Revisiting Devlopment Goals,
\nhow can ASEAN help?<\/p>\n
Romeo A. Reyes
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals
\n(MDGs) was submitted to the UN Secretary General last month by
\nthe UN Millennium Project, an independent advisory group
\ncommissioned to recommend strategies for meeting the MDGs. It was
\ncommissioned in preparation for the upcoming MDGs+5 review by the
\nUN General Assembly in September 2005.<\/p>\n
The group was led by Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia
\nUniversity and comprised of 250 distinguished development
\nscholars and practitioners, including Indonesia's Mari Pangestu,
\nwho has since joined the Cabinet of President Susilo Bambang
\nYudhoyono as Minister of Trade.<\/p>\n
The MDGs were adopted by Heads of State and Government at the
\nUN Millennium Summit in 2000. They include reducing the
\nproportion of people suffering from poverty and hunger by one
\nhalf, from 1990 to 2015; achieving universal primary education;
\neliminating gender disparity; reducing child mortality by two
\nthirds and maternal mortality by three fourths; halting and
\nreversing the incidence HIV\/AIDS, malaria and other major
\ndiseases; and reducing by one half the proportion of people
\nwithout sustainable access to safe drinking water.<\/p>\n
The UN Millennium Project concluded, not surprisingly, that
\nmassive investments in physical and human (health, education,
\nnutrition) capital will be required to realize the MDGs. To
\nfinance these investments, rich countries must live up to their
\npromise of more aid reaching 0.7 percent of their GDP by 2015,
\nalong with more generous debt relief and more open trade. And to
\nmake these investments work for the MDGs, poor countries in turn
\nmust live up to their promise of good governance, including
\nenhancement of transparency and accountability and mobilization
\nof domestic resources.<\/p>\n
The performance of Southeast Asia as a region towards
\nrealizing the MDGs compares well with many other regions of the
\nworld. It is assessed by the Millennium Project to be on track
\nwith respect to poverty reduction, gender equality in school
\nenrollment, child mortality reduction, sanitation in urban areas,
\nand improvement of the lives of slum dwellers. However, it is off
\ntrack with respect to universal primary schooling, maternal
\nmortality reduction and many other targets.<\/p>\n
It is not surprising that the region as a whole is assessed to
\nbe on track with respect to poverty reduction goal given that
\npoverty incidence has been declining in the region over the last
\ntwo decades (save from a blip in the aftermath of the 1997-1998
\neconomic crisis). Indeed, poverty reduction in Thailand,
\nMalaysia, and Indonesia has been dramatic mainly as a result of
\ndecades of sustained growth.<\/p>\n
However, income inequality in these countries actually
\nworsened during the same period, suggesting that while both the
\nrich and the poor benefited from growth, the former benefited
\nmore than the latter. Because of the boom and bust pattern of
\ngrowth in the Philippines, poverty incidence has remained high at
\nover 30 percent, which is within the range of poverty incidence
\nin Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam.<\/p>\n
The impressive performance of Southeast Asia as a whole hides
\nthe striking socio-economic disparities within and among
\ncountries in the region. Based on one dollar a day poverty
\nthreshold, UNDP's 2004 Human Development Report recorded less
\nthan 2 percent poverty incidence in Malaysia and Thailand. The
\nreport did not even have statistics on poverty for Brunei and
\nSingapore presumably because the incidence was nil.<\/p>\n
But at the other extreme were Cambodia and Laos with poverty
\nincidence of 34 and 27 percent respectively. Per capita GDP of
\nSingapore was 24 times more than Myanmar's. In terms of Human
\nDevelopment Index (HDI), Singapore was ranked 25th and Laos
\n135th.<\/p>\n
Socio-economic disparities are similarly striking within
\ncountries. In Indonesia, for instance, poverty incidence has come
\ndown to single digit levels in Jakarta and Bali, but it remains
\nas high as 30 percent or more in Aceh and Maluku and 42 percent
\nin Papua. The same disparity can be observed in Thailand,
\nparticularly between Bangkok and its Northeast region, and in the
\nPhilippines, between Metropolitan Manila and the Autonomous
\nRegion in Muslim Mindanao. It seems as if the people in Muslim
\nMindanao, Papua and Northeast Thailand do not have the same right
\nnot to be poor as the people in Manila, Jakarta and Bangkok.<\/p>\n
ASEAN Leaders are fully aware of this disparity across and
\nwithin ASEAN Member Countries (AMCs). They see this disparity or
\ndevelopment gap as a constraint to deepening and broadening of
\nregional economic integration. But more importantly, they also
\nsee economic integration as a means to narrow this gap when they
\ndeclared the formation of an ASEAN Economic Community, in which
\nthere is a free flow of goods and services, investment and
\nskilled labor and reduced poverty and socio-economic disparities.<\/p>\n
ASEAN Leaders have agreed to cooperate more closely to narrow
\nthe development gap both as an end in itself and as a means to
\nthe successful formation of ASEAN as a single market. The
\nVientiane Action Programme (VAP) they adopted at their last
\nSummit contains measures not only to realize the three pillars of
\nthe ASEAN Community but also to narrow the development gap as
\nmanifested by large disparities in per capita GDP, poverty
\nincidence and other dimensions of human development. The VAP
\nprovides that AMCs will determine and agree at an appropriate
\nforum the extent to which the development gap could be
\nrealistically narrowed by 2010 and by 2015.<\/p>\n
ASEAN can help realize the MDGs in Southeast Asia as a whole
\nand in less developed AMCs by promptly translating those
\nagreements and intentions into further actions. To start with,
\nASEAN should now take steps towards convening \"an appropriate
\nforum\" to enable AMCs to agree on specific targets for 2010 and
\nbeyond for narrowing the development gap in terms of per capita
\nGDP and other human development dimensions.<\/p>\n
For this purpose, AMCs could use the MDGs as a framework and
\nthe quantitative targets as benchmark. For instance, if they
\ncould agree on the extent to which the gap in poverty incidence
\ncould be realistically narrowed by 2015, this might imply setting
\npoverty reduction targets for CLMV countries over and above the
\nglobal benchmark.<\/p>\n
In this regard, Indonesia should be commended for offering, on
\nthe occasion of the last ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting on
\nPoverty and Rural Development, to share with other AMCs the
\noutcome of their efforts to localize MDG targets at the district
\nlevel and to link those targets to local poverty reduction action
\nplans and operational programs. This initiative spearheaded by
\nthe Coordinating Ministry for People's Welfare is fully
\nconsistent with the call from the UN Millennium Project to craft
\nand implement MDG-based poverty reduction strategies.<\/p>\n
In turn, Indonesia expressed keen interest to learn from other
\nAMCs their experiences relating to poverty mapping, measurement
\nand targeting. A project for UNDP support to enable this
\ncooperation has been prepared by ASEAN with encouragement,
\nguidance and support from another prominent Indonesian who is
\nactively engaged in the MDGs -- Erna Witoelar, the UN Special
\nAmbassador for the MDGs. This is a concrete example of how AMCs
\ncan cooperate with each other to help realize the MDGs. More of
\nthe same can and should be pursued.<\/p>\n
The writer is Senior Adviser, ASEAN-UNDP Partnership Facility.
\nThe views expressed herein are personal and do not necessarily
\nreflect those of ASEAN, its Member Countries, or UNDP.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/revisiting-devlopment-goals-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}