FIRST things first, we should get our act together to be able to respond to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG17) and the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) agreement.
It has been years after SDG17 was launched. It has also been years after COP21 was signed.
Both SDG17 and COP21 are initiatives of the United Nations (UN), and we have the moral obligation to support both as quickly as possible, being a founding member of the UN.
To put our discussion in the right perspective, climate change is already included in SDG17, being part of “Climate Action” (SDG Goal#13).
The Paris meeting was also dubbed the 11th session (conference) of the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP11), with the carbon credits scheme on top of its agenda.
That said, it should be made clear that SDG17 is broader than COP21/CMP11 and therefore we should focus more on the bigger picture.
Perhaps something really happened on the way to the forum, because “Sustainable Development” is now understood to mean everything developmental (in general), and not just everything environmental (in particular).
This differentiation might sound trivial at first glance, but a closer look would tell us that this significant shift in thinking should immediately affect the way we should get organized to respond to SDG17. For example, we now have the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), an inter-agency council that was formed during the Ramos Administration to address environmental concerns (in particular).
As of now however, its name is already misleading, because it really does not address sustainable development (in general), in the broader sense that the UN is now interpreting it.
Meanwhile, a Climate Change Commission (CCC) was formed during the Aquino II administration to address climate change concerns (in particular), but not environmental concerns (in general). It is stated in the CCC charter that it should ensure the mainstreaming of climate change, in synergy with disaster risk reduction.
That is clearly said, but it does not clearly say how the CCC should synergize its actions with the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC). As I see it however, the synergy should happen in the coordination of Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), two sides of the same coin.
As far as I know, there is no single government agency that is directly on top of coordinating all of the government’s actions so that we could meet all of the 17 SDGs on or before 2030. This is also the same situation before, wherein there was really no single government agency that was on top of coordinating all of the government’s actions for the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDG8) on or before 2015.
No one seems to be talking about it now, but it is really a major embarrassment for our country that we were not able to meet most of the MDGs. It’s no use going into a blame game now, and instead, we should now get organized so that we will not again get embarrassed just in case we could again not meet most of the SDGs.
Since we already have the PCSD in place, I think that the most practical thing to do is to revise its charter so that it could become the overall coordinating agency of all of the government’s actions so that we could meet all of the 17 SDGs on or before 2030.
For good measure, the PCSD charter should be revised so that its authority and jurisdiction should cover all of the 17 SDGs, and not just the environment in particular, being its specific role now. For all intents and purposes, it would also be practical to retain the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) as the Secretariat of the PCSD, so that it could continue with the present role that it is performing now.
As of now, there are only three government agencies that are already members of the PCSD and these are the NEDA, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).
If we review all of the 17 SDGs, we will discover how many more government agencies should be included in the PCSD, considering that each goal should be represented by at least one government agency. What is obvious is that the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) should be included, because of its direct involvement in the Regional Development Councils (RDCs). Also for good measure, the agendas of the RDCs should be expanded to include all of the SDGs, and not just the usual and routine development concerns.
Up to now, I still wonder how the data for the reporting of the MDGs was collected. As it is supposed to be, all the data to be reported should be collected from below, starting from the municipal level, all the way to the regional level.
As I understand it, the PCSD is supposed to also establish its own regional councils, but up to now, only one regional council has been organized. Given that limitation, the PCSD should change its approach and just decide to include its agenda items in the meetings of the RDCs. That would save a lot of time and money, and it would make the outcomes more relevant.
My wish, however, is that all the governors would attend the RDC meetings, and not just send their subordinates who could not make decisions.
On the part of the CCC, it should also not waste time and money in establishing their own local branches, because they could just bring their concerns instead to the RDCs. As it is now, the NDRRMC also has their own regional councils (RDRRMCs) that are attended by almost the same officials that are attending the RDC meetings.
The bottom line here is that from now on, climate change, disaster risks and sustainable development should already be integrated into one policy process because after all, the three components are actually part of one very long supply chain.
Lastly, for good measure, both the NEDA and the DILG should coordinate very well at the RDC level, to make their data reports more transparent and more accurate./PN
