2009 philippine poverty statistics

7/30/2019 2009 Philippine Poverty Statistics

1/120

1Human Development C luster Meet ingRAVirola/ 17 Ma rch 2011

NA TIO NA L STATISTIC AL CO O RDINATIO N BO ARD

20 09 O ffic ia l Po ve rty Sta tistic s:20 09 O ffic ia l Po ve rty Sta tistic s:Tow a rd s Be tte r Ta rg e te dTow a rd s Be tte r Ta rg e te d

a nd Foc use d Pove rty Re d uc tion Prog ra m sa nd Foc use d Pove rty Re d uc tion Prog ra m s

Hum a n De ve lop m e nt C luste r M e e ting

4:00 PM , 17 M a rc h 2011Bu lw a g a n n g Ka ru n un g a n , De p a rtm e n t o f Ed u c a tio n

Pre se nte d b y

Ro m ulo A . V iro laSe c re ta ry G e n era l

Na tion a l Sta tistic a l C oo rd ina tion Boa rd


2/120



O utline of Pre se nta tion

I. Intro d uc tio n

II. 2009 O ffic ia l Pove rty Sta tistic s

A . Na tiona l

B. Re g ion a l/ Pro vinc ia l

I II . Som e Pol ic y/ Prog ra m Im p lic a tions


3/120



I . Intro d uc tio n

Exe c utive O rd e r 352De sig na tion o f Sta tistic a l Ac tivit ie s tha t wi ll G e ne ra te C ritic a lDa ta for De c ision- m a king o f the G ove rnm e nt a nd the Priva teSector

Issue d on July 1, 199 6 The Te c hnic a l C om m itte e o n Po ve rty Sta tistic s (TC Po vSta t)

c re a te d by the NSC B is in c ha rge of the

form ula tion / d e ve lop m e nt of the o ffic ia l p o ve rty e stim a tio n

m e t h o d o l o g y .

The NSCB generates and releases the official poverty

statistics in the Philippines.

SO URC E O F O FFIC IA L PO V ERTY STA TISTIC S IN THE PHILIPPINES


4/120



What is the Food Threshold?

Refers to the minimum income/expenditure required for afamily/individual to meet the basic food needs, which satisfies thenutritional requirements for economically necessary and socially

desirable physical activities

Also referred to as the subsistence thresholdor the food poverty line

SO M E DEFINITIO N S



5/120



What is the Poverty Threshold?

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

Basic Non-Food Requirement includes: 1) clothing and footwear; 2) fuel, light andwater; 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) alcoholicbeverages; 4) durable furnishings; 5) taxes; 6) special family occasion expenditure;7) total gifts and contributions; 8) total other disbursements (e.g., major repair ofhouse, loans granted to person outside family; amortization of real property).

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

SO M E DEFINITIO N S



6/120



Who are the Food Poor/Core Poor?

Refers to families/individuals with per capita income/expenditureless 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

SO M E DEFIN ITIO N S


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


7/120



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

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

What is the Magnitude of the Poor?

Refers to the number of families/individuals who are poor




8/120



What is subsistence incidence?

Refers to the proportion of families/individuals with per capitaincome/expenditure less than the per capita food threshold to thetotal 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



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


9/120



Ye a r Re fine m e nts C o nsid e ra tio ns

19871992 1 st Re fin em e n ts we re m a d e so a s no t to

overest imate pover ty

2003 2 nd Re fin em e n ts we re m a d e to g e n era tep rov inc ia l p ov e rty sta tistic s b y u singre g iona l m e nus p ric e d using

p rovinc ia l pr ic e s.2010 3 rd Re fin e n e m e n ts w e re u nd e rta k e n to

e n h a n c e comparabi l i ty of e stim a te sa c ro ss sp a c e a n d o ve r tim e .

History of the offic ia l p ov e rty e stim a tion m e tho d olog y

The 1 st offic ia l po ve rty e stim a tion m e thodo log y w a s a do pted in1987.B et ween 1 9 87 - 2 0 11 ( 2 4 y e a rs) , the re w e re three re fine m e nts onthe m e thod olog y sinc e its a do pt ion .



10/120



SO M E C O N SIDERA TIO N S IN REFININ G THE M ETHO DO LO G Y:

1 . To in tro d u c e re fin e m e n ts in th e m e th o d o lo g y a t the be ginn ing o fthe a d m inistra tion (or end of the a dm inistra tion) to a voidm isc onc e p tions tha t the re fine m e nts a re p ol itic a lly m ot iva te d . .

2 . Ba c k e stim a te s using the re fine d m e thod olog y should be re le a se dto e nsure tha t tre nd a na lysis c ould b e unde rta ke n in the p ove rty

e stim a te s.

3 . Enha nc e comparabi l i ty of po ve rty e stim a te s a c ross spa c e .

4 . Enha nc e comparabi l i ty of po ve rty e stim a te s ove r tim e .

5 . To re v ie w th e m e th o d o lo g y e v e ry te n y e a rs/ u se th e m e th o d o lo g yfor a t le a st 12 y e a rs (two a d m inistra tion s)



11/120



A PPRO V ED REFIN EM EN TS IN THE O FFIC IA L PO V ERTY ESTIM A TIO NMETHODOLOGY

C o m p o n e n t O ld 2003M e t h o d o l o g y

201 0 Re fine dM e t h o d o l o g y

I n c o m e - b a s e d

Foo d Threshold Estim a tio n

Fo o d Bund le Re g io na l Provincial

(Ba se d o n a na tiona lre fe re nce food bundle )

Pric e Da ta Use d Pro vinc ia l Pro vinc ia l

N o n- Fo o d Thre sho ld Estim a tio n Ind ire c t Ind ire c t

Re fe re nc e Fa m ily + / - 1 0 p e rc e n tile b a n da round the food

thre shold p e r p rov inc eurban-rural

+ / - 1 0 p e rc e n tile b a n da round the foo d

thre sho ld a t thenat ional level

C o nsta nt/ C ha ng ing C ha ng ing Constant

(Ave ra ge o f 2000 , 2003 ,2006 and 2009)



12/120



Actual Prices

100% RENI for ene rgy100% RENI for protein80% RENI for vita m ins

a nd m inera ls

PROVINCIAL food bundle

Fa rm ga te Price

Fo o d e a t e nin the a re a

Re ta il Price

LEA ST costVisualizable

FO O D THRESHO LD

I f incom e / exp e nditure o f fa m ily / ind iv idua lis le ss tha n foo d thre sho ld

Pro vinc ia l SUBSISTEN C E IN C IDENC Ea nd M AG NITUDE O F SUBSISTENC E PO O R

Na tiona l foo d b und le



13/120



Non-food thresholdFoo d thre sho ld

C o nsta nt FE/ TBE ra tio

PO V ERTY THRESHO LD

I f inco m e / exp e nditure o f fa m ily / ind iv idua lis le ss tha n p ov e rty thre sho ld

Provinc ial PO VERTY IN C IDENC Ea nd M AG NITUDE O F PO O R

ACTUAL Non-Food Basic Needs

Educat ion

Clothing & footwea r

M e d ic a l c a r e Tran sportation &

co m m u n i ca t i o n

Fue l , light & wa ter

Housing

Housing maintenance &other m inor repa irs

Non -d urab le furnishings

Household ope ra t ions

Persona l ca re & e f fec ts

Renta l of oc cup ied d we llingunit



14/120



Meal Time Viands

Breakfast Scrambled egg

Boiled rice

Coffee with milk

Lunch Boiled monggo withmalunggay and dried dilis

Banana, latundan

Boiled rice

Dinner Fried tulingan

Boiled kangkong

Boiled rice

Snacks Pandesal

Na tiona l re fe re nc e food bund le f romthe Te st of Re ve a le d Pre fe re nc e

Meal Time Viands


Coffee with milk

Boiled rice/rice-corn mix

Lunch Boiled/ginataang monggo withmalunggay and dried dilis

Banana

Boiled rice/corn mix

Dinner Fried fish/boiled pork

Vegetable dish


Snacks Bread or boiled rootcrop

Sa m p le tra nsla tion: NC R



15/120



Meal Time Viands


Boiled rice

Coffee with milk


Banana, latundan

Boiled rice

Dinner Fried tulingan

Boiled kangkong

Boiled rice

Snacks Boiled camote


Meal Time Viands


Coffee with milk



Banana



Vegetable dish



Sa m p le tra nsla tio n:

N u e v a Ec ija



16/120



Meal Time Viands


Boiled rice

Coffee with milk


Banana, latundan

Boiled rice

Dinner Fried galunggong

Boiled kangkong

Boiled rice

Snacks Boiled saba


Meal Time Viands


Coffee with milk



Banana



Vegetable dish



Sa m p le tra nsla tio n:

Za m b o a ng a d e l N o rte



17/120



III. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics


18/120



Indicators

Old Methodology Refined Difference

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

Among families

Subsistence Incidence (%) 10.2 11.0 10.3 8.2 8.7 7.9 (2.0) (2.3) (2.4)

Magnitude of Food Poor (in

million)

1.7 1.9 1.9 1.4 1.5 1.5 (17.6) (21.1) (21.1)

Poverty Incidence (%) 24.4 26.9 26.3 20.0 21.1 20.9 (4.4) (5.8) (5.4)

Magnitude of Poor (inmillion)

4.0 4.7 4.9 3.3 3.7 3.9 (17.5) (21.3) (20.4)

Among individuals

Subsistence Incidence (%) 13.5 14.6 13.9 11.1 11.7 10.8 (2.4) (2.9) (3.1)

Magnitude of Food Poor (in

million)

10.8 12.2 12.2 8.8 9.9 9.4 (18.5) (18.9) (23.0)

Poverty Incidence (%) 30.0 32.9 32.6 24.9 26.4 26.5 (5.1) (6.5) (6.1)

Magnitude of Poor

(in million)

23.8 27.6 28.5 19.8 22.2 23.1 (16.8) (19.6) (18.9)

In general, poverty estimates using both the old and refined methodology showed the same trend/pattern.In terms of levels, the use of the old methodology yielded higher poverty estimates as compared with those

generated based on the refined methodology.

II. Highlights of the 2009 Official Poverty Statistics

A. NA TION AL


19/120



4,573

5,562

7,017

5,129

6,274

7,953

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2003 2006 2009

Old Refined

5,298

3,395

4,177

3,857

4,869

3,157

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2003 2006 2009

Old Refined

On the average, the food thresholds and the poverty thresholds are

lower by 8% and 12%, respectively, using the refined methodology ascompared to the old methodology!

-10.8%

-11.3%

-11.8%

-7 .0%

-8.1%

-7 .7%

Food Threshold for a Family of Five(in Php)

Poverty Threshold for a Family of Five(in Php)


A. NATIO NA L


20/120



Subsistence incidence and poverty incidence are lower by about 2 and5 percentage points, respectively, using the refined methodology ascompared to the old methodology.

26.326.9

24.4

20.921.120.0

0 .0

10.0

20.0

30.0

2 0 0 3 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 9

Old Refined

-4 .4-5 .4-5 .8

10.2 11.0 10.3

8 .2 8 .7 7 .9

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

2003 2006 20 09

Old Refined

-2.0 -2.4-2.3

Subsistence Incidence among Families (%) Poverty Incidence among Families (%)


A. NATIO NA L


21/120



In 2009, family of five* needed PhP 160 daily income to meet food needs

and PhP 231 to stay out of poverty!

Da ily Pove rty Threshold for aFa m ily of Five (in PhP)

III. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics

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

Infla tion for foo d :

2006-2009:24.3%

Note: App lying 2010/ Ave . of Jan & Feb 2011 Food CPI to2009 Food thre shold:

2010 : Phils = PhP 165

2011 : Phils = PhP 170

Note: App lying 2010/ Ave . of Ja n a nd Feb. 2011 C PI for a l l item s to2009 poverty threshold:

2010 threshold= PhP 240

2011 threshold= PhP 246

A. NATIO NA L

Da ily Foo d Thre sho ld for aFa m ily o f Five (in PhP)


22/120



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, thiswas 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

1 9 9 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 9

13.3

8 .2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

19 91 2003 2 006 200 9

(0.8)

Sub siste nc e Incide nc ea m ong Fa m ilie s (%)

Pove rty Inc id e nc ea m ong Fa m ilie s (%)

(0.2)

8.7

7.9

II. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics

A. NATIO NA L

[20.2, 21.6]

[20.3, 21.8]

[19.2, 20.7]

[7.5, 8.3]

[8.2, 9.1][7.8, 8.7]


23/120


24/120



Among POPULATION:

Subsistence incidence among population improved from 11.7% in 2006 to10.8% in 2009!Out of 100 Filipinos -- 12 Filipinos were classified as food poor in 2006,this was reduced to 11 in 2009!

3 3 .1

2 4 . 9

2 6 . 4 2 6 . 5

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

1 9 9 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 9

16.5

11.1 10.8

11.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1991 2003 2006 2009

(0.9)

0.1

Subsiste nc e Incide nc ea m ong Popula t ion ( in %)

Pove rty Inc ide nc ea m ong Popula t ion ( in %)


A. NATIO NA L

[11.1, 12.3]

[10.3, 11.3]

[10.5, 11.7]

[24.1, 25.8]

[25.5, 27.3]

[25.6, 27.3]


25/120



3 3 .1

2 4 . 9

2 6 . 4 2 6 . 5

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

1 9 9 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 9

16.5

11.1 10.8

11.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1991 2003 2006 2009

(0.9)

0.1

Subsiste nc e Incide nc ea m ong Popula t ion ( in %)

Pove rty Inc ide nc ea m ong Popula t ion ( in %)


A. NATIO NA L

[11.1, 12.3]

[10.3, 11.3]

[10.5, 11.7]

[24.1, 25.8]

[25.5, 27.3]

[25.6, 27.3]

Among POPULATION:

In terms of poverty incidence among population, there was a very slightincrease during the three-year period from 26.4% in 2006 to 26.5% in2009.


26/120



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

3.39

3.29

3.86

3.67

2.00

2 .50

3 .00

3 .50

4 .00

1 9 9 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 6 20 0 9

1.51

1.451.36

1.60

-

0 .50

1.00

1.50

2.00

1 9 91 2 0 0 3 2 0 06 20 09

(4.0%)

5.2%

M a gnitud e of Subsiste nc e Poo rFa m ilie s (in m illion )

M a gnitud e of Poo r Fa m ilie s(in m illio n)


A. NATIO NA L


27/120



MAGNITUDE among POPULATION: Magnitude of subsistence poor population decreased by about 410,000 in2009 from 9.9 million in 2006 to 9.4 million in 2009!The magnitude of poor population increased by almost 970,000 Filipinos-from 22.2 million in 2006 to 23.1 in 2009 by 4.4%.

2 2 . 1 7

23.14

1 9 . 8 0

2 0 . 8 9

1 5 .0 0

1 6 .0 0

1 7 .0 0

1 8 .0 0

1 9 .0 0

2 0 .0 0

2 1 .0 0

2 2 .0 0

2 3 .0 0

2 4 .0 0

2 5 .0 0

1 9 9 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 9

10.40

8.80

9.44

9.85

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

1 991 20 03 2 006 2009

(4.2%)

M a gnitud e of Subsiste nc e Poo rPo p ula tio n (in m illio n)

M a gnitud e of Poo r Pop ula tion(in m illio n)

4.4 %


A. NATIO NA L


28/120



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:

NATIONAL: While food poverty and poverty deteriorated between 2003 and 2006, theseimproved between 2006 and 2009 except for the increases in the poverty

incidence among population, magnitude of poor families and magnitude ofpoor population.The increases, however, were not as much as between 2003 and 2006!



29/120



Income shortfall of the poor decreased between 2006 and 2009!

FGT measure 2003 2006 2009 Inc/Dec

03-06 06-09

Income gap 27.7 27.2 25.7 (0.5) (1.5)

Total Cost (in pesos)

Per Capita Cost

(in pesos)

60.2 B 80.5 B 100.2 B 33.7 24.4

3,040 3,631 4,328 19.4 19.2


In 2009 , the a vera ge inco m e o f a p oo r Pino y n e e d e d to b einc re a se d by 25 .7% of the p o ve rty thre shold o r Ph p 4 ,3 2 8 ; Assum ing

di re c t c a sh tra nsfe rs, th is m e a ns tha t the g ove rnm e nt ne e d e d a to ta lo f PhP 100.2 b illion in 200 9 to e lim ina te p ov e rty in the c ou ntry. I tm ust be noted tha t b udg e t a lloc a te d for C C T a m ounts to :

2 0 0 9 7 .9 B; 2010 10B; 2011 21 .194B

A. NATIO NA L


30/120



Average per capita income of the bottom 10% of families rose faster thanprices 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 31.0Second decile class 11,263 14,542 29.1Third 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 23.1Seventh 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. NATIO NA L


31/120



Average per capita income of the bottom 30% of families rose faster thanprices 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)

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. NATIO NA L


32/120



Caraga and Region IX consistently posted the highest subsistenceincidence among families in 2006 and 2009!

Region Subsisten ce incidence am ong fam ilies2 00 3 20 0 6 2 00 9

PH ILIPPIN ES 8 .2 8 .7 7 .9

Caraga 1 6 .6 1 6 .9 1 9 .7

Re gio n IX 2 5 .1 1 7 .9 1 8 .6

Re gio n X 1 6 .1 1 6 .3 1 5 .6

Re gion V I II 11 .1 1 3 .5 1 4 .4Re gion V I I 16 .0 1 7 .1 1 3 .2

Re gion V 18 .0 1 5 .7 1 2 .9

Re gion XII 10 .6 1 0 .8 1 1 .3

Re gion XI 12 .3 1 2 .1 1 1 .0

Re gion IV -B 11 .1 2 .8 1 0 .5

ARM M 7 .3 1 1 .6 8 .5

Re gion V I 9 .1 7 .9 7 .9

CAR 5 .8 8 .3 7 .6Re gion I 5 .8 7 .1 5 .5

Re gion II 4 .1 4 .3 4 .1

Re gion II I 2 .3 3 .7 3 .7

Re gion IV -A 2 .4 2 .8 2 .4

N CR 0 .3 0 .7 0 .4


B. REG IO N A L/ PRO V INC IAL


33/120



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

Region Poverty incidence am ong fam ilies2 00 3 20 0 6 2 00 9

PH ILIPPIN ES 20 .0 2 1 .1 2 0 .9

Caraga 3 7 .6 3 6 .9 3 9 .8

ARM M 2 5 .0 3 6 .5 3 8 .1

Re gio n IX 4 0 .5 3 4 .2 3 6 .6Re gion V 38 .0 3 6 .1 36 .0

Re gion V I II 30 .2 3 1 .1 33 .2

Re gion X 32 .4 3 2 .7 32 .8

Re gion V I I 32 .1 3 3 .5 30 .2

Re gion XII 27 .2 2 7 .1 28 .1

Re gion IV -B 29 .8 3 4 .3 27 .6

Re gion XI 25 .4 2 6 .2 25 .6

Re gion V I 23 .5 2 2 .1 23 .8

Re gion I 17 .8 2 0 .4 17 .8CAR 16 .1 1 8 .6 17 .1

Re gion II 15 .2 1 5 .5 14 .5

Re gion II I 9 .4 1 2 .0 12 .0

Re gion IV -A 9 .2 9 .4 10 .3

N CR 2 .1 3 .4 2 .6




34/120



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

RegionM agn it ude of Fo od Po or Fam ilie s % Sh are to To ta l Fo od Po or Fam ilie s

20 0 3 20 0 6 20 0 9 2 0 03 20 0 6 20 0 9PH ILIPPIN ES 1 ,3 5 7 ,8 3 3 1 ,51 1 ,57 9 1 ,45 3 ,8 4 3 1 00 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0

Re gio n V I I 1 9 4 ,3 5 2 2 2 0 ,6 9 2 1 8 1 ,6 4 9 1 4 .3 1 4 .6 1 2 .5

Re gio n V 1 6 9 ,8 6 9 1 5 8 ,9 3 6 1 3 7 ,5 2 7 1 2 .8 1 0 .5 9 .5

Re gio n X 1 1 8 ,9 2 4 1 2 8 ,5 1 3 1 3 1 ,3 0 4 8 .8 8 .5 9 .0Re gio n V III 8 3 ,5 73 1 1 0 ,0 71 1 24 ,5 47 6 .2 7 .3 8 .6

Re gio n IX 1 47 ,13 7 1 1 7 ,6 55 1 22 ,8 93 10 .8 7 .8 8 .5Re gio n V I 1 14 ,92 9 1 0 8 ,5 85 1 15 ,2 98 8 .5 7 .2 7 .9

Re gio n XI 9 9 ,4 37 1 0 1 ,4 84 9 6 ,9 6 9 7 .3 6 .7 6 .7

Caraga 6 9 ,1 00 7 5 ,2 2 1 9 2 ,8 0 3 5 .1 5 .0 6 .4

Re gio n XI I 7 4 ,9 90 8 0 ,5 2 2 9 0 ,3 0 5 5 .5 5 .3 6 .2

Re gio n II I 4 0 ,8 20 6 9 ,9 5 7 7 5 ,5 8 5 3 .0 4 .6 5 .2

Re gio n IV -B 5 5 ,5 17 8 1 ,6 9 2 6 2 ,1 5 1 4 .1 5 .4 4 .3

Re gio n IV -A 5 3 ,4 87 6 2 ,1 6 6 5 8 ,4 6 8 3 .9 4 .1 4 .0Re gio n I 5 1 ,1 27 6 6 ,7 7 5 5 4 ,8 3 9 3 .8 4 .4 3 .8

ARM M 3 6 ,9 52 6 1 ,8 6 3 4 8 ,6 8 6 2 .7 4 .1 3 .3

Re gio n II 2 3 ,7 90 2 6 ,8 5 0 2 6 ,7 9 2 1 .8 1 .8 1 .8

CAR 1 6 ,1 51 2 5 ,2 4 5 2 4 ,6 2 5 1 .2 1 .7 1 .7

N CR 7 ,6 7 7 1 5 ,3 5 4 9 ,40 0 0 .6 1 .0 0 .6




35/120



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

RegionM agn it ude o f Po or Fam ilie s % Share t o Tot a l Poo r Fam ilie s

20 0 3 20 0 6 20 0 9 2 0 03 20 0 6 20 0 9PH ILIPPIN ES 3 ,2 93 ,0 96 3 ,6 7 0 ,7 9 1 3 ,8 55 ,7 30 1 00 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 00

Re gio n V I I 3 8 9 ,8 1 8 4 3 2 ,8 7 0 4 1 5 ,3 0 3 1 1 .8 1 1 .8 1 0 .8

Re gio n V 3 5 8 ,9 8 1 3 6 4 ,3 1 8 3 8 5 ,3 3 8 1 0 .9 9 .9 1 0 .0

Re gio n V I 2 9 8 ,0 5 8 3 0 2 ,8 3 6 3 4 5 ,7 0 3 9 .1 8 .2 9 .0Re gio n V III 2 2 7 ,4 5 8 2 53 ,3 47 28 7 ,1 5 6 6 .9 6 .9 7 .4

Re gio n X 2 3 9 ,8 7 4 2 57 ,6 40 27 5 ,4 3 3 7 .3 7 .0 7 .1Re gio n IV -A 2 0 1 ,7 2 5 2 10 ,8 30 24 8 ,1 7 9 6 .1 5 .7 6 .4

Re gio n II I 1 6 9 ,7 7 1 2 28 ,7 41 24 4 ,2 7 3 5 .2 6 .2 6 .3

Re gio n IX 2 3 7 ,8 9 8 2 24 ,3 78 24 2 ,2 8 5 7 .2 6 .1 6 .3

Re gio n XI 2 0 5 ,9 6 6 2 20 ,7 07 22 6 ,2 8 4 6 .3 6 .0 5 .9

Re gio n XI I 1 9 2 ,5 4 5 2 03 ,0 00 22 4 ,8 8 2 5 .8 5 .5 5 .8

ARM M 1 2 6 ,2 3 3 1 94 ,6 26 21 8 ,0 4 3 3 .8 5 .3 5 .7

Caraga 1 5 6 ,2 2 1 1 63 ,7 83 18 7 ,2 7 8 4 .7 4 .5 4 .9Re gio n I 1 5 6 ,2 6 1 1 93 ,3 92 17 9 ,1 7 9 4 .7 5 .3 4 .6

Re gio n IV -B 1 4 8 ,9 2 4 1 86 ,8 38 16 2 ,6 0 9 4 .5 5 .1 4 .2

Re gio n II 8 9 ,35 2 9 6 ,31 1 9 4 ,4 3 3 2 .7 2 .6 2 .4

N CR 4 8 ,92 3 8 0 ,82 8 6 4 ,4 0 4 1 .5 2 .2 1 .7

CAR 4 5 ,08 8 5 6 ,34 6 5 4 ,9 4 9 1 .4 1 .5 1 .4




36/120



10 of 17 regions had decreasing subsistence incidence between2006 and 2009, only 5 regions between 2003 and 2006!

Region Su bsist en ce in cid en ce am o n g fa m ilie s In cr ease / D e cre ase2 00 3 20 0 6 2 0 09 03 -0 6 0 6 -09

PH ILIPPIN ES 8 .2 8 .7 7 .9 0 .4 (0 .8 )Region V II 1 6 .0 1 7 .1 1 3 .2 1 .1 (3 .8 )

ARM M 7 .3 1 1 .6 8 .5 4 .3 (3 .1 )

Region V 1 8 .0 1 5 .7 1 2 .9 (2 .2 ) (2 .9 )

Region I 5 .8 7 .1 5 .5 1 .2 (1 .6 )

Region XI 1 2 .3 1 2 .1 1 1 .0 (0 .2 ) (1 .1 )

CAR 5 .8 8 .3 7 .6 2 .5 (0 .7 )

Region X 1 6 .1 1 6 .3 1 5 .6 0 .2 (0 .6 )

Region IV -A 2 .4 2 .8 2 .4 0 .3 (0 .3 )N CR 0 .3 0 .7 0 .4 0 .3 (0 .3 )

Region I I 4 .1 4 .3 4 .1 0 .3 (0 .2 )

Region V I 9 .1 7 .9 7 .9 (1 .1 ) 0 .9

Region I I I 2 .3 3 .7 3 .7 1 .4 1 .0

Region XII 10 .6 1 0 .8 1 1 .3 0 .2 1 .7

Region IX 25 .1 1 7 .9 1 8 .6 (7 .1 ) 1 .7

Region V III 11 .1 1 3 .5 1 4 .4 2 .4 2 .1

Caraga 16 .6 1 6 .9 1 9 .7 0 .3 2 .4

Region IV -B 11 .1 2 .8 1 0 .5 (8 .3 ) 3 .0


B. REG IO NA L/ PRO V INC IAL


37/120



8 of 17 regions had decreasing poverty incidence between2006 and 2009, only 5 regions between 2003 and 2006!

Region Po ve rt y incid en ce am o ng fam ilies Incre ase/ D ecrease2 00 3 20 0 6 2 0 09 03 -0 6 0 6 -09

PH ILIPPIN ES 2 0 .0 2 1 .1 2 0 .9Region IV -B 2 9 .8 3 4 .3 2 7 .6 4 .5 (6 .7 )

Region V II 3 2 .1 3 3 .5 3 0 .2 1 .4 (3 .2 )

Region I 1 7 .8 2 0 .4 1 7 .8 2 .6 (2 .6 )

CAR 1 6 .1 1 8 .6 1 7 .1 2 .4 (1 .5 )

Region II 1 5 .2 1 5 .5 1 4 .5 0 .3 (1 .1 )

N CR 2 .1 3 .4 2 .6 1 .3 (0 .8 )

Region XI 2 5 .4 2 6 .2 2 5 .6 0 .9 (0 .6 )

Region V 3 8 .0 3 6 .1 3 6 .0 (1 .9 ) (0 .1 )Region I I I 9 .4 1 2 .0 1 2 .0 2 .6 0 .1

Region X 32 .4 3 2 .7 3 2 .8 0 .2 0 .2

Region IV -A 9 .2 9 .4 1 0 .3 0 .1 0 .9

Region XII 27 .2 2 7 .1 2 8 .1 (0 .1 ) 1 .0

ARM M 25 .0 3 6 .5 3 8 .1 1 1 .4 1 .7

Region V I 23 .5 2 2 .1 2 3 .8 (1 .4 ) 1 .7

Region V III 30 .2 3 1 .1 3 3 .2 1 .0 2 .1

Region IX 40 .5 3 4 .2 3 6 .6 (6 .3 ) 2 .4

Caraga 37 .6 3 6 .9 3 9 .8 (0 .7 ) 3 .0


B. REG IO NA L/ PRO V INC IAL


38/120



-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Regio

nVI

I

Regio

nV

Regio

nX

Regio

nVIII

Regio

nIX

Regio

nVI

Regio

nXI

Caraga

Regio

nXI

I

Regio

nIII

Regio

nIV

-B

Regio

nIV

-A

Regio

nI

ARMM

Regio

nII

CAR

NCR

2003

2006

2009


B. REG IO NA L/ PRO V INC IAL: M a g nitud e of Foo d Poo r Fa m ilie s

-39 ,043

14,476

8285191972735165214234946343917CCT(08-09)

NCRCARIIARMMIIV-AIV-BIIIXIICaragaXIVIIXVIIIXVVII

-21 ,409

-19,54117,582 9,783

Biggest reductions in the num be r of foo d p oo r fa m ilie s from 2006 to 2009 we re o bserved inRe gions VI I , V a nd IV-B. O n the o ther hand , la rge st inc re a se s we re observed in C a r a g a , RegionsV III a nd XII with 17,582, 14,476 a nd 9 ,783 inc re a se in foo d p oor fa m ilies , re spe c tive ly .


39/120



Biggest reductions in the num be r of poo r fa m ilies from 2006 to 2009 we re ob se rve d in Re g ions IV-B, VI I and NC R. O n the o ther ha nd , largest inc re a se s we re observed in Reg ions VI , IV- A a nd V I II,with 42 ,867, 37 ,349 an d 33 ,808 inc re a se in p oor fa m ilie s, respe c tive ly .


B. REG IO NA L/ PRO V INC IAL: M a g nitud e of Poo r Fa m ilie s

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

VII V VI VI

II XIV

-A III IX XI XII

ARMM

Cara

gaI

IV-B II

NCR

CAR

2003

2006

2009

-24 ,229

-17,567

-16,423

42,867

37,349

33,808

2885271952191614493573446233917CCT(08-09)

CARNCRIIIV-BICaragaARMMXIIXIIXIIIIV-AXVIIIVIVVII


40/120



-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

V VII VI VI

II XIV

-A III

ARM

M IX XII XI

Cara

gaI

IV-B II

NCR

CAR

2003

2006

2009


-141,498

264,651

2885271952191614493573446233917CCT(08-09)

CARNCRIIIV-BICaragaXIXIIIXARMMIIIIV-AXVIIIVIVIIV

-107,790

-146,477

263,315

166,500

Biggest reductions in the num be r of foo d p oo r po pula tion from 2006 to 2009 we re ob serve d inRe gions I , IV- B a nd NC R.

B. REG IO NA L/ PRO V INC IAL: M a g nitud e of Foo d Poo r Pop ula tion


41/120



-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

V VII VI VI

II XIV-A III

ARMM I

X XII XI

Caraga

IIV-B II

NCR

CAR

2003

2006

2009

Biggest reductions in the numb er o f poor popula t ion from 2006 to 2009 w ere o bserved in NCR,Regions IV-B and I. O n the o ther ha nd , la rge st inc re a se s we re o bserved in Reg ions VI , VI I I and IV-A , with 264,651, 263,315, and 166,550 incre a se s in the po or pop ulat ion, re spe c tive ly .


B. REG IO NA L/ PRO V INC IAL: M a g nitud e of Poo r Pop ula tion

-146,477

-141,498

-107,790

263,315

166,550

264,651

2885271952141649193573446231739CCT(08-09)

CARNCRIIIV-BICaragaXIXIIIXARMMIIIIV-AXVIIIVIVIIV


42/120



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 Pampangawere consistently included in the least poor cluster of provinces in 2003, 2006, and 2009!


8.74.26.53.71.62.73.91.92.9Rizal

8.44.96.75.22.43.86.33.54.9Pampanga

10.52.96.710.31.45.84.61.83.2Nueva Vizcaya

7.64.15.9634.56.93.55.2Laguna

12.36.19.216.95.811.320.67.914.3Ilocos Norte

5.93.14.55.72.64.26.23.44.8Cavite

5.93.74.86.63.75.15.72.94.3Bulacan

6.12452.13.67.11.74.4Benguet

0000006.36.36.3Batanes

104.87.410.547.2115.18.1Bataan

2.50.71.63.722.92.41.11.84th District

5.12.53.84.82.63.73.51.72.63rd District

3.21.62.45.52.13.83.41.72.62nd District

5.623.84.51.73.11.70.41.11st District

Upperlimit

Lowerlimit

Upperlimit

Lowerlimit

Upperlimit

Lower limit

90% CIPoverty

incidence

90% CIPoverty

incidence

90% CIPoverty

incidence

200920062003

Province


43/120



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


50.935.443.242.525.734.153.233.343.3Zamboanga Sibugay

59.84652.961.746.454.167.551.459.5Zamboanga del Norte

40.822.231.558.439.849.128.28.118.2Tawi-tawi

52.843.147.948.334.941.649.435.242.3Surigao Del Norte

45.53339.344.229.136.727.113.420.3Sulu

41.728.835.246.530.938.746.528.137.3Sultan Kudarat

44.321.332.837.613.925.863.527.445.5Siquijor

47.33440.738.829.234.045.128.436.7Saranggani

49.836.34346.634.740.643.727.935.8Romblon

32.418.325.450.730.440.640.324.932.6Occidental Mindoro

5132.441.753.832.943.347.027.937.4Northern Samar

43.229.536.452.736.144.451.535.643.6Negros Oriental

44.129.736.945.730.738.243.430.637Misamis Occidental

48.336.642.551.833.942.95842.350.2Masbate

51.637.744.650.93944.949.534.441.9Maguindanao

46.131.93940.628.134.344.12735.6Lanao del Norte

54.137.645.843.531.837.63920.529.8Eastern Samar

48.636.442.550.1283944.426.735.6Davao Oriental

46.825.936.453.721.937.838.731.535.1Camiguin

43.633.838.742.33136.644.132.538.3Camarines Sur

39.225.332.339.221.630.452.928.640.7Camarines Norte

48.433.641.051.635.843.746.733.840.2Bohol

49.423.236.349.424.63718.03.410.7Apayao

58.943.551.252.938.245.555.641.348.5Agusan del Sur

Upper limitLower limitUpperlimit

Lower limitUpper limitLower limit

90% CIPoverty

incidence

90% CIPoverty

incidence

90% CIPoverty

incidence

200920062003

Province


44/120



B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL:Cebu and Negros Occidental continue to have the biggest share in the totalnumber 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



45/120



B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Poor FamiliesN e gros O rien ta l , Ta wi-Ta wi a nd Pa nga sinan had the b igg est red uct ion a m ong po orfamil ies from 2006 to 2009!


-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Panga

sinan

NegrosOr

iental

MisamisOr

iental

Palaw

an

OrientalMi

ndoro

An

tique

OccidentalMi

ndoro

2ndD

istri

ct

Zambales

Tawi-t

awi

2003

2006

2009

122956144107CCT (08-09)

Tawi-TawiZambales2nd DistrictOccidentalMindoro

AntiqueOrientalMindoro

Palawan

MisamisOriental

NegrosOriental

Pangasinan

-13 ,996

-21,199

-14,978


46/120



B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Poor PopulationSulu, La na o d e l Sur, a nd I loilo w e re the p rovince s tha t ha ve la rg e st inc re a se s in thenum be r of po or fa m ilie s from 2006-2009!


204461523118CCT (08-09)

PampangaRizalLanao delSur

MisamisOccidental

SuluLanao delNorte

SouthCotabato

IloiloNuevaEcija

NegrosOccidental

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Negros

Occidental

Nueva

Ecija

Iloilo

SouthC

otabato

Lanaode

lNorte

Sulu

MisamisOcc

identa

l

Lanao

delSur

Rizal

Pam

pang

a

2003

2006

2009

19,972

24,945 18,957


47/120



B. REG IO NA L/ PRO V INC IAL:In 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 mostlylocated in Luzon and Visayas.



48/120



II. 2009 Official Poverty Statistics

Contiguous regions with high concentration of poor families could beprioritized in DSWDs poverty intervention programs.

N u e v aEcija

Pangasinan

C e b u

BoholN eg r o sO c c i d e n t a l

C a m a r i n e sSur

Le yte

Z a m b o a n g adel Norte

5.9%

3.3%

14.9%

2.8%

Province No. ofMunicipalitywith CCT

Pangasinan 7

Nueva Ecija 11

CamarinesSur

5

NegrosOccidental

8

Bohol 1

Cebu 6

Leyte 10

Zamboangadel Norte

27


49/120




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

Province s with high p ove rty

and subsistencei n c i d e n c e s

1 . Ta w i- Ta w i

2. M a g u ind a na o

3 . Su lu

4. D a va o O rie n ta l

5. Za m b o a n g a d e l N o rte6 . A g u sa n d e l Su r

7 . Su lta n Ku d a ra t

8. M a sb a te

9 . N e g ro s O rie n ta l

10 .Northern Samar


50/120



In 2009, 8 (or 9%) out of 85 provinces/NCR districts with small magnitude of POOR families, wereincluded in the CCT program.

No CCTin

Easte rnSam arin 2008-

2009



51/120



In 2009, 23 (or 27%) out of 85 provinces/NCR districts with small magnitude of FOOD POOR families, wereincluded in the CCT program.


52/120




Most of the provinces with high poverty incidence and low human development index in2006 can be observed in Mindanao.


53/120



Cluster# of

provinces

Total Population

in 2009

Percent

Distribution

1 15 12,008,400 13.0

2 23 13,564,900 14.73 24 32,188,900 34.9

4 9 8,073,200 8.8

5 14 26,391,200 28.6


Distribution of Provinces Across ClustersBa se d o n C I o f the 2009 Pove rty Inc ide nc e Am ong Fa m ilie s

B. REG IO NA L/ PRO V INC IAL:


54/120




Distrib ution o f Pro vinc e s A c ro ss C lusters Ba se d on C I

of the 2003, 2006 a nd 2009 Pove rty Inc ide nc e Am ong Fa m ilie s

85

13

12

22

28

10

2003

8585TOTAL

14115

954

24203

23302

15191

20092006

Number of ProvincesCluster

B. REG IO NA L/ PRO V INC IAL:


55/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 9,776 11,515 13,831 17.8 20.1

Subsistence Incidence

(among families) 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.4 (0.3)

Inflation (food) 108.5 127.8 153.5 17.8 20.1

Poverty Threshold 13,997 16,487 19,802 17.8 20.1

Poverty 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 income

All 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 17.6Fifth 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!



56/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 7,636 9,001 11,249 17.9 25.0


(among families) 5.8 8.3 7.6 2.5 (0.7)

Inflation (food) 106.8 128.4 158.4 20.2 23.4


Poverty Incidence













Statistics/

Income decile class

CAR

2003 2006 2009% change

In CAR, the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st

and 2nd decile classes rose faster than prices of food and all items!



57/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 8,269 10,016 12,389 21.1 23.7

Subsistence Incidence (among families) 5.8 7.1 5.5 1.2 (1.6)

Inflation (food) 111.1 135.3 167.4 21.8 23.7


Poverty Incidence (among families ) 17.8 20.4 17.8 2.6 (2.6)

Inflation (all items) 112.9 139.4 161.3 23.5 15.7






Fourth Decile class 15,962 18,392 23,804 15.2 29.4

Fifth Decile class 18,808 21,803 28,077 15.9 28.8Sixth Decile class 22,482 25,969 33,698 15.5 29.8





Statistics/Income decile class

Region I

% change2003 2006 2009

In Region I, the average per capita income of families belonging to the1st and 2nd decile class rose faster than prices of food and all items!



58/120


59/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 8,902 10,719 13,308 20.4 24.2Subsistence Incidence

(among fam ilies ) 2.3 3.7 3.7 1.4 0.1

Inflation (food) 107.9 129.7 159.7 20.2 23.1

Poverty Threshold 12,771 15,374 18,981 20.4 23.5Poverty Incidence

(among fam ilies ) 9.4 12.0 12.0 2.6 0.1

Inflation (all items ) 111.3 134.1 158.8 20.5 18.4

Mean per capita incom e

All incom e groups 32,719 40,595 46,944 24.1 15.6










% change

Region III

2003 2006 2009Statistics/

Income decile class

In Region III, prices of food and all items rose faster that the average percapita income of families belonging to the 1st and 2nd decile classes!



60/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 8,539 9,901 12,278 15.9 24.0

Subsis tence Incidence

(among families) 2.4 2.8 2.4 0.3 (0.3)

Inflation (food) 108.1 125.5 154.9 16.1 23.4


Poverty Incidence

(among families) 9.2 9.4 10.3 0.1 0.9Inflation (all items ) 114.7 137.4 157.1 19.8 14.3












Statistics/

Income decile class

Region IV-A

2003 2006 2009% change

In Region IVA, the average per capita income of the bottom 10% of families rosefaster than prices of food, while the average per capita income of familiesbelonging to the 1st to 2nd decile classes rose slower than prices of all items.



61/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 7,270 8,870 10,978 22.0 23.8Subsistence Incidence (among families) 11.1 2.8 10.5 (8.3) 7.8Inflation (food) 109.5 131.6 163.1 20.2 23.9

P overty Threshold 10,398 12,610 15,769 21.3 25.0Poverty Incidence(among families) 29.8 34.3 27.6 4.5 (6.7)


Mean per capita incomeAll income groups 20,107 21,631 29,727 7.6 37.4

First decile class 5,506 6,049 8,488 9.9 40.3Second decile class 7,884 8,755 12,342 11.0 41.0Third decile class 9,558 10,536 14,969 10.2 42.1Fourth Decile class 11,422 12,665 17,588 10.9 38.9Fifth Decile class 13,521 15,192 20,823 12.4 37.1

Sixth Decile class 16,060 18,255 24,924 13.7 36.5Seventh Decile class 19,571 22,172 30,386 13.3 37.0Eighth Decile class 25,347 27,861 39,161 9.9 40.6Ninth Decile class 35,758 39,545 55,363 10.6 40.0Tenth Decile class 91,636 89,490 123,781 (2.3) 38.3


Region IV-B

2003 2006 2009% change

In Region IVB, the average per capita income of the bottom 30% offamilies rose faster than prices of food and all items.



62/120


63/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 7,374 8,659 11,254 17.4 30.0


(among families) 9.1 7.9 7.9 (1.1) 0.0

Inflation (food) 107.8 127.6 164.2 18.4 28.7


Poverty Incidence

(among families) 23.5 22.1 23.8 (1.4) 1.7Inflation (all items) 113.6 134.1 160.4 18.0 19.6







Fifth Decile class 15,461 18,254 23,478 18.1 28.6






Statistics/

Income decile class

Region VI

2003 2006 2009 % change

In Region VI, the average per capita income of the bottom 30% offamilies rose slower than prices of food and all items.



64/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 8,150 10,069 12,410 23.5 23.2


(among families) 16.0 17.1 13.2 1.1 (3.8)

Inflation (food) 117.9 143.9 176.4 22.1 22.6


Poverty Incidence














Statistics/

Income decile class

Region VII

2003 2006 2009% change

In Region VII, the average per capita income of families belonging to the1st to 4th decile classes rose faster than prices of food and all items.


II Th 2009 Offi i l P S i i


65/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 6,884 8,317 11,126 20.8 33.8


(among families) 11.1 13.5 14.4 2.4 0.9

Inflation (food) 109.5 132.0 176.2 20.5 33.5


Poverty Incidence

(among families) 30.2 31.1 33.2 1.0 2.1


Mean per capita incomeAll income groups 20,795 25,042 33,157 20.4 32.4










Region VIII

2003 2006 2009% changeStatistics/

Income decile class

In Region VIII, the average per capita income of the bottom 10% rose faster thanprices of food, while the average per capita income of families belonging to 1st

to 4th decile classes rose faster than the prices of all items.


II Th 2009 Offi i l P t St ti ti


66/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 6,744 8,226 10,587 22.0 28.7


(among families) 25.1 17.9 18.6 (7.1) 0.6

Inflation (food) 108.1 132.3 169.8 22.4 28.3


Poverty Incidence

(among families) 40.5 34.2 36.6 (6.3) 2.4Inflation (all items) 110.1 134.3 163.4 22.0 21.7














Region IX

2003 2006 2009 % change

In Region IX, the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st to 2nd

decile classes rose faster than prices of food, while the average per capita income offamilies belonging to 1st to 4th decile classes rose faster than the prices of all items.




67/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 7,312 9,080 11,543 24.2 27.1


(among families) 16.1 16.3 15.6 0.2 (0.6)

Inflation (food) 109.5 135.1 172.3 23.4 27.5


Poverty Incidence

(among families) 32.4 32.7 32.8 0.3 0.1














Region X

2003 2006 2009% change

In Region X, the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st to 2nd decileclasses rose faster than prices of food, while the average per capita income offamilies belonging to 1st to 4th decile classes rose faster than the prices of all items.




68/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 7,493 9,392 11,879 25.4 26.5


(among families) 12.3 12.1 11.0 (0.2) (1.1)

Inflation (food) 109.0 136.5 173.3 25.2 27.0


Poverty Incidence














Region XI

2003 2006 2009 % change

In Region XI, the average per capita income of the bottom 30% offamilies rose faster than the prices of food and all items.




69/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 7,154 8,757 11,014 22.4 25.8


(among families) 10.6 10.8 11.3 0.2 0.5

Inflation (food) 108.4 132.2 166.3 22.0 25.8


Poverty Incidence(among families) 27.2 27.1 28.1 (0.1) 1.0

Inflation (all items ) 111.3 133.4 160.2 19.9 20.1

Mean per capita incom e











2003 2006 2009% change

Statistics/

Income decile class

Region XII

In Region XII, the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st to 2nd

decile classes did not increase as fast as the increase in the prices of food, while theaverage per capita income of families belonging to 2nd to 3rd decile classes rose fasterthan the prices of all items.


II The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics


70/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 7,291 9,099 11,863 24.8 30.4


(among families) 16.6 16.9 19.7 0.3 2.8

Inflation (food) 108.9 136.0 177.5 24.9 30.5


Poverty Incidence

(among families) 37.6 36.9 39.8 (0.7) 2.9













Statistics/

Income decile class

CARAGA% change

2003 2006 2009

In CARAGA, the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st to 2nd decileclasses did not increase as fast as the increase in the prices of food, while the averageper capita income of families belonging to 3rd to 4th decile classes rose faster than the

prices of all items.


II The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics


71/120



03-06 06-09

Food Threshold 6,809 8,699 11,291 27.8 29.8


(among families) 7.3 11.6 8.5 4.3 (3.1)

Inflation (food) 111.7 143.9 190.6 28.8 32.5


Poverty Incidence

(among families) 25.0 36.5 38.1 11.4 1.7










Eighth Decile class 20,108 19,955 24,940 (0.8) 25.0

Ninth Decile class 26,935 24,768 31,429 (8.0) 26.9

Tenth Decile class 54,428 53,019 63,054 (2.6) 18.9

% change2003 2006 2009

ARMMStatistics/

Income decile class

In ARMM, the average per capita income of the bottom 10% of families rose faster thanthe prices of food, while the average per capita income of families belonging to the 1st

to 4th decile classes rose faster than the prices of all items.


II Highlights of the 2009 Official Poverty Statistics


72/120



Some positive events between 2006 and 2009:

Period Event

July 2009 Increase in the salaries of government employees withthe implementation of the 1st of four parts of the SalaryStandardization Law III.

2008 Conditional cash transfer (CCT) implemented in 161municipalities 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.

February2009

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




73/120



Some negative events between 2006 and 2009:

Period Event

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

2008 Global financial crisis

June 2009 Start of El Nio

July 2009 Start of the increase in alert level ofMayon Volcano




74/120



Some negative events between 2006 and 2009:

Some typhoons/calamities in 2009

Typhoon/Calamity Period Covered Estimated Cost ofDamage

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 inCagayan Valley

CAR, Regions Iand II




75/120



With the latest 2009 poverty estimates, the probability of

halving poverty, between 1990 and 2015, has gone down butremains at medium!

Indicator Target 1991 2003 2006 2009

Povertyincidence

amongpopulation

16.6 33.1

(Baseline) 24.9 26.4 26.5

Pace ofProgress

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 growthrate.

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




76/120



Actual Target (given the present

performance)Poverty Incidence amongpopulation

Percentage pointdecrease

Poverty Incidenceamong population

Percentage pointdecrease

1991 33.1 Annual reduction of0.37 percentage

points, between1991-2009, from abaseline of 33.1

0.69 annually,

between 1991-2015, from abaseline of 33.1

2003 24.9

2006 26.4

2009 26.5 20.72012 18.6 1.65 annually,

between 2009-2015, from abaseline of 26.5

2015 16.6

M DG Pe rform a nce a nd Ta rge ts on M DG 1, Ta rge t 1 , Ind ica tor 1

Target red uct ion in poor p opulat ion

Populat ion Target pove rty inciden ce

An nua l Cum ulat ive

20 1 0 1 ,59 8 ,22 4 2 5 .0 5

20 1 1 1 ,62 8 ,37 2 3 ,22 6 ,59 7 2 3 .3 5

20 1 2 1 ,65 8 ,67 1 4 ,88 5 ,26 8 2 1 .6 5

20 1 3 1 ,68 9 ,11 3 6 ,57 4 ,38 1 1 9 .9 5

20 1 4 1 ,71 9 ,68 9 8 ,29 4 ,07 1 1 8 .2 5

20 1 5 1 ,75 0 ,41 0 1 0 ,0 4 4 ,4 81 1 6 .5 5




77/120



As of 2009, the Philippines was eight years behind target onpoverty 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

Philip

pine

sNC

RCA

R

Region

I

Region

II

Region

III

R

egio

nIV

-A

R

egio

nIV

-B

Region

V

Region

VI

Region

VII

Region

VIII

Region

X

Region

XI

Region

XII

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 firstdeveloped 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.




78/120



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 2003

Myanmar 32.0 2005

Cambodia 30.1 2007

Philippines 26.5 2009

Vietnam 14.5 2008

Indonesia 14.2 2009

Thailand 8.5 2008

Malaysia 3.6 2007

Brunei 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 )




79/120




101010061321321380.4510.4440.40610. Myanmar

LOW HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

998011241241230.4940.4890.4669. Cambodia

889141221231260.4970.4900.4608. Lao People's DemocraticRepublic

777011131131140.5720.5660.5407. Viet Nam

666221081101100.6000.5930.5616. Indonesia

555-1-29796950.6380.6350.6195. Philippines

444019292930.6540.6480.6314. Thailand

MEDIUM HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

3331-25758550.7440.7390.7263. MalaysiaHIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

222-1-53736320.8050.8040.8012. Brunei Darussalam

111012727280.8460.8410.8261. Singapore

VERY HIGH HUMANDEVELOPMENT

2010200920052009-2010

2005-2010

201020092005201020092005

10 ASEAN membercountriesChange169 countries

HDI Rank out ofHDI rankHDI Rank out of

HDI

Countries

In terms of the Human Development Index (HDI) in ASEAN countries, the Philippines iscategorized in countries with medium human development together with Thailand, Indonesia,Vietnam, Lao PDR and Cambodia.

III Some Policy/Program Implications


80/120



18.7

7.37.57.47.38.0

22.6

19.3 19.1

21.1 21.0320.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Unemployment Rate

Underemployment Rate

Poverty Incidence amongfamilies

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

III. Some Policy/Program Implications

-0 .2

A . Po ve rty a n d Un em p lo yme n t/ Un d e re m p lo ym e n t: N e e d fo r q u a litye m p l o y m e n t



81/120



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 monthlyincome (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 fourmembers in 2009, to be classified as non-poor! However, average family size in Caraga is 5. Minimumwage should have been at least PhP270/day in 2009 in order to support a family of 5 members. For 2011,

it should be at least PhP290/day. This m ea ns tha t the m in im um wa ge a s o f 2010 o f Php233 fora griculture a nd Php 243 for non-a gric ulture should b e inc rea se d b y Php57 a nd Php47 or 24 .5% a nd19.3%, respe c tive ly , to supp ort a fa m ily of five m e m be rs.

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 famil income was used.

B. Pove rty a nd M inim um Wa ge -Se tting: Ne e d for m ore p ove rty-se nsitive m inim um w a ge




82/120



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 fourmembers in 2009, to be classified as non-poor! However, average family size in ARMM is 5. Minimumwage should have been at least PhP262/day in 2009 in order to support a family of 5 members. For2011, it should be at least PhP286/day. This means that the minimum wage as of 2010 of Php222 for

agriculture and non-agriculture should be increased by Php64.00 or 28.8% to support a family of fivemembers.

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 famil income was used.

y g p

B. Pove rty a nd M inim um Wa ge -Se tting: Ne e d for m ore p ove rty-se nsitive m inim um w a ge



83/120



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 mostfour members in 2009, to be classified as non-poor! However, average family size in Region IX is 5.Minimum wage should have been at least PhP243/day in 2009 in order to support a family of 5members. For 2011, it should be at least PhP259/day. This m ea ns tha t the m in im um wa ge as o f 2010

of Php 230 for ag riculture a nd PHP255 for non -a griculture should b e inc rea sed by Php29 a nd Php4 o r12.6% an d 1 .6%, re spe c tive ly , to supp ort a fa m ily of five m e m be rs .

2009 philippine poverty statistics

Documents