USAID Philippines - CDCS - 2019-2024

UNCLASSIFIED
Philippines
PHOTO CAPTION GOES HERE

COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT
COOPERATION STRATEGY
(CDCS)
November 25, 2019 – November 25, 2024
COUNTRY DEVELOPME
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Figure 1. Map of the Philippines
USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 Draft September 18, 2019 – revised October 28, 2019 i
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS................................................................................................................. iii
I. Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 1
USAID Philippines 2020 – 2024 Results Framework ....................................................... 3
II. Country Context.................................................................................................... 4
Salient Factors in Country Context, Challenges, and Opportunities ........................................ 4
The Philippines’ National Development Vision .............................................................................. 6
Country Roadmap, Self-Reliance, and Future Trajectory............................................................. 7
Mission Vision for Country Transition ............................................................................................. 9
III. Strategic Approach ............................................................................................... 9
Efforts of other USG Actors ............................................................................................................. 14
IV. Results Framework .............................................................................................. 14
Development Objective 1: Democratic Governance Strengthened ........................................ 15
Development Objective 2: Inclusive, Market-Driven Growth Expanded ............................... 20
Development Objective 3: Environmental and Community Resilience Enhanced ............... 24
V. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning ............................................................... 29
VI. Annexes ................................................................................................................ 30
USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 ii

ACRONYMS
ALS Alternative Learning System

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy
C-TIP Countering Trafficking in Persons
CLA Collaborating, Learning and Adapting
CSO Civil Society Organization
DO Development Objective
DOH Department of Health
EDGE Enhancing Development and Growth through Energy
EITI Extractive Industry Transparency Imitative
ELMIS Electronic Logistics Management Information System
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GPH Government of the Philippines
GNP Gross National Product
HCI Human Capacity Index
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
IPS Indo-Pacific Strategy
IPTI Indo-Pacific Transparency Initiative
IR Intermediate Result
ISIS Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
J2SR Journey to Self-Reliance
K-12 Kindergarten through 12th grade
LGBTIQ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/transsexual, Intersex and Queer/questioning
LGU Local Government Unit
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
MPA Marine Protected Areas
MW Megawatts
NRM Natural Resources Management
NATO The North Atlantic Treaty Organization
OFDA Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance
OH Office of Health
PDP Philippine Development Plan
PFG Partnership for Growth
PhilHealth Philippine Health Insurance Corporation
RA Republic Act
SME Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise
Sub-IR Sub-Intermediate Result
TB Tuberculosis
UN United Nations
USAID United States Agency for International Development
UHC Universal Health Care
USG United States Government
USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 iii

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CDCS Goal
USAID is prioritizing the Philippines’ journey to self-reliance and key pillars in the United States’
Indo-Pacific vision over the 2020 – 2024 strategic period. This country development cooperation
strategy for the Philippines responds to multiple challenges that may impede that journey and
negatively impact sustainable national development. Foremost is the changing geopolitical situation in
Southeast Asia and how this impacts the Philippines. Regional powers are increasing their strategic
interest and influence in the Philippines and have made significant investments in the infrastructure
(digital and energy) and services sectors. As regional influence grows, USAID is concerned that
resource concessions made outside of accepted market mechanisms that enable transparent
procurement processes could harm long-term development in the Philippines if they bypass and
subvert governance practices that would otherwise ensure transparency and accountability. Priority
concessions include development of the energy and information communications infrastructure, the
extraction of natural resources, particularly in areas under the control of indigenous peoples, and
high value public infrastructure development. Concessions for these public resources made in the
absence of adequate governance mechanisms potentially hinder the participation of other
international investors, national businesses, and labor and may constrain future self-reliance. 1
The U.S. government’s vision for the Indo-Pacific strongly resonates in the Philippines and guides this
five-year development plan. Signature U.S. initiatives implemented in the Philippines, including the
Indo-Pacific Transparency Initiative, Infrastructure Transaction Advisory Network, Digital
Connectivity and Cybersecurity Partnership and Asia Enhancing Development and Growth through
Energy, will advance the U.S.-Philippines Indo-Pacific partnership. This new, five-year development
strategy also responds to long-standing structural challenges and current developments in the
country’s political economy. These strategic priorities inform the Mission’s five-year goal that will
help ensure that the Philippines is a well-governed and more self-reliant Indo-Pacific partner.
Commitment and Capacity

Successive government administrations have prioritized social inclusion and the protection of the
rights of vulnerable peoples. Commitment to social group equality, however, remains among the
lowest Roadmap indicators for the Philippines. This reflects challenges faced by many Filipinos,
including activists, to safeguard their interests. Adherence to the norms of liberal democracy appears
to be declining as well. Despite a high capacity civil society and media, as reflected in USAID’s
Journey to Self-Reliance (J2SR) Roadmap metrics, these institutions are less resilient than expected
and subject to political pressure. The Mission’s concern that counter-vailing institutions of
democratic governance is weakening undergirds the first development objective in this strategy:
Democratic Governance Strengthened.
Inclusive economic growth is another government priority, yet a higher percent of Filipino families
live below established poverty lines than found in other leading economies in Southeast Asia. The
country’s low Roadmap indicators for poverty rate and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita
reflect this finding. The Philippines has one of the highest rates of income inequality in the Southeast
Asian and Pacific region. Educational quality is also low. The World Bank recommended in 2013 that
the Philippines prioritize inclusive growth for future national development. In 2017, the World Bank
recommended that the Philippines increase its investment in human capital to achieve critical health
and education outcomes. Further, they argued, doing so is critical to compete against other dynamic
USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 Draft September 18, 2019 – revised October 28, 2019 1
economies in an advancing technological future.2 The GPH faces challenges to fully implement its
inclusive growth development agenda. Policy reforms are vulnerable to challenges from vested
interests that dominate local and national politics.
Social programs to build human capital and deliver better services require sufficient fiscal space to
fund government priorities. Improvements in tax policy and tax administration have generated more
revenues; however, the tax-to-GDP ratio in the Philippines remains among the lowest in the region.
A larger concern is that government agencies often fail to successfully develop and execute their
budgets. The Mission will prioritize effective domestic resource mobilization to advance self-reliance.
The Mission will strengthen local systems to counter these obstacles in the Philippines’ Journey to
Self-Reliance. The Philippines has sufficient resources at hand to fund its own ambitious development
agenda; however, it lacks efficient systems to mobilize national resources to implement actions
necessary to realize its national agenda. USAID is working through each of its technical offices to
move forward needed policy reforms and to strengthen government processes at the line level to
implement the necessary investments. The Mission is supporting the private sector to leverage
USAID’s work and take this further. Civil Society has a key role, and is supported by USAID, to
ensure development priorities are inclusive of the greater population and are carried forward in a
transparent and accountable manner. Assisting host country institutions to redefine their
relationships with the government will strengthen national self-reliance and contribute to redefining
the current relationship between the USG and the GPH.
These concerns motivate the Mission’s second development objective: Inclusive, Market-driven Growth
Expanded. To achieve this objective, USAID initiatives will promote regulatory quality and private
sector growth to create more jobs, increase the government’s capacity for financial self-reliance: that
is, the ability to mobilize domestic resources, and ensure institutions across government line
departments strengthen their financial management. Education and health programming will support
the government and public stakeholders to improve the country’s human capital development and
bolster long-term self-reliance.
The nation’s commitment to safeguard its vast biodiversity and natural resources is exemplified by
habitat protections and associated policies; however, these economic and livelihood resources are
increasingly vulnerable to shocks and disasters (adversely impacting safety and security), as well as
inadequate government effectiveness to implement the policies that are already law. A Climate Risk
Management (CRM) assessment conducted for this strategy has emphasized the Philippines’
vulnerability to the effects of extreme weather and the slowly encroaching threats of long-term
climate change. The Philippines is highly vulnerable to shocks and disaster, is over-extracted, and has
insufficient capacity at the local level to effectively manage its vast biological diversity. USAID
priorities under its third development objective, Environmental and Community Resilience Enhanced,
will contribute to self-reliance both in the commitment to resilience through policy making and
planning; and the capacity for stronger enforcement, prevention, and implementation to enhance
environmental and community resilience. Outcomes achieved under this objective are important not
only as a development objective in itself, but they also reinforce development outcomes achieved
across the entire portfolio. Challenges resulting from climate change impact the resilience of
infrastructure development, a GPH priority, the budgets of local governments that plan for and
respond to natural disasters, as well as on service delivery, especially for healthcare. These
considerations will be integrated into program and activity design under this strategy.
USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 2

Other Mission priorities include domestic anti-trafficking-in-persons programming. The Philippines
earned Tier 1 status in 2016 and will likely remain in that placement due to the government’s
continued commitment to counter TIP and address gaps. The domestic trafficking in persons is less
frequently addressed, despite being a larger concern.
The lowest measure in the Philippines country Roadmap is the capacity to ensure safety and security.
Security issues and crime remain significant concerns, and threats include transnational organized
crimes, such as wildlife trafficking, drug trafficking, human trafficking, terrorism, cyberattacks; as well
as communicable and infectious disease epidemics. The Mission will leverage initiatives taken by the
U.S. Department of Defense and other inter-agency partners to counter violent extremism with a
concentration on social connectedness as a community-level response to transnational threats.
USAID will continue to monitor and assess the situation with regards to violent extremism, including
through learning activities, and will look at opportunities to address violent extremism more
comprehensively, provided that effective solutions may be advanced that are within the Mission’s
manageable interest. Several initiatives under the Education portfolio have crisis modifiers to
reprogram activities to meet emerging situations, as necessary.
Strategic Choices
The Mission will employ a geographic focus in this strategy in those instances where it can maximize
its development impact. The Cities Development Initiative (CDI), under the previous strategy,
targeted development in secondary cities and aligned with the government’s national spatial strategy.
The Mission will implement a second-generation Cities Development Initiative to harness the
potential of secondary cities. In addition, given the rapid urbanization in the Philippines, USAID will
support additional interventions that leverage cities as geographical focus areas for economic
growth, improved governance, and resilient development.
The Mission anticipates that program priorities will change over the course of this strategy and
programming may extend into areas in which the various technical offices are not currently active.
For example, the Health portfolio in the Philippines is currently focused on TB, family planning,
health system strengthening and community-based, voluntary drug demand reduction. There has
been no continued funding for Maternal Child Health, and infectious disease programming, to date, is
limited to TB. This strategy, however, highlights opportunities for USAID engagement for a more
holistic approach to address the country’s inter-related health challenges, many of which are now
related to health governance. These opportunities pertain to programming under DO 2, specifically
sub-IRs 2.1.3 Enabling Environment for Basic Service Delivery Improved, and 2.3.1 Priority Health
Systems Improved, and also to programming under DO 3, sub-IR 3.3.3, Capacity to Detect and
Control Infectious Diseases Strengthened.
At the end of five years, USAID anticipates that its partnership with the Government of the
Philippines in national development will benefit from the value added of USG interventions and
through the coalitions and groups of partners that USAID can establish and leverage to support the
government and share in the work of identifying, financing, and implementing Philippine development
priorities.

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS GOAL 2020 - 2024: A WELL-GOVERNED AND MORE SELF-RELIANT INDO-PACIFIC PARTNER
DO 1 Democratic Governance Strengthened DO 2 Inclusive, Market-Driven Growth DO 3 Environmental and Community
Expanded Resilience Enhanced
IR 1.1 Civic Engagement Increased IR 2.1 Regulatory Quality Improved IR 3.1 Advanced Energy Sector and Markets
Expanded
1.1.1 Civic advocacy for better public services 2.1.1 Enabling environment for open, fair, and
bolstered 3.1.1 Performance of energy utilities improved
competitive trade and investment strengthened
1.1.2 Integrity of electoral process strengthened 2.1.2 Enabling environment for infrastructure
3.1.2 Deployment of advanced energy system increased
development improved
2.1.3 Enabling environment for basic service delivery 3.1.3 Energy procurement process enhanced
improved
2.1.4 Enabling environment for the digital
economy strengthened
IR 1.2 Public Transparency and Accountability IR 2.2 Government Capacity to Finance Self- IR 3.2 Sustainable Use of Natural Resources
Improved Reliance Increased Strengthened
1.2.1 Civil society oversight bolstered 2.2.1 Domestic public resource mobilization increased 3.2.1 Conservation of biologically diverse areas
advanced
1.2.2 Access to information expanded 3.2.2 Management of water resources for service
2.2.2 Public financial management strengthened
delivery sustained
3.2.3 Private Sector financial models for sustainable
1.2.3 Media independence and capacity strengthened
resource management accelerated
IR 1.3 Rule of Law Advanced IR 2.3 Human Capital Development Improved IR 3.3 Response to Transnational Threats
Strengthened
1.3.1 Public support for citizens’ rights increased 2.3.1 Priority health outcomes improved 3.3.1 Institutional systems to combat environmental
crimes improved
1.3.2 Access to justice for marginalized and/or 2.3.2 Education systems strengthened
vulnerable groups enhanced 3.3.2 Social connectedness increased
2.3.3 Science, technology and innovation capacity 3.3.3 Capacity to detect and control infectious diseases
1.3.3 Domestic trafficking in persons reduced strengthened strengthened
IR 1.4 More Responsive Local Governance IR 2.4 Private Sector-led Growth Promoted IR 3.4 Capacity to Mitigate Risks of and Respond
to Disaster Strengthened
1.4.1 Decentralization enabling environment 2.4.1 Private enterprise development improved 3.4.1 Preparedness for disaster and climate stresses
strengthened improved
1.4.2 Local service delivery enhanced 2.4.2 Private sector service delivery increased 3.4.2 Urban resilience improved
1.4.3 Stakeholder participation in key local bodies
3.4.3 Delivery of humanitarian assistance improved
expanded
1.4.4 Data-based decision-making improved
Cross-cutting Themes: Increased Private Sector Engagement, Enhanced Gender and Social Inclusion, Civil Society Strengthened

II. COUNTRY CONTEXT
Salient Factors in Country Context, Challenges, and Opportunities

The Philippines is strategically located in the Indo-Pacific and critical to U.S. national interests in the
region. For one, the Philippines, the oldest ally in Southeast Asia, shares important security ties with
the U.S. as a major non-NATO strategic partner. 3 Equally important is the major trading and
investment partnership between the two countries. Bi-lateral trade in goods and services in 2017
totaled an estimated $29.6 billion, with a $6.7 billion deficit in favor of the Philippines. 4 The U.S.
government’s strategic focus on the region, in tandem with the decades-long close ties between the
countries, presents significant opportunities to support the vision of an Indo-Pacific partnership
based on democratic values and free and open trade, while advancing the Philippines’ journey to self-
reliance. 5
There are challenges in advancing this partnership. Foremost are geo-political affairs in the Southeast
Asia region. The development practices of countries in the region and large, contested areas of the
South China Sea are problematic to democracy and a rules-based order. China, for example, is
actively involved in the country’s public infrastructure development plan with investments in mining
and energy, as well as food supply, to guarantee access to raw resources. Regional and international
partners maintain concerns that Chinese investments may distort the market by subverting
economic governance and exclude national companies and workers, as well as other international
interests, from participation. Other countries in the region share similar concerns. Long-term
development in the Philippines is threatened when large-scale concessions are made outside of
accepted market mechanisms and international and local companies are excluded from competition.
Such practices bypass and subvert governance practices that would ensure greater transparency and
accountability. 6 And, the U.S.-Philippines economic relationship has declined in favor of greater trade
with China. The Duterte Administration recently signed 13 cooperation agreements with China.
Financial assistance and investment pledges are estimated to total $24 billion, of which 62 percent is
business-to-business and the rest is official development assistance (ODA). Additionally, Chinese -
Philippines trade expanded under the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement and is expected to grow
further under the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership initiative.
Transnational threats also bear upon the development work done in country by USAID. These range
from illegal and undeclared fishing, illicit trade in natural resources including wildlife trafficking, to
outside interference in Philippines’ elections and public information space, and terrorism. Trafficking
of persons (TIP) is also a concern; however, the Philippines earned Tier 1 status in 2016, which it
will likely maintain due to the government’s continued commitment to counter TIP and address any
gaps. 7 There are opportunities for USAID assistance with domestic trafficking-in-persons issues that
are less focused on. The spread of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and HIV are among the
transnational threats that affect national development. These challenges present opportunities for
USAID to partner with institutions in the Philippines.
Governance and a decline in liberal democracy is a significant challenge domestically. 8 Countervailing

institutions – political parties, the judiciary, and civil society and media – are weak and accountability
for government performance is diminished. The Mission’s priorities here are to strengthen the
capacity of Civil Society, the private sector in the Philippines, and local government institutions to
advance their own interests in these regards for the benefit of national development and increased
self-reliance.
4
USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024
USAID’s Journey to Self-Reliance Roadmap indicators compare the Philippines to other low- and
middle-income countries. The regional comparison is perhaps more pertinent from the national
perspective. East Asia was the fastest-growing economic region in the world in 2017 with six of the
world’s fastest growing economies, including the Philippines. Other regional economies, however,
are outperforming the Philippines and attracting greater foreign direct investment (FDI). Several of
these have world-class infrastructure, digital connectivity, macroeconomic stability, fully developed
financial systems, and well-educated work forces. 9 The Philippines’ human capacity index (HCI) is
above the lower middle-income country average; however, its HCI score is significantly lower than
other countries in the region. There are concerns that the country may be left behind as technology
rapidly changes. 10 Economic growth has slowed in recent years due in large part to decreasing
international demand. 11 The World Bank projects an economic slowdown in the region, and for the
Philippines, in the few next years. Competition for FDI will increase. The Philippines faces
productivity and human capacity challenges. To achieve long term economic growth, the World
Bank recommends that the government increase its investment in human capacity. Priorities are to
ensure improved learning outcomes, alleviate child stunting through better nutrition outcomes, and
to improve the quality of health care through implementation of the Universal Health Care (UHC)
law. 12 USAID programming will assist the GPH in two of the three recommendations; nutrition is
not part of the Mission’s portfolio.
Another salient factor is the overall health status of the poor and vulnerable people in this country.
The Philippines has one of the highest incidence rates of Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (TB) in
the world. TB, an infectious disease, is a major public health problem in the country and the 6th
leading cause of mortality in 2010.13 Mass migration of rural poor to metropolitan areas increases
informal settling in urban slum areas and exacerbates the incidence of TB in the Philippines. Climate-
related risks further complicate this problem. These and other health concerns impact the
Philippines’ ability to sustain self-reliance in the future. The Philippines is rated 9th in terms of
countries with the highest rate of stunted children, and 10th among countries for the highest rates of
childhood wasting. 14 Poor nutrition increases the likelihood that latent TB will develop into
active TB disease and adversely impact upon long-term development objectives. As well, the
Philippines is one of the countries in Southeast Asia with the highest adolescent birth rates. Poor and
less educated women have 2 - 3 children more than they plan for or desire. The Philippines
Development Plan (PDP) prioritizes the economic and social benefits that the country will achieve
when a demographic transition decreases the birth rate and enables a lower proportion of spending
on the very young. There is an opportunity for USAID - GPH partnership in family planning and the
development of human capacity to ensure that Filipino families reach a desired family size and keep
adolescent girls, boys, and youth healthy and educated, as well as opportunities to engage in the area
of HIV.
The Philippines is also a designated mega-biodiverse country, with a marine ecosystem conservatively
valued close to $1 trillion.15 The country’s wealth of natural resources sustain the livelihoods of one-
third of Filipinos, including entire communities that are dependent upon them, as well as support
growth across the agriculture, fisheries, and industry and services sectors. 16 Over-extraction of
resources, however, weakens the ability of ecosystems to recharge, and threatens the livelihoods of
communities and the longer-term profitability of industries that are dependent upon them.17
Commitment to biodiversity and habit protections is an important element of the PDP and the

J2SR. 18 Natural Resources Management (NRM) is also a pillar in the administration’s Vision for a
Free and Open Indo-Pacific.
The country faces challenges in implementing its biological and habitat protections as mandated by
Philippine laws. Other nations in the region contest aquatic resources within the country’s
traditional economic zone of influence. Concerns over these developments invoke national debates
concerning the government’s duty to protect national interests.19 Inadequate oversight potentially
enables foreign-funded infrastructure projects to pose direct threats to national resources.
Conservation and sustainable management of the country’s abundant natural resources is necessary
for long-term self-reliance in the Philippines. For example, the value of forestry products, once
valued at 12.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 67 percent of export value in the
1970s, has declined to the point in which the Philippines is now importing over $2 billion worth of
forest products, as reported in 2017.20
The Philippines has other environmental challenges. It ranks as the 3rd country most at risk to
natural disasters and has a high level of social vulnerability. Contributing factors include seismic
activity along the Pacific Ring of Fire, a pattern of typhoons that regularly move through the
archipelago; human made crises from ISIS inspired insurgency, the acts of pirates and organized
criminal networks, and other malign actors. 21 Many of the cities experiencing rapid urban growth
and attracting migration are some of the most at risk areas for floods, water shortages, and
typhoons. In response, the GPH Climate Change Commission’s five-year Roadmap will strengthen
resilience to climate risks in priority provinces, coastal communities, and cities to mitigate the
potential impact of climate related disaster. 22 A CRM assessment conducted for this CDCS has
recommended priorities for USAID’s programming which are reflected in this strategy. The map of
the Philippines (p. i) displays these national attributes.
The Philippines’ National Development Vision

The country’s long-term vision for national development, Ambisyon Natin (Our Ambition) 2040, is that
the Philippines is a middle-class society, lacking poverty, in which its peoples live long and healthy
lives, are smart and innovative, and have a high level of trust for their government and between
themselves. 23 Duterte Administration priorities to meet this vision are stated in the PDP (2017 –
2022). 24 The Mission’s 2020 – 2024 strategic framework does not address each element of the
Ambisyon Natin 2040 or the PDP, but does align to national priorities.
The PDP organizes the nation’s development priorities under three main pillars, supported by cross-
cutting strategies, to provide a foundation to achieve intended results. The PDP’s Pillar One,
Enhancing the Social Fabric for a high-trust society, prioritizes governance that is people-centered,
clean and efficient, and the swift and fair administration of justice. Development Objective (DO 1),
Democratic Governance Strengthened, focuses on civil society and public support for democratic
governance (demand side) and aligns loosely to GPH priorities, which focus more on the provision
of good governance (supply side). The Mission’s DO 2, Inclusive, Market-Driven Growth, is well
aligned with priorities under Pillar Two, Reducing Inequalities in Economic Development. The PDP’s
Pillar Three, Increasing the Growth Potential, focuses on maternal and infant care, family planning,
improving health and education outcomes, reducing youth unemployment, savings, and realizing a
youth dividend. These outcomes align to the Human Capital Development IR under DO 2. The
Mission’s DO 3, Environmental and Community Resilience Enhanced, corresponds to Building Socio-
Economic Resiliency under Pillar 2. USAID programming will not address the safety and security

elements of Pillar Two. Ecological Integrity Ensured and Socio-Economic Conditions of Resource-
Based Communities Improved through Sustainable Integrated Area Development, a cross-cutting
theme in the PDP, aligns to DO 3. Further details are provided in the DO narratives.
Actors Influencing this Vision

Local governments lack sufficient means to counter the award of high-value contracts and
concessions for natural resource use and extraction that are completed outside of transparent and
competitive processes. 25 USAID sees opportunities to support policy reforms, advance
transparency, and increase competition in government contracts, specifically in high-cost
infrastructure development. There are opportunities, as well, to strengthen local governance
institutions, and to support civil society in a watch-dog role to ensure greater accountability. The
current administration has a key role to advance these reforms that are critical to achieving its ten-
point agenda and stated development priorities.
Country Roadmap, Self-Reliance, Challenges and Opportunities in the Future Trajectory

The Philippines’ J2SR Roadmap metrics are relatively strong, and all but four of the seventeen sub-
dimension indicators score above the average for all low- and middle-income countries. However,
with half of the Philippines Roadmap metrics near the mid-point, and several below, there is room
for improvement, particularly in the area of governance and social inclusion. The lowest measure in
the Philippines country Roadmap is the capacity to ensure safety and security. In 2018, the
Philippines was among the lowest 10 countries measured by the Legatum Prosperity Index indicator.
Security issues and crime remain significant concerns in urban areas of the country. Current threats
include transnational organized crimes, such as wildlife trafficking, drug trafficking, human trafficking,
terrorism, and cyberattacks; as well as communicable and infectious disease epidemics. The Mission
is reviewing its response to violent extremism, which is an element of the personal safety indicator.
USAID sees opportunities to address a health-based response to drug demand reduction, build local
and national capacities to respond to transnational crimes in wildlife trafficking, respond to the
domestic trafficking of people, and for public information to counter disinformation via the internet.
Increasing social connectedness by engaging with excluded and vulnerable groups and responding to
infectious diseases are also opportunities within USAID’s manageable interest.
The Philippines also scores below the average for comparable countries on social group equality.
Social group equality measures government commitment to social inclusion, specifically the extent
that social groups receive the same civil liberties. Filipinos face challenges in their efforts to protect
their rights. For one, state institutions fail to take decisive sanctions against the threats, harassment,
and death inflicted on local environmental activists in the Philippines, according to reports filed by
Global Witness, the human rights watchdog. In 2017, the death of 48 activists contributed to the
Philippines record as the country with the highest rate of activist murders for any Southeast Asian
country, and the third highest in the world after Brazil and Colombia. 26 Many of the victims are
indigenous peoples. As well, adherence to the norms of liberal democracy is declining according to
several international concerns. 27 The J2SR metric for liberal democracy is above the average of low-
to middle-income countries. More recent treatment of civil society activists and media in the
country, however, has raised concerns about the Philippines’ commitment to these principles. 28
There is high capacity for civil society and the media, as measured in the J2SR metric, and both have
been active in social change in Philippine history. The current climate suggests that these institutions
are weaker than this measure shows and subject to political pressure.

The Philippines scores lower than average on the poverty rate indicator, a Roadmap metric that
measures household resilience to withstand shocks. 29 Despite strong economic growth in recent
years, the Philippines has one of the highest rates of income inequality in the Southeast Asian and
Pacific region. 30 Unemployment is at record low levels in the Philippines. Underemployment,
however, is 20 percent and mean wage rates stay stagnant. 31 This metric reflects the lack of inclusive
economic growth in the Philippines. Advances in reforms are vulnerable to challenges from vested
interests that dominate local and national politics. The result is that the interests of elites and special
interests are higher priorities than those of poor Filipinos, who comprise a significant portion of the
population (22 million as of 2015 according to the World Bank). USAID sees opportunities to
address this challenge, which are outlined in the sections to follow.
The Roadmap reflects low education quality, a measure of human capacity. 32 The government,
however, is committed to strengthening educational systems in order to build human capacity and
equip Filipinos with skills necessary for technological demands that are now confronting the
country. 33 Another concern is alignment of the education system to meet industry workforce skills
necessary for better paying jobs. The third metric for human (citizen) capacity is an indicator for
child health. This J2SR metric is a proxy for the overall national health status and reflects that the
healthcare system adequately ensures the health of its population. The proxy indicator does not
capture Philippines-specific factors that would lower the country score if considered. First, the
Philippines scores high in child survival, part of the J2SR metric, but also has high levels of child
malnutrition and child stunting due to the poor health and poor nutrition of pregnant mothers. 34
This negatively impacts the development of human capacity, or citizen capacity as tracked by the
Roadmap metrics, and is not captured in the Philippines’ score. The incidence rate for multi-drug
resistant TB, as well, is not considered in the proxy score. In the Philippines, this disease affects not
only the general population, but impacts child health outcomes in particular. Teen pregnancies are
rising and underserved populations lack access to family planning services that reduce maternal
deaths and promote maternal and newborn health. Access to safe drinking water and sanitation also
raise health outcomes. The proxy health indicator does not adequately present the total healthcare
scenario in the Philippines. USAID will assist the GPH’s efforts to address these challenges.
The Philippines is at the overall average for low- and middle-income countries for the efficiency of its
tax administration. This measures tax collection effectiveness country-wide and reflects the capacity
to collect and mobilize domestic resources. National policies and systems are advanced, but the
capacity to implement them is weak, especially at local level. Recent improvements in tax policy and
tax administration have generated more revenues and increased the fiscal space needed to fund the
government’s social program priorities. Revenue generation, however, remains among the lowest in
the region. The GPH's spending capacity remains weak because it routinely fails to successfully
develop and execute its budget. 35 Support to more effectively mobilize domestic resources is a
priority to advance self-reliance.
Philippines commitment to biodiversity and habitat protection policies is high; however, these
economic and livelihood resources are quite vulnerable to shocks and disasters (adversely impacting
safety and security), as well as inadequate government effectiveness to implement the policies that
are already law. In this instance, the commitment indicator does not accurately capture the political
will to enforce these protections. The Philippines is highly vulnerable to natural and man-made
disasters, is over-extracted, and has insufficient capacity at the local level to safeguard its vast
biological diversity. 36

With respect to the economy and institutional capacity, the metrics suggest stronger performance
than what is actually realized. The Philippines has strong economic policies and has benefitted from
higher growth rates in recent years. However, it still struggles to distribute growth equitably and is
unable to allocate resources effectively to meet the most pressing needs. For example, high growth
rates helped lower the national poverty rate from 26.6 percent in 2006 to 21.6 percent in 2015;
however, the decline has been slow and gross inequality persists.
Mission Vision for Country Transition
Currently USAID is reviewing its development partnership in partnership with its GPH counterparts.
The Mission will advance country transition on different tracks. A priority is to strengthen local
systems to counter obstacles in the Philippines’ Journey to Self-Reliance. USAID is working through
each of its technical offices to move forward needed policy reforms and to strengthen government
processes at the line level that improve upon inefficient systems to implement the necessary
investments. Enabling private sector engagement will leverage USAID’s work to take this further.
Civil Society, with USAID support, will ensure that development priorities are inclusive of the
greater population, and are carried forward in a transparent and accountable manner. Assisting host
country institutions to redefine their relationships with the government will strengthen national self-
reliance and contribute to redefining the relationship between the USG and the GPH.
On a parallel track, USAID is prioritizing domestic resource mobilization in both the public and
private sector. The expected outcome is to more efficiently mobilize national resources that are
sufficiently available for the Philippines to fund its own ambitious development agenda. As the
Philippines increasingly becomes more self-reliant, this strategy will reflect these gains by increasing
the pace of its transition away from directly supporting service delivery toward shifting more
resources to improve government effectiveness. This process is already underway. Across all sectors
in which USAID/Philippines works, technical offices are advancing policy and regulatory reforms that
improve government capacity and responsiveness, particularly with regards to budget management
and procurement reform. Such reforms, when implemented with USAID support, have the potential
to produce strong second- and third-order effects across the range of sectors, advancing the
Philippine’s ability to plan, resource and implement its journey to self-reliance. Successfully
implementing the CDCS’s targeted, cross-cutting, private-sector approach, will help to harness the
Philippines’ robust and vibrant private sector, both in terms of resources and expertise, which, when
combined with improved government effectiveness, and reinforced with a strengthened Civil Society
as a watchdog to safeguard the process, will more quickly advance the Philippines towards greater
self-reliance.
III. STRATEGIC APPROACH
Trade relations between countries, changing patterns of bi-lateral investment, and international
affairs that involve the U.S., Europe, and the Southeast Asia region all contribute to a significantly
different development landscape now encountered by international donors in the Philippines,

including USAID. The USAID Asia Bureau’s vision for the Indo-Pacific region has specific relevance in
the Philippines. Signature U.S. initiatives in this region feature among the new activities to be moved
forward under this new strategy. Mission priorities include increased transparency in the region, an
infrastructure transactions and assistance network, digital connectivity, trade and competitiveness,
energy development, and natural resource management. In line with these initiatives, this strategy
aims to promote governance throughout the entire portfolio. Thus, the strategy has a strategic
focus on public sector performance, the ability of civil society to better demand for such
performance, and for transparency and accountability to realize a well-governed, Indo-Pacific
partner.
In addition, the strategy includes a specific DO for democratic governance, since governance is both
an objective in itself, as well as a means to attaining other DOs. The previous CDCS viewed
governance mainly as a means. The governance objective addresses public support for the rule of
law, as well as sector-specific governance issues in economic development, health, education, and the
environment. The strategy also supports rights issues such as its approach to drug demand
reduction, advocacy efforts to support free and open information environment, and support for the
rule of law.
USAID will continue to deepen its current partnership with the GPH, which has been largely rooted
in its role in providing bilateral assistance. An example of this is the Partnership for Growth (PFG), a
core initiative in the 2013 – 2018 strategic period that achieved gains in major policy initiatives and
improvements in public sector capacity.37 The Mission can build upon achievements made under
PFG to redefine its relationship with the government through support to key policy reform
initiatives. Reform efforts under this CDCS will prioritize inclusive and market-driven growth that is
private sector-led through elimination of key regulatory barriers in government contracts and
enabling participation of a more inclusive range of private sector actors, including small and medium-
sized enterprises, in the economy. Policy initiatives include easing restrictions on foreign equity
ownership and the areas in which this is applied and restraining the abuse of market dominance that
can limit opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises. Strategic markets for infrastructure
development, digital connectivity, and energy are uncompetitive due to high start-up costs,
restrictive regulations, and lack of transparency. IPS initiatives for these priority sectors will increase
the competitive nature of these markets and benefit a range of economic interests, including the
U.S., and specifically the private sector in the Philippines. The government has made significant
efforts to deregulate, privatize, and break up long-standing monopolies in telecommunications, air
transport, energy, infrastructure development, banking, and other sectors following passage of the
Philippine Competition Act in 2014. Other regional economies, however, have more dynamic and
competitive markets. The Philippines, by contrast, has a relatively lower standing in this regard. 38
Use of Host Country Resources

USAID programming will build government capacity to improve budget management (efficiency of
tax administration and government effectiveness metrics) and procurement reform. The Philippines’
political-economic structure provides the executive branch with considerable authority over budgets
and appointments. Other branches of government lack sufficient power to countervail a powerful
executive branch. Thus, USAID has initiatives implemented by each of its technical offices to
strengthen public financial management to better utilize host country resources. A range of
initiatives to eliminate outdated and/or conflicting regulations, improve the performance of
regulatory bodies, and provide in-house technical capacity will build upon USAID’s previous support

for the GPH Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Act No.10963 enacted by the Congress of
the Philippines in December 2017. These efforts include the USG Government Accountability Office
– Philippines Performance Audit Partnership to strengthen GPH audit performance. The Education
Office will assist the Department of Trade and Industry to improve procurement policies related to
research and development. The Health Office will support the Department of Health (DOH) in
procurement reforms such as supply chain management. The Electronic Logistics Management
Information System (ELMIS), funded by the DOH, will be implemented with USAID technical
support. The Health Office will also build local private sector capacity to continue technical support
for the ELMIS into the future. The Environment Office is developing models to increase self-reliance
by rationalizing payments of fees by the private sector for the use of forestry, water, and other
aquatic resources – accounting for the true cost of renewable natural resources in infrastructure
development. These activities, among others supported by USAID, will strengthen GPH capacity to
finance its national development, and strengthen country self-reliance.
The Role of Civil Society

The Mission’s strategic approach is to engage civil society broadly defined to redefine its relationship
with the government in order to balance the distribution of power and strengthen democratic
governance. First, USAID will bolster the overall civil society ecosystem to promote self-reliance in
those areas where sustainability issues remain. This may include building capacities in organizational
structures, transparency of operations, board structures, the ability to attract funding, installing
corporate governance, and succession planning where this is still necessary. Second, USAID will use
a systems approach to review civil society organization (CSO) networks and how they build linkages
with service organizations and CSOs across multiple sectors. Third, USAID will scale up these
networks to strengthen CSO position within these systems and promote inclusive democratic
governance principals, including transparency, as a check from the bottom up. A sustainable, self-
reliant civil society can be more effective in political organization and advocacy work in their
communities. Building upon this, a better-networked civil society can increase impact at scale,
whether working horizontally across different sectors in their community, or vertically across
communities. USAID can facilitate this given its relative strengths in organizational capacity
development. This will reinforce the CSO environment, building upon the Philippines’ existing
strengths and accomplishments. As outlined above, a strengthened civil society will have a key role
across USAID’s entire portfolio.
Engaging the Private Sector

USAID’s strategic approach also prioritizes private sector engagement as a means to transform its
development outcomes. Private sector direct assistance and other private-sector engagement
elements are present in some intermediate results (IR), and the resource mobilization aspect of
private sector engagement is an explicit cross-cutting theme. In the previous CDCS, private sector
engagement was not an explicit objective or sub-objective. USAID will assist the Philippines to
mobilize and leverage investments in initiatives under each development objective. The approach
taken to engage the private sector varies among the Mission’s technical offices, as outlined below,
but in general, will seek to identify private sector solutions and enterprise-driven development
approaches that further Philippine self-reliance and advance the vision for a free and open Indo-
Pacific. A key outcome anticipated under this CDCS is to create more opportunities and space for
the private sector, particularly a broader range of national actors, to engage in development. The
Mission will advance this objective through policy reforms, including increased transparency for

procurements and enabling government agencies to engage more effectively with the private sector,
across the portfolio.
For example, USAID’s Economic Governance and Democracy Office will support the GPH to build a
better enabling regulatory environment to increase open and transparent private sector engagement
throughout USAID’s portfolio, and specifically to promote competitive trade, increase investments in
infrastructure development, and to enable the digital economy. Other private-sector initiatives will
promote value chains for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Sector-specific interventions
will create opportunities in agribusiness, tourism, and manufacturing. Expanding private-sector led
growth through private enterprise development and by facilitating private sector engagement in
service delivery will support inclusive growth, as the private sector, especially small and medium-
sized firms, is the main provider of jobs in the Philippines. These initiatives support GPH objectives
to expand economic opportunities.
In the health sector, USAID will assist the government to implement the Universal Health Care
(UHC) Republic Act (RA) 11223, approved by the Philippine Congress in July 2018. This law directs
the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) to contract with public, private, or mixed
provider networks for the provision of health care services. 39,40 The UHC allows the DOH to
outsource some primary health care services to the private sector. USAID’s Office of Health will
assist in this process. Government partners lack experience and approved mechanisms to engage
with and outsource to the private sector at all levels of the health sector. An improved regulatory
structure will enable private sector investment in pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and digitalized
services, among other priority areas in the health sector. Private sector engagement in the delivery
of health services will expand the provision of healthcare to underserved populations.
USAID’s Education Office will facilitate cooperation between state institutions; colleges, universities,
and training providers; and private sector interests to coordinate and ensure that education and
training is of sufficient quality to lead to a higher level of economic performance in the future. This
includes an USAID-facilitated initiative to develop a work-based training program driven by the
private sector to promote inclusive economic growth. This requires partnering with the private
sector to provide employment opportunities for out-of-school and out-of-work youth.
The Environment Office’s private sector engagement includes activities to advance transparent
procurement processes in the energy sector as well as promote private sector investment, including
from U.S. companies to support the Asia Enhancing Development and Growth through Energy
(EDGE) initiative. The Environment Office is developing models to increase self-reliance by
promoting payments for eco-system models, which have garnered strong interest from private
sector partners, for the use of forestry, water, and other aquatic resources – accounting for the true
cost of renewable natural resources in infrastructure development. The Environment Office will also
advance the development of the natural resource sector, including advancing sustainable supply
chains, which conserve natural resources, while increasing value for producers and processors
alike. Other opportunities for private sector engagement include addressing solid waste management
issues, such as marine plastics, where private sector partners are increasing attention and
investment. Based on the approaches outlined above, private sector engagement and civil society
strengthening are two cross-cutting modalities through which USAID can leverage local resources to
achieve a greater, more self-reliant development impact.

Gender and Social Inclusion
Gender and social inclusion is a third cross-cutting theme in this CDCS. The status of women and
girls in the Philippines exceeds that observed in other Southeast Asian countries with regard to
educational attainment, access to health services, the right to participate in elections and in
government, and access to government services and civil society. The Mission, however, can advance
its development objectives by increasing opportunities for lower-income women and other excluded
groups. 41 The gender analysis (GA) conducted for this CDCS emphasizes the value of building on the
partner government's gender and development policies and resources, helping prevent gender-based
violence (GBV), supporting women's leadership and economic empowerment, and working with
people of all genders, ability, and context.
USAID/Philippines will ensure that each project is informed by a quality GA. The analysis will extend
from the CDCS-level GA to examine GBV risks and analysis of context-specific social and cultural
barriers to gender equality specific to each project. When necessary, activities will focus their
activity-level GA to be more context-specific. Where appropriate, the Mission will also identify key
inclusive development issues and constraints that need to be addressed within its portfolio and
recommend how the Mission can achieve greater and better inclusive development in its programs.
Applications will vary among the different technical offices. The gender challenge in education is that
girls do better than boys in basic education; however, they are more likely to drop out later. USAID
also sees opportunities to advance social inclusion through service training for teachers of children
who are deaf and blind, assisting them to assess and better identify deaf children, enabling them to
teach better. Most victims of trafficking are women and girls. USAID supported CSOs will provide
legal assistance and prevention services to raise awareness, mobilize communities, and inform people
about recruitment activities of human trafficking networks. Integrating gender equality and social
inclusion will promote health outcomes for under-served populations and address gender-based
difference in health seeking behavior in TB, family planning, and HIV. Men are less likely to participate
in the first two of these areas. Increasing access to youth friendly family planning and thereby the
couple-year protection and ensuring family planning services to sexually active youth are unmet
opportunities to address development challenges. These are well suited to USAID strengths.
Supporting women associations in small and micro-finance and building their capacity to be active
decision makers and leaders in multi-sectoral councils is another opportunity. USAID will support
women leadership in those areas where women depend upon for their livelihood. These initiatives
build upon the USAID – GPH partnership and provide opportunities to support common interests.
The Mission will continue to prioritize the use of collaborative approaches to design and procure as
a strategic focus under this CDCS. Already, the Mission has championed co-design and co-creation
as successful models that have generated new ideas, resources, approaches, and partners. Mission
teams will continue to refine the use of and seek innovative methods to approach co-design and
development to continue the trend of being less transactional and more focused on quantifiable
results.
Overall, the strategic approach presented in this 2020 - 2024 strategy provides the Philippines with
an alternate development partnership. The Philippines can benefit from a more inclusive range of
investors. These include global corporations, financial institutions, development banks, regional
actors, and especially a broader set of national actors. All require a level playing field to participate.
Self-reliant and sustainable national development is best achieved through open and transparent
policies for infrastructure development, resource extraction, budget financing and execution, among

others, in order to attract this broad range of potential investors. USAID offers a transparent
partnership that will strengthen the Philippines’ self-reliance and control of its development agenda.
Strong principles of democratic governance – including a strengthened civil society to safeguard
public interest, dynamic private sector engagement that is open and transparent, and enhanced
stewardship of natural resources – are the basis of this approach because these are necessary for
greater self-reliance in the long-term.
Efforts of other USG Actors

The Mission enjoys a strong relationship with interagency partners at post who, through their
complimentary work in common areas, will play a role in helping to achieve CDCS Goals. Guided by
Post’s Integrated Country Strategy, the entire interagency team works collaboratively to advance
strong, sustainable, resilient, and inclusive economic growth and social development, and provide
greater opportunities for bilateral trade and U.S. investments, while supporting environmental
stewardship. In particular, colleagues from State’s Economic Section, as well as FCS Colleagues
advance commercial and diplomatic angles of IPS initiatives, including ITAN, DCCP, and Asia Edge,
which complement USAID’s work to advance economic governance reforms and ensure a level
playing field and opportunities, while improving free, fair, and reciprocal trade practices. State
Department colleagues, including those from the Political and Public Affairs sections work on issues
relevant to USAID’s work to advance democratic governance. Department of Defense and State
Department colleagues work in areas to bolster disaster resilience, address criminal networks that
traffic in persons and wildlife, engage in illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, as well as seek to
prevent and counter violent extremism, all of which compliments USAID’s work to enhance
environmental and community resilience.
IV. RESULTS FRAMEWORK
USAID is prioritizing the Philippines’ journey to self-reliance and key pillars in the IPS over the 2020
– 2024 strategic period. The IPS guides USAID to advance economic growth, a rules-based Indo-
Pacific community, and to strengthen partnerships with countries that share mutual respect for
democratic governance. Transforming the energy sector and markets, conserving natural resources,
and preserving ecologically valuable lands and waters are also stated priorities. IPS initiatives
implemented in the Philippines advance the Indo-Pacific partnership and inform the Mission’s five-
year goal, to support the Philippines as a well-governed and more self-reliant Indo-Pacific partner.
Good governance outcomes are necessary to bolster a rules-based Indo-Pacific partnership and
advance the Philippines’ journey to self-reliance. Bolstering government commitment, capacity, and
the political will to implement its commitments are priority outcomes in all three of the Mission’s
development objectives. Strengthening institutional performance, increasing civil society oversight,
and mobilizing private sector engagement provides the Philippines with a clear choice in terms of
options for national development. USAID’s efforts to build long-term capacity, strengthen
commitment, and reinforce existing institutions of a ‘well-governed’ partner all motivate inclusive
public participation and advance self-reliance within institutions to support the Philippines toward its
national development vision.

USAID’s 2020 - 2024 goal is supported by three development objectives (DOs):
DO 1: Democratic Governance Strengthened
DO 2: Inclusive, Market-driven Growth Expanded
DO 3: Environmental and Community Resilience Strengthened.
DO 1 will strengthen countervailing institutions of democratic governance and address weakened

adherence to the norms of liberal democracy. A rules-based Indo-Pacific partnership necessitates
transparency, accountability, and inclusive processes. A well-governed partner is a country whose
own processes and regulatory structure meet internationally accepted standards for good
governance. Strengthening democratic governance to ensure self-reliance goes beyond this to
address both improved institutional performance, and civil society and public expectations for this.
Addressing both strengthens the mechanism for long-term self-reliance.
DO 2 promotes inclusive, market-driven growth through improving regulatory quality and opening
the economy to a more competitive engagement of the Philippines’ private sector and other
international actors that carry out sustainable, transparent investments that increase national self-
reliance and inclusive growth. The human capacity element under DO 2 helps ensure inclusive
growth in the future. Engaging and enabling private sector growth under this objective strengthens a
driver of transformation that is active across the portfolio.
USAID programming under DO 3 will strengthen governance mechanisms and contribute to self-
reliance both in the commitment to resilience through policy making and planning; and the capacity
for stronger enforcement, prevention, and implementation to enhance environmental and
community resilience. Initiatives to reduce the risks to development gains and address vulnerabilities
to shocks and stresses under this DO are important not only as a development objectives in itself,
but they also reinforce development outcomes achieved across the entire portfolio.
Development Objective 1: Democratic Governance Strengthened
The Philippines is the one of oldest democracies in Southeast Asia and possesses the fundamentals
necessary to advance democratic governance and achieve self-reliance in the Indo-Pacific region.
The 1987 Constitution established checks and balances, and electoral competition; set term limits
for executive and congressional representatives; and protected individual liberties in the
Constitution’s Bill of Rights. 42 National laws promote inclusion, equality, and strong gender
protections. As well, the state of civil society in the Philippines is relatively strong compared to
other developing countries in Asia, as evidenced by the country’s high capacity Roadmap metric for
this. 43 Despite these advantages, long-standing structural problems and current developments in the
political economy of the Philippines challenge the country’s broad-based commitment to liberal
democracy. One structural issue is that economic and social power has long been dominated by
elites, largely by dynastic families, and their interests can influence social, economic, and political
reforms at the national and local levels. 44 Political dynasties comprise over 70 percent of the
Philippines’ Congress. 45 Initiatives to advance social inclusion and inclusive economic growth,
priorities in successive governments, have had limited success. 46 This is evidenced by a low
commitment to social group equality, the second lowest metric in the Philippines’ Roadmap.
Another structural issue is that the political system invests the president with considerable power
over budgets and appointments, which gives him or her great influence over the political sphere. 47
These factors are compounded by long-standing deficiencies in counter-balancing political and

governance institutions, including the judiciary and at the local level. Pro-democracy groups and
institutions, as well, have been ineffective in their responses to existing and prospective threats to
democracy. 48 The use of social media and the internet has proliferated in a hyper-connected
Philippines. This otherwise positive development has provided ample opportunity to spread
information disorder, disinformation, and to target candidates, activists, and public institutions
through the use of sophisticated techniques that erode public trust and hinder democratic
governance. The competition for favorable access to the Philippines’ natural resources and the
award of government contracts through less than competitive processes also adversely affect
governance institutions in the Philippines and exacerbate these challenges. The performance of the
Philippine’s institutions of democratic governance is compromised by a lack of countervailing
mechanisms to ensure transparency, accountability, adherence to a rules-based order, and use of
resources for the greater public good. This potentially weakens self-reliance in the long term.
Strengthening democratic governance is essential to supporting a well-governed and more self-
reliant Indo-Pacific partner in the Philippines.
Development Hypothesis: If government institutional performance is balanced with robust

accountability and participatory mechanisms, then the quality of democratic governance in the Philippines will
be strengthened. Strengthened institutions of democratic governance are necessary to achieve a well-
governed, and more self-reliant Indo-Pacific partner.
Development Narrative
Democratic governance is at the center of the USAID’s vision of the journey to self-reliance. A
country is best positioned to sustainably finance its own development when effective and publicly
accountable governance is in place. The J2SR includes country commitment to open and accountable
governance and social group equality; as well as the capacity of government and civil society to fulfill
their roles in a democratic state. Promoting democratic governance is critical to the U.S. national
interest and reflects fundamental American values and identity.” 49 These values are inherent in the
IPS. The Indo-Pacific Transparency Initiative (IPTI) will support the IPS vision, strengthening
transparent accountability in finance and budget across the public sector, supporting access to
information, and promoting anti-corruption. These are core initiatives under DO 1, which also
include legal and judicial reform to support access to justice and transparency, and oversight of
public investments.
DO 1 prioritizes civil society’s role in governance to address several of the most pressing issues in
the Philippines’ journey to self-reliance. Despite having well-established electoral processes, social
and political inclusion in the Philippines has not improved, and the quality of political participation
and civic engagement has declined. Advocacy in the civil society sector declined significantly.
Compared to previous years, there are fewer meaningful opportunities for civil society organizations
and individuals to participate in decision-making processes. USAID will support increased civic
engagement to promote political participation, especially in elections. Automation of the electoral
process nationwide for the 2010 elections has improved the credibility of results. However, there
are still election-related issues that need to be addressed. Engaging civil society to strengthen the
electoral process and activism for better public services will provide a check on government
performance and reinforce government effectiveness in these areas.
Support for robust accountability and participatory mechanisms will further strengthen self-reliance.
Improving public transparency and accountability will reinforce the open government component,

which is already relatively high in the Philippines. DO 2 will support government institutional capacity
to execute and monitor state budgets. DO 1 will reinforce this by strengthening the watch dog role
of civil society to oversee use of state resources. A critical contribution to transparency and
accountability will be to strengthen the independence and capacity of media. Initiatives will reinforce
networks that work against encroachment on the Philippines’ commitment to freedom of expression
and that compromise the work of an independent media and investigative journalism.
Advancing the rule of law directly touches the liberal democracy component, equality before the
law, and the inclusion and protection of social groups under social group equality. These outcomes
are expected of a well-governed country, and necessary for a sustainable, self-reliant Philippines. The
Philippines’ commitment to social equality is a priority. Civil society engagement, including media, will
be the main mechanism through which USAID will address the low score for this commitment
indicator. These institutions have been less resilient to political pressures and other structural
challenges within the Philippines than implied by the national Roadmap. The Mission anticipates that
this indicator will show a decline in the future, and timely action to reinforce this is needed in this
strategy.
Local government performance is fragmented because the responsibilities for implementing

regulations are distributed across various departments and institutions. The Philippines 1991 Local
Government Code enables local governments to be self-reliant to facilitate growth and socio-
economic development. Decades later, the performance of local governments is mixed. Many
municipalities struggle to adequately provide mandated services needed to improve their
constituents’ quality of life. Some local governments display markedly less democratic attributes than
others. USAID anticipates that support for decentralization will democratize the public sector by
empowering governance at the local level. Local governments are more directly accountable to their
constituents and are able to provide services more effectively. Initiatives will examine where the
enabling law and rules governing decentralization need bolstering. USAID will also support
meaningful stakeholder participation in local bodies, which is already provided for in the law. More
inclusive stakeholder participation includes better use of data by the government and stakeholders.
The Philippines collects considerable data, but insufficiently uses this data to make decisions and to
design programs. As well, publicly available data from government agencies is often outdated. Better
policies could be developed if outside groups, such as policy institutions, had access and the ability to
monitor priorities and spending based upon this data.
Several of these initiatives align to the PDP’s Pillar One, Enhancing the Social Fabric, which prioritizes
governance (people-centered, clean, and efficient) and the swift and fair administration of justice. The
Mission will reinforce GPH efforts for swift and fair justice for vulnerable, at-risk populations.
Initiatives under DO 1, however, place more emphasis on the demand for governance than stated in
the PDP.
USAID programming under DO 1 will be implemented through four IRs.
IR 1.1 Civic Engagement Increased

USAID will support strategic interventions with local partners to raise citizen awareness and give
communities an opportunity to participate and have a voice on how they will be governed. Civic
engagement is also necessary to increase public awareness of and advocacy for better public services
and governance. Initiatives will strengthen civil society networks in the health, education and

environment sectors to increase representation of marginalized populations. As a result, civil society
and the private sector will be more engaged in governance at all levels of Philippine society. This
includes addressing threats to well-established electoral systems including vote buying, campaign
finance fraud, political polarization, and disinformation. There is also a need to inform new
generations who may be unaware of civil society’s role in social transition during and after the
Marcos regime in the Philippines.
IR 1.2 Public Transparency and Accountability Improved

The government has made commitments to open information and ensuring public access. With
USAID support, civil society, including media, will increase public demand for this. The Mission will
also strengthen CSO’s role in anti-corruption and support an environment in which the media can
safely reports on these issues. Interventions will improve public transparency and accountability by
supporting the government’s commitment to provide open information and ensuring that people
know how to interpret and make informed decisions based upon this. The Philippines is a founding
member of the Open Government Partnership, a multilateral, multi-country initiative to advance
transparency and public accountability.50 In July 2016, the Duterte Administration issued a policy
mandating freedom of information in the executive branch, albeit bearing a long list of exemptions. 51
USAID will build upon this strong foundation to support the government’s commitment here,
especially at the non-national levels. There is also a role for strengthening the oversight functions of
civil society and supporting the independence of media to serve in a watchdog role.
Investing in transparency
empowers citizens to better
understand and influence the DO1 Democratic Governance Strengthened
policies that affect them.
Support to open data systems
of the government across
IR 1.1 Civic Engagement Increased
critical sectors further 1.1.1 Civic advocacy for better public services bolstered
increases transparency and 1.1.2 Integrity of electoral process strengthened
accountability. Building the IR 1.2 Public Transparency and Accountability Improved
monitoring and advocacy 1.2.1 Civil society oversight bolstered
1.2.2 Access to information expanded
capacity of a broad and diverse
1.2.3 Media independence and capacity strengthened
community of civil society
organizations networks will IR 1.3 Rule of Law Advanced
1.3.1 Public support for citizens’ rights increased
reinforce these outcomes. This 1.3.2 Access to justice for marginalized and/or vulnerable groups
includes health organizations, enhanced bolstered
1.3.3 Domestic trafficking in persons reduced
umbrella parent-teacher
associations, environmental IR 1.4 More Responsive Local Governance
rights defenders, economic 1.4.1 Decentralization enabling environment strengthened
1.4.2 Local service delivery enhanced
think tanks, faith-based 1.4.3 Stakeholder participation in key local bodies expanded
organizations, among others. Data-based decision-making improved
Support for media enables this
institution to deliver on its
mandate to check government
institutions and to help citizens
to make informed political and governance choices.

Public transparency and accountability requires a strong and independent media to sustain and to
connect it to public. The Mission’s response to
IR 1.3 Rule of Law Advanced

USAID anticipates that a mix of court efficiency investments, expansion of legal aid services, and
rights-based drug demand reduction will widen access to justice for vulnerable groups. As the
country continues to have significant trafficking-in-persons challenges, USAID will bolster efforts to
combat forced labor, sexual exploitation, and other forms of domestic trafficking through
prosecution, prevention, protection, and strong local partnerships. USAID’s rights programming
includes populations underserved by health and education services, communities threatened by non-
inclusive extraction of natural resources, groups at risk of human trafficking, and victims of other
human rights violations. Strengthening the capacity of local champions and rights defenders to
increase access to justice for Filipinos, especially for vulnerable groups, and to advocate for the
essential quality of a broad set of rights is critical to realize sustainable development across sectors.
Advocacy and increased access to justice will motivate public support, reinforcing institutional
commitment to the country’s legal framework for protecting civil and political rights.
IR 1.4 More Responsive Local Governance

IR 1.4 brings government processes closer to people. Support for stronger governance structures at
the local level will promote decentralization, democratize the public sector, and build the capacities
of local government units in order to address the relatively weak provision of services there. These
initiatives are in line with government objectives to improve the productivity of the public sector and
support a whole-of-government approach in the delivery of key services. Weak climate resilience
also presents challenges to local government that directly bear the consequences. Their
infrastructure for trade and investment, mobility, and basic services (water, sanitation, schools, and
health centers, among others) may be damaged and/or disrupted by extreme weather events
including sea level rise and storm surges. Government budgets, particularly at the local level, could
be strained by the need to repeatedly allocate funds for disaster preparedness and recovery. 52
Recurrent extreme climate events could hamper advancement toward self-reliance because
reoccurring post-disaster humanitarian assistance expenses demand resources that may be
otherwise used. USAID will support local governments to design and implement climate risk
management measures to offset these challenges.
Five-year outlook
USAID anticipates that during this CDCS, civil society will become more engaged, better networked,
and more inclusive as they connect across regions and sectors. Active civic involvement in
democratic fora will yield a better society, more self-reliant and also better governed. Interventions
will reinforce civil society and the private sector engagement on governance issues on national,
regional, and local levels. The five-year outlook is for better coordination and engagement among
stakeholders in national development. At the local level, the five-year outlook is that there is greater
self-reliance. More LGUs will be more able to manage their own affairs, raise their own revenues to
deliver better social services, and they will have better decision-making processes. Empowering local
government promotes bottom-up development that is able to countervail international intrusion and
bring governance closer to people for more effective, self-reliant governance.

Development Objective 2: Inclusive, Market-Driven Growth Expanded
The World Bank stated in 2013 that the core challenge to national development in the Philippines is
accelerating inclusive growth by creating more and better jobs.53 Constraints to inclusive growth
include a lack of competition, overly complex regulations, low levels of investment, and insecure
property rights. These factors all weaken productivity in key sectors and worsen the Philippine’s
competitive position in the region. 54 The GPH has advanced reform policies to encourage trade and
investment. USAID has had a role in supporting these efforts. 55 Future economic development,
however, necessitates further efforts. The Philippines is challenged in implementing its reforms and
promoting higher growth in high-skill sectors. 56 Long-term and inclusive growth will also require
continuous investment in human capital to improve learning outcomes and the health and nutrition
status of pregnant mothers to reduce child stunting. Implementation of the UHC law will also
require resources to ensure the delivery of comprehensive and quality health care services. 57
Addressing the restrictions faced by small and medium-sized companies will enable them to grow
and develop, and provide more inclusive jobs for Filipinos. 58 Without this, informal and/or occasional
jobs that characterize the current labor market will proliferate. Bad jobs at home encourage the out-
migration of young, better educated and skilled Filipinos. 59 The solution to non-inclusive
development is clear; however, the GPH still faces challenges to fully implement its inclusive growth
development plan. 60 USAID can significantly contribute to self-reliance in the Philippines by assisting
the government and stakeholders in this area.
Development Hypothesis: If the enabling environment, infrastructure and human capital prerequisites
for market-driven growth are strengthened, then businesses can thrive. This would expand and sustain
inclusive economic growth.
Improving the country’s global competitive position and extending inclusive growth to lesser
developed parts of the country are government priorities for national development. 61 The country’s
capacity to attract and mobilize new private sector investments, national and international, is part of
the solution to create employment, boost incomes, and reduce poverty. Barriers to entry and
foreign ownership restrictions discourage investment. Other restrictive regulations and heavy
administrative requirements can unduly burden smaller entrepreneurs who may not have the
resources or influence to comply with these rules. This can limit private enterprise development for
small and medium-sized firms. Government regulations can distort incentives to promote inclusive
growth. For example, GPH programs to expand manufacturing promote high-end, capital-intensive
firms in special economic zones and can result in fewer quality jobs relative to other investments.
Another example is that large firms can substitute capital for labor, and hire workers as short-term
contractors, without paying for benefits. This reduces their average labor cost, lowers costs and can
enable them to increase market share as a result.62 Large firms produce 62 percent of value added to
the economy, makeup .4 percent of the market, and provide nearly 38 percent of the jobs. Small and
medium-sized firms are less able to circumvent the regulations; however, they provide just over 62
percent of the jobs. 63 The Philippines’ constitution also limits foreign ownership of companies under
a Foreign Investment Negative List to 40 percent of the total equity in the land, natural resources,
and public utilities sectors. Equity restrictions on joint-ventures necessitate a Filipino majority -
foreign minority ownership structure. One result is that Filipino companies are protected, and this
may weaken their ability to compete in regional or international markets. 64

Increasing local and foreign investments, a PDP objective, can lead to inclusive growth provided that
improvements in regulatory quality address constraints. An open, transparent, and level playing field
for private sector investment will improve the Philippines long-term competitive position and self-
reliance. USAID will support the enabling environment for this through three key U.S. initiatives: the
Infrastructure Transaction and Assistance Network Initiative (ITAN), Digital Connectivity and
Cybersecurity Partnership (DCCP), and Trade and Competitiveness, among other initiatives. In
addressing regulatory quality, USAID will advance the trade freedom and business environment
measures under the J2SR metrics and create opportunities for a more inclusive range of investors in
national development.
These initiatives are, in part, motivated by concerns that China’s economic development practices in
the developing world, and in the Philippines, distort markets and weaken the economic governance
institutions that regulate them. Both outcomes weaken rather than strengthen national self-reliance.
China may be leveraging debt, investment, and trade in exchange for greater political influence in the
region. 65 China’s trade with the Philippines has expanded under the ASEAN-China Free Trade
Agreement and is expected to grow further under the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership initiative. The Duterte Administration recently signed 13 cooperation agreements with
China. Financial assistance and investment pledges are estimated to total $24 billion, of which 62
percent is business-to-business and the rest is official development assistance (ODA). China is also
actively involved in the country’s public infrastructure development plan with investments in mining
and energy, as well as food supply, to guarantee access to raw resources. The concern is that
Chinese investments can distort the market by subverting economic governance and exclude
national companies and workers, as well as other international interests, from participation.
Improved regulatory quality that promotes transparency and encourages participation from a wider
range of international and national interests, particularly national private enterprises, will expand
inclusive growth, and promote self-reliance.
Strengthening the government’s capacity to mobilize more resources and to address public spending
bottlenecks is also necessary to achieve inclusive growth and self-reliance. Initiatives in this area
address the efficiency of tax administration and government effectiveness metrics, and target the
poor absorptive capacity of government agencies, and slow and corruption-prone procurement
systems. 66
Investment in human capital is the third component of DO 2, and necessary for long-term national
development and a more competitive economy in the future.67 A more productive work force will
attract a higher level of investment, higher quality jobs, and impact growth throughout the economy.
GPH priorities are to invest in human capital, a priority partially captured by the low education
quality metric, and further addressed in strengthening the government’s capacity to implement
inclusive health care. GPH reforms have increased access to education. This includes the K-12 Basic
Education Program which makes education universal and mandatory and increased senior high from
10 to 12 years. The Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act provides free tuition for all
Filipino students who enroll in state or local universities or colleges. The cash transfer program
supports poor families with education costs. Additional GPH programs promote educational
attendance and completion in conflict-affected areas, area that are further impacted by reduced
public spending.

Increased access to education over the recent years has resulted in more children attending more
years in school. Filipino children, however, score worse than students from other regional countries
on standardized tests (International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA)). They learn less. One problem is that teachers, on average,
have insufficient knowledge of the subject areas they teach, and lack training in teaching techniques.68
USAID’s interventions to strengthen the quality of early childhood education and to align technical
training to industry needs support GPH objectives for life-long learning. Leveraging private sector
engagement in science, technology, and innovation supports the government’s objective to increase
access to technology and to promote its adoption and stimulate innovation.
Investments in the delivery of quality health care are additional priorities for building human capital. 69
USAID will support national priorities to develop functional and efficient networks of health
providers, improving the capacity to manage private healthcare provision and ensure quality care.
Investing in public, private, and community-based health care provision, improving the quality of
services, and supporting health sector financing and UHC/financial protection increases equitable and
affordable access to quality care for the underserved and vulnerable populations. Overall
improvements in health reduce the costs to livelihoods and increase productivity, and thereby
strengthen the labor market and promote inclusive economic growth. USAID’s family planning
programing directly supports GPH objectives to increase the growth potential by accelerating the
demographic transition. Other initiatives address the TB problem in the Philippines, and support
health financing and the delivery of quality health care services.
DO 2 further supports inclusive growth by improving the enabling environment for business and
expanding market access, ensuring open competition, and supporting private sector growth,
particularly for small and medium sized business, which are necessary to provide good jobs and
ensure that economic growth is inclusive.
These intended results are well aligned with GPH priorities under Pillar Two, Reducing inequalities
in economic development. Support for a transparent and competitive enabling environment for
infrastructure development aligns to the cross-cutting PDP theme of Accelerating Strategic
Infrastructure Development. USAID programming for strengthening education systems and
improving priority health outcomes align to the Pillar 2 priority for Accelerating human capital
development. USAID Science, Technology, and Innovation initiatives support the GPH priority for
adopting technology, investing in research and development and stimulating innovation.
The PDP’s Pillar Three, Increasing the Growth Potential, focuses on maternal and infant care, family
planning, improving health and education outcomes, reducing youth unemployment, savings, and
realizing a youth dividend. These outcomes align to the Human Capital Development IR under DO
2. USAID’s focus on family planning, health care financing, and health system strengthening, as well as
its focus on improving health care service delivery and health seeking behaviors, aligns well with
GPH priorities. USAID emphasis on private sector solutions for the delivery of health care services
also aligns to stated national priorities. 70
To achieve the development objective requires four intermediate results:

IR 2.1 Regulatory Quality Improved
USAID will work with the government to improve the operating environment for businesses, which
remain less competitive compared to ASEAN neighbors. Initiatives will support easing regulatory

burdens on businesses, opening up the economy, and providing more opportunities for businesses –
both domestic and foreign – to compete on a level playing field in infrastructure and in the digital
economy. Regulatory challenges also negatively affect the delivery of basic services. Limited
regulatory power over the prices of drugs and user fees for health care leads to high out-of-pocket
payments that adversely impact the poor, negatively affecting outcomes in the health sector. The
absence of a single independent regulator of water results in the slow expansion of services to
underserved areas and the poor quality of services that are delivered. Promoting fair, transparent,
and competitive trade and investment policies will also provide a level playing field for the private
sector – both domestic and foreign.
IR 2.2 Government Capacity to Finance Self-Reliance Increased

The capacity to mobilize increased domestic resources in the long-term requires an efficient tax
structure and administration. The ability to make better and more equitable decisions in regards the
use of government revenues necessitates effective, modern, and transparent public financial
management and procurement systems. The optimal mix of resource mobilization and spending
decisions results in high returns to public investments and intergenerational macro stability and
equity – factors that contribute to market-driven growth that increase self-reliance. Government
budgets can be strained by the need to repeatedly allocate funds for disaster preparedness and
recovery, and that recurrent extreme climate events could hamper advancement toward self-
reliance due to repeated focus on post-disaster humanitarian assistance. Different technical teams,
such the Office of Health, will support line departments to improve its budget execution. The Office
of Health will also support the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation to improve its system to
respond to its growing mandate for financial risk protection under the UHC Act.
IR 2.3 Human Capital
Development Improved DO 2 Inclusive, Market-Driven Growth Expanded
The PDP envisions that the
Philippines needs to
prepare for a more IR 2.1 Regulatory Quality Improved
2.1.1 Enabling environment for open, fair, and competitive trade and
competitive future jobs investment strengthened
market in which the skills 2.1.2 Enabling environment for infrastructure development improved
and productivity of the 2.1.3 Enabling environment for basic service delivery improved
2.1.4 Enabling environment for the digital economy strengthened
workforce are critical to
secure the long-term IR 2.2 Government Capacity to Finance Self-Reliance
competitiveness of the Increased
2.2.1 Domestic public resource mobilization increased
economy and enable 2.2.2 Public financial management strengthened
growth broader based and
more inclusive. The IR 2.3 Human Capital Development Improved
2.3.1 Priority health outcomes improved
government must invest in 2.3.2 Education systems strengthened
human capital to attract the 2.3.3 Science, technology and innovation capacity strengthened
high-value industries that
IR 2.4 Private Sector-led Growth Promoted
provide quality jobs 2.4.1 Private enterprise development improved
necessary to address low 2.4.2 Private sector service delivery increased
incomes pervasive in the
country. Inclusive strategies
and other interventions will
help ensure that all
Filipinos, especially the poor and underserved, have long, healthy, and productive lives. Interventions

will support equitable access to quality health services, lifelong learning opportunities, and improved
income-earning ability, are well aligned with the Philippine Development Plan.
IR 2.4 Private Sector-led Growth Promoted

The demand for better services has outstripped the government’s ability and resources to provide
services, creating an opportunity for the private sector to play a role in service delivery.
Cooperatives also play a critical role in addressing livelihood challenges, especially in rural areas, and
benefit host communities through various social initiatives. A huge potential exists for small and
medium-sized enterprises as development partners.
Sectoral reforms in health, education, water, and energy, and implementation of the national
government’s aggressive promotion of the Build-Build-Build Program are all creating a wide space for
the private sector to engage in service delivery and infrastructure development. The private sector
offers resources such as technology, technical expertise, and financing that are critical inputs for
growing businesses and addressing developmental challenges in the health, environment, water, and
education sectors.
Five-year outlook
The five-year outlook is that improvements in public financial management will result in a continued
increase in revenue generation as a proportion of GNP. USAID’s contributions will be in market-
driven policies and a regulatory framework that promotes a more competitive environment. More
competition enables greater private sector participation. An increase in expenditure and budget
execution will leverage the increased flow of revenues. These improvements will provide GPH
institutions with greater capacity to procure infrastructure and expand basic services.
Infrastructure is a constraint to inclusive economic growth. More extensive infrastructure will

connect more people together and provide access to the poor and underserviced areas. Linkages,
such as transportation and logistics constrain economic growth outside the leading metropolitan
centers. Poor infrastructure lowers productivity, weakens competitiveness, increases the cost of
doing business, and hampers economic opportunity. Extensive infrastructure development will
connect more people together, bring development further into excluded areas, and make growth
more inclusive.
Development Objective 3: Environmental and Community Resilience Enhanced

sea level rise
effects of extreme weather
The Philippines is extremely vulnerable to climate variability. National and sub-national government
saltwater intrusion
severe floodingbudgets frequently have to allocate funding for disaster preparedness and recovery due to sea level
storm surges rise and the effects of extreme weather. Infrastructure is adversely affected by intruding saltwater
and severe flooding from storm surges. 71 These conditions will worsen as sea levels rise and
typhoons increase in frequency and intensity, according to the World Bank (2013). 72 The
government recognizes the threat that climate change brings to the Philippine archipelago, local
communities, and particularly to the poor, and has responded with key legislation . 73 The Philippines
has also reversed or slowed long-term overexploitation and degradation of key ecosystems.
Systemic issues, however, still remain, primarily in regards the governance of natural resources. 74
Adverse climate and mismanagement of natural resources combine to degrade the ability of
ecosystems to regenerate and buffer the effects of adverse weather, compromise the socio-
economic value of these natural resources, and constrain the Philippines’ ability for self-reliance.

Development Hypothesis: If energy markets are transformed, natural resources better protected and
sustainably managed, and the government has the capacity to address transnational threats, mitigate risks,
and respond to disasters; then people and the environment will be resilient to shocks and stresses.
USAID/Philippines’ third development objectives is aligned with the IPS Natural Resources
Management framework. Natural resource safeguards and security strengthening in the Indo-Pacific
region include support to regulatory frameworks, conservation of key habitats, ecosystems, and
biodiversity; and a strengthened response to threats to resiliency. The first component of
Asia/EDGE implementation in the Philippines focuses on transforming the energy sector to promote
sustainable, environmentally responsible energy security in the Indo-Pacific region. This initiative
supports the GPH’s objectives to implement strategic infrastructure and encourage private sector
participation as a means to accomplish this. USAID’s initiative will benefit the Philippines by helping
to create a more transparent and competitive energy market that will attract a wider range of
private sector investment, be more financially viable, and promote self-reliance in the long-term.
Natural resource safeguards and security in the Indo-Pacific region, the second IPS focus, comprises
a set of interrelated results. First among these is strengthening the government’s ability to
implement its regulatory system to safeguard the nation’s natural resources. The Philippines’ has
made a large commitment to climate change, biodiversity, and habitat protection. The 1987
Constitution of the Philippines mandates natural resource conservation and management
responsibilities, which are further codified in the Local Government Code in relation to forests,
fisheries, and biodiversity.75 RA 9729, the Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009, sets the
parameters for the National Framework Strategy on Climate Change and guides the GPH response,
establishing the Climate Change Commission as a policy-making body under the president. The act
also defines responsibilities for national and local agencies for climate change action plans.76 The
National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992 (R.A.7586) and the Expanded National
Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 2018 (R.A. 11038) establish and expand upon the marine
protected areas (MPAs) at national and municipal levels to protect endangered marine species.
These protections are further specified under R.A. 8550, the Philippines Fisheries code of 1998.77
The Clean Water Act (R.A. 9275), the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act (R.A.
9147), the revised Fisheries Code of 2015 (R.A. 10650), and the National Integrated Protected Areas
System Act of 1992 (R.A. 7586) all reflect the Philippines’ commitment to these issues and explains
the high J2SR Roadmap score for biodiversity and habitat protections among low- and middle-
income countries.
Despite commitment, the economic resources and livelihoods that the Philippines’ natural resources
support are highly vulnerable to shocks and disasters which can potentially offset any gains made
toward self-reliance. Strong commitment is further weakened by the LGU’s limited technical capacity
to develop local Climate Change Action Plans or Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
Plans that they are responsible for. Many LGUs are unable to access necessary data on climate
impacts on energy, water, and the environment. This data would potentially assist local communities,
private sector interests, and other local stakeholders to inform their business planning and climate
adaptation/mitigation strategies. As well, LGUs often lack the skills needed to access funds available
at the local level to help resolve these challenges, such as the People’s Survival Funds, Global Climate

Fund, and the Forest Carbon partnership. 78 This is a constraint toward future self-reliance at the
local level.
A focus on resiliency is central to the Philippines’ ability to withstand shocks and manage
transnational threats that can impact its attractiveness for investment, opportunities for economic
growth, and greater self-reliance. Threats to resiliency include climate and weather variability, land
and soil degradation, illness and disease, conflict, population pressures, social exclusion and
discrimination, transnational crimes, grid failures, among others. Infrastructure, private enterprises,
communities, and government offices and functions are similarly vulnerable. These threats, when
realized, often occur in combination and threaten lives and livelihoods, compromise the effectiveness
of communities and institutions to cope, and put additional demands on ecosystems. Enabling a
stronger response to transnational threats and strengthening the capacity to mitigate disasters
capacitates the government’s ability, in part, to address issues that adversely impact the Philippines
safety and security metrics. A necessary component of resilience is to build the capacity of people,
communities, institutions (private sector and government) to withstand, cope, and recover from
shocks and stresses. 79 Natural disasters and shocks, both internal and external, have the potential to
reverse development gains and cause those who have recently come out of poverty to slide back,
become vulnerable to hunger and malnutrition, and to lose their capacity for self-reliance. 80
USAID’s programming under DO 3 parallels GPH priorities for biodiversity protections,

environmental quality, and adaptation and resiliency. The PDP Pillar 2 priority for building socio-
economic resiliency addresses the vulnerability of individuals and families, the need for social
protection, community safety, and security. DO 3 interventions under the Response to Transitional
Threats and Strengthened Capacity to Mitigate Risks and Respond to Disaster correspond to these
national priorities. USAID programming will not directly address the safety and security elements.
Effective management of NRM and improved responses to disaster and climate shock, as well as
strengthening the detection and control of infectious diseases, are GPH priorities. DO 3 further
aligns to a cross-cutting priority in the PDP: Ecological integrity and socio-economic conditions of
resource-based communities improved through sustainable integrated area development. Energy
development aligns to a GPH infrastructure priority.
To achieve the development objective requires four intermediate results:

DO 3 Environmental and Community Resilience
Enhanced
IR 3.1 Advanced energy sector and markets expanded

R 3.1 Advanced energy sector and 3.1.1 Performance of energy utilities improved
markets expanded 3.1.2 Deployment of advanced energy system increased
This result is connected to 3.1.3 Energy procurement process enhanced
environmental and community IR 3.2 Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Strengthened

resilience to ensure the 3.2.1 Conservation of biologically diverse areas advanced
3.2.2 Management of water resources for service delivery
protection of critical natural sustained
resources. USAID’s contribution 3.2.3 Private Sector financial models for sustainable resource
here includes enhancing management accelerated
competition and improving IR 3.3 Response to Transnational Threats Strengthened

energy procurement processes. 3.3.1 Institutional systems to combat environmental crimes
improved
Energy is the foundation for all 3.3.2 Social connectedness increased
other systems such as banking, 3.3.3 Capacity to detect and control infectious diseases
telecommunications, digital strengthened
platforms, manufacturing, health, IR 3.4 Capacity to Mitigate Risks of and Respond to Disaster
education, transport, and other Strengthened
3.4.1 Preparedness for disaster and climate stresses improved
services. The Department of 3.4.2 Urban resilience improved
Energy projected that the 3.4.3 Delivery of humanitarian assistance improved
country needs more than 17,000
MW or almost double the
current capacity to meet the
growing energy demand by 2030.
Activities that expand energy markets through transparent procurement processes not only enhance
environmental and community resilience, but also strengthen self-reliance. Having a reliable system
and supply of energy even in the face of recurring shocks and stresses will enable people to sustain
economic development.
IR 3.2 Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Strengthened

Improving biodiversity protection and conservation through better natural resource management of
watersheds, coastal zones, and forests will strengthen the sustainable use of natural resources.
USAID will support implementation of policies to protect biodiversity and habitats. Conservation of
watersheds, lakes, and rivers will also lead to better management of water resources necessary to
national development. These resources support livelihoods and sustain lives, ensure more
sustainable means to produce energy and water, and reduce, avoid, and sequester carbon emissions.
USAID’s approach will be to support government effectiveness to implement environmental
safeguards and climate change planning, and increase self-reliance by strengthening the capacity for
long-term water security and the management of the country’s natural resource capital. Accelerating
the use of private sector financial models for the management of sustainable natural resources will
promote sustainability and self-reliance.
IR 3.3 Response to Transnational Threats Strengthened

USAID will strengthen government and community capacity to respond to transnational threats that
can weaken resilience. Many of these threats are caused by humans and realized in communities
victimized by environmental crimes, such as illegal and undeclared fishing and the illegal trade in
natural resources, or that suffer, both directly and indirectly, as a result of violent extremism.
Increasing social connectedness and social cohesion is one of a set of responses to strengthen
community resilience. USAID will work through civil society to build formal and informal networks
that include populations vulnerable to such threats and tie together areas affected by shocks and

disasters, including violence and conflict. Through ongoing programs, USAID will continue to learn
about how to best address conflict and extremism in the Mindanao context, assess the lessons
learned, and explore opportunities for complimentary, focused, and tailored community-based
activities to address violence and extremism.
Health resilience is another component of community resilience. The response to tuberculosis, a

transnational threat, is within USAID’s manageable interest, and the resilience response includes
assisting the Department of Health to build capacity of communities to detect and control the
outbreak of this, and potentially other infectious diseases that have the potential to weaken
community resilience.
IR 3.4 Capacity to Mitigate Risks of and Respond to Disaster Strengthened

The fourth element of resilience is to increase the capacity for planning for better response to
disaster and climate stresses. Stresses are compounded by over population, limited access to natural
resources, and weaker social networks that often occur in urban settings. 81 Integrating resilience
concepts and strategies in infrastructure, land use planning and implementation and local government
and business operations, among others, will increase urban resilience to disasters. The final element
is improving the delivery of humanitarian assistance when disasters do occur. The Office of U.S.
Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) activities are not directly attributable to Mission results,
although relevant here. Other activities directed funded by the Mission support this result. USAID
will work with various partners from the government, non-government organizations, and the
private sector to improve preparedness for disaster and climate stresses, and the delivery of
humanitarian assistance.
Five-year Outlook
In the next five years USAID will focus on accelerating effective management of natural resource
programs. Individual marine protected areas currently under local management should be connected
into networks that are resilient and better managed. Stronger national networks with access to
better resources and tools for managing them should replace the fragmented state of local
protections. USAID anticipates that in five years there will be stronger political will to ensure the
country's long-term water security and an improved governance and regulatory framework, as well
as increased investments in water source protection, water supply and sanitation service delivery,
water efficiency and conservation programs. Greater political will is necessary for effective
enforcement and prevention of foreign actors from encroaching upon protected areas. Local
populations will become more aware of the value of sustaining their natural resources and systems
and procedures will be in place for them to hold institutions accountable for doing so. The private
sector will reinforce this when the incentives to do so are in place. Incentives include more
transparent processes for private sector use of publicly owned natural resources. Better regulation
over natural resource contracts is part of that incentive structure. Increased transparency and a level
playing field for natural resource contracts will increase opportunities to a wider circle of private
sector actors. Interventions will also strengthen disease surveillance and treatment compliance to
control the spread of TB and other emerging infectious diseases.
A decrease in demand for the unsustainable extraction of natural resources must compliment the
enforced regulatory systems and private sector incentives for sustainable resource management. To
sustain this, the GPH will have rationalized fees and licenses as a result of better environmental
accounting. The evidence of this will be that the stock of nature resources increases as a result of

better enforcement of existing regulations, better management, and a consensus on the true value of
these resources. The final outcome is an increase in livelihoods and industries able to flourish in a
sustainable manner.
V. MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING
Overall management of monitoring and evaluation resides in the Mission’s Office for Program
Resources Management. Operations Specialists within each of the Mission’s four technical offices
provide support for basic data collection tasks. The Mission is currently reviewing its operations
with the objective of strengthening its system for performance monitoring at the activity level, the
reporting of project level results; and its processes for reviewing, and learning from, outcomes
achieved under its portfolio. Actions include ensuring a broad-based commitment toward developing
its new Performance Management Plan, reviewing and revising the Mission Order regarding
performance management, and ensuring a more effective data management system including early
implementation of the Development Information System.
Two Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA) activities further support the Mission’s MEL
system. An existing CLA mechanism managed out of the Mission’s heath office (2018 - 2022) that
implements the majority of evaluation, monitoring, and learning tasks for this sector. An additional
Evidence-Driven Collaborating, Learning and Adapting activity, currently under procurement, will
play a key role in measuring, monitoring, and evaluating USAID's progress to support the Philippines
in their journey to self-reliance, as well as facilitating strategic learning and adaptive management
opportunities. The new contract will have a critical role to support the Mission to clarify the impact
that USAID has on the Philippines’ Journey to Self-Reliance through its contribution to ongoing
monitoring and the learning to be achieved from this and other activities.
A working group comprised of members from every technical and support unit will support the
Mission’s learning agenda as CLA champions and enhance USAID’s development impact through
collaborating, evidence-based learning, and adapting activities.
DO 1 Notional Learning Questions

1. Have USAID’s approaches to strengthen accountability and participatory mechanisms
effectively moved toward balancing government authority? Why or why not? Have they had
any impact on inclusivity?
2. How have strengthened civil society and increased civic engagement led to greater public
accountability?
3. In what ways have expanding participation in key local bodies affected inclusivity in decision-
making and service-delivery?
4. Has USAID’s approaches to expand media capacity and freedom led to improved quality of
democratic governance? Why or why not?

1. Are enabling environment, infrastructure, and human capital the sufficient and necessary
prerequisites for market-driven growth? Are there other necessary prerequisites?

2. What is USAID’s comparative advantage in terms of supporting infrastructure? Has our
work in this sector improved our profile as a development partner of choice?
3. Is USAID’s experience with private sector-led growth necessarily inclusive? What conditions
for private sector engagement best lend themselves to inclusive, sustainable growth?
1. How has increased capacity for addressing transnational threats impacted community
resilience, if at all?
2. Have USAID’s urban resilience approaches led to wider effects for surrounding provinces?
Why or why not?
3. To what extent has strengthening positive community cohesion led to tangible development
results?
4. Has the country’s expanded capacity to address environmental and human-induced shocks
and stresses resulted in a more resilient country? What is our evidence?
New programming approaches the mission expects to evaluate: Media capacity and
freedom; New higher education approaches with enhanced private sector engagement; Marawi
Response Project developmental evaluation
Potential whole-of-project evaluation: Health portfolio evaluation; USAID’s urban approach.
VI. ANNEXES
a. Philippines Journey to Self-Reliance Country Roadmap

b. Climate Risk Screening

ENDNOTES
1
The Department of Defense, Indo-Pacific Strategy Report, June 1, 2019.
2
World Bank Philippine Office. Philippine Development Report 2013: Creating more and better jobs.
September 2013.
3
https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-the-philippines/. Accessed August 5, 2019 at PST 16:00.
4
https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/southeast-asia-pacific/philippines. Accessed September 5, 2019 at PST 8:00.
5
Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2736/text.
Accessed February 1, 2019 at PST 8:54.
6
7
U.S. Department of State, 2019 Trafficking in Persons Report: https://www.state.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2019/06/2019-Trafficking-in-Persons-Report.pdf. Accessed August, 23, 2019 at PST 9:30.
8
The Philippines’ score for liberal democracy has steadily declined since 2015. V-Dem at https://www.v-
dem.net/en/analysis/CountryGraph/. Accessed August 25, 2019 at PST 12:00.
9
The Global Competiveness Report, 2018.
10
The Work Bank Group. Safeguarding stability: Investing in the Filipino; Philippines Economic Update, April
2019.
11
The Work Bank Group, Global Economic Prospects, January 2019; Philippines Economic Update, October
2017.
12
The Work Bank Group. Safeguarding stability: Investing in the Filipino; Philippines Economic Update, April
2019.
13
Republic of the Philippines, Department of Health. http://www.ntp.doh.gov.ph/magnitudeTB.php. Accessed
July 31, 2019 at PST 13:00.
14
https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/node/13449/pdf/save-the-children-lahatdapat-sizing-up-the-
stunting-and-child-malnutrition-problem-in-the-philippines-report-september-2015.pdf. Accessed August 27,
2019 at PST 11:40.
15
According to the UN Environment and WCMC website Biodiversity a-z. Cited in the Philippines Tropical
Forest and Biodiversity Analysis (FAA 118 &119), Oct. 2018 (revised February 2019). Estimated value of
marine ecosystem from Azanza, Rhodora & M Aliño, Porfirio & Cabral, Reniel & Meñez, Marie Antonette &
Pernia, Ernesto & Mendoza, Ronald & S Siriban, Charles. (2017). Valuing and Managing the Philippines' Marine
Resources toward a Prosperous Ocean-Based Blue Economy. Public Policy.18.1-26. See also, USAID Climate
Risk Screening Matrix, January 2019, updated July 2019.
16
Philippine Development Plan, 2017 – 2022.
17
USAID Climate Risk Screening Matrix, January 2019, updated July 2019.
18
The Philippines’ score on this J2SR Roadmap indicator is well above the low-and middle-income average.
19
The Philippine News Agency, Avoiding WPS conflict compels PH to adopt delicate balancing act. July 23,
2019. Accessed at: www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1075715, July 30, 2019 at PST 13:00.
20
Philippines Tropical Forest and Biodiversity Analysis (FAA 118 &119), Oct. 2018 (revised February 2019).
21
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft, The World Risk Report, 2011. See also, USAID Climate Risk Screening Matrix,
January 2019, updated July 2019.
22
23
Vision 2040 Public Consultations: Discussions with the Filipino Youth. http://2040.neda.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/Vision2040_final.pdf. Accessed February 4, 2019 at PST 11:02.
24
Philippine Development Plan, 2017 – 2022. The National Economic and Development Authority, 2017.
25
Ibid.
26
Global Witness, https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/ environmental-activists/filipinos-front-line/.
Accessed March 30, 2019 at 12:00 PHT.
27
U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices for 2017.
28
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Philippine politics under Duterte: A mid-term assessment.
January 10, 2019.
29
This is a measure of the percentage of country population living on less than $5.00 USG per day
standardized using the purchasing power parity to compare different living standards based on World Bank
data. The J2SR measure uses a higher threshold than mild poverty.
30
The World Bank Group, Poverty and Equity Brief, East Asia and the Pacific: The Philippines, April 2019.
31
USAID Philippines Jobs Diagnostic, 2017.

32
The measure is based on the percentage of students that attain a minimum level of proficiency in reading at
the end of primary school based upon standardized achievement tests.
33
For example, artificial intelligence is already impacting the business process outsourcing as automated voices
replace human agents in call centers, a leading industry for the Philippines. Observation noted in the World
Bank Group report: Safeguarding stability: Investing in the Filipino; Philippines Economic Update, April 2019.
34
https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/node/13449/pdf/save-the-children-lahatdapat-sizing-up-the-
stunting-and-child-malnutrition-problem-in-the-philippines-report-september-2015.pdf. Accessed August 27,
2019 at PST 11:40.
35
Philippines Jobs Diagnostic, 2017.
36
37
Partnership for Growth in the Philippines: 2011 – 2016 Draft Evaluation Report, May 8, 2019.
38
The Philippines ranks 56 out of 140 countries on the World Economic Forum’ Global Competitiveness
Report 2018. This is lower than the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, but higher (where 1 = most competitive)
than other countries in Southeast Asia, including China.
39
PhilHealth is a government-owned and controlled entity attached to the Department of Health.
40
Republic of the Philippines, Department of Health Republic Act No. 11223, Sec. 18. Accessed at:
https://www.doh.gov.ph/node/17270, 12:00 PHT, July 27, 2017.
41
USAID/Philippines CDCS Gender Analysis, October 2018.
42
The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/. Accessed August 20, 2019 at PST 10:58.
43
VDEM Diagonal Accountability Index https://www.v-dem.net/en/analysis/CountryGraph/
44
January 10, 2019; Alfred W. McCoy, ed., Anarchy of Families, Quezon City: ADMU Press; Wisconsin:
University of Wisconsin Center for Southeast Asian Studies, 1993, updated 2017.
45
Mendoza, RU, E Beja, V Venida, and D Yap (2012), “An Empirical Analysis of Political Dynasties in the 15th
Philippine Congress”, Asian Institute of Management Policy Center Research Paper.
46
World Bank Group. Philippines Economic Update. Safeguarding stability: Investing in the Filipino. April 2019.
47
Ibid.
48
January 10, 2019.
49
https://www.usaid.gov/democracy-human-rights-and-governance-strategy
50
https://www.opengovpartnership.org/
51
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2016/07/23/executive-order-no-02-s-2016/
52
USAID Climate Risk Management
53
September 2013.
54
Ibid.
55
Partnership for Growth in the Philippines: 2011 – 2016 Draft Evaluation Report, May 8, 2019.
56
World Bank Group. Philippines Economic Update. Preserving consistency and policy commitment. October
2017.
57
58
USAID Philippines. Philippines Jobs Diagnostic. December 2017.
59
September 2013.
60
61
Philippine Development Plan, 2017 – 2022. The National Economic and Development Authority, 2017.
62
USAID Philippines Jobs Diagnostic, 2017.
63
Ibid.
64
Ibid.
65
66 Infrastructure for trade and investment, mobility and basic services (water, sanitation, schools, health
centers, etc.) may be damaged and/or disrupted by different climate stressors (extreme weather events, sea
level rise, etc.).
67
Philippine Development Plan, 2017 – 2022. The National Economic and Development Authority, 2017; the
Work Bank Group. Safeguarding stability: Investing in the Filipino; Philippines Economic Update, April 2019.
68
Ibid.
69
Ibid.

70
USAID Philippines Health Portfolio Evaluation, August 2016. See also the Universal Health Code, Republic of
the Philippines, Department of Health Republic Act No. 11223, Sec. 18. Accessed at:
https://www.doh.gov.ph/node/17270, 12:00 PHT, July 27, 2017.
71
72
World Bank’s Getting a Grip… on Climate Change in the Philippines: Executive Report (2013)
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/473371468332663224/pdf/788090WP0P13010nge0Executive0Rep
ort.pdf, cited in the USAID Climate Risk Screening Matrix, January 2019, updated July 2019.
73
Republic Act No. 9729. Accessed at www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2009/ra_9729_2009.html. August
20, 2019 at PST 11:00.
74
75
Ibid.
76
USAID Environment Project Appraisal Document 2017-2022, cited in USAID Climate Risk Screening Matrix,
January 2019, updated July 2019.
77
Cited in the Philippines Tropical Forest and Biodiversity Analysis (FAA 118 &119), Oct. 2018 (revised
February 2019).
78
79
Building Resilience to Recurrent Crises, December 2012. Also, USAID Center for Resilience: Resilience
evidence forum report, April 2018.
80
Resiliency and sustainable poverty escapes in the Philippines, Aug. 2018.
81
USAID Center for Resilience: Resilience evidence forum report, April 2018.

LOW- & MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRY SNAPSHOT
PHILIPPINES 0.8
JOURNEY TO SELF-RELIANCE:
FY 2020 COUNTRY ROADMAP 0.7
Philippines
0.6
erocS 1-0 tnemtimmoC

0.5
0.4
0.3
LEGEND
0-1 0.2
Score
0.1
Philippines' s Score Other Low- and Average Score for
0-1, Middle- Income Low- and Middle-
advanced glomost
l e ast to Countries' Scores Income Countries 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
bally Capacity 0-1 Score
COMMITMENT CAPACITY
OPEN AND ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNANCE GOVERNMENT CAPACITY
Liberal Government
Democracy 0.35 Effectiveness 0.51
Open Tax System

Government 0.43 Effectiveness 0.40
0-1 Score 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Safety & Security 0.31
INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT 0-1 Score 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Social Group
Equality 0.50 CIVIL SOCIETY CAPACITY
Economic Civil Society &

Gender Gap 0.84 Media 0.83
Effectiveness
0-1 Score 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0-1 Score 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
ECONOMIC POLICY CITIZEN CAPACITY
Business Poverty Rate

Environment 0.51 ($5/Day) 0.40
Trade Freedom Education

0.70 Quality 0.57
Biodiversity &
Habitat 0.75 Child Health 0.82
Protections
0-1 Score 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0-1 Score 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Least Advanced Most Advanced
Globally Globally CAPACITY OF THE ECONOMY
GDP Per Capita

(PPP) 0.50
RISK OF EXTERNAL DEBT DISTRESS Information &

Communication
Technology (ICT) 0.54
Recent IMF Risk of External Debt Distress rating not available for this Adoption
country. See the Country Roadmap Methodology Guide for more Export
Sophistication 0.65
information and the Secondary Metrics Compendium for additional tools
to explore the issues of fiscal policy and health. Both are available at 0-1 Score 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
selfreliance.usaid.gov. Least Advanced
Globally
Most Advanced
Globally
All source data are for the latest year available, typically 2018 or 2017, and are
SELF-RELIANCE derived from third-party institutions. All indicators are weighted equally in the
calculation of the overall Commitment and Capacity scores. Names and boundary
representation in the map are not necessarily authoritative.
ROADMAPS For more information on definitions and sources, please visit selfreliance.usaid.gov.
INDICATOR DEFINITIONS AND SOURCES
COMMITMENT CAPACITY
OPEN AND ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNANCE GOVERNMENT CAPACITY
Liberal Democracy : Measures freedom of expression, freedom of Government Effectiveness : Measures the quality of public services,
association, suffrage, elections, rule of law, judicial constraints on the the quality of the civil service and its independence from political pressure,
executive branch, and legislative constraints on the executive branch. the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of
Source: Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem). the government's commitment to its stated policies. Source: World Bank,
Open Government: Measures the degree to which a government shares
Worldwide Governance Indicators.
information, empowers people with tools to hold the government Tax System Effectiveness: Estimated ratio between a country's tax
accountable, and fosters citizen participation in public policy deliberations. collection and the expected level of tax revenue that a country could
Sub-factors include: publicized laws and government data, right to achieve, given its macroeconomic, demographic, and institutional features.
information, civic participation, and complaint mechanisms. Source: World Source: USAID, Collecting Taxes Database, Tax Effort Indicator.
Justice Project, Rule of Law Index. Safety & Security: A combination of objective measures of security, and
subjective measures of personal safety, personal freedom, and social
INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT tolerance. Source: Legatum Institute, Prosperity Index.
Social Group Equality : Measures political equality with respect to civil
liberties protections across social groups as defined by ethnicity, religion, CIVIL SOCIETY CAPACITY
caste, race, language, and region. Source: Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem), : Measures the range of actions
Social Group Equality in Respect for Civil Liberties. Civil Society & Media Effectiveness
and mechanisms that citizens, civil society organizations, and an
Economic Gender Gap: Index comprising five components: (1) wage independent media can use to hold a government accountable. The
equality between women and men for similar work; (2) the ratio of female mechanisms include using informal tools such as social mobilization and
estimated earned income to male income; (3) the ratio of female labor investigative journalism. Source: Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem), Diagonal
force participation to male participation; (4) the ratio of female legislators, Accountability Index.
senior officials, and managers to male counterparts; and (5) the ratio of
female professional and technical workers to male counterparts. Source:
World Economic Forum, Global Gender Gap Report, Economic CITIZEN CAPACITY
Participation and Opportunity Sub-Index. Poverty Rate ($5/Day) : Measures the percent of the population living
under $5/day in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. Source: World Bank,
ECONOMIC POLICY PovCalNet.
: Assesses a country's entrepreneurial climate Education Quality: Gauges both the quality of education—using
Business Environment
by measuring business' access to infrastructure (such as the internet and harmonized scores across major international student achievement testing
transport, and to credit), business flexibility (the costs of starting business —and the quantity of schooling received—using age-specific enrollment
and of hiring and firing), clear and fair regulations (e.g., intellectual property rates—to evaluate the relative performance of educational systems
rights), and perceptions of meritocracy and opportunity. Source: Legatum worldwide. Source: World Bank, Human Capital Index, Learning-Adjusted
Institute, Prosperity Index. Years of Schooling Indicator.
Trade Freedom: Measures a country's openness to international trade Child Health: A composite measure that aggregates child mortality,
based on average tariff rates and non-tariff barriers to trade. Source: access to at least basic water sources, and access to at least basic sanitation
Heritage Foundation, Index of Economic Freedom. facilities. Source: Columbia University Center for International Earth
Science Information Network (CIESIN).
Biodiversity & Habitat Protections: Measures extent of marine
protected areas, terrestrial biome protection (weighted for both national
and global scarcity), representativeness of protected areas, and whether CAPACITY OF THE ECONOMY
protected areas cover the ranges and habitats of critical species. Source: : Measures the flow of resources available to
Yale University/Columbia University Center for International Earth Science GDP Per Capita (PPP)
households, firms, and government to finance development as the country's
Information Network (CIESIN). total Gross Domestic Product (PPP) divided by the country's population.
Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators.
Information & Communication Technology (ICT) Adoption:
Index comprising: (1) mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions; (2) mobile-
RISK OF EXTERNAL DEBT DISTRESS broadband subscriptions; (3) fixed-broadband internet subscriptions; (4)
Rates a country's risk of public sector debt distress on a four-tier scale: fiber internet subscriptions; and (5) internet users. Source: World
"low risk", "moderate risk", "high risk", and "in debt distress". Ratings are Economic Forum (WEF), Global Competitiveness Index.
based on countries' debt and market structures, fiscal and macroeconomic Export Sophistication: Measures the diversity and ubiquity of a
outlook, and institutional capacity to manage debt burden. Ratings help country’s exported goods, key markers that can help gauge economic
guide the borrowing decisions of lower-income countries to meet sophistication and resilience. Source: Center for International Development
development needs while reducing the chances of excessive debt build-up. at Harvard University, Economic Complexity Index.
Ratings are shown for 54 lower-income countries for which the IMF
prepares risk ratings and are not scored components of Commitment or
Capacity. Source: International Monetary Fund, Debt Sustainability Analysis
for Low-Income Countries.

USAID Philippines - CDCS - 2019-2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USAID Philippines - CDCS - 2019-2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

USAID Philippines - CDCS - 2019-2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNCLASSIFIED

PHOTO CAPTION GOES HERE

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 ii

ALS Alternative Learning System

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 iii

Commitment and Capacity

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 2

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 2

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 3

Salient Factors in Country Context, Challenges, and Opportunities

Governance and a decline in liberal democracy is a significant challenge domestically. 8 Countervailing

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 5

The Philippines’ National Development Vision

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 6

Actors Influencing this Vision

Country Roadmap, Self-Reliance, Challenges and Opportunities in the Future Trajectory

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 7

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 8

III. STRATEGIC APPROACH

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 9

Use of Host Country Resources

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 10

The Role of Civil Society

Engaging the Private Sector

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 11

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 12

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 13

Efforts of other USG Actors

IV. RESULTS FRAMEWORK

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 14

DO 1 will strengthen countervailing institutions of democratic governance and address weakened

Development Objective 1: Democratic Governance Strengthened

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 15

Development Hypothesis: If government institutional performance is balanced with robust

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 16

Local government performance is fragmented because the responsibilities for implementing

USAID programming under DO 1 will be implemented through four IRs.

IR 1.1 Civic Engagement Increased

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 17

IR 1.2 Public Transparency and Accountability Improved

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 18

IR 1.3 Rule of Law Advanced

IR 1.4 More Responsive Local Governance

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 19

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 20

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 21

To achieve the development objective requires four intermediate results:

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 22

IR 2.2 Government Capacity to Finance Self-Reliance Increased

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 23

IR 2.4 Private Sector-led Growth Promoted

Infrastructure is a constraint to inclusive economic growth. More extensive infrastructure will

Development Objective 3: Environmental and Community Resilience Enhanced

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 24

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 25

USAID’s programming under DO 3 parallels GPH priorities for biodiversity protections,

To achieve the development objective requires four intermediate results:

USAID PHILIPPINES CDCS 2020 – 2024 26