Content of the National Sustainable Development Strategy

Initiatives on sustainable development in the Philippines can be traced back

as early as the 1980s. The first concentrated move towards SD in the Philippines
began in 1987 with the drafting of the Philippine Strategy for SD (PSSD). The overall
goal of the strategy is to achieve economic growth with adequate protection of the countrys
biological resources and its diversity, vital ecosystem functions and overall
environmental quality. This strategy focus mainly on two of the three dimensions of
SD, i. e., the economic and the environmental. The PSSD was presented at the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UNCED, in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. Following the adoption of the PSSD the government kicked-off a
broad consultation process, that ended in 1996 with the adoption of the national
plan of action for SD, entitled The Philippine Agenda 21: A National Agenda for
Sustainable Development for the 21 st Century (PA 21) by Memorandum Order n
399 (Philippine Council for Sustainable Development 1997). This process benefited
also from the creation of the semi-governmental body, the so-called Philippine
Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), in 1992. Although the Philippine
government calls the PA 21 its national plan of action for SD it actually acts as the
SDS as integrates to a certain extent a social dimension that was generally
overlooked in the PSSD. In short, the PA 21 is a wide-ranging multi-dimensional
strategy, which calls to integrate SD concerns in all decision-making structures not
only within the government but also in civil society. The so-called Enhanced
Philippine Agenda 21will be completed by June 2004 and will then be presented to
the Philippine Council for SD for approval (Encabo 2004).
Strategy Content
The PA 21 advocates a fundamental shift in development approach and aims
at introducing and ecosystem-based and people-centered approach. It envisions a
better quality of life. It is structured along 3 major axis: the Principles of Unity
(chapter 1), the Action Agenda (chapter 2) and the Implementation Strategies
(chapter 3). The first chapter presents 15 SD guiding principles, namely, Primacy of
Developing Full Human Potential; Holistic Science and Appropriate Technology;
Cultural, Moral and Spiritual Sensitivity; Self-Determination; National Sovereignty;
Gender Sensitivity; Peace, Order and National Unity; Social Justice, Inter-, IntraGenerational and Spatial Equity; Participatory Democracy; Institutional Viability;

Viable, sound and Broad-Based Economic Development; Sustainable Population;

Ecological Soundness; Biogeographically Equity and Community-Based Resource
Management and Global Cooperation. The action agenda is based on the key
concepts

of

integration,

multi-stakeholdership

and

consensus

building,

and

operationalization to be applied to the 5 specific ecosystems identified (i.e.,

forest/upland,

agricultural/lowland,

urban,

coastal/marine

and

freshwater

ecosystem). Two extra sections call for an improved management of biodiversity

and mineral resources. The strategy unfolds, for the critical issues of SD for the next
30 years, implementation strategies, as well as, time-bound qualitative and process
related targets, in relation to the institutions involved (all stakeholders, including
donor

institutions,

are

identified).The

action

measures

are

preponderantly

circumscribed to the environmental field and categorized into short-term 1996-98;

medium term 1998 2005 and long-term 2005-2025 (see table 2). It adopts twopronged strategies to map out the action agenda: creating the enabling conditions
to (a) assist the various stakeholders to build their capacities towards SD and (b)
directing efforts at conserving, managing, protecting and rehabilitating ecosystems.
Managing the transition to SD calls also for interventions across ecosystems:
integrating SD in governance, providing enabling economic policies, investing in
human and social capital, mapping out a legislative agenda and addressing critical
and strategic concerns (population management, human health, food security,
human settlements and land use).
https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2004/measure_sdsip_philippines.pdf

Brief History
For many years, department/agency budgets increased incrementally with
little consideration of program duplication or overlaps, changes in agency
mandates, or the effectiveness of agency activities in attaining sector and societal
goals. The incremental and overlapping nature of public financial management
processes made it difficult to measure the performance of departments/agencies
and their contributions to achieving development outcomes and goals. Projects and
programs tended to continue without review of their efficiency or their effectiveness
and assumed a life of their own. Reviews were rarely conducted, and individuals had

little incentive to show initiative toward reform. If vested interests might be

adversely affected, suggestions for a program or project to be reviewed, downsized,
or even abandoned were unlikely to find much support. The system had a built-in
bias toward expansion of programs and projects, even where the evidence, if it was
available, might show those programs to be ineffective. As interest in public policy
grew and more information became available, pressure grew for more decisions to
be based on supporting evidence, which is now known as evidence-based policy
development. In the Philippines, a number of developments supported the change
to an evidence-based approach to policy needs analysis, which has led to the
gradual evolution of the RBMF. Some of the significant events and developments
over the last 40 years include the following:
1973 -The Bureau of the Census and Statistics introduced statistical series of
Indicators of Social Development. The Development Academy of the Philippines
Social Indicators Project commenced with the aim of measuring the impact of
government policy on high-level economic and social statistics.
1975 -National government interagency discussions held to review the general
sector objectives and the policy instruments being implemented, and development
of a set of performance indicators (PIs) that would measure the degree of
attainment of national sectoral and regional targets.
1978 -The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) developed macro
indicators for measuring and monitoring the degree of achievement of goals
identified in the Government of the Philippines development plans, identifying 100
key indicators and 197 supportive indicators. (However, only 80 economic and 38
social indicators were available, and none on the rate of poverty.)
1988 -The Department of Agrarian Reform introduced PIs; emancipation patents
documented or distributed; settlers resettled, rehabilitated, and assisted; land titles
and order of awards distributed; Community Land Trusts issued, adjusted, and
corrected; leasehold contracts registered and perfected. The Department of Health
(DOH) introduced PIs; inpatient days, bassinet days; outpatient visits provided;
persons serviced and protected; doses and units produced; laboratory examinations
and analyses performed; hospital licenses issued; inspections conducted
2005 -Budget Call prescribed use of the Organizational Performance Indicator
Framework (OPIF) forms in budget preparation.
2007 -Publication of the first OPIF Book of Outputs

2012 -Issuance of the OPIF Reference Guide

Introduction of the Performance-Based Incentive System
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/148792/results-basedmanagement-framework.pdf