MDGs and their future: Some food for thought

Jugal Wadhwani*

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were made during the United Nations Millennium Summit on 8 September 2000. It included eight goals which were very broad in nature and were aimed at reducing poverty in all its forms. These goals were further supported by 18 targets and 48 identifiable indicators which were specific and quantitative benchmarks to judge the attainment of those goals. These MDGs provided a roadmap and a platform for global solidarity on developmental issues and to uplift the world from the clutches of poverty. These goals have their baseline at 1990 and are slated to be achieved by 2015.

With the deadline for the achievement of these goals near, a lot of debate has emerged regarding the future of the MDGs. As on now, a number of goals have been achieved with varying degrees in different countries. Recently Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, named UK prime minister David Cameron, Liberian president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, of Indonesia, as co-chairs of a high-level panel to advise him on the global development agenda after 2015. Political groups and the civil society have already started making noises on the issues to be included in the next set of goals which include items such as climate change, disability, etc.

However there are certain issues in the previous set which need to be addressed.

Let us take a look at Goal 2 for instance. It relates to the achievement of universal primary education and one of the related indicators for this goal is tracking the net enrolment ratio. According to official reports from the Indian government, this goal has already been achieved with data from the Net Enrolment Ratio (NER) at Primary level standing at 99.89. However The Annual Status of Education Report (ASER), 2011 states that despite such high enrolment numbers, the reality is quite different. The report states that there has been a massive decline in the students’ basic reading levels, arithmetic levels and academic levels. The report also details the malaise running in the education system wherein the teachers hardly come to school, students of different levels are taught in the same classrooms and so on.

This above anomaly clearly depicts the fact that indicators despite being specific are not the best judgement tools to reflect on the attainment of these goals. They are merely targets which are being manipulated to show the accomplishment of these goals. The advisory committee should focus on this aspect more thoroughly and develop a rectifying mechanism to ensure that data and indicators are closely related to the actual ground realities.

Then there are issues around existing goals and their place in the new framework. For instance Goal 1 to halve the proportion of people living in "extreme poverty" was met in 2010, five years ahead of the 2015 deadline. Extreme poverty on an international scale is measured by the number of people living under $1.25 a day. However an estimated 1 billion people will live on the equivalent of $1.25 or less a day in 2015 even after the goals having been met.

If the policy makers just look at the fact that the goal has been met, then the assumption that the problems associated with Goal 1 are over might creep in. However, realistically speaking; the ugly head of extreme poverty still remains and that too in mind numbing huge numbers. The task of the advisors will be extremely difficult here since they will have to ensure that these goals are not lost out in the new framework amidst the new potential goals of addressing climate change, disability, etc.

The above issues bring to mind the new theory of ‘golden thread’ of development being floated around by David Cameron. This theory tries to tackle the complexity in development and states that development aid should be accompanied by stable government, lack of corruption, human rights, the rule of law and transparent information. The British thinkers realize that one factor alone cannot change the dynamics of poverty and related issues. Rather a host of interlinked and convergent factors have to be bought about together to bring in relevant and lasting change. This theory of development is gaining ground and the advisory committee should make use of its basics to ensure that indicators are more inter-woven to reflect the actual ground realities rather than cooked up details. Also, the advisors can ensure the continuation of old goals in the new framework by sequencing them with the old ones so that aid to one goal can only proceed with a certain amount to the other goals as well. This means that goals would be linked in such a manner that completion of one part of a goal would be a prerequisite for starting the other goal.

Goals are decided on the basis of consultations among nations and this would require a great deal of negotiations between countries. Also, funding has been a major problem with developed countries hardly matching the commitment amounts. This issue might act as another barrier towards setting the next set of goals.  However with political realities coming into play while deciding the final framework, we can only wait and watch.

*Views are personal.