resettlement action plan (rap) (volume 216) … · page executive summary 1. rationale 1 2....

RP24Volume 15

REPUBUC OF THE PHIUPPINESDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS

PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICE FOR IBRD

Co

NATIONAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENTPROJECT - PHASE I (NRIMP-I)

DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PREPARATION OF BIDDING DOCUMENTSFOR REHABILITATION OF

SURIGAO-DAVAO COASTAL ROAD (CW-RU-1.4B)

MARIHATAG-LIANGA-BAROBO SECTION

RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN (RAP)(Volume 216)MAIN TEXT

APRIL 2002

D KATAHIRA & ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL

in association with

lialCrow HALCROW GROUP LIMITED TECHNIKS GROUP CORPORATION

DCCD ENGINEERING CORPORATION MULT14NFRA KONSULT, INC.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN (RAP)

NATIONAL ROADS IMPROVEMENT ANDMANAGEMENT PROGRAM PHASE I(NRIMP-1)

MARIHATAG-LIANGA-BAROBO SECrION

VOLUME I

APRIL 2002

KATAHIRA & ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL

0; -; 9

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume I (Main Text)Page

Executive Summary

1. Rationale 1

2. Objectives 1

3. Methodology 2

3.1 Institutional Collaboration 23.2 Data and Sources 23.3 Population 33.4 Analytical Tools 3

4. Public Consultation Proceedings 3

5. Resettlement Action Plan 4

5.1 Project Description 4

5.2 The Local Government Units 65.2.1 Marihatag 65.2.2 San Agustin 75.2.3 Lianga 85.2.4 Barobo 85.2.5 San Francisco, Agusan del Sur 9

5.3 Socio-Economic Profile of Project Affected Families 10

5.3.1 Demography 115.3.2 Economy 165.3.3 Level of Living 17

5.4 Project Impacts 20

5.4.1 Impacts on Land 205.4.2 Impacts on Structures 205.4.3 Loss of Income 215.4.4 Impact on Land Improvements 21

5.5 Compensation Package 21

5.5.1 Entitlements 215.5.2 Affected Structures 21

5.5.3 Land Improvements in Absentee Landholdings 225.5.4 Compensation Matrix 225.5.5 Value of Land Improvements in Absentee

Landholdings 315.5.6 Compensation Matrix for Residents PAFs 315.5.7 Compensation Package and RAP Implementation

Cost 325.5.8 Total RAP Cost 345.5.9 RAP Cost by Municipality 34

6. Implementation Schedule 37

6.1 MOU and Establishment of Committees 376.2 Training-Orientation on RAP Implementation 376.3 Validation of RAP Report 386.4 Public Inforrmation Campaign 386.5 Finalization of the Compensation Package 386.6 Public Meeting/Disclosure 386.7 Cut-of Date 386.8 Payment 386.9 Handing Over the Site for Civil Works 38

7. Monitoring and Evaluation 39

Appendix A. Public Consultations

1. Orientation on the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)For Surigao-Davao Coastal Road, DPWH-XTIIRegional Office, Butuan City, Agusan del Sur,January 3, 2001

2. Orientation on the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)For the Surigao-Davao Coastal Road, DPWH Tandag,Surigao del Sur, January 5, 2001

3. Public Consultation on the Resettlement ActionPlan (RAP) for the Surigao-Davao Coastal RoadMarihatag Municipal gym, Surigao del Sur,January 23, 2001

4. Public Consultation on the Resettlement ActionPlan (RAP) for the Surigao-Davao Coastal RoadLianga Municipal Hall, Surigao del SurJanuary 23, 2001

Appendix B. List of PAFs and Summary of Compensation

Appendix C List of Perennials

Volume II (Appendix)

Appendix D Composite Profile of Marginally Affected PARs

Appendix E Composite Profiles of Severely Affected PAFs

Appendix F Questionnaire

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.

5.1 Road Length by Segment and by Type of Road, Surigao del Sur, 2001

5.2.1 Road Classification by Type of Pavement in Marihatag, Surigao del Sur,2001

5.2.2 Road Classification by Type of Pavement in San Agustin, Surigao del Sur,2001

5.2.3 Road Classification by Type of Pavement in Lianga, Surigao del Sur, 2001

5.2.4 Road Classification by Type of Pavement in Barobo, Surigao del Sur,2001

5.3 Distribution by Type of Respondents and by Municipality, Surigao del Sur,2001

5.3.1a Mean Age by Type of Respondents by Municipality, Surigao del Sur,2001

5.3.1b Level of Educational Attainment by Municipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001

5.3.1c Distribution by Household Size and by Municipality, Surigao del Sur,2001

5.3.1d Distribution by Household Structure and by Municipality, Surigao del Sur,2001

5.3.2a Primary Occupation by Municipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001

5.3.2b Mean and Median Income by Source and by Municipality, Surigao delSur, 2001

5.3.3 Level of Amenities by Municipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001

5.4 Extent of Impact on Structures by Municipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001

5.5.1 Compensation Entitlement Matrix

5.5.2 Compensation Package for Resident PAFs by UJse of Structure and otherEntitlements, RAP, Surigao del Sur, 2001

5.5.3a Estimated Compensation Package for Marginally Affected Structures byMunicipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001

5.5.3b Estimated Compensation Package for Severely Affected Structures byMunicipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001

5.5.3c Estimated Compensation Package for Crop Improvements by Municipality,Surigao del Sur, 2001

6 RAP Implementation Schedule by Activity, Surigao del Sur, 2001

NRIMP-RAP: Marihatag-Lzanga-Barobo Road

Resettlement Action Plan: Marihatag-Lianga-Barabo Road

Executive Summary

1. Development interventions such as physical infrastructures undoubtedly resultin significant positive impacts to the community and the residents both interms of economic and social activities. However, it is equally true that anydevelopment intervention results in some negative externalities. In the caseof road infrastructure projects, the obvious negative consequence would be interms of the social costs associated with environmental damage and humandislocation.

The Department has promulgated the social policy framework and specificguidelines for the imnplementation of projects under NRIMP. The frameworkand specific guidelines are operationalized in the Policy Framework for LandAcquisition Resettlement and Rehabilitation in general, and in the principlesoutlined for the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP), in particular. The saidframework is anchored on the philosophy that the adverse impact of NRIMPshould be avoided, minimized and/or mitigated to ensure that the ProjectAffected Persons (Pips) will not be worse off, if not, benefit from the project.Implicit in the framework are elements of just disturbance compensation basedon fair market value and replacement cost, participatory process through localconsultations, and intemal/external monitoring to ensure proper and effectiveimplementation of the projects. In order to operationalize the, policies andprinciples outlined earlier, it is necessary to conduct rigorous and systematicassessment of the project areas based on acceptable standards in researchmethods and analysis.

2. In general, the objective of the RAP is to assess the extent of disturbance thatNRIMP project will cause to local settlers and to provide the structure forRAP including the logistical requirements for implementation. Specifically,the objectives of RAP include: to set up a process to allow for publicconsultations with PAPs on the NRIMP projects; to determine the numberand geographically locate the PAPs and assess the extent of disturbance; toestimate, based on current market value and replacement cost, the disturbancecompensation; to provide the operational mechanisms for timely RAPimplementation including total budgetary allocations; and to formulate theterms of reference for intemal and external monitoring of RAPimplementation.

3. RAP preparation and implementation is designed as a collaborative effortamong three key institutions, DPWH, the LGUs, and the consulting firm. Toensure smooth implementation and effective coordination among theseinstitutions, a series of orientation and public consultations were organized.

The basic inputs for RAP preparation include primary and secondary data.Secondary data about the overall social and economic situation obtaining inthe communities along the project sites were generated through municipaldocuments. Further, secondary data were also generated pertaining to

NRIMP-RAP Marihatag-Lianga-Barobo Road j1

assessed values of land improvement including structures and productive

crops. Secondary data pertaining to the technical description of the project

design were used in the linear acquisition and mapping. The determnination of

the compensation matrix for each of the affected households and the total

compensation package is fairly straight forward. Valuation of structures

affected by the Project was based on the concept of Replacement Cost. Values

were determined based on the estimated quantity of materials needed to put up

a structure similar to the one that will be demolished due to the Project and

monetized using the current prices of materials as per records of the District

Engineer's Office. Similarly, valuation of agricultural and other biological

land improvements were based on the assessed value provided for by the

District Engineer's Office. In special cases where additional entitlements

were required, valuation schemes based on the principles outlined in the

LARR Policy were adopted.

4. To ensure that the implementation of RAP will be done smoothly, it was

embodied in the policy framework of NRIMP to undergo a series of public

consultation. The public consultation was done at two levels. The

consultation process was done at the municipal level and at the barangay level.

5. The Marihatag-Lianga-Barobo Road segment under NRIMP I is part of the

long term development of the Surigao-Davao Coastal Road. However; for

Phase I of NRIMP, the Surigao Sur Contract Package is only one of the three

which includes Bacuag - Claver Road in Surigao del Norte and Mati-Manay

in Davao Oriental.

The Marihatag-Lianga-Barobo-San Francisco road section comprises of three

segments stretching to about 75.7 kilometers. Marihatag-Lianga segment

stretches for about 40.3 kilometers and is mainly paved with gravel (29.8 km)

and PCC (10.5 km). About 16.5 kilometers of the gravel pavement are in

good or fair condition whiles the remaining 13.3. kilometers are in either bad

or very bad condition. A higher proportion (65%) of the PCC pavement is

still in either good or fair condition while the remaining portion is either in bad

or very bad shape.

The shortest segment of the Project is along Lianga-Barobo route stretching to

roughly 15.2 kilometers. Except for at least fair-conditioned PCC pavement

across 3.7 kilometers, the entire segment is paved with gravel where the

condition ranges from bad to very bad.

The entire length (20.2 kma) of the Barobo-San Francisco segment is paved

with PCC by locally funded project. The entire stretch is only about 6.1 meters

wide which is short of the standard 6.7 meters. The improvement of the

section would mainly be road widening. Hence, this section originally

included in the project was subsequently removed from implementation.

Deletion of this section from the project remarkably reduces the number of

PAFs.

The design of the proposed civil works across all the two road segments, in

general follow, the old road center line. Re-alignments were minor; hence the

NRIMP-RAP Marrhatag-Ltanga-Barobo Road iii

expected impact of the construction will fall within the established road rightof way (ROW). There will be no land acquisitions in any of the threesegments.

6. Across the entire stretch, from Marihatag to Barobo, the modal ethnic origin ofthe PAFs is Bisaya which accounts for 51.5 percent. The next significant(46.6%) group is categorized as others and this group generally refers to theethno-linguistic affiliation indigenous to the area which is "Kamayo". Thesetwo groups account for practically all of the respondents (98.1%).

While the respondents can be characterized as relatively young, the level ofeducation is very low. The modal level of educational attainment is highschool graduate where the proportion is estimated at 27.7 percent. But this isexactly same as those whose level of education is elementary graduate. Further,in cumulative terms, close to 60 percent of the respondents failed to completehigh school education.

The modal household size is about 6. About half of the respondents (50.6%)cluster about the household sizes ranging from 4 to 6. At the lower end, thereare about 12 percent whose household size is between 2 and 3 and about 20percent has household sizes ranging from 8 to 10. At the extremes, onehousehold have only one member and four have 11 family members.

7. The modal primary occupation among the household respondents is businessoperations. However, this statistic has to be taken in proper perspectiveconsidering the fact that most of these business operations are ordinary sari-sari stores. About 25.3 percent of the respondents are engaged in businessoperations.

However, a considerable proportion of the PAFs are still engaged in theproduction of traditional agricultural crops (41.0%). Their places of residenceare along the highway, but their farms are, most often than not, in the areasaway from the highway.

8. The project design for the entire Marihatag-Lianga-Barobo section of NRIM-Phase I generally followed the center line of the existing road pavements.There were a few cases where realignments were made; however, theserealignments are within the existing Right of Way (ROW) as established bythe District Engineer's Office in Tandag Surigao del Sur. Hence, there are noland acquisitions in this particular section of the road improvement project

Of the total 127 structures, about 28 will be severely affected and 103 will bemarginally affected.

The most common use of the structures affected is residential. Structures usedboth for residential and commercial purposes are also fairly commoncomprising about 59.1 percent of those affected by the project, Also affectedby the project are a considerable number of commercial structures, publicstructures and utilities, and in addition, other structures such as churches andfences.

NRIMP-RAP: Marihatag-Lianga-Barobo Road iv

In some cases, particularly if the structures are used for commercial purposes,income loss will also be a significant consequence of the road improvementprojects. The proportion of the structures used fully or partially forcommercial purposes will provide an indicative extent of the income loss.Based on the LARR policy, income loss is estimated on the basis of foregoneearnings of the commercial establishment during the construction period notexceeding the equivalent income for thirty days.

Within the area of affected structures particularly those which are residential,there are agricultural improvements that will be affected by the project. Themost common crops are coconuts and fruit trees. However, the bulk of thedisturbance on agricultural crop improvements are along the less settled areasof the road where lands are cultivated but the farmers are non-residents in thatspecific area. In such cases, the census was done to merely locate the specificcrop improvements and value the crops in terms of the current prices availableat the District Engineers' Office.

9. There are no land acquisitions in the Marihatag-Lianga-Barobo roadimprovement project. Hence, the compensation entitlements are limited, asthe case maybe, to affected structures, crops and other improvements anddisturbance compensations such as foregone income and subsistenceallowance for PAPs.

10. The total compensation package for 103 marginally affected structures isestimated at roughly PhP997,877. This compensation package includesreplacement costs to structures, crop improvements within the vicinity of thestructure, and foregone earnings for structures used fully or partially forcommercial purposes.

11. There are about 28 severely affected structures with an estimated totalentitlements of PhP1,045,267. This package is spread across the fourmunicipalities and by types of structures.

12. All in all, about PhP269,898 will be required to compensate for the damagesto agricultural crops, forest trees and other improvements.

13. In addition to the compensation package to the PAFs, RAP implementationwill entail overhead and logistical costs. This cost covers the management ofthe implementation process, honoraria to field personnel and committeemembers, maintenance and operating expenses and financial administration,among others.

14. The following is the summary of the total estimated cost of the RAP includingthe cost of implementation:

Compensation Package

Marginally Affected Structures PhP 977,877

NRIMP-RAP Marihatag-Lianga-Barobo Road v

Severely Affected Structures PhP 1,045,967

Impact on Improvements PhP 269,898

Management Cost - PhP 127,430.64

Price Contingencies PhP 318,576.60

External Monitoring andPost-Implementation Evaluation $2,000

Total PhP 2,569,851.24 and,$2,000

As summarized, the total cost of the RAP is PhP and USD2,000.

15. The underlying principle of the LARR Policy Framework, in general, and theRAP in particular, is to provide mitigating measures to at least ensure that thePAFs will not be worse off as a consequence of the road improvement project.It is for this reason that the survey instrument was designed to capture thecritical aspects of the PAFs social and economic conditions to provide thebenchmark for future assessments in the context of monitoring and evaluation.

ANPIM,P-R P - D-i4A_[iXA[2thTA

NRIMP-RAP: Marrhatag-Lwanga--Barobo Road 2

Specifically, the objectives of RAP include:

2.1. to set up a process to allow for public consultations with PAPs on the NRIMP

projects;

2.2. to determine the number and geographically locate the PAPs and assess the extent

of disturbance;

2.3. to estimate, based on current market value and replacement cost, the disturbance

compensation;

2.4. to provide the operational mechanisms for timely RAP implementation including

total budgetary allocations; and

2.5. to formnulate the terms of reference for internal and external monitoring of RAP

implementation.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Institutional Collaboration

RAP preparation and implementation was designed as a collaborative effort among three

key institutions, DPWHI, the LGUs, and the consulting firm. To ensure smooth

implementation and effective coordination among these institutions, a series of

orientation and public consultations were organized.

On the one hand, orientation programs were organized to enable DPWHI and LGU staff

members who will be involved in RAP preparation and imnplementation to appreciate the

philosophy and principles behind the RAP. On the other hand, public consultations were

designed to inform settlers along the sites about the project and the expected

consequences to the community and the households.

3.2. Data and Sources

The basic inputs for RAP preparation include primary and secondary data. Secondary

data about the overall social and economic situation obtaining in the communities along

the project sites were generated through municipal documents. Further, secondary data

were also generated pertaining to assessed values of land improvement including

structures and productive crops. Secondary data pertaining to the technical description of

the project design were used in the linear acquisition and mapping.

Primary data were also generated through actual Project Affected Persons (PAPs) and

key-informants. The field work was conducted from January to February 2001.

Attributes of PAPs at the household level were generated through the administration of a

structured survey instrument and through complete enumeration of the identified PAPs.

NRIMP-RAP. Marihatag-Lianga-Barobo Road 3

Critical primary data were also solicited from key-informants. For instance, technical

information was required to determine the number of Project Affected Families (PAFs)

and the extent of disturbance. Right of Way (ROW) limits were solicited from the

appropriate key-informants at the District Engineer's Office.

3.3. Population

Because of the nature of the problem, there was no choice but to have a complete

enumeration of all affected population including all structures and improvements within

the construction limit of the project design.

3.4. Analytical Tools

In order to put the Resettlement Action Plan in proper perspective, there was need to

characterize the communities affected by the project. This can be done by employing

descriptive statistical analysis of both secondary and primary data pertaining to the

respective communities. Specifically, the analysis involved the use of the standard

measures of central tendencies, dispersions and distributions.

The determination of the compensation matrix for each of the affected households and

the total compensation package was fairly straight forward. Valuation of structures

affected by the Project was based on the concept of Replacement Cost. Values were

determined based on the estimated quantity of materials needed to put up a structure

similar to the one that will be demolished due to the Project and monetized using the

current prices of materials as per records of the District Engineer's Office. Similarly,

valuation of agricultural and other biological land improvements were based on the

assessed value provided for by the District Engineer's Office. In special cases where

additional entitlements were required, valuation schemes based on the principles outlined

in the LARR Policy were adopted.

The mechanical routine of generating summary of actual values was accomplished by

simple algorithmic instructions for the computers using standard application software.

The cost component of RAP implementation was determined by employing simple

budget planning.

4. PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCEEDINGS

To ensure that the implementation of RAP will be done smoothly, it was embodied in the

policy framework of NRIMP to undergo a series of public consultation. The public

consultation was done at two levels. i.e. at the municipal level and at the Barangay level.

Two orientation meetings were conducted at the earlier stage of the RAP preparation.

Both meetings were facilitated by the Chief of EIAPO. The first was conducted at the

NRIMP-RAP: Marihatag-Lianga-Barobo Road 4

DPWH CARAGA Regional Office in Butuan City and the second was at the Surigao delSur District Engineer's Office in Tandag. A series of public consultations followed.Local government officials from the affected Barangays and their respective municipalofficials were invited to a public consultation. In Surigao del Sur, two publicconsultations conducted were facilitated by the Consultant. The first consultation wasconducted in Marihatag Surigao del Sur and the second was in Lianga, Surigao del Sur.

Appendix A outlines the highlights of the proceedings in both orientation meeting andpublic consultations. The orientation meetings were basically centered on theintroduction of NRIMP and the LARR Policy Framework because the audience was theimplementers of RAP. Consequently, most of the discussions clustered about issuesrelating to the role of the DPWH Regional and District staff members. In contrast,because the audience of the public consultations was the potential PAFs, issues revolvedaround compensation and entitlements.

5. RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN

5.1. Project Description

The Marihatag-Barobo-San Francisco Road segment under NRIMP I is part of the long-term development of the Surigao-Davao Coastal Road. However, for Phase I of NRIMP,the Surigao Sur Contract Package is only one of the three which includes Bacuag -Claver Road in Surigao del Norte and Mati-Manay in Davao Oriental.

Figure 5.1. Marihatag-Barobo-San Francisco road section of NRIMP - I, Surigao del Sur, 2001.


The Marihatag-Barobo-San Francisco road section comprises of three segmentsstretching to about 75.7 kilometers. Table 5.1 outlines the specific conditions obtainingin each of the segments.

Table 5.1. Road length by segment and by type of road, Surigao del Sur, 2001.

Segment ~~~~~~~Length by Type Total

Segment ~ Condition Gravel Earth IL-ngth

______ ..._n_g______ I --j7.-.l.......-.. . Y.7 17..p.-7..---v. .--~- impassable _ _ _ _ f i j

______ _____ ____ G ood/F i ~ 3.7 ~~13.

- - jIMP assable

Barobo - San Ba/.Bd 1 0.2 0Francisco *--

Totu l ..... --'I , 4.- 2......j'-

Marihatag-Barobo segiment stretches for about 40.3 kilometers and is mainly paved withgravel (29.8 Ian) and PCC (10.5 kmn). About 16.5 kilometers of the gravel pavement arein good or fair condition whiles the remaining 13.3. kilometers are in either bad or verybad condition. A higher proportion (65%) of the PCC pavement is still in either good orfair condition while the remaining portion is either in bad or very bad shape.

The shortest segment of the Project is along Lianga-Barobo route stretching to roughly15.2 kilometers. Except for at least fair-conditioned PCC pavement across 3.7 kilometers,the entire segment is paved with gravel where the condition ranges from bad to very bad.

The entire stretch (20.2 kmn) of the Barobo-San Francisco segment had been pavedwith PCC by the locally funded project and subsequently removed from NRIMPProject -in February 2002. Therefore, total road length of this road section hasshortened to 55.5 km and corresponding number of ]PAFs also reduced from theoriginally surveyed result.

NRIMP-RAP: Marzhatag-Lianga-Barobo Road 6

The design of the proposed civil works across all three road segmients, in general followthe old road center line. Re-alignments were minor; hence the expected impact of theconstruction will fall within the established road right of way (ROW). There will be noland acquisitions in any of the three segments.

5.2. The Local Government Units

5.2.1. Marihatag

The Marihatag-Barobo-San Francisco road improvement project actually traverses the

five municipalities of Marihatag, San Agustin, Lianga, Barobo in Surigao del Sur andSan Francisco, Agusan del Sur.

Marihatag, Surigao del Sur, is a relatively poor municipality whose residents mainlyderive income from agricultural enterprises. It consists of 12 barangays spread across342 square kilometers of land area. Seven of the 12 barangays are coastal; however,these barangays account for only about 21 percent of the total land area. The remainderis accounted for by the 5 in-land barangays.

The level of physical Table 5.2.1. Road classification by type of pavement in

infrastructure investment in Marihatag, Surigao del Sur, 2001.

Marihatag is very minimal.The total road length is only Classification Length Pavement

about 51.17 kilometers Concrete Earth Gravel

(Table 5.2.1.). Expressed National 15.71 l 15.71

in density (the ratio of road Provincial 12.0 1 12.0 0.90

length to total land area), the Barangay 18.35 16.00

level is only about 150 Total 51.17 4.21 | 31.25 15.71

meters per square kilometer l

of land area. Source: MPDO, Marihatag, Surigao del Sur.

The picture is more dismalif the density is examined by classification of pavement. National road segments are

paved only with gravel and the density is very low at 45 meters per square kilometer.

The total road length paved with earth, stretches across provincial (12 km) and barangay(16 km) roads which, in terms of density, is roughly 90 meters per square kilometer.Concrete pavement is only about 4.21 kilometers along municipal roads. In terms of

density, this translates to only 12 meters per square kilometer of area.

The road improvement project starts at station 1350+065, about a kilometer south of the

town proper. Since most of the barangays in Marihatag are in-land, the Project affects

only three barangays, namely, Arorogan, Antipolo and Amontay.


5.2.2 San Agustin

San Agustin, Surigao del Sur is the adjacent town south of Marihatag. Like Marihatag,the bulk of the land area is characterized as forests. However, most of the residents arestill dependent on agriculture. The estimated total population (1995) is about 13,700 inan area of about 277 square kilometers.

The municipality is composed of thirteen barangays spread across 5,449 hectares (54.4kilometers square) or roughly 20 percent of the total land area. The remaining 80 percentare forest lands. However, of the thirteen barangays, there are only 6 that are affected bythe road improvement project: Otieza, Sto. Niiio, Buatong, Salvacion, Buhisan, and Gata.

Relative to the town ofTable 5.2.2. Road classification by type of pavement in SanMarnhatag, San Agustin l Agustin, Surigao del Sur, 2001.

better off in terms of the ,overall attributes of itsroad infrastructures. The Classification Length Pavementtotal road length is about Concrete Earth Gravel58.8 kilometers. While its National 17.600 1.000 17.6concrete pavement is only Provincial 3.600 3.6concrete pavement Municipal 6.570 1.000 ____ 5.57about 2 kilometers, the Barangay 31.065 7.095 23.970gravel road is relatively Total 58.835 2.000 7.095 49.740extensive with pavementof about 49.7 kilometers.At the same time, the length of earth pavement is only about 7 kilometers.

In density terms, the total road network translates to about 212 meters per squarekilometer. For gravel road pavement, the density is about 179 meters per squarekilometer. The length of concrete pavement, in density terms, translates into aninsignificant 7 meters per square kilometer.

Six of the thirteen barangay in San Agustin are being traversed by the national roadnetwork section which is under the proposed road improvement project including Otieza,Santo Nino, Buatong, Salvacion, Buhisan, and Gata.

These six barangays account for about 10.74 percent of the total land area. Consideringthat the total land area covered by the barangays is only 20 percent of the total land areaof the municipality, then practically, the six barangays cover about half of the land areaallocated for all the political units in the municipality.

NRIMP-RAP: Marzhatag-Lianga-Barobo Road 8

5.2.3 Lianga

Geographically, Lianga is situated at the middle of the of the entire Surigao del Surprovince. In 1997, the total population of the municipality was about 30,814 in a totalland area of roughly 25,330 hectares or 253 square kilometers.

Like the rest of the other municipalities in Surigao del Sur, Lianga is predominantlyagricultural. More than half (57%) of the total land area is devoted to the production oftraditional and subsistence agricultural crops. There is no established commercialproduction of high value crops, livestock and poultry.

The total road length andquality, compared to the Table 5.2.3. Road classification by type of pavement in Lianga,

other municipalities in the Surigao del Sur, 2001.

north, are relatively better.The types of pavement are Pavementmainly gravel (92 km) and Classification Length Concrete Earth Gravel

concrete (9 km) and the total National 25.00 4.00 21.00

road length is high at about Provincial 4.20 4.20

101 kilometers. Municipal 14.80 5.00 9.80Barangay 5.70 57.00

Hence, there are about 400 Total 101.00 9.00 92.00

meters of paved road (eitherconcrete or gravel) per square kilometer area in the entire municipality of Lianga: 363meters of gravel road and about 35 meters of concrete pavement. I

Among the towns affected by the road improvement project, Lianga has the longeststretch along the coastline; hence, by characterization of the Surigao-Davao coastal road,the town has the highest number of affected barangays. Out of the thirteen barangays inthe entire municipality, nine will be affected which covers Anibongan, Banahao,Baucawe, Diatagon, Ganayon, Manyayay, Payasan, San Isidro, and St. Christine.

5.2.4 Barobo

In terms of the government units, the municipality of Barobo hosts the largest number.While the total land area of the town is only about 23,300 hectares, even lower than thatof Marihatag and that of Lianga, the number of barangays is 21. The total number ofresidents is about 35,550 (1997) in a total land area of roughly 23,300 hectares or 233square kilometers.

About three quarters of the total land area are devoted to agricultural crop production,which implies that the municipality is still primarily agricultural. Specifically, most ofthe agricultural lands (86%) are cultivated for the production of coconut.

NRIMP-RAP: Manhatag-Lianga-Barobo Road 9

Among the fourmunicipalities in Surigao del Table 5.2.4. Road classification by type of pavement in Barobo,

Sur being traversed by the Surigao del Sur, 2001.

road improvement project,Barobo has the highest road Pavement

length and a relatively lower Classification Length Concrete Earth Gravel

total land area except in National 22.500 15.100 7.400

relation to the municipality Provincial 38.200 .100 34.300

of Lianga. The total road Municipal 7.405 .527 4.583

length is about 225 Barangay 157.350 .701 150.789kloenthrs Thsi oe Total 225.455 16.428 197.072kilometers. This iS morethan twice the road length ofLianga and four times the road lengths of both Marihatag and San Agustin. Theconcrete pavement is roughly 16.5 kilometers and the gravel road network is quiteextensive at a length of about 197 kilometers.

The total road length translates to about 967 meters per square kilometer of land area: 70meters of concrete pavement and 845 meters of gravel road. It is also worth noting thatof the extensive read network in the municipality, there are no earth road pavements.

Only 5 of the 21 barangays in the municipality are affected by the road improvementproject, namely Wakat, Amaga, Tambis, Bahi, and Camp Bagang.

5.2.5. San Francisco, Agusan del Sur

The Barobo-San Francisco segment of the road improvement plan for the Surigao-DavaoCoastal Road is already paved with concrete. However, because the contract packageextends to the rotunda of the town proper, the expected PAFs would still be significant.This is despite the fact that only three barangays are covered in the road improvementproject.

Relative to the municipalities in Surigao del Sur, San Francisco is a developed town.While the main source of income among residents is still agricultural production, asignificant sector of the community is engaged in the production of high valuecommercial crops such as rubber, banana, and palm oil. Further, a significantcontribution to the economy is derived from enterprises involving processing andmanufacturing which are clear indications of a vibrant and progressive economicenvironment. Furthermore, the municipality is a host to about a dozen "pawnshops"which, again, are indicators of the fact that the general level of economic activity in themunicipality is already high.

The total- population of the municipality is about 49,200 (estimated based on the 1990Census of Population) spread across 27 barangays. While the road improvement projectcovers only the three barangays along the national road leading to Barobo, thesignificance of the impact is quite substantial because the proposed improvement

NRIMP-RAP- Marihatag-Lianga-Barobo Road 10

includes widening and full-depth reconstruction of most of the existing concretepavements, and the pavement toward the rotunda is, in both sides, already laden withstructures.

5.3 Socio-Economic Profile of Project Affected Families

Table 5.3. Distribution by type of respondents and by municipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001.

Municipality

Respondent Marihatag San Lianga Barobo San TotalAugustin Francisc

0

Husband 7 9 17 1 N/A 34(5 5%) (7.1%) (13.4%) (0.8%) (26.8%)

Spouse 5 11 23 0 N/A 39(3.9%) (8.7%) (18.1%) (0.0%) (30.7%)

Child 2 1 3 0 N/A 6(1.6%) (0.8%) (2.4%) (0.0%) (4 7%)

Parents 0 1 2 0 N/A 3(0.0%) (0.8%) (1.6%) (0.0%) (2.4%)

Other 1 0 0 0 N/A 1(0.8%) (0.0%) (0.07%) (0.0%) (0.8%)

Not 9 9 26 0 N/A 44Applicable (7.1%) (7.1%) (20.5%) (0.0%) (34.6%)

Total 24 31 71 1 0 127(18.9%) (24.4%) (55.9%) (0.8%) (100.0%7o)

The total number of affected structures is 127. However, some affected structures areeither public or private whose owners are non-residents; hence, there are no valid typesof respondents. Among 127 affected structures 24 structures are public utilities and 20are non-residents. Therefore, the total number of households with valid type ofrespondents is 83.

Majority (30.7%) of the respondents are the female spouses while 26.8 percent are thehusbands. The rest of the other respondents are spread across children, parents, andsometimes other members of the extended family.

The three municipalities of Lianga, San Augustin, and Marihatag account for themajority (99.2%) of the PAFs with proportions of about 55.9, 24.4 and 18.9 percentrespectively. The remainder is shared by Marihatag (0.8%).


5.3.1. Demography

As raised in the previous section, there are only 83 cases with valid types of respondentsand hence, the only cases where socio-economic characterization is possible. In most

characterization, therefore, the number of cases with valid responses is 83.

Across the entire stretch, from Marihatag to Barobo, the modal ethnic origin of the PAFs

is Bisaya which accounts for 51.5 percent. The next significant (46.6%) group iscategorized as others and this group generally refers to the ethno-linguistic affiliation

indigenous to the area which is "Kamayo". These two groups account for practically all

of the respondents (98.1%).

The Project Affected Families (PAFs) are relatively young. The mean age of the male

household heads is 44.6 years while the female spouses have the same average age of44.6 years, too. Across all municipalities, the average age is only about 46.7 years,

composing of 46.4 in Marihatag, 46.5 in San Augustin, 46.2 in Lianga, and 76.0 inBarobo (Table 5.3.1a).

Table 5.3.la. Mean age by type of respondent by municipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001Municipality

Respondent Marihatag San Lianga Barobo San TotalAugustin Francisco

Husband N 7 9 17 1 N/A 34Mean 453 44.9 44.3 76.0 44.6

Spouse N 5 11 23 0 N/A 39Mean 42.2 46.7 44.1 44.6

Child N 2 1 3 0 N/A 6Mean 64.0 33.0 40.0 46.8

Parents N 0 1 2 0 N/A 3Mean 73.0 66.5 68.6

Other N 1 0 0 0 N/A 1Mean 40.0 40.0

Total N 15 22 45 1 83Mean 46.4 46.5 46.2 76.0 46.7

While the project affected families (PAFs) can be characterized as relatively young, the

level of education is very low. The modal level of educational attainment is high school

graduate and elementary graduate where the proportion is estimated at 27.7 percent

(Table 5.3.1.b). In cumulative terms, close to 60 percent of the respondents failed tocomplete high school education.

NRIMP-RAP Marlhatag-Lianga-Barobo Road 12

Table 5.3.1b. Educational attainment of the respondents by municipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001Municipality

Man hatag San Lianga Barobo San TotalRespondent Augustin Francisco

Elementary. 1 4 7 N/A 12Undergraduate 1.2% 4.8% 8 4% 14.5%Elementary. 8 6 9 N/A 23Graduate 9.6% 7.2% 10 8% 27.7%High School 2 5 6 1 N/A 14Undergraduate 2.4% 6.0% 7.2% 12% 16.9%High School 2 6 15 N/A 23Graduate. 2.4% 7.2% 18.1% 27.7%Vocational 0 N/A 0Undergraduate.Vocational 0 N/A 0Graduate.College 2 4 N/A 6Undergraduate 2.4% 4.8%8 7.2%College 1 2 N/A 3Graduate. 1.2% 2.4% 3.6%None. 2 N/A 2

2.4% 2.4%Total 15 22 45 1 N/A 83

18.1% 26.5% 54.2% 1.2% 100.0%

Table 5.3.1c indicates the household size across the various municipalities covered by theroad improvement project. The modal household size is about 6. About half of therespondents (50.6%) cluster about the household sizes ranging from 4 to 6. At the lowerend, there are about 12 percent whose household size is between 2 and 3 and about 20percent with household sizes ranging from 8 to 10, at the higher end. At the extremes,one household has only one member while four have 11 family members.

Majority of the respondents can be characterized to be in a nuclear household, that is, allthe members of the family are direct dependents of the couple. Across all municipalities,nuclear households account for 57.8 percent (Table 5.3.1d). However, a significantproportion (39.8%) of the total household respondents is extended. This implies that asthe household matures, members are unable to establish households of their own and aretherefore forced to live in their parents' or relatives' households. This is often associatedwith the lack of economic opportunities in the community.

NRIMP-RAP: Marnhatag-Lianga-Barobo Road 13

Table 5.3.1c. Distribution by household size and by municipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001Municipality

Household Marihatag San Augustin Lianga Barobo San Francisco TotalSize

1 0 0 1 0 N/A 11.2% 1.2%

2 1 2 3 1 N/A 71.2% 2.4% 3.6% 1.2% 8.4%

3 0 1 2 0 N/A 31.2% 2.4% 3.6%

4 2 2 4 0 N/A 82.4% 2.4% 4.8% 9.6%

5 2 2 8 0 N/A 122.4% 2.4% 9.6% 14.5%

6 4 7 11 0 N/A 224.8% 8.4% 13.3% 26.5%

7 3 3 4 0 N/A 103.6% 3.6% 4.8% 12.0%

8 1 2 5 0 N/A 81.2% 2.4% 6.0% 9.6%

9 2 2 4 0 N/A 82.4% 2.4% 4.8% 9.6%

10 0 0 0 0 N/A 0

11 0 1 3 0 N/A 41.2% 4.8%

12 0 0 0 0 N/A 0

Total 15 22 45 1 0 8318.1% 26.5% 54.2% 1.2% 100.0%

NRIMP-RAP: MarLhatag-Lianga-Barobo Road 14

Table 5.3.1d. Distribution by household structure and by municipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001.Municipality

Single Nuclear Extended Joint Total

Marihatag 0 8 7 0 15

9.6% 8.4% 18.1%

San Augustin 0 14 8 0 2216.9% 9.6% 26.5%

Lianga 2 25 18 0 452.4% 30.1% 21.7% 54%

Barobo 0 1 0 0 11.2% 1.2%

San Francisco N/A N/A N/A N/A 0

Total 2 48 33 0 832.4% 57.8% 39.8% 100.0%

Table 5.3.1e shows the number of affected households including tenants by locality,

ethnicity, and severity of the impact. The major ethno-linguistic group is Bisaya (51.5 %),

followed by Kamayo (46.6 %). The number of severely PAFs of Bisaya and Kamayo is

14 an-d 13 respectively.

Many Bisayas have migrated to Mindanao island. Kamayo are linguistically related to

the Tausug and Butuanon, and belong to the Meso and Central Philippine family of

languages. There are four PAFs belonging to other linguistic groups.

Bisaya is not Indigenous People. Kamayo is registered Indigenous People in the

Philippines. The population of Kamayo in the area is estimated at 122,350 in 1994;

115,850 in Surigao del Sur, 6,500 in Agusan del Norte. Christianity is the religion of

Kamayo. Kamayo had migrated from surrounding areas of Davao to Surigao del Sur,

and Augsan del Norte in the 18 th centuries.

Original Kamayo has its own dialect, however the Kamayo PAPs along the Project Road

is not classified as Indigenous People since they have been mingled with Bisayas and not

compose of homogeneous societies.

NRIMP-RAP: Marnhatag-Lianga-Barobo Road 15

Table 5.3.1e Number of Affected Household by Ethnicity, Locality, and SeverityNo. of Project Affected Families (PAFs)

Municipality Barangay Visaya Kamayo Others No. of PAFsMarginal Severe Marginal Severe Marginal SevereMarihatag Arorogan 1 0 7 0 0 0 8Antipolo 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Amontay 5 2 2 1 0 0 10Otieza 0 0 1 0 0 0 10San Augustin Buhisan 0 0 4 0 0 0 4Buatong 0 0 0 2 0 0 2Salvacion 1 1 1 0 0 0 3

Gata 1 0 9 4 0 0 14Campanubay 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lianga Manyayay 5 0 0 0 0 1 6Diatagon 4 2 0 0 0 6St. Christine 5 0 0 1 0 0 6Ganayon 2 7 1 3 0 0 13Banahaw 3 0 4 1 1 0 9Payasan 6 0 2 0 0 0 8Baucawe 1 0 2 0 0 0 3Anibongan 4 2 2 0 0 0 8

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I 0Barobo Wakat 0 0 1Total . 39 14 35 13 1 1 103


5.3.2 Economy

The modal primary occupation among the household respondents is farming. Project AffectedFamilies (PAFs) who reported to engage in farming comprise about 41.0 percent (Table5.3.2a). Their places of residence are along the highway, but their farms are, most often thannot, in the areas away from the highway.

A considerable proportion of the PAFs, though, are still engaged in business operation(25.3 %). However, this statistic has to be taken in proper perspective considering the factthat most of these business operations are ordinary sari-sari stores.

Apparently, business and farming account for the primary occupation of majority of the PAFs.The rest are distributed across other occupations ranging from housekeeping (9.6%) to hiredwork, either farm work or skilled/unskilled labor (6.0%). What is interesting to note is thestatistic indicating that about 9.6 percent of the respondents are without any form of primaryoccupation.

Table 5.3.2a. Primary occupation by municipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001.Municipality

Respondent Manhatag San Lianga Barobo San Francisco TotalAugustin

Farmer 12 6 16 0 N/A 3414.5% 6 0% 19.3% 41 0%

Hired Farm - 0 0 0 N/AWorkers

Sklled 0 1 2 0 N/A 3Labor 1.2% 2.4% 3 6%

Unskilled 0 0 2 0 N/A 2Labor 2 4% 2.4%

Professional 0 1 0 0 N/A 1Employee 1.2%

Professional 0 0 0 0 N/A 0Practice

Business 1 5 15 0 N/A 21Operator 6 0% 25 3%

House 2 2 4 0 N/A 8Keeper 2.4% 2.4% 9 6%

Hunter/ 0 0 0 0 N/A 0Gatherer

OFW 0 0 0 0 N/A 0

Others 0 3 3 0 N/A 63.6% 36% 60%

None 0 4 3 1 N/A 84.8% 3.6% 1.2% 9 6%

Total 15 22 45 1 0 8318.1% 26.5% 54.2% 12% 1000%

NRIMP-RAP Marihatag-Lianga-Barobo Road 17

Given the various primaryoccupations outlined above, in Table 5.3.2b. Mean and median annual income by source and

terms of the annual total by municipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001.

income, PAFs from San Marihatag San Lianga

Augustin, on the average, I Augustin

earned the highest total income Farm Income

estimated at PhP91,992. The Mean 12,864 10,310 4,917

other municipalities have Median 12,864 3,050 0

estimated average total income Non-Farm Income

ranging from as low as Median 9,360 83,682 20,610

PhP22,224 in Marihatag to Total Income

about PhP34,091 in Lianga. Mean 22,224 91,992 34,091Median 23,520 45,863 20,610

It is interesting to note that Iwhile the average total income among the PAFs is relatively high, the median across the

various sources is consistently lower than the mean which indicates a certain degree of in-

equality. Marihatag is an exception because in said municipality, the median which is

estimated at about PhP23,520 is higher than the mean. While this municipality is

characterized as more egalitarian, it also belongs to the poorer municipalities.

For instance, while the average total income is about PhP91,992, the median is only

PhP45,863. This implies that half of the total PAFs have incomes of, at most, only

PhP45,863. This pattern is also true for both non-farm and farm income sources. The

median non-farm income is only PhP36,500 while the mean is about PhP81,682. The

scenario is worse for non farm income. The median is practically nil. This implies that half

the population has zero farm income.

5.3.3. Level of Living

The modal type of dwelling among the PAFs across all municipalities is Semi-parmanent

(55.5%, Table 5.3.3). Temporary dwelling account for about 32.9 percent. However, the

dominance of temporary dwellings is only true to the municipalities of Lianga It must be

noted that about 3.5 percent of the PAFs are living in shanties.

Almost half of total PARs have access to electricity. About 55.5 percent of the total

household respondents were able to have access to electrical power. However, across

municipalities, there is a glaring pattern of inequitable access. The higher percentage of

PAFs with access to electrical power is only in the municipalities of San Augustine and

Lianga. Very few PAFs of Marihatag has access to electricity.

Majority of the PAFs, in aggregate terms, have access to potable water through piped systems.

It is also worth noting that about 14.5- percent of the PAFs source their water requirements

form either rain or springs.

The modal fuel type used is wood (72.9%). LPG and charcoal is used as cooking fuel second

to wood, which account 11.6%, respectively.


About 50 percent of the respondents are using either semi flush or flush toilet facilities.

However, the proportion of those who are still using the antipolo system is still considerably

high at roughly 33.2 percent.


Table 5.3.3. Level of amenities by municipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001.

Type of house MunicipalityManhatag(%) San Augustin(%) Lianga(%) Total(%)

Permanent 0.0 3.5 3.5 7.1Semi-Permanent 14.8 25.8 14.8 55.5Temporary 3.5 3.5 25.8 32.9Shanty 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5Total 18.4 37.1 44.5 100.0

Lighting MunicipalityManhatag(%) San Augustin(%) Lianga(%) Total(%)

Electricity 3.5 22.3 29.7 55.5Kerosene 14.8 11.0 14.8 40.6Petromax 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5Total 18.4 37.1 44.5 100.0

Water system MunicipalityMarihatag(%) San Augustin(%) Lianga(%) Total(%)

Rain 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5Spring 0.0 3.5 7.4 11.0Dug Well 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5Artesian Well 3.5 0.0 3.5 7.1Pump Well 3.5 0.0 3.5 7.1Piped Water 11.0 25.8 29.7 66.5Others 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total 18.4 37.1 44.5 100.0

Municipality

Manhatag(%) San Augustin(%) Lianga(%) Total(%)Wood 19.1 19.1 34.7 72.9Charcaol 0.0 4.0 7.6 11.6LPG 0.0 7.6 4.0 11.6Kerosene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Others 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0Total 19.1 34.7 46.2 100.0

Type of house MunicipalityManhatag(%) San Augustin(%) Lianga(%) Total(%)

Open Pit 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5Antipolo 14.8 7.4 11.0 33.2Semi Flush 0.0 22.3 22.3 44.5Flush 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5None 3.5 0.0 11.0 14.5Total 18.4 37.1 44.5 100.0


5.4 Project Impacts

5.4.1. Impacts on Land

The project design for the entire Marihatag-Barobo-San Francisco section of NRIM-Phase I

generally followed the center line of the existing road pavements. There were a few caseswhere realignments were made; however, these realignments are within the existing Right ofWay (ROW) as established by the District Engineer's Office in Tandag Surigao del Sur.Hence, there are no land acquisitions in this particular section of the road improvementproject.

5.4.2 Impacts on Structures

Based on the RAP Census, 127 structures will be affected by the road improvement project:28 are structures which would be severely affected by the road improvement project and 99will be marginally affected. The cut-off date is 13 March 2001.

In both severe and marginally affected structures, the common use are residential,commercial, and commercial/residential (structures used for both residential and commercialpurposes). The other structures used as public infrastructures, public utilities and other usessuch as walkways and school fences, are categorized as marginally affected.

The proportion of the three categories in the marginally affected structures is estimated atabout 59.1 percent. The remaining proportion is distributed across public infrastructures andother uses.By municipality, the most number of severely affected structures_is located in Lianga with atotal number of about 17 PAFs accounting for roughly 60.7 percent. San Augustin accountsfor the second highest number with an estimate of about 7 PAFs. The remaining severelyaffected PAFs is spread across Marihatag (4).

In contrast, Lianga hosts the most number of marginally affected PAFs with an estimate of 42.Marihatag and San Augustin comes second with about 16 PAFs, respectively. Barobo has one(1) PAF. See Table 5.4. for the number of PAFs by extent of impact on structures andmunicipality.


Table 5.4. Extent of impact on structures by municipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001.

i ~~~~~~~~ImpactI Marginal c SevereR R C2 Other Public R' R/C2 C' Other Public Total

Infra/ Infra/Utilities4 Utilities

4

Marihatag 6 0 1 10 4 3 0 0 n/a n/a 24

San 8 2 3 3 8 3 4 0 n/a n/a 31

Augustin

Lianga 17 8 8 8 12 9 3 6 n/a n/a 71

Barobo 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a.

San n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

FranciscoTotal 31 11 12 21 24 15 7 6 n/a n/a 127

R=Residential Structure, RJC=Residential cum Commercial Structure, C=Commercial Structure,Public Infra/Utilities=Public Infrastructure

5.4.3 Loss of Income

In some cases, particularly if the structures are used for commercial purposes, income loss

will also be a significant consequence of the road improvement projects. The proportion of

structures used fully or partially for commercial purposes will provide an indicative extent of

the income loss. Based on the LARR policy, income loss is estimated on the basis of

foregone earnings of the commercial establishment during the construction period not

exceeding the equivalent income for thirty days.

5.4.4 Impact on Land Improvements

Within the area of affected structures particularly those which are residential, there are

agricultural improvements that will be affected by the project. The most common crops are

coconuts and fruit trees. In cases such as these, improvements are assessed and valued using

the current prices as provided by the District Engineers Office, Department of Public Works

and Highways.

5.5 Compensation Package

5.5.1 Entitlements

There are no land acquisitions in the Marihatag-Barobo-San Francisco road improvement

project. Hence, the compensation entitlements are limited, as the case maybe, to affected

structures, crops and other improvements and disturbance compensations such as foregone

income and subsistence allowance for PAFs.

5.5.2 Affected Structures

Based on the guidelines, if the total floor area affected exceeds 20 percent of the total floor

area of the structure, the impact is considered severe. In such cases, the whole structure will


be acquired and estimated for payments. However, in the implementation of the survey, field

workers were given the prerogative to deviate from the rigid 20 percent cut-off to allow for

special cases for considerations. For instance, it will not require 20 percent of damage for

light structures and shanties to destroy the stability of the structure; hence, judgments are

made at the field where even at less 20 percent, some structures were considered to be

severely affected. There are also cases where mitigation measures can be suggested to spare

huge and expensive structures. All structures are within the ROW as established by the

DPWV. Hence, entitlements are on the basis of their being owners or tenants of structures. In

this case, entitlements are patterned in the schedule outlined in Table 5.5.1.

5.5.3 Land Improvements in Absentee Landholdings

During the course of the RAP Survey, valuable land improvements along the roads were

determined to be affected by the road improvement project. However, in cases where the

landowners or tenants are non-settler in the area, it was deemed appropriate for practical

purposes, to simply locate the specific improvement along the road section and attach the

corresponding value based on the current prices as provided for by the District Engineers

Office, Department of Public Works and Highways.

5.5.4 Compensation Matrix

In line with the aforementioned objectives and principles of resettlement (Chapter 3) and the

legal framework (Chapter 4), the matrix below will be used in the settlement of claims for

compensation for lost assets of PAPs. Unless otherwise indicated, payment of compensation

and other entitlements and the extension of assistance will be given to PAP households, not

individuals.

NRIMP-RAP: Marzhatag-Lianga-BaroboRoad 23

Table 5.5.1. Compensation Entitlement MatrixType of Application Entitled Person Compensation Compensation AmountLoss

LI Arable Land Actual area needed Owners with full title, For the portion of the land needed: N/Aby the road project tax declaration or who + Cash compensation equivalent to zonal value + 10% (AO 50)None and the remaining are covered by + Topping-up supplemental assistance equivalent to the differenceland is still customary law (e.g. between the zonal value + 10% and the fair market value in theeconomically viable possessory rights, area as established by the independent appraiser to be hired by theusufruct) or other projectacceptable proof of +Cash compensation for perennials of commercial value asownership deternuned by the DFNR or the concerned appraisal committee

+PAP will be given sufficient time to harvest crops on the subjectland

PAPs without title, tax For the portion of the land needed: N/Adeclaration, or are not +PAP will be given sufficient time to harvest cropscovered by customary +Cash compensation for perennials of commerctal value aslaw (e.g., possessor determined by the DENR or the concerned appraisal committeerights, usufruct) or + Financial assistance to make up for land preparation in theother acceptable proof amount of PhP150 per square meterof ownership

Remaining land Owners with full title, +Cash compensation equivalent to zonal value +10% (AO 50) or, N/Abecome tax declalatlon or who if feasible, 'land for land' will be provided in terms of a neweconomically not are covered by parcel of land of equivalent productivity, at a location acceptableviable (i.e., PAP customaty law (e.g., to PAP, and with long-term security of tenure.losing >20% of possessory rights, +Topping-up supplemental assistance equivalent to the differenceland holding or usufruct) or other between the zonal value + 10% and the fair market value in theeven when losing acceptable proof of area as established by the independent appraiser to be hired by the<20% but the ownership projectremaining land is +Subsistence allowance of PhPI5,000not economically +PAP will be given sufficient time to harvest cropsviable anymore) +Cash wmpensation for perennials of commercial value as

determined by the DENR or the concerned appraisal committee+If relocating, PAP to be provided free transportatLon+Rehabilitation assistance (skills training and other developmentactivities) equivalent to PhPI5,000 will be provided incoordination with other government agencies if the present meansof livelihood is no longer viable and the PAP will have to engagein a new income activity


PAPs without title, tax +Financial assistance equivalent to the average annual grossdeclaration, are not harvest for the past 3 years but not less than PhP15,000covered by customary +PAP will be given sufficient time to harvest cropslaw (e.g., possessory +Cash compensation for perennials of commercial value asrights, usufruct) or determined by the DENR or the concerned appraisal committeeother acceptable proof +Financial assistance to make up for land preparation in theof ownership amount of PhP150 per square meter

+If relocating, PAP to be provided free transportation+Rehabflitation assistance (skills training and other developmentactivities) equivalent to PhP15,000 will be provided incoordination with other government agencies if the present meansof livelihood is no longer viable and the PAP will have to engagein a new income activity

Agricultural lessees As per RA 6389 and EO 1035: N/A+Disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average ofthe gross harvest on the land holding during the five precedingyears but not less than PhP15,000.+Rehabilitation assistance (skills training and other developmentactivities) equivalent to PhP15,000 will be provided incoordination with other government agencies if the present meansof livelihood is no longer viable and the PAP will have to engagein a new income activity

Temporary use of All PAPs +Compensation to be provided for loss of income during theland period, standing crops, cost of soil restoration and damagedstructures


Type of Application Entitled Person Compensation Compensation AmountLoss PhP

2 Residential Actual area needed Owners with full title, For the portion of the land needed N/Aland and/or by the road project tax declaration or who +Cash compensation equivalent to zonal value +10% (AO 50)Commercial and the remaining are covered by +Topping-up supplemental assistance equivalent to the differenceland land is still viable customary law (e.g., between the zonal value +10% and the fair market value in the

for continued use possessory rights, area as established by the independent appraiser to be hired by theNone usufruct) or other project

acceptable proof +Cash compensation for perennials of commercial value asacceptable proof of determined by the DENR or the concerned appraisal committeeownership

Remaining Owners with full titley +Cash compensation equivalent to zonal value +10% (AO 50) or,residential or tax declaration or who if feasible, 'land for land' will be provided in terms of a newcommercial land are covered by parcel of land of equivalent market value, at a location acceptablebecomes not viable customary law (e.g., to PAP, and with long-term security of tenure. The replacementfor continued use. possessory rights, land should be of acceptable size under zoning laws or a plot of

usufruct) or other equivalent value, whichever is larger, in a nearby resettlement areaacceptable proof of with adequate physical and social infrastructure. When theownership affected holding is larger in value than the relocation plot, cash

compensation will cover the difference in value.+Topping-up supplemental assistance equivalent to the differencebetween the zonal value +10% and the fair market value in thearea as established by the independent appraiser to be hired by theproject+Cash compensation for perennials of commercial value asdeterm'ine by the DENR or concerned appraisal committee+If relocating, PAP to be provided free transportation

Temporary use of All PAPs +Compensation to be provided for loss of income during the N/Aland period, standing crops, cost of soil restoration and damaged

structures

3 Main Structure, with or Owners of structure +Compensation in cash for affected portion of the structure,Structures without a building will full title or tax including the cost of restoring the remaining structure, as(e.g., house, permit, partially declaration to the land determined by the concerned appraisal committee with nohouse cum affected and the or those who are deduction for salvaged building materials.shop) remaining structure covered by customary +PAPs who have business affected due to partial impact on the

is still viable for law (e.g., possessory structure are entitled to a subsistence allowance for the loss of64 PAFs continued use. rights, usufruct) or income during the reconstruction period. (Such will be verified

other acceptable proof and computed by the Municipal Resettlement Implementing42 PAFs of ownership committee or RIC).


Owners of structures, +Compensation in cash for affected portion of the structure, R = 31PAFsincluding shanty including the cost of restoring the remaining structure, as Affected structure 132,784dwellers in urban areas, determined by the concerned appraisal committee with no Income loss N/Ahave no title or tax deduction for salvaged building materials Relocation N/Adeclaration to the land +Shanty dwellers in urban areas who opt to go back to their place Rehabilitation N/Aor other acceptable of origin in the province or be shifted to government relocation Improvement 3,245proof of ownership sites will be provided free transportation Sub-total 136,029

+PAPs who have business affected due to partial impact on theR = 31 PAFs structure are entitled to a subsistence allowance for the loss of

income during the reconstruction period. (Such will be verified R/C = 11 PAFsR/C = 11 PAFs and computed by the municipal Resettlement Implementing Affected structure 81,449

Committee or RIC). Income loss 51,457+Professional squatters will not receive compensation but they can Relocation N/Acollect their salvageable materials. Rehabilitation N/A

Improvement 48Sub-total 132,954

Renters (tenants) of +Given 3 months notice on the schedule of demolition R = N/Aleased affected +If shifting is required, PAP is given transitional allowancestructures, including equivalent to one month rent of a similar structure within the samerenters of shanty area R/C = N/Adwellings in urban +For house tenants renting structures outside of, or within theareas ROW, and who have to transfer elsewhere, free transportation

will be providedR = N/A +Renting shanty dwellers in urban areas who opt to go back toR/C = N/A their place of origin in the province or be shifted to government

relocation sites will be provided free transportationEntire structure Owners of structures +Compensation in cash for the entire structure at replacement costaffected OR when with full title or tax as determined by the concerned appraisal committee withoutthe remaining declaration to the land deduction for salvaged building materials.structure becomes or those who are +Inconvenience allowance of PhP10,000 per PAP.not viable for covered by customary +PAPs who have business affected due to the severe impact on thecontinued use, with law (e.g., possessory structure are entitled to a subsistence allowance for the loss ofor without a rights, usufruct) or income during the reconstruction period. (Such will be verifiedbuilding permit other acceptable proof and computed by the RIC).22 PAFs of ownership +If relocation is necessary, free transportation will be provided


+Rehabilitation assistance in the form of skills training and otherdevelopment activities and equivalent to PhP15,000 will beprovided in coordination with other government agencies if thepresent means of livelihood (e.g., house cum shop) is no longerviable and the PAP will have to engage in a new income activity

Owners of structure, +Compensation in cash for the entire structure at replacement cost R 15 PAPsincluding shanty as determined by the concerned appraisal committee without Affected structure 492,281dwellers in urban areas, deduction for salvaged building materials. Income loss N/Ahave no title or tax +Shanty dwellers in urban areas who opt to go back to their place Relocation N/Adeclaration to the land of origin in the province or be shifted to government relocation Rehabilitation N/Aor other acceptable sites will be provided free transportation Improvement 1,134proof of ownership +PAPs who have business affected due to the severe impact on the Sub-total 493,415structure are entitled to a subsistence allowance for the loss ofR = 15 PAFs income during the reconstruction period. (Such will be verified R/C = 7PAFsR/C = 7 PAFs and computed by the RIC). Affected structure 255,139+If relocation is necessary, free transportation will be provided Income loss 26,100+Rehabilitation assistance in the form of skills training and other Relocation 500development activities and equivalent to PhP15,000 will be Rehabilitation 105,000provided in coordination with other government agencies if the Improvement 167present means of livelihood (e.g., house cum shop) is no longer Sub-total 386,906viable and the PAP will have to engage in a new income activity

+Professional squatters will not receive compensation but they cancollect their salvageable materials

NRIMP-RAP: Marihatag-Llanga-Barobo Road 28

Typeof Application Entitled Person Compensation Compensation AmountLoss PhPRenters (tenants) of +Given 3 month notice on the schedule of demolition R = N/A

leased affected +PAP is given transitional allowance equivalent to one monthstructures, including rent of a similar structure within the same arearenters of shanty +For house tenants renting structures outside of, or within the R/C = N/Adwellings in urban ROW, and who have to transfer elsewhere, freeareas transportation will be provided

+Renting shanty dwellers in urban areas who opt to go backR = N/A to their place of origin in the province or be shifted toR/C = N/A government relocation sites will be provided free

transportation+Rehabilitation assistance in the form of skills training andother development activities and equivalent to PhP15,000will be provided in coordination with other governmentagencies if the present means of livelihood (e.g., house cumshop) is no longer viable and the PAP will have to engage ina new income activity

4 Independent Shops, with or Owners of structure +Compensation in cash for affected portion of the structure, 12 PAFsshops without building with or without full including the cost of restoring the remaining structure, as Affected structure 129,120(structures) permit, partially title or tax declaration determined by the concerned appraisal committee with no Income loss 82,022affected and the to the land or those deduction for salvaged building materials. Relocation N/Aremaining structures who are covered by +As determined by the RIC, PAPs will be entitled to Rehabilitation N/A18 PAFs are still viable for customary law (e.g., transitional allowance to cover for their computed income Improvement 1,190continued use. possessory rights, loss during the demolition and reconstruction of their shops, Sub-total 212,332usufruct) or other but not to exceed a 1 month period.12 PAFs acceptable proof of

ownership

12 PAFs


Renters (tenants of +As determined by the RIC, shop renters will be entitled to a N/Aaffected shops transitional allowance to cover for their computed income

loss during the period that their business is interruptedN/A

Entire shop affected Owner of structure +Compensation in cash for the entire structUre at replacement 6 PAFsOR when the with or without full cost as determined by the concerned appraisal committee Affected structure 66,468remaining structure title or tax declaration without deduction for salvaged building materials. Income loss 9,000becomes not viable to the land or those +Subsistence allowance of PhP15,000 to each PAP Relocation N/Afor continued use, who are covered by +Free transportation will be provided if relocating Rehabilitation 90,000with or without a customary law (e.g., +Rehabilitation assistance in the form of skills training and Improvement 178building permit possessory rights, other development activities and equivalent to PhP1S,000 Sub-total 165,646

usufruct) or other will be provided in coordination with other government6 PAFs acceptable proof of agencies if the present means of livelihood is no longer viable

ownership and the PAP will have to engage in a new income activity+Professional squatters will not receive compensation but

6 PAFs they can collect their salvageable materials

NRIMP-RAP: Marlhatag-Lianga-Barobo Road 30

Type of Application Entitled Person Compensation - Compensation AmountLoss PhP

Renters (tenants) of Given 3 month notice on the schedule of demolition N/Aaffected shops +As determined by the RIC, shop renters will be entitled to a

transitional allowance to cover for their computed incomeN/A loss during the period that their business is interrupted, but

not to exceed a 3 month period.+If shifting, either permanently or temporarily is required,shop renters are entitled to free transportation+Rehabilitation assistance in the form of skills training andother development activities and equivalent to PhP15,000will be provided in coordination with other governmentagencies if the present means of livelihood is no longer viableand the PAP will have to engage in a new income activity.

5 Other fixed Loss of, or damage +Compensation in cash for affected portion of the structure, 21 PAFsassets or to, affected assets, including the cost of restoring the remaining structure, as Affected structure 67,598structures partially or entirely determined by the concerned appraisal committee, with no Income loss 3,000

depreciation nor deduction for salvaged building materials. Relocation N/A21 PAFs Rehabilitation N/A

Improvement 1471Sub-total 72,069

6 Electric and/or Loss of, or damage +Compensation in cash for affected portion of the structure, N/Awater to, affected assets, including the cost of restoring the remaining structure, asconnection partially or entirely determined by the concerned appraisal committee, with no

depreciation nor deduction for salvaged building materials.N/A

7 Public facilities Loss of, or damage +Compensation in cash at replacement cost to respective 24 Public Infrastructuresto, public agencies. Affected structure 412,576

24 PAFs infrastructure (e.g., Income loss N/Apublic water tanks, Relocation N/Atram lines, bus stop Rehabilitation N/Asheds, loading Improvement 11,917platform, public Sub-total 424,493health center,barangay center,electric or telephonelines, etc.) _


Hence, there are only two distinct types of PAFs in relation to affected structures: marginally

affected owners; and severely affected owners. Additional entitlements depending on the

attributes of the PAFs are provided for as outlined in the entitlement matrix in the LARR

Policy.

5.5.5. Value of Land Improvement in Absentee Landholdings

On the basis of the first cluster of crop improvements, banana and coconut are the most

common valuable crop improvement in areas along the highway. In terms of the broader

classifications, fruit trees and forest trees also account for a considerable number of the

affected improvements on the land. As mentioned earlier, the value of crop improvements

was estimated based on the location.

All in all, about PhP269,898.70 will be required to compensate for the damages to

agricultural crops, forest trees and other improvements. The total package is allocated for

the entire stretch of the Marihatag-Barobo road improvement project.

5.5.6. Compensation Matrix for Resident PAlEs

Based on the LARR policy the compensation entitlements are summarized in Table 5.5.4. At

this point it is deemed appropriate to outline the basic assumptions adopted to operationalize

the entitlements provided for under the Policy.

1. Replacement Costs of Structures

The affected structures were mainly categorized as residential, commercial,

commercial/residential, public infrastructures, public utilities and other types of structures.

The structures, based on the linear acquisition survey were evaluated as to whether the impact

is severe or marginal following the guidelines in the LARR Policy and the appropriate cost

entitlements were estimated using the replacement cost concept.

2. Land Improvements

In most cases, other valuable improvements within the home lot were also affected. These

improvements were also valued to form part of the total compensation package for the PAFs.

Valuation of other structures was done on the basis of the replacement costs concept and

valuation of crop improvements was done on the basis of the current market value.

3. Income Loss

In cases, commercial structures owners and tenants were entitled to a compensation of

foregone income as a projected consequence of the implementation of the road improvement

project. Income losses were determined as equivalent to the estimated average monthly gross

sales of the commercial enterprise.4.Relocation Allowance

NRIMP-RAP: Marzhatag-Ltanga-Barobo Road 32

Renters of severely affected structures were expected to be dislocated from their currentdwellings. Hence, as provided for in the LARR policy, these PAFs were entitled to arelocation allowance equivalent to their respective monthly rental.

5. Rehabilitation Allowance

One of the more serious potential consequences of road improvement projects is the completedislocation of commercial enterprises due to severe impact. As provided for in the Policy,owners or renters of severely affected commercial structures are provided with arehabilitation allowance of PhP15,000.

5.5.7. Compensation Package and RAP Implementation Cost

Table 5.5.2 summarizes the compensation package for the PAFs based on the extent ofimpact, type of structures and the additional compensation entitlements.In addition to the compensation package to the PAFs, RAP implementation costs thatincludes costs of stake-out/demarcation and validation of impacts, payment of allowances andper diem to the concerned EIAPO staff and DPWH regional and district personnel,participating municipal staff, barangay officials and MRIC members are added up in Table5.5.7. Administration costs represent 6.0 % of the total of compensation costs. The costestimates for RAP implementation also include a provision for contingencies equivalent to15.0% of the total compensation costs. External Monitoring and Post implementationEvaluation costs $2,000.

Table 5.5.2: Estimated Resettlement Cost

.. s - .~ MA oti rNT

F; DESCRIPTION No of RATE~~~~~~~~~~~) -~Peso',~-',_-DESCRIP`TI0N,__-, iFiH UpaTT Counierpart ~ S

> ,, <, HH t ~~~~S. - Pi E''N,rFl> - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~F~iind~

Compensation for Land andStructures and other fixed assetsLand (as per ILA estimates)- Agricultural

- Residential/Commercial

Structures (Residential and Shops)84 M2 1,157,241

Other Fixed Assets:- Private waiting shed, fences, etc. 21 67,598

Public facilities 24 412,576

Repair cost:Pernnanent structures - HHS PermanentTemporary HH

NRIMP-RAP Marthatag-Lzanga-Barobo Road 33

Table 5.5.2 Continued ...AMOUNT AMOUNT

DESCRIPTION No. of HHs RATE QUANTRTY Peso USD*UNIT PfUNUITTif (Counterpart

_____ _ ___ ___ ____ __ _______ Fund) "L an Fund)_

Electric posts relocation No. -

Land improvement 19,350 _

Crops/Trees- Arable crops - M2

- Trees/Perennials 189 Numb vanable 269,898

er

Sub-Total 1,926,663

Transitional allowance to cover income 28 HH 171,579

loss for partially and severely-affectedhouse cum shops and partially-affectedindependent shopsSubsistence Allowance (severely-affected titled land, severely-affected - HH - -

shop owners with/without title to theland)Inconvenience Allowance (severely- - H 10,000 -

affected house owners with land uitle) .

Financial Assistance (severely-affected - HH 15,000 - -

settlers, de facto owners of agriculturalland, etc.)Rehabilitation Assistance (severely- 13 HH 15,000 - 195,000

affected PAPs who have to engage in anew income activity)Land Preparation Assistance - M2 Variable - -

(marginally-affected de facto owners ofagricultural land)

.

Disturbance Compensation (lessees) - HH 15,000 - -

Rent Allowance (severely-affected house I HH 500 - 500

tenants)Material Transport Allowance to HH 1,000 (for - -

Relocating PAPs fuel ofDPWH

truck)

Sub-Totalf: - . -. - ~ .- r .t ,; . - . ~ , 2,023,844

Relocation Area (site development & Lump

access road) Sum

External Monitoring and Post- Lumpimplementation Sum

2,000

EvaluationFee of Independent Land Appraiser

100,000.00

TOTAL 2- - *...-. . -.- ___ . 2,123,844

Management cost 6% - 127,430.64

Price contingencies 15% - 318,576.60

-. .-- -- _ GRAND TOTAL 2,569,851.24 2,000


5.5.8. Total RAP Cost

The following is the summary of the total estimated cost of the RAP including the cost of

implementation:

Compensation Package

Marginally Affected Structures PhP 823,527Severely Affected Structures PhP 813,888Income Loss PhP 171,579Relocation Allowance PhP 500Rehabilitation Allowance PhP 195,000Land Improvements PhP 19,350Impact on Improvements PhP 269,898

Management Cost PhP 127,430.64

Price Contingencies PhP 318,576.60

External Monitoring andPost-Implementation Evaluation $2,000

Total PhP 2,569,851.24 and,$2,000

As summarized, the total cost of the RAP is PhP and USD2,000.

5.5.9. RAP Cost by Municipality

As a matter of policy, RAP implementation will be done by the DPWH District EngineersOffice in collaboration with the local government units through the Municipal RAPImplementing Committee (MRIC). Hence, there is the need to outline the total compensationpackage by municipality.

1. Marginally Affected Structures

The total compensation package for 99 marginally affected structures is estimated at roughly

PhP977,877 (Table 5.5.3a). This compensation package includes replacement costs to

structures, crop improvements within the vicinity of the structure, and forgone earnings for

structures used fully or partially for commercial purposes.

NRIMP-RAP Marnhatag-Lianga-Barobo Road 35

Table 5.5.3a. Estimated compensation package for marginally affected structures bymunicipality, Surigao del Sur, 2001.

Municipality

| Respondent Marihatag San Lianga Barobo San TotalRespondent Augustin Francis (Peso)

co

Residential N 6 8 17 0 N/ASum 8995 43415 83620 136,030

Residential/ N 0 2 8 1 N/ACommercial Sum 9599 107157 16198 132,954

Nl _____ ___ _ SumCommercial N 1 3 8 0 N/A

Sum 25456 40251 146624 212,331Others N 10 3 8 0 N/A

Sum 11846 28769 31454 72,069Public N 4 8 12 0 N/AInfrastructure Sum 21878 86792 315823 424,493

Total (Peso) 68,175 208,826 684,678 16,198 0 977,877

The bulk of the compensation accrues to the owners of marginally affected commercial orresidential/commercial structures with a combined estimated costs of PhP481,315.Theremaining cost estimate of PhP496,562 is spread across the other uses including residential,public facilities and other structures.

By municipality, Lianga will have the higher compensation package estimated at aboutPhP684,678. The second to Lianga is San Augustin that will have PhP 208,826.

2. Severely Affected Structures

There are about 28 severely affected structures with an estimated total entitlements ofPhP1,045,967 (Table 5.5.3b). This package is spread across the three municipalities, by

types of structures.

NRIMP-RAP - Marlhatag-Lianga-Barobo Road 36

Table 5 5 3b. Estimated compensation package for severely affected structures by municipality,Surigao del Sur, 2001.

Municipality

Respondent Marihatag San Lianga Barobo San TotalAugustin Francisco

Residential 3 3 9 0 N/A79,548 72,780 341,086 0 0 493,414

Residential/ 0 4 3 0 N/ACommercial 146,583 240,323 0 0 386,906

Commercial 0 0 6 0 N/A165,646 165,646

Others N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0

Public N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0Infrastructure

Total 79,548 219,363 747,055 0 0 1,045,966

By municipality, Lianga account for the highest compensation, PhP747,055. The second toLianga is San Augustin, which will have PhP219,363 for the severely affected PAFs.Marihatag accounts for the lowest with a total compensation package of only PhP79,548 inthis category.

Commercial structures, either full or partial, account for more than half of the totalcompensation package. The compensation package for pure commercial structures isestimated at PhP165,646 while the estimated package for Commercial/Residential isroughly PhP386,906.

3. Crop Improvements

As mentioned earlier, the value of crop improvements was estimated based on the location.Table 5.5.3c is simply a summary of all the types of crop improvements and number ofowners in a specific location.

All in all, about PhP269,898 will be required to compensate-for the damages to agriculturalcrops, forest trees and other improvements.

The highest compensation package for crops and other agricultural improvements accrues toLianga with an estimated amount of about PhP165,35370. Marihatag comes next with anestimated compensation of PhP 53,765.00. San Augustin has the lowest compensation ofPhP 50,780.00.


Table 5.5.3c. Estimated compensation package for crop improvements by municipality, Sungao del Sur,

2001

Municipality

Barangay No. of Owner Compensation Amount

Marilhatag Arorogan 12 5,125.00Antipolo 23 33,965.00Amontay 15 14,675.00

Sub-total 53,765.00

San Augustin Pongtud 5 4,875.00Otienza 8 4,850.00Kauswagan 3 8,665.00Buhisan 2 1,300.00Bautong 4 3,930.00Salvation 6 11,000.00Gata 10 16,160.00

Sub-total 50,780.00

Lianga Mananay 21 28,485.00St. Christine 3 4,350.00Ganayon 18 40,748.00Banahao 10 12,113.20Bana-as 1 617.50Payasan 9 5,280.00Baucawe 22 39,140.00Anibongan 17 34,620.00

Sun-total 165,353.70Total 189 269,898.70

6. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The implementation of the RAP follows as soon as the World Bank concurs with the salient

features of the RAP as endorsed by the GOP through DPWH/IBRD-PMO. After the

approval of the RAP Report, implementation will be managed by the EIAPO with the

supervision of the IBRD-PMO.6.1. MOU and Establishment of Committees

Table 6 outlines the fundamental steps, procedures and schedule of the activities required for

the implementation of the RAP. To set up the structural basis for the implementation of

RAP, the institutionalization of the roles of the various stakeholders in the project will have

to be operationalized. This can be done through the signing of a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between the DPWH and the Local Government Units. The MOU

will pave the way for the establishment of the various committees required for the

implementation of RAP, namely; the municipal-based Resettlement Implementation

Conmmittee (RIC) and the Grievance Comrnittee.

6.2. Training-Orientation on RAP Implementation

Because the concept and the process are relatively new even to the DPWH bureaucracy,

there is need to orient the District Offices and the counterpart members of the Local


Government Units (LGUs) on the RAP Implementation procedures. This process will be

conducted by the EIAPO.

6.3. Validation of RAP Report

With the assumptions that the implementing mechanisms for the RAP at all levels have been

established, then all the stakeholders can participate in the collaborative work of validating

the RAP Report prepared by the consulting Firm. Validation will involve cross checking of

the identified PAFs, the accuracy of the linear acquisition, and validation of entitlements and

compensation.

6.4. Public Information Campaign

As soon as the validating team finds the RAP Report to be satisfactory or is in compliance

with the standards set in the LARR Policy Framework, then a public information campaign

can be launched to reiterate the existence of the project and to allow the PAFs to prepare the

necessary supporting documents, if needed, for the compensation to be made possible.

6.5 Finalization of the Compensation Package

Subject to modifications in response to changing price conditions, the compensation

package will then be finalized to determine the amount to be paid for each individual PAF.

Once completed, PAFs will be asked to fill up some forms to indicate their concurrence to

the compensation package and to the terms and conditions of the compensation.

6.6 Public MeetingfDisclosure

In a public forum, PAFs will be made aware of their entitlements as a consequence of

project disturbance. At this point in time, PAFS will also be informed of the schedule of

payments and the schedule of civil works to allow the PAFs to prepare for their

reorganization or relocation and to harvest any standing agricultural crops.

6.7. Cut-off Date

As provided for in the policy, only structures existing on or before March 13, 2001 will be

entitled to the compensation package.

6.8. Payment

Payment will have to be done in a public place. Hence, the RIC should coordinate with the

LGU officials to ensure that PAFs within their areas of jurisdiction are made aware of the

schedules of payments.

6.9. Handing Over the Site for Civil Works

One month before the scheduled start of civil works, RAP implementation shall have been

completed. This means that PAFs have been paid, reorganized or relocated, and all the

stakeholders in the implementation process have performed their tasks in accordance to the

DPWVH Resettlement Policy.


Table 6. RAP implementation schedule by activity, Surigao del Sur, 2002.

Activity Week1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. MOU & Establishment of Committees2. Training/Orientation3. Validation4 Pubhc Information Campaign5. Finalization of Compensation Package = -_ _6. Public Hearing/Disclosure7. Payment _8. Hand Over of Site

7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The underlying principle of the LARR Policy Framework, in general, and the RAP inparticular, is to provide mitigating measures to at least ensure that the PAFs will not beworse off as a consequence of the road improvement project. It is for this reason that thesurvey instrument was designed to capture the critical aspects of the PAFs social andeconomic conditions to provide the benchmark for future assessments in the context ofmonitoring and evaluation.

The instrument was also designed to capture the salient attributes of the PAFs and theiraffected properties to ensure that the monitoring and evaluation team can validate aswhether or not the determination of the entitlements and the estimation of compensations arealong the principles outlined in the LARR Policy Framework.

The PAFs profile, the entitlements and the estimated compensation packages presented in theearlier sections are mere summaries of the raw data structured in a standard database format.Electronic copies of the database are provided for to facilitate the monitoring and evaluationof the RAP implementation and impact.

NRIMP-RAP: Marihatag-Barobo-San Francisco Road

APPENDIX A

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

NRIMP-RAP. Marihatag-Barobo-San Francisco Road

Appendix A. Public Consultations

1. Orientation on the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the Surigao-Davao CoastalRoad,

DPWH-XIII Regional Office, Butuan City, Agusan del Sur,January 3, 2001

1.1 Participants

Mr. Benedicto Pepito, Provincial Agent, BisligMs. Anastacia Salas, Engineer II, BisligMs. Evelyn Beray, Engineer II, Regional OfficeMs. Ma. Theresa Diola, Computer Operator II, Regional Office

Ms. Vilma Migrifno, Engineer II, Regional OfficeMr. Samson Hebra, Engineer IV, Regional OfficeMr. Roldan Pedrozo, Special Investigator, TandagMs. Criste Navida, Project Manager, EILAPO-DPWHMs. Sol Abasa, Engineer III, EIAPO-DPWHMs. Charlene Blando, Engineer III, EIAPO-DPWHMr. Jun Castanieto, Design ConsultantMs. Razel BautistaDesign ConsultantDr. Prudenciano Gordoncillo, Design Consultant

1.2. Briefing on the National Roads Improvement and Management Program and

Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)

Engr. Criste Navida, the Project Manager, presented an overview of the National Roads

Improvement and Management Program (NRIMP) and its overall objectives. The principles of

the Resettlement Policy were also discussed. Engr. Charlene Blando and Engr. Sol Abasa

discussed the concept and process of implementing the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP).

Also included in the discussion are the requirements of the project and its likely impacts. The

implementing units of RAP and their respective duties were also briefly explained. Dr.

Gordoncillo on the other hand, presented the tentative schedule of activities for the public

consultation and provided the questionnaires to be used in the survey proper.

A-1

NRIMP-RAP: Marihatag-Barobo-San Franacsco Road

1.3. Highlights/Issues Raised

The following are the issues/clarifications raised by the attendee during the orientation:

1.3.1 Settlement of claims for the compensation for lost assets of PAPs. Engr. Navida assuredthe attendees that the PAPs will be fairly compensated as mandated in the

Administrative Order 50. Tapping assistance, in addition to zonal value + 10% will beprovided to affected landowners of residential, commercial, or agricultural lands.

1.3.2. Responsibility of the district and regional offices in the actual payments for the PAPs.Engr. Navida reiterated that the funds will be released only upon the request of theDistrict Engineering Office. The District Engineering Office, through the RegionalOffice, must comply with the requirements and submit to the Head Office the list ofPAPs together with the approved vouchers. The funds will be released as soon as theHead Office receives the abovementioned requirements.

1.3.3. Cut-off date of the project for the affected areas. It was clarified in the orientation thatthe cut-off date is the date of commencement of the census of affected persons withinthe project's area boundaries. Those who are not covered in the census are not entitled toclaim for any compensation.

1.3.4. Incentives for the DPWH staff to be involved in the project. Engr. Navida assured thegroup that monetary incentives will be given to the DPWH staff who will be involvedin the RAP implementation.

A-2

NRIMP-RAP: MarLhatag-Barobo-San Francisco Road

2. Orientation on the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for theSurigao-Davao Coastal Road

DPWH Tandag, Surigao del SurJanuary 5, 2001

2.1. Participants

Mr. Romeo Momo, District EngineerMs. Glendyl Casinsinan, Assistant EngineerMr. Jay Laurente, Assistant EngineerMs. Arlene Buniel, Accountant IIIMs. Anjie Ytac, InstrumentmanMr. Roldan Pedrozo, Special Investigator IMs. Aurelia Javier, Engineer IIIMr. Nicolas Alameda, OIC-Assistant District EngineerMs. Ma. Theresa Diola, Computer Operator II, Reg'l OfficeMs. Evelyn Beray, Engr. II, Reg'l OfficeMs. Criste Navida, EIAPOMs. Sol Abasa, EIAPOMs. Charlene Blando, EIAPOMr. Jun Castafiero, Design ConsultantMs. Razel Bautista,Design ConsultantDr. Prudenciano Gordoncillo, Design Consultant

2.2. Briefing on the National Roads Improvement and Management Program and

Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)

Engr. Criste Navida, Chief ELAPO, presented an overview of the National Roads Improvement

and Management Program (NRIMP) and its overall objectives. RAP, its concept and process of

implementation were also discussed. Also included in the discussion are the requirements of the

project and its likely impacts. The implementing units of RAP and their respective duties were

also briefly explained. Dr. Gordoncillo on the other hand, presented the tentative schedule of

activities for the public consultation and provided the questionnaires to be used in the survey

proper.


2.3.1. Linear mapping specifics. District Engr. Momo clarified as to who will make the design

and who will determine the construction limits and center lines for the said road project.

Engr. Navida assured that the Design Consultant will provide the needed manpower for

the said activities but still, assistance from the District Engineering Office will be needed.

The District Engineer in turn, assured the Project Manager of their support.

2.3.2. Settlement of claims for the compensation for lost assets of PAPs. Engr. Navida assured

the attendees that the PAPs will be fairly compensated as mandated in the Administrative


Order 50. Tapping assistance, in addition to zonal value + 10% will be provided to

affected landowners of residential, commercial, or agricultural lands.

2.3.3. Cut-off date of the project for the affected areas. It was clarified in the orientation that the

cut-off date is the date of commencement of the census of affected persons within the

project's area boundaries. Those who are not covered in the census are not entitled to

claim for any compensation.

2.3.4. Incentives of the DPWH staff to be involved in the project. Engr. Navida assured the

group that monetary incentives will be given to the DPWH staff who will be involved in

the RAP implementation.

A-4

NRJMP-RAP: Marihatag-Barobo-San Francisco Road

3. Public Consultation on the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for theSurigao-Davao Coastal Road

Marihatag Municipal Gym, Surigao del SurJanuary 23, 2001

3.1. Participants

Name Designation/Position Address

Bernardo Pontillo Municipal Councilor Poblacion, Marihatag

Juan Salgado Municipal 'Councilor Poblacion, Marihatag

Richard Yu Municipal Councilor Poblacion, Marihatag

Eupacito Alvizo Municipal Councilor Poblacion, Marihatag

Neofolo Mires Municipal Councilor Poblacion, Marihatag

Jaime de Castro Municipal Councilor Poblacion, Marihatag

Ricky Campos Municipal Councilor San Agustin

Alex de Guzman Municipal Councilor San Agustin

Ceferino Perez Jr. Municipal Councilor San Agustin

Aniceto Orbelen ABC President Poblacion, Marihatag

Joaquin Oktubre Brgy. Captain Arorogan, Marihatag

Prudencio Campos Jr. Brgy. Captain Amontay, Marihatag

Romanito Salingas Brgy. Captain Gata, San Agustin

Wenefredo Morgado Brgy. Captain Hornasan, San Agustin

Emilita Follar Brgy. Captain Pongtod, San Agustin

Rustico Corvera Brgy. Captain Kauswagan, San Agustin

Vergilio Ronpello Brgy. Captain Salvacion, San Agustin

Adelito Orbita Municipal Cooperative Officer Poblacion, Marihatag

Nap Salonga Municipal Engineering Officer Poblacion, Marihatag

Ferdinand Lerog Municipal Engineer Poblacion, Marihatag

Prisco Concia Municipal Assessor Marihatag

Elpedio Lamela Poblacion, Marihatag

Pat Mercader NGO Poblacion, Marihatag

Judalyn de Castro MSWD Poblacion, Marihatag

L. Avila Clerk Poblacion, Marihatag

Avila Lagrama Clerk Poblacion, Marihatag

Jocelyn Judo Clerk Poblacion, Marihatag

Victoria Buentora Clerk Poblacion, Marihatag

Elena Yagong Poblacion, Marihatag

E. de Jesus Clerk IV Poblacion, Marihatag

Imelda Orbeta Board Secretary Marihatag

Eliza Magauano Poblacion, Marihatag

Leund Apo Marihatag

Alex Asersturo Agricultural Technican Marihatag

Arlindo Salinas Administrative Officer II San Agustin

Feliciano Paraylo Jr. San Agustin

Fn Campos DPA-II San Agustin

A-5

NRIMP-RAP: Marnhatag-Barobo-San Francisco Road

Sol Abasa Engineer III EIAPO-ManilaDr. Prudenciano Gordoncillo Design Consultant ManilaJun Castanleto Design Consultant ManilaEvelyn Beray Engr. II DPWH-XIIIRoldan Pedroso Spl. Investigator DPWH-TandagJay Laurente Engineering Assistant DPWH-TandagJulius Trinidad Engineering Assistant DPWH-TandagMena Escalona Design Consultant ManilaRazel Bautista Design Consultant Manila

3.2. Consultation Proper

Part of the process to finalize the draft Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) is to conduct a publicconsultation where the public officials and the affected population meet and discuss the projectand its likely impacts. This was done to ensure that the community understands the nature andextent of the project. A consultation implies sharing of ideas, which help in better understandingof the issues arising in the said activity. Such gatherings help disseminate information fromproject officials to the affected population. It provides accurate information to the affectedpopulation and also dispels fears and misconception, thus providing the foundation forcollaboration between the affected population and the project officials.

One week before the scheduled date for public consultation, letters of notice were sent to themayors of the municipalities within the project's boundaries, informing them of the publicconsultation to be conducted by the Design Consultant from the Department of Public Works andHighways (DPWH). The letters were also faxed to the District Engineers in Tandag and SurigaoCity.

Dr. Prudenciano Gordoncillo, facilitated the public consultation. He presented the projectincluding its objectives and merits to the public. The concept, as well as the process ofimplementing the Resettlement Action Plan was also briefly explained. The roles andresponsibilities of the DPWH, the LGUs and the Community were further identified during theconsultation. The public was also informed of the schedule of survey in their respectivemunicipalities.


3.3.1. Source of funds. It was clarified during the consultation that the project was funded bythe World Bank and not by the local government.

3.3.2. Role of LGUs in RAIP implementation. LGU members including the Mayor, BarangayCaptains, NGOs and/or POs will be part of the RAP Implementation Committee (RIC).They will assist the IBRD-PMO in validating the list of PAPs and also assist in the publicinformation campaign and public consultation. The LGU members will also assist the

A-6

NRIMP-RAP MarLhatag-Barobo -San Fran cisco Road

District Engineering Office in the payment of compensation to PAPs. Engr. Sol Abasa,

however, clarified they are not entitled to receive monetary incentives from the project.

3.3.3. Claims for the compensation for lost assets of PAPs. The consultant assured the public

that all PAPs residing in, doing business, cultivating land, have rights over resources

within the project area will be eligible for compensation for lost assets. PAPs who own

private lands must show title, tax declaration or any proof to show ownership of the lands.

Public physical infrastructure such as waiting sheds, electric posts, water pipes, irrigation

system, etc., which will be affected by the project are entitled for compensation. It was

also cleared in the consultation that the-PAPs who lives within the road right of way will

be compensated only for the affected structures and not for the land. The DPWH will be

responsible for the payments for the lost assets.

3.3.4. Scope of the project's road construction. The road project will improve and rehabilitate

gravel roads and convert it to Portland Cement pavement. Existing roads that needs repair

will also be rehabilitated. Deteriorating bridges will also be replaced. Also included in the

project is the improvement of shoulders, drainage and/or canal.

3.3.5. Materials to be used in the road construction. Mr. Ricky Campos, Municipal

Councilor of San Agustin, inquired as to the source of gravel to be used by the project for

road construction. He proposed that gravel should be sourced from his area to add income

to their municipality. Engr. Sol Abasa, however, further clarified the issue will be

decided upon by the contractor who will win in the bidding.

3.3.6. Inquiry on the scheduled date for civil works. Engr. Sol Abasa informed the public

that civil works will probably start by July, 2000.

A-7


4. Public Consultation on the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for theSurigao-Davao Coastal Road

Lianga Municipal Hall, Surigao del SurJanuary 23, 2001

4.1. Participants

Name Designation/Position Address

Matias Caybot Municipal Councilor Poblacion, Barobo

Normanito Orillameda Municipal Councilor Poblacion, Barobo

Ricardo Ho Municipal Councilor Poblacion, Lianga

Enrique Layno Municipal Councilor LiangaOliver Egypto Municipal Councilor LiangaZaldy Juanba Municipal Engineer LiangaMoises Moreno Sr. Brgy. Captain Payasan, Lianga

Arcampo Querada Brgy. Captain Manyayay, Lianga

M. Martizano Brgy. Captain Diatagon, LiangaMarcos Morgado Jr. ABC President LiangaG. P. Babalson Brgy. Councilor Diatagon, Lianga

Ulysses Urbiztondo Municipal Engineer Poblacion, Lianga

Fernando Sumaylo MPDC Poblacion, Barobo

Angelo Obenza Draftsman Poblacion, Barobo

Ma. Teresa Saligumba LRCO-II Poblacion, Barobo

Allan Poam MPDC LiangaSol Abasa Engineer III EIAPO-ManilaDr. Prudenciano Gordoncillo Design Consultant ManilaRazel Bautista Design Consultant Manila

4.2. Consultation Proper

Part of the process to finalize the draft Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) is to conduct a public

consultation where the public officials and the affected population meet and discuss the project

and its likely impacts. This was done to ensure that the community understands the nature and

extent of the project. A consultation implies sharing of ideas, which help in better understanding

of the issues arising in the said activity. Such gatherings help disseminate information from

project officials to the affected population. It provides accurate information to the affected

population and also dispels fears and misconception, thus providing the foundation for

collaboration between the affected population and the project officials.

One week before the scheduled date for public consultation, letters of notice were sent to the

mayors of the municipalities within the project's boundaries, informing them of the public

consultation to be conducted by the Design Consultant and the Engineers from the Department of

Public Works and Highways (DPWH). The letters were also faxed to the District Engineers in

Tandag and Surigao City.

A-8


Dr. Prudenciano Gordoncillo, facilitated the public consultation. He presented the project

including its objectives and merits to the public. The concept, as well as the process of

implementing the Resettlement Action Plan was also briefly explained. The roles and

responsibilities of the DPWH, the LGUs and the Community were further identified during the

consultation. The public was also informed of the schedule of survey in their respective

municipalities.


4.3.1. Claims for the compensation for lost assets of PAPs. The consultant assured the publicthat all PAPs residing in, doing business, cultivating land, have rights over resources

within the project area will be eligible for compensation for lost assets. PAPs who own

private lands must show title, tax declaration or any proof to show ownership of the lands.Public physical infrastructure such as waiting sheds, electric posts, water pipes, irrigation

systems, etc., which will be affected by the project are entitled for compensation. It was

also cleared in the consultation that the PAPs who lives within the road right of way will

be compensated only for the affected structures and not for the land.

4.3.2. Construction of Bridges. Dr. Gordoncillo informed the public that part of the projectincludes the rehabilitation of deteriorating bridges and drainages.

4.3.3. Actual payments for the lost assets. It was reiterated that the DPWH will be responsiblefor the payments for the lost assets. An independent appraisef will be hired by the project

to determine the replacement cost of the affected land (agricultural and residential), crops

and structures. Replacement cost for the affected structures will be based on the current

market value of materials and labor if the same were to be re-constructed with no

deductions for salvaged building materials. The value of the affected crops will also be

based on the current market value. Seven days upon payment, the affected structure will

be demolished. The owner of the structure will be the one to demolish his property upon

the presence of the DPWH officials.

A-9

APPENDIX B

LIST OF PAFsSUMMARY OF COMPENSATION

APPENDIX B LIST OF PAFs AND SUMMARY OF COMPENSATIONA) Municipality: Marihatag

Marginally Affected PAFs Severely Affected PAFsNo. Res No. Family Name Giveo Name Type of Loss Severity Reloc t improvement I Replacement ItprovementC Replacement TotalT _. _. _ _ _-.

Cost Cost lnmeLoss1 Cost Cost ocome Loss Cs1) Barangay: Arorogan

1 9 Santoya Tereso Others M 0 00 0 00 259 00 0 00 1,925 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 2,184 002 11 Camaylongan Lina R M 0 00 000 18 00 0 00 2,310 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 2,328 003 13 Pontillo Luminado Others M 0 00 0 00 123 00 0 00 442.50 0 00 0 00 0 00 565 504 14 Salgado Ernesto Others M 0.00 0 00 29000 000 325 00 000 000 0 00 615 005 15 Celes Carmelita R M 0.00 0 00 0 00 0 00 590 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 590 006 16 Barunday Eufemio Others M 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 1,621 13 0 00 0 00 0 00 1,621 137 17 LGU Waiting Shed Public Infrastructure M 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 6,215 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 6,215 008 19 LGU Waiting Shed Public Infrastructure M 0 00 0.00 0 00 0 00 4,098 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 4,098 009 20 Borja Lucresio Others M 0 00 0 00 96 00 0.00 395 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 491 0010 30 Galler Rodrigo Others M 0 00 0 00 105 00 000 2,625 76 0 00 0 00 0 00 2,730 76Subtotal 0.00 891.UU 0.00 20,547.39 0 0.00 0.00 21,438 39

12) Barangay: Antipolo 1 111| 32 Atrez |Grace R S 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 26,99906 26,99906Subtotal 0.00O0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00k| 0.00U| 26,999.06 26,999.063) Barangay: Amontay _ _____ ____ ___ ____ ___I

12 55 Pandlihng Diomsio Others M 000 000 000 000 1,45000 000 000 000 1,4500013 57 LGU Waiting Shed Public Infrastructure M 0 00 0 00 0 00 000 3,075.00 0 00 0 00 0 00 3,075 00141 59 Raray Estelita R M 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 1,315 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 1,315.0015 61 Avila Floriano R S 0.00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 42,285 76 42,285 7616 62 Eyog Jocelyn R M 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 1,208 75 0 00 0 00 000 1,208 7517 66 Galvano Others M 000 000 000 000 34750 000 000 000 3475018 68 Retino R M 0 00 0 00 96 00 0 00 395 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 491 0019 74 Salinas Rosalia Others M 0.00 0 00 000 000 92050 000 000 000 9205020 76 Salinas Unday Others M 0.00 000 000 0.00 92050 000 000 0 00 9205021 78 Laurente Arturo R S 000 000 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 000 10,263 50 10,263 5022 104 Plaza |Perin R M 0 00 0 00 I 1,406 00I 0 00 1,655 94 | 0 00 0 00 0 00 3,061 94Subtotal 0.00 | 1,502.00 | 0 1,288.19 0.00 0.00 52,549.26 65,339.45

4) Barangay: Otieza101 Irrigators Assn. [Public Infrastructure M 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 8,490 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 8,490 0024 108 IClimaco Gregorin C ] M 0.00 0 00 0.00 22,500 00 2,955 95 000 - 0 001 0 00 . 25,455 95

Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,500.00 11,445.95 0.00 0.00 [ 0.00 33,945.95Subtotal for Marihatag | 0.00 0.00 2,393.00 22,500.00 43,281.53 0.00 0.00 [ 79,548.32 147,722.85

APPENDIX B LIST OF PAFs AND SUMMARY OF COMPENSATIONB) Municipality: San Augustin

IRelocation Rehabilitation ( Marginally Affected PAFs Severely Affected P'AFsNo. ResNo.+ Family Name Given Name Type of Loss Severity | Cost Cost Improvement n j Replacement Improvement| l L.| Replacement Total

1) Barangay: BuhisanF25 120B3tonio Federico R 0 00 Go0 0 00 0.00 7,741 B| 00 0 0 7715

i-, 121 IOsorio F-eli c-is ima C M 0 00 0 0000 450 0 300 0|nT00 000 7,500 on-7 122 |Avila (orgonio C M 000 000 0 0 000,0 32039 0 00 0 0.00 6,203Co r Vi C/R M 0 00 0.00 480 2,250 ,29.32 0 00000 0C00 6 427 32_ RuSnbtotal 0.00 0.00 - 48.0 9,75.0 17,991.29 0. 0.00 0.00 27,789.292) Barangay: Buatong 1 1

113311 aiti-ngShed- Public Infrastructure | 0 00 0 00 - ----- a 00 1917 21 0 .0 00 19,167 4230 138 Brgy hall Others Publicinfrastructure M 000 000 000 000 8,4 0 | -000 | 00 , 841Alegre Adriano R 0. 00 0T M00 000 000 |0 149T 03 6,3700

14T4 Corvera Rarilou 0 0 0.00 000 0 00 18,0 |000 000 | B720 00 | 8,7120 0WT147 |LOU Waiting Shed ublic lnfrastructure D M.0000 -0.00 2 ,65 0 6 -00 j 0 T00 |0 w - V0a 370025 06Subtotal 0.00 00 0 30,313.98 - 14900 0.00 54,941.03 j 8,404.01

3) Barangay: Salvacion f i-TI1 15 aqui in |Celerina | R |0 M |0 O|OOl 120 ooo 9,53978T Q00| zz oooln --( 9701-7835 167 |absentee m j Othera |o M0.00 | 000 0700 | -0 0 | 8,102-26n- | 0000 |0.00 | 0226169 Camino lTrinidad I CIR |I S°1 0.00 | °° 6,000 00 3T39 25, 00-Subtotal - -IVI j- j foo j 162.00 j76 - 0 j 7,642.04j 18.00 j 6,000.00 | 4,513.39 | 43,335.044) Barangay : Gata _ _ _ _ I I___I_i_ i37 184 lWaiting shed Public Infrastructure M 000 000 000 a 000 10,44840 0 00 0 00 0 00 10,448 4038 186 Waiting shed Public Infrastructure M 00 T 000 0 00 0,00 7,239.44 000 0 00 0 00 7,239 4439 188 Gomez Juliana C/R | 0 00 15,00000 0.00 0.00 000 000 600 00 | 12,061 46 27,661 0040 200 Jimenez Charbto R | 0.00 000 0.00 000 000 000 000 17,69028 17,69028

41 202 Gomez Silvacion Others M 0.00 0 00 0 00 3,000 00 14,242 82 0.00 0 00 0 00 17,242 8242 215 Gulle Damiana C M 0.00 000 24200 3,30000 23,088.82 0 00 000 000 26,630 8243 217 Gulle Luzmindo C| R M 000 0.00 000 1,500.00 1,672.00 000 000 0 00 3,1720044 221 Biltones Domingo C/R S 000 15,000.00 0 00 000 0.00 000 4,50000 25,156 88 44,656 8845 222 Badilla Edgardo R M 000 000 292.00 000 5,10000 000 000 000 5,3920046 223 Ocoy Crisanto C/R S 0.00 15,000 00 0 00 0.00 0 00 0 00 10,500.00 23,233 62 48,733 6247 225 Mereno Teodolo | R M 000 0.00 5400 000 2,199.07 0 00 0 00 0 00 2,253 0748 226 Abaflo Virginia Others M 000 000 000 000 3,423 82 0.00 000 000 3,423 8249 227 Gomez Camdo R M 0 00 000 0.00 0.00 12,476.30 0 00 0 00 0.00 12,476 3050 228 LGU Waiting Shed Public Infrastructure M 0.00 000 0 00 0.00 16,543.18 0 00 0 00 0.00 16,543 1852 233 Bubungan Nilda R | M 00 0.00 60000 0.00 1,67000 0 00 0 00 0 00 2,270 0054 241 Santa Esteban R i 0.00 000 0.00 000 | 1,19800 0 00 0 00 000 | 1,198 055 245 Agultar Mercedita R M 0 00 0 00 18 00 0 00 1 2,364 00 0 00 0 00 000 2,382 0056 247 LGU Waiting Shed Public Infrastructure. M 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 | 9,10940 | 000 0 00 0 00 9,109 40Subtotal 0.00 4 .000l 110,775.25 O 0 T.0 10-0.00 | 7,142.24 t 258,523.03_ 15) Barangay: Campanubay I I 1 1 _ 1 _ I _ I _ 151 232 LGU Waiting Shed Public Infrastructure M | 000 | 000 I 000 I 0.00 | 13,13744 000 000 000 13,13744

Subtotal 0.00 0.00 I 0 I 0 0 ! 13,137.44 O 0.000| 0.00 | 0.00]| 13,137.44Subtotal for San Augustin 1 0.003 60,000.00 1,416.001 17,550.00 ! 189,860.00] 167.00 21,600.00 137,596.66] 428,188.81

APPENDIX B LIST OF PAFs AND SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION

C) Municipality: Lianga__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Relocaion Rhabiliation Marginally Affected PAFs Severely Affected PAI1 sNo RsN. FniyNm Give Nm Type of Loss Severity Impoveen Replacement Improvemet IRepla-cem-en-t TotalRes No. Family Name Giveo Name I ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Cost Cost Cmposeet Income Loss cost Cost Icm os Cs

1) Barsngay~~Manyayay ____________ Public R ~~M 000 0 000 0 00 6,853 94 0 00 0 00 00 6,853 9

59 282 Ebdalin Foredo RM 0 00 0 00 107 00 0 00 2,-977 12 0 00 0 00 ~ 0 00 3,084 1260 2894 lIloFlix CS 6000 15,000 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 11,548 00 26,548 00

61 286 Balele Victoria C/P. M ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~0.00 0 00 0 00 18,857 00 14,443 12 0 00 0 00 0 00 23,300 0062 288 Balete Fernando Others M ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~0 00 0 00 0 00 I 0 00 2207 00 0 00 0 00 000o 2,207 00

63 29 ortun Pedrito RM 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 2,571 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 2,571 0064 29 mLnboson Saturnina C S 0 00 15,000 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 10,506 38 25,506 38

6 29 Dolera Patricia CM 0 00 0 00 0,00 12,722 00 1,778 31 0 00 0 00 0 00 14,500.00_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _11_ _ 569 _ 62 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _66 24Rbe Gloria CM 0 00 0.00 0 00 10,500.00 115 2000 00 0 00 22,070 0067 29 eD Jesus Virgilio C S 0 00 15,000 00 0 00 000o 0 00 160 00 2,250 00 3,755 94 21,165 9468 27 oera Erlinda C M 0 00 0,00 435 001 11,250.00 64,768 14 1 0 00 0 00 I0 00 76,453 00Subtotal uuo0 4J.U 3W/.U U(bUWUwDLZ.UU I T _ZTT- 63

69 310 FPlaza Ma Corazon P. 5 . 0 00 0 00 0 00 0001 0 00 0 001 35,171 941 35,171 9470 3121 Barameda Bernandita C/P. M 0 0 00 0 00 -19,500 00 14,876 50 0 00 0 00 0 00 34,376 50

71 314 Delan Jovencia P. M 0 0 00 0 00 000 5,738 38 0 00 0 00 0 00 5,738 3872 316 Pedraverde Epifania R. M 0 0 00 0 00 000 2,263.441 0 00 0 00 0 00 f 2,263 4473, 323 IPedraverde Sopio P. 1 M 0 0 00 0 00 - 000 8,680 52 0 00 0 00 0 00 ~ 8,680 52

- 'ubtotal _______ I.0 i 3;I7 ~ ~ U ~ U ~ 7 9 ~ 714) Barangay: Ganayon__ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _* 75 349 ILGU Waiting Shed Public Infrastructure M 0 00 0.00 261 00 0 00 14.528 98 0 00 0 00 0 00 14,789 98

76 353 iSanchez Felipe C 5 0 00 15,000 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 3,000 00 16,142 10 34,142 1077 358 1Entero Fermina Others M 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 3,367 25 0 00 0 00 0 00 .3,367 2578 361 Villegas Wilma C 5 0 00 15,000 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 22,965 24 37,965 2479 367 Avila P.omeo C/PR M 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 2.149 06 0 00 0 00 0 00 2,149 06811 369 Sazarits Celso P. 5 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 575 00 0 00 118,766 50 119.341 SO81 371 Campos Milagros R. S 0 00 0 00 0.00 000 000 0.00 0 00 45,325 08 45,325 0882 377 Day Care Center Public Infrastructure M 0 00 0.00 0 00 0 00 136,939 36 0 00 0 00 0 00 136,939 3-683 386 Brital Vicente P. 5 0 00 0 00 0 00 000o 0,00 119 00 0 00 36,729 04 36,848 0484 388 Pedroso Samuel P. M 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,821 38 0 00 0 00 000 -1,821 3

*85 390 Sanchez Francisco C/P. 5 500 00 15,000 00 0.00 0 00 0 00 149 00 0 00 74,437 34 90,086 3486 392 Tejero Graciano P. 5 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 14,172 75 14,172 7587 394 Gomez FEdita C/P. 5 000 15,000 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 4,500 00 65,715 10 85,215 1088 396 Dagami Dioleto C/P. 5 0 00 15,000 00 0 00 0 00 00 0 0 5,2 0 65,213

89 38Cerefio P.osalina P. S 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 255 00 0 00 78,539 90 78,794 90- utitotal _mw 73BTTUU~U-0 --- 7 -Br, w.I-OT -- T79W --7-U0-6W 522,814.35 765,979.3

APPENDIX B LIST OF PAFs AND SUMMARY OF COMPENSATIONC) Municipality: Lianga

Name' Given Name f Relocation I Rehabilitation I ~~~~~~~~~~~Marginally Affected PAFs Severely Affected PAFsNo.IRes No. Family Nm GieNae Type of Loss Severity Ceosatio Cohbiltato ImprovemeintRelcmn mpomntRpaeet Ttij j ________________ j _______________ I [ _________ j _____________ jCCoatCostcoeelLcem enCost proCoat n JR eplmcem ent TCost5) Barsangay. BanshawCot IcmLos Cs sm tnoeLo ot90) 425 ITapar RednaI ~ M 0.00 0 0 T47 W__U0 3.517 26 000-T ~ oW 000 000 ~ 376~6269Ta 427 Fenarancaczna K m* ~ 0 Uu qW U Ti0UTI0 131-E9jU- ~ T1i r__JUc ~ ffrjr -r

VL 471 arisen Myr~~~~~Lneia Uthers U.UU -Oi D u U0uD o urwu 37fuf 140 U3T19- 3 .alingan ;taarign K mS u0 f - -OJj *fTj TUFijrr r-jJ- j o j rucon 'eeaT~UU ~ tUh 01J. T0T0 0 fU1Tt )ri

9- -- 4U-Aansa dies15u -Wt f0 -w --- n - ----- ~j W3Wi * -44T i ejero KUC-. 14Ks M 01X fuO - 59g3u u urj9b 80 uu waiting Sheei Public_i ra ecae 1u- * U 1J O795r ------- rJJu- - -i-ior-~~9U 83W .ini-no ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Fcerico - m ------ 5r0 310ThUt1 ----- - -------- UIF ------- = ---- eo, euc ff

6) Btarangay : i'ayasan .05.u 5j J7Wll]:n .uI M larLcna Ag-us in 7CW - -- -0*Ju0 7510TUjUU-yjj ~ J1f 3gJ* --r5 neccni uerman --0h 10 U0 h0nTUT~ TJ -- TnU930r

4TY cequina TFF5ce Km 1TuUtJ00T1T U JIFY1iManngadiao K hm I U0 1TUO-------T0Aosentee K 00u UUU0 ---- g0 ---- Vff0 i3,9923 - iJ8 yeotUmila ,.ceismt* *UUO ------ trUOw,4 Y 6Wf1 -tjt .TUU j1U79

101 WTI L(uu waiting Othedc rubtic intrastructure m~* YOU1 .lIO.J1 OTT4T33T- _YJU -n-i -TsTz2T8-

~~48U acing e k'ublic Inirasiraciure *~~~~~~~~~~~~~-VWu*u0 .lzv.u 5z43.z MUTU0 ,637) Barangay: Btaucawe

_________T1 b*5U WU aiting Shed F~ublic inirastructure WU0 1T0U0u- uTf 58 sc0 watng sing C 5s- -- Verasracu--TT0 rf

71-12 57TT 8alug aEfn-aMeo ~ tTJjI 7~T D-3T_ jubtalanc Kret fj UTr

Urmia 05 U ----- 0----U W----0-W __f-5 W---- W- --- U8) Barangay Aecibongan

TL~ ae0tuon teicresca 11t10 ~ 0 I U 0JU-oo--- - - - ,22-TL *3 eruok I Wb 5'ublic infrastructare m **-ff0 --- OTI ----0--lTOhT 272T3 ------ o ~*~-.i-iu O73T. 59 e -roeno c'rFco r-- UT1U -Wmot 5D0 -f00 -ut u-TI 3 U ntowa ueocLU 3T U Waitifig-SReTi i'UbiiC Intrastructure JU* .I1*l2te *583 em Sc . em ruSt~~~~~~nbic cerncrastmatue -* .. UI1JU 115551Te1?22 56T Tem aC me--cg-V'bi nentscae f1 **fr .13jj 1ff *Y 75 0 -KY-uo -ix 27Y-T2U

MhUMraoMrjt UU 0 01W f0J 2T1J ft WoO-u 21T0TTh -578 MoPabatiigUna 0U UT ---- 59guJe --ffIjtT2tc 578 onec~ean a ..n.lemd einat, fljj U*0 uTYTJ fU

Suliratal~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~rtli nfatutue- -27WU

Subtotal frLag50.0 10.00 .0 1,062.00 p1,929.0 578,68703 13200 1,O.0 9,428 ,31726

APPENDIX B LIST OF PAFs AND SUMMARY OF COMPENSATIOND) Municipality Barobo I

Marginally Affected PAFs Severely Affected PAFsNo. Res No. Family Name Given Name Type of Loss Severity eloaton Rehabilitation pIs ReplaCtement Improvement I Replacement TotalI ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~Cost Cost Cmpoveet IIncome Lossi Cost I cost Income Loss Cost

11 larangay : acat_____I tIII1271 595 WRidocto Dioscoro C/R M 0 00 0 00 000 4,500 00 11,697 84 0 00 0 00 O 00 16,197 84

Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,500.00 11,697.84 0.00 0.00 J 0.00 16,197.84Grand Total 500.00 195,000.00 17,87100 136,479.00 823,526.40 1,479.00 35,100.00 813,887.79 2,023,842.15

APPENDIX C

LIST OF PERENNIALS

SUMMARY OF UNACCOUNTED PROJECT-AFFECTED PERSONS (PAPs)WITH TREES AND PERENNIALS

A. MARIHATAG, SURIGAO DEL SUR

1) Arorogan 4 5,125.002) Antipolo 33,965.003) Amontay 14,675.00

P 53,765.00

B. SAN AGUSTIN SURIGAO DEL SUR

1) Pongtud 4 4,875.002) Otienza 4,850.003) Kauswagan 8,665.004) Buhisan 1,300.005) Buatong 3,930.006) Salvacion 11,000.007) Gata 16,160.00

P 50,780.00

C. LIANGA, SURIGAO DEL SR . . _

1) Manyayay - 28,485.002) Diatagon 3) St. Christine 4,350.004) Ganayon 40,748.005) Banahao 12,113.206) Ban-as 617.507) Payasan 5,280.008) Baucawe 39,140.009) Anibongan 34,620 00

4 165,353.70

GRAND TOTAL 4 269,898.70

UNACCOUNTED PROJECT-AFFECTED PERSONS (PAPs)WITH TREES AND PERENNIALS

forA) MARIHATAG, SURIGAO DEL SUR

1) BRGY. AROROGAN, MARIHATAG

Number of Total AmountName Particular Nunit Unit Cost Amount Payale

Units Payable

Coconut Tree 1 p 300.00 P 300.00 _P

1. Bonracio Alagon Banana hills 4 75.00 300.00 700.00

Tambis 1 100.00 100.00

2. Iluminado Pason Banana hills 2 75.00 150.00 150.00

3. Felix Gascon Banana hills 3 75.00 225.00 225 00

4. Rufino Lago Banana hills . 2 75.00 150.00 350.00Cacao 2 100.00 200.00

5. Faustino Salgado Coconut tree 1 300.00 300.00 750.00Banana hills 6 75.00 450.00

6. Dulcesimo Cansio Tambis 1 100.00 100.00 100.00

7. Caridad Terante Coconut Tree 1 300.00 300.00 300.00

8. Emiterio Sanchez Jackfruit 1 200.00 200.00 200.00

9. Basilio Salgado Banana hills 2 75.00 150.00 250.00Tambis 1 100.00 100.00

10. Gerry Salgado Banana hills 4 75.00 300.00 500.00Jackfruit 1 200.00 200.00

11. Cresencio Lago Coconut trees 2 300.00 600.00 600.00

12. Epifanio Espidang Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00 1 000.00Tambis 1 100.00 100.00 _

TOTAL P 5,125.00



2) BRGY. ANTIPOLO, MARIHATAG

Name Particular Number of Unit Cost Amount Total AmountUnits Payable

1. Eustaquia Robles Banana hills 6 P 75.00 P 450.00 P 450.00

2. Mauro Camaylongan Banana hills 16 75.00 1,200.00 1,800.00Coconut trees 2 300 00 600.00

3. Lucresio Borja Coconut trees 14 300.00 4,200.00 4,200 00

4. Icasiano Ontillo Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00 1,350.00Banana hills 6 75.00 450.00

5. Herman Avila Coconut trees 5 300.00 1,500.00 1,500.006. Leonisio Dalman Coconut trees 2 300.00 600.00 600.00

7. Leon Cubil, Jr. Coconut trees 6 300.00 1,800.00 2,775.00Banana hills 13 75.00 975.00

Coconut trees 5 300.00 1,500.00 1,500.00Banana hills 7 75.00 525.00 525.00Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00

9 Gaudencio Garcia Banana hills 5 75.00 375.00 1,400.00Camansi tree 1 125.00 125.00

10. Leonor Mereno Banana hills 8 75.00 600.00 600.0011. Tiburcio Millan Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00 900.00

12. Rodrigo Penaranda Pomelo 1 175.00 175.00 250.00Guyabano 1 75.00 75 00

13. Wilfredo Corvera Banana hills 7 75.00 525.00 525 0014. Antonio Alicante Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00 900.00

15. Fortunato Ramirez Falcata trees 12 220.00 2,640.00 4,440.00Coconut trees 6 300.00 1,800.00

16. Jose Pandiling Banana hills 5 75.00 375.00 1,275.00Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00

17. Consurcia Orcullo Banana hills 3 75.00 225.00 225 00

18. Jose Agupitac Pomelo 2 175.00 35000 850.00Mango 1 500.00 500.00

19. Pedro Layno Banana hills 5 75 00 375.00 375.0020. Arthur Garcia Banana hills 5 75 00 375.00 375.00

Jackfruit 1 200 00 200.00

21. Silvino Avila Mango 1 500 00 500.00 4,525.00Coconut trees 11 300.00 3,300.00Banana hills 7 75.00 525.00

22. Dionesio Ines Coconut trees 5 300.00 1,500.00 2,400.00,Banana hills 12 75 00 900 00

23 Rosita Evangelio Banana hills 3 75.00 225.00 225 00

TOTAL P 33,965.00



3) BRGY. AMONTAY, MARIHATAG

Name Particular Number of Unit Cost Amount Total AmountName Particular Units Payable

1. Montano Campos Banana hills 6 PF 75.00 PR 450 00 P 450.00

2. Florenda Canial Banana hills 4 75.00 300.00 300.00

3. Mercedes Lozada Coconut trees 7 300.00 2,100.00 2,325.00

Banana hills 3 75.00 225.00


4. David Lamela Tambis 1 100.00 100.00 1,000.00

Guyabano 3 75.00 225.00

5. Agelarda Paturgo Guava 1 75.00 75.00 175.00Tambis 1 100.00 100.00

6. Carmelita Sanchez Guava 1 75.00 75.00 75.00

7. Prudencio Campos, Jr. Banana hills 2 75.00 150.00 450.00Coconut tree 1 300.00 300.00

8. Iglicerio Avila Banana hills 14 75.00 1,050.00 1,050.00

9. Carlos Osorio Banana hills 10 75.00 750.00 750 00

10. Sammy Plenos Banana hills 16 75.00 1,200.00 1,200.00

11. Silverio Cacho Coconut trees 9 300.00 2,700.00 2,700.00

12. Nerio Cacho Coconut trees 5 300.00 1,500.00

Mango 2 500.00 1,000.00

13. Pedriano Cacho Mango 1 500.00 500.00 500.00

14. Felix Eco Coconut trees 2 300.00 600.00 600.00

15. Lino Cacho Coconut trees 2 300.00 600.00 600.00

TOTAL p 14,675.00


forB) SAN AGUSTIN, SURIGAO DEL SUR

1) PONGTUD, SAN AGUSTIN

Name Particular NUnit | Unit Cost Amount Pay Amoblunt

1 Iluminado Baybay Coconut tree 1 P 300.00 P 300.00 P 300 00

2. Oceano Baybay Coconut trees 2 300 00 600.00 600.00

3. Eduardo Baybay, Jr. Coconut trees 6 300 00 1,800.00 1,800 00

4. Lopeciano Alameda Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00 975.00Banana hill 1 75.00 75 00

5. Petronilo Pal Banana hills 16 75.00 1,200.00 1,200.00

TOTAL p 4,875.00

2) OTIEZA, SAN AGUSTIN

Name Particular Number of Unit Cost Amount Total Amount

1. Gaudencia Iglesia Banana hills 5 p- 75.00 P 375.00 P 375.00

2. Letecia Orcullo Coconut tree 1 300.00 300.00 600.00Banana hills 4 75.00 300.00

3. Perfecto Avila Coconut tree 1 300.00 300.00 300.00

4. Sagrada Gonzaga Coconut tree 1 300.00 300.00 300.00

5. Rosita 0. Avila Coconut trees 3 - 300 00 900.00 900.00

6. Rubenciano Garay Coconut trees 4 300.00 1,200.00 1,200 00

Guava 1 75.00 75.00

7. Wilfredo Pontillo Tambis 2 100.00 200.00 675.00Cacao 1 100.00 100.00Banana hills 4 75.00 300.00

8. Nerio Samson Mango 1 500.00 500.00 500.00

TOTAL p 4,850.00

3) KAUSWAGAN, SAN AGUSTIN

Name Particular Number of Unit Cost Amount TotaleUnits Payable

1. Isabelita Alameda Coconut trees 2 P 300 00 P 600 00 P 900 00Banana hills 4 75.00 300.00

Coconut trees 2 300.00 600.00 600.00Banana hills 2 75.00 150.00 150 00

Coconut trees 20 300 00 6,000.00

Banana hills 5 75.00 375.003. Rustico F. Corvera Falcata 1 220 00 220 00 7,015.00

Jackfruit 1 200.00 200.00

_Gemilina 1 220 00 220.00

TOTAL P 8,665.00



4) BUHISAN, SAN AGUSTIN

Nam Particular Number of Unit Cost A t Total AmountName Particular Units moun Payable

Coconut tree 1 p- 300.00 P 300.00 P

1. Capitolina Plaza Banana hill 1 75.00 75.00 - 575.00Papaya 1 50.00 50.00Guava 2 75.00 150.00Banana hill 1 75.00 75.00

2. Rudencio Corvera Guava 2 75.00 150.00 725.00

Mango 1 500.00 500.00

TOTAL P 1,300.00

5) BUATONG, SAN AGUSTIN

Name Particular Number of Unit Cost Amount Total Amount

1. Iriberta Samson Banana hills 2 P 75.00 P 150.00 R 150.00

2. Isidro Corvera Banana hills 8 75.00 600.00 2,580.00Gemilina 9 220.00 1,980.00 ,Banana hills 4 75.00 300.00

3. Quezon Campos Papaya 5 50.00 250.00 750.00

Tambis 2 100.00 200.004. Amador Alegre Banana hills 6 75.00 450.00 450.00

TOTAL p 3,930.00

6) SALVACION, SAN AGUSTIN


1. Justito Simplicio Coconut trees 2 P 300.00 Pl 600.00 P 825.00Banana hills 3 75.00 225.00

2. Babilas Campos Coconut trees 2 300.00 600.00 600.00

3. Macleon Pandiling Mango 2 500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00Banana hills 8 75.00 600.00 600.00

4. Ernesta Dumagan Banana hill 1 75.00 75.00 375.00Coconut tree 1 300.00 300.00

5. Nestor Germano Coconut trees 18 300.00 5,400.00 5,800.00Jackfruit 2 200.00 400.00 ,

6. Jusintino Santa Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00 1,800.00Banana hills 12 75.00 900.00

TOTAL P 11,000.00



7) GATA, SAN AGUSTIN


1. Cornelio Santa Bamboo groove 3 P 220 00 P 660.00 P 660.00

2. Benjamen Libosana Star apple 1 175.00 175.00 250.00Guava 1 75.00 75.00Coconut trees 22 300.00 6,600.00 7,470.00

3. Fajulio Jimenez Banana hills 2 75.00 150.00Mango 1 500.00 500.00Mahogany 1 220.00 220.00Coconut tree 1 300.00 300 00 1,150.00

4 Crnstobal Guile Jackfruit 1 200.00 200.00Mango 1 500.00 500.00iBanana hills 2 75.00 150.00 X

Banana hills 3 75.00 225.00 500.005 Marcelina Abano Star apple 1 175.00 175.00

Tambis 1 100.00 100.00

6 Menisa Gomez Banana hills 6 75 00 450.00 450.00

7 Loreto Alvarez Banana hills 7 75.00 525.00 525.008 Sulbet Orcullo Banana hills 4 75.00 300 00 300.009 Dionesio Ines Banana hill 1 75.00 75.00 75.00

Coconut trees 9 300.00 2,700.00 4,780 00Falcata 3 220.00 660.00

10 Sandy Guerero Banana hills 14 75.00 1,050 00Cacao 1 100.00 100.00Pine tree 1 220.00 220.00

-Nipa land 70 sq.m. - - 50.00

TOTAL 4 16,160.00

UNACCOUNTED PROJECT-AFFECTED PERSONS (PAPs)

WITH TREES AND PERENNIALSfor

C) LIANGA, SURIGAO DEL SUR

1) MANYAYAY, LIANGA

Number of Total AmountName Particular Units Unit Cost Amount Payable

1 Dominador Sajor Falcata tree 1 p 220.00 P 220 00 P 220.00

Guava 1 75.00 75.00 850.00

2Renato de Castro Jackfruit 3 200.00 600.00

Cacao 1 100 00 100.00

Guyabano 1 75.00 75.00

3 Florencio de Castro Nipa land 140 sq.m. 100.00 100.00

4 Editha Acero Banana hills 8 75.00 600.00 600.00

5 Cedula Abapo Coconut trees 16 300.00 4,800.00 4,800.00

Banana hils 12 75.00 900.00 5,520.00

6 Trinidad S. Canon Mahogany 15 220.00 3,300.00

Manguim 4 220.00 880.00

Gemillina 2 220.00 440.00

Banana hills 25 75.00 1,875.00 3,590.00

7Federico Abulencia Cacao 1 100.00 100.00

Guava 1 75.00 75.00

Bamboo groove 7 220.00 1,540.00

*8 Melvin Escol Coconut trees 2 300.00 600.00 1,260.00

Falcata 3 220.00 660.00

Banana hills 5 75.00 375.00 2,095.00

9 Dominador Picador Coconut trees 5 300.00 1,500.00

Falcata 1 220.00 220.00

10 George Macawill Bamboo groove 1 220.00 220.00 295.00

Banana hill 1 75.00 75.00

11 Jesus Orillaneda Coconut trees 5 300.00 1,500.00 1,500.00

12 David de Castro Coconut trees 2 300.00 600.00 600.00

Coconut trees 1 300.00 300.00 975.00

13 Edtha Acer Mango 1 500.00 500.00

Tambis 1 100.00 100.00

Guava 1 75.00 75.00

14 Juanito Ebol Banana hills 6 75.00 450.00 450.00

15 Ricaredo de Castro Falcata 2 220.00 440.00 440.00

16 Rosalinda ronquillo Macopa 1 150.00 150.00 150.00

Guava 3 75.00 225 00 725.00

17 Carina Baradilo Coconut trees 1 300.00 300.00

Jackfruit 1 200.00 200.00

Bamboo groove 2 220.00 440.00 590.00


19 Santiago Doelra Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00 900.00

Coconut trees 4 300.00 1,200.00 2,300.0020 Ireneo Rstor

Bamboo groove 5 220.00 1,100.00

21 Dra. Editha Resus Banana hills 7 75.00 525.00 525 00

TOTAL P 28,485.00


forLIANGA, SURIGAO DEL SUR

2) DIATAGON - NONE3) CHRISTINE, LINAGA

Name Particular Units Unit Cost Amount Total Aeount

Coconut trees 6 p 300.00 R 1,800.00 P 2,250.00

Banana hills 6 75 00 450 00

2 Celirino Martizano Coconut trees 1 300.00 300.00 300.00

3 Servillano Simbajon Coconut trees 6 300 00 1,800.00 1,800.00

TOTAL P 4,350.00

4) GANAYON, LIANGA

Name Particular Number of unit Cost Amount Total AmountUnits Payable

Falcata 6 220.00 P 1,320.00 -P 5,070.00

Guava 75.00 75.00

1 Romualdo Susi Guyabano 75.00 75 00

Banana hills 4 75.00 300 00Coconut trees 11 300.00 3,300.00

2 Rodulfo Uriarte Banana hills 2 75.00 150.00 4,150.00

Coconut trees 6 300.00 1,800.00

Falcata 10 220.00 2,200.00

3 Alfredo Lemas Banana hills 2 75.00 150.00 150.00

4 DaderaSuapa Mango 1 500 00 500.00 675.004 Daderna Sulapas Caimito 1 175.00 175.00

Coconut trees 22 300.00 6,600.00 6,925.00

5 Gertrudes Sanchez Pomelo 1 175.00 175.00Banana hills 2 75.00 150.00

Coconut trees 10 300.00 3,000.00 3,575.00

6 Editha Acero Mango 1 500 00 500.00

Guyabano 1 75.00 75.00

7 Cecilia Young Banana hills 4 75.00 300.00 300 00

8 Artemio Gomez Banana hills 6 75.00 450 00 1,650.00Coconut trees 4 300.00 1,200 00

9 Nicoemos C Coconut trees 2 300.00 600.00 628.00Nipa land 40 sq.m. 28.00

Mango 2 500.00 1,000 00 1,750.00

10 Clementino Corvera Banana hills 2 75.00 150.00

Coconut trees 2 300.00 600.00

11 Innocencia Mejores Coconut trees 2 300.00 600.00 600.00

12 Maria R. Samchez Coconut trees 1 300.00 300.00 300.00

13 Pamfilo Bunotan Coconut trees 19 300.00 5,700.00 5,700.00

14 Esmerqalda Sandico Coconut trees 6 300.00 1,800.00 1,800.00

15 Sulpicio Saracin, Jr. Coconut trees 2 300.00 600.00 600.00

16 Benvenido Bala-an Coconut trees 12 300 00 3,600 00 3,675.00Banana hill 1 75 00 75 00 |- _

Coconut trees 2 300 00 600 00 800 0017 Lolan Pocon Jackfruit 1 200.00 200.00

18 Artemio Mejares Coconut trees -8 300.00 2,400 00 2,400 00

___ __ __ __ ___I _ -- 1- nTr)TA1 W An 7,dA nn

UNACCOUNTED PROJEC-AFFECTED PERSONS (PAPs)WITH TREES AND PERENNIALS

forC) LIANGA, SURIGAO DEL SUR

5) BANAHAO, LIANGA

Name Particulars Number of Unit Cost Amount Payable

1. Gloria Patalinghog Coconut trees 4 p 300.00 P 1,200.00 P 1,218.20Nipa land 25 sq. m. __18.20

2. George Suarez Coconut trees 5 300.00 1,500.00 1,500.003. Pablito Camino Nipa land 250 sq. m. - 175.00 175.004. Luzviminda Bobis Banana hills 9 75.00 675.00 975.00

Coconut tree 1 300.00 300.005. Juanito Adanza Mango 1 500.00 500.00 500.006. Leoncito Sarmen, Sr. Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00 2,600.00

Mango 3 500.00 1,500.00Jackfruit 1 200.00 200.00

7. Alfredo R. Sarmen Mango 1 500.00 500.00 575.00Guyabano 1 75.00 75.00

8. Raymundo Moreno Pomelo 1 175.00 175.00 3,575.00Mango 2 500.00 1,000.00Gemelina 7 220.00 1,540.00Papaya 1 50.00 50.00Guava 1 75.00 75.00Manglum 3 220.00 660.00Banana hill 1 75.00 75.00

9. Nemesia Cifra Cacao 1 100.00 100.00 700.00Coconut tree 2 300.00 600.00

10. Victor Campos Falcata 1 220.00 220.00 295.00Banana hill 1 75.00 75.00 ___ 12____3___0_

Total 4 12,113.20

6) BAN-AS, LIANGA

Name Particulars Number of Unit Cost Amount Total AmountUnits Payable

1. Raymundo Moreno Banana hills 8 p 75.00 P 600.00 P 617.50Nipa land 25 sq. m. - 17.50

Total P 617.50



7) PAYASAN, LIANGA

Number of Total AmountName Particulars Nunit Unit Cost Amount Payale

Units Payable

1. Cresencio Lonio Banana hills 7 p 75.00 P 525.00 P 525.00

2. Florencio Curada Palm tree 1 220.00 220 00 220.00

3 LGU-Payasan Gemilina 13 220.00 2,860.00 2,860.00

4. Eden Cambalon Guyabano 1 75.00 75.00 75.00

5. Rizalino Delfin Guava 1 75.00 75.00 75.00

6. Pacita Limit Mango 1 500.00 500.00 800.00

Calamansi 1 125.00 125.00Star apple 1 175.00 175.00

7. Cresenciano Salinas Coconut tree 1 300.00 300.00 300.00

'8. Pacifico Layno Guava 1 75.00 75.00 200.00

Guyabano 1 75.00 75.00

Papaya 1 50.00 50.00

9. Nona Salinas Banana hills 3 75.00 225.00 225.00Total P 5,280.00



8Js BAUCAWE

Name Particulars Number of Unit Cost Amount TotaP Amount

-k Sonito Layno, Sr. Banana hills 10 FP 75.00 P 750.00 P 750.00

2. Ricaredo Layno, Sr. Coconut trees 21 300.00 6,300.00 6,750.00


1 -ibrada Layno Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00 900.00

odesto Viasanta Coconut trees 18 300.00 5,400.00 5,400.00l 2 /7enico Gascon Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00 900.00

dela ruz Coconut trees 7 300.00 2,100.00 2,100.00

rn nida Coconut trees 7 300.00 2,100.00 2,100.00

s pacifico Taldo Coconut trees 16 300.00 4,800.00 5,315.00

. Atipo 2 220.00 440.00 _

Guyabano 1 75.00 75.00

Cresenciano Salinas Coconut trees 2 300.00, 600.00 600.00

l o. F'ab o Cotiangio Banana hills 6 75.00 450.00 1,350.00

Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00

1 1; i Udito Alvizo Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00 900.00

12. MeniIco Alvizo - Coconut tree 1 300.00 300.00 300.00

sBanana hills 4 75.00 300.00 600.00

Coconut tree 1 300.00 300.00

i4- pedro Orbeta Banana hills 12 75.00 900.00 1,400.00

Coconut tree 1 300.00 300.00

Jackfruit 1 200.00 200.00

=15. Mortaflo Alv:zo Banana hills 5 75.00 375.00 375.00

Sampiano Banana hills 4 75.00 300.00 400.00

Cacao 1 100.00 100.00

~Bemedios Cueta Coconut tree 1 300.00 300.00 525.00


Guyabano 1 75.00 75.00 __

18.genito Trirnidal Coconut trees 5 300.00 1,500.00 1,500 00

1. o Coconut trees 2 300.00 600.00 675.00

Banana hill 1 75.00 75.00

20. ELigenlo de Castro Coconut trees 5 300 00 1,500.00 1,500.00

21. L-ucita LaYr~ Coconut trees 8 300.00 2,400.00

22. Modesta Villasanta- Coconut trees 8 300.00 2,400.00 2,400 00

Total R 39,140.00



9) ANIBONGAN

Name Particular Nunber of Unit Cost Amount Total Amount

1 Lucita Layno Coconut trees 10 p 300.00 P 3,000.00 P 3,000.00

Garcia Falcata 1 220.00 220.00 4,120.00

2 Gregorio Garcia Coconut trees 13 300.00 3,900 00Coconut trees 23 300.00 6,900.00 8,620.00

3 Norberto Morgado Coconut trees 5 300.00 1,500.00

Falcata 1 220.00 220.00

4 Santiago Lim Banana hills 3 75.00 225.00 525 00

4 Santiago Urn Coconut trees 1 300.00 300.00

5 Dioscoro Mejores Tambis 1 100.00 100.00 100.00

6 Artemia Moreno Jackfruit 1 200.00 200.00 200.00

7 Balbino Curato Mango 2 500.00 1,000.00 1,900.007__Balbino____Curato __ Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00

Coconut trees 1 300.00 300 00 820.00

8 Nuerlie P. Anasco Falcata 1 220.00 - 220.00

- -- Banana hills 4 75.00 300 00

Banana hills 1 75.00 75.00 375.00

9 Genoniva Pontillo Coconut trees 1 300.00 300.00Pllo

Coconut trees 13 300.00 3,900.00 5,000.00

10 Almario C. Bulawit Bamboo groove 1 220.00 220.00

Falcata 4 220.00 880.00

11 Sixto Malinao Coconut trees 3 300.00 900.00 2,325.00

Banana hills 19 75.00 1,425.00

12 Eleuterio T. Molarto Coconut trees 1 300.00 300 00 300.00

Atipo 1 150.00 150.00 675.00

13 Urbiztondo Banana hills 7 75 00 525.00

14 Andrew Narnan Coconut trees 2 300.00 600.00 600.00

Coconut trees 4 300.00 1,200.00 1,860.00

15 Emeliora Morgado Falcata 3 220.00 660.00

16 Sixto Malinao Coconut trees 4 300.00 1,200.00 1,200.00

17 Nelson Bade Coconut trees 10 300.00 3,000.00 3,000.00

TOTAL P2 34,620.00

resettlement action plan (rap) (volume 216) … · page executive summary 1. rationale 1 2....

Documents