The number of people living off a dollar a day has recently dropped below a billion. That is great news, but it means that hundreds of millions are still extremely poor. John W. McArthur, associate director of the Earth Institute, tells how the UN is succeeding in reducing poverty and disease, and where the international community is falling short.
 | John W. McArthur, deputy director of the former UN Millennium Project and associate director at the Earth Institute at Columbia University (Photo: Bruce Gilbert / Earth Institute) |
July 2007 marks the midway point for the Millennium Development Goals – the eight development targets that the United Nations set in 2000 and hopes to achieve by 2015. We asked McArthur about whether or not we can still meet these ambitious goals.
Are we on track to meeting the Millennium Development Goals by 2015?
In East Asia and South Asia, we are seeing incredible progress on many of the goals, in particular the goals for income poverty. We're seeing some of the fastest rates of progress in human history, and recently the number of people living under a dollar a day - according to the latest World Bank estimates - has gone under a billion people. That is actually considerable progress, and goes to show that progress is possible at the level of hundreds of millions of people.
 | MDG Picture Gallery (click on the image to start)The eight Millennium Development Goals at a glance (Photo: Reuters) |
Of course, the part of the world that is the headline issue is sub-Saharan Africa. That's the part of the world where the number of people living under a dollar a day is actually still growing as population continues to expand at a very rapid level. That's where, as a general matter, the goals are dramatically off-track. That's really the epicenter of the crisis of extreme poverty and the poverty trap, and the world really needs to take some more concerted effort to support the countries and the people in these countries to get out of it.
Is anything encouraging happening in sub-Saharan Africa?
We've seen in places like Kenya, Uganda, and Malawi an abolition of school fees leading to dramatic increases in school enrollment almost overnight. We've seen progress in many countries in water and sanitation in Africa - still not enough, but in countries like Uganda we have seen considerable progress. We've seen places like Togo and Zambia make big progress in malaria control through distribution of long-lasting, insecticide-treated bed nets. This is the number-one infectious killer of children in Africa, and we're starting to see the seeds of mass mobilization to address it at long last. We're seeing major reductions of mortality in those places.
Are the Millennium Villages responsible for some of these successes in Africa?
The Millennium Villages are very related in showing much of the success as possible. There are now almost 80 villages with nearly 400,000 people in sites across Africa -- receiving support worth 50 dollars per person, per year, which is well-within the promises of the 2005 G8 Gleneagles commitment of 50 billion dollars per year to Africa by 2010.
The Millennium Villages are merely demonstrating that if these resources go to basic investments on the ground, and not rich country consultants or workshops, but to actual, practical investments, this is the type of thing that can happen. And what we're seeing in the villages is - by the basic provision of fertilizer and seeds for instance - the tripling or quadrupling yields in one growing season. We're seeing malaria incidence dropping dramatically. We're seeing the introduction of school meal programs resulting in dramatic boosts in enrollment, even in places where school fees have already been removed. We're seeing some very, very big things with just a little bit of support, all run by local people.
Were you disappointed by the results of the recent G8 summit in Germany?
There was some progress on climate change for sure. On the Africa side, it's very safe to say that it would have been much better if there were a stronger focus on actual implementation of commitments with timetables for delivering on those 2005 promises. For instance, the promise to reach 50 billion dollars by 2010 in development assistance to all of Africa - what does that mean if you're a minister of finance or minister of health in Tanzania or Mali or Ghana? There hasn't yet been a translation to the country level, so it doesn't mean anything practical so far.
That's really important. You can't plan how many nurses you're going to hire or train if you don't have any sense about when the resources are going to be available. What the world still seems to be struggling with is serious implementation and follow-through on all of these great words.
Could climate change deliver a serious setback to achieving the goals?
Well, there's no question that climate change poses the greatest risks to the poorest countries, particularly those that are effectively climate-dependent agricultural economies, which is much, if not most of sub-Saharan Africa. Rainfall variability is an enormous problem. It has been linked to conflicts, droughts, hunger, and long-term development crises. This is unquestionably a huge issue. It just raises the bar that countries need to get over on the path to long-term, self-sustaining economic development.
What are the main things that the international community needs to be focusing on in the next years to get things on track? Are the goals still achievable?
At this mid-point, these goals are still achievable. Time is getting short, there is no question. We cannot sit and wait any longer. It's the mid-point. It's seven years in. It's two years since Gleneagles and all the major promises. I would say the basic thing is to make the resources available and to focus on delivering practicality on the ground. I think the timetable is quite urgent for making the goals as real as possible for as many people on the ground as urgently as possible.
The MDGs set some meaningful targets for people on the ground, in the places where they live. They're not about a debate in Germany or Gleneagles or somewhere else; they're about actually achieving real things in a meaningful time frame for thousands upon thousands of people in their own communities. That's what the MDGs are about in spirit, and that's what they need to be about in practice. It's got to get away from the theory. It's got to be focused on the basic delivery of the things we know work.
publishing date: July 4, 2007
editor: Valdis Wish
Do you have something interesting to add? Write a comment and discuss this topic with other readers. Comments should be on-topic, non-commercial, and not contain abuse of any kind.
Comment Policy
