

municipalities

the

differer_t,

need t,o address

of the poor"

of three

_p,c,.o_v_jrolled

forest.

leading to i_crease soil erOsio_ and downstream

reason

among the "poorest

and

_,atershe_.sites,

such as incr.c__esed .siit_%_ion

The third

.;::onser_,tion

_:,eca:.,_e _f

a_r_d c,_._,)ca]

ofter_ use farmi_g

effects

I/2,168,

i s _eeded

erodab:",

,.!-landcultivation,

effecc_ve

1986).

C,ebu, per

.to be

A •survey •

and Antio_ue by

capita

defined bracket.

incomeof

for

families A

simil.ar

(1977} and Lun-ing{1976) with upland

residents receiving an average per capita income of P2,100 -per year.

As of the thif'd, quarter, ].983,the pove,_ty incidence rate in forestry and foreSt-based the .43.3 percent

General

occupations poverty

was 46.8 percent, .which is higher than

il!cidence

rate.

for_ r,_..e and corn

farmers.

Ap_proachb.and.Methodolo_

Three studies, using c.ombinedmacro and micro modelling,.comprise the .project. The fir-ststudy :involves !;,heidentification o.fupland sites

using

available

topogr,_phic maps c_nd aerial

.photographs.

Popul-ation data from the 1980 Census of.Popu"}ation and Housing .are used in arriving at popul.__ation estimates and descriptions of related demographic measurements,

attributes

likeage

end

sex and population

density

The second streams.

study

Regression

levels

are

focuses

models

constructed

movement from selected In the

third

on a sample

at the municipal, to

evaluate

upland

the macro micro

level

communities

in

Mount

Makiling,

socio-economic education

leve!

estimates

data_

and regiona_ determinants

Laguna,

like

are evaluated

The case

frequency

correlates

migration

provfncial,

macro

level

of

of movement,

different

of

areas,

perspective

circumstances

of

study

are

income,

oft,hree

used

and mode of

from

to

upland

analyze

movement,

occupation,

the

the

and other

ownership

status,

and others.

Data Sources There are two major and 2),

The first

National

Census and Statistics

Population

and

_disaggregated source

is

data

is

level,

other

province,

of the BFD,

density

For

figures

in

In

three

case

study

residents

was made using

mapping was also

of

completed

1980,

land

Revil

la

were

area,,

the

for

forest

which

movements

cover

data

by the

is

The second data

and these

1

Census of the

by the NCSO. were

at

the

taken

from

cross-checked

with

1980-NCS0 publication cover

the

data

was

(1985).

e_._eas,

a semi-structured for

for

forest

(I evels

provided

migration

was used while

with

figures

provided

but

cross-checked the

of

and municipality.

areas

estimates.

on population

set

(NCSO), Integrated

series

on upland

available

the macro analysis

Activities,

which was also

figures

for

Office

unpublished

Information official

published

Economic

by region, the

provincial

Its

the

sources

the three

a sample

survey

interview survey

areas.

of

schedule.

upland Site

_i.

The project

IDENTt',--I_,A'[_.ON3F ''_ .....

adopted

.the

governmer:t_

"marginal

lands with

!8 percent

elevations

with

to mountainous

such 2,000

lands,

hilly

upland

meters

agricultume

above

_ "

of upland

sl..)pe,_-i!_gh.er_.lying

p_ace

and in

slopes

as

at high

terrai_'_ _' (BFD _19-82).

tak_.s

see, level

def_nition

Within-

_n a!titudes

of 500 to

ranginc

20. to

from

45

percent (see Map !).

An attempt .was made •official

definition

_

the project

of theuj2_c_:dso

which pop.uiation and migraticn

to adhere closel.y to the

Ht_evcro

since the.unit from

.fi..g._,)res were 'i;o be computed was the

municipality, upland areas were then clasciifled .;_ccord'in.g to •municipal boundaries.

The sources of information .for the mapping activity inc.lude,the most recent topographic maps a.v.ailablefrom t,_,eBureau of •Coast•and Geodetic

Surveys

Municipa_

(BCGS)

b,_undaries

To cross-ch,zck Figure

and

we_re take_

aerial from

_',_}v__,_oL_nt.ainz-ones,

phL)tographs. provincial

r_! _ef

_a.ken-in1979.

administrative

and slope

maps were used,

I.L pr()v_de_t. _;.s'.,m}marv..(:>f i....le -_.... p .............. ,_._,i, _._ for

upland municipalities°

maps.-

delineatiOn

of

A_,shown in tilefigure, the procedure Consists

of five steps, _ith the ia_.,t-" s_.=,)) ....... invoi viF}gtha . pa..'-'ticipation . of-many .. government and r+o.qgovernment_agencies, Step i involves the relief mountain

the identificat,;on of major mountain zones•from

map and .top._graphicF._apa.t the scale

ranges

and ri ver

sysl_ems Tin each mu_ici,oal

these comprised List Nc_ .L.

6

of 1:5.OOOO. The ity

were ! i sted

and

Mr. Makiling Mt. .... ,-

Mrs. Pinatubo, Nati5, Samat, a,d Marjvelos

_'°_;

_....... "

_i"_ _ ; .'_

Mrs. Inga, and

"

•

Buluan $amar

Palawan

"_'.

Lanao 6u OiwataMrs,

Map1 Relief Map OFTHEPHILIPPINES

IFiGURE

Identification

Step

i.

DELINEATION

Procedure

OF MAJOR

Mountain Zoning u.sing 1:50,000 scale

L,I

f.or Delinea_1;in_ U_pland Sites

MOUNTAIN

ZONES

or Mapping topographic

--

map)

i

IIIII

NO

.

I

'Check

Location

M untain YES .......

I

of

i

Identified

i

_ I

2.

CLASSIFICATION

IB

oundaries Overlay

OF

AREAS

llll ....

( ,

Mountain

F LZ째nes Include (LIST in Listing NO. !)

Step

Range

BY

[

MUNICIPALITY

of Municipalities Administrative

Is unicipalit Within Mountain Zone?

NO

YES

Include in Listing of Identi fi.ed Mountain Z_ne Municipalities (LIST OF NO, 2)

6b

75% or more of land area in zone?

YES

NO

EKclude in Li sti_,g

Step

3.

CLASSIFICATION

OF AREAS

_Y

SLOPE

1....... i Overlay Map per

of-S!ope Province

unicipali in.

NO

18%

and m_re

or

zone slope

Include in and.Classify Categories

Step

4.

-

TWO-STAGE

"

75% or

ore

NO

f m 1 i"i |of.area

within

I

m(_re.- I YES

18%.-or

Revised Listing A.rea; by Slope {LIST N-O. 3}

I_|

" _n

I Listing

|

VERIFICATION

Identify

municipalities

le_'s.

I.

hectares tzine, bu.tof with. area of l-.than75%I ,000 landarea total or.i.n more mountain

I:

,,,

Check Using

+

area' aerial

Wi-th

"

s

topography phot.Q.graphs

area. wit 1,000 ha,or mo re i-n pl-ands?

S

Include .

in Listing Mun.icipali III

.NO

,

.of ties

Upland: .

..

m

photograph. percentage of settlement's located " '. Compute in upl from and.s ....aeri,al .

6o

Exclude in .Listing •

I

i Include of:

_ e r" ._; e _,:.:.a 9 e

i n fornlati

on

Set.t°!ei_en_: rer,_+;y in t_ st.!qg of upland _lL_nic_,)al_ties (LIST ;'_..q....":_)

Cr_oss-reference I list I listing

of

!i

s-King

with

BFD

i]rojects ,,and available of uoland development

I projects

of

n_n-BFD agencies •f r(.m i,!GOs

and

/ //there. , areas , not _'_,_.NOJ Adopt list included ',_n_'-----1 as FINAL "_.

Li st _V" , : '

r_ 1

........

,/"

--_Check--lar)d

Estimate Area and revised

Step

5

•

VALIDATION

AND

government

_re,_ cove;-age

of

these

'

_etL1 ement Oens,i ty include information Ii st {F_INAL LIST)

of in

i

-

FEEDSA,.,_ t_'

7 oo r. Tq

ag<_.nci=_ (mainlyBFD)

[

-@ and apply incorporate

LRevi se

No. LIST

verification procedure reactions/feedback

FINAL

LIST

6d

it',, ,, needed,

]

,.._

To determine what municipal iti_: sh..ou-_ d be i_'.,cl uded, _n.Step2 an overlay-of inclusio_

administrative boundaries was made and the criterion for was set

at

mountain zone, The since

at least,

7,5 percent

_;)r _or_

of

l_nd

_rea

wiIthin

_ the

selection-of 75 percent as cut-()i:fpresumed that

three-fourths

then at _east one-half

of

a municipality's,

_a_d area

-is upland,

of iL_.p.ol)u!ationwo_._.Id be upland residents.

This assumption is realistic ._inceadmir_istrat.iveboundaries•are drawn based on pol.itical constituency and prevailing settlement trends, and since roads and other infrastructure already take up about i0 percent of land area.

In Step 3, the slope map is used to -identify municipalities with 18 percent criterion, lands

s"iope

or

care is

which

new listing

higher,

taken

Verification

of

areas the

within

Upland

Step 4. through

municipalities

that

should

using

the

extensive boui_daries approximate

with

use of the

were

of

the

the peripheqv

municipalities

percent

in

List

to

ascertain

.mountain

zones,

of mountain in

No. 3 were

This

ranges.

StePs

photographs.

if

slope

as upland,

identified

the use of aerial

excluded

!8

areasdelineated

but wihin

aerial.photograph,

be classlfieda.s In areas.

within

or plateaus

to 3 .is made in

checked

considering

tO include

are flatlands eliminated

In

1

• Those

then

cross-

the. municipality

upland., quesi_ionable.c]..assifications, aerial,

ti_e upla_d perce_tage

photographs portion of

the

of total

in the

the determining

team

the-actual.

municipality, popula.tion

made

living

Also,

to

in

the

•uplands, a settlement density fact_F"or -SDF was .devised, which is-the

ratio of 'thenumber of houses wi_,':,!_i:_ F;!__piand bour_da_'yreiative to the total number of houses in the m_nicipali _y, Municipalities settlement only The

receive a

density factor {or SDF} of 1.0 while a municipality

one-third SDF

lying entirely withiF_ a mountain zone

of houses located

f_gure

is then

used

in the uplands

in adjusting

with

has an SDF of 0,33.

the census

population

estimate for that portion of the municipality's population residing in the _l ands.

The

last

step

(Step

5) is tt_e final

verification

municipalities included i_', the li'.._ting {a) based

of the

on available surveys

conducted by the Bureau of Forest 'Jevelopment (BFD) and (b) taken from known nongovernment organizations {NGOs) working in the uplands. external

project

information LANDSAT

consultants

generated

were

also.hired

fro_ the procedure

Two

to cross-check

with other sources

(e.g.,

photographs).

Profile of Up}and Areas Based

on

the procedure

described

above,

a total

Of 302

municipalit-ies in 60 provinces are classified as upland, representing 48 percent of the entire listing of mu_icipalities The largest Tagalog,

number of upland

llocos,

conc_"_tration

of

municipalities,

(refer

upland followed

The highestupland and Southern

and

CagayaF_

are found in the Southern

Va}le,y

municipalities

regiop,

s.

is

11ocos

in

by J-;_;,." municipalities

population

Mindanao,

provinces

fol')owed

concentrations

by Western

to Map 3).

8

for the country..

The

highest with

in Southern are

i_

Central

V isaya-,_ and I locos

115

Tagalog.

Visayas regions

Map 3

Location.Map of UplandMunicipc! _'

C

E

L

E/

B

E

S 8a

S

E

A

With respect to population settlements, about 40 percent

upland dwellers

of the total forest and woodlands

densities closely

with population

approximating the national average of 100 persons

per square kilometer.

These occupied

areas include

newly opened

areas covering 15 of the 39 proclaimed watershed sitesin The total

occupy

area of the uplands

the country.

is about 55.3 percent

or 16.6,

million hectares. A distribution of the uplands according to land use L

is provided in Table 1.1, based on Bureau of Forest Development cadastral Revilla

surveys

and recent

LANDSAT

photographs

(BFD)

interpreted

by

(1985).

As the figures

in Table

1.1 indicate,

less, than half

or 45.8

percent of total forest lands in the country are classified as stable with respect to vegetative cover. forests are expected

to provide

The one raillion h_ectareold growth a harvest

cut of 70 to 80 cu,m. per

hectare per year up to year 2000 (Revilla, 1985). the 23 percent experience hectare,

inadequately

an average

stocked

annual

forests

erosion

On the other hand,

have

been found

rate of 20 to 40 tons

to per

However, openland or grasslands, which comprise 3.2 percent

of total forest land area, have greater average erosion rates of about 100 tons per hectare per year (BFD, 1982), Table

1.2 provides

distribution total

land

fuelwood production

figures

on forest

of such land uses relative area in the country,

for local forests.

energy

land

to total forest

Logs and lumber

use come

uses

and

lands and

for export

from the 8,3 million

This represents

one-half

of available

lands and 27.7 percent of total land area in the country.

9

the

and

hectares forest

TABLE 1",I

Distribution of Forest Lands. in the Philippines B,y Major Cover,

E7_ Forest

Land Cover

.-

-. -LFF---

BFD ESTIMATES 1980 LANDSAT " (in million hectares)

Commercial Old-Growth Forest Lands

!_O

Adequately Stocked Forest Lands

66

Inadequately Stocked Second Growth Forest Lands (Degraded)

3.8

Non-Commercial/Protectlon ..

Forest .Land and Reservation

2.7

) )

)

7.38

)

....

4.18

) )

.)

Openlands/Grasslands

5.3

Agrofor.estry Land (with. Croplands)

I.I

__...__

.......

-w.....

_

i.

.2.

5.04

.-

16,6

TOTAL

Sources:

) ) )

Bureau of Forest Development, Forestry_ Statlstics.

.16 .:6.

igsz Phl-liEE!ne

Revilla, Adolfo .V.- (1985), A 50-Year Forest_ Development P_rogra.m for .the IShiff-_-_p_p_-_s.

-- tLOS

TABLE.I.2

Forest

Summary of Forest Land Uses in the Philippines Land Area (in million hectares)

Land Use

--

Percent

of:

i_-6-_'_--Lan-'_ : :?-6T_T--C_B _ea

r7

Production

Forests_

Production

Forests-'-

8,3

50.0

27.7

3.5

20.9

11.7

4,3

25.9

14.3

0,5

3.2

1.6

16.6

i00.0

55.3

2/

Agroforestry

Lands

Openl ands/Grassl ands

TOTAL

NOTES:

I, 2,

SOURCE:

includes fuelwood

forest lands

for

lumber,

plywood,

includes non-commercial or special use forest protection as reservations

Bureau of Statistics

Forest

Development,

9b

1982 Philip_pine

and

lands for

Forestr_

The large proportionof agroforestryland comprises 25.9 percent of total-forest lands.• In the period 1972 to 1981, about 379,000 hectaresper •year• of forest lands were converted to agricultural land uses.(Revilla, 1985).

Potentialsfor Agrlculture in the Uplands The slope map (refer .toMap 2).providesa rough-indication of potential land uses.

The ratio of net cultivated' land to total

population in 1960 was 0.18, but this ratiodeclined to 0,13 in 1970; and.was furth'er reduced to 0.11 in 1975 (World Bank, 193,9).Using the i8 percent slope cut-off.todefine the limits ofagriculture, only 12 percent of total arable land stl.l 1_remains to be cultlvated. If such trends persist, by 1991, .theextensivemargin for lowland agriculture. would have been'reached(World Bank, 1.979).

If land withslopes

greater than 18 percent were in.clu-ded, as-.:,

potentially arable'lands,another 26 percent of total .I and area can be opened up for agriculture as shown In.Map 2. Of these lands, 14.3. percent are•moderately sloping lands, with.slopes .. wlthin-I5 to 30. percent. However, agriculture in t.heselands has been observed to have characteristicsdifferentifrbmthat o-flowland areas.

Cruz et..al.(1985) found that upland agriculture is mostly: (i) rainfed with very little capacity for large-scaie drainage, (2i mi.xedcr_oPPingin orientation, with a staple (or .grain)crop interplantedor sequentla1ly planted with a legume or root crop, and (3) rol 1ing In terraln,.alternating between hil Is and flatl ands.on .sideslopes between200 to 1,000meters•above'sealevel elevation.. In addition, in.upland agrlcul.turesystems numerous minor patchesof.

10:

Map2 SlopeMap

SHOWING MAJGR UPLAND ZONES LEGEND" _]

Oj

SteeplyHilly 30-60"]-SteeplyRolling 15-30"/-

_65"/-.,

_

Mountain (3ource: Bureau oi

%

O

Z

0 L

0

Cout an_

uncut forests are allowed to remain in the more d'istantupper slopes.-

Limitations of the Procedure -The non-correspondence government's

of municipality

boundaries

def_inition .of what _onstitutes..the

upland

with

has .made

estim__.esof upland population extremely difficult to undertake. first limitation hasto at the municipality

the

The

do with the unev.en.dlstribution of population

level.

Even if 75 percent of a.municipality'-s 7

land.area were.upland,there

may in fact be cases where mo_e than half

..

. ..

ofthe.population

reside in the lowland

sections."This

problem

is

compounded byt.he difficulty of relying• solely on census data since the •remoteness of most up!and-area.smake dat_aicol.Iection extremely hard.

T.he second limitation.has

to do with municipal ities that have

very large land areas under its jurisdiction. less

than

75 percent

of

the municipalities

In these cases, even if _ .land is.up.land,

in

absolute terms•these municipal ities may have i arge patches 'of up-land areas.

Exclusionof

such municipalities will tend to bias the upland

population estimate downwards.

Third,- the official.definiti.on

of uplands

based on 18 percent

sloP_ or higher•remains vague even for purposes of population counts•.

Indeed a combined

sl.ope-elevation

criterion

is needed to permit a

.more.systematic del ineation...

• Lastly,

the popul ati.on estimate

that movements

is done.on a.one-time basis so

between.inte.rcensal years and season fl ows within a

year are not sufficiently captu"red.

11

II_.

The "benchmark"

PROFILE OF UPL,='_N& POPULAT!ON AND MIGRATION

estimates

of population

and migration

in.the

identified upland areas are derived using three levels of analysis.I First:_ a descr.iption

of the

size,

growth,

composition of the upland populatioKis

distribu.tlon,

made using available

data, disaggregated by region, province, and municipality. growth is

evaluated

since

1948,

although

indicative

and census

Population population

movements prior to this perfod are also discussed.

The

second

"population ratios.

level

pressure,"

of analysis mainly

uses

population

different density

indicators and

of

dependency

These indicators are examined with respect to forest cover,

land availability, slope, and other physical characteristics of upland sites, such as accessibility and distance.

At the third level, migration patterns are analyzed in terms of volume (actual number of migrants) using the unpublished province-toprovince matrix of the NCSO. rural population

while

Areas of origin include both urban and

destination

areas are limited only to the

identified upland areas.

DefF_ographic Profile As of upland total the

1980,

of Upl and Population the

estimated

was 1.4.4 million, population.

Central

Visayas

population

representing

The largest

upland

and Southerr}

in

areas

30 percentof population

Mindanao

12

classified the

concentrations

regions,

with

as

country's are in these

two

regions .accounting for one._fourth of che tot:_I upland population of the entire country (see Table 1.1).

2 The 6 million with the.highest

upland population in 1948 nearly" doubled in1970

population

growth rates occurring.during

1948 to

1960. (see Table 3.4). In Mindanao,. for example, the.rapid growth of upl aF-J_-popul ation during this period.exceeded

7 percent per .Year_n

the Southern and Central Minda.nao regions. Such high .growth rates .are consistentwith

Pascual's

sett.lement" migration Aside

(1965) earlier

as being large_yan

from Mindanao , the other high

Tagalog

description

easily.postwar movement.

growth

(-4.09%),Bi.col(3.58%.),andCagayan

of "frontier

regions

are Southern

(3..46%);

After.1970, a gradual .but steady decline in the growth of upland. populati-oncan be observed, except in. Northern_and Southern Mindanao, Southern T.agalog, andCagayan higher, than 3 percent

where population

throughout

Luzon's growth rate was.higher rate dropped average percent.

1975

annual growth rate of.upland

Central

up.to 1.975, but this

to 1980.

On

the whole,, the

p0pu] ation 'isabout 2.5 to .2..8

If such growth rates continue in the succeedingyears,

population will

the

double in 27 years (see Table 3.4).-

Age Distribution. follow

the 1948 to 1980 period.

than 3 percent

to 2.6 percent-in

still grew a.trates

the national

I_nterms of age distribut!on,_ the. up.lands pattern..Over

43 percent-are

in..the young,.

dependent age.bracket of 0-14 years, 54 percent are in the working age of 15-64.years, and 3 percent -years.and over

(see Table

are non-worklng_or

3.15).

The youngest

13

elderly, populations

being65 are in

[able_.4

_nuai-Ero_th Rate; of the Upland,Population

REBION"

194B-1960

1960-1g?O

1970-J975

2,98

_.03

2.73

2,24

2.H

|,8

1.8g

3_4_

3,_9

3.14

.3,06

Ceetral Luza_

3,23

4.37

3,24-

2,_0

IV, Bouthern Ta_alo9

4,0g

_,_3 -

-3._&

3.11

â&#x20AC;˘ v, iicot

_,58

2,10

.1,52

1.41

YI. Western Yisayas

1,92

0.96

2._5

0,97

VII, Central VisayaS

1.43

1.81

2.33

2._3

1,_4

1,84

l,b9

L82

2,88

4,29

1,77

.4,_4

3,21

4,5B

_,6_

_,_e

5,_)

4.20

4,05

5.60

2,26

|;e(

PHILIPPINES I. Hocos II, Cagayao Iii,

9Ill.

Eastern Vis_yas

IX, Nestern Hind_nao X, Northern Hindanao

11. Southern Mindanao 7m_t X]I,-Central Hindanao

5ource :

?,53

Values Here derived by the cPos-PIDSProject Team _r_m N_ional Censusand Statistics Office l?SO.

13a

i975-19B0 2.55

Table 3.[5

Upland Population by _OeGro.p and DependenCy Ratio by _egion_ Jg_o

â&#x20AC;˘ Number_

Perc_,

Levi'_

......................................................................

Region

ToLal

PHILIPPINES I, lintels

0 - t(

1_ - 6_

65+

14410570 622745; 7700869482250

0 - 14

[5 - 64

10(_

4,_

54 "

_

187

_74544

795500 754]1

!00

40

55

5

182

II._agayan

i129253 409212

605_28 34508

IO0

43

54

3

20e

lII,

.843772

351951

4_557G 26245

IO0

42

55

3

181

iV. _oethern lagalog

i29q180 57202S

_87022 40133

100

44

53

3

}99

V, BicoI

t059299

495096

533137 )_1'76

I00

!7

4_

(

202

VI. Western

1459762

632299

776110 513_

tO0

43

53

4

1gO

1839839

743650 }012619 B3570

100

40

55

5

182

420295

4B_709 37792

i00

44

52

4

194

557%7

2q92B7

2%573 t2|07

lOG

45

5_

2

185

X, Northern Htndanan

t254394

535253

6SB377 30764

_00

43

55

2

IBO

XI. Southern ffiadanao

t83B708

818687

976509 38_12

tO0

4._

53 "

2

188

743052

342152

388221 12679

100

46

52

2

igi

Central Luzon

1445455

l,Lal

Ompendency 65+ Rmtio

Vi_ayas VIi, Central Visayas VIII, Eastern ViHyas IX. Nestern Hindanao

XII,C_{)LrmI Nindanao

Source:

9447%

Valueswerederived by the CPDS-PIDS Project Team frOl HationaI CensusandStatistics OFFice 1980,

13b

Bicol

and Ce:;tral Mindanao,

Central

Visaya:_, Centr.:_l.Luzon, and

llocos.. Bicol has the smallest percentage of working age population.

Age .distributionindicates the proportion of the total population that needs to be supported

as shown in the dependency.ratio

(Levi, 1976).3 " This ratio.may be usedas

measure

an it._dicator.ofpopul ation

pressure: -the.greater the aependency burden o:fan area, .the higher the need to expl.o_t resources requirements

i.nOrder to provide

of the population.

Table

forthe

3.16 contains

consumption a.summary

of

dependency ratios, forest cover, and density level's.

Three regions have. high dependency ratios,and density levels -Bicol,

Eastern Visayas, and Western Visayas.

Forest lands in Bic.ol

and Western Visayas are relatively

smalI _insize.with r_espectto total

.forest land area.,in the country.

With limited

forest resources

and

relatively dense settlements, population pressure has.reached critical levels, for these regions,

in contrast, Central .Visayas and Central

Luzon

ratios

havc

low dependency

but comparatively

high density

Ievels.

Sex

Ratio.

Table

3.20 conta.ins the

distribution

popul ation by sex for the 12 administrative

of upland

regions of the country.

The dictribution shows.a c.lear selectivity for-males in the uplands, with Southern Tagalog, Bicol_

Western Visayas,. Southern and Central

Mindanao having a comparatively higher proportion of.male.pop.ulatio.n.

The-dominance

.of males. i.n the

upland

is consistent

with

observations presented in case studies of upland migration wheremales are the ones who .make the first move

14

before

the entire

family

is

;ab_

Dependency Level Percent 1980 •_Qe 15 - 64

_,l_ _ep_ndency _tt_ andForestCover,

Density • 1_75 Density Level ...........................

Level 1775 lotat _2ienab]e _ 1980

Years

Forest Lend

Disposable Land

1984 ....................

Iotal _lienab[e Forest Dispo=ab}e Land ,Land

HighDependency (190 or more) _icol Eastern Visayas Central Mindan_o WesternVisayas

49 52 52 5_

137 lot 70 135

5,561 (32} _2_071 (68) 147 5_500 (3t}_2,tOO(&_i ,,1_9_ _ n, 4_6_ ,__ V, - SQ2 (_4) , Ill 10,600 (501 10,8001501 _8,3J0 !631 10_695 (371 77 _4_000 (60) 9_400|401 7,032 (35} i2,I_0 (65) 147 _,500 (32) 12_700(681

5_ S_ 54 54

49 7D 41 83

2B,890 (_l} i8_623 (_g) _6 27_?00 (591' lg,_O0(411 16,33b _0_ _(),_70 (_0) B6 20,100(_q} tl,_O0(_) 26,253!72} J_:_15_> {281 48 26,200(72} I0,300(2B) IO_t08(54) 8_578(4_) I0_ 9,_00(53) 8,700(47i

55 55 55 56

87 208 121 87

i2_507(57) 9_2(_ {431 % 12,400(58)9_i00(421 _,?O_i_) _,04_(54i 2_S 8,700(45) 8_200(551 8,102(44) kO_k_5(5_) i_8 8_I00(44)I0_300(561 18,,344 (bS} ?_983' (_ 107 1.8,100 (64} I0,3_(36)

_derate Dependency (1B5-1891 SouthernTagalog Southern_indanao Cagayan WesternMind,noD LowOependency (<1851 ]fooDs Centre)Visayas Central Luzon Northern _indanao

Sources= Value_ were derived by th_ CPOS-PI_S Pro_cL iea_ fromNational CensusandSLatistics OT_£ce.19BO and _ureauof ForestOekelap_ent Stat/st_c_ 1975, Note: Rll numbersin parentl_esis _re percent_es,

_tq,a

]'able 3.20

Region

Up!and.Popui_Lionby Sex_nd SexRatiosby_egio_ }98_

Male

,F_ai_ (ail age_

_e_ _atio iatl ages)

7,121,563

103

723,6BI.

721_@2_

I00

57_S13

$53_747

i04

_21_13}

_22,470

lOG

_75_4&B

644,29B

iO_

543,064

516_g45

I0_

Vl,Western Visayas

745_7.24

731fl_?.

102

VII.Central Visayas

915,_3B

92_762

?_

VIII,Eastern .ViSayas

'4BI_327

463_491

104

IX.Western Mindan_o

28%1._7

" 280_434

i03

X. Northern Hiadanao

_37,2%

.611_I_3

103

Xl, Southern Mind_na_,

_4t_573

_B_2, JSO

106

XII.EasLern HifldIflao

379,264

_6G_BO8

I0_

PHILIPPINE_ I. lIocos Ii,Cageyzn III, Central â&#x20AC;˘Luzon.

IV.Southern Iagalog V, Bicol

7,_IB_3B6

_ources;Values.ere _eriveO _y theCPOS-PIDB Projectlea_ fromRational Censusand Statistics Of_ce_ 1980

14_

transferred.For single male adults, the attractionof frontier lands is greater than females who prefer to live ,inthe lowlands.

Education.

In 1980, the national• literacy• rate reached 83

percent, which is higher than the 79 percent literacy rate for upland •populations. Higher literacy rates are found in Central Luzon, Soutile_,Tagalog, and llocos.

The-lowest literacy rates are in

Western and Central Mindanao.

Measures of PopulationPressure The importantdemographicfactorsinfluencingpopulationpressure in upland co_unitles are outlined in Figure 1.1. Population growth occurs as a result of the natural processesof fertility and mortality and through migration.

The age-sex

structure

then defines

a

dependency level that is closely correlated with densityand other land-related factors. As population increases beyond the limits of the resource base,• new and more intensive techniquesof resource use emerge. Within this context, migration can be viewed as an immediate response to relieving the pressure caused by high dependency or densityIevels.

Population Density. The upland areas of the regions of Cagayan, Southe:.:_ Tagalog, and Southern Mindanao comprise 45 percent of the total area classified as upland. However, their combined population accounts for only 20 to 30 percent of the entire population in the period 1948 to 1980. Meanwhile, the regions of Central and Western Visayas, which account for 10 percent of the total• population, occupy .only5 percent of the total land area.

15

The average density figure for all regions 'is39 persons/sq, km. in 1948.

This increased markedly

to 74 persons/sQ,

rose sharply to 96 persons/sq, km. in"1980.

Mindanao are lower than the otherregions

km. in 1970 and

Upland density •levels in for all years •between 1948

and 1980 although density level s doubled in the years 1975 'to1980.

When

di.saggregatedby

province,

the population density figures

show that some provinces have exceeded the 200 persons/sq. km. upland density

limit

proposed

by Conklin

(1961) for pioneer,

shifti.ng

r.

cultivation systems. The Province with the highest average density of -

i

500 persons/sq,

km. is Laguna,

up.land...densitylimit

with

.In 1960, Laguna has approached.the

a density

.of 197 persons/sq,

kin. The

dens!ty figure doubled in Laguna between 1960 to 1.975..

Aside from Laguna the other high density

provinces

ar.eRizal

(277) and Marinduque (203) in Southern Tagalog, Cebu (424) in Central Visay.as,-andPampanga (402) in Central Luzon.

On the other hand, some

regions.like Cagayan have uniformly..low density levels (less than 200 persons/sq., kin..).

Density and Land Quality. measurementswith

An attempt is made to relate density

land quality, or its proxy,_slope.

.sites !_.!'.ve slopes .of30 percent • .

category

...

or higher.

Density

The .steep upland levels

in this

vary from a low of less than 50.persons/sq, km. to a high of

250. per.sons/sq.km.. Out

of the 709 municipalities,

43 have

high

population,density levels, in the steep•,mountain areas. • .The.critical upland municipalities,

based on a combined den_i.ty ,

. .

...

and slope criterion are listed fn Table 3.i..4.Densities exceeding 500 persons/

sq. kin.are in Pakil

(Laguna), Bacolod

1,6

Grange

(Lanao del

Ia_le3,t4

Ho_.t Critical Ar_=_U_:ngPopulation Density and Slopeas Criteria_ A Li_tingo{ UplandHunicipal_tie_ withVeryHigh.Slate _nd Density Leve]s

U_k_od Pakil BacolodBrand_ Tubod

Lag_n_ L_naodel_r.

Lanaode]Horte

b% 608 593

Hinolanilla N&ga Nad_]um Orent

Cebu Ceb_ L_naodel 5ur 8ata_n

586.

573 571 560

Cagayande Oro OanaoCity Pmete La Trinidad Pangit SanFernando

HisamitOrienLa| Cube Laguna 8enguet L_gun_ Cebiz

550 530 505 467 457 453

Nalilipot ltogon Catig.bian Siasi

Atbay BengueL 8oho] Su]u

4_ 423" _78 $72.

Porac Car_en Oi_os Carigara _Icedo

Pa_oanga Ceb_ O_vaode] 3ur Leyte IlocosSu_

370 _64 $64 362 _54

Hiag-ao Plaridel

lloilo Hi._a_i_ Ocddenta[

. _44 325

Kin_itan Sorsogon Tugaya Laur Haas_ Toboso Nasipit Salay, OavaoCity 8terra Bu|lones

M_a_s Oriental _orsogon Lanande]Sur HuevaEcija _outhern Leyte HegrosOccidenta] _9usandel Norte Hi_amis Oriental Oavaode! Sur 8ohol

325 _21 _08 _08 _0] 295 283 27_ 276 267

Binalb_an 5awboan

NegrosOccidental Cebu

26_ 264

Cabucgayan Soiano Li]a

Leyte NuevaVÂŁzcaya 8ohol

26_ 262 257

Gitagum Vira¢

Hisamis Oriental CaLanduane_

257 254

Tagalaon MisamisOrienLat 2_2 i_emsur_in termsoF numberof personper_q_arekilometer,

J_6a,

Sur),

Tabod

Madalum

(.La.naodel

Notre),

Minglanil'ia

(Lanao del Sur), Orani

{Cebu), Naga

(Cebu),

(Bataan), Cagaya.n'.deOro (Misamis

Oriental), Danao City-.(Cebu),and Paete (Lag_mal.

Migration Profiie Population pressure in many of the upland municipalities is due to the heavy

influx

of migrants

resulting

population density and dependency levels. estimates

of intraregional

in the rapid growth Table .3.22provides

and interregional

of

some

mi'gration for upland

populations 5 years old a_d.â&#x20AC;˘above.

Migrants to upland areas from another" _rovince within the same region reached 114,262 in 'theperiod 1975 t:c_ 1980. =Two out of every five intraregional Northern

migrants

to upland,

and Southern Mindanaoregions.

frontier

into the uplands

of llocos

areas are in the

A "largenumber of migrants

come from other provinces

in the same

reglon.

Interregional

migratlon

271,212 in 1975 to 1980.

Southern

Mindanao

throughout

The largest

and Southern

the country

Tagalog

inflows

amounted

are in Northern

with a migration

to and

stream of

40,000 _._eop Ie. For out-migration, region (NCR), including

the estimates Metro

Manila.

include

the natona!

Outflows

capital

from NCR numbered

47,000 which is the largest number of migrants From one region. high out-migratlon

rate is attributed

to the government's

resettlement scheme and a number.,of studies have actually such movements

(see, for example,

Aguilar,

1982,

This

pl anneal documented

for Dasmarinas,

Cavite; Floro, .Ig80,for Pantabangan; and Calanog, 1977, for Angat).

17

[sb/e x _'"

Intr_-Regiona] Higrants to Upland Areas Froe other Provincesof the Region

II. CagaYan Central Luzon

IV. Southern Tagaloq

14_57

on_

In-Higrants to Upland To_a] O_t-eiorants 'Areas from other Lost tD Upllnd re@ions Areas in other

sameregion

I. I]ocos

Ill.

3n[e_)

regions

J4_20.4

19j017

Net milrition

-3,813

87&BO

17_6T0

B_912

B_758

5,855

17,792

15+775

11,3_1

40,2]6

i2,101

2Bill5

2_,0J.7

• V. Bicol

5_684

_I,OY_

t_,487

-2_39_

V[, Weetern Pisayas

_,644

%951

23+934

-13,983

VII,Central Vi_ayas

4,959

20_332

39_950

+]9,61_

•VIII,Eastern Visayas

2_B_O

lO_l)#6

IB_ge5

_B_929"

IX,Western Mindanao

_88!

_,354

14_&9

-_14

L Northern Hindanao

21_78]

4B_228

2_,088

25_140

XI, Southern MJndanao

23,_53

47_[20

21,863

2%257

XI],Central Hindanao

%247

26,_95

16,147

]O,04B

Soerces: Values were derived by the CPDS-PIOS Project Team fromNational Censu_end Statistic_ O+fice_ ]980

17a

Approximately40,000migrants from Central V isayasmoved to other upland regions.

The large outflows range from 20,000 to 25,000

persons. These.outflows are mostly from Western Visayas, Northern Mindanao, andSouthern i_indanao_ .-'-_ a whole, interregional, migration during the 5-year period is much .larger than intraregional movements.

.This reflects

the

predominanceof.long-distance movements.

I.n.t.erregional Migration. Estimatesof the number of.migrants by region of origin and destination are contained in Table 3.23. The largest inflow of 14,757 to Southern Tagalog came from Metro Manila (NCR). Another large flow _

the 14,261migrants settling in Northern

Mindanao and the 11,134 persons moving into SouthernMindanao.

In general, the largest positive net migration to the uplands occurred in areas with comparatively low upland densityâ&#x20AC;˘levels in 1975. The Io_.._ density figure is a sign of land avai.lability.

Southern Tagalog and Southern Mindanao, for example, received the largest net gain.ofupland migrants (from 2â&#x20AC;˘5,000to 27,500) in 1975 to 1980 but these regions .wereamong the least dense. These regions al.sohave m_derate dependency levels which indicate their high potential for conti_ued influx of new migrants in the future.

There are some regions with .sparselysettled areas llke Central Mindanao and Cagayan but their net in-mlgrationstreams are less than hal.f the migrant populations Mindanao.

of

Southern Tagalog and Southern

Peace and order conditions may account for the low

attractivenessof these regions.

1.8

Table 3,23 UplandInter-Reg_on_2Higrant_ 1975 - 19B0,

Region of Dr_n Regionol Destination

I, I]ocos

...........................

NCR ; II

5,804

- -

Central 4,975 Luzon

IV. Beethern!4,757 Taoalog

3,636

: ......................................

IV V Vl VII

4'21_ _,075

If.Cagayan 2,5b0 7,28_Ill.

ill

4,404 709

.-

2,920 1,254 4,40B

: .................................

Pill.

I].X IÁ

_,424

48i.

405

405

460 .I16

22_

_

252

913

65B

430

29B

{52 136

217

249

llO

_Sd

Bl9 1,993

226

271.

282

126

67l

535

608

28_

547' 41

lOB

l_7

4B

249

I55

851

419

3,4{1 _,82q 3,653

_,814 "

866

205

997

|,18[

201

'-

2163

620

697

8,140

6,737

2,610 i,195-

-

7,522 3,571 1,5_3 2,152

34{

leo {,064 _,734

-.

198

Vi. Mestern 3,271 Visayas

206

107

4tl..

352

--

VII. Centra{ I,_BO Visayam

464

499

325

924 },056 2,2|i

VIII.Eastern 3,455 Visayas

173

94

323

551

526

282 2,068

-

IX. _stern fiindanao

161

1%

1{7.

lO0

£06

866 2,722

262.

721

5_0

531

b27

724 4,_B4 14,26l _,_0

Xl,Southern2,162 1,131 _indanao

712

63J

890

b43 b,Oll11,[{45,177 2,9549,249

Ill.

3_6

48_

_4_

224 4,526 4,062

V. 8,col

5,480

.344

X. Northern 2,_9 Hindanao

Central 823 Hi_dan.o

98{

Ill

1,025

_ources; Values .ers derived by the CPOS-P[D9 Project Team frol National Censusand Statistics Offi_, 1980

18a

196 2,452

-

253 .,

5,264

522 2,973 5)_{7

-

5,602

6,W06

-

Central Luzon is a high net migration significantly 2,114 persons. was not able

large counter The small to absorb

region but it al so has a

stream resultingin

a,netgain

land area of the uplands the. new migrants.

char._:_cteristically sending

of only

in Central

The Visayas

Luzon

regions, are

areas with a larger proportioh

o.fits

population moving to other upland regions.

In general, the,migration trends/indicate the need for evaluating factors, influencin9 migration, areas

(e.g. opening

For example,

up of trails) may

development

in fact encourage

of .upland

migration and may resul t in accelerating

more .in-..

the rate of degradation.of

the fores_t, There is also the immediate need t.oal ieviate-population pressure in the.critical high density areas.

IV.

Three analysis

UPLANb MIGRATION USING NATIONAL DATA

types of macro-migration.functions

of factors affecting migration

census data,4

The three..functions are:

(I) the modified gravity..

of

flows,

model

the

quasi

push-pull

int_rprovincial movements, population

movements

and (3) the

across municipal

three types of. econometric model s, different

factors

emerge

as

i.nterregional

for

pull model, which analyzes boundaries.

shorter

The adoption of

fol 1ows from the observation that significant

may be important at the provincial the

migration

Which.expl.ainis:.the

depending

administrative boundaries from which movements occur, which

in the

using availablenati.onai

model which evaluates the determinants (2)

are applied

intermunicipality

level

movements,

19

on

the

Some factors

are less significant Also,

since

physical boi_Indaries change over time (e.g., throug',annexation or separation), using different a_inistrative levels of analysis would be more appropriatefor policy making.

Sampling Procedure sample size of 160 municipalities was selected from the 709 municipalitiesclassified as upland, .representing22 percent of the total number of upland municipalities in the country. The sample municipalities were taken from regions with the five highest rural migrant populations. So_fthernMindanao accounted for 32 â&#x20AC;˘percentof the sample.munlcipallties, Northern

followed by Southern Tagalog(!6

%),

Central Mindanao (15 %),

and

Mindanao (15 %),

Western Vlsayas (15 %).

Facto_r..s.

Influencin9Migrati.on Inter-areamigration flows are analyzed in terms of t,,_-principal factors affecting actual population movements with respect particular

correlates.

variables

associated

destination;

These

to

factors can be classified into

with the place

of origin

Population in the area of origin,

and place

of

for example, ._s

.expectedto influence migration through its effect on transportation costs and marglnal product,of labor. â&#x20AC;˘ destination, on the other hand,

Population in_thearea of

serves as a proxy for the size of

the labor market where large populationstend to have a greaternumber and type of job opportunities.

Distance between origin an_.destinationareas have normally been associated with variable costs of transfer.

20

Distance also has a

strong deterrenteffect oF_migration .... with longer distancemigration having higher physical and pyschic costs oF movE)ment.

For the

specific case of up'landmigration, and in the absence of middlemen who specialize in population transfers_ stage migration is utilized to dampen the effect of distance on the decision to migrate,

in the

initial.stage, an aduii_male or set Of brothersmakes the first move before the entire family is transferred. Since travelling is mostly by sea,

the availability of ports of disembarkationand accessible

transportationwill have a close interactionwith distance.

Correlatesof origin and destination-relatedfactorsare divided into the personal characteristics of migrants and land-related factors.

The

usual

variables

associated

with

personal

characteristics of migrants are education and nature of employment (occupation). Educationis measured in terms of literacy rate and is treated as an "amenity"variable -- the more liter.atepopulation tend to be highly mobile.

Employmentis n_easuredas the ratio of gainful.

workers aged 15 years and above

and number Of workers in agriculture,

fishery,â&#x20AC;˘ and forestry.

The important land-related factors,are availability of arable land and forest cover.

Land availability is adjusted to reflect the

av!_"age size of landholdings, site quality (productivity), and land tenure (ownership). Landsize and land quality are measurable, the latter being a functionof general agroclimaticfeatures, slope, and altitude.

However,

Such data are taken from topographic and slope maps, prior information on 3and tenure is difficult to obtain

although it is expected tha_-lands under BFD jurisdiction are more

stable since they can be covered

by long-term stewardship contracts.

Non-BFD lands have a variety of tenure arrangement(.:and can be less secure in land rights.

Forest

cover

includes

all

forested

interpreted as a substitute indicator

iand

and

is sometimes

for land suitability.

Areas

with dense forest cover tend to be more productive and stable.compared to areas such as grasslands or inadequately 'stocked forest lands which have

high erosion

rates.

Forest

cover

is also

correlated

with

population density -- the high density areas having less forest cover due to increasing demands for conversion of forests into agricultural Iands.

Results of Macro-Migration Models In general,

the results of all three types of macro-migration

functions indicate that the availability stronger determinant

of migration

of land in the uplands is a

than factors associated

area of origin (e.g.economic hardship).

Different

as significant depending on the administrative level area movements variables

are made.

appeared

At the municipal

level,

factors

popjlation

and literacy

significant

explanatory

in which interland-related

rate at the area of destination variables.

in

demographic factors such as

As expected,

were

the

in the longer,

interregional flows distance was the most important factor.

than

emerge

more significant than demographic factors,

c.ontrast, at the interprovincial level,

to 1980

with the

In 1975

the amount of interregional flows was higher at 2.9 percent

intraregional

migration

which

1985).

22

was only

1..1percent

(Perez,

I, nt.err'_io==al Mi._ration,,.

The,_Diq. raticn function for

in.terregiona! flows is linear in form and fo]lows the specificationof variables adopted in the gravity mode],

Two faci:brs-- distance•

(DIST) and demographic size (POPi and POPj} -- account for a •large proportionof the variabi.lltyin _rFi_ration behavior.

It is.based•on

the assumptionthat i}}i.gran_,s _}_ove to _he nearest place of destination given the least cost and effort .(Lowry,1966). The population in the potential destination area is corre!ated with the number of job opportunitiesand the expected income at desti_ati,on.Knowledge about the conditionsat the place of destination is highly correlated with. popu-lation size and i_!verselywith-distance,. I_ aF_plyingthe gravi..ty model to upland migrati'o_,adjustmentsare made to reflect population at destinationfiguresonly for the identifiedupland areas.

The results of the different measurements of the gravity model are

contained

forms.

in Table

4.5

in both

linear

and log-linear•

_quation(1) is the stanaard specification,.ofthe gravity•

• model. The close association Of the three factors -- population at origin and destination and distance ..... with_migration indicates the importance of these factors in deter_liningm'igrant, behavior. •More tha_

one-half (59 %)

of the variation is explained by,these

3

variables•,with-distancebeing negatively correlatedwith •migration..

InEquations.(2) introduced,

to(4)

variants of the jravity model are

Equation (2) adds forest cover to test its interaction

with the demographicvariables.

As the results in Appendix Table 15

indicate, forest cover is insignificantco,mpared;t.o the demographic variables

but its inclusion improve_.-theexplanatorypower of the

23,

RNCIONAL

Table4._ ReQr_-_on R_,_.ts af£ravtty M_i

Independent Vari able (1]

Constant Tire PDPt (origin '75)

f'(1Pj (destination 'BO) DIS/

(2)

Depenti@nt Variable _Ii6 {3_ (4)

-[2_7,96 -1_'J1,06 -|4_0,,_

0,002311 0,0024t1 (2,5214) .(2.4970)

'

-17.05t0

0.002415 0.00241_ 0,262t 0,2746 0,33@2 (2.3214J (2._i6tS) (0,7383) (0.8733)

0,0200 (0,5236)

0,0200.

(0.$236J

0.027_ (0,7336)

0.6921 0.744_ (;,3@$3) ([,4573) 1.602[ (0.6_7)

-0_66,_0 - (.0098._

Percent Urban

F

-706,377 -&._@;I4 -9,3377

G)

-3.13_9 -L_.288_ -_.2BB8 -3.0700 -.3459 -0.4529 -0.4658 (-2.68_3) (-2.6977) (-2,6416} (-2._375) [-t.4043) (-1,7824l (-I.8067}

Oependtncy RatJ o

N

L_I6 (2)

0,0026:_ 0,0021_ O,O02Z_ 0.0026It 0.?,300_-0,6236 0:5678, (2.SSI@)• (2.1U]3} (2.1._0_) (2.56t6) (2,226t) +(],_;37L)r (t,.1867}

Former Cover

2 R

(1) "

-6{,6976 _L3_48}

0.57_89 0.60591 0,60591 0,64194 0.4_%|3O.SO0_B 0,5H49 _0

_0

4,B7228 3,62554

_0 2,7_44

Figuresin parenthesisareT-vatue_ ! significant at fOXlevel sLgni_icenL at5_levei

_O

30

_0

30

,3,:3_,45 2.0704@.'2,0B753 J,7.?.BO

equation to more than 60 perce_t ¢_f the variation inmi:gration.

Equation (3) includes.dependency ratio,but this did not contribute significantly to improving the estimates. In Equation (4) .percent urbanpopu.lation is added.and this turned out to be significant and negatively correlated-with•migration.

-This means that.•upland

destinationcenters•which• have -alarger percentageof its popul.ation classified as urban attract less migrants due to its effects.on land av.aiTlability:

the more "urbanized" (or commercialized) ••the

population, the less land available for occupationby new migrants.

The three log-linear functionshold less explanatory power than•• the

linear

form

as shown

in

Table4_)A_B.-In the logarithmic ...

..

.form,population-at-originvariables are insignificantcompared to the destination-related factors.

This appears reasonable since the

conditions at destination tend to.be more important than factors associatedwith characteristicsat•the place of origin, Forest cover emerges as significantin equations (2) and ,(3).. However,

it is

the distance variable which is consistently significant for all equations indicating'thetFemendouseffects of distance on migration.

InterprovincialMigration

Among the sample areas selected in

ttiisstudy,• a majority of the out-migrationprovinces are in Central Vlsayas --Cebu,

Bohoi,

and Leyte.

Destination areas are in the.

frontierprovinces of Northern and SouthernMindanao, Misamis Oriental, Norte,

Davao.del Norte,

in particular,

Surigao del.sur,. Lanao del

and Bukidnon which.have.large tracts of its uplands still

unoccupied.

24

Economicconditions at the p] _;e of destination have a greater influence on migration than the combined,or_gin-,,reiated variables.

Demographicmeasures of economic conditionsrelate to-populationsize; the larger and heavily populated destinationprovinces having more livelihood opportunitiesand social amenitiesthan the less populated area_.

Tablu_._e,presents the results of the estimates of the quasi push-pull models,

The results of the equations indicate less

explanatory power (at 45 %)

than the gravity models,

variables are included in the push-pul'lmodel, and population density (PDj), !or example,

Education (EDUCj)

are significant with

education having a stronger effect on migration. levels

but more

Higher educational

(literacy rate) at the places of destination attract more

migrants while higher population densities tend to attract less migrants.

Intermunicipality Mira_.

Populationmovements at the

municipal levei are sensitive to three factors .... population at the place of destination, land availability, and siope.

(61%)

The majority

of intermunicipal migration are long-distance movements.

Informationflows are thus important ir_reducing the risks associated wiC_,long distance transfers. Population in the area of destination (POPj)

appeared as a strong determinant of inter-municipality

migration -- that is, the greater the population at the place of destination, the higher the probabilityof establishingcontacts and getting a job which are in turn direct inducementsformigration.

25

PRO V 1NC IAL Table

Independent Variable

4,3A-.Regress_en

Results

.-

of Push-Pull

Model

[}epe r_de__tVariable MIGST

Constant Term

(l_ 3517.72

POPi

0.0001 (0, !129)

P0.Pj.

0,00123 _.I_3447i

PDI

0-8208 ....

•

(2) -347 5,37

.0011 •(1.5966)

¢_

PDj

-2,9136 (-i_ 6680)

-2,7063 (- 1.90"56)

EDUCj

57 . 0743 (2.5244)

56.84.59 (21,825.5)

ALj

-.08i2 --(0,0974)

DIIST

-0.6488

{0,5157) EMPj

6,09269 (0.27,,0,. "_ _

4,6497 (0.2456)

2 R

0,4586

.4492

N.

50

50

F

1.3651

2,8440

2.Sa

PROVi NCI AL Table

4.3B

Regression

Independent . V ari able

ResuIts

of

Push-Pul!

Model

Dependent Variable MI GST

Constant Term

(3) -2934,26

(4} --2392.84

(5) -3150.08

(6) .-3823.55

_

EDUCj.

53,7846 (2,71-87).

55.8935 (2,52033

¢8.8449.

(2,2711)

_-_

72,3441 (10.3364)

ALj

O, 5305 (0.811.1.)

O. 7586 (1.1229)

1.8485"* (6.7143)

EMPj

-13.8757 -(0.7242)

-29.5612 -i ,01 !'7 )

-6.4112 -(.7599)

t.tj

2,1606 (o2688), 6.45-07 (3.0370)

RINCj

RINCI

8,99-07 (_0.8146}

EMPi

-16,2128

7,505-07 (0.645Q)

(,-0.5810) EMPj

-20..5612 {I .0117)

2 R

.3845

N

50

F

2.6600

Figure **

in

significant significant

parenthesis at at

are

.4018 50 2 ; 1653 T-Values

10 percent

level

5 percent

level

•,"_h

.4135 5G I .8151

.9064 50 51.8178

Popu_ atio_ a:tdestination,i_ !.:_e <_;_iydemographic variable which issignificant land-related slope

i_the

x!l

..... ]and !_rea (LA),

{OSL.P_o

expected..

models,

,;_her s_.gnificant..factors are

;v)_-.farm op.portunlt.lfes ' (NFOP), and

The al;peara_)ceef

the

land

area

variable

The avai ]abity of f}on-..fa_m emp! oyment,

concessions

_'_

additiona_

hau!_',"

incentives

.For migra.tfon_

measured in terms of average environmental

loggin

Slope,

considerations

'

in

the

The environmental 'the

choice

of

as

such a.s 1oggi.ng

operators),

• underscores

is

pro_,ide factor',

strongeffect

of.

destination

areas.

The negative sign of the slope var.lable indicates the preference of migrants

for

less

homelots. steepness

steep

Sl:opes in their selection

The coeff(cientshows {s'Iope)

population,

results

in

of sites

•that a one percent

a 3

percent

f.or

increase .in

declir_.e in migrant

(._eetreble4,1)

Limitations of Macro.,_Migratlon Models The varying results of the macro-migratio_ mod_is are indicat1"ve of the complexity of d.e_!ving a comp%ete mode] for migrant.behavior using national data. of upland

The lack of previous national •level estimates

migrat_ion does not allow

specification measurements

of-variables.

'

mea_}i.ngfu! camparison

A.l-so_ by using,

of:variabi es become extremely

in the

national .•data,

dependent

on unadjusteci

secondary information {although i.ts Value l_es ir_depicting 'the broad volume

and direction

extimates

have

of migration).

to be-supported

Thus., •

by more

studies.

_.6

,

the m.acro-m.igratlo_

detailed

.

-_

micr.o-level

:

_.

case

Fable

4oi

Regression

Results

_iodei

D_pendent ,_IG

V._.iab

Independent Variable

o.f Pull

Constant Term

(I) 722.4860

POPJ

(2) 442.7180

,0040 (10.2841)

e

(3) i587,2900

{4) 1485.90

-

LA

,8949 (2.7453)

-

2.0687 (5.2334)

2. 3739 (6,1737)

LUIA

1.6690 (0.5439)

-

7. 3945 (i.8979),

-

DSLP

-.320.9210 (3,1096)

DIST

-23.1108

-256,3260 (-2,5347) : -

-510.6590 (-3.8968)

-499,5890 (-3.4054)

--

-

-537 â&#x20AC;˘7720** (-2.1192)

-

(0.IZ86) NFOP

-220.880* (-i.I111)

AL

-

-

I,95 ('_ 4 (12.1754)

-

.7022

.49d6

-

2

R

.7467

n

160

F

160

32. 1369

lI

4--

Figures **

--'--

_

76.3735

........

_

in parenthesis

sign#ficant

at 10

significant

at

are

percent

5 percent

............

T-values level ievel

.26A

60 12,8222

.455L_ -60 20,4978.

V.

MOUNT MAKILING CASZ STUDY OF L_PLANDMIGRATION

The case study presented in this project focuses on information that

are

not

obtained

in

Che

characteristics and profile, land settlement, The case

natior_

census

circumstances.of movement,

production patterns,

study site covers

history of

and methods of resource:use.

three ..vi,llagesin the Mount

watershed surrounding the municipalities of LosBanos, Bay in Laguna province

--. migrant.

Makiling

Calamba,

and

and the municipal ity of Sto. Tomas in nearby

Batangas

province.

The

total

forested

area

is

about

4,244

hectares,

with elevations varying from 200 to 2,000 meters above sea

level (Lantican, 1974).

Two of the villages selected in the case study-_

Putho-Tuntungin

and Lalakay -- are located in the northeast sections of the watershed Where

the_terrain

alternates

series of broad, radiating Putinglupa, watershed, tion firm

is located

between

flat to rolling

l.ands witha

ridges at the sides. The other village,

in the opposite,

westeTn.sections

it .isa quarry site of Supreme Aggregates, that is presently

inactive.

of the

aconstruc-

The rich limestone

and

andesitic rock formations in the village had been lucrative resources ... fdr the firm since 1932.

The village

is_accessible

and can be

reached by jeepney through a second-class road that is passable even in the wet season.

Settlement Pattern The pattern

of settlement

in Mount

Makiling

described as a continuing upsurge of popul'ation.

27

can general iy be The crest of in-

migration

was

rceched

In the p._rii_di9(50 tO i970

increase in population of 8.4 perce_It _F_LO% ?_os Calamba.

The extraordinari_y

with

a yearly

and 7.5 percent in

large _nflux of migrants occurred in

the years 1960 lJo1963 where the prospect

of owning rich,

fertile

land_ was the primary motivatio_ For moving, -ihenthe Maklling watershed was decl-areda forest reservefor College

of Forestry

resulting

in

substantial

the

in 1960, rapid

decline

Makiling

program was enforced

population,

and

in-migration

possibly,

into the area

The influx of _}ewmigrants picked up only in 1978

to 1980, -with resettled Mount

of

in the rate of

reductions

(Lant.lcan, 1974).

_ resettlement

the

families retur_.}Ir.g to their,old homelots in

and with a new 9roup of migra.)_tscoming

in as farm

Iaborers.

A significantly.large

proportion

of migrants

in.the case study

areas were born in the Southern Tagalog region, with a majority (42 %) -coming fr,m_the towns of Mal va.r, Sto. Tomas_

and Tanauan in nearby

Batangas ))rovince.

Over. one-half of migrants originated from other

towns of

and from the provinces of Cavi-te and

Batangas,

Rizal

Migrants from northern Luzo_l.are mostly from the provinces of La ,iJn andPangasinan. the sample

surveyed,

Those migrants coming

Migrants

from_icol

with birthplaces from the Visayas

Samar, and Leyte.

_23

represent 15 percent of

in Albay

and Camarlnes

(15 %) originated

Sur.

from Cebu,

Demo_raphi c Characteristlcs Age-Sex, with

The average

at. least

three male

household size being six, young adults, population

members

per

interviE_ved is 48 years,

household

55 years

and the

At the time of departure,

the median age being 20 years

above

population,

age of migrants

old is lesstha,_

average

migrants were

(_eeTable

5.5).

The

5 percent. Qf the total

while the number of persons less than 2 years

comprised

15 to 20 percent.

'At the time of the survey,

there was an almost even sex ratio of

103 males for .every 100 females.

The sex ratio was a little skewed

in Puting]upa being slightly female dominant (97 males for every-100 females).

Marriage

and Kinshijp.Ties.

Approximately

one-half

of all

migrants who moved into Mount Makiling in the period 1960 t.o1970 were. married,

the rest being young male adults.

through

the years,

the proportion

As movements progressed

of unmarried

substantial ly from 31.5 percent in 1960

to 27,8

migrants..declined percent in 1980.

Among single migra,_tswho moved into the Mount Maki!i.ng area and married after a few years, living

about 1}_percent were married to persons

in the same municipality,

Ahighe_- proportion

mar.ied persons living in another municipality of two.migrants married,

(4 %) returned

However,

to their

while

places

of 54 percent a. small number

of origin

in the sel-ection of marriage

partners-,

overwhelming 83 percent of respondedis cho._;_spouses from viIlages.

29

to get an

their own

The Migration Process In the late 19th and early 20th and Quezon in the

were "frontier"

early

1960s,,

from Northern

constantly

alerted

Laguna,

Batangas,

province_-much as Davao and Cotabato were

Even

households

centuries,

as e.arIy as 1918,

Luzon._

Visaya_,

i.ndividuals

and Bicol

have

and been

to new job opportu__ities in the Mount Makiling

area.. The migrants who came to Mount Makiling arrived in groups of 2 to 4 familles and were highly mobile.

About 3 or 4 residence

shifts iF_the domestic

cycle of migrant

families in Mount Makiling were not uF_common, especially in the early years

of pioneer

settlement,

residence from one village or to neighboring

These].shifts involved

to another,

towns where

close

a change

in

even to neighboring barrios, _'eiatlves reside.

Over

42

percent of the sample respondents reported changing residence within the municipality over a period of 5 t_l10 years after arrival,

and a

significant 17.5 percent moved residence outside of ÂŁhe municipality but returned after a few years.

Ease of Migration

Household

help of many relatives (1) financial (2) labor

and friends.

assistance

services

(3) ._upport services

transfers

to cover

during

the

at the time

arefacilitatedby

the

The forms of help include: part of the costs

actual

transfer

of arrival.

of transfer, itself,

A significant

and 21

percent of the sample received financial assistance from relatives in their places of origin although a good

12 percent received subsidies

from the firm (quarry) recruiting their services,

30

A majority {59 %)

of the move_e_t_; to Mount Makiling are done in

batches of 2 to 4 families,

although a significant 38 percent engaged

in a two-stage movement._ with husbands or sets of bro_hers making the initial move before the entire family is transferred.

Cooperative

labor is sOught in the dismantling of houses and resources are pooled so

_nata

relatives

bullcart

can

be purchased.. A.t the

time

arrival,

and friends-are expected to provide full-time support,

the labor services last until the house is finallybuilt_ these services,

relatives

make available

cultivated on a temporary basis land for his own use, up to

of

a year,

_ pieceof

and

Aside fr_n .land to be

until the new migrant.can stake out

In most cases the search for-open lands takes

but the arrangement

is extended

to help

the new

migrant family survive.

With respect to the time of movement,

Table

5.1.4 prov:ides .._i

classification of migrants by distance trave] 1ed and .yearof transfer.

The near_d;istance _nigrants are from the. towns of Tanauan Tomas, Mount

which,is less than 50 kms.

Makil ing_

from the centers of settlement in

The major'ity of pop_}lation r._ovementsfrom these

nearby towns occurred

in the early pre-_." y_.i_s of !940 to 1941,

allthough some accounts of families 1900s

and Sto.

have been documented.

moving

to the.area in the early

A significant 22 percent of the sample

transferred residence before the war.

Long-distance accelerated after

migrants 1960.

in the period 1970 to 1975

increased

postv_ar years

and

The influx of.mi.qrantsprogressively

grew

at an average

3i

i_

the

of about 100 families per

Table

5.14

Distance Movement

Of *

Near

Sample _i g'ral}t Populationin Makiling.

Cl assi fi ed By Di stance of Movement and Period of Migration ( n = 40 )

Total

Period of Migration .................................

Pre-War 1941-45 1948-59

22

4

9

â&#x20AC;˘I

F.ar

13

1

Total

40

6

Medium

Dlstance

defined in terms of medium = 1_3 days;

6

I 7

travel T_ime, near = less far = mo)-e than 3 days.

31a

,.........

1960-i980

3

5

6

2

8

3

17

10

than

one

day;

year. â&#x20AC;˘

These later-period

miqrants

ariginated

_!_rgely

from the B_col

region.

Mo_e

than

transportation

half for

(55

makir_g

%} their

A sigrificant 27.5 percent, drawnwagons

of

the

move_

however,

osbullcarts.

Fespondents such as jeepneys

used

land

and buses.

travel led on foot or on horse-

Averag_duration

of travel

was 2 to 3

days.

The lea.st.costmethod of 'travel, of course, use of

non-motorized

bullcarts-and

is walking--or the

wagons.

"A significant..22.5

percent reported having

zero expenses-except

the food that.they had

stored for the trip.

Another

17.5 percent

_1.00 to P 30,00 for the.transfer,. those using muitiplemodes.of

report spending

from

Such low Costs are in contrast to

travel,

averaging

about V80_O0

per

move.

In general households migrated an average of 3;5 times,, the mean distance travelled

being 56 kilometers per move.

found to have moved 1.3times since birth,

A respondent was

covering 7.provinces and 3

regions in the country.

An overwhelming 65 percent of respondents ]earned about the area of d_._..stination from relatives and friends, percent

relied

solely

on .personal

although a significant 30

knowledge.

A small

5 percent

learned about Mount Makiling from the radio (media).

Socio-economlc Characteristies For the three survey sites, there were marked changes observed in. the socio-economic status of migrants after movement as shown in the different

livelihood_

ownership,

. and

32

other income

sources

of

migrants. result

Change s in of acquiring

Livelihood (74 %) major

_" _;_I

larger

_andh_"idings

and Incomeo

engage

in both

sources

depend

solely

The supplementary

gathering

(8 %}

although

engage in

non-farm

Average

ficant

on

arrangements.

cash

income

and with

an average

income

becomes

i/1,485.77.

to .the bottom

_nd

for

all

requirements

Quisumbing and Cruz,

Title,

of respondents.

contract

crop

farming

are logging

and wood

members who

This

30

size.of5 level

percent

In general,

The claim

7,428.87

capita

per

capita

per

annual income

is

income

bracket,

but

based o_ minimum

1976;

it

is

food and

Tan and Holazo,

1978;

there

are

four

dominant

tenurial

Thes_ are owner, tenant,

Owners are those with legitimate claims to

may be in the form of a...ce_rtificateof Land

or in some cases,

â&#x20AC;˘A small proportion

_

annual income for families

threshold

(Abrera,

per of

average

is

1986).

and free user.

the land.

as their

have household

arrangements as perceived by respondents. ! .ssee,

surveyed

farming

occupations

household

below the poverty

Tenure.

crop

income sources

slightly higher than the _1,420

nutritional

respondents

work.,

household

definitely

the

2!_ percent

a good 45 percent

year,

belonging

of

and cash

A signi

a_ ;_

_._pontr_:,_i:er.

A majority

susbsistence

of income.

however,

,;c,i:_,, i-,_v,.<,:.;>,<,-e_,'_ ; iC__ific'aYIt

as receipts

from payment

of 7.5 percent of respondents

of land taxes.

are classified

as

owners.

There conditions

_are two

types

of share tenancy

of

t_nancy

ir_ the

arrar_,gements

iowland_.

33

The first

that

resemble

case involves

an equal sharing of harvest betweeF_._.c_...cai !e_ _}w_'lers and pem_anent.ly hired workers,

r_owcoi_sid_r_.,.,,_ ...... _,_-___._.,. .h,__.,;_:_ per_-._anen workers,are

new-migrants

given

a p_ece

of !-:omeI_)ti:}exc.ha_ge TOt .long-term

•service and 50 perce_t share of harvest, The migrant

second

type

relatives

temporary

of tenurial _rran_ement

who are given parcel-.sof land to ci_!tiva.teon z_

basis,

and on an equal

classifi.ed as lesseesare contracts,

i;_;composed, of new

In generai,

sharing scheme_

The 30 percent

of two .types _- those

with

or_ without

lessees pay a fixed rental forthe.use

of

the land,

which i.snormal,ly between

15 to _'5,_ _o.p_,rc.=ntof.a normal

harvest..

In a majority •(53 .%.)of the iease._.rrangeme.nts reported

rent payments are non-monetized..

One-half of respondents are ,free users_' _)fthe land. they

have no rights,

legal-.or

otherwise,

Because

to own the ]and,

an

informal hierarchy of "use" ha-semerged local ly.

The hierarchy use."

of use is based oYlthr_e i_.F;t_rpretat.ions Of"free

The first equates use with number _)F.years _)ccupying.the land

aS the sole criterior_ fo_"establishing Migrants

who have

a rii:jhtto claim

the land.

stayed in-the .1-andprior to 19.60 are considered

",owners,"whi..lethose who came after 1960 are merely cal led "claimants oY_ occupants,"

Migrants

Iabel Ied "squatters,"" •The

second

stewardship

who have ...

type• of "free

concept_

•land for along-term

recently arrived (1980s) are

user"

follows

.the.gov.ernment_s -

with the.user having a"lega!•••right" _t_o. the period .(25.years),

"to treat the land as a "c(_mon"

The third interpretat-!onis

resource t__at, can be used freely 'by a

34

group of families. provides

One i_ en_itle,'__ to the fruits of the land if one

labor and shares in the cost of inputs,

Table 5.10

presents a distriblrtionof I_nd size and incomeby

tenure classification. occupy

large

Note that a majority of "free users"

landholdings,

while

comp_ :i_.tively smal ler lands,

tenants

and

tend to

lessees

In terms of income earned,

have

however,

the opposite trend can be observed where owners tended to have higher incomes

Lhan free users.

incomes,

Tenants

.and lessees

with 80 percent and 50 percent

I_5,000per year,

respectively,

having

have

the smallest

incomes

less than

for both groups,

Tenure and Land Distribution. An examination of equitability of land distribution .isprovided by comparing the Lorenz curves for two sets of landholdings _- (I) (2)

l ands.found only within

lands in the entire sample villages and

category (forest zone) arrangement restricted

is "free

the forest zone.

are landholdings use,"

and

than in the foothil is.

Lands in the second

where the predominant tenure

where

access

The results

to

land

is

less

of the estimates

of

land ditribution are presented in Table 5.17 and Figure 5.11.

The Lorenz

curves

indicate

the proportion

holding a corresponding percentage of land area.

of the population The diagonal llne

shows perfect equality of ownership so that along the line,

a given

percent of the population owns the same percent of the land.

Land distribution for the entire area is generally unequal, a relatively

high Gini

around 12.5 percent of

ratio

of 0.697.

A_shown

in Table

with 5.17,

households own 66.7 percent of the land while

35

B,! Ten_"e

St_2t:us

{ n = 4Q's

-re.r;,',_ 'r,_ ,,'}t :.-it I -: Owr_er ' Tertan_:

Landsize Less !.02o0 3.0 4.0 5.0

than 1 tla, 1.9 - 2,9 - 3.9 -. 4,9 and above

33 .......... _, 33,.3 33.3 99._

Average Annua.1 Income (p) ........................

Less than F 5,000 P 5,000 7,999 ,? 8,0001.0,999 [_ ii,00020:.999 21_000-_ 30,000 than

,58_,3 ZS.0 - ,7 _6

"20,_;_ lot)._,;

LO!3.__

.... .,erva_ions _b,,_

_5_0 ZOoO 5[.0.

20,0 30.0,

35.,0 20.0 I0.0 5.0 15.0 15,0

tO0.O

i00.0

Pe_'ce_,':,ag_; '-.,.3. i:-.tributior|.

33.3

_,:_,.<1 :_C_:,

56,5,

99,9 of

40,°0 20..0 'ZQ,.n

_.t_7. :!_3.3 8°3 8.3 3,_3

_30,(_;00

Total Number

Total

(.nectares).•.................. ,Percentage Distr'Ibut'ion.•....... - .........

Total

More

[,_e_t," •Free Use

3 _,,_. "

IOO.O

99, !.)

5 "_ i...... ,..:_,_,_ (30 0%)

•....

,_.....

50.0 30.0 5,0 i0.0

50.0 25.0 7.5 7,5 7.5

5.0

2.5

i00.0

I00.0

20 {50 0_)

40, (_00%)

GOR_!E_

i o

page

5

paragraph

2

-"

Zn the

20

page

?

Par_gr:._:_h 2

.,_

_-a-_..

-..[_ ...-._..=.....:

3_

paga

!fi

]_e_agTaph

....

in Fiqur_-_ I,.1 eraso

2

,-

5°

;_

.}page _:.I

.yarat_a_oh

l>_qe ,_3

_::a_aqr_.a_)h.?

'_'

" r'v $

stud_v

d_.an Dut he!o_____

]

Dage ....

-

9,,

=;'-

',_rd

s:-_,,._< _,[a_,le 5,5

paroje .52.

D¢_ragra<,h 5-

.....

,_-m_.:_.-__

I0o

__<._qe 4:.5

P,-.":;'a..qraph :[

....

_3..li_;:;tic

1.1,

Pag-e 47

!-:mra(_caph .i

12.

p_ga ':'_- "- _

13.

page _c ,_te D, 4

14.

page 17a

_:ase

",

°"

:i_,C£,%_-

-,.].ocj;=, -_:::bgion Zzo°"<.i?_-;,v,ts ... l 7 _279 ......_' <-'._ c"_ <_mnts .....

738

[ibte 5. i7

Fart Size • (ha.}

Gin1 Ra_ of Conce_ltr_tior__ase_on Nu_b_ of

_uiber O_strlbution Cumulative Total Percent• of of Percentage Land Distribution Households Households O_stribution Area _ Land of Househ_Jds _rea

Less than 1,0-

t4,0

3_.0

35.0

23.8

Cu=utative Percent Distribution of Land_ea

2.20

2,20

1.9

_,0

20._J

5_.)

5_.?

2.0 - 2.9

7,0

17.5

72.5

67.0

_.2t

13,85

60

tS,(_

87.5

299.5

19.42

33,27.

SO

12.5

iO_,e

7_0.0

_5.73

l.O

3,0 - 4.9 Rorethan 5.0

............

T ............................................................

TOTAL'

_ ..................................................................

400

_,079.Ot

6ini Ratio: Entire _rea = O.fiq7 Forest Hrea : 0.244 Ratio ¢_ i{iGhesLto L,o,e_tFi_th : 30,_3 _ote:

Forllt of t_ble adopte_fro= L.e_es_a!_%_i

35b

lO0.O

FigureS.tl

Lo_en_Curves Indicating Distribution of Landholdings for Entire Area clt_c_for _-orest Zor_e Area.

aSc

55 percent

,..",,fthe

popul _tio_ _,,c:,ccu!>L o_I]_,, 7.,_. percent

of

total

land

area. ir_ contrast, equitable. use,"

land

The dominant but

not

open

m,_:.oership

in the

percent

the

zone.

of

A

ratio

process

of

arrangement ac_ i;_forma_

37 percent

land

pattern

of these

area

is

this of

improves in

of landownership

findings

more "free

controlling with

the

to Ledesma's

do not lead ,t.o "free

(1982),

in

low_and

and control

must first

,

(is to suggest

use."

50

forest

were implemented.

be converted

acquisition

in

is _owcomparable

l-scaR e I and reform

uplands

is

of lands

I ages if:ful

in the

zone

Thp d_stribution

occupying

of 0.244

forest

rules

the

vil

tenure

the

represents

The implications all

access,

population

which

rice-growing

tenuriai

in

co1_munity exist.

TheGJni

Curve

distribution

that

Rather,

the

be analyzed.

Upland Crop Production.

Agriculture in the uplands of Mount Makiling

is characterized by

a diverse cropping pattern.. There are _2 observed crop mixes with an average of 4 types of crops planted.in a piece of !and.

Figure planted. fi_'ids

5,5 In

is

indicates

the

Putho-Tuntungin,

Second

only

percent

of fields.

percent

and 42 percent,

the

to sweet Laiakay

four

m,_,ior anr_.uals planting

potato

of

(37 %),

and Putinglupa

respectively,

rice Gabi

and in

30 percent

of

grown

28

is

!Irow sweet

of lands.

perennials

potato

Perennials

in

in 30

are fouled

mostly in the upper s_opes but many fruit trees such as lanzones and jackfruit are already grown in the nearby hii!y _ideslopeso Normal ly

fields are cleareci-andburned in '_hemonths of March to

May when the lands are relative}y

dry.

36

Cutting of grass and other'

Per_o_ of LondAreo Planted 40

_": Putho-Tunlungin ....... [_m Laiakay MJ Putinglupo

A Upland _ic..--_ E4 MungbeoP,s C Sweet Potato D Gabi

_£1.ur_e 55.,

Major"

Crops

_.Coconut 2.., L:_flz, c, nes _°Monggo 4,.Coffeeand _.;_:_

G_rown in the

C_s_?- St,Jdy

.:;_ _;,_,_.

Stfe_

{_.P, = 40)

excess vegetat_ionis done twice o__i:!_-i:_:-e_ before c,. burn and this takes about 2 to 3 weeks to complete In general,

however,

if cne.standi_g

vegetation-is

dense.

fields are never completely cleared of trees or

grass.

Figure

5.6 shows a syncronized

labo_ periods coincide

cropping

with the dry months

clearing and burning in March and April rains tn Apriltill

May..

The peak

which are suitable

and at the startof

around November

cultivate

a second

rice or co.rn crop.

indicate,

when the full area to be covered

for

the early

Labor peaks occur around this period,

there is a rise in labor activity

labor use also peaks.

calendar.

but

where some fields

As the crop calendars by the.crop is reached,

Hired labor appears to bethe

dominant type

of labor for al I three sites° Labor Allocation.

Farm work is essentially household labor but

some hired and exchange

labor

are _sed -in some field:s.

Farming

activities constitute 86 percent of t_e total labor allocation of the working

population

Of the

25 hours

crops,

ir

the

per

three

week_ ,_pe_t

about two-thirds

_'_it,cc_s _._d 74 pei'c.ent iF_ the

cu_ivat,_on

Table

5.12 provides for family_

consuming

activities

worker

Overa] is

labor.

of a variety

of

i_ _:_t.her farms or in off-

(4 hours).

operation

clearing.

family

(or 17 i_._-_°s> " are d_i_-_e o_ th¢_ir'fields.

The other third (8 hours) is sper_t i;c_.r _rk f.ar!

-,_ _ork

of

spent

for

I,

a breakdown of labor allocation hired, are

and exchange

ha_'ve_ting,

an average

farming

labor,

land

The most time

preparation,

of 266 maqda.,ys per year

operai__o_s.

37

bY fa_ming

for

and each

Roi.f_ll (re.m)

-\

IO0-

0

%of 25:_

"

_

•. _" " ./

-1t

_;,tatO J/

"

/

F

N

Mur.._ ....

" .C°rn

)ayw/Ha.

2zcJ

cj Fa_.y

A

M" 0

d

A

S

0

N

.D

.J

A

M o n I h-e

• Pigum 5.6 .Synchronfzed

Cropping

37a,

Ca}_ndar _. 1985-

86J__.

;eoson(n=_lO)

:Table 5,i2

L_bnr Allo_t_n_ Ps_H:_L_r_ by iar_i_g Operation

Farming _peraLion

Family Labor

.Landclsarin_ .{CuLLlngand B_r_ing)

...................................... _aqe _ Sh_r_ (]o_LF_t_

_0,6

?0

71_1

_5

4,0

2 (iOO)

_0

E_Ch_Oe Labor

_

i?,_

5

' _._

tO

_0

15

_,_

TOTAL

.5

91,_

40

180,6

Landand $eedbe_ Preparatzon Plmdn_ Seedbed Preparation

B,5

.......

4.0 (100)

Plant Care â&#x20AC;˘ Planting/ Broadcasting13,_ '

_ (21)

-

....

FertLlizing/ Mater Control

4.0

2

Meeding

&,O

_ (100_

+

_8,_

20 (79)

+

-

el,_ (lOO) 4,0

-

-

-

b,O (100)

Harvest/Post Harvest Harvesting Threshing/ Clsinino Haulin_

TOTAL

30,4

15 (!5)

_0.0

]_ t41i

4,0

2 ( _}

20S,2 lOO

43_

50 72,5 (20)

30 _5.o. (_4)

40 (_l)

210.Y (lOg)

25.0 !_5}

tO

17,_

I0 (2_)

72,4 {I00)

3.4

4 <._)

48,_

20 47+J

8,0

5 (13)

_3,4 (IOO)

85,?

100

241,8

100

163,4

t00

694+3

NOTE: Numbersin parenthesis are :o__ertent_es

::.;E:,

Producti

on-lncome

The

Model

earlier

work

........ ,:_,........... c_.: (-_-_-_,__ ,,,_ ,,.,z_ ....

of

o_ up]and

corn

production indicates that,i......... _nds_ze _a<. i_,, ..,-i;_..i_... fic:_r_t tel ._ti ve to site educ:_output but and that:divers_fic.atic_nt_....'_de,_ to .... , "_" .

quality factors was beneficiel

for

'"9 _', ,,....-rise, _atio_io

soi;

-

househo]

,

d 1 abet

Figure

acti

vi,ty_,

with

Table

5.L_.

p_"e.3ents the '

•.based variables are included

.

but the

credit

of relatives

(V4)

last

merely

different

from zero that

belief the

that

labor,

but

it

of _uu,._em_._,_.ari

coeff:icien:':.s

dependency

contributes

the

estimates the

I and-

output

sold

_f

is

al ]

t.hree

5. pea-cent

presence (V6).

is

appeared than

the

equations

!.vel.

siq-n_[f-icant,:

land.,

less

income

(V-7)

The

})i-.-)ary (__,ummy) variables.

at the

The la_3d variable

(3)

{v'.'; and .._. p_rcent ,...,.,

some el: the

_-._ther than

in

].!_ £oua?.io_{2).,the. ]and variables

significant

economic

uplands;

Equation

deletes the

regression

_":, the variables _/:'.!uatio_ _) de__"._--;,..:..,

and presence

general,

of the

included

_

(V2, Vc_.,, VIO).

variabl es were re_aovel.

equation

results

becolni ng more

_"_ l_I fir S_ set e_i,__udeS °" a! ]

using three sets of eeuat:ions.

indicate

_ ,,,

I :_b._,_,.._,_ _:_.i at, c _ i ty

5.._o0 COF;:I_._fIS a summar.y ,_::f-t,!_.efactors

model.

In

_;ro,Juct_onis i_r_mariiy

are

The results

•reinforcing

constraining

the

•factor

in

_ignificant

at 10 percent

in

30 •percent

of variations

in

income.

Site quality (3),

but

the

anticipated.

is statistically

values

of

the

significant in equations (1) and

coefficients

In the estimates

of Cruz,

38

.:_remuch et al "

lower

than

(1985),

site

Figure• _,_

An Exploratory Model for Migration Consequence,,.

_3

1- Vi-

TO

_"----

RESOURCES /

I

V._ PRESENCE PROVIDIN61CREDIT OF RELATIVES ( O, I )

.- V5

J

SITE QUALITY

......

HOUSEHOLD

•

'L"

ECONOMIC .DEPENDENCYRATIO

SOURCE{ O, t ) V6 PRESENCEOFNON-FARM INCOME V7 PERCENT OUTPUT SOLD IN MARKET

I CHARACTERISTICS/ -

V8 PRESENCE OF.PARCEL PLANTED TO PERENI_IALS " V9 EDUCATrOH

..,, V{O PRESENCE OFCONSERVATK)N PRACTICE ( O= i}

Table

5.16

RestIlts t)f Exploratory Model Consequences on i,'+come

Independent Vari abl es

:

Site

v 2

Landsize

V 3

Amount of Received

V 4

Migration

Coefficie_t (t-values)..................................... i 2 3

CO-_TANT V 1

on

756.036

Quality2_

,,

0.2043 (2.0713)*

80,3.975

Mean (Standa rd Deviation_

793.137

0.4056 (1.377!)

0.6952 (0,3579)

7,429 (7,286)

0.0924 (1.9370)** 0.2713 (1.9768)**

3.22 (5.66)

Credit -0. 1965 (-1.9745)**

Presence of Relatives Providing Credit

-0,0111 (1.9765)**

0.5536 (0.2263)

3/

3,388 (648)

O. 1275[2.6749)* ".i

V 5

V 6

V 7

V 8

Economic Ratio

Dependency

Presence of FarmIncome

NonSource

Percent Output in Market

Education

VIO

Presence of "Conservation

R-square F-value

2.

3.

0.1862 (1.9834)**

0.5919 (2,7109),*

0.1866 (2.6241)* 3/ -

0+029 (0.5713_ 0.1654 (1.9678)**

0.0756 (0.6243) Practice,

3/ --

value

sample slze 0.10 (**)level site quality 3 = Putinglupa binary (dummy)

0.1355 (2.2333)*

0.009.8 (2.8607)*

2.57 (0.82)

0.1352 (2.1765)*

17.2,1 (6.21)

0.2744 (i.9449)** 0.0937 (1.,1765)

5.40 (3.69)

Sold

Presence of Parcel Planted to Perennials

V 9

i+

3/ --

0.0161 (2.0299)*

-0.0128 (-2.0!36)*

-0.1398 (-2.0807)**

0.532 6.38

0.669 7.63

0.614 7.11 n = 40;

asterisks

is measured variables

by

indicate

taking

scores

38b

values

significant

i : Lalakay, of

.zero

at 0.05-(*)

2 = Putho-Tuntungin or

one.

an

quality differences explained 30 to 40 percent of the variations

in

yield.

An

explanation

significant

is needed

at lO percent

sign is negative,

re[4ardin_.lcredit

for equations

(V3),

(I) ,_,nd(3i.

which

is

_irst,

the

when in fact the expectatior_was that having credit

reflected high .access positions,

O,n ti_eother hand,, the presence O(:

a large amount of loans may"in fact serve tO reduce overal I income itself.

The second observati.onhas to do with the very low values of.

its coefficients,

indicatin9 that having credit may not actuallybe

as critical as expected,

The wide.range of kinship and other social

ties may more than offset the non-availability of credit sources.

Most

of

the

binary

presence

of relatives

PreSence

of perennials

(VIO)

are

effects

of

that

the

shoulder

both

(dummyi_ variables (v4) (V8)

significant

land-related

adoption alone

is positive

significant.

and significant

and presence in equation

variables.

(3),

of subsidy

household's

loss

of income,,

Lastly,

significant

but with a low coefficient

as expected. practices

indicating sign

may be too costly

some form

The

of conservation

The negative

of conservation so that

are

is

for

the of

VIO SHOWS

a household

needed to

education

strong

(V9)

augment

to the

.appeare d

of 0.i654, indicating

the

.pr.':iarily neutral effect of education on income.

To summarize, are:

(1)

the important determinants of income of migrants

acquisition

credit for purchase farming activities, and (5)

planting

of lands

of inputs, (4)

of good. quality,

{3)

(2)

access

increased commercialization

to of

promotion of diversified cropping patterns,

of perennial.So

The presence

39

of relatives

and

friends sign

iN the area has _ positi.ve effect _

for presence

of conservati.on

income,

practices

(VIO)

The negative supports

the

argument for increased government subsi([yfor :_c_i!conservation.

V1,

SUMMARYAND POLICY IMPLI/CATiONS

-Our analysis of the 198(}censos .O._f popu].ation show.what we ..have suspected al ! the while --othat substantial demo__hic in our forest resources. population,

Around 30 percent:of the total .Philippine

or 14,4million

classified as upland.

2.5 percent.

stress exists

people

in 1980,

reside in communities

The .annual growth rate of upland population is

If such rates continue,

The.upland population

will

double in a span of only 27years.

Migration accounts For %he bulk Of population.growth, to 1980,

From 1975

a total of 114,262 migrants moved to upland municipalities i

within the same region while

271,212 moved outside the region.

The

largest migration streams of more than 40,000 persons are found in the regions of northern and southern Mindanao significantly originated

large number of migrants from

Metro

Manila

with

and Southern Ta.galog,

A

(grea%er than 47,000) also planned

colonization

and

resettlement,schemes accounting for the majority of these movements, These.population estimates are based on the definition of upland. as adopted

by the BFD -- that is,

slope or higher, hilly

lying at high elevations,

to mountainous terr.ain (BFD,

a total

of302

marginal

municipalities

1982},

lands.with andwith

lands having

Using this definition,

in 60.provinces

40

18 percent

were classified

as

upland,

representir}g

_8

percent

of

the

ervtire

iisting

of

municipalities in the country..

With respect to land area,

55.3 percent or 16.6.millionâ&#x20AC;˘hectares

of the total land area of the country ar_.classified as upland,

13.4

mil lion hectares or 80.7 percent of which are alienable and disposable (A and D).

Of the remaining

only 1.0 mill!on

3.2 millio(_ hectares

or 31.2 percent

are commercial

The 4.2 million hectares inadequately stocked, experience an annual, erosion rate of 20

forest reserve I,

old growth forestS. degraded forest lan@s

to 40 tons/hectare (Revilla,

1985).

Determinants of Upland Movements Two

approaches

relevant

were adopted

environmental

migration.

and

in this prooject

socio-economic

The first approach

(presented

migration functions based on national level region,

_-ovince,

In general,

correlates in Part IV)

of

the

upland

uses macro-

data and disaggregated by

and municipal.itv. the macro-migration

the importance of land-related municipality

to describe

level

regression estimates indicate

factors motivating

migration

at the

and the dominance of d_nographic factors .such as

population density and education at the interprovincial level. aii macro-migration models,

For

the characteristics at destination turned

out to be more significant determinants of migration than conditions L

at the .place of origin. ...The. second

approach

migration at the micro, in Mount

Makiling,

(in Part

village Laguna,

V)

focuses

on conaltlons

of

level.

A caseâ&#x20AC;˘study of 3 villages

provided

information

41

on migrants'

motives I:ormoving,

circumstances of migration_

characteristics of migrants.

A micro mode__sing

and socio-economic production-lncome

as the dependent variable on a set of ecolo_:li<::a_ and socio-economic determinants was tested.

The results _ndicate crop diversification

and site quality as important factors behind income.._ Social ties and â&#x20AC;˘_

e.-.,_cation household

were

also

significant

bu-t w_th

income compared, to the -I and-re!

A profile

of production

ated

arrangements

much

lower

process.,

systems were reinforced

by the presence

to illustrate

in general,_ production

greater social

as "free

use,"

for example,

ties and more equitable

sharing

of ,_Kinship network and by

the enforcement of informal rules on access to resources, tenure.classified

on

variables.

was presented

the migrant"s adjustment

effects

.Land with

tended to have

land distr.lbution than the

lands in .the lower areas where .arrangementsare mostly of the owner or tenant types..

Polic_ Implications The population estimates show that even if the Program for Forest Ecosystem Management- (PROFEM) for Livelihood

(PROFEM-FL)

phasesl

and II and.the PROFEM-Forests

were_expanded and fully implemented,

its

Im_._;_ct would have been limited to those areas which were surveyed by: theBFD.

In 1980,

800,000 persons, uplands.

these areascovered or 5.6 percent

a total population

oftheentire

of only

population

Such a smal I coverage becomes even more restricted

viewed in the.light of total area affected by trheprogram. land area program

covered

in .the Integrated

Social

inthe when

For 1980,

Forestry

(ISF)

program,

for example,

waslO0-__7_33 _q, _;.

the total land area in the uplands.

or

:_s:..'_ !:ha_,_ 2 percent of

Surprisingly,

percent of the ISF project area._are il}al_ie_ab_ and D)

lands which

are administratively

a significant 23 aY_ddisposable

not directly

(A

under BFD

control.

The pervasive forest lands

presence of migrants in both A and D and interior

has also served

to erase the myth of forest

being occupied only by tribal, have. in fact, relatively,

shifting cultivators.

diversificatio_

consequence

Major changes

occured in the character of forest communities,

homogenous tribes of swiddeners,

towidespread

lands as

hunters and gatherers

of population.

of the large influx

from

This

is partly

a

of lowland migrants

and partly of

policies dealing with forest occupancy and management.

Programs for

reforestation

and development

demand for

more secure

be

in the

form of

longer

has

also

led

the

technol

ogies

that

However, the

to

need

the

of moving

f_est

protection

rather

than --

P,D.705

domain,

18 percentslope

vast

the

access

which

government to

land

.

may This

conservation

area to be protected,

coupled

from one area to another,

section

or disposable (A and_D).

new migrants,

with

greater

by a growing

productivity.

The laws

are clear

_mong the

for

are more in the

policy.

7.02.5million

right_

b_en accompanied

term stewardship

improve

given

difficulty

land

have

nature

of enforcement

governing

15

or over,

the

stipulates cannot

forest that

problems

be classified

Whi]e the law is explicit,

of

and regulation

lands, lands

with

for in

the

example, public

as alienable there remains

hectares of unclassified land, and it may take at least

43

20 years before these land are finc, l ly su_'veyed _._nd-_assified- (BFD, 1982; Reviila, 1,985).

This

br_ngs

th_ _:roblem of deal_'_g

l_s to

population of upi and _we':-i ers. with

these

problems

interaction

of

components

are:

A simpIified framework for dealing

'is provided

four

components

(I)

with the .growing

granting

in Figure

6.i

in' upland

in terms

of the

deveiopment.

of land rights,

(2)

These

subsidizing

sustainable production technolog'ies,(3) decentralizing enforcement of forest protection polic_es, in decision-making. presented

and

(4) encouraging_local participation

Severai

alternative

courses

of action

are

below as suggesi]ive of :aos_ible areas for improvement

in

both pl annfng and implcm'.-:,_tati.9_ of upland devel opment.

Land Rights.

Th_ evidence

that not all groups

_resented

i__the uplands

in this report indicates

have

benefitted

government program_ for upland development. unequal

distribution

population upland

of be_._efit_

and the society

pollcieshave c._led

(e.g.,

its

legal"

vs.

as public ownership

occupancy resources.

the

not. addressed

Land rights either

resulting

â&#x20AC;˘ lack

the

illegai"

requires Thus,

of tha

existing

common property follow

of the

the basis for

lower

of the

--

in

occupancy

between.the

so-

forest. cannot

of the

the

sub-groups

Forest

differences

existing

be categorized

resource

thatâ&#x20AC;˘

is, rules

rather than using a public vs.

44

from

the. st.ra_ificatioi{O_

environment

The nature

users

Indeed,

occupants).

occupants

in _he forest

in

oF access

illegal

or private. one

lie

equally

itself

makes

forest

land

of

access-to

private dichotomy,

UPLAND DEVELOPMENT GOAL

STRATEGY

Increase Productivity Land Security Reduce ,Land Conflicts

FOR POLICY

GRANTING OF RIGHTS

Reduce Forest Degradation Encourage local initiatives for soil conservation

SUBSIDIZING PRODUCTION

LAND

SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES

INSTRUMENTS FO_C IMPLEMENTA TIO_I

Longer-term Lease Contracts Enforcement o__ Excl u,sior_ Privileges

Granting of Conservation 'Rel-ated Subsidies Providing Credi_ for soil con-servation-

Improve Monitoring of Forest Use

DECENTRALIZING ENFORCEMENT OF FOREST PROTECTION

Creation of Villa, ,Forestry Program Units

Make Upland Dwellers more responsive to development programs

ENCOURAGING LOCAL PARTICIPATION

Develop Local Institution_._ Use Exist,ing NGO .in the, area

Figure

6oi

Factors

44a

in Upland

Development

it may be more

real istice

to

distinguish

occupants

location _- occupants within the forest zone vs. lands.

In the

former

responsibility of.BFD On the other hand,

case,

it

is the

in terms

occupantsof

of

A and D

direct"administrative

to control the activities of forest dwellers.

occupants of uplands Classified as A and D should

be the concern of the Ministry of Agri¢.u.ltureand Food (MAF).

The heavy

influx

of migrants

into forest

reserves

support

a

common property tenurial framework where lands now cease to be purely public

domain.

arrangements •cooperate

Even

in.A

have. become

and

D

unatenable

lands, given

private

property

the compel ling need to

in-cutting and burning of trees,

and iflthe buildingof

trails and water wel is.

The continuing destructive

problems

Farming,

arrangements,

of _ow agricultural

.despite

the

issuance

productivity

of exclusive

indicate that property rights must be extremely

to encourage

higher productivity

practices.

It is possible

and lease

secure

and more _ustai.;abl e cultivation

the continuing

insecuri.ty of tenure may

1le in tIheduration granted by the lease !.qormally 25 years)

or in

the

non-

nature

of

t_e

!ease

contract

it_ei f

(e.g.,

its

transferrabiIity).

Sustainable Production. form of fuel wood, the entire

fodder,

forest itself

The .fore•stproduces private goods in the logs,

and timber.

is a public

that it needs to be protected

On i_heother hand,

good with off-site effects

The dilemma

for policy

so

is how to

place a value on the public nature of forest use and how to arrive at some measure

of "protection

cost"

which

45

needs

to

be

shared.by

loggers,

fuelwood users,

The

standard

government forest

and upland _ac_.)ert_.

solution

to intervene

through

use and to channel

support public

to the

investments

pub]ic

goods

problem

is

for

impo_itior_ of.taxes and quotas on

income

earned

from such

in reforestat_o_

regulation

and erosion

to

control.

Government's role will be critical as i_dividuals tend to over-exploit the forest (W. Cruz, 1984), Apart from these macroeconomic instruments,

farm level estimates

of subsidies for soil conservation can be made as no clear-cut shortterm benefit to the upland farmer is gained by using soil conservation techniques.

In fact our figures

indicate

that farms register

net

losses in income of up to I_ percent if expensive techniques such as terracing are used, Decentralized Enforcement, be physically forested

.Aside from the fact that it would

impos._;ible te sufficiently

lands,

problems

of enforcement

monitor

activities

in

of torest policies

are

compounded by the rapid rat(_of ii_-migration i_to unco]onized forest areas.

In many upland co_nmun_ties

access to forest resources in_reas-ing popu_tion,

however,

have emerged and

local rules governing

as a natural

'these informal

rules

response can

be

to

used

e_fectively in control Iing further in-migration, In the Mount Maki!ing, informal

.rules of access

indiscriminate introduced

"squatting."

ranging

Laguna, have

case study,

been

efficient

for example, in

controlling

Indige.nous forms of sanctions

from exclusion

of certain

labor

violent methods of enforcing one's property right.

46

the

were

activities

to

â&#x20AC;˘_!

It may thus be wortm,,hile to decentr-_.fl i.-_._ e_)f"ovcement bY granting illage-ievel

_art

organizations ieqitimacy i_

pol_,c_ngtheir own ranks.

of 'the legitimizing i)rocess involves

the granting of awards or

subsidies

for prog_cam_,that

migrants.

serve

't_ contro_

Such programs r_ay incIL_de b_ilding

the

influx

of new

ofc0mmunally-managed

road trail s and water wel Is. Local Participation.

Th#_.formation of vil lage-level

forestry

units is crucial in promoting local participatio..n.. As noted above, the cooperation of the entire co_1_unity is needed in controlling the use of forest resources. encouraging

local

This type of control

systems of sharing resources

can be achieved

by

through creation of

viable institutlons.' in addition_ have â&#x20AC;˘ been

many instances of local labor mobilization schemes

used -- e.g., in the building

of community

chapels

or

meeting places -- and these can be used in implementing reforestation.

Soliciting the support of the local village

officers and elders will

be necessary and additional skilis related t,ocommunity organizing and Conflict management wil ! have to be developed.

Al.ternativeCourse of Action.

The

discussion

of alternative

policy

frameworks

development in themselyes remain â&#x20AC;˘ineffective, without political will for implementation.

packages

be noted

that

these

the requi site

The following are reco_Bendations

for carrying our the required reforms, should

for upland

broadly out.lined above..,

recommendations

and that a mere subset of them wi_l

47

need

toviewed

probably

It

asa

not make any

impact in ':o:_t;'o] 1inยง upland popu]ati'on growth.

I.

i,_eviewof existing tenure _c_!icies i_.-.ive _plands, common_r__

Although

r_6w-6r--E. ' ......................... _........

a classic

ownership or exclusive

goal of most upland

espe_ially property

with

the

decline

_n man-land

land rights {nay not even

1 owl ands

by

the ideal or

lease right_ is not feasible

the rapid

"owners or stewards"

farmers,

in the _Iplands

be desirable

ra_Aos.

Private

as the new legal

may simpl'y repeat the pattern of landlordism in

bringing

in

iandl ess

laborers

and

subtenants.

Alternative models of tenure such as the community or municipal forest will

be worth evaluating,

whe_-e the entire; forest becomes a common

resource that is shared by a co___unityof users.

2.

_ion of .coverage of upland devel opment programs, by first ex_ining R}_,-_ _!F. oTv-_l_--f_u__u_e_,0_ official l_ -ad-0-_te_ml_y-_,;D,--an-el the_--stratT-irying th'e

Conduc_.ing regular, available

systematic

population

counts,

using

census data can be done on a regular basis using the same

method,adopted in this report.

This baseline population figure will

have to be supported,

by _ classification of the population

with respect to (I) (2) t_nure-(3).ethnic 3.

however, location--

legal vs.

Forest zone vs.

iflegal occupants,

owners

Aand

D occupants;

vs. tenants;

and

grouping.

Develop a pro_am

for direr

subsidy or credit for

This can be achieve 5Y first c.ondutingan assessment of the costs of on- and off-slte erosion effects.

Costs and return estimates of

various soil conservation techniques will be needed in the.computation

48

of

the

1 _ve]

estimates

of fari_ subsidy.

i-_.

Chapters

YV andV

[he

_.'e:_u!ts("{ the

regression

Angeles (1,985] a,_dCruz et a1_

and in the w.ork,of Segura-de

los

{1985) also provide some.preliminary

figures of the eff'_ectsof,._oii conservatio_

technologies

on farm

â&#x20AC;˘productivity.

4.

Cremation_, ,,_.,o..,_,_h_-_y fureot_y program units which are.!_e]lt1__,_ate ,. an_ recoo_nizeog.

The recognition of the role of .community forestry wi]] reorganization community

of the 6FD

.forestry units

dep.utized agents of BFD,

as into

this the

entail a

wi.l] .me.aq incorporation governmep_

structure.

the comim,_nityforestry.units

of As

can be given

police powers wi_ichcar_ then be r.egu]ated through an appeals.system.

Details of how such dece_tra]izatio_ (:anDe achieved wi.]],have to be devised on.ly after .careful examination of specific conditions at the municipal or vi] la_e ]evels.

5.

l)eve!.c_.,local institutions by actively enqaging 'in

.Local. initiatives organizing

are enhanced

through

asd cow,f3 #.ci-. man_gemer_t work.

non-government

;:)rgap,.i,.,-_ations (NGOs)

who

i_E_vedor;e work

i-n.the.

institution-building.

oi-ti_eiSFDuP°{and Devel opme_:t Working Group..(UDWG)

will be very importa_t organizing

community

These are also numerous

upl.ands, and they should be t.,_ppedi-,,:)r local The experience_

effective

approaches

as a lear_ng

o_ a wi_er

tool for developing

scale.

49

communi.ty

Research_ A_enda •-There are numerous following report,

clearly

•topicwhi'ci_need furthe,::_::seacch, .hut the

stand out based on the resuits

prc,',sented in this

-These topics are outl !ned _)ei(,_.

1

Review of = ';

:_,_

_ *-:_'_ _" _....

,'_

A1ternative schemes for ide,__:.iiyincj upl and c,o_m.mities wiI 1 be us_-_f.. : especial field

_i<.t_....:_ l:ixe

verificatior_ surveys

surveys,

the

are

l.a_e.

LANOSAT. records, The

or

a,._ua

_mport_}nce,,of field

_,.._._ ...... as most ,;f tl_e problems snouI(!be _-'_,_e_

instead of maps,

regarding fiel

"ly whe_ other

boundaries

of

up!a_d

sites

are

best

resolved

in

the

d.

2.

Migration Estimates for Interprovincial Fldws

Lack looking

of time and ,e,,_ourcespreve.nted t.he project into the interprovincial

m_gra",'.::ion flows,

team

from

This will

be

important when profiles of migrants are made for the entire countr.y. interprovincial dominant

migration

flows

prcvince-to-province

significantly

different

also provide

information

on the

popjla,tion movementF_ which

may be

from the regional streams presented in this

report.

3, .

There

D,ifferentiated Population Densi_ty. is

differentiated

also

a need

to estimate

by land quality°

population

density

as

Since land in forested areas are

extremely heterogeneous the gros:,density figure does not truly depict the system's carrying capacity. by first stratifying

areas

into

The differentiation can be •achieved s".,e, pe or crop-,mix zones,

estimating population or settlement densities in each zone.

5o

then

4o

Expanded Macro-Mi_tior_

Inclusiori those

of more rea"_istic

provided

Ir_ ti_e Census,

macro-migration examination or

f_nc:!:.ie._,i;, is

municipal

forest

cover,

leve_,

the

p.eF capita wiT_

.A_c:ther which

interprovi,c_cia_

circumstances

variab'!e

wili

migration

- _ta,

estimates

be needed at eco__omic

apart

which

from in

the

needs

re_,

the provincial

models

l ogi t; or pr6bi t estimates

such. as

the

can al so be tried.

d_tt,a.

5.

Case

income

he!_ , imp, rove

Al_er_'_ative

probabi I i sti c model s u si_g using

F:,_nction

.TSÂŁ!]_E_t.!oJ).: studies of

wil 1" be important

are

usefu!

!"o_." descriYir___

'i_

moveme_Yt:a!_d _>att.e.rns of. _<_ustment, to

doculnerF;.,popd_atio.r_

distribution over time. Such, !o_g-..term

changes

greater

However,

and pattern

observations

detail

will

of

it land

be useful

for policy-makers since community _:_rocessescan then be documented as the upland popu_ ation "increases,

t',, I,

1.

This section is based on Chapter Ill of the Main Report written bY Ms. Imelda Zosa-Feranil.

2. The numbering of tables, i"igures,and _l_apsis ,notsequential. follows the same numbering used in the Main Report.

3.

qependency ratio as used by Lev_ is computed as follows:

L( 4.

It

........................... )+ 1 I Ages 0-14 65 above ", Ages + 15-64 7

x 100

This section is based on Chapter IV of the !.!ainReport written by Ms. Cristela L. Goce.

B IBL IUGRAPHY

ABRERA, A. S. (Ig76)."

Philippine Mahar Mangahas (ed) Measuring ( Man i I a" Dev e I opine nt _c-a-cre,_5 AGUILAR, FILOMENO Devel opment:

ALLAN,

W. (1965) and B oyd).

V. JRo Lessons

The

Pove._ty T'hresholds_" il_ Philippine Development, f-_"Fi_e--"_1_TTp pT_ne'gTT ..........

(1987_] Social Forestry.

F ro_ F-6_FT_s@_E_I

A.rL-L!/9.n

for

Upland

_s', .....

(-#__6_T

{Edinburgh:

Oliver

..

ANDERSON, JAMES No "Social Strategies Village Data From Central Luzon,".

in

?opulation

Change:

ALONZO,.

WILLIAM Demographic

19.4.

Pcl icy-Ori er_ted I nterre_ional Accountig_.... ai{(I .... # .... -_-e'_eral-T_tTon" _ TF6-_-T_"TTo-n -- F lSw-_To-_e"Ts o J u-ne. ;T j uTy"[ ....._()-r-k-_h-g--P ap e_ • _-4-'#_...... .I_n-gEi ti_tTe ........o-._ ........

[Fgban _nd R.egional Devl opment, University of California, E_,erkeley.

BERNARDO, THELMA .S., "Historical Analysis of Inter-regional Migratio:-,; -in the Phi1_ppin,.as, '' (unpublished Masteral Thesis, Popui a_.i ,:)n ._nsti tute, University of the Phflippines),..April 1982, BHATIA, D.K, 1968 "Some Refiections on Anti-Malthus Thesis of Ms. Boserup, °' in: 1_}dian Journal of Economics, 48427-435.

BOSERUP, ESTER (1969) The Conditions of ..Ag_ricultural Growth: T he Econ om ic s oT ....

Ag_ai=_"an..... _'h'a-n_e i)-n-cf_---Fopu_onl_-F-6ss ure. T!T do : TTe:n-a-n'd Th-w-TnT BOSERL}P, ESTER Population and i echnological Chan_an_ge A Study of i.on q-Term'-Ti_#_-_m_'_ .......

F_(,T-uSTv-e-F-s-Tt-y--O-_"C"h-lcago Press.

Tg8T......

'BUREAU OF FOREST [)EVELOPMENT [1982), Annual Report, ' C.i'_y: Bureau r,f Forest..)evel opmen-f_T-[........................

(Quezon

CARAB ARAN, M.C°, at. al. (n .d. } "Migration i n Mi.sami s Oriental Province in i972: A Report of Methodology and Substantive Results, Research Report No.18, (Cagayan de Oro: Mindanao Center For Population Studies, Xavier• University).

CASINO, ER ._,.,.. _: _967 ! :I- 32.

CASINO, the

ERIC. _" 1975 Fil ipino,

'_j_'_r_e Map_._nEthnocologv",

As l.an Studies

i_ Ho!Insteines, M. Soci_,Ly !PC•_ Ateneo Universi_7'=_"r6.,-S-s_

Culture

and

CHHAB.RA, RA.MI !97S "z_;dia _ E_vi" _onmc_<.a! ',....

1)egrada ,, . ti o_ , Urban S1 Lams, Po I i t i c _._.

'I Te r_s i o _-_", I ,_ _..,.:p u _a t _ o n P r e s su r e : Sigr,,sof Stress., Drape.r Fund Repo:.t No_ ].4, September.

COHEN,

MARK (197"7} The Food Populatlon and t_e Orl_s

C:-is_s i_"_ f_:ehistory: Overo_" _gr.}cix__°.ure,.l.#ew Haven"

_i CONCEPC,_..JN_ MERCEDES !_.

PO_u!atie_ oi: _che Phiiiippi.nes, Cur rent ? erspec t ive s "TncT-__t_u_e' 'FFos_)_e'c" tsT......... [rT{_ _-T6-ri-a-T' ............ _ an_ DevcTl_oDme.n_ A_tnorTty, _lan_la._, 1983.

T-Eonom'_ c .........................

-............... :': ............................ '......... "

CONKLIN., HAROLD C. (1961) "The Cu I t.i via t.{ on, " Current Anthropology_ CRUZ,

MA.

C;ONCEPCION

.Productio_

O.,

Systems:

Study 2(i):

et a.'l. (1985) An

Integrative

I

of Shifting 27-51.

P.hilippine

Upland

A'n_TTs+_"s"'-o_.{_ '-1_F_gee

ITa-Ga.geme n t).

CRUZ,

MA. CONCEPCION ,], 1.984."Populatio_i Pressure Migration a_Id Markets:.

1'.mpIicati,..)__<: for l..)ol_r_dDevelopment" paper pr, epe, f'e(t for the _o_'ksho_: en "_[_.c,#,]lll|()[nl(c Policies for Forest _,_,:_": .......

• .... _..... _ _ ..... ...... _,g_.,,,_:_ _ _,:'.t :. Phi_i..ppine Institute for Oevel.opment. Studieso

CRUZ,

WIFRIBO , _..d..

• (!984) • ,. EcoFiOmi'c . i". 0 '_i . Ci es fo r Forest• Resources ME_nagement, _(!tT{_i_;: -_,.......e_ ............ :{iTe .... Papers a-n_F ]F_o_.'_-LrTkg .-_:-'_:Tf_-"_:_ ''_" :._ Z P o Ii ieS for Fores_. Resot._rces. Man:.._geme_'_t_{Makmti: Philippine Instftute for Deve!opmeF) t ;Sc u d i e .:s) ,.

QARITY, WILLIAM Agricu] tura't Economics, " 157.

..... ._,.):' °...... e ....U_:_ Theory A, :I._':': "Y_-t_ ..... _".,_.: of Growth.;.

A _ode] fo'r A,_thropo_ ogi cal Jour_'_al o_" Developme_t Economics 7'1:37 ............................................................ , . .-.

DAVANGO JULIE (19<_-,) M_C o-.economic Approaches Studying Migr_t.lon Decisions_" in Go_'cion F. de Oong lultidi'scip.!fna_..y

App_ oactle. _o

:;_cro'leve, _tudies

to, and In

DAVIS, KINGSLZY i966 "The _!_i_'e_,}rj:.' oF Cn_,_ge and Modern Demographic f_ir,_ tc,rj '_ Population 4:34_-66.

Response Index

in 2.9,

DULDULAO, A. C et al L].9,._._.I "An i_tegrat.ed Kaingin Cor_tro'! i.__the ?{_]lippi_e,_: Phase I11 Reports _' i_ime_,_ir_"-__,_Li

Project for I to Phase

EASTERLIN, R. __,,_,I!.,'69'_[;;ei,_.tiorls _,_etween Population Pressure an(! [lemogt...... ,,,_-i)icCh_pg__,_ In Internationa3 Popul atlon Co_'_,_e re ,._c e_ Londo_ !969, Liege" International Union ,.fo_ '_ ,the Scient"i"fic Study of, Population 3, 1,661-85.,, EDER

J

jAMES (1977) "Agricultur,__l" to Laborer |_. the Ph_ip_i.ne V,,,i..ew_po i nt__ 19 : 1-21.

]nt:_.nsifiiL-_tionand i) Swidde,,_ Systems,

Returns Pacific

ELLEVERA-,LAMBERTE MA. TERE%A e:t, a]_ ,?L,<,_;_3 "Dimensions of Upland Poverty; A Macro View a_d a Micro-View, Integrated Research .Center, De !._,_Sa]!e Uni.versity Manila.

ENGRACIA, t.U!SA and A!..

E,]AN Dt_O HERR.IN., ],983 ';EmpI oyment ' Structure of Female Mi_]rants to the Cities in the Philippines," Development Studies Cer_tre, Australian National Univers]ty.

Mo_ograph No_,?,3,, Chapter 16. p.

293- 303.o, EVIOTA, E. a,d SMI_{H, P.t_ 1979 '_The Migration of Women in the Philippines," a paper presented to the Working Group of Women in the Cities, East,-.-West Populatioi_ Institute, Hono!ulu_ FLIEGER, WILHELM 1976 "Geographical Patterns og Inter_al Migration in the Phi_i_.pii_es ,,.960-1970 Mani]a, National (,..r_su_aqd Statistics Office.

UNEPA Pro_e.ct.

GAROTHERS G. Po! i tical

_r_'__""

GOUROU, P. Eco,omic

.1,986 "A Conc,_p_s

H!st:]r]cai Review ef Gra.vi__t_y_ and nte Fa,.; oh, ,,........ ,_FournaI "-o_ --(_f"_!#{im-_"6-_ ._, ................ }T,t__TT,_" .

]:n',_:ET# _-_]'"oF-_F__;_'F_"_ =sZ.....................................

(1966_ Tire ";" _'',:_F_ ic.aI World: its Social ..............

-_ ..... '_ ns a_ _................................ _'ts Future _.,ctat!_s Trans , Co.n d,tio

and

s.-_FFT

B--_;"_-F? ' "(L-Tn-g'_i__TT ...............................................

GRIGG,

D. .B_ 1976 "Popu!atio_ Pressure and Agricultural Change," PKo._ress in G_eo_,r_phy_Vo!. 8,_ 135-I.76.

GRIGG,. D B 19_[.

C_hange: A Cri_Ic_,:}

E_.:te_ _:}._er_;) s. :_.eory of.-Agrarian Revie_,,,, ....

GUPTA, P. S_N 1970 "PO!_u_atiop end Resource..uevelopment _in India" In Ze_n:;ky W,o K.osi_ski_. L_,A. and Prothero, R. M. eds_ .Geo_,"api_yand a Crowding World, London, •Oxford

univ er si tj-l_Fi;__gT-_;_4Y::_i:._; ....................................................

GW.YER,

(._ D ,

(.I'_7_ '' Aqrdci.__tura'_.[m_;ioy_ent

and

Farm

Tncomes"i p Rel a_o_ _o _,_,_F__s_: ; T_a__T_F_:T_c.t_ conom_c

a,_F[_eve_._pme!",t

HAWLEY., AR0-S--(1973) 1196-1201.

Author_;..

"_._°coi'!_y

aridPoD,We*ion"

Science

179:

HELLEINER, G. K. (1966) "Typology in Development Theory: The. Land Surp.!.us Economy (Ni_e.ri a) ," Food . Rese-arch Insti tute_ 6(2) ,_ _ HERR.IN,- ALEJANDRO No (1982),. "•Population and Development Research in .the P_hilipp: _e:_..

-- A. S-u r vey," . SUrv_ of Philippine Development Research.ll, {Makati: Phi]ippih-e JAMES, WILLIAM E. .1983. "!.Settler Se_Ctl:ement A_ternatives: New Philippines," Paci:flc Viewpoint.

LANTICAN,

D,

M,

(1974.) "The. ?_aki"_g

Se_ oct-ion and Land Evidence from • the

Fore_.

"

Forestry

Di_i__t .,3:4_-¢7.

• LED£SMA, ANTONIO J,, (1982.), -Landless, Workers •Far,_ers: Peasant Subc]_ss_n_Agr'_

_r_.e._,_c_-Tn__f_,T_T_-TT........ .

LEE., ..EVERETT S. •" 3:47-58,_

•.

(1966 _ " A T._.eory oi _ _i g_t.i{_n.,'i

.

and Rice ReT-orm--Tn

. .Demo__ra__.,

LEE., _ICHARD BOI__SHAY-<198.2),"The Kung-Bushmen of Botswana," in M.G. Bichl.errl (ed.)_ Hunters and Gatherers. Toda._, (New York : Hal t R inehart ,.a_F_'t_()'_.

LIMCAOCO, ANDR!_S A. and CA_!DIDO A,. CABRIDO. jR, 1985 "Carrying Capacity A_)proact_ to Ag._"icultura]oResource Management," (:Nat.i o nai .£c_!_nom ic and Development Authority Man-ita)