draft only; not for citation - ipsa online paper roompaperroom.ipsa.org/papers/paper_35242.pdf ·...

Draft only; not for citation

1

The Roles of the National and Local Governments in Fulfilling the Philippine

Government’s Commitment to Achieving the MDGs1

Maria Ela L. Atienza, PhD2

Associate Professor, Department of Political Science

University of the Philippines – Diliman

Email: [email protected]

Abstract: This paper seeks to track the implementation of the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs) in the Philippines and the factors contributing to

and impeding the achievement of the MDGs in the country. More specifically,

it aims to: (1) assess the degree of commitment of the Philippine national

government to the implementation of the MDGs and its track record at the

national level; and (2) analyze important cases at the local government level

showing achievements in some MDGs. The paper is premised on two

important assumptions: (1) the inextricable link between human security and

the MDGs, and (2) the importance of localization and multilevel governance

in the achievement of the MDGs. There are three important concepts guiding

this assessment: human security, localization and multilevel governance.

The paper shows that there are national and local mechanisms in place for the

achievement of the MDGs. Civil society participation, multilevel governance

and localization are officially emphasized in national policies related to the

MDGs. There are also innovative local projects and cases which show the

cooperation of national agencies, local governments, donor agencies, civil

society groups, business groups, and citizen volunteers in achieving specific

MDG targets. However, the Philippines is far from achieving the targets by

2015, showing that despite the existence of national and local mechanisms

emphasizing localization and governance, the achievements are uneven across

the country. There are limitations on the part of the national government and

failure to follow the human security approach in focusing on the most

vulnerable sectors.

1 This is an updated and revised version of the author’s country case report prepared for the project

“Mainstreaming Human Security in ASEAN Integration” of the ASEAN Institutes of Strategic and International Studies (ASEAN-ISIS) funded by the Japan International Cooperation Agency Research Institute (JICA-RI). The research for the original project was carried out from March 2009 to January 2010. The report was originally published as “Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the Philippines: Localization of the MDGs and Implications for Mainstreaming Human Security” in the book Mainstreaming Human Security in ASEAN Integration Volume II: Lessons Learned from MDGs Implementation in Southeast Asia, edited by Herman Joseph S. Kraft (Quezon City: ASEAN Institutes of Strategic and International Studies, Institute for Strategic and Development Studies and Japan International Cooperation Agency – Research Institute, 2012). The current version has been updated and revised with new data and analysis from 2010 onwards for presentation at the International Political Science Association World Congress in Montreal, Canada, 20-24 July 2014. 2 The author acknowledges the research assistance of Gianna Gayle Amul who helped tremendously in going

through many related materials and providing background notes and summary tables for the original paper from 2009 to 2010. Special thanks also go to Sheina Onrubia for her constant updates about Tabaco City’s efforts to meet the MDGs using CBMS.

mailto:[email protected]


2

Introduction: MDGs, Human Security, Localization and Multilevel Governance

In September 2000, 192 member states of the United Nations (UN) committed to

achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 when they signed the

Millennium Declaration. The Declaration and the eight goals embody specific targets and

milestones in eliminating extreme poverty worldwide. In the context of the Association of

Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the MDGs have been placed within the context of the

ASEAN Socio-cultural Community (ASCC), which reflects the regional organization’s social

agenda which is focused on poverty eradication and human development (ASEAN n.d.).

Building a community of caring societies to address issues of poverty, equity and human

development—the first of four core elements of the ASCC Plan of Action—will pursue the

acceleration of the goal of poverty reduction within the framework of the UN’s MDGs.

This paper seeks to track the implementation of the MDGs in the Philippines. More

specifically, this country paper aims to: (1) assess the degree of commitment of the Philippine

national government to the implementation of the MDGs and its track record at the national

level; and (2) analyze important cases at the local government level showing achievements in

some MDGs.

The paper is also premised on two important assumptions: (1) the inextricable link

between human security and the MDGs, and (2) the importance of localization and multilevel

governance in the achievement of the MDGs. As regards the link between human security

and the MDGs, the MDGs are aimed to assuage development-related threats to human

security. Human security, as defined by the UN Commission on Human Security in the report

Human Security Now (2003), seeks

… to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human

freedoms and human fulfillment. Human security means protecting

fundamental freedoms—freedoms that are the essence of life. It means

protecting people from critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats

and situations. It means using processes that build on people’s strengths and

aspirations. It means creating political, social, environmental, economic,

military and cultural systems that together give people the building blocks of

survival, livelihood and dignity.

Thus, the human security approach is integral to achieving and sustaining the MDGs.

It can push the progress of the achievement of the MDGs by targeting the vulnerable and

directly addressing factors that increase vulnerability to poverty, disease, conflict, and

disempowerment (Mani 2005). It also requires mechanisms to be established at different

levels of government and focusing on governance to protect communities from threats.

Furthermore, the achievement of human security requires building on and going beyond the

MDGs by undertaking efforts to address the full range of critical and pervasive threats facing

people (Commission on Human Security 2003).

As regards “localizing the MDGs”, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) (2007:

7) defines it as “the process of designing (or adjusting) and implementing local development

strategies to achieve the MDGs (or more specifically, to achieve locally adapted MDG

targets)”. MDG targets and indicators must be brought down to the local level or “localized”

so that national and global achievement would not be skewed. Achieving national averages


3

“would require targeted interventions in pockets of deprivation, which are often very context

specific” (UNDP 2007: 8). The MDG targets need to be adapted and translated into local

realities and embedded in local planning processes. This is a flexible process “that either

adapts and sequences the targets and indicators of existing local development strategies as

needed or elaborates an MDG-based development strategy, to reflect local priorities and

realities through a participatory and locally owned process” (UNDP 2007: 8).

Hence, this country case emphasizes the localization aspect of the MDGs in the

Philippines and some lessons that can be learned from ongoing pilot cases and best practices

on MDG localization but in the context of multilevel governance, which refers to a “complex

policy process in which authority is distributed horizontally and vertically across subnational,

national and supranational levels of government” (Heywood 2007: 104). A few local efforts

will be examined, particularly Tabaco City’s use of a monitoring system to achieve the MGs,

in the context of how the national government and other actors are fulfilling the MDGs

commitments. While the Philippines is also part of a larger mechanism with MDGs

considered part of its agenda, i.e. the ASEAN, this dimension will not be discussed in this

current paper (See Atienza 2012). This paper will also not discuss extensively the role of

Philippine business sector, which also launched its own response to the achievement of the

MDGs, together with the UN and NEDA (PDF 2008)

The Philippine Commitment to the Implementation of the MDGs, Its Place within the

National Policy Framework, and Mechanisms for Implementation

Commitment and the National Policy Framework

The Philippines committed to achieve the MDGs by 2015 when it signed the

Millennium Declaration. Has this commitment been realized in the country’s national policy

framework?

The achievement of the MDGs is incorporated in the Philippines’ national policy

framework during the Arroyo administration — the Medium-Term Philippine Development

Plan (MTPDP) 2004-2010. The MTPDP 2004-2010 states that its’ basic task is “to fight

poverty by building prosperity for the greatest number of the Filipino people” (NEDA 2004:

2). Also, the Plan’s target and programs shall “enable the Philippines to achieve the MDGs,

which are not just top priority goals and targets…they are the country’s commitments to

ensure a brighter prospect for all Filipinos, especially the poor” (NEDA 2004: 9). Thus, the

basic task of the MTPDP includes MDG 1 which is eradicating poverty and hunger. The

MTPDP is supported by the Medium-Term Public Investment Program 2005-2010.

The government’s overall poverty strategy as per Memorandum Circular No. 33 is the

Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan (KALAHI), implemented since 2001. The KALAHI’s

antipoverty thrusts at both the policy and program level include: (1) acceleration of asset

reform; (2) provision of human development services/social services; (3) livelihood and

employment; (4) social protection and security from violence; and (5) participation of the

poor in decision-making. It includes a “convergent, focused implementation of this strategic

thrust especially in the barangay/community level with the participatory involvement of the

community itself” (NEDA 2004: 155). The target of halving poverty over a 15-year period

from 1990 to 2015 based on the subsistence poverty rate in 1991 is a top priority given that


4

the poverty incidence in the Philippines worsened to 34 percent in 2000 from 33 percent in

1997.

The Philippine government’s commitment to the implementation of the MDGs can

also be shown through the policies and programs implemented by the national government

towards the achievement of the MDGs. Different national government agencies implement

these policies and programs in partnership with donor agencies, local governments, the

private sector, and civil society groups (See Philippines Midterm Progress Report on the

MDGs 2007 for data on some policies and programs that were implemented towards the

achievement of the MDGs).

Under the Benigno Aquino administration which began in 2010, government

commitment to the MDGs was reinforced. The community-driven development approach

through KALAHI – Comprehensive Integrated Delivery of Social Services (CIDSS) was

expanded to a national scale with the National Community Driven Development Program

(NCDDP)3. The NCDDP is the poverty alleviation program of the national government

approved in 2013 and implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Development

(DSWD). In addition, the Philippine government through DSWD launched the Pantawid

Pamilyang Pilipino Program, a human development program that invests in the health and

education of poor households and patterned after the conditional cash transfer scheme in

other developing countries. According to the DWSD website, this scheme aims to help fulfill

the country’s commitment to meet the MDGs, particularly targets 1 to 5.

The Mechanisms for the Implementation of the MDGs

National Mechanisms

The MDGs are primarily implemented through the Multisectoral Committee on

International Human Development Commitments (MC-IHDC). In the NEDA’s Social

Development Committee (SDC) Resolution No. 1 (Series of 2003), the committee monitors,

reports, reviews and evaluates the Philippine compliance to commitments made during the

major international conferences on human/social development. Specifically, the functions of

the MC-IHDC are as follows:

1. To prepare mechanisms for monitoring Philippine compliance to international

human development commitments which include, among others, commitments

made during the following conferences: Millennium Summit (for the MDGs),

International Conference on Population and Development, World Summit for

Social Development, Fourth World Conference on Women, and Second

International Conference on Shelter and Human Settlements (Habitat II);

2. To review reports of the lead agencies tasked to coordinate and monitor

compliance to international human development commitments before submission

to concerned UN bodies;

3. To recommend policies, strategies, programs and projects to the SDC-Technical

Board drawn out from the reports of the lead agencies; and

4. To serve as the venue for coordinating the activities designed to monitor

compliance to said commitments of government agencies, non-government

organizations, and people’s organizations. (NEDA website)

3 See DWSD website for details.


5

The MC-IHDC is composed of government agencies, nongovernment organizations

(NGOs), and people’s organizations (POs). Specifically, the composition of the MC-IHDC

includes representatives from the following: 31 national government agencies, 3 leagues of

local government units, and 12 non-government organizations. The National Economic and

Development Authority (NEDA) serves as Chair, the National Anti-Poverty Commission

Secretariat (NAPC) as Co-Chair, and the DSWD and the National Council for Social

Development (NCSD) as Vice-Chairs. Specific agencies serve as the lead agencies for

specific MDG concerns with NEDA as Overall Coordinator.

Localization of MDGs and Local Government Units

As frontline institutions, local government units (LGUs) have significant roles to play

in realizing the MDGs. For the most part, the achievement of the MDG targets largely

depends on the delivery of basic services that are now devolved. The Department of the

Interior and Local Governments (DILG) is the national government agency tasked with the

localization of the MDGs nation-wide. Furthermore, the localization of the MDGs is enabled

by two national laws that were enacted prior to the MDGs.

First, the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC) / Republic Act No. 7160, which is

the national framework for decentralization, mandates LGUs to have the primary

responsibility for the provision of basic services and facilities and the improvement of the

quality of life of their constituents. Sections 16 and 17 enumerate basic services such as:

promotion of health and safety; enhancement of people’s right to a balanced ecology;

promotion of ecological balance and economic prosperity and social justice; and maintenance

of peace and order, and comfort and convenience of their inhabitants, among others. Second,

the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act of 1997 gave the LGUs the frontline role in

the fight against poverty.

The two national laws are supplemented by the mandate of the Bureau of Local

Government Development of the DILG in taking the lead in MDG localization pursuant to

the Social Development Council Resolution No.1 Series of 2003. Furthermore, the DILG also

issued Memo Circular No. 2004-152 (“Guide to LGUs in the Localization of the MDGs”).

The MDG Localization Framework is set to guide all localization efforts and

initiatives. The framework also identified a set of desired outcomes for an MDG-responsive

LGU. These outcomes include:

1. a local development plan incorporating the MDG targets and corresponding

increased budget allocation for MDG-responsive programs, projects and activities;

2. local policies that facilitate the achievement of the MDGs;

3. a local monitoring system to benchmark LGU contribution in the attainment of

MDG targets and to track down accomplishments vis-à-vis targets;

4. improved delivery of basic services through replication of good practices; and

5. inclusion of accomplishment of MDG targets as one of the performance

commitments of the LGUs. (DILG website)

To attain the above outcomes, LGUs are expected to be equipped with knowledge and

skills through interventions such as: advocacy, policy formulation, development of tools and

instruments, and documentation of good practices.


6

The DILG recognizes the fact that meeting the requirements of the MDGs will entail

collaborative efforts of major stakeholders — the national government and LGUs as well as

the private sector through related interventions geared toward mainstreaming the MDGs in

the local development agenda. The DILG highlights the roles of LGUs on MDG localization

and consider them as frontline institutions in the delivery of devolved services to which the

achievement of the MDGs are largely dependent on. (DILG website)

To support the localization of the MDGs, the national government has set up an MDG

Fund. It is a locally-funded project jointly implemented by the DILG’s Office of Project

Development Services and the Department of Finance’s Municipal Development Fund Office

(MDFO), with the DILG responsible for capacity development, particularly on project

preparation, implementation and operation and maintenance, and MDFO for fund

administration of the PhP 500 million made available by MDFO from its Second Generation

Fund (SGF) for relending to interested and eligible LGUs. The MDG Fund finances projects

supportive of the attainment of MDGs 1–7. Fourth to sixth class municipalities as well as all

provinces (regardless of income class) borrowing for their fourth to sixth class municipalities

are eligible for project financing from the MDG Fund. (DILG website)

Status of Implementation of the MDGs at the National Level

According to the Philippine government’s reports and statements of succeeding

NEDA Director Generals and Socioeconomic Planning secretaries (NEDA 2010; Paderanga

2010 & Amojelar 2013), the country is positive in meeting the MDGs by 2015. However, it

must be noted that as 2015 nears, the statements have been tempered from being positive of

meeting “all” to “most” of the MDGs by next year. According to current NEDA Director

General Arsenio Balisacan, the country will likely meet the targets on food poverty (MDG 1),

reducing child mortality (MDG 4), and improving access to safe drinking water and sanitary

toilet facilities (MDG 7) by 2015. Balisacan added that the country already achieved three

targets ahead of 2015; these are in the areas of gender equality particularly in primary,

secondary and tertiary education (MDG 3), disease control in malaria and tuberculosis (MDG

6), and environmental sustainability (MDG 7). (Amojelar 2013) This is supported by recent

official statistics shown on Table 1 below. In Table 1, there is medium probability of meeting

the following targets: income poverty and nutrition (MDG 1), share of women in wage

employment in the non-agricultural sector (MDG3), and proportion of births attended by

skilled health personnel (MDG 5). However, it is obvious from the official statistics and

Capones (2013) that there is low probability in meeting the targets for percent of household

with per capita energy less than 100 % (MDG 1); elementary participation, survival and

completion rates and literacy rate (MDG 2); proportion of seats held by women in national

parliament (MDG 3); immunization of 1 year-old children against measles (MDG 4);

maternal mortality ratio and access to reproductive health services (MDG 5); and HIV/AIDS

(MDG 6). Combating HIV/AIDS does not have statistics and probability rating in the

available official data but according to Balisacan himself, it remains a challenge (Amojelar

2015).

Table 1. Philippines’ Progress Based on the MDG Indicators

MDG Goals, Targets and Indicators Baseline Latest Probability of Attaining the Target

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Target 1.A: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of


7

people whose income is less than a dollar a day Proportion of population below national poverty threshold Poverty gap ratio Share of poorest quintile in national consumption Target 1.B: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people Growth rate of GDP per person employed Employment-to-population ratio Proportion of employed population living below the national poverty threshold Proportion of own-account and contributing family workers in total employment Proportion of own-account (self-employed) workers in total employment Proportion of contributing (unpaid) family workers in total employment Target 1.C: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger Prevalence of underweight children under-five years of age Percent of households with per capita energy less than 100 percent adequacy Proportion of population with mean one-day energy intake less than 100 % adequacy Proportion of population below national subsistence (food) threshold

34.4 9.3 6.2

1.6

59.0

20.5

51.3

35.6

15.7

26.5 74.2

16.5

25.2(2012) 5.1 (2012) 8.5 (2012) Increasing

5.7 (2013) Increasing


22.4 (2009) Decreasing 38.3 (2013) Decreasing 28.0 (2013) Decreasing 10.3 (2013) Decreasing

20.2 (2011) 66.9 (2008)

73.3 (2008)

10.4 (2012)

MEDIUM

HIGH

MEDIUM LOW

HIGH

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education Target 2.A: Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling Net enrolment ratio in primary education Proportion of pupils starting Grade 1 who reach Grade 6 (Cohort Survival Rate) Primary completion rate Literacy rate of 15 to 24 years old Ratio of literate females to males of 15-24 year-olds

84.6 69.7

64.2 96.6 1.0

95.2 (2012) 75.3 (2012)

73.7 (2012) 97.8 (2008) 1.0 (2008)

LOW

LOW LOW HIGH

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women Target 3.A: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education no later than 2015 Ratio of girls to boys in primary education Ratio of girls to boys in elementary participation rates Ratio of girls to boys in secondary education Ratio of girls to boys in secondary participation rates Ratio of girls to boys in tertiary education Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament

1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

40.1

11.3

0.9 (2011) 1.0 (2011) 1.0 (2011) 1.2 (2011) 1.2 (2012)

41.2 (2013)

26.0 (2013)

LOW HIGH HIGH LOW LOW

MEDIUM

LOW

Goal 4: Reduce child mortality Target 4.A: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the


8

under-five mortality rate Under-five mortality rate Infant mortality rate Proportion of 1 year-old children immunized against measles

80

57.0 77.9

31 (2013) 23 (2013)

68.7 (2011)

HIGH HIGH LOW

Goal 5: Improve maternal health Target 5.A: Reduce by three quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio Maternal mortality ratio Proportion of births attended by skilled heath personnel Target 5.B: Achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health Contraceptive prevalence rate Adolescent birth rate Antenatal care coverage (at least one visit) Antenatal care coverage (at least four visits) Unmet need for family planning

209 58.8

40.0 50.0 91.2

52.1

26.2

221 (2011) 74.9 (2011)

55.1 (2013) 57.0 (2013) 96.1 (2013) Increasing


19.3 (2011) Decreasing

LOW MEDIUM

LOW LOW

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Target 6.C: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases Prevalence associated with malaria Death rate associated with malaria Prevalence associate with tuberculosis Death rate associated with tuberculosis Proportion of tuberculosis cases detected under directly Observed treatment short course (DOTS) Proportion of tuberculosis cases cured under DOTS

118.7 1.4 246

39.1 53.0

73.0

7.1 (2011) 0.1 (2010)

273.1 (2008)

26.3 (2010) 72.0 (2011)

85.0 (2011)

HIGH HIGH LOW

LOW HIGH

HIGH

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability Target 7.A: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes to reverse the loss of environmental resources Proportion of land area covered by forest Consumption of ozone-depleting CFCs (ODP tons) Target 7.B: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss Ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to surface area Number of species threatened with extinction Target 7.C: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation Proportion of families with access to safe water Proportion of families with access to sanitary toilet facility Target 7.D: By 2020, have achieved significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers Proportion of families with access to security of tenure

20.5

2981

8.5

183

73 67.6

91.0

22.8 (2010) Increasing 0 (2012)

Decreasing

13.6 (2012) Increasing 207 (2012) decreasing

84.4 (2011) 91.9 (2011)


HIGH HIGH

Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development Target 8.D: Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries thru national and international measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long term Debt service as a percentage of exports of goods and

27.2

7.6 (2013)


9

services Target 8.F: In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications Telephone line subscribers per 100 population Cellular phone subscribers per 100 population

1.5

0.1

Decreasing


106.5 (2012)

Increasing

Source: Philippine Statistical Authority, “MDG Watch”, as of May 2014.

A more dated statistical database compiled by the Asian Development Bank (2009)

complements the government report. However, it already presents a less than positive picture

as early as 2009, particularly when the Philippines is compared with other countries in the

region. The ADB’s data based on key indicators in the Asia and the Pacific conclude that the

Philippines has made strides in achieving the MDGs but falls in the middle of the pack

among Asian neighbors in terms of progress as the 2015 deadline nears. The country fared

generally well in gender equality, infant mortality reduction and combating disease. There are

mixed results in global development partnerships. It is slacking in the areas of poverty

reduction, education and environmental conservation.

Another report made in 2008 (UNFPA) already noted that the country has more

problems as regards meeting MDG 5. Thus, using ADB and UNFPA data, the Philippines

faces the most problems in meeting MDGs 1, 2, 5 and 7.

Status of Localization or Implementation of the MDGs at the Local Level

In the mid-term progress report of the Philippine government (NEDA 2007),

comparison across regions in the Philippines shows uneven progress in achieving the MDGs.

There is more progress noted in many areas in Luzon but with many areas in Mindanao

lagging behind. For instance, in the National Capital Region (Manila included), a reported 90

percent of births are supervised by a skilled birth attendant — a crucial condition to the

achievement of MDG 5. In the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao, it is 24 percent.

(IRIN 2009) In another official database (NSCB 2010), there is more unevenness in the

progress and prospects for attainment of the various goals across the different regions.

Surprisingly, Regions IV-A and IV-B in Luzon have low probability in MDGs 1, 2, 3 and 6.

These regions have more red-flagged MDG indicators compared with Mindanao regions like

CARAGA and the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

However, amidst uneven progress across localities, there are good local practices

existing. For instance, the DILG’s project “Good Practices in Local Governance: Facility for

Adaptation and Replication (GO-FAR)” has a database of good local practices spread over all

regions of the country. The list shows that among the best local practices, there is more focus

on MDG 7 but with several other programs in MDGs 1, 3 to 6. (DILG 2008b)4 It is

understandable that there is no best local practice cited for MDG 2. This is because under the

devolution law, only the building of facilities like classrooms is decentralized to LGUs. For

4 There is currently no updated list of good local practices in the revamped DILG website. Another linked

website, that of the Local Government Academy, has details of existing good local practices but it does not say whether those featured comprise the complete list.


10

the substantive part of primary access to education, the main responsibility is still in the

hands of the national agency DepEd.

Meanwhile, the Gawad Galing Pook, the prestigious national annual awards program

that identifies and showcases the country’s best local governance programs and practices, has

decided to focus on local capacity innovations for the MDGs as the theme for the 2006

awards (Galing Pook Foundation 2006). The awards recognized programs that have helped

build or enhance local government or community capacities and contributed to specific MDG

targets. LGUs were judged based on the following criteria: extent of MDG accomplishment,

promotion of people empowerment, transferability and sustainability, and efficiency of

program service. The Special Citation on Local Capacity Innovations for the MDGs was

awarded to 10 LGUs (2 provinces, 5 cities and 4 municipalities).

A number of pilot projects at the local level are also being implemented jointly by

different sectors (government, private sector, civil society groups, and donor agencies). For

example, the DILG’s GO-FAR Project is designed to assist and build the capacities of LGUs

by providing them the opportunity to improve local governance performance in development

planning, resource generation and mobilization, and service delivery through sharing and

replicating of good practices that are participatory, innovative and sustainable. It aims to help

enable the LGUs to localize and eventually meet the MDGs, as well as comply with certain

national directives and standards. Then, the Localization of the MDGs project aims to enable

LGUs to effectively and efficiently implement MDG-responsive programs and projects

toward reducing poverty in their localities. This will be accomplished thru the development

and institutionalization of detailed operational mechanisms, tools and policies on MDG

localization and monitoring LGU performance on MDGs using the core local poverty

indicator monitoring system (CLPIMS). In the DILG’s “Most Important Accomplishments

for 2008” in its official website, the agency reported that 11 cities and 439 municipalities

have completed poverty data maps using the Community-Based Management System

(CBMS) during the third quarter of 2008.

The League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) has the Procurement Efficiency and

Transparency to Achieve the UN-MDGs (Protect MDG). Ten LCP member-cities started

implementing the project for two years starting 2009. The project centers on further

upgrading the local procurement capacities of ten pilot cities to fully comply with the

Government Procurement Reform Act (GPRA or Republic Act 9184) while demonstrating

local innovations to integrate MDG concepts into their procurement system. The project will

also generate a set of innovative learning exchanges among cities and stakeholders (LCP

2009). The UNDP is funding the project and committed project partners include the

Government Procurement Policy Board – Technical Service Office, Procurement Watch, Inc.,

and the DILG-LGA. (LCP 2009)5

For the League of Municipalities of the Philippines (LMP), among its

accomplishments towards achieving the MDGs are the following:

1. Building municipal awareness on the MDGs, human rights and gender

empowerment and leading the MDG localization in municipalities through

conferences and campaigns;

5 There is no updated report on the achievements of this project in the LCP website.


11

2. Spearheading MDG localization and monitoring through a project with the

UNDP Democratic Governance Programme;

3. Initiating national level partnerships and institutional arrangements with

government agencies and other networks; and

4. Developing strategies to achieve the MDGs at the local level under the UNDP

project. (LMP n.d.)

In 2009, LMP has fifteen (15) MDG localization pilot municipalities, five (5) each for

Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. (LMP n.d.)6

The Intergovernmental Actions for Integrated and Innovative Solutions Towards

Attaining the MDGs (LOCAL GAINS for the MDGs) was a collaborative effort by the DILG,

League of Cities of the Philippines, Butuan City Government, Naga City, 29 replication

cities, the University of the Philippines’ National College of Public Administration and

Governance, and UN-HABITAT Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific to promote inter-

LGU cooperation in localizing the MDGs. It was funded by the UNDP and the Government

of Japan through the UN Democratic Governance Trust Fund. The project introduced

innovative approaches to mainstream rights-based approaches, gender responsiveness and

inter-local government cooperation to localize the MDGs in Philippine cities while adapting

the lessons from the Butuan City experience. It also provided continuous support to

incorporate MDG targets in the action plans and budgets of 27 other cities and documentation

of these experiences for further national dissemination and policy learning. (UN Habitat

2005) Based on the UN Habitat Philippines website, there are now 14 MDG localization pilot

cities where the MDGs have been mainsteamed in plans, budgets, legislative measures and

mechanisms, feedback mechanisms and communication plans. (UN Habitat 2010).

Citizens’ Action for Local Leadership to Achieve MDGs (CALL 2015) is aimed to

promote transparent and accountable governance in meeting the MDGs on time through the

engagement of citizens, especially women, in instituting anti-corruption initiatives. The

project was expected to organize and capacitate MDG integrity circles composed of local

citizens’ groups, especially local women leaders, assist citizens-government face-to-face

dialogue and voice mechanisms, and demonstrate and replicate sound MDG practices that

promote anti-corruption practices. The project was part of the UNDP-UN-HABITAT

partnership to localize the MDGs and campaign for good urban governance among the cities.

Donors for the project included the LGUs of Pasay, Science City of Munoz, Tuguegarao,

Dumaguete, and Cagayan de Oro City. Partners for the project included St. Paul University in

Tuguegarao City, Federation of Barangay Health Workers, Intercessors for the Philippines,

Social Watch-Visayas in Silliman University and Xavier University.

For the MDG Family-Based Actions for Children and their Environs in the Slums

(FACES), the project collaborators were the DILG and the Local Government Academy. It

was implemented from March to December 2008. The main partners were the League of

Cities of the Philippines, PBSP, Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council,

UNIFEM, and 15 cities. The project highlighted the slums as a strategic spatial focus for

reducing poverty in the Philippines by half in 2015 from 1990 baselines by focusing on the

lives of 607 children ages 0 to 17, from 607 urban poor households in 15 cities. The children

served as the locus for setting household and community level MDG targets and actions and

complemented by LGUs budget appropriation, relevant and responsive local policy measures,

6 There is no update so far on this project based on the LMP website.


12

and effective delivery of goods and services. The project demonstrated family-based targets

and actions using existing tools such as the CBMS in meeting the MDGs, especially targets

that are critical to children at the household level. Women and mothers who know the

problems and the appropriate solutions to address them, guided by Family Covenant

articulating the 8 Localized MDG Family Statements, committed to attain child-focused

MDGs by 2015. (UN Habitat 2009a)

Then, the Local Monitoring System on the MDGs, supported by the European Union

and Novib (Oxfam, Netherlands), is a joint undertaking of the Province of Bohol and the

municipal governments of Tubigon, Bilar and Jagna and implemented in cooperation with

nongovernment organizations Action for Economic Reforms, PROCESS-Bohol, Inc., Social

Watch Philippines, La Aldea (A Spanish NGO) and the Global Call to Action against

Poverty. The project’s goal is to improve LGUs’ capacity for MDG monitoring and

localization and thus, contribute to meeting MDG targets by 2015. The project entails policy

setting, capacity building, monitoring design, MDG database building, MDG status reporting

and partnership building. The project was completed in 2006. (AER 2006)

Localizing MDGs Using Data: The CBMS Experience of Tabaco City and Other LGUs

Already mentioned in some of the pilot projects above, the Community-Based

Monitoring System (CBMS) is “one of the tools developed in the early 1990s to provide

policymakers and program implementers with a good information base for tracking the

impacts of macroeconomic reforms and various policy shocks. It is an organized way of

collecting information at the local level for use of LGUs, national government agencies,

NGOs, civil society and development partner agencies for planning, program implementation

and monitoring.” It attempts to build and strengthen the capacity of planners and program

implementers at the national and local levels for an improved and more transparent system of

resource allocation and governance.” “Its’ major aim is to assist in poverty reduction. Thus,

there are “other corollary benefits achieved,” e.g. building the capacities of LGUs, increasing

gender equity, and eliciting early warning signs of crisis. (PEP website)

Today, there exists a CBMS Network, which is part of the Poverty and Economic

Policy (PEP) Network supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC)

of Canada through its Globalization, Growth and Poverty Initiative, and the Canadian

International Development Agency (CIDA). Launched in 2002, the CBMS Network aims to

assist its members develop, refine and institutionalize CBMS in developing countries, and to

promote CBMS knowledge and initiatives internationally. It also promotes evidence-based

policymaking, program design and implementation while empowering local communities to

participate in the process. It engages research partners in each country for the development,

pilot-testing and scaling up of CBMS work in these countries. (PEP website) For the

Philippines, the Network’s current partner is the Angelo King Institute for Economic and

Business Studies (AKI) based at the De La Salle University (DLSU), Manila.

Through a competitive CBMS research grants program managed by the PEP-

CBMS Network Office based at AKI-DLSU in Manila, the Network provides funding of up

to US$ 50,000 to national or local institutions in developing countries for varying phases

of CBMS work. Support provided to CBMS research partners extends to their participation in

various PEP-organized capacity-building workshops as well as in international policy fora


13

and conferences, dissemination of country project findings in PEP publications and website,

and peer-review of on-going research work. (PEP website)

The CBMS work in the Philippines evolved after it was observed that there was no

disaggregated data in the early 1990s for planning, program formulation, policy impact, and

poverty monitoring and at the same time, there was also a need for support mechanisms for

the implementation of the decentralization policy. At present, the CBMS has been adopted by

the NAPC and the DILG as the local poverty monitoring system and as a tool for localizing

the MDGs in the country. The PEP-CBMS Network Office based at AKI-DLSU has

ongoing training programs on CBMS for selected LGUs in the Philippines. In the NEDA

MDG report (2010), there is emphasis placed on CBMS as the report cited that there are 10

MDGs Provincial Reports that used CBMS data. This year, another set of 10 subnational

status reports on the MDGs using CBMS data have been launched, representing another 7

provinces and the cities of Pasay, Puerto Princesa and Tabaco. (UNDP 2014) The reports

were prepared with the support of UNDP, NEDA, DILG and CBMS Network-Philippines.

Tabaco City is not the first LGU to implement and localize CBMS in the country.

Pasay City, Palawan, two municipalities in Camarines Norte, and other LGUs started the

process earlier. In fact, Pasay City has a Galing Pook citation for its CBMS program.

However, this paper highlights the Tabaco experience based on several reasons. First, while

there are already studies on earlier local attempts to use CBMS (see for example Bautista

2007), the author is not aware of any scholarly analysis of Tabaco City yet. In the analysis

portion, insights from the other cases will also be used in relation to using CBMS to meet the

MDGs. Second, the author is fortunate to meet Mayor Krisel Lagman-Luistro of Tabaco City

in June 2009 where the latter talked about her city’s experience using CBMS in meeting the

MGDs to an audience attended by other LGUs. It is this first-hand encounter with the mayor

as well as the direct link made between the use of CBMS and the MDGs that helped the

author decide to focus on the city. In addition, the author continues to get updates on the

progress of the MDGs and CBMS in Tabaco from a few local officials and residents. Third,

AKI-DLSU is promoting the Tabaco City experience with CBMS as a successful case for

other LGUs in the Philippines. The PEP-CBMS Network has also brought the Tabaco City

mayor to other fora in the country and abroad to talk about her city’s experience. Finally, the

Tabaco City local government has already conducted three CBMS censuses in 2008, 2010

and 2012 (Lagman-Luistro and Lagman 2013). The CBMS census is usually done every three

years but the Tabaco LGU decided that it be done every two years.

According to its official website, Tabaco City is a fourth class component city in the

province of Albay, Bicol Region (Region V). It is 555 km. south of Manila. It is partially

urban and is composed of 47 barangays. According to the 2007 census, it has a population of

123,513. Its territory occupies a large part of the Albay mainland which extends from the

Lagonoy Gulf to San Miguel, an island. Mayon Volcano overlooks the city to the north. The

city’s economy is still heavily dependent on agriculture and Tabaco has the sole international

seaport in the region, contributing to the city’s economy. (Tabaco website)

Tabaco City has adopted the CBMS as a tool for local development planning and

interventions for meeting the MDGs. The city was exposed to CBMS when it was invited in a

training convention conducted by AKI. Convinced of the merits of the tool, the city budgeted

PhP 1.5 million for its first implementation in 2008 (Luistro-Lagman 2008). The local leaders

saw the tool not as an additional expense but as an investment. After a series of orientation

and consultation with AKI, Tabaco went to a nearby LGU (Libon) for a study-tour on CBMS


14

at work before identified enumerators were trained. A CBMS office was set up. LGU team

leaders were identified in each barangay and the city government assisted in the hardware

required. Data collection activities (from preparation and distribution of questionnaires and

survey kits to training and consultation on data analysis) took place from May to October.

The data were then validated by the barangays in November. City and barangay employees

analyzed the data. In January 2009, the mayor issued an executive order mandating the use of

the CBMS data for planning and monitoring. Two NGOs, Social Watch and PRRM, became

partners in this endeavor.

The city has specifically used the 14 core CBMS indicators that are measured to

determine the welfare status of the population. The core indicators are as follows:

Table 2 CBMS 13+1 Poverty Indicators / MDGs

Basic Needs Indicators

Health (MDGs 3, 4, 5, 6) 1

2

Children under 5 years old who died

Women who died due to pregnancy-related causes

Nutrition (MDG 1) 3 Children aged 0-5 years old who are malnourished

Housing (MDG 7) 4

5

Households living in makeshift housing

Households who are informal settlers

Water and Sanitation

(MDG 7)

6

7

Households without access to safe water supply

Households without access to sanitary toilet facilities

Education (MDGs 2, 3) 8

9

8-9

Children aged 6-12 year old who are not attending elementary

school

Children 13-16 years old who are not attending secondary school

Children aged 6-16 who are not attending school

Income (MDG 1) 10

11

12

Households with income below the poverty threshold

Households with income below the food (subsistence) threshold

Households who experienced food shortage

Employment (MDG 1) 13 Persons in the labor force who are unemployed

Peace and Order 14 Proportion of households who are victims of crime

Sources: Lagman-Luistro 2009 and Lagman-Luistro and Lagman 2013.

However, since the CBMS is also flexible and can accommodate additional indicators

to reflect other concerns of the community, Tabaco City added more questions. The goal is

not only to get a macro picture or overall city profile based on the 14 indicators but also to

locate where the problems are. Thus, the city was able to come up with poverty maps using

CBMS data and from these develop interventions for each of the MDGs (Lagman-Luistro

2008 and 2009). Since resources are not enough, the LGU prioritizes the areas needing the

most attention, in most cases barangays located in San Miguel Island. Without mentioning

human security, they are using the approach in dealing with development challenges.

Below is a summary of the first MDG profile of Tabaco City based on the indicators

and the interventions the LGU and its multisectoral partners did given the results of the

CBMS instrument they localized in 2008.

Table 3 Tabaco City’s MDG Profile from CBMS and Interventions Made

MDGs City Profile based on CBMS

Indicators

Interventions

Eradicate extreme poverty and

hunger

Poverty incidence:

- 48.4% below poverty threshold

- 29.8% below food threshold

- sustainable agriculture, food and

nutrition programs

-cost-efficient and appropriate


15

- 7.4% experienced food shortage

- 2.1% unemployed

- 9.8% malnutrition (aged 0-5)

-

infrastructure support

- employment generation thru skills

training

Achieve universal primary

education

Households with 6-16 years old

children not in school:

- 20% children (6-12) not in

elementary school

- 35% children (13-16) not in high

school

- provision of free school supplies

and learning materials

- expansion of the Alternative

Learning System (ALS) program

- enhancing basic and functional

literacy, livelihood trainings,

vocational courses and adult

education

- upgrading day care services

Promote gender equality and

empower women

Education gender parity:

- already achieved (more females

than males in all school levels)

Violence against women:

-44 cases of reported violence against

women (2007); 89% of cases filed in

court

Number of elected officials by

gender:

-males still outnumber women as

elected city and barangay officials

but there are more women youth

officials (Sangguniang Kabataan)

-

Reduce child mortality -infant mortality rate/1000: 4.43

-child mortality rate/1,000: 1.49

-fully immunized children: 76%

-breastfeeding: 55%

-sustaining primary immunization

program and Vitamin A

supplementation

-improving case management at

home and at health facilities

-promotion of information education

campaign on proper child care and

enhancement of child health care

services in all barangays

-strengthening breastfeeding

advocacy, e.g. designated rooms in

offices for breastfeeding

Improve maternal health Maternal mortality rate/1,000:

- 40

Contraceptive prevalence rate:

-51%

-establishment of birthing facilities

in San Miguel Island and upland

barangays

-massive information and education

campaigns on reproductive health

programs, human sexuality and pre-

marital counseling

-provision of family planning

commodities

-provision of Philhealth coverage to

indigent families

Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria

and other diseases

-respiratory tract infection as number

1 leading cause of morbidity

-pneumonia as number 1 leading

cause of mortality

-pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) as

number 5 leading cause of mortality

- TB case detection: 100% (2007)

-pneumonia per 100,000: 520 (2007)

-STD/HIV/AIDS

-no case of malaria

-sustaining public and private

collaboration to combat TB through

Directly Observed Treatment on

Short Course (TB DOTS)

-Institutionalization of local AIDS

council

-strengthening services of Social

Hygiene Clinic


16

Ensure environmental

sustainability

Households without access to

sanitary toilet facilities:

-18.4% without access

Households without access to safe

water supply:

-83% with access

Households classified as squatters /

informal settlers

-8.1% without secure tenure

-enactment of comprehensive solid

waste management ordinance

-provision of incentives to barangays

with 100% sanitary toilet facilities

-provision in both barangay and city

development budgets for

construction of toilets

-integration of climate change

adaptation and disaster risk

reduction strategies in all

development plans

-rehabilitation and extension of

community water system, especially

in San Miguel Island

-extension of core shelter project to

indigent families who are heavily

affected during occurrence of

typhoons

-relocation package for the urban

poor

Develop a global partnership

for development

-Active partnership with Poder y

Prosperidad de la Communidad

(“empowerment and development of

communities”) and the Spanish

government under the Agencia

Española de Cooperacion

Internacional para el Desarollo

(AECID)

-MDG advocacy launch in

partnership with the Philippine

Legislators Committee on Population

and Development (PLCPD) and the

David and Lucille Packard

Foundation

-Disaster Risk Reduction partnership

Go Organic with PRRM

-Reproductive health and family

planning partnership with UNFPA

and the League of Cities in the

Philippines

-Governance system with Institute of

Solidarity in Asia

-Social Watch Philippines and

CBMS Network

Sources: Lagman-Luistro 2008 and 2009.

According to Lagman-Luistro (2009), CBMS is used as a targeting tool anchored on

solid data as basis for awareness and advocacy, convergence and cooperation, and

opportunities to attract donors for specific projects. For instance, as a result of the 2008

CBMS data on households without access to safe water, the city concentrated its intervention

activities in barangays in San Miguel Island — areas with least access. Through its

partnership with the Spanish group Poder, a water system project was launched. Using 2009

CBMS data, there is already improvement in terms of more houses having access to safe

drinking water.

Lagman-Luistro also noted that using CBMS has helped Tabaco City in designing

better programs. In the area of situation analysis and problem identification, the city

previously relied on vague second-hand data, projections and personal perception. With


17

CBMS, the city has clear first-hand data, actual situations and personal accounts. In the area

of targeting, the city previously relied on a shot-gun approach just to comply with national

directives. With CBMS, the city now uses specific, more accurate, evidence-based and needs-

based targets identified by end-users. In the area of monitoring and evaluation, the LGU

previously had no benchmarks and relied on generic dictations that are difficult to monitor.

With CBMS, there are now clear benchmarks, clear set of indicators, and measurable outputs

and outcomes. In addition, there is a community participation component. (Lagman-Luistro

2009)

The results of the 2008 census became the baseline data for Tabaco City. Succeeding

censuses (2010 and 2012) allow comparisons with the baseline data and measure the impact

of the interventions made by the local government. Table 4 below tracks the progress of

Tabaco City in meeting the MDGs over the three censuses.

Table 4 Core CBMS Indicators of Tabaco City (2008, 2010 and 2012)

Basic Needs Indicators 2008 2010 2012

Health and

Nutrition (MDG

1,3,4,5,6)

Proportion of children 0-5 years old

who died

Prevalence of 0-5 malnourished

children

Proportion of women who died due to

pregnancy-related causes

0.4

9.8

0.4

0.3

7.1

0.1

0.3

5.0

0.08

Housing (MDG 7) Proportion of households living in

makeshift housing

Proportion of households who are

informal settlers

6.1

7.3

7.1

5.4

1.7

3.7

Water and

Sanitation (MDG 7)

Proportion of households without

access to improved water resource

Proportion of households without

access to sanitary toilet facility

14.1

17.6

11.4

13.7

1.4

5.0

Basic Education

(MDG 2, 3)

Proportion of children aged 6-12 years

old not enrolled in elementary school

Proportion of children aged 13-16 years

old not enrolled in high school

19.6

34.8

12.3

34.2

6.6

18.5

Income and

Livelihood (MDG 1)

Proportion of households with income

below poverty threshold

Proportion of households with income

below food threshold

Proportion of households who

experienced food shortage

Proportion of unemployed members of

the labor force

50.5

34.3

7.4

2.1

59.8

44.3

0.3

2.3

31.1

18.5

0.3

1.3

Peace and Order Proportion of households who are

victims of crime

0.3 0.2 0.2

Source: Lagman-Luistro and Lagman, 2013. (From CBMS Office, Tabaco City)

Looking at the results above, Tabaco City registers significant improvement in health,

water and sanitation, housing, income and livelihood, and basic education.

Lagman-Luistro (2009) reflects that CBMS:

1. Provides reliable, relevant and comprehensive data on development status of the

community;


18

2. Gives direction and guidance in the crafting of development agenda (prioritized,

targeted and directed);

3. Builds capacity of communities and government workers and at the same time is

highly participative;

4. Monitors project impacts and helps in re-adjusting goals and development thrusts;

5. Mobilizes resources and investments (both internal and external) where they are

needed; and

6. Enhances recognition and credibility of local governance and political leadership.

Furthermore, Lagman-Luistro and Lagman (2013) added that with CBMS, public

service is depoliticized and targeted interventions are cost-effective.

The Tabaco City experience (Lagman-Luistro 2008; Lagman-Luistro and Lagman

2013) validates the findings of Bautista (2007: 108) who studied Palawan, Pasay City and

two municipalities in Camarines Norte as regards the facilitating factors for best practices

using CBMS to achieve the MDGs. These facilitating factors include:

1. The key role and commitment of the local chief executive;

2. The commitment of the local technical staff;

3. Full support and commitment of barangay officials;

4. Availability of financial resources not only for the data gathering and analysis part

but also for projects needed due to unmet needs identified by the data;

5. Skilled human resources;

6. Strong linkage with partners, including civil society groups, funders and other

sectors;

7. A highly participatory process enabling the community to identify and “own” the

process in selecting projects to respond to the unmet needs; and

8. Community cooperation.

Of course, there are a few lessons and recommendations that can be made based on

Lagman-Luistro (2008) and Bautista’s accounts (2007, 109-110) in relation to the use of

CBMS to achieve the MDGs:

1. Issuing an Executive Order or related policies to utilize CBMS data in development

plans, programs and budgeting to institutionalize the process beyond one

administration or leadership;

2. Regular evaluation of survey tool, particularly on clarifying indicators related to

housing and non-economic (non-income) sources of sustenance that can be used in

defining the poverty threshold;

3. Continuous training of CBMS team on data analysis, evaluation and generation of

technical charts and maps;

4. Revisiting and revalidating areas with specific MDG concerns; and

5. Being conscious of differences in the implementation of CBMS in urban and rural

areas7.

7 As observed by Bautista (2007, 109) in Pasay City which has a bigger population, it takes a longer time to

finish the CBMS cycle and urban people have more resistance to participate in the data collection process.


19

Factors Affecting the Progress of Achieving the MDGs in the Philippines

Based on the data presented, there are mechanisms in place for the achievement of the

MDGs in the Philippines. In fact, there is a very elaborate multilevel governance set-up

involving different sectors (national and local governments, civil society, the private sector

and international agencies) at different levels (local, national and regional). NEDA (2010)

earlier even hinted at targeting MDGs Plus (going beyond the 8 MDGs and setting higher

targets) though this has now been tempered by the likelihood that not all targets will be

attained by the deadline next year. These mechanisms would not have been possible without

a strong national executive department’s official commitment (from the previous to the

present administrations) and prioritization of meeting the MDGs as well as strong support

from the legislative branch in allocating funds to and overseeing MDG programs. As stated

also in the localization part of this paper, a number of local government units have also

seriously worked on meeting many of the MDG targets, often with the support of national

agencies, international agencies, civil society groups, and their own constituents but paying

attention to local needs, conditions and priorities.

However, what could explain the uneven progress in the achievement of the MDGs?

How come the Philippines may be unlikely to achieve some of the crucial targets by 2015?

The factors resulting to the uneven progress include the non-inclusive growth of the

country (Capones 2013). Despite the different international ratings and figures citing the

continuous growth of the country’s economy in recent years, this growth has not been

distributed equally across the different sectors of the country. There are wide disparities

between rural and urban areas in the three problematic MDGs, i.e. poverty incidence,

children disadvantaged in terms of performance in schools, and access to maternal services

are lower in rural and far-flung areas (Capones 2013). Of course, Typhoon Yolanda (Haian)

which hit the Visayas late last year will have lasting impacts in many of the affected areas

and the government’s financing of the MDGs. National and local governments, together with

other stakeholders, should prioritize the most vulnerable areas, especially in budgeting for

social services to address disparities (already echoed in earlier recommendations by Social

Watch 2007; Lim 2006; Manasan 2008); hence, there is a need to integrate human security

and localization approaches in these efforts. With limited resources, there is a need to

prioritize the areas that need the most help, despite political differences, instead of those that

are already high performers.

Governance factors affecting the actual implementation of many laws, policies and

programs aimed at attaining the MDGs, meanwhile, are as follows: lack of political stability;

less government effectiveness and political will to make sound and progressive policies;

weak implementation of policies; poor regulatory quality; weak rule of law; lack of capacity;

resource and personnel constraints; and graft and corruption, particularly with recent scandals

involving high-ranking government officials at both executive and legislative branches.

The NEDA MDG report (2010) and Paderanga (2010) already recognized sustained

economic growth as a way of moving forward. However, this should not just be

macroeconomic growth but inclusive growth. In the area of governance, NEDA (2010) and

Paderanga (2010) pointed out better population management8, greater focus on underserved

8 In late 2012, the Philippine Congress was finally able to pass a national reproductive health law that has

languished in several Congresses due to opposition from pro-life groups. However, this will not likely make an


20

areas, adequate safety nets, improved targeting, improved governance and transparency,

improved peace and security, greater advocacy and localization, and strengthen public-private

partnerships. These steps complement the recommendations of the Philippine Development

Forum (2007) for different sectors in the area of governance.

In the area of localizing the MDGs, based on best local practices and ongoing pilot

projects, the following should be clearly emphasized by the national government, local

governments, NGOs, and funding institutions at the local level:

1. Poverty profiling and establishing development baselines, particularly using CBMS;

2. Mainstreaming local MDG targets in local plans and budgets through multisectoral

consultations;

3. Mainstreaming human rights and gender standards as part of good local governance;

4. Inter-localization of MDGs, or creating coordinating mechanisms among a number of

LGUs to achieve the MDGs;

5. Developing or supporting innovative local leadership;

6. Communicating local MDG targets through creative and appropriate multi-media

campaigns;

7. Developing an equipped local institution (college, university or research NGO) that

can build LGU capacity since not all LGUs have easy access to training provide by

big Manila-based training institutions;

8. Instituting citizen feedback; and

9. Developing, expanding and localizing available knowledge products and tools,

particularly based on best practices, for training and replication/innovation in other

LGUs, particularly poorer LGUs with very low MDG profiles but have not been

assisted yet.

Multilevel governance through inter-local and inter-agency partnerships and

assistance from different sectors are important since many of the mechanisms adopted and

applied in their local areas by successful LGUs require a lot of money and trained personnel,

including CBMS. Capacity building must also be emphasized so that changes and programs

are sustainable at the local level beyond external assistance.

Clearly, these recommendations suggest to the Philippine national government, LGUs

and other stakeholders in the attainment of the MDGs the need to use the human security

approach by targeting the most vulnerable sectors and localizing the campaigns. Otherwise,

the MDGs will not be achieved. Since multilevel and multisectoral commitments to the

achievements of the MDGs have already been made and institutional arrangements are

already in place, they have to be put into practice and coordinated properly.

References

Action for Economic Reforms (AER). 2006. Making a difference: Localized monitoring

system on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): The Bohol experience. Quezon City:

AER.

immediate impact on the MDGs, particularly on the maternal mortality and access to reproductive health indicators.


21

Amojelar, Darwin G. 2013. “NEDA upbeat most MDGs will be met by 2015.” Interaksyon.

25 March 2013. Accessed July 3, 2014. www.interaksyon.com

Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2007. ADB regional technical assistance report:

Supporting the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals in the Asia and Pacific

region, phase III. Mandaluyong City: ADB.

___________. 2009. Key indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2009. Mandaluyong City: ADB.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). n.d. The ASEAN Socio-cultural

Community (ASCC) plan of action. Accessed March 18, 2009.

http://www.aseansec.org/16833.htm

___________. 2009. Joint declaration on the attainment of the Millennium Development

Goals in ASEAN. Cha-am, Thailand. March 1.

ASEAN Ministers for Rural Development and Poverty Eradication. 2004. Framework plan of

Action for rural development and poverty eradication (2004-2010). October.

ASEAN Secretariat. n.d. ASEAN cooperation on rural development and poverty eradication:

An overview. Accessed June 5, 2009. http://www.aseansec.org/9113.htm

Atienza, Maria Ela L. 2012. “Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the

Philippines: Localization of the MDGs and implications for mainstreaming human security.”

In Mainstreaming Human Security in ASEAN Integration Volume II: Lessons Learned from

MDGs Implementation in Southeast Asia, edited by Herman Joseph S. Kraft. Quezon City:

ASEAN Institutes of Strategic and International Studies, Institute for Strategic and

Development Studies and Japan International Cooperation Agency – Research Institute, pp.

53-90.

Bautista, Victoria A. 2007. ‘Fighting poverty: Lessons learned from community-based

monitoring system implementation highlights of case studies’. Journal of Administration &

Governance 2 (1): 101-111.

Capones, E.M. 2007. Institutionalizing the community-based monitoring system (CBMS) in

the Philippines. Paper presented at the 6tth PEP Research Network General Meeting,

Sheraton Lima Hotel, Lima, Peru, June 14-16.

___________. 2013. Lessons learned in achieving the MDGs: The Philippine experience.

2013 Global MDG Conference, UNDP Working Paper. No. 12, UNDP Publishing.

Commission on Human Security. 2003. Human security now: Commission on Human

Security report. New York: United Nations.

Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Official Website. Accessed August 8

and October 5, 2009). http://www.dilg.gov.ph

____________. 2008a. Project on replication of good practices for local governments.

Memorandum Circular No. 2008-52.



http://www.dilg.gov.ph/


22

____________. 2008b. Good practice areas of destination for replication. Memorandum

Circular No. 2008-53. March 31.

Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). KALAHI-CIDSS-NCDDP

Website. Accessed 9 April 2013. http://ncddp.dswd.gov.ph

Galing Pook Foundation. 2006. Special citation on local capacity innovations for the

Millennium Development Goals. Galing Pook Foundation and the United Nations

Development Programme.

Heywood, Andrew. 2007. Politics, 3rd

ed. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN). 2009. “Philippines: Maternal mortality

rates ‘not making sufficient progress’”. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 24

March. Accessed 3 October 2009. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49cb32fcc.html

Lagman-Luistro, Krisel. 2008. Achieving the MDGs through CBMS: The Tabaco City

experience. Presented during the 7th

Poverty and Economic Policy (PEP) Research Network

Conference, Dusit Thani Hotel, Makati City, Philippines, 11 December.

___________. 2009. CMBS: A directional tool in enhancing local governance. Presented at

the Population-Reproductive Health-Environment Leadership Development Training

Program for Local Government Leaders, SEAMEO-Innotech, Quezon City, Philippines, 1

June.

___________ and Marco Stefan B. Lagman. 2013. Achieving MDG 2: Universal primary

education through evidence-based planning and programming using CBMS indicators:

Lessons on governance statistics from Tabaco City: Albay. Presented at the 12th

National

Convention on Statistics, Edsa Shangri-la Hotel, Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 1-2 October

2013.

League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP). 2009: ‘League of Cities jumpstarts Protect MDG,

ten pilot cities named’. LCP The Advocate Online. July.

League of Municipalities of the Philippines. n.d. Leading our municipalities in fulfilling the

millennium development goals.

Lim, Joseph. 2006. ‘Towards financing the Millennium Development Goals of the

Philippines’. In PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2006-23.

Local Government Academy (LGA). Official website. Accessed 3 July 2013.

www.lga.gov.ph

Manasan, Rosario G. 2007. ‘Financing the Millennium Development Goals: The Philippines’.

In PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2007-06.

___________. 2008. ‘Policy study on the national and local government expenditures for

Millennium Development Goals, 2000-2005’. In PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2008-

17.

http://ncddp.dswd.gov.ph/

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49cb32fcc.html


23

Mani, Devyani. 2005. ‘Strengthening decentralized governance for human security’. In

Regional Development Dialogue (RDD) 26 (2) 19-36.

___________. 2007. CY 2007 Accomplishment report. Manila: NAPC.

National Economic Development Authority (NEDA). 2007. Philippines mid-term progress

report on the Millennium Development Goals. Manila: NEDA with the support of the United

Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Philippines Office.

___________. 2010. Philippines progress report on the Millennium Development Goals

2010. Manila: NEDA with the support of the United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP) Philippines Office.

___________. 2004. Medium-term Philippine development plan (2004-2010). Manila:

NEDA.

___________. Official website. Accessed 5 September 2009. http://www.neda.gov.ph

National Statistics Coordinating Board (NSCB). 2010. “MDG Watch: Philippine progress

based on the MDG Indicators (as of July 2010)”. NSCB. Accessed June 30, 2014.

http://www.nscb.gov.ph/mdg

_____________. n.d. Philippine Standard Geographic Code (PSGC) Interactive. Accessed 29

September 29, 2009. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc

Paderanga, Cayetano Jr. W. 2010. Progress Report on the Millennium Development Goals.

Presented at the Stakeholders’ Step-up Campaign Forum on the Philippines Millennium

Development Goals, Dusit Thani Manila, Makati City, 8 September.

Philippine Development Forum (PDF). 2008. A briefing paper on business sector

participation on MDGs and social progress. Philippine Development Forum Working Group

on MDGs and Social Progress.

___________ 2007. Working group on Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and social

progress: Report for 2007. Philippine Development Forum Working Group on MDGs and

Social Progress.

Philippine Statistical Authority (2014). MDG watch. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/mdg (accessed

30 June 2014).

Philippines. Local Government Code of 1991. Republic Act No. 7160.

Poverty and Economic Policy (PEP) Network (n.d.). About CBMS. Accessed September 30,

2009. http://www.pep-net.org

Social Watch Philippines. 2007. ‘Missing targets: An alternative MDG midterm report’.

Social Watch Philippines Report 2007. Social Watch Philippines.

Tabaco City, Albay: Official Website. Accessed September 29, 2009.

http://tabacocity.gov.ph/

http://www.neda.gov.ph/


http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc


http://www.pep-net.org/

http://tabacocity.gov.ph/


24

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2007. Supporting capacities for

integrated local development: practice note. UNDP, November.

UNDP Philippines in Philippines. Official website. Accessed July 3, 2014.

http://www.ph.undp.org/content/philippines/en/home/mdgoverview/

United Nations Habitat Regional Office in Asia and the Pacific (UN Habitat). 2009a. Annual

project report: MDG family-based actions for children and their environs. UNESCAP.

___________. 2008. Delivering as one: Asia-Pacific regional MDG road map 2008-2015.

Bangkok: UNESCAP.

___________. 2005. Intergovernmental actions for integrated and innovative solutions

towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals (LOCAL GAINS for the MDGs).

Accessed June 10, 2009. www.unhabitat.org/localizing_the_mdgs.html

___________. 2010. Local gains for the MDGs. Accessed July 4, 2014.

www.unhabitat.org.ph/index.php/local-gains-for-the-mdgs

___________.2009b. Projects in the Philippines. Accessed June 10, 2009.

http://www.fukuoka.unhabitat.org/project/project.php?sn=133&la=1&it=3

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). 2008. Reaching common ground: Culture,

gender and human rights (State of world population 2008). UNFPA.

http://www.ph.undp.org/content/philippines/en/home/mdgoverview/

http://www.unhabitat.org/localizing_the_mdgs.html

http://www.unhabitat.org.ph/index.php/local-gains-for-the-mdgs

http://www.fukuoka.unhabitat.org/project/project.php?sn=133&la=1&it=3

draft only; not for citation - ipsa online paper roompaperroom.ipsa.org/papers/paper_35242.pdf ·...

Documents