1 2012 MCPI Annual Conference JOEncarnacion/ 26 July 2012 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD...

1 2012 MCPI Annual ConferenceJOEncarnacion/ 26 July 2012

NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD

2009 Official Poverty Statistics2009 Official Poverty StatisticsTowards Better Targeted Towards Better Targeted

and Focused Poverty Reduction Programsand Focused Poverty Reduction Programs

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

9:00 AM, 26 July 2012Hyatt Hotel, Manila

Presented by Ms. Jessamyn O. Encarnacion

Director, Social Statistics OfficeNational Statistical Coordination Board



Outline of Presentation

I. Introduction

II. Official Poverty Estimation Methodology

III. 2009 Official Poverty Statistics

A. National

B. Regional/Provincial

C. Basic Sectors

D. Employed and Unemployed Population

IV. Some Policy/Program Implications



I. Introduction

Executive Order 352Designation of Statistical Activities that will Generate Critical Data for Decision-making of the Government and the Private Sector

• Issued on July 1, 1996 • The Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics

(TC PovStat) created by the NSCB is in charge of the formulation/development of the official poverty estimation methodology.

• The NSCB generates and releases the official poverty statistics in the Philippines.

SOURCE OF OFFICIAL POVERTY STATISTICS IN THE PHILIPPINES



What is the Food Threshold?

•Refers to the minimum income/expenditure required for a family/individual to meet the basic food needs, which satisfies the nutritional requirements for economically necessary and socially desirable physical activities

•Also referred to as the subsistence threshold or the food poverty line

SOME DEFINITIONS

I. Introduction



What is the Poverty Threshold?

• Refers to the minimum income/expenditure required for a family/individual to meet the basic food and non-food requirements

Basic Non-Food Requirement includes: 1) clothing and footwear; 2) fuel, light and water; 3) housing maintenance and other minor repairs; 4) rental of occupied dwelling units; 5) medical care; 6) education; 7) transportation & communication; 8) non-durable furnishing; 9) household operations and 10) personal care and effects

Basic Non-Food Requirement excludes: 1) recreation; 2) tobacco; 3) alcoholic beverages; 4) durable furnishings; 5) taxes; 6) special family occasion expenditure; 7) total gifts and contributions; 8) total other disbursements (e.g., major repair of house, loans granted to person outside family; amortization of real property).

• Is equal to the cost of minimum basic needs: food + non-food

SOME DEFINITIONS

I. Introduction



Who are the Food Poor/Core Poor?

• Refers to families/individuals with per capita income/expenditure less than the per capita food threshold

Who are the Poor?

• Refers to families/individuals with per capita income/expenditure less than the per capita poverty threshold

SOME DEFINITIONS

I. Introduction

If a family is poor, all the members of the family are considered poor



What is the Magnitude of the Food Poor/Core Poor?

• Refers to the number of families/individuals who are food poor/core poor

What is the Magnitude of the Poor?

• Refers to the number of families/individuals who are poor

SOME DEFINITIONS

I. Introduction



What is subsistence incidence?

• Refers to the proportion of families/individuals with per capita income/expenditure less than the per capita food threshold to the total number of families/ individuals

• Is Equal to the proportion of the food poor

What is poverty incidence?

• Refers to the proportion of families/individuals with per capita income/expenditure less than the per capita poverty threshold to the total number of families/individuals

• Is Equal to the proportion of the poor

SOME DEFINITIONS

I. Introduction

Both subsistence incidence and poverty incidence can be expressed as proportion of families or proportion of individuals



Year Refinements

Considerations

1987

1992 1st Refinements were made so as not to overestimate poverty

2003 2nd Refinements were made to generate provincial poverty statistics by using regional menus priced using provincial prices.

2010/2011

3rd Refinements were undertaken to enhance comparability of estimates across space and over time.

History of the official poverty estimation methodology

The 1st official poverty estimation methodology was adopted in 1987.Between 1987-2011 (24 years), there were three refinements on the methodology since its adoption.

I. Introduction



Actual Prices

100% RENI for energy100% RENI for protein80% RENI for vitamins

and minerals

PROVINCIAL food bundle

Farmgate Price

Food eatenin the area

Retail Price

LEAST cost“Visualizable”

FOOD THRESHOLD

If income/expenditure of family/individual is less than food threshold

Provincial SUBSISTENCE INCIDENCEand MAGNITUDE OF SUBSISTENCE POOR

National food bundle


FNRI

NSO and BAS

NSCB

DATA SOURCES



Meal Time Viands

Breakfast Scrambled egg

Boiled rice

Coffee with milk

Lunch Boiled monggo with malunggay and dried dilis

Banana, latundan

Boiled rice

Dinner Fried tulingan

Boiled kangkong

Boiled rice

Snacks Pandesal

National reference food bundle from the Test of Revealed PreferenceMeal Time Viands

Breakfast Scrambled egg

Coffee with milk

Boiled rice/rice-corn mix

Lunch Boiled/ginataang monggo with malunggay and dried dilis

Banana

Boiled rice/corn mix

Dinner Fried fish/boiled pork

Vegetable dish

Boiled rice/rice-corn mix

Snacks Bread or boiled rootcrop

Sample translation: NCR

I. Introduction



Non-food thresholdFood threshold

Constant FE/TBE ratio

POVERTY THRESHOLD

If income/expenditure of family/individual is less than poverty threshold

Provincial POVERTY INCIDENCEand MAGNITUDE OF POOR

ACTUAL Non-Food Basic Needs

• Education• Clothing & footwear • Medical care• Transportation &

communication• Fuel, light & water• Housing• Housing maintenance &

other minor repairs• Non-durable

furnishings • Household operations• Personal care & effects

• Rental of occupied

dwelling unit




III. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics



In 2009, family of five* needed PhP 160 daily income to meet food needs and PhP 231 to stay out of poverty!

Daily Poverty Threshold for a Family of Five (in

PhP)


55

104127

160

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1991 2003 2006 2009

79

150 183

231

0

50

100

150

200

250

1991 2003 2006 2009

Inflation for food:

2006-2009:24.3%

Note: Applying 2010 and 2011 / Ave. of Jan - June 2012 Food CPI (2006=100) to 2009 Food threshold:

2010 : Phils = PhP 167 2012 : Phils = PhP 177

2011 : Phils = PhP 176

Note: Applying 2010 and 2011/ Ave. of Jan - June 2012 CPI for all items (2006=100) to 2009 poverty threshold:

2010 threshold= PhP 240 2010 threshold= PhP 256

2011 threshold= PhP 251

A. NATIONAL: Daily Threshold (family of five)

Daily Food Threshold for a Family of Five (in PhP)



Among FAMILIES:•Subsistence incidence among families improved – from 8.7% in 2006 to 7.9% in 2009.

•Out of 100 families --- 9 families were classified as food poor in 2006, this was reduced to 8 out of 100 families in 2009.

20.920.0

28.3

21.1

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

1991 2003 2006 2009

13.38.2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

1991 2003 2006 2009

Subsistence Incidence among Families (%)

Poverty Incidence among Families (%)

(0.2)8.7 7.

9


A. NATIONAL: Subsistence Incidence (families)



20.920.0

28.3

21.1

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

1991 2003 2006 2009

13.38.2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

1991 2003 2006 2009

(0.8)

Subsistence Incidence among Families (%)

Poverty Incidence among Families (%)

(0.2)8.7 7.

9


A. NATIONAL: Poverty Incidence (Families)

Among FAMILIES: In terms of poverty incidence among families, there was only a slight reduction during the three-year period – from 21.1% in 2006 to 20.9% in 2009.



Among POPULATION:

•Subsistence incidence among population improved – from 11.7% in 2006 to 10.8% in 2009!•Out of 100 Filipinos -- 12 Filipinos were classified as food poor in 2006, this was reduced to 11 in 2009!

33.1

24.9

26.4 26.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1991 2003 2006 2009

16.5

11.1 10.8

11.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1991 20032006 2009

(0.9)

0.1

Subsistence Incidenceamong Population (in %)

Poverty Incidenceamong Population (in %)


A. NATIONAL: Subsistence Incidence (Population)



33.1

24.9

26.4 26.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1991 2003 2006 2009

16.5

11.1 10.8

11.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1991 20032006 2009

(0.9)

0.1

Subsistence Incidenceamong Population (in %)

Poverty Incidenceamong Population (in %)


A. NATIONAL: Poverty Incidence (Population)Among POPULATION:

In terms of poverty incidence among population, there was a very slight increase during the three-year period – from 26.4% in 2006 to 26.5% in 2009.



MAGNITUDE among FAMILIES:• Magnitude of subsistence poor families decreased by about 58,000 from 1.51 million in 2006 to 1.45 million out of 18.5M in 2009!•However, in terms of magnitude of poor families, there was an increase of about 185,000 from 3.67 million in 2006 to 3.86 million out of 18.5M in 2009!

3.39

3.29

3.863.67

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

1991 2003 2006 2009

1.51

1.451.36

1.60

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

1991 2003 2006 2009

(4.0%)

5.2%

Magnitude of Subsistence Poor Families (in million)

Magnitude of Poor Families (in million)


A. NATIONAL: Magnitude of subsistence/poor families



MAGNITUDE among POPULATION:• Magnitude of subsistence poor population decreased by about 410,000 in 2009 – from 9.9 million in 2006 to 9.4 million out of 87.4M in 2009!•The magnitude of poor population increased by almost 970,000 Filipinos- from 22.2 million in 2006 to 23.1 out of 87.4M in 2009 by 4.4%.

22.17

23.14

19.80

20.89

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

22.00

23.00

24.00

25.00

1991 2003 2006 2009

10.40

8.809.44

9.85

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

1991 2003 2006 2009

(4.2%)

Magnitude of Subsistence Poor Population (in million)

Magnitude of Poor Population (in million)

4.4 %


A. NATIONAL: Magnitude of subsistence/poor population



Indicator 2003 to 2006 2006 to 2009

AMONG FAMILIES

Subsistence Incidence, Families + 0.5 - 0.8

Poverty Incidence, Families + 1.1 - 0.2

Magnitude of Food Poor Families + 154,000 - 58,000

Magnitude of Poor Families + 378,000 + 185,000

AMONG POPULATION

Subsistence Incidence, Population +0.6 - 0.9

Poverty Incidence, Population + 1.5 + 0.1

Magnitude of Food Poor Population +1.05 million - 0.41 million

Magnitude of Poor Population +2.38 million + 0.97 million

Summary of increases/decreases:

A. NATIONAL: Summary• While food poverty and poverty deteriorated between 2003 and 2006, these improved between 2006 and 2009 – except for the increases in the poverty incidence among population, magnitude of poor families and magnitude of poor population.•The increases, however, were not as much as between 2003 and 2006!




In terms of poverty incidence among population in ASEAN countries, the Philippines is better off than Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Cambodia; but behind Vietnam (14.5%) and Indonesia (14.2%).

CountryPoverty Incidence

Among Popn.Year

Lao PDR 33.5 2003Myanmar 32.0 2005Cambodia 30.1 2007Philippines 26.5 2009Vietnam 14.5 2008Indonesia 14.2 2009Thailand 8.5 2008Malaysia 3.6 2007Brunei Darussalam …Singapore …

Note: Brunei Darussalam is a regional member of ADB, but is not classified as a developing member country.

Sources: Millennium Indicators Database Online (UNSD 2010), Pacific Regional Information System (SPC 2010), country sources. (http://www.adb.org/documents/books/key_indicators/2010/pdf/Key-Indicators-2010.pdf )




Average per capita income of the bottom 10% of families rose faster than prices of food!

Indicator 2006 2009 % Change

Subsistence Incidence (among families) 8.7 7.9 (0.8)

Inflation (food) 130.7 162.4 24.3

Inflation (all items) 137.9 160.0 16.0

Annual Per Capita Food Threshold 9,257 11,686 26.2

Mean/average per capita income (APCI)

All income groups 35,788 43,538 21.7

First decile class 7,389 9,681 31.0 Second decile class 11,263 14,542 29.1 Third decile class 14,599 18,542 27.0

Fourth decile class 18,249 23,003 26.0

Fifth decile class 22,781 28,281 24.1

Sixth decile class 28,493 35,068 23.1

Seventh decile class 36,551 44,358 21.4

Eight decile class 48,200 58,362 21.1

Ninth decile class 69,335 83,662 20.7

Tenth decile class 151,130 184,997 22.4


A. NATIONAL: Rise in Income vs Rise in Prices-Bottom 10%



Average per capita income of the bottom 30% of families rose faster than prices of all items!

Indicator 2006 2009 % Change

Poverty Incidence (among families) 21.1 20.9 (0.2)

Inflation (food) 130.7 162.4 24.3

Inflation (all items) 137.9 160.0 16.0

Annual Per Capita Poverty Threshold 13,348 16,841 26.2

Mean/average per capita income (APCI)


First decile class 7,389 9,681 31.0

Second decile class 11,263 14,542 29.1

Third decile class 14,599 18,542 27.0 Fourth decile class 18,249 23,003 26.0

Fifth decile class 22,781 28,281 24.1

Sixth decile class 28,493 35,068 23.1

Seventh decile class 36,551 44,358 21.4

Eight decile class 48,200 58,362 21.1

Ninth decile class 69,335 83,662 20.7

Tenth decile class 151,130 184,997 22.4


A. NATIONAL: Rise in Income vs Rise in Prices-Bottom 30%



Caraga and Region IX consistently posted the highest subsistence incidence among families in 2006 and 2009! Improvements in Reg VII and Reg V!

RegionSubsistence incidence among families

2003 2006 2009PHILIPPINES 8.2 8.7 7.9Caraga 16.6 16.9 19.7Region IX 25.1 17.9 18.6Region X 16.1 16.3 15.6Region VIII 11.1 13.5 14.4Region VII 16.0 17.1 13.2Region V 18.0 15.7 12.9Region XII 10.6 10.8 11.3Region XI 12.3 12.1 11.0Region IV-B 11.1 2.8 10.5ARMM 7.3 11.6 8.5Region VI 9.1 7.9 7.9CAR 5.8 8.3 7.6Region I 5.8 7.1 5.5Region II 4.1 4.3 4.1Region III 2.3 3.7 3.7Region IV-A 2.4 2.8 2.4NCR 0.3 0.7 0.4


B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL



Caraga and ARMM consistently posted the highest poverty incidence among families in 2006 and 2009!

RegionPoverty incidence among families2003 2006 2009

PHILIPPINES 20.0 21.1 20.9Caraga 37.6 36.9 39.8 ARMM 25.0 36.5 38.1 Region IX 40.5 34.2 36.6 Region V 38.0 36.1 36.0 Region VIII 30.2 31.1 33.2 Region X 32.4 32.7 32.8 Region VII 32.1 33.5 30.2 Region XII 27.2 27.1 28.1 Region IV-B 29.8 34.3 27.6 Region XI 25.4 26.2 25.6 Region VI 23.5 22.1 23.8 Region I 17.8 20.4 17.8 CAR 16.1 18.6 17.1 Region II 15.2 15.5 14.5 Region III 9.4 12.0 12.0 Region IV-A 9.2 9.4 10.3 NCR 2.1 3.4 2.6





Regions VII, V, and X continue to have the biggest share in the total number of food poor families!

RegionMagnitude of Food Poor Families % Share to Total Food Poor Families

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009PHILIPPINES 1,357,833 1,511,579 1,453,843 100.0 100.0 100.0 Region VII 194,352 220,692 181,649 14.3 14.6 12.5Region V 169,869 158,936 137,527 12.8 10.5 9.5Region X 118,924 128,513 131,304 8.8 8.5 9.0Region VIII 83,573 110,071 124,547 6.2 7.3 8.6Region IX 147,137 117,655 122,893 10.8 7.8 8.5Region VI 114,929 108,585 115,298 8.5 7.2 7.9Region XI 99,437 101,484 96,969 7.3 6.7 6.7Caraga 69,100 75,221 92,803 5.1 5.0 6.4Region XII 74,990 80,522 90,305 5.5 5.3 6.2Region III 40,820 69,957 75,585 3.0 4.6 5.2Region IV-B 55,517 81,692 62,151 4.1 5.4 4.3Region IV-A 53,487 62,166 58,468 3.9 4.1 4.0Region I 51,127 66,775 54,839 3.8 4.4 3.8ARMM 36,952 61,863 48,686 2.7 4.1 3.3Region II 23,790 26,850 26,792 1.8 1.8 1.8CAR 16,151 25,245 24,625 1.2 1.7 1.7NCR 7,677 15,354 9,400 0.6 1.0 0.6





Regions VII, V, and VI continue to have the biggest share in the total number poor families!

RegionMagnitude of Poor Families % Share to Total Poor Families

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009PHILIPPINES 3,293,096 3,670,791 3,855,730 100.0 100.0 100 Region VII 389,818 432,870 415,303 11.8 11.8 10.8Region V 358,981 364,318 385,338 10.9 9.9 10.0Region VI 298,058 302,836 345,703 9.1 8.2 9.0Region VIII 227,458 253,347 287,156 6.9 6.9 7.4Region X 239,874 257,640 275,433 7.3 7.0 7.1Region IV-A 201,725 210,830 248,179 6.1 5.7 6.4Region III 169,771 228,741 244,273 5.2 6.2 6.3Region IX 237,898 224,378 242,285 7.2 6.1 6.3Region XI 205,966 220,707 226,284 6.3 6.0 5.9Region XII 192,545 203,000 224,882 5.8 5.5 5.8ARMM 126,233 194,626 218,043 3.8 5.3 5.7Caraga 156,221 163,783 187,278 4.7 4.5 4.9Region I 156,261 193,392 179,179 4.7 5.3 4.6Region IV-B 148,924 186,838 162,609 4.5 5.1 4.2Region II 89,352 96,311 94,433 2.7 2.6 2.4NCR 48,923 80,828 64,404 1.5 2.2 1.7CAR 45,088 56,346 54,949 1.4 1.5 1.4





•New entrants in the least poor cluster of provinces in 2009 were Ilocos Norte, Bataan, and Nueva Vizcaya!

B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Batanes, the 4 districts of NCR, Benguet, Cavite, Bulacan, Laguna, Rizal, and Pampanga were consistently included in the least poor cluster of provinces in 2003, 2006, and 2009!


Province

2003 2006 2009

Poverty incidence

90% CIPoverty

incidence

90% CIPoverty

incidence

90% CI

Lower limitUpper limit

Lower limit

Upper limit

Lower limit

Upper limit

1st District 1.1 0.4 1.7 3.1 1.7 4.5 3.8 2 5.6

2nd District 2.6 1.7 3.4 3.8 2.1 5.5 2.4 1.6 3.2

3rd District 2.6 1.7 3.5 3.7 2.6 4.8 3.8 2.5 5.1

4th District 1.8 1.1 2.4 2.9 2 3.7 1.6 0.7 2.5

Bataan 8.1 5.1 11 7.2 4 10.5 7.4 4.8 10

Batanes 6.3 6.3 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Benguet 4.4 1.7 7.1 3.6 2.1 5 4 2 6.1

Bulacan 4.3 2.9 5.7 5.1 3.7 6.6 4.8 3.7 5.9

Cavite 4.8 3.4 6.2 4.2 2.6 5.7 4.5 3.1 5.9

Ilocos Norte 14.3 7.9 20.6 11.3 5.8 16.9 9.2 6.1 12.3

Laguna 5.2 3.5 6.9 4.5 3 6 5.9 4.1 7.6

Nueva Vizcaya 3.2 1.8 4.6 5.8 1.4 10.3 6.7 2.9 10.5

Pampanga 4.9 3.5 6.3 3.8 2.4 5.2 6.7 4.9 8.4

Rizal 2.9 1.9 3.9 2.7 1.6 3.7 6.5 4.2 8.7



Agusan del Sur, Bohol, Maguindanao, Masbate, Surigao del Norte and Zamboanga del Norte were consistently included in the bottom cluster of provinces in 2003, 2006, and 2009!


Province

2003 2006 2009

Poverty incidence

90% CIPoverty

incidence

90% CIPoverty

incidence

90% CI

Lower limit Upper limit Lower limitUpper limit

Lower limit Upper limit

Agusan del Sur 48.5 41.3 55.6 45.5 38.2 52.9 51.2 43.5 58.9

Apayao 10.7 3.4 18.0 37 24.6 49.4 36.3 23.2 49.4

Bohol 40.2 33.8 46.7 43.7 35.8 51.6 41.0 33.6 48.4

Camarines Norte 40.7 28.6 52.9 30.4 21.6 39.2 32.3 25.3 39.2

Camarines Sur 38.3 32.5 44.1 36.6 31 42.3 38.7 33.8 43.6

Camiguin 35.1 31.5 38.7 37.8 21.9 53.7 36.4 25.9 46.8

Davao Oriental 35.6 26.7 44.4 39 28 50.1 42.5 36.4 48.6

Eastern Samar 29.8 20.5 39 37.6 31.8 43.5 45.8 37.6 54.1

Lanao del Norte 35.6 27 44.1 34.3 28.1 40.6 39 31.9 46.1

Maguindanao 41.9 34.4 49.5 44.9 39 50.9 44.6 37.7 51.6

Masbate 50.2 42.3 58 42.9 33.9 51.8 42.5 36.6 48.3

Misamis Occidental 37 30.6 43.4 38.2 30.7 45.7 36.9 29.7 44.1

Negros Oriental 43.6 35.6 51.5 44.4 36.1 52.7 36.4 29.5 43.2

Northern Samar 37.4 27.9 47.0 43.3 32.9 53.8 41.7 32.4 51

Occidental Mindoro 32.6 24.9 40.3 40.6 30.4 50.7 25.4 18.3 32.4

Romblon 35.8 27.9 43.7 40.6 34.7 46.6 43 36.3 49.8

Saranggani 36.7 28.4 45.1 34.0 29.2 38.8 40.7 34 47.3

Siquijor 45.5 27.4 63.5 25.8 13.9 37.6 32.8 21.3 44.3

Sultan Kudarat 37.3 28.1 46.5 38.7 30.9 46.5 35.2 28.8 41.7

Sulu 20.3 13.4 27.1 36.7 29.1 44.2 39.3 33 45.5

Surigao Del Norte 42.3 35.2 49.4 41.6 34.9 48.3 47.9 43.1 52.8

Tawi-tawi 18.2 8.1 28.2 49.1 39.8 58.4 31.5 22.2 40.8

Zamboanga del Norte 59.5 51.4 67.5 54.1 46.4 61.7 52.9 46 59.8

Zamboanga Sibugay 43.3 33.3 53.2 34.1 25.7 42.5 43.2 35.4 50.9



B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Cebu and Negros Occidental continue to have the biggest share in the total number of poor families!

ProvinceMagnitude of Poor Families % Share to Total Poor Families

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

PHILIPPINES 3,293,096 3,670,791 3,855,730 100 100 100

Cebu 185,624 211,406 213,162 5.6 5.8 5.5

Negros Occidental 112,512 130,077 144,828 3.4 3.5 3.8

Camarines Sur 116,460 119,747 126,280 3.5 3.3 3.3

Pangasinan 92,191 128,396 114,400 2.8 3.5 3.0

Nueva Ecija 64,808 94,026 112,367 2.0 2.6 2.9

Leyte 99,082 104,260 110,214 3.0 2.8 2.9

Zamboanga del Norte 102,074 101,511 109,745 3.1 2.8 2.8

Bohol 90,735 104,032 102,522 2.8 2.8 2.7

Quezon 84,031 101,394 98,426 2.6 2.8 2.6

Davao del Sur 88,165 89,452 94,049 2.7 2.4 2.4

Negros Oriental 105,334 112,585 91,387 3.2 3.1 2.4




B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: High Poverty IncidenceIn terms of poverty incidence, most provinces with more than 40% of total families are poor were located in Visayas and Mindanao. However, in terms of magnitude of poor families, provinces with more than 100,000 were mostly located in Luzon and Visayas.





Subsistence and poverty incidence among families in 2009 were notably high in Mindanao provinces.

Provinces with high poverty and subsistence incidence

1. Zamboanga del Norte

2. Agusan del Sur

3. Eastern Samar

4. Surigao del Norte

5. Zamboanga Sibugay

6. Northern Samar



C. POVERTY STATISTICS AMONG THE BASIC SECTORS

Who are the basic sectors?


• In Republic Act 8425, or the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act, it was declared that the State should adopt an area-based sectoral and focused intervention to poverty alleviation.

• Section 3 of RA 8425 defined the basic sectors as the disadvantaged sectors of Philippine society,

namely:1. Farmer-peasant2. Artisanal fisherfolk3. Workers in the formal sector and migrant

workers4. Workers in the informal sector5. Indigenous peoples and cultural communities6. Women7. Differently-abled persons




Who are the basic sectors?


8. Senior citizens;9. Victims of calamities and disasters;10. Youth and students;11. Children;12. Urban poor;13. Cooperatives; and 14. Non-government organization.



The NSCB generates poverty statistics for 9 of the 14 basic sectors due to data constraints. The 9 basic sectors are operationally defined as:

Sector Operational Definition

1. Farmer Employed household members 15 years old and over whose primary occupation is farming and plant growing, or animal production.

2. Fishermen Employed household members 15 years old and over whose primary occupation is fishing.

3. Workers in the Formal Sector and Migrant Workers

Workers in the Formal Sector – Employed persons working for private establishments and government organizations and corporations.

Migrant Workers – Individuals who are overseas Filipino workers (OFW).

4. Women An individual whose declared sex is female.





Sector Operational Definition

5. Senior citizens Persons 60 years old and above.

6. Youth Youth – Persons 15 to 30 years old.

7. Children Persons below 18 years old

8. Individuals residing in urban areas

An individual residing in an urban area whose income falls below the official poverty threshold.

9. Self-employed and unpaid family workers

Employed individuals 15 years old and over who are either self employed or worked without pay on family owned business



The NSCB generates poverty statistics for 9 of the 14 basic sectors due to data constraints. The 9 basic sectors are operationally defined as:



Fishermen posted the highest poverty incidence among the nine basic sectors in the Philippines in 2009 at 41.4%, the same level in 2006, followed by farmers and children at poverty incidences of 36.7% and 35.1% in 2009, respectively.

41.4% 36.7% 35.1%




Poverty incidence for four basic sectors increased between 2006 and 2009: youth and migrant and formal sector workers, both with 1.0 percentage point increases, and children and individuals residing in urban areas, both with 0.3 percentage point increases.

Sector

2003 2006 2009Increase/ Decrease

Poverty Incidence

90% Confidence Interval

Pov. Inc.


Pov. Inc.

90% Confidence Interval 2003

- 2006

2006 -

2009Lower Limit

Upper Limit

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

Philippines5/ 24.9 24.1 25.8 26.4 25.5 27.3 26.5 25.6 27.3 1.5 0.1

Fishermen 35.0 32.4 37.6 41.4 38.6 44.2 41.4 38.9 43.9 6.4 0.0

Farmers 37.0 35.5 38.4 37.2 35.7 38.7 36.7 35.4 38.1 0.2 (0.5)

Children 32.7 31.5 33.9 34.8 33.6 36 35.1 34.1 36.2 2.1 0.3

Self-employed and Unpaid Family Workers 1/ 28.0 26.8 29.3 29.4 28.2 30.7 29.0 27.9 30.2 1.4 (0.4)

Women 24.0 23 25 25.1 24.1 26.1 25.1 24.3 26 1.1 0.0

Youth 19.0 18.1 19.9 20.8 19.9 21.7 21.8 20.9 22.6 1.8 1.0

Migrant and Formal Sector 14.6 13.8 15.4 15.7 14.9 16.5 16.7 16 17.4 1.1 1.0

Senior Citizens 15.1 14.2 15.9 16.2 15.3 17.2 15.8 15.1 16.5 1.2 (0.5)

Individuals residing in urban areas 11.1 10.3 11.9 12.5 11.7 13.3 12.8 12.0 13.5 1.4 0.3

1/ Self-employed and Unpaid Family Workers is an additional sector, which serves as a proxy indicator for informal sector workers, considering data available in the PSS.



Children, women, and individuals residing in urban areas accounted for the largest number of poor population in the country in 2009 at 12.4 million, 11.2 million, and 5.7 million, respectively.

Sector

2003 2006 2009

Magnitude of Poor

90% Confidence IntervalMagnitude

of Poor

90% Confidence IntervalMagnitude

of Poor


Lower LimitUpper Limit

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

Philippines 19,796,954 19,110,455 20,483,453 22,173,190 21,435,613 22,964,387 23,142,481 22,363,307 23,836,693

Children 11,363,850 11,228,469 11,499,230 12,272,819 12,126,241 12,419,398 12,414,811 12,286,448 12,543,174

Women 9,605,037 9,509,134 9,700,940 10,691,078 10,584,303 10,797,853 11,169,745 11,075,812 11,263,677

Individuals residing in urban areas

4,429,424 4,394,400 4,464,448 5,310,531 5,267,025 5,354,037 5,709,170 5,664,660 5,753,680

Youth 4,280,197 4,242,071 4,318,323 4,850,607 4,805,832 4,895,382 5,367,308 5,323,314 5,411,302

Self-employed and Unpaid Family Workers

3,566,586 3,522,046 3,611,126 4,115,632 4,064,734 4,166,530 4,186,194 4,139,565 4,232,823

Migrant and Formal Sector

2,283,773 2,265,940 2,301,606 2,599,336 2,578,880 2,619,792 3,118,701 3,095,868 3,141,534

Farmers 1,768,249 1,742,363 1,794,135 1,773,484 1,747,354 1,799,614 1,685,148 1,662,409 1,707,887

Senior Citizens

793,233 786,342 800,124 1,035,089 1,025,583 1,044,595 1,181,121 1,172,658 1,189,584

Fishermen 355,815 346,524 365,107 400,214 389,019 411,409 346,345 337,765 354,924



D. City and Municipal Level Poverty Statistics


• Official provincial poverty statistics are computed based on the final results of the Family Income and Expenditure Survey.

• The FIES is costly to implement, with regions as current domains. The design of the FIES does not permit reliable analysis of smaller subgroups, such as cities and municipalities.

• There is a strong clamor from policymakers and program implementers for more geographically disaggregated information on the poorest cities/municipalities.

• In response to this need for poverty statistics at lower levels of disaggregation, the NSCB, with funding assistance from the World Bank implemented two projects on small area estimation (SAE) to generate poverty incidences at the city/municipal levels.





Project Output Year Released

Poverty Mapping in the Philippines

2000 city/municipal level poverty estimates

2005

Intercensal Updating of Small Area Poverty Estimates

2003 city/municipal level poverty estimates

2008

• Used the Elbers, Lanjouw and Lanjouw (ELL) technique developed by a WB research team.

Two projects undertaken by the NSCB with WB funding





2003 Poverty Incidence among Population

By province By city/municipality





Actual Policy Uses

1. In targeting beneficiaries of programs/projects

-Implementation of nationwide programs on the: 1) National Household Targeting System for

Poverty Reduction;

2) Conditional Cash Transfers;

3) Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services; and

4) Training/deployment of unemployed registered nurses in the 1,000 poorest cities/municipalities of the country.





Actual Policy Uses

1. In targeting beneficiaries of programs/projects (cont.)

- Identification of priority households for:

1) the implementation of a number of local livelihood projects for the five poorest municipalities of the provinces of Region VI under the Integrated Services for Livelihood Advancement of Fisherfolks (ISLA) and Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged Workers (TUPAD);

2) targeting enrolment in health insurance sponsored projects of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, specifically in Regions VIII and XII;

3) estimation of the volume of rice needed for the Food for Children program in Leyte province; and

4) implementation of programs/projects of the MPAI-World Vision for schooling of indigent children and micro-enterprise development.





Actual Policy Uses

2. In policy formulation and planning

-Design and implementation of local poverty action plans, particularly in Region VI; and

-Development and monitoring of the Medium-Term Regional Development Plan (MTRDP), Provincial Development and Physical Framework Plan, and Provincial Plan for Children in selected areas/localities.

3. In poverty monitoring

- Monitoring the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in Regions I, IV, and VIII; and

- Monitoring the State of Children and nutritional status of the population in Regions IV and VIII, respectively.





• The NSCB is currently updating the small area estimates of poverty for 2009.

• This is jointly funded by the Government of the Philippines and the World Bank.

• Consultations/validations were undertaken by the NSCB Technical Staff, with the Project Consultant and Technical Adviser:• Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics on June

1, 2012• A validation of the preliminary estimates was

undertaken on July 22-25, 2012.

• The 2009 poverty incidence among population for all cities and municipalities will be released by the NSCB through a national dissemination forum on July 30, 2012.



Statistics 2006 2009Increase/Decrease

06-09Poverty Incidence Employed Population 22.1 22.4 0.3Unemployed Population 15.8 22.4 6.6 Magnitude of Poor Employed Population 7,254,861 7,880,786 625,925 Unemployed Population 372,062 465,106 93,044

Poverty incidence for the employed population increased from 22.1% in 2006 to 22.4% in 2009. Similarly, poverty incidence for the unemployed population increased from 15.8% in 2006 to 22.4% in 2009.

Poverty incidence for employed population is higher than the poverty incidence for unemployed population both in 2006 and 2009!

A. Poverty and Unemployment/Underemployment: Need for quality employment


• Employment is not sufficient, quality of employment matters!



5,7986,058

5,7986,0585,6204

5,7986,0589,8357

5,7986,05811,2408

5,7986,0588,4306

5,7986,0584,2153

5,7986,0582,8102

5,7986,0581,4051

7,0255

Agriculture (PhP 223/day)Non-agriculture (PhP 233/day)

Required monthly income (in PhP)

Family size Monthly Income of a Minimum Wage Earner in 2009

REGIONAL (FOR Caraga):

•A minimum wage earner* in Caraga can support a family of at most four members in 2009, to be classified as non-poor!

•However, average family size in Caraga is 5!

•Minimum wage earner in Caraga employed in the agriculture and non-agriculture sector.•Rate is effective 20 June 2008, per Wage order No. 9 (Source of data: http://www.nwpc.dole.gov.ph/pages/statistics/stat_wage%20rates1989-present_non-agri.html )•For this exercise, number of working days considered in a month is 26.• Gross family income was used.

B. Poverty and Minimum Wage-Setting: Need for more poverty-sensitive minimum wage




5,4605,460

5,4605,4605,4444

5,4605,4609,5277

5,4605,46010,8888

5,4605,4608,1666

5,4605,4604,0833

5,4605,4602,7222

5,4605,4601,3611

6,8055




REGIONAL (FOR ARMM):

•A minimum wage earner* in ARMM can support a family of at most four members in 2009, to be classified as non-poor!

•However, average family size in ARMM is 5.

•Minimum wage earner in ARMM employed in the agriculture and non-agriculture sector.•Rate is effective 29 June 2008, per Wage order No. 11 (Source of data: http://www.nwpc.dole.gov.ph/pages/statistics/stat_wage%20rates1989-present_non-agri.html )•For this exercise, number of working days considered in a month is 26.• Gross family income was used.

IV. Some Policy/Program ImplicationsB. Poverty and Minimum Wage-Setting: Need for more poverty-sensitive minimum wage



5,5906,240

5,5906,2405,0524

5,5906,2408,8417

5,5906,24010,1048

5,5906,2407,5786

5,5906,2403,7893

5,5906,2402,5262

5,5906,2401,2631

6,3155




REGIONAL (FOR Region IX):

•A minimum wage earner* in Region IX can support a family of at most four members in 2009, to be classified as non-poor!

• However, average family size in Region IX is 5.

•Minimum wage earner in Region IX employed in the non-agriculture sector.•Rate is effective 3 July 2008, per Wage order No. 15 (Source of data: http://www.nwpc.dole.gov.ph/pages/statistics/stat_wage%20rates1989-present_non-agri.html )•For this exercise, number of working days considered in a month is 26.• Gross family income was used.

B. Poverty and Minimum Wage-Setting: Need for more poverty-sensitive minimum wage




The increase in economic growth between 2006 and 2009 in Region IVB is well distributed across all income decile class. Poverty incidence decreased by 6.7% between 2006 and 2009.

Inc/Dec Inc/Dec

2006 2009 06-09 2006 2009 06-09

PHILIPPINES 1,276,155,599 1,432,115,499 12.2 21.1 20.9 (0.2)

NCR 414,437,924 465,688,965 12.4 3.4 2.6 (0.8)

CAR 28,396,925 31,547,310 11.1 18.6 17.1 (1.5)

Region I 38,172,734 40,737,475 6.7 20.4 17.8 (2.6)

Region II 25,523,961 28,157,464 10.3 15.5 14.5 (1.1)

Region III 107,039,140 115,947,511 8.3 12.0 12.0 0.1

Region IV-A 156,688,378 165,572,379 5.7 9.4 10.3 0.9

Region IV-B 34,292,906 39,105,919 14.0 34.3 27.6 (6.7)Region V 35,394,007 42,877,886 21.1 36.1 36.0 (0.1)

Region VI 91,865,954 109,252,408 18.9 22.1 23.8 1.7

Region VII 90,297,893 102,052,820 13.0 33.5 30.2 (3.2)

Region VIII 28,093,607 30,482,024 8.5 31.1 33.2 2.1

Region IX 32,676,015 38,196,714 16.9 34.2 36.6 2.4

Region X 62,729,335 73,206,779 16.7 32.7 32.8 0.2

Region XI 57,877,947 67,366,644 16.4 26.2 25.6 (0.6)

Region XII 44,740,935 50,556,259 13.0 27.1 28.1 1.0Caraga 11,290,530 12,409,350 9.9 36.9 39.8 3.0

ARMM 16,637,408 18,957,590 13.9 36.5 38.1 1.7

Region

Poverty Incidence

Among Families (%)

Gross Regional Domestic Product (in thousand

pesos) constant

% change

06-09

Mean per capita income


First decile class 6,049 8,488 40.3 Second decile class 8,755 12,342 41.0 Third decile class 10,536 14,969 42.1 Fourth Decile class 12,665 17,588 38.9 Fifth Decile class 15,192 20,823 37.1 Sixth Decile class 18,255 24,924 36.5 Seventh Decile class 22,172 30,386 37.0 Eighth Decile class 27,861 39,161 40.6 Ninth Decile class 39,545 55,363 40.0 Tenth Decile class 89,490 123,781 38.3

Region IVB

2006 2009

Statistics/Income decile class

% change

06-09

Mean per capita income


First decile class 6,939 8,327 20.0

Second decile class 9,652 12,093 25.3

Third decile class 11,996 14,730 22.8

Fourth Decile class 14,415 17,739 23.1

Fifth Decile class 17,016 21,287 25.1

Sixth Decile class 20,336 25,750 26.6

Seventh Decile class 24,617 31,600 28.4

Eighth Decile class 31,337 40,723 30.0 Ninth Decile class 44,275 60,265 36.1 Tenth Decile class 96,152 146,630 52.5

Statistics/Income decile class

Region XII

2006 2009

In contrast, in Region XII, the increase in economic growth is concentrated in the upper income decile classes. Poverty incidence also increased by 1.0% between 2006 and 2009.

C. Poverty and Economic Growth: Need for better income distribution, inclusive growth




D. Poverty and Population Management

All Food Poor Poor Non-Poor

2009 4.74 6.48 5.99 4.38

Average Family Size

Poor families have bigger family size!




Poverty Incidence Among Families by Educational Attainment of the Household Head: 2003 and 2006

• Families whose heads have lower educational attainment have higher poverty incidence!

Educational Attainment 2003 2006 Inc./Dec.

No Grade Completed 44.4 45.5 1.0

Elementary Undergraduate 36.8 36.5 (0.2)

Elementary Graduate 25.4 28.8 3.4

High School Undergraduate 20.7 22.6 1.9

High School Graduate 11.1 13.1 2.0

College Undergraduate 4.5 5.5 1.0

College Graduate 1.7 2.3 0.6

Post Graduate 2.2 0.0 (2.2)

Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the official poverty statistics of the NSCB and the result of the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) of the National Statistics Office (NSO).

Note: Poverty estimates were only generated for 2003 and 2006 as the FIES datafile available to the NSCB contains very limited variables (i.e., 13 variables).

IV. Some Policy/Program Implications – E. Poverty & Education



No CCT in Easter

n Samar

in 2008-2009

G. Poverty and targeting: The first round of CCT/4Ps in 2008-2009 did not benefit all subsistence poor provinces. CCT was not provided in any of the municipalities in Eastern Samar, which is one of the provinces with the highest subsistence incidence (25.7%) and highest poverty incidence (45.8%) among families in 2009.

•A total of 55 municipalities in least subsistence poor provinces also benefited from the CCT program!



G. Poverty and targeting: In 2009, out of 138 cities and 1,496 municipalities, the following benefited from the CCT Program of the DSWD:

With high poverty incidence – 139 municipalities and 75 cities

With low poverty incidence – 28 municipalities and 18 cities

No CCT in

Eastern Samar

in 2008-2009

• A total of 22 municipalities in least poor provinces also benefited from the CCT program!



G. Poverty and targeting: Contiguous regions with high concentration of poor families could be prioritized in targeting/intervention programs.

Nueva Ecija

Pangasinan

Cebu

Bohol

Negros Occidental

Camarines Sur

Leyte

Zamboanga del Norte

5.9%

3.3%

14.9%

2.8%

Province No. of Municipality with CCT

Total no. of municipalities and cities

Pangasinan 7 48

Nueva Ecija 11 32

Camarines Sur 5 37

Negros Occidental

8 32

Bohol 1 48

Cebu 6 53

Leyte 10 43

Zamboanga del Norte

27 27




With the latest 2009 poverty estimates, the probability of halving poverty, between 1990 and 2015, has gone down but remains at medium!

Indicator Target 1991 2003 2006 2009

Poverty incidence among population

16.6 33.1

(Baseline)24.9 26.4 26.5

Pace of Progress

0.99 0.65 0.53

Notes: The pace of progress is computed as the ratio of the actual annual growth rate and required annual growth rate.

High: Pace of Progress is greater than 0.9

Medium: Pace of Progress between 0.5 and 0.9

Low: Pace of Progress is less than 0.5

. Poverty and the MDGs

IV. Some Policy/Program Implications - Poverty and the MDGs



Actual Target (given the present performance)

Poverty Incidence among population

Percentage point decrease

Poverty Incidence among population

Percentage point decrease

1991 33.1 Annual reduction of 0.37 percentage points, between 1991-2009, from a baseline of 33.1

0.69 annually, between 1991-2015, from a baseline of 33.1

2003 24.9

2006 26.4

2009 26.5 20.7

2012 18.6 1.65 annually, between 2010-2015, from a baseline of 26.5%

2015 16.6

We need to reduce poverty incidence among population by 1.65 percentage points annually , from 2010 to 2015!

This means that, on the average, there should be an annual reduction of 1.67 million in the magnitude of poor Filipinos from 2010 to 2015

TARGET Reduction in Poor Population Poverty Incidence

among Population Annual Cumulative2010 1,598,224 25.052011 1,628,372 3,226,597 23.352012 1,658,671 4,885,268 21.652013 1,689,113 6,574,381 19.952014 1,719,689 8,294,071 18.252015 1,750,410 10,044,481 16.55



. Poverty and the MDGsAs of 2009, the Philippines was eight years behind target on poverty reduction! Only NCR, CAR, Regions II and IV-A are ahead of their targets!

-8.4

5.0

0.5

-2.3

0.5

-3.8

3.2

-8.3-9.6

-5.6

-10.2

-14.1-12.0

-8.3

-4.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

Notes: Time-distance (years): positive (+) – time lead (progress is ahead the path to target)

Negative ( - ) – time lag (Progress is behind the path to target)

The time distance is a new generic statistical measure for analysis and visualization of time series data. This was first developed by Prof. Pavle Sicherl of the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Region IX, Caraga, and ARMM are 27, 21, and 81 years behind the target in 2009.




SOME POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION/QUESTIONS:

1. Towards poverty alleviation amidst resource constraints, need to balance support for the core poor, the poor and the middle class

To sustain poverty reduction, need to maintain a healthy middle class? Improve education?

2. Should target be focused on reducing poverty incidence or reducing subsistence incidence?

3. Employment is not sufficient: quality of employment matters

4. Minimum wage setting – too many low paying jobs?

5. Importance of decent job creation




SO MANY DEMANDS/CHALLENGES TO THE PHILIPPINE STATISTICAL SYSTEM on the generation of official poverty statistics:

• Annual poverty incidences and other measures of poverty;

•More timely official poverty statistics (i.e., regular generation of “advance” thresholds);

•Regular generation of small area estimates of poverty (i.e., at the city/municipal level);

•Harmonization/standardization of existing statistical frameworks on poverty reduction statistics (e.g., official poverty statistics, NHTSPR, CBMS, among others) ;

•Communicating official poverty statistics towards more actual policy uses;

•Well-being/Happiness of the poor;

… AND THE LIST GOES ON… AND ON… BUT (next slide)




1. There is a need for statistical capacity building, specially of the line agencies and the LGUs

• Many LGUs do not have a statistical unit or statistical personnel;

• Low compensation scheme for statistical personnel; • Non-statisticians doing statistical work.

2. Statistics must be demand-driven; POLICY MAKERS must translate statistics into programs and policies

3. Statistical agencies must be relevant to stakeholders

TO AID THE PHILIPPINE STATISTICAL SYSTEM IN RESPONDING TO THESE MANY DEMANDS/CHALLENGES:




There is a great need for more resources for statistics, specially manpower!

• INVEST IN STATISTICS! INVEST IN STATISTICAL OFFICES!INVEST IN STATISTICIANS!





Maraming Salamat po!

URL: http://www.nscb.gov.phe-mail: [email protected]



Who are the members of the Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics (TC PovStat)? The Committee is composed of professionals/experts who have undertaken significant studies on poverty. Membership in the committee is based on individual expertise and not on representation by agency/institution.

Chairperson: DR. CELIA M. REYESPhilippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS)

Vice Chairpersons:

Dr. Romulo A. Virola Administrator Carmelita N. ErictaNSCB National Statistics Office (NSO)

Chairpersons of the Four Small Working Groups:

Dr. Lisa Grace S. Bersales Dr. Arsenio S. Balisacan UP School of Statistics National Economic and Development Authority /

UP School of Economics

Dr. Zita VJ Albacea Ms. Dolores de Quiros-CastilloUP Institute of Statistics Former Asst. Sec., National Anti-Poverty Commission

I. Introduction



Who are the members of the Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics (TC PovStat)?

Members:

Dir. Erlinda M. Capones Dep. Adm. Paula Monina G. ColladoNational Economic Dev’t. Authority NSO

Usec. Alicia R. Bala OIC-Dir. Myrna AsuncionDept. of Social Welfare and Dev’t. NEDA

Asst. Sec. Gen. Lina Castro Dr. Jose Ramon Albert NSCB PIDS

Ms. Emma Fabian OIC-Dir. Jessamyn O. EncarnacionNSO NSCB

Dir. Manuel Gotis Dr. Arturo PacificadorDept. of Interior & Local Gov’t. De La Salle University

Dir. Romeo S. Recide Prof. Ofelia M. TemploBureau of Agricultural Statistics Ateneo de Manila University

Dr. Jocelyn Juguan Ms. Susanita TesiornaFood & Nutrition Research Institute Trade Union Congress of the Philippines

I. Introduction



Some positive events between 2006 and 2009:Period Event

July 2009 Increase in the salaries of government employees with the implementation of the 1st of four parts of the Salary Standardization Law III.

2008 Conditional cash transfer (CCT) implemented in 161 municipalities in 2008 – 41.6% in Luzon, 14.9% in Visayas, and 43.5% in Mindanao.

2009 CCT was implemented in 277 municipalities – 36.5% in Luzon, 22.4% in Visayas, and 41.1% in Mindanao.

February 2009

Start of application for the Project on Nurses Assigned in Rural Service by the DOLE, DOH, and the Professional Regulation Commission, Board of Nursing (PRC-BON). The Project involved the training/deployment of unemployed registered nurses in the 1,000 poorest cities/municipalities of the country.




Some negative events between 2006 and 2009:

Period Event

2006-2009 Rice price crisis: Price of ordinary rice increased by 44.2%, from PhP 21.28/kg in 2006 to PhP 30.69 in 2009

2008 Global financial crisis

June 2009 Start of El Niño

July 2009 Start of the increase in alert level of Mayon Volcano




Some negative events between 2006 and 2009:

Some typhoons/calamities in 2009

Typhoon/Calamity Period Covered Estimated Cost of Damage

Area(s) affected

1. Pepeng Sept. 24 - 27, 2009

PhP 27.195 billion NCR, CAR, I, II, III, IV-A, IV-B, V, IX

2. Ondoy Sept. 30 – Oct. 11, 2009

PhP 11.121 billion NCR, CAR, I, II, III, IV-A, IV-B, V, IX

3. Ramil Oct. 20-26, 2009 PhP 87 million in Cagayan Valley

CAR, Regions I and II




03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 9,776 11,515 13,831 17.8 20.1Subsistence Incidence (among families) 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.4 (0.3)Inflation (food) 108.5 127.8 153.5 17.8 20.1Poverty Threshold 13,997 16,487 19,802 17.8 20.1Poverty Incidence (among families) 2.1 3.4 2.6 1.3 (0.8)Inflation (all items) 114.5 140.7 156.9 22.9 11.5

Mean per capita incomeAll income groups 57,683 66,106 77,462 14.6 17.2

First decile class 16,132 17,496 21,714 8.5 24.1 Second decile class 23,567 26,395 31,097 12.0 17.8 Third decile class 29,031 33,051 39,112 13.8 18.3 Fourth Decile class 34,145 40,037 47,069 17.3 17.6 Fifth Decile class 40,100 47,945 56,273 19.6 17.4 Sixth Decile class 48,199 57,777 67,964 19.9 17.6 Seventh Decile class 58,124 71,696 83,226 23.4 16.1 Eighth Decile class 74,030 92,717 107,377 25.2 15.8 Ninth Decile class 102,336 127,839 145,456 24.9 13.8 Tenth Decile class 235,805 263,928 309,122 11.9 17.1

% change2003 2006 2009

NCRStatistics/

Income decile class

In NCR, the average per capita income of the bottom 10% of families rose faster than prices of food and all items!




-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000 2003

2006

2009

Biggest reductions in the number of poor population from 2006 to 2009 were observed in NCR, Regions IV-B and I. On the other hand, largest increases were observed in Regions VI, VIII and IV-A, with 264,651, 263,315, and 166,550 increases in the poor population, respectively.


B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Poor Population

-146,47

7

-141,49

8

-107,79

0

263,315

166,550

264,651

V VII VI VIII X IV-A III ARMM IX XII XI Caraga I IV-B II NCR CAR

CCT (08-09)

17(114)

39(132)

23(133)

46(143)

34(93)

7(142)

35(130)

49(118)

14(72)

16(50)

19(49)

52(73)

19(125)

27(73)

5(93)

8(17)

28(77)



Fishermen posted the highest poverty incidence among the nine basic sectors in the Philippines in 2009 at 41.4%, the same level in 2006, followed by farmers and children at poverty incidences of 36.7% from 37.2% in 2006 and 35.1% from 32.7% in 2006, respectively.

Sector


Poverty Incidence

90% Confidence

IntervalPovert

y Incide

nce

90% Confidence

IntervalPovert

y Incide

nce


- 2006

2006 - 200

9Lower

Limit

Upper

Limit

Lower Limit

Upper

Limit

Lower

Limit

Upper

Limit

Philippines5/ 24.9 24.1 25.8 26.4 25.5 27.3 26.5 25.6 27.3 1.5 0.1

Fishermen 35.0 32.4 37.6 41.4 38.6 44.2 41.4 38.9 43.9 6.4 0.0

Farmers 37.0 35.5 38.4 37.2 35.7 38.7 36.7 35.4 38.1 0.2(0.5

)Children 32.7 31.5 33.9 34.8 33.6 36 35.1 34.1 36.2 2.1 0.3 Self-employed and Unpaid Family Workers4/

28.0 26.8 29.3 29.4 28.2 30.7 29.0 27.9 30.2 1.4(0.4

)

Women 24.0 23 25 25.1 24.1 26.1 25.1 24.3 26 1.1 0.0 Youth 19.0 18.1 19.9 20.8 19.9 21.7 21.8 20.9 22.6 1.8 1.0 Migrant and Formal Sector

14.6 13.8 15.4 15.7 14.9 16.5 16.7 16 17.4 1.1 1.0

Senior Citizens 15.1 14.2 15.9 16.2 15.3 17.2 15.8 15.1 16.5 1.2(0.5

)Individuals residing in urban areas

11.1 10.3 11.9 12.5 11.7 13.3 12.8 12.0 13.5 1.4 0.3



10 of 17 regions had decreasing subsistence incidence between 2006 and 2009, only 5 regions between 2003 and 2006!

RegionSubsistence incidence among families Increase/Decrease

2003 2006 2009 03-06 06-09PHILIPPINES 8.2 8.7 7.9 0.4 (0.8) Region VII 16.0 17.1 13.2 1.1 (3.8)ARMM 7.3 11.6 8.5 4.3 (3.1)Region V 18.0 15.7 12.9 (2.2) (2.9)Region I 5.8 7.1 5.5 1.2 (1.6)Region XI 12.3 12.1 11.0 (0.2) (1.1)CAR 5.8 8.3 7.6 2.5 (0.7)Region X 16.1 16.3 15.6 0.2 (0.6)Region IV-A 2.4 2.8 2.4 0.3 (0.3)NCR 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.3 (0.3) Region II 4.1 4.3 4.1 0.3 (0.2) Region VI 9.1 7.9 7.9 (1.1) 0.9 Region III 2.3 3.7 3.7 1.4 1.0 Region XII 10.6 10.8 11.3 0.2 1.7 Region IX 25.1 17.9 18.6 (7.1) 1.7 Region VIII 11.1 13.5 14.4 2.4 2.1 Caraga 16.6 16.9 19.7 0.3 2.4 Region IV-B 11.1 2.8 10.5 (8.3) 3.0





8 of 17 regions had decreasing poverty incidence between 2006 and 2009, only 5 regions between 2003 and 2006!

RegionPoverty incidence among families Increase/Decrease2003 2006 2009 03-06 06-09

PHILIPPINES 20.0 21.1 20.9 Region IV-B 29.8 34.3 27.6 4.5 (6.7)Region VII 32.1 33.5 30.2 1.4 (3.2)Region I 17.8 20.4 17.8 2.6 (2.6)CAR 16.1 18.6 17.1 2.4 (1.5)Region II 15.2 15.5 14.5 0.3 (1.1)NCR 2.1 3.4 2.6 1.3 (0.8)Region XI 25.4 26.2 25.6 0.9 (0.6)Region V 38.0 36.1 36.0 (1.9) (0.1)Region III 9.4 12.0 12.0 2.6 0.1 Region X 32.4 32.7 32.8 0.2 0.2 Region IV-A 9.2 9.4 10.3 0.1 0.9 Region XII 27.2 27.1 28.1 (0.1) 1.0 ARMM 25.0 36.5 38.1 11.4 1.7 Region VI 23.5 22.1 23.8 (1.4) 1.7 Region VIII 30.2 31.1 33.2 1.0 2.1 Region IX 40.5 34.2 36.6 (6.3) 2.4 Caraga 37.6 36.9 39.8 (0.7) 3.0

II. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics




-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2003

2006

2009


B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Food Poor Families

-39,04

3

14,476

VII V X VIII IX VI XI Caraga XII III IV-B IV-A I ARMM II CAR NCR

CCT (08-09)

17(132)

39(114)

34(93)

46(143)

49(72)

23(133)

14(49)

52(73)

16(50)

35(130)

27(73)

7(142)

19(125)

19(118)

5(93)

28(77)

8(17)

-21,40

9

-19,54

1

17,582

9,783

Biggest reductions in the number of food poor families from 2006 to 2009 were observed in Regions VII, V and IV-B. On the other hand, largest increases were observed in Caraga, Regions VIII and XII with 17,582, 14,476 and 9,783 increase in food poor families, respectively.

B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Food Poor Families



Biggest reductions in the number of poor families from 2006 to 2009 were observed in Regions IV-B, VII and NCR. On the other hand, largest increases were observed in Regions VI, IV-A and VIII, with 42,867, 37,349 and 33,808 increase in poor families, respectively.


B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Poor Families

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

2003

2006

2009

-24,22

9

-17,56

7

-16,42

3

42,867

37,349

33,808

VII V VI VIII X IV-A III IX XI XII ARMM Caraga I IV-B II NCR CAR

CCT (08-09)

17(132)

39(114)

23(133)

46(143)

34(93)

7(142)

35(130)

49(72)

14(49)

16(50)

19(118)

52(73)

19(125)

27(73)

5(93)

8(17)

28(77)



-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

2003

2006

2009


-159,59

9

61,626

-184,23

1

-123,38

1

123,931

45,176

Biggest reductions in the number of food poor population from 2006 to 2009 were observed in Regions VII, V and IV-B.

B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Food Poor Population

VII V X VIII VI IX XI Caraga XII III IV-A IV-B I ARMM II CAR NCR

CCT (08-09)

17(132)

39(114)

34(93)

46(143)

23(133)

49(72)

14(49)

52(73)

16(50)

35(130)

7(142)

27(73)

19(125)

19(118)

5(93)

28(77)

8(17)



B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Poor Families Negros Oriental, Tawi-Tawi and Pangasinan had the biggest reduction among poor families from 2006 to 2009!


-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2003

2006

2009

-13,99

6-

21,199

-14,97

8

Pangasinan Negros Oriental

Misamis Oriental

Palawan Oriental Mindoro

Antique Occidental Mindoro

2nd District Zambales Tawi-Tawi

CCT (08-09) 7(48)

10(25)

4(25)

14(23)

6(15)

5(18)

9(11)

2(5)

2(13)

1(11)



B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Poor Population Sulu, Lanao del Sur, and Iloilo were the provinces that have largest increases in the number of poor families from 2006-2009!


-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2003

2006

2009

19,972

24,945 18,95

7

Negros Occidental

Nueva Ecija

Iloilo South Cotabato

Lanao del Norte

Sulu Misamis Occidental

Lanao del Sur

Rizal Pampanga

CCT (08-09) 8(31)

11(32)

3(43)

2(11)

15(22)

6(19)

4(17)

4(40)

0(14)

2(21)



18.7

7.37.57.47.38.0

22.6

19.3 19.121.1 21.03

20.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Unemployment Rate

Underemployment Rate

P overty Incidence amongfamilies

Proportion of poor families declined from 21.1 in 2006 to 20.9 in 2009, consistent with the declining trend in underemployment rate and unemployment rate, which went down from 22.6 to 19.1 and 8.0 to 7.5, respectively from 2006 to 2009!


-0.2




Poverty Incidence Among Families by Employment Status of the Household Head: 2003 and 2006

• Poverty incidence has been consistently higher among families whose household head is employed.

•Employment is not sufficient, quality of employment matters!

Employment Status 2003 2006a

Employed 21.8 24.2

Unemployed 15.0 17.8

Not in the Labor Force 8.3 11.7

a/ The 2006 poverty estimates on unemployment is based on the new official definition of unemployment, which was approved through NSCB Resolution No. 15 Series of 2004.


Note: Poverty estimates were only generated for 2003 and 2006 as the 2009 FIES datafile provided by the NSO to the NSCB contains very limited variables (i.e., 13 variables).





Education expenditure of the poor, nonpoor and all families, 2003 and 2006

0

1

2

3

4

5

Poor Nonpoor All

% S

hare

to

to

tal

basic

exp

en

dit

ure 2003

2006

1.9

1.8

4.9

5.4 4.

7

5.0

Inflation for

education 2003-2006: 22.3%

Inflation for all items 2003-2006:

21.2%Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the official poverty statistics of the NSCB and the result of the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) of the National Statistics Office (NSO).


Share of EDUCATION expenditure to the total basic expenditure:

0.5 0.3

(0.1)

Among poor families, share very slightly decreased between 2003 and 2006:

•MDG 2 on education has low probability of achieving the target!

•Are the poor not prioritizing/spending on/gaining education since:

1) education-related expenditures are too expensive for the poor;

2) poor families need children to work and do not send them to school?

• Will the CCT make a difference?

Among poor families, share very slightly decreased between 2003 and 2006:

•MDG 2 on education has low probability of achieving the target!

•Are the poor not prioritizing/spending on/gaining education since:

1) education-related expenditures are too expensive for the poor;

2) poor families need children to work and do not send them to school?

• Will the CCT make a difference?



Province Poverty Incidence

Cohort Survival Rate

Bulacan 4.8 93.0

Pampanga 6.7 88.3

1st District, NCR

3.8 86.3

Laguna 5.9 86.1

Bataan 7.4 79.2

2nd District, NCR

2.4 74.3

Nueva Vizcaya 6.7 73.4

Cavite 4.5 72.6

Benguet 4.0 71.4

Rizal 6.5 70.8

Ilocos Norte 9.2 67.6

3rd District, NCR

3.8 60.8

4th District, NCR

1.6 60.5

Batanes 0.0 58.6

•In general, provinces in the least poor cluster have higher primary cohort survival rates than provinces in the bottom poor cluster!

•Despite being in the bottom poor cluster, six provinces registered primary cohort survival rates greater than 65%: Lanao del Norte, Eastern Samar, Surigao del Norte, Masbate, Camarines Sur, and Agusan del Sur!

Poverty Incidence and Primary Cohort Survival Rate

Bottom Poor Cluster, 2009Bottom Poor Cluster, 2009

IV. Some Policy/Program Implications: Poverty & Education


Cohort Survival Rate

Lanao del Norte 39.0 76.7

Eastern Samar 45.8 68.8

Surigao Del Norte 47.9 67.0

Masbate 42.5 66.3

Camarines Sur 38.7 66.2

Agusan del Sur 51.2 66.0

Northern Samar 41.7 59.2

Sulu 39.3 59.1

Zamboanga del Norte

52.9 57.6

Maguindanao 44.6 57.5

Bohol 41.0 55.8

Romblon 43.0 53.6

Saranggani 40.7 53.1

Zamboanga Sibugay

43.2 47.9

Davao Oriental 42.5 30.3

Least Poor Cluster, 2009Least Poor Cluster, 2009




Completion Rate

Bulacan 4.8 93.0

Pampanga 6.7 88.5

Laguna 5.9 87.6

1st District, NCR

3.8 85.9

Bataan 7.4 78.5

2nd District, NCR

2.4 73.8

Nueva Vizcaya 6.7 72.8

Cavite 4.5 72.3

Benguet 4.0 71.1

Rizal 6.5 70.5

Ilocos Norte 9.2 67.0

3rd District, NCR

3.8 60.0

4th District, NCR

1.6 59.8

Batanes 0.0 58.5


Completion Rate

Lanao del Norte 39.0 74.3

Eastern Samar 45.8 68.7

Camarines Sur 38.7 66.3

Surigao Del Norte 47.9 65.8

Masbate 42.5 65.7

Agusan del Sur 51.2 64.8

Northern Samar 41.7 58.4

Zamboanga del Norte

52.9 57.2

Sulu 39.3 57.2

Maguindanao 44.6 56.2

Bohol 41.0 54.7

Saranggani 40.7 52.1

Zamboanga Sibugay

43.2 46.1

Romblon 43.0 46.0

Davao Oriental 42.5 29.4

Bottom Poor Cluster, 2009Bottom Poor Cluster, 2009Least Poor Cluster, 2009Least Poor Cluster, 2009

•In general, provinces in the least poor cluster have higher primary completion rates than provinces in the bottom poor cluster!

•Despite being in the bottom poor cluster, five provinces registered primary completion rates greater than 65%: Lanao del Norte, Eastern Samar, Camarines Sur, Surigao del Norte, and Masbate!

Poverty Incidence and Primary Completion Rate

IV. Some Policy/Program Implications: Poverty & Education



0

5

10

15

20

Poor Nonpoor All

% S

har

e to

tota

l bas

ic e

xpen

ditu

reHousing expenditure of the poor, nonpoor and all families,

2003 and 2006

2003 2006

Share of HOUSING expenditure to the total basic expenditure:

10.6 10.

4

19.3

18.9

18.5

18.2

Inflation for

housing 2003-2006: 12.7%

Inflation for all items 2003-2006:

21.2%

(0.2)

(0.4)

(0.3)

Poor vs. nonpoor:

Poor families spend relatively less on housing than the nonpoor but overall inflation is higher than for housing

Poor vs. nonpoor:

Poor families spend relatively less on housing than the nonpoor but overall inflation is higher than for housing

2003 vs. 2006:

•In general, the share went down from 2003 to 2006 among poor and non-poor families.

2003 vs. 2006:




IV. Some Policy/Program Implications: Poverty & Prices



0

5

10

15

20

Poor Nonpoor All

% S

har

e to

tota

l bas

ic e

xpen

ditu

reHousing expenditure of the poor, nonpoor and all families,

2003 and 2006

2003 2006

Share of HOUSING expenditure to the total basic expenditure:

10.6 10.

4

19.3

18.9

18.5

18.2

2003 – 2006 inflation for:

All items:21.2%

Housing: 12.7%

Food: 21.4%(0.2)

(0.4)

(0.3)

Poor vs. nonpoor:

Poor families spend relatively less on housing than nonpoor families

Poor vs. nonpoor:

Poor families spend relatively less on housing than nonpoor families

2003 vs. 2006:


2003 vs. 2006:




Between 2003 and 2006, inflation for food is higher than for all items/housing:

•Housing < All Items < Food

•The Poor suffered more from the increase in prices

Between 2003 and 2006, inflation for food is higher than for all items/housing:

•Housing < All Items < Food

•The Poor suffered more from the increase in prices

III. Some Policy/Program Implications



Family Size Monthly Income Shortfall (Based on

Income Gap)

Monthly CCT Contribution

1 361

2 721

3* 1,082 800

4* 1,443 1,100

5* 1,803 1,400Note: 1) 4Ps provides conditional cash grants to beneficiaries with:

a) PhP 500.00/month per household for health and nutrition expenses

b) PhP 300/month per child for educational expenses

2) Assume that all cash grant beneficiaries complied in the given conditions

a) Pregnant women must avail of pre- and post-natal care and be attended during childbirth by a trained health professional:

b) Parents must attend family development sessions;

c) 0-5 year old children must receive regular preventive health check-ups and vaccines and 6-14 yr. Old children must receive deworming pills twice a year;

d) 3-14 yr old children must attend day acre or pre-school/elementary/highschool classes at least 85% of the time


G. Poverty and the CCT: CCT support is not enough!



Among the regions, 4 regions have high probability, 6 have medium and 7 regions have low probability of achieving the target by 2015. Starting 2010, ARMM needs to reduce poverty incidence among population annually by 5.86 percentage points to achieve the MDG target by 2015!

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

Region Target poverty incidence among

population by 2015

1991Baseline

2003 2006 2009 Target annual percentage point decrease between

2010-2015

NCR 3.8 7.6 0.03

CAR 18.7 37.3 0.71

Region I 17.3 34.6 1.0

Region II 15.3 30.6 0.58

Region III 10.9 21.8 0.73

Region IV-A 12.4 24.8 0.25

Region IV-B 21.9 43.8 2.19

Region V 27.3 54.6 2.97

Region VI 21.1 42.1 1.69

Region VII 21.2 42.4 2.39

Region VIII 22.6 45.1 3.14

Region IX 17.9 35.8 4.20

Region X 22.6 45.3 2.83

Region XI 19.7 39.3 1.94

Region XII 25.2 50.4 1.75

ARMM 10.7 21.5 5.86

Caraga 22.5 45.0 4.22

IV. Some Policy/Program Implications - Poverty and the MDGs




SOME THREATS:

The poor are vulnerable to:

1. Price increases of:

• Food

• Oil

2. Effect of earthquake/tsunami in Japan

3. La Niña phenomenon

4. Threat to earthquake/other natural calamities/climate change in the Philippines with the poor at a greater risk to:

• Landslide

• One meter rise in sea level



Challenges

OFWs who may have to come back (e.g., from the Middle East, Japan, or from other destinations)

• Must build the necessary social and economic infrastructure to accommodate and absorb them back in our society.

• Includes creating local jobs, providing the needed social services and tapping emerging markets like China and India.





Commodity Group CPI Inc/Dec CPI

weights2009 2010 20111/ 09-10 10-11 09-11

All Items 160.0 166.1 171.2 3.8 3.1 7.0 100.0Food 162.4 167.4 173.0 3.1 3.3 6.5 46.6

Rice 171.6 173.5 175.3 1.1 1.0 2.2 9.4

Fuel (Oil) 211.5 239.7 264.7 13.3 10.5 25.2 2.4

Transportation (and Communication)

184.5 194.4 205.6 5.3 5.8 11.5 7.5

Note: 1/ CPI 2011 - January to March onlySource: National Statistics Office

•While CPI for all items increased only by 7.0% between 2009 and 2011, prices of FUEL increased by 25.2%!

•During the same period, prices of transportation and communication increased by 11.5%!

These are captured in the CPI for all items but their share to CPI (based on consumption from the FIES) are only 2.4% for fuel and 7.5% for transportation!

•QUESTION IS DID INCOME INCREASE FAST ENOUGH TO COPE WITH THE INCREASES OF PRICES BETWEEN 2009-2011?




AMONG MINIMUM WAGE EARNERS

While prices of fuel and transportation increased by 25.2% and 11.5%, respectively, between 2009 and 2010, incomes of minimum wage earners did not increase as fast!

Highest income increase observed during this period is in Region XI with only 7.9%.

On the other hand, incomes of minimum wage earners in Region VIII did not increase at all between the two-year period!

RegionMinimum Wage (Non-Agriculture) Inc/Dec

2009 2010 2011 09-10 10-11 09-11NCR 382 404 404 5.8 0 5.8CAR 260 260 272 0 4.6 4.6Region I 240 240 248 0 3.3 3.3Region II 235 235 245 0 4.3 4.3Region III 302 302 316 0 4.6 4.6Region IV-A 320 320 337 0 5.3 5.3Region IV-B 252 264 264 4.8 0 4.8Region V 239 247 247 3.3 0 3.3Region VI 250 265 265 6.0 0 6.0Region VII 267 285 285 6.7 0 6.7

Region VIII 238 238 238 0.0 0 0.0Region IX 240 255 255 6.3 0 6.3Region X 256 269 269 5.1 0 5.1Region XI 265 286 286 7.9 0 7.9Region XII 245 255 255 4.1 0 4.1Caraga 233 243 243 4.3 0 4.3ARMM 210 222 222 5.7 0 5.7Source: NWPC website




AMONG GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Period Event

July 2009 Increase in the salaries of government employees with the implementation of the 1st of four parts of the Salary Standardization Law III (SSL III)

July 2010 2nd of four parts of SSL III; To date, same rate is still being implemented.

Average increase between 2009-2011 = 14.6%(Note: Due to time and data constraints, this was computed as a simple average of the 09-11 increase of all Salary Grades, Step I.)

While salaries of government employees increased between 2009-2011, on the average, by 14.6%, we are in danger of being poor if salary increases are not sustained/updated to cope with the ongoing oil/food price increases!



Greater collaboration between the DSWD and NSCB on the following:

• Maximization of the wealth of information on poverty indicators from the NHTSPR, which could be utilized by the Philippine Statistical System, to provide a more holistic picture of the poverty situation in the country.

• DSWD can consider the food threshold as possible reference to compute for standard per capita costs of food requirements in DSWD (day care/children) centers but food threshold must be recomputed for children. (Note: As pointed out by a DSWD representative during the NSCB presentation to the DSWD Technical Staff on the 2009 Poverty Statistics last 8 March 2011.)

• The Cabinet Cluster on Human Development chaired by Sec. Soliman of DSWD, in its meeting last 17 March 2011 created the Technical Working Group on Poverty Reduction Statistics (TWG-PRS) chaired and coordinated by the NSCB. The TWG-PRS aims to harmonize and standardize existing statistical frameworks/indicator systems on poverty reduction, towards a common understanding and appreciation of poverty statistics in the country.

Challenges




4. Allow statistical offices to hire and increase number of statistical positions in government!

Statistical agencies should be treated differently from other government agencies!

5. Implement a true rationalization plan! (NSCB is being required to reduce its 224 positions down to 149 but Demand for Statistics is rising exponentially!)

NSCB should be given resources to expand its human resource base and establish its Regional Divisions in all regions of the country for more balanced statistical development. (NSCB is only present in 9 out of 17 regions, despite annual requests to DBM to be present in the other 8 regions.)





H. Poverty and the Basic Sectors

Poverty Incidence among Basic Sectors: 2003 and 2006

Poorest sectors in 2003 and 2006:

•Fishermen (41.4%), farmers (37.2%) and children (34.8%) !

•All sectors posted increases in poverty incidence between the period 2003 and 2006!

Poorest sectors in 2003 and 2006:

•Fishermen (41.4%), farmers (37.2%) and children (34.8%) !

•All sectors posted increases in poverty incidence between the period 2003 and 2006!


Note: 1. Poverty estimates were generated based on the refinements in the official poverty estimation methodology, which was approved on by the NSCB Executive Board on 1 February 2011. 2. 2009 poverty statistics for the basic sectors will be available 2 months after the provision of the merged 2009 FIES-LFS data file from NSO. To date, the NSO has not yet provided the said data file to the NSCB.

Poverty Incidence among Basic Sectors: 2003 and 2006

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.0

Fishermen Farmers Children Women Youth SeniorCitizens

Migrant andFormalSector

Urban

Sector

Pove

rty In

ciden

ce

2003

2006

Difference

2003 2006 2003 - 2006

Children 11,400,000 12,300,000 900,000Women 9,605,037 10,700,000 1,094,963Urban 4,429,424 5,310,531 881,107Youth 4,280,197 4,850,607 570,410

Migrant and Formal Sector 2,283,773 2,599,336 315,563

Farmers 1,768,249 1,773,484 5,235

Senior Citizens 793,233 1,035,089 241,856

Fishermen 355,815 400,214 44,398

SectorMagnitude of Poor

Magnitude of Poor among Basic Sectors: 2003 and 2006

41.4% 37.2%

34.8%

Largest number of poor population in 2003 and 2006, by sector:

•Children (12.3 million), women (10.7 million), and population living in urban areas (5.3 million)!

Largest number of poor population in 2003 and 2006, by sector:

•Children (12.3 million), women (10.7 million), and population living in urban areas (5.3 million)!



Poverty Incidence among Fishermen, by Region: 2003 and 2006

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Philip

pines

Cara

ga

Regio

n IX

Regio

n VI

I

Regio

n V

ARM

M

Regio

n XI

Regio

n X

Regio

n I

Regio

n VI

II

Regio

n IV

B

Regio

n VI

Regio

n XI

I

Regio

n IV

A NCR

Regio

n II

Regio

n III

Region

Pove

rty In

cide

nce

2003

2006

Magnitude of Poor Fishermen: 2003 and 2006

Difference

2003 2006 2003 - 2006

Philippines 355,815 400,214 44,398

ARMM 36,257 83,719 47,462Region VII 49,350 51,216 1,866Region V 41,346 42,837 1,492

Region IVA 32,174 32,885 711

Region VIII 26,864 29,785 2,921

Region IVB 29,491 25,220 (4,270)

Region IX 31,005 24,702 (6,303)

Region VI 22,002 23,898 1,896

Caraga 19,272 17,590 (1,682)

Region I 6,726 17,099 10,374

Region X 19,171 14,103 (5,068)

Region XII 16,849 13,151 (3,697)

Region XI 12,450 11,270 (1,180)

Region III 9,836 6,697 (3,139)

NCR 1,454 3,529 2,075Region II 1,407 2,512 1,105

RegionMagnitude of Poor


Note: 1. Poverty estimates are revised based on the refinements in the official poverty estimation methodology, which was approved on by the NSCB Executive Board on 1 February 2011. 2. 2009 poverty statistics for the basic sectors will be available 2 months after the provision of the FIES-LFS data file from NSO. To date, the NSO has not yet provided the FIES-LFS data file. 3. Poverty incidence estimate for fishermen in CAR was excluded due to the very low level of precision.

Highest poverty incidence: Caraga in 2003 and

2006

Highest poverty incidence: Caraga in 2003 and

2006

Caraga:56.0% in 2003 and 56.5% in

2006

Largest magnitude of poor fishermen:

Region VII in 2003 ARMM in 2006

Largest magnitude of poor fishermen:

Region VII in 2003 ARMM in 2006

Poverty Incidence among FISHERMEN by Region: 2003 and 2006



Children, women, and individuals residing in urban areas accounted for the largest number of poor population in the country at 12.4 million in 2009 from 12.3 million in 2006, 11.2 million in 2009 from 10.7 million in 2006 and 5.7 million in 2009 from 5.3 million in 2006, respectively.

Sector


Magnitude of Poor

90% Confidence Interval Magnitude

of Poor

90% Confidence Interval Magnitude

of Poor


- 2006

2006 - 2009

Lower LimitUpper Limit

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

Philippines 19,796,954 19,110,455 20,483,453 22,173,190 21,435,613 22,964,387 23,142,481 22,363,307 23,836,6932,376,

236969,291

Children 11,363,850 11,228,469 11,499,230 12,272,819 12,126,241 12,419,398 12,414,811 12,286,448 12,543,174908,6

96141,992

Women 9,605,037 9,509,134 9,700,940 10,691,078 10,584,303 10,797,853 11,169,745 11,075,812 11,263,6771,086,

041478,667

Individuals residing in urban areas

4,429,424 4,394,400 4,464,448 5,310,531 5,267,025 5,354,037 5,709,170 5,664,660 5,753,680881,1

07398,639

Youth 4,280,197 4,242,071 4,318,323 4,850,607 4,805,832 4,895,382 5,367,308 5,323,314 5,411,302570,4

10516,701

Self-employed and Unpaid Family Workers

3,566,586 3,522,046 3,611,126 4,115,632 4,064,734 4,166,530 4,186,194 4,139,565 4,232,823549,0

4670,562

Migrant and Formal Sector

2,283,773 2,265,940 2,301,606 2,599,336 2,578,880 2,619,792 3,118,701 3,095,868 3,141,534315,5

63519,365

Farmers 1,768,249 1,742,363 1,794,135 1,773,484 1,747,354 1,799,614 1,685,148 1,662,409 1,707,887 5,235 -88,336

Senior Citizens

793,233 786,342 800,124 1,035,089 1,025,583 1,044,595 1,181,121 1,172,658 1,189,584241,8

56146,032

Fishermen 355,815 346,524 365,107 400,214 389,019 411,409 346,345 337,765 354,92444,39

8-53,869

1 2012 MCPI Annual Conference JOEncarnacion/ 26 July 2012 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD...

Documents

Transcript of 1 2012 MCPI Annual Conference JOEncarnacion/ 26 July 2012 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD...