Since the Philippines first resolved to adopt the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), it has made encouraging strides, particularly towards the attainment of targets on reducing extreme poverty; child mortality; the incidence of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria; on improving gender equality in education; and improving households’ adequate dietary intake as well as access to safe drinking water.

Underpinning these gains are two facts. First, the MDGs have been tightly integrated into the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) 2004-2010, thus allowing government strategies, policies and action plans to simultaneously address national and MDG targets. Second, the government has continually and closely monitored its own rate of progress in MDG indicators, and used this information to fine-tune its planning and implementation, especially to ensure effective implementation at the local level.

Nevertheless, serious challenges and threats remain with regard to targets on maternal health, access to reproductive health services, nutrition, primary education and environmental sustainability. And glaring disparities across regions persist, as do severe funding constraints. The overall probability of attaining the targets remains high, though dependent largely on the confluence of several factors, among them: scaling up of current efforts on all target areas; more efficient synchronization and allocation of available limited resources, including mobilization of additional resources; and stronger advocacy for and enhanced capability to implement the MDGs at the local level.

Advocacy & Localization

Six major developments helped in this area: the issuance of the Social Development Committee (SDC) Resolution No. 1, series of 2003, expanding the functions and composition of the Multisectoral Committee on International Human Development Commitments; the designation of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) as lead agency for MDG localization; the provision of LGU localization guidelines; the MTPDP 2004-2010, which prioritized the MDGs; the Medium-Term Public Investment Program (MTPIP) 2005-2010, identifying investments per goal and target; and strong business sector, civil society and donor community support.

In government, advocacy efforts included: the House of Representatives’ creation of the Special Committee on the MDGs; the League of Municipalities and League of Barangays in the Philippines’ adoption of MDGs as governance framework; the National Statistical Coordination Board’s inclusion of MDGs in monitoring systems; and the National Anti-Poverty Commission and the National Commission for Culture and the Arts’ formation of MDG advocacy youth theater groups in the 28 poorest provinces. Business developed its own roadmap to meet the MDGs; civil society organizations redirected their projects and activities towards MDG achievement; and academe pitched in by holding workshops and fora on the goals.

Financing

Total government expenditures on social services from 2001-2004 showed an increasing absolute level, but its percentage share to the total national government expenditures varied: rising 27.5 percent in 2001 to 30 percent in 2002, slipping to 27.6 percent in 2003, and climbing to 44 percent in 2004. Data on LGU expenditures for social services also showed mixed results, as the levels declined from PhP28 billion (2001) to PhP26 billion (2002), then rose later to PhP36 billion (2004). Official development assistance (ODA) for social reform development has also fluctuated, from US$318.55 million (2002) to US$58.13 million (2004).

Included in the mix of strategies identified for MDG financing up to 2010 were: increasing tax collection and savings generation for added revenues; intensifying LGU, private sector and civil society support to cover funding gaps; expanding microfinance services for the poor; prioritizing high-economic-impact infrastructure projects; right-sizing the bureaucracy; and privatizing selected sectors.

Monitoring

While the Philippines ranked first among 11 Southeast Asian countries in terms of relative data availability on MDGs, much work remains to ensure more effective monitoring, especially in the availability of appropriately disaggregated data and functional institutional arrangements at the subnational level.

Work continued on the shift from the Social Development Management Information System (SOMIS) to the more user-friendly DevInfo software; the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) was designated MDG indicators repository, and together with data sources and other agencies, conducted an MDG indicators consultative meeting in 2004; and the Multisectoral Committee on International Human Development Commitments (MC-IHDC) chaired by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) was tasked with overall MDG monitoring, with lead agencies identified per area of concern. Civil society developed the Social Watch Monitoring System for small area levels.