Chronic Food Insecurity Situation Overview in 71 provinces of the Philippines

Chronic Food Insecurity Situation Overview in 71 provinces of the Philippines 2015-2020 Key Highlights Out of the 71 provinces analyzed, Lanao del Sur, Sulu, Northern Samar and Occidental Mindoro are experiencing severe chronic food insecurity (IPC Level 4); 48 provinces are facing moderate chronic food insecurity (IPC Level 3), and 19 provinces are affected by a mild chronic food insecurity (IPC Level 2). Around 64% of the total population is chronically food insecure, of which 17% moderately food insecure and 8% severely food insecure. Population of moderately and severely food insecure account for nearly 22 million people. Summary of Classification Conclusions Severe chronic food insecurity (IPC level 4) is driven by poor food consumption quality, quantity and high level of chronic undernutrition. In provinces at IPC level 3, quality of food consumption is worse than quantity; and chronic undernutrition is also a major problem. The most chronic food insecure people tend to be the landless poor households, indigenous people, population engaged in unsustainable livelihood strategies such as farmers, unskilled laborers, forestry workers, fishermen etc. that provide inadequate and often unpredictable income. Thus, it is likely that these people are not able to satisfy their food and non-food needs in a sustainable manner. Provinces highly susceptible to flooding, landslides and drought are prone to experience excessive stresses on their coping mechanisms. Summary of Underlying and Limiting Factors Major factors limiting people from being food secure are the poor utilization of food in 33 provinces and the access to food in 23 provinces. Unsustainable livelihood strategies are major drivers of food insecurity in 32 provinces followed by recurrent risks in 16 provinces and lack of financial capital in 17 provinces. In the provinces at IPC level 3 and 4, the majority of the population is engaged in unsustainable livelihood strategies and vulnerable to seasonal employment and inadequate income. Low-value livelihood strategies and high underemployment rate result in high poverty incidence particularly in Sulu, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sarangani, Bukidnon, Zamboanga del Norte (Mindanao), Northern Samar, Samar (Visayas), and Masbate, Occidental Mindoro (Luzon). These economic constraints coupled with the increase in retail prices of major commodities led to a decline in purchasing power. Food utilization is also poor in the majority of the provinces as evidenced by low rates of exclusive breastfeeding; and limited access to improved sources of water, toilet and cooking fuel, which mostly limit food consumption quality and caring practices. Key for Map Chronic Food Insecurity Level Severe CFI Moderate CFI Mild CFI Minimal CFI Inadequate Evidence Not Analyzed Recurrence of Crisis Area classified as Crisis or worse during at least 3 years in previous 10 years Mapped level represents highest CFI severity for at least 20% of the households. Key for Callout Boxes Area Name Pop & % in Level 2,3,4 0% 100% % of pp in each Level Aggregate Numbers Level % ( 000s) 1 36% 30,673 2 38% 32,782 3 17% 14,255 Disclaimer: The boundaries, names, and designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by collaborating agencies or the IPC Global Partners. 4 8% 7,008 = 10% of the pop Chronic analysis assumes % HH s equals % pop For more information, contact: Ms. Hygeia Ceres Catalina B. Gawe (jigay.gawe@nnc.gov.ph) or Mr. Alberto C. Aduna (Alberto.Aduna@fao.org) Analysis Partners & Supporting Organizations

Table of Contents Chronic Food Insecurity Situation Overview in 71 provinces of the Philippines 2015-2020... 1 Key conclusions, implications for response, process and next steps... 3 IPC Chronic classification results... 3 Factors driving chronic food insecurity... 4 Main limiting factors... 5 Main underlying factors... 6 Recommendations for response analysis by decision makers... 7 Annex A. IPC process for classification of chronic food insecurity... 7 Annex B. Population Estimates... 8 Annex C. Summary Matrix of Limiting and Underlying Factors... 13 Page 2 of 17

Key conclusions, implications for response, process and next steps IPC Chronic Food Insecurity Classification has been implemented in the Philippines since 2015. Four rounds of IPC analyses have been completed covering 71 out of 81 provinces of which, 23 provinces are in the areas of Mindanao, 13 in Visayas, and 35 in Luzon. The provinces of Apayao, Basilan, Tawi-Tawi, Dinagat Islands, Antique, Biliran, Camarines Norte, Eastern Samar, Batanes, and Davao Occidental are not classified due to inadequate number of required reliable direct evidences needed for the analysis. IPC process for classification of chronic food insecurity is discussed in Annex A. The present report highlights the main conclusions and issues of the consolidated rounds of IPC-Chronic analyses. Provinces of Sulu, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sarangani, Bukidnon, Zamboanga del Norte (in Mindanao), Northern Samar, Samar (in Visayas), and Masbate, Occidental Mindoro (in Luzon) have higher levels of poverty and undernutrition. Food insecurity in these areas is caused by many factors such as unsustainable and low value livelihood strategies, low income, high retail prices, landlessness, and vulnerability to natural disasters and armed conflict. IPC CHRONIC CLASSIFICATION RESULTS 54.9 million (64%) Chronically Food Insecure Filipinos CFI Level 2 3 4 Population Lanao del Sur in million (%) 33.3 (39%) 14.5 (17%) 7.1 (8%) IPC-Chronic Level 3 and above Figure 1. Chronically food insecure population Around 64% of the population nationwide which accounts for 54.9 million Filipinos are chronically food insecure (IPC-Chronic level 2 and above). Specifically, this represents 39% mild, 17% moderate and 8% severe chronic food insecure population. Of the 71 provinces analyze: Four provinces namely Lanao del Sur, Northern Samar, Occidental Mindoro and Sulu have been classified in IPC-Chronic Level 4 (Severe Chronic Food Insecurity), accounting for 658,000 people. Forty-eight provinces have been classified in IPC-Chronic Level 3 (Moderate Chronic Food Insecurity) while the remaining nineteen provinces have been classified in IPC-Chronic Level 2 (Mild Chronic Food Insecurity). Approximately 21.6 million Filipinos are facing higher level chronic food insecurity (IPC-Chronic level 3 and 4). The population classified in IPC-Chronic Level 3 and 4 are of major concern which is highest in Lanao del Sur, Occidental Mindoro, and Northern Samar (50% to 52%) followed by Sulu, Masbate, Samar, Zamboanga del Norte, Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, Southern Leyte, Zamboanga Sibugay, Bukidnon, and Saranggani (40 to 49%). The population estimates providing a summary of the number and percentage of food insecure population is presented in Annex B. Page 3 of 17

FACTORS DRIVING CHRONIC FOOD INSECURITY Overall, food consumption quality and chronic undernutrition are major cause of concern across the analyzed provinces. For the provinces in IPC-Chronic level 4 and most of the provinces in IPC-Chronic level 3, the main issue is not only the quality but also the quantity of food consumed, as well as chronic undernutrition. In the provinces classified under mild and moderate chronic food insecurity, quality of food consumption is worse than quantity; and chronic undernutrition is also a major problem. Main drivers of food insecurity?? 7 to 8 out of 10 Filipinos have been consuming diets heavily dependent on higher ratio (>50% share) of starchy food intake. 4 out of 5 Filipino children are not eating minimum dietary diversified diet. 7 out of 10 Filipinos are reducing the quantity and frequency of food consumption 4 to 5 out of 10 Filipino children are stunted. Figure 2. Main drivers of chronic food insecurity The following are the major causes of higher level of chronic food insecurity based on the analysis findings: Due to heavy reliance on starches such as maize and rice, over 70% of the population have been consuming diets which are largely inadequate in terms of fat, proteins and micronutrients intake. Nearly 4 in 5 children are not eating minimum diversified diet which means they are having nutrient inadequacy in their diet. In a nutshell, diet diversity and micronutrient balance diet, key components of food consumption quality, are very poor. Around 60 to 70% of the population in severe chronic food insecure provinces are also suffering from severe food consumption gaps. These population reduce the quantity and frequency of food consumed to cope with the income shocks related to food or economic crises. Chronic malnutrition is measured by stunting (i.e. low height for age) and is due to the persistent inability to meet minimum micro- and macronutrient requirements, or the frequent recurrence of acute malnutrition episodes, or a combination of both. Prevalence of stunting among under five years old children is moderate to very high in all provinces which are classified in moderate to severe CFI. More than half of the provinces with very high prevalence of stunting are in Visayas and Mindanao region, ranging between 40 to 50%. Page 4 of 17

Main limiting factors: Food Availability is a major limiting factor of food insecurity in 12 provinces. These areas are Agusan del Norte, Misamis Oriental, Sulu, Mountain Province, Negros Occidental, Samar, Northern Samar, Southern Leyte, Leyte, Palawan, Occidental Mindoro, and Abra. The production of pork in 12 provinces is less than the demand of the population for consumption. Fish production is also insufficient in these provinces, except for Samar. There is inadequate rice production in Agusan del Norte, Misamis Oriental, Sulu, Mountain Province, Negros Occidental, Samar and Northern Samar. Figure 3. Food availability as major limiting factor of food insecurity Food Access is a major limiting factor in 23 provinces. These provinces are Abra, Isabela, Quezon, Masbate, South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Ifugao, Kalinga, Mountain Province, Tarlac, Oriental Mindoro, Occidental Mindoro, Romblon, Cebu, Bohol, Leyte, Samar (Western), Northern Samar, Lanao del Sur, Sulu, Maguindanao, Zamboanga del Norte, and Lanao del Norte. Increase in the retail prices of major commodities in these provinces over a five-year span makes food items unaffordable. This problem hinders the ability of poor households to meet their daily dietary needs. Low purchasing power poses additional challenge to poor households that tend to reduce the quality and quantity of food consumed in order to cope with economic hardship. For the provinces of Lanao del Sur, Sulu, Maguindanao, Zamboanga del Norte and Lanao del Norte, food access in terms of physical is also a major limiting factor as evidenced by poor road network that traverse through farms and villages. Figure 4. Food access as major limiting factor of food insecurity Food Utilization is a major limiting factor in 33 provinces, namely Bohol, Cavite, Compostela Valley, Davao Oriental, Ifugao, Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, Isabela, Kalinga, Laguna, Lanao del Sur, La Union, Leyte, Maguindanao, Masbate, Misamis Occidental, Misamis Oriental, Negros Oriental, Northern Samar, Nueva Vizcaya, Occidental Mindoro, Palawan, Pangasinan, Rizal, Romblon, Samar, Siquijor, Southern Leyte, Sulu, Zambales, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur, and Zamboanga Sibugay. Factors related to food utilization affect practices of households on food safety and handling practices (Figure 5). Furthermore, poor child care practices as evidenced by low prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding coverage (52%) among children 0-5 months old. Page 5 of 17

Poor access to improved water source (20-30%) Poor access to improved lighting source (10-20%) High use of non-improved cooking fuel (50-60%) Main underlying factors: Figure 5. Food Utilization as major limiting factor of food insecurity Poverty: Very high levels of poverty incidences can be found in Visayas and Mindanao areas. More than half of the population in Lanao del Sur (66%), and nearly half of the population (40 to 49%) in Sulu, Maguindanao, Saranggani, Bukidnon, Zamboanga del Norte, Western Samar, Northern Samar, and Siquijor are below poverty line. Furthermore, Lanao del Sur (33%) and Saranggani (27%) are the provinces with the highest reported rates of subsistence incidence among poor families. Livelihood Strategies: More than half of the population (50 to 70%) in highly chronic food insecure provinces are engaged in low value livelihood such as farming, fishing, forestry and unskilled jobs which constrain the purchasing power of the households. Due to limited sustainable livelihood strategies, people are also susceptible to shocks which leads poor household to engage in coping strategies that consist in reducing the quality and quantity of food consumed. People working in agriculture sector are more prone to food insecurity, because of low rural incomes, lack of access to productive assets such as land and financial capital, and their vulnerability to various shocks such as climate change, extreme weather events, pests and diseases. Physical capital: Roughly 50 to 70% of the households in highly chronic food insecure provinces, except from the provinces in CAR and Cagayan, do not own land as productive asset which makes the households engaged in agriculture sector more at risk to food insecurity. Financial capital: Limited opportunities for sustainable livelihood hinders continuous household income. Underemployment rate is high, ranging between 30 to 50% in the provinces of Aurora, Marinduque, Romblon, Camarines Sur, Catanduanes, Sorsogon, Southern Leyte, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga Sibugay, Bukidnon, Lanao del Norte, Davao Occidental, Sarangani, Agusan del Sur, and Surigao del Sur. Recurrent Risks: The 29 provinces prone to flash floods and landslides are Lanao del Sur in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao; Abra, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga and Mountain Province in the Cordillera Administrative Region; Negros Occidental in Negros Island Region; Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, La Union and Pangasinan in Ilocos region; Cagayan, and Nueva Vizcaya in Cagayan Valley; Aurora, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales in Central Luzon; Occidental Mindoro and Oriental Mindoro in Mimaropa region; Zamboanga del Sur in Zamboanga Peninsula; Albay and Sorsogon in Bicol; Aklan, Capiz and Iloilo in Western Visayas; Misamis Occidental in Northern Mindanao; and Compostela Valley and Davao Oriental in the Davao region. These provinces are vulnerable to natural hazards brought about by rain-induced landslides, flooding and drought which affect infrastructure, housing and agriculture sectors. These nature-induced shocks can lead to the destruction of livelihood assets and displacement of families, and thereby weaken the coping capacity of the households. Natural disasters and conflict also have direct impact on the food production and can result in a difference between farm-gate and retail prices. Page 6 of 17

The table providing a summary of the major limiting and underlying factors in the 38 provinces is provided in Annex C. RECOMMENDATION FOR RESPONSE ANALYSIS BY DECISION MAKERS The provinces and population facing severe and moderate chronic food insecurity (IPC-Chronic level 3 and 4) are of major concern and warrant action from the government and the development community. An immediate and coordinated mid- and the long-term response from the Government, development partners and I/NGOs is primarily necessary for Lanao del Sur, Sulu, Northern Samar and Occidental Mindoro provinces, where 658,000 people are facing severe chronic food insecurity (IPC-Chronic level 4 ) due to lack of food access, poor food utilization, protracted natural and human induced shocks, unsustainable and low value livelihood strategies. It is also recommended that the Government and partners implement interventions aimed at improving the quality and quantity of consumption as well as decreasing chronic malnutrition in the 52 provinces and for the 21.6 million people facing moderate and severe chronic food insecurity (IPC-Chronic level 3 and 4). Based on these key findings, the following are recommendations for consideration in the planning of provincial, regional and national governments as well as development partners: Strengthen social protection programs by expanding coverage and efficient identification of poor families with priority given to children, women and older persons and their families Integrate employment diversification and sustainable economic empowerment programs with local agricultural production processes for the poor and vulnerable Increase investments in rural off-farm and non-farm employment generating activities such as agribusiness enterprises to address seasonal agricultural activities Scale-up investments on nutrition, particularly on the components of First 1000 Days (from pregnancy, birth to 6 months, and 6 months to 2 years) as a proven solution to prevent child malnutrition Strengthen disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation programs, particularly in the most vulnerable areas, to increase people s resilience and decreasing their vulnerabilities ANNEX A. IPC PROCESS FOR CLASSIFICATION OF CHRONIC FOOD INSECURITY The first round of IPC Philippines chronic food insecurity analysis workshop took place during 20-24 January 2015 and covered 18 provinces in Mindanao. The second analysis was conducted on 22-26 February 2016 and captured other 15 provinces. The third and fourth round of IPC-Chronic analysis were held in 20-24 March and 3-7 April 2017, respectively. The analyses used secondary information from various sources, majority of which come from the lead agencies on agricultural, health and nutrition surveys: Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), Food and Nutrition Research Institute Department of Science and Technology (FNRI-DOST), Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council Office of Civil Defense (NDRRMC-OCD), and World Food Programme (WFP). IPC is a set of protocols to classify chronic and acute food insecurity. IPC consists of four mutually reinforcing functions, each with a set of specific protocols (tools and procedures). The core IPC parameters include consensus building, convergence of evidence, accountability, transparency and comparability. For IPC, chronic food insecurity is defined as food insecurity that persists over time due to structural causes, even in the absence of exceptionally bad circumstances. Page 7 of 17

POPULATION TABLE ANNEX B. POPULATION ESTIMATES Population Figures An area level classification was employed where the province was taken as the unit of analysis. The classification level of the worst off group that crosses the 20 percent threshold has determined the overall classification level of the province. The number and percentage of population under different levels are defined according to the IPC-Chronic Classification color codes. The confidence level of analysis is based on criteria for corroborating evidence for confidence categories: 3 stars being high, 2 stars being medium and 1 star being acceptable level of confidence. The interim population projection is based on the "2010 Census of Population and Housing" conducted by Philippine Statistics Authority. The 2010 Census-based national population projection utilized the Cohort-Component Method. This methodology is based on the fact that population change is a result of three demographic processes, namely: fertility, mortality and migration. Accordingly, the assumptions adopted take into account the future trends in fertility, mortality and migration. Growth rate method was used to estimate the population for the provinces. For round 1, the provincial estimates for 2015 derived by the growth rate method were adjusted to conform with the official national projected population counts. Round Provinces Total # (pp) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 2 or higher Conf. level # % # % # % # % # % Agusan del sur 710,158 178,000 25 320,000 45 142,000 20 71,000 10 533,000 75 * Bukidnon 1,437,110 323,000 22 539,000 37 395,000 28 180,000 13 1,114,000 78 ** Camiguin 88,863 33,000 37 31,000 35 18,000 20 7,000 7 56,000 63 ** Compostela valley 746,939 291,000 39 261,000 35 149,000 20 45,000 6 455,000 61 ** Davao del norte 1,066,423 320,000 30 400,000 38 213,000 20 107,000 10 720,000 68 ** Davao del sur 2,239,636 728,000 32 1,008,000 45 336,000 15 168,000 7 1,512,000 68 ** Davao oriental 556,638 153,000 27 250,000 45 97,000 17 56,000 10 403,000 72 ** Lanao del norte 1030632 180,000 17 4,900,000 47 258,000 25 103,000 10 851,000 83 ** Round 1 Lanao del sur 1,006,411 101,000 10 377,000 37 302,000 30 226,000 22 905,000 90 * Maguindanao 1,024,589 205,000 20 384,000 37 282,000 27 154,000 15 820,000 80 ** North cotabato 1,387,424 416,000 30 486,000 35 347,000 25 139,000 10 972,000 70 ** Sarangani 549,489 137,000 25 192,000 35 137,000 25 82,000 15 411,000 75 ** Sulu 772,120 97,000 12 309,000 40 193,000 25 174,000 22 676,000 88 ** Surigao del norte 480,560 142,000 29 216,000 45 96,000 20 26,000 5 338,000 70 ** Surigao del sur 592,221 163,000 27 266,000 45 104,000 17 59,000 10 429,000 72 ** Zamboanga del norte 1,031,946 155,000 15 413,000 40 284,000 27 181,000 17 878,000 85 ** Zamboanga del sur 1,957,241 871,000 44 832,000 43 147,000 8 108,000 5 1,087,000 56 ** Zamboanga sibugay 633,167 158,000 25 222,000 35 174,000 27 79,000 12 475,000 75 ** Total 17,311,567 4,651,000 27 6,996,000 40 3,674,000 21 1,965,000 11 12,635,000 72 Page 8 of 17

POPULATION TABLE ANNEX B. POPULATION ESTIMATES Population Figures An area level classification was employed where the province was taken as the unit of analysis. The classification level of the worst off group that crosses the 20 percent threshold has determined the overall classification level of the province. The number and percentage of population under different levels are defined according to the IPC-Chronic Classification color codes. The confidence level of analysis is based on criteria for corroborating evidence for confidence categories: 3 stars being high, 2 stars being medium and 1 star being acceptable level of confidence. The interim population projection is based on the "2010 Census of Population and Housing" conducted by Philippine Statistics Authority. The 2010 Census-based national population projection utilized the Cohort-Component Method. This methodology is based on the fact that population change is a result of three demographic processes, namely: fertility, mortality and migration. Accordingly, the assumptions adopted take into account the future trends in fertility, mortality and migration. Growth rate method was used to estimate the population for the provinces. For round 2, the provincial estimates for 2016 derived by the growth rate method were adjusted to conform with the official national projected population counts. Round Provinces Total # (pp) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 2 or higher Conf. level # % # % # % # % # % Abra 234,733 76,000 32 82,000 35 53,000 22 23,000 10 158,000 67 ** Agusan del norte 364,201 109,000 30 109,000 30 91,000 25 55,000 15 255,000 70 *** Round 2 Benguet 819,579 299,000 36 410,000 50 82,000 10 29,000 3 521,000 64 ** Cagayan 1,205,675 482,000 40 543,000 45 121,000 10 60,000 5 724,000 60 ** Ilocos norte 599,712 255,000 42 240,000 40 60,000 10 45,000 7 345,000 58 ** Ilocos sur 696,802 331,000 47 209,000 30 105,000 15 52,000 7 366,000 53 ** Isabela 1,618,369 566,000 35 647,000 40 283,000 17 121,000 7 1,051,000 65 ** Masbate 917,609 184,000 20 275,000 30 367,000 40 92,000 10 734,000 80 *** Misamis occidental 619,747 266,000 43 217,000 35 93,000 15 43,000 7 353,000 57 ** Misamis oriental 1,619,275 664,000 41 470,000 28 291,000 18 194,000 12 955,000 59 ** Nueva vizcaya 455,630 164,000 36 205,000 45 64,000 14 23,000 5 292,000 64 ** Pangasinan 2,996,056 1,573,000 52 899,000 30 300,000 10 225,000 7 1,424,000 48 *** Quezon 2,189,109 963,000 44 766,000 35 328,000 15 131,000 6 1,225,000 56 * South cotabato 827,200 248,000 30 290,000 35 207,000 25 83,000 10 580,000 70 ** Sultan kudarat 861,281 194,000 22 301,000 35 237,000 27 129,000 15 667,000 77 ** Total 16,024,978 6,374,000 40 5,663,000 35 2,682,000 17 1,305,000 8 9,650,000 60 Page 9 of 17

ANNEX B. POPULATION ESTIMATES An area level classification was employed where the province was taken as the unit of analysis. The classification level of the worst off group that crosses the 20 percent threshold has determined the overall classification level of the province. The number and percentage of population under different levels are defined according to the IPC-Chronic Classification color codes. The confidence level of analysis is based on criteria for corroborating evidence for confidence categories: 3 stars being high, 2 stars being medium and 1 star being acceptable level of confidence. The interim population projection is based on the "2010 Census of Population and Housing" conducted by Philippine Statistics Authority. The 2010 Census-based national population projection utilized the Cohort-Component Method. This methodology is based on the fact that population change is a result of three demographic processes, namely: fertility, mortality and migration. Accordingly, the assumptions adopted take into account the future trends in fertility, mortality and migration. Growth rate method was used to estimate the population for the provinces. For round 2, the provincial estimates for 2016 derived by the growth rate method were adjusted to conform with the official national projected population counts. Round Provinces Total # (pp) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 2 or higher # % # % # % # % # % Aklan 599548 150,000 27 330,000 55 75,000 13 30,000 5 105,000 73 Albay 1333058 600,000 45 480,000 36 153,000 11 100,000 7 733,000 55 Bohol 1563136 391,000 25 547,000 35 469,000 30 156,000 10 1,172,000 75 Camarines sur 2024097 526,000 26 1,012,000 50 304,000 15 182,000 9 1,498,000 74 Capiz 762724 229,000 30 343,000 45 114,000 15 76,000 10 533,000 70 Catanduanes 268385 67,000 25 121,000 45 54,000 20 27,000 10 202,000 75 Cebu 4816834 2,408,000 50 1,084,000 22 963,000 20 361,000 7 2,408,000 50 Guimaras 178469 80,000 45 71,000 40 18,000 10 9,000 5 98,000 55 Iloilo 2452297 736,000 30 1,349,000 55 245,000 10 123,000 5 1,717,000 70 Round 3 Leyte 1925033 674,000 35 674,000 35 385,000 20 193,000 10 1,252,000 65 Negros Occidental 3148121 630,000 30 1,259,000 40 630,000 20 315,000 10 2,204,000 70 Negros Oriental 1397555 489,000 35 419,000 30 349,000 25 140,000 10 908,000 65 Northern Samar 654995 196,000 30 131,000 20 196,000 30 131,000 20 458,000 70 Samar 799254 120,000 17 280,000 35 240,000 30 140,000 18 660,000 83 Siquijor 97500 39,000 40 29,000 30 22,000 22 7,000 7 58,000 59 Sorsogon 804637 97,000 14 507,000 63 121,000 15 60,000 8 688,000 86 Southern Leyte 425219 85,000 20 159,000 37 128,000 30 53,000 13 1,087,000 56 Conf. level Total 23,250,862 7,831,000 34 8,795,000 38 4,466,000 19 2,103,000 9 15,364,000 66 Page 10 of 17

TABLE ANNEX B. POPULATION ESTIMATES Population Figures An area level classification was employed where the province was taken as the unit of analysis. The classification level of the worst off group that crosses the 20 percent threshold has determined the overall classification level of the province. The number and percentage of population under different levels are defined according to the IPC-Chronic Classification color codes. The confidence level of analysis is based on criteria for corroborating evidence for confidence categories: 3 stars being high, 2 stars being medium and 1 star being acceptable level of confidence. The interim population projection is based on the "2010 Census of Population and Housing" conducted by Philippine Statistics Authority. The 2010 Census-based national population projection utilized the Cohort-Component Method. This methodology is based on the fact that population change is a result of three demographic processes, namely: fertility, mortality and migration. Accordingly, the assumptions adopted take into account the future trends in fertility, mortality and migration. Growth rate method was used to estimate the population for the provinces. For round 2, the provincial estimates for 2017 derived by the growth rate method were adjusted to conform with the official national projected population counts. Round Provinces Total # (pp) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 2 or higher # % # % # % # % # % Aurora 221220 66,000 30 88,000 40 44,000 20 22,000 10 154,000 70 Bataan 793537 309,000 39 357,000 45 79,000 10 48,000 6 484,000 61 Batangas 2757516 1,213,000 44 1,103,000 40 331,000 12 110,000 4 1,544,000 56 Bulacan 3510588 2,247,000 64 878,000 25 263,000 7 123,000 3 1,264,000 36 Cavite 4086850 1,185,000 29 2,248,000 55 409,000 10 225,000 5 2,882,000 71 Ifugao 213218 53,000 25 96,000 45 43,000 20 21,000 10 160,000 75 Kalinga 221731 67,000 30 78,000 35 55,000 25 22,000 10 155,000 70 Laguna 3290690 1,974,000 60 823,000 25 313,000 9 181,000 5 1,317,000 40 Round 4 La Union 786653 283,000 36 354,000 45 102,000 13 47,000 6 503,000 64 Marinduque 233184 98,000 42 84,000 36 35,000 15 16,000 7 135,000 58 Mountain Province 162999 33,000 20 73,000 45 41,000 25 16,000 10 130,000 80 Nueva Ecija 2176418 871,000 40 762,000 35 435,000 20 109,000 5 1,306,000 60 Conf. level Occidental Mindoro 508222 102,000 22 127,000 25 140,000 28 127,000 25 394,000 78 Oriental Mindoro 860633 344,000 40 301,000 35 129,000 15 86,000 10 516,000 60 Palawan 1198391 395,000 33 539,000 45 180,000 15 84,000 7 803,000 67 Pampanga 2707245 677,000 25 1,624,000 60 271,000 10 135,000 5 2,030,000 75 Quirino 198181 38,000 19 109,000 55 40,000 20 12,000 6 161,000 81 Page 11 of 17

ANNEX C. SUMMARY MATRIX OF LIMITING AND UNDERLYING FACTORS OF FOOD INSECURITY Limiting Factors of Food Insecurity Underlying Factors of Food Insecurity Province Food Availability Food Access Food Utilization & Stability Livelihood Strategies Human Physical Financial Natural Social Policy / Inst. Processes Recurrent Risks Unusual Crises Abra Agusan del Norte Agusan del Sur Aklan Albay Aurora Bataan Batangas Benguet Bohol Bukidnon Bulacan LEGEND: Page 13 of 17

ANNEX C. SUMMARY MATRIX OF LIMITING AND UNDERLYING FACTORS OF FOOD INSECURITY Summary Matrix of Limiting and Underlying Factors Limiting Factors of Food Insecurity Underlying Factors of Food Insecurity Province Food Availability Food Access Food Utilization & Stability Livelihood Strategies Human Physical Financial Natural Social Policy / Inst. Processes Recurrent Risks Unusual Crises Cagayan Camarines Sur Capiz Catanduanes Cavite Cebu Compostela Valley Davao del Norte Davao del Sur Davao Oriental Guimaras Ifugao Ilocos Norte Ilocos Sur Iloilo Page 14 of 17

ANNEX C. SUMMARY MATRIX OF Summary LIMITING Matrix of Limiting AND and UNDERLYING Underlying Factors FACTORS OF FOOD INSECURITY Limiting Factors of Food Insecurity Underlying Factors of Food Insecurity Province Food Availability Food Access Food Utilization & Stability Livelihood Strategies Human Physical Financial Natural Social Policy / Inst. Processes Recurrent Risks Unusual Crises Isabela Kalinga Laguna Lanao del Norte Lanao del Sur La Union Leyte Maguindanao Marinduque Masbate Misamis Occidental Misamis Oriental Mountain Province Negros Occidental Negros Oriental Page 15 of 17

ANNEX C. SUMMARY MATRIX OF LIMITING AND UNDERLYING FACTORS OF FOOD INSECURITY Summary Matrix of Limiting and Underlying Factors Limiting Factors of Food Insecurity Underlying Factors of Food Insecurity Province Food Availability Food Access Food Utilization & Stability Livelihood Strategies Human Physical Financial Natural Social Policy / Inst. Processes Recurrent Risks Unusual Crises North Cotabato Northern Samar Nueva Ecija Nueva Vizcaya Occidental Mindoro Oriental Mindoro Palawan Pampanga Pangasinan Quezon Quirino Rizal Romblon Samar Siquijor Page 16 of 17

ANNEX C. SUMMARY MATRIX OF LIMITING AND UNDERLYING FACTORS OF FOOD INSECURITY Summary Matrix of Limiting and Underlying Factors Limiting Factors of Food Insecurity Underlying Factors of Food Insecurity Province Food Availability Food Access Food Utilization & Stability Livelihood Strategies Human Physical Financial Natural Social Policy / Inst. Processes Recurrent Risks Unusual Crises Sorsogon South Cotabato Southern Leyte Sultan Kudarat Sulu Surigao del Norte Surigao del Sur Tarlac Zambales Zamboanga del Norte Zamboanga del Sur Zamboanga Sibugay Page 17 of 17