NSCB - Statistically Speaking...MDGs: Mga Dapat Gawin… Natin! By Dr. Romulo A. Virola

MDGs: Mga Dapat Gawin… Natin!
by Dr. Romulo A. Virola ¹
Secretary General, NSCB

MDGs: Mga Dapat Gawin… Natin! Last Saturday, Puerto Princesa Underground River has been officially included in the list of the New Seven Wonders of Nature² – after our religious texting and online voting… And yesterday, Pacquiao (ang ating “Pambansang Kamao”) beat Marquez in their third match against each other, notwithstanding post-fight controversies/intrigues… Certainly, goals that were achieved with determination and hard work, among others.

In September 2000, the Philippines was one of the signatories in the UN Millennium Declaration, which embodies specific goals/targets in eliminating extreme poverty worldwide. Eleven years after the Declaration – how much progress are we making in terms of the attainment of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)?

Last month, the Philippine government, through the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), and the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) co-hosted two important events relative to the monitoring of the MDGs. These are the 20th Meeting of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group (IAEG) on MDG Indicators and the 2nd International Conference on MDG Statistics (ICMDGS) last 17-18 October and 19-21 October 2011, respectively.

The hosting of the twin international events on MDG statistics was made possible through the International Commitments Fund (ICF) managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). Additional funding support were also provided by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF-Philippines), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP-Philippines), and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) through the Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics (BLES).

Funding assistance to country participants of the 2nd ICMDGS was provided by the UNSD, EU-ASEAN Statistical Capacity Building (EASCAB) Programme, through the ASEANstats, and the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

The Conference brought together representatives from national agencies (particularly from statistical agencies), international agencies/organizations, media, among others. Participants include the following:

27 representatives from 21 countries from the Asia and the Pacific region, Africa, South and West Asia, Europe, and America;³
27 representatives from UN Agencies, Regional Commissions and other International Organizations;⁴ and
At least 28 local participants and observers.

The 2nd ICMDGS reviewed the MDG monitoring strategies in place and proposed recommendations for improved monitoring approaches, aimed at reaching/helping countries which are lagging behind in terms of mechanisms/strategies on monitoring the MDGs.⁵ During the Conference, there were six technical sessions, including a session on country reviews towards the achievement of the MDGs.

This year marks four years after the 1st ICMDGS and four years before the 2015 deadline. It is high time to ask, in terms of attaining the MDGs, where is the Philippines now?

In the Philippines, to help track progress in the attainment of these Goals, the NSCB, as the coordinator of the PSS and in accordance with NSCB Resolution Number 10, Series of 2004, Adoption of and Enjoining Data Support to the Millennium Development Goals Indicators, serves as the official repository of data on the Philippine MDG indicators⁶.

To assess the progress of the country’s attainment of the MDGs, the NSCB regularly computes for the country’s pace of progress⁷. In the computation of the pace of progress, the NSCB seeks to provide answers on how we performed in the past years, how we should perform to reach the targets and what is the probability of achieving the target. To respond to these questions, the NSCB is computing for the probability of achieving the targets of the MDG indicators – whether high (i.e., probability greater than 0.9), medium (i.e., probability between 0.5 and 0.9), or low (i.e., probability less than 0.5).⁸

The NSCB also generates time distance measures, as introduced by Prof. Pavle Sicherl of the University of Ljubljana, to determine the time lead in years (i.e., progress is ahead the path to target) or time lag in years (i.e., progress is behind the path to target).

Let’s take a look on the Philippines’ progress⁹ in terms of achieving the MDGs

Goal 1. Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger

smiley15 From a “low” probability of halving prevalence of underweight children under 5 years of age in 1998, this improved to “medium” by 2008! (Table 1)

In 2008, the Philippines is 6.0 years behind the path to target. This means that the performance of the Philippines in terms of halving prevalence of underweight children under 5 years of age in 2008 should have been our performance 6.0 years ago! (Figure 1)

smiley15 On the proportion of population living below the official poverty thresholds, from a “high” probability of achieving the target in 2003, this has gone down to a “medium” probability in 2006. With a very slight increase in poverty incidence among population between 2006 and 2009, the probability in 2009 remained “medium”! (Table 1)

In 2009, the Philippines is 8.4 years behind the path to target. This means that the performance of the Philippines in terms of halving poverty incidence among population in 2009 should have been our performance 8.4 years ago! (Figure 1)

We say that the overarching concern of our government is poverty reduction… However, despite all the noble MDG efforts to halve poverty by 2015, unacceptably many people continue to live in poverty. Parang may mali, don’t you think?

smiley1 Between 2005 and 2008, the proportion of households with per capita energy less than 100% adequacy increased; hence, from a “high” probability of achieving the target in 2005, this has gone down to a “low” probability in 2008. (Table 1)

In 2008, the Philippines is 10.6 years behind the path to target. This means that the performance of the Philippines in terms of halving the proportion of households with per capita energy less than 100% adequacy in 2008 should have been our performance 10.6 years ago! (Figure 1)

Goal 2. Achieve Universal Primary Education

smiley1 The country’s progress in terms of achieving MDG 2 shows a definitive deterioration of the country’s human capital!¹⁰( Table 2)

In terms of achieving the targets on education, the Philippines is behind the target by: (Figure 1)

Net enrolment ratio in primary education - 17.2 years;
Proportion of pupils starting Grade I who reach Grade VI ¹¹ - 8.5 years;
Primary completion rate - 10.2 years; and
Literacy rate of 15 to 24 years old - 9.1 years.

After 21 years, we are still way behind the targets on education! Paano na ang kinabukasan ng ating mga kabataan --- na sinasabi nating pag-asa ng ating bayan? How can they compete against their peers from other nations, especially now in an era of knowledge-based economies? Maybe it’s about time to more intensely develop real and many Pinoy Henyos from our youth? We sincerely hope our friends from the Department of Education (DepEd), Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) will more aggressively heed the call trumpeted by these statistics!

Goal 3. Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women

green Eliminating gender disparity in primary education and share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector have “high” probabilities of achieving the target! (Table 3)

smiley1 Gender disparities in terms of participation of girls and boys in secondary education is still expected to persist until 2015! (Table 3) And in this case, ang mga kababaihan ang nakakalamang sa mga kalalakihan! Women power in full force?

smiley1 On the proportion of seats held by women in national parliament, it has “low” probability of achieving the target by 2015. (Table 3)

Goal 4. Reduce Child Mortality

green Targets of reducing by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five and infant mortality rates (U5MR and IMR, respectively) have “high” probabilities of being achieved! (Table 4)

In 2008, the Philippines is 3.5 and 3.9 years behind the path to targets on U5MR and IMR, respectively. This means that the performance of the Philippines in terms of reducing by two-thirds U5MR and IMR in 2008 should have been our performance 3.5 and 3.9 years ago, respectively! (Figure 1)

smiley1 There’s consistently “low” probability of having all 1-year old children immunized against measles! (Table 4)

In 2008, the Philippines is 16.6 years behind the path to target. This means that the performance of the Philippines in terms of having all 1-year old children immunized against measles in 2008 should have been our performance 16.6 years ago! (Figure 1)

Goal 5. Improve Maternal Health

smiley1 There’s “low” probability of reducing by three-quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio! (Table 5) While mothers are expected to take care of our children --- are we in turn taking care of mothers/mothers-to-be?

smiley15 The probability of achieving the target of increasing the proportion of births attended by skilled personnel has improved from “low” to “medium”! (Table 5)

In 2008, the Philippines is 8.8 years behind the path to target. This means that the performance of the Philippines in terms of having births attended by skilled personnel in 2008 should have been our performance 8.8 years ago! (Figure 1)

Goal 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other Diseases

green The goal of reversing the incidence of malaria has a “high” probability of achieving the target! (Table 6)

In 2008, the Philippines is 4.2 years ahead the path to target on prevalence associated with malaria. This means that the target performance of the Philippines in terms of reversing the prevalence associated with malaria in 2012 have already been achieved in 2008! (Figure 1)

In 2006,the Philippines is 5.4 years ahead the path to target on death associated with malaria. This means that the target performance of the Philippines in terms of reversing deaths associated with malaria in 2011 have already been achieved in 2006! (Figure 1)

smiley1 There is a “low” probability of achieving the targets on decreasing prevalence and death rates associated with tuberculosis. (Table 6)

In 2008, the Philippines is 18.8 years behind the path to target on prevalence associated with tuberculosis. This means that the performance of the Philippines in terms of reversing the prevalence associated with tuberculosis in 2008 should have been our performance 18.8 years ago! (Figure 1)

In 2006, the Philippines is 10.0 years behind the path to target on death associated with tuberculosis. This means that the performance of the Philippines in terms of reversing deaths associated with tuberculosis in 2006 should have been our performance 10.0 years ago! (Table 6)

green There is a “high” probability of achieving the targets on increasing the proportion of tuberculosis cases detected under directly observed treatment short course (DOTS) and proportion of tuberculosis cases cured under DOTS. (Table 6)

In 2008, the Philippines is 8.7 years ahead the path to target on proportion of tuberculosis cases detected under DOTS. This means that the target performance of the Philippines in terms of increasing the proportion of tuberculosis cases detected under DOTS in 2015/2016 have already been achieved in 2008! (Figure 1)

Goal 7. Ensure Environmental Sustainability

green Ensuring environmental sustainability in the Philippines is “highly” achievable! (Table 7)

Goal 8. Develop a Global Partnership for Development

green Debt service has gone down! (Table 8)

green Cellular phone subscription has significantly increased! (Table 8)

The Philippine Statistical System has achieved much in terms of MDG monitoring. But certainly, other developmental and improvement activities relative to MDG monitoring can still be done by national government agencies, local government units, academe, and other stakeholders. We appreciate the comments and suggestions shared to us by Prof. Solita “Mareng Winnie” Collas-Monsod last month to further improve Philippine MDG monitoring; the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), under the leadership of Ms. Malou Mangahas, for its statistical advocacy to raise public awareness of issues relating to our achievement of the MDGs; the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) for its efforts to further analyze and use the available MDG statistics; among others.

A number of developmental/improvement activities that need to be undertaken have also been highlighted in the 2nd ICMDGS. This include, among others:

For those goals or targets where the Philippines has high probabilities of achieving the target, our government can set more ambitious targets.
The Philippines should also localize the MDGs further at geographical levels (Note: statistical support to local MDG monitoring system is stronger and well established in only 9 out of 17 regions where NSCB is present.) as well as sectoral concerns (e.g., gender, children, etc.).
The Philippines may also consider supplemental/additional indicators like those on governance, climate change, etc. to expand the Philippine MDG framework.
While the PSS, through the NSCB, has an existing metadata of official Philippine MDG indicators, this can still be further enhanced. In line with this, the NSCB Technical Staff needs involvement/participation in statistical capacity building activities to learn new statistical tools such as SDMX, country progress snapshots, etc.
One of the recommendations during the 2nd ICMDGS is to ensure consistency of definitions and methodologies used at the national and international levels to avoid or minimize data discrepancies. Adopting it to Philippine setting, this applies to data collection activities being undertaken to supplement surveys conducted by the PSS.
On statistical coordination, while we have established coordination mechanisms through the NSCB, we can still consider or explore the possibility of having a stand-alone Interagency Committee (IAC) or Technical Committee (TC) on MDG Statistics.

Some earlier improvement efforts have been hampered by resource constraints including time, manpower, and financial concerns. Notwithstanding these constraints, presently, the NSCB has been exerting best efforts on the monitoring of the MDGs.

It is our sincere hope that all of us – in the government (both national and local), private sector, academe, media, civil society, among others, will do our fair and reasonable share ng Mga Dapat Gawin natin to achieve the MDGs by 2015!

And to our national athletes in the 26th Southeast Asian Games, Mabuhay kayo! Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!

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, U.S.A. and has taught mathematics and statistics at the University of the Philippines. He is also a past president of the Philippine Statistical Association. This article was co-written by Ms. Jessamyn O. Encarnacion and Ms. Mechelle M. Viernes, Director and Statistical Coordination Officer II, respectively, of the NSCB. The authors thank Lina V. Castro, Cynthia S. Regalado, Bernadette B. Balamban, Noel S. Nepomuceno, Candido J. Astrologo, Jr., Ma. Libertie V. Masculino, and Sonny U. Gutierrez for the assistance in the preparation of the article. The views expressed in the article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NSCB.

² Sources:
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2011/11/12/palawans-underground-river-one-worlds-new-wonders-190184 and http://www.new7wonders.com/

³ Most of the participants were from national statistical agencies and some were from national planning ministries. Countries represented include: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brazil, Cambodia, China, Dominican Republic, India, Indonesia, Republic of Kazakhstan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, México, Mongolia, Myanmar, Republic of Moldova, Republic of the Philippines, Thailand, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu and Viet Nam

⁴ The list includes the UNSD, UN Population Division UNPD, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Labour Organization (ILO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), World Bank, UN Women, UNDP, UNICEF, UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), UN Human Settlements Programme (UN Habitat), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), ADB, Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), DevInfo, and ASEANStats.

⁵ Specifically, the 2nd ICMDGS,

• assessed and evaluated the implementation of the recommendations of the 1st ICMDGS, also hosted by the Philippine government, through the NSCB, by the countries and international organizations which participated in the latter;
• served as a platform for the international/regional organizations and countries to exchange knowledge and share best practices in MDGS data collection, compilation, analysis and dissemination, including sub-national monitoring and how to use proxy supplemental indicators;
• reviewed the global, regional and country progress towards MDGs and targets; and
• discussed how the MDGs indicators can be used for policy making, government planning, allocation of resources and tracking progress.

⁶http://www.nscb.gov.ph/resolutions/2004/10.asp

⁷ To assess the probability of achieving the target, the actual annual growth rate, which is computed to assess how the country performed in the past years, is divided to the required annual growth rate, which is computed to determine how the country should be performing annually to achieve the MDG targets.

⁸ To assess whether the country has a high, medium, or low probability of achieving a specific MDG target, the probability is computed as:
Actual annual growth rate
Required annual growth rate

where,
Actual annual growth rate

The actual annual growth rate is computed to assess how the country performed in the past years. There are two ways of computing the rate to take into account “positive” and “negative” indicators.

“Positive” indicators are those that indicate improvement in the economic/social situation when trend is generally increasing over time. Conversely, “negative” indicators are those that indicate deterioration in the economic/social situation when trend is generally increasing over time.

Specifically, for “positive” indicators such as indicators on education, gender disparity, access to water, sanitation, and secure tenure, the actual annual growth rate is computed as

(Latest data - Baseline data) / (100 – Baseline data)
Number of years elapsed

On the other hand, for “negative” indicators such as indicators on hunger, poverty, mortality, diseases, and environment, the actual annual growth rate is computed as
(Latest data / Baseline data) – 1
Number of years elapsed

Required annual growth rate

The required annual growth rate is computed to determine how the country should be performing annually to achieve the MDG targets.

The required annual growth rate is equal to

Target rate
Number of years covered

⁹ Probabilities would always refer to the period between 1990 and 2015. As only selected indicators are featured in this article, you may visit the official MDG statistics page lodged at the NSCB website for a complete listing of the official MDG statistics being compiled by the NSCB: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/stats/mdg/default.asp

¹⁰ Earlier pointed out in the Statistically Speaking article by Dr. Romulo A. Virola in January 2007. Source: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2007/010807_rav_educ.asp

¹¹ Cohort survival rate.

Figure 1: Time Distance Measure of Philippine MDGs

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

Table 1. Pace of Progress of MDG 1: Philippines

	Goals/Targets/Indicators	Baseline	Target	1st Report (2003)	Midterm Report (2005)	3rd Report (2007)	Latest Statistcs
GOAL 1. ERADICATE EXTREME POVERTY AND HUNGER
target 1.A	Halve, between 1990s and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day
indicator 1.1	Proportion of population below national poverty threshold**	33.1 1991	16.6 2015		24.9 (2003)	26.4 (2006)	26.5 (2009)
indicator 1.2	Poverty gap ratio**	8.6 1991	4.3 2015		5.6 (2003)	5.7 (2006)	2.7 (2009)
indicator 1.3	Share of poorest quintile in national consumption	6.2 1991	increasing	5.6 (2000)	5.9 (2003)	6.0 (2006)	6.2 (2009)
target 1.B	Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people
indicator 1.4	Growth rate of GDP per person employed	1.6 1990	increasing	1.3 (2002)	3.1 (2004)	3.3 (2006)	4.4 (2010)
indicator 1.5	Employment-to-population ratio	59.0 1990	increasing	59.7 (2002)	59.5 (2004)	59.1 (2006)	59.4 (2010)
indicator 1.7	Proportion of own-account and contributing family workers in total employment	51.3 1990	decreasing	45.7 (2002)	42.8 (2004)	44.5 (2006)	41.7 (2010)
indicator 1.7a	Proportion of own-account (self-employed) workers in total employment	35.6 1990	decreasing	32.4 (2002)	31.7 (2004)	32.2 (2006)	30.2 (2010)
indicator 1.7b	Proportion of contributing (unpaid) family workers in total employment	15.7 1990	decreasing	13.3 (2002)	11.2 (2004)	12.3 (2006)	11.5 (2010)
target 1.C	Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger
indicator 1.8	Prevalence of underweight children under 5 years of age	34.5 1990	17.3 2015	32.0 (1998)	26.9 (2003)	24.6 (2005)	26.2 (2008)
indicator 1.9	Percent of household with per capita energy less than 100% adequacy	74.2 1993	37.1 2015		56.9 (2003)	56.9 (2003)	66.9 (2008)
indicator 1.9a	Proportion of population below national subsistence (food) threshold**	16.5 1991	8.25 2015		11.1 (2003)	11.7 (2006)	10.8 (2009)

Notes:
* based on the comparison of actual (from baseline to latest data) and required (from baseline to target year) rates of progress
**Estimates were based on the refined methodology on estimating official poverty statistics as approved by the NSCB Executive Board on 1 February 2011.