SiteMap •  Links • Search        
 Like us in Facebook Follow us on Twitter Subscribe to our RSS feeds View mobile edition of our website. Receive updates in e-mail.
       

 

Headlines Statistically Speaking

Hungry for Hunger Statistics?
by Dr. Romulo A. Virola 1
Secretary General, NSCB

Hungry for Hunger Statistics?

We like Secretary Dinky.

Last Thursday, the Department of Social Welfare  and  Development (DSWD) and the World Bank Philippines  hosted a “square” table discussion entitled “Food for Thought: What do the numbers tell us about hunger and what do we do about it?” Mahar Mangahas of the Social Weather Stations (SWS) 2 and NSCB were invited to do a “presentation on what we know and don’t know about hunger in the Philippines”. Lead Convenor Joel Rocamora of the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) and Asst. Sec. Bernie Flores, Executive Director of the National Nutrition Council (NNC) were invited to make a “presentation on strategies for addressing hunger”. The hosts provided us with a list of guide questions: Are more Filipinos going hungry? Who and where are the hungry? In which part of the Philippines? In what sectors? What are their sources of income? How do we explain the figures? Given available data, what are the most plausible explanations for the rise in (if it is indeed a rise) or prevalence of hunger? What don’t we know about hunger? What data are available and how often are these generated? Who monitors hunger trends and how? Are monitoring mechanisms adequate?   After the forum, they served us a good lunch so we did not go hungry.

But the participants were hungry for hunger statistics!e1

The current food price crisis has focused attention on the agricultural sector. Surely,  the threat of the non-attainment of our Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),  particularly Goal 1 on poverty and hunger has been magnified. Imaginative strategies are imperative and high quality statistics are important to effectively monitor our progress.

Even before the crisis started, the global statistical system thru the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC) spearheaded by the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) initiated a process to develop a Global Strategy to Improve Agricultural and Rural Statistics. During its 40th Session in February 2009, the UNSC established a Friends of the Chair (FOC) on Agricultural Statistics and mandated the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to take the lead. The Philippines, represented by  Director Meong Recide of the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) participated actively in the deliberations of the Friends of the Chair and was invited to deliver the Keynote Address in the launching of the Global Strategy. 

The FOC has now come up with the Global Strategy with three pillars:

  1. Establishing a minimum set of core data that countries will  disseminate on a regular basis to meet current and emerging demands;
  2. Integrating agriculture into national statistical systems in order to meet the expectations of policymakers and other data users that statistical information be linked across economic, social, and environmental domains; and
  3. Fostering the sustainability of agricultural statistical systems through governance and statistical capacity building.e2

Obviously, in other countries agricultural statistics belong to an independent republic, separate from the national statistical system. Aren’t we in the Philippines lucky? We have a statistical system where our Philippine Statistical Development Program (PSDP) ensures that our sectoral statistics, including agricultural statistics are mainstreamed in the national strategies for the  development of statistics (NSDS). The eighth 3 version of our PSDP  (PSDP 2011-2017) is currently being prepared as a blueprint for meeting the information requirements of the Philippine Development Program (PDP, previously called the MTPDP). The NSDS has become a brand name for the Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21st Century (PARIS21) 4, which, together with partners like the World Bank, the United Kingdom, and France, among others, has been very actively and effectively pushing for statistical capacity building in many parts of the world. In November this year, the fourth High Level Forum for Aid Effectiveness: The Path to Effective Development (HLF4) will be held in Busan, Korea where PARIS21 hopes to push statistical capacity development high in the agenda of aid programs and to convince policymakers, including politicians to embrace a culture of evidence-based decision making and thus, allocate greater investments in statistics. Sana mag-attend ang ating Department of Finance at Department of Budget and Management 5.

So, what do we know and don’t know about hunger in the Philippines? Our presentation, of course, focused on official statistics, specifically, on the food poverty statistics released by the NSCB.

At present, there are a number of hunger and hunger-related statistics in and about the Philippines. The SWS, Pulse Asia and the Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS), an internationally-implemented data initiative whose grandmother is our very own Dr. Celia Reyes, are three of the most respected sources of data on hunger from the private sector. From the government side, we have the following sources:

1. Food and Nutrition Research Institute

a. Food Consumption Survey
b. Food Insecurity Survey (includes Self-rated hunger)

2. National Statistics Office

a. Family Income and Expenditures Survey

3. Bureau of Agricultural Statistics

a. Food Consumption Survey
b. Survey of Hunger Incidence in the Philippines (Self-rated hunger)

4. National Statistical Coordination Board
a. Official food poverty statistics (subsistence incidence, count of the food-poor)
b. Hunger Index (project-based, in collaboration with FAO Philippines)

5. Local Government Units/National Nutrition Council

a. Operation Timbang

In addition to these local sources, the FAO in Rome produces food security indicators about individual countries including the Philippines.

From these data sources, we have information6 on the following:

In particular, we know the following:

e3

smiley The proportion of households with per capita calorie intake below 100% dietary energy requirement increased from 57.0% in 2003 to 66.9% in 2008. (FNRI, Figure 1)

 


e4

smiley In 2008, the proportion who experienced hunger but did not eat was 16.1% among mothers and 11.1% among children. (FNRI, Table1)


smileyRice consumption of households belonging to socio-economic class C (middle class) was  122.6 kgs per capita, 10% higher than the per capita consumption of  bottom class E at 111.4 kgs. (BAS, Figure 2)

 

smileyAmong the 20 most nutritionally local government units (cities/municipalities) in terms of prevalence of underweight children 0-71 months in 2010, eight were in Samar and four in Camarines Sur. (LGUs/NNC, ranking done by NSCB, Table 2)

 

e5

smileyAmong the 20 best performing local government units (cities/municipalities) in terms of prevalence of underweight children 0-71 months in 2010, the top two were Mahatao and Sabtang in Batanes, seven were in Bulacan, two were in Cagayan and two in NCR. (LGUs/NNC, ranking done by NSCB, Table 3)

 

smiley
In 2003, hunger in the Philippines was moderate. (NSCB/FAO, Table 4)

 

smileyThe prevalence of undernourishment improved from 18% during the period 2000-2002 to 15% during the period 2005-2007. ( FAO, Table 5)

 

smileyThe required daily income for a family of five to meet its food needs increased from P104 in 2003 to P127 in 2006 to P160 in 2009. (NSCB Figure 3)

 

e6

smileyThe proportion of food poor families has gone down from  13 per hundred in 1991 to 8 per hundred in 2009. Likewise, the number of food poor families has gone down from 1.6 million in 1991 to 1.45 million in 2009. (NSCB, Figures 4.1 and 4.2)

 

smileyThe proportion of food poor individuals has gone down from 16-17 per hundred in 1991 to 11 per hundred in 2009. Likewise the number of food poor individuals has gone down from 10.4 million in 1991 to 9.4 million in 2009. (NSCB, Figures 5.1 and 5.2 )

 

smileyCaraga, Region IX and Region X had the highest proportion of food poor families in 2009. (NSCB, Table 6)

 

smileyRegion VII, with 181,600;  Region V, with 137, 500; and Region X, with 131,300  had the highest number of food poor families in 2009. (NSCB, Table 7)

 

e7

smileyBiggest reductions in the number of food poor families  between 2006 and 2009 were achieved by Caraga, Region VIII and Region XII. (NSCB, Table 8)

 

smileyOn the other hand, biggest reductions in the number of food poor individuals between 2006 and 2009 were achieved by Region VII, Region V, and Region IV-B. (NSCB, Table 9)

 

smileyThe proportion of food poor families  in 2009 was high in Mindanao provinces. Among the provinces with high subsistence incidence are Zamboanga del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Eastern Samar, Surigao del Norte, Zamboanga Sibugay, and Northern Samar. (NSCB, Figure 6 )

 

smileyA total of 55 municipalities in least food poor provinces also benefited from the CCT program of government (NSCB, Figure 7)

 

e8

Obviously, we know a lot about hunger in the Philippines. But we know we need more. We in the Philippine Statistical System (PSS) recognize that we can do a lot more to satisfy our hunger for hunger statistics. While the NSCB has collaborated with FAO Philippines 7 on a project that developed a hunger index for the Philippines, the institutionalization of the project results has not taken place.  Definitely, improvements are needed in the following areas of hunger statistics so that we will know more about hunger:

We have come up with some ideas on a framework for the development of hunger statistics, and with the ongoing work on the PSDP, the PSS is well-placed to put hunger statistics high on the statistical development  agenda for 2011-2017. But for the PSS to do a good job of improving hunger statistics,  we need  users and hunger mitigation program designers to articulate better the uses of hunger statistics. With our limited resources, they must prioritize their statistical requirements and to ensure that our investments on statistics yield an appropriate rate of return, they must demonstrate the actual policy uses of hunger statistics. If we cannot do both, where should greater focus (and resources)  be on? Poverty reduction or hunger mitigation?

We are glad that the current national leadership has voiced out its support and appreciation for statistics. In a meeting of the Cabinet Cluster on Human Development (CCHD) on 17 March, its Chair, Secretary Corazon “Dinky” Soliman of the DSWD invited the NSCB to make a presentation on the latest official poverty statistics. The DSWD also made a presentation and it was clear to the CCHD, especially to the Chair that there was a need to harmonize and rationalize existing statistical frameworks/indicator systems on poverty reduction generated by the PSS. Sec. Dinky then created a Technical Working Group chaired by the NSCB. A month later we made another  presentation on poverty statistics during the 15 April meeting of the Cabinet Level  Social Development Committee, presided by Sec. Dinky. During the open forum, a question was raised on the issue of “demographic winter”. Never failing to appreciate challenges and not wasting opportunities, Sec. Dinky called on NSCB to study the matter 8. Now, we know Sec. Dinky better.

Sec Dinky is one cabinet member who has displayed her keen appreciation for statistics, and  the role of statistics in evidence-based decision making towards better development outcomes.  She is the kind of national leader who inspires us official statisticians to do more and much more in spite of the limited resources.

We don’t like Shane Mosley. Because of the way he fought yesterday. We like Manny Pacquiao because he loves us. Because he loves our country. Because of Mommy Dionisia too. And we like Secretary Dinky. Because she likes statistics!

We thank all our mothers out there for the great things you have done for your families and we wish  you  had a great day yesterday!

 

 

Reactions and views are welcome thru email to the author at ra.virola@nscb.gov.ph

 

_______________
1 Secretary General of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) and Chairman of the Statistical Research and Training Center (SRTC). He holds a Ph. D. in Statistics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, U.S.A. and has taught mathematics and statistics at the University of the Philippines. He is also a past president of the Philippine Statistical Association. The author thanks Jessamyn O. Encarnacion, Noel S. Nepomuceno, Mildred B. Addawe, Cynthia S. Regalado, Candido J. Astrologo, Jr., Ma. Libertie V. Masculino, Albert Garcia, Andrea Baylon, and Edgard E. Enrado for the assistance in the preparation of the article. The views expressed in the article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NSCB.

2 Mahar was out of the country and Jason Sandoval, the Deputy Director for Training of the SWS took his place.

3 Many countries have just come up with their first.

4 The Philippines, thru the NSCB, sits as a Member of the Executive Committee and of the Board, representing Southeast Asia. Thru the Commission on Human Rights, in partnership with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, the statistical community, and other stakeholders, the Philippines participated in the METAGORA project of PARIS21 under the leadership of Raul Suarez de Miguel, which advocated for the engagement of official statisticians in the measurement of democracy, human rights, and governance. The Philippines is also participating in the Accelerated Data Program (ADP) of PARIS21 which aims “to help the data producers in developing countries increase the use and value of their survey data”. The ADP seeks to systematically produce a documentation of the various surveys and censuses of the country with the appropriate metadata including the list of data items captured and the survey instruments using “internationally harmonized technical and methodological guidelines”.

5 During the 3rd High Level Forum in Accra, the Philippines was represented by Undersecretary Gil S. Beltran of the DOF.

6 A copy of our presentation may be requested by sending an email to jo.encarnacion@nscb.gov.ph

7 The NSCB-FAO project benefited from the consultancy services of Dr. Rodolfo F. Florentino and Dr. Lisa Grace S. Bersales and the NSCB Task Force on the Development of Hunger Index composed of the NNC, NEDA, FNRI, BAS, NSO, and NSCB.

8 Dr. Socorro D. Abejo , the demography expert of the NSO recalls that Dr. Mercedes B. Concepcion, THE demographer of the Philippines, had made a study on the demographic winter, a period of population decline, which estimated that it would not happen in the Philippines within the first half of the 21st Century. Dr. Abejo made her independent computations that produced similar results.

 

 

 

Figure 1. Proportion of Filipino households with per capita intake below 100% dietary energy requirement: 1993, 2003 and 2008

1

Source: Food Consumption Survey, Food and Nutrition Research Institute

 

Figure 2. Estimated annual per capita consumption on rice by
socio-economic class: 2008-2009

2

Source: 2008-2009 Survey of Food Demand for Agricultural Commodities in the Philippines

 

Figure 3. Daily Food Threshold for a Family of Five (in PhP): 1991, 2003, 2006 and 2009

3
Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

Notes:
1. Applying 2010/ Average of Jan-Mar 2011 Food CPI to 2009 Food Threshold:
               2010: Phils = PhP 165
               2011: Phils = PhP 170
2. Based on special tabulation made by NSCB Technical Staff

 

Figure 4.1 Subsistence Incidence among Families (%): 1991, 2003, 2006 and 2009

4.1

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

 

Figure 4.2 Magnitude of Subsistence Poor Families (in million): 1991, 2003, 2006 and 2009

4-2

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

 

Figure 5.1 Subsistence Incidence among Population (%): 1991, 2003, 2006 and 2009

5_1
Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

 

Figure 5.2 Magnitude of Subsistence Poor Population (in million): 1991, 2003, 2006 and 2009

5_2
Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

 

Figure 6. Poverty Incidence and Subsistence Incidence Among Families: 2009

6

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

 

Figure 7. Subsistence Incidence and Municipalities with CCT,
by Province: 2009

7

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

 

Table 1. Proportion of mothers and children who experienced food insecurity: 2008

Indices Percent of mothers who experienced food insecurity Percent of children who experienced food insecurity

Case A:
Skipped eating or missed meal(s)

26.9

16.6

Case B:
Hungry but did not eat

16.1

11.1

Case C:
Did not eat for the whole day

9.5

7.5

% with experience of at least one of the Cases (A, B, or C)

28.6

17.9

Source: Food Insecurity Survey, Food and Nutrition Research Institute

 

Table 2. Nutritionally Depressed Local Government Units in Terms of Prevalence
of Underweight Among Children 0-71 Months: 2010

Rank City/Municipality Province Total Underweight
Number Percent

1

Pantar

Lanao del Norte

409

44.80

2

Presentacion

Camarines Sur

995

38.08

3

Tarangnan

Samar

1,211

36.93

4

Matuguinao

Samar

311

36.50

5

Garchitorena

Camarines Sur

1,518

35.17

6

Boliney

Abra

189

34.87

7

Patnanungan

Quezon

824

33.80

8

Pagsanghan

Samar

311

32.13

9

Gandara

Samar

874

30.89

10

San Jorge

Samar

426

30.30

11

Almagro

Samar

392

29.92

12

Rapu-Rapu

Albay

1,175

29.84

13

San Sebastian

Samar

200

29.81

14

Mondragon

Northern Samar

1,553

29.48

15

San Jose de Buan

Samar

219

28.93

16

Polilio

Quezon

1,047

28.72

17

Lupi

Camarines Sur

1,057

28.68

18

Pasacao

Camarines Sur

1,816

28.53

19

President Quirino

Sultan Kudarat

1,527

28.50

20

Pastrana

Leyte

709

28.12

Notes:
    1. Data are consolidated from 2010 Operation Timbang results submitted by the LGUs through the NNC Regional Offices
    2. Based on special tabulation made by NSCB Technical Staff

Sources: Local Government Units and National Nutrition Council

 

Table 3. Best Performing Local Government Units in Terms of Prevalence
of Underweight Among Children 0-71 Months: 2010

Rank City/Municipality Province Total Underweight
Number Percent

1

Mahatao

Batanes

               -  

0.00

2

Sabtang

Batanes

               -  

0.00

3

Plaridel

Bulacan

              21

0.13

4

Paombong

Bulacan

              31

0.45

5

Pulilan

Bulacan

              80

0.49

6

Bulakan

Bulacan

              63

0.56

7

Guiguinto

Bulacan

              92

0.58

8

Sta. Teresita

Cagayan

              12

0.58

9

Victoria

Oriental Mindoro

              79

0.74

10

Calumpit

Bulacan

              86

0.76

11

Makati City

NCR

           481

0.81

12

Santiago

Ilocos Sur

              23

0.81

13

Marikina City

NCR

           552

0.88

14

Cabanatuan City

Nueva Ecija

           407

0.95

15

Buguias

Benguet

              54

1.04

16

Sto. Tomas

Batangas

           188

1.10

17

Balagtas

Bulacan

           111

1.13

18

Talibon

Bohol

           131

1.25

19

Baggao

Cagayan

           147

1.34

20

Mambusao

Capiz

              52

1.34

Notes:
    1. Data are consolidated from 2010 Operation Timbang results submitted by the LGUs through the NNC Regional Offices
    2. Based on special tabulation made by NSCB Technical Staff

Sources: Local Government Units and National Nutrition Council

 

Table 4. Hunger Index in the Philippines: 2003

Indicator 2003

1. Percent of households with per capita energy < requirement

56.9

2. Percent of underweight in children under five years of age

20.7

3. Under-five mortality rate

4.0

Hunger Index

27.2
(Moderate)

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board with funding support from Food and Agriculture Organization

 

Table 5. Some food security indicators for the Philippines

Indicators 2000-2002 2005-2007

Total Population

79.2 million

87.1 million

Number of undernourished persons

14.5 million

13.2 million

Prevalence of Undernourishment

18%

15%

Daily Dietary Energy Supply

2,400 kcal

2,520 kcal

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization website: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/food_security_statistics/country_profiles/eng/Philippines_E.pdf

 

Table 6. Subsistence Incidence among Families and 90% Confidence Interval of the Subsistence Incidence, by Region: 2003, 2006 and 2009

Region Subsistence Incidence among Families 90% Confidence Interval
2003 2006 2009
2003 2006 2009 Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit
PHILIPPINES 8.2 8.7 7.9 7.8 8.7 8.2 9.1 7.5 8.3
Caraga 16.6 16.9 19.7 13.6 19.6 13.7 20.1 17 22.4
Region IX 25.1 17.9 18.6 20.9 29.3 14.1 21.8 15.5 21.6
Region X 16.1 16.3 15.6 13.4 18.8 14.2 18.4 13.4 17.9
Region VIII 11.1 13.5 14.4 9.2 12.9 11.2 15.8 12 16.8
Region VII 16 17.1 13.2 13.5 18.5 14.6 19.5 11.1 15.3
Region V 18 15.7 12.9 15.6 20.3 13.6 17.9 11.1 14.6
Region XII 10.6 10.8 11.3 8.4 12.7 9 12.5 9.4 13.2
Region XI 12.3 12.1 11 10.1 14.4 9.8 14.3 8.5 13.5
Region IV-B 11.1 2.8 10.5 9.2 13 12.2 17.7 8.4 12.6
ARMM 7.3 11.6 8.5 4.9 9.7 8.8 14.4 6.3 10.7
Region VI 9.1 7.9 7.9 7.3 10.8 6.4 9.5 6.3 9.6
CAR 5.8 8.3 7.6 4.2 7.4 6 10.6 5.5 9.8
Region I 5.8 7.1 5.5 4.6 7.1 5.9 8.3 4.3 6.6
Region II 4.1 4.3 4.1 3.1 5 3.1 5.5 3.1 5.1
Region III 2.3 3.7 3.7 1.7 2.8 2.8 4.5 2.9 4.5
Region IV-A 2.4 2.8 2.4 1.7 3.2 2.1 3.4 1.8 3.1
NCR 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.7

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

 

Table 7. Magnitude and Share to Total Food Poor Families and Confidence Interval of the Magnitude of Poor Families, by Region: 2003, 2006 and 2009

Region Magnitude of Food Poor Families % Share of Total Food Poor Families 90% Confidence Interval
2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009
Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Limit Upper Limit
PHILIPPINES 1,357,833 1,511,579 1,453,843 100 100 100 1,281,678 1,433,988 1,429,322 1,593,836 1,377,019 1,530,667
Region VII 194,352 220,692 181,649 14.3 14.6 12.5 163,992 224,713 188,964 252,421 153,156 210,142
Region V 169,869 158,936 137,527 12.5 10.5 9.5 147,468 192,270 137,297 180,574 118,404 156,649
Region X 118,924 128,513 131,304 8.8 8.5 9.0 98,832 139,016 111,911 145,115 112,796 149,812
Region VIII 83,573 110,071 124,547 6.2 7.3 8.6 69,616 97,529 91,381 128,760 104,182 144,913
Region IX 147,137 117,655 122,893 10.8 7.8 8.5 122,572 171,702 92,458 142,852 102,610 143,177
Region VI 114,929 108,585 115,298 8.5 7.2 7.9 92,510 137,348 87,289 129,881 91,762 138,833
Region XI 99,437 101,484 96,969 7.3 6.7 6.7 82,185 116,689 82,460 120,507 74,714 119,224
Caraga 69,100 75,221 92,803 5.1 5.0 6.4 56,681 81,519 60,973 89,468 80,045 105,561
Region XII 74,990 80,522 90,305 5.5 5.3 6.2 59,843 90,137 67,608 93,435 75,109 105,501
Region III 40,820 69,957 75,585 3.0 4.6 5.2 31,205 50,435 53,936 85,977 59,109 92,062
Region IV-B 55,517 81,692 62,151 4.1 5.4 4.3 45,846 65,188 66,694 96,691 49,828 74,474
Region IV-A 53,487 62,166 58,468 3.9 4.1 4.0 38,132 68,843 47,407 76,925 43,172 73,764
Region I 51,127 66,775 54,839 3.8 4.4 3.8 40,089 62,165 55,444 78,106 43,187 66,491
ARMM 36,952 61,863 48,686 2.7 4.1 3.3 24,872 49,031 46,743 76,983 36,076 61,296
Region II 23,790 26,850 26,792 1.8 1.8 1.8 18,061 29,519 19,487 34,214 20,505 33,079
CAR 16,151 25,245 24625.0 1.2 1.7 1.694 11,670 20,631 18,239 32,250 17,581 31,669
NCR 7,677 15,354 9400.3 0.6 1.0 0.647 3,731 11,623 9,979 20,729 1,901 16,900

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

 

Table 8. Magnitude of Food Poor Families, by Region: 2003, 2006 and 2009

Region Magnitude of Food Poor Families Increase/Decrease
2003 2006 2009 03-06 06-09
PHILIPPINES 1,357,833 1,511,579 1,453,843 153,746 (57,736)
Region VII 194,352 220,692 181,649 26,340 (39,043)
Region V 169,869 158,936 137,527 (10,933) (21,409)
Region X 118,924 128,513 131,304 9,589 2,791
Region VIII 83,573 110,071 124,547 26,498 14,476
Region IX 147,137 117,655 122,893 (29,482) 5,238
Region VI 114,929 108,585 115,298 (6,344) 6,713
Region XI 99,437 101,484 96,969 2,047 (4,515)
Caraga 69,100 75,221 92,803 6,121 17,582
Region XII 74,990 80,522 90,305 5,532 9,783
Region III 40,820 69,957 75,585 29,137 5,628
Region IV-B 55,517 81,692 62,151 26,175 (19,541)
Region IV-A 53,487 62,166 58,468 8,679 (3,698)
Region I 51,127 66,775 54,839 15,648 (11,936)
ARMM 36,952 61,863 48,686 24,911 (13,177)
Region II 23,790 26,850 26,792 3,060 (58)
CAR 16,151 25,245 24,625 9,094 (620)
NCR 7,677 15,354 9,400 7,677 (5,954)

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

 

Table 9. Magnitude of Food Poor Population, by Region: 2003, 2006 and 2009

Region Magnitude of Food Poor Population Increase/Decrease
2003 2006 2009 03-06 06-09
PHILIPPINES 8,802,918 9,851,362    9,440,397 1,048,444 (410,965)
Region VII 1,170,415 1,327,296    1,143,065 156,881 (184,231)
Region V 1,152,328 1,116,130       956,531 (36,198) (159,599)
Region X 753,534 841,005       829,041 87,471 (11,964)
Region VIII 577,132 749,590       794,766 172,458 45,176
Region IX 864,878 723,762       744,286 (141,116) 20,524
Region VI 793,279 730,005       761,200 (63,274) 31,196
Region XI 618,894 632,354       604,612 13,460 (27,742)
Caraga 446,471 474,270       598,201 27,800 123,931
Region XII 492,459 521,090       582,716 28,630 61,626
Region III 287,801 456,157       480,695 168,356 24,538
Region IV-B 362,020 537,256       413,876 175,236 (123,381)
Region IV-A 342,607 419,377       414,399 76,770 (4,979)
Region I 346,808 448,036       367,955 101,228 (80,081)
ARMM     267,815 414,166       349,459 146,351 (64,708)
Region II    152,991 180,994       167,479 28,003 (13,514)
CAR 112,608 165,330      162,371 52,722 (2,960)
NCR 60,877 114,543         69,747 53,666 (44,797)

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

 

Posted: 09 May 2011.

 

Statistically Speaking
Press Releases
Announcements
Beyond the Numbers
Sexy Statistics
StatFocus
 
For the Record
Media Services
Events
 
E-Newsletter
 
jobs@nscb.gov.ph
Bids, Quotations & Canvasses
Share |
             
  Email the Webmaster E-mail the webmaster Terms of Use Home • Top of Page  
 

1997-2014, Philippine Statistics Authority - National Statistical Coordination Board
Makati City, Philippines