‘A programmatic approach to sustainable development’

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.

E-mail: bantaygobyerno-subscribe@yahoogroups.com