Presented by: OIC-Director Cleofe S. Pastrana National Economic and Development Authority

Poverty Alleviation in the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): Problems

and Initiatives in the Philippines

Presented by:

OIC-Director Cleofe S. PastranaNational Economic and Development Authority

13 October 2005, Hotel Dominique, Tagaytay City

REPORT OUTLINE

I. Background on the MDGs

II. Highlights of the Second Philippines Progress Report on the MDGs

A. Poverty Situation

B. Meeting Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger

C. Environmental Situation/Challenges and Priorities for Action

III. Crosscutting Challenges and Priorities for Action

A. Hindering Factors

B. Facilitating Factors

C. Parallel Initiatives

D. Implications on the Philippine Economy

In September 2000, 189 member states of the United Nations adopted the Millennium Declaration

The Millennium Declaration confirmed the commitment of member states of the United Nations to peace and security, respect for human rights, good governance and human development

The Millennium Declaration also committed the member states of the United Nations to achieve quantifiable development goals and targets (the MDGs) until 2015 (15 years) that will at least ensure that development initiatives are effectively eradicating poverty and promoting sustainable human development

Millennium Declaration

The MDGs are Owned by All MDGs are not just the national governments’ commitment to

UN or the world; most important: they are their commitments to their own people

The MDGs are our own development challenges for some decades, now gaining a new opportunity from global and national momentum of solidarity

The Goals are global in their scope, but targets and indicators can be tailor-made to shorter time scales, higher targets & local circumstances.

The MDGs are national commitments, but their achievements (or failures) are at the local level

MDGs ownership by local governments, by the business/private sector such as NGOs/Pos/civil society plays a vital role and can make a huge difference in the national and global achievements of MDGs

1990 to 2000 2001 to 2005

Baseline Current Target by Probability of(1990 or Level 2015 Attaining the

MDG year closest (2002/2004) 1/ Targetsto 1990) 2/

Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Proportion of population below the

Subsistence threshold 24.3 a 13.8 d 12.15 High

Poverty threshold 45.3 a 30.4 d 22.65 High24.3a

Proportion of families below the: Subsistence threshold 20.4 a 10.4 d 10.2 High Poverty threshold 39.9 a 24.7 d 19.95 HIghProportion of households with per capita intake below 100% dietary energy requirement

69.4 b 56.9 34.7 High

MDGs: Rate of Progress

Baseline Current Target by Probability of(1990 or Level 2015 Attaining the

MDG year closest (2002/2004) 1/ Targetsto 1990) 2/

Promote gender equality and empower women

Ratio of girls to 100 boys

Elementary education 95.8 c 101.8 e 100 High Secondary education 104.5 c 115.9 e 100 High

Reduce child mortality

Under 5-mortality rate (per 1,000 children) 80 40 26.7 HighInfant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 57 29 19 High

Halt and begin to reverse the incidence of malaria & other diseases

HIV prevalence <1% <1% <1% HighMalaria morbidity rate (per 100,000 pop) 123 48 24.2 High

Ensure environmental sustainabilityProportion of families with access to safe drinking water 73.7 a 80 86.8 High


(1990 or Level 2015 Attaining theMDG year closest (2002/2004) 1/ Targets

to 1990) 2/

Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger% underweight among 0-5 yo children 34.5 27.6 17.25 MediumAchieve universal primary education

Elementary participation rate 3 85.1 a 90.05 100 MediumImprove maternal healthMaternal mortality rate 209 172 c 52.2 Medium

Increase access to RH servicesContraceptive prevalence rate 40 b 48.9 70 Medium

Achieve universal primary education

Elementary cohort survival rate 68.4 a 69.8 83.3 Low


SDC Res. No. 1 2003 “Expanding

functions and composition of

MC-IHDC”

DILG MC 2004-152 “Guide to LGUs in the

Localization of the MDGs”

MTPDP 2004-2010 hews

closely to the MDGs

Strong commitment

of the business

sector and civil society

Investment identification per goal and target in MTPIP

2005-2010

Strong support of

donor community

for the MDGs

Legislative support of Congress

Enabling Environment for the MDGs

Poverty Situation

FIGURE 1: Poverty Incidence of Population by Region, 2003

Legend

Below national average (7.3 - 30.4)Above national average(30.5 - 54.2)

Source

NSO Family Income and Expenditures Survey 2003

ARMM 53.1

Cordillera Region 31.2

Metro Manila 7.3

Ilocos Region 30.2

Cagayan Valley 24.5

Central Luzon 17.7

CALABARZON 18.8

MIMAROPA 47.9

Bicol Region 48.4

Western Visayas 39.1

Central Visayas 28.4

Eastern Visayas 43.3

Western Mindanao 49.4

Northern Mindanao 44.3

Southern Mindanao 34.4

Central Mindanao 38.4

CARAGA 54.2

Annual Per Capita Poverty Threshold, Poverty Incidence of Families and Population by Region: 2000 and 2003

2000 Revised 2003 2000 Revised 2003 2000 Revised 2003Philippines 11, 451 12, 267 27.5 24.7 33.0 30.4NCR 15, 693 16, 796 5.7 5.0 7.6 7.3CAR 13, 066 13, 976 30.7 24.8 37.6 31.2Region I 12, 685 13, 276 29.4 24.4 35.1 30.2Region II 11, 128 11, 409 25.2 19.3 30.4 24.5Region III 13, 760 14, 342 17.3 13.7 21.4 17.7Region IV-A 13, 657 14, 616 15.2 14.9 19.1 18.8Region IV-B 11, 995 12, 406 36.3 39.7 45.2 47.9Region V 11, 372 12, 354 45.3 40.5 52.6 48.4Region VI 11, 313 12, 275 36.6 31.3 44.4 39.1Region VII 9, 656 9, 779 31.5 23.7 36.2 28.4Region VIII 9, 518 10, 802 37.5 35.5 45.1 43.3Region IX 9, 116 10, 414 38.5 44.1 44.8 49.4Region X 10, 503 11, 609 37.9 37.9 43.8 44.3Region XI 10, 264 11, 276 27.7 28.1 33.1 34.4Region XII 10, 466 11, 303 40.7 32.0 46.8 38.4Caraga 10, 896 12, 000 43.7 47.3 50.9 54.2ARMM 12, 192 12, 739 53.7 45.7 59.8 53.1

Poverty Incidenceof Population (%)Region

Annual Per Capita PovertyThreshold (in Pesos)

Poverty Incidenceof Families (%)

FIGURE 2: Subsistence Incidence of Population, by Region 2003

Legend

Below national average Above national average

Source

NSO_Family and Income Expenditure Study, 2003

ARMM 24.1


Metro Manila 0.6

Ilocos Region 11.2

Cagayan Valley 7.6

Central Luzon 4.2

CALABARZON 4.9

MIMAROPA 22.9

Bicol Region 26.6



Eastern Visayas 21





CARAGA 31

Annual Per Capita Food Threshold, Subsistence Incidence of Families and Population by Region: 2000 and 2003

2000 Revised 2003 2000 Revised 2003 2000 Revised 2003Philippines 7, 707 8, 134 12.3 10.4 15.8 13.8NCR 9, 570 9, 974 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.6CAR 8, 744 9, 117 13.7 9.8 17.9 13.4Region I 8, 552 8, 903 11.4 8.1 15.2 11.2Region II 7, 560 8, 026 9.3 5.6 11.8 7.6Region III 8, 764 9, 338 4.2 2.9 5.5 4.2Region IV-A 8, 782 9, 189 5.1 3.7 6.5 4.9Region IV-B 8, 078 8, 339 17.4 17.7 24.1 22.9Region V 8, 047 8, 372 23.3 20.3 29.3 26.6Region VI 7, 983 8, 386 17.4 12.9 23.1 17.7Region VII 6, 759 7, 016 16.9 11.2 20.7 14.6Region VIII 7, 080 7, 696 19.1 15.5 24.8 21.0Region IX 6, 574 7, 245 21.0 27.9 25.8 32.8Region X 7, 296 7, 999 19.2 19.7 23.8 25.4Region XI 7, 087 7, 751 12.8 13.5 16.7 17.6Region XII 7, 235 7, 804 17.9 14.0 22.6 18.4Caraga 7, 667 8, 353 24.4 24.5 30.7 31.0ARMM 8, 313 8, 737 23.9 18.6 28.5 24.1

RegionAnnual Per Capita Food Subsistence Incidence Subsistence Incidence

Threshold (in Pesos) of Families (%) of Population (%)

FIGURE 3: Gini Concentration Ratios, by Region 2003

Legend

Below National AverageAbove National Average

ARMM 0.3464


Metro Manila 0.413

Ilocos Region 0.3968

Cagayan Valley 0.4411

Central Luzon 0.3486

CALABARZON 0.4058

MIMAROPA 0.4354

Bicol Region 0.4648



Eastern Visayas 0.4577





CARAGA 0.4294

Gini Coefficient Among Families by Region, 2000 and 2003

Region2000 2003 % Change

Philippines 0.4822 0.4660 -1.6NCR 0.4451 0.4130 -3.2CAR 0.4439 0.4294 -1.5Region I 0.4071 0.3968 -1.0Region II 0.4227 0.4411 1.8Region III 0.3591 0.3486 -1.1Region IV-A 0.4086 0.4058 -0.3Region IV-B 0.4076 0.4354 2.8Region V 0.4455 0.4648 1.9Region VI 0.4594 0.4392 -2.0Region VII 0.4691 0.4711 0.2Region VIII 0.4807 0.4577 -2.3Region IX 0.4732 0.5197 4.7Region X 0.4794 0.4768 -0.3Region XI 0.4318 0.4567 2.5Region XII 0.4631 0.4583 -0.5Caraga 0.4118 0.4294 1.8ARMM 0.3171 0.3464 2.9

GINI

FIGURE 4: Percentage of Households with Less than 100% Energy Adequacy

FIGURE 5: Percentage of Underweight Children 0-5 Year Olds

Meeting Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger

Priority Policies and Programs

• Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan (KALAHI)

• Enrolment of 7 million beneficiaries under the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP)

• Wholesale portfolio of the People’s Credit and Finance Corporation (PCFC)

• Implementation of asset reform programs

• Delivery of human development services

MDGs Amount

(in US$ million)

% Share to Total MDG-

Related ODA

1 - Eradicate extreme poverty & hunger 6,259.4 77.40

2 - Achieve universal primary education 557.9 6.90

3 - Promote gender equality 3.8 0.05

4 - Reduce child mortality 139.9 1.73

5 - Improve maternal health 157.0 1.94

6 - Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria & other diseases 25.3 0.31

7 - Ensure environmental sustainability 943.31 11.67

TOTAL 8,086.6 100.00

Summary of ODA for completed & ongoing projects, by MDG category, from 2001-2005, in million US$

Source: NEDA-PMS

ODA for MDGs

INVESTMENTS SUPPORTIVE OF THE MDGs 2005-2010

MDGs COST

(in PhP Billion)

1 - Eradicate extreme poverty & hunger 1,294.22 - Achieve universal primary education 56.73 - Promote gender equality -4 - Reduce child mortality

69.95 - Improve maternal health

6 - Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria & other diseases

7 - Ensure environmental sustainability 198.88 – Global partnership for development 125.1

TOTAL 1,744.7

Source: NEDA-PIS

INTENSIFYING MULTISECTORAL PARTNERSHIP AND COLLABORATION

Government (executive, legislature, judicial)

Local Government

CSOs,Academe

Local Government

Private/Business

Donor Community

Environmental Situationand Challenges

Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability

• Forests resources and watersheds

• Biodiversity resources

• Coastal and marine resources

• Air quality

• Water resources

• Waste and toxic chemicals

Area Proportion to Total

(Hectares) (%)

7,168,400 100

2,560,872 36

Broadleaved 2,448,864

Mixed 24,618

Coniferous 87,390

4,030,588 56

Broadleaved 3,847,284

Mixed 69,861

Coniferous 113,443

247,362 3

329,578 5Source: Forest Management Bureau (FMB)

Total Forest

Mangrove

Plantation

Forest Cover by Forest Type, 2003

Closed Forest

Open Forest

Category

Area Reforested, 1990-2003 (in hectares)Year Total

Government

Percent Non-Government

Percent

Sector

2003 15,087 13,195 87.5 1,892 12.5

2002 25,620 20,682 80.7 4,938 19.3

2001 31,440 26,524 84.4 4,916 15.6

2000 27,632 21,740 78.7 5,892 21.3

1999 42,165 31,183 74 10,982 26

1998 42,368 33,219 78.4 9,149 21.6

1997 66,236 49,301 74.4 16,935 25.6

1996 46,096 18,869 40.9 27,227 59.1

1995 65,233 21,841 33.5 43,392 66.5

1994 49,551 18,032 36.4 31,519 63.6

1993 19,211 6,347 33 12,864 67

1992 40,593 24,304 59.9 16,289 40.1

1991 93,039 73,602 79.1 19,437 20.9

1990 191,663 153,949 80.3 37,714 19.7

Annual Average

53,995

Source: DENR Annual Report

Biodiversity Resources

Philippines… one of the megadiverse countries in the

world higher regard for the endemism of local

species

but… most severely threatened of the

megadiverse countries

Coastal and Marine Resources rich sources of fish and aquatic products habitat for countless underwater wildlife natural areas for recreation/tourism Water resources• disparities in water supply coverage across regions• depletion of ground water especially in Metro

Manila and Metro Cebu• pollution of water sources

Air Quality• pollution remains a problem in Metro Manila and

major urban centers• on the level of suspended particulates (TSP), air

quality is not within standards

Waste and Toxic Chemicals• solid waste generation in Metro Manila is estimated at

5,345 tons per day• urbanization inevitably increased the use of chemicals• no integrated treatment facility for hazardous waste

Priority Policies and Programs

• Adoption of Sustainable Forest Management

• Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines and the Watersheds Code

• Various biodiversity acts

• Fisheries Code and AFMA

• Clean Air Act

Challenges and Priorities for Action

• Sustainable and more productive utilization of natural resources

• Focus and strengthen the protection of vulnerable and ecologically fragile areas

• Create healthier environment for the population• Mitigate the occurrence of natural disasters • Ensure environmental accountability for all

industries

CROSS-CUTTING CHALLENGES….

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Government Expenditure Program by Sector FY 2000-2005

Social Services Debt Service Economic Services General Public Services Defense

CROSSCUTTING CHALLENGES AND PRIORITIES FOR ACTION

Source: DBM, Budget of Expenditure and Sources of Financing

FINANCING THE MDGs

Sector/Year 2001 2002 2003 2004

Economic Services 15,982,070 45,484,830 52,853,500 58,700,890

(15%) (32%) (33%) (34%)Social Services 28,979,110 26,352,690 34,001,700 36,135,990

(27%) (19%) (21%) (21%)General Public Services 63,375,820 69,580,140 73,954,470 78,545,740

(58%) (49%) (46%) (45%)Total Public Expenditures 108,337,000 141,417,660 160,809,670 173,382,620

FINANCING THE MDGs

Distribution of Public Expenditures by Local Government UnitsBy Sector, 2001-2004 (in thousand pesos)

Source: DBM, Budget of Expenditure and Sources of Financing


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2001 2002 2003 2004

ODA Commitments by SectorFY 2001-2004 (US$ million)

Agriculture, agrarianreform and naturalresources

Governance andinstitutionsdevelopment

Infrastructuredevelopment

Social reform anddevelopment

Industry and services

Source: NEDA-PIS


FINANCING THE MDGs

CROSS-CUTTING CHALLENGES AND

PRIORITIES FOR ACTION• Reduce disparities across regions

• Increase resource allocation for MDG-related programs and projects

• Enforce full/stricter implementation of laws & ensure passage of MDG-supportive bills

• Strengthen monitoring and implementation

• Scale-up campaign for localization

• Develop an advocacy plan

• Intensify multisectoral partnership & collaboration

Facilitating Factors • Strong global support for MDGs by the United

Nations, ASEAN, and other multilateral organizations;

• Expanding national support among policymakers for MDGs (e.g., creation of the House Committee on MDGs, issuance of EO on the MDGs);

• Prioritization of MDGs in resource allocation (e.g., focusing of MTPIP investments on MDGs)

• Increasing awareness and participation of private sector, LGUs in MDG-related programs

Hindering Factors

• Resource constraints (i.e., MDG financing gap of about $1.5 billion yearly);

• Lack of support by creditors for the Debt for MDG Projects/Debt for Equity in MDG Projects initiative;

• Low budgetary priority for MDGs accorded by some LGUs; and

• Lack of disaggregated data to monitor MDGs at local levels.

Parallel Initiatives

Participation in the High-Level Plenary Meeting on MDGs

Formulation of the Plan of Action for Poverty Reduction (2006-2010)Enhance the current Poverty Reduction

Strategy and Program Framework

Advocacy for the Philippine proposal on Debt for Equity in MDG Projects

Implications on the Philippine Economy

MDG attainment would require:• Enhanced revenue generation;• LGU, private sector and civil society support;• Expansion of microfinance services for the poor;• Pursuit of projects with high economic impact;• Right-sizing the bureaucracy;• Privatization; and• Tapping OFW remittances.

Presented by: OIC-Director Cleofe S. Pastrana National Economic and Development Authority

Documents

Transcript of Presented by: OIC-Director Cleofe S. Pastrana National Economic and Development Authority