2000 Millennium Development Goals

By Diana Wagner

 

Background to the development of the MDGs

 

            The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the end product of numerous UN development conferences from the 1960s to 1990s.   The First, Second and Third UN Development Decades (1060s, 1970s, 1980s) focused largely on economic growth.  In the 1990s, debates about development focused on the need to establish macroeconomic stability, strong institutions and governance, enforce the rule of law, control corruption, and provide greater social justice.  As a result, the MDGs reflect the emerging role of human rights in the international community, focusing on the economic, social and cultural rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (rights to food, education, health care, and decent standard of living).  The Goals also reflect a mixture of economic theory and human rights since a variety of human rights advocacy groups and civil society organizations participated in the drafting of the Goals.

            The International Development Goals, drafted in 1996 by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), also strongly influenced the MDGs.  Seven of the eight MDGs are exactly the same as the OECD goals.  Like the OECD goals, the first seven MDGs are time-bound and measurable.  The eighth MDG is not time-bound, but instead more of an aspirational goal.  The UN also simulated the manner in which to OECD goals relied on bilateral donors to further their development goals.  Unlike the OECD goals, however, the MDGs were formally adopted by developed and developing countries alike. 

 

The Drafting Process

 

            On December 17, 1998 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted to create the Millennium Summit of the United Nations.  The Millennium Summit met from September 6-8 of 2000 in New York.  The Summit included plenary meetings and four interactive round tables. The Prime Minister of Singapore, the President of Poland, the President of Venezuela, the President of Algeria each chaired one of the round tables.

            In September 2000 the United Nations General Assembly, representing 189 countries, unanimously adopted the Millennium Declaration.  As per the United Nations General Assembly’s request, the Secretary General and various UN agencies, as well as representatives of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), devised a plan for achieving the Millennium Declaration’s objectives – resulting in 8 goals, 18 targets and 48 indicators known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  The MDGs are a set of time-bound and measurable goals and targets designed to decrease poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental devastation and discrimination against women.  The MDGs are a unique approach to these worldly problems – they confer obligations on both rich and poor governments, but place a heavier burden on rich countries. 

The Millennium Development Goals

 

            The primary objective is to cut poverty in half across the globe by the year 2015. There are eight MDGs: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; develop a global partnership for development (see chart on left).  Goals one through seven are mutually reinforcing and are aimed at reducing poverty. The eighth goal, global partnership for development, is the means to achieve the first seven.  Each goal has a set of targets and indicators designed as a “road map” for how to achieve the MDGs.  The targets and indicators were drafted to measure the progress of each country on an international level.

            The Millennium Development Goals are premised on six core values: freedom, equality; solidarity; tolerance; respect for nature; and shared responsibility.  Each one can be traced to an economic, social, or cultural rights originally set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (arts. 22, 24, 25, 26) and later enumerated in a separate treaty, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  While achieving the MDGs will not mean that human rights are being universally respected, the international community generally agrees that the Goals are a step in the right direction towards that end.

            One important aspect of the Goals is that during the drafting process, the targets were intentionally tailored to cognizable human rights. This was done so that members of the General Assembly would view the targets as more of an obligation than a aspiration development goal.  As obligations, countries must not only refrain from violating the targets, they must also take affirmative steps towards realizing the goals.

            Taken as a whole, the MDGs have been influential in the international community. In some countries the goals have roused democratic debates about government performance, fostering political freedom and open debate.  Brazilian President Luis Inacio da Silva, for example, used the MDGs as his political platform for his presidential election.

            The future success of the MDGs is unclear – individual countries must take preliminary steps in order to reach each and every one of the Goals.  Goal 1 requires that countries increase access to food that they are already producing and stabilize market prices so that everyone can afford to eat.  To achieve Goal 2 countries must first tackle domestic resource deficiencies; the success of individual countries on the education front will determine international success on Goals 1 and 3-7.  Since women are the primary caregiver in most societies, Goal 3 will be central to achieving all the other Goals. To reach goals 4-6 countries must appreciably increase public access to health care.  Goal 7 depends largely on a countries’ ability to provide safe drinking water, which in turn requires the government to manage its national ecosystem; without doing so, sustaining human livelihood will be almost impossible.

            The overall success of the MDGs depends heavily on the success of Goal 8.  In order for the poorest countries to achieve Goals 1-7, the richer countries must first change their domestic policies relating to foreign aid, debt relief, trade and technology transfers.  At the Millennium Summit, the Monterrey International Conference on Financing for Development in March 2002 and at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in September 2002, developed countries pledge to increase foreign aid and focus on using that aid more effectively.  Commentators argue that developed countries should increase access to their markets by decreasing tariffs on goods from developing countries.  Additionally, developed countries can assist developing countries in their quest to accomplish Goals 1-7 by facilitating their access to advanced technologies designed to improve human health.

 

           

            Countries reaffirmed their commitment to the MDGs in March of 2002 at the International Conference on Financing for Development, held in Monterrey, Mexico.  The Goals were again reaffirmed by the world community in September 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg, South Africa.  World leaders of more developed countries also reaffirmed their commitment to increase financing for developing nations at the 2002 World Summit.

            Global progress during the 1990s was very irregular across both regions and countries.  Even within the same country, progress was inconsistent between different socio-economic groups.  General consensus among the United Nations was that none of the MDG targets for the year 2000 were met on an international scale.

            However, notable progress has been made by individual countries, particularly those countries that have increased social spending and developed programs towards achieving the MDGs.  Bolivia and Cameroon have increased spending on, and created national programs to improve, health and education.  In a 2002 paper published by the UN Development Programme Bureau for Development Policy, Jan

Vandemoortele notes that education in Guinea and Malawi improved substantially, as did overall nutrition in Indonesia, Mexico and Tunisia. Likewise, HIV/AIDS decreased notably in Senegal, Thailand and Uganda, child mortality rates improved in Bangladesh and the Gambia, and the spread of polio decreased strikingly across the globe.

            Unfortunately there have been significant setbacks as well. Mortality rates for children under the age of 5 increased in Cambodia, Kenya, Malawi, and Zambia.  The primary school enrollment ratio dropped in Cameroon, Lesotho, Mozambique and Tanzania. The gender disparity in primary school, the target of Goal 4, increased in Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Namibia.  Malnutrition increased in Burkina Faso and Yemen.  Access to clean water substantially decreased across the globe; Bangladesh, for example, suffered a water poisoning problem.  HIV/AIDS statistics increased at an unbelievably large rate, despite its decrease in certain isolated instances.

            Regional Progress.  East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) has made noticeable progress towards Goals 1, 2, and 3, reducing poverty in the region, increasing universal primary education, and decreasing the gender gap.  In particular, China and Vietnam have taken significant strides on the poverty front, decreasing the percentage of the population below $1 a day from 32% to 13% (China) and 51% to 14% (Vietnam) in just twelve years, from 1990-2002.  The EAP has struggled slightly with respect to Goals 4, 5, and 6 due to economic constraints.  In Cambodia, for example, the child mortality rates increased from 115 per 1000 live births in 1990 to 138 in 2002.  Middle income countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines have made progress despite the setbacks of other countries in the region.

            Europe and Central Asia (ECA).  Due to economic challenges in this region during the 1990s, many nations are struggling to maintain the social infrastructures that originally placed Europe and Central Asia towards the front of the development trend.  Such economic hardships also caused poverty levels to rise when the MDGs were first implemented.  As the regions’ economies restabilize, many countries have reduce poverty, including the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova and Russia.  UN agencies anticipate that Goal 2, universal primary education, will be achieved by 2015 for the region, several countries must improve literacy rates and student enrollments to meet this Goal.  Likewise, the region appears to be on track with respect to Goal 3, decreasing the gender gap.  Europe and Central Asia’s biggest challenge will be those goals that concern health care.  UN agencies currently estimate that the region will not meet child and maternal mortality goals of the MDGs.  Moreover, recent studies indicate that HIV/AIDS is quickly becoming an epidemic in the ECA region.  As to Goals 7 and 8, the region has begun to struggle to provide quality water adequate for drinking.

            Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC).  While the LAC region is struggling to meet the poverty goal, it is generally on course to the rest of the goals.  Impressively, the LAC is the only region likely to meet the goals for child mortality and safe drinking water.  The region must still work to eliminate child malnutrition and gender-based discrimination in the labor market.

            Middle East and North Africa.  This region has one of the world’s largest population growths, second only to Sub-Saharan Africa.  In the past, this population growth has directly affected the region’s poverty line.  During the 1990s, economic growth was very slow, and poverty has accordingly increased.  The availability of fresh water is one of the region’s primary concerns.

            South Asia.  At the time of the drafting of the MDGs, 40% of those people making less than $1 a day across the globe lived in the South Asian region.  Since 1990, poverty has markedly decreased in the region.  Many countries in South Asia have been able to reduce national poverty lines, particularly India, with the exception of Pakistan, which has remained stagnant.  On the other hand, the region has successfully improved child mortality rates, especially in Bangladesh, education enrollment, youth literacy, child malnutrition, and the gender gap in education.  The region’s primary health concerns include tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS.

            Sub-Saharan Africa. The Sub-Saharan Africa region has the largest number of people living below $1 a day.  Based on the region’s slow progress towards reducing poverty, UN agencies predict that it will not reach the targets underlying Goal 1.  Moreover, the UN is concerned that poverty may rise from 314 million in 2001 to 366 million people by 2015 in Sub-Saharan Africa.  Three countries stand out in this region, and have made remarkable progress towards reducing poverty: Uganda, Ghana and Cameroon.  With respect to the MDGs relating to health care, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria are still the leading diseases in the region and have contributed to a decrease in life expectancy and an increase in infant mortality rates.  Sub-Saharan Africa also has the lowest primary school completion rates. Finally, the region lacks technological infrastructure, which also contributes to a lower standard of living.

            For more detailed information, and to view country-specific data relating to MDG progress, visit www.developmentgoals.org.

            How Progress is Measured.  Progress relating to the MDGs is documented in a variety of ways.  The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) coordinates efforts to attain the MDGs at both the global and national levels.  Under the UNDP plan, each developing country is supposed to submit at least one report by the end of 2004.  Many governments and regional commission are compiling regional and sub-regional MDGs reports.  The UN Security General publishes an annual report on global progress towards the MDGs and will be releasing a comprehensive MDGs report in 2005. 

            The UNDP is present in 166 countries, acting in a cooperative capacity to develop a plan of implementation tailored to the needs of each individual country.   The agency emphasizes the importance of developing cooperative approaches on both the global and national level towards the implementation of the MDGs.  In particular, the UNDP strives to involve villages and communities at the micro level in the progress towards the development goals.  The UNDP encourages countries to build solutions together and share successful techniques with other countries working towards the same goals.  The UNDP also helps developing countries acquire the finances necessary to implement their cooperative efforts.

            To further aid countries in the implementation of the Goals, the UNDP created the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF).  The UNDAF is a strategic planning framework that facilitates cooperation between the UN, country governments and other development partners. UNDAF has been particularly successful  in over 18 countries, including India, Nepal, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and China, to name just a few.

            In 2002, the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan created the Millennium Project, an independent advisory project, to implement the Millennium Development Goals.  The project established an expert task force to assist individual countries in their progress towards the goals in light of each country’s individual needs.  There are ten Task Forces: 

§         Task Force 1 - Poverty and Economic Development

§         Task Force 2 – Hunger

§         Task Force 3 - Education and Gender Equality

§         Task Force 4 - Child Health and Maternal Health

§         Task Force 5 - HIV/AIDS, Malaria, TB, Other Major Diseases and Access to Essential Medicines

§         Task Force 6 - Environmental Sustainability

§         Task Force 7 - Water and Sanitation

§         Task Force 8 - Improving the Lives of Slum Dwellers

§         Task Force 9 - Open, Rule-Based Trading Systems

§         Task Force 10 - Science, Technology and Innovation

Each task force includes experts from various fields of academics, private and public professionals, members of civil society organizations and UN agencies.  Its central objective is to help countries seek out additional funds necessary to meet the Goals. The current director of the Millennium Project is Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University.

 

Commentary Concerning the MDGs

            Just as the Goals have had some successes and some setbacks, they have their supporters and their critics.  Commentators who support the MDGs maintain that simply having global goals motivates governments to work towards achieving the targets.  According to this view, the MDGs would be a success so long as some progress is made towards the goals.  It is the poorer countries that have to make the most progress towards the Goals, and thus any progress they make is inspiring.  Similarly, many commentators emphasize that the success or failure of the Goals should not be judged simply by whether the goals are achieved by the year 2015.  These two positions essentially hold that any progress is better than no progress.

            Commentators who criticize the Goals consider them too narrow.  They first point out that the MDGs focus only on economic, social and cultural rights, and not the corresponding civil and political rights.  Even within economic, social, and cultural rights, opponents further criticize the goals because they do not include targets for expanding people’s participation in government, increasing employment opportunities, reproductive health care rights, and institutional governance reforms.

            Similarly, critics disapprove of the narrow indicators used to measure progress towards the Goals.  These critics do not consider indicators such as school enrollment gaps to be a meaningful measurement of human development progress. The underlying concern is that just because countries may lack a certain number of telephones or statistically have an equal number of boy and girl students enrolled in school, does not necessarily mean that the Millennium Development Goal that the indicators relate to is being met (or that a country is falling short).  In response, supporters of the MDGs respond that the MDG indicators cannot be taken out of context, viewing the indicators not as ends in themselves, bur rather as benchmarks of progress towards the broader Goal to which they relate.

            Other commentators criticize the very concept of having global goals, and criticize the MDGs in particular for being too idealistic and setting the stage for disappointment.  Here, the concern is that countries that fail to meet the Goals by 2015, or that do not make sufficient progress towards that end, will be stigmatized as failures, resulting in further political separation between rich and poor countries.  These critics are also concerned that, while the Goals may be attainable at the global level, it may be impractical to expect all regions and countries to reach the various indicators and targets.

            Some countries have objected to the vast influence that donors have over how countries approach the implementation of the MDGs.  Many communities feel that local officials have been undermined by the agendas of donors and UN agencies instead of allowing communities to take their own approach to reaching the MDGs.

            Many countries have expressed concern about the practice of relying on statistics to evaluate country and region progress. While statistics may useful in measuring global progress overall, averages can be misleading since progress typically varies even within a single country.  Vandemoortele notes that “average household income is very much an abstraction for women who have little or no control over how it is spent; it may exist in the mind of economists but it does not necessarily correspond with the reality faced by millions of poor women.”[1] These critics note that statistical averages have a tendency to lead to unwarranted conclusions not based on real observations.

            Finally, some commentators believe that the MDGs will only be successful in open, participatory political cultures.  These commentators recognize that the Goals must be supported by political will if they are to succeed.  Both the people and governments, at both the national and local levels, must feel that the MDGs are their own goals, and not just those of the international community. Where people and local governments are included in the decision-making process the Goals will have a higher likelihood of success.

            Despite the various compliments and criticisms of the Millennium Development Goals, one thing is clear – the international community has taken them seriously and is still hopeful that the Goals will be met in the next ten years.