BANTAY GOBYERNO
Ike Señeres
The programmatic approach to sustainable
development is not new, but the time has come for us to give it a new focus, in
effect making it the only default approach. As it is supposed to be,
development programs are supposed to be based on pre-approved policies, and
down the line, development projects are supposed to be based on pre-approved
development programs. There is no other way to properly do it, and any other
way would not be programmatic. However, being programmatic at the top is not
enough, because we also need to be systemic at the bottom. What I mean by
systemic is that the development projects at the bottom should either create a
new system, or become part of an existing system. For example, this can be in
the form of water systems and waste recycling systems.
As a
founding member of the United Nations (UN), we are duty bound to abide by its
development programs, all of which are also based on pre-approved policies. It
goes without saying that UN member countries like the Philippines should align
its national development programs with that of the UN. On that note, the
primary UN programs that we should align with are the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), the new successor to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that
will expire this year. It is very important to understand that, because we were
unable to meet most of the MDGs. No need to cry over spilled milk and what we
should do instead is to implement our national development programs in such a
way that this time around, we will be able to meet most if not all of the SDGs.
Again, as it
is supposed to be, there is supposed to be a Regional Development Council (RDC)
in every region, on top of all the Provincial Development Councils (PDCs) that
are supposed to exist in every province.
Down the
line, there is supposed to be a Municipal Development Council (MDC) in every
municipality, and a Barangay Development Council (BDC) in every barangay. What
that means is that we had all the development councils that we could have
mobilized to meet the MDGs, but that is moot and academic now. Again, instead
of pointing fingers and throwing blame as to who is accountable for our failure
in meeting the MDGs, we should just look ahead and plan ahead so that once and
for all, we will be able to meet all of the SDGs. As it is now, there is
supposed to be a Philippine Sustainable Development Council (PSDC) under the
National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), and it should be given the
resources to lead all of our efforts in meeting the SDGs.
Looking
back, it seems that we did not give sufficient attention to the objective of
meeting the MDGs. Even if we are known to cram for meeting deadlines towards
the eleventh hour, I did not see any sense of urgency in meeting the said
goals, even now when the deadline is already nearing. That is what happened in
the case of the MDGs, but that should no longer happen in the case of the SDGs.
Again looking back, it is not really clear which government agency in the
Philippines is centrally responsible for meeting the MDGs up to now, and up
ahead, be centrally responsible also for meeting the SDGs in the future. Even
if we would want to point fingers, we do not even know who to point to. I hope
that this anomaly will be corrected soon, because the countdown for the SDGs
will start when the 2016 New Year also starts.
As my own
contribution towards our meeting the SDGs as a member country of the UN, I
designed a framework that would prioritize 6 of the 17 SDGs into composite
program clusters, namely Justice, Education, Wellness, Employment, Livelihood
and Safety, or JEWELS for short. I would imagine that sooner or later, we could
also design another framework that would categorize all the other 11 SDGs into
more composite program clusters. In the meantime however, we could just broaden
the scope of the clusters, for example Agriculture could actually be part of
livelihood, and Environment could actually be part of Agriculture. Aside from
JEWELS, I also designed a framework that could measure poverty levels based on
the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), and this includes Floor, Assets,
Cooking Fuel, Electricity, Toilet and Safe Water (FACETS).
Using JEWELS
as a programmatic framework, all the BDCs, MDCs, PDCs and RDCs could already
design modular projects that would become the building blocks towards meeting
their own SDGs in their respective jurisdictions. By definition, a project
needs to have a beginning and an end. Therefore, as each project comes to an
end, one more building block towards meeting the SDGs is built.
There should
be no problem at all in funding these systemic projects, because that is the
reason why the Internal Revenue Allocations (IRAs) are provided for. The
Countryside Development Fund (CDF), assuming that it is revived or continued,
could also be used for these systemic projects. The key to this is the
transparency in implementing and monitoring these systemic projects, because if
only there is transparency, corruption could be controlled.
Just in case
the BDCs, MDCs, PDCs and RDCs would need help in planning for the projects, it
would be very easy to invite volunteer consultants who could actually stay with
them up to the completion of the planning process. These volunteer consultants
could be recruited from professionals who are still actively working, or from
those who have already retired.
On the
implementation side, it would also be easy to recruit volunteer managers who
could also stay with them from the beginning up to the end of the projects.
Just the same, these volunteer managers could also be recruited from
professionals who are still actively working, or from those who have already
retired. For good measure, it would also be very easy to invite volunteer
advisers who could assist in the project from the start of the planning process
until the closure of the projects.
There is no
shortage of consultants, managers and advisers who could volunteer to help in
the planning and implementation of systemic projects at the local levels that
are based on pre-approved policies and programs. However, we do have a shortage
of appreciation for the importance of meeting the SDGs. We did not see that
kind of appreciation in meeting the MDGs, and I hope that it will come around
this time. Aside from the time bound SDGs, we still have to improve our
national scores in the Human Development Index (HDI), also a metric of the UN.
The HDI measures the performance of member countries in terms of literacy,
longevity and prosperity, i.e. the quality of life. The MPI is also a metric of
the UN that was designed to have a more precise measurement of poverty levels
among the member countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment