1

Social Protection Operational Framework and Strategy

of the Philippines

Department of Social Welfare and Development and NEDA-SDC-Subcommittee on Social Protection (SC-SP)

July 2012

2

Part Contents Page

List of Acronyms 3

I Introduction A. History and Background 4 B. Context of Operational Framework and Strategy 5

II Goals and Objectives of Social Protection

6

III Elements of the Operational Framework A. Identifying and Responding to Major Risks and

Vulnerabilities 7

B. Identifying and Responding to Priority Targets and Sectors

C. Working towards Universal Coverage

9

10 IV Key Strategies of Implementation A. Convergence in the Delivery of Social Protection 11 B. Scaling Up Community Driven Development 11 C. Building Adaptive Capacity

D. Institutionalized Monitoring and Evaluation System 12 14

E. Other Specific Strategies 14

References 16

Annex A: Framework for Poverty Reduction 17

Annex B: SP Operational Framework and Strategy 18

3

ACRONYMS

ABSNET Area-based Standards Network

ADB Asian Development Bank

CDD Community Driven Development

CBMS Community Based Monitoring System

CSO Civil Society Organization

DAP Development Academy of the Philippines

DepEd Department of Education

DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government

DOH Department of Health

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources

DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways

DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development

HDPRC Human Development and Poverty Reduction Cluster

IP Indigenous peoples

KALAHI KapitBisig Laban sa Kahirapan KALAHI-CIDSS KALAHI Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of

Social Services

LGU Local government unit

LPRAP Local Poverty Reduction Action Planning

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

NAPC National Anti-Poverty Commission

NEDA National Economic and Development Authority

NGOs Non-government organization

NSCB National Statistical Coordination Board

NSO National Statistics Office

NHTSPR National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction

PDF Philippine Development Forum

Philhealth Philippine Health Insurance Corporation

PWDs Persons with disabilities

SEA-K Self Employment Assistance Kaunlaran Program

SCSP Sub-Committee on Social Protection

SDC Social Development Committee

SP Social Protection

SPDR Social Protection Development Report

SSS Social Security System

SWS Social Weather Station

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UPCSWCD UP College of Social Work and Community Development

4

Enhancing the Social Protection Operational Framework and Strategy for the Philippines

I. Introduction A. History and Background In 2006, while in the process of formulating its sectoral reform agenda1, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) defined its contribution and important role in rationalizing social protection in the Philippines. One of its key initiatives was to begin discussions on social protection at the Sub-Group on Social Protection of the Working Group on MDGs and Social Progress in the Philippine Development Forum (PDF2). The recommendations of the Sub-Group on Social Protection were then presented to the Technical Board of the Social Development Committee (SDC) and eventually to the SDC Cabinet Level. This led to the formalization of the social protection definition on February 13, 2007. The social protection definition and framework became more critical at the onset of the global financial crisis in 2008. As a response to the crisis, the government issued Administrative Orders 232 and 232-A which clustered social welfare programs to a National Social Welfare Program Cluster. In 2009, the Cluster commissioned the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) to conduct an assessment of social welfare and protection programs in the country entitled "Review and Strengthening of the National Social Protection and Welfare Program". The study results recommended that social welfare programs need to be harmonized in order to avoid overlaps and improve targeting of areas and beneficiaries. It was also recommended that government needs to harmonize and coordinate poverty reduction with social protection especially in crafting interventions and strategies. A poverty versus risk chart was prepared to clarify the distinctions and their interactions. In response to the results of the DAP study, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and the Social Security System (SSS) led jointly in formulating an Operational Framework to harmonize all social protection programs. The framework was presented to the SDC Cabinet Level in October 2009. Subsequently, SDC created a Sub-Committee on Social Protection in the same period. The approved definition and operational framework is now being subjected to further refinements and enhancements.

The following proposed enhanced operational framework was developed using suggestions and comments from various fora and meetings conducted under the Social Development Committee, other Civil Society initiatives, multilateral and

1National Sector Support for the Social Welfare and Development Reform Project (NSS-SWDRP) which was funded by the World Bank

2 The PDF is the primary mechanism of the Government for facilitating substantive policy dialogue among stakeholders on the countrys

development agenda including key multilateral and bilateral donors; the lead multilateral organization in PDF is the World Bank

5

bilateral agencies and academic research and studies. It takes into consideration the overlapping governance, cultural, environmental and political realities and concerns. The core of the framework is the underlying purpose and objective of social protection which is better and improved quality of life for its beneficiaries. Significant contributions to the finalization of this enhanced operational framework are the results of the three (3) workshops conducted between November 3 to December 2, 2011 and feedback from presentations done with the SDC National - Regional workshop and with the faculty of the UP College of Social Work and Community Development (UPCSWCD). The first group was composed of civil society organizations (CSOs) involved in social protection programs and projects in different regions. The second group was made up of provincial/municipal social welfare and development officers. The final group were members of the Sub-Committee on Social Protection, as well as DSWD officials/staff and its attached agencies. B. Context of the Operational Framework and Strategy This proposed enhancement of the social protection operational framework and strategy is directly linked and placed within the over-all inclusive development goals and over-all poverty strategy of the country. In particular, the framework adheres to the social protection objective of the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016, i.e. to empower and protect the poor, vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals, families and communities from individual life cycle, economic, environmental and social risks. (Chap. 8, PDP 2011-2016). At the same time this operational framework situates social protection in the context of the overall poverty reduction strategy of the Aquino administration as detailed in the National Anti-Poverty Program, 2011-2016. The Program reiterates the need to rationalize and coordinate the various social protection programs of the country. It also emphasizes the localization and empowerment strategy for convergence. In particular, the inclusion of target areas and beneficiaries are consistent with the anti-poverty thrust of focusing on the poorest of the poor and poorest areas. Taking off from Republic Act 8425, otherwise known as the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act, reduction of poverty has four pillars, namely access to quality basic services, asset reform and access to economic opportunities, sustainable development of productive resources and democratizing the decision-making and management processes. However, evidence shows that exposure to risks and the inability of individuals/families to manage and cope with these risks lead to poverty. Thus, the analytical framework was enhanced to include social protection as one of the major pillars to reduce poverty (see attached chart Annex A). It is also important to contextualize social protection in a developing country perspective. Barrientos (2010) differentiates social protection in the context of developed countries where it is seen as a universal provision for citizens. In developing countries, while aiming for universal provision in terms of basic services and social protection programs, governments utilize targeted programs for the poor due mainly to budget constraints and prioritization. This is true in the Philippine context as a developing country where about 26.5% of the population remains poor as of 2009. The percentage of households highly vulnerable to various kinds of risks and contingencies is about 50.7% in the most recent estimate (Albert, 2010). Surveys also show a much larger proportion of the population who think they are

6

poor. Self-Rated Poverty has been around 51 percent in the past seven years (Mangahas, 2011). The governments efforts in hoping to provide universal access to education and health services and in targeted programs like the Pantawid Pamilya are prime examples of this social protection thrust. II. Definition, Goals and Objectives of Social Protection Social Protection constitutes policies and programs that seek to reduce poverty and vulnerability to risks and enhance the social status and rights of the marginalized by promoting and protecting livelihood and employment, protecting against hazards and sudden loss of income, and improving peoples capacity to manage risks(SDC Resolution No. 1 Series of 2007). The primary goal of social protection is to contribute to better and improved quality of life. This is achieved through substantial reduction in poverty and vulnerability and the inclusion of the marginalized in the development process. The definition of poor, vulnerable and marginalized follow those adopted in the Sub-committee on Social Protection (SCSP) below:

Poor refers to individuals and families whose income fall below the poverty threshold as defined by the government and/or those that cannot afford in a sustained manner to provide their basic needs of food, health, education, housing and other amenities of life (RA 8425 or the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act, 11 December 1997)

Vulnerable refers to households confronted by ex-ante risk that if currently non-poor, will fall below the poverty line, or if currently poor, will remain in poverty. It is also defined in terms of exposure to adverse shocks to welfare and not just in terms of exposure to poverty. (NEDA)

Marginalized people are those groups in society who, for reasons of poverty, geographical inaccessibility, culture, language, religion, age, gender, migrant status or other disadvantage, have not benefited from health, education, employment and other opportunities, and who are relegated to the sidelines of political persuasion, social negotiation, and economic bargaining (IPPF).

Specific objectives of social protection programs include to:

protect and prevent people from falling from their current income/consumption levels due to various risk factors,

build capacity and adaptability to ensure that better quality of life is maintained and sustained,

expand opportunities for income expansion and improve human capital investments in the long term,

sustain standard of living in spite of exposure to risks of different types Social protection must also be differentiated from the basic social services which include access to education, health, nutrition, water and sanitation. It is basically a

7

response to protect and manage the households vulnerability of becoming poor because of various risks and hazards. III. Elements of the Social Protection Operational Framework A. Identifying and Responding to Major Risks and Vulnerabilities Social protection must be able to respond to various types of risks and vulnerabilities that confront households and individuals. The responses can emanate from the households themselves, from government or from the private and civil society sectors as enumerated in Table 1 below. From the table, we can see that a multi-stakeholder response is also significant in managing risks and vulnerabilities.

Table 1: Types of Risks/Vulnerability and Responses Assessment Responses

Types of Risks/Vulnerability

Household or Informal Mechanisms

Government Private and Civil Society Sector

Individual Lifecycle

Hunger and malnutrition Support from relatives, subsistence farming

Health and nutrition policy, programs and projects

Provision of nutrition services, soup kitchens, etc.

Illness, Injury, Disease (incl. HIV-AIDS

Extended family, community support

Social security, health insurance and microinsurance

Private insurance schemes

Disability Hygiene, preventive health

Social security, social assistance, employees compensation

Private insurance and microinsurance

Old Age Asset/Savings reduction Pension Plan Old age annuities, private pension

Death Debt Social Security Private life insurance

Economic

End of source of livelihood

Diversified sources of livelihood

Sound macro and sector policies for job generation; emergency and guaranteed employment

Private sector investments that are job-generating

Unemployment Private transfers, child labor

Regional and rural development policies, Emergency and guaranteed employment,

Private job search institutions

Low and irregular income

Depletion of assets/savings

Labor market policies, social assistance, conditional cash transfers

Banking services to the poor, microfinance

Price instability of basic commodities

Reduced consumption of basic goods

price control inflation management

Sales discounts

Economic crisis Migration Social funds, subsidies, emergency employment

Environmental and Natural

Drought Migration Community Action Private transfers Extended family support Asset/Savings Depletion

Environmental policy, programs and projects Infrastructure investments Relief and rehabilitation Relocation-temporary and permanent Disaster prevention and mitigation measures Geo-hazard mapping Insurance against disasters

Environmental advocacy and prevention of man-made disasters Disaster mitigation and prevention measures Relief and Rehabilitation programs

Rains and Floods

Earthquakes

Volcano eruption and landslides

Social/Governance

8

Assessment Responses

Types of Risks/Vulnerability

Household or Informal Mechanisms

Government Private and Civil Society Sector

Social exclusion Community networks Inclusive Growth, Good governance, transparency and accountability

Good corporate governance, corporate social responsibility

Corruption Community pressure Public information, transparency and accountability campaign; bottoms up budgeting

Strengthening participation of NGOs and CBOs

Crime and domestic violence

Womens groups and watchdogs

Providing security and equal access to justice

Peace and order promotion (e.g. anti-drug campaigns)

Political instability and armed conflict

Migration Participation of citizens and civil society groups; peace negotiations

Advocacy for democracy and democratic transitions

Adopted mainly from the ADB Social Protection Strategy Paper, 2001 and Aldaba (2008)

Aldaba (2009) identified the various risks and responsibilities confronting Philippine society based on various studies (see Table 2 below). The task of properly identifying risks especially at the local levels is important in crafting the appropriate social protection response and program. An important tool to do this at the local government level is the risk vulnerability analysis.

Table 2: Identifying Major Social Risks in the Philippines in the Literature on

Poverty and Vulnerability Variable correlated to Poverty and/or Vulnerability to Poverty

Social Risk Situation for the Household

Literature Sources (poverty and non-poverty related)

Economic instability Unemployment and underemployment

Lack of employment or low quality of jobs; fluctuating incomes Low and irregular incomes, self-employment

World Bank (2001) Templo et al (2006), Alba (2001), Canlas et al (2006), NSCB and NAPC (2005)

Climate in General Typhoons Drought

Exposure to negative effects of climate changes displacement, death, disability, disease, crop losses, damage to properties and infrastructure, etc.

World Bank (2001) Balisacan (2003) Datt and Hoogeeven

Political Factors Unrest and instability Political Dynasties Land Inequality Armed Conflict MILF and CPP-NPA-NDF Rido and clan conflicts

Exposure to negative effects displacement, disease, lower productivity, damage to properties, etc. Possibilities of rebellion and armed conflict; inequitable and inefficient allocation of resources Violence, Internal displacements

World Bank (2001) Balisacan (2001) Balisacan (1999, 2003) PHDR (2007) Asia Foundation website

Lack of Access to Water Irrigation Lack of Access to Sanitary toilets

Exposure to crop losses, diseases, death for persons

Templo et al (2006) Balisacan (1999, 2003) Templo et al (2006)

Lack of Infrastructure Electricity Roads

Exposure to negative effects disease, food insecurity, lower productivity

Balisacan (1999) Balisacan (1999, 2003)

9

Variable correlated to Poverty and/or Vulnerability to Poverty

Social Risk Situation for the Household

Literature Sources (poverty and non-poverty related)

Lack of Basic Services Education of Household Head; Children not in School Illness and health Shelter Lack of access to credit

Exposure to negative effects lower incomes and lower productivity Exposure to diseases and morbidity Exposure to the elements; vulnerability to crimes Lower productivity and incomes

Reyes (2004), NSCB (2003), NSCB and NAPC (2005) Schaeffer (2001), Templo et al (2006), DOH and WHO website Templo et al (2006), Ballesteros (2002), HUDCC website Reyes (2004)

Food Insecurity, Hunger and Malnutrition

Exposure to diseases and death, low productivity and incomes

National Nutrition Survey (2003), various SWS Surveys, Flores et al (2006), NAPC and NSCB (2005)

Large Family size Poverty, lower productivity, exposure of children to disease, hunger, etc.

Orbeta (2005), Alonzo et al (2005), NSCB and NAPC (2005), Reyes (2004)

Source: Aldaba (2008)

The Social Protection program responses to the above risks and vulnerabilities are clustered into the following components: 1) Social Insurance, 2) Labor Market Interventions, 3) Social Welfare and 4) Social Safety Nets. Social Insurance and related programs are premium based schemes protecting households from lifecycle and health related risks. Labor market interventions include employment facilitation schemes, active labor market programs (ALMPs), emergency and guaranteed employment while social welfare programs give basic protection to those who are poor, excluded, discriminated and marginalized. Social safety nets are short term stop gap measures. Purely targeted social protection programs are those that focus on the core poor and are mostly social safety net interventions such as cash transfers, food for work and emergency employment programs. These programs are time-bound and at best, bridge programs to tide affected families until the time they have developed basic capacities to meet future needs and improvements of their families. B. Identifying and Responding to Priority Target Areas and Sectors Social protection must be able to identify and focus its target groups and target areas considering that its potential beneficiaries range from non-poor to the chronic poor. In terms of targeting, the government has mandated all agencies to utilize the Department of Social Welfare and Developments (DSWD) National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction. Using proxy means test, this targeting system unified the criteria for the selection of the poorest population and created a database of poor households as reference in identifying beneficiaries of social protection programs. It has also reduced leakage of non-poor and under-coverage or exclusion of poor in social protection services. Using various indicators, government must also target priority areas for provision of programs and projects to be those that have concentration of poverty and areas of conflicts and disasters. The Human Development and Poverty Reduction Cluster has identified 609 municipalities in this regard. Social Protection programs should be prioritized to reach areas potentially at risk from climate change. Target sectors meanwhile are identified by the extent of marginalization and social exclusion. DSWD has long been involved with these marginalized sectors in its social welfare

10

activities such as women, children, youth, elderly, families, indigenous peoples (IPs), persons with disabilities (PWDs), among others. It should be noted that the target sectors and areas are not mutually exclusive as they can cut across sectors or areas. This addresses the concern on cross-cutting sectors such as gender. C. Working towards Universal Coverage While government always aims at the universal provision of basic social services, current social protection programs are thus, typically targeted in terms of coverage. Universal coverage of social services entails the country-wide provision of the full requirements of basic rights of the citizens in terms of education, health and nutrition, shelter, water and sanitation. But given resource constraints, social protection programs target individuals and households which are poor and highly vulnerable. The basis for the targeting is the unified approach through the National Household Targeting System as described above. As government increases its resource base, major social protection programs especially those reducing or mitigating risks related to health and education may reach universal coverage and integrated into the delivery of basic social services. IV. Key Participatory Strategies for Implementation3 A. Convergence in the Delivery of Social Protection Convergence is the act of directing complementary and or synergetic programs or interventions to specified targets - poor households, families, individuals and or communities. It calls for the synchronization and coordination of all interventions of the government (national and local) and the private sector in one geographical area to ensure that reforms in terms of poverty alleviation, among others, are achieved. Operationalization of convergence requires the following for better service delivery and effective results:

convergence in the target areas/municipalities,

convergence with the private sector in the delivery of social protection programs,

convergence in the package of intervention to be delivered in the target areas/municipalities,

convergence of coordinating mechanisms/feedback systems from the top to the ground and vice-versa, and

convergence of resources that are available for the implementers from the National to the local levels more importantly in budgeting.

The following are initial convergence efforts: Internal and External Convergence of DSWD DSWD internally started to orchestrate its social protection programs by initially harmonizing the implementation of KALAHI-CIDSS, Pantawid Pamilya and Sustainable Livelihood Program in 40 municipalities. Convergence activities include:

3 These assumes that all strategies will aim to maximize participation of stakeholders and various agencies

11

A unified targeting system - The National Household Targeting System for

Poverty Reduction (NHTSPR)

Synchronized implementation of social preparation and mobilization activities

Harmonized engagement of the Local Government Units

Coordinated capability building

Harmonized monitoring and reporting

Integrated Social Case Management

Enhanced partnership with the Civil Society Organizations.

As DSWD strengthens its own convergence strategies, different national agencies have started to work together for the same. In particular, the adoption of the Pantawid Pamilya as core social protection and poverty alleviation strategy has naturally grouped the DSWD together with the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Department of Health (DOH) to collaborate institutionally to deliver the package of interventions under the Pantawid Pamilya. In addition, DSWD partners with the Department of Public Highways (DPWH) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for guaranteed employment programs for similar target beneficiaries of the Pantawid Pamilya.

The Thrust towards Localization of Convergence of Poverty Programs4 A common effort by the Human Development and Poverty Reduction Cluster (HDPRC) is the localization of convergence of poverty and social protection programs. The center of the localization program approved by the HDPR Cluster will be the municipality. The government has chosen 609 municipalities as focus areas. These municipalities are mostly from the regions with the largest concentrations of the poor in densely populated provinces. Local government capacities in these areas to reduce poverty will also be strengthened. There will be a system for providing incentives to better performing local government units (LGUs) to fund their poverty reduction programs, strengthen inter-LGU systems to coordinate their projects, and advocate the use of poverty indicators in planning and measuring their progress toward poverty reduction. Participating municipalities will be required to (1) conduct community based monitoring systems (CBMS) surveys, which will serve as the base for (2) Local Poverty Reduction Action Planning; and (3) a set of administrative and organizational reforms based on the DILG seal of good housekeeping. The Community Based Monitoring System (CBMS)5 will complement National Household Targeting System (NHTS) and provide a monitoring tool for anti-poverty work. Concrete targets in the poverty action plan will facilitate monitoring. Good governance reform will strengthen the capacity of municipal governments to plan and implement poverty programs. These municipalities are also to craft specific budgets for their poverty plans which in turn will be consolidated by the NAPC. NAPC will then coordinate with the respective national agencies which will carry the

4 Culled from the National Anti-Poverty Program , 2011-2016 by NAPC 5 A local census of households in the community to generate data for poverty monitoring

12

budget and help the local government implement or deliver the specific poverty reduction projects.

B. Scaling Up Community Driven Development (CDD) The implementation of social protection will always start at the ground level. Thus, another important strategy is the community driven development which is an approach of helping poor communities to develop the necessary skills and to provide them with resources in selecting, implementing, and sustaining small-scale community infrastructure projects and key social services. The leading CDD program is the Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (KALAHI-CIDSS) and the MakamasangTugon. CDD approaches and strategies enable barangays to: (a) Participate in identifying, prioritizing, and planning community development interventions; (b) Implement community projects; and (c) Practice transparency and accountability in resource allocation and implementation of sub-projects by having project grants directly managed by community volunteers without passing through the local government units. These strategies build and strengthen social capital by generating the appropriate environment and opportunities for people to collaborate in designing and implementing development programs. The government is scaling up the CDD and Makamasang Tugon activities and this includes institution building e.g. formation of CDD units within sector departments, developing CDD modules to be used by existing training institutes and conducting inter-agency CDD pilots. C. Building Adaptive Capacity6 In the context of mitigating risks and avoiding significant negative consequences of the various types of risks, SP programs at all levels should include a crucial assessment of adaptation. Adaptation is a process that can be considered consistent with improving human capital (education and health), better governance and rights-based conditions. It spreads across sectors, target population and areas beyond economic capital. It should take into consideration physical vulnerability, production, human and social capital to ensure a sustainable livelihood system. (World Bank, 2010). Therefore, adaptation goes beyond the physical provision of better infrastructure and warning systems, it requires an integrated participatory process involving individuals and their social networks, local units and national agencies consistent with the convergence approach of the overall framework. Crucial components of an integrated adaptive system are the capacities to absorb stress, manage and maintain basic function during stress and bounce back after stress (Adgeret al. 2004). Social protection can build adaptive capacity through protective and preventive strategies for coping, as well as through promotive and transformative measures.

6 This section borrows heavily from the Comments of the UPCSWCD Faculty on the Proposed Enhanced Operational Framework presented to them on Feb. 3, 2012

13

Examples of these social protection instruments and measures which have been found to create this impact are shown in the table below: Table 3. Promoting Adaptation through Social Protection

SP Category SP Instruments Adaptation benefits

Protective (coping strategies)

Social service provision

Social transfers (food/cash) including safety nets

Social pension schemes

Public works programmes

Protection of those most vulnerable to climate risks, with low levels of adaptive capacity

Preventive (coping strategies)

Social transfers

Livelihood diversification

Weather-indexed crop insurance

Social insurance

Prevents damaging coping strategies as a result of risks to weather-dependent livelihoods

Promotive (building adaptive capacity)

Social transfers

Access to credit

Asset transfer or protection

Starter packs (drought/flood resistant)

Access to common property resources

Public works programmes

Promotes resilience through livelihood diversification and security to withstand climate related shocks

Promotes opportunities arising from climate change

Transformative (building adaptive capacity)

Promotion of minority rights

Anti-discrimination campaigns

Social funds

Proactively challenging discriminatory behaviour

Transforms social relations to combat discrimination underlying social and political vulnerability

Source: Davies et al, Climate Change Adaptation, Disaster Risk Reduction and Social Protection, in Promoting Pro-Poor Growth Social Protection, OECD, 2009. p. 205 as cited by UP CSWCD (2012)

There are important differences among various coping strategies (which are short-term responses that relieve the burden of risk once it has occurred) and strategies which build adaptive capacity. Protective measures provide relief from deprivation and include social assistance for the chronically poor (or those with the least adaptive capacity) such as social services, food and cash transfers, pensions, fee waivers and public works. Preventive measures are meant to avert deprivation, and include social insurance for economically vulnerable groups, unemployment benefits, social transfers, etc. They also include livelihood diversification and weather-indexed insurance which prevent damaging coping strategies as a result of risks to weather-dependent livelihoods. On the other hand, Promotive measures aim to enhance real incomes and capabilities of the poorest and most vulnerable populations, thereby enhancing resilience through livelihood diversification and security to withstand climate-related shocks. These include social and asset transfers, microfinance, drought- and flood-resistant starter packs, access to common property resources, and public works. Transformative measures, which are more rights-based, seek to address vulnerabilities arising from social inequity and exclusion of the poorest and most marginalized groups, and could include collective action for workers rights, all sensitisation campaigns. (Jones et al, 2010:12-13). Protective, preventive, promotive, and transformative measures are not mutually exclusive but are actually mutually reinforcing, constituting various dimensions of an iterative process. The transformative potential of all social protection measures

14

exists from the start of implementation and needs to be progressively realized across time and space. D. Institutionalized Monitoring and Evaluation System At all levels of implementation, a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system should be institutionalized. This mechanism should be able to facilitate the rationalization of various social protection programs according to the various key components. A regular monitoring and evaluation system is also important to be able to adjust, refine or even terminate programs so that appropriate responses to the various risks are implemented and sustained. The M&E system will also assess how convergence is achieved among the various stakeholders at all levels. The system also hopes to integrate early detection systems of risks that will affect various communities. Thus, it will also be important that specific financial and human resources be allocated for this institutionalized M&E system. E. Other Specific Strategies in the Implementation of Social Protection Programs Other key strategies gathered in the different workshops and references to ensure that the framework operates smoothly are as follows:

a. Streamlining the existing SP programs by weeding out inactive ones

and merging duplicative ones according to the main components of the framework as suggested by DAP (2009)

b. Legal basis starting from SDC Resolution to a nationally approved resolution approving the framework and recommending its adoption at all levels of policy coordination;

c. Strengthen the existing mechanisms for coordination at the different levels such as the SDC and incorporate SP as a key strategy up to the municipal/barangay levels.

d. Identification of a common risk assessment tool such as the Social Protection Development Report (SPDR) and its proposed adoption by the SDC as the common tool to evaluate risks at the local levels and re-orient local governments and partner civil society organizations on its uses.

e. Identification of a standardized tool to identify capable LGUs in implementing SP programs such as the Seal of Good Housekeeping for local governments;

f. Consider the core mandates of agencies concerned in the order of priority and/or ranking of SP program implementation;

g. Convergence as a strategy for SP must not be considered a separate but as an integral approach related to the implementation of other plans and programs such as the over-all poverty reduction strategy, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the overarching Philippine Development Plan;

h. Institutions should contextualize this proposed operational framework as a guide to develop programs or to match existing programs to address certain conditions, vulnerabilities and/or marginalization of groups and areas;

15

i. Identification of target beneficiaries should consider other ways to determine eligibility. For instance, consider alternative identification mechanism other than the birth certificates for indigents whose children are not registered;

j. Consider ways of providing manpower, capability training and financial support to local social welfare officers before SP programs are passed to them. Multiple designations of social welfare officers must be addressed;

k. Use of the Area-based Standards Network (ABSNET) as standardized system for coordination among local civil society organizations and NGOs;

l. Create an enabling environment for sustained cooperation between NGOs and LGUs in implementing SP Programs; and

m. Local chief executives and/or their offices must be involved in the consultation process from SP program design implementation to ensure sustainability and support.

16

References Adger, N., Arnell, N. And E. Thompson (2004), Successful Adaptation to Climate

Change Across Scales, Global Environmental Change, Elsvier, 15, pp. 77-86. Albert, Jose Ramon and Andre Philippe Ramos (2010). Trends in Household

Vulnerability, Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Discussion Paper Series No. 2010- 01

Aldaba, F. (2008) Major Social Risks in The Philippines: A Preliminary Survey, Social Welfare and Development Journal, April-June

Asian Development Bank (2009). Poverty in the Philippines: Causes, Constraints and Opportunities. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

Barrientos (2010). Social Protection and Poverty. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Social Policy and Development Programme Paper Number 42

Department of Social Welfare and Development (2011) Convergence Manual Development Academy of the Philippines (2009)"Review and Strengthening of the

National Social Protection and Welfare Program Mangahas, Mahar (2011). Terraces of Poverty, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Nov. 19. National Anti-Poverty Commission-NAPC (2006). Looking into Social Protection in

the Philippines: Towards Building and Implementing an Operational Definition and a Convergent Framework

National Anti-Poverty Commission (2011). National Anti-Poverty Program, 2011-2016. Part 1.

Pulse Asia (2005) Understanding Poverty.

Reyes, Celia, Aubrey Tabuga, Christian Mina, Romina Asis and Maria Besila Datu

(2010). Chronic and Transient Poverty, Philippine Institute for Development

Studies, Discussion Paper Series No. 2010-30

Social Weather Stations (various years). Social Weather Report UP CSWCD (2012) Summary of Comments on Enhanced Social Protection

Framework presented by Fernando T. Aldaba, February 3, World Bank (2010). The Social Dimensions of Adaptation to Climate Change in

Vietnam