ASEAN millennium development<\/p>\n
Romeo Austria Reyes, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Drawing inspiration from the global Millennium Development
\nCompact proposed in the 2003 Human Development Report (HDR),
\nparticipants in a Regional Workshop on \"ASEAN Cooperation on
\nPoverty Reduction and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)\" agreed
\nto initiate a process leading to the adoption of an ASEAN
\nMillennium Development Compact (AMDC). The workshop was held in
\nJakarta on Aug. 1-2, right before the Asia Pacific Ministerial
\nMeeting on MDGs on Aug. 3-5.<\/p>\n
The 2003 HDR advanced the notion of a global compact among
\nnations, especially between the poor and the rich, whereby the
\nformer will mobilize and allocate domestic resources and apply
\ngood governance principles to realize the MDGs while the latter
\nwill provide more aid and debt relief and open up its market to
\nexports from poor countries.<\/p>\n
The 10 targets relating to poverty reduction and other MDGs
\n(Goals 1 through 7) are quantitative, time-bound, measurable,
\ninternationally comparable and monitorable. Unfortunately, the
\nsame can not be said for the 8 targets under Goal 8 -- Develop a
\nglobal partnership for development -- particularly those relating
\nto aid, debt relief and free trade.<\/p>\n
In the absence of quantitative targets, it is as if they were
\nto be realized on a best effort basis. One wonders then how
\nprogress towards realization of Goal 8 (G-8) is to be assessed at
\nthe Asia Pacific ministerial meeting in Jakarta and at the
\nforthcoming summit in New York in September 2005.<\/p>\n
While a number of poor ASEAN Member Countries (AMCs) still
\nreceive considerable aid from rich countries, the extent to which
\nit could be used to directly support MDGs is limited by the
\nconditions attached to its disbursement. It is heartening that G-
\n8 countries recently announced debt forgiveness for poor
\ncountries amounting to US$40 billion.<\/p>\n
But much to the chagrin of Asians, eligibility is confined to
\nAfrican countries. With respect to trade, markets for exports of
\npoor countries remain highly protected by the huge agriculture
\nsubsidies provided by rich countries to their farmers. And the
\nprospects of concluding the so-called Doha Development Round of
\nmultilateral trade liberalization in Hong Kong by the end of the
\nyear remain dim.<\/p>\n
Instead of market opening, the opposite seems to be happening,
\ngiven the reaction of rich countries, particularly the U.S and EU
\nto the \"surge\" of Chinese exports following termination of the
\nglobal quota arrangement. This reaction is particularly
\ndisturbing as the rich countries were the original proponents of
\nfree trade.<\/p>\n
They put pressure on poor countries to liberalize trade regime
\nthrough loan conditionality imposed by multilateral financial
\ninstitutions as early as the 1960s. Unilateral trade
\nliberalization by poor countries started with substitution of
\ntariff to quotas, otherwise known as \"tarrification\", followed by
\ntariff simplification, and then tariff reduction.<\/p>\n
It was known to every country well in advance that the quota
\narrangement was expiring. There was adequate time therefore to
\nmake the necessary domestic adjustments in anticipation of
\nremoval of this impediment to free trade. Under a free trade
\nregime, exports of countries like China with a comparative
\nadvantage in labor-intensive products covered by the quota
\narrangement would naturally increase in a big way if and when the
\nquota is lifted. While the protectionist reaction of rich
\ncountries through imposition of quota to the surge in Chinese
\nexports may be legal in the context of WTO rules, one wonders
\nwhether it is fair.<\/p>\n
Southeast Asia as a sub-region was assessed by the UN
\nMillennium Project to be on track with respect to poverty
\nreduction and many other MDGs. However, the huge development gap
\nacross and within AMCs that persists in terms of poverty
\nincidence, per capita GDP, and other human development indicators
\nwas noted by the workshop participants. At one extreme are Brunei
\nand Singapore, which have joined the high human development
\nleague. These two countries do not even have a definition of
\npoverty.<\/p>\n
By non-definition, they have no poor people, although
\nSingapore concedes that it has a number of programs to help the
\n\"needy\". At the other extreme are the least developed CLMV
\ncountries. At the upper middle are Malaysia and Thailand, which
\nhave already met most of the targets and are referred to as MDG+
\ncountries. At the lower middle are Indonesia and the Philippines
\nwith a national poverty incidence rate still as high as 18 and 30
\npercent, respectively.<\/p>\n
Disparity in poverty incidence is even more serious within a
\nnumber of AMCs, particularly between the capital and the rest of
\nthe country. For instance, poverty incidence is already at single
\ndigit level in Bangkok, Jakarta and Metro-Manila, but it is as
\nhigh as 26, 42, and 66 in Pattani (Thailand), Papua, and the
\nMindanao.<\/p>\n
Given the uncertainties relating to aid, debt relief, and
\ntrade, along with the socio-economic disparities constraining
\nASEAN economic integration, it seems logical for AMCs to rely
\nmore on each other than on rich countries from the northern
\nhemisphere in realizing their MDG targets.<\/p>\n
A broad AMDC framework was adopted by the workshop
\nparticipants as a starting point for elaboration into a fully
\ndocumented compact. The long-term objective of the compact would
\nbe to help narrow the development gap across and within AMCs. The
\nneed to narrow this gap was seen as urgent both as an end in
\nitself and to facilitate integration of ASEAN into a single
\nmarket and production base. The intention is to use the MDGs as
\nplanning framework for reducing the development gap. The
\ncompact's guiding principle and strategy would be for AMCs to
\nsupport each other as members of one family of nations to realize
\ntheir localized MDG targets.<\/p>\n
The cooperation modalities would go beyond the usual sharing
\nof experiences, learning and good practices on various aspects of
\nMDG processes. They would look into the possibility of sharing
\nexpertise and resources as well.<\/p>\n
The writer is former senior adviser, ASEAN-UNDP Partnership
\nFacility.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/asean-millennium-development-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}