Let's start the discussion here.
Hi everyone,
Human rights and development are linked, development is not just mean economic terms, and it is more than the right of someone to have opportunities; these opportunities’ which the State should give to everyone. I think that the MDG will be not applying for every country in the same way, because each one have different reality, USA will not apply in the same way of Cambodia, there are different society, needs and framework. That’s the reason that in some areas the change is worse than before. But, it is necessary to have these goals; it could be like guidance with deadline; for help to developing country. The revision process should include everything, not only the statistics, why the percentage of illiteracy raises? Maybe there are bad structures or not good nutrition, some diseases. They should investigate the whole reason.
Best,
Hello,
I find this topic very interesting, as there is much hype surrounding the Millenium Goals, but the actual implications and results aren't as common knowledge. The first sentence in Mr. Vandemoortele's chapter caught my eye when he describes the goals as having "one-size-fits-all targets", and I have to agree: many of the elements Professor Kanade picked out in his presentation share this same approach, as it seems that while the idea behind the MDG was correct, the actual putting into practice was not. This does not mean, in my opinion, that these goals have been a failure, even if all they have done has been to raise awareness about the issues we face presently and the pure magnitude of the problems we have as a global community. For these reasons, when drafting up the new plan of action in 2015, hopefully these issues will be taken into account: we cannot measure the "improvement in human rights" from a merely scientific/economic point of view and we have to try and be more sensitive when it comes to applying and measuring these goals in each country as my classmate Katherine already mentioned. Mr. Vandemoortele also states something quite interesting when he says that "MDG's cannot be reduced to a standard set of macroeconomic policies and sectoral interventions of a technical nature"; this is so true, we are dealing with human rights at the end of the day, and while 50 more children educated or 50 less is merely a statistic that a country can post in order to increase funding, those 50 children are human beings that will see their lives drastically improved from being able to read and write. So while it is understandable that a large part of the focus for many countries regarding the MDG's is the consequent funding, I think a slight modification in perspective should be made as well as a more humanitarinzed approach, because the fundamental issue here is the improvement and development of human lives.
I would just like to share that a month ago, I had an opportunity to attend a talk by one of the Coordinators of the United Nations Millennium Campaign. She discussed each of the MDGs and the progress it has made as well as some of its shortcomings. It is interesting to note that the statistics she presented were not from the current year but from years back. If I can clearly remember, it was from three to four years back, which is not really reflective of the current situation. She also briefly talked about the SDGs and how they are trying to create SDGs that are more inclusive, tackling themes that are not in the MDGs and are found in both developed and developing countries. She also emphasized that this time around, the different sectors in the society (from the private sector, academia, civil society and local governments) has been tapped to contribute in the formulation of the goals. Hopefully this openness to other sectors would bring much more to the table. One of the questions that was raised during the talk was regarding how MDGs were measured and how SDGs should improve upon this. The MDGs are widely criticized for this and I believe that this is one the things that the panel should focus on. I think there is a clear gap between the statistics and what is really going on in real life. Furthermore, I do hope that before any decisions are made and before the SDGs are finalized, the statistics are updated so as they see the clear picture and see the current trends . Other points for improvement which I believe are equally important are in the areas of monitoring and accountability.
Hope all is well.
Maria Elisa
Hello mates,
Of course, human rights and development are linked, above all, because development is the most important right after the right to life, and for the same reason, because if you violate the right to development you produce a massive violation of the other human rights.
Talking about MDGs, as far as we could see in the presentation of Mihir, are positives guidelines but also it is true that itself, don't work, and that's why in 2015 we have to elaborate a new plan, not only because the MDGs were development targets for 2015, also because we need to improve and implement them.
Therefore, and in my opinion, our challenge is easy, but at the same time is complex. It is true that we must design the future MDGs over the collaboration between stakeholders, states, local communities, enterprises and civil society; over the link between human rights and development; over a real and effective action plan with real and effective measures to reduce poverty and increase welfare; but, above all, in my opinion the key is to achieve that MDGs were compulsory rules, I mean, positive law, because in other situation it will continue being cheaper violate human rights and the right to development than apply these principles, and unfortunately, nowadays we have this challenge, to put human being, human rights and our welfare, over money, benefits or the increase of GDP...
It was a pleasure to talk and debate with you through this amazing course!. I hope to see you soon and I wish you all the best...
Warm regards,
Jesús Gavilán Hormigo.
I think that it must be accepted that the MDG’s have identified some issues that are important for the entire world’s population and some problems that affect millions of people around the world. Also, they stablish some targets and indicators in order to evaluate the fulfilment of the objectives. But to be sincerely, I do not think they were the outcome of real efforts. As we can see, they do not care about the causes of those problems, they do not take into account the particularities of the different countries. Using percentages, avoiding quality standards, and treating human lives as if they were only numbers, they show the lack of commitment with developing countries.
It is necessary that the “next” objectives take into account the points of view of the developing countries. The new MDG’s have to show binding liabilities to develop countries. As we could see, the current objectives talks about percentages and terms that countries with such problems have to fulfil. But those objectives do not stablish clear obligations for the develop countries. So, I think that those States have to be completely committed with these issues, taking into account that it is not about money, it is about achieving a good quality of life for whole human population.
Finally, I agree with Jesus’ opinion about the necessity of compulsory rules. Fulfilling MDG’s should not be seen as a “plus” of some countries. Countries that satisfy them should not be seen as exceptions or as States that deserves some kind of rewards such as monetary aids. We are in such a terrible situation that we started thinking that those conditions are a privilege, but we are forgetting that those are exactly the raison d'être of the States: to ensure the welfare of their citizens. That is why, the exception should be the States that do not fulfil the objectives, objectives that must be stablish in a binding international document, that tend to reach equity inside societies, that stablish a specific agency that control all the immprovements.
We cannot continue thinking that poverty is when someone has less than 1,25 dollars. It is extremely cruel to take someone out of the range of poorness just because he/she earns 45 dollars a month, when there are millions of people around the planet that earn much more in a day.
Develop is a process, so we have to monitor all its stages, taking into account the particularities of each countries. Finding the causes of the problems, stablishing clear objectives. Objectives that have to be stipulate in absolute terms, not in fraction terms. In which all develop and developing States are commited.
We have to start now, because as human beings we cannot allow ourselves to wait another 15 years just to conclude that the world is still an unfair and inequity planet.
To start with, I really think that the establishment of the MDGs was a success itself. It’s been a long time since the international community has been concerned about the right to development and its implementation (taking the human development report, the Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness and the Busan declaration for effective development cooperation as examples) and finally in 2000 the MDGs appeared, bringing hope for a real cooperation and commitment of the international community to reach development and progress for all. However, as my mates have mentioned, it’s been proved that these global development and progress have not been reached through them. That’s why of course I reckon that a new approach is necessary, for example by adapting the HRBA to development to the MDGs, as we saw on the materials of this course. This adaption needs to focus on various important aspects:
- In the same way that the HRBA works on strengthening the capacities of right holders to make their claims and on duty bearers to meet their obligations, the post 2015 development goals should focus on a real empowerment of people and a real commitment of all countries to make sure the goals are met and therefore, there is a real impact of development. This commitment could be guaranteed by making all countries liable for its actions on implementing the goals, as Andrés suggested, though it’s difficult to make this liability real nowadays…
- A participatory process in the decision making process of meeting the new goals: It is known that the MDGs were met without the participation of other actors different than states and the post 2015 agenda should count on all the actors of the international arena, taking into account all their suggestions in the process of the creation of the new goals. It’s interesting to mention that at least, an effort has been made in this direction: the initiative of the UN called “MY WORLD”, which expect that the civil society (and especially the ordinary people) participates in it by saying which issues in their opinion matter most in the world in order to be transformed into new development goals: http://vote.myworld2015.org/ (I really encourage all of you guys to click on the link and participate in the survey too!).
- A better and a stronger monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the new goals (as Elisa said before). It is clear that if it hasn’t been so weak, the MDGs could have been more effective and their targets more easily to be reached. Investing more money on it is basic and urgent.
Finally, just to mention that to me the MDGs were a bit abstract and not clear defined in many cases. (For example, the last one about creating a “developing a global partnership for development” it’s not clear enough and I believe the countries didn’t really know what was it about and how to reach it) Thus, an effort on creating more concrete and specific new goals is needed.
Thank you to all of you and have a nice summer!
María José
The MDGs have shed light on the major issues facing humanity nowadays. And one of the primary achievements of the Millennium Goals has been focusing attention, raising awareness and capturing the minds of the public opinion on the major problems that need to be tackled. I think it gave everyone a sense of collective action and over the top ambition to achieve these goals.
However there are few fundamental defects in these goals.
Firstly, While the MDGS are well-intentioned it seems that organizations are becoming more concerned with using studies as evidence of achieving the ends and as prove that we are going on the right track and making progress. We have read on one report that some countries are more tempted to focus on the relatively well-off among the poor in order to reach the MDG target. However, such act has a negative implication and lacks transparency, as it fools the population of a country into thinking that the standard of living is improving, that the government is performing well while in reality it is not necessarily doing so.
Secondly, the MDGS basically work on implementing human rights and the right to development. It focuses on addressing the problems that need to be tackled and eradicating them. However, less attention is given to the more important factor which is, solving the root causes of the problem for a lasting solution.
For example, it’s not enough to lift people from poverty for example in Darfur, by providing jobs. More attention should be given to the root causes that led these people into poverty such as wars, unequal distribution of income, marginalization by the government or discrimination. Because if not, then the problems are more likely to recur.
I think the next MDGs have to be more specific more inclusive of other fundamental indicators of progress and development. As Andres explained and we discussed in other previous topics about the concept of measuring well-being, other factors more important than income have to be included.
For instance, more emphasis and pressure should be put on governments. Ending poverty, hunger, or disease cannot be achieved by the help of international organizations only. It also requires a responsive government that is committed to establishing the right actions. Transparency, accountability and good governance are effective and essential characteristics required in order to transform these goals into reality.
Moreover, these goals should not be viewed as goals of the UN or the member states (which are represented by the government only). Engaging the whole world is crucial. Achieving these goals requires public involvement including community participation, Ngos, civil societies, government, private sector and multilateral agencies to name a few. Being involved should not only be limited to funding or playing a role in resolving the goals but also educating the public about what is going on, what are the goals, and how are they going to be achieved.
For example, even if major efforts are made by different organizations to achieve these goals in certain areas, community of that country may not know of the MDGs and it may seem that these orgs are here to help as an act of charity and not collective responsibility by members of the whole world. Thus, educating the people about the Millennium Goals is important and emphasizing the fact that it is aimed at achieving the RIGHTS of these people and not merely helping them because they are “in need”. This would also give more incentives for the people to get involved.
In my opinion we need to be pragmatic about this issue. The MDGS have become a global strategy to deal with the main needs of the planet. However, we are facing a global strategy that requires a regional development in order to have significant effects. Just keep in mind that we coexist with different political, economic and social systems. Therefore, we need the role of regional organizations, NGOs, Civil Society, Education Systems, and, of course, national and local governments. If we get the participation of all these stakeholders, we can achieve real regional development plans.
Best
Armando
Excellent discussion guys. All of you - Katerinne, Leila, Maria Elisa, Jesus, Andres, Maria Jose, Israa and Armando - have brought in excellent points. I think we can all see that the MDGs can have certain fantastic benefits. They, at the very least, provide specificity to the concept of progressive realization of rights under the ICESCR. As you know, under the ICESCR, States must realize the rights in a progressive manner. Many States use this idea to wriggle out of their commitments to ensure ICESCR rights. MDGs can help focus the attention to those specific goals within particular timeframes. While we all agree with these benefits of the MDGs, we also realize that this can be successful only if:
1. MDGs inclucate the RtD understanding of development. For that matter, even the Sen idea of Development, which is incorporated now under both the WB and IMF policies in some ways. That is, elements such as extreme poverty meaning more than income, focusing on process aspects also and not only outcome aspects etc.
2. MDGs are at least compatible with human rights. eg. the right to education.
3. Developed countries also have quantifiable golas and benchmarks to achieve them.
As we can see, one of the biggest challenges is with respect to point number 3 above. I think the starting point really is to get everyone on board and have a common understanding among all actors on what the nature of the MDGs is. It was never meant to be, and will probably never be, a legally binding document. These goals are political, and even moral, goals. If that is correct, then there is no reason why quantifiable goals and benchmarks can't be added for developed countries. No one is going to sue them before an international court for non-fulfllment of their part of the goals, in the same way that no developing country is going to be sued either. Modifying Goal 8, to my mind, should really be the first step. That way, we have morally appropriate goals to hold on to in order to channel the polcies in the proper manner.
I think the biggest challenge for the post-2015 SDGs will be exactly this. The new document which will be a result of the current consultations, apart from ensuring that human rights are mainstreamed in the new SDGs, must change Goal 8. And they don't need a radically new framework for doing that. One of the principal aims of the Millennium Declaration was to make the right to development a reality for everyone. All that the new committee needs to do is to adopt a RtD approach to MDGs. The indicators, criteria and sub-criteria are already developed for RtD, as we saw in session two. At the minimum, that would be a good start.
Guys, it has been great interacting with you in this course and on these forums. I wish you all the very best of luck, and hope that we stay in touch. I hope we have managed to deconstruct some of the major themes in the development discourse in today's globalized world. So, untill next time!
Cheers,
Mihir