2013 Philippine Human Development Report Geography and Human Development

8/22/2019 2013 Philippine Human Development Report Geography and Human Development

1/199


2/199


3/199

2012/2013 PhilippineHuman DevelopmentReport


4/199

Copyright 2013 Human Development Network (HDN)

ISSN 0118-6361

All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission of the

Human Development Network (HDN).

The views expressed in this Report are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect those of their affiliated institutions or the sponsoring agencies.

For inquiries about the Human Development Network (HDN) visit our

website at www.hdn.org.ph.

cover design Eduardo A. Davad

book design and layout Eduardo A. Davad


5/199

Published by the

Human Development Network (HDN)

in cooperation with the

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

2012/2013 PhilippineHuman DevelopmentReport


6/199

PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013 vii

Message

S

i 1990 when the frst global Human Development Report

(HDR) came out, many have embraced the HD concept, but

the dscourse perssts as the quest or HD contnues. UDPs

advocacy or human development (HD) has led to the subsequent

producton o regonal and natonal HDRs, thus enablng the

dscussons on human development to take root n country- and

regon-specfc contexts.Followng the dscplne o ts global and regonal counterparts, natonal

HDRs provde the same rgor o analyss, whch we now fnd n the Phlppne

Human Development Report (PHDR). As n prevous edtons, ths 7th Phlppne

Human Development Report (2012-2013 PHDR) oers yet another development

perspectve, Geography, crtcal to the attanment o human development or

the people o Phlppne archpelago. The road to human development s flled

wth multdmensonal barrers and challenges. To understand the path to

human development, snce 1994 the PHDRs have tackled dverse themes such as

gender, educaton, employment, peace and securty, and nsttutons. The past

PHDRs have earned ther reputaton as mportant reerences to development

leaders and practtoners o the country wth ther n-depth analyss and

concrete suggestons.

The 7th edton o the PHDR takes on the spatal dmenson o human

development. Geography s a deep determnant o human development, states

the 2012/2013 PHDR. Throughout the report, t argues that human development

takes place n physcal space that s to a large extent fxed. But socoeconomc

and human actors can nuence each other and may lead to derent human

development outcomes.

The PHDR looks nto the spatal patterns n the development o the

Phlppnes and how these aect human development. For a country o 7,107

slands wth dverse topographc and clmatc attrbutes and greatly challengedby physcal connectvty, the Report brngs to our attenton the development

varatons brought about by ths geographc nuence. The PHDR provdes

a perspectve on the geographc condtons aectng local outcomes; the

opportunty costs o not ully takng the element o dstnctveness nto account

n the pursut o human development; and the nsttutonal responses needed

to address the challenges and opportuntes o geographcal realtes wthn and

beyond admnstratve boundares.


7/199

viii PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013

it provdes expert analyses on the unctonalty o human spaces and the

nterplay o socal and economc processes aectng the communty and the

development o ts people. The Report also provdes a reecton on regonal

development and ntegraton n empowerng or dsempowerng local people n

attanng ull human development.

As a useul reerence n development plannng, ths Report s especallydedcated to the local governments and ther leaders to assst them n revewng

polces and nterventons to maxmze ther efcency n accordance to

geographcal unqueness. For one, understandng geography and ts mpacts

on human development pathways, could unvel solutons to the ssue o rsng

nequalty and dsparty o urban and rural areas.

UDP s the key advocate o human development upholdng that people

are the real wealth o a naton. HD champons the creaton o an enablng

envronment or people to enjoy long, healthy, and creatve lves. Far greater than

the accumulaton o assets and fnancal wealth, human development should be

the core means and the ultmate goal o development eorts.

On ths note, the Human Development etwork (HD) deserves another

eather n ts cap or capturng the perspectve o geography and human

development n such an nnovatve and convncng manner. indeed, the

Phlppnes, whch has started to demonstrate hgh economc growth, but s

constantly challenged by ts geographcal dversty and deep-rooted nequalty,

wll greatly beneft rom the recommendatons o ths 7th edton o the PHDR.

Thank you and Mabuhay!

TOSHIHIRO TANAKAunDP Cry Drcr


8/199

PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013 ix

Message

T

H 7th Phlppne Human Development

Report wth the theme Geography and

Human Development comes at a tme when

the government s updatng the Phlppne

Development Plan (PDP), 2011-2016 wth an eye

toward payng greater attenton to the spataland sectoral dmensons o growth n the pursut o more

nclusve outcomes.

The updatng also has an eye toward an examnaton o

nsttutonal arrangements between admnstratve layers

o government n order to better algn local and natonal

development plans. Ths s crtcal short- and medum-term

gans are to take root and carry the country orward nto the

longer term.

it s auspcous thereore that the Report, n artculatng

the role o geography n nuencng the qualty and pace o

human development, has made the ollowng key ponts:

nGeography explans a sgnfcant porton o the

varatons n le expectancy, educaton, per capta ncome,

and poverty ncdence across the Phlppnes. it s a proound

determnant o human development, ntrnscally lnked to the

latter through human health, agrcultural prospects, access

between locatons, and specfc poltcal nsttutons.

nPast polcy and nsttutonal arrangements have aled

to adequately address the mplcatons o local geography and

have resulted n sgnfcant costs to human development.

nHuman development costs arse rom a natonalorganzatonal structure that arranges sectors or agences

as vertcal slos and, wthn each agency, by programs. Such

arrangement s ncompatble wth the ntegrated, ecosystem-

based governance that local geography demands.

nLarge nefcences and oregone benefts result rom

the well-ntended but msguded noton that the unorm

dsperson o producton across space wll lead to growth that


9/199

x PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013

s more evenly spread out and thereore more equtable.

nonetheless, a geographcal convergence o lvng

standards can take place and must reman a prme objectve. in

short, spatally uneven, unbalanced growth s compatble wth

nclusve human development.

nThe challenge o geography requres the delvery o basc

and socal servces that s ntegrated and locally anchoredmostcrucally at the provncal level.

We apprecate the lessons documented n the 7th PHDR, are

challenged by them, and look orward to how they wll norm

development polces and programs and resource allocaton

prortes o both the natonal and local governments movng

orward.

ARSENIO M. BALISACANScrry f Sccc Pg


10/199

PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013 xi

Forewor

TH Philippine Human Development Report 2012/2013 dscusses the

crucal role o place and space n human development. The crux o

the ssue s suggested n the epgraph rom Rzal: some are ortunate

enough to be helped and made happy by ther place o stayndeed,

they may even have the luxury o choosng t. Others, on the other

hand, are smply condemned by ther crcumstances to endure t.

Part i o the Report demonstrates how the Phlppnes dverse, ragmented, and

hazard-prone geography poses huge challenges to human development. Dstance,

land orm, clmate, and natural hazards are sgnfcant obstacles to peoples access

to health, to educaton, and ther ablty to obtan a sustanable and productve lvng.

Besdes natural actors, economc growth tsel s a process that by ts nature creates

geographc unevenness and nequalty, even whle exstng socal and poltcal

barrers can rustrate peoples eorts to better ther own lot.

The human development vew o geographcal derences s straghtorward:

derences n locaton shouldnottranslate nto derences n human opportuntes.

Ths mples, frst and oremost, that the undamental means needed to buld

human capabltes must be made avalable rrespectve o locaton. Access to

basc educaton and to prmary health, n partcular, should be spatally blnd.

Second, recognzng that economc growth and wealth-creaton are not unormly

spread but nevtably create basns o attracton, e.g., ctes and mass markets,

aordng access to ncomes and lvelhood opportuntes must ental spatally

connectve or market-ntegratng nrastructure that acltates the bdrectonal

movement o goods and people.

in the lmt, human development presupposes peoples reedom to leave

areas o low opportunty n pursut o better prospects. What matters s that such

decsons are taken not out o desperaton or under duress but as ree choces rom

among a set o humane alternatves. ven as the Report recognzes the geographc

unevenness entaled by growthand thereore the nevtablty o leadng and

laggng areast ponts to the possblty o reconclng ths wth equal human

opportuntes: Uneven, unbalanced growth s not ncompatble wth nclusve

human development.

Measured aganst these, the spatal dmensons o current publc polcy

are unortunately wantng and unresponsve. The bas or centralzaton nmany government programs leads to a one-sze-fts-all approach that als to

account or local condtons aectng the populaton. Dsease-specfc natonal

health campagns pass over neglected tropcal dseases that are rampant n

some localtes. Agrcultural programs ocus on specfc crops rather than on

armers whose actvtes are vared and actually span several crops. Reorms and

regulaton o transport and access are undertaken pece-meal, accordng to the

specfc mode o transport, rather than beng normed by the larger pcture o

travel across varous modes o transport.


11/199

xii PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013

What prevals n all these s an emphass on objects and categoressomepartcular dsease, specal crop, or avored transport moderather than on actual

people and the places they nhabt. Ths unresponsve ramework s renorced

by a slo-complex n many natonal agences themselves, whch splts

responsbltes among non-overlappng (and thereore non-cooperatng)

bureaucraces organzed along the same technocratc lnes o categores rather

than people. Fnally, the combned alure o natonal vson and denal o local

responsblty leads to the dsspaton o resources that s the dvde-by-N

syndromethe dsspaton o publc resources n duplcatve nrastructure

and programs n dsregard o scale, synergy, and the conscous ntegraton o

larger markets.

The Report nstead advocates gvng provnces the greatest leeway to defne

ther own prortes and provdng the resources to acheve them. ot all otodays provnces represent optmal dvsons rom the vewpont o geography

and ecosystems (especally snce sheer poltcal consderatons have nuenced

recent provnce-creaton, partcularly n Mndanao). But provnces are currently

stll the most practcable level o poltcal authorty that can gve ull weght to

the specfcty and dversty o local condtons, even as t s capable o adoptng

a vewpont comprehensve enough to adopt programs that explot potental

economes o scale and scope. it s provnces and provncal leadershp that

can potentally respond to the derng needs o leadng and laggng areas,

e.g., between urban areas and perpheresas well as provde the connectons

needed to oster healthy symbotc relatons between them.

urrent laws and plannng and budgetng practces, however, paradoxcally

constran provncal governments rom perormng ths ntegratve uncton.Rather than expand the role o plannng among provnces, current laws nstead

reduce ther jursdctons by rppng out the most developed urban areas; tax

bases and tax powers are crcumscrbed; provncal spendng responsbltes

are overextended yet sorely underunded; n the meantme parochal poltcal

pressure s accommodated or even greater subdvson o jursdctons. The

Report argues that serous geographcal obstacles to human development can never

be adequately addressed wthout gvng ull ren to provnce-level plannng and

fscal responsbltywth the democratc accountablty that entals. To ths end,

uture legslaton s clearly needed to change the current cty-centrc emphass o

devoluton and redefne the powers o local governments accordngly. The Report s

beng ssued at what the Human Development etwork beleves s an opportune

moment, when there s ncreasng nterest n revstng the Local Governmentode (1991) ater more than two decades o mplementaton. ven wthout

legslaton, however, a good deal can already be accomplshed by expandng the

role o provnces and provnce-level concerns n the desgn o programs and the

choce o projects by natonal-level plannng, fscal, and lne agences.

Part ii o the Report analyzes the record o provncal progress n human

development over the longer perod 1997-2009.

Whle a slow but steady mprovement s evdent n ndcators o human

development or the country as a whole, ths masks the hghly varable perormance

among provnces throughout the perod. Global economc crses, such as those


12/199

PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013 xiii

whch enguled the country n 1997-2008 and 2008-2009 are crucal actorsexplanng the larger trend, although the record also llustrates how mprovements

n non-ncome measures o human development can occur notwthstandng

conjunctural varatons n ncome. More mportant, however, s the sometmes

volatle uctuatons n the human development ndcators n some provnces.

specally worrsome are the prospects or provnces that have some o the

lowest HDis to begn wth, but whch n addton are locked n the vcous crcle o

allng ncomes and allng health and educaton outcomes (Agusan del Sur, Lanao

del Sur, Magundanao, Sulu, Taw-Taw, and Zamboanga Sbugay).

The long vew also reveals rses and alls n the achevements o even

erstwhle hgh-achevers n human development. The reasons or ths can be

vared, but a possble reason llustrates a pont made n the theme chapter:

moblty and mgraton can change the composton o a localtys populatonn many ways. Wthout oresght and adequate preparaton, n-mgraton nto a

hghly developed area can ultmately create problems n health, educaton, and

even ncomes e.g., through congeston, polluton, and the emergence o slums. On

the other hand, outmgraton o the sklled, educated, and youthul wll certanly

erode the record o the areas they leave behnd.

What s clear s that the depth, varety, and mplcatons o such local

experences can be adequately understood and addressed only by the poltcal

authortes and communtes drectly concerned. indeed the collaton and

computaton o a subnatonal seres o the Human Development index (HDi)

and other ndcators underscores the contnung advocacy o the Human

Development etwork (HD) to lnk achevements n human development

wth geographcal poltcal responsblty. Ths returns to the theme chaptersmessage, thereore: under current arrangements, there s no eectve poltcal

authorty or responsblty or montorng and understandng the record o

human development at a comprehensve geographc scale, namely at the level o

a provnce wth all ts ctes and arms, all ts leadng and laggng areas, ts entre

populaton engaged n all types o economc actvtes, and ts entre health and

educaton delvery system.

Ths Report, thereore, s addressed to poltcal leaders at all levels but

especally to the people to whom the ormer are responsble and must be held

to account. By ssung ths volume, the Human Development etwork hopes

both leaders and people wll recognze the challenge geography poses to human

developmentso that they wll change the nsttutons that stand n the way o

an eectve response.

EMMANuEL S. dE dIOSPrsd

h Dp nwrk


13/199

xiv PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013

Acknowlegments

THiS Report represents two and a hal years worth o work, a act reectng the

nature o the topc, the most complex and multaceted addressed by the Human

Development etwork (HD) so ar.

The process ncluded two ncepton workshops n January and March 2011; a

seres o publc orums to revew an orgnal set o background papers n August 2011;

and urther workshops n October 2011 and March 2012, beore a derent approach

was adopted n July 2012.

At the same tme, the atonal Statstcal oordnaton Board (SB) and HD studed the updatedglobal methodology or the Human Development index (HDi) and dscussed ts applcablty to the

Phlppnes. An nterm methodology or ths volume was agreed upon and presented to the SB

xecutve Board n February 2012. omputatons were subjected to a rgorous process o replcaton

beore the 2009 HDis or provnces were dssemnated n a jont SB-HD Forum on 10 December

2012. The statstcal annex ncluded n ths volume presents back-computatons o the HDi to 1997

usng the updated methodology or comparablty.

The HD xecutve ommttee expresses ts sncere thanks to all the ndvduals who collaborated

at varous stages o the process, as partcpants, dscussants, revewers, wrters, research assocates,

and sta assstants. Specal thanks or ther tme, patence, and commtment s extended to the

ollowng:

The frst set o contrbutors o background papers: Art orpuz, Je Ducanes, Jude sguerra, kkn

Beronlla, Agnes spnas, Jeanne illo, Leonardo Lanzona, Maranto Luspo (and assocates rom the

Holy ame Unversty n Bohol), Dorace Zoleta-antes, ory az, Temaro Rvera, dgardo Tongson,

Randy Tuao, Joey Sescon, and the Manla Observatory;

The second set o contrbutors: Henry Baslo, Vcente Belzaro, Red onstantno, Jame Faustno,

ino Manalo, Denns Mapa and assocates, lseo Ponce, apt. Ben Sols, and Lory Tan;

olleagues who provded nsghts and comments durng varous workshops, notably athanel

Bantayan, Dpayan Bhattacharyya, colo del astllo, Mars Dokno, Steeve Godlano, Jed Gomez, Gl

Jacnto, Mahar Lagmay, Mary Racels, Agnes Rola, and Dan Slvestre;

Members o the HDi Techncal Workng Group: now-current SB Secretary General Jose Ramon

Albert, ela Reyes (Phlppne insttute or Development Studes), Dr. Jessamyn ncarnacon (SB),Bernadette Balamban(SB), Je Ducanes (HD), Toby Monsod (HD), Anna Jean asanas (SB),

Mercy astro (Deped), Vkk arr delos Reyes (DOH), Marjore Vllaver (SO);

Sharon Pza, who replcated the frst set o HDi computatons and eventually fnalzed the 1997-

2009 seres, buldng on ntal work by Stella Lbre, Joseph Joven, G Andal, and Je Ducanes, wth

assstance rom Fath Balsacan and Regna Baroma;

Marna Durano (UPS), who wrote Part ii o ths report, Human Development n Phlppne

Provnces 1997-2009;


14/199

PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013 xv

Toby Monsod (UPS) who wrote Part i o ths report, the theme essay, Geography and

Human Development, wth helpul contrbutons rom mmanuel S. de Dos (UPS);

Sharon Fangonon who served as ofce supervsor apart rom provdng excellent research

and producton assstance to the man authors, ncludng generatng some o the maps;

Thanks and acknowledgements are also due to the ollowng: the ofcers and sta o

the Department o Agrculture, Department o Health, the World Health Organzaton, the

Department o Transportaton and ommuncatons, and the vl Avaton Authorty o the

Phlppnes, who generously accommodated requests or normaton; Maro Feranl and thePiDS who provded fnancal management and accountng support; the SB Team led by Dr.

Jessamyn ncarnacon who organzed the well-attended dssemnaton event last December

and agan the launch o ths volume; the Phlppne enter or conomc Development, whch

provded addtonal acltes and research support; and the Unted atons Development

Program, thru Toshhro Tanaka and orazon Urquco, whch agan provded unqualfed

support and understandng to the HD notwthstandng the delays whch plagued ths round

o producton.

Specal thanks go to Yvonne hua (press edtor), Avgal Olarte (prooreader) and d Davad

(layout artst), who whpped the volume nto publcaton-ready orm under an extremely tght

schedule.

Fnally the HD xecutve ommttee wshes to express ts specal thanks and apprecaton

to Toby Monsod, the general edtor o ths volume, who asde rom takng on the dauntng

ntellectual task o wrtng the theme essay, also trelessly organzed the logstcal, personnel,

and fnancal requrements o producng ths Report up to ts publcaton. Ths Report would

have been mpossble wthout her eorts and dedcaton.

HdN Exective Committee (2012-2014)

e S. d Ds, Prsd

m. Cy Rs Bz-Bs, vc-PrsdFrd t. adb, Scrry

Wfrd m. v, trsrr

erd m. Cps, adr

S Cs-msd (Fdg Prsd)

G t. Cs

Kr Cs-Dd

mc l. t

R t. vr

ars m. Bsc


15/199

xvi PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013

ls f mps ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................x

ls f tbs .......................................................................................................................................................................................................x

ls f Fgrs ....................................................................................................................................................................................................x

ls f Bxs .........................................................................................................................................................................................................xx

ls f Bx tbs ...............................................................................................................................................................................................xx

ls f Bx Fgrs ..............................................................................................................................................................................................xx

abbrs ......................................................................................................................................................................................................xx

I: Geography and human development in the Philippines ................................................ 1

Maps ............................................................................................................................................50

II: Human development in Philippine provinces: 1997-2009 ..........................................59

Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................93

Technical notes ........................................................................................................................101

Statistical annexes ..................................................................................................................109

Maps

1 lc sp dpdc h Dp idx (2009) ...................................................................................51

2 lc sp dpdc pr cp c (2009) ........................................................................................................51

3 Sp dpdc c grw (1988-2009)............................................................................................................51

4 lc sp dpdc c grw (1988-2009) ................................................................................................51

5 mr css (2009) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 52

6 Scssss srfc (2005) .......................................................................................................................................52

7 mcrfr dc prcs (2009) ....................................................................................................................................... 52

8 C prc f Sth g cdr 12-71 s (2004) ....................................................................... 52

9 Pry d dss (2009) ............................................................................................................................................................ 5310 C yps ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 54

11 agr-cgc zs ....................................................................................................................................................................... 54

12 Srg Rpbc nc hgwy ............................................................................................................................................... 55

13 l f rbz crss prcs ..................................................................................................................................... 55

14 Pr r ggg pcs ........................................................................................................................................................................ 56

14b Wr pr pp r ...................................................................................................................................................................... 56

Contents


16/199

PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013 xvii

15 lf xpccy dx (2009).......................................................................................................................................................... 57

16 edc dx (2009)...................................................................................................................................................................... 57

17 ic dx (2009) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 57

18 h Dp idx (2009) .............................................................................................................................................58

Tables

1.1 vr prc dcrs xpd by ggrpy ..................................................................................................2

1.2 vr dss c pr prc xpd ................................................................................................................. 7

1.3 vr scssss prc xpd ................................................................................................................81.4 arg rc yds crss Ppps ...............................................................................................................................11

1.5 Frrs/frr prrs by yp f cy (2002) ........................................................................................................13

1.6 ics Cs s. Cgy vy 1960 ................................................................................................................................... 21

1.7 Cpr cs f c sppg s. r-r sppg .....................................................................................23

1.8 tx ssg fr prcs, cs, cps, brgys ..................................................................................37

1.9 Dsrb f iRa d dd xpdrs .....................................................................................................................41

2.1 lrgs grs d srs f xpccy dx bw 1997 d 2009 .......................................................66

2.2 tp d b prcs f xpccy (1997 d 2009) .....................................................................................66

2.3 lrgs grs d srs dc dx bw 1997 d 2009 ................................................................. 67

2.4 lrgs grs d srs c dx bw 1997 d 2009 .......................................................................68

2.5 hDi grs d srs bw 1997 d 2009 .................................................................................................................71

2.6 hDi p d b prcs (1997) ........................................................................................................................................72

2.7 hDi p d b prcs (2009)........................................................................................................................................73

2.8 ls f prcs by yp f pr (1997-2009, 1997-2003, 2003-2009) ...............................................76

2.9 lrgs grs d srs GDi bw 1997 d 2009 ...........................................................................................79

2.10 GDi p d b prcs (1997)......................................................................................................................................... 80

2.11 GDi p d b prcs (2009) ........................................................................................................................................81

2.12 lrgs grs d srs qy dsrbd f xpccy dx bw 1997 d 2009 ..............83

2.13 lrgs grs d srs qy dsrbd dc dx bw 1997 d 2009 .........................84

2.14 lrgs grs d srs qy dsrbd c dx bw 1997 d 2009 ...............................85

2.15 tp 10 prcs w rgs sss hDi d qs ............................................................................ 862.16 tp 10 prcs w s sss hDi d qs.................................................................................86

2.17 tp 10 prcs w rk prs prsc f qs .............................................................87

2.18 tp 10 prcs w rk dcs prsc f qs ........................................................................... 87


17/199

xviii PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013

Figures

1.1 lkg ggrpy d dp ...........................................................................................................................3

1.2 ac f grcr br prgr spdg, xcdg rrg (2001-2011) .......................................15

1.3 Sf-sffccy rs rc (2001-2011) ............................................................................................................................... 15

1.4 Scrs w wrs pry rcd ss bdg ..............................................................................................20

1.5 Sd dc pry cdc dr crp-r R&D pprc .........................................................20

1.6 lc rds d rr -grcr c .....................................................................................................................22

1.7 ipc f rfrs srcr d prs f r dsry ...............................................................232.1 Rsp bw pr cp c d hDi (1997-2009) ....................................................................................60

2.2 Rsp bw pr cp c d -c hDi .....................................................................................60

2.3 Rsp bw pr cp c grw d cg hDi (1997-2009) ...............................................61

2.4 Rsp bw pr cp c grw d cg -c hDi (1997-2009) ....................61

2.5 lf xpccy dx by prc (1997-2009) .................................................................................................................... 65

2.6 edc dx by prc (1997-2009) ................................................................................................................................ 67

2.7 ic dx by prc (1997-2009) ..................................................................................................................................... 68

2.8 h Dp idx by prc (1997-2009)........................................................................................................ 69

2.9 Dffr ps fr sr srg ps (1997-2009) ...............................................................................................70

2.10 hDi rk by prc 1997 d 2009 ..........................................................................................................................................74

2.11 Rk cprss f hDi d pr cp c (2009) .................................................................................................. 75

2.12 Prcs by yp f pr bw 1997 d 2009 ........................................................................................ 75

2.13 hDi rk d GDi rk by prc (2009) ............................................................................................................................... 77

2.14 Gdr Dp idx by prc (1997-2009) ........................................................................................................78

2.15 GDi rk by prc 1997 d 2009 ......................................................................................................................................... 82

2.16 eqy dsrbd f xpccy dx (1997-2009) ......................................................................................................83

2.17 eqy dsrbd dc dx (1997-2009).................................................................................................................84

2.18 eqy dsrbd c dx (1997-2009) ......................................................................................................................85

2.19 hDi d qy-djsd hDi (2009) ................................................................................................................................... 86

2.20 Prc rkg by hDi d ihDi (2009) ............................................................................................................................... 88

2.21 lsss f xpccy, dc, d c d qs by prc (2009) ................................89


18/199

PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013 xix

Boxes

1.1 Sp dpdc hDi cps ...................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 a dsj pbc fr sys .............................................................................................................................9

1.3 Ccp frwrk fr dpg gr-cgc zs ........................................................................................12

1.4 W ds Da ry k k? ....................................................................................................................................................... 14

1.5 nr zrd d c cg ............................................................................................................................................. 16

1.6 Rxs, mdr or bfr d fr r-r rfrs .........................................................................................24

1.7 Dd-by-n rprs .................................................................................................................................................................... 251.8 aPeCo .......................................................................................................................................................................................................28

1.9 Dcgsg mr m: igrg mg m ......................................................................................................34

1.10 Dd fcs d grcr .........................................................................................................................38

1.11 twrd r rbs, cs, rs Ppp grcr ...................................................................................39

1.12 igrd pprc ntD cr: C w d br? ...................................................................................................42

2.1 t Gdr iqy idx d s ppc Ppps ...............................................................................77

2.2 t iqy-djsd h Dp idx .........................................................................................................85

Box Tables

1 mrs dcs fr hDi cps d pry cdc .............................................................................................4

2 arg mooe pr yp f rpr (2008-2011) ...................................................................................................25

3 Dd fcs ...............................................................................................................................................................38

4 Dd grcr fcs .................................................................................................................................................... 38


19/199

xx PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013

Box Figures

1 lf xpccy (2009): obsrd s s. spy wgd rg f gbrs ..........................5

2 m yrs f scg (2008): obsrd s s. spy wgd rg f gbrs ........5

3 Pr cp c: obsrd s s. spy wgd rg f gbrs .....................................5

4 hDi (2009): obsrd s s. spy wgd rg f gbrs ...................................................5

5 Pry cdc (2009): obsrd s s. spy wgd rg f gbrs ....................5

6 assg f fcs d fr ks ..........................................................................................9

7 aeZ frwrk ......................................................................................................................................................................................128 Pbsd Da rgz cr .............................................................................................................................................. 14

9 mry cs f dgs d r zrd dcd dssrs (1985-2010) ..............................................17

10 mry sss s prcg f gr xpdrs d GDP ..............................................17

11 nbr f pp ffcd by r zrd dcd dssrs (1985-2011) ......................................................18

12 Css fr r zrd dcd dssrs (1985-2011) ................................................................................... 18

13 nbr f pp ffcd by yps d br f cds (1985-2011)...................................................19

14 arpr Csrs ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 26

15 Prfrc f frprs, Boi d PeZa (1996-2012) ....................................................................................................28

16 mr m, Cr lz, d Cbrz pp ss .........................................................................34


20/199

PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013 xxi

Abbreviations

aBRP agrcr Brcrcy Rsrcrg P

aDB as Dp Bk

aeZ agr-cgc z

aFma agrcr d Fsrs mdrz ac

aFmP agrcr d Fsrs mdrz P

aiP a is P

a.o. adsr ordr

aPeCo arr Pcfc ecc Z d Frpr ary

aPiS a Pry ic Sry

aRmm as Rg ms mdaSean assc f Ss as ns

aSeZa arr Spc ecc Z ary

asaiD asr agcy fr ir Dp

BaS Br f agrcr Sscs

BhS Brgy s

Boi Brd f iss

B.P. Bs Pbs

CaaP C a ary f Ppps

CaR Crdr adsr Rg

Cc Css ecs

Da Dpr f agrcr

DalY Dsby f yrsDBm Dpr f Bdg d mg

DenR Dpr f er d nr Rsrcs

Dped Dpr f edc

DilG Dpr f irr d lc Gr

DoF Dpr f Fc

Doh Dpr f h

DotC Dpr f trspr d Ccs

DPWh Dpr f Pbc Wrks d hgwys

e.o. exc ordr

Fao Fd d agrcr orgz

FBt Fdbr rd fc

FieS Fy ic d expdr Sry

Gaa Gr apprprs ac

GDD Grwg Dgr Dys

GDi Gdr-rd Dp idx

GDP Grss Dsc Prdc

Gii Gdr iqy idx

GnP Grss n Prdc

hDi h Dp idx

hDn h Dp nwrk

hDR h Dp Rpr


21/199

xxii PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013

hiv h idfccy vrs

hPi h Pry idx

huC hgy rbzd cy

ihDi iqy-djsd h Dp idx

iPa is pr gcs

iRa ir R a

iRR ipg rs d rgs

JmC J mrd Crcr

lFS lbr Frc Sry

lGC lc Gr Cd

lGu lc gr

lSa lc sp crr

mDa mss drg dsr

mDG m Dp G

miGeDC mr i-Grs ecc Dp Cc

mo m obsrry

mooe mc d r prg xpss

mPi mds Pry idx

namRia n mppg d Rsrc ifr ary

nCR n Cp Rg

nDhS n Dgrpc d h Sry

neDa-iCC n ecc d Dp arys is Crd C

nGa n Gr agcy

nRRDmC n Dssr Rsk Rdc d mg Cc

nSCB n Ssc Crd Brd

nSo n Sscs offc

ntD ngcd rpc dsss

PaGaSa Ppp asprc, Gpysc, d asrc Srcs adsr

PCi Pr cp c

PDP Prc dp p

PDPFP Prc Dp d Pysc Frwrk P

PeF Pc d eqy FdPeZa Ppp ecc Z ary

PhDR Ppp h Dp Rpr

PmiS Ppp mr ifr Sys

PiDS Ppp is fr Dp Sds

PlPem Prc/lc Pg d expdr mg Gds

PPa Ppp Prs ary

PPFP Prc pysc frwrk p

PSu Prry spg

PSY Ppp Ssc Yrbk

R.a. Rpbc ac

Rhu Rr

R-r R-, r-ffRPt R prpry x

SaFDZ Srgc agrcr d Fsrs Dp Z

SeZ Spc cc z

Sth S-rsd fc

unDP ud ns Dp Prgr

unDP hDRo unDP h Dp Rpr offc

uPSe ursy f Ppps Sc f eccs

WB Wrd Bk

Who Wrd h orgz


22/199

PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013 xxiii

Philippine Provinces


23/199

PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013 1

[ibrr:] Gayunman, mahal ko ang ating bayan, tulad ninyo, hindi lamang dahil sa tungkulin ng lahat ng

tao ang magmahal sa bayang pinagkakautangan niya ng buhay at pagkakautangan marahil ng kanyang

huling hantungan, hindi lamang dahil gayon ang itinuro sa akin ng aking ama, kundi dahil Indio ang akingina, at dahil nabubuhay dito ang lahat ng pinakamagaganda kong alaala, mahal ko siya dahil utang ko sa

kaniya at uutangin ko pa ang aking kaligayahan!

At ako, dahil utang sa kaniya ang aking kasawian, bulong ni Elias.

fr Rzs Noli me Tangere1

Why geography?

HumaN developent s defned as the process that wdens the range o peoples choces,

the most crtcal o whch are to lead a long and healthy le, to be educated and

knowledgeable, and to enjoy a decent standard o lvng. Addtonal choces nclude

poltcal reedom, guaranteed human rghts, and sel-respect [UDP 1990].

Past volumes o the Philippine Hn Developent Report snce 1994 have

successvely montored the progress o human development across the countrys

regons and provnces, examnng the state o gender and development, basc

educaton and employment, as well as the mpact o armed conct. Beyond that,

the report o 2009 sought to explan the pace o polcy reorm tsel, observng that

progress n human development depends on nsttutons, .e., ormal laws and

regulatons as well as unwrtten codes and norms o socal acceptance and opprobrum: Deeper than polcesand larger than ndvduals, t s the nsttutons that structure behavor whch matter deeply or whether human

development advances or not [HD 2009].

What has yet to be taken ully nto account, however, s that human development takes place n physicl spce.

People locate themselves n spaces derentated by elevaton and slope, landorm and rock cover, temperature and

precptaton, accessblty, and exposure to natural hazards. These natural actors, at the very least, combne to nuence

ntal land potental and land use, the burden o dsease, settlements patternsand, ultmately, health, lvelhood, and

standards o lvng. Geography, n short, s a deep determnant o human development.

IGeography an Hman developmentin the Philippines


24/199

2 PhiliPPine human DeveloPment RePoRt 2012/2013

the values o adjacent locatons. Hence, a locaton may

have a hgh value o the varable and neghbors wth hghvalues as well, or t may have a low value and low-value

neghbors or a gven varable. Another pattern may be

that a place ders rom ts neghbors, havng a low value

o the varable whle ts neghbors show hgh values (or

vce versa). The pont s that clusters mght be observed

n the spatal arrangement o varables beyond what

mght be expected rom chance alone.

As s evdent rom Maps 1 and 2, such clusters o

spatal dependence can be observed or per capta ncome

and HDi [Box 1.1]. Metro Manla, avte, Rzal, Bulacan,

Pampanga, and Benguet share smlarly hgh values wth

ther neghbors; call these hot spots. Meanwhle, Sulu

and Taw-Taw are locatons wth low values and have

neghbors that are smlarly stuated; these are cold spots.

Mountan Provnce and South otabato are outlers: the

ormer has low values but hgh-value neghbors, whle

the latter has hgh values but low-value neghbors. When

such neighborhood effects are statstcally controlled or, the

assocatons presented n olumn 2 o Table 1.1 mprove by

an average o 13.28 percentage ponts or 46 percent. More

detaled results are presented n olumn 3 o Table 1.1.eghborhood eects also matter through tme

[Mapa et al. 2013]. Ater controllng or demographc

and poltcal varables, spatal dependence s postvely

mplcated n the behavor o average ncome growth

rates o provnces between 1988 and 2009 [Maps 3 and

4]. On average, a 1 percentage pont ncrease n the

growth o per capta ncome o neghborng provnces

Table 1.1 Variation in provincial inicators

explaine by geography* (in percent)

Inicator (depenent variable)Geographic

factors*

Geographicfactors pls

neighborhooeffects**

lf xpccy (2009) 24.7 42.4

m yrs f scg (2008) 36.6 41.4

Pr cp c (2009)*** 31.6 40.2

ic pry cdc (2009) 47.2 54.2

hDi 2009 34.3 44.7

* expry rbs: c yp, sp, , wr s/dckd.n r fcrs r crd fr.** Sqr f crr f c Y d prdcd Y. a prxy sr frgdss-f-f sp g ds*** i PPP nCR 2000 pss

Wthn the Phlppnes, physcal space s unusually

dverse. Seldom does a terrtory as small as thePhlppne Archpelago possess so many vared and

unusual characterstcs [WS 1967].2

The archpelago comprses 7,107 slands, spannng

1,850 km. o ocean surace rom north to south, wth a

total land area o about 300,000 sq. km. and a coastlne

235, 973 km. long. islands are relatvely small, wth

mountanous nterors and narrow coasts, although

larger ones eature a broad array o hlls, plateaus,

and plans. Approxmately 65 percent o the land area

s consdered uplands, but there are also extensve

lowlands on the largest slands.

The country les n the humd tropcs, but temperatures

and precptaton are not unorm: temperatures n the

lowlands are not ound n the hghlands whle annual

precptaton can range rom a low o 965 mm. n somesouthern places to over 4,265 mm. along certan eastern

shores. lmatc varety s urther heghtened by alternatng

cycles o drought and ood3 as well as by typhoons whch

do not strke all areas equally.

internatonal research fnds that geography plays a

role n explanng the derent rates o recent economc

growth across countres [GSM 1999; Sachs 2003; AJR

2001, 2002; asterly and Levne 2003; and RST 2002]. The

obvous queston then presents tsel: does geography

also play a part n shapng local ncomes and outcomes

wthn a country lke the Phlppnes?

Table 1.1 strongly suggests that t does. it

summarzes how much o nterprovnce varaton n

human development outcomes (as descrbed n Part II)

s explaned by actors related to geography. olumn 2

o the table ndcates that varatons n clmate, slope,

elevaton, sea- or landlockedness explan some 25

percent o varaton n le expectancy across provnces;

37 percent o the varaton n mean years o schoolng;

and 32 percent o the varaton o per capta ncome

across provnces. it also explans 47 percent o varatonn the ncdence o provncal ncome poverty. Altogether,

as much as 34 percent o varaton n provncal HDis s

assocated wth varyng geographc actors.

Addtonal consderaton must be gven, however,

to sptil dependence n provncal ncomes and outcomes.

Spatal dependence occurs when observed values o

some varable or one locaton seem to be related wth


25/199


s assocated wth a 0.5 percentage pont ncrease n the

growth o per capta ncome o the home provnce.

Some locatons exhbt strong local neghborhood

eects over the perod: provnces n the Autonomous

Regon n Muslm Mndanao (ARMM), or example, and

a number o other provnces n Mndanao (Bukdnon,

Lanao orte, Sultan Kudarat) are cold spots. On the other

hand, Romblon and Marnduque are hot spots. astern

Samar, Mndoro Occdental, and Zambales have low

values but hgh-value neghbors.

That geography matters s not to say that t defnes

an nescapable destny. indeed, Table 1.1 suggests that

large portons o the varaton n provncal ncomes

and outcomes are stll unaccounted or by geographcal

condtons. Moreover, Box 1.1 suggests that whle

neghborhood eects are mportant, these may depend

on somethng more than just beng near or ar rom a

specfc locaton. in other words, whle physcal geography

may be fxed, socoeconomc outcomes need not be.We thereore need to know the ollowng: through

what channels does geography aect local outcomes?

What are the opportunty costs o not ully takng

condtons in sit nto account n the pursut o human

development? How can nsttutons better ensure

that challenges and opportuntes presented by local

geography are addressed or leveraged?

Figre 1.1 Linking geography an hman evelopment

How oes geographyinflence hmanevelopment across thePhilippines?

There are three routes by whch geography may be lnked

to ncomes and outcomes [Figure 1.1]: drectly, through

ts eect on human health and agrcultural productvty

(Arrow 1); ndrectly, through ts nuence on dstance

and the extent o market ntegraton (Arrow 2); and

ndrectly agan, through ts nuence on the qualty o

domestc nsttutons (Arrow 3).

These lnks are not always undrectonal, however.

For nstance, beng ntegrated nto markets can rase a

localtys ncomes by encouragng specalzaton and the

duson o technology (Arrow 4); but conversely, trade

can be the result (rather than the cause) o ncreasedproductvty (Arrow 5). Better nsttutons can rase

ncomes by acltatng more nvestment (Arrow 6), but

better nsttutons can also evolve rom a drect demand

or them due to a wealther, more educated, or more

empowered ctzenry (Arrow 7). Better nsttutons can

also evolve as ncreasng ntegraton creates pressure or

more openness (Arrow 8).

Source: Adopted from Rodrik and Subramanian [2003]


26/199


SPatial dpdc ccrs w bsrs f c dpd s f r cs. a c y

g d g- gbrs, r w d w- gbrs, fr g rb. or y

w d g- gbrs, r rrs. t p s csrs r bsrd sp rrg

f rbs s byd w s b xpcd by cc .

Sp crr c b srd sg mrs idx [mr 1950]. t rg f pssb s fr mrs Is

fr -1 1, wr ps dcs crss ggrpc s, sr s r r ky dssr s

bw gbrs, d c rs.

mrs Ifr dcrs f dp d fr pry cdc r prsd Bx tb 1. a ps

, wc s crss prcs, sr s bw gbrs (g-g r w-w) r r ky

dssr s. W xcp f xpcd yrs f scg, s r sscy sgfc. (t s rss r

grd fr rr yrs.)

Box Table 1 Morans inices for HdI components an poverty incience

Variable Morans I Sd z-stat p-vale*

lf xpccy 2009 0.363 0.078 4.803 0.000

m yrs f scg 2008 0.363 0.078 4.821 0.000

expcd yrs f scg 2008 0.096 0.078 1.394 0.163

Pr cp c 2009 ( nCR 2000 pss) 0.367 0.078 4.893 0.000

hDi 2009 0.433 0.078 5.684 0.000

Pry cdc 2009 0.544 0.079 7.044 0.000

* tw-d s

mrs Igs s sg gb rs fr w d s. hwr, ds prd fr crcrscs

f sp csrg. a grpc yss ds s s mrs scrp. mrs scrp s fr qdrs, c

qdr rprsg spcfc kd f sp ssc bw prc d s gbrs w rspc rb

f rs. h s r rz w spy wgd rgs f gbrs s r rc.

nPrcs Qdr i (hh) g s d g- gbrs.

nPrcs Qdr iii (ll) w s d w- gbrs.

nPrcs Qdr ii (lh) w s d g- gbrs.

nPrcs Qdr iv (hl) g s d w- gbrs.

i dd, srs f c sp crr (lSa) p dfy pcks f cs wr csdrd p- s xry prcd [o d G 2005]. Prcs w sgfc c sp crr Qdr

i r kw s sps. ts Qdr iii r kw s cd sps. Prcs Qdrs ii d iv r p sp

rs. 1

Bx Fgrs 1 5 r mrs scrps fr c f rbs, ggg sps, cd sps, d sp rs.

1 o d G [2005] (p://ssp2005.prc.d/bsrcs/51529).

Box 1.1 Spatial epenence in HdI components


27/199


Box Figre 1 Life expectancy (2009)obsrd s s. spy wgdrg f gbrs

Box Figre 2 Mean years of schooling (2008)obsrd s s. spy wgdrg f gbrs

Box Figre 3 Per capita incomeobsrd s s. spy wgdrg f gbrs

Box Figre 4 HdI (2009)obsrd s s. spy wgdrg f gbrs

Box Figre 5 Poverty incience (2009)obsrd s s. spy wgdrg f gbrs


28/199


Hman health

Geography and health are ntrnscally lnked. Where

persons are born, lve, study, and work drectly nuences

ther health experences. Ths s due to the ar they

breathe, the ood they eat, the vruses they are exposed

to, and the health servces they can access [Drummer

2008].

The range and ntensty o dseases, especally

vector-borne ones,4 are aected by natural condtons

such as clmate and topography [Gallup and Sachs 2000].

Such dseases contrbute sgnfcantly to the dsease

burden n tropcal countres, whch on average have

per capta ncomes only a thrd o those o nontropcal

countres [Gallup 2000]. ross-country studes ndcate

that envronments conducve to dseaseas represented

by the prevalence o malarahave sgnfcant negatveeects on economc perormance [artensen and

Gundlach 2006; and GS 2000].

ill health can be expected to contrbute to

mpovershment. it has been estmated that malara s

responsble or around 46 mllon dsablty-adjusted

le years5 (or DALY), .e., years o healthy or productve

le lost due to llness, dsablty, and premature death.

The estmated total burden on households can go up to

a catastrophc 32 percent o annual ncome or the very

poor.6 Schstosomass, on the other hand, s responsble

or anywhere between 3 mllon and 70 mllon DALY.

The costs o these and other chronc llnesses

nvolve the drect monetary costs o mtgatng and

managng recurrng sckness and the opportunty costs

o lost schoolng or work or the ll or those who care or

them. These costs can have longer-term mplcatons

on a households economyts assets, ncome levels

and consumpton patterns, debt, and lvelhood

sustanabltyas well as on an ndvduals cogntve

development, educaton levels, and lelong capabltes

[Russel 2004]. The chronc nammatory processassocated wth long-term schstosomass, or example,

contrbutes to anema and undernutrton, whch can

lead to growth stuntng, poor school perormance, low

work productvty, and contnued poverty [Kng 2010].

Malara s the nnth leadng cause o morbdty n

the Phlppnes and s ound n 58 out o 80 provnces,

wth nearly 14 mllon people at rsk [DOH 2011].7 Most o

the countrys malara cases occur n orested, swampy,

hlly and mountanous regons n Luzon and Mndanao,

and among upland subsstence armers, orest related

workers, ndgenous peoples, and mgrant agrcultural

workers. Schstosomass s endemc n 1,230 barangays

across 28 provnces, wth approxmately 12 mllon at

rsk and 2.5 mllon drectly exposed.Surpassed only by

tuberculoss and malara n prevalence, transmsson o

schstosomass s hghly dependent on the dstrbuton

o ts ntermedate snal host, whch n turn s hghly

dependent on annual ranall patterns and local

topography [Belzaro et al. 2007; and Blas et al. 2004].

Rce felds, streams, and creeks are potental breedng

grounds, and rrgaton systems can transport hosts nto

prevously nonendemc areas [Leonardo 2012]. Farmers,

resh water fshermen, and chldren are especally

vulnerable.Four other neglected tropcal dseases (TDs) are

endemc to the Phlppnes and need to be accounted

or [Maps 5 to 8]. Lke schstosomass, these TDs do

not cause nstant death but chronc dsabltes and

deormtes that hamper the growth and development

o chldren, as well as the productvty o adults.8 The

our are (a) lymphatc flarass (elephantass or tibk),

the second leadng cause o permanent and long-term

dsablty n the country, endemc n 43 provnces and

nectng about 645,000 persons [DOH 2011]; (b) sol-

transmtted helmnth nectons or STH (e.g., hookworm,

tapeworm) whch nect about 66 percent o preschool

chldren, 67 percent o school-age chldren, and up to

43.1 percent o the general populaton at the provncal

level;9 (c) oodborne trematode (FBT) nectons, the ull

extent o whch s stll unknown but whose prevalence

at the barangay level has been observed to be as hgh as

36 percent;10 and (d) leprosy. Women and chldren lvng

n remote areas or wthout access to eectve health care

are most commonly at rsk to TDs.

The ndvdual and household socoeconomc mpacto TDs s, sadly, understuded.11 One rare attempt to

quanty local eects n our endemc barangays n

Leyte provnce estmated the productve days lost per

schstosomass-nected person per year to be 45.4

person days, wth the dsease peakng among the 10-19

age group [Blas et al. 2006].12 Flarass s estmated to

account or $4.4 mllon n annual losses rom decreased


29/199


productvty and ncreased costs o care.13

There are no estmates or the local mpact o

STH, but nternatonal evdence ndcates t could deal

a severe blow, especally at the most vulnerable stage

o le. Results rom rgorous mpact evaluatons o

benefts rom school-based mass dewormng are

tellng: n the short term, a reducton o absenteesm

by 25 percent and an addtonal year to the

average chlds educaton ( dewormed throughout

elementary school); n the long term, a 34 percent

reducton n work days lost to llness, a 12 percent

ncrease n hours worked, and an mprovement n

wage earnngs (21-29 percent) [JPAL 2007; and Bard

et al. 2011]. School-based mass dewormng has n

act been descrbed as the most cost-eectve way to

ncrease school partcpaton (o all the alternatves

that have been rgorously evaluated) as well as oneo the most cost-eectve ways to mprove health

known [JPAL 2007].

Are malara and TD dsease burden assocated

wth low levels o human development, and does t matter

or the dspartes observed across the country? There

s evdence or sayng, yes. A postve and sgnfcant

correlaton exsts between the overlappngoccrrence o

dseases, on the one hand, and poverty ncdence, on the

other [PF 2011].14 That s, the presence o greater varety

o tropcal dseases n a provnce over the last fve years

s assocated wth a hgher ncdence o ncome poverty;

less varety s assocated wth lower poverty ncdence.

Put derently, tropcal dseases tend to overlap one

another n areas where the ncdence o ncome poverty

s hgher [Map 9]. it s surprsng, however, that no strong

correlaton exsts between the recorded prevalence o

any one dsease and an array o provncal or muncpal

poverty ndcators.15

The drecton o causaton may go ether way. On the

one hand, the correlaton depcted n Map 9 may ndcate

the cumulatve negatve eects on human productvtyand ncome that results rom chronc parastc nectons

(o any type), whch oten co-occur.16 On the other hand, t

could reect the obvous pont that poorer communtes

are less able to elmnate or control dseases when these

occur, or that poor lvng condtons (e.g., nadequate

envronmental santaton, poor personal hygene)

acltate the transmsson o certan parastes.

Whle the latter nterpretaton s ar, t would

be mstaken to conclude that rsng ncomes per se

are sufcent to take care o these health threatsan

nerence that removes the problem rom ts physcal

context. in act, closer examnaton suggests that the

overlappng occurrence o dseases s more strongly

assocated wth geography than wth poverty ncdence.

in partcular, geography explans twce the percentage

o varaton n the occurrence o overlappng dseases

than does ncome poverty [Table 1.2].

Table 1.2 Variation in isease cont* per provinceexplaine (in percent)

Correlate Ajste R2

ic pry cdc (2009) 13.31

Ggrpy (c, s ckd, dckd) 26.76

* PeF [2011]Source: Authors computation

Why the weak correlatons between poverty

and specfc TDs? Ths may be an artact o poor or

ncompatble data.

Frst, survey-based poverty data may not be

representatve at a scale wth enough detal to

derentate specfc ecologcal condtons assocated

wth vector-borne dseases. ommunty-based poverty

data (.e., down to the barangay level), avalable, may

provde a better resoluton, but then the qualty o

avalable dsease data to correlate t wth s qute poor.

The latter s attrbutable to how normaton s collected

by local publc health servces, whch utlze more

passve orms o communty survellance and whch may

be lmted by manpower, resources, and accessblty

o endemc stes (typcally ar rom health centers).17

Sklled local health personnel who mght provde

accurate dagnostc servces are also n short supply.One assessment showed that only 58.5 percent o the

postve schstosomass specmens were correctly read

by feld mcroscopsts [Belzaro et al. 2007]; n another,

the extent o msdagnoss o an FBT ranged rom 16 to 25

percent [Belzaro et al. 1997]. Renecton s also not ully

accounted or [Belzaro et al. 2004]. in short, there may

be gross underreportng as well as msdagnoss.18


30/199


Data avalable at natonal repostores are also o

uneven qualty. Malara, whose reducton s an explct

Mllennum Development Goal (MDG), and flarass,

whose elmnaton was declared a prorty by the

World Health Assembly n 1997, seem to be handled by

programs that are relatvely stable n terms o undng,

strategy, and protocols. Schstosomass, STH, and FBT

have not been as ortunate, however.19 Schstosomass

stll has no clear control strategy despte the avalablty

o eectve control tools [Belzaro et al. 2007], and STH

seems to be saddled wth coordnaton problems n

program mplementaton (e.g., the coverage o publc

school-based dewormng n 2011 was only 70 percent)

and data storage (avalable STH data are regonal and

o vntage 2004). o database exsts or FBT although

a frst natonal baselne or FBT s scheduled or 2013

[Hernandez, personal communcaton].Poor dsease data also seem to be a drect result o the

nadvertent breakdown o the publc health normaton

system ater the devoluton o health servces n 1991.

What used to be a coherent management normaton

system that owed rom barangay health statons (BHS)

to muncpal-level rural health unts (RHU), to dstrct and

provncal health ofces, then urther up to the regonal

and natonal levels, was cut n two places: between

the RHUs and dstrcts and between the provnce and

regonal centers [Box 1.2].

That gatherng better data s a crucal frst step s

demonstrated by the act that when data rom a 2005-

2008 schstosomass survey were used, whose desgn

attempted to actor n the ocal and nonrandom nature o

the paraste across provnces, apostve assocaton wthncome poverty dd emerge [Table 1.3]. The stronger

assocaton wth geography stll remaned, however,

and revealed a sharper pcture, one whch supported

questons about the valdty o the tradtonal profle

o a schstosomass endemc provnce [Leonardo et

al. 2012].20

Lnks wth hydrologcal (e.g., rrgaton) andsocoeconomc (e.g., ertlzer trade) connectvty were

also hghlghted as was ts co-occurrence wth STH and

FBT nectons.

ven so, the ocal and nonrandom nature o the

paraste within provnces may stll not have been

captured by the survey.21 The derved prevalence or

Agusan del Sur was only 3.9 percent, ar lower than the

derved prevalence o 31.8 percent rom a survey n two

muncpaltes o the same provnce surveyed at about

the same tme [Belzaro et al. 2007]. The result o such

underreportng at the scale where t counts s not just an

underestmaton o the magntudes o the dsease, but an

nattenton to ts loctions, whch then become the bassor polcymakng, plannng, and und allocatons.22

Threats to human health are ste-specfc and

have potentally large human development costs. But

ther ull extent s under-apprecated. These threats

have spatal peculartes ndcatng that rsng ncomes

alone wll not sufce n ther control or elmnaton.

important ntrasectoral and ntersectoral spllovers are

also nvolved n ther persstence.e., spllovers n the

prevalence o derent dseases, cross-dsease control,

envronmental health, and agrcultural nterventons

as well as n ther mpacts, e.g., across health, educaton

perormance, and lvelhood. Spllovers must be taken

nto account n consderng any publc health approach.

The mplcaton s that actons must be drect and

ntegratedlocally. integrated because ths s what

efcency demands, n the lght o spllovers; and locally

ntegrated, not only or practcal reasons23 but because

provnces have the most at stake n seeng ntegraton

succeed. urrently, however, provnces have lttle to

do wth the plannng or or delvery o qualty basc

qualty health servces (as dscussed urther below).Moreover, natonal-level agents nterpret ntegraton

as co-mplementaton across dsease control programs

[Hernandez, personal communcaton], an nterpretaton

that at best ams to reduce operatonal waste and save

on costs across vertcally organzed natonal health

programs.

But ntegraton can ental and acheve ar more

Table 1.3 Variation in schistosomiasis prevalence

explaine* (in percent)

Correlate Ajste R2

ic pry cdc (2009) 5.41

Ggrpy (c, , sckd,dckd)*

15.67

* Scssss prc fr lrd . [2012]Source: Authors computation


31/199


varaton n precptaton has a partcularly proound

eect upon the dstrbutonal patterns o the natural

vegetaton, the qualty o tropcal sols, and even

the cultural landscape [WS 1967:46]. Based on the

dstrbuton o ranall n the country, our broad clmate

types can be delneated [Map 10]. But varatons can

stll occur wthn each type because o such actors as

elevaton. lmate and parent-sol materal gve the

Phlppnes a wde range o sols, some o whch are very

rch and some qute poor.24 rops n turn are selected on

the bass o water avalablty (e.g., rce versus corn), and

crop choce determnes croppng systems and assocated

cultural patterns.

verythng else beng equal, clmate and sols

determne an areas agrcultural prospects, .e., tscomparatve advantage or dsadvantage wth respect to

types o crop. The mplcatons o a broad range o natural

varaton can thereore be crtcal or an agrculturally

orented populaton.

As an llustraton, Map 11 presents one possble

mappng o agro-ecologcal zones (AZs) across the

country based on temperature, mosture, slope,

Box 1.2 A isjoint pblic health information system

The sys s p 1960s frd

fw f fr fr brgy ss

(BhS) cr ffc f Dpr f

h css w cry gd pbc

sys [Bx Fgr 6]. W srcs wr

dd c grs 1992, fr ks

wr srd (bd, dsd s): bw rr s

(Rhu) d ffcs dsrcs d prcs, d

bw dsrc/prc ffcs d Dohs rg

ffcs d cr ffc.

h srcs f dpd csb crr d

gy rbzdfc dpdy f prc

y r ggrpcy cd d fr s cssry srd.

Box Figre 6 Assignment of health fnctionsan health information links

hard and strategc choces are made to nternalze ntra-

and ntersectoral spllovers wthn and across localtes.

Beyond the possble savngs or natonal programs, an

ntegrated approach can potentally delver mproved

educaton results, hgher adult productvty, overall local

growth, and human development.

Agricltral proctivity

Geography s drectly ted to agrcultural prospects

through landorms, topography, temperature, and

precptaton, whch combne to determne clmate and

sol types. Geography thus has ts greatest mpact at

low levels o development, when tradtonal agrculture

domnates a local economy [Gallup 2000]. in thePhlppnes, the ncdence o ncome poverty s three

tmes greater among agrcultural households than

among all other households combned; two o every three

ncome-poor persons depend drectly on agrculture or

employment and sustenance. The low ncomes observed

prmarly reect low productvty.

O the many eatures o Phlppne geography,


32/199


elevaton, and sol order. Methodologcally, temperature

and mosture ndces were combned to defne seven

agro-clmatc zones, whch were n turn cross-tabulated

wth our agro-edaphc zones defned rom combnatons

o topography and sol order categores [Box 1.3]. The

combnaton produces 26 categores or the Phlppnes

AZs, provdng an ecology-based dvson o space,

emphaszng general sutablty or agrculture or

potental or agrculture [Manla Observatory 2012]. The

shares o each o the resultng AZs n total land area

range rom 0.07 to 19.53 percent, wth the three largest

shares gong to zones characterzed by crtcal sols

requrng ntensve management.25 indeed, 53 percent o

the sols across the Phlppnes are such crtcal sols.

it s mportant to note that these AZs do not clam

to mply a specfc crop or development potental n the

sense o the best use o land [ibd.]. Further layers onormaton are requred or ths purpose.26 Map 11 s

smply one pcture o relatve terrestril condtons at the

meso level, based on bophyscal condtons measured

over a long perod.

onetheless, at least one mportant pont s revealed:

there s a wde varety o AZs across the country whch,

even when delberately lmted to a manageable number,27

do not neatly correspond to admnstratve dvsons.

That s, there may be AZ homogenety across an area

lke the entral Plan o Luzon, or AZ heterogenety

wthn an sland or a provnce, such as n egros Orental

or astern Samar. in act, types o AZ are not unormly

dstrbuted across space, mplyng that strategc areas

or specfc agrculture may not be ether. it s not even

clear that all admnstratve dvsons have an area that

s strategc agrculturally.

On ths bass alone, t can be argued that land-

based agrcultural prospects are to be realzed, then

no one-sze-fts-all approach to producton and

arm management wll work. instead, a wde range o

technology and approaches must be made avalablethrough hghly customzed agrcultural extenson

servces that can be matched wth ndvdual arms

[Ponce 2006].

Unortunately, governance o the agrcultural sector

s currently unable to aord extenson servces o ths

knd. Rather, extenson servces are hghly centralzed

and perunctorly conceved, wth practcally no budget

or the development o extenson sklls among local

government personnel or extenson acltes, or the

mprovement o organzatonal management [Ponce

2006]. Meanwhle, the sector contnues to nvest heavly

n the provson o producton support n the orm

o subsdzed seeds, ertlzers, machnery, and post-

harvest aclteswhch are bascally prvate goods

whose allocaton across local governments has lttle

ratonal bass.

The alure to provde customzed extenson

servces to help local arms respond to vared bophyscal

condtons causes the persstently large varablty n

rce yeld per hectare wthn and between producton

envronments (.e., rrgated, ran-ed, upland). Ths

varablty s seen n Table 1.4, whch shows average gaps

n rce yelds across the country and the actors that have

been dentfed as explanng such gaps.The table ndcates that yeld gaps are about fve

tons per hectare n the wet season to about sx tons

per hectare n the dry season, wth about one-thrd

accounted or by the alure to address mcronutrent,

pest, and crop management problems; another thrd

due to the alure to address macronutrent defcences

and water problems; and the fnal thrd because o the

alure to work around fxed actors such as weather,

sol texture, and hydrology (oodng). The opportunty

cost o ths last category s thus a 25 percent ncrease n

yeld per hectare oregone. Overall, the opportunty cost

o alng to provde customzed extenson servces can

amount to a 150 percent ncrease n yeld oregone.

More undamentally, the undue ocus on rce at

the expense o other mportant crops and sources o

protenthe explct pursut orice self-sfciency tsel

reects a dsconnect between the overarchng goals o

human development and ts nsttutonal embodment

n the agrcultural sector. Bascally, sector goals mss

the mark by ocusng on rce sel-sufcency at all

costsrather than on cost-eectveood securty. Thsmsdrected ocus on producton rather than on arm

ncomes then becomes translated nto napproprate

strateges, .e., strateges that are overly centralzed,

vertcally organzed by commodty, and domnated by

rce. it s ultmately reected n aulty budget allocatons,

such as allocatons or producton nputs rather than or

technology and other publc goods.


33/199


ven Republc Act 8435, the Agrcultural and

Fsheres Modernzaton Act (AFMA), defned ood

securty as avalablty, adequacy, accessblty, and

aordablty o ood supples at all tmes but went on

to emphasze sufcency n our staple ood, namely

rce and whte corn, whch subsequently eclpsed all

other concerns o the law.28 oherence and ocus n an

agencys operatons requre coherence and clarty n

ts organzaton, somethng that has so ar eluded the

Department o Agrculture (DA), however [Box 1.4].

The commodty approach to agrculture s

especally dsconnected wth realtes on the ground

one notes that local armers are typcally engaged n a

mult-commodty actvty [Table 1.5] desgned manly

to mnmze rsk, a strategy that provdes access to

a secure ood source n tmes o clmatc adversty

[Banko 2007]. Ths dsconnect s bound to be magnfedby the mpacts o clmate change.

The commodty approach also neglects fsheres,

partcularly muncpal fsheres, and o coastal resource

management more generally. Muncpal fsheres

account or 85 percent o fsheres employment, and

ther contrbuton to total fsheres producton n terms

o both volume and value has dropped progressvely n

recent years [AFMP 2010]. Fsherolk suer the hghest

poverty ncdence among nne basc sectors, .e., 41.4

percent n 2009, an ncrease rom 35 percent n 2003 and

a fgure hgher than or armers (36.7 percent) and the

general populaton (26.5 percent).29

The proxmate cause o ths deteroraton

seems to be overfshng brought about by coastal

area degradaton, among others, whch n turn s

lnked to what s done on land and oten n the

name o agrcultural development (e.g., clearng o

mangroves or fsh or shrmp ponds and other agro-

ndustral ventures). Fshery resources provde the

most mportant source o proten or most people, and

coastal ecosystems provde the breedng and eednggrounds or marne le. However, ther crtcal role

n peoples health and economc well-beng does not

seem to count or much, even wthn that sector.30

That the current approach to agrculture s ar rom

the mark s not hard to see. Between 2001 and 2010,

rce support clamed 47 percent o the budget o P52.8

bllon (excludng rrgaton).31 Durng the same perod,

Table 1.4 Average rice yiels across the Philippines

Average grain yiel (t/ha/season)*

Constraints an their opportnity costs (interms of yiel increase)

Wss

Dryss

Csrs oppry cs

8.13** 10.17** Sd qy, c

6.51 8.13

Fxd fcrs sc sry, c, sxr, ydrgy (.g.,fdg)

25%

4.88 6.10mcrrsdfccs d wrprbs

33%

3.25 4.07

S crrdfccs, pssd crp gprbs

50%

* Average across hybrid seeds, certified seeds, and good seeds** Maximum attainable yield fluctuates from year to year by +- 10 percent.Source: Table 3.2, Sebastian et al. [2006]

however, sel-sufcency n rce even declned by 10

percentage ponts rom 91.29 percent to 81.27 percent

[Figures 1.2 and 1.3]. in 2011, rce clamed an even larger

slce o the pe (52.4 percent), and a sharp percentage

pont ncrease n the sel-sufcency rato was recorded.

However, the latter was acheved only by holdng down

mports to one-thrd ts level n 2010 and then drawng

down the countrys rce stocksan unsustanable

strategy.32 onversely and unsurprsngly, support to

subsectors where poverty ncdence s much hgher, such

as fsheres and coconut, was crowded out [Figure 1.4],

and potental reductons n overall poverty ncdence

approaches had been more crop-neutralwere oregone

[Figure 1.5].33

in short, the sngle commodtyproducton ocus

has been costly, has undermned ood securty, and has

ultmately been antpoor [Pars and Antporta 2006].

As n the case o health, an ntegrated area

approach s needed n order to rase arm productvty

and mprove ood securty. The dawnng realzaton

o the eects o clmate change s a urther reason toserously doubt the eectveness o the current crop-

based, centralzed approach to agrculture, and ndeed

o current plannng practce n general [Box 1.5]. The

nature o agrculture requres plannng along agro-

ecologcal zones whch, n an archpelagc context,

must also nclude marne ecosystems as well as

orests, water, and other natural resources that are


34/199


Box 1.3 Conceptal framework for eveloping agro-ecological zones

AS bckgrd ppr fr s ,

m obsrry ws d fr

ecgy-bsd sp frwrk fr

r hDi yss. a df f gr-

cgc zs (aeZs) ws cd by wy f xp (k

fr p://rscc.rg) fwd by qs:

G ggrpc r fd crss cry, c

cgy-bsd ds f spc sc s aeZ ccp

b r sf fr rprg hDis d frg pcy? t

sdy ws cd df f aeZs r r

cgy-bsd sp frwrk r Ppps

s w s ccpyg cc dscss f rbs

d s.t ccp d dgc frwrk fy

prpsd by m obsrry s prsd Bx Fgr

7. i fcsd rgg w wr cd gr-cc d

gr-dpc zs. a prry s f rbs fr c

yp f z ws scd d cbd p fr.

t cc f s prry s f rbs ws y

drd by r by spf fr, wc s

prprry arcvw/arcGiS. t rss r rsbdry

aeZs spg cry [m obsrry 2012:7].

Fr gr-dpc rbs, wd d pd rs

wr grzd sg crr f p 100

fr wd rs, w r sp csss wr spcfd

bsd 1991 cssfc f Fd d agrcr

orgz r Fao: gy dg (0-8 prc),

rg y (8-30 prc), d spy dsscd

s (> 30 prc). S rdr dfs fd

2011 ecycpd Brc wr sd d grpgs wr

gdd by B . [2006].

Fr gr-cc rbs, y sfr r rbs fr Cc Rsrc u t-

srs ds rs 3.1 (CRu tS3.1) wr sd.

t f s f ps d cc s, g w

cs fr rwrs, c b dwdd fr hDn

wbs (p://www.d.rg.p).

Box Figre 7 AEZ framework

Temperatre Moistre inex Soil orerTopography:

elevation, slope

Agro-eaphic zones

AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES

Climate anmoistre regimes

(Agro-climatic zones)


35/199


central to the vablty o agrcultural assets. Plannng

clearly cannot be done on a per-crop or per-commodty

bassagan a vertcally organzed approachnor by

muncpaltes, whch are too small geographcally to

horzontally ntegrate mportant components. instead,

ths ponts to the provnce as the plannng doman,

supported by natonal servces organzed along

unctonal (research and development, extenson, and

regulaton) lnes.

Accessibility an market integration

The nature o geographc advantage n economc terms

changes over tme [Gallup and Sachs 1999]. As an

economy develops and expands nto manuacturng

and servces, geographcal advantage may no longer

come rom agrcultural productvty but rom distnceor access to markets. Dstance here reers to somethng

more than physcal (or straght-lne) dstance. it s

the ease or dfculty by whch labor moves, goods are

transported, and captal ows and servces are delvered

between two locatons [WB 2009].34 Access to places

wth the greatest economc densty or hghest market

potental.e., leding placess crucal or trade and or

the compettveness o an areas ndustry and servces.

Lgging areas are typcally economcally dstant rom

such leadng places.

Topography and landorms help determne how

accessble an area can be [Gallup 2000]. internatonal

studes have ound that coastal regons or regons lnked

to coasts by ocean-navgable waterways are strongly

avored n development relatve to nteror regons, whle

landlocked economes are dsadvantaged even located

the same dstance rom the coast as nteror areas o

coastal regons.35

The selecton o Manla as the economc center and

admnstratve captal o the Phlppnes s consstent

wth ths story: ts harbor and the commercal poston ots port wth respect to the hna trade were o greatest

nterest to the Spansh conqustadors. Manlas poston

as a natural transportaton center or both overland

and water-based connectons to mportant parts o the

archpelago also made t a strategc choce [WS 1967].

What currently makes the rest o the Phlppne

provnces or muncpaltes more or less dstant, however,

Table 1.5 Farmers/farmer operatorsby type of activity (2002)

Crop farming Nmber of farmersShare to total

farmers*

Rc 2,152,289 44.9

Cr 1,460,318 30.4

Sgr 167,923 3.5

Cc 2,607,825 54.4

mg 1,975,946 41.2

B 2,286,597 47.7

Ppp 140,058 2.9

Rbbr 38,190 0.8

Cff 273,156 5.7

Livestock anpoltry raising

Nmber of growers Share to totalgrowers**

C 924,631 22.5

Crb 1,525,195 37.1

hgs 2,058,950 50.1

G 659,771 16

hrs 228,013 5.5

or sck 66,011 1.6

Cck 3,465,235 84.3

Dck 437,790 10.6

or pry 31,419 0.8

* Total number of crop farmers is 4,796,995** Total number of growe rs is 4,112,84 0Shares exceed 100% in both cases owing to multiple activities.Source: Abad Santos and Piza [2009], based on Census of Agriculture 2002, NationalStatistics Office

nvolves more than just havng a coast or not. Beng n an

archpelago, 65 out o 80 provnces, coverng 82.7 percent

o ctes and muncpaltes, do have coasts. But these

provnces nclude sland provnces, such as Batanes andRomblon, as well as provnces on the ar eastern sde such

as Qurno, Quezon, astern Samar, and Surgao del Sur,

where access s lkely to be seasonal or tme-ntensve. ot

Documents

2013 Philippine Human Development Report Geography and Human Development