💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 1641.gmi captured on 2024-08-19 at 06:46:49. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-05-10)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2009-12-02 06:31:01
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals
Background
In 2001, recognizing the need to assist impoverished nations more aggressively, UN member states adopted the targets. The MDGs aim to spur development by improving social and economic conditions in the world's poorest countries.
They derive from earlier international development targets[2], and were officially established at the Millennium Summit in 2000, where all world leaders present adopted the United Nations Millennium Declaration, from which the eight goals were promoted.
Goals
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were developed out of the eight chapters of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, signed in September 2000. There are eight goals with 21 targets,[3] and a series of measurable indicators for each target.[4][5]
Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
o Proportion of population below $1 per day (PPP values)
o Poverty gap ratio [incidence x depth of poverty]
o Share of poorest quintile in national consumption
o GDP Growth per Employed Person
o Employment Rate
o Proportion of employed population below $1 per day (PPP values)
o Proportion of family-based workers in employed population
o Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age
o Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption[6]
Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education
o Enrollment in primary education
o Completion of primary education
o Literacy of 15-24 year olds, female and male[7]
Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
o Ratios of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education
o Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector
o Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament[8]
Goal 4: Reduce child mortality
o Under-five mortality rate
o Infant (under 1) mortality rate
o Proportion of 1-year-old children immunised against measles[9]
Goal 5: Improve maternal health
o Maternal mortality ratio
o Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel
o Contraceptive prevalence rate
o Adolescent birth rate
o Antenatal care coverage (at least one visit and at least four visits)
o Unmet need for family planning[10]
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
o HIV prevalence among population aged 15 24 years
o Condom use at last high-risk sex
o Proportion of population aged 15 24 years with comprehensive correct knowledge of HIV/AIDS
o Ratio of school attendance of orphans to school attendance of non-orphans aged 10 14 years
o Proportion of population with advanced HIV infection with access to antiretroviral drugs
o Prevalence and death rates associated with malaria
o Proportion of children under 5 sleeping under insecticide-treated bednets
o Proportion of children under 5 with fever who are treated with appropriate anti-malarial drugs
o Prevalence and death rates associated with tuberculosis
o Proportion of tuberculosis cases detected and cured under DOTS (Directly Observed Treatment Short Course)[11]
Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
o Proportion of land area covered by forest
o CO2 emissions, total, per capita and per $1 GDP (PPP)
o Consumption of ozone-depleting substances
o Proportion of fish stocks within safe biological limits
o Proportion of total water resources used
o Proportion of terrestrial and marine areas protected
o Proportion of species threatened with extinction
o Proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source, urban and rural
o Proportion of urban population with access to improved sanitation
o Proportion of urban population living in slums[12]
Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development
o Includes a commitment to good governance, development, and poverty reduction both nationally and internationally
o Includes: tariff and quota free access for LDC exports; enhanced programme of debt relief for HIPC and cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more generous ODA (Overseas Development Assistance) for countries committed to poverty reduction
o Through the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States and the outcome of the twenty-second special session of the General Assembly
Indicators
Some of the indicators listed below are monitored separately for the least developed countries (LDCs), Africa, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States.
o Net ODA, total and to LDCs, as percentage of OECD/DAC donors GNI
o Proportion of total sector-allocable ODA of OECD/DAC donors to basic social services (basic education, primary health care, nutrition, safe water and sanitation)
o Proportion of bilateral ODA of OECD/DAC donors that is untied
o ODA received in landlocked countries as proportion of their GNIs
o ODA received in small island developing States as proportion of their GNIs
o Proportion of total developed country imports (by value and excluding arms) from developing countries and from LDCs, admitted free of duty
o Average tariffs imposed by developed countries on agricultural products and textiles and clothing from developing countries
o Agricultural support estimate for OECD countries as percentage of their GDP
o Proportion of ODA provided to help build trade capacity
o Total number of countries that have reached their HIPC decision points and number that have reached their HIPC completion points (cumulative)
o Debt relief committed under HIPC initiative, US$
o Debt service as a percentage of exports of goods and services
o Proportion of population with access to affordable essential drugs on a sustainable basis
o Telephone lines and cellular subscribers per 100 population
o Personal computers in use per 100 population
o Internet users per 100 Population[13]
Progress
Progress towards reaching the goals has been uneven. Some countries have achieved many of the goals,[14] while others are not on track to realize any.[15] The major countries that have been achieving their goals include China (whose poverty population has reduced from 452 million to 278 million) and India due to clear internal and external factors of population and economic development. [16] However, areas needing the most reduction, such as the Sub-Saharan Africa regions have yet to make any drastic changes in improving their quality of life. In the same time as China, the Sub-Saharan Africa reduced their poverty about one percent, and are at a major risk of not meeting the MDGs by 2015. [16] Fundamental issues will determine whether or not the MDGs are achieved, namely gender, the divide between the humanitarian and development agendas and economic growth, according to the Overseas Development Institute. [17]
To accelerate progress towards the MDGs, the G-8 Finance Ministers met in London in June 2005 (in preparation for the G-8 Gleneagles Summit in July) and reached an agreement to provide enough funds to the World Bank, the IMF, and the African Development Bank (ADB) to cancel an additional $40 55 billion debt owed by members of the HIPC. This would allow impoverished countries to re-channel the resources saved from the forgiven debt to social programs for improving health and education and for alleviating poverty.[18]
Backed by G-8 funding, the World Bank, the IMF, and the ADB each endorsed the Gleaneagles plan and implemented the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative ("MDRI") to effectuate the debt cancellations. The MDRI supplements HIPC by providing each country that reaches the HIPC completion point 100% forgiveness of its multilateral debt. Countries that previously reached the decision point became eligible for full debt forgiveness once their lending agency confirmed that the countries had continued to maintain the reforms implemented during HIPC status. Other countries that subsequently reach the completion point automatically receive full forgiveness of their multilateral debt under MDRI.[18]
While the World Bank and ADB limit MDRI to countries that complete the HIPC program, the IMF's MDRI eligibility criteria are slightly less restrictive so as to comply with the IMF's unique "uniform treatment" requirement. Instead of limiting eligibility to HIPC countries, any country with annual per capita income of $380 or less qualifies for MDRI debt cancellation. The IMF adopted the $380 threshold because it closely approximates the countries eligible for HIPC.[18]
Yet, as we head towards 2015 increasing global uncertainties, such as the economic crisis and climate change, have led to an opportunity to rethink the MDG approach to development policy. According to the 'In Focus' Policy Brief from the Institute of Development Studies, the After 2015' debate is about questioning the value of an MDG-type, target-based approach to international development, about progress so far on poverty reduction, about looking to an uncertain future and exploring what kind of system is needed after the MDG deadline has passed.[19]
The effects of increasing drug use has been noted by the International Journal of Drug Policy as a deterrent to the goal of the MDGs. [20]
Controversy Over Funding of 0.7% of GNP
Over the past 35 years, the members of the UN have repeatedly made a "commit[ment] 0.7% of rich-countries' gross national product (GNP) to Official Development Assistance."[21] The commitment was first made in 1970 by the UN General Assembly.
The text of the commitment was:
"Each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of 0.7 percent of its gross national product at market prices by the middle of the decade."[22]
However, there has been disagreement from the US, and other nations, over the Monterrey Consensus that urged "developed countries that have not done so to make concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP) as ODA to developing countries."[23][24]
[edit] Support for the 0.7% Target
The UN "believe[s] that donors should commit to reaching the long-standing target of 0.7 percent of GNP by 2015".[22]
The European Union has recently reaffirmed its commitment to the 0.7% aid targets. The EU External Relations council says that, as of May 2005, "four out of the five countries, which exceed the UN target for ODA of 0.7%, of GNI are member states of the European Union."[25]
Many organizations are working to bring U.S. political attention to the Millennium Development Goals. In 2007, The Borgen Project worked with Sen. Barack Obama on the Global Poverty Act, a bill requiring the White House to develop a strategy for achieving the goals. As of 2009, the bill has not passed, but Barack Obama has since been elected President.[26][27]
[edit] Challenges to the 0.7% Target
However, many OECD nations, including key members such as the United States, are not progressing towards their promise of giving 0.7% of their GNP towards poverty reduction by the target year of 2015. Some nations' contributions have been criticized as falling far short of 0.7%. [28]
John Bolton argues that the U.S. never agreed in Monterrey to spending 0.7% of GDP on development assistance. Indeed, Washington has consistently opposed setting specific foreign-aid targets since the U.N. General Assembly first endorsed the 0.7% goal in 1970.[29]
The Australian Government has committed to providing 0.5% of GNI in International Development Assistance by 2015-2016, without noting the long-standing 0.7% goal. [30]
Challenges of the Millennium Development Goals
Although developed countries' aid for the achievement of the MDGs have been rising over the recent year, it has shown that more than half is towards debt relief owed by poor countries. As well, remaining aid money goes towards natural disaster relief and military aid which does not further the country into development. According to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2006), the 50 least countries only receive about one third of all aid that flows from developed countries, raising the issue of aid not moving from rich to poor depending on their development needs but rather from rich to their closest allies. [31]