Table 3-13 indicates that 71% of areas covered by CLOA are collectively titled. The profile of the CLOAs covered by ARC barangays shows 68% are collectively titles, which is a slight difference compared with the total figure. The foregoing figures indicate that there is a slight difference in the ARC coverage by LAD type and by beneficiary type. It covered a slightly higher proportion of CA, VOS, and OLT lands, and lands with individual titles. As discussed earlier, the CA lands are particularly sensitive to addressing land inequality and landlessness, and individual titles provide more incentives to make the land productive. However, the bulk of the ARC lands are still composed of settlement, GOL, VLT, and VOS lands, which are not particularly sensitive to addressing inequality and landlessness. Table 3-13 Breakdown of CLOAs by farmer beneficiary type (total and ARC) FB type
All
ARCs
Area (ha)
%
Area (ha)
%
Collective
2,098,909
71.0
644,074
68.0
Individual
863,865
29.0
297,817
32.0
2,962,775
100.0
941,891
100.0
Total*
*This excludes EP (OLT) areas as all EPs issued are individual titles
Since specific program targets were pegged during the launching of the ARC Strategy in 1993 (1,000 communities covering 2 million hectares and 1 million ARBs), and given the criteria that distributed lands should form the bulk of an ARC, it was rather inevitable that DAR covered these types of land in ARC selection. The focus in ARC selection was mainly on barangays with the most number of ARB and CARP areas without considering the LAD types and the type of beneficiary. The potential impact of the ARC interventions might have been larger if the interventions were focused on CA areas and on barangays with a high concentration of individual titles.
IV. ARC Program Interventions The previous sections indicate that selection of ARC barangays was predominantly based on the density of ARBs and CARP areas. This ensured that the ARC program was able to maximize its reach and coverage among ARBs and CARP areas. However, there was no discrimination in terms of the type of lands covered by the ARC program as this mirrors the national LAD profile. This could have been another layer of targeting, since there are differences across land types and ownership structures that affect the potential outcomes of the interventions.
89