Philippines

NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON INDICATORS
OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
5 June 1998, Manila, Philippines

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
(in cooperation with the National Economic and Development Authority -
Philippine Council for Sustainable Development)

FINAL REPORT

I. ORGANIZATION OF THE MEETING

1. The National Workshop on Indicators of Sustainable Development was jointly organized by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) - Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) at The Manila Galleria Suites, Philippines on 5 June 1998.

A. Attendance

2. Seventy-two participants representing various government agencies, the civil society, business and labor sectors, research institutions, statistical agencies and the academe attended the Workshop. In addition, representative from ESCAP and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) also attended the Workshop. A list of participants is attached in Annex 1.

B. Opening of the Workshop

3. Mr. Raphael Perpetuo M. Lotilla, Deputy Director General (DDG) of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and Coordinator of the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) welcomed the participants and acknowledged the presence of the representative of ESCAP. He recognized the importance of developing indicators of sustainable development and provided the participants with the background/rationale of the Workshop. The objectives, expected outputs and Workshop procedure were also explained.

4. The representative of ESCAP thanked the Government of the Philippines for its cooperation in organizing the Workshop and highlighted efforts of ESCAP in developing a network of countries which were testing the indicators of sustainable development in Asia and the Pacific.

5. Mr. Delfin J. Ganapin, Undersecretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, delivered a brief message. He noted that a large and wide participation in the workshop reflected the level of maturity in the Philippines in terms of willingness to measure sustainability of the development process in the country. He identified a number of issues that needed to be discussed, namely, (a) promoting wide acceptance for the indicators of sustainable development (ISDs); (b) developing acceptable procedure and involving credible institutions in the analysis of ISDs; and (c) developing a mechanism to bring in all relevant efforts such as environment and natural resource accounting into the indicator development process.

C. Designation of Officers

6. Deputy Director General Raphael P.M. Lotilla was designated as Chairperson of the Workshop in the morning session, while Mr. Dan Songco from the civil society as the chairperson for the afternoon session of the Workshop.

D. Adoption of the Agenda

7. The Workshop adopted the following agenda:

    I. Opening of the Workshop;

    II. Overview the global and regional efforts on indicators of sustainable development

    III. Results of the study on the formulation of indicators of sustainable development in the Philippines

    IV. Priority issues and dimensions for the selection of core set of indicators of sustainable development in the Philippines

    V. Matching of priority issues and dimensions with the indicators of sustainable development in the Philippines

    VI. Closing of the Workshop

    VII. Adoption of the report

II. OVERVIEW ON THE GLOBAL AND REGIONAL EFFORTS
ON INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

(Item 2 of the agenda)

8. Under this agenda item, the representative of ESCAP presented the diagnostic, monitoring, planning and implementation roles of indicators of sustainable development. In addition, an overview of the programme of work of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was provided, along with the regional and national efforts at the development and field testing of indicators of sustainable development.

9. The importance of having good information available for decision-makers was stressed, while noting the paradoxical situation that although information sources were proliferating at an astounding rate, decision-makers often found it difficult to obtain the right kind of information. It was stressed that indicators provide a means to bridge the information gap. However, it was also mentioned that although indicators had many advantages in terms of providing concerns and aggregated information, they also had various pitfalls that one needs to keep in mind while using them.

10. The criteria used in selecting the menu of indicators of the CSD and the process of consensus building that was used in selecting them was also described. The Driving Force-State-Response (DSR) framework was explained as a means of organizing the indicators and providing an appropriate analytical framework. The CSD work programme on indicators was explained, together with the current status of its implementation, including completion of the methodology sheets for each indicator that was contained in the publication, entitled "Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies". The various elements of the methodology sheets were also described in a concise manner.

11. Strong emphasis was placed on the methodology for actual selection of a core set of indicators at the national level. The difficulties in selecting issues and uses and in obtaining supporting data were explained. A case study was presented on the method used for selecting a menu of possible indicators suitable for the Asian and Pacific region in the document "Towards Indicators of Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific". It was pointed out that the menu was based on the regional priority issues reflected on the Regional Action Programme adopted by the Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia and the Pacific held in Bangkok in 1995.

12. The Workshop was also briefed with examples from various countries on how indicators can be used in practical planning and charting a course towards sustainable development. The case of Netherlands was elaborated where besides target setting, indicators were used to play a major role in forward planning process. Agreement on targets was accomplished through a national discussion and consensus on environmental problems involving all stakeholders, thus enabling the country to focus on decision-making and taking appropriate actions. Adoption of the life-cycle approach helped in defining problems at their source and identifying actors and organizations responsible for action. Based on this approach, themes (environmental problems) and target groups (economic sectors) were identified, leading to integrated and focused efforts at environmental protection.

III. RESULTS OF THE STUDY ON THE FORMULATION OF
INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES

(Item 3 of the agenda)

13. Under this agenda item, presentations were made and discussed on the efforts made towards indicators development under the Integrated Environmental Management for Sustainable Development (IEMSD) Programme. The IEMSD programme is jointly implemented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the National Economic and Development Authority with funding from the United Nations Development Programme. In particular, the study on the development of a national set of sustainable development indicators (SDIs) launched in March 1997, resulted in the publication of "A Sourcebook of Sustainable Development Indicators". The indicator set derived by the study was based on the existing sources including those available from CSD, ESCAP and other countries. The programme was reinforced with the initiation of ESCAP project on indicators of sustainable development and the undertaking was envisioned to establish a systematic way for monitoring and reporting on the state of the nation's development consistent with the concept of sustainability. The Philippine Council for Sustainable Development's (PCSD) policy of soliciting multistakeholder participation was applied throughout the conduct of the study. A total of 4 consultation workshops were conducted during the study and participated by government line agencies, academe, research institutions, and NGOs.

14. The specific objectives of the study were to: (a) review the literature on indicators of sustainable development, focusing on those that have been adopted and are already operational in other countries; (b) formulate a framework for a system of ISDs for the Philippines to assist in future monitoring of compliance with the Philippines Agenda 21; and (c) pilot test the proposed ISDs using recent data for the Philippines (1993 to 1995). For practical purposes, the indicators suggested by the study were limited to those based on readily available data or data that researchers felt should be part of the regular monitoring process of the government.

15. The criteria used in selecting the indicators for the Sourcebook were useful for policy and decision-making, feasibility, cost effectiveness, accuracy, reliability, timeliness and validity. The study adopted three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental and focused on growth with equity, peoples empowerment and maintenance of ecological integrity as the main issues.

16. The Philippine Agenda 21 which defines the action and intervention strategies at the level of ecosystems, was used to guide the selection of indicators. As a result, the study generated a subset of indicators for seven identified ecosystems and critical resources, namely: forest/upland ecosystem, agricultural/lowland ecosystem, urban ecosystem, coastal/marine ecosystem, freshwater ecosystem, minerals/mines, and biodiversity. Additional indicators on four other issues including: the domestic issues relating to the manufacturing sector, the energy sector and science and technology, plus the global climate change as an international issue were also added to the list. Moreover, indicators of well being were included as major determinants of the standard of living in the menu to reflect such aspects as productivity, unemployment and income distribution; and measures of the level of satisfaction of basic human needs such as education, health, housing, safe drinking water, sanitation and clean environment. Altogether, the study provided a menu of 153 indicators for the Philippines.

17. Besides identifying menu of indicators, the study highlighted areas for further work. It was suggested that the indicators selected for the menu by the study should be trimmed down to a more manageable level after further evaluation and screening by different government line agencies and stakeholders. The construction of indices was also recommended for aggregation so that the problem of managing the staggering number of proposed indicators could be simplified.

18. The Workshop noted that subsequent to the study, an experts workshop had been convened to guide the future work on indicators, particularly in formulating indices of sustainable development. That workshop recommended to continue work on filtering a core set of indicators from the menu of 153 indicators according to the three main components of sustainable development (economic, social and environment) and to proceed on the development of indices, using a combination of socio-economic index (human development index-HDI), an environmental quality index, and an overall index of sustainable development. As a result, 44 indicators were selected as basis for the construction of an index. The Workshop also proposed to formulate two indices for strong and weak sustainability. It was also recommended to pursue a research agenda to (a) streamline the framework for formulating the core set of indicators; (b) conduct a study on ecological integrity index; (c) improve the human development index by incorporating factors provided in the Philippines Agenda 21; and (d) explore the possibility of coming up with an index of sustainable development.

19. The Workshop noted that the previous work on indicators conducted in the Philippines and elsewhere provided very good basic materials for future work on indicators of sustainable development in the Philippines. It felt that the most important step towards selecting a core set of ISDs was the adoption of priority dimensions and issues for the Philippines.

IV. ADOPTION OF PRIORITY DIMENSIONS AND ISSUES

(Item 5 of the agenda)

20. Under this agenda item, the Workshop selected the various dimensions of sustainable development and adopted priority issues of concern for each dimension. The following dimensions were selected: (a) economic; (b) social/cultural; (c) ecological; and (d) institutional/political. The issues of priority concern adopted for each priority dimension were, as follows:

(1) Economic:
a) Equity in income and wealth
b) Growth/Sources of growth (technology, consumption e.g., energy, investment)
c) Productivity
d) Employment
e) Indebtedness

(2) Social/Cultural:
a) Education (Access, Quality, Literacy)
b) Health (Sanitation, Safe water, Malnutrition)
c) Housing
d) Population
e) Indigenous knowledge and practices
f) Cultural and Moral Values (Crime, Peace and Order, Prostitution, Drug Abuse)

(3) Ecological/Environmental:
a) Resource Depletion (for upland/forest, lowland/agricultural, urban, coastal/marine and freshwater ecosystems)
b) Ecosystem Degradation (for upland/forest, lowland/agricultural, urban, coastal/marine and freshwater ecosystems)
c) Pollution of air and water

(4) Political/Institutional
a) People Empowerment through multi-stakeholdership approach
b) Local Governance/Capacity Building/Financing
c) Resource Management Mechanisms

21. Following the plenary discussions and identification of issues, the workshop was divided into four working groups to discuss and identify the core indicators for areas/issues of priority concern.

22. The working groups were assigned the priority dimensions as follows:
a) Group I - economic
b) Group II - socio-cultural
c) Group III - ecological/environmental
d) Group IV - institutional/political

The working groups identified specific indicators that would match the respective issues of concern within the dimensions allocated to them. As a result of deliberations in the respective working groups, 21 indicators were identified for the economic dimension, 17 for socio-cultural, 33 for ecological/environmental and 9 for institutional/political dimension.  Annex 2 shows the detailed listing of these indicators.

23. The outcomes of the working groups' deliberations were presented to the Workshop, which felt that the exercise had resulted in extremely useful and a balanced set of indicators of sustainable development in terms of dimensions of sustainable development. It was pointed out, however, that these needed further refinement in terms of indicators framework highlighting driving force, state and response indicators to enable the identification of root causes of deteriorating state and development of appropriate response strategies. The Workshop also made recommendations on institutional capacity building and human resources development. Institutional support to build capabilities of agencies in data collection, compilation and analysis, was advocated along with training for the development of skills in the use of indicators.

V. CLOSING OF THE WORKSHOP

24. Mr. Cielito F. Habito, Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority and Chairperson, Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), delivered the closing remarks. He expressed his gratification and appreciation for the active participation of all stakeholders in making the Workshop a success. He also thanked the Chairs of the plenary and working group sessions for effectively steering the discussions. He acknowledged the cooperation and generous support extended by ESCAP and the Government of Netherlands in organizing the workshop. In conclusion, he emphasized the need for continued work on ISDs in the Philippines not only to serve the national interest but also to make contribution towards global efforts to achieve sustainable development.

VI. ADOPTION OF REPORT

25. The Workshop adopted its report on 5 June 1998.

ANNEX 1

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (ESCAP)
PHILIPPINE COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (PCSD)

NATIONAL CONSULTATION WORKSHOP ON
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS
Manila Galleria Suites
5 June 1998

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Usec. Delfin Ganapin
Mr. Robert Jara

DENR- Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau
Ms. Teresita T. Blastigue

Department of Interior and Local Government
Mr. Manuel Gotis

Department of Science and Technology - Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development
Dr. Segundino Foronda
Dr. Beatriz del Rosario
Dr. Rogelio Serrano

Department of Education, Culture and Sports
Ms. Lourdes Macatangay
Mr. Remedio Tagubo
Ms. Carmelita M. Cristobal
Mr. Walfredo Afunggol

Department of Labor Employment (DOLE)
Ms. Baby Fernando
Dir. Hector Morada

Department of Foreign Affairs
Ms. Elaine Verano
Ms. Marivic Gaverza

Department of Trade and Industry
Mr. Raul Angeles

Department of Social Welfare and Development
Dir. Maria Loreto Padua

Department of Public Works and Highways
Mr. Rolando Aujero

Department of Energy
Ms. Claire Cabacang

Department of Health
Engr. Rosemarie Tuazon

Department of Finance
Ms. Vicky Mendoza
Mr. Herminio C. Runas. Jr.

Department of National Defense
Ms. Delia N. Folloso

Department of Budget Management
Ms. Fe Canillas

Department of Agriculture (DA) - Bureau of Agricultural Statistics
Asst. Dir. Domingo Lingbauan

DA-Bureau of Soil and Water Management
Ms. Cristy Perlado

Commission on Population
Ms. Delia D. Josef
Mr. Ronnie Oblepias

National Statistical Coordination Board
Ms. Sylvia de Perio

National Statistics Office
Dr. Margarita Guerrero

Laguna Lake Development Authority
Ms. Dolora Nepomuceno

Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
Com. Roque Arieta Magno

PHILDRRA
Ms. Ging Lopez

COCAP
Ms. Ester Perez de Tagle
Mr. Ernesto Ellis, Jr.

CODE-NGO
Mr. Danilo Songco

Center for Alternative Development Initiatives
Ms. Lyndon Badilla

Earth Savers Movement
Mr. Roger Birosel

CADENET
Ms. Marilou Capucao

Women's Action Network for Development
Ms. Karen Tanada

Aniban ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura
Mr. Francisco Baltazar

BIGKIS LAKAS-FS
Mr. Rafael Olivera

National Union of Tribal Democrats
Mr. Cayetano Ricafente
Ms. Lourdes Ricafrente

Environmental Broadcast Circle
Ms. Elizabeth Roxas

Lingkod Tao Kalikasan
Sister Aida Velasquez
Dr. Juanita Manalo

Trade Union Congress of the Philippines
Mr. Luis Corral

University of the Philippines - Marine Science Institute
Dr. Ma. Antoinette Menez

Development Academy of the Philippines
Mr. Edgar Callanta

Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies
Dr. Mariane delos Angeles

Philippine Institute for Development Studies
Ms. Arlene B. Inocencio

Philippine Business for Social Progress
Ms. Eden Garde

United Nations Development Program
Mr. Jorge Reyes

Integrated Environmental Management for Sustainable Development Project
Dr. Candido Cabrido
Mr. Floradema C. Eleazar

National Economic and Development Authority
Deputy Director General Raphael Perpetuo M. Lotilla
Assistant Director General Ofelia M. Templo
Director Narcisa R. Umali
Assistant Director Ma. Lourdes M. Lagarde
Assistant Director Felizardo Virtucio
Ms. Wena Martin Chan

Civil Society Counterpart for Sustainable Development
Ms. Lilian Jimenez

United Nations - Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
Mr. Aslam Khan

NEDA- PCSD Secretariat
Ms. Anita A. Jose
Ms. Liberty S. Guinto
Ms. Ma. Lourdes T. Sempio
Ms. Veronica G. Arao
Ms. Joan dV. Camacho
Ms. Luisa L. Jolongbayan
Mr. Marvin O. Sayo
Ms. Gemma Triunfante
Mr. Lore Aguilar

.

ANNEX 2

DETAILED LISTING OF ISDs

I. ECONOMIC

1. Equity in income and wealth
a. Gini coefficient
    (i) urban vs. rural
    (ii) rich vs. poor
    (iii) men vs. women

2. Growth/Sources of growth
a. GNP
b. Number of research and development (R & D) personnel
c. Genuine savings ratio
d. GDP elasticity
e. Environmentally-adjusted NDP
f. Incidence of poverty

3. Productivity
a. Ownership of agricultural land
b. GVA per worker per sector
c. Rice production per unit land
d. Energy intensity
e. Income ratio by source of income

4. Employment
a. Employment rate
b. Unemployment rate
c. Employment distribution according to gender
d. Occupational health and safety standards violations
e. Wage rate
    (i) male
    (ii) female

5. Indebtedness
a. Debt service ratio
b. Debt to equity ratio
c. Debt to foreign exchange earnings ratio
d. Savings rate

II. SOCIAL/CULTURAL

1. Education
a. No. of barangays without complete elementary schools
b. No. of towns/districts without secondary schools
c. Cohort graduation rate
d. Drop-out rate

2. Health
a. Incidence of malnutrition, male and female
b. Percentage (%) population with access to health services
c. % population with access to safe water
d. % population with access to sanitation
e. Incidence of environmentally-related diseases

3. Housing
a. Housing by ownership status

4. Population
a. Population growth rate
b. Urban-rural distribution
c. Dependency ratio

5. Indigenous knowledge and practices (IKPs)
a. Rate of survival of IKPs

6. Values (moral and cultural)
a. Crime rate
b. Incidence of street children
c. Extent of religiosity

III. ECOLOGICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL

1. Resource depletion
a. upland/forest
    (i) Total forest cover by type (area)
    (ii) Rate of conversion to other land uses
    (iii) Forest products yield (amount)
    (iv) Introduced species (number)
b. Iowland/agricultural
    (i) Land use distribution by type (area and use)
    (ii) Land conversion
    (iii) Crop yield per unit area (amount)
    (iv) Introduced species (number)
c. urban
    (i) Open spaces (area)
d. coastal/marine
    (i) Fish catch per unit effort (amount of catch/species)
    (ii) Fish yield of resident species (amount of catch per residence)
e. freshwater
    (i) Introduced species (number)

2. Ecosystem degradation
a. upland/forest
    (i) Patchiness of forest cover
    (ii) Soil erosion (amount and area covered)
    (iii) Total forest cover by type (area)
b. Iowland/agricultural
    (i) Rate of soil erosion (amount and area covered)
c. urban
    (i) Air pollutant emission (tons/year)
    (ii) Solid/liquid waste (tons/year)
    (iii) Population density
    (iv) Rate of blighted areas
d. coastal/marine
    (i) Live coral cover
    (ii) Total seagrass cover
    (iii) Total mangrove cover
    (iv) Incidence of the use of destructive fishing methods
e. freshwater
    (i) Incidence of fish kills
    (ii) Natural carrying capacity of freshwater bodies

3. Pollution of air and water
    (i) Total load of air/water pollutants (tons/year)
    (ii) Number and magnitude of oil spills (area covered and volume of 
    oil spill)
    (iii) Incidence and degree of algal bloom
    (iv) Incidence of fish kills
    (v) Amount of chemical fertilizer used
    (vi) Sedimentation
    (vii) Sources of pollution

IV. POLITICAL/INSTITUTIONAL

1. People empowerment thru multi-stakeholdership approach
    a. Percentage (%) of functional councils, committees that are
    multi-stakeholder in composition
    b. % of membership of functional CSOs accredited/registered
    c. Level of awareness on sustainable development/PA 21 (survey
     instruments)

2. Local governance/Capacity building/Financing
    a. % funding for above formations of multi-stakeholders
       (i) % GAA (national)
       (ii) % IRA (local)
       (iii) % level of investments (business/private)
    b. Number of HRD activities for sectoral agencies and members
    c. Public consultations conducted and attended

3. Resource management mechanisms
    a. Geographical presence/coverage of RMC mechanisms
    b. Number and susbstance of resolutions, plans and ordinances
    passed supporting SD/PA 21
    c. Effectiveness of mechanisms in achieving desired targets/%
    accomplishments
       (i) conservation
       (ii) sustainable use
       (iii) equity

 Minimum List of SDIs (IEMSD Programme)

1. Real GDP per worker
2. Real GNI per capita
3. Ratio of conventional NDP to modified NDP by sector/industry
4. "Genuine" savings rate
5. Population growth rate
6. Dependency ratio
7. Incidence of poverty, urban-rural distribution
8. Gini concentration ratios
9. Unemployment rate
10. Employment rate
11. % population with access to health services
12. % population with access to safe water
13. % population with access to sanitation
14. Adult literacy rate
15. Incidence of malnutrition
16 Housing by ownership status
17. Housing by type
18. Squatter density
20. Agriculture land use by type
21. Soil erosion
22. Crop yield
23. Concentration of air pollutants at selected cities
24. % solid waste properly disposed in selected cities
25. Concentration of water pollutants at selected water bodies
26. Coral reefs and coral cover: status or condition
27. Seagrass beds: status or condition
28. Mangrove cover
29. Fishery stocks in selected fishing grounds
30. Oil spills: number and magnitude
31. Incidence of red tide
32. Water quality of selected freshwater bodies (major rivers and lakes)
33. Fish stocks in selected freshwater bodies
34. Ratio of mining area rehabilitated against total mining area
35. Ratio of size of impounding dams to mine tailings
36. Number of threatened flora and fauna species
37. Land conversion of Protected Areas
38. Ratio of Protected habitats to total land area
39. % contribution to air pollution (energy)
40. % indigenous vs. imported energy sources
41. Water supply vs. demand (demand-supply gap)
42. Groundwater pollution
43. Quantity of CFCs imported
44. Incidence of El Niņo Phenomenon

                                                                                                                       Attachment 1

PCSD-ESCAP
National Testing of Sustainable Development Indicators
for the Philippines

PRELIMINARY INDICATORS FOR TESTING
(based on 10 December meeting of the Task Force)

Land Use
1. land conversion rate
2. soil erosion
3. reforestration

Water Use/Quality
4. water consumption
5. water pollution at selected waterbodies/aquifers

Air Quality
6. Air pollution at selected cities

Urban
7. GINI coefficient
8. Dependency ratio
9. Population by age
10. Population density
11. Percentage population with access to safe water
12. Percentage population with access to sanitation
13. Solid waste (tons/year)
14. Liquid waste (tons/year)
15. Vehicle density

Others

16. RGI (responsible governance index)
17. ICI (institutional capability index)
18. HDI (human development index)

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF PRIORITY SDIs

1. Ecosystems based
Since the PA 21 defines the action and intervention strategies at the level of ecosystems/critical resources, selection of SDIs should be aligned along this manner to aid in future monitoring of compliance with PA 21.

2. Ten year data points available
Due to the intertemporal aspects of the sustainable development issue, the SDIs must be calculated using time series data (in this respect, 10-year data points).

3. Found in the Philippine Economic, Environment and Natural Resource Accounting
(PEENRA) System
E.O. 406 mandates the institutionalization of the PEENA System which will generate macro-indicators that shall reflect the relationships and interactions between the natural environment and the economy and to support other data needs of SD planning.

4. Relevant to PA 21 and/or other SD-related programs
The indicators are meant primarily for monitoring progress in the implementation of PA 21 and other SD-related programs.

5. Pressure-State-Response (PSR) Indicators
The indicators are classified into pressure, state or response indicators to distinguish among them which are cause, effect or social response factors. This information will be considered in the analysis of the trends shown by the indicators.

6. Selected indicators should show dramatic trends
Indicators will be considered as "good" if they show significant changes as a likely result of the implementation of SD interventions.

7. Concrete, easily understood by laymen and policy makers
It is envisioned that policy makers will make use of these indicators to aid them in planning, programming and decision-making processes. As such, ordinary people should also grasp the idea on why these policies are passed.

8. Useful for international comparison
The indicators should lend themselves to assessment of the global progress in pursuit of SD.

Report submitted by Philippines to the Fourth International Workshop on the CSD Indicators of Sustainable Development
Hosted by the Government of the Czech Republic,
in Prague from 19-21 January 1998

TESTING OF THE UN COMMISSION ON
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (UN/CSD)
INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Background

The Philippines first participated in a workshop on sustainable development indicators (SDIs) during the Regional Consultative Meeting on Environmentally Sound and Sustainable Development Indicators and the Workshop on Field Testing of Indicators organized by ESCAP which was held in Bangkok last 26-29 November 1996. The objective of the said workshop was to accelerate the process of development of SDIs and to contribute to the global efforts being put forth by the UNCSD.

Following this regional workshop, the Philippines in early 1997 indicated its interest to become a testing country for the CSD indicators of sustainable development. It likewise sought assistance from ESCAP to undertake the national testing. Administrative arrangements are being finalized for this purpose.

Philippine Initiatives on SDI Development

Even as the Philippines has not yet formally undertaken the testing process, work was underway as early as September 1996 on the development of a national set of SDIs. The UNDP-funded Integrated Environmental Management for Sustainable Development (IEMSD) Programme commissioned a study on the formulation of sustainable development indicators. The objectives of the study are: (1) to review the literature on SDIs focusing on those which have been adopted and are already operational in other countries; (2) to formulate a framework for a system of SDIs in the Philippines to aid in the monitoring of compliance with Philippine Agenda 21; and (3) to pilot test the proposed SDIs using recent Philippine data.

In the course of the study, a series of consultations and workshops were conducted involving the Government, academe, research institutions and the NGOs. The PCSD mechanism, through its various committees and subcommittees, was likewise utilized in validating the list of SDIs as well as in soliciting comments and suggestions on the study report itself.

The final report of the study will be a sourcebook on SDIs. It is now on its final stages of printing and contains five major sections. Section I proves a brief introduction on the objectives of the study and the organization of the report. Section II reviews the concepts of sustainable development, providing clarifications on the definitions of economic development, economic growth, and sustainable development.

Sustainable development indicators in practice are discussed in Section III. Previous studies on environmental accounting, environmental indicators and environmental quality indices and relevant applications to the Philippines are presented. Section IV presents the proposed set of indicators for the Philippines while future directions for work are suggested in Section V.

The suggested list of SDIs for the Philippines, numbering about 153, was classified into the following:

The study likewise identified a number of criteria in the selection of indicators. These include: relevance and usefulness for policy-making and decision-making, specifically for monitoring Philippine Agenda 21; reliability; feasibility; cost effectiveness; accuracy; and timeliness and validity.

For some of the indicators identified in the report, the study also contains an annex which lists the sources of the basic data in calculating the indicator, references in which the data are published, the unit of measurement of the data, the frequency of data collection, the period over which the data is available, and some description of the data. It was noted that the data source is usually a government agency in charge of collecting or compiling the data. References are either government publications or reports or special studies.

An annex containing a matrix of several SDIs in the pressure-state-response framework is also included in the report.

Next Steps

The "Sourcebook on SDIs" borne out of the IEMSD programme is a good reference material for carrying out future work, including national testing. A workplan for the national testing has been prepared by the PCSD Secretariat. The workplan, with an indicative budget, covers the following activities: organization, implementation, evaluation, and reporting. The Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), a multistakeholder body, shall serve as the coordinating mechanism for the national testing.

For the organization phase, a preliminary list of agencies and institutions has been identified to constitute the Technical Working Group (TWG) composed mainly of data sources and users. These include PCSD member-agencies from Government, civil society, labor and business, PCSD Committee and Subcommittee chairs, other government agencies, statistical agencies, private sector, academic/scientific community/research institutes, and UN agencies.

For the implementation and evaluation phases, the preliminary set of SDIs identified in the study will be the subject of review by the TWG. It is envisioned that the Philippine Agenda 21, which is considered as the national agenda for sustainable development, will be used as basis for identifying priority issues. As may be noted, the study has, to some extent, already assessed the availability of the data, including data sources and frequency. What needs to be done are: (1) to identify a core set of indicators; (2) to match priority issues with the indicators; (3) identify whether there is a need to generate new data/indicator not yet available to respond to the priority issues identified. For this purpose, the cost of producing/generating the data/indicator should also be assessed vis-ā-vis its usefulness; and (4) institute a mechanism for the regular/periodic monitoring and assessment of PA 21 implementation. In relation to the latter, the UNDP-funded IEMSD Programme commissioned in the middle of 1997 a group of consultants to design a monitoring, reporting and evaluation system for Philippine Agenda 21.

For more information, please contact:

Mr. Raphael Perpetuo M.Lotilla
Deputy Director-General, NEDA
Coordinator, Philippine Council for Sustainable Development
NEDA sa Pasig Building
Amber Avenue, Pasig
Metro Manila 1600, Philippines
Tel. no.: (63-2) 631-2187
Fax no.: (63-2) 633-6011
E-mail: rml@nedamis.neda.gov.ph