Samar towns among poorest municipalities in E. Visayas - NSCB

Samar towns among poorest municipalities in E. Visayas - NSCB Samar towns among poorest municipalities in E. Visayas - NSCB

12.07.2015 Views

Samar towns among poorest municipalities inE. VisayasREAD 5TACLOBAN CITY – Municipalities from three Samar provinces constitute the top10 poorest towns in Eastern Visayas, the National Statistical CoordinatingBoard(NSCB) said citing a recently released analysis culled out from a 2009 survey.Half of the top 10 poorest areas are located in Northern Samar, three from EasternSamar, and two from Samar.NSB regional head Evangeline Paran said that towns in Samar Island have beenconsistently on the list of economically-depressed areas in the region sending signalfor the government to give more attention in these provinces.Silvino Lobos town in Northern Samar is the region’s poorest municipality with 65%of the population has an income insufficient to provide basic needs of families.Other areas on the top 10 poorest are (with corresponding poverty incidence) Jipapad,Eastern Samar (60.6%); Maslog, Eastern Samar (60.2%); Mapanas, Northe rn Samar(58.4%); Lope de Vega, Northern Samar (58.2%); San Jose de Buan, Samar (57.8%);Matuguinao, Samar (57.5%); Las Navas, Northern Samar (57.1%); Arteche, EasternSamar (55.8%); and Catubig, Northern Samar (52.8%).Paran said that Tacloban City emerged as the least poor area with a poverty incidenceof only 20.5%. This was followed by Tunga and Isabel, both in Leyte with 23.1% and23.7% poverty rates, respectively. Of the top 10 least poor areas, seven came fromLeyte and three from Biliran province.NSCB came up with the city and municipal level poverty statistics using the latestdata available such as the 2009 Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES), 2009Labor Force Survey (LFS), and 2007 Census of Population (PopCen) of NSO.Estimates were generated through a funding support from the World Bank andAustralian Agency for International Development (AusAID). The last estimates wereculled out from 2003 surveys.

<strong>Samar</strong> <strong>towns</strong> <strong>among</strong> <strong>poorest</strong> <strong>municipalities</strong> <strong>in</strong>E. <strong>Visayas</strong>READ 5TACLOBAN CITY – Municipalities from three <strong>Samar</strong> prov<strong>in</strong>ces constitute the top10 <strong>poorest</strong> <strong>towns</strong> <strong>in</strong> Eastern <strong>Visayas</strong>, the National Statistical Coord<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>gBoard(<strong>NSCB</strong>) said cit<strong>in</strong>g a recently released analysis culled out from a 2009 survey.Half of the top 10 <strong>poorest</strong> areas are located <strong>in</strong> Northern <strong>Samar</strong>, three from Eastern<strong>Samar</strong>, and two from <strong>Samar</strong>.NSB regional head Evangel<strong>in</strong>e Paran said that <strong>towns</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Samar</strong> Island have beenconsistently on the list of economically-depressed areas <strong>in</strong> the region send<strong>in</strong>g signalfor the government to give more attention <strong>in</strong> these prov<strong>in</strong>ces.Silv<strong>in</strong>o Lobos town <strong>in</strong> Northern <strong>Samar</strong> is the region’s <strong>poorest</strong> municipality with 65%of the population has an <strong>in</strong>come <strong>in</strong>sufficient to provide basic needs of families.Other areas on the top 10 <strong>poorest</strong> are (with correspond<strong>in</strong>g poverty <strong>in</strong>cidence) Jipapad,Eastern <strong>Samar</strong> (60.6%); Maslog, Eastern <strong>Samar</strong> (60.2%); Mapanas, Northe rn <strong>Samar</strong>(58.4%); Lope de Vega, Northern <strong>Samar</strong> (58.2%); San Jose de Buan, <strong>Samar</strong> (57.8%);Matugu<strong>in</strong>ao, <strong>Samar</strong> (57.5%); Las Navas, Northern <strong>Samar</strong> (57.1%); Arteche, Eastern<strong>Samar</strong> (55.8%); and Catubig, Northern <strong>Samar</strong> (52.8%).Paran said that Tacloban City emerged as the least poor area with a poverty <strong>in</strong>cidenceof only 20.5%. This was followed by Tunga and Isabel, both <strong>in</strong> Leyte with 23.1% and23.7% poverty rates, respectively. Of the top 10 least poor areas, seven came fromLeyte and three from Biliran prov<strong>in</strong>ce.<strong>NSCB</strong> came up with the city and municipal level poverty statistics us<strong>in</strong>g the latestdata available such as the 2009 Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES), 2009Labor Force Survey (LFS), and 2007 Census of Population (PopCen) of NSO.Estimates were generated through a fund<strong>in</strong>g support from the World Bank andAustralian Agency for International Development (AusAID). The last estimates wereculled out from 2003 surveys.


“Small area poverty estimates is not a regular activity,” Paran said. “This is part of thecont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g effort of <strong>NSCB</strong> and the Philipp<strong>in</strong>e Statistical System to be more relevantand to respond to the clamor for updated poverty statistics at the local level.”Paran urged local government units to exam<strong>in</strong>e if there has been an improvement ofeconomic situation between 2003 to 2009. (Sarwell Q. Meniano)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!