MENU
  • 1 of 10 Free Medical Check-up and Family Planning Service

    Free Medical Check-up and Family Planning Service in POPCOM every Tuesday and Thursday, 8am to 12nn

  • 2 of 10 Journey to RPRH Law

    Government, NGOs and Partners Spent P40.7B for 2015 RPRH Services

  • 3 of 10 Miguel Tanfelix is named U4U Ambassador

    Miguel Tanfelix is named U4U Ambassador

  • 4 of 10 National FP Conference 2016

    National FP Conference, Nov 20-22, 2016, Novotel Cubao QC

  • 5 of 10 POPCOM Deputy Executive Director Lolito R. Tacardon

    POPCOM welcomes its new Deputy Executive Director and Concurrent POPCOM National Capital Region (NCR) Regional Director Lolito R. Tacardon

  • 6 of 10 Laot

    The national entry of POPCOM Region 8 to the AHD Film Festival, "Laot" (High Seas), is an official selection to the 10th International Children's Film Festival – Bangladesh

  • 7 of 10 Malaya

    The national entry of POPCOM Region 3 to the AHD Film Festival, "Malaya" (Free), is an official selection to the 10th International Children's Film Festival – Bangladesh

  • 8 of 10 Kapit-os

    The national entry of POPCOM Region XI to the AHD Film Festival, "Kapit-os" (Poverty), is an official selection to the 10th International Children's Film Festival – Bangladesh

  • 9 of 10 Bangladesh

    Congratulations to Kapit-os, Laot and Malaya for making it to the International Children's Film Festival in Bangladesh!

    The festival will be held from January 24 to 30, 2017 at Central Public Library, Shahbagh, Dhaka along with 11 other venues throughout the country while Central Public Library will be the central venue.

     

  • 10 of 10 National Women's Month 2017

    March is National Women's Month! POPCOM joins the annual nationwide campaign to uphold the rights of women thru the full implementation of the Magna Carta of Women (RA 9710).

Population and Development (PopDev)

format-panel-popdev-073115.png

Responsible Parenthood - Family Planning (RP-FP)

format-panel-rp-fp_073115.png

Adolescent Health and Development (AHD)

format panel ahyd 05062016

Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health

format panel rprh 05112016


Coherence and convergence: Key to managing risks and achieving sustainable development

 

In 2015, two dominant themes that guided multilateral work were that of sustainable development and managing risks better as a global community.

There were four framework agreements that resulted from four separate multilateral processes – the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai, March); the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, July); the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York, September); and the Paris Agreement on climate change (Paris, December).

All of these agreements have one overriding objective – that of achieving inclusive, sustainable and resilient development for all. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda sets out 17 sustainable development goals, including climate action.

Addressing the climate change and sustainable development nexus requires a firm grip on financing and resilience issues. Setting a development agenda is just one part of the story. Delivering the agenda into action, in a way that builds a more resilient global community, is the more important part. Without realistically addressing the problems of today’s climate realities and its risks, as well as financing, the lofty goals we have established on paper will remain just that – goals!

This underscores the importance of achieving greater coherence in multilateral agreements. There are four in 2015 alone.

On April 22 of this year, the Philippines and 174 other countries affixed their signature to a document that will go down in history as one of the most important agreements bequeathed by world leaders to future generations – the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The main aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise within the century “well below 2 degrees Celsius and to drive efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

The Philippines pushed for a more ambitious ceiling of 1.5°C as chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) representing 43 of the most vulnerable nations. We have taken this leadership for very good reasons.

Global warming has already breached the 1°C level and its impacts have been massive.

Over the past two decades, the Philippines endured a total of 274 natural calamities, making it the fourth most disaster-prone country in the world. Globally, 605,539 lives have been lost due to weather-related disturbances, 59 percentof which were accounted for by low- to lower- middle income countries.

These weather disturbances can derail countries off the development path as shown by the collective experiences of countries over the past decades, with economic losses from disasters now averaging $250 billion to $300 billion each year.

Seeking to sustain the momentum in global climate action, the Philippines has joined calls for the early entry into force of the Paris Agreement.

Our Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) targets 70 percent reduction of emissions by 2030 from the business-as-usual scenario of 2000-2030 in energy, transport, forestry, industry and waste. This goal, however, is conditional to the provision of the means of implementation that we will receive, whether through climate finance, capacity building and technology transfer.

The mobilization of the $100 billion Fund under the agreement is necessary to support vulnerable nations who happen to be low-emitting, developing economies. This Fund is just a fraction of actual resources needed to deliver current and more ambitious programs consistent with the 1.5°C goal. Additional support in the form of official development assistance commitments is also vital.

Further, there should be a 50-50 balance in international climate finance between adaptation and mitigation. Funding should not only be on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Equal financial support must also be available to help the developing nations, who are the least emitters of carbon, but which bear the greatest brunt of climate change. The figures I shared illustrate this point.

Clearly, sustainable development can no longer be discussed without equal consideration given to disaster risk reduction, as well as climate and financing issues.

A careful consideration of the four key multilateral agreements will show that the word “development” was mentioned 103 times in the Sendai Framework; 253 times in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda; and 46 times in the Paris Agreement.

On the other hand, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development speaks of the fact that “there is no country in the world that is not seeing first-hand the drastic effects of climate change,” and calls for mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries and help mitigate climate-related disasters.

There are points of convergence across these agreements on a number of issues, but the real test of these agreements come in the form of delivery at the state and community level.

At the national and local levels, legislative measures are needed to translate the principles enshrined in these instruments into action. In the Philippines, we have a National Development Plan covering different sectors, that serves as guide post to policy making and program delivery. The long-term view is vital as we chart a course of action to address the problems of today and create a resilient and progressive future.

The thrust should be no different at the multilateral level. We take inspiration from the goal of realizing inclusive, sustainable and resilient development as forged in the international arena. This needs to be translated, however, into action through effective legislations, governance, and service delivery at the national and local levels.

In the Philippines, we have numerous laws and policies on disaster resilience, environmental conservation and climate change adaptation as key components for sustainable development strategies. Among these are the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, Renewable Energy Act, Environmental Awareness and Education Act, Climate Change Act, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, and the People’s Survival Fund Law. These are national instruments that have carried our international commitments into practical application at the national and local levels.

It has been a productive collaboration between the Senate Committee on Climate Change, which I chair, and the Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE International) in raising the bar for climate and sustainable development policy making and advocacy in the country through our various fora and roundtable discussions. These are vital steps to realizing policy and legislative alignment.

GLOBE’s ‘Coherence and Convergence’ approach, supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), calls for ‘mutually reinforcing’ outcomes from the 2015 agenda-setting summits and provides focus and direction for legislators. Nothing less is required. Coherence in all these summits and their outcome documents, most specially, the frameworks they produce, are required if these are to guide national and local legislation. No issue is ever more important than the other. No international body is more relevant than the rest. The global community is faced with the most grievous threats ever to face us and the moment requires us all to selflessly address these issues as one community.

By doing so, we can confidently say that that, we may be vulnerable, but we are not incapable of collective action.

We live in only one planet. The challenges we face today should make countries – developed and developing – realize that moats, gates, massive barriers, and individualism are concepts of medieval past. The truth is, we are all connected and in the case of climate change, we suffer and rise together.

Now is the time for coming together… for managing risks together as a global community.

* * *

(Senator Loren Legarda is the Chair of the Philippine Senate Committees on Climate Change, Finance, and Cultural Communities. She is also the Global Champion for Resilience of the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Co-Chair of GLOBE Philippines, and member of the Women in Parliaments (WIP) Global Forum Executive Board. She is a UNEP laureate and a Global Leader for Tomorrow awardee by the World Economic Forum.)

 

-Loren Legarda (The Philippine Star)

 

http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/05/31/1588549/coherence-and-convergence-key-to-managing-risks-and-achieving-sustainable-development

In 2015, two dominant themes that guided multilateral work were that of sustainable development and managing risks better as a global community.

There were four framework agreements that resulted from four separate multilateral processes – the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai, March); the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, July); the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York, September); and the Paris Agreement on climate change (Paris, December).

All of these agreements have one overriding objective – that of achieving inclusive, sustainable and resilient development for all. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda sets out 17 sustainable development goals, including climate action.

Addressing the climate change and sustainable development nexus requires a firm grip on financing and resilience issues. Setting a development agenda is just one part of the story. Delivering the agenda into action, in a way that builds a more resilient global community, is the more important part. Without realistically addressing the problems of today’s climate realities and its risks, as well as financing, the lofty goals we have established on paper will remain just that – goals!

This underscores the importance of achieving greater coherence in multilateral agreements. There are four in 2015 alone.

On April 22 of this year, the Philippines and 174 other countries affixed their signature to a document that will go down in history as one of the most important agreements bequeathed by world leaders to future generations –  the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The main aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise within the century “well below 2 degrees Celsius and to drive efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

The Philippines pushed for a more ambitious ceiling of 1.5°C as chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) representing 43 of the most vulnerable nations. We have taken this leadership for very good reasons.

Global warming has already breached the 1°C level and its impacts have been massive.

Over the past two decades, the Philippines endured a total of 274 natural calamities, making it the fourth most disaster-prone country in the world. Globally, 605,539 lives have been lost due to weather-related disturbances, 59 percentof which were accounted for by low- to lower- middle income countries.

These weather disturbances can derail countries off the development path as shown by the collective experiences of countries over the past decades, with economic losses from disasters now averaging $250 billion to $300 billion each year.

Seeking to sustain the momentum in global climate action, the Philippines has joined calls for the early entry into force of the Paris Agreement.

Our Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) targets 70 percent reduction of emissions by 2030 from the business-as-usual scenario of 2000-2030 in energy, transport, forestry, industry and waste. This goal, however, is conditional to the provision of the means of implementation that we will receive, whether through climate finance, capacity building and technology transfer.

The mobilization of the $100 billion Fund under the agreement is necessary to support vulnerable nations who happen to be low-emitting, developing economies. This Fund is just a fraction of actual resources needed to deliver current and more ambitious programs consistent with the 1.5°C goal. Additional support in the form of official development assistance commitments is also vital.

Further, there should be a 50-50 balance in international climate finance between adaptation and mitigation. Funding should not only be on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Equal financial support must also be available to help the developing nations, who are the least emitters of carbon, but which bear the greatest brunt of climate change. The figures I shared illustrate this point.

Clearly, sustainable development can no longer be discussed without equal consideration given to disaster risk reduction, as well as climate and financing issues.

A careful consideration of the four key multilateral agreements will show that the word “development” was mentioned 103 times in the Sendai Framework; 253 times in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda; and 46 times in the Paris Agreement.

On the other hand, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development speaks of the fact that “there is no country in the world that is not seeing first-hand the drastic effects of climate change,” and calls for mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries and help mitigate climate-related disasters.

There are points of convergence across these agreements on a number of issues, but the real test of these agreements come in the form of delivery at the state and community level.

At the national and local levels, legislative measures are needed to translate the principles enshrined in these instruments into action. In the Philippines, we have a National Development Plan covering different sectors, that serves as guide post to policy making and program delivery. The long-term view is vital as we chart a course of action to address the problems of today and create a resilient and progressive future.

The thrust should be no different at the multilateral level. We take inspiration from the goal of realizing inclusive, sustainable and resilient development as forged in the international arena. This needs to be translated, however, into action through effective legislations, governance, and service delivery at the national and local levels.

In the Philippines, we have numerous laws and policies on disaster resilience, environmental conservation and climate change adaptation as key components for sustainable development strategies. Among these are the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, Renewable Energy Act, Environmental Awareness and Education Act, Climate Change Act, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, and the People’s Survival Fund Law. These are national instruments that have carried our international commitments into practical application at the national and local levels.

It has been a productive collaboration between the Senate Committee on Climate Change, which I chair, and the Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE International) in raising the bar for climate and sustainable development policy making and advocacy in the country through our various fora and roundtable discussions. These are vital steps to realizing policy and legislative alignment.

GLOBE’s ‘Coherence and Convergence’ approach, supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), calls for ‘mutually reinforcing’ outcomes from the 2015 agenda-setting summits and provides focus and direction for legislators. Nothing less is required. Coherence in all these summits and their outcome documents, most specially, the frameworks they produce, are required if these are to guide national and local legislation. No issue is ever more important than the other. No international body is more relevant than the rest. The global community is faced with the most grievous threats ever to face us and the moment requires us all to selflessly address these issues as one community.

By doing so, we can confidently say that that, we may be vulnerable, but we are not incapable of collective action.

We live in only one planet. The challenges we face today should make countries – developed and developing – realize that moats, gates, massive barriers, and individualism are concepts of medieval past. The truth is, we are all connected and in the case of climate change, we suffer and rise together.

Now is the time for coming together… for managing risks together as a global community.

* * *

(Senator Loren Legarda is the Chair of the Philippine Senate Committees on Climate Change, Finance, and Cultural Communities. She is also the Global Champion for Resilience of the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Co-Chair of GLOBE Philippines, and member of the Women in Parliaments (WIP) Global Forum Executive Board. She is a UNEP laureate and a Global Leader for Tomorrow awardee by the World Economic Forum.)

- See more at: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/05/31/1588549/coherence-and-convergence-key-to-managing-risks-and-achieving-sustainable-development#sthash.fCGMOxkO.dpuf

In 2015, two dominant themes that guided multilateral work were that of sustainable development and managing risks better as a global community.

There were four framework agreements that resulted from four separate multilateral processes – the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai, March); the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, July); the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York, September); and the Paris Agreement on climate change (Paris, December).

All of these agreements have one overriding objective – that of achieving inclusive, sustainable and resilient development for all. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda sets out 17 sustainable development goals, including climate action.

Addressing the climate change and sustainable development nexus requires a firm grip on financing and resilience issues. Setting a development agenda is just one part of the story. Delivering the agenda into action, in a way that builds a more resilient global community, is the more important part. Without realistically addressing the problems of today’s climate realities and its risks, as well as financing, the lofty goals we have established on paper will remain just that – goals!

This underscores the importance of achieving greater coherence in multilateral agreements. There are four in 2015 alone.

On April 22 of this year, the Philippines and 174 other countries affixed their signature to a document that will go down in history as one of the most important agreements bequeathed by world leaders to future generations –  the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The main aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise within the century “well below 2 degrees Celsius and to drive efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

The Philippines pushed for a more ambitious ceiling of 1.5°C as chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) representing 43 of the most vulnerable nations. We have taken this leadership for very good reasons.

Global warming has already breached the 1°C level and its impacts have been massive.

Over the past two decades, the Philippines endured a total of 274 natural calamities, making it the fourth most disaster-prone country in the world. Globally, 605,539 lives have been lost due to weather-related disturbances, 59 percentof which were accounted for by low- to lower- middle income countries.

These weather disturbances can derail countries off the development path as shown by the collective experiences of countries over the past decades, with economic losses from disasters now averaging $250 billion to $300 billion each year.

Seeking to sustain the momentum in global climate action, the Philippines has joined calls for the early entry into force of the Paris Agreement.

Our Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) targets 70 percent reduction of emissions by 2030 from the business-as-usual scenario of 2000-2030 in energy, transport, forestry, industry and waste. This goal, however, is conditional to the provision of the means of implementation that we will receive, whether through climate finance, capacity building and technology transfer.

The mobilization of the $100 billion Fund under the agreement is necessary to support vulnerable nations who happen to be low-emitting, developing economies. This Fund is just a fraction of actual resources needed to deliver current and more ambitious programs consistent with the 1.5°C goal. Additional support in the form of official development assistance commitments is also vital.

Further, there should be a 50-50 balance in international climate finance between adaptation and mitigation. Funding should not only be on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Equal financial support must also be available to help the developing nations, who are the least emitters of carbon, but which bear the greatest brunt of climate change. The figures I shared illustrate this point.

Clearly, sustainable development can no longer be discussed without equal consideration given to disaster risk reduction, as well as climate and financing issues.

A careful consideration of the four key multilateral agreements will show that the word “development” was mentioned 103 times in the Sendai Framework; 253 times in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda; and 46 times in the Paris Agreement.

On the other hand, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development speaks of the fact that “there is no country in the world that is not seeing first-hand the drastic effects of climate change,” and calls for mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries and help mitigate climate-related disasters.

There are points of convergence across these agreements on a number of issues, but the real test of these agreements come in the form of delivery at the state and community level.

At the national and local levels, legislative measures are needed to translate the principles enshrined in these instruments into action. In the Philippines, we have a National Development Plan covering different sectors, that serves as guide post to policy making and program delivery. The long-term view is vital as we chart a course of action to address the problems of today and create a resilient and progressive future.

The thrust should be no different at the multilateral level. We take inspiration from the goal of realizing inclusive, sustainable and resilient development as forged in the international arena. This needs to be translated, however, into action through effective legislations, governance, and service delivery at the national and local levels.

In the Philippines, we have numerous laws and policies on disaster resilience, environmental conservation and climate change adaptation as key components for sustainable development strategies. Among these are the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, Renewable Energy Act, Environmental Awareness and Education Act, Climate Change Act, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, and the People’s Survival Fund Law. These are national instruments that have carried our international commitments into practical application at the national and local levels.

It has been a productive collaboration between the Senate Committee on Climate Change, which I chair, and the Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE International) in raising the bar for climate and sustainable development policy making and advocacy in the country through our various fora and roundtable discussions. These are vital steps to realizing policy and legislative alignment.

GLOBE’s ‘Coherence and Convergence’ approach, supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), calls for ‘mutually reinforcing’ outcomes from the 2015 agenda-setting summits and provides focus and direction for legislators. Nothing less is required. Coherence in all these summits and their outcome documents, most specially, the frameworks they produce, are required if these are to guide national and local legislation. No issue is ever more important than the other. No international body is more relevant than the rest. The global community is faced with the most grievous threats ever to face us and the moment requires us all to selflessly address these issues as one community.

By doing so, we can confidently say that that, we may be vulnerable, but we are not incapable of collective action.

We live in only one planet. The challenges we face today should make countries – developed and developing – realize that moats, gates, massive barriers, and individualism are concepts of medieval past. The truth is, we are all connected and in the case of climate change, we suffer and rise together.

Now is the time for coming together… for managing risks together as a global community.

* * *

(Senator Loren Legarda is the Chair of the Philippine Senate Committees on Climate Change, Finance, and Cultural Communities. She is also the Global Champion for Resilience of the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Co-Chair of GLOBE Philippines, and member of the Women in Parliaments (WIP) Global Forum Executive Board. She is a UNEP laureate and a Global Leader for Tomorrow awardee by the World Economic Forum.)

- See more at: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/05/31/1588549/coherence-and-convergence-key-to-managing-risks-and-achieving-sustainable-development#sthash.fCGMOxkO.dpuf

In 2015, two dominant themes that guided multilateral work were that of sustainable development and managing risks better as a global community.

There were four framework agreements that resulted from four separate multilateral processes – the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai, March); the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, July); the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York, September); and the Paris Agreement on climate change (Paris, December).

All of these agreements have one overriding objective – that of achieving inclusive, sustainable and resilient development for all. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda sets out 17 sustainable development goals, including climate action.

Addressing the climate change and sustainable development nexus requires a firm grip on financing and resilience issues. Setting a development agenda is just one part of the story. Delivering the agenda into action, in a way that builds a more resilient global community, is the more important part. Without realistically addressing the problems of today’s climate realities and its risks, as well as financing, the lofty goals we have established on paper will remain just that – goals!

This underscores the importance of achieving greater coherence in multilateral agreements. There are four in 2015 alone.

On April 22 of this year, the Philippines and 174 other countries affixed their signature to a document that will go down in history as one of the most important agreements bequeathed by world leaders to future generations –  the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The main aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise within the century “well below 2 degrees Celsius and to drive efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

The Philippines pushed for a more ambitious ceiling of 1.5°C as chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) representing 43 of the most vulnerable nations. We have taken this leadership for very good reasons.

Global warming has already breached the 1°C level and its impacts have been massive.

Over the past two decades, the Philippines endured a total of 274 natural calamities, making it the fourth most disaster-prone country in the world. Globally, 605,539 lives have been lost due to weather-related disturbances, 59 percentof which were accounted for by low- to lower- middle income countries.

These weather disturbances can derail countries off the development path as shown by the collective experiences of countries over the past decades, with economic losses from disasters now averaging $250 billion to $300 billion each year.

Seeking to sustain the momentum in global climate action, the Philippines has joined calls for the early entry into force of the Paris Agreement.

Our Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) targets 70 percent reduction of emissions by 2030 from the business-as-usual scenario of 2000-2030 in energy, transport, forestry, industry and waste. This goal, however, is conditional to the provision of the means of implementation that we will receive, whether through climate finance, capacity building and technology transfer.

The mobilization of the $100 billion Fund under the agreement is necessary to support vulnerable nations who happen to be low-emitting, developing economies. This Fund is just a fraction of actual resources needed to deliver current and more ambitious programs consistent with the 1.5°C goal. Additional support in the form of official development assistance commitments is also vital.

Further, there should be a 50-50 balance in international climate finance between adaptation and mitigation. Funding should not only be on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Equal financial support must also be available to help the developing nations, who are the least emitters of carbon, but which bear the greatest brunt of climate change. The figures I shared illustrate this point.

Clearly, sustainable development can no longer be discussed without equal consideration given to disaster risk reduction, as well as climate and financing issues.

A careful consideration of the four key multilateral agreements will show that the word “development” was mentioned 103 times in the Sendai Framework; 253 times in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda; and 46 times in the Paris Agreement.

On the other hand, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development speaks of the fact that “there is no country in the world that is not seeing first-hand the drastic effects of climate change,” and calls for mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries and help mitigate climate-related disasters.

There are points of convergence across these agreements on a number of issues, but the real test of these agreements come in the form of delivery at the state and community level.

At the national and local levels, legislative measures are needed to translate the principles enshrined in these instruments into action. In the Philippines, we have a National Development Plan covering different sectors, that serves as guide post to policy making and program delivery. The long-term view is vital as we chart a course of action to address the problems of today and create a resilient and progressive future.

The thrust should be no different at the multilateral level. We take inspiration from the goal of realizing inclusive, sustainable and resilient development as forged in the international arena. This needs to be translated, however, into action through effective legislations, governance, and service delivery at the national and local levels.

In the Philippines, we have numerous laws and policies on disaster resilience, environmental conservation and climate change adaptation as key components for sustainable development strategies. Among these are the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, Renewable Energy Act, Environmental Awareness and Education Act, Climate Change Act, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, and the People’s Survival Fund Law. These are national instruments that have carried our international commitments into practical application at the national and local levels.

It has been a productive collaboration between the Senate Committee on Climate Change, which I chair, and the Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE International) in raising the bar for climate and sustainable development policy making and advocacy in the country through our various fora and roundtable discussions. These are vital steps to realizing policy and legislative alignment.

GLOBE’s ‘Coherence and Convergence’ approach, supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), calls for ‘mutually reinforcing’ outcomes from the 2015 agenda-setting summits and provides focus and direction for legislators. Nothing less is required. Coherence in all these summits and their outcome documents, most specially, the frameworks they produce, are required if these are to guide national and local legislation. No issue is ever more important than the other. No international body is more relevant than the rest. The global community is faced with the most grievous threats ever to face us and the moment requires us all to selflessly address these issues as one community.

By doing so, we can confidently say that that, we may be vulnerable, but we are not incapable of collective action.

We live in only one planet. The challenges we face today should make countries – developed and developing – realize that moats, gates, massive barriers, and individualism are concepts of medieval past. The truth is, we are all connected and in the case of climate change, we suffer and rise together.

Now is the time for coming together… for managing risks together as a global community.

* * *

(Senator Loren Legarda is the Chair of the Philippine Senate Committees on Climate Change, Finance, and Cultural Communities. She is also the Global Champion for Resilience of the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Co-Chair of GLOBE Philippines, and member of the Women in Parliaments (WIP) Global Forum Executive Board. She is a UNEP laureate and a Global Leader for Tomorrow awardee by the World Economic Forum.)

- See more at: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/05/31/1588549/coherence-and-convergence-key-to-managing-risks-and-achieving-sustainable-development#sthash.fCGMOxkO.dpuf

In 2015, two dominant themes that guided multilateral work were that of sustainable development and managing risks better as a global community.

There were four framework agreements that resulted from four separate multilateral processes – the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai, March); the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, July); the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York, September); and the Paris Agreement on climate change (Paris, December).

All of these agreements have one overriding objective – that of achieving inclusive, sustainable and resilient development for all. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda sets out 17 sustainable development goals, including climate action.

Addressing the climate change and sustainable development nexus requires a firm grip on financing and resilience issues. Setting a development agenda is just one part of the story. Delivering the agenda into action, in a way that builds a more resilient global community, is the more important part. Without realistically addressing the problems of today’s climate realities and its risks, as well as financing, the lofty goals we have established on paper will remain just that – goals!

This underscores the importance of achieving greater coherence in multilateral agreements. There are four in 2015 alone.

On April 22 of this year, the Philippines and 174 other countries affixed their signature to a document that will go down in history as one of the most important agreements bequeathed by world leaders to future generations –  the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The main aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise within the century “well below 2 degrees Celsius and to drive efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

The Philippines pushed for a more ambitious ceiling of 1.5°C as chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) representing 43 of the most vulnerable nations. We have taken this leadership for very good reasons.

Global warming has already breached the 1°C level and its impacts have been massive.

Over the past two decades, the Philippines endured a total of 274 natural calamities, making it the fourth most disaster-prone country in the world. Globally, 605,539 lives have been lost due to weather-related disturbances, 59 percentof which were accounted for by low- to lower- middle income countries.

These weather disturbances can derail countries off the development path as shown by the collective experiences of countries over the past decades, with economic losses from disasters now averaging $250 billion to $300 billion each year.

Seeking to sustain the momentum in global climate action, the Philippines has joined calls for the early entry into force of the Paris Agreement.

Our Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) targets 70 percent reduction of emissions by 2030 from the business-as-usual scenario of 2000-2030 in energy, transport, forestry, industry and waste. This goal, however, is conditional to the provision of the means of implementation that we will receive, whether through climate finance, capacity building and technology transfer.

The mobilization of the $100 billion Fund under the agreement is necessary to support vulnerable nations who happen to be low-emitting, developing economies. This Fund is just a fraction of actual resources needed to deliver current and more ambitious programs consistent with the 1.5°C goal. Additional support in the form of official development assistance commitments is also vital.

Further, there should be a 50-50 balance in international climate finance between adaptation and mitigation. Funding should not only be on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Equal financial support must also be available to help the developing nations, who are the least emitters of carbon, but which bear the greatest brunt of climate change. The figures I shared illustrate this point.

Clearly, sustainable development can no longer be discussed without equal consideration given to disaster risk reduction, as well as climate and financing issues.

A careful consideration of the four key multilateral agreements will show that the word “development” was mentioned 103 times in the Sendai Framework; 253 times in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda; and 46 times in the Paris Agreement.

On the other hand, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development speaks of the fact that “there is no country in the world that is not seeing first-hand the drastic effects of climate change,” and calls for mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries and help mitigate climate-related disasters.

There are points of convergence across these agreements on a number of issues, but the real test of these agreements come in the form of delivery at the state and community level.

At the national and local levels, legislative measures are needed to translate the principles enshrined in these instruments into action. In the Philippines, we have a National Development Plan covering different sectors, that serves as guide post to policy making and program delivery. The long-term view is vital as we chart a course of action to address the problems of today and create a resilient and progressive future.

The thrust should be no different at the multilateral level. We take inspiration from the goal of realizing inclusive, sustainable and resilient development as forged in the international arena. This needs to be translated, however, into action through effective legislations, governance, and service delivery at the national and local levels.

In the Philippines, we have numerous laws and policies on disaster resilience, environmental conservation and climate change adaptation as key components for sustainable development strategies. Among these are the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, Renewable Energy Act, Environmental Awareness and Education Act, Climate Change Act, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, and the People’s Survival Fund Law. These are national instruments that have carried our international commitments into practical application at the national and local levels.

It has been a productive collaboration between the Senate Committee on Climate Change, which I chair, and the Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE International) in raising the bar for climate and sustainable development policy making and advocacy in the country through our various fora and roundtable discussions. These are vital steps to realizing policy and legislative alignment.

GLOBE’s ‘Coherence and Convergence’ approach, supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), calls for ‘mutually reinforcing’ outcomes from the 2015 agenda-setting summits and provides focus and direction for legislators. Nothing less is required. Coherence in all these summits and their outcome documents, most specially, the frameworks they produce, are required if these are to guide national and local legislation. No issue is ever more important than the other. No international body is more relevant than the rest. The global community is faced with the most grievous threats ever to face us and the moment requires us all to selflessly address these issues as one community.

By doing so, we can confidently say that that, we may be vulnerable, but we are not incapable of collective action.

We live in only one planet. The challenges we face today should make countries – developed and developing – realize that moats, gates, massive barriers, and individualism are concepts of medieval past. The truth is, we are all connected and in the case of climate change, we suffer and rise together.

Now is the time for coming together… for managing risks together as a global community.

* * *

(Senator Loren Legarda is the Chair of the Philippine Senate Committees on Climate Change, Finance, and Cultural Communities. She is also the Global Champion for Resilience of the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Co-Chair of GLOBE Philippines, and member of the Women in Parliaments (WIP) Global Forum Executive Board. She is a UNEP laureate and a Global Leader for Tomorrow awardee by the World Economic Forum.)

- See more at: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/05/31/1588549/coherence-and-convergence-key-to-managing-risks-and-achieving-sustainable-development#sthash.fCGMOxkO.dpuf

In 2015, two dominant themes that guided multilateral work were that of sustainable development and managing risks better as a global community.

There were four framework agreements that resulted from four separate multilateral processes – the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai, March); the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, July); the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York, September); and the Paris Agreement on climate change (Paris, December).

All of these agreements have one overriding objective – that of achieving inclusive, sustainable and resilient development for all. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda sets out 17 sustainable development goals, including climate action.

Addressing the climate change and sustainable development nexus requires a firm grip on financing and resilience issues. Setting a development agenda is just one part of the story. Delivering the agenda into action, in a way that builds a more resilient global community, is the more important part. Without realistically addressing the problems of today’s climate realities and its risks, as well as financing, the lofty goals we have established on paper will remain just that – goals!

This underscores the importance of achieving greater coherence in multilateral agreements. There are four in 2015 alone.

On April 22 of this year, the Philippines and 174 other countries affixed their signature to a document that will go down in history as one of the most important agreements bequeathed by world leaders to future generations –  the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The main aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise within the century “well below 2 degrees Celsius and to drive efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

The Philippines pushed for a more ambitious ceiling of 1.5°C as chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) representing 43 of the most vulnerable nations. We have taken this leadership for very good reasons.

Global warming has already breached the 1°C level and its impacts have been massive.

Over the past two decades, the Philippines endured a total of 274 natural calamities, making it the fourth most disaster-prone country in the world. Globally, 605,539 lives have been lost due to weather-related disturbances, 59 percentof which were accounted for by low- to lower- middle income countries.

These weather disturbances can derail countries off the development path as shown by the collective experiences of countries over the past decades, with economic losses from disasters now averaging $250 billion to $300 billion each year.

Seeking to sustain the momentum in global climate action, the Philippines has joined calls for the early entry into force of the Paris Agreement.

Our Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) targets 70 percent reduction of emissions by 2030 from the business-as-usual scenario of 2000-2030 in energy, transport, forestry, industry and waste. This goal, however, is conditional to the provision of the means of implementation that we will receive, whether through climate finance, capacity building and technology transfer.

The mobilization of the $100 billion Fund under the agreement is necessary to support vulnerable nations who happen to be low-emitting, developing economies. This Fund is just a fraction of actual resources needed to deliver current and more ambitious programs consistent with the 1.5°C goal. Additional support in the form of official development assistance commitments is also vital.

Further, there should be a 50-50 balance in international climate finance between adaptation and mitigation. Funding should not only be on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Equal financial support must also be available to help the developing nations, who are the least emitters of carbon, but which bear the greatest brunt of climate change. The figures I shared illustrate this point.

Clearly, sustainable development can no longer be discussed without equal consideration given to disaster risk reduction, as well as climate and financing issues.

A careful consideration of the four key multilateral agreements will show that the word “development” was mentioned 103 times in the Sendai Framework; 253 times in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda; and 46 times in the Paris Agreement.

On the other hand, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development speaks of the fact that “there is no country in the world that is not seeing first-hand the drastic effects of climate change,” and calls for mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries and help mitigate climate-related disasters.

There are points of convergence across these agreements on a number of issues, but the real test of these agreements come in the form of delivery at the state and community level.

At the national and local levels, legislative measures are needed to translate the principles enshrined in these instruments into action. In the Philippines, we have a National Development Plan covering different sectors, that serves as guide post to policy making and program delivery. The long-term view is vital as we chart a course of action to address the problems of today and create a resilient and progressive future.

The thrust should be no different at the multilateral level. We take inspiration from the goal of realizing inclusive, sustainable and resilient development as forged in the international arena. This needs to be translated, however, into action through effective legislations, governance, and service delivery at the national and local levels.

In the Philippines, we have numerous laws and policies on disaster resilience, environmental conservation and climate change adaptation as key components for sustainable development strategies. Among these are the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, Renewable Energy Act, Environmental Awareness and Education Act, Climate Change Act, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, and the People’s Survival Fund Law. These are national instruments that have carried our international commitments into practical application at the national and local levels.

It has been a productive collaboration between the Senate Committee on Climate Change, which I chair, and the Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE International) in raising the bar for climate and sustainable development policy making and advocacy in the country through our various fora and roundtable discussions. These are vital steps to realizing policy and legislative alignment.

GLOBE’s ‘Coherence and Convergence’ approach, supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), calls for ‘mutually reinforcing’ outcomes from the 2015 agenda-setting summits and provides focus and direction for legislators. Nothing less is required. Coherence in all these summits and their outcome documents, most specially, the frameworks they produce, are required if these are to guide national and local legislation. No issue is ever more important than the other. No international body is more relevant than the rest. The global community is faced with the most grievous threats ever to face us and the moment requires us all to selflessly address these issues as one community.

By doing so, we can confidently say that that, we may be vulnerable, but we are not incapable of collective action.

We live in only one planet. The challenges we face today should make countries – developed and developing – realize that moats, gates, massive barriers, and individualism are concepts of medieval past. The truth is, we are all connected and in the case of climate change, we suffer and rise together.

Now is the time for coming together… for managing risks together as a global community.

* * *

(Senator Loren Legarda is the Chair of the Philippine Senate Committees on Climate Change, Finance, and Cultural Communities. She is also the Global Champion for Resilience of the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Co-Chair of GLOBE Philippines, and member of the Women in Parliaments (WIP) Global Forum Executive Board. She is a UNEP laureate and a Global Leader for Tomorrow awardee by the World Economic Forum.)

- See more at: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/05/31/1588549/coherence-and-convergence-key-to-managing-risks-and-achieving-sustainable-development#sthash.fCGMOxkO.dpuf

In 2015, two dominant themes that guided multilateral work were that of sustainable development and managing risks better as a global community.

There were four framework agreements that resulted from four separate multilateral processes – the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai, March); the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, July); the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York, September); and the Paris Agreement on climate change (Paris, December).

All of these agreements have one overriding objective – that of achieving inclusive, sustainable and resilient development for all. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda sets out 17 sustainable development goals, including climate action.

Addressing the climate change and sustainable development nexus requires a firm grip on financing and resilience issues. Setting a development agenda is just one part of the story. Delivering the agenda into action, in a way that builds a more resilient global community, is the more important part. Without realistically addressing the problems of today’s climate realities and its risks, as well as financing, the lofty goals we have established on paper will remain just that – goals!

This underscores the importance of achieving greater coherence in multilateral agreements. There are four in 2015 alone.

On April 22 of this year, the Philippines and 174 other countries affixed their signature to a document that will go down in history as one of the most important agreements bequeathed by world leaders to future generations –  the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The main aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise within the century “well below 2 degrees Celsius and to drive efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

The Philippines pushed for a more ambitious ceiling of 1.5°C as chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) representing 43 of the most vulnerable nations. We have taken this leadership for very good reasons.

Global warming has already breached the 1°C level and its impacts have been massive.

Over the past two decades, the Philippines endured a total of 274 natural calamities, making it the fourth most disaster-prone country in the world. Globally, 605,539 lives have been lost due to weather-related disturbances, 59 percentof which were accounted for by low- to lower- middle income countries.

These weather disturbances can derail countries off the development path as shown by the collective experiences of countries over the past decades, with economic losses from disasters now averaging $250 billion to $300 billion each year.

Seeking to sustain the momentum in global climate action, the Philippines has joined calls for the early entry into force of the Paris Agreement.

Our Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) targets 70 percent reduction of emissions by 2030 from the business-as-usual scenario of 2000-2030 in energy, transport, forestry, industry and waste. This goal, however, is conditional to the provision of the means of implementation that we will receive, whether through climate finance, capacity building and technology transfer.

The mobilization of the $100 billion Fund under the agreement is necessary to support vulnerable nations who happen to be low-emitting, developing economies. This Fund is just a fraction of actual resources needed to deliver current and more ambitious programs consistent with the 1.5°C goal. Additional support in the form of official development assistance commitments is also vital.

Further, there should be a 50-50 balance in international climate finance between adaptation and mitigation. Funding should not only be on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Equal financial support must also be available to help the developing nations, who are the least emitters of carbon, but which bear the greatest brunt of climate change. The figures I shared illustrate this point.

Clearly, sustainable development can no longer be discussed without equal consideration given to disaster risk reduction, as well as climate and financing issues.

A careful consideration of the four key multilateral agreements will show that the word “development” was mentioned 103 times in the Sendai Framework; 253 times in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda; and 46 times in the Paris Agreement.

On the other hand, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development speaks of the fact that “there is no country in the world that is not seeing first-hand the drastic effects of climate change,” and calls for mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries and help mitigate climate-related disasters.

There are points of convergence across these agreements on a number of issues, but the real test of these agreements come in the form of delivery at the state and community level.

At the national and local levels, legislative measures are needed to translate the principles enshrined in these instruments into action. In the Philippines, we have a National Development Plan covering different sectors, that serves as guide post to policy making and program delivery. The long-term view is vital as we chart a course of action to address the problems of today and create a resilient and progressive future.

The thrust should be no different at the multilateral level. We take inspiration from the goal of realizing inclusive, sustainable and resilient development as forged in the international arena. This needs to be translated, however, into action through effective legislations, governance, and service delivery at the national and local levels.

In the Philippines, we have numerous laws and policies on disaster resilience, environmental conservation and climate change adaptation as key components for sustainable development strategies. Among these are the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, Renewable Energy Act, Environmental Awareness and Education Act, Climate Change Act, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, and the People’s Survival Fund Law. These are national instruments that have carried our international commitments into practical application at the national and local levels.

It has been a productive collaboration between the Senate Committee on Climate Change, which I chair, and the Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE International) in raising the bar for climate and sustainable development policy making and advocacy in the country through our various fora and roundtable discussions. These are vital steps to realizing policy and legislative alignment.

GLOBE’s ‘Coherence and Convergence’ approach, supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), calls for ‘mutually reinforcing’ outcomes from the 2015 agenda-setting summits and provides focus and direction for legislators. Nothing less is required. Coherence in all these summits and their outcome documents, most specially, the frameworks they produce, are required if these are to guide national and local legislation. No issue is ever more important than the other. No international body is more relevant than the rest. The global community is faced with the most grievous threats ever to face us and the moment requires us all to selflessly address these issues as one community.

By doing so, we can confidently say that that, we may be vulnerable, but we are not incapable of collective action.

We live in only one planet. The challenges we face today should make countries – developed and developing – realize that moats, gates, massive barriers, and individualism are concepts of medieval past. The truth is, we are all connected and in the case of climate change, we suffer and rise together.

Now is the time for coming together… for managing risks together as a global community.

* * *

(Senator Loren Legarda is the Chair of the Philippine Senate Committees on Climate Change, Finance, and Cultural Communities. She is also the Global Champion for Resilience of the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Co-Chair of GLOBE Philippines, and member of the Women in Parliaments (WIP) Global Forum Executive Board. She is a UNEP laureate and a Global Leader for Tomorrow awardee by the World Economic Forum.)

- See more at: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/05/31/1588549/coherence-and-convergence-key-to-managing-risks-and-achieving-sustainable-development#sthash.fCGMOxkO.dpuf

In 2015, two dominant themes that guided multilateral work were that of sustainable development and managing risks better as a global community.

There were four framework agreements that resulted from four separate multilateral processes – the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai, March); the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, July); the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York, September); and the Paris Agreement on climate change (Paris, December).

All of these agreements have one overriding objective – that of achieving inclusive, sustainable and resilient development for all. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda sets out 17 sustainable development goals, including climate action.

Addressing the climate change and sustainable development nexus requires a firm grip on financing and resilience issues. Setting a development agenda is just one part of the story. Delivering the agenda into action, in a way that builds a more resilient global community, is the more important part. Without realistically addressing the problems of today’s climate realities and its risks, as well as financing, the lofty goals we have established on paper will remain just that – goals!

This underscores the importance of achieving greater coherence in multilateral agreements. There are four in 2015 alone.

On April 22 of this year, the Philippines and 174 other countries affixed their signature to a document that will go down in history as one of the most important agreements bequeathed by world leaders to future generations –  the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The main aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise within the century “well below 2 degrees Celsius and to drive efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

The Philippines pushed for a more ambitious ceiling of 1.5°C as chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) representing 43 of the most vulnerable nations. We have taken this leadership for very good reasons.

Global warming has already breached the 1°C level and its impacts have been massive.

Over the past two decades, the Philippines endured a total of 274 natural calamities, making it the fourth most disaster-prone country in the world. Globally, 605,539 lives have been lost due to weather-related disturbances, 59 percentof which were accounted for by low- to lower- middle income countries.

These weather disturbances can derail countries off the development path as shown by the collective experiences of countries over the past decades, with economic losses from disasters now averaging $250 billion to $300 billion each year.

Seeking to sustain the momentum in global climate action, the Philippines has joined calls for the early entry into force of the Paris Agreement.

Our Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) targets 70 percent reduction of emissions by 2030 from the business-as-usual scenario of 2000-2030 in energy, transport, forestry, industry and waste. This goal, however, is conditional to the provision of the means of implementation that we will receive, whether through climate finance, capacity building and technology transfer.

The mobilization of the $100 billion Fund under the agreement is necessary to support vulnerable nations who happen to be low-emitting, developing economies. This Fund is just a fraction of actual resources needed to deliver current and more ambitious programs consistent with the 1.5°C goal. Additional support in the form of official development assistance commitments is also vital.

Further, there should be a 50-50 balance in international climate finance between adaptation and mitigation. Funding should not only be on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Equal financial support must also be available to help the developing nations, who are the least emitters of carbon, but which bear the greatest brunt of climate change. The figures I shared illustrate this point.

Clearly, sustainable development can no longer be discussed without equal consideration given to disaster risk reduction, as well as climate and financing issues.

A careful consideration of the four key multilateral agreements will show that the word “development” was mentioned 103 times in the Sendai Framework; 253 times in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda; and 46 times in the Paris Agreement.

On the other hand, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development speaks of the fact that “there is no country in the world that is not seeing first-hand the drastic effects of climate change,” and calls for mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries and help mitigate climate-related disasters.

There are points of convergence across these agreements on a number of issues, but the real test of these agreements come in the form of delivery at the state and community level.

At the national and local levels, legislative measures are needed to translate the principles enshrined in these instruments into action. In the Philippines, we have a National Development Plan covering different sectors, that serves as guide post to policy making and program delivery. The long-term view is vital as we chart a course of action to address the problems of today and create a resilient and progressive future.

The thrust should be no different at the multilateral level. We take inspiration from the goal of realizing inclusive, sustainable and resilient development as forged in the international arena. This needs to be translated, however, into action through effective legislations, governance, and service delivery at the national and local levels.

In the Philippines, we have numerous laws and policies on disaster resilience, environmental conservation and climate change adaptation as key components for sustainable development strategies. Among these are the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, Renewable Energy Act, Environmental Awareness and Education Act, Climate Change Act, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, and the People’s Survival Fund Law. These are national instruments that have carried our international commitments into practical application at the national and local levels.

It has been a productive collaboration between the Senate Committee on Climate Change, which I chair, and the Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE International) in raising the bar for climate and sustainable development policy making and advocacy in the country through our various fora and roundtable discussions. These are vital steps to realizing policy and legislative alignment.

GLOBE’s ‘Coherence and Convergence’ approach, supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), calls for ‘mutually reinforcing’ outcomes from the 2015 agenda-setting summits and provides focus and direction for legislators. Nothing less is required. Coherence in all these summits and their outcome documents, most specially, the frameworks they produce, are required if these are to guide national and local legislation. No issue is ever more important than the other. No international body is more relevant than the rest. The global community is faced with the most grievous threats ever to face us and the moment requires us all to selflessly address these issues as one community.

By doing so, we can confidently say that that, we may be vulnerable, but we are not incapable of collective action.

We live in only one planet. The challenges we face today should make countries – developed and developing – realize that moats, gates, massive barriers, and individualism are concepts of medieval past. The truth is, we are all connected and in the case of climate change, we suffer and rise together.

Now is the time for coming together… for managing risks together as a global community.

* * *

(Senator Loren Legarda is the Chair of the Philippine Senate Committees on Climate Change, Finance, and Cultural Communities. She is also the Global Champion for Resilience of the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Co-Chair of GLOBE Philippines, and member of the Women in Parliaments (WIP) Global Forum Executive Board. She is a UNEP laureate and a Global Leader for Tomorrow awardee by the World Economic Forum.)

- See more at: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/05/31/1588549/coherence-and-convergence-key-to-managing-risks-and-achieving-sustainable-development#sthash.fCGMOxkO.dpuf

In 2015, two dominant themes that guided multilateral work were that of sustainable development and managing risks better as a global community.

There were four framework agreements that resulted from four separate multilateral processes – the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai, March); the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, July); the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York, September); and the Paris Agreement on climate change (Paris, December).

All of these agreements have one overriding objective – that of achieving inclusive, sustainable and resilient development for all. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda sets out 17 sustainable development goals, including climate action.

Addressing the climate change and sustainable development nexus requires a firm grip on financing and resilience issues. Setting a development agenda is just one part of the story. Delivering the agenda into action, in a way that builds a more resilient global community, is the more important part. Without realistically addressing the problems of today’s climate realities and its risks, as well as financing, the lofty goals we have established on paper will remain just that – goals!

This underscores the importance of achieving greater coherence in multilateral agreements. There are four in 2015 alone.

On April 22 of this year, the Philippines and 174 other countries affixed their signature to a document that will go down in history as one of the most important agreements bequeathed by world leaders to future generations –  the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The main aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise within the century “well below 2 degrees Celsius and to drive efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

The Philippines pushed for a more ambitious ceiling of 1.5°C as chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) representing 43 of the most vulnerable nations. We have taken this leadership for very good reasons.

Global warming has already breached the 1°C level and its impacts have been massive.

Over the past two decades, the Philippines endured a total of 274 natural calamities, making it the fourth most disaster-prone country in the world. Globally, 605,539 lives have been lost due to weather-related disturbances, 59 percentof which were accounted for by low- to lower- middle income countries.

These weather disturbances can derail countries off the development path as shown by the collective experiences of countries over the past decades, with economic losses from disasters now averaging $250 billion to $300 billion each year.

Seeking to sustain the momentum in global climate action, the Philippines has joined calls for the early entry into force of the Paris Agreement.

Our Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) targets 70 percent reduction of emissions by 2030 from the business-as-usual scenario of 2000-2030 in energy, transport, forestry, industry and waste. This goal, however, is conditional to the provision of the means of implementation that we will receive, whether through climate finance, capacity building and technology transfer.

The mobilization of the $100 billion Fund under the agreement is necessary to support vulnerable nations who happen to be low-emitting, developing economies. This Fund is just a fraction of actual resources needed to deliver current and more ambitious programs consistent with the 1.5°C goal. Additional support in the form of official development assistance commitments is also vital.

Further, there should be a 50-50 balance in international climate finance between adaptation and mitigation. Funding should not only be on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Equal financial support must also be available to help the developing nations, who are the least emitters of carbon, but which bear the greatest brunt of climate change. The figures I shared illustrate this point.

Clearly, sustainable development can no longer be discussed without equal consideration given to disaster risk reduction, as well as climate and financing issues.

A careful consideration of the four key multilateral agreements will show that the word “development” was mentioned 103 times in the Sendai Framework; 253 times in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda; and 46 times in the Paris Agreement.

On the other hand, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development speaks of the fact that “there is no country in the world that is not seeing first-hand the drastic effects of climate change,” and calls for mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries and help mitigate climate-related disasters.

There are points of convergence across these agreements on a number of issues, but the real test of these agreements come in the form of delivery at the state and community level.

At the national and local levels, legislative measures are needed to translate the principles enshrined in these instruments into action. In the Philippines, we have a National Development Plan covering different sectors, that serves as guide post to policy making and program delivery. The long-term view is vital as we chart a course of action to address the problems of today and create a resilient and progressive future.

The thrust should be no different at the multilateral level. We take inspiration from the goal of realizing inclusive, sustainable and resilient development as forged in the international arena. This needs to be translated, however, into action through effective legislations, governance, and service delivery at the national and local levels.

In the Philippines, we have numerous laws and policies on disaster resilience, environmental conservation and climate change adaptation as key components for sustainable development strategies. Among these are the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, Renewable Energy Act, Environmental Awareness and Education Act, Climate Change Act, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, and the People’s Survival Fund Law. These are national instruments that have carried our international commitments into practical application at the national and local levels.

It has been a productive collaboration between the Senate Committee on Climate Change, which I chair, and the Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE International) in raising the bar for climate and sustainable development policy making and advocacy in the country through our various fora and roundtable discussions. These are vital steps to realizing policy and legislative alignment.

GLOBE’s ‘Coherence and Convergence’ approach, supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), calls for ‘mutually reinforcing’ outcomes from the 2015 agenda-setting summits and provides focus and direction for legislators. Nothing less is required. Coherence in all these summits and their outcome documents, most specially, the frameworks they produce, are required if these are to guide national and local legislation. No issue is ever more important than the other. No international body is more relevant than the rest. The global community is faced with the most grievous threats ever to face us and the moment requires us all to selflessly address these issues as one community.

By doing so, we can confidently say that that, we may be vulnerable, but we are not incapable of collective action.

We live in only one planet. The challenges we face today should make countries – developed and developing – realize that moats, gates, massive barriers, and individualism are concepts of medieval past. The truth is, we are all connected and in the case of climate change, we suffer and rise together.

Now is the time for coming together… for managing risks together as a global community.

* * *

(Senator Loren Legarda is the Chair of the Philippine Senate Committees on Climate Change, Finance, and Cultural Communities. She is also the Global Champion for Resilience of the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Co-Chair of GLOBE Philippines, and member of the Women in Parliaments (WIP) Global Forum Executive Board. She is a UNEP laureate and a Global Leader for Tomorrow awardee by the World Economic Forum.)

- See more at: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/05/31/1588549/coherence-and-convergence-key-to-managing-risks-and-achieving-sustainable-development#sthash.fCGMOxkO.dpuf

In 2015, two dominant themes that guided multilateral work were that of sustainable development and managing risks better as a global community.

There were four framework agreements that resulted from four separate multilateral processes – the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai, March); the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development (Addis Ababa, July); the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York, September); and the Paris Agreement on climate change (Paris, December).

All of these agreements have one overriding objective – that of achieving inclusive, sustainable and resilient development for all. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda sets out 17 sustainable development goals, including climate action.

Addressing the climate change and sustainable development nexus requires a firm grip on financing and resilience issues. Setting a development agenda is just one part of the story. Delivering the agenda into action, in a way that builds a more resilient global community, is the more important part. Without realistically addressing the problems of today’s climate realities and its risks, as well as financing, the lofty goals we have established on paper will remain just that – goals!

This underscores the importance of achieving greater coherence in multilateral agreements. There are four in 2015 alone.

On April 22 of this year, the Philippines and 174 other countries affixed their signature to a document that will go down in history as one of the most important agreements bequeathed by world leaders to future generations –  the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The main aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise within the century “well below 2 degrees Celsius and to drive efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

The Philippines pushed for a more ambitious ceiling of 1.5°C as chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) representing 43 of the most vulnerable nations. We have taken this leadership for very good reasons.

Global warming has already breached the 1°C level and its impacts have been massive.

Over the past two decades, the Philippines endured a total of 274 natural calamities, making it the fourth most disaster-prone country in the world. Globally, 605,539 lives have been lost due to weather-related disturbances, 59 percentof which were accounted for by low- to lower- middle income countries.

These weather disturbances can derail countries off the development path as shown by the collective experiences of countries over the past decades, with economic losses from disasters now averaging $250 billion to $300 billion each year.

Seeking to sustain the momentum in global climate action, the Philippines has joined calls for the early entry into force of the Paris Agreement.

Our Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) targets 70 percent reduction of emissions by 2030 from the business-as-usual scenario of 2000-2030 in energy, transport, forestry, industry and waste. This goal, however, is conditional to the provision of the means of implementation that we will receive, whether through climate finance, capacity building and technology transfer.

The mobilization of the $100 billion Fund under the agreement is necessary to support vulnerable nations who happen to be low-emitting, developing economies. This Fund is just a fraction of actual resources needed to deliver current and more ambitious programs consistent with the 1.5°C goal. Additional support in the form of official development assistance commitments is also vital.

Further, there should be a 50-50 balance in international climate finance between adaptation and mitigation. Funding should not only be on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Equal financial support must also be available to help the developing nations, who are the least emitters of carbon, but which bear the greatest brunt of climate change. The figures I shared illustrate this point.

Clearly, sustainable development can no longer be discussed without equal consideration given to disaster risk reduction, as well as climate and financing issues.

A careful consideration of the four key multilateral agreements will show that the word “development” was mentioned 103 times in the Sendai Framework; 253 times in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda; and 46 times in the Paris Agreement.

On the other hand, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development speaks of the fact that “there is no country in the world that is not seeing first-hand the drastic effects of climate change,” and calls for mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries and help mitigate climate-related disasters.

There are points of convergence across these agreements on a number of issues, but the real test of these agreements come in the form of delivery at the state and community level.

At the national and local levels, legislative measures are needed to translate the principles enshrined in these instruments into action. In the Philippines, we have a National Development Plan covering different sectors, that serves as guide post to policy making and program delivery. The long-term view is vital as we chart a course of action to address the problems of today and create a resilient and progressive future.

The thrust should be no different at the multilateral level. We take inspiration from the goal of realizing inclusive, sustainable and resilient development as forged in the international arena. This needs to be translated, however, into action through effective legislations, governance, and service delivery at the national and local levels.

In the Philippines, we have numerous laws and policies on disaster resilience, environmental conservation and climate change adaptation as key components for sustainable development strategies. Among these are the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, Renewable Energy Act, Environmental Awareness and Education Act, Climate Change Act, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, and the People’s Survival Fund Law. These are national instruments that have carried our international commitments into practical application at the national and local levels.

It has been a productive collaboration between the Senate Committee on Climate Change, which I chair, and the Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE International) in raising the bar for climate and sustainable development policy making and advocacy in the country through our various fora and roundtable discussions. These are vital steps to realizing policy and legislative alignment.

GLOBE’s ‘Coherence and Convergence’ approach, supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), calls for ‘mutually reinforcing’ outcomes from the 2015 agenda-setting summits and provides focus and direction for legislators. Nothing less is required. Coherence in all these summits and their outcome documents, most specially, the frameworks they produce, are required if these are to guide national and local legislation. No issue is ever more important than the other. No international body is more relevant than the rest. The global community is faced with the most grievous threats ever to face us and the moment requires us all to selflessly address these issues as one community.

By doing so, we can confidently say that that, we may be vulnerable, but we are not incapable of collective action.

We live in only one planet. The challenges we face today should make countries – developed and developing – realize that moats, gates, massive barriers, and individualism are concepts of medieval past. The truth is, we are all connected and in the case of climate change, we suffer and rise together.

Now is the time for coming together… for managing risks together as a global community.

* * *

(Senator Loren Legarda is the Chair of the Philippine Senate Committees on Climate Change, Finance, and Cultural Communities. She is also the Global Champion for Resilience of the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Co-Chair of GLOBE Philippines, and member of the Women in Parliaments (WIP) Global Forum Executive Board. She is a UNEP laureate and a Global Leader for Tomorrow awardee by the World Economic Forum.)

- See more at: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/05/31/1588549/coherence-and-convergence-key-to-managing-risks-and-achieving-sustainable-development#sthash.fCGMOxkO.dpuf
Coherence and convergence: Key to managing risks and achieving sustainable development - See more at: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/05/31/1588549/coherence-and-convergence-key-to-managing-risks-and-achieving-sustainable-development#sthash.fCGMOxkO.dpuf
Coherence and convergence: Key to managing risks and achieving sustainable development - See more at: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/05/31/1588549/coherence-and-convergence-key-to-managing-risks-and-achieving-sustainable-development#sthash.fCGMOxkO.dpuf

News Article

The country’s population of 100.98 million recorded in 2015 was half a million lower than what was forecast in 2010,  an indication that population growth had slowed down nationwide as more couples use contraceptives, according to the Population Commission (PopCom).

The Popcom said the 2015 census results showed that the population grew nationwide by 1.72 percent last year, down from the 1.9 percent rate during the previous census in 2010.

It also showed a significant decline of unmet need for family planning from 23 percent in 2003 to 22 percent in 2008 and to 17 percent in 2013.

PopCom executive director Juan Antonio Perez III on Wednesday attributed the decline in population growth to the use of modern contraceptives which increased to 45 percent of couples as of last year, up from 38 percent recorded by a national survey in 2013.

News Article

EVEN as the country is now seeing a slower population growth rate (PGR), six regions have managed to surpass the current trend.

Based on the 2015 Population Census, of the 18 regions of the country, six regions still surpassed the national population growth rate.

These are the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (Armm) with 2.89 percent; Calabarzon with 2.58 percent; Central Luzon with 1.95 percent; Soccksargen with 1.94 percent; Central Visayas with 1.76 percent; and Davao Region with 1.74 percent.

Commission on Population (Popcom) Executive Director Juan Antonio Perez III pointed how Armm has the highest population growth despite having the largest number of people in the lowest wealth quintiles.

“We still need to exert greater efforts to reduce the unmet need for family planning and reproductive health services,” Perez said in a statement.

On the other hand, he said the growth rate in Calabarzon, Central Luzon, as well as Metro Manila can be attributed to migration since they have the largest number of population that are in the two highest quintiles or those deemed as richest.

“Migration is a factor why population increases in the three regions mentioned. If a region has a low poverty incidence, it means that there are opportunities in the region, which means people are enticed to live there because chances are they get the same opportunity in order for them to live life well,” said Perez.

Highlights of the Philippine Population 2015 Census of Population

 

  • The population of the Philippines as of August 1, 2015 was 100,981,437, based on the 2015 Census of Population (POPCEN 2015).
  • The 2015 population is higher by 8.64 million compared with the population of 92.34 million in 2010, and by 24.47 million compared with the population of 76.51 million in 2000. Refer to Table 1.

Table 1. Population of the Philippines

(Based on the 2000, 2010, and 2015 Censuses)

Census Year Census Reference Date Population
(in millions)
2000 May 1, 2000 76.51
2010 May 1, 2010 92.34
2015 August 1, 2015 100.98
  • The Philippine population increased by 1.72 percent annually, on average, during the period 2010 to 2015. By comparison, the rate at which the country’s population grew during the period 2000 to 2010 was higher at 1.90 percent. See Table 2.

Table 2. Annual Population Growth Rate of the Philippines

(Based on the 2000, 2010, and 2015 Censuses)

Reference Period Annual Population Growth Rate (in percent)
2010-2015 1.72
2000-2010 1.90
  • Of the country’s 18 administrative regions, Region IV-A (CALABARZON) had the biggest population in 2015 with 14.41 million, followed by the National Capital Region (NCR) with 12.88 million, and Region III (Central Luzon) with 11.22 million. The combined population of these three regions accounted for about 38.1 percent of the Philippine population in 2015.
  • The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was the fastest growing region with an average annual population growth rate (PGR) of 2.89 percent.
  • The country has 81 provinces. Of these provinces, Cavite was the most populous in 2015 with 3.68 million persons, followed by Bulacan (3.29 million), and Laguna (3.04 million). Twenty-four other provinces surpassed the one million population mark. Refer to Table 3.
  • Batanes was the smallest province in terms of population size with 17,246 persons. Two other provinces posted a population size of less than 100,000. These are Siquijor (95,984) and Camiguin (88,478).

Table 3. Provinces With More Than One Million Population: 2015

Rank Province

Population

(in thousands)

Rank Province

Population

(in thousands

1 Cavite 3,678 15 Isabela 1,594
2 Bulacan 3,292 16 Bukidnon 1,415
3 Laguna 3,035 17 Cotabato (North Cotabato) 1,380
4 Pangasinan 2,957 18 Tarlac 1,366
5 Cebu* 2,939 19 Negros Oriental 1,355
6 Rizal 2,884 20 Albay 1,315
7 Batangas 2,694 21 Bohol 1,314
8 Negros Occidental* 2,497 22 Cagayan 1,199
9 Pampanga* 2,198 23 Maguindanao 1,174
10 Nueva Ecija 2,151 24 Lanao del Sur 1,045
11 Camarines Sur 1,953 25 Davao del Norte 1,016
12 Iloilo* 1,936 26 Zamboanga del Norte 1,011
13 Quezon* 1,857 27 Zamboanga del Sur* 1,011
14 Leyte* 1,752

                           * Excluding the population of highly urbanized cities.

  • The Philippines has 33 highly urbanized cities (HUCs). Four of these HUCS had surpassed the one million population mark, namely, Quezon City (2.94 million), City of Manila (1.78 million), Davao City (1.63 million), and Caloocan City (1.58 million). 
  • The country has 1,489 municipalities. The three largest municipalities in terms of population size are all located in the province of Rizal. These are the municipalities of Rodriquez (Montalban) with 369,222 persons, Cainta (332,128), and Taytay (319,104). Fifteen other municipalities had a population size of more than 150,000. See Table 4.
  • The municipality of Kalayaan in Palawan was the smallest municipality in 2015, in terms of population size, with 184 persons.

Table 4. Municipalities With More Than 150,000 Population: 2015

Rank Municipality Province Population
1 Rodriguez (Montalban) Rizal 369,222
2 Cainta Rizal 332,128
3 Taytay Rizal 319,104
4 Binangonan Rizal 282,474
5 Santa Maria Bulacan 256,454
6 San Mateo Rizal 252,527
7 Silang Cavite 248,085
8 Tanza Cavite 226,188
9 Marilao Bulacan 221,965
10 Santo Tomas Batangas 179,844
11 Lubao Pampanga 160,838
12 Gen. Mariano Alvarez Cavite 155,143
13 Mexico Pampanga 154,624
14 Pikit Cotabato (North Cotabato) 154,441
15 Concepcion Tarlac 154,188
16 San Miguel Bulacan 153,882
17 Polomolok South Cotabato 152,589
18 Midsayap Cotabato (North Cotabato) 151,684
  • There are 42,036 barangays in the country. The largest barangay in terms of population size is Barangay 176 in Caloocan City with 247 thousand persons. It was followed by Commonwealth in Quezon City (198,285) and Batasan Hills in Quezon City (161,409). Twelve other barangays posted a population size of more than a hundred thousand persons. See Table 5.

Table 5. Barangays with More Than 100,000 Population: 2015

Rank Barangay City/Municipality/Province Population
1 Barangay 176 Caloocan City 246,515
2 Commonwealth Quezon City 198,285
3 Batasan Hills Quezon City 161,409
4 Pinagbuhatan City of Pasig 151,979
5 Payatas Quezon City 130,333
6 San Jose Rodriguez (Montalban), Rizal 124,868
7 San Isidro Rodriguez (Montalban), Rizal 117,277
8 Poblacion City of Muntinlupa 115,387
9 Cupang City of Antipolo, Rizal 113,613
10 Holy Spirit Quezon City 110,447
11 Barangay 178 Caloocan City 107,596
12 Muzon City of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan 106,603
13 San Juan Taytay, Rizal 103,343
14 Pasong Tamo Quezon City 103,100
15 San Jose (Pob.) City of Antipolo, Rizal 103,051
  • The POPCEN 2015 was undertaken by the Philippine Statistics Authority in August 2015 pursuant to Republic Act No. 10625, also known as the Philippine Statistical Act of 2013 and Executive Order No. 352 – Designation of Statistical Activities That Will Generate Critical Data for Decision-Making of the Government and the Private Sector, which stipulates the conduct of a mid-decade census primarily to update the population count in all barangays nationwide. 
  • Information on the count of the population were collected with 12:01 a.m. of August 1, 2015 as the census reference time and date.
  • His Excellency President Benigno S. Aquino III declared as official for all purposes the population counts by province, city/municipality, and barangay, based on the POPCEN 2015 under Proclamation No. 1269 dated 18 May 2016.  The population counts were based on census questionnaires accomplished by about 90,000 enumerators deployed during the nationwide census taking. 
  • The successful completion of the census-taking was made possible with the support of the local and national officials, government agencies, local government units, media, private agencies, and non-government organizations.

 

 

- Lisa grace s. Bersales, ph.D.

National Statistician 

- See more at: http://psa.gov.ph/content/highlights-philippine-population-2015-census-population#sthash.GBdCmhl9.dpuf

Alarming cases of AIDS/HIV cases noted in Palawan

PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, Palawan – Among the provinces in MIMAROPA (Mindoro Oriental, Mindoro Occidental, Marinduque, Romblon, Palawan) region, Palawan has the most number of recorded cases of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) infection, which the Department of Health (DOH) considers as “very alarming”.

The DOH-Epidemiology Bureau (DOH-EB) said in its latest report that four cases of full-blown AIDS are reported in Palawan with 59 asymptomatic cases or 59 patients who are carriers of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection but showed no traces of infection.

Melanie G. Montes, DOH senior health program officer, reported that two AIDS cases have also been listed in Oriental Mindoro, one in Marinduque, while Occidental Mindoro and Romblon post zero AIDS cases.

In Palawan, the DOH-EB report was confirmed by Dr. Louie R. Ocampo of the Ospital ng Palawan who revealed that from 1984 to 2014, they have accepted at least 38 AIDS cases for treatment and 40 asymptomatic cases in Puerto Princesa in 2015.

“This is only the tip of the iceberg, that’s why we need the help of everybody, particularly the media, in our AIDS awareness campaign to fully inform the public about its risks and at the same time to tell them that there are accessible and affordable services being offered by the government,” Dr. Ocampo told MIMAROPA-based media practitioners in a two-day DOH-MIMAROPA-sponsored media forum held last Wednesday (March 16, 2016) at AA Plaza Hotel in Brgy. San Miguel, Puerto Princesa.

Ocampo emphasized that HIV, which is the virus that gives rise to AIDS disease, could only be transmitted by an infected person through high risk fluids such as blood, breast milk, and sexual fluids.

It cannot be transferred via human saliva or through the air, Ocampo said.

The doctor said Ospital ng Palawan is now a treatment hub for AIDS patients. It also offers medical services similar to those being offered by the San Lazaro Hospital in Manila, the country’s main AIDS treatment facility.

Montes said the DOH is also considering the expansion of its satellite treatment hubs to other regions in to reduce the spread of this type of communicable disease.

- Jerry J. Alcayde

http://www.mb.com.ph/alarming-cases-of-aidshiv-cases-noted-in-palawan/

 

DOH opens center for HIV-AIDS patients in Puerto Princesa

Puerto Princesa City, Palawan — The Department of Health (DOH) regional office formally opened yesterday the “Amos Tara!,” a community center located on Abad Santos Street, this city, which now provides testing, treatment and referrals for the growing number of individuals availing HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) services.

DOH logo

“This center creates an opportunity to reach out to vulnerable individuals in the community and encourage them to voluntarily submit themselves for HIV testing,” said DOH-Mimaropa (Oriental Mindoro, Occidental Mindoro, Marinduque, Romblon, Palawan) Regional Director Dr. Eduardo C. Janairo.

“Amos Tara!” is a facility that will provide fast, free and convenient HIV testing and education services for those wishing to have themselves tested and properly informed and updated regarding HIV prevention and control strategies,” Dr. Janairo said.

The center will conduct HIV tests including pre- and post-test counseling and will open from 10 a.m. – 8 p.m. from Wednesdays to Sundays.

In this city alone, there are nine HIV positive cases and 69 asymptomatic or carriers of the virus, based on record. Most of them are male aged between 25 and 34.

-Jerry J. Alcayde

http://www.mb.com.ph/?p=428708

POPULATION COUNT GOES PAST 100M

The country’s official population count went over the 100 million mark in 2015, jumping by more than eight million from 2010 when the last official census was conducted.

 According to the 2015 Census of Population released by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), the population of the Philippines as of August 1, 2015 was 100,981,437.

 The 2015 population is higher by 8.64 million compared with the population of 92.34 million in 2010, and by 24.47 million compared with the population of 76.51 million in 2000.

 “The Philippine population increased by 1.72 percent annually, on average, during the period 2010 to 2015,” PSA said.

 “By comparison, the rate at which the country’s population grew during the period 2000 to 2010 was higher at 1.9 percent,” it added.

 Of the country’s 18 administrative regions, Region IV-A (CALABARZON) had the biggest population in 2015 with 14.41 million, followed by the National Capital Region (NCR) with 12.88 million and Region III (Central Luzon) with 11.22 million.

 The combined population of these three regions accounted for about 38.1 percent of the Philippine population in 2015.

 The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao was the fastest growing region with an average annual population growth rate of 2.89 percent.

 Of the country’s 81 provinces, Cavite was the most populous in 2015 with 3.68 million persons, followed by Bulacan, 3.29 million and Laguna, 3.04 million.

 PSA said 24 other provinces surpassed the one million population mark. 

Batanes province had the smallest population size with 17,246 persons. Two other provinces posted a population size of less than 100,000, Siquijor (95,984) and Camiguin (88,478).

 The Philippines has 33 highly urbanized cities, four of which surpassed the one million population mark: Quezon City (2.94 million), the City of Manila (1.78 million), Davao City (1.63 million) and Caloocan City (1.58 million).

 Meanwhile, of the 1,489 municipalities, the three largest in terms of population size are all located in the province of Rizal: Rodriquez (Montalban) with 369,222 persons, Cainta, 332,128 and Taytay, 319,104. 

PSA said 15 other municipalities had a population size of more than 150,000. 

The municipality of Kalayaan in Palawanhad a population of 184 persons making it the smallest municipality in 2015.

 As for the country’s 42,036 barangays, Barangay 176 in Caloocan City was the largest with a population size of 247,000 persons, followed by Commonwealth with 198,285 and Batasan Hills with 161,409, both in Quezon City. 

According to PSA, 12 other barangays posted a population size of more than a hundred thousand persons.

 PSA said the population counts were based on census questionnaires accomplished by about 90,000 enumerators deployed during the nationwide census taking.

 

-Malaya Business Insight

 

http://www.malaya.com.ph/business-news/business/population-count-goes-past-100m

PHILHEALTH HOLDS SHINES

 

AT least 30 representatives from the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Commission on Audit (COA) and Governance Commission for GOCCs (GCG) gathered recently at the Legend Villas in Mandaluyong City to learn about the salient points of the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act of 2013 or Republic Act 10606.

Through the Social Health Insurance Education Series (SHInES) organized by the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth),  these government employees were thoroughly oriented on the various aspects of the NHIP to inculcate among them better appreciation of the NHIP. The SHInES was also aimed at providing comprehensive and relevant information as well as updates on new policies issued by PhilHealth.

Dr. Israel Francis A. Pargas, OIC-Vice President for Corporate Affairs Group welcomed the participants to the learning session. “You are now here wearing two hats. First, you are all members. As members, you should know what PhilHealth is. You should also know the different benefits, how to go about these benefits and its availment. Second, you’re wearing the hat of being in the policy-making /direction.  So today, we are expecting a lot of participation from everyone from these two hats,” he said.

Alexander A. Padilla, PhilHealth President and Chief Executive Officer appealed to the participants to help  support the program, stressing that  the NHIP is one of the best programs of the administration. 

Esperanza S. Ocampo, President of the Philippine Government Employees Association, said that “in doing quality public service, the aspiration and motivation of government employees depend upon the government institution,” and that in PhilHealth “we tried our best to deliver output,” she added.

On the other hand, Dr. Francisco Z. Soria, Jr., OIC-Vice President for Quality Assurance Group discussed the details of the different benefit packages such as the Inpatient Care benefits being paid for through Case Rates, Primary Care, MDG benefits, Emerging Diseases. He also tackled the No Balance Billing (NBB) Policy, and reported that the implementation of the NBB in government hospitals had tremendously increased  from  13 percent when  it was first implemented in 2012, to 51 percent by 2015.

Alberto C. Manduriao, OIC-Vice President for Member Management Group shared with participants the details of the different membership categories, highlighting the 92 percent effective PhilHealth coverage as of December 2015. He also identified the different challenges and opportunities faced by PhilHealth such as the mandatory membership for all Filipinos, sustainability of the membership coverage and extending coverage to the uncovered informal economy members.

Gregorio C. Rulloda, OIC-Senior Vice President of  the Fund Management Sector handled the financial position of PhilHealth. He clarified that the total annual costs for operations as mandated, shall not exceed the sum total of the following: 4 percent of the total premium contributions collected during the immediately preceding year; 2.4 percent of the total reimbursements or total cost of health services paid by PhilHealth in the immediately preceding year; and 3.5 percent of the investment earnings generated during the immediately preceding year.

The SHInES for this batch is the 23rd session since it started in 2012 and the second for this year. It was spearheaded by the Corporate Affairs Group, led by SHIA. 

 

- Malaya Business Insight

 

http://www.malaya.com.ph/business-news/living/philhealth-holds-shines

The Justice Institute: Looking at laws to stop gender violence

For the past decades, campaigns on violence against women have intensified. The world has been finally responding, albeit slowly. There is an increasing global momentum to stop violence against women. Laws and legislation have been signed and enacted, and the victims taking courage and reporting the abuses they suffered.

And yet, domestic violence still persists. It remains one of the most under-reported crimes globally. Women and children alike are still being beaten, trafficked, raped and killed. They still suffer from abuses and discrimination. 
What could be the problem? Why do these human right abuses continue, causing harm and suffering to women and tearing the fabric of humanity? 
“Significant gaps in legal frameworks remain. States throughout the world are still failing to live up to their international obligations and commitments to prevent and address violence against women. Too many perpetrators are not held accountable. Impunity persists. Women continue to be re-victimized through the legal process.” (Handbook for Legislation on Violence against Women, 2009)
Avon Foundation for Women program director Christine Jaworksy echoed the same sentiment. “Although each country faces different challenges, the delegations have reported a common barrier: existing laws are not understood or consistently enforced, leaving women unprotected and their abusers unaccountable.” 
On the foreword of the Handbook for Legislation on Violence Against Women, United Nations deputy secretary general Asha-Rose Migiro described how these laws should be: “Comprehensive legislation provides the foundation for a holistic and effective response. Such legislation must be consistently enforced and monitored, and adequate resources must be allocated to address the problem. Personnel and officials working in the field must have the skills, capacity and sensitivity to apply the spirit and letter of the law. Laws must inform a concerted effort that includes education, awareness raising and community mobilization. They must also contribute to tackling discriminatory stereotypes and attitudes, and they must mandate the research and knowledge-building that are necessary to support policy development.”
And this is the challenging task The Justice Institute on Gender-based Violence ventures forth. Established through the public-private partnership between Avon Foundation for Women, Vital Voices and the US Department of State (dubbed Global Partnership to End Violence Against Women), the Justice Institute has been designed to ensure that existing laws do what they are meant to do. This campaign recognizes the power of the law as useful tools to provide justice, support, protection and remedies to victims if they are properly implemented. 
An innovative and interactive multidisciplinary training and technical assistance collaboration, the Justice Institute aims to improve victim protection efforts and the criminal justice system to domestic violence in the Philippines by facilitating a more holistic response. By bringing together judges, court officers, public prosecutors, police officers, representatives of government agencies and non-governmental service providers, it hopes to ensure a strong collaboration between the legal stakeholders. 
Addressing extreme forms of gender-based violence and harmful traditional practices all around the world, the alliance has funded and launched institutes in Nepal, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa and India. And now it has come to the Philippines. To kick start the campaign in the Philippines, the institute conducted a three-day training on domestic violence and sexual violence laws recently at the Manila Diamond Hotel. 
The speakers included Jaworsky, Avon Products Inc. CEO Sheri McCoy, Vital Voices Global Partnership Human Rights vice president Cindy Dyer, and Action Against Violence and Exploitation Inc. (ACTVE) founder and executive director Cristinal Sevilla. Both international and local experts discussed how the laws should be implemented, and why it is important to do so. 
“When women have the opportunity to earn, their children have the greater opportunities to learn. Their families are healthier; their communities stronger. But domestic and sexual violence are major barriers to the social and economic empowerment of women, and it violates the basic dignity and opportunity that every woman deserves. Through our experiences, we learned that no matter how sound the financial opportunity, women cannot truly be empowered unless their health and safety are guaranteed. The Justice Institutes mirror this woman-centric approach,” said McCoy.
The institute seeks a culture change in law enforcement. For starter, police officers responding to domestic violence calls should stop looking at it as “family private matters.” Also, there are those who would respond to this call by telling the abusers to just take a walk and cool off, or advising the victims to just forgive and forget. 
Training of officials handling the cases is a must. Learning the best way to intervene and investigate domestic violence cases should be prioritized as well. Oftentimes, women victims get discouraged when law enforcers act out of line. There are some cases where police officers on the crime scene couldn’t determine who the aggressor was and feel compelled to take both parties into police custody; thus, further scarring the victims. 
Legislators should also look at further amending legal frameworks on violence against women. For instance, giving domestic violence victims other options. Looking at the legal process that abused women go through, it can sometimes leave them financially strapped. There must be another way, a much-more coordinated and comprehensive approach to this challenge. 
“While this is an impressive effort, we know we can’t change the devastating statistics of gender violence alone. Transformation takes real commitment and partnership,” said Jaworksky who also shared since Avon launched the Speak Out Against Domestic Violence initiative in 2004, the global company has contributed more than $60 million to support awareness, education, direct services and prevention programs aimed at stopping gender violence in nearly 50 countries.
Businessman-turned-actor Richard Yap, who has been advocating the cause ever since he became Avon’s ambassador two years ago, responded: “As a man, I believe I represent an important perspective on domestic violence. Men are often seen as being the ‘problem’ in this equation, when actually and most importantly, we are called to be part of the solution.” 
He urged men to be aware as involved as women are because “we have women and children in our lives. We must own this problem, men and women together, and empower each other to speak out against domestic violence and break the cycle.”

 

-Ma. Glaiza Lee, Contributor

 

http://www.tribune.net.ph/life-style/the-justice-institute-looking-at-laws-to-stop-gender-violence

Nobody dares take up the population issue

IT took decades for Congress to pass a bill regulating the population for the health of infants and their mothers. Up to this time the law has no implementing rules and regulations. Congress would not even think of discussing it.

It is abundantly clear the State is scared of the wrath of the Catholic church which dominates the voting population to the extent of an estimated 60-70 percent. Therefore Catholics elect the President even if they oppose the implementation of the Reproductive Health Law.

In fact if we put together followers or believers of other religious the number of Catholics outnumbers them in any election. The freedom from hunger and diseases are important reasons the birth rate should be regulated.

Isn’t it a sin to force the hungry poor to commit crimes to fill their empty stomachs?

It seems the politicians want to help multiply the number of poor people who are easy to hoodwink with perennial promises none of which is ever fulfilled. Yet every election time these candidates never tire repeating the same old promises the poor have the same of freedom from hunger guaranteed or specified by the Constitution.

I have long noted the population in the rural areas is increasing because many of the beneficiaries of land reform have sold or hocked their properties given to them. The land owners who used to own them either sell their bonds maturing in 25 years or sell them at a fat discount.

Damn the rich who live a life of abundance while the poor die without food in their stomach. It is relevant to state here the Biblical saying “it is easier for a poor man to enter the Kingdom of heaven than for a rich man to be where God is”.

I will tirelessly repeat what Thomas Malthus said in the 18th century. He pointed out if the causes of deaths – wars and pestilence which were the effective ways of reducing the number of people – man will have to exercise self restraint. Otherwise man’s need for food cannot be met with higher productivity.

This is beginning to be seen and felt in the urban and rural areas in this country as shown by the increasing number of people in the cities and rural areas where birth rate is uncontrolled.

Until politicians to explain to the voters the necessity of self restraint in sex or use artificial method of delaying – or preventing if not avoiding pregnancies – we have instead the teachings of the Church that sex is not a sin during  a week when the woman cannot get pregnant.

The same Church claims the right to multiply is inviolable under the laws of God. God did not invent this law;  Rome did. The Catholic Church is violating biological needs by prohibiting the use of artificial means that prevent pregnancies. I say man is entitled to his own carnal happiness if it is done under civil laws.

It also tramples the law by prohibiting the implementation of the population program. The Catholic Church has no concern for the poor. It enjoys tax free privileges. Its expensive schools are also tax free.

It’s time we begin to strengthen our faith in God by not having children who grow in ignorance and hunger. The big number of people is forcing them to criminality.

 

-Amado P. Macasaet

 

http://www.malaya.com.ph/business-news/opinion/nobody-dares-take-population-issue

A total of 133 POPCOM staff and 7 teams emerged as winners as they brought home priceless experience and new found friends after the “Gender and Development (GAD) Assembly cum Team Building” last April 26-28 at the Beach Front Resort, Morong, Bataan.

 

For the first time, the Central Office together with four POPCOM Regional Offices  (I, III, IV, and  NCR) united to build camaraderie, create fun, and promote gender sensitive environment. While every region stood for their own team, the Central Office was segregated to three teams such as Yellow, Blue, and Orange.

 GAD YellowGAD RPO4

BDO Foundation and Beiersdorf opens health center

BDO Foundation, the corporate social responsibility arm of BDO Unibank, has successfully completed the rehabilitation of Catbalogan Main Health Center in Western Samar in partnership with Beiersdorf Philippines Inc.

It is the eighth project BDO Foundation has undertaken with Beiersdorf Philippines, the global skincare company behind the NIVEA brand, as part of the partners’ joint efforts to rehabilitate provinces affected by Typhoon Yolanda.

The newly refurbished Catbalogan Main Health Center was turned over to local officials in an inauguration led by BDO Samar-Catbalogan branch head Jimellee Rojas, BDO Foundation program director Rose Espinosa, Beiersdorf Philippines president Konstantin Stremme, and Beiersdorf Philippines HR and admin manager Alice Cayaban.

The event was also attended by Catbalogan mayor Stephany Uy-Tan, Catbalogan vice mayor Art Sherwin Gabon and city health officer Dr. Gerarda Tizon.

Included in the reconstruction of the health center are its facilities for children and the elderly, consultation rooms, minor surgery and treatment rooms, pharmacy, dental clinic, labor room and breastfeeding area.

The rehabilitation of birthing facilities is in keeping with the United Nations Millennium Development Goal for the improvement of maternal health. The health center’s birthing facility averages around 30 to 40 deliveries per month.

Established in 1982, Catbalogan Main Health Center serves a population of more than 101,000 individuals–including senior citizens, pregnant mothers, children and babies, and other patients–from 57 barangays.

 

- Malaya Business Insight

 

http://www.malaya.com.ph/business-news/living/bdo-foundation-and-beiersdorf-opens-health-center

Location Map

POPCOM Activities

Population Clock



Base from the 2015 CENSUS of Population: 100,981,437

Basis: 2015 PGR of 1.72

Connect With Us

fb twitter instagram