The MDGs are characterized by a top-down approach, fail to recognize the intangible aspects of poverty and distract from the macro-economic constraints poor countries experience in accessing finance. Despite this, some of the goals are achievable and there is no excuse for missing them, writes Hellen Tombo. Committed leadership, stronger partnerships, extra money, debt cancellation, infrastructure development and deeper participation by the poor can all play a role.

At the beginning of the new millennium (2000), the United Nations set up eight goals that need to be realized by 2015 that became known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The leaders and heads of state of 189 countries signed the Millennium Declaration, which set a series of targets for global action against poverty. Meeting the MDGs would not end economic poverty; but meeting them could make a positive difference to millions of people. This month 189 world leaders re-convene in New York to attend the UN Millennium +5 Summit and review progress in implementation of the MDGs. The question that is constantly ringing in our minds is: Have many countries achieved the goals at all?
Reviewing the positive aspects of the MDGs

The MDGs cover the relative dimensions of poverty, not just income poverty. The goals reflect a broad terrain of basic human wellbeing, representing the many dimensions of poverty as part of an integrated whole. The visible signs of poverty can be calculated in terms of access to basic needs such as food, shelter, sanitation, water, health care and education. The goals underscore the fact that tailored interventions in many sectors are essential if human development is to be achieved.

The MDGs are implicitly linked to the human rights framework although such links are not strong enough. The MDGs link directly to the articles of the universal declaration of human rights, which states that everyone has a right to a standard of living adequate for health and the wellbeing, including food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services. Everyone has a right to education. Furthermore article 28 of the UNHR calls for an international order supportive of implementation of human rights, which is reflected in MDG 8.

The MDGs are global and national. The process through which they were elaborated means that they have an impact both at national level and the global level. There is no other source of authority other than heads of state agreeing through a global forum.

There are concrete output targets for the MDGs: The goals offer clear, agreed and quantifiable targets to galvanize the rich and poor counties and to hold their leaders to account. This means that they can be objectively verified, but still it leaves the question of process wide open.

Poverty reduction is regarded as a direct result of economic growth. This is indicated clearly in MDG 1 where the relationship between poverty and other key social indicators is clearly defined.

Although the MDGs might not be ambitious enough, they are achievable. As goals set by world leaders they represent the shared ambitions that can be achieved if there is political will to do so. There are no physical, ecological, and technical or other autonomous reasons to make achieving the MDGs impossible.

Reviewing the negative aspects of the MDGs

There is a persistent top down approach leading to lack of ownership and participation of local actors. It is believed to be owned by leaders. The solution by leaders is not to tell their subjects about global targets, which are barely relevant to them. Rather the people should be involved in bringing the targets closer to home, to a level where they become tangible and relevant, and can make a difference to their daily lives.

Furthermore, there is a lack of attention to the intangible dimensions of poverty. It is no secret that basic needs extend beyond material goods to include needs to be valued or treated with dignity, or to be free to participate politically, culturally or economically in society. Other important psychological dimensions of poverty are powerlessness, voicelessness, dependency and humiliation. The MDGS do not deal with the intangibles but rather concentrate on the tangible aspects. This severely affects the credibility of the MDGS.
There is over-emphasis on external finance volumes rather than the reform that would lead to greater participation and ownership. Most African countries normally prepare their budgets based on external assistance. Sometimes donors do not respond, which clearly limits the MDGs. The current volatility and unpredictability of aid flows is a serious problem in meeting the MDGs. This is further complicated by the debt burden.

The MDGs distract attention from the macro economic constraints underpinning the ability of developing counties to access finance. The policy advice offered by the IMF and the World Bank seems to undermine the potential of countries in reaching the MDGs. The goals and conditionality set by the World Bank and IMF are really hindering these countries from achieving the MDGs.

Africa has been struggling to meet the MDGs. It remains a daunting task for countries in Africa to achieve the goals. The goals are not new at all because they duplicate the National Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). If what is contained in the PRSPs cannot be achieved, then it is like squeezing water out of a stone to achieve the MDGs.

This inter-linkage with the PRSPs creates further complications. With the World Bank pushing a PRSP model and the UN the MDGs, the risks of PRSPs being exclusively or primary designed around the MDG goals appear to be very real. This unleashes the development process in countries where it is more than likely that the action on factors creating and sustaining poverty is completely left out of the countries development plan, which in turn may be directed by the MDG plans. This process twists the locus and ownership of national poverty planning, taking it a long distance away from poor people and their concerns.

Overview and Recommendations

Africa saw some success stories during the 1990s but, on balance, the continent’s record in moving towards the MDGs has been inadequate, especially for the poor. Progress is slow for child mortality, basic education, malnutrition, improved water supply, maternal mortality and gender discrimination in primary enrolment. With the exception of safe water, regional progress was less than one-tenth of the agreed target between1990 and 2000. Since the MDGs are to be achieved over a 25-year span starting in 1990, 40 per cent of the road should have been covered by 2000—meaning that Africa’s progress represents about one-fifth of what should have been accomplished by now. Even worse, little or no progress was achieved in reversing the HIV/AIDS pandemic. HIV prevalence rates continue to rise in numerous countries, whereas only a few succeeded in reducing the spread of the virus. Not only was progress inadequate, much of it by-passed the poor.

Global goals are primarily meant to help improve the situation of the poor and the disadvantaged, not only that of better-off and privileged people. There is no good reason why universal primary education should not yet be a practical reality. Its cost is perfectly affordable; no new technological breakthroughs are needed to get all children in school; there is consensus that it makes good economic sense; and basic education is a fundamental human right that must not be denied to any child. If these conditions are not enough to ensure success, then the question arises as to what it will take to meet the other MDGs.

In opening the Children’s Summit in May 2002, Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, stated, “We the grown-ups must reverse this list of failures”. The MDGs remain unfulfilled, but they also remain feasible and affordable.

If the legacy of our generation is to be more than a series of broken promises, then the following is needed: committed leadership, stronger partnerships, extra money, debt cancellation, infrastructure development and deeper participation by the poor. It is not too late to realize the dream by 2015.

* Hellen Tombo is executive director of the Kenya Youth Education and Community Development Programme. She is a member of GCAP and co-chair of the GCAP youth group.

* Please send comments to [email protected]