RI progress to development goals<\/p>\n
Romeo A. Reyes, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The national development planning agency, BAPPENAS, has just
\nlaunched Indonesia's Progress Report on the Millennium
\nDevelopment Goals (MDGs). It was symbolically handed over by the
\nChairman of BAPPENAS and State Minister for Development Planning,
\nKwik Kian Gie, to the Special UN Ambassador for the MDGs, Erna
\nWitoelar, and to the UN Resident Coordinator, Bo Asplund.<\/p>\n
The MDGs came out of the Millennium Declaration relating to
\npeace, security and development, and adopted by 191 nations, 147
\nof which were represented at their September 2000 Summit in New
\nYork. They incorporate the international development goals
\n(IDGs) earlier adopted by the series of world summits and global
\nconferences supported by the United Nations in the 1990s.<\/p>\n
They set forth a comprehensive rights-based global development
\nagenda, translated into quantitative and time-bound targets that
\nare objectively verifiable and monitorable. The eight goals are:
\nEradicate poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary
\neducation; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce
\nchild mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV\/AIDS,
\nmalaria, and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability;
\nand develop a global partnership for development.<\/p>\n
The report takes stock of the situation with respect to the
\nstatus and progress made by Indonesia and its provinces since
\n1990 and up to the present (when latest data is available)
\ntowards realizing the MDG targets.<\/p>\n
With respect Goal 1, Indonesia appears to have done well and
\non track towards realizing the target of reducing poverty
\nincidence by one half from 1990 to 2015, based on a nationally
\ncalculated poverty line. For many years, national poverty head
\ncount ratio had exhibited a downward trend from over 30 percent
\nin the 1970s to only 15 percent in 1990 mainly as a result of
\nsustained economic growth.<\/p>\n
This trend, however, was reversed when the economic crisis
\nstruck in 1997-1998 and impoverished many people, thereby raising
\nthe ratio back to 23.4 percent in 1999. Since then, poverty
\nincidence has again shown a declining trend as the economy
\nrecovered, recording a head count ratio of 18.2 percent in 2002
\nand 17.4 percent in 2003.<\/p>\n
Indonesia has also done quite well towards providing universal
\naccess to primary education. Net enrollment ratio in primary
\neducation has increased from 89 percent in 1992 to 93 percent in
\n2003. The survival rate, i.e. the proportion of students who
\ngraduate from primary school, has also increased from 65.4
\npercent during school years 1983-1991 to 73.3 percent during
\n1994-2002. The latter percentage, however, is still far from the
\ntarget of universal completion of a full course of primary
\nschooling.<\/p>\n
Another significant progress made by Indonesia is in reducing
\nchild (under-five years) mortality rate. From as high as 216 per
\nthousand live birth in 1960, it had declined to 58 in 1997 and 46
\nin 2002. Clearly, Indonesia has made good progress and is on
\ntrack towards realizing the target of reducing under-five
\nmortality rate by two thirds. However, progress made towards
\nrealizing the target of reducing maternal mortality rate by three
\nquarters is not so encouraging. While there was some reduction in
\nmortality from 390 per thousand live births in 1990 to 307 in
\n2000, the report concluded that achieving the target by 2015 is
\nunlikely.<\/p>\n
Maternal mortality in Indonesia is still considerably higher
\nrelative to other ASEAN countries with the same level of
\ndevelopment, e.g. Thailand.<\/p>\n
The prospect of ensuring environmental sustainability by
\nreversing the loss of environmental resources is not so bright
\neither based on the proportion of land area covered by forest.
\nThe proportion continued to decline from 68 to 64 percent from
\n1993 to 2001, and was believed to be exacerbated by the economic
\ncrisis as people turned to forest resources for livelihood in an
\nunsustainable way.<\/p>\n
In general, the report conveys a positive message with respect
\nto the progress made thus far by Indonesia at the national level.
\nHowever, the report also revealed very serious disparities across
\nprovinces with respect to the progress made and the prospects for
\nrealizing the MDG targets.<\/p>\n
Given those disparities, the real challenge for Indonesia is
\nwhether, how, and to what extent the MDGs could be realized in an
\nequitable and inclusive way, in line with the principle that
\ndevelopment is a fundamental human right.<\/p>\n
Take Goal 1 as an example. Given that poverty incidence in
\nIndonesia (measured through the national poverty line) was 15
\npercent in 1990 and that the global target is to reduce poverty
\nby one half, the nationally translated target in terms of poverty
\nhead count ratio by 2015 would be 7.5 percent.<\/p>\n
The report concluded that Indonesia is on track towards
\nachieving that target at the national level, which is great and
\nencouraging. However, the prospects across provinces for
\nrealizing the target are very different.
\n Consider the following. Two provinces already registered a rate
\nbelow 7.5 percent in 2002 (DKI Jakarta -- 3.4 and Bali -- 6.9 ),
\nimplying that the target had already been reached that year.
\nHowever, many other provinces recorded a rate of well over 20
\npercent in 2002, e.g. Maluku at 34.8 percent and Papua at 41.8
\npercent, which is the highest rate.<\/p>\n
In accordance with the rights-based approach to development,
\nthe people of Maluku and Papua has the same and equal right as
\nthe people of Jakarta and Bali not to be poor and to have access
\nto basic social services.<\/p>\n
If the MDGs are to be realized in an equitable and inclusive
\nway, consistent with the rights-based approach to development, an
\ninternally consistent set of MDG targets across provinces and
\neven districts must be worked out.<\/p>\n
Given the wide disparity of progress across provinces revealed
\nby the first progress report, a national consensus must be forged
\non the extent to which targets are to be adjusted and existing
\ntrends to be altered through deliberate policies, programs and
\nbudgetary allocation across provinces and districts.<\/p>\n
As a logical culmination of the MDG process, target setting
\nand the accompanying activities of strategy formulation and
\npublic investment (along with technical cooperation) programming
\nshould be mainstreamed into normal development management
\nfunctions at national, provincial and district levels.<\/p>\n
Mainstreaming of the MDGs and human development strategies,
\nincluding for poverty reduction, into national and regional
\ndevelopment planning could be initiated when the interim plans
\nfor 2005-2006 are prepared, as the country undergoes a transition
\ninto a new system of governance in 2004.<\/p>\n
The written is UNDP Programme Development Advisor. The views
\nexpressed herein are personal and do not necessarily reflect
\nthose of UNDP<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ri-progress-to-development-goals-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}