Success or Failure?Why tailoring the MDGs is important

Associate Professor Matthew Clarke

School of International and Political Studies

Deakin University

Millennium Development Goals - Success

• MDGs can already be judged successful in two ways:

– Increased living conditions of tens of millions of people in poorer countries

– Increased awareness of poverty in wealthier countries

MDG Success cont’d

• MDGs can be likened to the Kyoto Protocol– Wonderful PR success– Limited success in reducing emissions (post-Kyoto is key! post-MDG?)

The Millennium Development Goals have triggered the largest cooperative effort in world history to fight poverty, hunger and disease. They have become a rallying cry in poor and rich countries alike, and a standard for non-governmental organizations and corporations as well. Nearly 10 years after they were adopted, they are alive and stronger than ever, which is a rarity among global goals. The world wants them to work. (UN S-G – Keeping the Promise, February 2010, para. 115)

MDG Achievement?

• Achievement of global MDGs targets is now under close scrutiny

– With five years left, an increased sense of urgency now exists

– Failure to achieve these targets will have a number of serious consequences for future action

Consequences of perceived failure

• If MDGs are not achieved:– Opportunity for donors to reduce future support for specific countries– Opportunity for donors to reduce future support generally– Public support around ‘development’ may reduce:

• Debt relief• Humanitarian emergencies• NGOs

– Pressure to reform international trade may lessen– Pressure to negotiate next international climate change protocol may

whither.

Is failure likely?

• UN is beginning to report that achieving global targets by all countries is unlikely:

progress has been uneven and, without additional efforts, several of the Millennium Development Goals are likely to be missed in many countries (UN 2010, para 9).

many targets are not on track to being achieved in a good number of countries (UN 2010, para 62).

MDG – Scorecards (Feeny and Clarke, 2009) Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 Goal 7

Cook Islands - - - -

Fiji - - Kiribati - - - -

Marshall Islands - - - Micronesia - - - -

Nauru - - -

Niue - - - Palau - -

Papua New Guinea -

Samoa - Solomon Islands - - -

Tokelau - - - - - - Tonga - -

Tuvalu - - - Vanuatu -

On track Off-track No data

Scorecards - WRONG

• Global targets are just that – globalThe perception is widespread that unless all countries achieve the same global

Targets, the world will not meet them. This view is incorrect. The MDGs are to be achieved collectively, not necessarily individually (Vandermootele and Delamonica 2010, p. 61).

• Countries must tailor MDGs to their own circumstances– Many examples of this exist (but are not widely

acknowledged)

Global Goals – Country Specific Targets

• Assessing the MDGs at the global level is makes sense• Assessing countries against global targets does not

make sense:– Different starting points– Different economies– Different capacities– Different geography– Different problems

UN must be explicit

• UN must be explicit in its rhetoric of the importance of ‘tailoring’ MDG

• NOT GOOD ENOUGH to say:National ownership and leadership complemented by supportive

global programmes, measures and policies that align with national priorities and respect national sovereignty are essential (UN 2010 para 99).

Tailoring is taking place

• International community has no excuse for not backing country-owned, ambitious but achievable development targets.

• A few countries in the Asia-Pacific have taken this lead with United Nations – Cambodia– Thailand– PNG

Cambodia

• Decreasing the proportion of working children aged between 5-17 years old from 16.5% in 1999 to 8% in 2015

• Reducing the proportion of 6-14 years old out of school from 35% in 1999 to 0% 2015

• Eliminate gender disparities in wage employment in all economic sectors• Increasing the proportion of female provincial governors from 0% in 2003 to 10% by

2015• Increasing the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed up to 6 months of age from

11.4% in 2000 to 49% in 2015• Increasing the proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel from 32% in

2000 to 80% in 2015• Moving towards zero impact from landmines and UXOs by 2012

Thailand

• Reduce poverty to less than 4% • Universal lower secondary education by 2006 and universal

upper secondary education by 2015• Double the proportion of women in the national parliament• Reduce infant mortality rate to 15 per 1000 live births • Reduce HIV prevalence among reproductive adults to 1

percent• Increase the share of renewable energy to 8 percent of

commercial primary energy use

PNG

• Not halving poverty, but reducing by 10% in 2015 and another 10% by 2020

• By 2015 increase by 34% the amount of subsistence agriculture production (increase commercial prod by 10%)

• To increase the General Literacy Rate to 70% by 2010 and to at least 80% by 2020

• Raise the National Gender Development index Value above 0.600 by 2015

• To reduce the infant mortality rate to 53/1000 by 2010 and to less than 40 by 2020

• Increase to 60% the number of households with access to safe water by 2010 and to at least 85% by 2020

Conclusion

• MDGs were first set of development targets with timeframe accepted by international community

• Achievement of MDGs appears unlikely in many areas

• Appear to have forgotten key development principle – CONTEXTUALISE

• Rather than say MDGs have failed – we should tailoring MDGs and re-commit ourselves to these revised targets