Agricultural Resources
Sulu's employable population (15 years and above) was 282,978 (60.2 percent) of its total population (469,971) in 1990. Of the employable population, 102,558 are in the labor force while 179,420 are not. This translated to a low labor participation rate of 36.6%. Of those in the labor force, 81,940 (79.12%) are employed while 21,618 (20.87%) are unemployed. In effect, Sulu's unemployment rate in 1990 is 20.9%. Further, since agriculture was the main source of employment, it appears that the bigger problem in Sulu is under employment. Agriculture utilized only 10 to 40% of labor capacity depending on the crops being raised. Below are the latest data as of 2003 by NSO-LFS.
Of those in the labor force in 1990, 92,633 or 44.5 percent were into agriculture, fishery and forestry. Industry (e.g. mining and quarrying, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, construction, transportation, etc.) employed 21,550 or 10.2 percent in the same period. Those engaged in services (e.g. government officials, managers, professionals and associated professionals, craft and related workers) numbered 5,551 or 2.7 percent.
As of 2005, among the top agricultural productions are copra and cassava. The island province also produced commercial quantities of exotic fruits, coffee and abaca. There were relatively low production of rice, corn and vegetables. The bulk of productions in Sulu are into Fishery and livestock.
Key informants would affirm the growing employment imbalance among agricultural, industrial, and services sectors. Ideally, the three sectors could be made supportive of each other - - and, therefore, generate more income and employment opportunities - - had it not been for the peace and order situation in the province. Investors are reluctant to invest in Sulu. Farmers have second thoughts to continue farming outside the 2-kilometers safe radius from Jolo, the provincial capital. Many in various services are setting out to other places for gainful and satisfying employment. The peace and order situation makes it partly difficult to account for activities not adequately defined (39,411 or 18 percent) and not stated (48,965 or 23.5 percent).
Sulu's total income from 99,416 households amounted to P7.7 billion in 2000. Total household expenditures in the same period reached P6.8 billion. Each household had P77, 598 average annual income and P68, 481 average annual expenditure.
But judging from these figures across income classes, Sulu's income and expenditure pattern remains appalling. For instance, of the 99,416 households in 2000, 3,559 (3.58 percent) belonged to the P30, 000 and below income class, earning an average of P35, 147 per annum or P2, 929 per month. However, their expenditure went beyond their income, averaging P39, 964 annually or P3, 330 monthly per household. In effect, 3.58 percent of the total households in the province were into deficit spending.
In the same period, 29,716 (45 percent) of Sulu's total households are within the P20, 000 - P59, 999 income bracket, earning an average of P33, 039 annually or P2,753 monthly. Their average expenditures amounted to P28, 874 annually or P2, 406 monthly, for a measly saving of P4,165 per annum or P346 per month. This amount of savings was negligible if the inflation rate outside Metro Manila was a high 23.8 percent (NSO in 1985).
Only 1,591 or 2.4 percent of Sulu's household are within the P60, 000-and-above income class in 1985. They earned an average of P79, 337 annually or P6, 611 monthly. With an average expenditure of P35, 319 annually or P2,943 monthly, only 2.4 percent of Sulu's total households would in effect have saved enough. Saving would amount to P44, 018 annually or P3, 668 monthly per household.
In 1997, Sulu ranked no. one (1) among the ten poorest provinces in the Philippines, In 2000, Sulu declined to rank no. 3 from Masbate. Sulu was able to cast off their “poorest” profile in 2003 when the province registered a double-digit declined in its poverty incidence. Table below shows that the Poverty Incidence of Sulu declined from 67.1% in 1997 to 45.1% in 2003. This analysis proves that after the peace and order problem brought by the Sipadan incidence, the people strived hard to regain the loss of livelihood and economic activities in their respective areas.
- Table. Employment by the of Industry, April 2003
- Table. Comparative Employment, Unemployment by Province, ARMM, April: 2000 & 2003, In ‘00
Of those in the labor force in 1990, 92,633 or 44.5 percent were into agriculture, fishery and forestry. Industry (e.g. mining and quarrying, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, construction, transportation, etc.) employed 21,550 or 10.2 percent in the same period. Those engaged in services (e.g. government officials, managers, professionals and associated professionals, craft and related workers) numbered 5,551 or 2.7 percent.
As of 2005, among the top agricultural productions are copra and cassava. The island province also produced commercial quantities of exotic fruits, coffee and abaca. There were relatively low production of rice, corn and vegetables. The bulk of productions in Sulu are into Fishery and livestock.
Key informants would affirm the growing employment imbalance among agricultural, industrial, and services sectors. Ideally, the three sectors could be made supportive of each other - - and, therefore, generate more income and employment opportunities - - had it not been for the peace and order situation in the province. Investors are reluctant to invest in Sulu. Farmers have second thoughts to continue farming outside the 2-kilometers safe radius from Jolo, the provincial capital. Many in various services are setting out to other places for gainful and satisfying employment. The peace and order situation makes it partly difficult to account for activities not adequately defined (39,411 or 18 percent) and not stated (48,965 or 23.5 percent).
- Table. Major Indicator Agriculture, Fishery and Marine Production and Investment in ARMM
- Table. Investment Generated in ARMM, 2002-2003
Sulu's total income from 99,416 households amounted to P7.7 billion in 2000. Total household expenditures in the same period reached P6.8 billion. Each household had P77, 598 average annual income and P68, 481 average annual expenditure.
But judging from these figures across income classes, Sulu's income and expenditure pattern remains appalling. For instance, of the 99,416 households in 2000, 3,559 (3.58 percent) belonged to the P30, 000 and below income class, earning an average of P35, 147 per annum or P2, 929 per month. However, their expenditure went beyond their income, averaging P39, 964 annually or P3, 330 monthly per household. In effect, 3.58 percent of the total households in the province were into deficit spending.
In the same period, 29,716 (45 percent) of Sulu's total households are within the P20, 000 - P59, 999 income bracket, earning an average of P33, 039 annually or P2,753 monthly. Their average expenditures amounted to P28, 874 annually or P2, 406 monthly, for a measly saving of P4,165 per annum or P346 per month. This amount of savings was negligible if the inflation rate outside Metro Manila was a high 23.8 percent (NSO in 1985).
Only 1,591 or 2.4 percent of Sulu's household are within the P60, 000-and-above income class in 1985. They earned an average of P79, 337 annually or P6, 611 monthly. With an average expenditure of P35, 319 annually or P2,943 monthly, only 2.4 percent of Sulu's total households would in effect have saved enough. Saving would amount to P44, 018 annually or P3, 668 monthly per household.
In 1997, Sulu ranked no. one (1) among the ten poorest provinces in the Philippines, In 2000, Sulu declined to rank no. 3 from Masbate. Sulu was able to cast off their “poorest” profile in 2003 when the province registered a double-digit declined in its poverty incidence. Table below shows that the Poverty Incidence of Sulu declined from 67.1% in 1997 to 45.1% in 2003. This analysis proves that after the peace and order problem brought by the Sipadan incidence, the people strived hard to regain the loss of livelihood and economic activities in their respective areas.
