Email this page to a friend!

MDG Summit - Review

 

World leaders have gone home, the news is back to covering local stories, and the traffic in New York has returned to its usual crawl after last week’s MDG Review Summit.

After all the fanfare, the reports, the receptions and the endless speeches, we wanted to take a step back and ask – where are we at with the MDGs?

There are two big trends that we’ve pulled out and will focus on here:

  • Good, but not fast enough
  • It’s about more than aid

Good but not fast enough
Time and again, leaders took to their feet to declare the possibility that the MDGs can be achieved, but that we needed to work harder, faster, smarter, better . On education, on gender equality, on child and maternal mortality, on sanitation. And, although there’s no denying our potential to do each of these things, we need to take a step back and work out why we’re off-track on many MDGs.

To take the detail of just one example - child mortality has fallen to the still devastating figure of 22,000 children a day, down from 36,000 a day back in 1990. We’re off track on this goal largely because we made very little progress between the baseline year of 1990, and the actual setting of the MDGs in 2000.

In 1990, child mortality was 89 per 1000 live births. Fast forward to 2000, and it’s 77 per 1000 live births. Today, it’s 60. That’s a drop of 12 in the first 10 years, and 17 in the next 9. To quote UNICEF, “The annual rate of decline in under-five mortality has accelerated from 1.4 percent over the 1990s to 2.8 percent over 2000–2009.”

In the case of child health, what we’re doing now is working. Being off-track is a consequence of poor early progress, not failed interventions in recent years.

It’s in that context that the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, announced a new Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health, a $40b pitch to reach our goals on child and maternal health. It’s an ambitious strategy that brings together governments of both rich and poor countries, foundations and business.

It’s well worth a read as a summary of the things that we know work, and how we can continue to make progress. But, it’s also worth noting that there’s nothing much new in there – either in terms of policy or financing. We know what to do, what’s missing is the ongoing political will and resources to ensure that promises are followed through on.

It’s about more than aid
Perhaps it was because the rich countries are a little strapped for cash at the moment, but for the first time in almost a decade, leaders were keen to talk about the non-aid elements of development.

President Obama was the most strident in this respect, outlining a new Global Development Strategy for the US, arguing that,

“First, we’re changing how we define development. For too long, we’ve measured our efforts by the dollars we spent and the food and medicines that we delivered. But aid alone is not development. Development is helping nations to actually develop -- moving from poverty to prosperity. And we need more than just aid to unleash that change. We need to harness all the tools at our disposal -- from our diplomacy to our trade policies to our investment policies.”

“the purpose of development -- what’s needed most right now -- is creating the conditions where assistance is no longer needed. So we will seek partners who want to build their own capacity to provide for their people. We will seek development that is sustainable.”

We wholeheartedly agree with the President’s statement here, and for anyone who’s seen the 1.4 Billion presentation, we talk about governance, aid and trade as essential ingredients to drive development.

Yet, despite the rhetoric moving beyond aid, there are as yet few signs that rich countries will follow with action. The US maintains massive subsidies on cotton, undercutting poor country farmers and keeping millions poor. The EU’s common agricultural policy prices out dairy farmers in places like Kenya, and the weak regulation of financial institutions around the world enables corrupt monies to be transferred without scrutiny.

As we work towards the MDGs, we need to recognise the sprit and implications of the eighth goal, a global partnership for development. It’s about more than just giving aid, it’s about changing the things that keep people poor.

Ten years into the promise, we’re seeing that change is possible, it’s happening, but it’s going to take more than just kind words and a small bump in aid. It’s going to take aid programs that are really focused on the poorest, it’s going to take trade and foreign policy that creates a fair playing field, and it’s going to take changes from every one of us to ensure that we hold our leaders to account whilst taking personal action in support of the world’s poorest.

Posted by Simon Moss - GPP General Manager in Aid, Poverty for column Millennium Development Goals on Sep 28th 2010, 17:18

Comments

29/09/10 8:01am - Posted By Phillip Kingston - Reply to this comment
Thanks for the update Simon. Sounds like (all things considered) a reasonably positive event.

There's still plenty to do...
05/10/10 3:05pm - Posted By Gina Olivieri - Reply to this comment
Great post Simon, excellent summary :)
01/12/10 2:05pm - Posted By Richard Jones - Reply to this comment
According to Emma Seery, Oxfam?s spokesperson, the summit could have been just a mirage. "The promises look good from a distance, but the details are hard to see, and when the world?s poorest people most need help, pledges could still vanish into thin air.? She continues that leaders ?failed to acknowledge their collective disastrous failure to meet their aid targets and [url=http://fasttrackcashscam.org]fast track cash [/url].? She concludes that ?we need answers on how the money that?s been promised will be raised, and the hard work starts today.?
26/09/12 4:28pm - Posted By Rahul - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
This report mtrpersesenis 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.
28/09/12 5:58am - Posted By jabagbn - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
IGWg87 , [url=http://auzhoihricbp.com/]auzhoihricbp[/url], [link=http://liuomtzecvsu.com/]liuomtzecvsu[/link], http://wnwydzkadvjo.com/
29/09/12 7:23am - Posted By ssxshw - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
o3VjDb <a href="http://taqtrgvdgmhu.com/">taqtrgvdgmhu</a>
29/09/12 1:19pm - Posted By hflzrgfspl - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
sK0NT7 , [url=http://whiuifejhaxo.com/]whiuifejhaxo[/url], [link=http://buyzdkvtxfls.com/]buyzdkvtxfls[/link], http://debsmuuxznzl.com/
11/10/12 11:18pm - Posted By Amber - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
Pretty great post. I simply sumlbted upon your blog and wanted to mention that I've really enjoyed browsing your weblog posts. In any case I will be subscribing for your feed and I am hoping you write once more very soon!
12/10/12 6:22pm - Posted By cojjvczwei - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
bZcyyI <a href="http://algwiyloxtnz.com/">algwiyloxtnz</a>
13/10/12 5:32am - Posted By ptmfsjm - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
naWyrc , [url=http://lefmumtbwpej.com/]lefmumtbwpej[/url], [link=http://iqpmmrtmjtnw.com/]iqpmmrtmjtnw[/link], http://nryqsyhkgnda.com/
13/10/12 8:28pm - Posted By pwyexieg - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
F1Z0Zx <a href="http://yteaxngehwaf.com/">yteaxngehwaf</a>
15/10/12 12:31pm - Posted By wjfelhhy - Flag as inappropriate - Reply to this comment
XUrNbX , [url=http://xcrvneasdzjc.com/]xcrvneasdzjc[/url], [link=http://zzobvknpvetw.com/]zzobvknpvetw[/link], http://oejhjlwixuhz.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