Rice post-distribution Report and baseline profile of ...

1

Rice post-distribution Report

and baseline profile of beneficiaries

Part of FAO’s Haiyan Response

Philippines

Donors and project codes: OSRO/PHI/301/IRE

OSRO/PHI/302/BEL

OSRO/PHI/303/CHA

OSRO/PHI/306/SWI

OSRO/PHI/307/ITA

OSRO/PHI/308/NOR

TCP/PHI/3405

Manila, Philippines,

January 2014

2

1. Table of content

1. Table of content .................................................................................................................. 2

2. Table of figures and tables ................................................................................................. 3

3. Executive summary ............................................................................................................ 5

4. Background information .................................................................................................... 6

4.1.1. General country and sector vulnerability context .................................................. 6

4.1.2. Disaster/crisis context ............................................................................................ 6

4.2. The programme .......................................................................................................... 7

4.2.1. Problems / Issues to be addressed .......................................................................... 7

4.2.2. Stakeholders and Target Beneficiaries ................................................................... 7

4.2.3. Programme justification ......................................................................................... 7

4.2.4. Donors .................................................................................................................... 7

4.2.5. Programme key objectives ..................................................................................... 8

4.2.6. Programme expected outputs ................................................................................. 8

4.3. The Rice package intervention ................................................................................... 8

4.3.1. Programme implementation ................................................................................... 8

4.3.2. Criteria of selection: ............................................................................................... 9

4.3.3. Content of input packages ...................................................................................... 9

4.3.4. The locations of intervention and implementing partners .................................... 10

5. The survey ........................................................................................................................ 11

5.1. Methodology ............................................................................................................ 11

5.2. Scope and reliability of the survey’s data ................................................................ 11

6. Characteristics of the household, livelihoods and practices ............................................. 13

6.1. General aspects of the households ........................................................................... 13

6.2. Socio-economical profile ......................................................................................... 15

6.3. Fishing ...................................................................................................................... 16

6.4. Agriculture and livestock ......................................................................................... 17

6.4.1. Irrigation ............................................................................................................... 21

6.4.2. Agriculture practices ............................................................................................ 21

6.4.3. Post harvest storage .............................................................................................. 24

6.5. Food security and diversity ...................................................................................... 25

6.6. Coping mechanisms ................................................................................................. 26

7. Feedback on the received FAO assistance and distribution process ................................ 28

7.1. Utilization of the received assistance and estimated production .............................. 28

7.2. Aspects of the Accountability to Affected Population ............................................. 30

8. Non-FAO Assistance ........................................................................................................ 34

8.1. Non-FAO assistance received .................................................................................. 34

9. Outstanding needs ............................................................................................................ 36

10. Annex ........................................................................................................................... 37

10.1. Location of rice package distributions, Municipality level .................................. 37

10.2. Rice post distribution survey questionnaire ......................................................... 39

10.3. Locations of rice post distribution survey ............................................................ 45

10.4. Value for money calculation for rice seed intervention ....................................... 46

10.5. Province specific datasets ..................................................................................... 47

3

2. Table of figures and tables

Figure 1 Shares of financial contributions by donor ............................................................ 8

Figure 2 Type of respondents ................................................................................................ 13

Figure 3 Share of vulnerable head of households ................................................................ 13

Figure 4 Type of community based organisations ............................................................... 14

Figure 5 Main livelihood activities before and three months after the typhoon .............. 15

Figure 6 Boat ownership and crew hiring share ................................................................. 16

Figure 7 Livestock owning households and their actual and pre typhoon numbers ....... 20

Figure 8 Sources of irrigation water ..................................................................................... 21

Figure 9 Types of rice seeds used pre typhoon, by region .................................................. 21

Figure 10 Method used for of rice field land preparation .................................................. 22

Figure 11 Planting methods of by region ............................................................................. 22

Figure 12 Sowing, type of nursery and transplanting methods used region specific ....... 23

Figure 13 Ways of fertilizer application ............................................................................... 24

Figure 14 Methods of storage used ....................................................................................... 25

Figure 15 Origin of the different food groups ..................................................................... 26

Figure 16 Frequency of coping mechanisms used ............................................................... 27

Figure 17 Rating of quality and usefulness of the received inputs by region ................... 28

Figure 18 Rating of rice seeds quality parameters .............................................................. 29

Figure 19 Source of information on distribution ................................................................. 31

Figure 20 Rating of distribution process .............................................................................. 31

Figure 21 Other information needs ...................................................................................... 32

Figure 22 Important types of information ........................................................................... 32

Figure 23 Preferred source of information .......................................................................... 33

Figure 24 Main Non-FAO assistance received .................................................................... 34

Figure 25 Sources of non-FAO assistance ............................................................................ 34

Figure 26 Ratings of non-FAO assistance ............................................................................ 35

Figure 27 Main short / medium term needs for Region specific ........................................ 36

Table 1 Locations of intervention and number of beneficiaries by province ................... 10

Table 2 Composition of households and age of head of household, by province .............. 14

Table 3 Actual indebtedness status, region specific ............................................................ 15

Table 4 Boats and engines before typhoon and three months after .................................. 16

Table 5 Number of fishing gear before, % lost and three months after and still needed to

obtain full set ................................................................................................................... 17

Table 6 Area of fish or shrimp farms and areas partially or totally destroyed ................ 17

Table 7 Average area per household by land tenure type .................................................. 17

Table 8 Households shares specified by land tenure agreements ...................................... 18

Table 9 Total planted area and partially or totally destroyed share, crop specific ......... 18

Table 10 Utilization of own production, crop or produce specific ..................................... 19

Table 11 Agriculture asset before typhoon and three months after .................................. 19

Table 12 Average income generated form sold animals since the typhoon ...................... 20

Table 13 Additional fertilizer quantity, area and frequency, region specific ................... 24

Table 14 Actual meals per day gender and age specific ..................................................... 25

Table 15 Frequency of food group intake ............................................................................ 25

Table 16 Utilization of received inputs ................................................................................. 28

Table 17 Quantity of rice seeds, % planted and expected rice yield per household ........ 30

Table 18 Composition of the households and ages of household head and spouse .......... 47

Table 19 Social network or membership of specific groups ............................................... 47

Table 20 Fishing parameters ................................................................................................. 47

4

Table 21 Land type and land tenure and sharing of harvest ............................................. 48

Table 22 Crops planted and area under cultivation per household .................................. 48

Table 23 Level of destruction of various crops cultivated before the typhoon ................. 48

Table 24 Type of animals before and actual ........................................................................ 49

Table 25 Animals sold since the typhoon and income generated ....................................... 49

Table 26 Farm assets before and actual functionning ........................................................ 49

Table 27 Agriculture practice parameters ........................................................................... 50

Table 28 Fishing assets before and actual ............................................................................ 51

Table 29 Meals eaten by age groups before and actual ...................................................... 51

Table 30 Frequency of food groups intake actual ............................................................... 52

Table 31 Use of coping mechanisms over the last month ................................................... 52

Table 32 Level of indebtedness before and new credits taken since typhoon ................... 53

Table 33 Utilization of FAO rice seed assistance ................................................................. 53

Table 34 Main short-term needs ........................................................................................... 54

Table 35 Main medium-term needs ...................................................................................... 54

5

3. Executive summary

On the morning of November 8, 2013, Category 5 Typhoon Haiyan (locally known as Yolanda) made

a direct hit on the Philippines; devastating areas in 36 provinces with its strong winds, massive rain

fall and storm surges. Many cities and towns experienced widespread destruction, with as much as 90

percent of housing destroyed in some areas. Roads were blocked, airports and seaports impaired;

heavy ships were thrown inland. Water supplies and power are cut; much of the food stocks and other

goods are destroyed; many health facilities are not functioning. An estimated 14.1 million people in

nine regions are affected. A state of national calamity was declared three days after the typhoon roared

across the central Philippines to expedite the government’s rescue, relief and rehabilitation efforts in

provinces devastated by the typhoon.

Among the different responses implemented by FAO was the rice seeds package distribution funded

by seven donors (CERF, Ireland, Belgium, FAO, Switzerland, Italy and Norway) with a total

contribution of US$4,105,945.

The programme goal is to restore food and nutrition security as well as agriculture-based livelihoods

of typhoon-affected farming households through the emergency distribution of key agricultural inputs

for the upcoming cropping season in Region VI and VIII.

Major direct results of the intervention are as follows: A total of 43 659 households are now able to

cover their basic staple food needs from the obtained production and generate some surplus for

marketing from the received wheat seeds and fertilizer packages.

The main outcomes of the rice post distribution surveys related to FAO’s intervention are:

Overall 94 percent of the beneficiaries have received the expected quantities on inputs.

85 percent of the seeds and 69 percent of the fertilizer were used up to the moment when the

survey was conducted, covering an area of 0.8 ha on average.

Taking into account the percentage of seeds planted and the seeding rate used, an estimated

milled rice production of 1,760 kg per household is expected from distributed rice seed

packages. This is somewhat below the expected 3,450 Kg / Ha paddy yield (resulting in 2,070

kg milled rice yield per hectare) mainly due to the fact that on average 85 percent of the seeds

were planted and over a larger area as expected. The final production results will be obtained

during the harvest period, where a crop cutting survey is foreseen to be conducted and a post

harvest survey.

The resulting harvest is enough to ensure the self-sufficiency in rice (750 kg) for each

household of 5 members as well as offering potential to generate income from the surplus.

The surplus varies for those households who have to give a share of the harvest to land-

owners if in a share cropping (around 45 percent) or tenancy agreement (around 30 percent).

The main APP outcomes are:

o Overall high level of satisfaction on the received inputs and good rating on their quality and

usefulness.

o Around 24 percent reported that not all affected population received assistance, mainly due

to the fact that the assistance was not enough to cover.

o Some 11 percent reported that they had to pay around 15 to 30 Philippine Pesos to obtain the

assistance. This is justified as it was a contribution to cover the transport either from the

DAs regional warehouse to the municipality or a commonly arranged transport from the

municipality to the Barangay.

A profile of the benefiting households have been obtained, recording a large amount of indicators

covering agriculture and fishery assets, agriculture practices, food security and coping mechanisms,

which will serve as a baseline for the impact or outcome measurement. In addition also a better

knowledge on the actual agricultural practices in the rice crop production has been obtained.

6

4. Background information

4.1.1. General country and sector vulnerability context

The Philippines is highly susceptible and vulnerable to natural disasters with an average of 20

typhoons per year, of which five are predicted to cause significant damage. On the morning of

8 November 2013, Category 5 Typhoon Haiyan made a direct hit on the Philippines, a densely

populated country of 92 million people, devastating areas in 36 provinces. Typhoon Haiyan is

possibly the most powerful storm ever recorded to hit land.

Typhoon Haiyan made first landfall at Guiuan, Eastern Samar province, with wind speeds of

235 km/h and gusts of 275 km/hr. Rain fell at rates of up to 30 mm per hour and massive

storm surges more than six meters high hit Leyte and Samar islands. Many cities and towns

experienced widespread destruction, with as much as 90 percent of housing were destroyed in

some areas. Roads were blocked, and airports and seaports impaired; heavy ships have been

thrown inland. Water supplies and power were and are still in many places cut; much of the

food stocks and other goods were destroyed; many health facilities were not functioning and

medical supplies were quickly being exhausted.

An estimated 14.1 million people in nine different regions – over 10 per cent of the country’s

population - are affected. According to current information, the most affected regions are

Regions VIII (Eastern Visayas), VI (Western Visayas) and VII (Central Visayas). Regions

IV-A (Calabarzon), IV-B (Mimaropa), V (Bicol), X (Northern Mindanao) XI (Davao) and

XIII (Caraga) were also impacted.

A state of national calamity was declared three days after the typhoon hit the central

Philippines to expedite the government’s rescue, relief and rehabilitation efforts in provinces

devastated by the typhoon.

4.1.2. Disaster/crisis context

The Philippine economy is highly dependent on agriculture (crops, poultry and livestock,

fisheries and forest products). Typhoon Haiyan has had a severe impact on people’s lives and

livelihoods in the affected areas, with extensive damage to agriculture, particularly to crop

production, fisheries, and agricultural infrastructure. The typhoon struck at a devastating time

for farmers – shortly after harvest, during a new planting season.

The severely affected regions are prime agricultural areas. Overall, regions VI, VII, and VIII

account for nearly a quarter of the total rice area harvested in 2012 (22.6%). In particular, the

Western Visayas is the second largest rice producing region and the first sugarcane producing

region in the Philippines.

Initial estimates revealed that hundreds of thousands of hectares of rice and other key crops

such as coconut (Eastern Visayas is the second largest coconut producing region in the

country) have been lost. Most of the irrigated land was already planted with irrigated rice for

this season and it is known that these crops are severely damaged.

Based on the partial report on damages released by the Department of Agriculture (DA) on

10 November, total damage to the agriculture sector is estimated at USD 85.8 million.

Damages to rice crops alone are estimated at USD 51.5 million, and the estimated cost of

damages to irrigation is USD 4.9 million.

7

4.2. The programme

4.2.1. Problems / Issues to be addressed

Affected male and female farmers need immediate distribution of rice seeds to restore their

rural livelihoods and replace lost assets. In addition, there is an urgent need to provide

vegetable kits and hand tools to affected families to ensure food security in the short term and

in case of surplus production its generates much needed additional income.

4.2.2. Stakeholders and Target Beneficiaries

The programmes targeted 44 000 vulnerable typhoon-affected farmer households in Region

VI and VIII.

Special focus during the selection process were given to the following affected households:

Households worst hit by the typhoon;

Female-headed and child-headed households and households with one or more

disabled members; (Percentage of these households as measurement of the

programme’s gender impact should be reported during the programme implementation

phase and its final report.)

Households which have not received other rice seed assistance;

Validation of the target sites and beneficiaries was jointly done by FAO and other

stakeholders.

4.2.3. Programme Justification

Typhoon Haiyan caused an unprecedented humanitarian and economic crisis affecting

hundreds of thousands of households with the total costs in losses and damages running into

the hundreds of millions of US dollars. It severely affected the agriculture-based livelihoods

of farmers and fisher folk that live in the path of the typhoon.

Despite the commendable Disaster Risk Reduction efforts of the Government over the years,

crises of this magnitude often have devastating effects that cannot be prevented and therefore

require an efficient and timely response.

Though the DA has immediate plans to provide planting materials and limited livelihood

support to a part of the affected farmers and fisher-folk, the recent calamities such as the

Bohol Earthquake in October 2013 and Typhoon Bopha in December 2012 may have

overstretched the capacity of the government to respond. The affected farmers themselves

have very limited capital to meet their immediate needs to be able to plant or replace lost

fields during the on-going planting season. These includes inputs as well as the costs of on-

farm labour during critical phases of the farm cycle such as land preparation, planting,

weeding and harvesting. In addition the households are concentrating firstly to cover the costs

of food needs as well as the construction of a shelter or rehabilitation of their houses.

4.2.4. Donors

The different donors have contributed a total of US$ 4,105,945 to the implementation of the

Rice seed package intervention with following shares from total, see Figure 1.

8

Figure 1 Shares of financial contributions by donor

4.2.5. Programme key objectives

The programme goal is to restore food and nutrition security and agriculture-based livelihoods

of typhoon-affected farming households through the emergency distribution of key

agricultural inputs for the upcoming cropping season in Region VI and VIII. This will be

achieved through the following objectives and outputs:

The programme will support the resumption of agriculture production thus enhancing food

security of the population affected by Typhoon Haiyan.

The programme will make special efforts to ensure that both male and female farmers are

targeted by the interventions and have access to the agricultural input packages, allocating a

fixed quota for women beneficiaries.

4.2.6. Programme expected outputs

A total of 39 398 households are able to cover their basic staple food needs from the obtained

production and generate some surplus for marketing from the received wheat seeds and

fertilizer packages.

4.3. The Rice package intervention

The Rice seed package was distributed to 43 659 beneficiary households in the two main

affected regions covering in total six provinces. The rice seed package will enable beneficiary

farmers to cultivate rice crop on one hectare of farmland, ensuring household-level food

security. The distributed rice seeds could produce up to 3 400 kg of paddy, sufficient to feed a

household of five persons for a whole year and generating a surplus for marketing purposes.

4.3.1. Programme implementation

The Emergency Response Manager (ERM) had the overall responsibility for the

implementation of programme activities and led the Emergency Response Team. Technical

assistance was provided by staff of the Department of Agriculture (DA) of region VI and VIII

as well as the Local Government Units (LGUs) agriculture officers supported by FAO’s

technical and operational staff in the region.

12%

23%

7%

14%4%

33%

7%

OSRO/PHI/301/IRE

OSRO/PHI/302/BEL

OSRO/PHI/303/CHA

OSRO/PHI/306/SWI

OSRO/PHI/307/ITA

OSRO/PHI/308/NOR

TCP/PHI/3405

9

The implementation of the programme was conducted by FAO in close collaboration with the

DA of region VI and VIII, the municipal Local Government Units and other humanitarian

partners operating in the proposed target areas. This close coordination maximized the

response, as all the needed households received assistance by one of the different

stakeholders. The municipality was in charge of the cross checking of the beneficiaries and

the delivery of inputs.

A National FAO staff (either an agronomist or an M&E officer) supervised the

implementation of programme activities at regional level: reception of the inputs from the

suppliers, verification of inputs delivery to municipalities and programme monitoring. The

implementing partners were the municipalities as well as the Municipal

Agriculturist/Agricultural Officer, particularly during the inputs delivery process and the

distribution to target beneficiaries.

FAO has already a well-developed monitoring and evaluation system relating to the

distribution of all inputs and the assessment of the impact of the intervention. Monitoring of

programme progress was carried out by FAO field staff.

In collaboration with the Capiz or Visayas State Universities, graduates from these institutions

were trained and conducted the fieldwork for the post distribution survey, interviewing the

beneficiaries under the supervision of the field M&E officers. The data entry and controlling

was done by graduates as well. This survey focused both on upward accountability to the

donors and downward accountability to affected population.

FAO will share the gathered information on the outcome of the survey with the Department of

Agriculture and Food Security and Agriculture Cluster (FSAC) members.

4.3.2. Criteria of selection:

The following main criteria of selection were taken into account during the beneficiaries’

identification process:

Farmers who have lost their ready to harvest standing rice crop from the previous

season

or

Farmers who have already planted their rice fields for this season and have lost them

due to floods caused by the heavy rains,

Farmers who are able to cultivate their land

Households with access to around 1 ha of irrigated land.

4.3.3. Content of input packages

Each farmer will receive a package which includes the following items:

40 kilograms certified rice seeds for one hectare land

50 kilograms Urea fertilizers for one hectare

Sets of assorted hand tools consisting of shovel, hoe and machete to be used for land

preparation and the clean-up of fields from debris and the removal of fallen trees and

palms

Each set of hand tools will be shared between ten households.

In some Barangays, the DA in consultation with FAO has decided to split the packages for

two households in case they had only half a hectare of rice field to replant or provided 80kg of

rice seeds to households who had more land available. This will be taken into account during

the analysis of the data related to the quantities received and use of the obtained inputs.

10

4.3.4. The locations of intervention and implementing partners

See in Table 1 the locations of intervention. The selection of the locations of intervention was

done in close collaboration with the Provincial Department of Agriculture and other

humanitarian partners implementing the same type of intervention. See in Annex 10.1

municipality level distribution lists.

Table 1 Locations of intervention and number of beneficiaries by province

Region VI

PROVINCE BENEFICIARIES

AKLAN 800

ANTIQUE 800

CAPIZ 4,043

NEGROS OCC 1000

ILOILO 3,085

Sub-total 9,728

Region VIII

LEYTE 28,499

SAMAR 5,432

Sub-total 33,931

GRAND TOTAL 43,659

11

5. The survey

In order to capture the satisfaction and utilization of the rice seeds package distribution

intervention, as well as the profile of the benefiting households, a questionnaire based survey

was conducted.

The general household characteristics and socio economic information will also serve as a

baseline wherefrom the outcome and impact will be measured.

5.1. Methodology

The whole survey was based on the Beneficiaries Results Assessment methodology1. The

information reported here was gathered conducting a survey at beneficiaries’ level with face

to face interviews. The survey was made based on a questionnaire developed by the reporting

consultant, see in Annex 10.2. The questionnaire was first tested, and thereafter adapted. The

enumerators were undergraduates and graduates students either from the Capiz State

University in region VI or Visayas State University for region VIII. They were trained

beforehand The training was provided by an FAO international M&E consultant and included

a theoretical background on how to conduct a survey, on how to fill in the questionnaire and

sampling methodology.

The survey targeted a total of 1,450 beneficiaries’ households from 7 provinces and 32

municipalities. In each municipality three Barangays (villages) were selected where at least 15

households were randomly selected out of the total of assisted rice beneficiaries and

interviewed. See selected Barangays in Annex 10.3.

The survey was conducted during February 2014. Completed questionnaires were sent to the

corresponding State Universities, where the specially hired and trained data entry students

encoded the questionnaires in a previously developed database. The data entry students were

supervised by a senior research assistant of the Universities. A thorough verification and

control system (both before and after data entry) and close supervision were put in place in

order to ensure the quality of the data entered.

The final data control at database level, preparation for analysis, final analysis and reporting

was undertaken by the international M&E consultant. During the control exercise some errors

or inconsistencies were detected and corrected, based on the questionnaires, in order to ensure

that they were properly encoded or through logical deduction where possible; otherwise they

were deleted.

Overall results are presented in the main body of this report, and information specific to

provinces is included into an Annex of the report.

5.2. Scope and reliability of the survey’s data

The sample size is quite large and has a level of reliability of 85% at provincial level, except

for Negros Occidental, where the level of reliability is 80% due to inaccessibility to targeted

Barangays during the survey period. Even so the results should not be extrapolated to the

whole communities or to a larger scale, as the households interviewed were affected by the

typhoon and therefore programme beneficiaries are subject to some other additional criteria of

selection. In addition, the data should be taken as indicative as the variation can be quite large

between the different provinces. Provincial specific data sets are included in the Annex 10.5.

1 For more information see: FAO Methodology: Guide for Beneficiary Results Assessment of Agricultural

Emergency Interventions, Matthias Mollet & Thomas Braunschweig, Rome 2008

http://www.fao.org/emergencies/resources/tools/beneficiary-results/en/

12

The survey was conducted over the month of February 2014, almost three months after the

typhoon made landfall and therefore doesn’t represent the situation just after the disaster.

Even so different food security or livelihood indicators were gathered as a reference baseline,

as the proper livelihood interventions had not been initiated until the start of the survey.

13

6. Characteristics of the household, livelihoods and practices

The term household refers to all members of a family sharing food consumption on a daily

basis (i.e. sharing the same kitchen or eating together). Each member is therefore in general

also contributing directly or indirectly to the income of the household, either through labour,

cash or in kind contribution except for the small children or elderly persons unable to conduct

any kind of household activities.

6.1. General aspects of the households

Out of the interviewed people 33 percent of the respondents are male and the rest female. It

was not always possible to interview the head of household or the person whose name was on

the beneficiaries list. In those cases a close family member, permanently living in that

household, was interviewed. The relationships of those respondents are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Type of respondents

From the overall number of head of households, 22.9 percent belong to a special vulnerability

group, as widowed, elder, single mother or child headed households. See actual shares in

Figure 3.

Figure 3 Share of vulnerable head of households

65%

29%

1%2%

3%

Head of HH Spouse

Adult l iving in the HH Grown up child

Others

0.11

0.05

0.05

0.77

0.01

0.002

Widower Elderly Child headed HH Single mother Normal Others

14

On average each household has 4.5 members, wherefrom 63.4 percent are adults and the rest

children below 18 years. The size of families differs slightly in between the provinces where

larger families were recorded in Leyte province with 5.8 members and the smallest in Aklan

with 3.7 members per household; see province specific family related parameters in Table 2.

The average age of the head of household is 52 years and for the spouse 50 years. The average

age is quite high compared to the average of the two regions of 12 percent based on the

country statistics of Bureau of Agriculture Statistics.

Table 2 Composition of households and age of head of household, by province

Out of the interviewed sample, 53.9 percent are Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

(CARP) – beneficiaries under Republic Act No. 6657. The beneficiaries of this group were,

before they were involved in the CARP, mainly land less agriculture daily wage labourers and

obtained, through CARP, their own land titles. Overall the CARP beneficiaries are considered

to be more vulnerable.

Out of the total interviewed households, 67 percent are member of a community-based

organisation, see details on the type of organisations in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Type of community based organisations

Only 1.7 percent of the sampled beneficiaries belong to an indigenous ethnic group, these are

mainly located in the mountainous areas and are considered a more vulnerable part of the

population. They mainly rely on tuber or banana crops as staple food but they also cultivate

rice on small plots in the valleys. They also gather vegetable and other edibles food from the

forests.

Composition of household Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

Children < 5 years male 0.21 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.33 0.19 0.18

Children < 5 years female 0.11 0.23 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.31

Boys 0.54 0.61 0.58 0.45 0.80 0.74 0.93

Girls 0.39 0.60 0.42 0.43 0.83 0.72 0.85

Men 1.49 1.37 1.31 1.25 1.40 1.90 1.94

Women 1.57 1.15 1.27 1.20 1.13 1.69 1.61

Age head of HH 55.5 51.6 53.2 54.9 48.2 50.9 51.5

Age of spouse of HH Head 52.7 50.0 51.5 53.1 45.3 48.1 48.9

33%

45%

67%

3%

11%

8%

No Yes Cooperative Women's group Farmers group Others

15

6.2. Socio-economical profile

The main source of livelihood of the interviewed households before the typhoon was

agriculture, with 92.4 percent and it decreased to 87.1 percent three months after the typhoon.

The other livelihood sources before the typhoon for the remaining percentages are in

decreasing order of priority as follows: tourism, skilled labour, fishery, salaried employment,

etc. See actual shares for each of the livelihood activities in Figure 5. Overall 9 out of 18

livelihood activities have changed three months after the typhoon, where cash for work

activities, agriculture daily labour and other wage labour, as well as trade increased, and

instead tourism, skilled labour, employment and fishery decreased.

Figure 5 Main livelihood activities before and three months after the typhoon

Even though data concerning the debts of households has to be treated with some caution, it is

still considered a good parameter to assess a household’s economic situation. Out of the total

number of households, 72.5 percent declared having debts already before the typhoon with an

average amount per household of 16,500 Philippine Pesos (equal to US$ 3662). This

represents 66 times the daily minimum average wage rate for agriculture labour of 250

Philippine Pesos (equal to US$ 5.6) in region VI and VII as of January 2014. A significant

percentage of households (63.3 percent) had to get a new credit since the typhoon of an

average amount of 16,200 Philippine Pesos, see details by province in Table 3.

Table 3 Actual indebtedness status, region specific

2 1US$ = 45 Philippines Pesos

Agriculture before 92.4% after and 87.1%

12.5

1.93.8

1.9

10.612.5

9.6

2.91.0 1.0 1.9 1.9

17.3

2.91.0

4.8

12.5

7.4

1.7

5.1

0.0

6.37.4

11.9

5.7

1.7

4.53.4

1.1

11.4

4.0

0.62.8

25.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Fisher

y

Livesto

ck

Trad

e

Handicr

aft/

man

ufact

urer

Employ

ed/sala

ried

Skille

d laboure

r

Agricu

lture

daily

labou

rer

Other

wag

e laboure

r

Remitt

ance

s

Gifts/

donat

ions

Agro o

r fish

pro

cess

ing

Tran

sport

Touris

m

Govern

ment

Self-

emplo

yed

Retired -

pensio

ner

Other

s

before after

Indebtness status Region VI Region VIII

HH with debts before Typhoon 71.5 75.6

Average amount before Typhoon (PhP) 16000 17850

HH with new credits since Typhoon 66.0 55.1

Average amount of new credits (PhP) 16900 13700

16

6.3. Fishing

The households which have fishing as one of their livelihood activities either own a boat, or

one of the household members’ works as a crew member, who are hired by medium or large-

sized boat owners for a short or medium term period. For the small size boats and in some

cases also for the medium size boats, the owner goes fishing by himself or with other family

members. Small boat-owners only rarely hire additional crew members, see details in Figure

6.

Figure 6 Boat ownership and crew hiring share

The major share of boats which were totally destroyed and needs replacement was reported

for small boats, followed by medium and lastly for large boats; the same pattern was also

recorded for the partially destroyed boats which can be repaired. Boat engines were affected

to a lesser extent, as they are mainly in medium or large boats and even when affected, the

boat owners were able to repair them easily.

Table 4 Boats and engines before typhoon and three months after

Overall 66.7 percent of the fishing boat-owning-households, who used to employ an average

of 2.7 crew members before the typhoon, now only employ 1.5 members on average; this is

mainly due to the fact, that they have lost part of their gear and have lost their full set of nets,

needed to employ a complete crew. This proves that the large and in some cases also the

medium-sized boat owners have not yet replaced their lost gears. See in Table 5 the actual

2%

1%

3%

97%

No Boat crew employer Not a boat crew employer

Type of boats and enginesNumber of

units before

Actual

number

Number of

units still

functional

Small size boat (< 18 ft) 1.05 1.03 0.45

Medium size boat (18-25 ft) 1.17 1.08 0.50

Large size boat (35 ft & above 1.00 1.00 0.00

Boat engine (16 hp) 1.17 1.17 0.50

Boat engine (90 to 110 HP ) 1.00 1.00 0.25

17

number of nets which are missing on average to have a full set of gears, as well as the

numbers owned previously to the typhoon and the numbers lost or destroyed by the typhoon.

Table 5 Number of fishing gear before, % lost and three months after and still needed

to obtain full set

Significant damages and losses regarding fish or shrimp farms, mainly along the coastline,

were reported in Region VI. See details in Table 6.

Table 6 Area of fish or shrimp farms and areas partially or totally destroyed

6.4. Agriculture and livestock

The most important aspect in rural economies is the land holding or households’ access to

land for their own crop and livestock production. Overall 48.6 percent of the total cultivated

land is irrigated and 51.4 percent is rain-fed. The share of irrigated land is quite high

compared to the average of the two regions of 12 percent based on the country statistics of the

Bureau of Agriculture Statistics. This is mainly due to a sampling bias wherein one of the

criteria of beneficiary selection (and subsequently survey respondent) was to have access to at

least 1 Ha of irrigated land for this cropping season.

Table 7 Average area per household by land tenure type

Table 8 shows the shares of the households and type of land tenure they have access to this

season. In some cases a household relies only on their own land, but sometimes they also have

a tenant and / or shared cropping agreement.

Type of fishing gear and

equipment

Owning

households in %

Number of

units before

Losses in %

from before

Number of units

still functional

Numbers needed

for full set

Hooks 0.0 105.3 28.5 48.7 35

Cast nets (Throw Nets) 0.0 1.7 6.7 0.7 2

Ring nets 0.0 6.8 43.6 1.3 16

Bag nets 0.0 1.7 11.8 1.0 3

Cages 0.0 26.1 6.5 5.6 32

Fish drying trays 0.0 15.6 1.3 0.4 26

Type of MaricultureAverage area

before (in ha)

Average area

totally destroyed

(in ha)

Average area

partially destroyed

(in ha)

Fish / shrimp farm 3.7 3 0.2

Land tenure % of households Area (Ha)

Own land 75.3 2.3

Tenant agreement 32.6 1.1

Share cropping 13.1 2.3

18

Table 8 Households shares specified by land tenure agreements

In a tenant agreement, the landowner provides the farmer with the land and gets 30 percent of

the total harvest, whereas the farmers, who have to buy all the inputs and labor gets the

remaining 70 percent. In comparison, in a shared cropping agreement the land owner gets 45

percent but aside from the land he is also providing agriculture inputs and pays the water fees

if irrigated land, whereas the farmer provides only his labor force and gets 55 percent of the

harvest in exchange.

Table 9 shows the share of households cultivating the different crops as well as the average

area planted by the cultivating households during the ongoing season. The following

information regarding the shares of area destroyed (partially or totally) have to be taken with

caution, as the farmers were likely overestimating them, in view to be eligible for more

assistance in the upcoming season. Overall 66 percent of the cultivated area was totally

destroyed and had to be replanted. In addition 20 percent of the cultivated area was partially

destroyed and the farmer has to expect a reduction in production. Only 14 percent has not

been affected at all and a normal yield is expected to be obtained by the farmer.

Table 9 Total planted area and partially or totally destroyed share, crop specific

The way the production is then utilised can vary, depending on the type of product or crop,

where for instance milk and eggs are mainly produced for private consumption whereas corn

is more likely to be sold. In addition 3.5 percent of the total production of crops is either

shared with friends or neighbours, or given away to more vulnerable households of the

community Table 10. The sold part of the production is an important source of income, such

as is done on a larger scale as for rice and corn, which is mainly sold at the end of the season.

On the other hand fish catch as well as vegetables and eggs or milk are sold on a daily basis or

once a week and generates mainly cash for covering the short term expenditures, as oil, sugar

or even other food needs.

Tenant

agreement Share cropping

29.4 44.6

Share for land

owner out of

the harvest in

%

Crop % of HH cultivating Area planted (ha) % totally destroyed % partially destroyed

Rice 96.0 1.44 58.0 27.7

Corn 8.5 2.90 58.5 25.2

Vegetables 24.6 0.24 75.3 12.0

Coconut 34.9 1.75 47.6 27.2

Banana 37.8 1.43 90.1 9.2

Fruit trees 12.6 0.94 68.3 21.4

19

Table 10 Utilization of own production, crop or produce specific

The main assets in the rural economy of the Philippines are productive assets, animals, land,

houses and valuables, such as jewellery and household items, of which the last ones are

mainly managed by women. Productive assets are defined as either means of transport or

machinery and tools used for the different agricultural, fishery or post harvest processing

activities. Table 11 shows the average number per household of specific assets before the

typhoon and their numbers two months after the typhoon, during the time when the survey

was conducted.

Table 11 Agriculture asset before typhoon and three months after

The reduction in asset losses were reported as follows: 10.6 percent for hand-tractors, 7.7

percent for tractor carts, 7.3 percent for ploughs, 6.9 percent for harrows, 6.1 percent for

animal traction carts, 6.1 percent for irrigation pumps, 5.3 percent for sprayers and lastly 4.9

percent for levellers.

To ensure high yields and therefore a high level of food security, having access to irrigation is

a very important factor for agriculture production. The share of households with access to

irrigation water is 92.2 percent, which is quite high and conditioned by the fact that it was one

criteria of selection of the beneficiaries of the intervention. Due to the typhoon, many

channels may not be fully functional, as they need to be de-silted or the concrete structures

have to be fixed or rebuilt.

In general, animals are considered a valuable asset, as households invest cash savings into

livestock. Depending on the type of savings, they invest in different types of animals: large

livestock for long term savings and small ruminants or pigs for yearly savings. Poultry can be

considered a cash flow source. Offspring can be considered as the interest rate they obtain

Items% for

consumption

% given away for

free / shared% sold

Income generated by

selling HH (Php)

Vegetables 86.7 7.7 5.6 730

Milk 96.3 3.3 0.5 152

Eggs 93.6 3.6 2.8 250

Fish catch 90.7 3.0 6.3 19772

Rice 81.7 2.5 15.9 14337

Corn 66.7 1.4 31.9 19290

Type of assetNumber of

units before

Number of

units lost or

destroyed

Number of

units still

functional

Handtractor 1.19 1.07 0.91

Plow 1.15 1.06 0.96

Harrow 1.08 1.01 0.89

Leveller 1.07 1.02 0.93

Carabao-drawn cart 1.13 1.06 0.99

Tractor Cart 1.35 1.25 1.42

Irrigation Pumps hp 1.13 1.06 1.08

Sprayers 1.10 1.04 0.82

20

from their savings (animals) in addition to the value of the work done and the increased

market value of the actual animal.

In addition, animal products (milk, wool, skins and meat) are also an important source of

income, either for self consumption or marketing. Cows or buffalo are used for land

preparation and to a lesser extent for transport purposes. Some animals play an important role

for religious purposes or during family ceremonies, such as weddings, funerals, etc.

In Figure 7 the actual average number of livestock per owning beneficiaries’ household is

given in comparison to their holdings pre typhoon situation.

Figure 7 Livestock owning households and their actual and pre typhoon numbers

The figure above provides also the average numbers of animals either sold or slaughtered

since the Typhoon out of the surviving animals, which is an important indicator of the

prevailing level of vulnerability of the affected household. This is done between 0.4 to 9.1

percent, according to the kind of animal; see actual shares in Errore. L'autoriferimento non

è valido per un segnalibro.. De-stocking of their animals is considered as a type of coping

mechanism, as the household are either slaughtering them for own consumption or are selling

their animals either alive or as meat in order to generate additional much needed cash to cover

other expenditures. See in Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un segnalibro. the

average the selling households have generated on average over the last three months.

Table 12 Average income generated form sold animals since the typhoon

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Cattle

Carabao

Pigs

Goats

Chicken

Ducks

Before Yolanda Sold since Yolanda Now after three months

Income generated in PhP Selling households in % Overall

Cattle 1.5 12571

Carabao 2.2 17953

Pigs 9.1 12885

Goats 0.4 3140

Chicken 2.6 1758

Ducks 1.1 568

21

6.4.1. Irrigation

The increasing volatility of the rainfall pattern in the Philippines has an effect on the

importance given to having access to irrigation; especially for extending the cropping period

into the dry season between the second and the first season. At the same time it is getting

increasingly important to secure the onset of the main monsoon season and bridging the dry

spell periods occurring from time to time. Taking into account that a second or even third rice

crop in the same year is becoming more and more popular, access to irrigation water is a

crucial factor for the livelihood to extend the cultivation period and mitigate the effects during

the dry spells of the year. Overall 51.5 percent of the interviewed households have access to

some kind of water irrigation. See in Figure 8 their main sources of water irrigation.

Figure 8 Sources of irrigation water

6.4.2. Agriculture practices

A range of different type of seeds was commonly used by the rice faming households. 52

percent of the rice seeds used was of local varieties, mainly from the previous season’s

harvest, followed by certified seeds with 33 percent and lastly 15 percent for hybrid varieties.

This last type is mainly either planted by more commercial oriented farmers or better off

farming households who could afford. Figure 9 shows the rice seed types used by region.

Figure 9 Types of rice seeds used pre typhoon, by region

38.7

12.32.4

47%

Rainfall Irrigation Natural effluents Pumped grondwater

15.0

15.3

34.7

27.8

50.3

56.9

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Region VI

Region VIII

% of households

Hybrid seeds Certified seeds Local varieties

22

A wide range of means and methods are used for the rice field land preparation and vary also

by region, see details in Figure 10. At the same time, it also depends on whether direct

sowing or transplanting will be done at a later stage and also, whether the household has cash

available for this specific activity. In fact, the cost depends on one side on the level of

mechanisation used and on the other, on the numbers of rounds which will be done. Some

household even use different methods, first a round of land preparation done by animal

traction followed by another round of land preparation by hand-tractor / motor-cultivator.

Figure 10 Method used for of rice field land preparation

Comparing the two regions of intervention on their planting methods for the ongoing season,

it becomes clear that in region VI transplanting is more commonly used that in region VIII.

This is mainly due to the fact that the rain period is shorter, and thanks to the use of nurseries

the process can be initiated earlier than in region VIII, where the period of planting extends

over a longer period of time. See more details in Figure 11.

Figure 11 Planting methods of by region

Aside of the planting methods, there are other follow up steps in the rice agriculture practices

which also have a long-term effect on the yield. Direct seeding can be done either through

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

Manual

Animal Traction

Motor cultivator

4 wheel tractor

% of households

Region VI Region VIII

Type of planting

59.8

0.0

40.2

100.0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Region VI

Region VIII

% of households

Direct seeding Transplanting

23

broadcasting of the seeds or direct drilling through placement of up to three seeds into the

same holes but following straight line spacing.

Per contrary for those who are using the transplanting method, the first step is related to the

raising of seedlings either through a wet bed, dapog (using either initially banana leaves but

more recently the pavement or tarpaulin in their courtyards) or through a dry bed. On average

they are transplanting seedlings at 20 days, 16 days and 19 days according to the seedling

raising method used. In a second moment, the transplantation could be either through

transplanting into straight row or through random planting. The following Figure 12 provides

the actual shares of implementation of the different methods and steps.

Figure 12 Sowing, type of nursery and transplanting methods used region specific

Type of direct sowing

94.5 5.5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Region VI

% of households

Broadcasting Direct drilling

Type of nursery

68.7

98.4

30.2

0.3

1.1

1.3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Region VI

Region VIII

% of households

Wet bed Dapog Dry bed

Method of transplanting

16.4

74.1

83.6

25.9

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Region VI

Region VIII

% of households

Straight Row Random Planting

24

Normally the beneficiaries are using either Urea or combined fertilizer (NPK) in their rice

fields and are bought by their own means. Table 13 provides the quantities normally applied,

area applied to as well as the frequencies of fertilizer applications per season, specified by

region.

Table 13 Additional fertilizer quantity, area and frequency, region specific

There are three methods for applying fertilizers: the most common one is through

broadcasting, followed by placement at the plant root stocks and thirdly by spraying it in a

liquid form, which is increasingly being used.

Figure 13 Ways of fertilizer application

6.4.3. Post harvest storage

The most common methods of storage today are PVC or Jute bags inside the house followed

by traditional storage constructions in the yards or in large baskets either placed outside or

inside the family house - see corresponding percentages in Figure 14.

Region Fertilizer

Household

applying fertilizer

in %

Quantity

added (kg)

Area

applied

(Ha)

Frequency

of

aplication

Urea 94.2 99.5 1.3

NPK 61.7 103.0 1.3

Urea 84.6 64.5 1.4

NPK 47.3 69.6 2.0

1.8

1.3

VI

VIII

97.1

96.1

3.4

2.3

0.5

0.7

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Urea

NPK

% of households

Broadcast Placement Spraying

25

Figure 14 Methods of storage used

6.5. Food security and diversity

The programme gave particular attention to nutrition (food availability and diversity) next to

food self sufficiency, which are both indicators of the level of resilience of the beneficiaries.

Table 14 shows the changes in the number of hot meals eaten per day by the different family

members, comparing the situation before and three months after the typhoon. On overall, the

numbers of meals has reduced by 3.3 percent from the situation before the typhoon.

Table 14 Actual meals per day gender and age specific

Not only the food availability but also the food diversity is a major parameter to look at the

overall nutritional situation of the households. Therefore, the diversity of food group intake on

a week recall was recorded and shows the household food diversity. Table 15 shows the

actual frequency of food groups intake three months after the typhoon.

Table 15 Frequency of food group intake

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

PVC bags

Natural fibre bags

Closed plastic container

Closed clay pots

Open in-house

Rice granary

Others

region VI region VIII

Before After Before After

Children 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.9

Adults 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8

Age groupMale Female

Food group Intake / week

Cereals 6.8

Tubers 2.5

Legumes 2.5

Meat 1.7

Fish 4.7

Eggs 3.0

Fruits 2.7

Vegetables 5.7

Oil / fat 4.3

Sugar / sweets 5.9

24

12

50

12

78

60

20

67

34

56

34

30

32

12

40

30

12

34

54

45

40

12

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Tubers

Legumes

Meat

Fish

Eggs

Fruits

Vegetables

Oil / fat

Sugar / sweets

Own production Market / borrowed / on credit Gifts / food assistance Others sources

26

The origin of the different food groups are shown in Figure 15, which can be either from own

production, bought on the market (either by cash or credit) or obtained as a gift or through

food assistance. Overall the sampled households, the majority of the food groups are mainly

bought from the markets, except for rice and vegetables which are mainly from own

production. A share of the rice, legumes and sugar was also obtained through food assistance.

Figure 15 Origin of the different food groups

6.6. Coping mechanisms

The majority of the households are normally able to cover their basic needs, even when they

face times of hardship along the year. These times can last for a short period of time (up to

three months), during which mainly the following coping mechanisms are used: reduction of

food quantities, reduction of food diversity, acquisition of food on credit, asking for free food,

reducing the number of children schooling, selling of poultry generating some cash income, as

well as cutting back on the medical expenditures and non food expenditures.

If the hardship lasts over a longer period of time (up to six months), other coping mechanisms

are put in place such as the following: looking for additional sources of income, sending

children / women to work, skipping a meal per day, migrating for work. Here the traditional

livelihood pattern is directly affected as in addition to the usual activities, new activities are

pursued in order to increase their income source.

Lastly, if the hardship extends over more than half a year and an improvement of the situation

is not foreseen, actually de-stocking of the livelihood assets are the last means used to face

such a situation, mainly using the following coping mechanisms: selling-off livestock,

productive assets, land, jewellery, sending children to close families or in extreme cases the

household migrate into the cities hoping finding there a job. The effects of these coping

70.0

37.2

24.3

3.9

5.5

22.1

21.4

52.7

3.0

3.3

12.8

59.2

60.6

86.9

92.6

77.0

77.0

44.3

86.9

83.8

17.0

14.8

8.9

9.5

12.2

1.2

1.2

0.3

1.0

2.3

0.6

0.6

1.8

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.3

0.3

1.3

0.1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cereals

Tubers

Legumes

Meat

Fish

Eggs

Fruits

Vegetables

Oil / fat

Sugar / sw eets

Ow n production Market / borrow ed / on credit Gifts / food assistance Others sources

27

mechanisms depend on one hand on the level of resilience and wealth of the household and on

the other hand on whether the household had already endured some hardship periods

beforehand and a certain level of destitution has already taken place.

93.4 percent of the interviewed households have used one of the different coping mechanisms

at least once over the last month in order to be able to cover their basic needs, see figure 17

for the frequency of the different types of coping mechanisms.

Figure 16 Frequency of coping mechanisms used

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Eat le

ss p

refe

rred

sta

ple-

food

Eat le

ss q

uant

ity p

er m

eal

Eat le

ss m

eals

a da

y

Skip

mea

ls a

full da

y

Adults

less

food

- chi

ldre

n no

rmal

qua

ntity

Borro

w fo

od o

r buy

on c

redit

Rel

y on

free

food

or f

ood

assistanc

e

Sell h

ouse

hold

item

s

Sell p

rodu

ctive

asse

ts

Sell lan

d

Borro

w m

oney

Do

othe

r job

s th

an u

sual

Not

sen

ding

chi

ldre

n to

sch

ool

Send

child

ren

to re

lativ

es

28

7. Feedback on the received FAO assistance and distribution process

7.1. Utilization of the received assistance and estimated production

Overall the beneficiary households 94 percent (rice) and 95 percent (fertilizer) have received

the foreseen quantities. An average of 41 kg of rice seeds and 50.5 kg of Urea fertilizer per

households was obtained instead of the foreseen 40 kg and 50 kg for fertilizer. The rice seeds

were planted on an average area of 0.8 ha, as well as the fertilizer. Table 16 shows the

utilization of the received inputs.

Table 16 Utilization of received inputs

Overall 44.4 percent of the beneficiary households have planted only the received FAO seeds,

where some 55.6 percent of beneficiary households have added own rice seeds, either from

their own previous season’s production, purchased on the market or received as a donation

from another humanitarian agency or from a government department. For households who

added their own seeds, the average amount of rice seed amounted to 91.6 kg. Resulting in a

replanted area of 1.4 ha in between the FAO and own added seeds.

The rating given by the beneficiaries on the quality and usefulness of the received inputs are

shown in Figure 17. In general the quality was rated 3.4 on average on a scale of 1 (poor) and

4 (excellent); where the usefulness was rated slightly higher with an average of 3.5 on a scale

of 1 (not useful at all) to 4 (very useful).

Figure 17 Rating of quality and usefulness of the received inputs by region

Type of input

Overall

quantity

received per

HH (kg)

Percentage

used

Percentage

shared with

others

Percentage in stock

/ not yet usedPercentage sold

Rice seeds 42.6 85.3 0.8 13.7 0.1

Fertilizer 50.3 69.1 1.1 19.7 0.2

Rice seeds

4.1

3.2

5.7

3.2

33.5

32.5

84.6

63.3

62.4

64.3

9.8

33.5

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Quality

Usefulness

Quality

Usefulness

Regio

n V

IR

egio

n V

III

% of households

Fair Good Excellent

29

Overall the ratings of quality and usefulness was higher in Region VI than in Region VIII, this

is due to the fact that on one hand the production conditions in Region VI are better and the

distribution of the rice seed package was carried out earlier. The beneficiaries also rated

different rice seed quality parameters including germination rate and crop stand as well as

their overall level of satisfaction with the rice seeds. In those occasions normally a farmer

compares the actual quality with what he is used to getting from the seeds he usually plants.

In this case the average rating for germination was 3.5 and crop stand 3.4 on a scale of 1

(poor) and 4 (excellent), more details are given in Figure 18. Therefore it is not surprising

that the overall level of satisfaction was also rated on average 3.4 on a scale of 1 (not

satisfactory at all) to 4 (very satisfactory).

Figure 18 Rating of rice seeds quality parameters

Fertilizer

2.9

2.0

3.3

20.0

39.5

34.6

85.7

50.0

57.6

63.4

11.0

30.0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Quality

Usefulness

Quality

UsefulnessR

egio

n V

IR

egio

n V

III

% of households

Fair Good Excellent

Germination rate

4.1

5.4

26.2

81.3

69.7

13.4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Region VI

Region VIII

% of households

Fair Good Excellent

Crop stand

5.2

13.9

35.9

75.7

58.9

10.4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Region VI

Region VIII

% of households

Fair Good Excellent

30

Thanks to the favourable production conditions up to the moment of the survey and without

any major pest or disease outbreaks, the prospects for a high yield are very promising.

Taking the corresponding region-specific yields into account, and using the actual areas

planted with received FAO seeds Table 17 provides the expected estimated rice production.

Table 17 Quantity of rice seeds, % planted and expected rice yield per household

Taking into account the percentage of seeds planted and the seeding rate, an estimated milled

rice production of 1,760 kg per household is expected from distributed rice seed packages.

This is somewhat below the expected 3,450 Kg / Ha paddy yield (resulting in 2,070 kg milled

rice yield per hectare) mainly due to the fact that on average 85 percent of the seeds were

planted and over a larger area as expected. The actual production results will be assessed

during the harvest period, where a crop cutting survey is foreseen to be conducted as well as

the post harvest survey.

Nevertheless the resulting harvest is enough to ensure the self-sufficiency in rice (750 kg) for

each household of 5 members as well as offering potential to generate income from surplus.

The surplus varies for those households who have to give a share of the harvest to land-

owners if in a share cropping (around 45 percent) or tenancy agreement (around 30 percent).

Value for money calculations have been made, based on the overall input costs and taking

into account the cost/value of farmers’ contributions either in labour or in-kind for land rent or

share cropping, see tables in Annex 10.4.

7.2. Aspects of the Accountability to Affected Population

A special focus was given to Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP), during this

survey, which provides more in-depth information on FAO’s distribution process and the

information on beneficiary satisfaction. It also gives additional information on how FAO has

to improve the process for future distributions in similar types of interventions.

Of the interviewed beneficiaries, 95.7 percent in Region VI and 91.3 percent in Region VIII

were aware about the distributions: location and timing, and had some initial information on

Overall satisfaction

7.1

7.2

36.1

85.5

56.8

7.2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Region VI

Region VIII

% of households

Somehow satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied

Region

Average

quantity Seeds

received

Average

percentage of

seeds planted

Estimated rice

production in kg

Region VI 41.2 92.1 1963.7

Region VIII 40.5 64.7 1356.0

31

the programme. Figure 19 shows the sources where beneficiaries found out where and when

the distributions of the rice and fertilizers would take place.

Figure 19 Source of information on distribution

The beneficiaries rated the quality of the distribution process at an average of 3.3 on a scale of

1 (poor) to 4 (excellent); see regional shares in Figure 20. Overall 96 percent of the

beneficiaries in Region VI considered the information provided on the distribution venue as

clear enough, whereas in Region VIII this percentage was 93.

Figure 20 Rating of distribution process

Of all respondents 92 percent and 77 percent of beneficiaries from Regions VI and VII

respectively had still consulted with local agriculture staff on the distribution venue, in order

to be sure they got the correct information or because it was their only source of information.

In addition to the information provided either by the Municipal Agriculture Officer (MAO) or

the FAO field staff on the programme and criteria of selection, the beneficiaries were still

needed the following additional information: more specific information on time and location

of distribution as well as on the process of livelihood recovery foreseen or to be expected, see

actual shares in Figure 21.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

DA off icials

Provincial Agriculturist

Municipal Agriculturist

Bgy captain/off icials

Other LGU off icials not

related to agri

Relative

Friend

Radio

Neighbor

Others

Region VI Region VIII

3.9

17.1

36.5

81.1

59.6

1.8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Region VI

Region VIII

Fair Good Excellent

32

Figure 21 Other information needs

The beneficiaries considered the recovery of their livelihoods and sources of temporary or

permanent income as the most important information to know aside from information on the

intervention, the moment the survey had been conducted, some other information was

mentioned to a lesser extent as shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22 Important types of information

The most preferred source of information or way to reach the beneficiaries is in decreasing

order of preference: DA staff, other Governmental partners such as LGU officials or the

MAO, radio and lastly through leaflets, peers or noticeboard at the Barangay office. Some

differences were recorded between the two regions, as shown in Figure 23.

46.6

29.6

12.3

9.8

1.6

34.5

40.8

2.3

8.6

13.8

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Time/date of distribution

Recovery/livelihood info

Educatoin and health info

How to use seeds/fertilizers

Others

Region VI Region VIII

89.0

4.7

2.6

0.8

1.5

70.5

8.1

7.8

1.9

0.3

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Livelihood

Home

Health services

Children

Women

Region VI Region VIII

33

Figure 23 Preferred source of information

24 percentage of respondents mentioned that some households in the communities were

excluded from receiving rice seed assistance, with 16.5 percent in Region VI and 31.3 percent

in Region VIII. This is mainly due to the fact that the shares that should have been covered by

DA and some other partners (such as GIZ) were not filled and left some of the affected

population without assistance.

A specific question was included in the questionnaires to find out if any favour or payment

was made by the affected population to somebody in the community, municipality or to

another actor involved in the implementation of the intervention that would ensure they were

included in the list of beneficiaries. Even if the response should be taken with caution, as it

was in many cases very sensitive for the respondent to answer it, it still provides some

indicative information. Overall only 14.4 percentage of respondents mentioned that some

payments had to be made, with 11.7 percent in Region VI and 17.2 percent in Region VIII.

This is justified as it covered the costs of transport either from the regional warehouse to the

municipality or where a common transport has been organised by the Barangay captain to

transport all the goods back to the village.

89.2

72.7

4.2

6.8 16.6

1.0

1.9

1.6

2.0

0.6

1.3

2.0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Region VI

Region VIII

From FAO/DA staff Radio Leaflets Peers Notice board Others

34

8. Non-FAO Assistance

8.1. Non-FAO assistance received

66 percent of FAO beneficiaries also received at least one kind of agriculture, fisheries or

livestock assistance from another typhoon response actor. Although no large differences were

experienced between Region VI and VIII, more seed support was provided in region VI and

more food and/or cash for work support was provided in region VIII. Figure 24 shows the

shares of households who received the specific types of non-FAO assistances.

Figure 24 Main Non-FAO assistance received

Figure 25 provides the main sources of non-FAO assistance received by the beneficiaries,

where the three main sources were: the Government through the Department of Agriculture

(DA) and Bureau of Fishery and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), followed by neighbours and

lastly NGOs or other humanitarian actors.

Figure 25 Sources of non-FAO assistance

Assistance84.7

2.4 1.1 0.4 3.1 6.20.4 0.3 0.3

54.8

0.9 0.9

43.5

1.00.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Seeds

Ferti

lizer

Seedlin

gs fr

uit / c

oconuts

Poultry

Pigs

Small r

umin

ants

Larg

e anim

als

Cash fo

r fre

e

Food/ C

ash fo

r work

Agric.

equip

ment

/ boa

t engin

es

Animal

vacc

ines

, tre

atm

ents

Other

s

Region VI Region VIII

Sources

0.7

10.8

64.9

14.5

6.51.2 1.50.7

7.4

87.5

1.5 0.0 0.02.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Relative

s

Neighbou

rs/fr

iends

Govern

ment

NGOs

Privat

e

Associa

tion /

CBO

Other

s

Region VI Region VIII

35

Beneficiaries rated different non-FAO assistance on a scale of 1 (poor) to 4 (excellent), see

details in Figure 26 for the different types of non-FAO assistance received.

Figure 26 Ratings of non-FAO assistance

5.9

36.8 29.4

22.2

100.0

22.7 16.3

100.0

50.0

61.2 64.7

77.8

100.0 100.0 100.0

77.381.5

50.0

100.0

2.22.00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Seeds Fertilizer Seedlings

fruit /

coconuts

Poultry Pigs Small

ruminants

Large

animals

Cash for

free

Food/ Cash

for w ork

Agric.

equipment /

boat

engines

Animal

vaccines,

treatments

Others

Fair Good Excellent

36

9. Outstanding needs

Overall seeds are still the main need reported in the agriculture sector, followed by fertilizer

and animals to a lesser extent. The needs in the fisheries sector are as follows: boat and engine

repair as well as the replacement of lost gear. Access to cash or cash-for-work activities were

also mentioned by a significant number of respondents.

Some significant differences were recorded between the two regions, where the needs

mentioned in region VIII are more varied and with a higher share for the assistance to the

fisheries sector, whereas the main needs in region VI were more agriculture-oriented with the

main need reported as seeds, animals and fertilizer and to a lesser extend the fisheries sector.

Figure 27 provides the regional details on short and medium term needs.

Figure 27 Main short / medium term needs for Region specific

Region VI58.2

12.0

2.1 1.65.9 7.8

2.0 0.8 2.05.85.3

12.3

0.2 1.21.8

53.4

4.8 3.8

11.9

4.2 2.20.7

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Seeds

Ferti

lizer

Seedlin

gs fr

uit / c

oconuts

Poultry

Animals

Cash fo

r fre

e

Food/ C

ash fo

r work

Fishin

g gea

r

Agric.

equip

ment

/ boa

t engin

es repa

ir

Animal

vacc

ines

, tre

atm

ents

Other

s

Short Medium

Region VIII

19.818.2

24.7

2.9

12.9

0.6 0.9

6.9

1.3

33.6

10.1

6.24.5

7.5

15.9

0.3

15.4

13.2

0.3

4.7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Seeds

Ferti

lizer

Seedlin

gs fr

uit / c

oconuts

Poultry

Animals

Cash fo

r fre

e

Food/ C

ash fo

r work

Fishin

g gea

r

Agric.

equip

ment

/ boa

t engin

es repa

ir

Animal

vacc

ines

, tre

atm

ents

Other

s

Short Medium

37

10. Annex

10.1. Location of rice package distributions, Municipality level

REGION PROVINCE MUNICIPALITY RiceSeeds

VI

AKLAN

Balete 100

Banga 100

Ibajay 200

Kalibo 100

Madalag 100

Makato 100

Nurmancia 100

ANTIQUE

Barbasa 400

Bugasong 113

Culasi 38

Hamtic 20

Lawa-an 66

Libertad 3

San Jose 45

Sebaste 76

Sibalom 19

Valderama 20

CAPIZ

Cuartero 310

Dumalag 740

Ivisan 330

Jamindan 630

Maayon 216

Mambusao 790

Panay 144

Panitan 300

Pontevedra 263

Sigma 320

ILOILO

Balasan 280

Barotac Viejo 300

Batad 168

Bingawan 310

Carles 83

Concepcion 275

Estancia 29

Lemery 600

Passi 92

San Dionisio 110

San Rafael 50

38

Sara 788

NEGROS

OCCIDENTAL

Cadiz 199

Calatrava 98

D.S. Benedicto 30

EB Magalona 40

Escalante 20

Himamaylan 38

Hinigaran 48

Ilog 38

Isabela 38

La Carlota 38

Manapla 65

Moises Padilla 38

Murcia 38

San Carlos 65

San Enrique 38

Silay 25

Sipalay 11

Toboso 55

Valladolid 38

Victorias 40

VIII

LEYTE

Abuyog 1,950

Alangalang 3,317

Babatngon 1,101

Barugo 1,022

Burauen 1,883

Capoocan 690

Carigara 1,900

Dagami 2,490

Jaro 1,210

La Paz 692

Palo 1,970

Pastrana 1,500

San Miguel 2,022

Sta. Fe 2,412

Tabon tabon 1,410

Tacloban 330

Tanauan 1,830

Tolosa 645

Tunga 125

SAMAR Basey 2,946

Sta. Rita 2,486

Blue highlighted municipalities denote where the post distribution survey has been carried out

39

10.2. Rice post distribution survey questionnaire

Post distribution monitoring questionnaire

Yolanda Response, Philippines 2014

Enumerator’s Name : _____________________________ Date : ___________

Geographical information:

Province: ____________________________ Municipality: ___________________________

Barangay: ____________________________

1. Respondent: head of HH (1), spouse (2), other adult living in HH (3), grown up child (4), others (5), specify: _________

2. Gender/Type of head of household: male (1), female (0),

3. Special HH head: widower (1), elderly (2), child headed (3), single mother (4), normal (5) others (6), others please

specify:___________________

4. Age of HH Head: __________.years old Age of Spouse: __________ years old

5. Family constitution:

Male Female

Children below 5

Children 5 to 18

Adults (19 and above)

Number of disabled adults

Number of disabled children

6. Are you an Agrarian Reform Program beneficiary? Yes (1), No (0)

7. Are you a member of any community-based organization? Yes (1), No (0)

If yes, please indicate type of organization: cooperative (1), women group (2), farmer group (3), fishery group (5), youth

group (6), other (7), specify:………..................

8. Do you belong to any ethnic group? Yes (1), No (0)

If yes, please indicate name of ethnic group: ____________________________________

Livelihoods and Socio – economical aspects:

9. Main livelihood activities before Yolanda (* see codes below):

First: _______ Second: _______ Third: _______

10. Main livelihood activities now after Yolanda (* see codes below):

First: _______ Second: _______ Third: _______

Agriculture (1), fishery (2), livestock (3), trade (4), handicraft/manufacturer (5), salaried employed (6), skilled labourer (7),

agriculture daily labourer (8), other wage labourer (9), remittances (10), gifts donations (11), agro or fish processing (12),

transport (13), tourism (14), Government (15), Self-employed (16), Retired - Pension (17), others (18), specify:___________

If you answer Fishery (2), please answer numbers 11 to 14:

11. Are you boat owner?: Yes (1), No (0)

12. Are you a crew member of a boat?: Yes (1), No (0)

If yes in 11, answer numbers 13 and 14:

13. Are you employing crew members for fishing?: Yes (1), No (0)

14. How many crew members have you employed before Yolanda___________ now:_______

Quest. #

40

Asset ownership:

15. How many animals do you had before Yolanda, after and how many have you sold since Yolanda and estimate the

income generated from sold animals / meat?:

Type of Animal Before (# of

Heads)

After (# of

Heads)

# of Heads Slaughtered / sold

after Yolanda

Income generated

PhP

Cattle

Buffalo / Carabao

Pigs

Goats

Chicken

Ducks

16. Land cultivation this season but before Yolanda:

Crop Area planted

(Ha)

Percentage area totally

destroyed (%)

Percentage of area partially

destroyed (%)

Rice

Corn

Vegetables

Coconut

Banana

Fruit trees

17. Out of your total cultivated rice land which percentage is: Rainfed ……%, Irrigated……….%

18. Land tenure during this season:

Which land are do you

own and is actual

cultivated ?

Which area have you got under a

tenant agreement?

……… Ha

Which are got you under a shared

cropping agreement

………. Ha

Total Area in Ha:

__________% Farmer

__________% Land Owner

__________% Farmer

__________% Land Owner

19. Agriculture / fishery assets:

Type Number of

units before

Number of

units lost or

destroyed

Number of units

still functional

Agriculture Production:

2-wheel tractor

Plow

Harrow

Leveller

Carabao-drawn cart

Tractor Cart

Irrigation Pumps

Sprayers

Fisheries

Small boat (3-17 feet)

Medium size boat (18-25 feet)

Large size boat (more than 35 feet)

Boat engine (16 HP)

Boat engine (90-110 HP)

Fishing gear Number of

units before

Number of

units lost or

Number of units

still functional

If No, Number of

if how many do

41

destroyed you still need

Hooks and lines (#hooks)

Cast nets (Throw Nets)

Ring nets

Bag nets

Cages (panggal)

Net1

Net2

Fish drying equip.

Fish smoking equip.

Mariculture Type or

characteristic

Area Before Area totally

destroyed

Area partially

destroyed

Sea weed farm Ha

Fish / shrimp farm Ha

Crab / oyster farm Ha

Food security and income:

20. How many meals have your HH members eaten yesterday and normally before Yolanda?

Male Female

Time period Before Yolanda Yesterday Before Yolanda Yesterday

Children

Adults

21. How often have you consumed the following items over the last week, and what are the sources of those items in

percentages?

Food items Frequency /

week

Sources of food groups in % of total

Own production

Market /

borrowed / on

credit

Gifts / food

assistance Others sources

Rice

Tubers

Legumes

Meat

Fish

Eggs

Fruits

Vegetables

Oil / fat

Sugar / sweets

Income generated from own produced goods

22. How have you used your own produced goods over the last month, and estimate the income it has generated?:

Items % Consumed at

home

% Given away

for free / shared % Sold

If sold, how much

income (Php)

Vegetables

Milk

Eggs

Fish catch

Rice

Corn

42

Coping mechanisms:

23. Over the last 30 days after Yolanda, have you done at least one of the following actions?

Items Yes (1), No

(0) Items

Yes (1), No

(0)

Eat less preferred staple-food Sell household items

Eat less quantity per meal Sell productive assets

Eat less meals a day Sell land

Skip meals a full day Borrow money

Adults less food - children normal quantity Do other jobs than usual

Borrow food or buy on credit Not sending children to school

Rely on free food or food assistance Send children to relatives

Credits:

24. Had you debts before Yolanda?: Yes (1), No (0)

25. How much was the amount before Yolanda?: Php_______________

26. Have you taken new credits since Yolanda?: Yes (1), No (0)

27. How much was the amount of new credits?: Php_______________

Assistance:

28. Access to and utilization of FAO input

29. Which quantity of rice seeds have you planted in addition to the FAO seeds: ……..…kg

30. Quality and usefulness of FAO inputs:

Type of input Rating of quality (refer to

ratings below)

Rating of usefulness*, (refer to

ratings below)

Rice seeds

Urea fertilizer

Hoe

Shovel

Machete

Rating: poor (1), fair (2), good (3), excellent (4)

Agricultural practices:

Seed storage:

31. Where or how are you storing your seed stocks? (circle maximum three) in PVC bags (1), natural fibre bags (2), closed

plastic container (3), closed clay pots (4), open in-house (5), Rice granary (6), others (7), specify:

___________________

32. How have you prepared the land? (cicle maximum three): Manual (1), with animal traction (2), by motor-cultivator 2

wheel tractor (3), by 4 wheel tractor (4), others (5), please specify:………

33. Type of rice seeds used before Yolanda in percentage: Hybrid seed: …..%, Certified seeds: ……%, local varieties:

……………%

Type of input

Variety

Planted

(Rice)

Quantity received

in kg

Percentage

planted / used

until now

Percentage

shared to

others

Percentage in

stock / not yet

used

Percentage

sold

Area

Planted

(Ha)

Rice seeds

Fertilizer

Tools Nbrs. received Nbrs in use Nbrs shared Nbrs stock Nbrs sold

Hoe

Shovel

Machete

43

34. How have you sown the seeds? (Choose one between Direct Seeding or Transplanting)

Direct Seeding (DS) (1) Transplanting (TPL) (0)

If you did DS: If you did TPL:

Broadcasting (0) 1st Step 2nd Step

Direct-drill (1) Wet Bed (1) Straight Row (0)

Dapog (2) Random Planting (1)

Dry Bed (3)

If Transplanting method was selected:

35. After how many days you transplant the seedlings? ______________days

36. Fertilizer Application:

Type Quantity (kg) Mode* On which area (Ha) Number of times until now

Urea

NPK

*Codes for mode: (1) Broadcast, (2) Placement (3) spraying

37. Main source of water for farming (tick only one): Rainfall (1), Irrigation (2), Natural effluents (river, basin, lake, …) (3),

Pumped groundwater (4), Others (5), please, specify: …………………………

Feedback on received seeds until now:

38. How would you rate the germination of the FAO seeds: poor (below 40%) (1); fair (60% to 40%) (2), Good (61 to 84%)

(3), Excellent (above 85%) (4)

39. How would you rate the crop stand until now: Poor (1), Fair (2), Good (3), Excellent (4)

40. Are you satisfied with the seeds from FAO?: Not Satisfied at all (1), somehow satisfied (2), Satisfied (3), Very Satisfied

(4)

Accountability to Affected Population:

41. How did you hear of planned distributions?: Through (Check maximum three): DA officials/employees (Regional,

Provincial, and/or Municipal) (1), Provincial Agriculturists (2), Municipal Agriculturists (3), Barangay captains and/or

Barangay officials (4), Other LGU officials not related to agriculture (5), relative (6), friend (7), radio (8), neighbour (9),

others (10) please specify:____________

42. Was the information clearly provided? Yes (1), No (0)

43. Did a local agriculture staff speak with you about the project? (probe assessment and validation): Yes (1), No (0)

44. Did you receive information about the process of distribution and what you are entitled to receive? Yes (1), No (0)

45. Are you aware what the distribution is for? Yes (1), No (0)

46. What other information would you be interested to know? (Check maximum three): time/date of distributions (1),

Recovery/livelihood info (2), education and health info (3), how to use seeds/fertilizers (4), others (5), specify:

________________

47. What kind of information is important for you? (Check maximum three): livelihood (1), home (2), health services (3),

children (4), women (5), other (6), specify:____________

48. How would you like to receive information about the seeds/fertilizers/agri inputs? (Check one): from FAO/DA staff (1),

radio (2), leaflets (3), peers (4), notice board (5), others (6), specify __________

49. Rank the way the distribution was organized: Poor (1), Fair (2), Good (3), Excellent (4)

50. Did you notice vulnerable households who were excluded from the list?: Yes (1), No (0) If yes, specify which

one:___________________

51. Did you have to pay, give part of the assistance, or provide special favours to anyone in order to be on the beneficiaries

list?: Yes (1), No (0), If yes, specify to who: ): DA officials/employees (Regional, Provincial, and/or Municipal) (1),

44

Provincial Agriculturists (2), Municipal Agriculturists (3), Barangay captains and/or Barangay officials (4), Other LGU

officials not related to agriculture (5), others (6) please specify:…………….

Other assistance received:

52. Which other agriculture, fishery or livestock assistance have you received since Yolanda:

Type of assistance received

*see codes Quantity received

Source of assistance ** see

codes

Rank usefulness ***

see codes

*Codes for assistance: seeds (1) fertilizer (2), seedlings fruit / coconut trees (3), poultry (4), pigs (5), small ruminants (6),

large animals - cattle / Carabao (7), cash for free (8), Food or cash / work (9), boat replacement or repair (10), fishing gear

(11), replacement or repair agriculture machinery or boat engines (12), animal vaccination /medicament / treatment (13),

others (14), specify: ………………………

** Codes for sources: relatives (1), neighbours/friends (2), government (3), NGO (4), private (5), associations / people

groups (6), others (7), specify:_________________________

*** Codes for usefulness: poor (1), fair (2), good (3), excellent (4)

Outstanding Needs:

Three main needs related to agriculture, fishery or livestock:

53. Short term / immediate needs * (within the next 3 month until next rice harvest).

1st :_________________ 2nd :____________________ 3rd: __________________

54. Medium term needs * (after the upcoming rice harvest until end of the next monsoon).

1st :_________________ 2nd :____________________ 3rd: __________________

*Codes for needs: seeds (1) fertilizer (2), seedlings fruit / coconut trees (3), poultry (4), pigs (5), small ruminants (6), large

animals - cattle / Carabao (7), cash for free (8), Food or cash / work (9), boat replacement or repair (10), fishing gear (11),

replacement or repair agriculture machinery or boat engines (12), animal vaccination /medicament / treatment (13), others

(14), specify: ………………………

55. what is the area for rice which you are normally cultivating………………ha,

and how many bags are you normally production from this area:…………………bags.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME

45

10.3. Locations of rice post distribution survey

46

10.4. Value for money calculation for rice seed intervention

Value inputs per HH includes all

project costs USD Costs labour/rent Unit costs PHP Units Day/hrs Total PHP Total USD Men Women

Total cost per package per HH

(USD 3,245,196 / HH 43854) 74.00 Rice Production

Land preparation 5,500 1 handtractor total 5,500 125.00 x

Fertilizer application 400 2 per applications 800 18.18 x x

Weeding 250 5 per weeding days 1,250 28.41 x x

Pesticide App. 600 3 per applications 1,800 40.91 x

Irrigation 600 1 seasonal fee total 600 13.64 x

Harvesting 400 3 mandays 1,200 27.27 x x

Threshing 1,000 1 machinery day 1,000 22.73 x

Hauling Fee 1,020 1 lumpsum 1,020 23.18

Own land 0 0.00

Total cost activities per HH: 13,170 299.32

Average total area cultivated: 1.00 HectaresProduction Unit price PHP Quantity in kg Total PHP Total USD

Rice Seeds 40.00 90 3,600 81.82

Grain production 17.7 1,670 29,559 671.80

Total value production: 33,159 753.61

Total value inputs (FAO's contribution) 3,256 74.00

Total cost activities (farmer's contribution): 13,170 299.32

Total net generated value per HH in USD (Rice) 380.30

Net USD value to HH from Rice Production excl. cost of FAO inputs 679.61

Cost-benefit Analysis per HH - Production value/input & labor costs 2.02

Cost-benefit Analysis - for every USD 1 of FAO support 10.18

FAO's Yolanda Response / Value for money calculation per HH - irrigated direct sowing rice package1 HA rice field

Activities done by

47

10.5. Province specific datasets

Table 18 Composition of the households and ages of household head and spouse

Table 19 Social network or membership of specific groups

Table 20 Fishing parameters

Composition of household Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

Children < 5 years male 0.21 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.33 0.19 0.18

Children < 5 years female 0.11 0.23 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.31

Boys 0.54 0.61 0.58 0.45 0.80 0.74 0.93

Girls 0.39 0.60 0.42 0.43 0.83 0.72 0.85

Men 1.49 1.37 1.31 1.25 1.40 1.90 1.94

Women 1.57 1.15 1.27 1.20 1.13 1.69 1.61

Age head of HH 55.5 51.6 53.2 54.9 48.2 50.9 51.5

Age of spouse of HH Head 52.7 50.0 51.5 53.1 45.3 48.1 48.9

Social network Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

DARP beneficiary 66.7 76.0 43.9 49.3 63.0 39.2 29.6

Member of CBO 64.0 66.5 70.7 77.7 73.9 42.0 69.9

Member of indigenous people 3.9 2.1 0.5 2.8 1.2 0.0 0.0

Fishing parameters Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

Boat owner in % 2.6 0.4 4.0 0.0 0.6 2.8 13.4

Boat crew member in % 15.8 14.6 10.6 9.5 5.5 9.8 21.0

Boat owner employing crew in % 2.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.6 0.7 8.1

Number of crews before typhoon 4.7 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.2

Number of crews actually 3.0 1.7 0.0 1.5 0.8

48

Table 21 Land type and land tenure and sharing of harvest

Table 22 Crops planted and area under cultivation per household

Table 23 Level of destruction of various crops cultivated before the typhoon

Land type and tenure Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

Rainfed % 54.9 81.5 12.3 60.8 14.3 43.7 86.3

Irrigated % 45.1 18.5 87.7 39.2 85.7 56.3 13.7

HH owning land in % 68.0 72.5 66.7 77.7 88.5 64.3 90.9

Own land in Ha 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.4 2.9 1.8 1.7

HH with tenant agreement in % 48.2 48.9 46.0 27.0 35.2 8.4 0.5

Tenant agreement Ha 5.8 2.0 1.7 13.6 2.4 1.8 5.5

HH with share cropping in % 21.1 19.3 22.2 5.2 18.8 0.0 0.0

Sharecropping agreement Ha 2.3 1.6 1.6 28.2 2.9

% of harvest for farmer tenenat agreement 59.2 65.4 55.5 58.7 70.2 73.1 50.0

% of harvest for farmer under share cropping 59.7 54.6 50.8 56.8 55.8

% planting Area % planting Area % planting Area % planting Area % planting Area % planting Area % planting Area

Rice 97.8 1.31 98.3 1.76 98.0 1.30 97.2 0.99 99.4 1.28 83.9 1.94 93.5 1.65

Corn 5.3 9.36 15.5 1.43 5.6 0.70 2.8 10.93 21.2 2.29 8.4 1.40 2.2 0.51

Vegetables 22.4 0.26 33.9 0.25 19.7 0.18 21.3 0.19 27.9 0.14 28.7 0.45 18.3 0.25

Coconuts 20.2 1.21 20.6 2.67 26.8 0.77 38.4 1.12 21.2 1.20 55.9 2.00 71.5 2.39

Banana 26.8 3.33 37.8 0.31 29.8 0.98 44.5 1.43 24.8 0.28 49.7 2.18 54.8 1.45

Fruit trees 11.8 0.51 13.3 1.88 8.1 0.66 21.3 0.26 13.3 0.40 12.6 0.72 7.0 3.54

Samar LeyteCrops

Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental

% totally

destroyed

% partially

destroyed

% totally

destroyed

% partially

destroyed

% totally

destroyed

% partially

destroyed

% totally

destroyed

% partially

destroyed

% totally

destroyed

% partially

destroyed

% totally

destroyed

% partially

destroyed

% totally

destroyed

% partially

destroyedRice 60.7 25.8 62.8 22.5 58.6 26.8 54.1 22.6 64.1 32.5 50.9 32.9 52.3 34.6

Corn 67.5 14.2 54.4 29.6 61.8 38.2 43.3 0.8 57.4 29.4 68.3 15.0 62.5 12.5

Vegetables 72.6 9.2 71.5 16.8 68.6 18.7 61.4 16.3 76.6 12.5 88.6 0.5 94.4 5.6

Coconuts 55.0 26.1 64.0 28.1 46.8 29.8 57.2 31.2 33.0 38.4 41.4 18.9 41.8 26.6

Banana 94.0 4.0 91.0 9.6 90.2 11.7 82.0 18.4 81.6 16.8 93.7 2.3 94.8 4.1

Fruit trees 87.8 3.9 70.0 21.6 73.8 21.3 53.0 34.6 51.4 30.5 83.8 6.7 73.8 20.8

CropsCapiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

49

Table 24 Type of animals before and actual

Table 25 Animals sold since the typhoon and income generated

Table 26 Farm assets before and actual functionning

Type of animals

Timing Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual

Cattle 2.1 1.2 2.3 1.5 2.3 2.1 2.4 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.3

Carrabao 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.9 1.1 1.8 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.2

Pigs 3.3 2.1 2.8 1.9 2.6 1.7 3.0 1.9 2.6 2.3 3.1 2.5 2.7 1.3

Goats 4.0 1.8 2.9 1.9 2.7 2.2 4.7 3.1 2.4 1.8 4.2 3.4 1.0 0.5

Chicken 13.9 6.3 17.5 7.6 15.7 7.3 14.5 7.8 15.4 8.0 10.7 5.6 11.4 3.3

Ducks 10.2 5.5 12.2 6.3 19.9 13.9 11.6 6.4 14.2 10.8 5.6 3.3 6.9 3.5

Samar LeyteNegros OccidentalIloilo Antique AklanCapiz

Sold since PhP Sold since PhP Sold since PhP Sold since PhP Sold since PhP Sold since PhP Sold since PhP

Cattle 0.4 25000.0 0.1 13666.7 0.2 10500.0 0.3 10625.0 0.3 5000.0 0.1 26833.3

Carrabao 0.2 14916.7 0.1 16500.0 0.1 9854.0 0.1 12516.7 0.6 7976.2

Pigs 1.1 22730.4 0.6 12531.6 0.6 15911.8 0.5 12700.0 0.3 3667.0 0.4 4559.4 0.5 1000.0

Goats 0.3 3700.0 2.2 3666.7 0.7 2000.0

Chicken 1.7 929.2 1.2 742.5 2.4 2290.0 0.9 4441.7 0.6 305.0 0.6 205.0

Ducks 1.0 1650.0 0.5 1.3 3000.0

Type of animalsCapiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

Farm assets

Timing Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual

Handtractor 1.16 1.06 1.16 0.94 1.33 1.18 1.26 1.16 1.05 1.26 0.83 1.09 0.62

Plow 1.14 0.88 1.17 0.97 1.13 1.01 1.00 0.67 1.14 1.08 1.26 0.97 1.08 0.90

Harrow 1.04 0.83 1.04 0.89 1.11 1.05 1.24 0.68 1.09 1.00 1.06 0.81 1.05 0.70

Leveler 1.09 0.93 1.01 0.85 1.07 1.00 1.05 0.79 1.15 1.08 1.09 0.89 1.03 0.87

Cart animals 1.24 0.97 1.11 1.00 1.04 0.95 1.25 1.00 1.10 1.07 1.06 0.88 1.23 1.00

Cart tractor 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.90 1.64 1.33 1.25 1.33 2.13 2.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Pump 1.05 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.46 1.50 1.16 1.17 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.00

Sprayer 1.08 0.89 1.19 0.94 1.11 0.89 1.01 0.64 1.06 0.84 1.13 0.58 1.04 0.64

Negros Occidental Samar LeyteCapiz Iloilo Antique Aklan

50

Table 27 Agriculture practice parameters

Seed types and agricultural practices Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

Hybrid seed in % 20.9 14.8 13.4 9.0 16.2 8.2 19.9

Certified seed in % 30.9 42.1 27.9 36.7 36.3 30.4 26.1

Local seed in % 48.2 43.1 58.7 54.3 47.5 61.4 54.0

Direct sowing 75.8 74.9 94.6 24.8 15.3 0.0 0.0

Direct drilling 2.8 2.4 2.6 34.0 12.0

Random transplanting 2.1 2.6 1.5 6.4 25.2 60.6 83.6

Average days at transplanting 12.6 14.3 19.8 17.1 18.9 19.9 19.9

Households applying Urea in % 94.9 96.5 95.1 95.0 87.7 80.3 87.7

Average quantity Urea applied 87.7 127.9 108.3 64.2 109.7 65.1 64.1

Area where quantity of Urea is applied Ha 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5

Frequency of Urea application 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.4 1.2

Households applying NPK in % 53.0 60.4 69.1 56.4 73.6 48.2 46.7

Average quantity NPK applied 94.1 103.9 104.1 90.7 121.5 76.7 64.5

Area where quantity of NPK is applied Ha 1.8 1.3 1.2 0.9 1.3 1.3 2.5

Frequency of NPK application 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.2

51

Table 28 Fishing assets before and actual

Table 29 Meals eaten by age groups before and actual

Fishing assets

Timing Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual Before Actual

Small boats 1.20 0.80 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.89 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.26

Medium boats 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 0.00 1.00 0.25

Large boats 1.00 0.00

Small boats engine 1.00 2.00 1.00

Large boats engine 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00

Hooks and lines 19.2 2.5 5.0 5.0 30.1 19.9 2.0 2.0 285.0 232.5 209.0 32.0

Cast nets 2.3 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0

Ring nets 2.7 2.5 1.8 1.8 3.7 0.6 9.5 0.8

Bag nets 1.5 0.5 1.8 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Cages 10.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 36.0 36.0 1.0 1.0 50.3 3.8

Fish drying equip. 1.00 1.00 25.0 0.0 25.5 0 1.0 1.0

Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

Meals per day Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

Children meals before 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9

Children meals after 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8

Adults meals before 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.8

Adults meals after 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.8

52

Table 30 Frequency of food groups intake actual

Table 31 Use of coping mechanisms over the last month

Food group intake frequency / week Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

Cereals 7.0 6.9 6.6 6.7 7.0 6.3 6.8

Tubers 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.1 3.4 2.3 2.3

Legumes 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.7 2.5 2.3

Meat 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.9 1.5 1.7 1.9

Fish 5.2 4.9 5.8 4.5 3.6 3.2 4.7

Eggs 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.4 2.9 3.0 3.3

Fruits 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.3 2.4

Vegetables 5.4 6.0 6.2 5.5 6.3 5.0 5.3

Oil / fat 4.0 3.7 3.9 4.6 3.6 4.8 5.6

Sugar / sweets 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 5.7 5.3 6.6

Coping mechanism in % of HH Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

Eat less preferred staple-food 54.7 51.1 43.1 60.4 50.3 43.5 72.8

Eat less quantity per meal 47.0 48.0 40.7 56.9 46.0 43.0 58.5

Eat less meals a day 42.4 47.1 37.3 55.9 46.0 43.5 66.2

Skip meals a full day 31.8 26.4 18.6 37.1 23.9 28.3 42.6

Adults less food - children normal quantity 43.2 45.8 41.7 58.9 51.5 35.9 55.9

Borrow food or buy on credit 60.6 61.2 52.0 64.9 60.1 28.7 37.4

Rely on free food or food assistance 52.1 46.3 36.3 58.4 35.6 33.8 75.4

Sell household items 2.5 5.3 2.5 3.0 4.3 0.8 9.7

Sell productive assets 5.5 5.7 4.9 10.4 4.3 1.7 10.8

Sell land 0.0 2.2 1.5 1.5 4.3 0.0 6.7

Borrow money 72.9 67.4 73.0 74.3 68.7 32.9 56.4

Do other jobs than usual 34.7 34.8 36.3 35.1 30.1 22.4 35.4

Not sending children to school 15.7 9.3 7.4 8.9 11.7 11.8 21.0Send children to relatives 4.7 2.2 3.9 1.5 0.6 8.4 5.1

53

Table 32 Level of indebtedness before and new credits taken since typhoon

Table 33 Utilization of FAO rice seed assistance

Indebtness of the households Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

HH with debt before typhoon 80.5 69.6 70.1 67.3 68.1 76.6 74.9

Average amount before PhP 16,434 13,592 16,308 21,381 11,828 24,620 12,994

HH with new debt since typhoon 68.6 64.8 68.1 62.9 65.0 54.7 55.4

Average amount of new debt PhP 13,948 20,130 20,129 16,801 12,634 16,229 11,975

FAO assistance Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

Rice seeds recevied in kg 42.4 41.4 42.2 35.6 44.8 44.0 38.1

Fertilizer recevied in kg 53.8 52.6 53.0 41.1 56.1 60.2 48.8

Rice seeds planted in % 95.1 92.9 93.3 83.1 94.9 82.7 52.1

Fertilizer used in % 68.8 81.7 75.6 68.2 93.3 48.1 53.1

Rice seeds shared in % 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.9 1.6 0.8 1.5

Fertilizer shared in % 1.2 1.4 0.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.4

Rice seeds in stock in % 4.9 6.0 6.0 16.0 3.5 16.4 45.9

Fertilizer in stock in % 17.4 10.1 19.2 12.2 6.7 40.7 36.0

Rice seeds sold in % 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fertilizer sold in % 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rice area planted in Ha 1.7 2.0 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.7 2.2

Quant. seeds added in Kg by adding HH 99.6 134.1 120.7 68.0 49.4 73.5 37.9

HH adding own rice seeds in % 71.2 57.7 64.7 61.9 48.5 44.5 32.3

54

Table 34 Main short-term needs

Table 35 Main medium-term needs

Short term needs Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

Seeds 60.6 45.8 63.2 64.4 49.7 7.3 4.6

Fertilizer 11.0 15.0 5.9 5.0 23.9 27.0 12.3

Seedlings fruit / coconuts 0.8 2.2 4.4 0.5 2.5 0.0 0.0

Poultry 0.8 3.1 1.5 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.0

Animals 4.7 7.9 6.4 5.0 4.9 3.6 4.6

Cash for free 6.8 10.6 4.9 8.9 6.7 13.1 19.5

Food/ Cash for work 1.7 1.3 2.0 1.0 4.3 21.9 23.6

Fishing gear 1.7 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Agric. equipment / boat engines repair 1.7 1.3 2.9 2.5 1.8 7.3 20.5

Animal vaccines, treatments 2.1 2.2 1.5 2.5 0.0 1.5 3.6

Medium term needs Capiz Iloilo Antique Aklan Negros Occidental Samar Leyte

Seeds 53.4 53.7 52.5 46.5 52.1 12.4 12.3

Fertilizer 5.1 3.5 2.5 5.9 6.7 5.8 3.6

Seedlings fruit / coconuts 5.5 4.4 2.5 3.5 1.8 0.0 1.0

Poultry 3.0 3.1 14.7 4.0 0.6 0.0 1.5

Animals 11.9 10.1 12.7 11.4 14.1 8.0 5.6

Cash for free 8.9 15.0 8.8 12.9 12.3 13.9 11.8

Food/ Cash for work 5.5 3.1 0.5 5.0 6.7 13.1 15.9

Fishing gear 1.3 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 1.0

Agric. equipment / boat engines repair 2.1 1.8 1.5 3.0 2.5 34.3 31.3

Animal vaccines, treatments 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0