Millennium Development Goals Where to now?

Millennium Development Goals UN Millennium Summit (2000) 147 heads of state Collective agreement to reduce poverty worldwide 18 measurable targets set for (mostly) 2015, baseline 1990 Following on from targets set at UN level since the 1970s and in line with shifts in IFI policy (‘Post-Washington consensus’) – Growth – Governancevirtuous circle towards poverty redn – Social Development

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Target for 2015: Halve the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day and those who suffer from hunger. 2. Achieve universal primary education Target for 2015: Ensure that all boys and girls complete primary school. 3. Promote gender equality and empower women Targets for 2005 and 2015: Eliminate gender disparities in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005, and at all levels by Reduce child mortality Target for 2015: Reduce by two-thirds the mortality rate among children under five. 5. Improve maternal health Target for 2015: Reduce by three-quarters the ratio of women dying in childbirth. Insert picture

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Target for 2015: Halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and the incidence of malaria and other major diseases. 7. Ensure environmental sustainability Targets: By 2015, reduce by half the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water. By 2020 achieve significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers. 8. Develop a global partnership for development Targets: Develop further an open trading and financial system Address the least developed countries’ special needs Deal comprehensively with developing countries’ debt problems Develop decent and productive work for youth. In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries. In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies – especially information and communications technologies. – Complete text

Progress? Extreme poverty falling everywhere $1.25 – From 44%/2 bn. people (1990) to 27%/<1.4bn. people (2008) Poverty reduction target met (possibly!) – from preliminary 2010 figures Access to clean water target met Parity in primary education enrolment (male/female) achieved Progress towards UPE (SSA 58% to 76%) Fall in under-5 deaths – 12mn to 7.6mn Increased access to treatment for people living with HIV 6.5 mn. People receiving ARVs in 2010 (though universal target by 2010 not met) Projections suggest that death rate from TB will be halved by 2015 Decline in global malaria deaths

Yet… ‘Vulnerable employment’ (poorly paid and insecure) only marginally decreased after 20 years (1991, 67% , 58%) Decreases in maternal mortality far from 2015 target Poor water quality remains in rural areas 2.5 bn. (1/2 pop DCs) still lack access to improved sanitation facilities 850 mn. (15.5% world pop) continue to live in hunger Number of people living in slums continuing to grow (1990, 650mn. – 2010, 863mn.) Gender equality and VAW remain key blockages

The proponents… MDGs have broadened outcomes by which development is judged / conceptions of development (HDI) Commitments at the highest level (with time-bound targets) – a global framework to increase government accountability Stemmed downturn in ODA / ‘aid fatigue’ – momentum for ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign / Live8

The critics… Too narrow Determined by ‘external experts’: Where are voices of the poor? Too concerned with measurable outputs – Target-driven approaches with time-bound goals need accurate data to monitor progress – time and resources – What about immeasurables? Political relations, local governance, indicator quality Return to a charity approach – ‘paying’ out of poverty, depoliticising its nature – abstraction from political economy of MDGs – need to shift from ‘money changing hands’ to ‘ideas changing minds’ forms of partnership (Vandemoortele, 2009: 356) Indicators conceptually flawed – e.g. $/day insufficient as measure extreme poverty and hunger Too focused on role of international agencies and governments, what about local actors?

The critics… Changes to how aid is delivered rather than quantity required (‘quality not quantity’ / ‘means not ends’ debate) – “need changes in the way external investments are made and in who determines what investments are made and how external resources are used; also changes in to whom those who make these decisions and investments are accountable. Improved “local governance” has a critical role in ensuring local development processes do address the MDGs within each locality.” (IIED) Broader objectives of Millennium Declaration ignored – human rights, democracy, good governance, conflict resolution… Diverting attention from broader inequitable global economic system? – no targets set for trade or debt relief

MDGs 2.0…? The debate (Pollard et al, 2011, IDS Bulletin, 42(5), pp ) Greater levels of global uncertainty - economic crisis - new geopolitical powers Changing patterns of poverty - ¾ of world’s poor now in middle-income countries – problem is national distribution – ODA still a useful instrument? New thinking on indicators and institutional arrangements - Well being (material living stds; health; education; political voice; social relationships; environment; insecurity) - UNDP/Oxford Multidimensional Poverty Index - Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative

MDGs 2.0…? Some views from the South (Pollard et al, 2011, IDS Bulletin, 42(5), pp ) 106 CAFOD partners 27 countries survey & telephone interviews Workshop Kenya (12 E Africa partners) Findings - 87% want some international framework after % note process (participatory) as important as framework itself - large majority (undefined!) feel climate change should be incorporated - 72% feel development has become higher priority as a result of MDGs - 60% feel MDGs useful for lobbying, fundraising & project design - 50% feel MDGs more useful to donors than to their work - 64% feel they contribute to gender equality - 65% feel useful in addressing HIV - 28% feel contributed to reducing conflict & peace-building - 54% in favour of expansion and development of existing framework - 30% in favour of a new and different framework