Page 35 - Special Topic Session (STS) - Volume 3

STS513 Sabrina O. R.
number of global indicators that cannot be exactly translated in the Philippine
setting or it will be difficult to operationalize it in the Philippine setting the
same way it is operationalized globally. Furthermore, there are 2 global
indicators that were recommended for exclusion as they are not apt for the
Philippine setting or is of little relevance to the country. The two global
indicators that were excluded are indicators 2.5.1 Number of plant and genetic
resources for food and agriculture secured in either medium-or long-term
conservation facilities and 2.b.1 Agriculture export subsidies. Indicator 2.5.1
was recommended for exclusion as there is a severe lack of data from most
countries and absence of metadata at the global level; while Indicator 2.b.1
was excluded as there are no targets for export subsidies in the current
Philippine Development Plan.

Table 1. Count of Proposed Indicators per Type vis-à-vis their Global
Indicator Counterpart

Type of Proposed Indicator Count

Exact match to the Global Indicator 17
Proxy Indicator 14
Sub Indicator 5
No Recommendation/Exclusion 2
TOTAL 38

As for the other results of the review of indicators such as the proposed
indicators’ conceptual and operational definitions, variables needed, possible
data sources, methods of computation, frequency, and possible
disaggregation, these are discussed in detail in the paper of Lopez and Santos,
“Expanding the Philippine Indicator System for Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) Monitoring through Research.”
Institutionalization of Indicators Results
After proposing 38 indicators, each of these indicators were given next
step recommendations as its way forward. In summarizing the different
recommendations, there were ultimately three types of way forward for the
indicators. The proposed indicators may be (a) ready for institutionalization,
(b) not be ready for institutionalization, or (c) not needed to be
institutionalized.

24 | I S I W S C 2 0 1 9