11 november 2015 social science that makes a difference 1.introduction 2.target 1a: halve between...

MDG REPORT 2015GOAL 1 - ERADICATE EXTREME

POVERTY AND HUNGER & THE POST 2015 SDG AGENDA

LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND

MDG REPORT 2015GOAL 1 - ERADICATE EXTREME

POVERTY AND HUNGER & THE POST 2015 SDG AGENDA

LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND

HUMAN SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL HUMAN SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL

11 November 2015

Social science that makes a difference

OUTLINEOUTLINE

1. Introduction

2. Target 1A: Halve between 1990 and 2015 the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day

3. Target 1B: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people

4. Target 1C: Halve between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

5. Leave No Child Behind - Towards The SDGS

6. Recommendations

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION• Outline Goal 1 MDG indicators and targets at a household level with

implications on the poverty status of children in those households• The lack of disaggregation by children in MDG Goal 1 indicators will

help contextualise the child specific indicators being proposed for the SDGs

• With respect to MDG Goal 1, progress at close out shows that there is general consensus that a lot has been done towards poverty eradication in South Africa• The post-apartheid pro-poor policy agenda as noted in

Governments 20-Year review • The World Bank (2014) notes that ssignificant progress has been

made since 1994, through the use of the tax system, as part of SAs development programme in the fight against poverty and inequality.

• However more still needs to be done to satisfactorily address poverty.

TARGET 1A: HALVE BETWEEN 1990 AND 2015 THE PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IS LESS THAN ONE DOLLAR A DAYTARGET 1A: HALVE BETWEEN 1990 AND 2015 THE PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IS LESS THAN ONE DOLLAR A DAY

• Target 1.A set out to ‘halve between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income was less than $1.25 a day', which is the definition of extreme poverty

• Under this target, there were three internationally recognised MDG sub-goals, as follows:• Half the proportion of the population below $1.25 (PPP)

per day• Half the poverty gap ratio ($1.25 (PPP) per day)• Half the share of poorest quintile in national consumption.

• On top of these three international lines the MDG framework allowed for countries to use national poverty lines for monitoring country trends, where these were available.

TARGET 1A: HALVE BETWEEN 1990 AND 2015 THE PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IS LESS THAN ONE DOLLAR A DAYTARGET 1A: HALVE BETWEEN 1990 AND 2015 THE PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IS LESS THAN ONE DOLLAR A DAY

• South Africa added several domesticated national poverty lines

• Three new domesticated indicators were added in the final MDG reporting period based on a multidimensional poverty measurement framework

INTERNATIONAL HEADCOUNT POVERTY LINES & TARGETSINTERNATIONAL HEADCOUNT POVERTY LINES & TARGETS

2000 2006 2009 2011

$1.00 Target 5.7 | Exceeded 1.7 11.3 5 5.9 4

$1.25 Target 8.5 | Exceeded 1.1 17 9.71 10.7 7.4

$2.00 Target 16.8*| Shortfall 4.0 33.5 25.3 27.2 20.8

$2.50 Target 21.1*| Shortfall 8.1 42.2 34.8 36.4 29.2

2.5

7.5

12.5

17.5

22.5

27.5

32.5

37.5

42.5

Pe

rce

nt

of

Po

pu

lati

on

Source: IES, (2000, 2005/2006, 2010/2011); LCS (2008/2009), Statistics South Africa, *Domesticated

• Half the proportion of the population below $1.25 (PPP) per day: Achieved by 2011

INTERNATIONAL POVERTY GAPSINTERNATIONAL POVERTY GAPS

2000 2006 2009 2011

$1.00 Target 1.6 | Exceeded 0.6 3.2 1.1 1.4 1

$1.25 Target 2.7 | Exceeded 0.8 5.4 2.3 2.8 1.9

$2.00 Target 6.5 | On Target 0.0 13 8.1 8.9 6.5

$2.50 Target 9.0*| Shortfall 1.3 18 12.5 13.5 10.3

1.0

3.0

5.0

7.0

9.0

11.0

13.0

15.0

17.0

19.0

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Po

ve

rty

Lin

e

• The headcount poverty measure gives the impression that all people below the poverty line are equally poor.

• The poverty gap resolves this and is used to assess the depth of poverty and measures the average distance the poor are from the poverty line.

• Halve the poverty gap ratio ($1.25 (PPP) per day): Achieved by 2011

Source: IES, (2000, 2005/2006, 2010/2011); LCS (2008/2009), Statistics South Africa; *Target not achieved

SHARE OF THE POOREST QUINTILE IN NATIONAL CONSUMPTIONSHARE OF THE POOREST QUINTILE IN NATIONAL CONSUMPTION

Source: Income & Expenditure Survey 2000, 2005/2006 and 2010/2011

• This indicator is a measure of inequality in the distribution of income, reflected in the percentage shares of income or consumption accruing to portions of the population ranked by consumption levels.

• Values can range from 0 to 20 with smaller values indicating higher inequality• Given the trend below inequality will remain a challenge in the foreseeable future• To double the share of poorest quintile in national consumption to 5.8%: Not Achieved

2000 2006 20110.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2.9 2.8 2.7

Share of the poorest quintile in national consumption: Target 5.8%

MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY SAMPIMULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY SAMPI• The current MDG indicators around poverty are largely based on

money metric indicators • This gives us an indication of who is income poor, but do not tell us

how they are poor. • We understand poverty as a multidimensional phenomena • In 2014, South Africa developed a multidimensional poverty measure,

the South African Multidimensional Poverty Index (SAMPI), using census data based on the Alkire and Foster approach

• This introduced three new domesticated indicators• Proportion of households SAMPI poor (new indicator)• Intensity of SAMPI poor (new indicator)• SAMPI index score (new indicator)

• The SAMPI captures multidimensional poverty by capturing severe deprivations that each person or household faces with respect to three dimensions of poverty, health, education and standard of living

THE DIMENSIONS, INDICATORS AND DEPRIVATION CUT-OFFS FOR SAMPITHE DIMENSIONS, INDICATORS AND DEPRIVATION CUT-OFFS FOR SAMPI

• South African Multidimensional Poverty Index (SAMPI) dimensions and indicators• Uses the same framework that is being proposed for the SDGs

Dimension Indicator Deprivation cut-off

Health Child Mortality If any child under the age of 5 has died in the past 12 months

Education Years of Schooling If no household member aged 15 or older has completed 5 years of schooling

School Attendance If any school-aged child (aged 7 to 15) is out of school

Living Standards

Fuel for lighting If household is using paraffin/candles/nothing/other

Fuel for heating If household is using paraffin/wood/coal/dung/other/none

Fuel for cooking If household is using paraffin/wood/coal/dung/other/none

Water access If no piped water in dwelling or on stand

Sanitation type If not a flush toilet

Dwelling type If an informal shack/traditional dwelling/caravan/tent/other

Asset ownership If household does not own more than one of radio, television, telephone or refrigerator and does not own a car

Economic activity

Unemployment If all adults (aged 15 to 64) in the household are unemployed

CONTRIBUTION OF WEIGHTED INDICATORS TO SAMPI 2001 – 2011 AT NATIONAL LEVELCONTRIBUTION OF WEIGHTED INDICATORS TO SAMPI 2001 – 2011 AT NATIONAL LEVEL

Child Mortality

Years of Schooling

School Atten-dance

Lighting Heating Cooking Water Sanitation Dwelling Assets Unem-ployment

2001 1 16 4 6 7 7 6 7 5 7 33

2011 1 14 2 5 7 6 7 7 5 5 40

2.5

7.5

12.5

17.5

22.5

27.5

32.5

37.5

42.5

47.5

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n o

f w

eig

hte

d in

dic

ato

rs (

%)

ASSESSING THE LIKELIHOOD OF BEING POORASSESSING THE LIKELIHOOD OF BEING POOR• Identifying areas of prioritisation in the post 2015 agenda by assessing risk

of being in poverty by demographic characteristics • Likelihood of being poor: Location by gender of head of household

(Reference is Urban – Male Head)

Rural - Male Head Urban - Female Head Rural - Female Head

Odds of being in poverty 1.498689 1.638536 2.692306

0.25

0.75

1.25

1.75

2.25

2.75

3.25

3.75

4.25

4.75

Ra

tio

of

rela

tiv

e r

isk

ASSESSING THE LIKELIHOOD OF BEING POORASSESSING THE LIKELIHOOD OF BEING POOR• Likelihood of being poor: By population group (Reference is White

population group)

Black African Coloured Indian or Asian

Odds of being in poverty

3.390683 1.85334 1.084674

0.25

0.75

1.25

1.75

2.25

2.75

3.25

3.75

4.25

4.75R

ati

o o

f re

lati

ve

ris

k

ASSESSING THE LIKELIHOOD OF BEING POORASSESSING THE LIKELIHOOD OF BEING POOR• Likelihood of being poor: Employment status (Reference is employed)

Unemployed Discouraged work-seeker

Other not economi-cally active

Odds of being in poverty

5.547124 5.567451 3.34826

0.50

1.50

2.50

3.50

4.50

5.50

Ra

tio

of

rela

tiv

e r

isk

ASSESSING THE LIKELIHOOD OF BEING POORASSESSING THE LIKELIHOOD OF BEING POOR• Likelihood of being poor: Educational level (Reference is matric)

No schooling Some primary Completed primary

Some sec-ondary

Higher

Odds of be-ing in poverty

1.512122 1.506415 1.455905 1.302319 0.3857392

0.25

0.75

1.25

1.75

2.25

2.75

Ra

tio

of

rela

tiv

e r

isk


STATUS AT A GLANCESTATUS AT A GLANCE

Indicators

1994

baseline

(or nearest

year)

2010 Status

(or nearest

year)

2013 Status

(or nearest

year) 2015

Current

status

(2014 or

nearest

year) 2015

2015

Target

Target

achieveme

nt Status

Indicato

r type

Target 1A: Halve between 1990 and 2015 the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day

Proportion of population below $1.00 (PPP) per day 11.3 (2000) 5.0 (2006) 4.0 (2011)No new

data5.7 Achieved MDG

Proportion of population below $1.25 (PPP) per day 17.0 (2000) 9.7 (2006) 7.4 (2011) No new data 8.5 Achieved MDG

Proportion of population below Lower-bound PL (R443

per month in 2009 prices)42.2 (2006) 44.6 (2009) 32.2 (2011) No new data

No

targetNA DOM

Proportion of population below Upper-bound PL (R620

per month in 2009 prices)57.2 (2006) 56.8 (2009) 45.5 (2011) No new data

No

targetNA DOM

Proportion of population below $2.00 (PPP) per day 33.5 (2000) 25.3 (2006) 20.8 (2011) No new data 16.8 Not

achievedMDG

Proportion of population below $2.50 (PPP) per day 42.4 (2000) 34.8 (2006) 29.2 (2011) No new data 21.1 Not

achievedDOM

Poverty gap ratio ($1.00 (PPP) per day) 3.2 (2000) 1.1 (2006) 1.0 (2011) No new data 1.6 Achieved MDG


Poverty gap ratio (Lower bound PL R443 per day) 16.4 (2006) 18.9 (2009)

11.8 (2011) No new dataNo

targetNA DOM

Poverty gap ratio (Upper bound R620 per day) 26.7 (2006) 27.9 (2009)

19.6 (2011) No new dataNo

targetNA DOM


Poverty gap ratio ($2.50 (PPP) per day) 18.0 (2000) 12.5 (2006) 10.3 (2011) No new data 9 Not

achievedMDG

Share of the poorest quintile in national

consumption2.9 (2000) 2.8 (2006) 2.7 (2011)

No new

data5.8

Not

achievedMDG

Gini coefficient 0.70 (2000) 0.73 (2006) 0.69 (2011) No new data 0.3 Not

achievedDOM

TARGET 1.B: ACHIEVE FULL & PRODUCTIVE EMPLOYMENT & DECENT WORK FOR ALL, INCLUDING WOMEN & YOUNG PEOPLE

TARGET 1.B: ACHIEVE FULL & PRODUCTIVE EMPLOYMENT & DECENT WORK FOR ALL, INCLUDING WOMEN & YOUNG PEOPLE

• The focus on employment has been at the core of all of South Africa’s development policies.• RDP (1994); GEAR (1996); ASGISA (2004); and NDP (2010) Vision

2030 • Despite this South Africa has struggled to achieve its Target 1.B

indicators• This reflects a complex interplay of a number of factors:

• a post-apartheid labour force which is largely ill-equipped to participate in the skill-intensive services sector;

• structural challenges that have complicated the country's diversification agenda; and in recent times

• the protracted global economic recovery.

TARGET 1B: PERCENTAGE GROWTH RATE OF GDP PER PERSON EMPLOYEDTARGET 1B: PERCENTAGE GROWTH RATE OF GDP PER PERSON EMPLOYED

• The first indicator is the growth rate of GDP per person employed which is equivalent to the growth rate of labour productivity.

• Before the crisis a 1% increase in growth was associated with a 0.64% increase in employment. Post-crisis a 1% increase in growth led to a decrease in employment of 0.16% (Bhorat , 2013)

• Almost achieved in the pre-crisis period

• The employment to population (EP) ratio measures the ability of an economy to provide employment for those willing to work. Low employment to population ratio indicates that a large proportion of the working age population are looking for work but can’t find it.

Percentage growth rate of GDP per

person employed

4.7

(2002)

1.9

(2009)

1.5

(2011)

-1.1

(2013)6

Not

achievedMDG

TARGET 1B: EMPLOYMENT TO POPULATION RATIO: TARGET 50-70TARGET 1B: EMPLOYMENT TO POPULATION RATIO: TARGET 50-70

*1.5 Employment-to-population ratio44.1

(2001)

41.8

(2010)

42.7

(2013)

42.8

(2014) 50-70

Not

achievedMDG

TARGET 1.B: PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYED PEOPLE LIVING UNDER A $1 PER DAYTARGET 1.B: PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYED PEOPLE LIVING UNDER A $1 PER DAY

• The proportion of the working poor in total employment gives an indication of the lack of decent work in a country.

• The target of 0% had not be achieved by 2009

• The employment status groups of own-account workers and contributing family workers are a measure of vulnerable employment. Target of halving it to 5% not achieved.

% of employed people living below

$1 (PPP) per day

2000

5.2

2009

3.9

2013

No Data

2014

No Data~ 0

Not

achievedMDG

TARGET 1B: PROPORTION OF OWN-ACCOUNT AND CONTRIBUTING HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS IN TOTAL EMPLOYMENTTARGET 1B: PROPORTION OF OWN-ACCOUNT AND CONTRIBUTING HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS IN TOTAL EMPLOYMENT

% of own-account and contributing

family workers in total employment

2000

11 .0%

2010

9.9%

2011

10.0%

2013

9.3%

Target

5%

Not

achievedMDG

TARGET 1C: HALVE BETWEEN 1990 AND 2015, THE PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM HUNGER TARGET 1C: HALVE BETWEEN 1990 AND 2015, THE PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM HUNGER

• Challenges around food security • South Africans rely on income as the main means of accessing food and

are thus highly dependent on paid employment to access food (Jacobs et al, 2009).

• Furthermore, the scale of subsistence farming in South Africa is considerably lower (1.8 out of 10, Census 2011) than compared to other developing contexts

• This has its origins in the historical lack of support for and encouragement in enabling subsistence farming by households for own consumption, under apartheid.

• The inability to resolve challenges around unemployment, have an important bearing on the ability to achieve household food and nutrition security

• At a national level, South Africa is food secure, the same cannot be said for household food sufficiency

TARGET 1C: % OF PEOPLE WHO REPORT EXPERIENCING HUNGER – DOMESTICATEDTARGET 1C: % OF PEOPLE WHO REPORT EXPERIENCING HUNGER – DOMESTICATED

• Self-reported insufficient food for adults and children from 2002 to 2013

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013

Insufficient food for adults

0.31 0.28 0.23 0.22 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.2 0.17 0.17 0.17

Insufficient food for children

0.32 0.3 0.26 0.24 0.17 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.18 0.18

3%8%

13%18%23%28%33%

Perc

enta

ge

TARGET 1C: % OF PEOPLE WHO REPORT EXPERIENCING HUNGER – DOMESTICATEDTARGET 1C: % OF PEOPLE WHO REPORT EXPERIENCING HUNGER – DOMESTICATED

• Association of self-reported insufficient food for adults by sex of head of household and location

TARGET 1C: PREVALENCE OF UNDERWEIGHT CHILDREN UNDER FIVE YEARS OF AGE – MDG TARGET 1C: PREVALENCE OF UNDERWEIGHT CHILDREN UNDER FIVE YEARS OF AGE – MDG

• Prevalence of stunting in children under five years of age (%) – Dom• Challenges in sourcing reliable and current data in respect of

prevalence of stunting, wasting and underweight children • The available data shows that children’s heights and weights have

increased since 1993 and being stunted or underweight has become less common (PSLDS, 1993; NIDS, 2008).

• Despite this targets were not met• This progress has however been marred by an increase in child

headcount povertyPrevalence of stunting, wasting, underweight and poverty among children 6-59 months from 1993-2008.

Source: PSLDS, 1993; NIDS Wave 1 2008

Year Stunting Wasting Underweight Poverty Headcount

1993 30.8 9.2 15.6 69.6

2008 24.6 4.8 8.8 73.4


STATUS AT A GLANCE IIISTATUS AT A GLANCE III

Indicators

1994

baseline

(or nearest

year)

2010 Status

(or nearest

year)

Current

status (2013

or nearest

year) 2015

Current

status

(2014 or

nearest

year) 2015

Target

Target

achievabilit

y

Indicator

type

Target 1C: Halve between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

% of people who report experiencing hunger 29.9 (2002) No data 12.9 (2011)No new

data15 Achieved DOM

Prevalence of underweight children under

five years of age (%)

13.24

(1993)10.2 (2005) 8.3 (2008)

No new

data4.7

Not

achievedMDG

Prevalence of stunting in children under five

years of age (%)30.3 (1993) No data 23.9 (2008)

No new

data15

Not

achievedDOM

Number of beneficiaries of social grants

(millions)2.6 (1997) 14.1 (2010) 14.9 (2011) 16.6 (2015) No target NA DOM

Proportion of households below Food Poverty (R305 per month in 2009 prices) with access to free basic services (%)

Water No data No data 56.0 (2009)No new

dataNo target NA DOM

Electricity No data No data 65.0 (2009)No new


Sewerage and sanitation No data No data 23.3 (2009)No new


Solid waste management No data No data 28.3 (2009)No new


Percentage of indigent households receiving free basic services

Water 61.8 (2004) 73.2 (2007) 71.6 (2011)73.4

(2013) No target NA DOM

Electricity 29.3 (2004) 50.4 (2007) 59.5 (2011)51.0

(2013) No target NA DOM

Sewerage and sanitation 38.5 (2004) 52.1 (2007) 57.9 (2011) 59.3

(2013)No target NA DOM

Solid waste management 38.7 (2004) 52.6 (2007) 54.1 (2011) 62.3 (2013) No target NA DOM


INTERNATIONAL MDG TARGET ACHIEVEMENT 2015 INTERNATIONAL MDG TARGET ACHIEVEMENT 2015

*1.9 Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption

IndicatorsTarget achievement

Status

Indicator

typeNo.

Target 1A: Halve between 1990 and 2015 the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day

1.1 Proportion of population below $1.25 (PPP) per day Achieved MDG 1.2 Poverty gap ratio ($1.25 (PPP) per day) Achieved MDG 1.3 Share of the poorest quintile in national consumption Not achieved MDG

Target 1B: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people

1.4 Percentage growth rate of GDP per person employed Not achieved MDG

1.5 Employment-to-population ratio Not achieved MDG 1.6 % of employed people living below $1 (PPP) per day Not achieved MDG 1.7 % of own-account and contributing family workers in total

employmentNot achieved MDG

Target 1C: Halve between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

1.8 Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age

(%) Not achieved MDG

1.9 % of people who report experiencing hunger Achieved DOM*

3/9

LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND - TOWARDS THE SDGSLEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND - TOWARDS THE SDGS

• The following proposals for child specific indicators in the SDGs was put together by a large consortium of partners who are working together to eradicate child poverty. (World Vision, IDS, SAVE the Children, UNICEF etc)

• Proposed indicators to measure child poverty in the SDG’s:• Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere

• There is a need to include in the SDGs explicit targets to halve child poverty by national definitions by 2030

• To monitor these targets the new SDGs should include specific child poverty indicators including both monetary and multidimensional child poverty

• The proposed child poverty indicators can be monitored post-2015 by using existing data sources

• Progress of the poorest and most vulnerable children should be monitored across all relevant SDG targets by disaggregating by income and other forms of inequality

LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND - TOWARDS THE SDGSLEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND - TOWARDS THE SDGS

• Target 1.1: by 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day

• Proposed child specific indicator• Percentage of population below $1.25 (PPP) per day,

disaggregated by age to capture the child poverty rate• Target 1.2: by 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men,

women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.

• Proposed child specific indicator(s)• Proportion of children (aged 0-17) below the national poverty line• Proportion of children (aged 0-17) living in multidimensional

poverty

LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND - TOWARDS THE SDGS IILEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND - TOWARDS THE SDGS II

• All other child-relevant Targets• All child-level indicators used in the SDGs should be

disaggregated by income quintiles, poverty and other forms of inequality

• There has to be an improvement in data collection for the most vulnerable children - who can be omitted from or bypassed in surveys and programmes

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS• Recommendation 1: Target vulnerable groups to eliminate

extreme poverty by introducing child specific poverty indicators

• The 'no one left behind' post-2015 principle suggests that South Africa will need to address poverty by targeting vulnerable groups such as child, particularly in female-headed households in rural areas.

• With respect to addressing aggregate poverty, the challenge will be to broaden its poverty interventions beyond the provision of basic services.

• Given the contribution of unemployment to poverty, there will be a need to strengthen policies around an industrial development path that can create employment opportunities for the people of South Africa.

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS• Recommendation 2: Move from only reporting on employment

levels to the number of children in households with unemployed working age adults.

• Given the challenges around South Africa meeting its MDG employment targets, there is a need to better understand the nature of unemployment in a way that allows a more comprehensive tracking of the problem.

• There is need for the introduction of indicators that will complement the current set of employment indicators that introduce the notion of unemployment deprivation that takes into account the exposure of children to households with this deprivation.

• Capture unemployment at the household level introduces a household dimension to the tracking of unemployment this is consistent with a broader welfare framework

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

• Recommendation 3: Address availability and reliability of food and nutritional insecurity data and measurement with respect child nutrition.

• There is a need to improve food and nutrition security measurement tools and methods at household level

• Introduce policy and programme measures which prioritise children without adequate food and nutrition provision.

• This requires an understanding of the intra- and individual household food and nutrition needs and dynamics in order to respond to the issues appropriately.

• Undertake further research to understand how food access relates to dietary diversity, coping strategies and child outcomes

THE ENDTHANK YOU

11 november 2015 social science that makes a difference 1.introduction 2.target 1a: halve between...

Documents

poverty eradication

depth of poverty

poverty gap ratio

poverty status of children

satisfactorily address

proportion of people

mdg indicators

mdg goal