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 agenda
1
, 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 (PDF
2
). 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

1
National 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 Implementation
3


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 Programs
4


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 Capacity
6


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