**Rural Sector Statistical Information System (RSSIS): Philippine
Experience**

**Romeo S. Recide, Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics,
Department of Agriculture, Philippines**

# 

# Abstract

Rural Sector Statistical Information System (RSSIS)

The RSSIS, designed as a comprehensive, integrated, well - managed and
sustainable statistical system for the rural sector, was intended to aid
government in developing appropriate strategies, implementing policies
and programs, and monitoring the progress of poverty reduction in the
rural areas.

The proposed RSSIS had 13 modules of social and economic concerns with
117 development indicators. Cited as a major limitation of the system is
the absence of urban -- rural disaggregation in some of the modules.
Data users and producers also pointed out the need for small-area
statistics to support the data requirements of local government units.
To address this concern, the Project, in consultation with development
stakeholders (local government officers and community leaders in the
pilot region), crafted the Community Level Statistical Information
System (CLSIS). The CLSIS defined a system of compiling, processing and
analyzing village-level data by village officials themselves.

The RSSIS and CLSIS were developed side by side with a strong
institutional capacity building program for the Bureau of Agricultural
Statistics and the local government units in handling and utilizing
rural sector statistics. The Project provided relevant training,
necessary equipment, and practical operations manuals to key
implementers of the system

**Introduction**

The East Asia Rural Development Unit (EASRD) of the World Bank piloted
the project ***Statistical Capacity Building in the Rural Sector*** in
the Philippines with the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) of the
Department of Agriculture as its executing agency. The project was
conceptualized as an avenue for translating the Bank's "Rural Profiles"
into a country-level statistical indicators system supportive of the
data requirements for poverty reduction strategies, policies and
programs. The main objective of the project was to design and build a
comprehensive, integrated, well -- managed and sustainable statistical
system for the development of indicators for rural development and for
monitoring rural poverty.

To realize the project's objective, a statistical framework for the
rural sector was developed. The framework was initially organized based
on existing statistical surveys and monitoring operations of national
offices. Based on the initial observation that the existing systems were
insufficient to support a rural statistical framework, the project
designed the conduct of a pilot survey of the rural sector to fill in
the gaps. The rural survey was piloted in the province of Cebu.

While the RSSIS appeared to be the central output of this project, it
must be noted that a significant amount of project resources were
invested in a comprehensive statistical capacity building. The BAS was
the major beneficiary with about a dozen of training courses conducted
for its technical staff, both from the Central Office and Field
Operations Centers. A number of technical staff from other national
agencies was also invited to participate in the courses. The capacity
building component was further extended to local government units (LGUs)
in Region VII or Central Visayas. As the RSSIS was designed and built
up, the idea of establishing a community level version of the RSSIS
elicited interest, gradually evolved and finally led to the development
of the Community Level Statistical Information System (CLSIS).

The CLSIS would inevitably require building up the capacity of the LGUs
in implementing systems for collecting, processing, analyzing and
disseminating local-level information. Thus, suitable training courses
for LGU officers and village leaders were designed and conducted. In the
course of implementing these activities, a strong partnership was forged
between the BAS, other statistical agencies and the LGUs in the pilot
region.

**Objectives and Processes in the Development of the RSSIS**

*Objective*: The general intention of the RSSIS was to make available
all the important and relevant statistical indicators that were required
in monitoring rural welfare and the progress in poverty reduction in the
country. As cited in the project document, the World Bank, through its
EASRD Unit had operationalized "Rural Profiles" as a database available
on both World Wide Web and the Bank's Intranet. As an indicators system,
the Rural Profiles described progress in rural development by means of
social and economic indicators.

*Assessment of Data Systems:* A critical step towards developing the
RSSIS is the assessment of the existing rural sector -- related data
systems in the country. The assessment of rural sector data systems
considered the following exercises: review of the basic mandates of
major statistical agencies; review of existing data that normally carry
rural -- urban disaggregation; and visits to major data producers and
users of rural statistics. These assessment activities had confirmed the
Project's hypothesis that the Philippine Statistical System (PSS) had
enough experience in statistical indicator systems that was useful in
consolidating and integrating rural -- based statistics in order to
prepare a Philippine version of the WB Rural Profiles.

*Revisiting the Agricultural Indicators System (AIS):* . In preparation
for the formulation of the draft framework for the RSSIS, it was
necessary to revisit its Agricultural Information System (AIS) of the
BAS. Almost fifteen years ago, the BAS did an undertaking similar to the
RSSIS. The main difference was that while the AIS was very focused on
the agriculture sector, the RSSIS was envisioned to cover all of the
rural sector. In many ways though, and in the context of Philippine
setting, agricultural and rural sectors might be used interchangeably.

*Drafting the RSSIS Framework:* The RSSIS framework was developed so
that duplication of statistical outputs of the BAS and those of other
data -- producing agencies was avoided. As an indicators system designed
to capture the characteristics of the rural sector of the country, it
was required that data inputs should have urban and rural dimensions. In
addition, the RSSIS was meant to characterize the rural sector
comprehensively; thus the indicators had to cut across a broad spectrum
of economic, social, and financial concerns. This formed one major
constraint of the BAS its mandate has largely focused on agriculture
alone. Based on their background and training, BAS staff needed stronger
appreciation for and greater understanding of indicators of rural
poverty or rural development.

*Consultative Meetings:* To generate additional insights, as well as
confirm status of data requirements and availability, the draft RSSIS
Framework was presented to both data users and producers. Participants
in these consultative meetings contributed to a better understanding of
the objectives of and the requirements for development of the RSSIS. As
experience in the Project later showed, consultations were to become an
indispensable and useful mechanism in refining Project concepts and
advancing implementation of Project activities. To begin with, the BAS
was a large data producer by itself, thus internal consultations among
its operating units, particularly between the internal data users and
producers were periodically done. Consultations with other statistical
agencies were also done extensively, either in large and formal settings
or small and informal discussions.

*Initial Run of the RSSIS:* In its initial phases, the RSSIS ran into
database management problems that forced the staff to go manual, just to
jumpstart the implementation and familiarize the BAS staff with the
various RSSIS concerns, and anticipate possible problems in actual data
collection, compilation and computation of indicators. The staff had to
struggle with manipulating Excel files to develop the desired
indicators. Re - inputting of data coming from other agencies had to be
done in some cases due to inefficient procedures. Results of these
exercises, which came in the form of indicators in statistical tables,
were presented and discussed in the September 2004 seminar--workshop of
concerned BAS Central Office and field personnel

*Development of computer -- based systems:* One of the objectives of the
RSSIS Project was to revisit and upgrade the management of the existing
AIS of the BAS. An ACCESS -- based system had been developed and
managing the AIS had greatly improved since then. The access to and
updating of AIS reports had become faster. On the other hand, the
development of the computer -- based system for the RSSIS had already
begun. The application programs were to be completed before the end of
2004.

#### Issues and Constraints in Pursuing the RSSIS

*Urban -- Rural classification:* If there was one concern that could
block smooth development of meaningful presentation of rural statistics
and indicators, that would be the differentiation between rural and
urban areas. The view in the Project was that the existing operational
definition of rural and urban areas, which set up criteria of urbanity,
and took rural areas as the complement, was not supportive of the
overall objective of the Project to develop a comprehensive and well --
managed statistical information system for the rural sector.

Sometime, in 2002, the Philippine National Statistics Office (PNSO)
presented the results of the work on the formulation of an operational
definition of urban areas for the Philippines based on the revalidated
information on barangay (village) characteristics. Concerns about the
disregard of the agrarian character of rural communities as well as the
use of dynamic variables such as population and existence of commercial
and industrial establishments as the anchor of the urban classification
scheme have been raised.

In line with this observation, this Project had expressed this concern
and submitted a proposal to review the process of urban -- rural
classification by incorporating in the process the identification of
inherent characteristics of both urban and rural communities instead of
simply focusing attention on urban -- like characteristics and
completely overlooking the built -- in characteristics or features of
rural communities.

*Agriculture and Rural Statistics:* In broad and practical terms, the
distinction between agricultural and rural areas did not pose that much
of a problem in policy discussions. Development policies and programs in
the country accounted for both groups. In the AIS of the BAS,
disaggregation of statistics was agriculture--focused, i.e.,
agricultural vs. non--agricultural or farming vs non--farming. The BAS
supplemented its data holdings by obtaining data from other sources.
From PNSO, results of the agricultural censuses as well results of its
various surveys with urban-rural dimensions were collected, processed
and organized into various components of the AIS.

*Linking up with Source Agencies:* The RSSIS required data inputs that
would come from almost all line departments of the Philippine
Government. Since the Philippine Statistical System ( PSS ) was highly
decentralized, working out an integrated information system as
envisioned under the RSSIS would e a challenge. Apart from potential
difficulties to be encountered in eliciting cooperation among various
agencies, concerns regarding possible problems in synchronizing
availability of data at desired levels of disaggregation and frequency
of release were expressed.

Despite advancement in technology, certain constraints such as problems
in compatibility of facilities and operating software had posed
challenges in the development of efficient and effective data-handling
procedures. Latest efforts on database development for the RSSIS were
on--going and issues on linkages were being considered.

*Statistics other than agricultural statistics:* The proposed RSSIS
required a big number of social statistics as inputs in the generation
of indicators. The BAS, which heretofore had largely focused on
agricultural statistics, had to adjust its orientation to develop an
appreciation of social and other economic statistics. This turned out to
be a huge challenge to the RSSIS project staff who were overwhelmed by
the sheer volume of available socio-economic data that needed to be
transformed into the specified indicators.

**RSSIS Framework**

Patterned after the WB Rural Profiles, the Philippines' RSSIS shall be
an information system that could describe and monitor changes in the
rural sector. It should be able to accurately situate the rural sector
in the total national economy. The RSSIS framework assumed that at the
center of all efforts associated with rural development was the overall
goal of alleviating the worsening poverty among rural communities.

Rural poverty, therefore, became the central theme with the other twelve
areas of concerns, serving as explanatory of the conditions of the rural
sector. The information system was envisioned to account for both
economic and social statistics and indicators in order to adequately
characterize the rural sector.

## ![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.75in" height="3.9930555555555554in"}

##  Figure1. Schematic diagram of the RSSIS Framework

## 

## The RSSIS framework recognized the significance of the agriculture sector as one area of concern, agriculture being identified as the single most important characteristics identified with the rural sector. The framework, therefore, highlighted the details of the eight sub--areas of concern under the agriculture sector.

##  Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the RSSIS for agriculture sector

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.870138888888889in"
height="3.227777777777778in"}

## 

## The RSSIS Modules

To facilitate the implementation of the RSSIS and to harmonize work
within the BAS, areas of concern as used in the framework were also
referred to as RSSIS modules. In its original draft, the RSSIS framework
called for the development of 117 development indicators in 13 modules.
The following table shows the details.

**Table 1. Number of indicators by module of the RSSIS**

+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| #####                                 | #     |          |         |
|                                       | ####  |          |         |
| ##### MODULE                          | NUMBE |          |         |
|                                       | R OF  |          |         |
|                                       | INDIC |          |         |
|                                       | ATORS |          |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 1\. Rural poverty                     | 4     |          |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 2\. Economic well - being             | 9     |          |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 3\. Agricultural sector               | 4     |          |         |
|                                       |       |          |         |
| 1.  Growth and performance            | 10    |          |         |
|                                       |       |          |         |
| 2.  Production and productivity       | 4     |          |         |
|                                       |       |          |         |
| 3.  Structure and resources           | 6     |          |         |
|                                       |       |          |         |
| 4.  Prices and marketing              | 3     |          |         |
|                                       |       |          |         |
| 5.  External trade                    | 3     |          |         |
|                                       |       |          |         |
| 6.  Access to technology information  | 5     |          |         |
|                                       |       |          |         |
| 7.  Investment and finance            | 2     |          |         |
|                                       |       |          |         |
| 8.  Agrarian reform                   |       |          |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 4\. Population and demography         |       |          |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
|                                       |       | 8        |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 5\. Literacy and universal primary    |       | 9        |         |
| education                             |       |          |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 6\. Healthy life                      | 11    |          |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 7\. Nutrition and food security       | 11    |          |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 8\. Shelter and household amenities   | 6     |          |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 9\. Employment and sustainable        | 10    |          |         |
| livelihood                            |       |          |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 10\. Mobility                         | 2     |          |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 11\. Participation and empowerment    | 4     |          |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 12\. Personal and community security  | 3     |          |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 13\. Public expenditure and finance   | 3     |          |         |
+---------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+

On top of the 13 modules, the RSSIS strongly suggested the inclusion of
rural infrastructures . Specifically, the system should account for the
following:

-   Community facilities

-   Roads and transport facilities

-   Education

-   Health and nutrition

-   Economic establishments

**Managing the RSSIS**

The relatively long experience of the BAS in developing and maintaining
the Agricultural Indicators System (AIS) was thought to be an edge and a
guarantee in being able to manage the RSSIS. The perception was not
entirely correct. The RSSIS was a lot bigger and expansive than the AIS.
The BAS has to deal with a lot of non--agricultural and non--economic
data which it did not produce.

Understandably, in its initial stages, the collection and compilation of
data inputs had overwhelmed the staff. Data required for computing
indicators consisted of long series data with which Project staff were
not familiar. The delay in the development of working processing systems
further aggravated the difficulties. On the coordination side, the BAS
had to improve its linkage with source agencies and this was especially
true with offices outside the Department of Agriculture and those which
were not major statistical agencies.

To the credit of the PSS and the member statistical agencies, despite
the decentralized nature of the system, a culture of coordination and
cooperation among agencies was in place. And since implementation of the
RSSIS was certain to be a multi-agency undertaking, from the very
beginning, the conceptualization and implementation of the RSSIS always
had all the stakeholders in mind. To give full expression to this
guiding principle, an inter-agency advisory committee was created.
Membership consisted of the major producers of rural statistics and
users of rural sector indicators. The Committee was chaired and
co--chaired by the Director of the Agriculture Staff of the National
Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and the Director of the BAS,
respectively. Internally, the BAS also created an inter-division
Steering Committee to oversee Project activities.

**Developing the Community Level Statistical Information System
(CLSIS)**

As earlier pointed out in this paper, the RSSIS framework saw a good
level of support from the existing national data systems. It was clear,
however, that while the RSSIS can ably support the requirements for
national level policy and decision making, it could not do so for
sub--national government units. With the current shift in governance
from centralized to devolved mode, whereby the local government units
are vested with the authority and responsibility to chart their own
development, an appropriate Community Level Statistical Information
System (CLSIS) should be set in place to assist them. With this purpose
in mind, the Project explored possibilities of bringing down to the
municipalities and barangays the community level version of the RSSIS.

The BAS proceeded to identify pilot areas in the Region and conduct
consultations with the stakeholders in the communities. They included
the local government executives and officers of local government units
(LGUs) in the pilot municipalities and barangays. As in the development
of the RSSIS, the Project first undertook an assessment of the community
data systems and then looked into the requirements and availability of
data in the community. An important factor studied was whether
communities used statistics in their development-related decisions and
activities. Findings were varied and interesting. Some LGUs hardly used
quantitative information, even if they were available, in their
decision--making. Data generated and made available were often
unstandardized and disorganized and therefore difficult to use.

The Project found keen interest among LGUs in developing a
community--based statistical information system. The LGU officers worked
closely with Project management and staff in developing the information
system in their respective areas. One important input to the development
and subsequent management or maintenance of the system was the building
of capacity of the local government to implement the system. The Project
heavily invested on training, in addition providing seed equipment and
facilities required by the system.

The Statistical Research and Training Center (SRTC) of the Philippines
played a key role in implementing the training component of the Project.
The Project used SRTC's competence in running training programs to
develop the materials, engage qualified trainers, and manage the actual
training sessions.

Since it was a community--based system, the data requirements were
locally determined as well. On top of the existing data systems, LGU
officers were asked to identify the information they required to support
their policy and decision--making. These information were incorporated
in the barangay survey, the results of which were processed in the
communities by LGU staff themselves with the guidance of BAS field
staff. Within the project life, the CLSIS databases would have been
operationalized. The LGU officers were equipped with the necessary
training to maintain and manage the system. The BAS will likewise
support and provide technical assistance to the LGUs.

The CLSIS survey questionnaire consisted of two modules ; the first was
on demographic profile while the second gathered data on household
members. Some sort of report cards on agriculture had also been
developed to make it easier for the LGU to track developments in the
agriculture sector. The major topics of the CLSIS questionnaire were
demography, livelihood, migration, mobility, education, health,
participation, and employment.

On the other hand, the agriculture report cards contained information on
crops planted and harvested; monthly crop monitoring; crop damage;
prices of agricultural outputs and inputs; livestock inventory, supply
and utilization; aquaculture stocks and harvest; fish production; and
agro-processing, handicraft and other home-based livelihood.

## Future Directions 

*On the maintenance of the RSSIS:* The BAS was committed to maintain the
final version of the RSSIS to be determined at the end of the project.
Its implementation schedule shall account for the reasonable lags of
data releases from sources and indicate the releases of the reports on
indicators. In this connection, the strong support of other
statistics-generating agency of the Government shall be enhanced to
ensure continuous flow of data inputs to the RSSIS.

The existing Agricultural Indicators System (AIS) may be adopted as the
RSSIS' module on the agriculture sector. The BAS shall be the main, if
not the sole, source of most data inputs for the module on agriculture
sector. The modular character of the RSSIS and the AIS would make it
relatively easy to handle retrieval and releases of indicators and
statistical reports.

The BAS shall target annual releases of the RSSIS reports by module. A
full report might be targeted for release every three years. However,
RSSIS tables and graphs depicting available indicators for particular
modules shall be posted in the WEB as soon as they were available.

*On the maintenance of the CLSIS:* The BAS was committed to provide
technical assistance to the local government units as they went about
collecting, processing and analyzing data inputs to their CLSIS. The
good working relationship forged between the BAS, SRTC and the LGUs
shall be strengthened further. Where necessary, formal and informal
agreements regarding training assistance and procurement of other
services may be entered into. Part of the commitments made by the LGUs
was for them to continuously update their CLSIS database. Annual
releases of reports, which shall be posted in the BAS and other WEB
sites, shall be targeted.

*Complementation between BAS, SRTC and LGUs:* The BAS was looking at a
three -- way complementation among BAS, SRTC and the LGUs in
institutionalizing the CLSIS. SRTC and the BAS shall assist the LGUs in
implementing CLSIS. Data collected by the BAS from various sources can
be accessed by the CLSIS - covered barangays. In return, data collected
by the LGUs in updating their CLSIS can also serve as inputs to the BAS
in its agricultural production and marketing monitoring activities.

**ANNEX : List of indicators by area of concern, RSSIS**

+------------------+---------------------------------+----------------+
| **Area of        | **Indicators**                  | **Source of    |
| concern/         |                                 | data inputs**  |
| Module**         |                                 |                |
+------------------+---------------------------------+----------------+
| 1\. Rural        | 1\. poverty headcount index     | Food and       |
| poverty          |                                 | Nutrition      |
|                  | 2\. population below \$1 a day  | Research       |
|                  |                                 | Institute      |
|                  | 3\. poverty gap                 | (FNRI),        |
|                  |                                 | National       |
|                  | 4\. poverty threshold           | Statistics     |
|                  |                                 | Office (NSO),  |
|                  |                                 | National       |
|                  |                                 | Statistical    |
|                  |                                 | Coordination   |
|                  |                                 | Board (NSCB)   |
+------------------+---------------------------------+----------------+
| 2\. Economic     | 1\. proportion of food          | BAS, NSO       |
| well - being     | expenditure to total            |                |
|                  | expenditure                     |                |
|                  |                                 |                |
|                  | 2\. income (expenditure) ratio  |                |
|                  | of top 10 % to bottom 30%       |                |
|                  |                                 |                |
|                  | 3\. ratio of mean income of     |                |
|                  | rural households to             |                |
|                  |                                 |                |
|                  | urban households                |                |
|                  |                                 |                |
|                  | 4\. per capita household        |                |
|                  | expenditure (ratio of rural to  |                |
|                  | urban)                          |                |
|                  |                                 |                |
|                  | 5\. savings rate, by main       |                |
|                  | occupation/industry             |                |
|                  |                                 |                |
|                  | 6\. proportion of rural         |                |
|                  | households working/ cultivating |                |
|                  | agricultural land area smaller  |                |
|                  | than the national average       |                |
|                  |                                 |                |
|                  | 7\. proportion of non --        |                |
|                  | agricultural income to total    |                |
|                  | rural household income          |                |
|                  |                                 |                |
|                  | 8\. proportion of rural         |                |
|                  | household with at least one OFW |                |
|                  |                                 |                |
|                  | 9\. agricultural terms of trade |                |
|                  | index                           |                |
+------------------+---------------------------------+----------------+

+------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------+
| 3\. Agricultural | 1\. percent change in GDP       | NSCB, NSO,      |
| sector           |                                 |                 |
|                  | 2\. percent change in sectoral  |                 |
|                  | GDP                             |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 3\. distribution and percent    |                 |
|                  | change in agriculture GVA by    |                 |
|                  | major commodity group           |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 4\. growth of agriculture GVA   |                 |
|                  | per agricultural worker         |                 |
+------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------+
| 3.1 Growth and   |                                 |                 |
| performance      |                                 |                 |
+------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------+
|                  |                                 |                 |
+------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------+
|                  |                                 |                 |
+------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------+
|                  |                                 |                 |
+------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------+
|                  |                                 |                 |
+------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------+
| 3.2 Production   | 1\. Index of area harvested for | BAS             |
| and productivity | selected agricultural crops     |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 2\. agricultural production     |                 |
|                  | index                           |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 3\. food crop production index  |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 4\. food production per capita  |                 |
|                  | index                           |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 5\. distribution and percent    |                 |
|                  | change in production of         |                 |
|                  | cereals, roots and tubers,      |                 |
|                  | fruits and vegetables           |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 6\. ratio of production of high |                 |
|                  | value crops to total            |                 |
|                  | agricultural production         |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 7\. percent change in yield per |                 |
|                  | hectare of major agricultural   |                 |
|                  | crops                           |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 8\. distribution and percent    |                 |
|                  | change in livestock population  |                 |
|                  | and production                  |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 9\. fertilizer consumption per  |                 |
|                  | hectare of agricultural land    |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 10\. percentage of palay and    |                 |
|                  | corn area applied with          |                 |
|                  | fertilizer                      |                 |
+------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------+
| 3.3 Structure    | 1\. distribution of land use    | National        |
| and resources    |                                 | Irrigation      |
|                  | 2\. distribution of farms by    | Administration  |
|                  | farm size                       | (NIA),          |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 3\. distribution of farms by    |                 |
|                  | area and tenure                 |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 4\. irrigated land as           |                 |
|                  | proportion of agricultural land |                 |
+------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------+
| 3.4 Prices and   | 1\. producers price index       | BAS             |
| marketing        | (prices received by farmers)    |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 2\. prices paid (for inputs)    |                 |
|                  | index                           |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 3\. percentage of produce       |                 |
|                  | marketed for palay and corn     |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 4\. producer -- wholesale price |                 |
|                  | and producer --mretail price    |                 |
|                  | gaps for selected agricultural  |                 |
|                  | commodities                     |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 5\. monthly wholesale price     |                 |
|                  | band for selected agricultural  |                 |
|                  | commodities                     |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 6\. index of volume of market   |                 |
|                  | arrivals of selected            |                 |
|                  | agricultural commodities        |                 |
+------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------+
| 3.5 External     | 1\. agricultural export and     | NSO             |
| trade            | import volume and value indices |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 2\. distribution and percent    |                 |
|                  | change of major agricultural    |                 |
|                  | exports and imports             |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 3\. percent share of major      |                 |
|                  | Philippine agricultural         |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | exports and imports to world    |                 |
|                  | export and import trade         |                 |
+------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------+
| 3.6 Access to    | 1\. ratio of farmers served per | Professional    |
| technology       | agricultural technician         | Regulation      |
| information      |                                 | Commission      |
|                  | 2\. ratio of veterinarian per   | (PRC)           |
|                  | 100,000 livestock population    |                 |
|                  |                                 |                 |
|                  | 3\. circulation rate of govern  |                 |
|                  | ment -- initiated technology    |                 |
|                  | information materials per 1000  |                 |
|                  | farmers                         |                 |
+------------------+---------------------------------+-----------------+

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 7\. Nutrition and     | 1\. percent of        | NSCB, FNRI, BAS       |
| food security         | newborn with          |                       |
|                       | birthweight below 2.5 |                       |
|                       | kg                    |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 2\. percent of        |                       |
|                       | severely and          |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | moderately            |                       |
|                       | underweight children  |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | under 5 years         |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 3\. percent of        |                       |
|                       | mothers with low BMI  |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 4\. percent of        |                       |
|                       | population with       |                       |
|                       | micronutrient         |                       |
|                       | deficiency            |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 5\. dietary energy    |                       |
|                       | and protein supply    |                       |
|                       | per capita per day as |                       |
|                       | percent of RDA        |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 6\. average food      |                       |
|                       | intake of major food  |                       |
|                       | groups                |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 7\. daily per capita  |                       |
|                       | protein,              |                       |
|                       | carbohydrates, fat    |                       |
|                       | intake                |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 8\. percentage of     |                       |
|                       | energy from protein,  |                       |
|                       | carbohydrates, fat    |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 9\. percent of        |                       |
|                       | households below food |                       |
|                       | threshold             |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 10\. ratio of growth  |                       |
|                       | of rice, fish,, meat. |                       |
|                       | Vegetables production |                       |
|                       | to population growth  |                       |
|                       | rate                  |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 11\. ratio of total   |                       |
|                       | domestic production   |                       |
|                       | of staple food crops  |                       |
|                       | to total food supply  |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 8\. Shelter and       | 1\. proportion of     | NSO                   |
| household amenities   | households in         |                       |
|                       | makeshift dwelling    |                       |
|                       | unit                  |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 2\. distribution of   |                       |
|                       | household by type of  |                       |
|                       | dwelling unit         |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 3\. percentage of     |                       |
|                       | households with 3 or  |                       |
|                       | more persons per room |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 4\. price index of    |                       |
|                       | construction          |                       |
|                       | materials             |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 5\. rental index      |                       |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | 6\. percent change in |                       |
|                       | the volume and value  |                       |
|                       | of housing loans      |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  9\. Employment          1\. labor force         NSO
  sustainable livelihood  participation rate by   
                          major age group, by     
                          sex, by educational     
                          attainment , by         
                          occupation by industry  

                          2\. percentage of       
                          gainfully employed      
                          working age population  

                          3\. proportion of       
                          persons under 15 years  
                          and over 65 years of    
                          age in the labor market 

                          4\. percentage of       
                          unemployed economically 
                          active population       

                          5\. underemployment     
                          rate                    

                          6\. percentage of the   
                          unemployed who have     
                          completed at least      
                          secondary level         
                          education               

                          7\. percentage of       
                          employed persons in the 
                          rural sector who were   
                          engaged in non farm     
                          activities              

                          8\. percentage of women 
                          in non agricultural     
                          employment              

                          9\. percentage of       
                          economically active     
                          population covered by   
                          social security schemes 

                          10\. index of real      
                          earnings by occupation  
                          or by industry or by    
                          sex                     
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------