The number of poor Filipinos increased from 22.2 million in 2006 to 23.1 million in 2009. Filipinos unable to meet their daily dietary requirements slightly decreased from 9.9 million in 2006 to 9.4 million in 2009. The poverty incidence and the number of the poor from all sectors increased between 2003 and 2006 (Annex 8.8).
Fisherfolk, farmers and children were the three poorest population subcategories in 2006, with poverty incidences of 49.9 percent, 44 percent and 40.8 percent, respectively. Children and women accounted for the largest number of the poor, at 14.4 and 12.8 million respectively in 2006 (Annex 8.8). The slow rate of poverty reduction drew greater attention to the need to protect the poor and vulnerable.
Wide disparities across regions were also evident. Among regions, ARMM had the highest poverty incidence in 2006 according to six basic sector categories, namely children, farmers, youth, urban population, and senior citizens. CARAGA had the highest poverty incidence under fisherfolk and migrant and formal sectors (Annex 8.9). Meanwhile, NCR posted the lowest poverty incidence in five sectors, namely children, women, youth, senior citizens and migrant and formal sector workers (NSCB, 2006).
In terms of number, the children, women and urban sectors headed the list of poor basic sectors (Annex 8.10). Disparities across regions were also evident. Region 5 had the most number of poor children and women; ARMM had the most number of poor farmers and fisherfolk; Region 6 had the most number of poor youth and migrant and formal workers; NCR had the most number of urban poor; and Region 7 had the most number of poor senior citizens. Meanwhile, CAR had the least number of poor children, women, youth and urban poor.
The increase in poverty incidence was accompanied by the rise in the percentage of vulnerable households13 (Albert & Ramos, 2010). The percentage of the population belonging to highly vulnerable households rose from 36.21 percent in 2003 to 50.70 percent in 2006. Conversely, the percentage who were not vulnerable declined sharply from 31.44 percent in 2003 to 18.99 percent in 2006. This trend implies that individuals and households, whether poor or nonpoor, face various social risks and vulnerabilities (e.g., loss of income, unemployment, natural disaster, among others), especially during economic downturns and crises that can push them down to poverty. Owing to the lack or absence of appropriate social protection intervention, households resorted to coping strategies that tend to erode human capital, such as reducing food consumption, withdrawing children from school, reducing health care investments, selling assets and using up savings, among others (Ahmed, et al., 2004)
The current social protection system is characterized by a series of fragmented and uncoordinated programs. The multiplicity of programs and government agencies involved often result in poor coordination, redundancy in providing services or overlapping of program beneficiaries. For example, 21 agencies were involved in the implementation of 65 social protection programs and projects (Development Academy of the Philippines, 2009). Social protection programs were found to be inadequately funded, and most are short-lived (Manasan, 2009). The country's national government spending on social protection was much lower (0.8% of GDP in 2007) than the mean spending of 87 developing and transition countries on safety nets (1.9% of their GDP from 1996-2006) (Weigand & Grosh Survey, 2008).
The benefits of existing social protection programs are compromised by weak targeting systems resulting in high leakage to the nonpoor, undercoverage of the poor, low program impact and wastage of scarce resources. For example, the National Food Authority (NFA) rice price subsidy showed a high leakage rate of 71 percent, because it is an untargeted program that benefits all households (Manasan, 20).
Existing social protection programs are inadequate in terms of coverage. While partnership with nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and other stakeholders have succeeded in making social services accessible to the poor, NGOs tend to flock to selected advocacies like children's causes, leaving behind other sectors, such as the disabled and elderly wanting (ADB, 2009).
Moreover, impact assessment of many programs is difficult, due to their lack of built-in monitoring and evaluation components. There is a dearth of up-to-date and disaggregated data on vulnerable groups, often making them invisible in statistics.
The industrial and occupational adjustments necessitated by industrial restructuring, the globalized system of production, various international agreements, and the damage wrought on incomes and livelihoods by natural calamities highlight the need to protect those in contractual employment, in seasonal work, and at risk from displacement or facing potential income losses. The limited coverage of the social security schemes (i.e., Government Service Insurance System, Social Security System or SSS) means that the larger part of the workforce found in the informal and vulnerable occupations are marginalized. Although there have been attempts by PhilHealth to cover the poor and unemployed, as well as workers in the informal sector (IS) and those working overseas, universal membership has yet to be achieved. Social welfare and safety nets also need to improve programs and services standards, and focus on the poorest among the basic sectors.
To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the social protection interventions, the government launched the CCT program called the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program. Further work is needed, however, to consolidate social protection programs and complement these with the CCT. The bigger challenge is the expansion of the CCT to make it the core program in the convergence of social protection initiatives to ensure sustainability of beneficiaries' gains.
_____________________________________________________________________
13 Households are classified as vulnerable if the probability of their becoming poor is greater than the national poverty incidence. The vulnerable are further categorized into highly vulnerable if the probability of their being poor is greater 50 percent and relatively vulnerable otherwise.