BANTAY GOBYERNO
Ike Señeres
Hunger and poverty statistics are often intertwined, but
these two metrics are not supposed to comparable, because their research
designs are different from each other. Hunger data is gathered from surveys
wherein the respondents would say how many times they experienced it in the
past three months or so.
Poverty data is gathered from censuses that measure how
many households would fall below the poverty line, because they could not
afford to buy an imaginary basket of goods, or they are not earning enough
money for them to go above a certain threshold. Even if these two metrics are
not comparable, it would be reasonable to say that the respondents who would
say that they experience hunger are probably those who would fall below the
poverty line.
In theory, both hunger and poverty could be eradicated,
at least from a statistical perspective. The reason for this is very simple. If
there are no respondents who will say that they have experienced hunger, then
the hunger rate would go down to zero. In the same manner, if the censuses will
say that all households could already afford the imaginary basket of goods,
then the poverty rate would also go down to zero. As it looks now however, it
seems that it would be easier to aim for a zero hunger rate, than to aim for a
zero poverty rate.
Obviously, it would not be intellectually honest if we
were to give people money so that they could go above the poverty threshold.
However, it is fair and square if we could give them access to some items in
the imaginary basket of goods, so that they would not have to buy it on their
own. In the same manner, it would be fair and square to give food stamps to
people on welfare, so that would no longer experience hunger. This is being
done in so many other countries, and there is no reason why it could not be
done here.
When I say that hunger and poverty could be
eradicated statistically, I also mean doing it technically. In the case of
hunger, the technicality could happen if respondents would say that they are no
longer experiencing it during the survey period. In the case of poverty, the
technicality could happen if the censuses would show that the people already
have access to certain items in the imaginary basket of goods, even if they
would not have to buy these items, considering that they could not really
afford to buy these items in the first place. Somehow, in some possible ways,
food or access to food appears to be the common denominators that could make these
technicalities happen (again in theory).
To set a goal that would eradicate hunger and
poverty nationally would seem impossible as of now, but these could become
realistic if the goals are set locally. The reason for this is also very
simple. Since there are more than enough people in a locality who could afford
to share their food with those who are hungry, then no one has to experience
hunger anymore. If this idea sounds too idealistic, the practical alternative
is for the local people to grow their own food primarily for their own needs,
but secondarily to share with others. There could be an unexpected bonus to
this approach. Since food is the major item in the imaginary basket of goods,
then access to food would increase, and therefore more households could go
above the poverty line (again in theory).
As it is supposed to be, all the local Mayors are
supposed to know who among their constituents are actually hungry and poor.
There is no way that they could say otherwise, because the data from surveys
about hunger and the censuses about poverty are available for them to read and
study, whether they like it or not. While many of these Mayors would say that
they have read the data and that they are doing something about these twin
problems, it is also a known fact that not too many of them are actually
setting statistical goals to reduce the numbers of those who are hungry and
poor, until the end of their terms of office. Sad to say, some of them would
not even know the difference between poverty reduction and poverty alleviation.
Giving people access to certain items in the imaginary
basket of goods should just be a short term strategy, because the long term
strategy should be to remove people from the poverty line is to give them the
means of income, so that they would be able to acquire these items on their
own, using their own money. Towards this goal, the short term strategy should
be to give them jobs. Difficult as it may be, the long term strategy should be
to help these people so that they could have their own business, not matter how
small it is. As it is now, most local government units (LGUs) already have
their own Public Employment Service Office (PESO). It is about time that they
should also have their own Small and Medium Enterprise Office (SMEO).
I am sure that it is not beyond the means of LGUs to
conduct their own localized hunger and poverty surveys. In this connection,
they do not even have to wait for the quinquennial censuses, because five years
is too long to wait, and besides, a lot of data could change during that long
period. What is important is for the Mayors of these LGUs to know the hunger
and poverty data in their own local jurisdictions, so that they could set their
own hunger reduction and poverty reduction goals. As it is supposed to
be, these goals should be in the agenda of the Municipal Development Councils
(MDCs), and should eventually be elevated to the agenda of the Regional
Development Councils (RDCs).
Just as it does not take rocket science to conduct these
surveys, it does not take rocket science either to grow food locally within an
LGU. Old and new technologies for food production are available everywhere, and
even the urbanized LGUs could implement their own urban gardening programs.
Even the landlocked LGUs could now implement their own aquaponics projects, so
that they could produce fish and vegetables at the same time. Aside from that,
new technologies are now available so that poultry and livestock could be
raised in urban areas, without the bad smell that usually came with it. We have
the land, we have the technologies. Let us do it!
No comments:
Post a Comment