Post MDG Framework: Christmas tree, jigsaw or bullseye? What do you think?
April 25, 2012 in MDGs
In her article posted to Global Dashboard today, Claire Melamed shares her rough guide to the most common ideas flying around the dialogue on the structures of a post Millennium Development Goals (MDG) 2015 world. What do you think of her analysis and which of the frameworks would you like to see implemented by the United Nations? (Please share your comments below).
Christmas tree, jigsaw or bullseye? A rough guide to post-2015 frameworks, Claire Melamed.
The last week or so has been truly post-2015-tastic, not least here on GD. There are so many ideas flying around that it’s hard to untangle what people are actually talking about. Here’s my handy cut-out-and-keep guide to the three possible post-2015 frameworks which seem to be implied by current discussions:
1. The Christmas tree. Lots of people are lobbying for their particular issue to be given its own new goal. And why not – that’s the lobbyists’ job, and there are a lot of problems out there which might benefit from the attention that would come with having their own goal.
Lobbyists need to lobby, but governments need to choose. If the post-2015 process goes no further than handing out baubles to single issue groups without thinking hard about how it all fits together, we’ll end up with a long list of disparate goals – all important in their own right, but together making up a list so long that governments will almost certainly ignore it. The impact on actual lives would be close to nil.
2. The Jigsaw. There’s a second set of ideas which involves a framework organised around a few core objectives, aimed at solving a number of big global problems simultaneously. It might involve a combination of goals on development and poverty plus some other objectives around, for example, conflict, human rights or well-being. This would be better than the Christmas tree – more technically sound, more coherent, and more likely to have some impact on people’s lives – if, and it’s a big if, it could be agreed politically. The ‘Sustainable Development Goals’, which link development and environmental objectives might, if that’s what we end up with, look like a jigsaw-type framework.
The big question here is the politics – could such an agreement be agreed in a form that made it actually meaningful and useful for policy makers and campaigners? We should probably be doubtful, given the current state of negotiations on climate, trade and other tricky subjects – but if it could be made to work, the gains could be big.
3. The Bullseye. This type of framework involves narrowing down the agenda even more, and focusing on one single global problem. One idea currently gaining traction is to have goals aimed at ending absolute poverty at a global level, an ambition that is eminently achievable within the lifetime of the next round of goals. As part of solving that problem, there could be goals on, for example, raising everyone’s incomes to above $1.25 a day, ensuring that everyone had access to healthcare, that everyone could read and write and had basic maths, even that everyone had access to transport infrastructure and mobile communications.
Developing an implementation plan would be easier with a more straightforward overall objective. There could be a more interesting approach to development partnerships – for example, incentives for private sector innovation and investment to reach the agreed goals. And a strong story and a clear implementation plan would increase the chances of a bullseye agreement having a real impact on people’s lives.
At the moment, it’s not at all clear which of the three types of agreement will win out. Different groups have very different ideas about the risks and opportunities contained in each – and of course, as ever, the eventual agreement will be an uneasy marriage of the political and the technical. The next three years are certainly going to be interesting….
This goal deals with an integral issue, which solution should involve concepts related to development from all its approaches; its accomplishment depends on many factors, like empowerment of the communities and implementation of entrepreneurship programs, along with financial assistance, in order to attack the issue from the root, rather than only diminishing its consequences. Furthermore, involvement from the civil society constitutes an essential factor in the quest for equality and social justice, along with the political will of government representatives of any kind and level; they should be encourage to build a reliable database using empirical evidence, that will allow those in charge of resources to properly allocate them. We strongly suggest the leaders throughout the world to become involved in the solution of this issue, taking into account that every person has dignity and is entitled to the right t food and development.
The following are actions taken around the globe, which can be more broadly utilized, to implement Goal 2 of the Millennium Development Goals; to ensure that by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling. Remove fees associated with attending school, including the cost of tuition, books, supplies, uniforms, and transportation. Provide amnesty for undocumented, migrant, and refugee children to attend school with out deportation or other consequences. Provide two meals a day to encourage families facing poverty to send their children to school. Address gender barriers, especially in rural areas. Provide feasible transportation to children, or adopt mobile schools.
It become evident in the group discusions that the 8 MDG is not recognised and the information around the issues that it affects is not well recognised. This goal deals with developing an open finance system and non discriminatory trading practices. After much delibaration some points were agreed upon as to how this MDG could be improved to suit a system based approach of how the MDG’s should be implemented. Overally the group felt the MDG was articulated on a top down approach and very much western centric.Thus not representing the real issues of all countries. Firstly the use of ‘partners’ in wording of the MDG should be replaced with ‘stakeholders’ as this word is more inclusive of all the actors in achieving this MDG. There was a consesus that debt problems is not only on developing countries thus it should change focus and include all countries and also include debt owing to international monetary organisations. Also that the issue of tarrifs should be reduced or removed as countries for example the UK places high tariifs on products from Africa of which the collect more money then the one the give aid to the African continent. Much needs to be done on this MDG in order to achieve its targets.
The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) are the world’s time bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter and exclusion while promoting gender equality, education and environmental sustainability. There are eight goals and this article focuses on MDG 6 which targets to combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases.
Bangladesh, being geographically positioned at the receiving end of perhaps the largest river system, and owing to other concomitant factors like the deltaic formation history and low-line coastal morphology has become the most disaster prone region on earth. Processes embedded in the nature, caused by multitudinous factors, constitute hazards to the environment of this region having severe aftermath on local lives, property and livelihoods of the population, and eventually, impeding the overall socio-economic development of Bangladesh. The (co)occurrence of these natural events are often coupled and multiplied with the high base vulnerabilities of the individuals, households and communities results in disasters that further drive the country towards greater environmental degradation, hunger, poverty, social deprivation and political conflicts, thereby impeding the development of Bangladesh. Therefore, over the last few decades, both national and international communities have been engaged in counteracting the negative developmental impacts of disasters as well as ensuring that development interventions do not exacerbate vulnerability to hazards.
It become evident in the group discusions that the 8 MDG is not recognised and the information around the issues that it affects is not well recognised. This goal deals with developing an open finance system and non discriminatory trading practices. After much delibaration some points were agreed upon as to how this MDG could be improved to suit a system based approach of how the MDG’s should be implemented. Overally the group felt the MDG was articulated on a top down approach and very much western centric.Thus not representing the real issues of all countries. Firstly the use of ‘partners’ in wording of the MDG should be replaced with ‘stakeholders’ as this word is more inclusive of all the actors in achieving this MDG. There was a consesus that debt problems is not only on developing countries thus it should change focus and include all countries and also include debt owing to international monetary organisations. Also that the issue of tarrifs should be reduced or removed as countries for example the UK places high tariifs on products from Africa of which the collect more money then the one the give aid to the African continent. Much needs to be done on this MDG in order to achive its targets.