ORGANIZING AGAINST POVERTY

ORGANIZING AGAINST POVERTY

The idea of organizing against poverty is not new—but what if we could finally do it right? What if all the government agencies, private organizations, and civic groups now working separately could come together, not under one new bureaucracy, but as a united front—a truly integrated effort to help poor Filipino families rise above poverty through employment and entrepreneurship?

According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), a family of five must earn at least ₱12,030 per month to escape poverty. That’s only ₱401 per day per family, or just ₱80.20 per person—barely enough to buy a modest meal, much less pay for utilities, rent, or school expenses. These numbers tell us that poverty in the Philippines isn’t merely about hunger—it’s about the absence of sustainable livelihoods.

A UNITED FRONT, NOT A NEW AGENCY

The concept of a “united front” against poverty doesn’t require the creation of yet another office with another acronym. We already have enough of those. What we need is coordination—a way to make the right hand know what the left hand is doing.

The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) runs the Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP), focusing on microenterprise and employment for poor households and the Ayuda Para sa Kapos ang Kita (AKAP) Program. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) offers livelihood starter kits through its Department of Labor and Employment’s Integrated Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program (DILEEP) program and the Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers (TUPAD) program. TESDA provides training and certification. The Department of Agriculture (DA) supports farmers through inputs, credit, and market access. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) promotes MSME growth, packaging, and marketing. Even the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) runs livelihood programs tied to forestry and ecotourism.

But where is the integration? Is there anyone ensuring that a family trained by TESDA also gets product marketing help from DTI or a financing link through DSWD’s microenterprise fund?

DO WE NEED A “LIVELIHOOD CZAR”?

Some have suggested appointing a “livelihood czar”—a central figure tasked with weaving together all these scattered efforts. It’s not a bad idea. We already have housing and urban poor “czars,” so why not one for livelihood?

Other countries have done something similar, albeit under different names. In India, the Minister of Rural Development oversees vast livelihood programs like the Deen Dayal Antyodaya Yojana. In Indonesia, a Coordinating Minister supervises human development and poverty reduction. In Malaysia, a Minister for Entrepreneur Development integrates cooperative and MSME support.

So why can’t the Philippines have one person who is directly accountable for reducing poverty through employment and enterprise?

LIVELIHOOD IS NOT WELFARE

Livelihood is not about giving away starter kits and hoping for the best. It’s about helping people earn their way out of poverty. That means sustained access to markets, mentorship, and support systems—not just one-time assistance.

I have long argued that livelihood should be treated as an economic strategy, not merely a social welfare function. Poverty is an economic problem, not just a social one. It is caused by the absence of income-generating opportunities and the lack of integration between government services that could create them.

Imagine if we could align TESDA’s training programs with DTI’s MSME development, DA’s agricultural value chains, and DOLE’s employment generation schemes, all linked through DSWD’s poverty targeting system. That would be a genuine anti-poverty architecture—one that empowers instead of perpetuating dependency.

INTEGRATION AT THE BARANGAY LEVEL

The best place to integrate these programs is not in Manila, but in the barangay. Every barangay could have a Livelihood Integration Council—a local body linking the efforts of national agencies, LGUs, cooperatives, and private groups. This could function as a “one-stop shop” where people can access training, credit, marketing, and employment information all in one place.

The private sector, NGOs, and cooperatives could also play key roles. Microfinance institutions can offer credit; universities can provide business incubation; and cooperatives can give access to markets.

BEYOND AID: BUILDING DIGNITY

Poverty is not just about the absence of money. It’s about the absence of dignity. When we help the poor only through aid, we reinforce dependency. But when we help them build livelihoods, we restore dignity and self-respect.

Every peso spent on welfare should have a clear path toward work or enterprise. Every livelihood program should have measurable outcomes—jobs created, businesses sustained, and incomes increased. Yet, how many government programs today can show that data? Who monitors the long-term results of livelihood interventions?

MY SUGGESTION

Let us organize against poverty—not by creating another agency, but by creating a movement. A national movement for integrated livelihood, anchored in every barangay, coordinated across all agencies, and supported by both government and civil society.

In this movement, livelihood is not a project—it’s a right. Employment is not a favor—it’s an obligation of society. And escaping poverty is not just a personal struggle—it’s a collective mission.

If we can organize for elections, why can’t we organize for livelihoods?

After all, nation-building begins when every Filipino can stand on his own feet—with work, with dignity, and with hope.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

02-26-2026