30 Mar, 2022

Addressing Policy Myopia through the Lens of Resilience: Droughts Resilience Initiatives in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia has its fair share of extreme drought events. Between 2015 and 2020, two of the strongest droughts in the region’s recent history, which affected all 10 ASEAN member states, happened.[i] At the height of the crisis, over 70 percent of the land area in Southeast Asia suffered deficient precipitation levels relative to the average conditions (Figure 1). Compounding to this hazard is the wide exposure and susceptibility of people to drought events. An estimated 392 million people (or approximately 62 percent of the region’s population) are living in drought hotspots, and the poor are severely and disproportionately vulnerable as they have less coping capacity.[ii] In addition, drought events have cascading effects on the economy and industries, especially in the agricultural sector. A dry spell in the farmlands account for around $51 billion in losses, or 60% of the average annual losses due to disasters in the region.

The warning signs are clear and alarming. With the hazards, vulnerability, and impact all documented, droughts are undeniable risks in Southeast Asia that needs the attention of governments. A puzzling policy challenge however is that even though droughts are episodic and expected every few years, it remains underreported, with national adaptation measures fragmented, and is lower on the list of priorities among policy makers.[iii]

Figure 1. Drought Hazards in Southeast Asia

Source: ESCAP, based on Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR) Risk Atlas 2015[iv]

If droughts are recurring disasters with a huge and widespread impact, why is there a lack of attention towards building resilience towards it?

Unlike sudden and intense disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, or pandemics, droughts are characterized by a slow and gradual onset of symptoms that accumulate over time. Using the 1981 movie Quest for Fire—where a pre-historic tribe underwent an existential crisis due to their fire being extinguished—as an analogy, droughts do not suddenly snuff the fire, but droughts cause the flame to slowly burn smaller and wither gently. This slow and gradual characteristic of droughts make it easy for policymakers to not see the existential crisis immediately. For example, between 2006 and 2015, the region experienced relatively normal precipitation ranges which pushed drought-related concerns to the back of the minds of policymakers. This makes droughts easy to lose track of, and thus results in delays in implementing mitigation and adaptation efforts. [v]

The lack of attention given to drought-related responses is a case of policy myopia among government authorities. Policy myopia is defined as the lack of foresight, anticipation, and planning in the present to address the issues of tomorrow.[vi] In addition, the usual disaster risk and reduction strategies are closely associated with sudden disasters (e.g. floods, typhoons) and focus has been largely on the response and recovery from the said shocks. The management of slow-onset disasters has not been fully incorporated into national strategies.[vii]

Southeast Asia however should not wait for the “fire” to be extinguished or feel an existential crisis to kick in before doing something about drought events. To fix policy myopia, viewing the problem with a lens of resilience can better prepare the region for upcoming droughts. Being short-sighted with a focus on response and recovery would not cut it. The efforts should be geared towards building back better—with the goal of reducing the risks of prolonged drought events, and at the same time reducing the impact when it does happen. It is not merely bouncing back, but “bouncing forward” that would be key for drought resilience.

Figure 2. Clusters of drought impacts

How should this play out in the region? First, a mindset change among policymakers in tackling droughts in Southeast Asia is needed to work towards resilience. It is important for governments to see that droughts do not happen in a vacuum, and the effects are devastating should no intervention be done. Putting droughts in a broader context of cascading disasters, and not just about a discussion of water shortages, would deepen understanding of the corresponding risks and breed urgency to address it. As the recent ESCAP and ASEAN report notes, there are several clusters that are closely related to droughts (Figure 2):

First, forest fires and haze—in Indonesia for example—are a function of droughts as well.[ix] Granted, poor land and farming practices are also a part of the problem, but a long dry season exacerbates forest fires which affects water resources and has detrimental impacts of respiratory health.

Second, droughts also increase the possibility of salt-water intrusions up rivers and canals due to fresh-water sources drying up. This has caused water shortages and damaged crops in Vietnam and Thailand, for example.[x]

Third, droughts have direct impacts on poverty and food security. In terms of employment, 34 percent of the working population in Southeast Asia is in the agricultural sector and prolonged dry seasons affect their incomes negatively.[xi] Droughts also kill crops and lessens agricultural yields, thus affecting food supplies.

Finally, droughts also affect the economies of Southeast Asia especially in the sectors of trade and energy. For example, Thailand experienced its lowest yield in rice, one of their top exports, in 2019 due to droughts and thus affecting its competitiveness in the global rice market.[xii] In addition, droughts also have impacts on hydropower plants, making them run less efficiently, and causing lower functionality and disruptions in energy operations.

Second, while a whole-of-region approach is needed to mitigate and adapt to drought events, there should be changes in national-level planning. A major step forward has been made in the region with the publication of the ASEAN Regional Plan of Action on Adaptation to Drought 2021-2025 in late 2020.[xiii] The plan details priority areas for countries to have sustainable practices in livelihood, natural resources, agriculture, energy, and socio-economic development that would manage the risks of droughts and its impacts. The challenge however is translating the plans into national level actionable items. As noted, drought management measures remain spotty across ASEAN economies, with the Philippines as the only country with a National Drought Plan.[xiv]

It should be noted however that countries such as Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam have all recognized the importance of addressing droughts by incorporating it into various disaster plans and sectoral plans. Having a national drought plan, however, helps elevate further the importance of addressing prolonged dry seasons and consolidates the efforts across industries. National-level planning also provides a stronger institutional justification for financing mitigation and adaptation measures. A long-term national plan protects against policy myopia as a multi-year roadmap, with yearly targets and earmarked budget, provides a guideline for drought-related initiatives, ensures that these are not overlooked, and can be tracked easily.

Finally, governments should ensure that bridge financing is available in order to implement resilience initiatives against droughts, including insurance for those who lack the capacity to cope. Risk mitigation and adaptation financing measures are often talked about in the context of regional efforts, especially through the regional framework of the ASEAN Disaster Risk and Financing Insurance Plan of Action. What is often overlooked is how it happens on the ground. It is not only policy makers who suffer from myopia, but stakeholders, including farmers and fisherfolks, may also suffer from not looking at the bigger picture.

Asking the population, especially the vulnerable ones, to instantly change their behaviours and shift to more sustainable practices that can contribute to disaster resilience, may receive some pushback especially if long-entrenched practices are disrupted. It would be challenging for farmers to unlearn their old ways when droughts have been long part, and to some extent an accepted aspect, of their crop cycles. This is where bridge financing would be key—a mechanism to ease in the transition of sustainable practices and ensure a smoother transition. Access to financing, especially to those who lack the capacity to cope, would ensure better and long-term adoption of resilience initiatives.

Drought is a complex problem that the region is facing, compounded by a multitude of factors. Given that it is slow and gradual, governments tend to suffer from myopia in tackling the issue. This slow-onset however can also become an opportunity—more like a glass half-full rather than a glass half-empty situation. The episodic nature of droughts means there is time to implement the interventions, although it should be emphasized that the time is now. There is a need to look at droughts with a new set of lens—that of resilience. Thinking about the problem with a change in mindset, national-level planning, and access to bridge financing can be a helpful way to develop resilience.

[i] UNESCAP and ASEAN. (2021). Ready for the Dry Years: Building Resilience to Drought in Southeast Asia. Retrieved March 15, 2022 from https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/d8files/knowledge-products/Ready_for_the_Dry_Years_Second_edition.pdf.pdf.

[ii] UNESCAP. (2020). The Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2019: The Disaster Riskscape Across Asia-Pacific: Pathways for Resilience, Inclusion and Empowerment. Retrieved March 15, 2022 from https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/IDD-APDR-Subreport-SEA.pdf.

[iii] UNESCAP and ASEAN, (2021).

[iv] UNESCAP, (2020).

[v] Abdullah, K. (2017). Building Resilience for Sustainable ASEAN from Water-related Disasters. ROK-ASEAN Cooperation Project. Retrieved March 16, 2022 from https://environment.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Building-Resilience-for-Sustainable-ASEAN-from-Water-Related-Disasters_Executive-Summary-Report_small.pdf.

[vi] Nair, S. & Howlett, M. (2017). Policy Myopia as a Source of Policy Failure: Adaptation and Policy Learning under Deep Uncertainty. Policy & Politics: Vol. 45, N.o 1, 103–18. DOI: 0.1332/030557316X14788776017743

[vii] Staupe-Delgado, R. (2019). Overcoming Barriers to Proactive Response in Slow-Onset Disasters. Contributing Paper to GAR 2019. Retrieved March 16, 2022 from https://www.undrr.org/publication/overcoming-barriers-proactive-response-slow-onset-disasters.

[viii] UNESCAP and ASEAN, (2021).

[ix] Bloomberg. (2019). Drought, wildfires inflict double whammy on Indonesian crops. Retrieved March 15, 2022 from https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/drought-wildfires-inflict-double-whammy-on-indonesian-crops.

[x] Board, J. (2020). Salty rivers, failed durian trees and waves consuming the shore: Climate change realities hit Gulf of Thailand. Retrieved March 17, 2022 from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/climatechange/climate-change-thailand-saltwater-intrusion-coast-erosion-durian-1339761.

[xi] ASEAN Secretariat (2018). ASEAN Statistical Yearbook, 2018. Available at https://asean.org/storage/2018/12/asyb-2018.pdf.

[xii] Reuters. (2019). Rice exports forecast to fall to lowest in 7 years. Retrieved March 15, 2022 from https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1837179/rice-exports-forecast-to-fall-to-lowest-in-7-years.

[xiii] UNESCAP. (2021). ASEAN Regional Plan of Action for Adaptation to Drought 2021-2025. Retrieved March 17, 2022 from https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/ASEAN-Regional-Plan-of-Action_011121-FINAL-EDIT.pdf

[xiv] UNESCAP and ASEAN, (2021).

keith.detros

30 Mar, 2022

3 Jan, 2022

A Red Flag for the Philippine Digital Economy

The Philippines is the fastest growing digital economy in Southeast Asia. In 2021, the internet economy in the country is valued at US$ 17 billion — an exponential increase from the US$ 2 billion levels in 2015.[i] While all ASEAN-6 countries are expected to have double-digit growth rates in the internet economy, the Philippines leads the way with a projected 24% compounded annual growth rate by 2025.

This growth is on the backs of a young population, who spends the most time online. With a median age of 25.7 years old, the Philippines is expected to stay young and tech-savvy in the next decade.[ii] In the Digital 2021 report by global social media management firm Hootsuite, the Philippines also leads the world in time spent online, clocking in at around 10 hours and 56 minutes per day.[iii] Internet penetration is at 67% of the population, while mobile phone connection is at 138% — which means Filipinos tend to have more than one device.

In addition, the global health crisis has accelerated the development and adoption of digital solutions in the country. Due to limited movement of people and strict lockdown measures, Filipinos have relied mainly on technology to continue availing of goods and services. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), or the Philippine Central Bank, noted a 25% decrease in automated teller machine withdrawals within the first month of the pandemic. By end of 2020, the share of digital payments to total transactions has reached 20.1%, which is a 10 percentage points increase from 2018 levels. Google estimates that there are also 12 million new digital users in the Philippines since the start of the pandemic.[iv]

While the rapid digitalization is a welcome development, the rise in cyber attacks and data breaches have also been apparent. Even before the exponential growth in digital use, the Philippines have fallen victim to data hacks, financial frauds, and breaches. The most infamous cases include: 1) the 2016 Commission of Election hack which released the entire database of Filipino voters on the dark web, and 2) the 2016 Bangladesh heist in which a Philippine bank was involved in making fraudulent transactions resulting to a loss of $81 million. In 2016, Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky noted that the Philippines is the most hacked country in Southeast Asia and ranks 7th in world in number of cyber attacks. A Microsoft study estimates around $3.5 billion, or 1.1 percent of GDP is at risk due to cybercrime incidents.[v]

There has been an observed rise in cyber attacks in the Philippines during the pandemic. The Philippine National Police (PNP) has reported a 37% increase in online scam cases in 2020. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) recorded a 200% increase in phishing cases handled. Private vendors have also seen an alarming trend. Technology security company Sophos saw a 30% increase in ransomware attacks among firms in the Philippines and cybersecurity provider Kaspersky reported a 49% increase in web threats in during the pandemic.[vi] The alarming trend has led the government to ramp up an awareness campaign on attack vectors being used by cyber criminals. However, there is a cause of concern in terms of the ability of the Philippines as a whole to handle the increasing cyber threats.

The Philippines continues to trail the ASEAN-6 economies in terms of cybersecurity capacity. Based on the International Telecommunications Union’s Global Cybersecurity Index 2020, the Philippines ranks last with a score of 77 among its neighbors.[vii] As a comparison, Singapore leads the region with an almost perfect score. The index measures commitments to cybersecurity across five pillars: legal measures, technical measures, organizational measures, capacity development measures, and cooperation measures. For its part, the Philippines scores high on the legal measures and cooperative measures. Where it needs development is in the organizational aspect or the coordination of institutions, policies, and strategies for cybersecurity development at a national level. Table 1 summarizes the scores of the commitment of the Philippines and ASEAN-6 economies across the five pillars.

There is also a lack of cybersecurity professionals in the country. The International Information System Security Certification Consortium (ISC2) is the leading cybersecurity professional organization in the world. The ISC2 grants the certification of Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP), one of the most coveted certifications of cybersecurity experts. As of July 2021, there are 149,174 CISSP holders across 172 countries, 62% of which are in the United States.[viii] In the ASEAN region, there are 3,707 cybersecurity CISSPs, with Singapore leading at 2,683. The Philippines is 4th in the region with only 183 certified professionals.

While the Philippines may rank 4th in cybersecurity experts per million internet users among Southeast Asian states, it still has a long way to catch up to region-leading Singapore in terms of the number of cyber professionals. The country is home to an estimated 73 million internet users, and the ratio of cybersecurity experts to internet users is an alarming 2:1 million. For comparison, Singapore has 507 certified cybersecurity profession per million internet users. The lack of cybersecurity experts however is apparent throughout the region. Singapore is way ahead, with Vietnam and Indonesia only having one expert per million internet users. Philippine cybersecurity experts also highlight the fact that some CISSP professionals in Singapore are Filipinos who sought greener pastures. This means the talent is present in the Philippines, but the sector suffers from brain drain and a lack of competitive rates.

In addition, the Philippines also suffers from the lack of reliable data in cybersecurity incidents. Most of the reports being cited in legislation and regulations come from third-party sources. The government does not have a centralized and localized view of the kind of cyber threats that Filipinos are facing. The amount of data collection is spread across multiple government agencies, with limited coordination with each other.

Overall, the Philippines needs to improve its cybersecurity capacity, manpower, and data collection framework to maximize the benefits of the digital economy. While this article focuses on the overall landscape of digitalization and cybersecurity, the succeeding thought pieces will delve deeper into the current policy landscape, the overlapping mandates across agencies, and a proposal for an integrated cyber reporting system.

AUTHOR’S NOTE:

This article is part of a series discussing policy options to improve Philippine cybersecurity.

ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES

[i] See Google, Temasek, and Bain (2021). e-Conomy SEA 2021 — Philippines. Retrieved November 15, 2021.

[ii] See Philippine Statistics Authority (2020). National QuickStat for August 2020. Retrieved October 13, 2021.

[iii] Kemp, S. (2021) Digital in the Philippines: All the Statistics You Need in 2021. Retrieved November 15, 2021.

[iv] Ibid 1.

[v] See Cybersecurity threats to cost organizations in the Philippines US$3.5 billion in economic losses. Retrieved October 20, 2021.

[vi] Read Ransomware attacks cost PH firms P40 million on the average in 2020. Retrieved November 15, 2021. Read also VOTT: Cyberattacks threaten PH, other economies. Retrieved November 14, 2021.

[vii] International Telecommunications Union. (2021). Global Cybersecurity Index 2020. Retrieved November 15, 2021.

[viii] See full ISC2 member count and breakdown by country and region.

keith.detros

3 Jan, 2022

30 Nov, 2021

Phone-A-Friend: Pilot Program Launch!

The Phone-A-Friend pilot program is running at the Makiling Integrated School in Calamba Philippines. After a few nation-wide delays in the semester start, the programme started in October with five dedicated tutors and a class of 47 students!

We hired our five tutors through a combination of local connections, social media outreach and virtual interviews. The five candidates we ended up choosing all have education degrees and a passion for teaching, but different areas of specialization. This allowed us to match students to tutors based on their respective challenges. For example, a student who struggles with mathematics were matched with a tutor who has taught mathematics!

*Photo: Onboarding session with our Friends*

With an amazing team of five tutors, we went onto the next stages of preparation. We remained in close contact with the school, and most notably teacher Veronica, who helped us inform the parents and secure consent for participating in the program. On October 28^th, the school arranged a ‘gifting ceremony’, or a launch, where parents came to pick up Phone-A-Friend materials, the phones and the sim cards. At this point, we were all ready to go!

*Photo: The handover ceremony at the school*

A few weeks into the program, the teachers carry out the tutoring sessions twice a week with the students. We have set up group chats for daily contact, monitoring sheets to record student progress, and have weekly check-ins to discuss any troubleshoot problems. It has been an exciting process – while it is challenging to run a remote teaching program in the midst of a pandemic, we are learning a lot, and we are pleased with the results so far! We will be sharing individual stories, tutor profiles and our findings in the weeks to come.

This post was first published at the Phone-A-Friend website.

keith.detros

30 Nov, 2021

21 Mar, 2021

Revisiting the U.S.-China 5G Race: New Sheriff, Same Stakes

The Biden Administration ushers a transition in United States’ foreign policies, most of which overturns Trump’s position in the international arena. On his first day, Biden renewed American commitment to climate change initiatives, rejoined the World Health Organization, and reversed Trump’s immigration policies. While there will be several departures from the previous foreign policy directions, some things will remain the same.

As noted in the recently issued Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, the U.S. will maintain a tough stance on China, but with more focus on not alienating friends, partners, and allies in the process. During his Senate confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said that the previous administration was “right” in its approach towards Beijing and indicated its plan to have an alliance-based strategy.

One key technology area that will continue to be of importance to the U.S. and China will be the race towards 5G dominance. The 5G rivalry, and the crackdown on Huawei specifically, intensified in 2019 when the Chinese tech giant was placed on the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Entity List, effectively banning it from doing business with U.S. companies. As expected, Biden recently continued this hard line on the Chinese technology firm by issuing new restrictions to further limit Huawei’s supply of items for its 5G devices.

With the new U.S. administration in power, it is important to revisit the stakes at hand, and why 5G will remain a significant aspect of the U.S.-China relationship, especially considering the impacts of COVID-19.

High Economic Stakes and the First Mover Advantage

5G refers to the fifth-generation mobile wireless technology delivering high-speed and ultra-low-latency data connections. It is expected to power the “internet of things” era where data will seamlessly connect people and devices. 5G is seen as a foundational technology that will support new forms of innovation across sectors – from agriculture, services, to manufacturing – bringing in significant economic benefits. The World Economic Forum states that 5G will enable the Fourth Industrial Revolution and will unlock opportunities to increase productivity and enhance competitiveness. An IHS study commissioned by Qualcomm estimates that 5G will enable $13.2 trillion of global economic output and generate 22.3 million jobs by 2035.

For U.S. and China, there is great interest in who gets to dictate the rules of the game. Historically, the first movers in wireless technology enjoyed major economic benefits. Europe saw the rise of Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel, and Ericsson as they led 2G development. Japan also saw its wireless industries flourish as the early adopters of 3G. As noted by research firm Recon Analytics, America led the 4G development which in turn boosted its economy by nearly $100B and resulted to an 84% increase in jobs. U.S. leadership in 4G enabled it to develop succeeding innovations, including the mobile app economy and the dominance of American mobile operating systems of Apple and Google.

In addition, setting 5G standards will be of utmost importance to both economies. Global technology standards will not only determine technical specifications and ensure interoperability, but will also decide how money will flow throughout the 5G industry. Companies that dictate the industry benchmark will receive royalty payments from other firms who want to participate in the ecosystem. As a result, Chinese actors are dedicating significant research and development efforts towards patents and jockeying for influence within standard-setting bodies.

Geopolitics and the “Sticky Power” of 5G

The 5G race, however, is not just about technology leadership and economics. At the heart of it, 5G poses opportunities to advance the geopolitical interests of the two great powers. For example, 5G leadership fits snugly into the Digital Silk Road (DSR), the global information highway that China is building as part of their Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). With 5G technology as the backbone, China can generate “sticky power” by bundling together several innovation sectors of participating BRI countries. With control of the foundational technology, Chinese tech giants could secure future innovation projects such as smart cities, e-commerce, autonomous vehicles, next generation communications, and satellite networks. These are all important sectors for any country and will certainly increase China’s leverage in bilateral dialogues. Observers also fear that this may grant China the power to allow access only to select companies they prefer and potentially lock out competitors. Considering there are about 70 “corridor countries” participating in the BRI, comprising 1/3 of the world gross domestic product and involving 60% of the global population, it is not difficult to imagine why the U.S. is wary of China’s advancement in 5G technology.

As a response, the Trump administration implemented the “5G Clean Network” initiative as championed by Former Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo. The program encouraged allies to ban untrusted telecommunication providers in building next generation 5G infrastructure, primarily warning against Chinese equipment. While Huawei and ZTE deny these claims, fears from the U.S. side stems from China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, which the U.S. believes could compel companies to cooperate with Chinese intelligence operations. The U.S. Federal Communication Commission (FCC) declared Huawei and ZTE as national security threats and the actions against Chinese technology firms have also received bipartisan support from both the Democrats and the Republicans.

The 5G Dilemma in the Face of COVID-19

What complicates the 5G rivalry even more is the impact of the global health crisis. COVID-19 has accelerated digital transformation and heightened the urgency of reaping the benefits of next generation technology. As the pandemic drags on to its second year, more and more countries are desperate to rebound from the economic slowdown. The promise of 5G technology, coupled with competitive Chinese prices, can entice countries to prioritize economic interests over the national security warnings of the U.S.

This makes developing countries the next frontier of the 5G race between the U.S. and China. In a 2019 study by Oxford Economics, restricting a key supplier of 5G would lead to an increase in investment costs of between 8% and 29% over the next decade. The restriction also means delayed access, a slowdown in the expected benefits of the new technology, and reductions in national GDP projections. While developed countries, and those who handled the coronavirus crisis relatively well, may be able to absorb the costs of delay of rolling out 5G, other countries may not have the luxury to do so. A huge challenge for the Biden administration is to offer viable alternatives to 5G Chinese equipment, especially to its allies in the developing world who may be hard-pressed to lean on Chinese technology to jumpstart its economy.

Given the economic and geopolitical importance of 5G, coupled with the added layer of complexity due to COVID-19, the Biden administration will continue to contain Chinese influence in 5G. The U.S. felt the benefits of being able to lead in wireless technology development, and it has no interest to be relegated to the sidelines. There might be a new American sheriff in town, but the stakes in the 5G race remain the same.

This post was originally published at the Philippine Strategic Forum, March 21, 2021.

keith.detros

21 Mar, 2021

11 Feb, 2021

We Need To Talk About the Hidden Pandemic: OSEC in the Philippines

The coronavirus has spared the children, but a hidden and creeping pandemic may not.

While the government-imposed lockdowns have kept people safe from the virus, it has unintentionally facilitated a dramatic rise in one of the most heinous forms of modern human trafficking: online sexual exploitation of children (OSEC). It is a horrific crime where minors are sexually abused through photos, videos, and even livestreaming of sexual acts—and we need to have conversations about it.

Even before COVID-19, the Philippines has been identified as a global hotspot of OSEC. The high English proficiency, decent internet connection, sufficient levels of smartphone penetration, and an established network of cash remittance centers have become perfect ingredients for online child sex offenders to target vulnerable children in the country. The pandemic has restricted the movement of perpetrators, causing them to turn to the web, and has locked down vulnerable children at home, usually with their traffickers who are hard-pressed to earn money. Less interaction with the community also cut off means for victims to seek help, or for child rights advocates to observe and report suspected cases. In the first months of the pandemic, Philippine authorities recorded an alarming 265% increase in reported OSEC cases.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of OSEC in the Philippines is that it is a “family-run business”. International organization International Justice Mission (IJM) has reported that 83 percent of abuses were facilitated by people related to the child, 41 percent of which were done by biological parents. The median age of the victim is 11 years old, but there have been cases that children as young as 2 months old have been subjected to abuse. Other reports note that children are given $3 per ‘show’.

The Philippine government and child rights advocates have made important steps towards combatting OSEC through innovative solutions and cross-cutting policy mechanisms. The Philippine Internet Crimes Against Children Center (PICACC) was established in 2019, a result of cooperation among domestic and international law enforcement agencies, and with international organizations. Last month, the Philippine Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking (IACAT) and international partners hosted a global conference to foster cooperation to address the rising OSEC cases during COVID-19. IJM has also called on tech companies to continue to innovate so technology solutions can detect new forms of OSEC material and livestreams.

While government and NGOs continue to pursue various measures, there are things we can do to help fight the battles on the ground. One thing we can focus on is raising awareness among parents to increase vigilance and lay the foundations to protect the future generation against lurking perpetrators. The numbers may be disturbing and would lead to uncomfortable conversations due to the reluctance of parents to discuss a sensitive topic, but we need to be reminded that there is one innocent life behind every statistic. Opening eyes and informing people of this horrendous phenomenon is a step towards protecting a child.

On a larger scale, several groups have started informing children about the dangers of the internet and online means of sexual abuse. Sex education has also been part of the educational curriculum.

It equips the child with the basics to discern when they are in danger, especially if their protective environment (parents or guardians) is the immediate threat to their safety. However, the duty of protecting themselves should not rest on the children alone. We can enlighten more adults to join the cause.

More than the children, there is a generation of parents who have not been educated on sex and sexual abuse. There is an understanding among traffickers that “no touch, no harm” is a valid argument. Parents who peddle their kids have a mindset that webcam livestreaming is not abuse because “the perpetrator isn’t touching the children”. This is just an example of a dangerous misconception that we need to shatter.

We should consider parents and guardians as frontliners in our fight against OSEC. Not equipping them with the right mindset and awareness is the difference from them being the defenders, to them becoming the enablers of abuse. These are necessary, while admittedly difficult, conversations given that topic of sex is still considered taboo in a predominantly Catholic country like the Philippines.

As a policy measure, the government need not to reinvent the wheel in order get the conversations going. An OSEC education campaign targeting parents can be designed as a ‘rider’ towards existing programs. Public school orientations for parents are held at the start of the school year, and an hour of discussion on OSEC can go a long way in protecting the children.

Another idea is folding it into the conditional cash transfer program of the government. The program covers 4.3 million poor households, and requires parents to meet health, nutrition, and education conditions before the release of a cash subsidy. Including an information and education module on OSEC for parents of poor families can help in breaking the supply chain of abuse. In addition, providing them with incentives to report and training them with the skills to handle referrals and suspected cases creates a community of watchers and child protectors.

As we are battling the COVID-19 pandemic, epidemiologists estimate that we need to vaccinate around 70% of the population to have herd immunity. We should strive to do the same in combatting the pandemic of OSEC. We need to continue to have discussions no matter how difficult they are to initiate, stop considering sex as a taboo topic, and start effective communication towards parents. If blank stares, unavoidable cringes, and awkward silences are the price we need to pay to raise awareness and help save one child, let’s do it—one conversation at a time.

This entry received 1st prize in an op-ed competition by Bridging GAP (Gender and Policy), a student group at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy which aims to enhance awareness of the importance of gender among public policy students.

This article was first published at Global-is-Asian.

keith.detros

11 Feb, 2021