vi

Executive Summary

Background A massive displacement of civilian population in the Philippines occurred on

May 2017 when the deadliest and longest urban battle in the country broke out in Marawi City. Marawi has served as the capital of the province of Lanao Del Sur, a thriving hub of trade and commerce for centuries. However, the war in Marawi resulted to a massive civilian displacement, disturbance on economic activities, damages in properties and infrastructures, and fatalities. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported that the government authorities’ estimates of population displacement had reached a total of 349,989 individuals. Of this number, 3,437 families (16,070 individuals) are in 77 evacuation centers, and 69,460 families (333,919 individuals) are with host families.

The aforementioned crisis adversely affected the internally displaced persons (IDPs) in many aspects of living. Foremost of these are their shelter and source of income. For the former, resettlement areas are provided by the government and some private donors, while the later is addressed initially by the support of some government agencies and provisions/programs coming from some donors to improve the IDP households’ economic conditions while they are in the resettlement areas. Research Objective

The main purpose of this research project is to determine the IDP Households’ Economic Conditions as well as their livelihood activities and sources of income, the households’ vulnerability and entrepreneurial capacity indices and the IDPs willingness to undertake skills training and other possible business activites considering their existing economic conditions in the resettlement area. There are challenges in providing livelihood interventions to the IDPs, some of which are culture-related in nature. These are also looked into this study in the context of entrepreneurial interest and business possibilities for a systematic approach in providing livelihood interventions. Research Setting

This study is conducted in the first major resettlement area for the IDPs of the Marawi Siege. This is located in Barangay Sagonsongan, Marawi City. with approximate coordinates of N 8.0094, E 124.2473 and estimated elevation at 646.2 m above sea level. At the time of the study, Sagonsongan resettlement has a total land area of 17 hectares. It has Seven (7) resettlement areas of which Six (6) belong to ‘Bahay ng Pagbabago’, built by the National Housing Authority, and One (1) belongs to Angat Buhay Village built by Xavier University- Ateneo de Cagayan. These resettlement areas occupied a private land identified and negotiated by the local government unit of Marawi. The land owners are cultural and political leaders in Marawi City who let their land to be borrowed by the LGU for resettlement purposes.

The Sagonsongan resettlement has 1,139 total shelter units. Areas 2,3 and 4 were first to be occupied with transfer date started on January 20, 2018. This was followed shortly by the turn-over of Area 1 and Area 6. On July 2018, beneficiaries started to occupy the shelters in Area 7 and Area 5. The average floor area of shelters in Sagonsongan is 25 square meters.

vii

Sagonsongan is described as a rural area of Marawi City. There were no significant structures in the area before the resettlements were constructed. The land is previously covered with vegetation and coconut trees. Today, the resettlement areas are traversed by by-pass road connected to Marawi proper. Assemblies are usually conducted in a space between Area 2 and Area 4 where the government built some of the field offices and facility such as McDonald’s sponsored Children Space, DSWD field office, NHA field office, and a Multi-purpose Hall. Masjid is present in Areas 2, 6, and 7. Sample size and Sampling Procedure

The sample size n was computed based on the Sample Size Determination for Estimating Proportion using Simple Random Sampling. This was possible since the complete list of 1112 beneficiaries of the seven (7) resettlement areas was available during the survey. The sample size n=800 was determined at alpha =0.05 and a margin of error e = 0.035.

The respondents were randomly chosen from the official list of beneficiaries. Replacements were also chosen randomly. The data of the chosen respondents were then taken from the corresponding surveyed households. Listed respondents whose houses were closed during the survey or mismatch of the names in the list and the house occupants, or unavailability to respond to the survey form, were replaced using the list of randomly chosen replacements.

A survey form was developed comprising of different blocks. The form

underwent validation using the IDPs in other areas of Marawi City. There was slight improvement in the contents of the first few pages before the form was finalized and encoded to 20 tablets. Prior to the validation, enumerators, who are at least college graduates, were trained for 3 days on how to use a tablet in the gathering of information along with a hard copy of the form.The actual gathering of information in the 7 resettlement areas involved 16 pairs of enumerators, where a pair is composed of 1 Maranao speaking and the other 1 is Visayan Speaking. The researchers and enumerators spent at most 7 days in the resettlement area to gather the necessary information.

Findings Objective 1: Profile of household heads and the IDP households’ socio-economic conditions (Household Size, Education of HH members, Employment, Source of Livelihood, Vulnerability Index, Capacity Index)

a. Household Head Characteristics Majority (51.2%) of the household heads belonged to ages ranging from 30-49 years old. Only 25% of household heads are 61 years old and older. In terms of educational attainment, 46% finished college or at least had a college education and about 0.1% either finished only kindergarten level or took a vocational course, usually after high school. Considering gender distribution, fifty eight percent (58%) of the household heads are males, while 42% are females. On community participation, 82% of the household heads do not participate in community organizations, while 16% are members of one community organization and a very small 2% are involved in two organizations.

viii

b. Household Characteristics In terms of household size, 33.1% had six to eight family members, followed by 28.1% with four to five family members. There are also households with 11 to 15 members (13.1%) and even with 16 members and above (2.1%). For household distribution considering children below 15 years old, 19.1% of the households have 5 or more children who are below 15 years old. This is followed by 22.4% of the households having only 1 child while almost half (47.7%) of the households have 2 to 4 children. There are households (17.9%) who only have 1 child and a certain percentage (15.4%) have no child at all.

Majority of the households (82.6%) surveyed have no physically disabled members. Only 16.3% have one physically disabled member while 1.1% have two members of such condition. Generally, when it comes to the distribution of households by the number of pregnant women, 87.6% have none. Only 11.4% has one household lady member who is pregnant. There are also households (0.6%) with two pregnant members and 0.4% has three members.

Considering the household members’ highest educational attainment, a big majority (71.25%) finished secondary level, followed by 64.75% who reached college level. Around 43 percent were found to have no formal education. c. Employment (HH Heads’ Nature of Work) and Source of Livelihood Most (46.8%) of the household heads are self-employed, usually relying on entrepreneurial activity and other types of livelihood. Only 10.6% and 6.8% work in the government and private sectors, respectively while 0.3% rely on pensions. A certain percentage (35.6%) did not give a clear response as to what their employment type is. Detais of the responses showed that those who ventured into entrepreneurial activity as a source of livelihood, 19.5% of the 36.9% actually indulged in sari-sari store wherein various goods are being sold like bags, dry goods, footwear and toys. In the services sector, 4.1% of the 7.3% is involved in car rental or motorela/multicab/van/motorcycle operating while 2.4% is composed of drivers including motorcycle and tricycle.

Figure i. Distribution of HH by HH Heads Type of Employment (n=800)

Pensioner0.3%

Employed in Private Sector 6.8% Employed in

Government Sector10.6%

No Information Given35.6%

Self-Employed (Entrepreneurial Activity)

and/or Others46.8%

ix

When it comes to household heads’ nature of work, 30.6% have permanent jobs; 23.0% have seasonal/short term/casual jobs; and 12.5% have temporary jobs. However, 27% of the respondents did not give any information on the kind of work the household heads are engaged in.

d. Monthly Income Majority (55.7%) of the households have a total family monthly income of below Php 10,000.00 and around 23% indicated a total family monthly earnings of between 10,000 to 20,000 pesos. A small percentage (7%) of households have a total family monthly income of 20,000 to 29,999 pesos and another few (4.1%) households have a total monthly income ranging from 30,000 to 49,999 pesos. However, there are 2 households (0.3%) who enjoy a monthly income of Php 100,000.00 and above, although there were households (8.4%) who indicated that they do not have any family monthly income.

Considering the distribution of households by household head income, the findings follow the above distribution where majority (62.1%) of the household heads have monthly income of below 10,000 pesos. Only less than 1% of the household heads have monthly earnings of more than P 50,000. A big majority too of the households (64.6%) indicated no monthly income among other household members.

Some (21.1%) of the households are beneficiaries of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) of the government. Each family receives a monthly allowance for the education and food of the children since the program was created to alleviate the poorest families from poverty. It has become a source of income for the households. e. On Some Household Aspirations A very big majority of the households (94.3%) prefer to go back to the main affected area, only 5.8% did not indicate such aspiration. On options where to stay after the prescribed period at the resettlement area, among those who plan to return to the main affected area, 66.1% prefer to stay in the resettlement area, 17.1% will look for permanent residence area and 10.1% will look for temporary residence area. Those who have no plan to return to the main affected area, 3.5% chose to stay in the resettlement area while 1.8% will look for permanent residence area.

Figure ii. Distribution of HH by “Options” on Where to Stay, after the Resettlement Period (n=800)

0

20

40

60

80

ResettlementArea

Look forTemporary

Residence Area

Look forPermanent

Residence Area

Other Places

Percentage

x

f. Household Socio-Economic Status (SES) Majority (52.8%) of the households are categorized under the very low to low socio-economic status (shown in Figure iii by Area), while 21.5% of the households belong to the average SES. A percentage (17.3%) of the households are also classified under the above average socio-economic status, although 8.5% of the households in the resettlement area belong to the high SES level.

Figure iii. Map of the Resettlement Area with Household SES

g. Household Vulnerability Index (HVI) Some (24.4%) households in the resettlement area are considered to be very highly to highly vulnerable to the uncertainty of the socio-economic environment in their post-conflict community (also shown in Figure iv by Area),. Another 37.9% of the households are considered to have moderate HVI, while only the remaining 29.5% and 8.3% of the households have low and very low HVI, respectively.

xi

Figure iv. Map of the Resettlement Area with Household Vulnerability Index

h. Household Entrepreneurial Capacity Index (ECI) A big majority (75.6%) of the households have very low to low ECI (also shown in Figure v by Area), while 17.9% have moderate ECI to minimize the side-effects of the volatile socio-economic conditions of their post-conflict community. Only very few households, 5.% and 1.3% have high to very high entrepreneurial capacity index, respectively.

Figure v. Map of the Resettlement Area with Household Entrepreneurial Capacity Index

xii

Objective 2: Profile of households’ “entrepreneurial activities” in the context of Entrepreneurial Activities (Access/Source of Capital, Family Members’ Participation, Estimated Capital, Estimated Gross Monthly Income) and “Marketing Practices” and Emerging Markets

a. Entrepreneurial Activity Most of the households in the resettlement area have been engaged in sari-sari stores, which are established at their presently occupied temporary houses. Next to sari-sari stores are the car rental/motorela/multicab/van/motorcycle operators, which are the common modes of transportation in Lanao region. The third one is the businesses related to textiles and RTWs, which are usually done in nearby cities such as Iligan and Cagayan de Oro. Ambulant vending, fruits, sidewalk/fish/farm products vending, street food, and foodcart stand as the fourth most common entrepreneurial activities.

Figure vi. Frequency Distribution of Households by the Top Five Type of Entrepreneurial Activities

b. Access/Source of Capital Results show that 39.3% of the respondents use their personal money as a source of their business capital. This is followed by 27% of the respondents whose source of their business capital is from government livelihood interventions such as LGU, DSWD, and DTI. Borrowing from trusted relatives and friends places third of the most common source of business capital while coop/loan/lending is the least common source of business capital.

c. Family Members’ Participation A big majority (66.6%) of the respondents claimed that their household heads are the only ones engaged with entrepreneurial activities. These are followed by spouses with 17.6%, and sons and daughters with 8.3%.

d. Estimated Capital Almost 20% of the respondents specified that their entrepreneurial activities have an estimated capital of below 10,000 pesos, while 14.7% have an estimated capital ranging from 10,000 to 10,999 pesos in their small business activities. Some (14.7%) respondents also indicated an estimated capital ranging from of 20,000 to 49,999 pesos for their businesses. A very small percentage (8.1%) of repondents replied that the estimated capital for their business activities is from 50,000 pesos or above. It can also be noted that for this group, the most common type of business is sari-sari

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Driver, Motorcycle/Tricycle Driver

Ambulant Vending, Fruits, Sidewalk/Fish/ FarmProducts Vending, Street Food, Foodcart

Textiles & RTWs

Car Rental/Motorela/Multicab/Van/ MotorcycleOperator

Sari sari store (including Selling Bags, Dry Goods,Footwear, Toys)

18

22

26

33

157

xiii

store. The findings however revealed, that there is a substantial percentage (42.2) of respondents who did not volunteer to share information on monthly estimated capital for their entrepreneurial activities.

e. Monthly Income A considerable percentage of respondents (33.4%) specified to have a gross monthly income of below 5,000 pesos from their business activities. These are generally the households who are engaged in sari-sari store, textiles and RTW’s, ambulant vending, dress making, driving, food, photocopying, and dress making.

The results also showed that 19.7% of the respondents indicated to have a gross monthly income ranging from 5,000 to 9,999 pesos, while only 4.0% have a gross monthly earnings of more than 20,000 pesos from their business activities.The findings however revealed, that there is a substantial percentage (42.8) of respondents who did not volunteer to share information on gross monthly income from their entrepreneurial activities.

f. “Marketing Practices” by Business Location Majority (53.7%) of the respondents specified that their business activities are done in the Nearby Public Spaces, Marawi City, Saguiaran, and Baloi, while 23% do their business activities within their residence or in Sagonsungan area. Objective 3. To determine the IDPs willingness to undertake entrepreneurial activities: a. undergo skills training b. Entrepreneurial Activity for Future Venture

a. Skills Training A substantial number of respondents (32.9%) specified that their most preferred skill training is on Baking and Pastries. This is followed by the second highest preferred skills (13.3%) training, which is “Automotive”. Skills training on Sewing, Carpentry & Masonry and Electronic Repair combined, account for a substantial number of respondents (approximately 26% ), while very few to nil choose Agri-related skill training such as Basic Farming Skills, Livestock & Poultry Raising (approximately 3% combined). About 5% did not give any information on skill training preference.

b. Preferred Entrepreneurial Activity for Future Venture, Availability and Source of

Capital Trading tops the list in terms of preferred business ventures comprising of; store retailing (47.5%), ambulant vending (8.9%) and peddling (3.8%). This is alongside personal savings as the preferred source of capital for future business venture for approximately 33% of the respondents, though trusted relatives (5%) and trusted friends (1%) are also preferred. It is also noted in the findings that despite “personal savings” as the most preferred source of capital, 56% of the respondents do not have savings or available capital for future business ventures. The rest have savings ranging from P20,000 to over P100,000.

xiv

Conclusion From the findings, the following conclusions/implications are drawn:

Generally, the IDPs are categorized in the low to very low socio-economic status (SES), indicating that those in the resettlement areas are IDPs who largely lack resources to move into another location and explore opportunities outside the given government interventions. Given their current sources of livelihood and employment, and gross monthly income, these IDPs are most likely to be challenged in reaching financial stability, and thus be further pressed because of their limited financial resources in their post-conflict community. The big tendency of the IDPs to venture into a small scale entrepreneurial activitiy may be due to the very minimal needs for this type of economic venture in terms of capital outlay, manpower and management. Though this type of business activity gives relatively low profit, there may be no choice considering the IDPs low socio-economic status, limited access to financial resource, and obedience with tradition. Marawi City’s employment condition, as a traditional community, is heavily dependent on the ability of the economy to provide employment, the nature of that employment, and the individual’s ability to secure it. Furthermore, the very high preference of the IDPs to use personal savings rather than accessing financial assistance from lending institutions and cooperatives indicates that majority of them are risk averse, and disinclined to take risk in their economic ventures especially that they are in an uncertain socio-economic environment. These affect the kind of entrepreneurial activities they ventured into; thus they invest to a more predictable payoff with minimal forecasted loss. Furthermore, the low socio-economic condition of the IDP households is further aggravated by the limited participation of qualified household members in livelihood activities. The IDPs low Household Entrepreneurial Capacity Index (HECI), concurs with their preference of livelihood opportunities that lean toward small-scale trading and merchandising than agriculture, farming and fishing. Although farming and agriculture are areas that the IDPs may explore, especially that there are agricultural livelihood opportunities that are already in place, this is least preferred by IDPs. This may be attributed to Maranao tradition and culture of being traders than farmers and laborers, which would imply further that engaging IDPs into agriculture sector is weak and thus may not take off as an employment/ livelihood opportunity. Contrary to most post-conflict communities, where cooperatives and lending institutions are a preference to outsourcing capital for business venture, the Maranao IDPs have no preference to engage with 3rd parties. This may be ascribed to their Islamic culture and values that lower their interest on financial leveraging. They are limited to working and engaging as individual households rather than building up a community with other households to socially interact with. Having a common set of entrepreneurial activities for this kind of community is beneficial in terms of business competitiveness resulting to healthier income. Access to financial sources such as institutional credits, insurance, and cooperatives, are likely to reduce household vulnerability (Grace and Tijia 2007; Tewari and Bhowmick, 2014).

The IDPs’ preference for specific skills training (baking and pastries, automotive, and sewing, carpentry and masonry works), some of which were initially provided through government-private assistance, indicates that these IDPs are more

xv

likely to work informally and are willing to acquire further education and trainings as a means of trying to survive in an opportunity-limited post-conflict community (Ivlevs & Veliziotis, 2017). The findings imply further the need for income generation amongst IDPs after hastily leaving their homes and their employment during conflict (Ibanez and Moya, 2010). Lastly, the findings on IDPs’ high preference to stay in the resettlement area after the prescribed years of stay, and in the event that MAA is still not available to them, indicate challenges in the near future considering the following 1) the resettlement area is most preferable and practical to the IDPs than to look again for a more permanent place to stay, 2) there are policy implications on this preference in terms of land ownership and other related concerns and 3) the readiness of the LGUs (City and Province) to address this desire of the IDPs after the prescribed years of stay in the resettlement area. Recommendations The following recommendations are drawn from the findings of this study and the formulated conclusions and implications. These are addressed to the concerned LGUs, appropriate government agencies and non-government organizations: A. On Policy Development

1. Drafting and approval of Policies relative to the issue of the IDPs desire to stay in the resettlement area if MAA is still not available after the IDPs’ maximum years of stay in this temporary relocation site;

2. Drafting and approval of resolutions and ordinances that shall serve as basic guidelines by the implementers and the IDPs on actions and processes for post-resettlement residency.

3. Drafting and approval of resolutions providing technical support to the IDPs in the resettlement area considering the following: a. Formation of relevant community organizations and/or cooperatives; b. Business Partnerships that would trigger economic activities in the area; c. Skills Training Partnership with the appropriate government agencies and/or

private-sector training provider; B. On Community Organizing

There may be a need to organize, the IDPs in this resettlement area, as a community so they have shared values, strengthened relationships, and institutionalized as an organization. Strengthening their relationship as a community and clustering them into organizations may encourage participation in community activities. In this manner, financial assistance and skills training may be coursed through community organizations therefore ensuring transparency and community participation. Skills training may also be given according to the group they are identified with (ie Women, Youth, etc) and ensure that these skills training are given according to the age and cluster. With this, members of the household other than the household heads are trained and given economic opportunities.

C. On Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Activities 1. Training provisions for skills on the following: baking and pastries, automotive works,

sewing, carpentry, and masonry works. These may be through certificate courses

xvi

and TESDA-accredited skills training provider. With this, the IDPs are also given better opportunity to access employment and livelihood even outside the post-conflict community.

2. Skills Trainings will be tied up with capacity enhancement on entrepreneurial skills and marketing strategies, networking, and understanding the business concept since majority of the IDPs would want to engage in trading and merchandising and would prefer to use personal savings as source of capital.

3. The concept of pay per work may work for the IDPs as an alternative source of income since they are interested on earning and using personal savings as source of capital. This may be in a manner of undergoing certain skills training and creating an enterprise they can participate into, where their contributions are paid accordingly. This may only be as a transitory entrepreneurial activity since this is also less sustainable considering the opportunities for market build up, networking and linkaging.

4. Financial assistance may be given to them in a more conservative manner, such as pay per work, through private-government partnership interventions, and thorough mentoring and coaching on their livelihood implementation.

5. Create a systematic economic opportunity for the IDPs in the area. This can be through participation of business partners, local or non-local, on basic services (such as basic education, health services, supply of potable water, etc). This can trigger economic activities for the IDPs and their qualified household members.

D. For Future Research Projects On IDP Households in Marawi City Resettlement Areas For a more comprehensive approach in providing all-inclusive support to the IDPs in terms of projects and programs, government agencies and the private sector may collaborate to undertake research in any or all of the following; 1. Mental Health of the IDPs due to the Marawi Siege 2. Household Health and Sanitation 3. Vector-Borne Diseases 4. Water Sources and their Potability 5. Access to Basic Services