Tag Archives: Poverty

Corruption and Poverty

Our country is in the midst of a social and economic crisis. In the latest World Bank estimates, 19% of the Filipino are considered very poor. This means that 14.8 million Filipinos try to survive on less than an American Dollar (US $1.00) a day. Despite economic expansion, however, there has been no improvement in economic conditions. Poor people have not been reaping the fruits of economic expansion, thereby worsening inequality.

The Philippine situation validates the finding in the World Bank report that economic growth does not automatically lead to poverty reduction. Francois Bourguignon, World Bank Chief Economist and Senior Vice President for Development Economics. Other factors, according to the 2007 world development indicators include health care, education, and the business environment.

The Constant Struggle to Become a Church of the Poor: Fifty Years after Vatican II

The Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP II) was convened in 1991 to officially articulate the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) and its implications for the Philippine Catholic Church. In the “Message of the Council to the People of the Philippines,” the delegates remarkably declared: “Christ bids this community—ourselves, the laity, religious and clergy of the Catholic Church in the Philippines—to be a Church of the Poor” (PCP II 1992, xcvi). There is no doubt that the expression church of the poor has become the core message of PCP II. Did this ecclesiological vision really originate from the final documents of Vatican II? How does one become a church of the poor in the Philippine context? Who are the poor to which the church herself must identify with? These are the main questions that this paper attempts to answer.

This paper has three main parts: The first part tries to do a critical remembering of the Vatican II event; the second part attempts to give a brief account of the contextualization of the church of the poor agenda in the Philippines; and the third part proposes an expanded meaning of the poor in the light of emerging insights from the social and ecological sciences.

A Critical Remembering of Vatican II

The concerns of poor countries are “not totally absent” in the final documents of Vatican II. However, far from stating the obvious, it is important to emphasize that the Third World perspective of the poor is not well developed in the overall framework of the Vatican II documents. In this light, revisiting, if only in a brief way, the odyssey of the church of the poor at the council might be beneficial for the purpose of this paper.

A call for renewal

On 28 October 1958, the conclave of cardinals met to elect a successor to Pius XII and chose the seventy-six-year-old Patriarch of Venice, Angelo Roncalli (1881-1963), son of a humble working-class family of Bergamo, who took on the name John XXIII. Considering his old age, it was expected that this septuagenarian pope would not live very long. Presumably, he was elected as a sort of an interim pope.

This pope, however, surprised the whole church on 25 January 1959 when he suddenly announced his intention to call for an ecumenical council which was to be known as the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Many people could not see why he had to call for a council, as there seemed to be no outstanding heresy to be refuted. At any rate, according to the prevailing ecclesiology at the time, the pope can practically do everything by himself. So what was his point of bringing together bishops from all over the world?

The pope’s decision to gather the bishops from all corners of the world was very revealing of his new style of taking on the papacy. At least two important gestures are worth noting here. First, the very choice of the name John XXIII—and not another name in line with Pius—implied that this pope wanted to be different from his predecessors. As his chosen name suggests, he did not simply want to be an apostle of love—like John the Evangelist—but also wished to be a humble prophet—like John the Baptist—who had to decrease so that Christ might increase (Pieris 2010, 3). Indeed, contrary to the triumphalist posture of his predecessors, John XXIII wanted “to shake off the dust of the empire that has gathered since Constantine’s day on the throne of St. Peter” (Congar 1964, 168). This is very revealing of his programmatic vision of the church and the papacy.

Second, John XXIII explicitly called this ecumenical council as Vatican II to signal that he was not just re-convoking the First Vatican Council (Vatican I) which had been interrupted in 1870 due to the Franco-Prussian war. He made it clear that he was convoking a new council and not simply intending to continue Vatican I. As Joseph Komonchak (2000, 72) recounted, Vatican II was called in order “to meet the demands of the day” in a pastorally effective way.

This council has been described as “the greatest event in the last four centuries of Catholicism” which caused a sort of a “Copernican shift” in ecclesiological thinking (Cleary 1985, 168). In Vatican II, the magisterium rediscovered the church as people of God, developed the theology of the local church, and emphasized the praxis of collegiality in church leadership (Forte 1990, 43-104). With John XX1II’s new style of papacy, the church deliberately opened its window to the modern world and allowed fresh air to enter into it.

An encounter of “worlds”

The historic gathering of prelates from practically every corner of the world at Vatican II has been described as an earth-shaking “event” in the history of the church. As the Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner (1979, 717) asserted, the council was “the Church’s first official self-actualization as a world Church.” This awareness of the “world Church,” according to David Hollenbach (2005, 266-291, 285), would “avoid viewing Christianity as a European religion to be exported to the rest of the world along with European culture.” According to the official report, out of the 2,904 expected participants coming from 116 different countries, about 2,449 or 89.34 percent showed up in the first session of the council (Raguer 1997, 171). In terms of demographic identity and economic background, unofficial statistics revealed that the council fathers coming from poor countries comprised the majority of the participants. The composition of participants according to continents are as follows: thirty-one percent of the council fathers came from Western Europe, twenty-two percent from Latin America, twelve percent from North America, twelve percent from Asia and Oceania, nine percent from Africa, and three percent from the Arab world (Raguer 1997, 171-72).

Given the diverse background of the participants at the council, it would not be sufficient to simply polarize them between liberals and conservatives. For this reason, I propose to see the Vatican II event as an encounter of “worlds.” Many people today conveniently speak of three different worlds within one world. The First World comprises of Western Europe, North America, Australia, and Japan; the Second World consists of the former Soviet Union, its several Eastern European satellites, and Communist China; and the Third World (also sometimes called “Two-Thirds World” due to its relative population weight of the global inequalities) includes the so-called developing nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Nevertheless, some writers even speak of the existence of a “Fourth World.” In his writings, John Paul II describes it as “the bands of great or extreme poverty in countries of medium and high income” (John Paul II, no. 31). The existence of a Fourth World simply shows that poverty is a global phenomenon and that it crosses beyond geographical boundaries.

Some people, however, tend to polarize the world in terms of “developed” and “developing” countries. Others use the terms “North” and “South” due to the fact that most of the rich countries are in the North and most poor countries are in the South. Still others have begun using the terms “Majority” and “Minority” worlds simply because, as Sean McDonagh (2006, 8-9, note 8) explains, ” [m]ost of the poor people on the planet live in the Majority World. Most of the rich live in the Minority World.”

In any case, all these worlds—both rich and poor—were represented at Vatican II. The participants of the poor world in the council outnumbered significantly those who came from the rich world. But being the majority in numbers did not necessarily ensure dominance at the council. On the contrary, the perspective of the minority rich prevailed over the perspective of the majority poor.

The disappearance of the church of the poor

Pope John XXIII, who played a significant role in the genesis and preparation of the council, expressed his vision of an inclusive church that would identify herself with the poor. This was explicitly revealed in his radio message on 11 September 1962 when he declared:

Confronted with the undeveloped countries, the Church presents itself as it is and wishes to be, as the Church of all, and particularly as the Church of the poor; … the miseries of social life which cry for vengeance in the sight of God: [A]ll this must be recalled and deplored (quoted in Wittstadt 1995, 438).

Accordingly, this message was very much in the air, opening up a different perspective for the council. As a matter of fact, there was an informal working group called The Church of the Poor, which had been meeting regularly at the Belgian College in Rome.’ Its main desire was to overcome the gap between the church and the poor which, according to its analysis, was caused by the church’s inordinate attachment to wealth. Lyons Cardinal Pierre Gerlier particularly made this point when he spoke to this group on 26 October 1962. Gerlier said: “It is indispensable that the Church, which has no desire to be rich, be freed from the appearance of wealth. The Church must be seen for what it is: the Mother of the poor, whose first concern is to give her children bread for both body and soul” (Raguer 1997, 202).

In the unfolding of the council, it was reported that the Cardinal of Bologna, Giacomo Lercaro, intervened during the 35th General Congregation on 6 December 1962 and made a daring request to make the church of the poor the fundamental topic of the council (Alberigo 1991, 116-32; Raguer 1997, 200). Along this line, there was also a motion by that same group, together with the then bishop of Laghuat (Africa) Georges Mercier, to draft a document on poverty. It was reported that Cardinal Lercaro submitted this motion to the Vatican Secretary of State for a review. Unfortunately, all these efforts to advance the perspective of the poor “have disappeared into the sands of time,” as there is no single discussion solely devoted to the topic church of the poor in the final document (Tanner 2003, 85). Norman Tanner (2003, 383) reported that the content of the second motion is supposedly most significant since it would have given “priority to an apostolate among the most needy, those often farthest from the church and yet the most favorably disposed toward the gospel, including those of the Third World; it also recommended a revival of the worker-priest movement.”

Retrieving the Christian option for the poor

It has to be reaffirmed that “the concern for the poor is not totally absent” in the final document (Lamberigts 2007, 17-40). The council fathers were certainly aware of the fact that the vast majority of humankind “are deprived of the bare necessities” and “have to live and work in conditions unworthy of human beings” (Gaudium et spes, no. 63). At least four important passages explicitly show the council fathers’ concern for the poor.

First, in Gaudium et sees, the council fathers expressed the church’s desire to share the situation and struggles of the poor by claiming them as her own:

The joy and hope, the grief and anguish of the men [and women] of our time, especially of those who are poor or afflicted in any way, are the joy and hope, the grief and anguish of the followers of Christ as well (no. 1).

It has been argued that the subsequent Catholic social teaching on “preferential option for the poor” may be taken to mean as an articulation of this powerful statement.

Second, there is the important passage from Lumen gentium which offers an excellent summary of the christological basis of the church’s commitment to the poor:

Just as Christ himself carried out the work of redemption in poverty and oppression, so the Church is called to follow the same path if she is to communicate the fruits of salvation to men. Christ Jesus, ‘though he was by nature God…emptied himself, taking the nature of the slave’ (Phil. 2:6, 7), and ‘being rich, became poor’ (2 Cor. 8:9) for our sake. Likewise, the Church…is not set up to seek earthly glory, but to proclaim, and this by her own example, humility and self-denial. Christ was sent by the Father “to bring good news to the poor…to heal the contrite heart” (Lk. 4:18), “to seek and to save what was lost” (Lk. 19:10). Similarly, the Church encompasses with her love all those who are afflicted by human misery and she recognizes in those who are poor and who suffer, the image of her poor and suffering founder. She does all in her power to relieve their need and in them she strives to serve Christ (no. 8).

This passage reveals that the church believes that her knowledge and vocation to follow Jesus Christ cannot be real without bringing justice to the poor whom she preferentially loves. The vision of the church of the poor is based on Jesus’ praxis of preferential option for the poor, and not the Marxist ideology of class struggle.

Third, in Gaudium et sees, the council fathers issued a politically explosive statement on social inequality based on the ethical position of Thomas Aquinas:

God destined the earth and all that it contains for the use of all men and all peoples so that all created things would be shared fairly by all mankind under the guidance of justice tempered by charity. Therefore every man has the right to possess a sufficient amount of the earth’s goods for himself and his family…. When a person is in extreme necessity he has the right to supply himself with what he needs out of the riches of others. Faced with a world today where so many people are suffering from want, the [c]ouncil asks individuals and governments to remember the saying of the Fathers: ‘Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you do not feed him you are killing him,’ and it urges them according to their ability to share and dispose aid which will enable them to help and develop themselves (no. 69; cf. Hiinermann 2006, 400).

Here, the council fathers made a correct judgment when they declared that an excessive accumulation of property and means of production by the few is deeply linked with the inequitable distribution of the goods of the earth. Responding to the needs of the poorest, as well as the Christian obligation to help them are challenges for the rich to limit their right to private property.

And fourth, also in Gaudium et spes, the council fathers expresses the church’s desire to be on teh side of the poor as they witnessed the life of evangelical poverty. They challenged the church to be the model of her own appeals. As the document declares,

[The church] never places its hopes in any privileges accorded to it by civil authority; indeed it will give up the exercise  of certain legitimate rights whenever it becomes clear that their use will compromise the sincerity of its witness, or whenever new circumstances call for a revised approach (no. 76).

The wisdom behind this renunciation of church privileges and detachment from the patronage offered by rich people is to maintain a posture of freedom in taking a prophetic stance on social issues involving wealth and power.

Limited perspective on poverty

Many of the Third World delegates were not satisfied with the council’s prevailing perspective on poverty. This was the feeling particularly of those who looked for an explicit appropriation of the Third World perspective on poverty. To them, the final documents have failed to adequately appropriate the perspective of the poor. Cardinal Laurean Rugambwa (the first African cardinal in history) critically remarked that the problems of the poor countries were “sometimes examined with Western eye” (Routhier 2006, 135). The Indian Cardinal Duraisamy Simon Lourdusamy also noticed that the Third World problems had not been given sufficient attention during the council deliberations. The council, according to him, mainly focused on the human condition of the First World countries “that already enjoy the benefits of economic and technical progress and are excessively influenced by the effects of `socialization,’ industrialization; and ‘urbanization”‘ (quoted in Routheir 2006, 135). Aware of this limitation, a Belgian commentator concluded that Vatican II needs “a fair analysis of the problems of this world” in order to improve its theological perspective on poverty (Lamberigts 2007, 30).

Moreover, many theologians from Latin America, where the majority of the people were impoverished by the oppressive ideology of liberal capitalism, criticized the council’s analysis on poverty as inappropriate for the Third World context. Recall that Vatican II tends to view poverty mainly as a lack of development—a view which is unacceptable to the majority of Latin American theologians (Gutierrez 1988, 16-25). Segundo Galilea (1987, 62) concluded that Vatican II “was still very European in regard to Third World concerns.” Gustavo Gutierrez (1983, 193) further clarified that the main problem in the Third World countries is the fact that the poor are being treated as “non-person(s).” He argued that the poor need more liberation than development. Faced with various forms of oppression, the main problem in the Third World, according to him, is how to tell the oppressed people “that God is love” (Gutierrez 1978, 241).

Presumably, the foregoing critiques have been brought to the attention of the ecclesial magisterium. This is discernible in the subsequent post conciliar Catholic social teaching which, to a certain extent, tries to take up many of the unfinished agenda pertaining to the church of the poor and the liberative perspective of the Third world theologians (Dorr 1992; Dorr 2007). Note here that the goals of the church of the poor movement at the council and the pro-poor perspective of the Third World are not contextually the same. As Gutierrez (1978, 241) has clarified: “Liberation theology’s first question cannot be the same one that progressivist theology has asked since Bonhoeffer.” The former originated in the First World context; the latter emerged in the Third World. Nevertheless, it can be argued that both movements have significantly contributed to the magisterium’s appropriation of the celebrated phrase, preferential option for the poor.

The Postconciliar Struggle

Despite its contextual limitations, Vatican II made a strong theological impact on Third World countries. In Latin America, for instance, Vatican II has strengthened the local church magisterium (Consejo Episcopal Latino Americano or CELAM) which provides theologians “the courage to think for themselves about pastoral problems affecting their countries” (Boff and Boff 1987, 68-69). In Asia, Vatican II has also served as an impetus for the inception of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC) during the first meeting of Asian Bishops in Manila in 1970. It was during this historic meeting that the Asian bishops committed themselves significantly to building up the church of the poor (Arevalo and Rosales 1992, 5-6).

Meanwhile, Vatican II has become the watershed of renewal in the Philippine church. It was in the spirit of the council that the Philippine church decided to “go to the barrios” in 1967 (Fabros 1988, 99). This revolutionary pastoral practice to reach out to the rural poor was the fruit of the National Congress for Rural Development held in Cagayan de Oro City in the same year. Such congress was intended “to awaken everyone in the country to the crying needs of the rural population…so that [the local magisterium] may come to concerted action to alleviate these needs and to arrive at immediate solutions (CBCP 1967; 2007). Francisco Claver (1988, 23) claimed that, on the side of the Philippine hierarchy, “the go-to-the-barrios decision in 1967 was in effect the Church’s ‘preferential option for the poor.'” This goes without saying that, for Claver, the pro-poor movements in the Philippines had predated that of the CELAM’s Medellin Conference, which coined the phrase preferential option for the poor only in 1968. Elsewhere, Claver (1983, 75-81) argues that the Vatican II “germinal ideas” on dialogue, participation, and co-responsibility were responsible for the birth of Basic Christian/ Ecclesial Communities (BCCs/BECs) in Mindanao and the formation of the Mindanao Sulu Pastoral Conference (MSPC). Both ecclesial movements may be seen as manifestations of the church of the poor.

Perhaps the most significant magisterial appropriation of the church of the poor agenda in the Philippines occurred during PCP II in 1991. In this historic event, the delegates asked themselves: “What kind of a church must we be to meet the challenge of our society as we turn into the third millennium?” (PCP II, no. 87). In response, they boldly declared: “In the Philippines today, God calls us most urgently to serve the poor and the needy,” and so “we need to become the ‘church of the poor”‘ (PCP II, nos. 122-124). Thus, to advance this less developed ecclesiological theme in Vatican IL the PCP II has substantially devoted one section on the Church of the Poor in its final document (nos. 122-136). Luis Antonio Tagle (1993, 54) commented that “the discussion on the ‘Church of the Poor’ [is] the most original and powerful contribution of PCP II to ecclesiology.” He, however, lamented that the perspective on the “Church of the Poor” has not been utilized “as the main interpretative key for understanding the church” (Tagle 1993, 54). It can then be said that PCP II’s appropriation of this particular agendum was a timely attempt by the Philippine church to realize John XXIII’s ecclesiological vision which Vatican II had failed to develop.

Recently, the Philippine church renewed its commitment to dialogue with the poor by sponsoring the Second National Rural Congress in 2007. The focus on the rural poor is quite understandable since according to Asian Development Bank Report (ADB 2005) poverty in the Philippines remains a rural phenomenon. Why is this so? As Antonio Ledesma (2009, xii) has explained, the rural poor “are trapped in a vicious cycle of slavery, dependence and hopelessness mainly due to lack of access to resources.” It is a sad reality that landlessness still dominates the rural landscape in the Philippines even after the decades of agrarian reform. This alarming issue cannot be ignored in the church’s ongoing dialogue with the rural poor.

Having done a cursory review of the struggles to be a church of the poor, we are now going to highlight three important liberative attitudes toward the poor. Firstly, if we wish to understand the reality of poverty, we have “to sit at the feet of the poor,” as the poor “know best from their lot and experience” the existential meaning of poverty and oppression (Labayen 1995, 159-60). The church has to learn from the poor and enable the poor to participate in the process of evangelization. Secondly, we have to liberate the poor by taking up their cause according to the standard of Christian praxis. And thirdly, the poor should not be treated as mere passive objects of charity of the rich; on the contrary, they should be empowered as active subjects of their own liberation and social transformation (PCP II, no. 130).

Expanding the Notion of “Poor”

In Third World countries like the Philippines the poor may be categorized into four: The economically poor, the racially discriminated, the sexually oppressed and the ecologically poor. These faces of poverty are produced by the corresponding forms of oppression that perpetuate them. Seeing these different faces of poverty is imperative to our inclusive understanding of the church of the poor.

The economically poor

When John XXIII announced in 1962 that the church wished to be the church of the poor he most probably had in mind the socioeconomically poor: Those who have been deprived of the basic human necessities and the conditions to live a dignified human life. They are poor because of oppressive economic system. As a dominated “class,” the poor occupy the lowest level in the pyramidal structure of the neoliberal capitalist society (Boff and Pixley 1989, 6). Today, we see them in the faces of the migrants, rural and urban poor, landless peasants, fisher folks, disabled people, unemployed, underemployed, uneducated, technologically illiterate, and many more.

In our present globalized society, the poor are no longer simply on the bottom or on the margins of society; they are excluded or being forced to live outside the society. In the Aparecida Conference (2007), it is stated that “[t]he excluded are not simply ‘exploited’ but ‘surplus’ and ‘disposable. Since they are not useful in the economic system, the dominant class disposes them like “waste” outside the society (Bauman 2004, 24-62). How can the church of the poor be able to reach out to the excluded and to discern the suffering face of Jesus Christ in them?

The racially discriminated

If the socioeconomically poor belong to an indigenous tribe, they are doubly poor. In the words of Virgilio Elizondo (2007, 159), the poor indigenous people (IP) are at once economically oppressed and existentially poor in that their cultural poverty “has more to do with the very reality of who [they] are, where they were born, the color of their skin, the shape of their body, the language they speak, the ethnicity that radiates through every fiber of their being.” Perhaps this is the painful experience of the poor Lumad and Muslim Filipinos in Mindanao. The dominant and powerful ethnicities label them as inferior, uncivilized, backward, unworthy, and undignified. Consequently, many of the IPs have very low self-esteem. It seems that the injurious racial attitude toward the IPs has deeply penetrated their collective psyche to the effect that many of them tend to fatalistically accept any form of oppression, as though being a “dominated culture” is naturally part of the social reality.

The negative residues of our colonial approaches are still operating in the present dominant cultures that force the IPs to abandon their colorful pre-Christian praxis and animistic religions. On this issue, one theologian argues that it would be seriously inconsistent for the church not to recognize the authenticity of indigenous religions, considering that the church magisterium itself understands religion as the wellspring and heart of local cultures (De Schrijver 2002, 318). If it is true that “no one culture is superior or inferior to other cultures,” as Elizondo (2007, 161) has insisted, then it is not right to accept only the positive aspects of the ancestral cultures and uncritically reject the indigenous religions from which their rich cultures originate. Given this sad reality, how are the IPs to be empowered so that they may also actualize their charism of leadership both in the church and in their own cultural communities?

The sexually oppressed

In our present mindset, a poor indigenous person who happens to be a woman suffers the highest degree of poverty. This is true in our patriarchal culture where a poor indigenous woman painfully embodies three layers of marginalization: 1) She belongs to the lowest class; 2) She suffers racial discrimination from both non-indigenous men and women; and 3) She is being viewed as sexually inferior by both indigenous and non-indigenous men. Needless to say, the poor indigenous women may rightly be considered as the “poorest of the poor” (Gebara 1987, 110-117). This reality leads to the “feminization of poverty,” as though “poverty has a woman’s face” (Tamez 2007, 102).

The globalized culture alarmingly promotes different distorted “ideological currents” (for example, male chauvinism) that subject women to “new slaveries,” as well as oppressive ideologies of gender (patriarchal and androcentric ideologies) that falsely deny the full humanity of women. The Latin American bishops have condemned these oppressive gender ideologies as these are not based on authentic Christian anthropology that affirms the equal dignity of man and woman who are equally created in God’s image and likeness. The vision of the church of the poor, therefore, should promote gender sensitivity and mutual partnership in a way that, as the Aparecida Conference (2007) declares, forms “a community of equals in difference.” Are women ready to participate fully in ecclesial, family, cultural, social, and economic life?

The ecologically poor

Without being anachronistic, today’s ecological awareness is practically absent in Vatican II documents, which focuses more on human beings rather than on creation in its full reality. Perhaps this is understandable considering that the ecological concerns were not yet urgent global problems in the 1960s. Nevertheless, Gaudium et sees reminds the reader that the “conciliar program…will have to be pursued further and amplified because it often deals with matters which are subject to continual development.” This posture of openness has led to the eventual recognition of the ecological crisis as an urgent issue in the subsequent Catholic social teaching.’

Why do we have to care for God’s creation? Let me propose three theological reasons which correspond to three ecological perspectives. To begin with, there is the perspective endorsed by the magisterium that sees the human being as “a steward and administrator with responsibility over creation” (Benedict XVI 2009). This theology of stewardship flows from the biblical view of the human being as the image of God. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) reaffirms this perspective by emphasizing that God “charged the human beings to be stewards of his creation, to care for it, to protect its fruitfulness and not to allow it to be devastated” (quoted in McDonagh 1990, 209). In my view, the problem with the magisterium’s stewardship perspective lies in its anthropocentric treatment of ecological issues. As some commentators have critically pointed out, the Catholic magisterium is “ecologically conscious” but its perspective on addressing the ecological crisis remains anthropocentric (Smith 1995, 79).

Moreover, there is the ecological perspective proposed by liberation theologians who consider the care for God’s creation as part of the preferential option for the poor. Perhaps the best representative of this perspective is the Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff. His preferential option for the poor includes “all the poor with all their many faces, and the great poor one, the Earth” (Boff 2001, 86). Boff does not only listen to the cry of the oppressed human beings but also to the groaning of “Mother Earth,” who grossly suffers due to global warming, poisoned waters, devastated forests, mineral extraction, endangered species, and destroyed ecosystems. Boff rightly argues that with these ecological crises, our option for the poor has to become an option for the earth—an option for all creatures threatened by anthropogenic calamities.

It is good to know that the Filipino bishops have rightly included the liberationist concern for the oppressed creation in their quest for justice. In its most celebrated pastoral letter on ecology, the CBCP declared: “The commitment to work for justice and [the task] to preserve the integrity of creation are two inseparable dimensions of our Christian vocation to work for the coming of the kingdom of God in our times” (McDonagh 1990, 213). Here, we need to emphasize the perspective that, like social domination (that is, domination of human by human), ecological domination (that is, domination of nature by human) is also contrary to God’s kingdom.

Finally, there is a less dominant ecological perspective inspired by St. Francis of Assisi whose religious experience has made us realize that “our sister, mother earth” is also our “common home.” The Franciscan ecological perspective proposes that the sense of communion enjoyed by human beings has to be extended to the whole of creation. The “mere existence” of creation gives glory to the Creator and calls for human beings to contemplate and to make use of them with care and sensitivity. This perspective blends well with the animistic beliefs of the IPs who spontaneously recognize their oneness with nature and the sacred presence of God in the environment.

John Paul II has rightly recognized St. Francis as a model of bearing witness to a “sort of kinship of man with his creaturely environment, fostering in him an attitude of respect for every reality of the surrounding world” (John Paul II 1997). For him, St. Francis offers an example par excellence of “a sense of ‘fraternity’ with all those good and beautiful things which Almighty God has created” (John Paul II 1997). The care for God’s creation that this “celestial patron of ecologists” exemplifies is based on his mystical experience of a universal kinship with all creatures: The realization that everything, including the most insignificant creatures, “had the same source as himself” (Boff 1997, 214). St. Francis cared for God’s creatures because all creatures, and not only human creatures, are literally his brothers and sisters in God. Today, in the light of the emerging earth sciences, we can certainly claim that all creatures are brothers and sisters of one another not in a metaphorical sense, for we know that “we have all evolved from a common ancestry in ways that are increasingly well-understood” (Feehan 2010, 55).

Conclusion

In this paper, the dramatic event of Vatican II using the notion of the church of the poor as a heuristic devise has been revisited. John XXIII initially proposed this ecclesiological vision but Vatican II failed to develop it in its final documents. This lacuna, however, did not prevent the Third World ecclesiastical regions (for example, CELAM and FABC) from contextualizing it. As has been pointed out, in the Philippines, the PCP II officially appropriated it as its core magisterial message.

The meaning of the church of the poor as creatively appropriated in the Third World context has also been clarified. To advance this perspective, the meaning of “poor” has been broadened in order to include the economically poor, the racially discriminated, the sexually oppressed, and the ecologically poor. In this ecclesiological vision, the church is not only the church of the economically poor but also the church of the racially discriminated, the church of the sexually oppressed, and the church of the ecologically poor.

In sum, it has been shown that the term “poor” is analogous as it applies to the poor in terms of class, race, gender, and ecology. Our expanded notion of the poor has significantly broadened our understanding of the church of the poor. This realization allows us to dream of a church that includes all the poor; a church that welcomes all the poor, both the saintly and sinful ones. This ecclesiological vision challenges us to transcend our tendency to build exclusive Christian communities. It calls us to form inclusive human communities. Thus, an inclusive church of the poor is not only a Christian community within the larger human community but also as a human community within the whole ecological community of creation. After all, God’s kingdom, as well as God’s gift of community, is not only for human beings but also for the whole community of creation.

Crop Production and Utilization in Southern Mindanao

Poverty is endemic and widespread in the world. Nearly 20 percent (19.6%) of the world’s population of 5.6 billion live in absolute poverty, with 65 percent reported for Asian countries (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 1994,5). Philippine figures indicate more than half (60% or approximately 36 million) of the 60.5 million Filipinos (NSO 1990) live in the rural areas and are dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. Sixty-five percent of the rural population live in the lowlands and coastal areas while the rest are in the uplands. Various studies reveal that more than half of the rural families live below the poverty line (compared to only one-fifth of urban families). However, various development policies and programs of the Philippine government have been concentrated in the urban centers, mainly in Metro Manila, with the rural population consistently disadvantaged compared to their urban counterparts since the postwar years. Analyzing the nature, extent, and trends of rural poverty within the context of development, Sison and Varela inferred that “a great proportion of the poorest of the poor is found in the rural sector”, citing both” the inherent and persistent socio-economic and political structures which exclude the poorest segments of the rural population from participating in productive economic activity. Such scenarios have just sent the appropriate signals to both the public and private sector to address the needs of these marginal members of Philippine society caught in the vicious cycle of poverty and low productivity, lack of access to resources, and subsequently inequality.

The Southern Mindanao Agricultural Programme

As with other government and non-government organizations which have recognized the need to improve the farmers access to necessary resources, the Department of Agriculture, collaborating with various local government and non-government organizations, launched the SOUTHERN MINDANAO AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMME in January 25, 1990 in three (3) out of 52 watersheds zones in Southern Mindanao. Its area coverage includes three zones, namely: the Davao river Basin in Marilog, Davao City (Zone 1), the Southern Slopes of Mt. Apo in Davao del Sur (Zone II); and, the Allah Valley T’boli Homeland in South Cotabato (Zone III). As of March 1994, a total of 22 Key Result Areas (KRAs) from the three zones were identified, with 19 KRAs as operational, six of which are managed by the local government units (SMAP Community Profile Database). The 22 KRAs included 503 sitios that should be provided assistance by SMAP, with 303 sitios currently being served yielding a total of 13,562 households. Zone 3 revealed the highest number of households served (7,147), with Zone 1, the least (1,833). These communities have undergone planning meetings where microprojects have started or about to start.

SMAP’s primary goals consist of: a) improvement of the living condition and revenues of the upland farming communities: b) protection of the long-run development potentials of the area through intensification and diversification of upland agriculture, expanded use of environmentally-sound upland agricultural land technology, upgrading of basic rural infrastructure, and strengthening of local farmers’ organization: and c) reduction of economic disparities between tribal and migrant communities. These can be attained through the programme components of micro-projects in rural production and rural infrastructure, the savings-based credit programme, institutional development through training and communication, research and studies, project operation and management, and technical assistance. It utilizes a participative, community-based approach which facilities improvement of community skills in harnessing, managing and sustaining development resources.

The programme’s outputs consists of the intensification and diversification of upland agriculture in SMAP-served areas using environmentally-sound and sustainable farming technologies, including  the protection of watershed areas through agroforestry. SMAP likewise promotes the formulation and implementation of community-development plans based on a participative analysis of root problems by the communities served. Local organizations are thus encouraged to adopt community-based planning, management and extension techniques. The programme provides a vaiable revolving fund providing credit for agricultural and off-farm activities of SMAP-assisted upland communities. By project-end, SMAP focuses on the finalization of the guidelines, manuals on the  SMAP development process, planning process, monitoring and evaluation, extension techniques and research.

Objectives of the Study

In 1992, at the start of the SMAP Implementation Phase, the programme developed a Benchmark Profile for each community assisted using Participatory Rural-Appraisal (PRA) techniques. The current study is intended to complement the 1992 data set, specifically focusing on the following directions:

1. Present the household profile of the respondents.
2. Determine the crop production-disposal activities of the farmer-households, and
3. Determine the household income and expenditure of the farmer-households.

Significance of the Study

The study will not only provide additional data about the farmer-households but will complement the SMAP data gathered through participatory data collection techniques.

Limitations of the Study

The study deals primarily with  the description of the crop production-disposal activities and income and expenditures of the farmer-households in SMAP-served communities in Southern Mindanao.

Another limitation of the study is the reliability of the responses of the respondents. Recall problems and fatigue on the part of the respondents due to the lenght of the interviews (i.e. from one to two hours, depending on the capability of the respondents to adequately recall farm-and-crop production activities for the last 12 months) are possible causes of inaccurate responses. The timeframe used in establishing the crop production-disposal activities, household income and expenditures was the previous year (i.e. 12 months prior to the survey). Likewise, the sample was based on the 1993 household listing provided by SMAP.

Methodology
 
The study used the descriptive approach, focusing on the crop production-disposal activities of the farmer-households, including their income, expenditures and food consumption patterns.

Initially, the sample was set at 400 households and proportionately allocated in the samples sitions per zone, using the 1993 SMAP household lists from the sitios served. Sitios without household listings were thus eliminated in the sample. However, two weeks after the implementation of the data collection, SMAP realized the absence of sample sitios from KRA 4 of Zone 2. An additional sample of 66 households was subsequently added, increasing the sample to 466 households (indicating a confidence level of 95.8 percent). The final sample thus consisted of 101 household respondents from Zone 1, 213 from Zone 2 and 152 from Zone 3. These zonal figures revealed a confidence level ranging from 90.6 percent to 93.5 percent. The figures from the KRA level likewise resulted to a confidence level ranging from 67 percent to 88.3 percent. Table 2 provides the breakdown of the household population and sample, including the confidence levels by zones and KRA. The household-respondents were randomly chosen based on the 1993 SMAP list of households.

The Study Findings

The data collection (conducted from February 14 to March 13,1994) was facilitated using an interview schedule translated into the vernacular and presented among 12 upland farmers in sitios not served by SMAP as validity and reliability measures. To facilitate data collection, twelve (12) field interviewers were trained to conduct the field interviews. They were closely monitored to minimize field recalls. SMAP provided transportation support to facilitate access to the sampled sitios. Simple descriptive statistics such as modes, means, frequency and percentage distributions were utilized in the analysis of the data collected. Likewise, graphs were used in the data presentation. Furthermore, zonal and KRAs shows the dominance of the Visayans, i.e. the Cebuanos, Boholanos, Illonggos, etc. over ethnic groupings. Such a trend holds true for all the KRAs in all zones except KRA 2 of Zone 1 and KRA 4 of Zone 3 where household members belong to tribal communities. Likewise, it is interesting to note that the respondents in all three zones were generally migrants – except for KRA 2 (71.4%)  of Zone 1 and KRA 4 (66.7%) of Zone 3 where the majority of the respondents were of tribal origin. The veired ethnic origin suggests differences in the level of adoption of change among these uplander farmer-households. Such ethnic diversity likewise provides the directions for possible training and development programmes to assist upland dwellers.

Household Type and Size. The type of household is indicative of the concentration of economic gains relative to the economic welfare of the family. The more nuclear the family, the more concentrated the economic gains in the family compared to that in an extended family. The present study revealed that the majority of the households were of the nuclear type-whether in the KRA, zonal or overall SMAP levels.

Household related studies further revealed that Filipino families tend to be large, averaging six members per household. The present study indicates similar findings in Zones 1 (5.86), 2 (5.56) and 3 (5.71). These findings, however, run counter to Sajise’s argument that ” upland communities are generally small in size because their subsistence economy and relative physical mobility cannot support a larger population.)

Household size variations are likewise evident among the KRAs in the three zones. KRAs 2 (6.34) and 4 (6.38) in Zone 1 revealed much larger families compared to KRAs 1 (5.6) and 3 (5.4). While KRA 5 in Zone 2indicated the lowest family size of 4.93, the other KRAs revealed higher averages, ranging from 5.25 to 6.27 household members. KRA 1 of Zone 3 indicated the largest family size (6.24) compared to KRAs 2 (5.35), 3 (5.85), and 4 (5.53).

The respondents revealed large families, with Zone 1 the largest (5.86) and Zone 2 the lowest (5.56). KRA 5 of Zone indicated the smallest family size (4.93) with KRA 4 of Zone 1 the largest (6.38).

Sex Distribution of Household Members. Male household members generally outnumbered their female counterparts in Zone 1 (53%), 2 and 3 (50.9% each), following closely the trend established by SMAP as of the second quarter of 1994 where there were 51 percent males compared to 49 percent females.

However, differing information was revealed in the KRAs per zone. While males from KRAs 2, 3, and 4 of Zone 1 outnumbered their female counterparts, they were outnumbered, on the other hand, by their female counterparts in KRA 1. Males in KRAs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Zone 2 likewise outranked females. However, females dominated in KRAs 5 and 7. Preponderance of males was further revealed in KRAs 1 and 3 of Zone 3 compared to KRAs 2 and 4 where females outnumbered the males.

Educational Attainment of Household Members. Education denotes the capacity of the household members to absorb and handle information to provide for their own interest and welfare. Likewise, it is a gauge for transfering knowledge and skills to ensure effective implementation of development work.

Survey findings a relatively high literacy rate among the respondents (73.2%). Both zonal and KRA figures similarly indicated high literacy rate among the respondents. Most of the household members in all three zones had completed primary education (i.e. 55% in Zone 1, 50.3% in Zone 2, and 365 in Zoen 3).

On the other hand, it is also worth noting that some household members have not received any formal education at all, i.e. 1.7 percent in Zone 1, 1.14 percent in Zone 2, and 5.6 percent in Zone 3. It is likewise noticeable that all of the household members in KRA 4 of Zone 1 and KRA of Zone 2 have attended formal education.

Ages of the Household Members. Most of the household members of the respondents were below 20 years old, with more than half (59.6%) reported in Zone 1, 54 percent in Zone 2 and 54.1 percent in Zone 3. All KRAs (irrespective of the zones) indicated that most household members belong to that age range.

Furthermore, the ages provide data on labor force participation rate. The proportion of the household members “in the labor force” appearred to be high, with more than half of the household members reported in the age bracket 15-64 years both in the SMAP level [54.2%]  and zonal levels – 52.7% in Zone 1, 54.7% in Zone 2, where more than half of the household members were below15 years, all the KRAs showed more than half of the household member “in the labor force” has one dependent.

Number of Working Household Members. Zone 3 appeared to have the most working household members (average of 1.82) with Zone 1 the lowest (1.57). KRA-wise, data revealed at least two working household members.

Type of Work. Primarily, the working household members were farmers (SMAP-level [65.2%], zonal levels [80.5% in Zone 1, 78.7% in Zone 2, and 75.1% in Zone 3], or KRA-levels). Zone 3 indicated the most varied occupational categories (10 types) with Zone 1 having the least variations (4 types). A possible explanation for such zonal differences may be in the employement opportunities available in the communities, notwithstanding the geographical locations. Observations show that, compared to the other communities covered in the study, areas in Zone 1 are most inaccessible.

It is interesting to note that KRA 4 of Zone 1 indicated an almost homogenous type of work (i.e farming and service-related works only) compared to the other KRAs in all three zones.

Farm Related Characteristics. Farm data included tenurial status, classification of land tillers, number of land parcels in possession, number of hectares in possession, number of hectares planted, type of land parcels in possession and farm tools used.

Tenurial Status. Tenurial status refers to the type of relations the respondents have relative to land ownership. In this study, landowners include those who actually owned the land in possession either through purchase, inheritance or usufruct (“right to cultivate the land”) for those areas considered as part of the government-reserved land or part of the national park. Tillers refer to the landless respondents who are cultivating land owned by others, while owner-tillers are those owning land and likewise tilling land owned by others.

In this study, data generally show that Zones 1 and 2 respondents were dominated by land owners (66.3% and 46%, respectively), with tillers outweighing other tenurial statuses in Zone 3 (39.9%). While tillers dominated KRA 4 of Zone (62.5%), owners from KRA 1 (60.7%), 2 (80%) and 3 (66.7%) outranked tillers and owner-tillers. In Zone 2, more tillers were indicated in KRA 3 (42.6%, 5 (35.7%), and 7 (50%). While land-owners were mainly reported in KRA 2 of Zone 3, tillers were mostly indicated in KRA 1 (41.4%), 3 (48.8%), and 4 (37.8%).

Classification of Land Tillers. Futher analysis of those categories as tillers and owner-tillers revealed that most of them were share-tenants, i.e. 34.4 percent in Zone 1, 31.5 percent in Zone 2, and 32.9 percent in Zone 3. Share-tenants were significant in KRAs 1 and 4 of Zone 1, KRA 3 of Zone 1 and KRAs 1 and 4 in Zone 2.

The dominance of share-tenants implies to a larger extent the socio-economic  well-being of upland dwellers. Share-tenants appeared to be an easy prey to expoitative pursuits of those needing their services.

Mean Number of Land Parcels in Possession. Possession in understood as the “control or occupancy of property without regard to ownership.” As a whole, the respondents possessed a limited number of land parcels, ranging from one (1) to 2.70. Zone 2 respondents owned slightly larger land parcels (1.67) with Zone 3 the smallest (1.31).

KRA 1 of Zone 2 possessed relatively larger land parcels (1.92) with KRA 2 of Zone 3 having the smallest (1.16). Land owners from KRA 4 of Zone 1, tillers from KRA 2 of Zone 2 and Zone 3, and owner-tillers from KRAs 1,2, and 4 of Zone 1 revealed the smallest land parcels possessed (1.00) with owner-tillers from KRA 1 of Zone 2 reporting the largest (2.70).

Mean Hectarage in the Possession of the Respondents. Conversion of land size to hectarage was facilitated by expressing all land sizes reported by the respondents into square meters. Hectarage-conversion was subsequently done by dividing the computed square meters by 10,000. Zone-wise, research findings revealed that Zone 1 respondents possessed on average larger land sizes (5.50 hectares) than those in Zone 2 (2.65) and Zone 3 (2.68).

Data in KRA level showed KRA 3 of Zone 1 (7.23 hectares) having the largest land sizes in possession, with KRA of Zone 3, the lowest (2.43). Cross-classifying hectarage in possessions and tenurial status, owner-tillers from Zone 1 appeared as possessing relatively larger land sizes (5.50) than those in Zone 2 (2.65) and Zone 3 (2.68). Furthermore, owner-tillers from KRA 3 of Zone 1 (8.68 hectares) revealed much land size, with tillers from Zone 2 and 3, compared to Zone 1, appeared to fall short of the stipulations of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) relative to the requirements of 3 hectares for every Filipino family to be economically viable.

Mean total of all Hectarage Planted except owner tillers for Zone 3. Generally, hectarage planted appeared to be low, with all of the respondents from the three zones planting less than 3 hectares. KRA level data also revealed similar trends except for KRA 3 of Zone 3 where respondents, on average, were planting more than three hectares. Zone 3 respondents cultivated an average of 2.46 hectares compared to 2.32 and 1.58 (KRA 4) to 2.24 (KRA 3) hectares compared to Zone 1 (range of 2.06 to 2.73 hectares). Zone 3 KRAs were more varied from as low as 1.79 hectares (KRA 2) to as high as 3.16 in KRA 3.

Each of the owner-tiller from Zone 3 cultivated an average of 3.4 hectares while Zone 2 tillers covered the smallest farm size of 1.33 hectares. Furthermore, when hectarage planted was compared with hectarage occupied, data revealed general ineffective use of land among the respondents. There were more respondents acutally cultivating farm sizes smaller than what they possessed. Each owner-tiller of KRA1 of Zone 3 and KRA 4 of Zone 2 indicated effective use of their land, i.e cultivating all land in their possession.

Type of Land Parcels in Possession. Land parcels possessed were further classified into monocropping, multicropping, or a combination of both monocropping and multicropping. Monocropping farms refer to farms planted with a single crop only while multicropping refers to those with varied crops. Generally, the respondents practiced multicropping rather than monocropping (both in the zonal and the KRA-levels).

Type of Farm tools/Equipment Used. The farm tools used by the respondents were categorized into the mechanized and non-mechanized types. The former refers to modern farm equipments such as tractors and sprayers, among others. Non-mechanized farm tools, on the other hand,consist of traditional farm equipments,e.g. bolos and wooden harrows. There was generally limited use of mechanized farm tools among the respondents in the three zones, with the majority using non-mechanized farm tools/equipments. All farmers from Zones 1 and 2, particularly,all reported using non-mechanized farm tools. In Zone 3, six respondents ( out of 132) reported using both, particularly in KRAs 1 and 2.

Crop Production. Crop production refers to the specific crops planted by the respondents, the number of hectares planted per crop, the average cropping/harvest per year, and the annual volume of production per crop. The crop production data was established using the 12-month timeframe prior to the survey.

Crops Planted. Corn appeared to be the dominant crop planted by the respondents in all three zones, followed by vegetables and fruit trees. Corn was likewise indicated in all KRAs in Zone 3 as the primary crop planted. Except for KRA 4 in Zone 1, where Bll of the respondents planted vegetables followed by corn (75%), the rest of the KRAs in Zone 1 planted mostly corn: Farmers in Zone 2, however, were more varied in primary crops planted, with KRAs 2 (100%), and 5 (88.9%) citing corn and KRAs 1 ( 83.3%), 4 (98.4), and 7 (100%) engaged in vegetable farming.

Mean Hectarage Planted Per Crop Per Household. When actual hectarage planted was computed per household per crop, average figures appeared to be small. Comparing zones, trees appeared to occupy large tracts of land, particularly in Zones 2 ( 5 has.) and 3 (26.31 has ), with at least a fourth of an hectare indicated as the smallest planted area, particularly with rootcrops, in Zones 1 (0.29 has) and 2 (0.30 has.).. Vegetables were revealed as having the smallest land size planted in Zone 3 (0.25 has). Comparing crops involving relatively large land sizes, KRA data showed KRA 4 of Zone 3 having the largest land size planted with trees (50.50 has.) followed by 5 hectares in KRA 7 of Zone 2 planted with trees/ fruittrees. Land planted with spices in KRA 7 of Zone 2 occupied 0.03 hectares.

Average Number of Croppings Per Crop Per Year. Cropping per crop per year showed the frequency with which crops were planted in a year’s time. (It is worth mentioning that the respondents had a problem in delineating cropping and harvesting. Thus, cropping is also understood as harvesting by the respondents). Data revealed a varied number of croppings per crop.

Staple foods like rice and corn were planted at least twice a year ( both in the zonal and KRA levels). Vegetables appeared to be planted frequently by the respondents within the past 12 months in all three zones,i.e 16 times in Zone 1, 13 times in Zone 2 and 8 times in Zone 3. Comparing KRAs, frequency of cropping for vegetables appeared high in KRA 2 of Zone 1, KRAs, frequency of cropping for vegetables appeared high in KRA 2 of Zone 1, KRAs 2,3,4,5, and 7 in Zone 2 and KRAs 2 and 3 in Zone 3. Likewise, spices were frequently planted in KRA 1 of Zone 1 and KRA 4 of Zone 3, rootcrops in KRA 1 of Zone 2 and KRA 2 in Zone 1, and bananas in KRAs 3 and 4 of Zone 1 and KRA of Zone 3.

Annual Volume of Harvest Per Crop Per Household. The annual volume of harvest per crop per household is expressed in kilos, given the small figures involved. Generally, volume of harvest is greater in spices for Zone 1 and in corn for Zones 2 and 3.

KRA level data revealed that all KRAs in Zone 3 showed corn with the highest volume of harvest for the past 12 months. Spices in KRA 1 of Zone 1, rice, sugarcane, and vegetables in KRAs 1,2, and 5 of Zone 2 were shown with the highest volume of harvest per household crop for the last 12 months.

Crop Disposal. Crop disposal refers to how the respondents utilized their harvest for the past 12 months prior to the survey. In this study, crop disposal is expressed in terms of the proportion of harvest consumed and sold per household per KRA per zone.

Consumption of Farm Produce. Data on the proportion of harvest consumed revealed that some of the crops planted for the past 12 months were generally not sold,e.g. farmer-households planting bamboo in Zone 1 and coconut farmers from both Zones 1 and 2. None of the Zone 3 farmer-households reported consuming all their farm produce. Only farmer-households planting corn and mango in Zone 2 reported consuming more than half of their farm produce. More farmer-groups were observed in the other zones,i.e. farmers who harvested corn, rice, banana, mango and spices in Zone 1 and those engaged in corn, banana, abaca, legumes and rootcrops in Zone 3. Comparing KRAs in each zone, data in Zone 1 showed that farmer-households planting rice from KRAs 3 and 4, bamboo in KRA 2, coconut in KRAs 1 and 2, and spices on KRA 3 reported consuming all their farm produce. Likewise, only coconut farmers from KRAs 3 and 5 of Zone 2 indicated that they consumed all of their harvest. None of the farmers from KRA levels in Zone 3 indicated entirely consuming any of their farm harvest.

Sale of Farm Produce. None of the respondents in the three zones indicated selling their entire produce for the past 12 months. However, data in KRA level showed that coffee farmers in KRAs 1 and 2, cacao farmers in KRAs 2 and 4, and farmers planting spices in KRA3 in Zone 1 reported selling all their farm produce. Likewise, cacao farmers in KRA 3 , those involved in legumes in KRA 4, banana farmers in KRA 5, and coffee farmers in KRA 7 of Zone 2 reported selling their entire produce. The findings seem to imply that entire crops sold were usually those demanding relatively high buying prices such as coffee, cacao, spices, bamboo, legumes, and some vegetables.

Buyers of Farm Produce. Buyers of farm produce of the farmers were mainly the suki ( regular buyers ), direct consumers (mostly their neighbors ) and ” any buyer with a relatively high buying price “- in that order – in all three zones. Cooperatives, local store owners, and landowners were similarly mentioned to a limited extent. KRA data likewise revealed the suki as the main buyer of the farmers’ farm produce. Average Buying Price Per Crop. The average buying price is determined on a per kilo basis. Varied average prices were indicated per crop per zone and on KRA levels, with some of the crops being sold at a relatively high price,e.g. more than P10 a kilo. Such trends suggest the need to look into the viability of massive promotion of these crops as cash-income sources of upland farmers. However, massive promotion of these crops should consider the duration that each crop may yield additional income for cash-strapped uplanders. Crops demanding a relatively high buying price per kilo (i.e. ranging from P 10 and more per kilo) include carrots, tomatoes, black beans, mongo, peanuts, bell pepper ( atsal), abaca,cacao, and coffee in Zone 1; tomatoes, sugarcane, black beans, garlic, mongo, peanuts, bell pepper, cacao and coffee in Zone 2; and coffee, abaca, and bell pepper in Zone 3.

Coffee ( a perennial crop usually productive in a year’s time ) and bell pepper ( usually productive for three to four months ) are the common crops planted in all three zones. Likewise, crops demanding relatively high buying price and common for Zones 2 and 3 include tomatoes, black beans, mongo, peanuts, and cacao. These crops were likewise reported in the KRA levels as demanding relatively high prices per kilo.

Household Income and Expenditures. Household income focuses on the annual income received by each household from varied sources. Expenditures relative to crop production are presented on an annual basis, with regular household expenses presented on a monthly basis. All data are presented on a per household basis.

Research findings revealed at least four income sources of the respondents households such as on-farm sources,e.g sales from farm produce and other farm-related sources such as proceeds received from services in transporting farmers’ produce from one place to another, livestock and poultry; off-farm sources,e.g. salaries from employment as teachers, government employees, small entrepreneurs; and income from (credit in this study refers to the cash inflow in the household of the respondents).

Off-farm, income sources appeared to contribute greatly among farmer-households in Zone 1 and 2, followed by on-farm Income sources. Zone 3, on the other hand, revealed on-farm sources as their major income-source, with off-farm sources ranking second. Comparing average annual household incomes in KRA levels, the survey results revealed that while the households in KRA-level in Zone 3 indicated on-farm sources as their primary source of income, households in KRAs 1,2,and 3 of Zone 1 reported non-farm sources, while KRA 4 households mainly reported on-farm sources as their primary sources of income. Households in KRAs2 and 4 in Zone 2 revealed on-farm sources as their primary income source and non-farm income sources were mainly identified by households from KRA.s 1,2,5, and 7 as their primary source. Furthermore, the data on average annual household income indicated Zone 2 (26,114) as earning more than their counterparts in Zone 3 (P22,848) and Zone 1 (P15,453). These figures closely followed the income trends established by SMAP prior to the conduct of this present study,i.e. with Zone 2 (P24,107) earning relatively higher than Zone 3 (P18,938) and Zone 1 (P8,471). The variations between the present income figures and those established by SMAP in 1993 could perhaps be due to the location of sample interviewed. The 1993 SMAP survey covered other samples. The highest and lowest average annual household income were reported in Zone 2, specifically in KRA 1 (P37,661) and KRA 7 (P10,190), respectively.

Their average annual total household incomes were below the national poverty threshold of P66,979.68 annually ( or 5,581.64 pesos a month ) that a family of six must earn to survive. (Survival Ibon Calendar, 1993:1)

Annual Household Expenditures. Annual household expenditures were categorized into farm-based expenses (e.g. transportation, fertilizer, chemicals, labor, other farm inputs, land rent, livestock and poultry), loan repayment, and household expenses.

Generally, household expenses appeared to have the largest proportion (i.e. 84% in Zone 1, 75% in Zone 2, and 74% in Zone 3) of the total costs incurred by the household annually. The data from Zone 2 indicated the KRAs with both the highest (KRA=795%) and the lowest (KRA 1=70%) proportion of household expenditures relative to the total annual household expenditures.

Analyzing farm-based expenditures, Zonal data revealed variations in their two major expenditures, with households from Zone 1 reporting labor costs (P2,140 per household) and land rentals (P2,117 per household) as their greatest expenditures. Zone 2 indicates fertilizers (P3,030 per household ) and labor costs (P2,040 per household as expenditures while Zone 3 reported land rentals (P441 per household) and fertilizers (P3,542 per household) as their two main expenditures.

Data from KRA level, however, were more varied about their top two major farm-based annual expenditures. In Zone 1, households from KRAs 1 and 3 reported land rentals (P2,000 and P2,834, respectively) and labor costs (P1,.602 and P2,743, respectively) as their top two major annual expenditures. Those from KRA 2 cited labor (P2,279) and fertilizer (1,567) costs, while KRA 4 households mentioned livestocks (P3,467) and fertilizer (P3,213).

Land rentals and fertilizer costs were mentioned by the households from KRAs 1 and 2 of Zone 2 as their major annual expenses (P7,135 and P6,000, and P4,369 and P3,405, respectively). Household from KRA 3 cited labor (P2,298) and livestock (P1,443) costs. Transportation (P4,340 ) and fertilizer (P3,787) costs were cited for KRA 4; chemicals (P1,600) and other farm inputs (P1,150) for KRA 5; and livestock (1,765) and fertilizers (P500) costs cited for KRA 7.

While households from KRA 3 in Zone 3 revealed land rentals (P3,070) and fertilizer (P2,763) as major costs incurred in an annual basis, those from KRA 1 indicated fertilizer (P3,623) and labor (P2,389) costs; land rentals (P8,334) and labor cost (P3,965) were cited for KRA 2; and fertilizer (P5,857) and land rentals (P5,334) were cited for KRA 4.

Comparing average annual total household expenditures with average annual total household income tends to indicate deficits. Zonal data revealed deficits following closely earlier findings that uplanders’ expenditures were greater than their income (Callanta, 1988:61).

Households in Zone 1 (both zonal and KRA levels) indicated expenditures greater than income, households from KRAs 1 and 5 of Zone 2 indicated otherwise. The respondents explained the deficits as due to their poor access to markets. Most of the areas covered by the study were observed to have problems in transporting produce from the farm to the market. Thus, distance to the market and the costs incurred in transporting farm-produce to the market most likely discourage the respondent-household from selling farm produce, thus forcing them to store them either for consumption or for sale if buyers visit their areas.

Monthly Household Expenses. The household studied appeared to have food as the priority monthly expenditure in all three zones, (i.e. 53% in Zone 1,49% in Zone 2 and 73% in Zone 3). Second monthly priority expenses,however, varied from each zone, with education as the second priority for monthly expenses for households in Zone 1 and 2, and house rentals for Zone 3 households.

Household monthly expenses per household in KRA level revealed interesting findings. In Zones 1 and 3, while KRAs, 1,2, and 3 revealed food as the to-most priority in monthly expenses, households from KRA 4 of both zones revealed recreation/movies and house rentals, respectively, as theirs. Mean monthly household expenses were relatively higher in Zone 2 (P1,838) compared to Zones 1 (1,788) and (P1,737). Households from KRA 4 of Zone 2 indicated relatively higher average monthly expenses of P2,555, with those households from KRA 5 of the same zone reporting relatively lower average monthly expenses of 1,047.

Conversion of the average total annual household income and expenditures into monthly figures showed that monthly zonal and KRA data in Zones 1 and 3 indicated that household expenses exceed income.

Although zonal data in Zone 2 revealed expenses exceeding income KRAs 1 and 5 indicated monthly savings.

Summary of Findings
1. Generally, the respondents’ households were members of tribal groups.
2. The majority had nuclear families.
3. The respondents have large families with a mean of 5.66 household members, almost equal to the national standard of 6.
4. Male household members (51.4%) outnumbered their female counterparts (48.6%).
5. Literacy rate is significantly high among the household members (73.2%). However, most of the household members have completed primary education (46.6%).
6. Majority of the household members were 10 years old and over.
7. Labor force participation is relatively high, with 54.2 percent ranging from 15 years to 64 years old.
8. They have an average of 1.7 working household members, mainly employed as farmers.
9. Almost all of the respondents claimed “owning” the lands they currently occupied (46.8%), despite the fact that the survey sites are part of the public-lands or part of the national park.
10. Most of the tillers were share-tenants(32.4%).
11. They possessed an average of 3.61 hectares of land, slightly higher than the provision of the CARP to be economically viable.
12. The respondents planted an average of 2.21 hectares, a figure indicating that some parts of the land occupied were not effectively cultivated or reserved for other purposes.
13. Majority of the respondents practiced multicropping.
14. Except for six respondents from Zone 3, the rest of the respondents used non-mechanized farm tools.
15. Corn, vegetables, and coffee were the most popular crops planted on an average of 1.29,0.35 and 0.88 hectares, respectively. On the average, corn was planted 2.07 times in a year’ while vegetables were planted 12.08 times as of last year. Average volume of corn production was 5,797 kilos as of last year per household, while average volume of vegetable production was 1,314 kilos per household. Coffee yielded 209 kilos per household as of last year. Spices indicated the highest average volume of production per household as of last year (5,166 kilos).
16. All produce from bamboo and coconut were consumed by the respondents’ households.
17. Majority of the harvest of coffee (74%), copra (92%), cacao (74%), spices (71%) , and vegetables (73%) were sold by the respondents and usually bought by their regular buyers (92.4%).
18. Crops planted demanding relatively high buying price included carrots, tomatoes, black beans, mongo, peanuts, sugar cane, bell peppers, abaca, cacao, and coffee.
19. Non-farm income sources appeared to be the most significant contributors to household income, followed by sales from farm produce. 20. The respondents earn an annual average income of P19,724 or an average of P1,644 monthly.
21. Household-related expenses constituted the bulk of the respondents’ expenses (P28,222 annually or P2,352 monthly). They spent an average of P6,355 for farm-related activities as of last year.
22. On a monthly basis, the largest proportion of the respondent’s income was spent on food, i.e. approximately 58 percent.

Recommendations
1. Research findings revealed a strong migrant population in. all three zone. This implies diversity and change in resource-use strategies in the uplands. This influx of migrants and the transition to cash economies suggest the limited employment opportunities in the lowlands and the socially and culturally disruptive pressures on resources and damage in the uplands. Considering the varied upland resource-management capabilities of various ethnic groups, it is strongly recommended that environment-friendly and ecologically- balanced programme-activities be designed and implemented.

2. Though registering high literacy rates ( 73.2% ) the introduction of educational programmes and technology development should consider the varied levels  of education of the upland dwellers. Most of the household members have only completed primary education (46.6%).

3. Land ownership among the respondents is ambiguous. The survey sites are considered as either public lands or part of the national park. Land tillers are thus regarded as stewards. However, most of the respondents claimed owning the land presently occupied. Such perceptions imply the respondents’ preoccupation with ownership and control of productive assets. This suggests a need for a value-reorientation program relative to the upland concept of ownership and control of productive assets such as land. This will not only provide them venues to explore other possibilities of acquiring and controlling productive assets. Income received from upland economic activities may be used to acquire productive assets in the lowlands.

4. Income appeared to be low relative to their expenses and national poverty threshold of P5,585.64 that a family of six must earn to survive. Likewise income was generally derived from farm-based production and payment from services rendered. A material-resources inventory is thus recommended to look into the skills possessed by the community residents for possible matching and identification of income-generating projects indigenous to the communities served. This will not only provide and enhance skills-development among the uplanders, but will also provide additional cash-incomes and job opportunities for unemployed household members who are in the labor force.

5. Considering that SMAP covers the watersheds in Southern Mindanao, a study is likewise recommended focusing on the upland resource management activities of the migrants vis-a-vis tribal communities. An underlying objective is the identification of appropriate upland technology development so as to promote the protection and enhancement of the ecosystems.