Population, urbanization and environment

Pressing global challenges such as climate change, poverty and food insecurity are essentially human-induced problems. There are approximately 6.77 billion people in the world today, and the global population is still growing at a rate of 1.14 percent annually.

That equates to nearly 80 million new individuals on this planet

every year. At the current rate, projections indicate that by 2015 there will be 7.2 billion people inhabiting earth.

Southeast Asia, including East Timor, is home to more than 574 million people. Indonesia is theworld’s fourth most populous country, largest Muslim country and the third biggest democracy.

It alone makes up more than a third of the entire population of the region. Four members of the ASEAN are in the top 24 most populous countries, while most have higher birth rates and greater population densities (bar Laos) than the global average.

Today, urban areas comprise of more than half the world’s population. Urbanization has been a global phenomenon that transforms not only land use but people’s values and lifestyles. The influx of people for rural areas into the city in search of a better life is too astounding to put into figures.

By 2015, according to UN Population Fund (UNFPA), there will be three cities in Southeast Asia with more than 10 million inhabitants, known as mega cities Jakarta (17.3 million), Metro Manila (14.8 million) and Bangkok (10.1 million).

These sprawling urban areas and enormous populations exert a tremendous amount of stress on the environment. Resources are heavily concentrated in urban areas, causing major challenges in waste disposal, noise, air and water pollution, soil erosion, deforestation and many others.

As a result the environment, particularly biodiversity, is under constant threat. Mega cities are a major source of greenhouse gases emissions, which cause global warming.

Human activities and consumption patterns, coupled with industrial and commercial concentrations in these cities, drain resources found in urban and neighbouring areas. They also compromise the environmental conditions of these areas.

The current population trend is definitely bearing an adverse impact on the quality of natural resources, such as water, food, forest and air. There is a global shortage of potable water and food.

The world’s forest areas are shrinking. The quality of air in some cities is leading to health problems in certain people. The current condition of the environment is barely sustainable enough to maintain a decent human existence.

Despite all the challenges we face, it is humans who are ultimately responsible for this destruction to our natural environment. Constantly increasing the global population is not a good step toward tackling this issue. It may help win an election, but it will not win the struggle for a better life on earth.

Population trends, urbanization and environmental challenges demand comprehensive and long-term policy responses from concerned governments.

Policies cannot change the past, but they can shape the future by providing direction toward a better scenario. With the support of international and local NGOs and donors, governments recognizing the extent of these pressing global challenges can act on measures disrupting population trends and declining birth rates.

To do this, there is a need to expand the access and choices of women in education, economic opportunities, political participation and social integration. Studies show that women with higher education tend to have fewer children. Women enjoying economic, political and social freedom tend to give birth later in life. Men too need to be given responsibility to better manage this reproductive power.

Another measure that can be taken by governments is the distribution of economic opportunities to rural areas. The myth that a better life can only be found in the city should be squashed. This measure will halt the influx of rural people to urban areas. Moreover, development planning and process should not be heavily concentrated on urban areas.

These measures could relieve the environmental conditions from degeneration. With population and urbanization being checked, global challenges such as climate change, poverty and food insecurity can be tackled effectively. The question is, are our world’s leaders up to the challenge? We, as those solely responsible for the problem, should be proactive in encouraging our leaders to respond to these problems. Otherwise the future generations will blame us forever.


Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/07/31/population-urbanization-and-environment.html

That 2007 October Referendum in Costa Rica

As a graduate student of the UN-mandated University of Peace (UPeace) in Costa Rica, I was accredited as an international electoral observer by the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones (Electoral Tribunal) in the historic referendum in Costa Rica.

It was not only the country’s first referendum; it was also the world’s first referendum to seek the people’s approval of a free trade agreement or Tratado Libre de Commercio (TLC), in this case the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the United States.

As I prepared to go out that Sunday morning to begin my task as an observer, my host brother told me he had already voted. That was how I learned that polling stations opened as early as 6AM, particularly in Ciudad Colon.

Most of the 27 international observers from UPeace were staying in Ciudad Colon, from where a bus brought us to Raddison Hotel in San Jose, capital of Costa Rica, for a briefing before going to the polling stations.

Few cars were plying the streets of San Jose. Most shops were closed. Cars were concentrated and parked near the churches and polling stations that day. Most cantones (towns) in Costa Rica have their church, government hall, school, and plaza close together.

Polling stations were inside the schools. Outside there were the unmistakable booths of the YES and NO camps. Vendors of campaign paraphernalia, drinks and snacks were stationed close by.

People were free to express their stance on the issue by wearing campaign T-shirts, pins, caps, even henna tattoos on their faces and bellies. Voters arrived with their kids and family. Children and young people played football inside the school or simply ran and played around. People greeted each other left and right, exchanging pleasantries in congested narrow hallways with a festive, jovial atmosphere.

I had witnessed a huge gathering of those who opposed the TLC in downtown San Jose before the referendum date. It was estimated that more than 100,000 people were in attendance - the biggest assembly in a country of just over four million people.

A human sea wearing the colors pf their flag poured through the main street of San Jose. Music blared from loud speakers and a drum and a bugle corps and people bounced to the rhythms. Vendors sold food and souvenirs. It was a festival yet also a protest against TLC.

People were attentive to the speeches, intermittently applauding with a deafening chant of NO T-L-C. My heart pumped rapidly and I felt weak.

When voting, people had to look at their names on the voters’ list posted outside a polling room. Each list had a maximum number of 700 voters. Only three at a time were allowed inside the polling room. Inside voters presented their national ID or cedula with pictures. Then they got a ballot and filled in their choice.

With my scant Spanish, I managed to chat with one voter outside a school. I asked him if he lives near the polling station. The man said that his place is far, but he was waiting for a bus commissioned by the Electoral Tribunal to fetch and pick voters from far places. I then saw a bus coming with Si (Yes) posters on its front and sides. The man got inside the bus and waved at me when he got his seat.

After visiting three schools, we decided to go to the office of the Electoral Tribunal. We saw a hundred people queuing inside, either to have their new cedula or to renew it.

In the evening, we were invited to the announcement of a preliminary result at the Electoral Tribunal office. Outside the building were about 20 young people who were shouting NO T-L-C. People inside the building were unmindful of what was going on outside. At 9 PM, the tribunal announced that the Si (YES) was leading the No by a slim margin of 51.6% to 48.4% of nearly 60% turn out. The referendum is required to have at least 40% turn out make its results binding.

There was an immediate celebration of the Yes camp at the La Sabana Park but also some reports of burning posters and street signs by unidentified people in the city. But no killings related to the referendum were reported.

The president of the country and a Nobel Peace Laureate, Oscar Arias, called on the No camp for reconciliation. (Arias, who had served as president once before (1986–1990), won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for fostering peace talks that eventually ended the civil wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua. – Editor) However, some people in the No camp rejected this and cited electoral fraud and anomalies.

To be part of this political exercise in a foreign country especially Costa Rica, was quite an experience – a fair, peaceful and orderly election. Costarrinces take pride in what they have become and what they could offer the world, besides abolition of their army.

Source: http://politics.inquirer.net/view.php?db=1&article=20071030-97694

Trusting North Korea

North Korea's nuclear test destroyed the core requirement for the resumption of the six-party talks - trust. The underground explosion of a reportedly 15-kiloton nuclear bomb, comparable to the atomic bombs that were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima at the end of World War II, crushed any hopes that diplomacy would bring North Korea back to the talks and eventually disable its nuclear program. Can the global community still trust North Korea?

US President Barack Obama called the nuclear test "blatant defiance" of the UN Security Council's resolution and international law. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown condemned the test and described it as "erroneous, misguided, and a danger to the world." Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso saw it as a "grave challenge" and the president of South Korean said it was "provocation."

Indeed, it is a global security and peace concern. But the global community can not simply renew isolation of and sanctions against North Korea. Isolation and sanctions, time and again, have not brought the desired outcome. The six-party talks, which include the US, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and China, have likewise been fairly ineffective in persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. UN and world leaders need to come up with a more creative response to this latest antagonism against global security and peace. Military action is not this creative response.

In 2006, North Korea's first nuclear test surprised the global community. Prior to that, it was widely known that the poor country was developing a nuclear bomb. Little did the world know that such an impoverished country could create the dreaded nuclear bomb so quickly and with such a degree of success. North Korea joined the elite nuclear-armed countries, the fourth in Asia to explicitly announce its successful nuclear test.

Despite its impoverishment, North Korea was bent on pursuing its nuclear ambition that momentous year of 2006. It acknowledged that the ambition to be a nuclear-armed country was a way to gain respect in the global community and exalt the pride of North Koreans amidst their daily hardships. It recognized the power and leverage of nuclear bomb in international relations. When things were bad for North Korea, a nuclear test seemed to rouse the nationalism of its own people. It should be noted that North Korea's 67-year old reclusive leader, Kim Jong-Il, reportedly suffered a stroke last year.

Prior to the latest nuclear test, North Korea was lambasted for launching a satellite into orbit. Many believed that it was testing a long-range missile with the aim of reaching US soil. The UN Security Council strongly criticized the launching. North Korea demanded an apology from the world community for what is said was the confusion of a rightful and peaceful space development program with a military exercise.

With no apology from the UN in sight, North Korea unilaterally ditched the six-nation talks and threatened to enable its nuclear program. North Korea was still demanding an apology from the UN at the eleventh hour. Left with one option to redeem its position on the international arena, North Korea daringly conducted its nuclear test. This time the bomb was bigger and more powerful than the one launched in 2006. It effectively caught the attention of the global community.

Reports say that the belligerent country has also tested short-range and medium-range missiles.

In the midst of these developments, a number of diplomats, including US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are encouraging North Korea to rejoin the six-nation talks and uphold its 2007 commitment to disable its nuclear program.

In 2007, North Korea agreed to denuclearization in exchange for 1 million tons of fuel and other concessions, including its removal from the US' *axis of evil'. There were disagreements as to how to proceed with the agreement, particularly as to how to verify North Korea's disarmament.

The commitments by all parties in the talks were only partly fulfilled. The 1-million tons of fuel oil was not delivered in full, prompting North Korea to demand its delivery before it would allow US to verify its disarmament. Other political and historical factors contributed to the bungled implementation of the agreement in 2007.

So can the global community still trust North Korea? And can North Korea trust the global community?

As the convener of the ASEAN Regional Forum, in which North Korea is a member, ASEAN, being a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) can facilitate the reopening of talks with North Korea. The ASEAN Secretariat in Indonesia can be instrumental and key to the preventive diplomacy in the Korean peninsula and potentially the Asia-Pacific region.

Fulfillment of the previously made commitments would build trust and encourage the resumption of talks. After all, trust is the heart of any talks or negotiations. Sadly, this trust was shattered by the recent nuclear test. ASEAN can pick up the pieces and act as a forum for open dialogue.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/06/16/do-we-have-trust-north-korea.html

Earth Day in a regional perspective

"All the regions of the Philippines; the Mekong River Delta in Vietnam; almost all the regions of Cambodia; the North and East of the Lao PDR; the Bangkok region of Thailand; and West Sumatra, South Sumatra, West Java and East Java of Indonesia are all among the most vulnerable regions in Southeast Asia." These are the conclusions of a study entitled "Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for Southeast Asia" by the Economic and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA) in 2009.

There were three factors considered in the study to identify these climate change "hotspots," namely, climatic hazards (floods, droughts, cyclones, etc.), human and ecological sensitivity (population density and protected areas), and adaptive capacities (socio-economic data, technology and infrastructure).

Climate change, as we know, is one of the biggest threats to biodiversity. Conservation International (CI) identified the areas called biodiversity hotspots in dire need of conservation and protection due to high prevalence of species and high risks.

Of the 34 biodiversity hotspots in the world identified by CI, Southeast Asia hosts four of these; Indo-Burma, the Philippines, Sundaland (Borneo and Sumatra), and Wallacea (Sulawesi and Moluccas). These biodiversity hotspots are home to thousands of endemic species, some of which are threatened and endangered.

With climate change ever threatening our rich regional biodiversity, as concerned ASEAN citizens, what can we do in our endeavors to conserve and protect our biodiversity?

Global environmental issues and concerns such as climate change and biodiversity loss are covered by Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) to address such issues. For example, the issue of climate change is tackled by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) while biodiversity loss is covered by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

If there is one measure that can be credited for slowing down global environmental degradation and promoting global environmental vigilance and care, then it is, I must say, the collection of MEAs which are legally binding on the countries who signed these environmental conventions.

Although there still exist tremendous challenges to combat global environmental problems, the MEAs have shown the achievements, limitations and potentiality of these agreements to confront pressing and complex global environmental issues such as threats to biodiversity. MEAs have laid a good foundation and framework for policy and actions by decision-makers, if we intend to really do something on biodiversity conservation.

For activists, MEAs have provided a good starting point for discussion, debate, criticism and action. As citizens of signatory Parties, which are our governments, we are called upon to advance the goal of protecting and conserving our Earth from human destructiveness and greed. We should push our governments to help them comply with their obligations to prevent and manage negative human impacts on the Earth.

The current political-economic situation in our region and even in the world may not look conducive to significant reforms to highlight environmental protection and conservation, but the reports of EEPSEA on climate change "hotspots" may trigger responses and key actions from governments, private sector and NGOs.

Various national problems in the region bring us to the challenges facing regional structures. As we know, regional environmental issues and concerns are not insulated from national political and economic problems facing member states. New elections in Indonesia mean a new government and new directions, whilst economic recession is affecting Singapore.

There is an impending election in the Philippines, along with political uncertainties in Thailand and Myanmar. Malaysia also has a new leader and government. These are the changing realities in the region, affecting the efforts and directions we may take in protecting and conserving the Earth from the negative impacts of climate change and other environmental hazards.

There are logical reasons to look beyond countries and nation-states to determine adequate responses to the social, political, economic and environmental realities that challenge us. We must examine and push forward regional structures such as ASEAN to play a more enhanced role in addressing transnational concerns and issues.

Regional structures can represent and articulate collective interests and, at the same time, manage collective affairs and obligations of member states in regional and global levels.

The power and jurisdiction in tackling environmental concerns and issues must not rest solely on individual governments.

Various actors such as NGOs, the private sector and individuals have shown and proven their contributions in combating and mitigating climate change. These partnerships within countries and beyond can open up environmental possibilities from which we can draw valuable lessons.

Regional structures can offer cooperative problem-solving mechanisms bringing together ASEAN member states to provide our Earth with a breathing space in the midst of choking challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss.

ASEAN is blessed with rich biodiversity. Millions of tourists from all over the world come to our region to witness and enjoy this richness. Let us help our region protect and conserve its biodiversity. Let us have one region on Earth that showcases the beauty and wonders of biodiversity - let it be ASEAN.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/04/30/earth-day-a-regional-perspective.html

Stampede the result of social injustice

The exasperating scenes of elderly women gasping for air and space have been beamed into our collective memories and consciousness through the power of the media (e.g. TV and newspapers).

This tragedy has touched a strand of humanity in and among us. The death of 21 poor women in a stampede to get Rp 30,000 worth of alms from a rich family in Pasuruan, East Java, is very saddening.

Who would not be moved by images of elderly women succumbing to these external forces that pushed them to that excruciating end?

They were helplessly struggling, grasping and longing for something that was not theirs. And then, some of them gave up struggling. They stopped grasping and longing for something that was not theirs.

In the end, 21 women lost their lives. For all we know, these women might have been struggling, grasping and longing their whole lives.

What is the value of Rp 20,000 or Rp 30,000?

The elderly women have their own calculations, beyond our standards and economic understanding. They know its worth more than the giver, economist or anyone who has millions or billions of rupiah.

There is no doubt in my mind that what happened last Sept. 15 was violence. It was both direct and structural violence. Direct violence occurs when physical harm is done. Structural violence, on the other hand, happens when harmful conditions are created for some sectors of population which are marginalized and disadvantaged.

Notably, victims of these kinds of violence are normally the elderly, women, children and minorities. Our society today is characterized by unjust and unequal structures that engender and cause violence. When politicians steal money from the coffers of the government, they deprive the elderly, women, children and minorities from adequate and responsive social services.

When employers do not give their workers living wages, they deny the rights of workers to a decent living. When governments favor one ethnicity, religion, class or gender, they deny people of those groupings a fighting chance to be productive and contribute to national development or to work with and for their own governments.

These narratives present systemic violence of societal unjust and unequal structures. Their justification and rationalization may be difficult to ponder, but the existence of these structures could not be denied. One does not have to be a genius to point out the obvious results of these unjust and unequal structures. This is why, evidently, the world is mired and engulfed with exploitation, human rights violations, violence, landlessness and a lack of access to social services.

Even our relationships with others are shaped by these structures. Some examples of these relationships are the unfair labor practices of an employer toward his or her workers; substandard services to our clients or customers; manipulative and abusive treatment of our partners, friends or family members; and a superior view of ourselves compared to others.

What makes a violent structure are these hierarchical relationships and vertical inequalities that tip the balance of power and impede the satisfaction of basic human needs of others.

The gap between the rich and poor is widening. It is not that the poor are not trying real hard to eke out a decent living and extricate themselves from abject poverty. It is that certain societal structures limit their options and opportunities for social mobilization and gainful activities.

While the hierarchical relationships between and among social groups are enduring and strongly embedded in a social system, structural change needs to create social strain, conflict and disequilibrium between and among groups to make the relationships more horizontal.

The Sept. 15 tragedy may be the necessary strain and trigger point to inspire and motivate people to struggle against structural violence. A structural change will entail an action and task that necessitates purposive and cognitive behavior.

The first task is networking -- which links to outside the oppressive structure. Civil society groups can potentially be links for the poor.

Second is political education which can adopt Freire's conscientization (critical consciousness). Education of this kind will bring empowerment in their midst. Third is mobilization which is characterized by a collective action to challenge the unjust and unequal relationships and social arrangement.

We are moved by the death of the 21 poor women, to reconfigure and rethink our own relationships with others -- especially those in need; and to challenge the structures that make our elderly women queue for long hours and sacrifice their lives.

We can not and should not be part of these structures that bring violence to our women and children. We should be building structures that are just and fair, and that make it unnecessary to queue and beg for something that we are already entitled to.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/09/30/stampede-result-social-injustice.html

Eight years after 9/11

Eight years after of the shocking 9/11 event and consequent global war on terror waged by the U.S.-allied forces, is the world getting safer today, or more dangerous?

Terrorism has shaken the way we view human rights. The terror sown by the 9/11 incident in New York, train bombings in Madrid and in London, and the resort and hotel bombings in Bali and Jakarta have caused the governments of various states to adopt anti-terrorism and rights-restricting measures that would curb and prevent the threat of or actual terror attacks in their own territories.

And these states which strongly vow to end terrorism and ceaselessly pursue the people who espouse terrorism are known to be the pillars and models of present democratic systems -- USA, United Kingdom and Spain.

In the continuing fight against global terrorism there are rights that have been compromised such as rights to privacy, free speech and movement. Privacy is infringed to enable authorities to discover and trace evidence of terror plots; free speech is limited so as not to inflame and aggravate the ethnic, religious and other emotionally-charged conflicts; and movement to secure suspects into the custody of authorities. Even the rights of sovereign states, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, to self-determination was said to have been derogated in pursuit of this fight against terrorism.

Cloaked by this global fight against terrorism, some governments facing internal issues and concerns have used the "fight" to contain and repress the opposition and anti-government actions, regardless of whether those actions are legitimate or not.

Justifying their actions, governments invoke public good, order and security to override some human rights. In the light of the pressing global and local concerns, the government exercises its authority over individuals to restore order, prevent imminent terror attacks and suppress lawlessness.

In any case, whatever action made by governments should be subject to judicial court evaluations to determine if there is any culpability or abuse of power on the part of the authorities.

In 2003, United Nation's Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a special meeting of the Security Council's Counter-Terrorism Committee, "Our responses to terrorism as well as our efforts to thwart it and prevent it should uphold the human rights that terrorists aim to destroy.

"Respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are essential tools in the effort to combat terrorism -- not privileges to be sacrificed at a time of tension."

Any government that calls itself democratic is bound to protect, implement and guarantee the rights of its citizens. It is also called upon to institute structures and processes for the adjudication of claims of rights -- particularly if there is a conflict of claims.

These impartial and objective structures and processes will legitimize the democracy of a government. Democratic values must not be inimical to the values of protecting human rights.

The 9/11 moment also changed the status of insurgents, rebel and separatist groups and dissidents to terrorists. National governments confronting insurgencies, separatist rebellions and dissidents have readily labeled and projected these groups and individuals as terrorists -- regardless of their ideological and methodological struggles.

The U.S. has created a list of terrorist groups and even states sponsoring terrorism such as Iran and North Korea. Those on this list must put up with a number of sanctions including assets being frozen or the inability to make loans and financial transactions, etc.

Real or imagined, the threat of terror is in the midst of our daily lives. Whether it is terrorism or government actions which threaten our human rights, as rights-holders we need to be vigilant of our rights.

When the government fails to protect our rights, let us be reminded that governments should guarantee and protect our rights. Our governments must be accountable for our rights as citizens -- with or without a threat of terror.

Our government, and its actions will only be legitimate if we, as citizens, give our consent to be governed. If such consent is dubious and superficial, the government will usually assert its power through violence and rights-restricting measures. Then, it will also see human rights violations as collateral damage for its self-preservation.

After eight years and beyond, the world will only get safer if human rights are guaranteed and protected by the very institutions mandated to do so.


Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/09/11/eight-years-after-911.html

Are MDGs Sustainable?

Taking good care of the planet is a phenomenon that is agreeable to all nowadays. This was brought about by the groundbreaking 1987 Brundtland Report which popularized the term "sustainable development" and the 1992 Rio Earth Summit which developed Agenda 21.

Since then, sustainable development has been the buzzword for the past decade and set policy for development planning and intervention. It looks promising that it will encourage global solutions to global problems and aspires to be the solution for global environmental ills.

Unsurprisingly, everyone is charmed by sustainable development. The world was thirsting for a novel development framework when sustainable development burst onto the scene. In no time, politicians were preaching it. Donor institutions and funding agencies insisted in adopting it. NGOs willingly approved and implemented it. Corporations joined the bandwagon of enthusiasts for sustainable development.

However, does everyone get the same message?

With everyone on the same side, who is now against whom? Sustainable development seems to have reconciled the clashing sectors and actors of development. Governments and corporations have co-opted the NGO style and their workers in order to implement their own development projects in certain communities.

They know well that NGOs have more credibility and a better track record of doing development work on the ground. NGOs, in turn, link up with governments and corporations to be more financially viable and more responsive to the needs of the communities. Communities likewise have known many corporations not just through their advertisements and brands, but through school buildings, scholarships, water systems, livelihood projects and feeding programs.

Others call this arrangement a partnership. Some say it is collaboration. Few label it as accommodation. Whatever it is called, the point is everyone is in the act of promoting and implementing sustainable development.

The 1987 Brundtland Report mentions that the basic tenet of sustainable development is meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising those of the future generation, and in the process improving their quality of life.

For so long a time, development frameworks marginalized the environment as a factor in development discourse. Sustainable development has reversed this. It reiterates the centrality of human beings in development and puts the environment on the agenda of development discourse.

The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro laid out a guiding blueprint for a plan of action for sustainable development to be adopted by governments, institutions, NGOs and other interested groups. Many countries including Indonesia incorporated the blueprint into their own national development programs.

The blueprint had an over-arching influence on policy making and policy directing initiatives which dealt with conservation and preservation of the environment and a quest towards sustainable development.

With the wide acceptance and adoption of sustainable development as the key to address global ills, the UN put forward the noble Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to measure the impact of global development efforts and interventions. MDGs are a set of eight remarkable goals to be achieved by the year 2015 and agreed on by 189 heads of states -- including Indonesia -- at the Millennium Summit in 2000.

One of these goals is to ensure environmental sustainability which mandates the integration of sustainable development in the national development programs of countries which are parties to the MDGs agreement.

Year after year, country reports monitor and present the progress of development programs and interventions. Things were moving ahead rather respectably for certain goals such as poverty reduction and HIV-AIDS deterrence when the food and fuel crises hit this year. The crises have reversed earlier gains to an aggravation of poverty and hunger of the world's population.

The poor have been the hardest hit. Governments have tried to mitigate the impact of the food and fuel crises by providing subsidies, but these subsidies are palliative measures. They do not necessarily address the real issues of the poor who possess little economic, political and social entitlements.

After 21 years, sustainable development still faces growing global problems that it aspires to resolve. Seven years from now, MDGs shall have been achieved. Let us see -- or better yet, let us do it.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/09/05/are-mdgs-sustainable.html