Email this page to a friend!

MDG7: Sahena's Story

 

Pakistan is currently enduring the worst flooding in the country’s history, and is expected to take months or even years to fully recover. Meanwhile, there’s a terrible drought in Niger, forest fires across Russia, food riots in Mozambique and the rains across Africa have become unpredictable, sometimes not appearing at all. Sahena, in this Oxfam video, talks about the unpredictability of the seasons in Bangladesh, and how this is upsetting their crop planting.

This unpredictability has enormous consequences for millions of people, and climate change has been blamed for causing such extreme weather.

As we see from the video in Bangladesh, people in poor communities can and are learning to cope with the changes in climate, and doing so with admirable determination and effort. A wonderful aspect of this project, is that it and other projects like it are not only helping communities cope with flooding, but by working with and educating women, they are improving their status in societies where they are not nearly so valued as men. The video shows how women involved in these projects are being empowered to stand up for their rights in their society by gaining confidence in their knowledge and usefulness.

Despite such wonderful projects we must not neglect our responsibilities. If those of us in the developed world do nothing to change, the situation is only going to worsen and force communities like Sahena’s to work even harder to protect their homes, or face losing them. Because of its abundant affecting factors and it’s equally numerous consequences, climate change is the biggest environmental challenge that we face. The UN MDG monitor reports that “action on climate change is within our grasp”, and there are major campaigns from NGOs that we can support to show our concern for people like Sahena.

These campaigns tend to approach the issue of climate change from a number of different directions. Charities are targeting politicians in an effort to persuade them to adopt binding emission targets and fair aid deals targeted specifically at helping developing countries adapt to the changing climate. At the same time they are investing in these small scale local projects that are nevertheless making huge differences to both individuals and communities. Our support is crucial to their success, and due to the many ways that we can quickly and easily take part in campaign actions online, there is ample opportunity for us to show how we feel.
  

Comments

12/10/12 6:47pm - Posted By Isadora - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
This report mieesprersnts the MDGs and takes a very Eurocentric view of the development enterprise. First, the report states that the MDGs are too narrowly defined. Yet, they represent a far more comprehensive agenda than the growth-driven doctrine that previously prevailed. Going further than this and aiming at a universal political blue print of how development should be managed would be a bridge too far. We live in a world of sovereign states and poor though they may be developing countries will undertandably resist the unabashed political conditionality that you are advocating. Second, the paper states that the MDGs confuse means and ends. This is absolutely not the case and ironically it is a main drawback of your own report. Conversely, a notable strength of the MDGs is that they emphatically stay away from specifying the means to achieve the goals and indicators it lays out to track development progress. achieved. Indeed, the Monterrey compact makes it abundantly clear that individual countries are in the driver seat of the poverty reduction agenda. This is the purpose of the Poverty Reduction Stragegy Process. While it studiously stays away from domestic politics, it stresses the need for a holistic development vision and lays out ownership, partnership and result orientation as fundamental principles of engagement. Third, the report does not address the legitimacy issue. The MDGs are grounded in the work of several UN conferences to which all countries of the world have participated. They were endorsed by all UN members at the highest level (except for Cuba) following intensive debate and negotiations that involved all major stakeholders. By contrast the fragility concepts that te report uses to buttress its narrative are not broadly accepted. Indeed, they are resented by countries thus categorized by the rich countries' club. Following the recent financial crisis it now appears that many OECD countries are exhibiting signs of fragility while emerging market economies that do not comply with the governance tenets proposed by International Alert have become the engine of the global economy. Nor is it accurate to state that India and China did not benefit from aid. For decades they were the largest World Bank Group borrowers and they have made shrewd use of the economic management advice proferred to them. Fourth, the report is grounded on intellectual premises that need revisiting in the wake of the unfolding financial crisis. The rules of the game of the global system more than the MDGs need revisiting in the common interest. The International Alert report does not address issues of trade, migration, foreign direct investment, environment that underlie the current global malaise and hamper development in the poorest regions of the world. Here again, the report fails to notice the value of the MDGs: MDG#8 does address (however tentatively) the need to level the playing field of the international economic system. Fifth, the hard reality is that achieving a shared understanding of what human progress looks like is a missionary and aspirational goal which can only be reached (if it can be reached at all at the global level) through public debate, broad based participation and shrewd international diplomacy.From this perspective, the template proposed by the report is polemical and it would be dead on arrival in the international diplomatic arena. Indeed, the Douglass North view you are promoting is not all that different from the end of history model proposed by Francis Fukuyama in the wake of the Soviet Union implosion. This big picture model of the world no longer fits. Indeed, Fukuyama has since clarified his position and his more recent state building doctrine is far more nuanced, agnostic and convincing. Paradoxically the liberal, pluralistic, civil society centred approach that you are advocating (and that I personally subscribe to) is precisely the model that the United Nations agencies (especially the UNDP) has quietly promoted alongside the MDGs. But it is now being shunned by many developing countries. This is not surprising: many western countries that comply with its tenets are teetering on the brink of financial ruin. By contrast, a number of development states (China, Vietnam, etc.) have broken many of its rules and yet (whether we in the west like it or not) have so far proven remarkably resilient to global economic downturns. Indeed, over the past decades they have experienced high growth rates, reduced poverty and accumulated vast reserves of foreign currency. A corollary of this unexpected outcome is that it is bringing back to the fore basic apolitical Washington consensus rules about sound economic management that the western states have ignored in the exuberance of their debt driven economic strategies and that developmental states able to connect to the global market and to achieve internal security have studiously observed with excellent results at the macroeconomic level. The unpalatable fact is that the authoritarian capitalist state model while unappetizing to western electorates has many adherents in the zones of turmoil and transition (witness Rwanda) for one simple reason: it offers stability and security for the bulk of the population. This is where big bang economic reform strategies pushed by the international financial institutions in post conflict states have lacked savvy. Fifth, given these trends, it is unhelpful for your paper to ignore the Human Development paradigm (and the Amartya Sen perspective that it embodies). This broad based development consensus is in fact not inconsistent with what you are suggesting and it is surprising that your paper does not examine it. Nor do you give credit to the efforts of the previous Secretary General to connect security and development through the Commission for Human Security and the In Larger Freedom report. It failed to secure broad based support but was nevertheless the right doctrine for the times and it is one that may yet prevail.
13/10/12 5:17pm - Posted By bvrwrljmsqk - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
nQ6a6P <a href="http://atcrucajojwd.com/">atcrucajojwd</a>
14/10/12 3:17pm - Posted By lnltxgvzixo - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
NqwZ6k , [url=http://gldnrabmqxph.com/]gldnrabmqxph[/url], [link=http://gnunyuywmbnt.com/]gnunyuywmbnt[/link], http://ipwkyrvvxwin.com/
16/10/12 10:28am - Posted By nmkdwvv - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
Ngef3C , [url=http://osxhhfywyqbz.com/]osxhhfywyqbz[/url], [link=http://sgdscuozslom.com/]sgdscuozslom[/link], http://xafekqvxewqw.com/

Add Comment

Your Name:

Your Email (Not Displayed):

Please enter the code in the image into the box

Code:


Can't read the image? Reload