LOCAL VICTORIES IN THE WAR AGAINST POVERTY
LOCAL VICTORIES IN THE WAR AGAINST POVERTY
Poverty is a complex issue, and gathering
reliable data to measure and address it remains a challenge. Nationwide poverty
data is best collected through a full-scale census, but such an undertaking
takes years to complete. In the absence of frequent censuses, the government
relies on surveys such as the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) and
the Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS) to obtain up-to-date poverty
statistics.
Despite the limitations of survey methods,
FIES and CBMS provide valuable data that is as accurate and timely as possible.
The CBMS, initially an NGO project led by Dr. Celia M. Reyes and supported by
De La Salle University, was institutionalized by law and placed under the
Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). Having had the honor of meeting Dr.
Reyes, I can personally vouch for the quality of her work and the effectiveness
of CBMS in measuring poverty at the local level.
Local Government Units (LGUs) should maximize
the benefits of FIES and CBMS in crafting their own poverty reduction programs.
The cost of utilizing these tools is reasonable, and given their importance,
all LGUs should be able to afford them. While reducing poverty at the national
level remains a formidable task, LGUs can make a real impact at the local level
by targeting key areas of deprivation.
Using the Multidimensional Poverty Index
(MPI) as a framework, LGUs can improve health, education, and living standards
in their communities. By implementing programs that support universal
healthcare, LGUs can lower mortality rates in their municipalities and cities.
They can also leverage the resources of the Department of Education (DepEd),
the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), and the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to expand access to free education.
Improving standards of living is another
crucial aspect. LGUs can initiate home improvement programs to ensure that
households have adequate flooring, walls, and roofs. Assistance in acquiring
stoves and essential appliances could further enhance quality of life for many
families. While income remains an important factor, poverty should not be
measured solely by earnings. The MPI approach highlights deprivation in
essential services and living conditions as a core indicator of poverty.
Ultimately, increasing household income
through livelihood programs can drive significant reductions in poverty rates.
When individuals and families have the means to support themselves, their
overall living conditions improve. Therefore, even if poverty reduction at the
national level proves challenging, consistent success at the local level can
create a cumulative effect, gradually influencing the national poverty rate.
It is not difficult to notice that livelihood
programs both at the national level and the local level are fragmented and disconnected.
Based on my own experience of working on livelihood programs, there is a need
to coordinate its four main components namely training, financing, packaging and
marketing. There are thousands of livelihood products out there that are
underfinanced, mispackaged and wrongly positioned.
The battle against poverty does not have to
be waged solely by the national government. LGUs have the power to make real,
measurable progress. With targeted programs, accurate data, and dedicated
leadership, local governments can achieve meaningful victories in the war
against poverty—one community at a time.
Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282,
senseneres.blogspot.com
05-25-2025
Comments
Post a Comment