Popcom: Review Of Its Mandate And Policy Shifts

Commission on Population: Review of its Mandate and Policy Shifts, Institutional Performance and Resources∗

I.

Introduction

This paper reviews the original mandate of the Philippines’ Commission on Population (POPCOM) and the subsequent shifts in the population policy and programs as espoused and promulgated under the various Philippine political administrations. A rapid appraisal of the performance of POPCOM as an institution and the public resources allocated to the agency is also undertaken in the context of its mandate, policy and program shifts or emphasis. This paper aims to provide inputs to the formulation of a framework paper outlining ICOMP thrust to strengthen the strategic competencies of POPCOM at the national and regional levels. II.

Review of Mandate and Policy Emphasis

Policy Context In the late 1960s, population growth has been a growing concern of countries trying to gain or sustain their momentum towards economic development. At that time, the Philippines was registering an estimated annual population growth rate of about 3.1%, one of the highest in the world. This was viewed as quite alarming since whatever development gains achieved would always be negated by the increasing needs of the population. Development outcomes that are truly felt by the populace will remain elusive, as these may not be able to meet the demands of a constantly growing populace. The Philippines, under then President Ferdinand Marcos, together with 17 other heads of state signed the UN Declaration of Population in December 1967. The declaration states that: “the population problem must be recognized as a principal element in long range national planning if governments are to achieve their economic goals and fulfill the aspirations of their people.”1 Legal Mandate The Commission on Population was created by virtue of Republic Act 6365 enacted on August 16, 1971 and amended by Presidential Decree No. 79 issued on December 8, 1972. It is the central policy making, planning, and coordinating body for the Population Program originally attached to the Office of the President, but has since been shifted and attached to various departments. President Marcos, in issuing P.D. 79 elaborated and strengthened certain provisions of R.A. 6365 and directed both public and private sectors to undertake a National Family Planning Program that respect religious beliefs and individual values. The mandate of POPCOM has been made elaborate into the following functional objectives:

∗

Paper drafted by Jay Lacsamana for the International Council on Management of Population Programmes (ICOMP) as input to Stream 2, Strengthening Strategic Competencies of POPCOM at the National and Regional Levels, 15 January 2007. 1

Alejandro Herrin, Population Policy in the Philippines 1969-2002, PIDS, September 2002, p. 13.

(a) to formulate and adopt coherent, integrated and comprehensive long-term plans, programs and recommendations on population as it relates to economic and social development consistent with and implementing the population policy which shall be submitted and approved by the President; (b) to make comprehensive studies of demographic data and expected demographic trends and propose policies that affect specific and quantitative population goals; (c) to organize and implement programs that will promote a broad understanding of the adverse effects on family life and national welfare of unlimited population growth; (d) to propose policies and programs that will guide and regulate labor force participation, internal migration and spatial distribution of population consistent with national development; (e) to make family planning a part of a broad educational program; (f) to encourage all persons to adopt safe and effective means of planning and realizing desired family size so as to discourage and prevent resort to unacceptable practice of birth control such as abortion by making available all acceptable methods of contraception to all persons desirous of spacing, limiting or preventing pregnancies; (g) to establish and maintain contact with international public and private organizations concerned with population problems; (h) to provide family planning services as part of overall health care; (i) to make available all acceptable methods of contraception, except abortion, to all Filipino citizens desirous of spacing, limiting or preventing pregnancies.2 From the issuance of this decree, this set of objectives has been the purpose of existence of the agency and has essentially remained as the legal basis for POPCOM’s operations up to now. Subsequently with the onset of the 1973 Constitution, the role of government in population concerns was declared: “It shall be the policy of the State to achieve and maintain population levels conducive to the national welfare”. The above policy statements have significant implications on the role of government and its attendant interventions in addressing the population issue. In fact, these declarations have started the policy debate on the population issue and government intervention in fertility choices of couples. As assessed by Prof. Alejandro Herrin, the following are some implications: 1. Rapid population growth has negative implications to attainment of social and economic objectives; 2. Free exercise of fertility decisions by couples is not consistent with the common good; there are (negative) externalities in fertility decisions of couples; and 3. Given the foregoing statements, it is a matter of state policy to intervene in fertility decisions and the mode of intervention chosen is family planning that “respects the religious beliefs and values of the individuals involved”. 2

Presidential Decree No. 79

2

Major Policy Shift in 1987 The overthrow of the Marcos Administration and the subsequent rewriting of the Philippine Constitution in 1987 paved the way for a significant shift in population policy. The 1987 Constitution leaves out any statement regarding the role of government in “maintaining population levels conducive to the national welfare”. The new Constitution emphasizes the “right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.”3 In contrast to the explicit statement of the previous policy in fertility reduction, the 1987 Constitution has left a wider berth and spectrum of population policy choices. POPCOM thereafter issued the policy statement on the Philippine Population Program as: 1. The ultimate goal (is the) “improvement of the quality of human life in a just and humane society”. 2. Population concerns need to be “broadened beyond fertility reduction to include concerns about family formation, the status of women, maternal and child health, child survival, morbidity and mortality, population distribution and urbanization, internal and international migration and population structure.” 3. Moderation of population growth was not explicitly stated as a policy; family planning was viewed as a health intervention (i.e., promotion of maternal and child health), significantly veering away from the previous policy of fertility reduction intervention. Vision Statement The following is the vision-goal statement of POPCOM: “Well-planned, healthy and happy families, responsible individuals, empowered communities, guided by the Divine Providence, living harmoniously and equitably in a sustainable environment.” Mission Statement To achieve its vision, POCOM has formulated the following mission statements: 1. We are a technical and information resource agency, working in partnership with national and local government policy and decision-makers, program implementers, community leaders, and civil society. 2. We will be the leading strategic planners, policy and program advocates for the Population Program. 3. We will create a favorable and enabling policy environment for Population, Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health.

3

Herrin, p. 19

3

Programs Areas POPCOM’s program areas have evolved through the years. The evolution is consistent with the prevailing policy emphasis of the various political administrations. The following is a matrix of the program areas of POPCOM representing the different administrations and/or policy shifts:

Marcos Administration 1973 to 1981 / 1984 -1986 a.

Delivery of family planning services –

a.

1981 -1983

Population Education –

Family planning services were offered nationwide through clinics established all around the country since the program started. There were two types of clinic: 1) government clinics and 2) private clinics. It is through these clinics that counseling and recruitment of acceptors (of family planning methods) are held and has served as distribution points for various birth control paraphernalia for the program such as pills, condoms, etc. b. Training –

As part of the agency’s IEC and made known as PopEd, its goal is to inculcate positive social and cultural values that are complimentary to the Population Program such as responsible parenthood, family size and welfare and delayed marriages. It was implemented at primary and secondary school levels through the support of the Department of Education;

Training activities were held to prepare family planning personnel for clinics and other innovative services. Target beneficiaries include health professionals like doctors and nurses, even paramedics and midwives who have become part of the program to prepare them on how to handle potential acceptors.

This relatively new area aims to address the fertility awareness and related needs and problems of the Filipino adolescent in order to reduce the incidence of early marriage and teenage pregnancies

c.

Information, Education, Communication (IEC) Program –

To reach a wider spectrum of audiences, of different ages and social standing, production and utilization of print and broadcast media were maximize for purposes of the population program. d. Research – This has three objectives; a) to determine the extent to which various sections and projects of the program have achieved their immediate objectives; b) to assess the degree to which the total program has made a demographic impact and c) to provide basis for policy making and project development

b.

c.

Adolescent Fertility –

Family Planning –

Services included under this items are those provided by family planning clinics and hospitals cited earlier and the outreach program that aims to reach those that are unable or have difficulty to accessing stationary clinics including distribution of birth control paraphernalia; d. Manpower Development – This is the same as the training component of population program used by the agency earlier. This involve preparing new personnel for the tasks at hand and in ensuring that old personnel are able to keep up with the work demand; e.

Population Information and Dissemination

Establishing an extensive and systematic information system is the goal of this program area. Some of the items included under this area are the setting up of population libraries under the Population Information Network or POPIN, production of IEC materials, sponsorship of seminars and conferences and strengthening of the management information system (MIS) through the acquisition of new computers.

4

Aquino Administration 1987 to 1992 1986 -1987: Major policy shift with the passage of the 1987 Constitution. Program focus was on clinic-based FP (DOH) and community-based program under POPCOM. 1989 – 1993: Five-year Directional Plan POPCOM Program Focus: a. Policy coordination – Overall coordination of population policy-making b. POPDEV – Integrated population and development planning and programming Under DOH (FP a component of total health program): c. Family Planning services – Service delivery of FP (as health intervention) through DOH’s network of hospitals and clinics d.

Responsible Parent hood -Advocacy focusing adoption of FP practices, responsible sexuality, delayed marriage, child spacing and small family size

Ramos Administration 1992 – 1998 The advent of the Local Government Code (LGC) which mandated decentralization and devolution to local government units (LGUs) in 1991 paved the way for the transfer of front line services like health and family planning to provincial, city and municipal governments. Under LGUs: a.

Reproductive Health/Family Planning -Funding, staffing and administration of reproductive health services and family planning program was made a prerogative of LGUs

Under POPCOM: b. Management of the Population and Development (POPDEV) Program •

•

Integration of POPDEV interrelationships into policy, planning and programming processes at the national and local levels Advocacy of POPDEV concerns

It was in the Marcos Administration that the population program focused on fertility reduction through family planning. This entailed provision of information and services with the advocacy for a small family size as desirable. Family planning however took a back seat for two years in 1981 to 1983 when a conservative chair of the POPCOM de-emphasized fertility reduction in the program package. As cited above, the start of the Aquino Administration saw a major shift in population policy where the focus was trained on the right of couples to determine the number of their children. As shown in the matrix, the implication of the policy shift resulted in POPCOM focusing on policy coordination and POPDEV integration in planning and programming. The family planning and responsible parenthood programs have been integrated into the total health program of the Department of Health (DOH). This implied the de-emphasis of FP as a fertility reduction (demographic) program. Under the Ramos Administration, the promulgation of the Local Government Code of 1991 ushered in the devolution and decentralization of the reproductive health and family planning services to the various LGUs: provincial, city and municipal levels of governance. The program left to the management of POPCOM is basically the population and development program, ensuring integration of POPDEV concerns in policy, planning and programming and its advocacy at various fora and different entities, both government and non-government. The program areas of POPCOM have evolved around the major program categories as shown in the Estrada and Arroyo Administrations. It is worthwhile to note that under the Estrada Administration, as documented in the Directional Plan 2001 to 2004, the objective of fertility reduction as a component of FP was revived. The programs are basically geared towards integration of population and development concerns and its advocacy and rendering of technical assistance for the uptake and/or cascading of the POPDEV approach among policy makers, legislative and executive units of government and most especially among LGUs. 5

Estrada Administration 1998-2001 a.

Policy Analysis and Development – Contain all initiatives made by the agency pertaining to formulation of population related policies such as inter-agency conferences, seminars, planning and workshops;

b.

Program Coordination – Conduct of population related activities together with other offices both private and government;

c.

Program Promotion and Advocacy Awareness campaigns to promote appreciation and popularization of various agency programs and projects on population;

d.

Data Information and Management – Collection, updating, validation, dissemination and exchange of data and information including the conduct of research related to population and development; and

e. Technical Assistance –

Arroyo Administration 2001 - present (Based on draft PPMP 2005-2010) Four pillars of the population policy: • Responsible Parenthood • Respect for Life • Informed Choice • Birth Spacing Program Services: a. Policy Support – Support in the issuance and passage of several executive and administrative orders, legislative measures and even religious decrees at all levels of administration in support of the Reproductive Health Program implementation. b.

Service Delivery --Continuous provision of RH/FP services to both women and men by both the government and non-government institutions through different programs and projects with government and foreign funding support.

c.

Capability Building — Undertaken with the support of the implementation of the RH/FP program in the areas of service delivery, advocacy/IEC, and data and information management,

Provision of other forms of assistance or support services to other government units in their efforts towards addressing issues related to population.

d. Advocacy/IEC – Gaining support of various influentials for the RH/FP program and create demand for family planning and RH services, various advocacy strategies were implemented. These include networking, partnership, and alliance building to vigorously promote measures on reproductive health and rights including safe motherhood and child survival. e.

Database and Information System – Maintenance of and access to National Population Database Information System and Demographic and Socio-economic Information System

POPCOM Structure and Operations The Commission has a simple structure. It has its Board of Commissioners serving as the highest governing body and a Secretariat that handles the operations, coordination and implementation of programs and projects of the agency. A. The Board of Commissioners The Board is supposed to have 14 members, 11 coming from different government offices and 3 from the private sector4. It headed by a chairperson that is elected by its members.

4

http://www.popcom.gov.ph

6

Representatives from the private sectors are appointed by, and serve at the pleasure5, of the President of the land. These are as follows: Chairperson: Secretary of Department of Health Members: The Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Secretary of Department of Interior & Local Government (DILG) Secretary of Department of Labor & Employment (DOLE) Secretary of Department of Agriculture (DA) Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary of Department of Education, Culture and Sport (DECS) Secretary of Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Secretary of Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) Secretary of Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Director of the University of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI) The composition of the Board of Commissioners had changed a number of times over the years. When it started in 1969, the commission had 22 members. R.A. 6365 reduced the numbers to eleven with six (6) coming from government agencies and five (5) from the private sector. Moreover, when Martial Law was imposed, President Marcos reduced it further to five all coming from the government, but based on the 1973 annual report, two representatives from the private sector were appointed as commissioners by President Marcos. By 1980, the Board already had ten members. Two additional government representatives were appointed - the Secretaries of the Department of Labor and the Department of Local Government. An additional representative coming from the private sector was likewise appointed to become a board commissioner. The number of Board Members was further expanded to fourteen (14) under the presidency of Fidel Ramos. Four more department secretaries (Agriculture, Agrarian Reform, Trade and Industry and Public Works) were named to the commission. At present, POPCOM is considered an attached agency under the Department of Health (DOH) by virtue of E.O. 188 issued by President Arroyo in May 2003. Prior to the issuance of this directive, the Commission is an attached agency of the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA). Before that, the agency was originally under the Office of the President and then DSWD. When POPCOM was first created by virtue of E.O. 171 (followed immediately by E.O. 233), there was no specific mention as to where this agency would be connected or attached for guidance and supervision purposes or to whom it is supposed to report on matters pertaining to its work on population. What were contained in these Executive Orders were the composition of the Commission and the general structure it would take and its broad relations with other government agencies or institutions. It was not until the enactment by the Philippine Congress of R.A. 6365 that clearly stated that the Commission was created under the Office of the President.

5

Ibid.

7

B. The POPCOM Secretariat As specified under Section 11 of P.D. 79, “POPCOM shall have such personnel as may be necessary for the performance of its basic function”. The entire set of personnel, headed by an Executive Director, is collectively referred to as the POPCOM’s secretariat. In essence, this secretariat is the implementing arm of the Board of Commissioners of POPCOM and the Executive Director is the one responsible for its operation again as mandated under P.D. 79. The Secretariat has its own particular set of structure and has already evolved a few times to accommodate additional personnel and to meet the demands of the agency’s workload. With only about 163 employees back in 1973, it now has some 600 personnel working nationwide distributed in 15 regions. Core Competencies The following are the dominant organizational and functional competencies of POPCOM: 1. Family Planning / Reproductive Health implementer, manager and advocate (1969 to 1988) POPCOM, consistent with its original mandate, is basically an implementor and advocate of family planning, particularly its non-clinical component and community-based services. This is its predominant role during the whole of the Marcos regime (save for about two years) and it has supervised and exercised oversight of the clinical aspect of FP as administered by the DOH through its network of hospitals and clinics nationwide. Monitoring and coordination of the FP program even in the years where POPCOM’s role in FP was watered down, were also some of the competencies acquired by the organization. 2. Lead formulator of the Population policy and strategic and directional plans; technical resource agency on population concerns POPCOM spearheads the formulation of the population policy and medium-term plans as mandated under its charter and adjusts the emphasis of the program according to the inclination and directives of the national and its board leadership. As such, it has gathered significant number of researches, policy papers and statistical databases on the population issue, demography and other related fields. Its attachment to the NEDA in a greater part of the Ramos and Estrada Administration and its tight coordination with the academe and population-related institutes has enabled the organization to engage in policy and plan formulation circles. 3. Population and Development integration and advocacy in national, regional and local planning processes In the late 1990s, POPCOM’s institutional competence in POPDEV planning has been strengthened and enhanced. This came as a result of POPCOM’s exposure with NEDA and other agencies in various POPDEV-centered foreign assisted projects from UNFPA. With the various shifts in FP program implementation, transfers of POPCOM in agency attachment and the mandated devolution of powers to LGUs, the emerging dominant functional competency of POPCOM is POPDEV integration in planning processes particularly in mainstreaming the framework in local governance.

8

III.

Program and Organizational Performance Review

This section summarizes the performance of POPCOM on two general areas: population program outcomes and management of the population program. The former pertains to the key performance indicator of the country’s population program, while the latter refers to the key performance of the agency in implementing inputs and delivering outputs as mandated by its charter and as directed by the national leadership and policy. The organizational performance review draws heavily from the insights cited in the paper, Review of the Population Program, 1986-2002 authored by Orbeta, Matro and del Prado.6 It has also benefited from the insights of POPCOM Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director and POPCOM staff as gathered from the interviews conducted in December 2006. Population Program Plans, Outputs and Outcomes Overall performance The overall performance of the program as measured by fertility reduction is marginal compared to the declines in total fertility rates of comparable Asian countries. Total fertility rate of the country declined from 5.7 in 1968 to 3.7 in 1998. Based on the intermediate indicator of contraceptive prevalence rate, the program has not caused increases in the indicator and in fact showed declining trends. The proportion of those using modern methods, however, has steadily risen, albeit still lagging behind comparable ASEAN countries.7 In terms of POPDEV integration, the performance of this program has not been objectively measured. This component has produced POPDEV-trained national, regional and LGU planners with very little objective assessment of how “POPDEV-sensitive” are the resulting national, regional and local plans and investment programs. A.

Reproductive Health and Family Planning Component 1. Marcos Administration – It was during this time that fertility reduction as an integral component of the FP program was implemented vigorously. Assessment and reviews done on the performance of the program during this period yield the following, although somewhat contradictory findings: a. In 1978, it was viewed as necessary that the population program be integrated with the health structure specifically with maternal and child health delivery system. b. After that, it was deemed necessary to detach the population program from the health structure in order to “extend the link of clinic services and to utilize nonmedical personnel to motivate people to practice FP.”8 On the overall, organizational performance of POPCOM focused on FP as a fertility reduction measure. This was only momentarily halted in 1981 to 1983 when a conservative commissioner of POPCOM headed the organization. Shifts in delivery ranged from a pure clinic-based service delivery of FP to a combined community and clinic-based FP/RH delivery system.

Aniceto Orbeta, Jr, Jeannette Matro, and Fatima del Prado, Review of the Population Program: 1986-2002, PIDS, December 2002. 7 Orbeta, p. 2. 8 Ibid

6

9

2. Aquino Administration – Review of performance of the program under this administration can be summarized as follows: a. FP became essentially a health program; fertility reduction was no longer its primary goal but family welfare; b. Program delivery was transferred to DOH therefore POPCOM’s handle over the FP/RH program became limited to policy and lesser on operations. 3. Ramos Administration – Under this administration, the following are the assessments that had bearing on the performance of the program: a. Re-emphasis of the fertility reduction objective under FP without discontinuing the family welfare component was enshrined in the 1993-1998 Philippine Population Program Plan but was subsequently de-emphasized in favor of reproductive health in the 1998-2003 PPMP Directional Plan; b. Devolution to local governments of the program began during this period; and c. Emphasis on specific concerns of women and special groups like adolescents became prominent in this period. 4. Estrada Administration – Although short-lived, this administration came out with a clearer and strong support for the program: a. The population-resources-environment framework became the guiding outline and incorporated into the Population and Sustainable Development Framework that enabled POPCOM to pursue three objectives of: desired family size through responsible parenthood, improving reproductive health, and support to policies that balances concerns of population, economy and environment; b. The program and plan cited specific key performance indicators; and c. There was an adoption of an aggressive family planning program to achieve a total fertility rate of 2.1 by 2004, implying that the program will go beyond the desired fertility of couples (2.7) and thus pave the way for higher contraceptive prevalence level. 5. Arroyo Administration – There as yet to be a comprehensive review of the program performance under this administration. Based on the official statements and informal pronouncements, the following observations have been raised: a. Emphasis and focus of the FP/RH program is on the natural family planning (NFP) mode and POPCOM advocacy have to be redirected to provide more “air time” and space for NFP over the artificial FP advocacy; b. FP program advocacy will be proffered to LGUs with a complete menu of FP choices; LGUs will finally decide on the mode suitable to them; and c. Aggressive fertility reduction postures in the FP/RH program (i.e., artificial contraception modes) at the national level will suffer reduction in emphasis in favor of NFP and responsible parenthood but will be differentiated when applied at the local level.

10

B.

POPDEV Integration into policy-making, planning and programming process POPCOM’s performance in this component is assessed into two time periods representing the pre-Local Government Code period and the post-LGC phase. POPDEV integration is a program thrust aimed at comprehensive consideration of the population issue into the broader aspects and elements of development like macro and sector planning, environment and natural resources, land use and urbanization, migration, and local governance. It aims to integrate the population issue in the various socio-economic and sector policies, plans and programs of government at all levels. 1. Before decentralization and devolution to LGUs (pre-1991) – POPDEV activities during this period focused on three activities: institutional capability building, advocacy and innovative approaches. The following are some assessment points: a. While POPCOM was the mandated lead agency of POPDEV, capability building (and advocacy) was undertaken by the NEDA as the planning agency. This was so because integration of POPDEV into socio-economic planning processes was the priority. However, POPDEV integration at the program level remains to be made operational.9 b. Innovative approaches in POPDEV integration were done in DENR’s social forestry program, DSWD’s program for children and DA’s training for extension workers, and women projects in pilot LGUs.10 2. Decentralization and Devolution – POPDEV integration continued during this phase and have significantly shifted focus from the national to local governance level. a. POPCOM played the lead role in providing technical assistance in all aspects of the population program particularly integration of POPDEV at the regional and local levels; b. POPDEV integration in to programmatic areas or in specific issues like women status and adolescents and youth welfare; emphasis on sustainable development; and consideration of migration and urbanization issues became prominent in this period.

C.

Program Management This section will focus on the management of the population program and the implication of the overhaul or shifts in policy to the overall effectiveness of POPCOM as an organization. Successful program management lies in the stable operational mandates. However, in the case of POPCOM, the perpetual shifts and policy changes attendant to each political administration has hindered the overall stable management of the population program. This is despite the fact that POPCOM has always been the overall coordinator, planning and policy-making body of the program since its inception.

9

Orbeta, p. 8 Ibid.

10

11

Reproductive Health and Family Planning 1. Program management of the RH/FP program during the Marcos regime rested at the command of POPCOM. It was only in 1981 to 1983 where the program floated primarily because of a conservative leadership at the helm of the POPCOM board. 2. Under the Aquino administration, profound changes in management became apparent with POPCOM being transferred to one agency to the next and in 1988 where DOH was designated by the POPCOM board as the lead agency in the implementation of FP/RH.11 3. The enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991 effected the devolution of front line services to LGUs that includes health and family planning. From 1991 up to the present, the prioritization of FP/RH programs became a prerogative of the LGUs. This included planning, programming, funding and implementation of local FP/RH programs. POPDEV Integration 1. Management of the PODEV program has always been with POPCOM. However, the capability building component of POPDEV was implemented by NEDA as lead since technical expertise in socio-economic planning rested with it. 2. POPCOM’s assumption of the POPDEV integration became pronounced when the LGC was passed in 1991. POPCOM is now into POPDEV integration at the local level.

11

Orbeta, p. 11

12

IV. Resources Fund Sources POPCOM’s financial resources basically originate from two sources: (1) the general appropriations act (GAA) or the national budget, and (2) foreign assistance (loans or grant) from official development assistance (ODA) sources. POPCOM Secretariat Budget from the GAA The resources coming from the GAA is mainly allocated to personnel services or the human resource complement of the POPCOM Secretariat that has been established at the national and regional levels. Other allocations go to the maintenance and other operating expenses of the POPCOM office (Board and Secretariat). The budget for the POPCOM also serves as government counterpart in accessing foreign funding from various international donors.

POPCOM Budget (GOP)

In Million Pesos

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 73

76

79

81

84

86

88

90

94

96

99

O1

The graph above shows the budget levels of POPCOM coming from the GOP/GAA. Budget appropriation was highest in the early 1980s and manifested significant declines starting 1986 to the mid-1990s.12

Figures from 1973-1986 and 1995-2003 were obtained from available POPCOM annual reports (lacking years are: 1975, 1977, 1982, 1997 and 2002). The years 1987 to 1991 and 1994 were obtained from Orbeta (Table 4). There are no records obtained for the years 1992 and 1993. 12

13

Program Financing for the Population Program The population program is jointly funded by the Philippine government and the international donor community.13 Foreign assistance has been traditionally the source of funding for the population program’s major components: (a) FP and RH, and (b) POPDEV Integration. At the start of the program in the 1970s, all financing came from external sources and there has been a declining proportion of external financing that has been a major concern for POPCOM since the mid-1990s to the present. The graph below shows the combined GOP and foreign assistance resources allocated for the population program from 1973 to 2003 (some year series are lacking). The proportion of foreign assistance that started with a greater proportion of total resources in the 1970s have significantly dropped starting 1995.

POPCOM Financial Resources GOP and Foreign, in million pesos

19 73 19 7 19 4 76 19 78 19 79 19 80 19 8 19 1 83 19 84 19 85 19 8 19 6 95 19 96 19 98 19 99 20 0 20 0 01 20 03

350.00 300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00

Year Foreign Aid

GOP

The table below shows the percentage of combined foreign assistance resources for the series / years covered. Note that the average foreign assistance financing for the first series (i.e., 6 sample years, 1973-1980) had an average percentage of 38%. This increased in the next series (6 sample years, 1981-1995) to about 43%. In the last series (6 years, 1996 to 2003), the average percentage of resources for the population program coming from foreign assistance declined to 15%.

Orbeta, p. 13. Usual donors are: USAID, UNFPA, WB, UNICEF, EU, AusAID, ADB, JICA, KfW, GTZ and the Ford Foundation. 13

14

Population Program Financing (GOP and Foreign Sources, in million pesos) Year 1973 1974 1976 1978 1979 1980 1981 1983 1984 1985 1986 1995 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2003

GOP 26.70 58.40 110.20 122.50 134.00 168.10 185.10 161.37 146.20 110.90 125.03 73.50 73.00 103.94 110.77 124.10 114.13 113.30

% 34% 54% 56% 75% 74% 76% 65% 57% 55% 45% 44% 76% 82% 79% 82% 93% 89% 83%

Foreign Aid 52.83 49.10 88.00 40.40 46.50 52.00 98.10 123.45 121.50 136.13 161.16 23.00 15.90 26.93 24.90 9.40 14.72 22.80

% 66% 46% 44% 25% 26% 24% 35% 43% 45% 55% 56% 24% 18% 21% 18% 7% 11% 17%

Total

Average % of Foreign Aid

79.53 107.50 198.20 162.90 180.50 220.10 283.20 284.82 267.70 247.03 286.19 96.50 88.90 130.87 135.67 133.50 128.85 136.10

38%

43%

15%

List of Foreign-Assisted Projects of POPCOM and the Philippine Population Program14 1. UNFPA – First to Fifth Country Program (5th Country Program Cost: US$30 million) 2. USAID
Population Planning Project I to III
Family Planning Assistance Project (April 1990, US$40 million)
Integrated FP/Maternal Health Program (1994-2000, US$90 million bilateral, $60 million Central funds) 3. World Bank – Population I and II Projects (Phase II 1979-1988, US$40 million) 4. Asian Development Bank
Women’s Health and Safe Motherhood (on-going, US$54 million)
Integrated Community Health Services (1998-2003, US$51.1 million) 5. Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)
Integrated Community Health Services Project (US$19.5 million)
Women’s Health Training Project (US$ 13 million) 6. German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ)
Supports the Philippine Health Sector Reform Agenda, National Health Insurance Program 7. Ford Foundation
Six projects on Human Development and Reproductive Health from 1995 to 2001 14

Orbeta, pp. 14-22.

15

V.

Insights

The following are some insights by the author based on the review of literature, program and organizational performance and resources of POPCOM. These may be serve as inputs to ICOMP in formulating its strategy paper: 1.

Program Emphasis. The current program emphasis of the Arroyo Administration is to put forward Natural Family Planning as the emphasis of the FP/RH Program. As such, at the national and even sector or regional level, it would be difficult to for POPCOM as an organization to put forward the fertility reduction features (i.e., artificial and modern FP methods) of the FP/RH Program.

2.

Locus of Feasible Intervention. Putting forward the FP/RH Program with the complete array of methods for program acceptors may be feasible and politically acceptable at the local level. Focusing on LGUs as the main clients (and eventual recipient-decision makers) of the FP/RH diffuses possible political backlash on the national leadership that may come from the traditional program oppositionists (conservative Catholic Church and others). LGUs have the final prerogative on the adoption of policies and programs within the framework and mandate of the Local Government Code. Organizationally, it may serve the POPCOM well by focusing on local governance as the entry point of the FP Program. Internally, POPCOM (particularly the regions) may have to develop a criteria that rates and prioritizes the LGUs that may be receptive to the program and are also major contributors to the population program’s key result areas (i.e., highly urbanized cities, charter cities, high population growth municipalities, etc).

3.

Focus of POPDEV Integration is both local and program- and project-based. Effort for POPDEV integration in the national, sector/regional planning, investment programming and budgeting processes seems to have lost its relevance given the ambiguous or (at worst) unfavorable policy pronouncement of current national leadership on population issues. POPCOM (and the FP/RH Program) may benefit from the models and framework of POPDEV if these are applied hands-on and onground at the local level. This is not to recommend redoing POPDEV integration in local plans, investment programs and budgets (this too may have become passé). Rather, it may be more relevant to integrate POPDEV in specific demonstration and model programs/projects of LGUs through learning-by-doing methodologies. On-ground project showcases that demonstrates integration of the FP/RH with local/community socio-economy and site-based indicators may be more relevant that formulating and writing plans which may never see their implementation.

4.

Benchmarking and monitoring of desired (demographic outcomes) at the local level. The focus of technical assistance to POPCOM and subsequently its transference to LGUs (i.e, local chief executive and the local legislature) may be along the lines of local and community benchmarking (i.e., on fertility/ contraceptive practices, migration trends, local environmental quality) and relate how these result in certain demographic and socio-economic outcomes. Appropriate local interventions can then be designed, adopted (legally by the local legislature) and financed/implemented by the local chief executive. While this may be difficult to make operational given the short planning horizon of locally-elected officials (i.e., 3 years), the commitment may be framed on a two-or three-termer

16

local chief executive as legislated by the local legislature (i.e., Sangguniang Bayan resolution). 5.

Modeling for Policy Advocacy and Reform. The intermediate results of 3 and 4 approaches can be documented and made into a working demonstration of a “community socio-economy and demographic” model that negates misconceptions on the population issue. A concrete example of this is the notion that it would be favorable for an LGU to have a bigger population size because IRA determination which is pegged at population will be larger.

6.

Advocacy, Cooperation and Pooling of Resources among LGUs and their Leagues. POPCOM and the FP/H Program may find a formidable ally among LGUs and their associations and leagues. As the past years show, LGUs leagues have made their mark in the national scene by issuing joint statements that affect national policy. The FP/RH program may benefit from this development as the program may tap the leagues of provinces, cities or municipalities in joint undertakings like accessing project grants and loans through partnership with leagues (as a way of local counterpart and matching grants), unified procurement of FP/RH materials and supplies, and other technical assistance that may be facilitated by cooperative ventures among LGUs.

17

References and Interviews 1.

Herrin, Alejandro N., Population Policy in the Philippines, 1969-2002, Discussion Paper Series No. 2002-08, Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), September 2002.

2.

Orbeta, Aniceto, Jr. C., Matro, Jeannette, del Prado, Fatima, Review of the Population Program: 1986-2002, Discussioin Paper Series No. 2002-18, PIDS, December 2002.

3.

Selected Annual Reports of POPCOM 1973 to 2003.

4.

Commission on Population, Population Policy Manual Volume 5, Compiled by the Policy Analysis and Development Division, POPCOM, 2001

5.

POPCOM, Philippine Population Management Program (PPMP) Directional Plan 2001-2004

6.

POPCOM, Philippine Population Management Program (PPMP), 2005-2010 (draft only)

7.

Interviews with: Executive Director Tomas Osias and Deputy Executive Director Mia Ventura, POPCOM Central Office, 21 December 2006

18