MDGs and Targets – Summary of progress achieved by IndiaMDG 1: Eradicate Extreme Poverty and HungerTarget 1: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the Per-centage of Population below the National PovertyLine

∎ Off-track The newly appointed committeeshould come up with a new poverty line. Thecountry is required to achieve a HCR level of23.9% by 2015 against the current projection of26.72%.

Target 2: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the pro-portion of people who suffer from hunger.

∎ Severely off-track. From an estimated 52% in1990, the proportion of underweight children be-low 3 years is required to be reduced to 26% by2015. At the current rate of decline 33% of chil-dren will be underweight, missing the target byseven percentage points.

MDG 2: Achieve Universal Primary EducationTarget 3: Ensure that by 2015 children every-where, boys and girls alike, will be able to com-plete a full course of primary education.

▶ On-track India is likely to achieve 100% NetEnrolment Ratio for girls and boys ahead of 2015.The proportion of students starting Grade I whoreach Grade V rose from 62% in 1999 to 81% by2002 and declined thereafter to 73% in 2004. Itdipped to 72% in 2007-08 though improved to 76percent in 2008-09. According to the trend exhib-ited during 1991 - 2001, India is likely to attain100% Youth literacy by 2015. The NSS estimatesfor the year 2007-08 shows 93% and 83% youthliteracy in urban and rural areas, respectively.

MDG 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower WomenTarget 4: Eliminate gender disparity in primaryand secondary education, preferably by 2005, andin all levels of education no later than 2015.

▶ On-track The ratio of literate women to men inthe age group 15-24 years stood at 0.88 in 2007-08. Parity, in the ratio, is expected by 2015. Theshare of women in wage employment in rural areaswas 19.6% and in urban areas, 17.6% in 2009-10.Parity in labour market participation is unlikelygiven the socio-cultural situation that is male dom-inated.

1

MDG 4: Reduce Child MortalityTarget 5: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and2015, the under-five Mortality Rate

∎ Off-track The under 5 mortality rate target by2015 is 42 per thousand live births. India is likelyto attain 52 by 2015, missing the target by 10 per-centage points. With the present improved trend,the national estimate of Infant Mortality Rate islikely to be 44 against the MDG target of 27 in2015.

MDG 5: Improve Maternal HealthTarget 6: Reduce by three quarters, between 1990and 2015, the Maternal Mortality Ratio.

∎ Off-track Based on the trend, India is likely towitness a MMR of 139 per 100,000 live births by2015, falling short by 30 points. With the rateof increase in deliveries by skilled personnel, thelikely rate by 2015 is 62%, far short of universalcoverage.

MDG 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Other DiseasesTarget 7: Have halted by 2015 and begun to re-verse the spread of HIV/AIDS

▶ On-track The adult prevalence was 0.26 and0.38 percent among women and men, respectively,in 2008, and 0.25 percent and 0.36 percent in2009, respectively. Among pregnant women 15-24 years, the prevalence of HIV has declined from0.86% in 2004 to 0.48% in 2008.

Target 8: Have halted by 2015 and begun to re-verse the incidence of malaria and other major dis-eases

∎ Off-track Total malaria cases have declinedfrom 2.08 million to 1.6 million and TB cases havedeclined from 1.0 to 0.83 million cases, between2001 and 2010. The prevalence of all forms of TBhas been brought down from 338/100,000 popu-lation in 1990 to 256/100,000 population in 2010and TB mortality in the country has reduced fromover 42/100,000 population in 1990 to 26/100,000population in 2010 as per the WHO global report2011. Repeat population surveys conducted byTuberculosis Research Centre indicate an annualdecline in prevalence of the disease by 12%.

2

MDG 7: Ensure Environmental SustainabilityTarget 9: Integrate the Principles of Sustain-able Development into Country Policies and Pro-grammes and Reverse the loss of EnvironmentalResources

▶ On-track There is an increase in forest coverof about 1128 sq. km between 2007 and 2011.668 Protected Areas have been established, ex-tending over 161,221.57 sq. kms. The countryis on track in increasing the protection networkfor arresting the diversity losses and for main-taining ecological balance. Energy Intensity, theamount of energy consumed for generating oneunit of Gross Domestic Product at constant prices,at 1999-2000 prices, increased from 0.128 KWhin 1970-71 to 0.165 KWh in 1985-86, and reducedto 0.122 KWh, at 2004-05 prices, in 2009-10.

Target 10: Halve, by 2015, the Proportion of Peo-ple without Sustainable Access to Safe DrinkingWater and Basic Sanitation

� Early for drinking water; ∎ off-track forsanitation The proportion of households withoutaccess to safe drinking water sources in 1990,around 34% reduced to the order of 17% in 2007-08. A reduction in the proportion of householdswithout any sanitation to about 43% by 2015 isanticipated missing the target by 5 percentagepoints.

Target 11: By 2020, to have achieved a significantimprovement in the lives of at least 100 millionslum dwellers.

The pattern is not statistically discernible

MDG 8: Develop a Global Partnership for DevelopmentTarget 18: In co-operation with the Private Sector,make available the benefits of new technologies,especially Information and Communication

▶ On-track The Internet subscriber base in-creased 97 fold from 0.21 million in 1999 to 20.33million in 2011. 346.67 million wireless sub-scribers subscribe to data services, as reported bywireless service providers.

� Already achieved by 2015▶ Expected to meet the 2015 target∎ Off track: Expected to meet target, after 2015◀ Off track: Regressing/no progress

3

Goa

l1

23

45

67

$1.25perdaypoverty

Underweightchildren

Primaryenrolment

Reachinglastgrade

Primarycompletion

Genderprimary

Gendersecondary

Gendertertiary

Under-5mortality

Infantmortality

Maternalmortality

Skilledbirthattendance

Antenatalcare(≥1visit)

HIVprevalence

TBincidence

TBprevalence

Forestcover

Protectedarea

CO2emissions

ODPsubstanceconsumption

Safedrinkingwater

Basicsanitation

Ban

glad

esh∎▶◀∎◀��∎▶▶∎∎∎▶▶�◀�◀�∎∎

Chi

na��

���▶∎▶�▶

����◀��∎

Indi

a∎∎�∎▶�▶∎∎∎∎∎∎�▶◀��◀��∎

Indo

nesi

a�∎�∎����▶∎∎��◀▶�◀�◀�∎∎

�A

lrea

dyac

hiev

edby

2015

▶E

xpec

ted

tom

eett

he20

15ta

rget

∎O

fftr

ack:

Exp

ecte

dto

mee

ttar

get,

afte

r201

5◀

Off

trac

k:R

egre

ssin

g/no

prog

ress

Sour

ce:A

ccel

erat

ing

Equ

itabl

eA

chie

vem

ento

fthe

MD

Gs.

Clo

sing

Gap

sin

Hea

lthan

dN

utri

tion

Out

com

es.

UN

ESC

AP,

AD

Ban

dU

ND

P(a

utho

rs).

Asi

a-pa

cific

regi

onal

MD

GR

epor

t201

1/12

inco

llab.

with

UN

FPA

,UN

ICE

F&

WH

O.

Tabl

e1:

On

and

offtr

ack

fort

heM

DG

s

4

A PovertyDespite India’s [. . . ] recent rapid economic growth and the presence of safety nets,hunger and malnutrition are still ever present in India, at ratios higher than in mostSub-Saharan countries. At least 200 million adults in the country suffer from seasonalenergy stress. Nearly 20 percent of preschool children in the country suffer from acutemalnutrition.4 This latter figure is one of the highest rates in the world. The WorldHealth Organisation considers a 15 per cent acute malnutrition rate to be the emergencythreshold, even in humanitarian crises; by this standard, India as a whole is in a stateof constant nutritional emergency, year in and year out. At least two states, MadhyaPradesh and Jharkhand, have acute malnutrition rates exceeding twice that threshold.’’1

The bulk of the poor live in rural areas. The poor have low skills, are poorly ed-ucated, live in regions where soil fertility is low and connectivity with urban centersis limited. The poor are often minorities that suffer from discrimination, neglect andsocial isolation. The poor have limited stocks of physical assets, low levels of sav-ings and are vulnerable to the vicissitudes of nature and to illness, both of which canbe devastating to those who have little to begin with. Some major factors responsiblefor chronic poverty in rural areas – limited education and skill, low income, limitedcapital and availability of social services, lack of capital and low savings – are to beconsidered.

Five modalities that are used to assist the poor: cash transfers, universal food sub-sidies, rationed food subsidies, public works and social funds.2

A.1 MeasuresThe World Bank began using the dollar a day threshold as a definition of poverty in1990. The World Bank gathered national poverty line data from 75 national estimatesin 2008 and averaged the bottom fifteen, thirteen sub-Saharan African countries, Nepaland Tajikistan, to arrive at $1.25 a day, as a revised poverty line.

To show depth of poverty and absolute level of poverty, IFPRI proposed represent-ing poverty incidence measured in purchasing parity terms in three groups, subjacentpoor with incomes between $0.81 and $1.08 per day, the medial poor with incomesbetween $0.81 and $0.54 and the ultra poor with incomes below $0.54. The furtherincome is below the poverty line, the greater the depth of poverty experienced.

1Devereux, Stephen; Vaitla, Bapu; Hauenstein Swan, Samuel (2008): Seasons of Hunger. FightingCycles of Starvation among the World’s Rural Poor. London, Britain: Pluto Press.

2Dowling, John Malcolm; Yap, Chin-Fang (2009): Chronic Poverty in Asia. Causes, Consequences andPolicies. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.

3Asian Development Bank (2008). Asian Development Outlook. Manila: ADB. and Bauer, A, R Hasan,R Magsombol and G Wan (2008). The World Bank’s New Poverty Data: Implications for the Asian Devel-opment Bank. ADB Sustainable Development, Working Paper Series No. 2. Manila: ADB.

4IFPRI (2007). The World’s Most Deprived: Characteristics and Causes of Extreme Poverty and Hunger.Washington, DC: IFPRI.

5Chronic Poverty Research Center (CPRC) (2008). Annex E, The Chronic Poverty Report 2008–09.Chronic Poverty Research Centre, University of Manchester.; Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2008).Asian Development Outlook. Manila: ADB

6IFPRI (2007). The World’s Most Deprived: Characteristics and Causes of Extreme Poverty and Hunger.Washington, DC: IFPRI.

5

Country Hea

dC

ount

Rat

io

Peop

lein

Pove

rty(

mill

ion)

Bangladesh 0.51 75.Cambodia 0.40 5.6China (rural) 0.25 200.China 0.16 210.India (rural) 0.44 342.Indonesia (rural) 0.25 27.Lao PDR 0.35 2.Nepal 0.55 14.8Pakistan 0.22 35.Philippines 0.22 19.Vietnam 0.23 19.Source: ADB, 2008.3

Table 2: Head Count Ratio and population estimates in Asia.

A.2 Targeted Public Distribution SystemThe Public Distribution System in India is the largest provider of food assistance inthe world, and the vehicle for this assistance is the Public Distribution System (PDS).The PDS buys grains and other staple foods from farmers across the country and sellsthem back to poor families at heavily subsidised prices; for the poorest of the poor,[prices in Andhra Pradesh in 2008, for example,] were around 2 Rupees (about 4c) perkilogram7. The price is held constant regardless of season.

The PDS has its roots in the years just before India’s independence, particularlyin the aftermath of the disastrous Bengal famine of 1943. Following independence in1947, a network of fair price shops began to be created across the country, private-runbut government supplied outlets for subsidised sales of grains and staple foods to thepublic.

With the expansion of the PDS came mounting costs and leakage of food to graft,non-poor families, and middlemen involved in procurement, transport, storage andsales. In response, the system was changed in 1997 to a targeted approach, whereinonly families identified as having incomes below the poverty line–pink card families–were offered the heavily subsidised selling price. Above the poverty line–white card–

7Hindu Business Line Bureau (2008).

6

Country Subj

acen

tPoo

r

Med

ialP

oor

Ultr

aPo

or

Rur

alPo

or

Bangladesh 27.5 22.9 4.8 55.2India 22.1 13.2 1.8 37.1Pakistan 9.5 3.0 0.3 12.8Sri Lanka 3.8 1.2 0.2 6.8Vietnam 19.8 12.0 3.3 35.1Source: IFPRI, 2007.4

Table 3: Incidence of rural poverty by depth of poverty – Head Count Ratio (%).

Country Chronically Poor Chronically Poor Proportion Poor Number PoorLow estimate High estimate $1.25/day $1.25/day (million)

China 0.15 0.25 0.25 200Indonesia 0.15 0.25 0.25 27Philippines 0.30 0.40 0.22 19Vietnam 0.35 0.45 0.20 19Bangladesh 0.20 0.30 0.50 75India 0.25 0.35 0.44 342Nepal 0.50 0.60 0.55 15Pakistan 0.25 0.35 0.22 35Source: Chronic Poverty Research Centre, 2008 and ADB, 20085.

Table 4: Poor and Chronically Poor in East Asia and South Asia.

families were sold the grain at cost.8 The policy change proved to be controversial,and of questionable effectiveness. Accurately distinguishing poor from non-poor fam-ilies is difficult in any country, but in India, where that distinction has to be madefor several hundred million families, the task is enormous.9 Exclusion of many poorfamilies was inevitable: a government-commissioned evaluation of the targeted PDSconcluded in 2001 that less than three in five poor households were actually reachedby the scheme. The leakage problems also persisted; 58 per cent of subsidized foodgrains issued from the Central Pool did not reach the target families because of identifi-cation errors, non-transparent operation and unethical practices in the implementationof TPDS.10 In addition, the food subsidy extends only to staple foods but not to fruits,

8Singh, S. (2006). Food Security-Effectiveness of the Public Distribution System in India. Master degreethesis, University of Ljubljana.

9Patnaik, U. (2005). Theorizing Food Security and Poverty in the Era of Economic Reforms. SecondFreedom from Hunger lecture, Centre for Environment & Food Security.www.mfcindia.org/utsa.pdf.

10Government of India (2005). Performance Evaluation of Targeted Public Distribution System. Pro-

7

Country Subjacent Medial Ultra All RuralHungry Hungrt Hungry Hungry

Bangladesh 30.9 (27.5) 12.8 (22.9) 4.8 (15.9) 59.6 (55.2)India 28.9 (22.1) 12.1 (13.2) 1.8 (17.1) 37.1 (58.1)Pakistan 21.8 (9.5) 9.9 (3.0) 16.5 (0.3) 12.8 (48.2)Sri Lanka 23.4 (3.8) 10.9 (1.2) 24.3 (0.2) 6.8 (58.6)Source: IFPRI 2007 (percentages in brackets)6.

Table 5: Incidence of Rural Hunger by Food Energy Deficiency–Head Count Ratio (%)

vegetables and other key components of a diverse diet, thus improving the quantity offood accessed by the poor but not necessarily the quality. The final irony is that thecosts for the targeted PDS proved to be even higher than for the earlier programme.

A.3 NREGAThe National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 guarantees 100 days of employ-ment in a year, to adults willing to do unskilled manual work. It has been implementedin all rural districts since April 2008.

The scheme was evaluated by the Institute of Applied Manpower Research, to as-sess the benefits and deficiencies of the scheme, operational bottlenecks, efficacy ofsocial audit and the impact of the scheme on targeted beneficiaries. This was donethrough surveys in 20 districts across 16 states.

Information collected covered, household details, manner of job card registration,issuance of job cards, registration and application for work, impact on wages, income,and quality of life and impact on out migration.

The survey found 52.3 percent of households had unskilled labourers. Twelve per-cent were agricultural peasants dependent on seasonal agricultural work. Twenty per-cent were engaged in agricultural activity for themselves. Very few were involvedin petty businesses. The impact on expenditure on food items by beneficiaries wasestimated as a proxy of improved nutritional outcomes and improving food security.Beneficiaries were grouped by those spending less than 500 Rupees a month, betweenfive hundred and seven hundred a month and those spending more than eight hundreda month. The survey found that membership shifted from 23.5, 27 and 49.5 percentto 15.5, 28 and 56.5 percent, respectively.11 It is not apparent whether a control groupwas identified by the evaluators, though the short duration since implementation, coin-ciding with the evaluation period suggests that the impact is likely to be significantlyattributable to the conditional cash transfer scheme.

gramme Evaluation Organisation, Planning Commission. New Delhi, Government of India.11http://planningcommission.gov.in/reports/genrep/rep_NREGA.pdf

8