Candido A. Cabrido, Jr.
As early as 1989, the Philippine Government officially adopted the Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development (PSSD) in support of the call of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) for the pursuit of development that gives high regard to environmental protection and natural resource conservation. A multi-stakeholder national council for sustainable development, the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), was also born out of this commitment as a government initiative to properly manage its remaining natural wealth and to take care of its environment.
As a follow-up to UNCED, and as part of its commitment to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and Agenda 21, the Philippine Government implemented the PSSD by gearing its development programmes towards meeting the ten strategies identified in the document as follows: 1) integration of environmental considerations in decision-making, 2) proper pricing of natural resources, 3) property rights reform, 4) conservation of biodiversity, 5) rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems, 6) strengthening of residuals management, 7) control of population growth and human resources development, 8) inducing growth in the rural areas, 9) promotion of environmental education, and 10) strengthening of citizen participation.
In the assessment of the current investments in the implementation of the foregoing ten strategies of the PSSD, it was found that considerable attention was being channelled to rehabilitation activities, while three preventive strategies received minimal support, namely: integration of environmental considerations in decision-making, proper pricing of natural resources, and strengthening of citizen participation and constituency-building for environmental policy advocacy.
In response to this shortcoming in investments, the Philippine Government launched a programme on Integrated Environmental Management for Sustainable Development (IEMSD) which was supported by the Fifth Country Programme of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The primary objective of the IEMSD is to assist government in the systematic integration of environmental concerns in socio-economic policy-making, and to test out means to make such integration possible. It is designed to enhance the capability of key government agencies in operationalizing the PSSD and the Philippine Agenda 21. Spearheaded by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), the IEMSD has six subprogrammes which address the identified investment gaps. The IEMSD subprogrammes are: Environment and Natural Resources Accounting (ENRA), Integration of Environment and Socio-economic Development Policies (SEI), EIA Streamlining (EIA), Sustainable Development Models (SDM), Environment and Natural Resources Database (DBAS), and Programme Management Support (PMS). PMS has three major components: Programme Management (PM), Information, Education, and Communication (IEC), and Capability Building (CAPB).
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
As its primary task, the Sustainable Development Model Subprogramme of IEMSD developed a conceptual and operational framework on sustainable development (SD). It took almost a year of stakeholder consultations and workshops before the SD framework confirmed. The SD framework was formulated by representatives from various NGOs, the private sector, government agencies, civic organizations, and youth and religious sectors. National and regional consultations to validate and refine the SD framework were undertaken by IEMSD and another project of UNDP, the Capacity 21 Project whose mission is to formulate the Philippine Agenda 21 (PA21). Up to now, the framework is continually being refined since it is considered a living document, just like the PA 21.
The SD framework was used in guiding the formulation of PA21. The Philippine Agenda 21, the country's blueprint for sustainable development, seeks to answer four questions: Where are we now? What is sustainable development? Where do we want to go? How do we get there? The Principles of Unity, crafted by key stake- holders in the formulation of PA21 , define the common path that should be pursued by them to unify their actions towards attaining the objectives of sustainable development. Part of the document is the Agenda for Action, focusing on the sustainable development of various ecosystems (lowland/agroecosystem, upland/forest ecosystem, coastal and marine ecosystem, freshwater ecosystem, and urban ecosystem), and of the critical resources which cut across these ecosystems (e.g. water, minerals and energy, and biodiversity). In September 26, 1996, the PA21 document was signed by the President of the Philippines together with other enabling instruments which mandate concerned government institutions to implement its Agenda for Action.
To facilitate understanding and implementation by the concerned institutions, the SD framework was presented in a simplified structure following the hierarchical tree model (see Figure 1 below).
The framework supports the key development objectives of poverty alleviation, employment generation, income redistribution, people empowerment, and environment and natural resources conservation.
Six sustainability tests at the project level define how SD can be attained on the ground. These tests or criteria for sustainability are applicable to area-based, community-based and resource-based development projects. They could also be used in evaluating the viability of development policies.
A project is sustainable if it meets six criteria or what is called viability or sustainability tests. These viability criteria or tests are: socio-economic, ecological, technological, political, socio-cultural, and institutional. A project is, for example, socio-economically viable if it adopts basic policies or SD parameters.
Corresponding with these tests are the eleven parameters to operationalize sustainable development These are the basic ingredients or building blocks of sustainable development. These parameters describe how the sustainability criteria should be implemented by the various government agencies, NGOs, and civil society.
The eleven parameters are as follows:
For Socio-economic viability:
For Ecological viability:
For Technological viability:
For Political viability:
For Cultural viability:
For Institutional viability:
A 'parameter' (or basic policy) is achieved by undertaking certain courses of action (strategies) or what we call sustainable development 'descriptors' .Specific actions that should be undertaken to attain stable growth and development are expressed through the use of descriptors. They describe how a parameter should be implemented.
The manner by which a 'descriptor' (strategy) is implemented is determined by sustainable development 'indicators' (verifiers of actions taken). Thus, implementation of a descriptor is verified by indicators. Descriptors serve as checklists in generating indicators.
On the other hand, the sustainability of an action (indicator) is measured by an index. A particular indicator may be measured by one or several 'indices' .
The descriptors, indicators, and indices formulated in the Philippine ISD study are too numerous to be described or enumerated here. Suffice it to say that for each parameter there is a list of descriptors, and for each descriptor there is a long list of indicators depending on the type of project or sector being planned or evaluated.
The SD framework serves as an indicator system for guiding actions toward the attainment of sustainable development. It includes the basic attributes or elements necessary to attain sustainable development.
The framework is used as a checklist in integrated planning, project designing, and project evaluation. The tests, parameters, descriptors, indicators, and indices are used in project appraisal and evaluation. They are also used as templates in planning for sustainable development programmes and projects. An applications manual to translate the framework into procedural and technical guidelines for project planning and evaluation is presently in the preparatory stage. Meanwhile, the framework is currently being used as a checklist and reference by government agencies such as the DENR, NEDA, DILG (Department of Interior and Local Governments), BSWM (Bureau of Soils and Water Management) and some NGOs in the evaluation of their integrated and community-based projects.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS
The main objective in the development of sustainable development indicators is to improve the social, economic and environmental indicators currently being used in measuring socio-economic development in the country. Two studies are being undertaken by the IEMSD Programme in the formulation of ISDs. These are the estimation of environmentally-adjusted GNP, using the ENRA (Environment and Natural Resources Accounting) method, and the formulation of macro (national level) and micro (project and community level) indicators.
ENRA's Environmentally-adjusted GNP
An ENRA framework called PSEEA (Philippine System of Environment and Economic Accounts) was developed by IEMSD based on the UN System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounts (UNSEEA). Accounts for Fishery, Forestry, Mineral Resources, Soils and Water resources have been completed by the study, while the account for economic activities is in its final stage of computation. The cost of depletion and degradation of environment and natural resources are computed from these accounts and will be estimated and deducted from the computed GNP or GDP to derive the environmentally-adjusted GNP or GDP. This national indicator will serve to chart economic development taking into account its environmental costs so that policy and decision-makers, together with the general public, will be aware and conscious of the role and impact of the environment on development. This type of indicator is believed to be a better measure of development.
Sustainable Development Models (SDMs) Macro and Micro ISDs
Indicators for monitoring and evaluating efforts of government towards sustainable development were developed under the SDM Subprogramme of the IEMSD Programme. Two types of SD indicators, from very generic to project-specific, were designed to meet the various requirements in measuring the progress of SD at the national and project levels, respectively. These indicators include the Macro and Micro indicators, the latter covering project-level and community-level indicators.
Macro Indicators
The ISDs being developed are summary statistics meant to highlight trends, help clarify issues, warn about potential environmental problems, and monitor progress in the implementation of PA21 and measure its impact. Two kinds of indicators will be used in monitoring SD at the national level: socio-economic and environmental indicators. The first set of indicators will measure economic welfare using traditional indices and the UN Human Development Index (Hill) while the second set will measure ecosystem health using the Pressure (or Driving Force)-State- Response (PSR) model.
For measuring economic welfare, indicators of well-being are adopted, such as: standard of living, productivity, unemployment, income distribution, and measures of satisfaction of basic human needs (e.g. education, health, housing, safe drinking water, sanitation and clean environment).
Other indicators for economic welfare include:
1) Productivity indicators, such as real GDP per capita, real GNP per capita, real GDP/number of workers, rate of investment, national savings rate, investment in education, investment in research and development, indicators for health (life expectancy at birth, incidence of illnesses, health expenditures), indicators for population structures (levels and growth rates of employment, labour force, population, age structure, and rural-urban distribution);
2) Indicators for income distribution, such as indicators of poverty (percentage of population below the poverty line, median household income, Gini coefficients);
3) Employment indicators, such as unemployment rate, labour participation rate, population growth rate, unemployment rate versus inflation rate, real earnings per worker; overseas employment statistics/ number of overseas contract workers, percentage of families reporting income transfers from abroad, and percentage of household income from overseas income transfers, and;
4) Basic needs indicators, such as educational attainment, health status, nutritional intake, housing, and access to safe drinking water.
Micro indicators
Two approaches were employed in the formulation of project level ISDs:
1) Sustainable development cases were documented and actual indicators used were derived. These ISDs are efforts undertaken by the project to implement sustainable development strategies. They describe how sustainable development strategies were implemented and attest to successful actions. Another feature of this indicator system is the use of indices to measure the progress of an action taken. Therefore, for each indicator, corresponding indices are listed to chart the trend of progress during implementation. Indices help answer the question: Was the action or effort sustained? Time series indices will be collected to provide a trend which indicates whether a particular action was sustained or is being sustained. Indices give us the characteristic trend of an effort in sustainable development.
2) ISDs were generated using the SD framework as a guide (e.g. for each descriptor corresponding indicators were identified). These indicators are listed in a matrix which provides the descriptor, proposed indicators, rationale, measurement, and data source. The 'rationale' explains the use of indicators or the need for such indicators. 'Measurement' provides the unit of measure for the indicator and how the indicator is computed. 'Data sources' provide information on where to get the data for computing the indicators.
These Micro ISDs were developed to monitor and evaluate the sustainability of resource-based projects and to focus the attention of decision-makers and the general public on critical issues affecting the environment and natural resources. Project level ISDs are too numerous to cite in this report.
OTHER GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES IN ISD DEVELOPMENT
International funding institutions, such as the USAID, SEARCA and ADB, funded project studies on the application of ISD methodologies using Philippine data. Three studies related to ISDs have recently been completed, namely: Environment and Natural Resources Accounting Project (ENRAP) funded by the USAID, Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture funded by the Southeast Asian Research Center for Agriculture (SEARCA), and the Philippine Environmental Quality Indices Project funded by ADB.
USAID's Environment and Natural Resources Accounting Project
The objective of the ENRAP is similar to IEMSD's ENRA except that it uses a different model (Peskin's model). Among other distinctive features, this model includes the valuation of health damages and recreation. ENRAP has already completed four phases of implementation wherein a modified GNP was estimated by inputting the cost of depreciation in forest, mineral, soil, and fisheries resources, as well as the environmental cost of economic activities. Policy simulations were also conducted by the project to aid socio-economic and environmental decision-making.
SEARCA's Project on Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture
In its study on indicators, SEARCA selected five criteria for determining sustainable agriculture. The criteria used are: economically viable, ecologically sound and friendly, socially just, culturally appropriate, and a systems and holistic approach. The ISDs were generated for three ecosystems (lowland, upland and coastal) and three levels (farm/household, community, and national).
The Asian Development Bank's Philippine Environmental Quality Indices Project
The Philippine Environmental Quality Indices Project, funded by the Asian Development Bank and implemented by a local consulting group, made a study on three environmental quality indices for assessing environmental change. Methods developed by Harvard University for computing environmental quality indices were tested using Philippine data on air, water, soil and terrestrial ecosystem components. These indices are the environmental diamond, the environmental elasticity, and the cost of remediation.
The environmental diamond method is a graphical technique which charts the relative sources of stress in a Cartesian system of axes corresponding to the environmental components being assessed. The indices for the environmental components are graphed to indicate the relative level or strengths of stress among the environmental components. The environmental elasticity method computes the ratio of the per cent change in environmental quality and the per cent change in GDP. The cost of remediation index provides a measure of the cost of moving the present state of the environment to a more desirable level.
Experience in ISD Application
Philippine experience in the development of ISDs shows that an indicator system should be based on an SD framework to make the system more functional in use and comprehensive in scope. Formulation of indicators should be participatory, allowing concerned agencies and other stakeholders to address their concerns. At the start, the foundation for the development of ISDs was laid out by a multi-disciplinary group of experts who have experience and profound knowledge on the subject. This greatly facilitated putting together the building blocks of ISDs.
Indicators developed by international organizations and research institutions are usually applicable at the national level and cannot be used at the community level or in community-based development projects. Thus, Philippine ISD architects designed project level indicators customized to the Philippine situation. However, it was found that community-based ISDs are difficult to operationalize due to the absence of a good data base at the local level.
Validation of ISDs is necessary to determine their usefulness and applicability. A more effective way of developing ISDs is through the documentation of SD projects and the derivation of indicators actually used in monitoring the implementation of SD strategies and in measuring the progress or sustainability of actions taken.
Status of ISD development
Various efforts are now ready to refine and apply the results of the ISD studies recently completed. The IEMSD Programme is developing an applications manual to institutionalize and systematize the ISD systems it developed. Localization in the application of ISDs is also being initiated by the programme.