U

2009 Official Poverty Statistics
Towards Better Targeted

and Focused Poverty Reduction Programs
Presented by
Ms. Jessamyn O. Encarnacion
Director, Social Statistics Office
National Statistical Coordination Board
2012 MCPI Annual Conference
9:00 AM, 26 July 2012

Hyatt Hotel, Manila

1 JOEncarnacion/ 26 July 2012
NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD
Outline of Presentation
I. Introduction
II. Official Poverty Estimation Methodology
III. 2009 Official Poverty Statistics
A. National
B. Regional/Provincial
C. Basic Sectors
D. Employed and Unemployed Population
IV. Some Policy/Program Implications

I. Introduction
SOURCE OF OFFICIAL POVERTY STATISTICS IN THE PHILIPPINES
Executive Order 352

Designation of Statistical Activities that will Generate Critical
Data for Decision-making of the Government and the Private
Sector
• Issued on July 1, 1996

• The Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics (TC PovStat)
created by the NSCB is in charge of the
formulation/development of the official poverty estimation
methodology.
• The NSCB generates and releases the official poverty
statistics in the Philippines.

I. Introduction
SOME DEFINITIONS
What is the Food Threshold?
•Refers to the minimum income/expenditure required for a

family/individual to meet the basic food needs, which satisfies the
nutritional requirements for economically necessary and socially
desirable physical activities
•Also referred to as the subsistence threshold or the food poverty line

I. Introduction
SOME DEFINITIONS
What is the Poverty Threshold?
• Refers to the minimum income/expenditure required for a

family/individual to meet the basic food and non-food requirements
Basic Non-Food Requirement includes: 1) clothing and footwear; 2) fuel, light and
water; 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) alcoholic

beverages; 4) durable furnishings; 5) taxes; 6) special family occasion expenditure;
7) total gifts and contributions; 8) total other disbursements (e.g., major repair of
house, loans granted to person outside family; amortization of real property).
• Is equal to the cost of minimum basic needs:

food + non-food

I. Introduction
SOME DEFINITIONS
Who are the Food Poor/Core Poor?
• Refers to families/individuals with per capita income/expenditure

less 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
If a family is poor, all the members of the family are considered

poor

I. Introduction
SOME DEFINITIONS
What is the Magnitude of the Food Poor/Core Poor?
• Refers to the number of families/individuals who are food poor/core

poor
What is the Magnitude of the Poor?
• Refers to the number of families/individuals who are poor

I. Introduction
SOME DEFINITIONS
What is subsistence incidence?
• Refers to the proportion of families/individuals with per capita

income/expenditure less than the per capita food threshold to the
total 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 be

expressed as proportion of families or proportion of individuals

I. Introduction
The 1st official poverty estimation methodology was adopted in

1987.
Between 1987-2011 (24 years), there were three refinements on
the methodology since its adoption.
History of the official poverty estimation methodology
Year Refinements Considerations

1987
1992 1st Refinements were made so as not to
overestimate poverty
2003 2nd Refinements were made to generate
provincial poverty statistics by using
regional menus priced using
provincial prices.
2010/2011 3rd Refinements were undertaken to
enhance comparability of estimates
across space and over time.

10 JOEncarnacion/ 26 July 2012 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD
DATA II. Official Poverty Estimation Methodology
SOURCES
National food bundle
PROVINCIAL food bundle
FNRI
LEAST cost 100% RENI for energy Food eaten
“Visualizable” 100% RENI for protein in the area
80% RENI for vitamins
and minerals
Actual Prices
NSO
and
BAS Farmgate Price Retail Price
FOOD THRESHOLD
If income/expenditure of family/individual
NSCB is less than food threshold
Provincial SUBSISTENCE INCIDENCE
and MAGNITUDE OF SUBSISTENCE POOR
I. Introduction
National reference food bundle from

the Test of Revealed Preference Sample translation: NCR
Meal Time Viands
Breakfast Scrambled egg Meal Time Viands
Coffee with milk Breakfast Scrambled egg
Boiled rice/rice-corn mix Boiled rice
Lunch Boiled/ginataang monggo with Coffee with milk
malunggay and dried dilis
Lunch Boiled monggo with
Banana
malunggay and dried dilis
Boiled rice/corn mix
Banana, latundan
Dinner Fried fish/boiled pork
Boiled rice
Vegetable dish
Dinner Fried tulingan
Boiled rice/rice-corn mix
Boiled kangkong
Snacks Bread or boiled rootcrop
Boiled rice
Snacks Pandesal

ACTUAL Non-Food Basic Needs

• Education
• Clothing & footwear
Food threshold Non-food threshold • Medical care
• Transportation &
communication
Constant FE/TBE ratio • Fuel, light & water
• Housing
• Housing maintenance &
other minor repairs
• Non-durable furnishings
• Household operations
POVERTY THRESHOLD • Personal care & effects
• Rental of occupied dwelling
unit
If income/expenditure of family/individual
is less than poverty threshold
Provincial POVERTY INCIDENCE

and MAGNITUDE OF POOR

III. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics

A. NATIONAL: Daily Threshold (family of five)

In 2009, family of five* needed PhP 160 daily income to meet food needs
and PhP 231 to stay out of poverty!
Daily Food Threshold for a Daily Poverty Threshold for a

Family of Five (in PhP) Family of Five (in PhP)
300
250
231
250
200
200 160 183
150
150
150
104 100
100 127 79
55
Inflation for food:
50
50
2006-2009:24.3%
0 0
1991 2003 2006 2009 1991 2003 2006 2009
Note: Applying 2010 and 2011 / Ave. of Jan - June 2012 Note: Applying 2010 and 2011/ Ave. of Jan - June 2012 CPI for all
Food CPI (2006=100) to 2009 Food threshold: items (2006=100) to 2009 poverty threshold:
2010 : Phils = PhP 167 2012 : Phils = PhP 177 2010 threshold= PhP 240 2010 threshold= PhP 256
2011 : Phils = PhP 176 2011 threshold= PhP 251
A. NATIONAL: Subsistence Incidence (families)
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, this
was reduced to 8 out of 100 families in 2009.
Subsistence Incidence Poverty Incidence
30.0 among Families (%) 28.3 among Families (%)
30.0
25.0 25.0 21.1
20.0 20.0
20.0
15.0 13.3 15.0 (0.2) 20.9
10.0 8.2 8.7
10.0
7.9
5.0 5.0
0.0 0.0
1991 2003 2006 2009 1991 2003 2006 2009

A. NATIONAL: Poverty Incidence (Families)
Among FAMILIES:
In terms of poverty incidence among families, there was only a slight
reduction during the three-year period – from 21.1% in 2006 to 20.9%
in 2009.

30.0 among Families (%) 28.3 among Families (%)
30.0
25.0 25.0 21.1
20.0 20.0
20.0
15.0 13.3 15.0 (0.2) 20.9
10.0 8.2 8.7
10.0
7.9
5.0 (0.8) 5.0
0.0 0.0
1991 2003 2006 2009 1991 2003 2006 2009

A. NATIONAL: Subsistence Incidence (Population)
Among POPULATION:
•Subsistence incidence among population improved – from 11.7% in 2006 to
10.8% in 2009!
•Out of 100 Filipinos -- 12 Filipinos were classified as food poor in 2006,
this was reduced to 11 in 2009!
35 among Population (in %) 35 among Population (in %)
30 30 33.1
26.4 26.5
25 25
24.9
20 20
16.5 0.1
15 15
11.7
10 10
11.1 10.8
5 (0.9) 5
0 0
1991
2012 MCPI Annual Conference 2003 2006 2009 1991 2003 2006 2009
A. NATIONAL: Poverty Incidence (Population)
Among POPULATION:
In terms of poverty incidence among population, there was a very slight
increase during the three-year period – from 26.4% in 2006 to 26.5% in
2009.

35 among Population (in %) 35 among Population (in %)
30 30 33.1
26.4 26.5
25 25
24.9
20 20
16.5 0.1
15 15
11.7
10 10
11.1 10.8
5 (0.9) 5
0 0
1991
2012 MCPI Annual Conference 2003 2006 2009 1991 2003 2006 2009
A. NATIONAL: Magnitude of subsistence/poor families
MAGNITUDE among FAMILIES:
• Magnitude of subsistence poor families decreased by about 58,000 from 1.51
million in 2006 to 1.45 million out of 18.5M in 2009!
•However, in terms of magnitude of poor families, there was an increase of
about 185,000 from 3.67 million in 2006 to 3.86 million out of 18.5M in 2009!
Magnitude of Subsistence Poor Magnitude of Poor Families
Families (in million) (in million)
2.00 4.00 3.86
1.60 3.67
1.51
1.50 3.50 3.39 5.2%
1.36 1.45
3.29
1.00 (4.0%) 3.00
0.50 2.50
- 2.00
1991 2003 2006 2009 1991 2003 2006 2009

A. NATIONAL: Magnitude of subsistence/poor population
MAGNITUDE among POPULATION:
• Magnitude of subsistence poor population decreased by about 410,000 in
2009 – from 9.9 million in 2006 to 9.4 million out of 87.4M in 2009!
•The magnitude of poor population increased by almost 970,000 Filipinos-
from 22.2 million in 2006 to 23.1 out of 87.4M in 2009 by 4.4%.
Magnitude of Subsistence Poor Magnitude of Poor Population
Population (in million) (in million)
15.00 25.00
24.00
23.14
14.00
13.00 23.00
22.17
12.00 22.00
20.89
11.00 10.40 21.00
9.85 4.4 %
10.00 20.00
8.80
9.00 19.00 19.80
9.44
8.00 18.00
7.00 (4.2%) 17.00
6.00 16.00
5.00 15.00
1991 2003 2006 2009 1991 2003 2006 2009
A. NATIONAL: Summary
• While food poverty and poverty deteriorated between 2003 and 2006, these
improved between 2006 and 2009 – except for the increases in the poverty
incidence among population, magnitude of poor families and magnitude of
poor population.
•The increases, however, were not as much as between 2003 and 2006!
Summary of increases/decreases:
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
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%).
Poverty Incidence
Country Year
Among Popn.
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 )
A. NATIONAL: Rise in Income vs Rise in Prices-Bottom 10%
Average per capita income of the bottom 10% of families rose faster than
prices 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 31.0
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
24 JOEncarnacion/
Tenth decile class
26 July 2012
NATIONAL STATISTICAL 184,997
151,130 COORDINATION BOARD
22.4
A. NATIONAL: Rise in Income vs Rise in Prices-Bottom 30%
Average per capita income of the bottom 30% of families rose faster than
prices 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
25 JOEncarnacion/
Tenth26decile
July 2012
class
151,130 184,997 22.4
B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL
Caraga and Region IX consistently posted the highest subsistence
incidence among families in 2006 and 2009! Improvements in Reg VII and Reg V!
Subsistence incidence among families
Region
2003 2006 2009
PHILIPPINES 8.2 8.7 7.9
Caraga 16.6 16.9 19.7
Region IX 25.1 17.9 18.6
Region X 16.1 16.3 15.6
Region VIII 11.1 13.5 14.4
Region VII 16.0 17.1 13.2
Region V 18.0 15.7 12.9
Region XII 10.6 10.8 11.3
Region XI 12.3 12.1 11.0
Region IV-B 11.1 2.8 10.5
ARMM 7.3 11.6 8.5
Region VI 9.1 7.9 7.9
CAR 5.8 8.3 7.6
Region I 5.8 7.1 5.5
Region II 4.1 4.3 4.1
Region III 2.3 3.7 3.7
Region IV-A
2012 MCPI Annual Conference 2.4 2.8 2.4
NCR 0.3
0.7 0.4
Caraga and ARMM consistently posted the highest poverty incidence
among families in 2006 and 2009!
Poverty incidence among families
Region
2003 2006 2009
Caraga 37.6 36.9 39.8
ARMM 25.0 36.5 38.1
Region IX 40.5 34.2 36.6
Region V 38.0 36.1 36.0
Region VIII 30.2 31.1 33.2
Region X 32.4 32.7 32.8
Region VII 32.1 33.5 30.2
Region XII 27.2 27.1 28.1
Region IV-B 29.8 34.3 27.6
Region XI 25.4 26.2 25.6
Region VI 23.5 22.1 23.8
Region I 17.8 20.4 17.8
CAR 16.1 18.6 17.1
Region II 15.2 15.5 14.5
Region III 9.4 12.0 12.0
Region IV-A
2012 MCPI Annual Conference 9.2 9.4 10.3
NCR 2.1
3.4 2.6
Regions VII, V, and X continue to have the biggest share in the total number of food poor families!
Magnitude of Food Poor Families % Share to Total Food Poor Families
Region
2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009
PHILIPPINES 1,357,833 1,511,579 1,453,843 100.0 100.0 100.0
Region VII 194,352 220,692 181,649 14.3 14.6 12.5

Region V 169,869 158,936 137,527 12.8 10.5 9.5
Region X 118,924 128,513 131,304 8.8 8.5 9.0
Region VIII 83,573 110,071 124,547 6.2 7.3 8.6
Region IX 147,137 117,655 122,893 10.8 7.8 8.5
Region VI 114,929 108,585 115,298 8.5 7.2 7.9
Region XI 99,437 101,484 96,969 7.3 6.7 6.7
Caraga 69,100 75,221 92,803 5.1 5.0 6.4
Region XII 74,990 80,522 90,305 5.5 5.3 6.2
Region III 40,820 69,957 75,585 3.0 4.6 5.2
Region IV-B 55,517 81,692 62,151 4.1 5.4 4.3
Region IV-A 53,487 62,166 58,468 3.9 4.1 4.0
Region I 51,127 66,775 54,839 3.8 4.4 3.8
ARMM 36,952 61,863 48,686 2.7 4.1 3.3
Region II 23,790 26,850 26,792 1.8 1.8 1.8
CAR 16,151
25,245 24,625 1.2 1.7 1.7
28 NCR
JOEncarnacion/ 7,677
26 July 2012 15,354 9,400 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD
0.6 1.0 0.6
Regions VII, V, and VI continue to have the biggest share in the total number poor families!
Magnitude of Poor Families % Share to Total Poor Families
Region
2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009
PHILIPPINES 3,293,096 3,670,791 3,855,730 100.0 100.0 100
Region VII 389,818 432,870 415,303 11.8 11.8 10.8

Region V 358,981 364,318 385,338 10.9 9.9 10.0
Region VI 298,058 302,836 345,703 9.1 8.2 9.0
Region VIII 227,458 253,347 287,156 6.9 6.9 7.4
Region X 239,874 257,640 275,433 7.3 7.0 7.1
Region IV-A 201,725 210,830 248,179 6.1 5.7 6.4
Region III 169,771 228,741 244,273 5.2 6.2 6.3
Region IX 237,898 224,378 242,285 7.2 6.1 6.3
Region XI 205,966 220,707 226,284 6.3 6.0 5.9
Region XII 192,545 203,000 224,882 5.8 5.5 5.8
ARMM 126,233 194,626 218,043 3.8 5.3 5.7
Caraga 156,221 163,783 187,278 4.7 4.5 4.9
Region I 156,261 193,392 179,179 4.7 5.3 4.6
Region IV-B 148,924 186,838 162,609 4.5 5.1 4.2
Region II 89,352 96,311 94,433 2.7 2.6 2.4
NCR
48,923 80,828 64,404 1.5 2.2 1.7
29 CAR
JOEncarnacion/ 26 July 2012 45,088 56,346 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD
54,949 1.4 1.5 1.4
B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL:
Batanes, the 4 districts of NCR, Benguet, Cavite, Bulacan, Laguna, Rizal, and Pampanga
were consistently included in the least poor cluster of provinces in 2003, 2006, and 2009!
•New entrants in the least poor cluster of provinces in 2009 were Ilocos Norte, Bataan,
and Nueva Vizcaya!
2003 2006 2009
90% CI 90% CI 90% CI
Province Poverty Poverty Poverty
incidence Upper incidence Lower Upper incidence Lower Upper
Lower limit
limit limit limit limit limit
1st District 1.1 0.4 1.7 3.1 1.7 4.5 3.8 2 5.6
2nd District 2.6 1.7 3.4 3.8 2.1 5.5 2.4 1.6 3.2
3rd District 2.6 1.7 3.5 3.7 2.6 4.8 3.8 2.5 5.1
4th District 1.8 1.1 2.4 2.9 2 3.7 1.6 0.7 2.5
Bataan 8.1 5.1 11 7.2 4 10.5 7.4 4.8 10
Batanes 6.3 6.3 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Benguet 4.4 1.7 7.1 3.6 2.1 5 4 2 6.1
Bulacan 4.3 2.9 5.7 5.1 3.7 6.6 4.8 3.7 5.9
Cavite 4.8 3.4 6.2 4.2 2.6 5.7 4.5 3.1 5.9
Ilocos Norte 14.3 7.9 20.6 11.3 5.8 16.9 9.2 6.1 12.3
Laguna 5.2 3.5 6.9 4.5 3 6 5.9 4.1 7.6
Nueva Vizcaya 3.2 1.8 4.6 5.8 1.4 10.3 6.7 2.9 10.5
Pampanga 4.9 3.5 6.3 3.8 2.4 5.2 6.7 4.9 8.4
30 JOEncarnacion/
Rizal 26 July 2012 2.9 1.9 3.9 2.7 NATIONAL
1.6 STATISTICAL
3.7 COORDINATION
6.5 BOARD
4.2 8.7
Agusan del Sur, Bohol, Maguindanao, Masbate, Surigao del Norte and Zamboanga del Norte were
consistently included in the bottom cluster of provinces in 2003, 2006, and 2009!
2003 2006 2009
90% CI 90% CI 90% CI

Province Poverty Poverty Poverty
incidence incidence Upper incidence
Lower limit Upper limit Lower limit Lower limit Upper limit
limit
Agusan del Sur 48.5 41.3 55.6 45.5 38.2 52.9 51.2 43.5 58.9
Apayao 10.7 3.4 18.0 37 24.6 49.4 36.3 23.2 49.4
Bohol 40.2 33.8 46.7 43.7 35.8 51.6 41.0 33.6 48.4
Camarines Norte 40.7 28.6 52.9 30.4 21.6 39.2 32.3 25.3 39.2
Camarines Sur 38.3 32.5 44.1 36.6 31 42.3 38.7 33.8 43.6
Camiguin 35.1 31.5 38.7 37.8 21.9 53.7 36.4 25.9 46.8
Davao Oriental 35.6 26.7 44.4 39 28 50.1 42.5 36.4 48.6
Eastern Samar 29.8 20.5 39 37.6 31.8 43.5 45.8 37.6 54.1
Lanao del Norte 35.6 27 44.1 34.3 28.1 40.6 39 31.9 46.1
Maguindanao 41.9 34.4 49.5 44.9 39 50.9 44.6 37.7 51.6
Masbate 50.2 42.3 58 42.9 33.9 51.8 42.5 36.6 48.3
Misamis Occidental 37 30.6 43.4 38.2 30.7 45.7 36.9 29.7 44.1
Negros Oriental 43.6 35.6 51.5 44.4 36.1 52.7 36.4 29.5 43.2
Northern Samar 37.4 27.9 47.0 43.3 32.9 53.8 41.7 32.4 51
Occidental Mindoro 32.6 24.9 40.3 40.6 30.4 50.7 25.4 18.3 32.4
Romblon 35.8 27.9 43.7 40.6 34.7 46.6 43 36.3 49.8
Saranggani 36.7 28.4 45.1 34.0 29.2 38.8 40.7 34 47.3
Siquijor 45.5 27.4 63.5 25.8 13.9 37.6 32.8 21.3 44.3
Sultan Kudarat 37.3 28.1 46.5 38.7 30.9 46.5 35.2 28.8 41.7
Sulu 20.3 13.4 27.1 36.7 29.1 44.2 39.3 33 45.5
Surigao Del Norte 42.3 35.2 49.4 41.6 34.9 48.3 47.9 43.1 52.8
Tawi-tawi 18.2 8.1 28.2 49.1 39.8 58.4 31.5 22.2 40.8
2012 MCPIdel
Annual Conference 59.5
31
Zamboanga Norte 51.4 67.5 54.1 46.4 61.7 52.9 46 59.8
JOEncarnacion/
Zamboanga Sibugay 26 July 2012 43.3 33.3 53.2 34.1 25.7 42.5 43.2 35.4 50.9
Cebu and Negros Occidental continue to have the biggest share in the total
number of poor families!
Magnitude of Poor Families % Share to Total Poor Families

Province
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
B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: High Poverty Incidence
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 mostly
located in Luzon and Visayas.

Subsistence and poverty incidence among families in 2009 were notably
high in Mindanao provinces.
Provinces with high poverty

and subsistence incidence
1. Zamboanga del Norte
2. Agusan del Sur
3. Eastern Samar
4. Surigao del Norte
5. Zamboanga Sibugay
6. Northern Samar

C. POVERTY STATISTICS AMONG THE BASIC SECTORS
Who are the basic sectors?

• In Republic Act 8425, or the Social Reform and Poverty
Alleviation Act, it was declared that the State should adopt
an area-based sectoral and focused intervention to poverty
alleviation.
• Section 3 of RA 8425 defined the basic sectors as the

disadvantaged sectors of Philippine society, namely:
1. Farmer-peasant
2. Artisanal fisherfolk
3. Workers in the formal sector and migrant workers
4. Workers in the informal sector
5. Indigenous peoples and cultural communities
6. Women
7. Differently-abled persons
Who are the basic sectors?
8. Senior citizens;
9. Victims of calamities and disasters;
10. Youth and students;
11. Children;
12. Urban poor;
13. Cooperatives; and
14. Non-government organization.


The NSCB generates poverty statistics for 9 of the 14 basic sectors
due to data constraints. The 9 basic sectors are operationally
defined as:
Sector Operational Definition
1. Farmer Employed household members 15 years old and
over whose primary occupation is farming and
plant growing, or animal production.
2. Fishermen Employed household members 15 years old and

over whose primary occupation is fishing.
3. Workers in the Formal Workers in the Formal Sector – Employed
Sector and Migrant persons working for private establishments and
Workers government organizations and corporations.
Migrant Workers – Individuals who are overseas

Filipino workers (OFW).
4. Women An individual whose declared sex is female.


The NSCB generates poverty statistics for 9 of the 14 basic sectors
due to data constraints. The 9 basic sectors are operationally
defined as:
Sector Operational Definition
5. Senior citizens Persons 60 years old and above.

6. Youth Youth – Persons 15 to 30 years old.
7. Children Persons below 18 years old
8. Individuals residing in An individual residing in an urban area whose

urban areas income falls below the official poverty
threshold.
9. Self-employed and Employed individuals 15 years old and over

unpaid family workers who are either self employed or worked without
pay on family owned business

Fishermen posted the highest poverty incidence among the nine basic sectors
in the Philippines in 2009 at 41.4%, the same level in 2006, followed by farmers
and children at poverty incidences of 36.7% and 35.1% in 2009, respectively.
41.4%
36.7% 35.1%
45
40
35 2003
30 2006
25 2009
20
15
10
5
0

Poverty incidence for four basic sectors increased between 2006 and 2009:
youth and migrant and formal sector workers, both with 1.0 percentage
point increases, and children and individuals residing in urban areas, both
with 0.3 percentage point increases.
Increase/
2003 2006 2009
Decrease
90% Confidence 90% Confidence 90% Confidence

Sector Interval Interval Interval 2003 2006
Poverty Pov. Pov.
- -
Incidence Inc. Inc.
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper 2006 2009
Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
Philippines5/ 24.9 24.1 25.8 26.4 25.5 27.3 26.5 25.6 27.3 1.5 0.1
Fishermen 35.0 32.4 37.6 41.4 38.6 44.2 41.4 38.9 43.9 6.4 0.0
Farmers 37.0 35.5 38.4 37.2 35.7 38.7 36.7 35.4 38.1 0.2 (0.5)
Children 32.7 31.5 33.9 34.8 33.6 36 35.1 34.1 36.2 2.1 0.3
Self-employed and Unpaid
28.0 26.8 29.3 29.4 28.2 30.7 29.0 27.9 30.2 1.4 (0.4)
Family Workers 1/
Women 24.0 23 25 25.1 24.1 26.1 25.1 24.3 26 1.1 0.0
Youth 19.0 18.1 19.9 20.8 19.9 21.7 21.8 20.9 22.6 1.8 1.0
Migrant and Formal Sector 14.6 13.8 15.4 15.7 14.9 16.5 16.7 16 17.4 1.1 1.0
Senior Citizens 15.1 14.2 15.9 16.2 15.3 17.2 15.8 15.1 16.5 1.2 (0.5)
Individuals residing in urban areas 11.1 10.3 11.9 12.5 11.7 13.3 12.8 12.0 13.5 1.4 0.3

1/ Self-employed and Unpaid Family Workers is an additional sector, which serves asSTATISTICAL
a proxy indicator for informal sector
NATIONAL
workers, considering data available in the PSS.
COORDINATION BOARD
Children, women, and individuals residing in urban areas accounted for the
largest number of poor population in the country in 2009 at 12.4 million, 11.2
million, and 5.7 million, respectively.
2003 2006 2009
Sector 90% Confidence Interval 90% Confidence Interval 90% Confidence Interval
Magnitude Magnitude Magnitude
of Poor Upper of Poor Lower of Poor Lower
Lower Limit Upper Limit Upper Limit
Limit Limit Limit
Philippines 19,796,954 19,110,455 20,483,453 22,173,190 21,435,613 22,964,387 23,142,481 22,363,307 23,836,693
Children 11,363,850 11,228,469 11,499,230 12,272,819 12,126,241 12,419,398 12,414,811 12,286,448 12,543,174
Women 9,605,037 9,509,134 9,700,940 10,691,078 10,584,303 10,797,853 11,169,745 11,075,812 11,263,677
Individuals
residing in 4,429,424 4,394,400 4,464,448 5,310,531 5,267,025 5,354,037 5,709,170 5,664,660 5,753,680
urban areas
Youth 4,280,197 4,242,071 4,318,323 4,850,607 4,805,832 4,895,382 5,367,308 5,323,314 5,411,302
Self-employed
and Unpaid
3,566,586 3,522,046 3,611,126 4,115,632 4,064,734 4,166,530 4,186,194 4,139,565 4,232,823
Family
Workers
Migrant and
2,283,773 2,265,940 2,301,606 2,599,336 2,578,880 2,619,792 3,118,701 3,095,868 3,141,534
Formal Sector
Farmers 1,768,249 1,742,363 1,794,135 1,773,484 1,747,354 1,799,614 1,685,148 1,662,409 1,707,887
Senior
793,233 786,342 800,124 1,035,089 1,025,583 1,044,595 1,181,121 1,172,658 1,189,584
Citizens
Fishermen 355,815 346,524 365,107 400,214 389,019 411,409 346,345 337,765 354,924
D. City and Municipal Level Poverty Statistics
• Official provincial poverty statistics are computed based on the

final results of the Family Income and Expenditure Survey.
• The FIES is costly to implement, with regions as current domains.

The design of the FIES does not permit reliable analysis of smaller
subgroups, such as cities and municipalities.
• There is a strong clamor from policymakers and program

implementers for more geographically disaggregated
information on the poorest cities/municipalities.
• In response to this need for poverty statistics at lower levels of

disaggregation, the NSCB, with funding assistance from the World
Bank implemented two projects on small area estimation (SAE) to
generate poverty incidences at the city/municipal levels.

Two projects undertaken by the NSCB with WB funding
Project Output Year Released

Poverty Mapping in 2000 city/municipal 2005
the Philippines level poverty
estimates
Intercensal Updating 2003 city/municipal 2008

of Small Area Poverty level poverty
Estimates estimates
• Used the Elbers, Lanjouw and Lanjouw (ELL) technique

developed by a WB research team.


2003 Poverty Incidence among Population
By province By city/municipality

Actual Policy Uses

1. In targeting beneficiaries of programs/projects
-Implementation of nationwide programs on the:

1) National Household Targeting System for Poverty
Reduction;
2) Conditional Cash Transfers;
3) Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social

Services; and
4) Training/deployment of unemployed registered nurses in

the 1,000 poorest cities/municipalities of the country.

Actual Policy Uses

1. In targeting beneficiaries of programs/projects (cont.)
- Identification of priority households for:
1) the implementation of a number of local livelihood projects for the five

poorest municipalities of the provinces of Region VI under the Integrated
Services for Livelihood Advancement of Fisherfolks (ISLA) and Tulong
Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged Workers (TUPAD);
2) targeting enrolment in health insurance sponsored projects of the

Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, specifically in Regions VIII and
XII;
3) estimation of the volume of rice needed for the Food for Children
program in Leyte province; and
4) implementation of programs/projects of the MPAI-World Vision for

schooling of indigent children and micro-enterprise development.

Actual Policy Uses

2. In policy formulation and planning
-Design and implementation of local poverty action plans, particularly in

Region VI; and
-Development and monitoring of the Medium-Term Regional Development

Plan (MTRDP), Provincial Development and Physical Framework Plan, and
Provincial Plan for Children in selected areas/localities.
3. In poverty monitoring
- Monitoring the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in

Regions I, IV, and VIII; and
- Monitoring the State of Children and nutritional status of the population in

Regions IV and VIII, respectively.


• The NSCB is currently updating the small area estimates of
poverty for 2009.
• This is jointly funded by the Government of the Philippines and

the World Bank.
• Consultations/validations were undertaken by the NSCB

Technical Staff, with the Project Consultant and Technical
Adviser:
• Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics on June 1, 2012
• A validation of the preliminary estimates was undertaken on
July 22-25, 2012.
• The 2009 poverty incidence among population for all cities and
municipalities will be released by the NSCB through a national
dissemination forum on July 30, 2012.


A. Poverty and Unemployment/Underemployment: Need for quality
employment
Poverty incidence for the employed population increased from 22.1%

in 2006 to 22.4% in 2009. Similarly, poverty incidence for the
unemployed population increased from 15.8% in 2006 to 22.4% in 2009.
Poverty incidence for employed population is higher than the poverty

incidence for unemployed population both in 2006 and 2009!
Increase/Decr
Statistics 2006 2009 ease
06-09
Poverty Incidence
Employed Population 22.1 22.4 0.3
Unemployed Population 15.8 22.4 6.6
Magnitude of Poor
Employed Population 7,254,861 7,880,786 625,925
Unemployed Population 372,062 465,106 93,044
• Employment is not sufficient, quality of employment matters!

B. Poverty and Minimum Wage-Setting: Need for more poverty-sensitive minimum wage
REGIONAL (FOR Caraga):
• A minimum wage earner* in Caraga can support a family of at most four members in 2009,
to be classified as non-poor!
• However, average family size in Caraga is 5!
Family size Required monthly Monthly Income of a Minimum Wage Earner in 2009
income (in PhP)
Non-agriculture (PhP 233/day) Agriculture (PhP 223/day)
1 1,405 6,058 5,798
2 2,810 6,058 5,798
3 4,215 6,058 5,798
4 5,620 6,058 5,798
5 7,025 6,058 5,798
6 8,430 6,058 5,798
7 9,835 6,058 5,798
8 11,240 6,058 5,798
•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 family income was used.
REGIONAL (FOR ARMM):
• A minimum wage earner* in ARMM can support a family of at most four members in 2009,
to be classified as non-poor!
• However, average family size in ARMM is 5.
income (in PhP)
1 1,361 5,460 5,460
2 2,722 5,460 5,460
3 4,083 5,460 5,460
4 5,444 5,460 5,460
5 6,805 5,460 5,460
6 8,166 5,460 5,460
7 9,527 5,460 5,460
8 10,888 5,460 5,460
•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 )
REGIONAL (FOR Region IX):
• A minimum wage earner* in Region IX can support a family of at most four members in
2009, to be classified as non-poor!
• However, average family size in Region IX is 5.
income (in PhP)
1 1,263 6,240 5,590
2 2,526 6,240 5,590
3 3,789 6,240 5,590
4 5,052 6,240 5,590

5 6,315 6,240 5,590
6 7,578 6,240 5,590

7 8,841 6,240 5,590
8 10,104 6,240 5,590
•Minimum wage earner in Region IX employed in the non-agriculture sector.
•Rate is effective 3 July 2008, per Wage order No. 15 (Source of data: http://www.nwpc.dole.gov.ph/pages/statistics/stat_wage%20rates1989-
present_non-agri.html )
C. Poverty and Economic Growth: Need for better income distribution,
inclusive growth
Poverty The increase in Statistics/
Region IVB
Gross Regional Domestic economic Income decile class 2006 2009
% change
Incidence 06-09
Region
Product (in thousand Inc/Dec
Among Families
Inc/Dec growth Mean per capita incom e
pesos) constant
(%) between 2006 All incom e groups 21,631 29,727 37.4
2006 2009 06-09 2006 2009 06-09 and 2009 in Firs t decile clas s 6,049 8,488 40.3
Region IVB is Second decile clas s 8,755 12,342 41.0
PHILIPPINES 1,276,155,599 1,432,115,499 12.2 21.1 20.9 (0.2) well distributed Third decile clas s 10,536 14,969 42.1
NCR 414,437,924 465,688,965 12.4 3.4 2.6 (0.8) across all Fourth Decile clas s 12,665 17,588 38.9
income decile Fifth Decile clas s 15,192 20,823 37.1

CAR 28,396,925 31,547,310 11.1 18.6 17.1 (1.5) 36.5
class. Poverty
Sixth Decile clas s 18,255 24,924
Region I 38,172,734 40,737,475 6.7 20.4 17.8 (2.6) Seventh Decile clas s 22,172 30,386 37.0
incidence Eighth Decile clas s 27,861 39,161 40.6
Region II 25,523,961 28,157,464 10.3 15.5 14.5 (1.1) decreased by Ninth Decile clas s 39,545 55,363 40.0
Region III 107,039,140 115,947,511 8.3 12.0 12.0 0.1 6.7% between Tenth Decile clas s 89,490 123,781 38.3
Region IV-A 156,688,378 165,572,379 5.7 9.4 10.3 0.9 2006 and 2009.
Region IV-B 34,292,906 39,105,919 14.0 34.3 27.6 (6.7) In contrast, in
Region XII
Statistics/
% change
Region XII, the
Region V 35,394,007 42,877,886 21.1 36.1 36.0 (0.1)
increase in
Income decile class 2006 2009
06-09
Region VI 91,865,954 109,252,408 18.9 22.1 23.8 1.7 Mean per capita incom e
economic
growth is
All incom e groups 24,281 32,975 35.8
Region VII 90,297,893 102,052,820 13.0 33.5 30.2 (3.2)
Region VIII 28,093,607 30,482,024 8.5 31.1 33.2 2.1 Firs t decile clas s
Second decile clas s
6,939
9,652
8,327
12,093
20.0
25.3
concentrated
Region IX 32,676,015 38,196,714 16.9 34.2 36.6 2.4 Third decile clas s 11,996 14,730 22.8 in the upper
Region X 62,729,335 73,206,779 16.7 32.7 32.8 0.2 Fourth Decile clas s 14,415 17,739 23.1 income decile
Region XI 57,877,947 67,366,644 16.4 26.2 25.6 (0.6)
Fifth Decile clas s
Sixth Decile clas s
17,016
20,336
21,287
25,750
25.1
26.6
classes.
Poverty
Region XII 44,740,935 50,556,259 13.0 27.1 28.1 1.0 Seventh Decile clas s 24,617 31,600 28.4
Eighth Decile clas s 31,337 40,723 30.0 incidence also

Caraga 11,290,530 12,409,350 9.9 36.9 39.8 3.0 Ninth Decile clas s 44,275 60,265 36.1 increased by
ARMM 16,637,408 18,957,590 13.9 36.5 38.1 1.7 Tenth Decile clas s 96,152 146,630 52.5 1.0% between
54 JOEncarnacion/ 26 July 2012 NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION 2006 and 2009.
BOARD
D. Poverty and Population Management
Poor families have bigger family size!
Average Family Size
All Food Poor Poor Non-Poor
2009 4.74 6.48 5.99 4.38

IV. Some Policy/Program Implications – E. Poverty &
Education
• Families whose heads have lower educational attainment have
higher poverty incidence!
Poverty Incidence Among Families by Educational Attainment of
the Household Head: 2003 and 2006
Educational Attainment 2003 2006 Inc./Dec.
No Grade Completed 44.4 45.5 1.0
Elementary Undergraduate 36.8 36.5 (0.2)
Elementary Graduate 25.4 28.8 3.4
High School Undergraduate 20.7 22.6 1.9
High School Graduate 11.1 13.1 2.0
College Undergraduate 4.5 5.5 1.0
College Graduate 1.7 2.3 0.6
Post Graduate 2.2 0.0 (2.2)
Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the official poverty statistics of the NSCB and the result
of the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) of the National Statistics Office (NSO).
Note: Poverty estimates were only generated for 2003 and 2006 as the FIES datafile available to the NSCB contains very limited
2012 MCPI Annual variables (i.e., 13 variables).
Conference
G. Poverty and targeting: The first round of CCT/4Ps in 2008-2009 did not benefit all
subsistence poor provinces. CCT was not provided in any of the municipalities in
Eastern Samar, which is one of the provinces with the highest subsistence
incidence (25.7%) and highest poverty incidence (45.8%) among families in 2009.
•A total of 55 municipalities in least subsistence poor provinces also benefited from
the CCT program!
No CCT
in
Eastern
Samar
in 2008-
2009

G. Poverty and targeting: In 2009, out of 138 cities and 1,496 municipalities, the following
benefited from the CCT Program of the DSWD:
With high poverty incidence – 139 municipalities and 75 cities
With low poverty incidence – 28 municipalities and 18 cities
• A total of 22 municipalities in least poor provinces also benefited from the CCT program!
No CCT
in
Eastern
Samar
in 2008-
2009

G. Poverty and targeting: Contiguous regions with high concentration of
poor families could be prioritized in targeting/intervention programs.
Province No. of Total no. of

Municipality municipalities
with CCT and cities
Pangasinan
5.9% Pangasinan 7 48
Nueva
Ecija Nueva Ecija 11 32
3.3%
Camarines Camarines Sur 5 37
Sur
Negros 8 32
Occidental
Leyte Bohol 1 48
Cebu
Negros 14.9% Cebu 6 53
Occidental Bohol
Leyte 10 43
Zamboanga Zamboanga del 27 27

2.8% del Norte Norte

IV. Some Policy/Program Implications - Poverty and the
MDGs
. Poverty and the MDGs
With the latest 2009 poverty estimates, the probability of

halving poverty, between 1990 and 2015, has gone down but
remains at medium!
Indicator Target 1991 2003 2006 2009
Poverty
incidence 16.6 33.1
among 24.9 26.4 26.5
population (Baseline)
Pace of 0.99 0.65 0.53
Progress
Notes: The pace of progress is computed as the ratio of the actual annual growth rate and required annual growth
rate.
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

We need to reduce poverty incidence among population by 1.65
percentage points annually , from 2010 to 2015!
This means that, on the average, there should be an annual reduction of
1.67 million in the magnitude of poor Filipinos from 2010 to 2015
Actual Target (given the present

performance)
Poverty Incidence among Percentage point Poverty Incidence Percentage point
population decrease among population decrease
1991 33.1 Annual reduction of 0.69 annually,
0.37 percentage between 1991-
2003 24.9
points, between 2015, from a
2006 26.4 1991-2009, from a baseline of 33.1
2009 26.5 baseline of 33.1 20.7
2012 18.6 1.65 annually,
2015 16.6 between 2010-
TARGET
2015, from a
Reduction in Poor Population Poverty Incidence baseline of 26.5%
Annual Cumulative among Population
2010 1,598,224 25.05
2011 1,628,372 3,226,597 23.35
2012 1,658,671 4,885,268 21.65
2013 1,689,113 6,574,381 19.95
2014
2012 MCPI Annual Conference 1,719,689 8,294,071 18.25
61 JOEncarnacion/ 26 July2015
2012 1,750,410 10,044,481
16.55
. Poverty and the MDGs

As of 2009, the Philippines was eight years behind target on
poverty reduction!
Only NCR, CAR, Regions II and IV-A are ahead of their targets!
10.0
5.0
5.0 3.2
0.5 0.5
0.0
-5.0 -2.3
-3.8 -4.0
-5.6
-10.0 -8.4 -8.3 -8.3
-9.6 -10.2
-15.0 -12.0
-14.1
-20.0
I
XI
III
II
X
II
I
R
V
-A
-B
I
VI
XI
R
s
VI
VI
on
ne
on
NC
CA
on
on
on
IV
IV
on
on
on
on
gi
on
pi
gi
gi
gi
gi
gi
on
on
gi
gi
Re
ilip
gi
Re
Re
gi
Re
Re
Re
Re
Re
gi
gi
Re
Re
Ph
Re
Re
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 first
developed 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.
SOME POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION/QUESTIONS:
1. Towards poverty alleviation amidst resource constraints, need to

balance support for the core poor, the poor and the middle class
To sustain poverty reduction, need to maintain a healthy middle
class? Improve education?
2. Should target be focused on reducing poverty incidence or
reducing subsistence incidence?
3. Employment is not sufficient: quality of employment matters
4. Minimum wage setting – too many low paying jobs?
5. Importance of decent job creation

SO MANY DEMANDS/CHALLENGES TO THE PHILIPPINE STATISTICAL

SYSTEM on the generation of official poverty statistics:
• Annual poverty incidences and other measures of poverty;

• More timely official poverty statistics (i.e., regular generation of
“advance” thresholds);
• Regular generation of small area estimates of poverty (i.e., at the
city/municipal level);
• Harmonization/standardization of existing statistical frameworks on
poverty reduction statistics (e.g., official poverty statistics, NHTSPR,
CBMS, among others) ;
• Communicating official poverty statistics towards more actual policy
uses;
• Well-being/Happiness of the poor;
… AND THE LIST GOES ON… AND ON… BUT (next slide)

TO AID THE PHILIPPINE STATISTICAL SYSTEM IN RESPONDING TO

THESE MANY DEMANDS/CHALLENGES:
1. There is a need for statistical capacity building, specially of

the line agencies and the LGUs
• Many LGUs do not have a statistical unit or statistical personnel;
• Low compensation scheme for statistical personnel;
• Non-statisticians doing statistical work.
2. Statistics must be demand-driven; POLICY MAKERS must

translate statistics into programs and policies
3. Statistical agencies must be relevant to stakeholders


There is a great need for more resources for statistics, specially

manpower!
• INVEST IN STATISTICS! INVEST IN STATISTICAL OFFICES!

INVEST IN STATISTICIANS!

Maraming Salamat po!
URL: http://www.nscb.gov.ph
e-mail: info@nscb.gov.ph

I. Introduction
Who are the members of the Technical Committee on Poverty
Statistics (TC PovStat)?
The Committee is composed of professionals/experts who have undertaken
significant studies on poverty. Membership in the committee is based on
individual expertise and not on representation by agency/institution.
Chairperson: DR. CELIA M. REYES

Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS)
Vice Chairpersons:
Dr. Romulo A. Virola Administrator Carmelita N. Ericta
NSCB National Statistics Office (NSO)
Chairpersons of the Four Small Working Groups:

Dr. Lisa Grace S. Bersales Dr. Arsenio S. Balisacan
UP School of Statistics National Economic and Development Authority /
UP School of Economics
Dr. Zita VJ Albacea Ms. Dolores de Quiros-Castillo

UP Institute of Statistics Former Asst. Sec., National Anti-Poverty Commission
I. Introduction
Who are the members of the Technical Committee on Poverty

Statistics (TC PovStat)?
Members:
Dir. Erlinda M. Capones Dep. Adm. Paula Monina G. Collado
National Economic Dev’t. Authority NSO
Usec. Alicia R. Bala OIC-Dir. Myrna Asuncion

Dept. of Social Welfare and Dev’t. NEDA
Asst. Sec. Gen. Lina Castro Dr. Jose Ramon Albert

NSCB PIDS
Ms. Emma Fabian OIC-Dir. Jessamyn O. Encarnacion

NSO NSCB
Dir. Manuel Gotis Dr. Arturo Pacificador

Dept. of Interior & Local Gov’t. De La Salle University
Dir. Romeo S. Recide Prof. Ofelia M. Templo

Bureau of Agricultural Statistics Ateneo de Manila University
Dr. Jocelyn Juguan Ms. Susanita Tesiorna

Food & Nutrition Research Institute
69 JOEncarnacion/ Trade Union Congress
NATIONAL of the
STATISTICAL PhilippinesBOARD
COORDINATION
26 July 2012
Some positive events between 2006 and 2009:

Period Event
July 2009 Increase in the salaries of government employees with

the implementation of the 1st of four parts of the Salary
Standardization Law III.
2008 Conditional cash transfer (CCT) implemented in 161
municipalities 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.
February Start of application for the Project on Nurses Assigned

2009 in Rural Service by the DOLE, DOH, and the
Professional Regulation Commission, Board of Nursing
(PRC-BON). The Project involved the
training/deployment of unemployed registered nurses in
70 JOEncarnacion/ 26 July 2012 the 1,000 poorest cities/municipalities ofCOORDINATION
NATIONAL STATISTICAL the country.BOARD
Some negative events between 2006 and 2009:
Period Event
2006-2009 Rice price crisis: Price of ordinary rice
increased by 44.2%, from PhP 21.28/kg
in 2006 to PhP 30.69 in 2009
2008 Global financial crisis
June 2009 Start of El Niño
July 2009 Start of the increase in alert level of

Mayon Volcano

Some negative events between 2006 and 2009:
Some typhoons/calamities in 2009
Typhoon/Calamity Period Covered Estimated Cost of Area(s) affected

Damage
1. Pepeng Sept. 24 - 27, PhP 27.195 billion NCR, CAR, I, II, III,
2009 IV-A, IV-B, V, IX
2. Ondoy Sept. 30 – Oct. PhP 11.121 billion NCR, CAR, I, II, III,
11, 2009 IV-A, IV-B, V, IX
3. Ramil Oct. 20-26, 2009 PhP 87 million in CAR, Regions I
Cagayan Valley and II

In NCR, the average per capita income of the bottom 10%

of families rose faster than prices of food and all items!
NCR
Statistics/
% change
Income decile class 2003 2006 2009
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 17.6
Fifth 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
2012 MCPI Annual Conference 235,805 263,928 309,122 11.9 17.1
B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Poor Population
Biggest reductions in the number of poor population from 2006 to 2009 were observed in NCR,
Regions IV-B and I. On the other hand, largest increases were observed in Regions VI, VIII and IV-
A, with 264,651, 263,315, and 166,550 increases in the poor population, respectively.
2,500,000 2003
2006
264,651 2009
2,000,000
166,550
263,315
1,500,000 -107,790
-141,498
1,000,000
-146,477
500,000
R
M
-A
-B
V
IX
I
II
II
II
III
III
a
V
X
V
A
ag
M
V
IV
IV
C
R
ar
A
C
V VII VI VIII X IV-A III ARMM IX XII XI Caraga I IV-B II NCR CAR
74
CCT 17
JOEncarnacion/
(08-09) (114)
39
26
(132)
23
July 2012
(133)
46
(143)
34
(93)
7
(142)
35
(130)
49
(118)
14
(72)
16 NATIONAL
(50)
19 52
(49)
19COORDINATION
STATISTICAL 27
(73)
5
(125)
8
BOARD 28
(73) (93) (17) (77)
Fishermen posted the highest poverty incidence among the nine basic sectors
in the Philippines in 2009 at 41.4%, the same level in 2006, followed by farmers
and children at poverty incidences of 36.7% from 37.2% in 2006 and 35.1% from
32.7% in 2006, respectively.
Increase/
2003 2006 2009
Decrease
90% 90% 90%
Confidence Confidence Confidenc
Povert Povert 200
Sector Interval Interval e Interval 2003
Poverty y y 6-
Upp -
Incidence Low Upp Incide Upp Incide Low 200
Lower er 2006
er er nce er nce er 9
Limit Lim
Limit Limit Limit Limit
it
Philippines5/ 24.9 24.1 25.8 26.4 25.5 27.3 26.5 25.6 27.3 1.5 0.1
Fishermen 35.0 32.4 37.6 41.4 38.6 44.2 41.4 38.9 43.9 6.4 0.0
(0.5
Farmers 37.0 35.5 38.4 37.2 35.7 38.7 36.7 35.4 38.1 0.2
)
Children 32.7 31.5 33.9 34.8 33.6 36 35.1 34.1 36.2 2.1 0.3
Self-employed and
(0.4
Unpaid Family 28.0 26.8 29.3 29.4 28.2 30.7 29.0 27.9 30.2 1.4
)
Workers4/
Women 24.0 23 25 25.1 24.1 26.1 25.1 24.3 26 1.1 0.0
Youth 19.0 18.1 19.9 20.8 19.9 21.7 21.8 20.9 22.6 1.8 1.0
Migrant and Formal
14.6 13.8 15.4 15.7 14.9 16.5 16.7 16 17.4 1.1 1.0
Sector
(0.5
Senior Citizens 15.1 14.2 15.9 16.2 15.3 17.2 15.8 15.1 16.5 1.2
)
75 JOEncarnacion/
Individuals residing in
urban areas 26 July 2012
11.1 10.3 11.9 12.5 NATIONAL
11.7 STATISTICAL
13.3 12.8 COORDINATION BOARD0.3
12.0 13.5 1.4
10 of 17 regions had decreasing subsistence incidence between
2006 and 2009, only 5 regions between 2003 and 2006!
Subsistence incidence among families Increase/Decrease
Region
2003 2006 2009 03-06 06-09
PHILIPPINES 8.2 8.7 7.9 0.4 (0.8)
Region VII 16.0 17.1 13.2 1.1 (3.8)
ARMM 7.3 11.6 8.5 4.3 (3.1)
Region V 18.0 15.7 12.9 (2.2) (2.9)
Region I 5.8 7.1 5.5 1.2 (1.6)
Region XI 12.3 12.1 11.0 (0.2) (1.1)
CAR 5.8 8.3 7.6 2.5 (0.7)
Region X 16.1 16.3 15.6 0.2 (0.6)
Region IV-A 2.4 2.8 2.4 0.3 (0.3)
NCR 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.3 (0.3)
Region II 4.1 4.3 4.1 0.3 (0.2)
Region VI 9.1 7.9 7.9 (1.1) 0.9
Region III 2.3 3.7 3.7 1.4 1.0
Region XII 10.6 10.8 11.3 0.2 1.7
Region IX 25.1 17.9 18.6 (7.1) 1.7
Region VIII 11.1 13.5 14.4 2.4 2.1
Caraga 16.6 16.9 19.7STATISTICAL
0.3 COORDINATION
2.4 BOARD
NATIONAL
Region IV-B 11.1 2.8 10.5 (8.3) 3.0
II. The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics
8 of 17 regions had decreasing poverty incidence between
2006 and 2009, only 5 regions between 2003 and 2006!
Poverty incidence among families Increase/Decrease
Region
2003 2006 2009 03-06 06-09
Region IV-B 29.8 34.3 27.6 4.5 (6.7)
Region VII 32.1 33.5 30.2 1.4 (3.2)
Region I 17.8 20.4 17.8 2.6 (2.6)
CAR 16.1 18.6 17.1 2.4 (1.5)
Region II 15.2 15.5 14.5 0.3 (1.1)
NCR 2.1 3.4 2.6 1.3 (0.8)
Region XI 25.4 26.2 25.6 0.9 (0.6)
Region V 38.0 36.1 36.0 (1.9) (0.1)
Region III 9.4 12.0 12.0 2.6 0.1
Region X 32.4 32.7 32.8 0.2 0.2
Region IV-A 9.2 9.4 10.3 0.1 0.9
Region XII 27.2 27.1 28.1 (0.1) 1.0
ARMM 25.0 36.5 38.1 11.4 1.7
Region VI 23.5 22.1 23.8 (1.4) 1.7
Region VIII 30.2 31.1 33.2 1.0 2.1
Region IX 40.5 34.2 36.6 STATISTICAL
(6.3)COORDINATION
2.4 BOARD
NATIONAL
Caraga 37.6 36.9 39.8 (0.7) 3.0
B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Food Poor Families
Biggest Magnitude
reductions in the number of food poor familiesof Food
from 2006 Poor Families
to 2009 were observed in
Regions VII, V and IV-B. On the other hand, largest increases were observed in Caraga, Regions
VIII 250,000
and XII with 17,582, 14,476 and 9,783 increase in food poor families, respectively.
-39,043 2003
2006
2009
200,000
-21,409
150,000
14,476
17,582 9,783
100,000 -19,541
50,000
R
M
I
V
-B
-A
II
III
a
IX
VI
XI
I
I
II
VI
XI
C
ag
M
VI
n
n
IV
IV
io
n
N
n
io
R
io
io
n
n
ar
io
io
io
io
n
eg
A
io
io
eg
eg
eg
io
eg
eg
eg
eg
io
io
eg
eg
R
eg
R
R
eg
eg
R
R
R
R
VII V X VIII IX VI XI Caraga XII III IV-B IV-A I ARMM II CAR NCR
R
R
CCT 17 39 34 46 49 23 14 52 16 35 27 7 19 19 5 28 8
78 (08-09) (132) (114) (93)
JOEncarnacion/ 26 July 2012
(143) (72) (133) (49) (73) (50) NATIONAL
(130) (73) STATISTICAL
(142) (125)COORDINATION
(118) (93) BOARD
(77) (17)
B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Poor Families
Biggest reductions in the number of poor families from 2006 to 2009 were observed in Regions IV-
B, VII and NCR. On the other hand, largest increases were observed in Regions VI, IV-A and VIII,
with 42,867, 37,349 and 33,808 increase in poor families, respectively.
500,000
-17,567
2003
450,000
2006
2009
400,000
42,867
350,000
33,808
300,000
37,349
250,000
-24,229
200,000
150,000
-16,423
100,000
50,000
R
M
-A
-B
V
IX
I
II
II
II
III
III
a
V
X
V
A
ag
M
V
IV
IV
C
R
ar
A
C
VII V VI VIII X IV-A III IX XI XII ARMM Caraga I IV-B II NCR CAR
79 JOEncarnacion/
CCT
(08-09)
17
(132) 26
39
July
(114)
23
2012
(133)
46
(143)
34
(93)
7
(142)
35
(130)
49
(72)
14
(49) (50)
16 NATIONAL
19
(118)
52
STATISTICAL
(73)
19 27 5 BOARD
COORDINATION
(125)
8
(73) (93) (17)
28
(77)
B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Food Poor Population
Biggest reductions in the number of food poor population from 2006 to 2009 were observed in
Regions
1,400,000VII, V and IV-B.
-184,231 2003
2006
1,200,000
-159,599 2009
1,000,000
45,176
800,000
123,931 61,626
600,000 -123,381
400,000
200,000
R
M
I
V
-A
-B
II
III
a
IX
VI
XI
I
eg I
II
VI
XI
C
n
ag
M
VI
n
n
IV
IV
io
n
N
n
io
R
io
io
n
n
ar
io
io
io
io
n
eg
A
io
io
eg
eg
eg
io
C
eg
eg
eg
io
io
eg
eg
R
eg
R
R
eg
eg
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
VII V X VIII VI IX XI Caraga XII III IV-A IV-B I ARMM II CAR NCR
80 JOEncarnacion/
CCT 17 39
(08-09) (132) 26(114)
34
July 2012
(93)
46
(143)
23
(133)
49
(72)
14
(49)
52
(73)
16
(50)
35NATIONAL
(130)
7 STATISTICAL
(142)
27
(73)
19COORDINATION
19
(125)
5 BOARD
(118)
28
(93) (77)
8
(17)
B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Poor Families
Negros Oriental, Tawi-Tawi and Pangasinan had the biggest reduction among poor
families from 2006 to 2009!
140,000
-13,996
120,000 2003
-21,199 2006
100,000 2009
80,000
60,000
40,000 -14,978
20,000
ro
ro
al
ue
t
al
an
i
s
an
ic
aw
le
nt
do
nt
do
iq
r
in
ba
st
i -t
rie
rie
nt
la
in
as
in
Di
w
m
Pa
O
M
lM
O
ng
Ta
Za
d
s
is
2n
ta
a
Pa
ro
nt
en
eg
rie
is
id
N
O
M
cc
Pangasinan Negros Misamis Palawan Oriental O
Antique Occidental 2nd District Zambales Tawi-Tawi
Oriental Oriental Mindoro Mindoro
CCT
2012 (08-09)
MCPI 7
Annual Conference 10 4 14 6 5 9 2 2 1
(48) (25) (25) (23) (15)
NATIONAL
(18)
STATISTICAL
(11)
COORDINATION
(5) (13)
BOARD(11)
B. REGIONAL/PROVINCIAL: Magnitude of Poor Population
Sulu, Lanao del Sur, and Iloilo were the provinces that have largest increases in the
number of poor families from 2006-2009!
160,000
140,000 2003
2006
120,000
2009
100,000 19,972
80,000
24,945
60,000
18,957
40,000
20,000
-
ij a
r
to
il o
l
e
lu
l
a
l
a
Su
ta
ta
t
ng
iz
or
Su
ba
Ec
Il o
en
en
pa
l
N
a
de
id
id
va
ot
m
de
cc
cc
C
ue
Pa
na
O
O
h
o
N
ut
na
La
s
is
ro
So
La
m
eg
a
is
N
M
Negros Nueva Iloilo South Lanao del Sulu Misamis Lanao del Rizal Pampanga
Occidental Ecija Cotabato Norte Occidental Sur
2012
CCTMCPI Annual Conference
(08-09) 8 11 3 2 15 6 4 4 0 2
(31) (32) (43) (11) (22)
(19) (17) (40) (14) (21)
employment
Proportion of poor families declined from 21.1 in 2006 to 20.9 in 2009, consistent
with the declining trend in underemployment rate and unemployment rate, which
went down from 22.6 to 19.1 and 8.0 to 7.5, respectively from 2006 to 2009!
25
22.6
-0.2
20.9
20
21.1 21.03 18.7
19.3 19.1
Unemplo yment Rate

15
Underemplo yment Rate
P o verty Incidence amo ng

families
10
8.0 7.5
7.3 7.4 7.3
5
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
employment
• Poverty incidence has been consistently higher among families
whose household head is employed.
•Employment is not sufficient, quality of employment matters!
Poverty Incidence Among Families by Employment Status of the
Household Head: 2003 and 2006
Employment Status 2003 2006a
Employed 21.8 24.2

Unemployed 15.0 17.8
Not in the Labor Force 8.3 11.7
a/ The 2006 poverty estimates on unemployment is based on the new official

definition of unemployment, which was approved through NSCB Resolution No. 15
Series of 2004.
Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the official poverty statistics of the NSCB and the result of the
Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) of the National Statistics Office (NSO).
Note: Poverty estimates were only generated for 2003 and 2006 as the 2009 FIES datafile provided by the NSO to the NSCB contains
very limited variables (i.e., 13 variables).

Share of EDUCATION expenditure to the total basic expenditure:
Among poor families, share very slightly decreased between 2003 and 2006:
•MDG 2 on education has low probability of achieving the target!
•Are the poor not prioritizing/spending on/gaining education since:
1) education-related expenditures are too expensive for the poor;
2) poor families need children to work and do not send them to school?
• Will the CCT make a difference?
Education expenditure of the poor, nonpoor and all families, 2003 and
2006
5.4 2003
5.0
% Share to total basic expenditure
4.9 4.7 2006

5
4 Inflation for
education
2003-2006:
3 1.9 1.8 22.3%
2 Inflation for
all items
1 2003-2006:
(0.1) 0.5 0.3 21.2%
0
Poor Nonpoor All
Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the official poverty statistics of the NSCB and the result of the
2012 MCPI Family
Annual Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) of the National Statistics Office (NSO).
Conference
85 JOEncarnacion/Note:
26 July 2012
Poverty
estimates were only generated for 2003 and 2006 as the 2009 FIES datafile provided by the NSO to the NSCB contains very
limited variables (i.e., 13 variables).
IV. Some Policy/Program Implications: Poverty & Education
Poverty Incidence and Primary Cohort Survival Rate
•In general, provinces in the least poor cluster have higher primary cohort survival rates than
provinces in the bottom poor cluster!
•Despite being in the bottom poor cluster, six provinces registered primary cohort survival rates
greater than 65%: Lanao del Norte, Eastern Samar, Surigao del Norte, Masbate, Camarines Sur, and
Agusan del Sur!
Least Poor Cluster, 2009 Bottom Poor Cluster, 2009
Province Poverty Cohort Survival Province Poverty Cohort Survival
Incidence Rate Incidence Rate
Bulacan 4.8 93.0 Lanao del Norte 39.0 76.7

Pampanga 6.7 88.3 Eastern Samar 45.8 68.8
1st District, NCR 3.8 86.3 Surigao Del Norte 47.9 67.0
Laguna 5.9 86.1 Masbate 42.5 66.3
Bataan 7.4 79.2 Camarines Sur 38.7 66.2
2nd District, NCR 2.4 74.3 Agusan del Sur 51.2 66.0
Nueva Vizcaya 6.7 73.4 Northern Samar 41.7 59.2
Cavite 4.5 72.6 Sulu 39.3 59.1
Benguet 4.0 71.4 Zamboanga del 52.9 57.6
Rizal 6.5 70.8 Norte
Ilocos Norte 9.2 67.6 Maguindanao 44.6 57.5
3rd District, NCR 3.8 60.8 Bohol 41.0 55.8
4th District, NCR 1.6 60.5 Romblon 43.0 53.6
Batanes 0.0 58.6 Saranggani 40.7 53.1

2012 MCPI Annual Conference Zamboanga Sibugay
86 JOEncarnacion/ 26 July 2012 NATIONAL STATISTICAL43.2 47.9
COORDINATION BOARD
Davao Oriental 42.5 30.3
IV. Some Policy/Program Implications: Poverty & Education
Poverty Incidence and Primary Completion Rate
•In general, provinces in the least poor cluster have higher primary completion rates than provinces in
the bottom poor cluster!
•Despite being in the bottom poor cluster, five provinces registered primary completion rates greater
than 65%: Lanao del Norte, Eastern Samar, Camarines Sur, Surigao del Norte, and Masbate!
Least Poor Cluster, 2009 Bottom Poor Cluster, 2009

Province Poverty Completion Rate Province Poverty Completion Rate
Incidence Incidence
Bulacan 4.8 93.0 Lanao del Norte 39.0 74.3
Pampanga 6.7 88.5 Eastern Samar 45.8 68.7
Laguna 5.9 87.6 Camarines Sur 38.7 66.3
1st District, NCR 3.8 85.9 Surigao Del Norte 47.9 65.8
Bataan 7.4 78.5 Masbate 42.5 65.7
2nd District, NCR 2.4 73.8 Agusan del Sur 51.2 64.8
Nueva Vizcaya 6.7 72.8 Northern Samar 41.7 58.4
Cavite 4.5 72.3 Zamboanga del Norte 52.9 57.2
Benguet 4.0 71.1 Sulu 39.3 57.2
Rizal 6.5 70.5 Maguindanao 44.6 56.2
Ilocos Norte 9.2 67.0 Bohol 41.0 54.7
3rd District, NCR 3.8 60.0 Saranggani 40.7 52.1
4th District, NCR 1.6 59.8 Zamboanga Sibugay 43.2 46.1
Batanes 0.0 58.5 Romblon 43.0 46.0
Davao Oriental 42.5 29.4
IV. Some Policy/Program Implications: Poverty & Prices
Share of HOUSING expenditure to the total basic expenditure:
2003 vs. 2006: Poor vs. nonpoor:
•In general, the share went down from Poor families spend relatively less
2003 to 2006 among poor and non-poor on housing than the nonpoor but
families. overall inflation is higher than for
housing
Housing expenditure of the poor, nonpoor and all families,
2003 and 2006
19.3 18.9
20 18.5 18.2 2003 2006
15
10.6 Inflation for
10.4 housing
10 2003-2006:
12.7%
Inflation for
5 all items
2003-2006:
(0.2) (0.4) (0.3)
21.2%
0
Poor Nonpoor All
Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the official poverty statistics of the NSCB and the result of the Family
Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) of the National Statistics Office (NSO).
Note:
2012 MCPI Annual Poverty estimates were only generated for 2003 and 2006 as the 2009 FIES datafile provided by the NSO to the NSCB contains very
Conference
88 limited variables (i.e., 13 variables).
III. Some Policy/Program Implications
Share of HOUSING expenditure to the total basic expenditure:
2003 vs. 2006: Poor vs. nonpoor:
Between 2003 and 2006, inflation for food is
•In general, the sharethan
higher went fordown from
all items/housing: Poor families spend relatively less
2003 to 2006 among poor and non-poor on housing than nonpoor families
•Housing < All Items < Food
families.
•The Poor suffered more from the increase in
Housing expenditure of the poor, nonpoor and all families,
prices 2003 and 2006
19.3 18.9
20 18.5 18.2 2003 2006
15
10.6 2003 – 2006
10.4 inflation for:
10
All items:21.2%
Housing: 12.7%
5 Food: 21.4%
(0.2) (0.4) (0.3)
0
Poor Nonpoor All
Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the official poverty statistics of the NSCB and the result of the Family
Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) of the National Statistics Office (NSO).
Note:
2012 MCPI Annual Poverty estimates were only generated for 2003 and 2006 as the 2009 FIES datafile provided by the NSO to the NSCB contains very
Conference
89 limited variables (i.e., 13 variables).
G. Poverty and the CCT: CCT support is not enough!
Family Size Monthly Income Shortfall Monthly CCT Contribution

(Based on Income Gap)
1 361
2 721
3* 1,082 800
4* 1,443 1,100
5* 1,803 1,400
Note: 1) 4Ps provides conditional cash grants to beneficiaries with:
a) PhP 500.00/month per household for health and nutrition expenses
b) PhP 300/month per child for educational expenses
2) Assume that all cash grant beneficiaries complied in the given conditions
a) Pregnant women must avail of pre- and post-natal care and be attended during
childbirth by a trained health professional:
b) Parents must attend family development sessions;
c) 0-5 year old children must receive regular preventive health check-ups and
vaccines and 6-14 yr. Old children must receive deworming pills twice a year;
d) 3-14 yr old children must attend
2012 MCPI Annual Conference day acre or pre-school/elementary/highschool
classes at least 85% of the time
IV. Some Policy/Program Implications - Poverty and the
MDGs
Among the regions, 4 regions have high probability, 6 have medium and 7
regions have low probability of achieving the target by 2015. Starting 2010,
ARMM needs to reduce poverty incidence among population annually by 5.86
percentage points to achieve the MDG target by 2015!
Region Target poverty 1991 2003 2006 2009 Target annual percentage
incidence among Baseline point decrease between
population by 2015 2010-2015
NCR 3.8 7.6 0.03
CAR 18.7 37.3 0.71
Region I 17.3 34.6 1.0
Region II 15.3 30.6 0.58
Region III 10.9 21.8 0.73
Region IV-A 12.4 24.8 0.25
Region IV-B 21.9 43.8 2.19
Region V 27.3 54.6 2.97
Region VI 21.1 42.1 1.69
Region VII 21.2 42.4 2.39
Region VIII 22.6 45.1 3.14
Region IX 17.9 35.8 4.20
Region X 22.6 45.3 2.83
Region XI 19.7 39.3 1.94
Region XII 25.2 50.4 1.75
ARMM 10.7 21.5 5.86

Caraga 22.5 45.0 4.22
91 JOEncarnacion/Source:
26 July 2012 Statistical Coordination Board
National
SOME THREATS:
The poor are vulnerable to:
1. Price increases of:
• Food
• Oil
2. Effect of earthquake/tsunami in Japan
3. La Niña phenomenon
4. Threat to earthquake/other natural calamities/climate change in
the Philippines with the poor at a greater risk to:
• Landslide
• One meter rise in sea level

Challenges
OFWs who may have to come back (e.g., from the Middle East, Japan,
or from other destinations)
• Must build the necessary social and economic infrastructure to

accommodate and absorb them back in our society.
• Includes creating local jobs, providing the needed social services
and tapping emerging markets like China and India.

•While CPI for all items increased only by 7.0% between 2009 and 2011, prices of
FUEL increased by 25.2%!
•During the same period, prices of transportation and communication
increased by 11.5%!
These are captured in the CPI for all items but their share to CPI (based on consumption
from the FIES) are only 2.4% for fuel and 7.5% for transportation!
Commodity Group CPI Inc/Dec CPI

2009 2010 20111/ 09-10 10-11 09-11 weights
All Items 160.0 166.1 171.2 3.8 3.1 7.0 100.0
Food 162.4 167.4 173.0 3.1 3.3 6.5 46.6
Rice 171.6 173.5 175.3 1.1 1.0 2.2 9.4
Fuel (Oil) 211.5 239.7 264.7 13.3 10.5 25.2 2.4
Transportation (and 184.5 194.4 205.6 5.3 5.8 11.5 7.5
Communication)
Note: 1/ CPI 2011 - January to March only

Source: National Statistics Office
•QUESTION IS DID INCOME INCREASE FAST ENOUGH TO COPE

WITH THE INCREASES OF PRICES BETWEEN 2009-2011?
AMONG MINIMUM WAGE EARNERS
While prices of fuel and transportation increased by 25.2% and 11.5%, respectively, between
2009 and 2010, incomes of minimum wage earners did not increase as fast!
Highest income increase observed during this period is in Region XI with only 7.9%.
On the other hand, incomes of minimum wage earners in Region VIII did not increase at all
between the two-year period!
Minimum Wage (Non-Agriculture) Inc/Dec
Region
2009 2010 2011 09-10 10-11 09-11
NCR 382 404 404 5.8 0 5.8
CAR 260 260 272 0 4.6 4.6
Region I 240 240 248 0 3.3 3.3
Region II 235 235 245 0 4.3 4.3
Region III 302 302 316 0 4.6 4.6
Region IV-A 320 320 337 0 5.3 5.3
Region IV-B 252 264 264 4.8 0 4.8
Region V 239 247 247 3.3 0 3.3
Region VI 250 265 265 6.0 0 6.0
Region VII 267 285 285 6.7 0 6.7
Region VIII 238 238 238 0.0 0 0.0
Region IX 240 255 255 6.3 0 6.3
Region X 256 269 269 5.1 0 5.1
Region XI 265 286 286 7.9 0 7.9
Region XII 245 255 255 4.1 0 4.1
Caraga 233 243 243 4.3 0 4.3
2012 MCPI AnnualARMM
Conference 210 222 222 5.7 0 5.7
95 JOEncarnacion/ 26Source:
July 2012
NWPC website
AMONG GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Period Event
July 2009 Increase in the salaries of government employees with
the implementation of the 1st of four parts of the Salary
Standardization Law III (SSL III)
July 2010 2nd of four parts of SSL III; To date, same rate is still
being implemented.
Average increase between 2009-2011 = 14.6%

(Note: Due to time and data constraints, this was computed as a simple average of the 09-11
increase of all Salary Grades, Step I.)
While salaries of government employees

increased between 2009-2011, on the average, by
14.6%, we are in danger of being poor if salary
increases are not sustained/updated to cope with
the ongoing oil/food price increases!
Challenges
Greater collaboration between the DSWD and NSCB on the following:
• Maximization of the wealth of information on poverty indicators from the

NHTSPR, which could be utilized by the Philippine Statistical System, to
provide a more holistic picture of the poverty situation in the country.
• DSWD can consider the food threshold as possible reference to compute
for standard per capita costs of food requirements in DSWD (day
care/children) centers but food threshold must be recomputed for children.
(Note: As pointed out by a DSWD representative during the NSCB
presentation to the DSWD Technical Staff on the 2009 Poverty Statistics last
8 March 2011.)
• The Cabinet Cluster on Human Development chaired by Sec. Soliman of
DSWD, in its meeting last 17 March 2011 created the Technical Working
Group on Poverty Reduction Statistics (TWG-PRS) chaired and coordinated
by the NSCB. The TWG-PRS aims to harmonize and standardize existing
statistical frameworks/indicator systems on poverty reduction, towards a
common understanding and appreciation of poverty statistics in the
country.


4. Allow statistical offices to hire and increase number of

statistical positions in government!
Statistical agencies should be treated differently from other

government agencies!
5. Implement a true rationalization plan! (NSCB is being required

to reduce its 224 positions down to 149 but Demand for Statistics is
rising exponentially!)
NSCB should be given resources to expand its human

resource base and establish its Regional Divisions in all
regions of the country for more balanced statistical
development. (NSCB is only present in 9 out of 17 regions, despite
annual requests to DBM to be present in the other 8 regions.)

H. Poverty and the Basic Sectors
Poverty Incidence among Basic Sectors: 2003 and 2006
Poorest sectors in 2003 and 2006:
Largest number of poor population in 2003 and
•Fishermen (41.4%), farmers (37.2%) and children 2006, by sector:
(34.8%) !
•Children (12.3 million), women (10.7 million),
•All sectors posted increases in poverty and population living in urban areas (5.3
incidence between the period 2003 and 2006! million)!
Poverty Incidence among Basic Sectors: 2003 and 2006 Magnitude of Poor among Basic Sectors: 2003 and 2006
41.4% Magnitude of Poor Difference

45.0 37.2% Sector
34.8% 2003 2006 2003 - 2006
40.0
Children 11,400,000 12,300,000 900,000
Poverty Incidence
35.0
30.0 Women 9,605,037 10,700,000 1,094,963
2003
25.0 Urban 4,429,424 5,310,531 881,107
2006
20.0 Youth 4,280,197 4,850,607 570,410
15.0 Migrant and Formal Sector 2,283,773 2,599,336 315,563
10.0 Farmers 1,768,249 1,773,484 5,235
5.0
Senior Citizens 793,233 1,035,089 241,856
0.0
Fishermen 355,815 400,214 44,398
Fishermen Farmers Children Women Youth Senior Migrant and Urban
Citizens Formal
Sector
Sector
Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

Note: 1. Poverty estimates were generated based on the refinements in the official poverty estimation methodology, which was approved on by the NSCB Executive Board
2012 MCPI Annual2011.
Conference
99
on 1 February
JOEncarnacion/ for the basic sectors will be available 2 months after the provision ofNATIONAL
26 July 2012
2. 2009 poverty statistics STATISTICAL
the merged 2009 COORDINATION
FIES-LFS data BOARD
file from NSO. To date, the NSO has not
yet provided the said data file to the NSCB.
Poverty Incidence among FISHERMEN by Region: 2003 and 2006
Highest poverty incidence: Largest magnitude of poor fishermen:

Caraga in 2003 and 2006 Region VII in 2003
ARMM in 2006
Poverty Incidence among Fishermen, by Region: 2003 and 2006 Magnitude of Poor Fishermen: 2003 and 2006
Caraga:
Magnitude of Poor Difference
56.0% in 2003 and Region
60.0 56.5% in 2006 2003 2006 2003 - 2006
Philippines 355,815 400,214 44,398
50.0 ARMM 36,257 83,719 47,462

Region VII 49,350 51,216 1,866
Poverty Incidence
40.0 Region V 41,346 42,837 1,492

2003 Region IVA 32,174 32,885 711
30.0
2006 Region VIII 26,864 29,785 2,921
Region IVB 29,491 25,220 (4,270)
20.0
Region IX 31,005 24,702 (6,303)
Region VI 22,002 23,898 1,896
10.0
C araga 19,272 17,590 (1,682)
0.0 Region I 6,726 17,099 10,374

Region X 19,171 14,103 (5,068)
NCR
ARMM
Region III
Region II
Region I
Caraga
Region XII
Region IX
Region XI
Region VIII
Region X
Region VII
Region VI
Region V
Region IVB
Region IVA
Philippines
Region XII 16,849 13,151 (3,697)

Region XI 12,450 11,270 (1,180)
Region III 9,836 6,697 (3,139)
Region NC R 1,454 3,529 2,075
Region II 1,407 2,512 1,105
Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

Note: 1. Poverty estimates are revised based on the refinements in the official poverty estimation methodology, which was approved on by the NSCB Executive Board
on 1 February 2011.
2. 2009 poverty statistics for the basic sectors will be available 2 months after the provision of the FIES-LFS data file from NSO. To date, the NSO has not yet
100 provided the FIES-LFS data file.
JOEncarnacion/ 26 July
3. Poverty incidence 2012
estimate
for fishermen in CAR was excluded due to the very low level of precision.
Children, women, and individuals residing in urban areas accounted for the
largest number of poor population in the country at 12.4 million in 2009 from 12.3
million in 2006, 11.2 million in 2009 from 10.7 million in 2006 and 5.7 million in
2009 from 5.3 million in 2006, respectively.
Increase/
2003 2006 2009
Decrease
90% Confidence 90% Confidence 90% Confidence
Sector 2003
Magnitud Interval Magnitude Interval Magnitude Interval 2006 -
-
e of Poor Upper of Poor Lower Upper of Poor Lower Upper 2009
Lower Limit 2006
Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit
2,376,
Philippines 19,796,954 19,110,455 20,483,453 22,173,190 21,435,613 22,964,387 23,142,481 22,363,307 23,836,693
236
969,291
908,6
Children 11,363,850 11,228,469 11,499,230 12,272,819 12,126,241 12,419,398 12,414,811 12,286,448 12,543,174 141,992
96
1,086,
Women 9,605,037 9,509,134 9,700,940 10,691,078 10,584,303 10,797,853 11,169,745 11,075,812 11,263,677 478,667
041
Individuals
881,1
residing in 4,429,424 4,394,400 4,464,448 5,310,531 5,267,025 5,354,037 5,709,170 5,664,660 5,753,680 398,639
07
urban areas
570,4
Youth 4,280,197 4,242,071 4,318,323 4,850,607 4,805,832 4,895,382 5,367,308 5,323,314 5,411,302 516,701
10
Self-
employed
549,0
and Unpaid 3,566,586 3,522,046 3,611,126 4,115,632 4,064,734 4,166,530 4,186,194 4,139,565 4,232,823 70,562
46
Family
Workers
Migrant and
315,5
Formal 2,283,773 2,265,940 2,301,606 2,599,336 2,578,880 2,619,792 3,118,701 3,095,868 3,141,534 519,365
63
Sector
Farmers 1,768,249 1,742,363 1,794,135 1,773,484 1,747,354 1,799,614 1,685,148 1,662,409 1,707,887 5,235 -88,336
Senior 241,8
2012 MCPI Annual
793,233 Conference
101
786,342 800,124 1,035,089 1,025,583 1,044,595 1,181,121 1,172,658 1,189,584 146,032
Citizens NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION BOARD
56
44,39

U

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

U

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2009 Official Poverty Statistics

Towards Better Targeted

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

9:00 AM, 26 July 2012

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

SOURCE OF OFFICIAL POVERTY STATISTICS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Executive Order 352

• Issued on July 1, 1996

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

What is the Food Threshold?

•Refers to the minimum income/expenditure required for a

•Also referred to as the subsistence threshold or the food poverty line

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

What is the Poverty Threshold?

• Refers to the minimum income/expenditure required for a

Basic Non-Food Requirement excludes: 1) recreation; 2) tobacco; 3) alcoholic

• Is equal to the cost of minimum basic needs:

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

Who are the Food Poor/Core Poor?

• Refers to families/individuals with per capita income/expenditure

Who are the Poor?

• Refers to families/individuals with per capita income/expenditure

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

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

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

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

What is the Magnitude of the Poor?

• Refers to the number of families/individuals who are poor

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

What is subsistence incidence?

• Refers to the proportion of families/individuals with per capita

What is poverty incidence?

Both subsistence incidence and poverty incidence can be

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

The 1st official poverty estimation methodology was adopted in

Year Refinements Considerations

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

PROVINCIAL food bundle

National reference food bundle from

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

ACTUAL Non-Food Basic Needs

Provincial POVERTY INCIDENCE

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

A. NATIONAL: Daily Threshold (family of five)

Daily Food Threshold for a Daily Poverty Threshold for a

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

Subsistence Incidence Poverty Incidence

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

Subsistence Incidence Poverty Incidence

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

In terms of poverty incidence among population in ASEAN countries,

Region VII 194,352 220,692 181,649 14.3 14.6 12.5

Region VII 389,818 432,870 415,303 11.8 11.8 10.8

90% CI 90% CI 90% CI

Magnitude of Poor Families % Share to Total Poor Families

Cebu 185,624 211,406 213,162 5.6 5.8 5.5

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

Provinces with high poverty

2012 MCPI Annual Conference

C. POVERTY STATISTICS AMONG THE BASIC SECTORS

Who are the basic sectors?