SOMETHING happened on the way to the forum, so to speak.
The Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) was created by an Executive Order for the purpose of planning and coordinating our actions in relation to Agenda 21, a framework that was promoted by the United Nations (UN) that was mainly about the environment.
However, the UN launched the new 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), covering not just the environment, but also many other development concerns. The definition of “sustainable development” was expanded, and as it is now, the environment is just a part of it. Meanwhile, the charter of the PCSD has not yet been revised, and so it follows that as of now, it is practically limited to the environment in general and Agenda 21 in particular.
Whatever it is that happened in the past that led to our general failure to meet the MDGs should not happen again in the SDGs. How I wish that the government would just adopt the practices of the private sector so that we would really know who is responsible for meeting each and every SDG, but that would be difficult to do without amending certain laws.
Meanwhile, the government could just adopt the practice of assigning the responsibility to meet each target to one particular agency only, instead of fostering shared responsibility among several agencies.
In theory, committee work is supposed to be only for ad hoc purposes, if and when there is no specific government agency that could perform specific tasks as part of their normal day to day functions. If and when necessary, the agency that is assigned could consult with the other agencies, but it should be up to that only. Since we do not have room to discuss how to meet all the 17 goals, let us just tackle the first 4 goals for now.
The first goal is to end poverty in all its forms, or “no poverty” to be exact. In tackling this goal, we should be aware that the original MDG was to cut poverty into half by 2015, a goal that we failed to do.
If we are going to be serious in meeting the first SDG, we should be able to cut poverty down to zero percent by the year 2030. For purposes of discussion, I would say that it is the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) that should be assigned the specific task of poverty reduction, on the premise that higher disposable incomes could only be achieved by way of earning money from businesses.
It would be tempting to think that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) could be assigned the specific task, but it would seem that having a job nowadays would just be enough to meet basic needs, but not to have higher disposable incomes.
The second goal is to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. Without any doubt, it is the Department of Agriculture (DA) that should be assigned this specific task.
For purposes of better coordination however, the National Food Authority (NFA) should be returned to the supervision of the DA. For that matter, it might be a good idea to transfer the Food and Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI) to the DA, from the Department of Science and Technology (DOST).
And once and for all, just in case someone would again have bright ideas, the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) should stay with the DA, no matter what. Aside from commercial agriculture, we should again encourage backyard agriculture, even if only for home consumption.
The third goal is to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. Again, without any doubt, it should be the Department of Health (DOH) that should be assigned this specific task.
As it is now, the government hospitals that have been turned over by the DOH to the Local Government Units (LGUs) are ill equipped due to the lack of support from the local officials, often citing the lack of funds as a reason.
Rather than expect the LGUs to give funds to these local hospitals by way of their Internal Revenue Allotments (IRAs), it might be better to increase the budgets of the DOH for subsidies to these local hospitals, provided that the DOH would still be on top of monitoring and reporting their performance.
As a means to reach remote places that would be difficult to service, the DOH should consider using telemedicine technologies.
The fourth goal is to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning
opportunities for all. If we are only talking about basic education, then it would be easy to say that it is the Department of Education (DepEd) that should be given this task.
It appears, however, that this goal also includes vocational education, and possibly even higher education. Even if we could say that our basic education system is already inclusive because the tuition is free, there are still many students who would not or could not continue going to school because they do not have extra money for transportation, snacks and school projects.
I wonder what lifelong learning means, because that seems to be outside the scope of DepEd. Considering the supposed shortage of classrooms, books and teachers, the government should now consider using online learning technologies./PN
