|
MDG is
perhaps the best known three-letter word in English in
the world. One-hundred ninety countries, whatever their
languages, swear by it. It means Millennium Development
Goals. The MDGs were launched in 2000, with the
Philippines among the signatories. Right now, a race is
feverishly going on to reach the goals on or before
2015.
In 2006
graduate students of the UP National College of Public
Administration and Governance wrote a book and asked the
all-important question: May
Pera
Pa Ba?
The book emphasized the importance of generating
adequate financing to achieve the MDGs. The authors
revealed the huge gaps between required financing and
actual budget allocations.
Also in
2006, Social Watch
Philippines
and 22 civil-society organizations (CSOs) banded
together with like-minded legislators and launched the
Alternative Budget Initiative (ABI). The campaign
yielded additional allocations in the 2007 budget
totaling over P5 billion. By 2007 the number of CSOs had
increased to 48 and more legislators joined the
advocacy, including the chairman of the appropriations
committee and leading members of the Senate. The
campaign generated additional allocations of more than
P6 billion for MDG-related expenditures.
These
efforts emphasize the crucial importance of funding the
MDGs. No one in his or her right mind, especially the
politicians, will quarrel with the MDGs. After all, who
is against poverty reduction, education for all,
reduction of infant and maternal mortality, fighting
against HIV/AIDS and other dreaded diseases, caring for
the environment and finding sustainable solutions to
global problems?
Songs
have been written, documentaries have been produced,
poems have been recited and tons of books have been
written on the MDGs. Rivers of tears have been shed for
the MDGs by movie stars and celebrities, heads of
government and politicians.
The
question, however, remains: Are the members of the
international community and the individual countries
generating adequate financing for the MDGs?
Financing for development at the regional level
The
matter of financing the MDGs is not just a big issue in
the Philippines. It is a matter of regional and
international concern. The bigger issue is not just MDGs.
It is financing for development, including the MDGs.
On May 8
and 9, leaders of civil-society organizations from nine
Asian countries will meet for a consultation on
Financing for Development. The consultation is in
preparation for the big international meeting on
Financing for Development, which will be held in
Doha,
Qatar,
in October 2008.
The
Asian CSOs are meeting to identify and consolidate
issues which they will bring to the
Qatar
meeting regarding domestic-resource mobilization,
foreign direct investment, trade, debt and the
international financial architecture.
By way
of recall, a summit was held in Monterrey, Mexico, in
March 2002 to consider important issues related to
Financing for Development. The Qatar meeting will assess
progress on the Monterrey Consensus.
The May
meeting is jointly organized by Friederich Ebert
Stiftung (FES) and Social Watch
Philippines.
Participating Asian CSOs are from Bangladesh, India,
Nepal, Indonesia, Thailand, China, Mongolia, Vietnam and
the Philippines.
Roberto
Bissio, director of the global network of Social Watch;
Frank Schroeder of FES and Nicola Bullard of Focus on
the Global South will join CSO leaders from seven Asian
countries in leading the discussions and analyses.
In the
Philippines, CSOs are already in the thick of campaigns
for more financing for development. Their experience, as
well as those of other Asian countries, will certainly
be instructive and useful to the global community of
nations.
Of
giggles and titters
Last
week, the President was seen and heard giggling over her
impending Cabinet revamp, which she declared a secret.
By specifying who are not in the “secret” list, she gave
hints as to who will go, as well as those who will come
in.
Governance is not a matter for presidential giggles and
titters. What is becoming clear is that the “revamp” is
primarily to make way for losers in the last elections
who need to be accommodated, as well as to reward
loyalty. It is not a response to increasingly loud
demands for reforms in governance.
Only
recently, concerned quarters raised questions about the
qualifications of the newly appointed chairman of the
Civil Service Commission. In one gathering, one defender
passionately recited the qualifications of the
appointee.
The
issue is not just the qualifications of the appointee.
It is important to remember that the Civil Service
Commission is an independent constitutional body. The
question is: Will he be independent? Let’s see. |