GOOD PRACTICES

INTEGRATING THE SDGS

INTO DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

THE PHILIPPINES POPULATION 103,320,222

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
In this brief:
• Country context
HDI
0.682 Medium Human
Development
• Mapping the Philippine Development Plan against
HDI Rank
the SDGs
• Incorporating the SDGs into sectoral plans 1st
• Good practices in budgeting
• Tagging programmes and budgets by the SDGs
• Gearing government performance towards results

Manila
This brief is part of a series produced by UNDP
Bangkok Regional Hub, based on case studies
commissioned in six Asian countries: Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal and the Philippines at 116 th The Philippines
the national level and India at the subnational level
in Assam state. The briefs illustrate emerging good
practices in integrating the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and the SDGs into
development planning in these countries. They also
highlight innovative practices in development
planning that can serve as good examples for other
188th
countries and regions for their work in planning for
HDI BY PROVINCE
the 2030 Agenda. The content of these briefs will be
updated to reflect the evolving experiences of the 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
countries involved. We welcome your comments
and updates at: [email protected]. ECONOMY
GDP per capita: US$ 2,951
Country context
GDP growth: 6.3% (2010-2016)
The Philippines is the second most populous country POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
The country has enjoyed accelerated economic 10% of the population 21.6% (by national
poverty line)
growth in recent years, which contributed to poverty
reduction. However, 22 million Filipinos still live in ARE POOR
poverty, while the level of inequality is the second
highest among ASEAN countries. Natural disasters – have (by international
the typhoons that occur frequently in the Philippines
37.6% poverty line)
but are recently increasing in intensity – present 33.4% of the income
significant challenges to the progress of development.
The adoption of the 1987 Constitution and approval of GOVERNMENT SYSTEM: Unitary
the Local Government Code of 1991 set the basis for
decentralization and greater autonomy for local
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES (% of GDP)
governments. The country is divided into 80 total on education on health
provinces, within which there are 229 congressional
districts, 143 cities, 1,491 municipalities, and about 11.1% 2.7% 1.6%
1
 Philippines

42,000 barangays. Provinces are organized into 16

administrative regions and one autonomous region,
By 2040, the Philippines shall be a
the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, which is
prosperous, predominantly
governed by an elected regional governor and a
regional (legislative) assembly. National government
middle-class society where no one
offices are usually located in regional centres, and the is poor; our peoples shall live long
seat of the provincial government is in their respective and healthy lives, be smart and
province. innovative, and shall live in a
high-trust society.
Development planning in the Philippines started in
1949, focusing initially on reconstruction and From AmBisyon Natin 2040:
rehabilitation from World War II which had devastated A Long-Term Vision for the Philippines.
its economy. Since the 1960s, development plans have
aimed to bring prosperity to the people and expand
the economy. In 2016, the President approved the Philippines long-term development vision, AmBisyon Natin
2040, which was prepared based on wide-ranging consultations.

Philippines: The planning timeline

2030 Agenda and SDGs
Sustainable development

VISION AND STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

AmBisyon Natin 2040
Strongly rooted, comfortable
Rehabilitation Socio-economic development Poverty Human Good and secure life for people
Eradication Development Governance
1949 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2015 2016 2017 2022 2030

MEDIUM-TERM PLANS PDP 2017 - 2022

Source: Information until 2003 is based on Jurado, Gonzalo M (2003). “Growth Models, Development Planning, and
Implementation in the Philippines”. Philippine Journal of Development Number 55, Volume XXX, No. 1, First Semester 2003.

Mapping the Philippines Development Plan against the SDGs

At the time of adoption of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, the government of the Philippines started preparing its
current medium-term development plan, the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2017–2022. This meant that the
timing of the cycle of the Philippines plan harmonized well with the global agenda.

The main instrument for mainstreaming the SDGs into these plans are their results matrices. Accordingly, the
National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) – the Philippines planning agency – issued planning
guidelines for the formulation of the PDP, which required government agencies to align targets in the results
matrix of the medium-term plan with the long-term vision of the Philippines and the 2030 Agenda.

NEDA mapped the PDP indicators against SDG indicators to facilitate this process. The mapping showed that over
half of SDG Tier 1 indicators1 under several goals – SDG 1 (poverty), SDG 2 (hunger, food security), SDG 3 (health),
SDG 4 (education), SDG 7 (energy access), SDG 8 (growth and employment), SDG 9 (infrastructure) and SDG 15
(environmental protection) were included in, or fully consistent with, the medium-term plan indicators (See Figure
1).

2
 Philippines

Figure 1. Mapping of PDP 2017–2022 indicators against SDG indicators

25
7
20
Number of indicators

15 4 8
16 15
14
11
10 5 9
9 3
4
5 2
6 1
7
6
5 3
4 4 4 3
0 2 1 1 1 1 2
SDG1 SDG2 SDG3 SDG4 SDG5 SDG6 SDG7 SDG8 SDG9 SDG10 SDG11 SDG12 SDG13 SDG14 SDG15 SDG16 SDG17

Fully matched indicators Proxy indicators

Source: Philippine Statistical Authority (2017). SDG Matrix of Tier 1 indicators.

The mapping also identifies areas where the national development plan indicators and global indicators do not
match. For example, no indicators under global SDGs 5, 10 and 12 are in the PDP results matrix.

Incorporating the SDGs into sectoral plans

The results-based management approach introduced in the planning and budgeting system in the Philippines
operates through a results chain from national development outcomes (expressed through targets such as related
to educational attainment), down to programmes.

So far, SDGs are incorporated in two sectoral plans in the Philippines – the labour and employment plan and the
health sector plan. The case of the health sector plan illustrates how the results chain is applied and where SDGs can
be incorporated in this results chain.

The medium-term health sector plan, titled the National Objectives for Health (NOH) 2016–2022, builds on
health-related SDGs and the three guarantees of the Philippine Health Agenda (PHA) 2016–2022, which outline the
health priorities of President Duterte’s Administration. Figure 2 shows the indicators of SDG 3 (Ensure healthy lives
and promote well-being for all at ages) which are included in the PHA guarantees and are being considered as NOH
targets. In other words, SDG indicators are used as a vehicle for quantifying high-level political commitments to
health objectives in the Philippines.

In addition to mapping the SDGs against the health agenda of the President, the Department of Health also
mapped its programmes to its four organizational outcomes. For each programme, the Department of Health
specifies not only programme outcomes, but also sectoral and organizational outcomes that the programme
contributes to.

Together, the mapping of selected health targets under SDG 4 against the Philippine Health Agenda (shown below),
and the mapping of health sector programmes against organizational outcomes, constitute the building blocks of
the results chain in the health sector. When health SDG targets are adopted as sectoral and societal (PDP) outcomes,
the health sector in the Philippines will have made an important step toward achieving these targets.

3
 Philippines

Figure 2. Initial SDG Targets Identified in PHA 2016–2022 Guarantees

Relevant SDG indicators - Corresponding global Corresponding global

PHA 2016–2022 Guarantee
localized for the Philippines SDG indicators SDG targets

Services throughout the life course • Proportion of births 3.1.2 Proportion of births 3.1 By 2030, reduce the global
that promote health and wellness delivered in a health attended by skilled health maternal mortality ratio to less
and prevent diseases and facility personnel than 70 per 100,000 live births
complications • Proportion of births 3.b.1 Proportion of the 3.b Support the research and
• Reproductive and sexual health attended by skilled health population with access to development of vaccines and
• Maternal, newborn and child personnel affordable medicines and medicines for the communicable
health • Proportion of fully vaccines on a sustainable and non-communicable diseases
immunized children basis that primarily affect developing
• Exclusive breastfeeding countries, provide access to
• Food and micronutrient • Percentage availability of affordable essential medicines and
supplementation selected essential vaccines, in accordance with the
medicines in public health
• Immunization Doha Declaration on the TRIPS
facilities Agreement and Public Health,
• Adolescent health
which affirms the right of
• Geriatric health developing countries to use to the
• Health screening, promotion and full the provisions in the
information Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property
• Communicable diseases
Rights regarding flexibilities to
• Non-communicable diseases protect public health, and, in
• Malnutrition particular, provide access to
• Diseases of rapid urbanization and medicines for all.
industrialization

Services are delivered by networks (Frontline or primary) 3.c.1 Health worker 3.c Substantially increase health
that are: health worker density and density and distribution financing and the recruitment,
• Fully functional distribution development, training and
retention of the health workforce
• Compliant with clinical practice in developing countries, especially
guidelines in least developed countries and
• Available 24/7 and even during small island developing States
disasters
• Practising gatekeeping
• Located close to the people
• Enhanced by telemedicine

Services are financed predominantly PhilHealth coverage rate 3.8.1 Coverage of essential 3.8 Achieve universal health
by PhilHealth health services (defined as coverage, including financial risk
• As a gateway to free affordable care the average coverage of protection, access to quality
essential services based on essential health care services and
• As the main revenue source for tracer interventions that access to safe, effective, quality
public health care providers include reproductive, and affordable essential medicines
maternal, newborn and and vaccines for all
child health, infectious
diseases,
non-communicable
diseases and service
capacity and access,
among the general and
the most disadvantaged
population)
3.8.2 Number of people
covered by health
insurance or a public
health system per 1,000
population

Source: Columns 1 and 2 are based on Department of Health (2016). Working draft of the National Objectives for Health,
2016–2022. Columns 3 and 4 are from the list of global SDG targets and indicators.

4
 Philippines

Figure 3. The results chain in the health sector in the Philippines

Organizational Sector Societal

Programmes Outputs
Outcomes Outcomes Outcomes

Health sector
Health sector Programme and Department of outcomes PDP Outcomes
programmes and sub-programme Health (National (PDP results matrix
sub-programmes outputs Outcomes Objectives for - health targets)
Health, PHA)

Sources:
• The upper results chain is adapted from DBM and EU (2012). Organizational Performance Indicator Framework. A Guide to
Results-Based Budgeting in the Philippines (OPIF Reference Guide), available from
http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/OPIF%20Reference%20Guide.pdf
• The lower results chain illustration is the author’s adaptation based on the health sector results management process.

Good practices in budgeting

Several budget practices used by the Government of the Philippines will facilitate the integration of SDGs into
resource allocation.

The budget cycle in the Philippines has four phases: (a) preparation, (b) legislation, (c) execution, and (d)
accountability (see Figure 4). The budget preparation stage starts after the planning and priority-setting is done by
the government.

The government of the Philippines has used the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) since 2007,
preparing a three-year medium-term budget every year on a rolling basis (Illustrated in stages 5 to 9 in Figure 4).
MTEFs are a key instrument for translating strategic priorities of the country into concrete programmes by
allocating predictable funding to them. MTEFs are important for ensuring completion of initiated projects and
programmes and making the budget planning process more efficient.

The MTEF in the Philippines has several components:

1. Priority programmes and projects to be implemented by the national government, state-owned enterprises,
government financial institutions and other government offices

2. Priority programmes and projects in the Regional Development Investment Program (RDIP)

3. The Three-Year Rolling Infrastructure Program (TRIP)

4. The Core Investment Programs and Projects (CIP) – which are high-value public investment projects costing
over 1 billion Philippine Pesos.

The Department of Budget Management (DBM) manages the process of medium-term budgeting along with NEDA.
The mandate of DBM is to promote the sound, efficient and effective management and utilization of government
resources to achieve national socio-economic and political development goals.2

For multi-year projects, cost estimates are done for Years 1, 2 and 3. The cost estimate for Year 1 enters the annual
budget, while cost estimates for Years 2 and 3 become forward estimates in the MTEF. The Philippines DBM adopted
a two-tiered budgeting approach starting in 2016, whereby forward estimates for continuing programmes (Tier 1)
are separated from budget proposals/forward estimates for new programmes (Tier 2). The amount of expenditures
for ongoing programmes (Tier 1) is deducted from revenues, which yields the “fiscal space” available for funding
new or expanded programmes (Tier 2).

Since ongoing programmes have already been budgeted for and set aside, this separation allows the government
to focus on prioritization and selection of new programmes, making the process more efficient. However, weak
performance on past projects – for example, a low budget utilization rate – affects funds allocated to an agency for
future programmes.

Criteria which are used for prioritizing new programmes and projects (Tier 2) are the main link through which plan
5
 Philippines

Figure 4. The Philipines budget cycle: Budget preparation stage

Source: DBM (2016). The Budget Cycle. Available from:

http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/Executive%20Summary/2016/Budget%20Cycle.pdf

priorities translate into financing and then implementation. Since 2013, the DBM prepares a Budget Priorities
Framework – approved by the Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC)3 – which sets out the criteria
for prioritization of new programmes and projects. However, the link of the Budget Priorities Framework with the
priorities outlined in the medium-term plan is tenuous, because the priorities are defined by DBM based on
discussions by high-level decision makers. In the past, the budget priorities have only occasionally referenced the
findings of monitoring reports of the medium-term plan or the plan itself.

This well-functioning medium-term and annual budgeting process provides the government with the ability to
quickly direct budgetary allocations towards desired targets. For the 2018 budget preparation, the Philippines
Development Plan indicators along with SDG indicators have become an important consideration, as discussed
below.

Tagging programmes and budgets by the SDGs

The government of the Philippines has a results-based management system for the whole government, as illustrated
above in the case of the health sector. Under a results-based management system, programmes are traced to
higher-level development outcomes of the country (national or societal outcomes). This promotes financing and
implementation of those programmes that contribute to a greater extent to development outcomes. In other words,
the results chain links programmes to outputs, organizational outcomes, sectoral outcomes and finally, to societal
goals that are articulated in its medium-term development plan (See Figure 3 for the case of the health sector). This
means that budgets for these programmes can also be traced to the higher-level outcomes, which facilitates
results-based, or performance-based budgeting.

As part of the move to Performance-Informed Budgeting, DBM introduced the Programme Expenditure Classification
(PREXC) tool in 2014. This tool restructures the budgets of government agencies and presents programme budgets
aligned to agency mandates and outcomes. The Program Expenditure Classification helps decision makers and the
oversight agencies – NEDA and DBM – to better understand how government agency programmes contribute to
achieving societal outcomes. It allows the government to eliminate or adjust programmes that are not significantly
contributing to agency mandates and outcomes. It also helps the Congress in analysing the budget performance of
agencies against their mandates, in order to effectively allocate resources to relevant and high-impact programmes.4

For the 2018 annual budget programme and budget proposals, the DBM recommended to government agencies to
link each proposed programme to outcome indicators – the Philippines Development Plan results indicators along
with SDG indicators.5

In addition, the government is also currently tagging programmes and projects under the six-year Philippine Public
Investment Program 2017–2022, an accompanying document to the PDP 2017–2022, against the SDGs.

6
 Philippines

Figure 5. Linking performance Gearing government performance towards

to higher-level outcomes results
Results-based management also allows linking the performance of
individuals with organizational outcomes and provides incentive to
Societal civil servants to work towards higher-level outcomes.
outcomes
In the Philippines, the government uses a Performance-Based
Sector Incentive System to provide incentives to high-performing
outcomes government agencies and employees, in which contribution to
sectoral and societal outcomes counts towards performance.
Organizational Two types of incentives are given – Productivity Enhancement
outcomes
Incentives for civil servants with at least four months of at least
satisfactory service6, and a Performance-Based Bonus for civil
servants of eligible agencies. To be eligible for the bonus, the
Major Final
Outputs (MFOs) agency must satisfy the following criteria: 1) good governance
conditions - accountability, transparency and frontline service
provision; 2) performance – achievement of targets for the delivery
Organizational of Major Final Outputs; and 3) quality of management, budget
Programmes performance utilization, and submission of Budget and Financial Accountability
Reports. Several of these conditions require government agencies
to update information in web-based systems – such as the
Individual
Budgets Philippines Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS)
performance
and DBM’s Unified Reporting System (URS) for Budget and Financial
Accountability Reports (BFARS)7. In this regard, performance
incentives are based on both individual and organizational
performance.

Once the results-based management system is in place, resource

allocation and the performance of government agencies and staff
will be geared toward achieving results – in other words,
outcomes.

Source: Adapted from DBM and EU (2012). Therefore, in countries like the Philippines which already use
“Organizational Performance Indicator Framework. results-based management, incorporating SDG targets into
A Guide to Results-Based Budgeting in the
national development targets that express societal and sectoral
Philippines” (OPIF Reference Guide), available at
http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/ outcomes will go a long way towards the successful
03/OPIF%20Reference%20Guide.pdf implementation of the SDGs.

7
 Philippines
Notes:
Data sources:
• Data on population, GDP, poverty, inequality and government expenditures is from the World Development Indicators, World
Bank: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx , except the poverty rate according to the national poverty line. The
latter is from the 2015 Family Income and Expenditure Survey. See the Philippine Statistics Authority press release:
http://www.psa.gov.ph/content/poverty-incidence-among-filipinos-registered-216-2015-psa .
• Data on human development is from Human Development Data website, UNDP: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data
• The map shows provinces by HDI (2012). The data is from the Philippine Statistics Authority. Available from:
http://www.nap.psa.gov.ph/hdi/2012/HDI%20Tables,%20final%2015jan16.pdf
Data specifications and years:
• Population (2016), GDP per capita current US$(2016), GDP growth average for 2010-2016, poverty rate according to the
national poverty line (2015), poverty rate according to the international poverty line - $PPP 3.90 a day (2012), share of income
of the richest 10 percent of the population (2012), total government expenditures - percentage of GDP (2016), government
expenditures on education - percentage of GDP (2009), government expenditures on health - percentage of GDP (2014).
Disclaimer:
• Boundaries shown on the map do not imply official endorsement by the United Nations.

1 A Tier 1 indicator of the SDGs is “Conceptually clear, has an internationally established methodology and standards are
available, and data are regularly produced by countries for at least 50 per cent of countries and of the population in every
region where the indicator is relevant”, as defined by the UN Statistical Division. Available from:
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/tier-classification/

2 In the Philippines, in addition to the DBM, there is also the Department of Finance (DOF), which is responsible for treasury
functions and tax collection.

3 DBCC is a decision-making body comprising representatives of the Office of the President, DBM, NEDA, the Department of
Finance, and the Central Bank of the Philippines.

4 Department of Budget and Management (2016). Program Expenditure Classification (PREXC): The Next Phase of the
Performance-Informed Budget.

5 DBM Budget Circular No. 2017-569: Adoption of Program Expenditure Classification-based Performance-Informed
Budgeting (PREXC-PIB) for the preparation of the proposed national budget for fiscal year 2018

6 DBM Budget Circular No. 2016-8: Guidelines on the Grant of the Productivity Enhancement Incentive to Government
Employees for FY 2016.

7 Memorandum Circular No. 2017-1 of the Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) on the Harmonization of National Government
Performance Monitoring, Information and Reporting Systems re: “Guidelines on the Grant of the Performance-Based
Bonus for Fiscal Year 2017 under Executive Order No. 80 s. 2012 and Executive Order No. 201, s. 2016”.

This country brief is based on Tiongson, Rhodora (forthcoming). SDG Integration in Planning and Budgeting: The
Philippines Case Study. Paper commissioned by UNDP Bangkok Regional Hub.

It also benefited from inputs from Bien A. Ganapin, Assistant Director for National Planning and Policy, the National
Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) of the Philippines; Omar L. Castanar, Executive Assistant to the
Undersecretary, Department of Budget and Management (DBM); Maria Luisa Isabel Jolongbayan, Team Leader of the
Management Support Unit; Andrew Parker, Economist; and Fernando Antolin, Programme Associate of UNDP
Philippines.