BANTAY GOBYERNO
Ike Señeres
As
we enter the second semester of 2015, it is already a foregone conclusion that the
Philippines has failed to meet most of the eight Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs). Since it is already moot and academic that we have no more time to
catch up with the deadline of these goals, we should just aim instead to meet
most if not all of the newly defined seventeen Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs).
As a founding member of the United Nations
(UN), we had a moral duty to lead the world in meeting the MDGs, but instead of
crying over spilled milk, let us just make a firm resolve as one nation to make
good on our second chance to meet the second set of goals.
It is hard to say where that firm
resolve will come from, but it is very clear that such a resolve did not come
to play in the first round of global development goals. It is really a big
question now where that firm resolve will come from, but as political behavior
is supposed to come into play, the only starting point is the emergence of
political will and nowhere else. As it usually happens, political will could
emerge once a strong leader comes forward to lend a face to it, or it could
happen the other way around; political will could emerge as a political party
or political movement is formed to lead it, and thereafter, it will choose a
leader to lend a face to it. As it is now however, neither a strong leader nor
a political party is coming forward.
That is not really a big surprise for me,
because as far as I know, no strong leader or political party could be
identified as the face behind the national goal of meeting the eight MGDs. That
could actually be a blessing in disguise for either of them, because had
someone come forward to become the public face, then we would have known who to
blame for our country not meeting the said goals. As we look forward to meeting
the seventeen SDGs however, we should hope and pray that a political party will
come forward to embrace this new set of global development goals, and
thereafter, to make it their priority agenda if and when they win the
elections. I say that they should embrace it and not just adopt it, because
they need to accept it with their hearts and minds.
It would be reasonable to say that national
elections would call for local issues, and global issues such as the SDGs would
not be relevant to the local setting.
That is not really the case however, because
if anyone would take a look at all the seventeen SDGs, it is replete with local
goals such as justice, education, wellness, employment, livelihood and safety.
That is not really surprising, because is actually a measure of how UN member
countries are able to address certain development goals in their own
jurisdictions.
Although it is not really a contest among the
countries, the UN has a scoring system that would rank the performance of
countries in relation to each other, in terms of their capabilities to meet
each and every goal. Never mind the details, but the Philippines did not get
good grades in the score card.
No one seems to have noticed it, but
the past eight MGDs should have been in the default agenda items of the Regional
Development Councils (RDCs). Again, instead of crying over spilled milk because
of that failure, we should now make sure that the future seventeen SDGs will be
in the default agenda items of all the RDCs nationwide.
Just to remind everyone, the RDCs are the
topmost regional councils of a complete system of local development councils
that includes the Barangay Development Councils (BDCs), Municipal Development
Councils (MDCs) and the Provincial Development Councils (PDCs). In theory, it
is supposed to be the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) that
should be the topmost national coordinator of all the RDCs, but it is not very
clear how that is supposed to work.
As I see it, regional development
should be 100% interchangeable with sustainable development, and vice versa. If
you accept that reasoning, the interchangeable approach should apply not only
in the level of the RDCs, but also in all the levels, namely the PDCs, the MDCs
and the BDCs. Furthermore, if you accept that reasoning, then the agenda items
of all the other specific regional coordinating councils such as the ones for
disaster risk reduction (DRR), climate change adaptation (CCA), comprehensive
land use planning (CLUP), tourism development and public safety should be
integrated with the overall agenda items of the RDCs and down the line, to the
agenda items of the PDCs, MDCs and BDCs. As it is now however, these other
specific coordinating councils are meeting on their own, separately from each
other, and are not working closely with the RDCs.
I hope that it is not too much to ask for,
but since the internal revenue allocations (IRAs) are supposed to be spent for
local development, the utilization of these funds should be decided in their
appropriate local development councils, such as the BDCs, MDCs and PDCs.
If that could be done, then the local
officials might as well include also the utilization of the countryside
development funds (CDFs), on the assumption that the pork barrel will be
restored, perhaps with another name. The RDCs do not have their own funds to
manage, but it would still be practical to suggest that all the development
plans of the PDCs could be jointly coordinated at the RDC level.
Although it would appear that DRR, CCA,
CLUP and the other specific concerns are now managed as “policy planets” that
would have nothing to do with each other, these are actually all part of the
same “universe” that would have overlapping effects on each other.
That is the reason why I say that regional
development and sustainable development are 100% interchangeable with each
other. On the practical side however, we should all wake up to the reality that
all of our provinces and regions are actually all part of broader ecosystems
that have existed since the creation of our planet, long before all these
political divisions were created by legislative actions. That said, we should
also wake up to the reality that environmental management should also be 100%
interchangeable with sustainable development.
No comments:
Post a Comment