Municipality of Kalibo, Aklan, PY 2009
General Profile

Income Class: 1st Class
Population: 74,422
Land Area (in has): 5,075.00
Major economic activity: Agricultural

e-SLDR is an approximation of the state of socio-economic and environmental development in a locality. The result is based on LGU self-assessment or estimates of key development indicators. National target, average and expert inference are used as benchmarks.

Overall Development <br/><br/>Index:  3.07, Fair Overall Development <br/><br/>Index:  3.07, Fair Social Development<br/><br/>DI: 3.67, Fair Economic Development<br/><br/>DI: 2.50, Poor Environmental Development<br/><br/>DI: 3.03, Fair Social Development<br/><br/>DI: 3.67, Fair Economic Development<br/><br/>DI: 2.50, Poor Environmental Development<br/><br/>DI: 3.03, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Health and Nutrition<br/><br/>DI: 3.95, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Education<br/><br/>DI: 4.40, High Sub&#45;sector:  State of Housing and Basic Utilities<br/><br/>DI: 4.33, High Sub&#45;sector:  State of Peace and Order<br/><br/>DI: 2.00, Poor Sub&#45;sector:  State of Employment<br/><br/>DI: 3.00, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Income<br/><br/>DI: 2.00, Poor Sub&#45;sector:  State of Urban Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 2.25, Poor Sub&#45;sector:  State of Agricultural Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 3.67, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Coastal Marine Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 3.20, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Freshwater Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 3.00, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Health and Nutrition<br/><br/>DI: 3.95, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Education<br/><br/>DI: 4.40, High Sub&#45;sector:  State of Housing and Basic Utilities<br/><br/>DI: 4.33, High Sub&#45;sector:  State of Peace and Order<br/><br/>DI: 2.00, Poor Sub&#45;sector:  State of Employment<br/><br/>DI: 3.00, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Income<br/><br/>DI: 2.00, Poor Sub&#45;sector:  State of Urban Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 2.25, Poor Sub&#45;sector:  State of Agricultural Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 3.67, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Coastal Marine Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 3.20, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Freshwater Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 3.00, Fair DI: 5.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Percentage (&#37;) of children below normal weights.<br/>Condition: Children nutrition, in general,  is  assured. MTPDP 2010 Target is exceptionally met. Sustain! Zero incidence of malnutrition is ideal but desirable<br/>LGU Data:  10 &#37; or below<br/>Benchmark: should not exceed 25&#37;<br/>Reference: MTPDP 2010 Target &#45;  21.6&#37;;                     2005 National Average &#45;  24.6&#37;<br/> DI: 3.67<br/><br/>Indicator: Morbidity Rate<br/>Condition: Morbidity rates for the identified leading illnesses, in general, are within acceptable conditions. The challenge is,  at the very least,  to keep the rates lower (if zero prevalence is not attainable)  than the national targets.    <br/>LGU Data:  Collated morbidity rate for specific illnesses, i.e., Tuberculosis, HIV, Malaria, Heart diseases, Diarrhea, Dengue,  is between the index of  3 &#45; 3.99<br/>Benchmark: should not be lower than the 2010 Target   (specific targets  are contained in the Data Capture Form)<br/>Reference: MTPDP and National Objectives for Health<br/> DI: 1.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Crude death rate<br/>Condition: Crude death rate is  alarming<br/>LGU Data:  more than 7 per 1,000 population<br/>Benchmark: 4 &#45; 5 per 1,000 population<br/>Reference: National Ave. &#45; 4.8 per 1,000 population based on 2000 Census<br/> DI: 5.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Maternal mortality rate<br/>Condition: Maternal mortality is not an issue.  The situation is far better than the national situation.  Sustain programs that ensure maternal and child care.<br/>LGU Data:  0.3 or below per 1,000 live births<br/>Benchmark: 0.7 &#45; 0.9 per 1,000 live births<br/>Reference: MTPDP 2010 Target &#45;  0.9  (converted from 100,000 to 1,000 live births)<br/> DI: 4.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Infant mortality rate<br/>Condition: Infant mortality rate is low.  The local situation is better than the national situation.  Keep  the rates lower over time.<br/>LGU Data:  6 &#45;14 per 1,000 live births<br/>Benchmark: 15&#45;17 per 1,000 live births<br/>Reference: MTPDP 2010 Target &#45; 17 per 1,000 live births.  2003 National Ave &#45; 29 per 1,000 live births   (Source:  2003 National Demographic and Health Survey)<br/> DI: 5.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Children  mortality rate (under 5 yrs. old)  <br/>Condition: Children mortality rate in the LGU is far better than the national situation.  Sustain programs that ensure child care.<br/>LGU Data:  10 or below  per 1,000 live births<br/>Benchmark: 30 &#45; 33 per 1,000 live births<br/>Reference: MTPDP 2010 Target &#45; 32.24  per 1,000 live births .  2003 National Ave. &#45;  40 per 1,000 live births   <br/> DI: 5.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Elementary Participation Rate<br/>Condition: Elementary participation rate is very high.   Rate is definitely  higher than the 2010 Target.  Access to primary education is assured.      <br/>LGU Data:  98 &#37; or above<br/>Benchmark: 92 &#45; 94&#37;<br/>Reference: MTPDP 2010 Target &#45;  93&#37;  <br/> DI: 5.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Elementary Completion Rate<br/>Condition: Elementary completion rate is very high.  Sustaining primary education is of importance.  <br/>LGU Data:  96 &#37; and above <br/>Benchmark: 78 &#45; 88&#37;<br/>Reference: MTPDP 2010 Target &#45;  78&#37;                <br/> DI: 5.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Secondary Completion Rate<br/>Condition: Secondary completion rate is very high.  Secondary education appears to be   well supported.<br/>LGU Data:  96 &#37; or above<br/>Benchmark: 71 &#45; 84&#37;<br/>Reference: MTPDP 2010 Target &#45;  71.5&#37;   <br/> DI: 4.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Tertiary or Technical Education Completion Rate<br/>Condition: More than ¾ of the population completed tertiary or technical education.  The quality of human capital is evident.<br/>LGU Data:  More than 75&#37;<br/>Benchmark: 50&#45;75&#37;<br/>Reference: Target estimate<br/> DI: 3.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Simple Literacy Rate<br/>Condition: Simple literacy rate is quite high.<br/>LGU Data:  92 &#45; 94 &#37;<br/>Benchmark: 92 &#45; 94 &#37;<br/>Reference: National Ave. &#45; 92.8, 2000 Census<br/> DI: 5.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Percentage (&#37;) of non&#45;owner households<br/>Condition: Extent of house & lot ownership is very high.<br/>LGU Data:  10 &#37; or below<br/>Benchmark: 25  &#45; 34&#37;<br/>Reference: National Ave. &#45; 33.5&#37;      (Source: NSO, 2002 Poverty Indicator Survey, Preliminary Result)<br/> DI: 4.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Percentage (&#37;) of squatters or informal dwellers.<br/>Condition: The size of the  informal dweller&#45;population is  relatively low.<br/>LGU Data:  6 &#45; 14 &#37;<br/>Benchmark: Should be lower than 21&#37;<br/>Reference: Target estimate<br/> DI: 5.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Percentage (&#37;) of households with makeshift houses.<br/>Condition: Non&#45;existence of makeshift houses  in the area which is an ideal situation.   <br/>LGU Data:  None<br/>Benchmark: This condition should not exist.<br/>Reference: 2000 National Ave. &#45; 2.04&#37; (Source: PIDS)<br/> DI: 5.00<br/><br/>Indicator: &#37; of households with access to piped&#45;in water (level III) supply for LGUs outside Metro Manila and non&#45;HUCs.<br/>Condition: Majority of the HHs have easy  access to water supply (piped&#45;in).  That situation is far better than most of the LGUs outside Metro Manila and HUCs.<br/>LGU Data:  above 70 &#37;<br/>Benchmark: should be greater than 35&#37; for LGUs outside Metro Manila and non&#45;HUCs<br/>Reference: 2001 National Ave. for both urban and rural areas &#45; 34.3&#37; (Source: National Objective for Health, DOH)<br/> DI: 2.00<br/><br/>Indicator: &#37; of households with sanitary toilet facility for LGUs outside Metro Manila and non&#45;HUCs.<br/>Condition: Access to sanitary toilet facility is an inconvenience to a number of households.  Health and sanitation is at stake.<br/>LGU Data:  80 &#45; 85&#37;<br/>Benchmark: should be at least 86&#37; for LGUs outside Metro Manila and non&#45;HUCs<br/>Reference: 2010 Target &#45;  86&#37; for rural areas    (Source: National Objective for Health, DOH)                <br/> DI: 5.00<br/><br/>Indicator: &#37; of households with electricity for LGUs outside Metro Manila and non&#45;HUCs.<br/>Condition: The situation is far better than the 2002 national average for rural areas or the benchmark for LGUs outside of Metro Manila and HUCs.<br/>LGU Data:  91 &#45;100 &#37;<br/>Benchmark: should   be higher than 78&#37; for LGUs outside Metro Manila and non&#45;HUCs<br/>Reference: 2002 National Ave. &#45;  79&#37; for rural areas    (Source: NSO, Poverty Indicator Survey)<br/> DI: 2.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Incidence of index crime <br/>Condition: Incidence of index crime  such as murder, homicide, physical injury, rape,robbery and theft is quite high.<br/>LGU Data:  7 &#45; 8 per 10,000 population<br/>Benchmark: 5 &#45; 6 per 10,000 population<br/>Reference: 2005 National Ave. &#45; 5.26 per 10,000 population (Source: NSCB.  Adjusted from 100,000 to 10,000 population) <br/> DI: 2.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Incidence of non&#45;index crime  <br/>Condition: Incidence of non&#45;index crime such as crimes against national security, fundamental laws of the state, public order, public morals, violations of special laws, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms, carnapping, illegal drugs, kidnapping, serious illegal detention, and smuggling is high.<br/>LGU Data:  5 &#45; 6 per 10,000 population<br/>Benchmark: 3 &#45; 4 per 10,000 population<br/>Reference: 2005 National Ave. &#45; 3.84  per 10,000 population (Source: NSCB.  Adjusted from 100,000 to 10,000 population)                <br/> DI: 3.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Unemployment rate.<br/>Condition: Unemployment rate is within acceptable level.   <br/>LGU Data:  6 &#45;7 &#37;<br/>Benchmark: should not be higher than 7&#37;<br/>Reference: National Ave. &#45; 6.3&#37;  (Source: October 2007 Survey, NSO)<br/> DI: 3.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Underemployment rate.<br/>Condition: Underemployment rate is evident but within a  tolerable level.<br/>LGU Data:  16 &#45; 20 &#37;<br/>Benchmark: should not be higher than 20&#37;<br/>Reference: National Ave. &#45; 18.1&#37;  (Source: October 2007 Survey, NSO)<br/> DI: 2.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Income per capita<br/>Condition: Income per capita is low.  <br/>LGU Data:  PhP 20,000 &#45; 34,000<br/>Benchmark: should not be lower than PhP 35,000 <br/>Reference: Calculated National Ave.  &#45;  PhP34,600    (Source:  2006 data,  NSO)                 <br/> DI: 2.00<br/><br/>Indicator: &#37; of tree cover in urban areas (cities and town centers)<br/>Condition: Tree cover in urban areas   falls short with the desirable condition.  Air quality is at stake<br/>LGU Data:  less than 10&#37;<br/>Benchmark: should be at least 20&#37;  <br/>Reference: Local Development Watch Manual <br/> DI: 2.00<br/><br/>Indicator: &#37; of polluting industries<br/>Condition: Polluting industries are present.  Air quality is at stake.     <br/>LGU Data:  1 or more  industries have no pollution control facilities<br/>Benchmark: All industries should have pollution control facilities  <br/>Reference: Local Development Watch Manual (as indicated by an environment specialist)<br/> DI: 2.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Absence of smog, odor and noise in urban areas (cities and town centers).<br/>Condition: Air quality is uncomfortable.<br/>LGU Data:  Few cases of smog, occasional odor and slightly disturbing noise level   <br/>Benchmark: Absence of smog, odor and noise in  cities or town centers<br/>Reference: Local Development Watch Manual (as indicated by an environment specialist)<br/> DI: 3.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Presence of solid waste heaps on roadsides and vacant lots and in urban lands (cities and town centers).<br/>Condition: Sanitation in the urban  land area is somewhat an issue.<br/>LGU Data:  Presence of solid waste heaps are observed in some spots and sites along roadsides and vacant lots<br/>Benchmark: This situation should not occur <br/>Reference: Local Development Watch Manual  <br/> DI: 4.00<br/><br/>Indicator: &#37; of irrigated land to total irrigable lands.<br/>Condition: Much effort on agricultural land development and high possibility to increase  agricultural land productivity.<br/>LGU Data:  51 &#45;80 &#37;<br/>Benchmark: 40&#45;50&#37; <br/>Reference: National Ave. &#45; 46&#37; (Source: Status of Irrigation Development,  NIA, December, 2006)<br/> DI: 4.00<br/><br/>Indicator: &#37; of prime lands converted to non&#45;agricultural uses for CCs and 1st &#45; 3rd class municipalities.<br/>Condition: Prime agricultural land is sustained.<br/>LGU Data:  10 &#37; or below<br/>Benchmark: should not be higher than 10&#37;<br/>Reference: Section 20, LGC of 1991<br/> DI: 3.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Crop yield.<br/>Condition: Top 3 crops are Abaca, Corn, and Palay. Crop production indicates average agricultural land productivity.<br/>LGU Data:  3 &#45; 3.99<br/>Benchmark: An index of 3, meaning the average yield for top 3 crops reached the national average  for crop production.  ( see Data Capture Form as reference)<br/>Reference: Crop Statistics of the Philippines, Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, Department of Agriculture, August 2007<br/> DI: 4.00<br/><br/>Indicator: &#37; of mangroves remaining.<br/>Condition: Mangroves is  preserved. Marine life is  nurtured.<br/>LGU Data:  Mangrove cover is about 75 &#37; or more of the original mangrove area.<br/>Benchmark: Should not be lower than 50&#37;  <br/>Reference: Local Development Watch<br/> DI: 1.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Coastal fish catch<br/>Condition: Coastal fish catch has decreased for the past five years.        <br/>LGU Data:  Coastal fish catch is decreasing      <br/>Benchmark: Should be stable or increasing   <br/>Reference: Local Development Watch<br/> DI: 4.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Incidence of Illegal Fishing.<br/>Condition: Marine life is protected due to the absence of illegal fishing activities.<br/>LGU Data:  No incidence<br/>Benchmark: Should  be minimal (1 or 2 cases)  <br/>Reference: Local Development Watch<br/> DI: 4.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Extent of marine squatter households on coastline.<br/>Condition: The probability of marine pollution load is low due to the minimal number of squatter HHs which could contribute domestic wastes.<br/>LGU Data:  2 &#45; 5  houses per km stretch within 50 meters of shore<br/>Benchmark: Should not be more than  20  <br/>Reference: Local Development Watch<br/> DI: 3.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Presence of waste heaps on coastline.<br/>Condition: Pollution on the coastline is observed.<br/>LGU Data:  Presence of solid waste heaps in some spots or sites<br/>Benchmark: Should have no solid waste heaps on coastline.<br/>Reference: Local Development Watch<br/> DI: 3.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Fish catch in river or lake.<br/>Condition: Average freshwater productivity <br/>LGU Data:  Fish catch in river or lake remains the same<br/>Benchmark: Should  be stable or increasing  <br/>Reference: Local Development Watch<br/> DI: 5.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Freshwater quality. <br/>Condition: Fresh water is unpolluted.<br/>LGU Data:  Water is clear, without water lilies and/or floating wastes
<br/>Benchmark: Water should be clear, without water lilies and/or floating wastes  <br/>Reference: Local Development Watch<br/> DI: 1.00<br/><br/>Indicator: Extent of riverside or lakeside squatters.<br/>Condition: Too many squatter households are observed on riverside or lakeside.   Itâs a social and environment issue.    <br/>LGU Data:  More than 100 houses per km stretch within 50 meters of lakeside or riverbank (too many to count)
<br/>Benchmark: Should not be more than  20  <br/>Reference: Local Development Watch
 
<br/> Sub&#45;sector:  State of Health and Nutrition<br/><br/>DI: 3.95, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Education<br/><br/>DI: 4.40, High Sub&#45;sector:  State of Housing and Basic Utilities<br/><br/>DI: 4.33, High Sub&#45;sector:  State of Peace and Order<br/><br/>DI: 2.00, Poor Sub&#45;sector:  State of Employment<br/><br/>DI: 3.00, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Income<br/><br/>DI: 2.00, Poor Sub&#45;sector:  State of Urban Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 2.25, Poor Sub&#45;sector:  State of Agricultural Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 3.67, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Coastal Marine Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 3.20, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Freshwater Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 3.00, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Health and Nutrition<br/><br/>DI: 3.95, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Education<br/><br/>DI: 4.40, High Sub&#45;sector:  State of Housing and Basic Utilities<br/><br/>DI: 4.33, High Sub&#45;sector:  State of Peace and Order<br/><br/>DI: 2.00, Poor Sub&#45;sector:  State of Employment<br/><br/>DI: 3.00, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Income<br/><br/>DI: 2.00, Poor Sub&#45;sector:  State of Urban Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 2.25, Poor Sub&#45;sector:  State of Agricultural Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 3.67, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Coastal Marine Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 3.20, Fair Sub&#45;sector:  State of Freshwater Ecosystems<br/><br/>DI: 3.00, Fair Social Development<br/><br/>DI: 3.67, Fair Economic Development<br/><br/>DI: 2.50, Poor Environmental Development<br/><br/>DI: 3.03, Fair Social Development<br/><br/>DI: 3.67, Fair Economic Development<br/><br/>DI: 2.50, Poor Environmental Development<br/><br/>DI: 3.03, Fair Overall Development <br/><br/>Index:  3.07, Fair Overall Development <br/><br/>Index:  3.07, Fair e-SLDR
CORE DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES

State of Health and Nutrition - Crude death rate is alarming

State of Housing and Basic Utilities - Access to sanitary toilet facility is an inconvenience to a number of households. Health and sanitation is at stake.

State of Peace and Order - Incidence of index crime such as murder, homicide, physical injury, rape,robbery and theft is quite high.; Incidence of non-index crime such as crimes against national security, fundamental laws of the state, public order, public morals, violations of special laws, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms, carnapping, illegal drugs, kidnapping, serious illegal detention, and smuggling is high.

State of Income - Income per capita is low.

State of Urban Ecosystems - Tree cover in urban areas falls short with the desirable condition. Air quality is at stake; Polluting industries are present. Air quality is at stake. ; Air quality is uncomfortable.

State of Coastal Marine Ecosystems - Coastal fish catch has decreased for the past five years.

State of Freshwater Ecosystems - Too many squatter households are observed on riverside or lakeside. It’s a social and environment issue.

Note: Core Development Challenges are those development indicators where the LGU failed to achieve the minimum or acceptable condition, and got an equivalent development index of "2" or "1"

How to interpret the chart?

A 5-point scale and color codes are applied to visualize the result. The numerical equivalent used to gauge the level of development is called "Development Index".

Development Index:

Level of analysis:

Indicator level (focus on the smallest slice, seen at the outermost layer of the chart) - it describes specific development condition, e.g., "Poverty incidence is high. Many families live below poverty threshold". LGU data or estimate on poverty incidence is compared to national average. The LGU should have a lower poverty incidence than that of the national average to get an acceptable development index (DI) of at least "3".

Sub-sector level (focus on a slice that binds a number of indicators, seen at the second outer layer of the chart) - it is the average of indicator indices under a sub-sector. It describes the sub-sector development condition, e.g., "Sub-sector: Income; DI: 2.5, Poor".

Sectoral level (focus on a slice that binds a number of sub-sectors, seen at the second inner layer of the chart) - it is the average of sub-sector indices. It describes the sectoral development condition, e.g., "Sector: Economic; DI: 2.7, Poor".

Overall Development (focus on the innermost circle) - It is the average of sectoral indices, i.e., Social, Economic and Environment. It describes the overall development condition in a locality, e.g., "Overall Development Index: 3.2, Fair".

Socio-Economic and Environmental Interdependencies
How to Interpret the Plot?

Green line - Ideal level of development (DI: 5)
Red line - Danger Zone (DI: 3)
Blue line - LGU development index

The plot helps you determine which sector needs special attention, or which needs to be sustained. Once the blue line lies inside the red plot, it means that sector needs close attention. If the blue line meets the green line, it means your LGU is doing great in that sector and has to be sustained.

Socio-economic and environment are inter-dependent. A healthy and good quality human resource (labor force) is a productive working force that breeds a healthy economy and one that recognizes the value of environmental quality. A well-managed economy sustains the productivity of natural endowments and the life support system needed to build a health society. Well-conserved natural resources provide communities with a sustainable source of livelihood and income and thus improve their economic welfare. Clean environment and good economy ensure the quality of life.


It is, therefore, important that these three sectors are equally given importance to achieve a balanced and sustained development.

More on Socio-Economic
and Environmental Interdependencies
How does an economic problem such as "low income" affect social
and environmental dimensions?

Low family income would impact to education of children. Children may opt to work instead of going to school to help the family with the basic necessity such as food. Poor nutrition due to imbalance food intake may lead to many forms of illnesses or worse, even death.

Low income is a hindrance in accessing decent shelter and basic utilities such as water, electricity and sanitary toilet facility. Difficulty to access water and sanitary toilet facility poses environmental and health problems.

Low income may lead to illegal activities that impact on the integrity of the environment or social disharmony. The overriding motivation is survival. One sample is illegal fishing, say, the use of dynamite to increase fish catch. While dynamite fishing may increase income, it is not sustainable. What is irreversible is the destruction of coastal habitat.

What are the impacts of illegal fishing to socio-economic and environmental dimensions?

Illegal fishing destroys marine life which contributed to the loss of seaweed beds, tidal marshes, coral reefs, mangrove forests, and other important biotic communities. The loss of important marine organisms such as those mentioned above has an impact to marine nutrient imbalances leading to declining of fish resources, as well as degeneration of the natural resilience or cleansing ability of marine ecosystems which, later on, would result to serious marine pollution.

Livelihoods of fisherfolk and food security are issues that would crop up because of declining fish resources. Marine pollution definitely affects biodiversity and marine ecosystem health, including the marine ecosystem services.

In brief, recognizing these interdependencies is about understanding human life.

Every action or inaction corresponds to great benefits or serious problems in the future. The future of next generation lies in our hands. Think! There's no option but to ACT... now.