Livelihood Development Assistance Program (LDAP)

Type of practice: Assistance programs
Country: Philippines
Type of Stakeholder Implementing the Practice: State, State of Origin
Type of crisis: Conflict, Natural Disaster
Crisis phase: Post-Crisis Action

Description

Formerly known as the 10K Livelihood Assistance Program, the Livelihood Development Assistance Program (LDAP) has been reformulated in 2014, under the National Reintegration Center for Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), to cater to undocumented OFWs. The Program was established in 2011 through the Administrative Order No. 77 Series of 2011 which aims to provide grants for livelihood assistance to returning migrants. The beneficiaries of this program shall be any undocumented OFW who has returned to the Philippines. An undocumented OFW is defined as: those who acquired their passports through fraud or misrepresentation; those who possess expired visa or permits to stay; those who have no travel documents whatsoever; those who have valid but inappropriate visa; or those employment contracts which were not processed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) or subsequently verified and registered on-site by Philippine Overseas Labor Office (POLO), if required by law or regulation. Qualified beneficiaries shall submit their requirements to their preferred Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office based on the location of their planned business. The beneficiaries will receive a business enterprise start-up kit worth P10,000 which consist of the materials of their proposed business. All beneficiaries of the LDAP are required to finish the Small Business Management Training and Financial Awareness Seminar to prepare them in managing a small business enterprise.

 
Related Links
http://ro10.dole.gov.ph/default.php?retsamlakygee=666&resource=0674272ba...

Guidelines/Thematic Areas

Capacity building

GUIDELINE 8: Build capacity and learn lessons for emergency response and post-crisis action

Limited resources, funding, and technical skills can all affect the robustness of emergency and post-crisis responses. Understanding and assessing these limitations is a critical first step towards overcoming them. Stakeholders’ investment in their own capacity to improve emergency response and post-crisis recovery for migrants is critical.

Capacity building may relate to such varied areas as consular services, training for responders, resource allocation, funding mechanisms, insurance schemes, relief goods and services, border and migration management, and relocation and evacuation. Many of these areas are relevant for both the emergency and post-crisis phases. Stakeholders should also consider addressing potential reintegration challenges for migrants, their families, and communities, facilitating re-employment, income generation, and safe remigration, and supporting migrants to access outstanding wages, assets, and property left in host States.

States, private sector actors, international organizations, and civil society should assist one another to build and improve their capacity to respond. Undertaking advocacy, monitoring and evaluations, raising awareness, conducting training, sharing information, building research and knowledge, and supporting and learning from each other all help to improve collective efforts to protect migrants.

Sample Practices

• Training and capacity building of stakeholders, such as on effective ways to access migrants and identify vulnerability and needs.
• Dedicated funding to protect migrants, including budget lines, loans, and funding platforms.
• Referral mechanisms that map rosters of experts who can address diverse needs of different migrants.
• Peer-to-peer exchanges for capacity building and learning on tackling challenges associated with protecting migrants.
• Training for consular officials, such as on collecting information on citizens and crisis management, including evacuation.
• Monitoring and evaluation of crisis responses that includes analysis of responses towards migrants.

Support migrants’ recovery

GUIDELINE 14: Address migrants’ immediate needs and support migrants to rebuild lives

The dislocation and disruption created by conflicts or natural disasters can have significant and severe consequences for the socio-economic wellbeing of migrants and their families. Migrant workers often support themselves and their immediate and extended families, whether they are with them in the host State or in States of origin. Conflicts and natural disasters can stem the flow of income to migrants and curtail remittances to their families. Technical facilities to remit money can be disrupted. Currency devaluations and changes in exchange rates can affect migrants’ savings and assets. Education opportunities for student migrants can be indefinitely suspended. Xenophobia and discrimination against migrants may increase. Post-crisis conditions in host States and States of transit may allow trafficking of persons and other exploitative arrangements to thrive.

Migrants and their families who return to States of origin after prolonged stays in a host State can experience difficulty finding employment and housing and reintegrating. Reintegration may be especially difficult for victims of trafficking, individuals who experienced sexual and gender-based violence in the host State, children born to migrants in host States who have no experience of the culture in the parents’ State of origin, and migrants who have been abroad for extended periods of time. Possible interventions include cash assistance to address immediate needs, psychosocial counseling, health care, physical rehabilitation, family tracing services, assistance to recover outstanding wages, assets and property, compensation to address losses, and much more. Efforts to restore income for those migrants who return to their States of origin may include certification and recognition of skills, education, and training acquired abroad. Many migrants may seek opportunities to acquire new skills upon return. For various reasons, including to revive their incomes, others may seek opportunities to remigrate back to host States once the crisis has subsided or migrate to other countries.

Migrants who remain in their host States can also experience difficulty resuming their previous lives. They will require many of the same support services as migrants who return to their States of origin, such as cash assistance, health care, psychosocial and other counseling, family tracing, compensation, assistance to recover outstanding wages, assets, and property, and efforts to restore income, employment, and education opportunities. Like citizens, migrants’ post-crisis needs should be factored into host State recovery plans and programs at the national and local levels. States may decide to review immigration and visa rules to provide latitude for migrants who wish to remain in the host State to do so legally. Efforts that leverage the solidarity of migrants who remain in host States towards their host communities and societies could counteract xenophobic and discriminatory attitudes.

Sample Practices

• Access to remedies to recover lost property and assets, outstanding wages, pensions, and other benefits.
• Engagement of migrants in host-State reconstruction efforts.
• Flexible immigration procedures to enable migrants to retain regular immigration status.
• Registration, assessment, and recognition of returned migrants’ needs and skills.
• Immediate reintegration support, including cash and medical assistance.
• Income and employment regeneration assistance, including assistance with remigration.
• Certification mechanisms for skills, education, and training acquired abroad.

Support the recovery of migrants’ host communities

GUIDELINE 15: Support migrants’ host communities

Interventions should also address the impact on communities in the State of origin to which migrants return, host States from which migrants have fled, or States of transit to which migrants flee. Such communities may lack sufficient resources, services, and infrastructure to support migrants. If migrants receive assistance to the exclusion of members of host communities, perceptions relating to preferential treatment may create or exacerbate tensions and lead to discrimination, stigmatization, or social exclusion. An approach to post-crisis action that incorporates the needs of host communities is more likely to be successful than one that solely targets migrants and their families. Such an inclusive approach can foster community and social cohesiveness and stability in the long-term. This may be particularly important if migrants and their host communities continue to deal with the effects of crises years after they end.

The mass return of migrants to States of origin if not properly managed can also lead to adverse development impacts, including the loss of remittances, unemployment and underemployment, pressure on infrastructure, resources, services (including water, electricity, waste management, education, health, housing, and transportation), and increased poverty, all of which can cause broader societal tensions. Similarly, when large groups of migrants are evacuated or leave a host State in haste, their departure may create skill and labor shortages in host States. While migrants also contribute to States of transit, if they remain for unanticipated extended periods of time without effective integration, their presence may burden local infrastructure and services.

Effectively managing migration is important in the wake of a natural disaster or conflict. Host States may want to encourage migrants to return as soon as possible to aid in reconstruction or stimulate the local economy, and towards this end may create flexible visa options to promote migrant return to host States. States of origin may see value in facilitating diaspora engagement in post-crisis action and recovery.

Sample Practices

• Analysis of short, medium-, and longer-term socio-economic impacts of return following crises, at the local and national levels in States of origin and host States.
• Promotion of diaspora contributions through actions, such as matching grants and customs waivers to facilitate financial and in-kind support.
• Inclusion of returned migrants’ needs in State of origin development plans.
• Engagement of and support to host populations through consultations and inclusive responses.
• Social cohesion programs addressing migrants, migrant networks, and host communities to prevent and mitigate tensions and foster reintegration.