LOCAL VICTORIES IN THE WAR AGAINST POVERTY

LOCAL VICTORIES IN THE WAR AGAINST POVERTY Poverty is a complex issue, and gathering reliable data to measure and address it remains a challenge. Nationwide poverty data is best collected through a full-scale census, but such an undertaking takes years to complete. In the absence of frequent censuses, the government relies on surveys such as the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) and the Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS) to obtain up-to-date poverty statistics. Despite the limitations of survey methods, FIES and CBMS provide valuable data that is as accurate and timely as possible. The CBMS, initially an NGO project led by Dr. Celia M. Reyes and supported by De La Salle University, was institutionalized by law and placed under the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). Having had the honor of meeting Dr. Reyes, I can personally vouch for the quality of her work and the effectiveness of CBMS in measuring poverty at the local level. Local Government Units (LGUs) should maximize the benefits of FIES and CBMS in crafting their own poverty reduction programs. The cost of utilizing these tools is reasonable, and given their importance, all LGUs should be able to afford them. While reducing poverty at the national level remains a formidable task, LGUs can make a real impact at the local level by targeting key areas of deprivation. Using the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) as a framework, LGUs can improve health, education, and living standards in their communities. By implementing programs that support universal healthcare, LGUs can lower mortality rates in their municipalities and cities. They can also leverage the resources of the Department of Education (DepEd), the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to expand access to free education. Improving standards of living is another crucial aspect. LGUs can initiate home improvement programs to ensure that households have adequate flooring, walls, and roofs. Assistance in acquiring stoves and essential appliances could further enhance quality of life for many families. While income remains an important factor, poverty should not be measured solely by earnings. The MPI approach highlights deprivation in essential services and living conditions as a core indicator of poverty. Ultimately, increasing household income through livelihood programs can drive significant reductions in poverty rates. When individuals and families have the means to support themselves, their overall living conditions improve. Therefore, even if poverty reduction at the national level proves challenging, consistent success at the local level can create a cumulative effect, gradually influencing the national poverty rate. It is not difficult to notice that livelihood programs both at the national level and the local level are fragmented and disconnected. Based on my own experience of working on livelihood programs, there is a need to coordinate its four main components namely training, financing, packaging and marketing. There are thousands of livelihood products out there that are underfinanced, mispackaged and wrongly positioned. The battle against poverty does not have to be waged solely by the national government. LGUs have the power to make real, measurable progress. With targeted programs, accurate data, and dedicated leadership, local governments can achieve meaningful victories in the war against poverty—one community at a time. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 05-25-2025