HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO MANAGE STUNTING REDUCTION?

HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO MANAGE STUNTING REDUCTION?

Why is it that in Indonesia, the role of stunting reduction is assigned to the Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Cultural Affairs, and not to their Minister of Health? Do they know something that we do not know? Or is it simply because they take the problem more seriously than we do?

In Indonesia, stunting is treated not merely as a health issue but as a national development priority. It is managed at the Cabinet coordination level, because it is a problem that involves not only nutrition and healthcare, but also education, livelihood, sanitation, and local governance. That makes sense. After all, stunting—children being too short for their age due to chronic undernutrition—is both a cause and a symptom of poverty.

WHAT IS STUNTING, AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Stunting is not just about a child’s height. It is about a child’s future. According to UNICEF, stunted children are more likely to suffer from poor cognitive development, lower school performance, and reduced productivity as adults. In other words, stunting isn’t just a health crisis—it’s an economic and social one.

In the Philippines, the 2023 Expanded National Nutrition Survey revealed that about 26% of Filipino children under five were stunted. That means roughly one in four Filipino children is growing up physically and mentally disadvantaged before even reaching school age.

INDONESIA’S MODEL: COORDINATION AT THE TOP

Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Cultural Affairs oversees stunting reduction as part of a broad mandate that includes education, health, social welfare, and family development. This official brings together the Ministries of Health, Education, Social Affairs, and Agriculture—aligning policies and funding toward a single goal: reducing stunting to below 14% by 2024.

They understood something important—that stunting is not only about feeding programs. It’s about clean water, maternal health, proper sanitation, and parental knowledge. It’s about creating communities where mothers have access to prenatal care, families can afford nutritious food, and children grow up in safe, healthy environments.

HOW IS THE PHILIPPINES COORDINATING ITS EFFORTS?

To be fair, the Philippines has begun taking steps in the right direction.

We now have the proposed Anti-Stunting Action Plan (ASAP) Council Act of 2025, filed by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano. The bill seeks to establish a high-level council to lead a whole-of-government and whole-of-society strategy against stunting. The plan includes early childhood nutrition, maternal care, community education, and local government accountability.

In parallel, the Philippine Multisectoral Nutrition Project (PMNP)—jointly led by the Department of Health (DOH) and Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) with World Bank support—integrates nutrition, agriculture, maternal health, and food security programs. It targets local governments with the highest rates of stunting and builds their capacity to deliver services effectively.

But here’s the real question: Are these efforts truly coordinated?

WHERE COORDINATION MATTERS MOST

How exactly do DOH, DSWD, and DepEd coordinate? Does the DOH ensure that local health units work with schools to deliver nutrition education and feeding programs? Does DSWD link its 4Ps beneficiaries to livelihood opportunities that improve family food security?

And what about non-government organizations (NGOs)? Many NGOs have deep experience in community nutrition, but are they getting the institutional and financial support they need?

We must remember that the root causes of stunting go beyond hunger. Poor families often rely on cheap, calorie-dense but nutrient-poor food. Clean water and sanitation are still inadequate in many barangays. And even when nutrition knowledge is available, the lack of access to livelihoods keeps families trapped in cycles of malnutrition.

A COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACH

The best solutions are often local. At the barangay level, nutrition councils should be activated and properly funded. Each council can coordinate five key pillars:

• Nutrition: Promote breastfeeding, micronutrient supplementation, and dietary diversity.
  
  

• Health: Ensure prenatal care, growth monitoring, and deworming services.
  
  

• Livelihood: Connect families to backyard gardening, aquaculture, and food-related enterprises.
  
  

• Education: Train barangay health workers and parents on child care and development.
  
  

• Governance: Use data-driven tools to track progress and mobilize local resources.
  
  

This approach goes beyond charity—it empowers communities. Imagine community kitchens that also serve as nutrition learning centers. Imagine composting and food waste recovery programs that feed community gardens. Imagine mapping local biodiversity to promote native, nutrient-rich crops instead of imported food products.

TREAT STUNTING AS A NATIONAL EMERGENCY

If Indonesia treats stunting as a development crisis, we should do the same. Stunting reduction should not sit quietly under the DOH’s nutrition division—it should be elevated to the Cabinet level, under a coordinating body that links human development, poverty reduction, and food security.

When we think of stunting only as a health issue, we limit our solutions to vitamins and feeding programs. But when we think of it as a human development issue, we begin to see how stunting connects to income, education, sanitation, and governance.

MY SUGGESTION

Let us assign stunting reduction to a Coordinating Minister for Human Development—someone who can align the efforts of DOH, DSWD, DepEd, DA, and LGUs, and who can also engage the private sector and civil society.

Let us make the fight against stunting not just a program, but a national mission. Because no nation can rise to its full height when its children cannot.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

09088877282/02-28-2026

COMBINING THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY REDUCTION FUNCTIONS

 COMBINING THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY REDUCTION FUNCTIONS

In Indonesia, there exists a Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Cultural Affairs—a cabinet-level position that supervises all national efforts related to human development, poverty reduction, and social welfare. This model is both elegant and practical. Why? Because human development and poverty reduction are two sides of the same coin.

When poverty goes down, human development goes up. It’s as simple as that. And when human development improves—when people are educated, healthy, skilled, and employed—poverty is naturally reduced. So why do we still treat them as separate, disconnected government functions in the Philippines?

TWO SIDES OF ONE COIN

In theory, every government program that improves education, health, housing, or livelihood contributes to human development. Likewise, every measure that increases income, creates jobs, or expands access to markets reduces poverty. Yet our bureaucratic setup has long treated these as parallel tracks rather than as an integrated mission.

If Indonesia can have one coordinating minister that oversees both human development and poverty reduction, why can’t we? Why do we still have different agencies running overlapping programs with little coordination and even less accountability?

WHO IS IN CHARGE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT?

Here’s a simple but important question: Which agency in the Philippines is actually in charge of human development?

We could assume it’s the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), but that agency is more focused on social assistance—helping families in crisis, not necessarily developing their long-term human potential. The “development” in DSWD’s name has not always translated to human development in the holistic sense.

Perhaps the newly created Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) could be seen as part of this, but that’s focused on housing, not human capacity. Could there be a “Department of Human Development” someday? Maybe—but until that happens, no single agency truly owns the mandate for human development.

WHO IS IN CHARGE OF POVERTY REDUCTION?

The same question applies to poverty reduction. We have DSWD implementing cash transfer programs like the 4Ps, and the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) doing advocacy work, but no single office with the authority to coordinate and evaluate all poverty reduction efforts across government.

Worse, some officials still confuse poverty alleviation with poverty reduction. The former only provides temporary relief—food, cash, or aid. The latter requires structural change—jobs, livelihood, access to credit, and long-term empowerment.

If we don’t clearly distinguish between these two, we’ll always be caught in a cycle of assistance instead of advancement.

WHAT INDONESIA GOT RIGHT

Indonesia’s model solves this confusion. Its Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Cultural Affairs oversees multiple ministries and programs under one unified vision.

This minister integrates initiatives from the Ministries of Education, Health, and Social Affairs, ensuring that programs for schooling, healthcare, and social protection move in sync. They also coordinate national efforts on stunting reduction, family-based welfare, and community empowerment.

The genius of this setup is in coordination. Instead of separate silos, they operate as one ecosystem aimed at improving quality of life and reducing poverty simultaneously. It’s not about more bureaucracy—it’s about better integration.

A MODEL FOR THE PHILIPPINES

The Philippines could adapt this model by creating a Coordinating Office for Human Development and Poverty Reduction—a high-level body that brings together DSWD, DOLE, TESDA, DTI, DA, DepEd, and DOH under one national framework.

This body would not replace existing agencies but rather align their goals, budgets, and performance indicators toward shared human development outcomes—jobs created, incomes increased, nutrition improved, literacy rates raised, and stunting reduced.

This coordination could even be anchored on the circular economy and dignity-based governance, ensuring that every livelihood program contributes not just to income generation but also to environmental sustainability and human empowerment.

STAFF VS. LINE FUNCTIONS

Perhaps it’s time the Philippine Cabinet distinguishes between staff and line functions. Agencies that deliver services (education, health, livelihood) are “line agencies.” But there should be a “staff” office that ensures these functions are harmonized toward national human development goals.

Without that staff-level coordination, we’ll continue to have fragmented efforts—TESDA training people without linking them to jobs, DTI helping MSMEs without access to finance, and DA supporting farmers who can’t find markets.

A COORDINATED, DIGNIFIED FUTURE

If Indonesia can do it, why can’t we? What we need is not more programs but better integration—a single steward for human development and poverty reduction who ensures that every peso spent truly improves Filipino lives.

I have always believed that governance should be rooted in dignity. Poverty strips people of dignity; development restores it. But dignity can only be restored through work, education, health, and opportunity—all coordinated under a unified vision of national human development.

So perhaps it’s time for our leaders to stop asking “Who owns what program?” and start asking “Who ensures that every Filipino truly benefits?”

Because in the end, human development is not just a government program—it’s a moral obligation. And poverty reduction is not just an economic goal—it’s the measure of a nation’s humanity.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

09088877282/02-27-2026

ORGANIZING AGAINST POVERTY

 ORGANIZING AGAINST POVERTY

The idea of organizing against poverty is not new—but what if we could finally do it right? What if all the government agencies, private organizations, and civic groups now working separately could come together, not under one new bureaucracy, but as a united front—a truly integrated effort to help poor Filipino families rise above poverty through employment and entrepreneurship?

According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), a family of five must earn at least ₱12,030 per month to escape poverty. That’s only ₱401 per day per family, or just ₱80.20 per person—barely enough to buy a modest meal, much less pay for utilities, rent, or school expenses. These numbers tell us that poverty in the Philippines isn’t merely about hunger—it’s about the absence of sustainable livelihoods.

A UNITED FRONT, NOT A NEW AGENCY

The concept of a “united front” against poverty doesn’t require the creation of yet another office with another acronym. We already have enough of those. What we need is coordination—a way to make the right hand know what the left hand is doing.

The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) runs the Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP), focusing on microenterprise and employment for poor households and the Ayuda Para sa Kapos ang Kita (AKAP) Program. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) offers livelihood starter kits through its Department of Labor and Employment’s Integrated Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program (DILEEP) program and the Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers (TUPAD) program. TESDA provides training and certification. The Department of Agriculture (DA) supports farmers through inputs, credit, and market access. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) promotes MSME growth, packaging, and marketing. Even the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) runs livelihood programs tied to forestry and ecotourism.

But where is the integration? Is there anyone ensuring that a family trained by TESDA also gets product marketing help from DTI or a financing link through DSWD’s microenterprise fund?

DO WE NEED A “LIVELIHOOD CZAR”?

Some have suggested appointing a “livelihood czar”—a central figure tasked with weaving together all these scattered efforts. It’s not a bad idea. We already have housing and urban poor “czars,” so why not one for livelihood?

Other countries have done something similar, albeit under different names. In India, the Minister of Rural Development oversees vast livelihood programs like the Deen Dayal Antyodaya Yojana. In Indonesia, a Coordinating Minister supervises human development and poverty reduction. In Malaysia, a Minister for Entrepreneur Development integrates cooperative and MSME support.

So why can’t the Philippines have one person who is directly accountable for reducing poverty through employment and enterprise?

LIVELIHOOD IS NOT WELFARE

Livelihood is not about giving away starter kits and hoping for the best. It’s about helping people earn their way out of poverty. That means sustained access to markets, mentorship, and support systems—not just one-time assistance.

I have long argued that livelihood should be treated as an economic strategy, not merely a social welfare function. Poverty is an economic problem, not just a social one. It is caused by the absence of income-generating opportunities and the lack of integration between government services that could create them.

Imagine if we could align TESDA’s training programs with DTI’s MSME development, DA’s agricultural value chains, and DOLE’s employment generation schemes, all linked through DSWD’s poverty targeting system. That would be a genuine anti-poverty architecture—one that empowers instead of perpetuating dependency.

INTEGRATION AT THE BARANGAY LEVEL

The best place to integrate these programs is not only in Metro Manila, but in all barangays nationwide. Every barangay could have a Livelihood Integration Council—a local body linking the efforts of national agencies, LGUs, cooperatives, and private groups. This could function as a “one-stop shop” where people can access training, financing, marketing, and employment information all in one place.

The private sector, NGOs, and cooperatives could also play key roles. Microfinance institutions can offer credit; universities can provide business incubation; and cooperatives can give access to markets.

BEYOND AID: BUILDING DIGNITY

Poverty is not just about the absence of money. It’s about the absence of dignity. When we help the poor only through aid, we reinforce dependency. But when we help them build livelihoods, we restore dignity and self-respect.

Every peso spent on welfare should have a clear path toward work or enterprise. Every livelihood program should have measurable outcomes—jobs created, businesses sustained, and incomes increased. Yet, how many government programs today can show that data? Who monitors the long-term results of livelihood interventions?

MY SUGGESTION

Let us organize against poverty—not by creating another agency, but by creating a movement. A national movement for integrated livelihood, anchored in every barangay, coordinated across all agencies, and supported by both government and civil society.

In this movement, livelihood is not a project—it’s a right. Employment is not a favor—it’s an obligation of society. And escaping poverty is not just a personal struggle—it’s a collective mission.

If we can organize for elections, why can’t we organize for livelihoods?

After all, nation-building begins when every Filipino can stand on his own feet—with work, with dignity, and with hope.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

09088877282/02-26-2026