Atulayan island fisherfolks sustainable resettlement study

anglais. This paper analyzed the socioeconomic conditions and perceptions of fisherfolks to determine key factors of sustainable resettlement as inputs in designing a comprehensive resettlement plan for Atukayan Island. It used a combination of key informant interviews, document analysis and survey questionnaires to gather the data. It adopted PRA tools in the development of a comprehensive resettlement plan. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. A total of 31 fisherfolks who are prone to risks of flood and storm surge hazards in the island were identified as relocatable. However, a larger number will comprise the potential beneficiaries of resettlement if a tourism development-oriented displacement will pursued under the municipal tourism development plan in the area. Most of the fisherfolks have familial obligations and low educational attainment, are in their productive years (mean = 46.5 years) and have high family dependency ratio (mean number of children = 5.23). Bicol is the dominant ethnic group. The average monthly income from fishing is PhP 1,363, or 56% of the total household income. The average non-fishing income is PhP 986, or 41% of the household income. The total monthly income is estimated at PhP 2,415 which is way below the poverty threshold of the region. Fishing is considered primary occupation by majority (70%). A minor percentage (13%) of the fisherfolks either work as agricultural laborers or boat crews. One half (50%) have secondary occupation. Of this, one half is into fish processing (50%), while a quarter (25%) is into farming. More than one half (62%) have not been member of any organization and lacks experience in collective community processes. The significant proportion of membership is in non-government organizations (NGO)-managed development project-oriented organizations and livelihood-related groups managed by the academe. More than one half of the fisherfolks (62%) are unskilled. Of those skilled (32%), majority are in line with fish processing and in menial jobs. A large proportion of the fisherfolks believe that their living condition will get better in the resettlement site, are aware that the population density situation has worsened over years, are aware that the level of fish stocks are declining over years; and are aware that the resources could no longer sustain them in the future. More than one half (55%) of the fisherfolks accept the proposed project. Improvement of living condition in the resettlement site and opportunity to own lot are incentives that influenced the positive responses. While apprehension of safety in the resettlement area, and inaccessibility are disincentives that influenced the negative responses. While apprehension of safely in the resettlement area, and inaccessibility are disincentives that influenced the negative responses. Twelve out of 18 variables manifested significant correlation with acceptability of resettlement as dependent variable. Education, fishing experience, income from fishing, employment, perceptions of economic condition at the site and status of the resources were positively related to the dependent variable. On the other hand, household income, households with members contributing to household income, livelihood assets, size of lot owned level of aspiration in life and perception on the capacity of the resources to support population was negatively correlated to the dependent variable. This study found that fisherfolks who have the least in life and are the most vulnerable are more likely to express cooperative behavior toward the proposed resettlement. This observation was more pronounced among those who are actually experiencing hazard-risks in the island.

anglais. The top 5 issues and problems identified in the pre-resettlement and settlement phase include: lack of access road, lack of water supply, community relationships, financial requirement of relocation, and house and lot ownership. Water supply and access roads remained as major issues after resettlement. The fisherfolks believe that a sustainable resettlement project requires water supply system (26%), access road (18%), core house and lot and tenure (12%) parking site of fishing boats (11%), agriculture area to till and electricity (10%), livelihood (8%) and safety (4%). The legal basis of the resettlement is found in the Philippine Constitution, Section 6 and 10 of Article XIII. The resettlement of the fisherfolks in hazard-prone areas finds its legal viability from the Urban Housing Development Act of 1992, (RA 7279) Sec. 28 and the Local Government Code of 1992 (RA 7160). There are 8 high, 2 medium and 2 low priority problems and issues identified related to resettlement. The lack of water supply, lack of access road, the need for immediate core house and lot, livelihood, need for boat parking area, economic dislocation, site for relocation, and evacuation center were considered high priority problems. The medium priority problems include: community relations and chapel. The low priority problems include recreation area and community relations. Solutions to the problems were identified and integrated into the resettlement plan. The plan consists of two major phases: pre-resettlement and resettlement. The plan consists of 6 project components: sustainable livelihood, settlement, core housing, infrastructure support, waterworks and institutional development projects. Two scenarios with two cost options for infrastructure projects have been postulated: The first scenario which involves the resettlement of 31 relocatable households costs between PhP 2,638,302 (using core house of semi-light walling and roofing materials) and PhP 4,073,529 (using full concrete walling and 61 sheet roofing materials). The cost per beneficiary ranges between PhP 85, 106 and PhP 131,404. The second scenario that involves resettlement of all 113 fishing households costs between PhP 6,707,359 and PhP 11,938,994. The cost per beneficiary ranges between PhP 59,357 and PhP 105,654. In the context of long term benefits from the conservation of the near-shore ecosystem resulting from the relief of direct pressures from households and the foregone costs of mitigating typhoon-related impacts on life and property of fishers living in storm-surge and flood hazard-prone areas of the island, the cost of resettlement at a maximum of PhP 105,654 and a minimum of PhP 59,367 per household is practically economically viable.