1. Recommendations for a National Social Protection Floor (SPF)
Department of Labor and Employment
26 November 2015
Decision point needed:
Request for the approval of the recommendations for a national Social Protection Floor

2. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SOCIAL PROTECTION FLOOR
June 5, 2014 – the HDPRC approved the concept of the Social Protection Floor and the conduct of the Assessment-Based National Dialogue (ABND)
* Inter-agency core group was formalized to
implement the ABND process (DOLE and NEDA as
co-chairs; members – DSWD, NAPC, DBM, PSA, ECOP,
FFW, ILO, and UNICEF)
November 27, 2014 – the HDPRC approved the design and schedule of the island-wide consultations held from March – July 2015

3. Who were consulted Representatives from:
NEDA Regional Development Councils
National Government Agencies
Regional Tripartite Industrial Peace Councils
NAPC 14 Basic Sectors
Civil Society Organizations

4. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SOCIAL PROTECTION FLOOR
September 2015 – Priority recommendations presented to the SDC-Technical Board. Inputs were incorporated for the costing workshop held in October.

5. Endorsed by the 185 member states of the ILO with the adoption of the SPF Recommendation (No 202)
At the 101st ILC
14 June 2012
456 yes votes
1 abstention
The Social protection floor recommendation
The Social Security Minimum Standards Convention (C 102) is considered as the ILO’s flagship convention and sets fundamental principles applying nine classical social security contingencies (medical care, sickness, unemployment, old age, employment injury, family responsibilities, maternity, invalidity, survivorship) into a single comprehensive and legally binding instrument.
These principles have recently been recalled in the ILO Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202), which provides practical guidance for setting national social protection floors and building comprehensive social security systems.
The SPF concept is elaborated in Recommendation No. 202 that was adopted nearly unanimously by 185 Member States during the 101st Session of the ILC.
Recommendation No. 202 reaffirms the role of social security as a human right and as a social and economic necessity, and provides guidance to countries in building SPFs within progressively comprehensive social security systems.
The recommendation 202 is a useful guidance for member states who wish to establish/maintain SPFs as part of their national social security systems

6. Social protection floor
At least 4 basic guarantees: 
All residents have access to essential health care 
All children enjoy access to nutrition, education, care 
All working age people enjoy basic income security, particularly in sickness, unemployment, maternity, disability
According to the social protection floor concept, countries should guarantee a minimum set of social security benefits to all their populations. The SPF is not a ceiling, which means that once the SPF has been established, countries should also work towards the provision of higher levels of benefits to more and more people.
Moreover, the SPF builds on the idea that there is no unique model for Social Security systems. Social Security systems should reflect national, cultural and historical values, and should be consistent with national economic and social plans.
There is “no one size fits all” approach in designing and operating national floors of social protection.
Each country should decide how to make it happen through targeted or universal schemes, contributory or non-contributory approaches, and so on.
National floors of social protection should comprise at least the following basic social security guarantees:
access to a nationally defined set of goods and services, constituting essential health care, including maternity care, that meets the criteria of availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality;
basic income security for children, at least at a nationally defined minimum level, providing access to nutrition, education, care, and any other necessary goods and services;
basic income security, at least at a nationally defined minimum level, for persons in active age who are unable to earn sufficient income, in particular in cases of sickness, unemployment, maternity, and disability; and
basic income security, at least at a nationally defined minimum level, for older persons. 
All older persons have basic income security

7. Objectives of the ABND It answers one question:
How do we make the Social Protection Floor (SPF) a reality for the entire population of a country?
It answers the question by:
Identifying the existing situation and gaps in the social protection system
Developing recommendations for achieving the SPF
Taking steps on the recommendations
As a first step to building nationally defined social protection floor, the Assessment Based National Dialogue is conducted.
The ABND exercise assesses whether the SPF is a reality for the whole population and how it could be extended to all members of society.
Policy gaps and implementation issues are identified and recommendations made for further design and implementation of social protection provisions that would guarantee an SPF for all residents and all children.
Moreover, the assessment based national dialogue is a participatory approach to identifying priority policy options for the successful and coordinated development of nationally defined social protection floors. Therefore, all relevant stakeholders, including line departments, local government bodies, workers’ and employers’ organizations, civil society organizations, academicians, and development partners, are involved from the outset.
The ABND also seek to estimate the projected financial commitment needed to implement proposed policies for closing “holes” in the SPF. As part of the social protection assessment, the ILO Rapid Assessment Protocol (RAP) model is used to estimate the cost and affordability of implementing social protection recommendations.

8. Steps of ABND 1. What is the existing situation?
2. What are the policy and implementation level gaps?
3. Recommendations to close the gaps
4. How much will it cost to implement until 2020?
5. Is it affordable?
6. Finalizing the ABND report
7. Launch of the SPF
To conduct the assessment based national dialogue, there are three steps involved:
● Step 1: Building the assessment matrix;
● Step 2: Costing policy options using the RAP model; and
● Step 3: Finalization and endorsement.
STEP 1 – Building the assessment matrix
The assessment matrix lists and describes the existing social security schemes for each of the four SPF guarantees, identifies policy gaps and implementation issues, and provides policy recommendations to further design and implement social protection provisions with the aim of guaranteeing, at a minimum, the SPF to all residents and children.
Recommendations may be of two types:
1) First type – recommendations related to the expansion of the social protection floor:
cover more people;
increase levels of benefits of existing non-contributory schemes;
introduce new non-contributory benefits or programmes.
The cost of implementing such recommendations can be assessed using the ILO RAP model.
2) Second type – other recommendations:
new or expanded mandatory or voluntary social insurance (e.g. establish an unemployment insurance system);
recommendations related to the operations and coordination between schemes (e.g. improve targeting mechanisms);
qualitative recommendations (e.g. improve the education system).
The cost of implementing such recommendations requires in-depth studies (beyond the ABND exercise).
STEP 2 – Costing policy options using the RAP model
The costs of the proposed social protection provisions are then estimated and projected over a five to ten-year period using the ILO RAP model. This costing exercise can serve as a basis for discussions on the fiscal space and government budget reallocations. In turn, the results of the costing exercise can help prioritize between possible social protection policy options.
STEP 3 – Finalization and endorsement
The recommendations are shared with government representatives, workers and employers, and civil society organizations with a view to validate the report technically and have it endorsed politically.

9. ABND in ASEAN countries
Completed
Ongoing
Planned
SPF adopted in regional and national social protection strategies
In the Asia and the Pacific region, the establishment of social protection floors has increasingly been recognized by all ILO Member States as an efficient approach to combating poverty, inequality, and exclusion, and as a key element of national development strategies. The new regional importance of social protection is confirmed by the Conclusions of the 15th Asia Pacific Regional Meeting in December 2011, which prioritizes “Reducing poverty and wide inequalities in income and wealth” and “Building effective social protection floors in line with national circumstances”.
Also, in September 2013 the ten ASEAN Leaders adopted a Declaration on Strengthening Social Protection. It reaffirms the Member States' commitment to build an ASEAN community socially responsible and people oriented by 2015 by, notably, fostering social protection floors in the region.
Thailand, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Indonesia, and Myanmar already completed the ABND
Laos and the Philippines is set to finish the process this year
While Malaysia is set to start next year.
In the Philippines, we have already conducted the following ABND activities:
In May 2014, a Core Group (CG) was set up, which comprised NEDA, DOLE, DSWD, NAPC, DBM, PSA, ECOP, FFW, ILO and UNICEF.
In June 2014, the ABND concept was presented at the joint Social Development Committee (SDC) and Human Development and Poverty Reduction (HDPR) cluster meeting, for approval, which also lead to finalization of ABND co-chairs as DOLE and NEDA
From July 2014 to March 2015, desk review, bilateral meetings, island-wide and sectoral consultations were conducted to finalize the ABND matrix
From April 2015 to October 2015, the RAP costing exercise was conducted
In September 2015, priority recommendations for costing was presented to the SDC Technical Board
In November 2015 (currently), the ABND result is presented to the HDPR cluster for approval
In December 2015, a soft launch of the nationally-defined SPF for all and ABND report is planned

10. Key ABND recommendations
In the next few slides, we will discuss the key ABND recommendations per guarantee. All recommendations, costable or not, were identified during the consultation process.
For the recommendations that were costed, the following input data were used:
government administrative data
census data from PSA
labour forcer survey data from PSA
national accounts data from PSA
During the exercise some recommendations were converted into more than one scenario with different target groups and different benefit levels.
Costing starts from 2015 onwards and is projected until 2018.
Some scenarios are costed with a take-up rate, while others assume that the whole target group be covered from the beginning onwards. Generally, scenarios focusing on the extension of benefits or the target group of an existing schemes (i.e. the social pension and 4Ps) are assumed to be realized fully from the beginning onwards, in such cases the take-up rate is 100%. For scenarios that cost new schemes or new features to existing schemes (i.e. PhilHealth subsidy for informal sector workers and employment insurance) are assumed to be realized progressively. In such cases, the standard take-up rate of 25% in the first year, 50% in the second year, 75% in the third year, and 100% in the fourth and following years, is applied. In practice, that means the first 25% of the target group are covered, then 50%, and so on. Thus, in some cases the target group increases significantly in the first for years, leading to steep increases of the cost during the first years as well.
All cost are calculated at additional cost, i.e. only the add-on to existing cost is calculated.

11. Non-costable recommendation
SPF 1: ALL RESIDENTS HAVE ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL HEALTH CARE
PhilHealth
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
Low coverage of informal sector workers as they might not be able to pay the premiums on a regular basis
Subsidize PhilHealth premiums for vulnerable informal sector workers
Provide a 30% PhilHealth premium subsidy to vulnerable informal sector workers, by the national government
2015 (25%):Php 1.1 B, 0.01% of GDP
2016 (50%): Php 2.1 B, 0.01% of GDP
2017 (75%): Php 2.9 B, 0.02% of GDP
2018 (100%):Php 3.7 B, 0.02% of GDP
Accessibility of services, with health facilities not accessible everywhere, and the expanded outpatient benefit package not being available in all health facilities
Strictly enforce income retention for health-care providers to improve services
Intensified training to LGUs on management of health facilities including supplies, services and manpower
Non-costable recommendation
The graph shows cost estimates for the following PhilHealth Scenario: Provide a 30% PhilHealth premium subsidy to vulnerable informal sector workers, by the national government
Other scenarios: 50% or 100% PhilHealth premium subsidy
Take-up rate: 25% in 2015, 50% in 2016, 75% in 2017, 100% in 2018
The target group is defined as vulnerable workers of the informal sector, focusing on self-employed only (in order to calculate these numbers, the LFS was used as a basis to derive the number of self-employed workers. Additionally the occupational groups 0 – others, including Armed Forces occupations, 1 – Managers, 2 – Professionals, 3 – Technicians and Associate Professionals, according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO), were removed from the total of self-employed, as these professions)are not considered vulnerable).
The motivation behind choosing the target group was that informal sector workers might not be able to afford to pay the premiums on a regular basis, due to their seasonal incomes. While poor informal sector workers are covered by the NHTS-PR and qualify for the Indigent Program under PhilHealth, vulnerable informal sector workers earning more than the poverty threshold, might still face problems in earning enough money to pay the premiums.
The target group increases from 2015 to That can be explained through the progressive realization of the subsidy, being implemented gradually.
The benefit comes in form of a subsidy from the national government, with the costing of a 30% subsidy. (Subsidy per worker mounting to PHP1,200 or 1,800 per year, depending on the workers’ earnings)

12. SPF2: All children enjoy access to nutrition, education, care
Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps)
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
The grant rates are low and account for a smaller share of the household income than in 2008
Revisit the grant rates and increase the rates, and/or link them to inflation
Increase the 4Ps benefits by 20%, indexed on inflation, and extend the education benefit to all eligible children in 4Ps beneficiary households
2015 (100%):Php 12.8 B, 0.09% of GDP
2016 (100%): Php 14.1 B, 0.09% of GDP
2017 (100%): Php 14.8 B, 0.09% of GDP
2018 (100%):Php 15.5 B, 0.09% of GDP
Currently only three children per family are eligible to receive the education grant
Extend the number of children eligible to receive the education grant to cover all children in 4Ps households
The graph shows cost estimates for the following 4Ps scenario: Increase the 4Ps benefits by 20%, indexed on inflation, and extend the education benefit to all eligible children in 4Ps beneficiary households
The target group is defined as all children in 4Ps beneficiary households. Currently only up to 3 children per household are eligible for the education benefit, however, in the costing all children are provided the benefit. (Initially the limit was set to 3 children as policy makers feared to incentivize reproduction among 4Ps mothers. Studies have shown however, that no such effect exists among current beneficiaries.) The health grant is provided per household, thus, the number of children per household does not play a role. The target group, indicated as target children (not households), increases constantly. This is in line with DSWD agenda to include all poor households in the NHTS-PR and thus the 4Ps programme.
The benefit is an increase in grant rates by 20%. A study on the 4Ps (conducted by World Bank) has shown that an increase in 20% strikes a good balance between increasing the rates while not fostering dependency on the beneficiaries end. The existing rates are increased as follows:
Health grant from PHP500 to PHP600
Education grant (3-14 year-olds) PHP300 to PHP360
Education grant (15-18 year-olds) PHP500 to PHP600
It should be stressed that only the additional cost of increasing the grant rates were costed. Thus, these cost projections should be considered an add-on to existing cost.

13. SPF2: All children enjoy access to nutrition, education, care
Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps)
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
There is no provision of fortified food for children aged 7-24 months old to prevent stunting
Provide food vouchers for micronutrient supplementation to 7-24 months old children under 4Ps
Provide food vouchers worth PHP390 per month, indexed to inflation, to 7-24 months-old children in 4Ps beneficiary households.
2015 (100%):Php 632 M, 0.005% of GDP
2016 (100%): Php 678 M, 0.005% of GDP
2017 (100%): Php 674 M, 0.004% of GDP
2018 (100%):Php 644 M, 0.003% of GDP
The graph shows cost estimates for the following 4Ps scenario: Provide food vouchers worth PHP390 per month to 7-24 months-old children in 4Ps beneficiary households.
The target group is defined as all 7-24 month-old children in 4Ps beneficiary households. These are considered highly vulnerable to stunting and malnutrition. As the first 1000 days (from inception to the age of 2) play a major role in the development of the children later in life, early intervention is considered crucial.
The benefit comes in form of a food or cereal voucher, amounting to PHP390 per month (or PHP13 per day). The voucher amount is adjusted to cumulative inflation every 5 years.

14. Non-costable recommendation
SPF2: All children enjoy access to nutrition, education, care
Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps)
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
4Ps and Modified CCT are not institutionalized by law
Fast track passage of pending bills on institutionalization
Non-costable recommendation
Schools and health facilities are not accessible everywhere, leading to households not being able to comply with the conditions
Ensure access to community-based education systems, rural schools run by accredited NGOs, alternative learning systems, and mobile health facilities

15. SPF2: All children enjoy access to nutrition, education, care
Supplementary Feeding Program (SFP)
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
The School-Based Feeding Program (SBFP) only covers severely wasted* and wasted* children
Extend coverage to all children in public schools, grade K to 6, and do not restrict feeding to wasted pupils only
Provide a meal to all children in public schools, Kindergarten to Grade 6, for the entire school year, counting 200 days.
2015 (25%):Php 12.1 B, 0.09% of GDP
2016 (50%): Php 25.5 B, 0.2% of GDP
2017 (75%): Php 42.2 B, 0.3% of GDP
2018 (100%):Php 60.5 B, 0.3% of GDP
SPF is not a sustainable mechanism to maintain the nutritional status of target beneficiaries due to limited number of feeding days
Provide meals for all school days in a year, instead of 120 feeding days only
The graph shows cost estimates for the following SFP scenario: Provide a meal to all children in public schools, Kindergarten to Grade 6, for the entire school year, counting 200 days.
Take-up rate: 25% in 2015, 50% in 2016, 75% in 2017, 100% in 2018
The target group is defined as all children enrolled in public schools, from Kindergarten to Grade 6. Currently only severely wasted and wasted pupils are provided with meals.
The benefit comes in form of a meals, provided for 200 days, instead of 120 days (status quo). PHP15 have been assumed as cost of meal per child, as per information from DSWD.
It should be stressed that only the additional cost of extending the feeding to all children, for 200 days, were costed. Thus, these cost projections should be considered an add-on to existing cost.

16. SPF 3: All working age people enjoy basic income security
Social Security System (SSS)
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
No unemployment protection is provided to private sector workers covered SSS.
Introduce an (un)employment insurance scheme with job search assistance, and skills trainings, and draw resources to resources to support this.
Introduce an employment insurance scheme for private sector workers under SSS, wherein the national government subsidizes 30% of the cost
2015 (25%):Php 1.9 B, 0.01% of GDP
2016 (50%): Php 3.9 B, 0.03% of GDP
2017 (75%): Php 6.2 B, 0.04% of GDP
2018 (100%):Php 8.5 B, 0.05% of GDP
The graph shows cost estimates for the following SSS Scenario: Introduce an employment insurance scheme for private sector workers under SSS, wherein the national government subsidizes 30% of the cost
Take-up rate: 25% in 2015, 50% in 2016, 75% in 2017, 100% in 2018
The target group is defined as laid-off private sector workers, covered by SSS. (To derive the target group, rates of employer-initiated separations in NCR were applied to the projected number of SSS beneficiaries. The data stems from the quarterly Labor Turnover Survey, conducted by PSA in large enterprises in the NCR). The costing is based on the assumption, that the scheme would be administered through SSS, thus, the target group is based on numbers of SSS membership.
Due to progressive implementation, it is assumed that not the full target group is reached from the beginning onwards. As this is only a standard implementation rate applied for the sake of costing, in reality, this might look different. (One way of introducing the UI scheme could be to offer it to fresh employees, while older employees are still eligible to a separation pay. Making such assumptions is beyond the RAP however, and should be dealt with in microsimulations and actuarial studies).
The benefit comes in form of an allowance amounting to 50% of the income of the workers, paid for 3 months. The government subsidizes 30% of the scheme cost, which can even be considered as seed money to set up the scheme. (That’s how it is currently in Vietnam). It is assumed that the laid-off workers do not find employment before the period of benefit payment ends, i.e. full benefit is paid.
Other scenarios:
50% subsidy by the national government; 50% income replacement rate, paid for 4 months
50% subsidy by the national government; 60% income replacement rate, paid for 6 months

17. Non-costable recommendation
SPF 3: All working age people enjoy basic income security
Social Security System (SSS)
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
Relatively low coverage of the informal sector, as some informal sector members cannot pay the premiums on a regular basis
Partly subsidize the SSS premiums of informal sector workers by the national government
Partly subsidize by 30% the SSS premiums of informal sector workers by the national government
2015 (25%):Php 2.2 B, 0.01% of GDP
2016 (50%): Php 4.3 B, 0.03% of GDP
2017 (75%): Php 6.5 B, 0.04% of GDP
2018 (100%):Php 8.6 B, 0.05% of GDP
Limited number of land-based OFWs covered under SSS
Study the feasibility of covering land-based OFWs as compulsory members of SSS
Non-costable recommendation
The graph shows cost estimates for the following SSS Scenario: Partly subsidize by 30% the SSS premiums of informal sector workers by the national government
Take-up rate: 25% in 2015, 50% in 2016, 75% in 2017, 100% in 2018
The target group is defined as vulnerable workers of the informal sector, focusing on self-employed only (in order to calculate these numbers, the LFS was used as a basis to derive the number of self-employed workers. Additionally the occupational groups 0 – others, including Armed Forces occupations, 1 – Managers, 2 – Professionals, 3 – Technicians and Associate Professionals, according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO), were removed from the total of self-employed, as these professions)are not considered vulnerable). Unpaid family workers are excluded from the computation, on the grounds that no counter-part contribution can be made from their end, as they are not earning a salary.
The target group increases from 2015 to 2018, as shown in the circles below the graph. That can be explained through the progressive realization of the subsidy, being implemented gradually. From 2018 onwards, 100% of the target group is covered, which then slowly decreases in size, simply because the share of vulnerable self-employed workers as share of the overall informal sector decreases.
The benefit comes in form of a subsidy from the national government, amounting to 30% of the premium cost. (Yearly subsidy of premiums amounting to circa PHP1,340 in 2015, increasing to PHP1,865 in The subsidies increase with projected increase in workers’ earnings.)
Other scenario:
50% government subsidy, computed as share of SSS premium amount, which is calculated based on the yearly wage of workers

18. SPF 3: All working age people enjoy basic income security
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
No GSIS coverage for workers under MOA, COS, JO, and barangay officials
Conduct actuarial studies to explore coverage of workers by GSIS or SSS
Non-costable recommendation
Programmes for OFWs
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
No benefits provided to returning OFWs, who previously paid OWWA membership fees
Review the OWWA membership scheme to include possible compensation for OWWA members who paid membership fees during their employment contract
Non-costable recommendation

19. SPF 3: All working age people enjoy basic income security
TESDA
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
People with a low income may not attend trainings, as it represents a loss of potential income
Provide a sustenance allowance to low-income TESDA students, amounting to PHP200 per day, adjusted to inflation
Provide a sustenance allowance to TESDA students amounting to PHP200 per day, indexed on cumulative inflation every 5 years.
2015 (25%):Php 478 M, 0.003% of GDP
2016 (50%): Php 967 M, 0.01% of GDP
2017 (75%): Php 1.5 B, 0.01% of GDP
2018 (100%):Php 1.9 B, 0.01% of GDP
The graph shows cost estimates for the following: Provide a sustenance allowance to TESDA students amounting to PHP200 per day, indexed on cumulative inflation every 5 years.
Take-up rate: 25% in 2015, 50% in 2016, 75% in 2017, 100% in 2018
The target group is defined as poor TESDA students, where numbers are derived from the poverty incidence applied to the total number of TESDA students
The benefit comes in form of an allowance amounting to PHP200 per day, adjusted to cumulative inflation every 5 years. The average length of a course is assumed to be 1 month, with the allowance paid for training days (5 days a week).
For the Training for Work Scholarship programme, TESDA students receive Php 60 per day as allowance.

20. SPF 3: All working age people enjoy basic income security
Agricultural Insurance Program
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
Low amount of coverage for recovery of losses
Review the schedule of premium and recovery of losses
Non-costable recommendation
Social Safety Nets
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
Lack of convergence and non-uniform implementation of disaster-response programmes from various implementing agencies and funding organizations
Standardize the procedures, requirements, and benefits for all programmes, and foster convergence among agencies
Non-costable recommendation

21. SPF 3: All working age people enjoy basic income security
Community-Based Employment Program
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
The programme does not guarantee employment to workers, to secure a source of income
Expand CBEP, to guarantee employment for a set number of days per year, paid at the corresponding minimum wage, plus social insurance
Expand existing employment schemes to guarantee employment, at 60 days paid at the minimum wage plus social insurance
2015 (25%):Php 19.4 B, 0.01% of GDP
2016 (50%): Php 41.8 B, 0.03% of GDP
2017 (75%): Php 68.3 B, 0.04% of GDP
2018 (100%):Php 98.3 B, 0.05% of GDP
The graph shows cost estimates for the following Scenario: Expand existing employment schemes to guarantee employment, at 60 days paid at the minimum wage plus social insurance
Take-up rate: 25% in 2015, 50% in 2016, 75% in 2017, 100% in 2018
The target group is defined as low-skilled unemployed and underemployed workers. It is assumed that approximately 50% of them will be targeted, as the guaranteed employment is just being introduced. The target group increases from 2015 to That can be explained through the progressive realization of the subsidy, being implemented gradually. Low-skilled unemployed and underemployed workers are defined according to their occupational group ( 9 –elementary occupations, which includes cleaners and helpers, agricultural, forestry and fishery labourers, labourers in mining, construction, manufacturing and transport, food preparation assistants, and street and related sales and service workers)
The benefit comes in form of 60 days guaranteed work per year (double from a maximum of 30 currently provided under employment programmes), paid at the regional minimum wage, plus social insurance (SSS and PhilHealth). Depending on the region and the prevailing minimum wage, the cost are higher or lower. The graph indicates the cost at the highest minimum wage, so that the actual cost will be lower.
Other scenarios:
Expand the existing employment programmes to introduce guaranteed employment at 80 days per year, paid at the corresponding minimum wage, plus social insurance (PhilHealth and SSS).
10. Expand the existing employment programmes to introduce guaranteed employment at 100 days per year, paid at the corresponding minimum wage, plus social insurance (PhilHealth and SSS).

22. SPF 4: All older persons have basic income security
Social Pension for Indigent Senior Citizens
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
Inadequacy of the social pension amount of PHP500 per month for sustenance and buying medicines
Increase the social pension benefit, wherein the increased amount should not be higher than the minimum pension received by regular SSS pensioners
Provide a social pension of PHP1,000 per month, indexed on inflation, to all poor elderly aged 60 years and above
2015 (100%):Php 7.5 B, 0.02% of GDP
2016 (100%): Php 7.7 B, 0.02% of GDP
2017 (100%): Php 7.9 B, 0.02% of GDP
2018 (100%):Php 8.2 B, 0.02% of GDP
Low overall pension coverage, with only 20% of all senior citizens receiving income from a contributory pension
Extend the coverage of the social pension. Options include a pension-tested scheme or universal scheme -
The graph shows cost estimates for the following Social Pension Scenario: Provide a social pension of PHP1,000 per month, indexed on inflation, to all poor elderly aged 60 years and above
The target group is defined as all poor elderly, aged 60 years and above. To derive the target group, the poverty incidence of senior citizens (60+) was applied to the total population of 60+. The target group increases from constantly, in line with the increase of elderly in the population.
The benefit comes in form of a social pension, amounting to PHP1,000 per month, adjusted to cumulative inflation every 5 years.

23. SPF 4: All older persons have basic income security
SSS old-age benefits
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
The benefits are not sufficient to meet the needs of the pensioners
Review the minimum pension amount currently provided under SSS and potentially increase
Non-costable recommendation

24. SPF 4: All older persons have basic income security
Disability allowance
Gap / Challenge
Recommendation
Scenario
Cost
No social disability allowance is provided to PWDs for their daily sustenance
Provide a targeted or universal disability allowance
Provide a monthly disability allowance of PHP1,500, indexed on inflation, to all PWDs
2015 (25%):Php 7.5 B, 0.05% of GDP
2016 (50%): Php 15.3 B, 0.10% of GDP
2017 (75%): Php 23.2 B, 0.14% of GDP
2018 (100%):Php 31.5 B, 0.17% of GDP
The graph shows cost estimates for the following Disability Allowance Scenario: Provide a monthly disability allowance of PHP1,500, indexed on inflation, to all PWDs
Take-up rate: 25% in 2015, 50% in 2016, 75% in 2017, 100% in 2018
The target group is defined as all Persons with Disabilities. To derive the target group, the share of PWDs in the overall population, amounting to 1.6% (according to the Census 2010), was applied to the total population. Due to progressive realization, the target group grows significantly from 2015 to 2018.
The benefit comes in form of a social disability allowance, amounting to PHP1,500 per month, adjusted to cumulative inflation every 5 years.

25. CROSS-CUTTING Gap / Challenge Recommendation
Weak coordination and collaboration among concerned government agencies resulting in:
1. Lack of unified database on beneficiaries
2. Lack of common targeting mechanism
3. Lack of unified account management and collection system
Implement a single window service or one-stop shop at the local level, which is akin to an outlet at the local level, where beneficiaries can access information on different schemes, register for them, pay contributions or collect benefits. It capitalises on a common database and reduces cost due to common infrastructure.
Employ a common targeting mechanism across all pro-poor schemes, such as the NHTS-PR.

26. SUMMARY
Total cost of a nationally-defined social protection floor, as % of GDP
Summary
The graph summarizes the total cost of an SPF, as presented during this presentation. The color-coding stands for the different recommendations that were costed, as shown in the legend on the right. The total cost ranges between 0.5% of GDP in 2012 and 1.3% of GDP in From 2019 onwards the cost stabilize at around 1.25% of GDP. The cost increase up to 2018, due to the progressive realization (gradual implementation) for some of the programmes.
It becomes evident that guaranteed employment and an extension of the Supplementary Feeding Program would be more costly scheme extension, while the PhilHealth and SSS subsidy, employment insurance, TESDA allowance and social pension, are among the cheaper ones. One has to take into consideration that the target group for each of these schemes vary though. Supplementary Feeding Program, for instance, has a very big target group, covering all pupils enrolled in public schools, grade K to 6.
It should be stressed that this is added cost to the existing social protection expenditure. Establishing a social protection floor in the country would thus require an additional 1.25% of GDP in 2022.
64.5
116.2
174.2
237.4
Total Cost
(Php Billion)

27. Next steps Soft launch of the Philippine ABND country report
Provide inputs to the following:
Philippine Development Plan
Action Plan for implementing the Social Protection Operational Framework Strategy (SPOFS)
Designed by Freepik

28. Thank you!