9 th PEP Network General Meeting Monitoring Household Coping Strategies During Complex Crises and dr Recoveries The Case of the Philippines Celia Reyes, Alellie Sobreviñas and Jeremy de Jesus PEP-CBMS Coordinating Team CBMS Network Policy Conference December 6-9, 2011
OUTLINE I. Introduction II. Data and Methodology III. Preliminary Results a. Shocks b. Coping Strategies c. Recovery IV. Summary and Conclusion
INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Shock is an event that can trigger decline in well-being, which can affect individuals (illness, death), a community, a region, or even a nation (natural disaster, macro-economic crisis) (World Bank, 2000-01) Coping strategies refer to all strategically selected acts that individuals and households in a poor socio-economic situation use to restrict their expenses or earn some extra income to enable them to pay for the basic necessities and not fall too far below their society s level of welfare. (Snel & Staring, 2001) ) - refer to strategies designed to relieve the impact of the risk once it has occurred. (Holzmann, 2001)
INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES To monitor the coping strategies t adopted d by households during complex crises and their recovery o to identify the different shocks experienced by households and the specific coping strategies they adopted in response to these shocks o o to determine the pattern in the coping strategies by identifying the most common strategies adopted by different groups of households and sequence by which they are adopted to identify the characteristics of households which were able to recover and the factors that may have contributed to their recovery
DATA AND METHODOLOGY Households and population covered by the survey, by barangay Barangay Population No. of Average Male Female HHs Total HH Size No. % No. % Urban 1,505 5,973 3,013 50.44 2,960 49.56 3.9 1. Poblacion III, Sto. Tomas, Batangas 473 2,100 1,067 50.81 1,033 49.19 4.3 2. Brgy. 192, Pasay City 1,032 3,873 1,946 50.25 1,927 49.75 3.7 Rural 603 2,784 1,407 50.54 1,377 49.46 4.6 3. El Rio, Sibagat, Agusan del Sur 322 1,414 725 51.27 689 48.73 4.4 4. San Miguel, Llorente, Eastern Samar 281 1,370 682 49.78 688 50.22 4.7 Total 2,108 8,757 Source: CBMS Survey, 2011 All households in the selected sites were surveyed 4 barangays were covered consisting of 2 108 4 barangays were covered consisting of 2,108 households with a total population of 8,757
DATA AND METHODOLOGY CBMS core poverty indicators, by barangay Urban Indicator All Brgy. Poblacion HHs El Rio 192 3 San Miguel HEALTH AND NUTRITION Children under 5 years old who died 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.2 Women who died due to pregnancy related-causes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Malnourished children 0-5 year old 15 1.5 11 1.1 00 0.0 26 2.6 47 4.7 HOUSING Households living in makeshift housing 1.1 0.2 1.1 2.8 2.8 Households who are informal settlers 22.4 45.2 0.6 0.6 0.4 WATER AND SANITATION Households without access to improved water source 1.4 0.9 0.6 5.0 0.7 Households without access to sanitary toilet facility 2.9 0.4 0.4 9.0 9.3 BASIC EDUCATION Children 6-11 years old not attending elementary 72 7.2 56 5.6 84 8.4 89 8.9 72 7.2 Children 12-15 years old not attending high school 32.7 22.1 37.0 53.2 30.1 Children 6-15 years old not attending school 7.4 4.7 8.8 11.4 6.8 Children 6-16 years old not attending school 9.6 6.3 11.4 13.4 10.3 INCOME AND LIVELIHOOD Households with income below poverty threshold 30.5 10.2 20.7 73.3 72.6 Households with income below food threshold 21.5 3.9 11.2 54.3 65.8 Households who experienced food shortage 4.2 0.2 0.2 8.7 20.6 Unemployed members of the labor force 12.7 15.4 7.5 5.3 19.1 PEACE AND ORDER Victims of crime 0.4 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.7 Source: CBMS Survey, 2011 Rural
DATA AND METHODOLOGY Data Collection Instruments 1. CBMS Household Profile Questionnaire (HPQ) 12 pages
DATA AND METHODOLOGY Data Collection Instruments 1. CBMS Household Profile Questionnaire (HPQ) 12 pages 2. CBMS Shocks and Coping Module (Rider Questionnaire) -3 pages
INTRODUCTION TYPES OF SHOCK COVERED 1. Typhoon 2. Flood 3. Drought 4. Earthquake 5. Volcanic eruption 6. Landslide 7. Tsunami 8. Fire 9. Forest Fire 10. Ethnic/armed Conflict 11. Epidemic/disease 12. Pest infestation 13. Increase in food prices 14. Increase in fuel prices 15. Serious accident 16. Disability 17. Serious illness 18. Death 11. Financial crisis (e.g., GFC) 12. Unrest/conflict in other countries
INTRODUCTION MAJOR GROUPING OF COPING STRATEGIES 1. Food 2. Non-Food 3. Education expenses 4. Health 5. Education access 6. Savings, Assets and Credit 7. Receipt of Assistance 8. Additional Sources of Income 9. Other Coping Strategies
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: SHOCKS Distribution of major types of shocks experienced by households Type of shock Magnitude Proportion Increase in food prices 1,401 66.5 Increase in fuel prices 560 26.6 Serious illness 114 54 5.4 Flood 54 2.6 Typhoon 34 1.6 Death 29 1.4 Pest infestation 20 1.0 Serious accident 9 0.4 Disability 7 0.3 Others 111 5.27 Total No. of Households 2,108 Note: Other types of shocks include the landslide, unrest overseas and occurrence of tsunami in Japan in March 2011 which led to the reduction in the demand for some of the Philippines exports resulting to reduction in salary or working hours among workers of affected manufacturing companies, among others. Source: CBMS Survey, 2011 F d i i i th t h k Food price increase is the most common shock experienced by households
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: SHOCKS Incidence of shocks by site Rural Urban Shock All Brgy. Brgy. All Brgy. All Rural El Rio San Urban Poblacion Brgy. HHs HHs Miguel HHs III 192 At least one shock 62.5 31.4 98.2 79.0 92.0 73.1 74.3 1. Increase in Food or Fuel Prices 60.4 27.3 98.2 75.8 86.9 70.7 71.4 2. Serious Illness, Serious Accident or 5.8 2.2 10.0 6.3 16.1 1.7 6.1 Disability 3. Death 0.8-1.8 1.6 4.0 0.5 1.4 4. Flood or Typhoon 6.5 9.6 2.9 2.6 0.2 3.7 3.7 5. Pest Infestation 3.2 4.4 1.8 0.1 0.2-1.0 Source: CBMS Survey, 2011 Barangay San Miguel in Llorente, Eastern Samar recorded d the highest proportion of households which experienced at least one type of shock Price shock is the most common types of shock that affected the households.
SHOCKS Inflation rates: Food and All Items, 2007-2011 20 In nflation rate (% %) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Survey reference period Jan Mar May Jul Sept Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sept Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sept Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sept Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sept 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year All Items Although food prices are not as high as in 2008, prices continue to increase steadily since then with a recorded food inflation rate of about 5.9% and 3.1 percent in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Food
SEVERITY OF SHOCKS Shocks reported by households by severity 3rd Most Total no. Type of shock Most severe 2nd Most Severe of shocks Severe Shock Shock affected No. % No. % No. % HHs Increase in food prices 1,182182 84.44 166 11.8 45 32 3.2 1,401 Increase in fuel prices 177 31.6 325 58.0 43 7.7 560 Serious illness 85 74.6 23 20.2 3 2.6 114 Typhoon 17 50.00 5 14.7 6 17.6 34 Death 14 48.3 12 41.4 2 6.9 29 Flood 11 20.4 24 44.4 17 31.5 54 Pest infestation 10 50.00 6 30.00 2 10.00 20 Serious accident 7 77.8 1 11.1 0 0.0 9 Disability 5 71.4 2 28.6 0 0.0 7 Note: Those with missing information are not included in the estimation Source: CBMS Survey, 2011 Most of the households which experienced food price increase considered d it as the most severe shock thatt affected them.
FREQUENCY OF SHOCKS Number of major types of shocks reported by urbanity and poverty status Urbanity Poverty Status No. of All Households Rural Urban Poor Non-poor shocks No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 0 542 25.7 226 37.5 316 21.0 180 28.0 362 24.7 1 964 45.7 70 11.6 894 59.4 185 28.88 779 53.2 2 465 22.1 229 38.0 236 15.7 208 32.4 257 17.5 3 116 5.5 70 11.6 46 3.1 62 9.6 54 3.7 4 12 0.6 5 0.8 7 0.5 5 0.8 7 0.5 5 6 0.3 2 0.3 4 0.3 2 0.3 4 0.3 6 2 0.1 0-2 0.1 0-2 0.1 7 1 0.0 1 0.2 0-1 0.2 0 - Total 2,108 100.0 603 100.0 1,505 100.0 643 100.0 1,465 100.0 Source: CBMS Survey, 2011 Although most of the households suffered from one shock event, some reported up to seven shocks Most of the rural households experienced 2 shocks while most of the urban households had only one shock Most of the poor households have 2 shocks while most of the non-poor households reported only one shock.
COMBINATION OF SHOCKS Magnitude and proportion of households which experienced various combination of shocks Increase in Serious Death Flood or Pest Food or Fuel Illness, Typhoon Infestation Prices Serious SHOCK Accident or Disability Increase in Food or 1,505 Fuel Prices (71.4%) Serious Illness, Serious Accident or 104 (4.9%) 129 (6.1%) Disability Death 24 (1.1%) 29 (1.4%) 29 (1.4%) Flood or Typhoon 56 (2.7%) 9 (0.4%) 2 (0.1) 78 (3.7%) Pest Infestation 17 (0.8%) 3 (0.1%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (0.2%) 20 (1.0%) Note: Figures in parentheses are the proportions to total t number of households h Source: CBMS Survey, 2011 Households experienced various combinations of shocks About 4.9 percent of households experienced food or fuel price increase and at the same time, serious illness, serious accident or disability
IMPACT OF SHOCKS Impact of the top 3 most severe shocks (% of households) Type of shock Total No. of HHs Job Decrease in Asset Increase in "severely" loss income loss expenses affected Increase in food prices 1,393 - - - 97.6 Increase in fuel prices 545 - - - 94.6 Serious illness 111 47.5 63.9-99.1 Typhoon 28 34.6 69.2 34.6 45.0 Death 28 36.0 56.0-89.3 Flood 52 9.8 62.0 30.0 61.2 Pest infestation 18 17.7 70.6 17.7 83.3 Serious accident 8 37.5 62.5 25.0 100.00 Disability 7 71.4 85.7-85.7 Note: This table includes estimates for households which reported the specific type of shock as one of the top 3 most severe shocks they experienced in the past 12 months. Source: CBMS Survey, 2011 Most of the households identified increase in food prices as one of the top 3 the most severe shocks Almostt all types of shocks resulted in anincrease in expenses of most of the affected households,
COPING STRATEGIES:POOREST VS. RICHEST Coping strategies of the richest households >40% of hhs <25% of hhs 2 5%-40% of hhs Lessened the frequency of dining-out Limited use of electricity Spent less for recreation Shifted to cheaper food items Shifted to generic and cheaper drugs Ate more ready-to-cook food (i.e., noodles) Limited use of water Bought cooked food Reduced portion Received financial support from relatives Cut communication expenses Spent savings Shifted to self-medication Borrowed money Limited use of cooking fuel Shifted to cheaper means of transportation Received other material support from relatives 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Lessening the frequency of dining out is the most common strategy among the richest households
COPING STRATEGIES:POOREST VS. RICHEST Coping strategies of the poorest households of hhs >40% -40% of hhs 25%- of hhs <25% Shifted to cheaper food items Reduced portion Limited use of electricity Ate less preferred food Ate more ready-to-cook food (i.e., noodles) Bought cooked food Received financial support from relatives Lessened the frequency of dining-out Shifted to generic and cheaper drugs Bought food on credit Shifted to cheaper alternative medicine Shifted to cheaper fuel sources for cooking Consumed staple food only Spent less for recreation eat Reduced allowance for children in school Shifted to self-medication Borrowed money Relied more on own produce Bought second-hand items (except for school supplies) Limited it use of cooking fuel Shifted to cheaper means of transportation Received other material support from relatives Received assistance from government Cut communication expenses Stopped/postponed consuming products/services ces Children used old/second-hand school supplies Shifted to government health centers and hospitals Postponed childbearing Engaged in hazardous job 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Shifting to cheaper food items is the most common strategy among the poorest households
COPING STRATEGIES:POOREST VS. RICHEST In general, the type of coping strategies adopted by the poorest households and the richest households differ While the poorest households adopted strategies which are mostly food-related, the richest households adopted by modifying their non-food expenditure patterns. While shifting to cheaper foods is the most common among the poorest households, lessening the frequency of dining out is the most common strategy among the richest households.
COPING STRATEGIES:POOREST VS. RICHEST Although a significant proportion of the richest households spent their savings, very few poor households reported adopting such action. This is because poor households generally have less or no savings to draw upon during periods of crisis. Poorest households also seemed to adopt less preferred and more harmful strategies. For instance, a still significant proportion of the poorest households consumed staple food only or engaged in hazardous jobs. These actions could have negative consequences in the long-run.
COPING STRATEGIES: WITH AND WITHOUT SOCIAL PROTECTION (SSS/GSIS) without SSS/GSIS Shifted to cheaper food items Limited use of electricity Bought cooked food Shifted to generic and cheaper drugs Ate more ready-to-cook food Reduced portion Lessened frequency of dining out Received financial support from relatives Ate less preferred food Spent less for recreation Borrowing money is one of the top 10 most common strategy (28.3%) among households with SSS/GSIS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Lessened frequency of dining out Limited use of electricity Shifted to cheaper food items Spent less for recreation Shifted to generic and cheaper drugs Ate more ready-to-cook food Bought cooked food Limited use of water Reduced portion Borrowed money with SSS/GSIS Receiving financial support tfrom relatives is a common strategy among households without SSS/GSIS (37.4%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
COPING STRATEGIES: BENEFICIARIES AND NON- BENEFICIARIES OF 4PS 4Ps beneficiaries adopted more coping strategies A higher proportion of 4Ps beneficiaries adopted educationrelated coping strategies A higher proportion of 4Ps beneficiaries borrowed money
COPING STRATEGIES The type of coping strategies may vary depending on the types of shocks experienced by households, as well as on the specific impact of the shock on households
COPING STRATEGIES: BY TYPE OF SHOCK Top 5 most common coping strategies, by type of shock
COPING STRATEGIES Top 10 most common coping strategies adopted by type of impact Coping strategy Loss of Job Decrease in Income Loss of Assets Increase in Expenses No. % No. % No. % No. % Food-related Shifted to cheaper food items 49 53.9 128 68.4 20 69.0 1,003 66.9 Bought cooked food 42 46.2 91 48.7 12 41.4 598 39.9 Reduced portion 40 44.0 82 43.9 18 62.1 631 42.1 Lessened the frequency of dining-out 30 33.0 71 38.0 15 51.7 733 48.9 Ate more ready-to-cook food (i.e., noodles) 28 30.8 86 46.0 17 58.6 580 38.7 Ate less preferred food 16 55.2 Relied more on own produce 12 41.44 Nonfood Limited use of electricity 62 68.1 113 60.4 15 51.7 782 52.2 Cut communication expenses 34 37.4 70 37.4 13 44.8 Shifted to cheaper means of transportation tat o 14 48.3 83 Spent less for recreation 642 42.8 Health Shifted to generic and cheaper drugs 47 51.6 82 43.9 12 41.4 627 41.8 Assets, Savings, and Credit Borrowed money 49 53.8 83 44.4 478 31.9 Receipt of assistance Received financial support from relatives 49 53.8 86 46.0 449 30.0 Note: Figures highlighted in light green refer to the most common coping strategies adopted by type of impact Source: CBMS Survey, 2011 The most common coping strategies of households which experienced a decrease in income, loss of assets and increase in expenses is shifting to cheaper food items
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: COPING STRATEGIES Top 5 most common coping strategies, by type of impact Although shifting to cheaper food items is one of the most common coping strategies for each type impact, different patterns can be observed for the top 5 strategies.
COPING STRATEGIES: SEQUENCE OF ADOPTION The sequence of adoption of coping strategies is also influenced by the type of shocks experienced by households The first set of strategies adopted by households are usually those related to changes in food consumption pattern.
COPING STRATEGIES: SEQUENCE OF ADOPTION Top 10 coping strategies, by sequence of adoption Food price increase Fuel price increase 1. Shifted to cheaper food items 1. Limited use of electricity 2. Reduced portion 2. Shifted to cheaper fuel sources for cooking 3. Lessened the frequency of dining-out 3. Limited use of cooking fuel 4. Spent less for recreation 4. Shifted to cheaper means of transportation 5. Limited use of electricity 5. Lessened the frequency of dining-out 6. Bought cooked food 6. Spent less for recreation 7. Borrowed money 7. Reduced portion 8. Ate less preferred food 8. Shifted to cheaper food items 9. Ate more ready-to-cook food (i.e., noodles) 9. Cut communication expenses 10. Shifted to generic and cheaper drugs 10. Reduced allowance for children in school Serious illness, serious accident or disability Death 1. Borrowed money 1. Received financial support from relatives 2. Received financial support from relatives 2. Borrowed money 3. Spent savings 3. Received financial support from friends/neighbors 4. Shifted to generic and cheaper drugs 4. Bought cooked food 5. Limited use of electricity 5. Received other material support from relatives 6. Shifted to government health centers and hospitals 6. Received assistance from government 7. Spent less for recreation 7. Spent savings 8. Lessened the frequency of dining-out 8. Sold assets 9. Cut communication expenses 9. Cut communication expenses 10Received assistance from government 10. Shifted to cheaper fuel sources for cooking The sequence of adoption of coping strategies differs across different types of shock.
COPING STRATEGIES: TYPES AND SEQUENCE Top 10 coping strategies, by sequence of adoption Flood Typhoon 1. Shifted to cheaper food items 1. Spent less for recreation 2. Reduced portion 2. Reduced portion 3. Cut communication expenses 3. Shifted to cheaper food items 4. Limited use of electricity 4. Spent savings 5. Spent less for recreation 5. Lessened the frequency of dining-out 6. Ate more ready-to-cook food (i.e., noodles) 6. Borrowed money 7. Reduced allowance for children in school 7. Ate more ready-to-cook food (i.e., noodles) 8. Spent savings 8. Limited use of electricity 9. Consumed staple food only 9. Skipped meals 10. Ate less preferred food 10. Shifted to cheaper means of transportation Pest infestation Any Type of Severe Shock 1. Shifted to cheaper food items 1. Shifted to cheaper food items 2. Relied more on own produce 2. Limited use of electricity 3. Ate less preferred food 3. Reduced portion 4. Consumed staple food only 4. Lessened the frequency of dining-out i 5. Ate more ready-to-cook food (i.e., noodles) 5. Spent less for recreation 6. Borrowed money 6. Bought cooked food 7. Bought cooked food 7. Borrowed money 8. Limited it use of electricity it 8At 8. Ate less preferred dfood 9. Bought food on credit 9. Ate more ready-to-cook food (i.e., noodles) 10. Limited use of cooking fuel 10. Received financial support from relatives
COPING STRATEGIES: SEQUENCE OF ADOPTION The first set of coping strategies adopted by households which were severely affected by food price increases include those which are related to changes in food consumption patterns. Example: Shifting to cheaper food items, reducing portion of food consumed and lessening the frequency of dining out are usually the first set of strategies adopted when faced with higher food prices. When faced with fuel price increase, the first set of coping strategies adopted by households include changes in nonfood consumption pattern One of the first strategies that households adopted when they experienced serious illness, serious accident or disability or death usually include borrowing money, receiving financial support from relatives and tapping their savings.
COPING STRATEGIES: TYPES AND SEQUENCE When households were severely affected by typhoon, the first thing that they usually do is to modify their food and non-food expenses. A somewhat similar pattern can be observed when households experienced flood although they also usually spend their savings or borrow money as their immediate actions Households which were severely affected by pest infestation also usually modified their food consumption pattern first before adopting other coping strategies.
COPING STRATEGIES: SEQUENCE OF ADOPTION The sequence of adoption of coping strategies generally follow a specific pattern. Changes in food consumption pattern usually come first when households face various shocks. About half of the total expenditures of households in the Philippines, on average, is allotted for food.
COPING STRATEGIES: SEQUENCE OF ADOPTION
COPING STRATEGIES: SEQUENCE OF ADOPTION
COPING STRATEGIES: SEQUENCE OF ADOPTION
COPING STRATEGIES: SEQUENCE OF ADOPTION
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: RECOVERY Characteristics of Households, by status of recovery from the most severe shock Characteristics Not at all Partially Completely Recovered Recovered Per capita income 207,5256 310,828 211,577 Household size 4.2 4.4 4.2 Dependency ratio 0.6 0.5 0.5 Male-headed households (%) 79.8 76.8 76.0 Average age of household head (in years) 45.2 46.2 46.9 Households with at least 2 income sources (%) 12.5 13.5 21.0 Households which received any programs (%) 70.1 69.7 74.5 Source: CBMS Survey, 2011 Households which were able to recovery (partially and completely) generally have higher income than those which were not able to recover. The dependency ratio of those which were able to partially or completely recover is slightly lower than among those who were not able to recover. A higher proportion of households which were able to recover derived income from at least two sources.
Thank you! CBMS Network Coordinating Team Angelo King Institute for Economic and Business Studies Rm I-1016, 10th Floor, Angelo King International Center, Estrada corner Arellano Streets, Malate, Manila Telefax (632) 5262067 Email at: cbms@benilde.edu.ph; cbms.network@gmail.com Website: www.pep-net.org