 |
 |
|||
 |
|
|||
| |
|
|||
|
|
|||
Statistically Speaking
THE MDGs: WILL THE PHILIPPINES MAKE IT? 
by Dr. Romulo A. Virola 1
Secretary General, NSCB
Last month, this writer made a presentation on the Millennium Development Goals during a special briefing for the media hosted by the NEDA. The PowerPoint presentation materials were prepared by Minard T. Reyes, the 2005 recipient of the NSCB Most Promising New Employee Award.
As you maybe aware, the Philippines is a signatory to the UN Millennium Declaration adopted during the Millennium Summit in September 2000. With a timeline from 1990 to 2015, we committed to pursue the attainment of 8 major goals and 18 targets based on 48 indicators, as embodied in the Millennium Declaration.
The Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan has recognized this global development agenda and the NEDA has been tasked to coordinate the monitoring of the MDGs. So far, the NEDA has spearheaded the preparation of two Philippine Progress Reports. In support of this mandate, the NSCB has been designated as the repository of the MDG indicators, thru NSCB Resolution No. 10-2004. In collaboration with the UN Country Team, the NSCB has thus been actively providing the data support in the monitoring of the MDGs in the Philippines. In addition, the NSCB has been promoting the localization of the MDGs through our Regional Divisions, located in 10 of the 17 regions of the country.
The goals and targets are quite formidable especially for developing countries like the Philippines. The big question, therefore, is will we have the wherewithal to achieve them by 2015? Let us see what Minard's statistics say.
By comparing the actual pace of progress that we have achieved so far with the required pace of progress that we need to attain the targets, one gets a glimpse of the chances that the targets will be met. If the actual rate of progress is less than half of the required, we consider the probability of attaining the target by 2015 to be low. If the ratio is between 0.5 and 0.9, we assess the chances of meeting the targets to be medium; and if the ratio is greater than 0.9, the probability of attaining the target is considered high.
Based on this measurement tool, what are the MDG prospects for the Philippines?
For goals 1, 3 and 4, namely, eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women and reduction of child mortality, respectively, we seem to be doing okay.
For example, on the proportion of the population below the poverty line, the target is to reduce this from 45.3% in 1991 to 22.7% in 2015. According to the latest official data from the NSCB, the proportion of the poor population has gone down to 30.4% by 2003, midway through the timeline for the MDGs and ahead of the target. Unfortunately, Eastern Asia and the Developing Regions in general, have not done as well 2 . Let us therefore work together to ensure that we will continue to improve by at least the same rate we have achieved for the last twelve years.
As is already known by most, thanks to the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW) and the many advocates for gender equity, the Philippines does relatively well in gender-related concerns (Goal 3). We have done better than Southern Asia, South-Eastern Asia and the Developing Regions, in general 3. For instance, we have met the target of a 100% ratio of literate females to literate males between 15 and 24 years old as early as 2000. Come to think of it, we come from Pilipinas , not Pilipinos, don't we?
We are likewise doing well in Goal 4 on the reduction of under five mortality rate (U5MR) and infant mortality rate (IMR). From 80 children dying under five years of age and 57 infant deaths (before reaching one year of age) per thousand live births in 1990, we have succeeded in reducing these to 40 and 29, respectively, as of 2003. These are solid achievements when compared to the targets of at most 27 U5 and 19 infant deaths by 2015. However, we have suffered setbacks in the immunization of children against measles, the proportion deteriorating even, from close to 78% in 1990 to 76% in 2003!
In addition, we have succeeded in reducing both the prevalence rate and the death rate associated with malaria. We are also on target in increasing the proportion of households with access to safe water supply from 73% in 1990 to 80% in 2002; as well as in increasing the proportion of households with sanitary toilet facilities from 68% in 1990 to 86% in 2002.
With respect to developing a global partnership for development (Goal 8), our efforts to manage our debt have reduced the debt service burden from 27 % to below 14% of exports of goods and services between 1990 and 2004. On the target of making available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications, we have also done well, having raised the number of subscribers per 100 population from 1.5 in 1990 to 8.1 in 2003 for landline telephones and from 0.06 in 1991 to 27.8 in 2003 for cellular phones.
For the other MDGs, however, we have to do catch-up work.
We lag behind in another DOH-concern, that of reducing maternal mortality rate and in ensuring that all births are attended by skilled health personnel (Goal 5). The irony of this is that while we have not been quite able to provide the health care needed by our own mothers and mothers-to-be, our doctors, nurses and caregivers are all over the world attending to the health needs of others!
Under Goal 6, we still have too many deaths associated with tuberculosis although we are close to meeting the target of reducing the prevalence rate. In a span of 8 years, we have only marginally cut the number of deaths per 100,000 population, from 39 in 1990 to still more than 37 in 1998. Hello, DOH!
On ensuring environmental sustainability (Goal 7), we have in fact, suffered reversal in increasing the proportion of households with access to secure tenure in housing, from 91% in 1990 down to 81% in 2000. And while we have increased the share of our land area covered by forest from 20.5% in 1990 to 23.9% in 2003, other countries have much higher shares: 58% for Indonesia, 30.2% for Vietnam, 52.9% for Cambodia, 28.9% for Thailand, 58.7% for Malaysia and 64% for Japan! Indeed, what have we done to our forests?
But the saddest thing is that on the goal of achieving universal primary education (Goal 2), we are way behind the targets. After 12 years, we have managed to increase net enrolment ratio in primary education from 85% in 1991 to only 90% in 2003. And the proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach grade 6 barely progressed from over 68% in 1991 to less than 70% in 2003. This forebodes a tsunami of disasters in our fight for survival amidst the frenzied globalization and fierce competition that characterize the trade in goods and services among the knowledge-based economies of the Third Millennium. What is the future of our youth? How can they compete against their peers from other nations, they who are fully armed with useful information as they face the challenges and opportunities of the present and the future? Anong gagawin natin, Kakanta? Unfortunately for us, neither the Third, the Fourth nor the Fifth Millennium will be searching for a Star in a Million! Let us hope the DepEd rises to the challenge!
Admittedly, this monitoring tool is neither perfect nor exact. Nonetheless, it tells us something about the extent of work that needs to be done between now and 2015. Work that should be done by all of us! Government and Private sectors together! Including civil society!
Note:
In the November Statistically Speaking article, The Population Census: The Young, The Old and Your Business, I wrote…..As of the latest (2000) Census, for every 100 Pinoys , about 5 are infants, 38 are children between two and 17 years of age, 51 are between 18 and 59 years of age, 2 are in the retirable ages between 60 and 64, 3 are hopefully enjoying their retirement years between 65 and 80, and less than 1 belongs to the group at least as old as our octogenarian lolo/lola .
Dr. M. A. Hitalia of DOH CHD Western Visayas, correctly points out that “there are less than 3 infants per 100 Pinoys ”. In my article, I wrongly called infants those children below two years of age, of which there are 5 for every 100 Pinoys. As Dr. Hitalia clarified, the standard definition is that infants refer to children under 1 year of age.
The technically correct statement therefore, is… As of the latest (2000) Census, for every 100 Pinoys , less than 3 are infants, about two are children at least one year of age but below two, 38 are children at least two years of age but below 17, 51 are at least 18 years of age but below 59, 2 are at least of retirable age 60 but below 64, 3 are hopefully enjoying their retirement years from age 65 to below 80, and less than 1 belongs to the group at least as old as our octogenarian lolo/lola .
I stand corrected and thanks Dr. Hitalia.
Reactions and views are welcome thru email to the author at ra.virola@nscb.gov.ph.
_______________
1 Secretary General of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) and Chairman of the Statistical Research and Training Center (SRTC). He holds a Ph. D. in Statistics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, USA and has taught mathematics and statistics at the University of the Philippines. He is also a past president of the Philippine Statistical Association.
2 MDG Info 2005: The Millennium Development Goals Report 2005, United Nations Statistics Division, www.unstats.un.org
Posted 09 January 2006.
NSCB Resolution No. 10-2004 - Adoption of and Enjoining Data Support to the Millennium Development Goals Indicators
Statistically Speaking... The Population Census: The Young, The Old and Your Business
 |
  |
 |
||||||
  E-mail the webmaster |
Terms of Use |
Home • Top of Page | ||||||
1997-2008,
National Statistical Coordination Board |
||||||||