Author : Minouche Shafik
Date : March 24, 2010
In these last five years before 2015, we need political support and accountability to meet the MDGs.
Do you remember where you were when the bells rang in the new millennium? I was in Egypt at the Temple of the Oracle in the Siwa Oasis seeking wishes and wisdom!
Of course, as well as being a time of personal celebrations and resolutions, the new millennium brought with it the chance to put a line in the sand, to mark a new beginning and set some larger-scale resolutions for a better world. For us, in the world of development, these took the form of the Millennium Development Goals. Ten years on, it’s time to take stock.
Flash is required!
A turning point on poverty
The recent Department for International Development conference on MDG progress captured a powerful sense of optimism and confidence that the MDGs can be met – I didn’t hear a single delegate say ‘this isn’t possible’. We know the MDGs can be met and we know how to do it. Developing countries – supported by the international community – have made great strides over the past ten years towards meeting the MDGs. What we need now in the last five years is political support and accountability.
This is a critical year – what DFID has called a turning point on poverty. We are only five years away from 2015, the target date for achieving the MDGs; and the international community will come together at the UN MDG Summit in September. The summit is the international community’s opportunity to take stock of progress and seek to agree a Global Development Action Plan to deliver the MDGs by 2015.
However, a key message from our conference delegates was that business as usual will not do. There are new challenges and opportunities that we have to address in the way we do business and work towards the MDGs in the next five years. We know we must address the challenge of conflict and climate change, the economic crisis and empowering women.
A strong position
We are in a strong position to do this. We have accumulated so much evidence over the past ten years about what is working and what is not, and the underlying reasons that affect success on the MDGs. In many ways, we have never been better equipped to catalyse change and to support developing countries in providing basic services to ordinary people across the world.
We know that strong and consistent political leadership is common to most development success stories. Examples of how political leadership has helped deliver progress on the MDGs includes President Mogae’s role in delivering action on HIV and AIDS in Botswana and the government of Ghana’s announcement of free health care for pregnant women. Just a few months later, more than 430,000 expectant mothers had registered to claim their new rights.
A changing world
Yet the world that we live in is changing fast. We are increasingly aware of the impact of a set of new challenges that affect our ability to achieve the MDGs. We are emerging from a global economic crisis, and climate change risks are reversing hard won development gains. We now have a better understanding of the importance of resilient economic growth and a better understanding of the challenges of achieving development in fragile and conflict-affected countries.
Conflict has a huge impact on MDG progress as it escalates the disparities between rich and poor, reverses economic growth weakens institutions and fragments communities. Twenty-two out of the 34 countries furthest from reaching the MDGs are in or emerging from conflict. Only 14 per cent of fragile countries are on track to achieve the maternal health MDG; and only 17 per cent of fragile countries are on track to achieve the HIV and AIDS MDG.
Shifts are occurring across the international landscape, including the emergence of the G20, new donors, delivery partners and technologies which affect the way we do business.
A last push
In an interdependent world, aid remains a hugely important part of the equation, yet we need to find ways to ensure that our actions are underpinned by principles to shape what happens between now and 2015 – accountability, innovation, fairness and resilience. Actions must be underpinned by a much stronger commitment to transparency and accountability for all – development agencies, developing country governments, the business community, NGOs and foundations.
Poor people in poor communities need to be able to hold local, national and international bodies to account for what is delivered in their name and have a voice to demand the changes which can better benefit them and their families. Lasting improvements to people’s lives involves undertaking long-term work to reduce vulnerability to both natural and man-made shocks.
These last five years before 2015 represent the difficult ‘last mile’ – we have come a long way but this last mile may well be the toughest. We risk a plateau in progress unless we accelerate our efforts – something I am confident we can and must do.
Flash is required!
- Comments RSS feed
-
Send this post to a friendSend this post
Date : October 4, 2010 01:42
I think the author highlights some important issues in the road to attainment of the goals of the MDG’s. I will also like us to focus on the process by which the MDG’s themselves came to be adopted, we developed them, and their suitability as benchmarks of measuring development in especially the poorest countries. There are countless evidences to suggest that the adoption of the MDG’s have been contributed substantially to revitalise efforts of many developing countries and the international community in achieving key development goals.
However, critical assessments need to made of the practicality of the MDG’s as operational targets. I share an opinion with Todd Moss (Vice President for Corporate Affairs, Centre for Global Development) in this regard. First, the MDG’s cannot be national goals. Isn’t it absurd that two totally different countries like India and Mauritania should have the same objectives and quantitative targets?
Perhaps using the targets of the MDG’s, without consideration of resources and time, some high performers under current conditions may actually be mislabelled as “losers”. Obviously, some countries need more time to deliver on many of the targets, and the success of countries on the achieving key development targets should not only be gauged on MDG’s with limited global contextual application
Date : May 16, 2010 11:48
Dear Mrs Minouche Shafik : Poisonous WINE is one of reason they became poor .
Please read this new :
To dear participants in FORUM
In Vietnam man drunk white wine .It badly impact to health because of low quality of wine.
This new about drunk wine in South .The same situation in the rural area in all country.Specialy in mountain area where the poor ethnic minority live.
Any study about this hot problem for health ???
Wine out of “ control “ in Cuulong Delta
(LD) - 14/5/2010 The head of Hygienic Division on Food An Giang – medical Doctor Le Minh Uy informs that in all province have 1600 wine points , but only 40 points have permission
In 2005 one person died by wine . TEST in thousands of wine production points in An Giang , the methanol still higher than standard
In Dong Thap in 14 examples for wine of 10 died persons in Sadec town and Chau Thanh district in June 2009 , 12 examples the methanol higher 27to 80 times standard . Medical doctor Nguyen Ngoc An – Director of Diseases prevention Center informs: in 130 examples after June 2009, many examples the methanol higher than 800 time standard
Very hard manage the wine production
Because of technical reason, so Certificate is not mind good quality.
The Food hygienic Division An Giang, the normal cycle of one wine is 2 days, price for one little up to 15.000 VND
But the price only 7000 to 8000 VND /little .Because they use 1 pill enzyme they have 20 little wine, even they use alcohol 90 and 1/10 to made wine .This is industrial alcohol –methanol dangerous for health
The new method for TEST can find the bad wine, but very difficult for wine produced by traditional way .The low education of users is challenge for management team.
S& T by CThN
Date : May 12, 2010 11:03
Dear Minouche
As Country Director of a British NGO working on family planning in Uganda, I feel that drastic innovation is required to give countries like Uganda a chance of demonstarting progress towards meetings its target. In that regard, output based solutions such as the safe delivery reproductive health voucher project in the SW of Uganda should be encouraged by develoment partners such as Dfid. Projects like this evidence a tangible service cost, ensue a defined quality standard and can target the poor. They also harness the private sector to develop interventions which then spill over into the public sector through effective advocacy. Best wishes Jon Cooper
Date : April 21, 2010 12:44
Good day, Minouche!
Thanks for this piece to initiate discussion on a most important subject to decide world fate - the MDG. However, things are far from rosy as emanated from discussions in different forum. I would like to draw another aspect which has a bearing on MDG and associated Food sovereignty. Proper governance is the key to food security. Many of the African food problems are mainly due to poor governance besides other factors. In one of my blog post in EVOKE I have discussed this and the post has generated enough enthusiasm among participants beside appreciation. I earnestly believe that these two aspects are intertwined and the campaign for MDG from UN should also highlight this aspect.
With warm regards,
Sincerely,
Pradip Dey
Date : April 20, 2010 09:07
Che Thuy Nhu makes a good argument above. So much of what we consider necessary development is based on the Western view of maximum consumption utility which ultimately leads to accelerate environmental degradation and a poorer quality of life as communities become more fragmented. The truth is that the achievement of the MDG's is really a function of the commitment of the developed world. As long as the top 20% of the world's population control 85% of the wealth [as opposed to 1.5% wealth control of the poorest 20%] what real choices do developing governments have? Choices they do have but the point I am making is that in the context of the extreme wealth of the West, the overriding onus rests on the West as to how the development of the rest of the world will take shape. Without a global consensus on food and energy production and common regulation of the global financial system that changes the global allocation of productive resources, not much is going to change.
And what then? I believe that development will be a function of the degree to which totalitarian states like China co-opt the rest of the world brining development without freedom or "voice" to nations. How development and the success of the MDG's are evaluated must be positioned in terms of the ideological struggle between floundering capitalism and growing benevolent [malevolent?] totalitarianism.
Date : April 9, 2010 09:44
Let us be honest – given the current pace of their progress and difficulties caused by the economic crises, the MDGs are not very likely to be achieved. Despite our work, our desire and our optimism. However, it does not mean that MDGs would be a failure. The opposite is true – thanks to the MDGs, unprecedented level of public support for development policy was mobilized in donor countries, and clear and measurable targets were established as a point of reference for people of developing nations, who can now evaluate how their government performed its managing role when compared with the performance of similar aid–recipient country. From this perspective, the MDGs already fulfilled their goal of setting the targets and mobilizing both donors and recipients to achieve them.
However, the situation which we are facing now is substantially different from the atmosphere in which the Millennium summit took place ten years ago. Economies of main western donors are affected by the global economic crisis and many recent donors face themselves growing deficits of public budgets, with accompanying effects of public discontent with plans to limit spending on domestic public welfare. On the other hand, new donors are emerging and pursuing their own way of helping developing nations, a way in which the MDGs’ role of direction indicator is overshadowed by national interests of the new donors themselves.
What do these changed conditions mean for MDGs? Before all it means that it is time to start thinking both on more concrete measures how to achieve the MDGs, and beyond the MDGs framework. If the global economic crises would continue, public opinion in the main western donor countries would hardly support traditional development aid in forms of let say educational programs, while it would be aware of the fact that new donors are on the same time laying down the fundaments for their future profits by investing in infrastructural and primary industry projects in the same developing countries. As an appropriate policy response, two distinctive ways forward seem to be most likely to be demanded by the western public - either the establishment of global agreement on rules of engagement in development aid that would secure respect of the MDGs, democratic standards and good governance, or change the nature of development assistance provided by the West, so that it would not only rhetorically but also in concrete terms represent investment that will sooner or later materialize and serve as a contribution to overcoming of global economic crises. Thus, in our preparations for the September summit on MDGs, we have to keep in mind that our actual challenge for the time being is to make outcomes of the MGDs sustainable even in the midst of economic crisis.
Date : April 9, 2010 00:06
Dear all,
I do believe things can change even in less than five years. When “the bells rang the new millennium” I was in wintery freezing Slovakia, waiting impatiently for computers to crash down or the world to get paralysed with the two zeros as some predicted. Fortunately nothing bad happened. Yet, in 2000, I still did not know Slovakia would really make it to the EU in just four years. This would not have happened without political support, accountability and commitment.
However, at that time, in other parts of the world, people had other goals and hopes than accession to an EU “club”. Millions strived to survive the next day, to get food and water, to give a birth to a non HIV-positive child, to go to school… Since 2000, there has been a substantial progress in meeting the Millennium Developments Goals:
“the right policies and actions, backed by adequate funding and strong political commitment” saw some results. “Fewer people today are dying of AIDS, and many countries are implementing proven strategies to combat malaria” and other diseases. “The world is edging closer to universal primary education, and we are well on our way to meeting the target for safe drinking water”.
While all the eight MDGs are worth evaluating, for now, let’s focus on the situation of HIV/AIDS. Despite the new infections in some countries (e.g., Asia, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa) decreased, in other parts of the world (namely Eastern Europe and Central Asia) the HIV prevalence nearly doubled since 2001 and more people got infected (from 630,000 to 1.6 million).
The estimated number of AIDS deaths declined from 2.2 million in 2005 to 2 million in 2007 thanks to an increased access to antiretroviral drugs in poorer countries. In just five years, access to antiretroviral treatment in poorer countries increased tenfold and this contributed to reduce the death rate. However, more people got infected every day (for every person who took up antiretroviral treatment in 2007, three new people got infected). Consequently, it cannot be said that the situation is really improving. Furthermore, women are still too vulnerable and the lack of education about HIV/AIDS just increases this vulnerability. For instance, among 15-24 years old, no more than 38% of females and 40% of males can show accurate and sufficient knowledge about ways to protect themselves from acquiring HIV. The UNGASS target was 90% by 2010.
But in the year 2010, just 5 years before the MDG ”deadline”, the progress towards the goals is rather slow and in some cases the situation has even deteriorated. Is it because of the economic crisis or is the crisis just an excuse? Indeed, the economic downturn has tightened resources, lowered down the opportunities and reduced aid flows. Wasn’t it in the Gleneagles summit (2005) that the Group of Eight committed to increasing their aid? Yes, the donors did commit but only a percentage of their national income. Since most OECD economies are in recession, aid for developing countries is rather limited.
Some hope for the “last push” and await a lot of change after the United Nations MDG Summit in September 2010. However, one has to be more realistic. 2015 has become a buzz word for a deadline, but is it a deadly one? I would say it is rather to stimulate and enhance the work of both donors and receivers. Yes “we are on our way” but it might take some time, maybe more than the five years ahead of us.
To some extent, the slow progress of achieving the MDGs by 2015 is due to geo-economic situation. Mr Philippe Douste-Blazy, Chairman of the Executive Board of UNITAID, pleaded for a new approach to address funding needs: "We need innovative financing mechanisms to complement classic institutional financing."
Yet, let’s not forget the geo-political situation and the armed conflicts in various parts of the developing world. Without solving these issues first, the achievement of the MDGs will need an extended deadline.
Simona
Date : April 2, 2010 05:26
Public investment by countries considered to be developing economies is required. Countries that can pull billions and billions of dollars out of the ground can surely fund the public institutions needed to meet the MDGs. Norms and standards for public management exist and are actionable in most cases.
So where's the problem?
Date : March 31, 2010 20:09
Well said Minouche Shafik.
"In an interdependent world, aid remains a hugely important part of the equation, yet we need to find ways to ensure that our actions are underpinned by principles to shape what happens between now and 2015 – accountability, innovation, fairness and resilience. Actions must be underpinned by a much stronger commitment to transparency and accountability for all – development agencies, developing country governments, the business community, NGOs and foundations.
Poor people in poor communities need to be able to hold local, national and international bodies to account for what is delivered in their name and have a voice to demand the changes which can better benefit them and their families. Lasting improvements to people’s lives involves undertaking long-term work to reduce vulnerability to both natural and man-made shocks".
What ails the under developed and developing nations? Reply: corruption leading to self perpetuating poverty. Reason: lack of honesty & transparency. Result: lack of accountability for sustained growth. Economy is divided between rich & poor; the rich are growing richer and the poor are growing poorer. The poor cannot afford essentials such as food, clothing, shelter, health, education and social security. The division is so sharp between communities, while a rich family can afford to spend Euro500 per week on food items, a poor family of the same size can hardly spend Euro5 per week.
Does this mean all citizens living in a poor nation are poor? Well the answer is a 'NO'. The wealth in a under developed/developing nation is skewed. Almost 80-90% of the wealth of the nation is in the control of say 5-10% of the population. The majority of the population hardly has access to any wealth and live in abject poverty.
One of the biggest factors is 'Corruption.' It is the cancer eating into the vitals of the society. It has permeated into all facets of life, affecting the poor and voiceless. Today, the common man with no money or muscle power, cannot think of getting any thing done in the developing world, without having to pay bribe.
Global institutions such as World Bank, IMF, and UN must enjoy legitimacy from their member countries and the international community. They must be responsive, with the interests of all members, especially the smaller and poorer, being taken into account. The governance of these institutions must be flexible, must respond to new challenges, national priorities and specific circumstances.
A scathing report from the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of IMF highlights the lack of transparency and accountability in IMF. The IEO measured governance along four dimensions – effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and voice – and against three standards – the Fund's own governing documents, other international organisations, and private & public-sector corporations. The report finds accountability and voice are the weakest features of the Fund's governance and these weaknesses entail risks to the Fund's legitimacy, which in turn has a bearing on its effectiveness.
If this is the situation with global institutions, we can well imagine what would be the situation with national and regional institutions. No wonder they abound in corruption of all sorts and get away with it. Then, how do we get over this corruption mania? One sure way would be to plug all the leakages in the system. This cannot be done without active support of the governments and its citizens. A unique identification of every citizen is the primary requirement. With the advent of ICT tools, every citizen can be uniquely identified from birth to death using unique identification methods such as fingerprint, iris, hand vein geometry and DNA linked to their ID, name, photo, etc.
A Multi Purpose Biometric Smart Card for every individual and organisation linked to a money account and a e-Tool to link every citizen and service provider/public authority including the vertical and horizontal hierarchy of governance can be used as a single window of transactions for G2C, G2G, B2B, B2C, etc. If the transactions are thrown open, then total transparency and accountability can prevail, as envisaged in the Right to Information Act.
Healthy citizenry can be created by covering all aspects of citizens from birth to death such as health, hygiene, housing, education, employment, expenses, consumption, savings, social security, et al, based on genuine physical transactions and not ghost transactions. Thus corruption, money laundering, arms trade and terrorism can be eliminated and all round peace and prosperity can prevail as every one would feel good that no one can cheat any one and all have equitable opportunities to contribute and grow.
http://www.4psbusinessandmarketing.com/17072008/storyd.asp?sid=2112&pageno=1 and http://innovationfair.spigit.com/Idea/View?ideaid=68
Date : March 27, 2010 09:35
To Mrs Minouche Shafik and participants of forum
To read this article, many ideas come to me . MDGs - are very nice GOALS .
Some days ago I send the comment to Mr Jean -Michael -Severino ( General Director of AFD ) about investment to Africa .Africa deveopment is under market mechanizm , but same countries are poor , low education level and bad cultural habits .I affraid , this is one reason I try to catch new infomation from Regional and Global , take them in to our society .Information is basis for selection the way how to go ?
After " Economic renovation since 1986 " up to now , the development became hot and hot .Every where you can hear the words " projects and projects ". Build road , bridge , buld new factory . With urbanization , part of people lost land and jobs . Many Industrial zones open in Vietnam and new factories .
What people can't understand are : future after investment ?
In some project Environment is polluted , water is polluted : more diseases for people , fish died , plant died .
The reason are they do Environment assesement is not good .Some Investors hide the payment for environment ( VEDAN company pullutes the Thi Vai River in South Vietnam )
I would sugest that the MDGs should be remain and check in every projects .Because the impact is general to community .
High mortarity deaths of children can be Indicator of poor in all sides : bad nurtition, bad imunization , low education, polluted water, bad health care ...
So we dream about : investors think more about MDGs before expanding the producing process .
Some days ago I read the new that the workers in some factory have meal meet 50% nutrition requirement .With this fact we can't have good health in community and consiquense other objectives like : children can't learn with good results ...
MDGs are nice and we should think how to intergtated them in every investment activity .
I think : protection of enviroment is hot problem in Vietnam : Hanoi , cities and rural areae .Rivers are polluted , drought because of forest destroy , because of bad plan for hydro -electricity in Region )
Thank you.
German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
Chinese
