FACTS againest MYTHS AUGUST-SEPTEMBER-2005.pdf
Media
- extracted text
-
Another Grandiose Pipe Dream?
The Myths of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
‘‘...None of the goals is fundamentally wrong, but the MDGs are not embedded
in any comprehensive concept. This lack of context is likely to direct attention
to well expressed lip service in the debating societies of multilateral politics,
while fundamentally flawed global trends (concerning, for instance, resource
distribution, world trade or privatization) remain unchallenged. ”'(*1)
•
- Dr. A. Wulf, medico international.
'-wulf@medico.de. http://www.medico.de
“...Sb, the poverty line is.not the only line about which we have to think; there is
also the highrspeed digital line, the fiber optic line...which exclude those who
are literally not plugged into the possibilities of a new...world... ”.
www.shashitharoor.com
ears, of development cooperation between the North and the South have failed to effectively
. address the problem of global poverty. To precisely address this failure that the ambitious UN
plan, the Millennium.Development Goals (MDGs) was launched on September 14,2000 in New
York where world leaders from 189 member-states,adopted the MDGs in the UN Resolution,
the Millennium Declaration. These commitments reflected global consensus that poverty in an
increasingly prosperous world economy was totally unacceptable and therefore the MDGs
have become the main resolve to raise the effectiveness of development-aid so as to reduce
poverty in the’South. This aid represents the sum total ofthe development goals agreed since
the 70s at various global conferences, summits, etc.
The MDGs are a set of time-bound and measurable goals and targets for combating poverty
and are, the prime focus of development work worldwide. They consist of 8 major goals plus 18
targets and 48 indicators, all. of which are to be achieved by 2015. (see Box bn pg.8) As is
evident, most of these goals are not new at all. What is'“new” however is the broad and
collective agreement among a number of global players and national governments to work
collectively to achieve these goals. The South is expected to produce by 200&wfeiled strategies
showing how they expect to achieve these goals. As a member state India too js a signatory of
this global commitment with the Planning Commission having evolved the National Development
Goals (NDGs) as part of its 10th 5-Year Plan targets based on the MDGs and set a target to
bring down the incidence of poverty in the country to 10% by 2012, and highlighted in the
National Common Minimum Program of the UPA Government, (see box on pg. 2)
against MYTHSAUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2005
FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION ONLY
Since its inception the MDGs, formulated and
publicized worldwide with great fanfare, have however
come in for enormous criticism. In the run-up to the
Millennium Summit held last September 2005
participants from India and abroad attended the
People’s Summit against Poverty (PSAP) in Delhi. A
report “Securing Rights: Citizen’s Report on MDGs”3
highlighted the condition of education, health and other
basic necessities in 13 Indian States. While highlighting
the gap between claims made by the Government and
the ground reality as it effects the people, the Report
notes that 74% of the villages did not have essential
drugs at the PHCs and in 82% of villages covered,
women reported not getting fair and just wages. It also
highlighted that 80 different forms of ‘untouchability’
were reported against Dalits in both public and private
spheres. At another level, questions have been raised
on the methodology applied by the UN in defining
poverty itself especially over its goals of halving
“extreme poverty and hunger” for at least one billion
people living on less than $1 a day. The $1 a day
measurement fails to distinguish between the widely
differing experiences of the poor in the South. It cannot
be measured simply by examining income levels. The
very measurement of poverty is thus warped. The
problem of financial resources is another key factor
that has not been taken into account as also the
approach towards fulfilling the MDGs the so-called
targeted approach, a subject of serious debate. The
targeted approach may provide the focus to deal with
the most urgent issues facing the South but in the
long run it is negative overall.
Other critical concerns of the MDGs include those on
health a major highlight in these goals but the focus
and commitment has been shifted away from the Alma
Ata Declaration (1978) that India had also pledged, to
provide health for all by the year 2000. In 1979 India
had also ratified the International Covenant for
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) with
Art. 12 stating that the State is obliged to achieve the
highest attainable standards of health. The health
situation however continues to be dismal on all fronts
and India is no where near to achieving these goals.
With this shift in focus there is little hope that India
will achieve anything significant within the stipulated
timeframe. This change in focus is critical as it also
implies a paradigm shift in the UN agenda and strategy
on health. If the UN is unable to stand by Health for
All and ICESCR then for the South, including India, it
becomes even more difficult to sustain the rightsbased approach to health and health care for its people.
This is even more critical in the light of reduced state
participation in the economic sphere both in terms of
policy intervention and state investments.
Clearly, the Health MDGs are very narrow. Its focus is
primarily on maternal and child health, contraception
and selected disease surveillance. Their monitoring
indicators are largely demographic. Most disturbing
■M «£T3 MOI BOO M DO BH
I
I
I
I
I
1
8
8
8
I
8
I
I
8
I
8
I
8
I
8
8
8
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
8
8
1
8
I
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
I
I
8
I
The MDG Target for India4
1.
Eradication of Extreme Poverty &
Hunger
According to the MDG targets, the
proportion of people whose income is less
than $1 a day is toe halved between
12990 and 2015. Likewise the proportion
of people who suffer from hunger is also
to be halved. This implies that poverty
rate in India will have to be brought down
in 2015 to 16%.
2.
Achievement of Universal Primary
Education.
All children are to be in primary school
by 2015.
3.
Promotion of Gender Equality and
Empowerment of Women.
Gender disparity in primary and
secondary education is to be eliminated
preferably by 2005 and to all levels of
education no later than 2015. The
difference between male and female
literacy is also to be eliminated by 2007.
4.
Reduction in Child Mortality
The under-5 mortality rate is to be
reduced by 2/3rds, between 1990 and
2015.
5.
Improving Maternal Health
The maternal mortality ratio is to be
reduced by three-quarters
6.
Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other
diseases, providing safe drinking water
7.
Ensuring
environmental
sustainability. India has to integrate the
principles of sustainable development
into its policies and programmes and
reverse the loss of environmental
resources
8.
Developing a Global Partnership for
Development.
Developing an open, rule-based,
predictable, non-discriminatory trading
and financial system including a
commitment to good governance,
development, and poverty reduction both nationally and globally.
8
I
fl
fl
fl
I
I
II
fl
II
11
II
II
II
II
fl
I
II
♦
Q
0
I
II
0
11
II
0
fl
0
0
II
I
II
8
I
II
I
0
11
0
8
0
fl
fl
L ES3 i=a sea ossa b=s=> E=sa es=s ossa sza dob tssa es=j an saa jeaa csa J
is the fact that these are exactly the goals of India’s
primary health programme, especially for rural areas.
So, the focus on MDGs is not new for India’s health
policy makers and planners for whom the MDGs are
godsend as they coincide with their 2002 National
Health Policy of limiting the States role in healthcare;
providing them an opportunity to also overlook the
FACTS against MYTHS — AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2005
goals of the 1982 National Health Policy of
comprehensive universal primary healthcare.
Evidently, India follows the global agenda set in
Washington or Geneva; post 1978/79, that is Health
for All and IMESCR, India had adopted a National
Health Policy (NHP), which stressed comprehensive
universal primary healthcare; and post-2000, India
adopts a NHP that follows the diluted agenda of MDGs!
Another disturbing sign are the starvation deaths from
various apart of the country. Analysis of the number
of such deaths shows that majority of those who died
were of a productive age. That is, one of the
breadwinners of the family succumbed to starvation
with children also as victims. Nearly half of the dead
were also women. While most of the dead was from
agriculture labour families, some of the weavers also
died due to starvation. Another tragic development
emanating from the policies pursued by the State is
the agrarian distress in various parts of the country
leading to farmers’ suicides, the central issue of which
the debt trap. Small and marginal farmers, especially
ose who lease in land from others is not eligible for
availing institutional credit and crop insurance. Thus,
they are forced to approach the usurious moneylenders.
This situation helps in strengthening merchant capital
and the traders-cum-moneylenders make fortunes. For
most farmers a shift from food drops like ‘jowar’ was
suicidal. In comparison, cash crops like cotton need
much more fertilisers and chemical inputs,
necessitating higher cash requirements. Thus, market
inadequacy and crash in prices are the main reasons
for the agrarian distress. Add to this the malnutrition
deaths among children in various parts of Maharashtra
that have been reported since 2000. These deaths
among children, accounting for 71.5 per cent, have
been especially pronounced in the Adivasis belts of
the State, confirmed by verifying the nutritional status
of the siblings of the deceased children. According to
one report of the National Family Health Survey
(Mumbai) half the children in Maharasthra suffered
Variously from acute and chronic malnutrition, growth
I
retardation and wasting (i.e. a deficit of weight for height
greater than 20 per cent). Between April and August
1996, for instance, 25,000 Adivasi children between
the ages of 6 months to 6 years suffered severe
malnourishment and 336 children died of secondary
causes e.g. pneumonia, low birth weight, premature
birth, dysentery, diarrhea and TB.
In this whole dismal situation political considerations
and revisions are introduced into the original MDG
statement. These damaging revisions are mainly
through the aggressive lobbying of the US
Administration backed in some areas by other rich
nations like Australia and Japan. Most disturbing is
that the US has sought to overturn the international
agreement on poverty reductions made in 2002 at
Monterrey and delete the 35 references to the MDGs
altogether. Though compromise wording has now been
accepted, there are 250 changes in the comments that
need to be negotiated. In strong opposition from a
number of countries especially those from the South
the US was forced to withdraw many of his contentious
proposals. It adopted a similar approach to other
multilateral processes and agreements by seeking to
strip out references on climate change and the Kyoto
Protocol, the International Criminal Court, and the UN
Convention against Corruption.
Another crucial socio-economic factor in the battle
against mass poverty and hunger in the MDGs viz., is
the concern over population growth in the South. Once
again, there is no attempt for a parallel consideration
— the over-consumption life-style of the rich in both
the North and South also responsible for eating into
the resources of the earth - over this contentious issue.
This specific concern is conveniently excluded from
the MDGs as it also relates to the present precarious
state of natural resources. The recent Living Planet
Report brought out by WWF international and UNEP
clearly provides bad news in respect of human society
and its impacts on ecology and living species.
Ultimately, what this all amounts to is that the MDGs
among other things fails to address head-on the root
cause of the problem of global poverty; as to why in
the first place mass poverty continues to increase.
The cause of this reality is conveniently left
unanswered. It is well known that poverty stems largely
from a number of crucial socio-economic and political
factors*, both external and internal, apart from the
historical legacy of colonialism responsible for the
widespread impoverishment brought about through
massive transfer of resources,, material and human,
from the South. In addition, the debt crisis of the late
80s and 90s subsequently, emanated directly from
unfair terms of trade and IMF/WB loan conditionalities
are also factors that continue to aggravate this situation.
Together, these policies have increased the
dependency of the South on foreign aid forcing much
of their efforts into servicing their debt repayments,
efforts that otherwise would have been invested in
development goals. Moreover, these efforts have also
severely limited the South’s capacity to mitigate the
adverse socio-economic and environmental impact
leading to increased unemployment and destruction
of livelihood systems vis-a-vis food insecurity; in
particular to dwindling rural employment opportunities
in agriculture with no sign of non-farm employment. In
India the situation is further exacerbated by the
deflationary, neoliberal economic policies followed at
the centre as well as by many state governments. In
the name of reducing fiscal deficits and bringing in
fiscal discipline, allocation for important social sectors
that affect the welfare of the people have been
drastically curtailed. Whether it is child mortality,
maternal mortality or diseases like malaria, TB, HIV/
AIDS India has not gone far from even the situation in
the early 90s. As of December 2004, there were 39.5m.
C FACTS against MYTHS — AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2005
3
— — — — — — — — — — —■ — — — — — i
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Why “Development” Fails — Repeatedly!
At a more basic level the rural and urban
poor, whose poverty is the main justification
for the MDGs, as experience shows, are
hardly consulted, hardly involved. Their
knowledge, resource and capacities are
scarcely tapped and often not even
acknowledged, as others define their
priorities.- Ironically, in urban areas, the poor
are often been identified as “the problem”
holding back development. The rural and
urban poor have, little chance of gaining
support from what they would define as their
needs and priorities. Development is still
something that professionals and
developments institutions “do” for them, and
interventions are designed and implemented
by intermediaries over whom they have little
or no influence. Indeed, the project
documents are usually in languages that they
cannot understand. There may be some
changes at the margin. For instance, support
for the development of national poverty
reduction strategies that have some “national
ownership” and involve some civil society
organisations but these processes are still
distant from the slum colonies and villages
where the deprivations occur. National or
regional consultations involving some civil
society groups of a weak kind of
“participation” - and it is rare for the civil
society representatives involved to be
chosen by and accountable to “the poor” that
they claim to represent. There is little
discussion of the changes to institutional
structures and funding flows in official donor
agencies that would allow direct influence
by low-income groups and their community
organizations, and direct support to them.
J
and others disasters. The present conditions of food
insecurity prevailing in disaster affected areas are
examples of transient hunger. Incidentally, the UNDP’s
Human Development 2005 Report has placed India at
127 position out of 177 countries in terms of the Human
Development Index, which measures pear capita
income, literacy and life expectancy.
■
I
I
I
I
]
|
g
i
■
.
J
J
■
I
I
!
|
|
g
g
g
.
!
■
J
■
I
I
|
|
|
g
EC31 MEM ■■■ ESZ MMI HKB 1133 HBi EC3 EME BBE« £=M KM MMI SM CEO 1=9
people around the world who were living with HIV/AIDS
and 4.9-m. new infections had occurred during 2004.
The number of people living with HIV has been rising
in every region, compared with two yPars ago, with
the steepest rise occurring in East Asia, and in Eastern
Europe and Central Asia. These figures shows that,
at least on a global level, India’s not even close to
slowing the spread of HIV, let along reversing the trend.
Even with success stories that India is often cited as,
a decline in income poverty has not been matched by
human development. The number of people suffering
from hunger has risen since 1997. (As compared to
the situation in especially Africa hunger in India is more
low level and less visible). Hunger has 3 dimensions chronic under-nutrition; hidden, caused by the
deficiency of micronutrients in the diet like iron, iodine,
zinc and vitamin A; and transient, caused by natural
Most discussions on MDGs are not about changing
the way development aid, etc., is provided but more
of an attempt to contain or preempt efforts by the poor
in the South to radically transform their miserable
plight. Experts thus challenge whether ultimately the
MDGs will be fulfiled and whether these goals are
nothing more than the UN ritual to achieve good
looking statistics rather than tackling the more serious
concern viz., the root causes of global poverty; of
transforming inegalitarian societal structures and
institutional frameworks. While focussed special
programmes may indeed lead to isolated cases to
triumph they do also foster fragmentation. As indicated
above the goals of the 1982 NHP, on many of these
indicators that were to be achieved by 2000, are sq£)
unmet. There is therefore the urgency in altering the
political economy in the country; from the increasingly
followed free-trade market-route to a publicly financed,
socially committed development paradigm. This
alteration is the only route to universal access for all
round development or to achieving the MDGs. For this
to occur it is necessary to demystify the MDGs as
currently envisaged. Until and unless the root causes
of mass poverty and underdevelopment is dealt with
the goals of the MDGs, even in its truncated form, will
remain a pipe dream!
MYTH: India is one of MDGs success stories
because of its favorable development indicators
achieved ahead of 2015.
FACT: This is in reference to the so called decline of
poverty in India. On “success stories” like India, a
decline in income poverty has however not been
matched by human development. The figures were
for child mortality and malnutrition as well as gender
party. The number of people suffering from hunger has
risen since 1997.
As pointed out earlier, India’s progress on the health
front is the greatest cause for concern, and some key
indicators display how worrisome these factors are:
■<>
India has one of the highest levels of maternal
mortality in the world. Maternal deaths account
for almost 25%of the world’s childbirth related
deaths;
Almost half of all Indian children under the
age of 5 are malnourished and 34% of
newborns are underweight;
•4>
Approximately, half of the children dp not get
complete immunisation
FACTS against MYTHS — AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2005
4
4 The majority of births (58.0%) in India are still
unattended by grained staff
4-
HIV-AIDS is becoming a pandemic
India’s Report Card
Thus, India’s progress towards achieving the MDGs,
it has a long way to go. The high absolute number of
people living in poverty and sharp regional disparities,
are real causes for concern. India continues to
experience high levels of poverty. While figures show
that the proportion of Indians living under the poverty
line is falling, in absolute terms, they number
approximately 260 m., a figure equivalent to the entire
population of the US.The incidence of poverty even
today is around 26% according to Government of India
definition and around 35%according to international
definitions.
Child mortality, especially among girls, remains high
in rural areas. Women are often excluded from decision
making psoiti9on in villages, awhile-effective provision
jbf health and education services for the rural poor
continues to very low. 92.14% of children (only 82.85%
for girls) are in primary school; The literate rate for
men is 74% and for women it is 52% -- a difference of
22%; infant deaths are 68% per 1000. Under 5 mortality
is 93 per 1000 births; deaths due to child bearing range
between 4 to 5.5.per 1000 births, and although 84% of
rural families and 95% of urban families have access
to drinking water not all sources are sustainable.
The above inequity, denying a child the right to realize
its innate genetic potential for physical and metal
growth, is the cruelest form of inequity (Any nation
which undervalues its human resource and over-values
its material resources like land, building, weaponry,
etc., will always remain poor). This is the basic cause
of India’s enigma, where excellence in many areas of
human endevaour coexists with mass poverty.
As far as the situation of rest of the countries of South
|is concerned this claim if and when it materialises will
undoubtedly result in multiple benefits to hundreds of
millions of the urban and rural poor. Experience;
however, of such a development agenda, originating
in the North, indicates little optimism. Reports from
global aid agencies like the HDR 2005 note that many
of the MDGs will not be met in UN member states by
2015! None of them will be met in Africa where 100 m.
more people are living in poverty than they were in
1990!
The target to eradicate extreme hunger is projected to
be missed in Africa, and South and West Asia. On
current trends, Africa and South and East Asia will fail
to achieve universal primary education by 2015. By
the target date, 75-m. children in over 80 countries are
projected to be out of school. On current trends, the
child mortality target will be missed in every region
except East Asia and Latin America. In Africa, life
expectancy has fallen by 15 years since 1990, largely
due to HIV and AIDS.
Evidently, the MDGs already behind target, reports do
not acknowledge change in direction necessary to get
the work back on track. According to Action Aid, pre
summit negotiations have diluted some clear, time
bound commitments on increasing aid, improving the
quality of aid, canceling unsustainable debt, tackling
HIV and AIDS and expanding access to health and
education. Examples include: the removal of timetables
to reach the target for rich countries to give 0.7 per
cent of their GDP in aid by 2015; the loss of a plan for
debt reduction for countries outside the Heavily
Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative.
What is also overlooked in the whole MDG enterprise
is the question of resource0 required to achieve these
goals. An estimate in the Times of India (19-9-05) noted
that an additional $50 will be needed. And, according
to a UN document, “A Practical Plan to Achieve the
Millennium Development Goals” $135 b. will be needed
in 2006, rising to $195 b. in 2015, primarily in Africa.
To close this gap, the countries of the North must
more than double the proportion of GDP they spend
on development aid, from an average of 0.25 per cent
at present to 0.54 per cent by 2015. The Document
also warns that most are unlikely to achieve the goals
if current trends continue. The reasons for this are:
4
Shortcomings in governance with negative
impacts on the rule of law or the economy;
4
Levels of poverty that has grown so high as
to prevent necessary investment;
4
Exclusion of sections of the population,
resulting in huge differences in income; and
4
Neglect of certain policy areas with
consequences for the millennium goals.
An Oxfam report in December 2004, pointed out that
in comparison to the income earned by the rich North
the wealthy give only half as much foreign aid today
as they did in the 1960s! Forty years ago, the North
spent 0.48 percent of their GNP on aid but today it is
a “measly" 0.24 per cent. At present the rich North
spend a mere $80 per head of their population on
development aid -an equivalent of just one cup of
coffee a week. If they increased their support to 0.7
per cent of GNP, this would still only equate to 1/5lh of
their arms expenditure. Ultimately, however, the
funding commitment of the North to the MDGs to reduce
global poverty, has not been fulfilled!
Measuring Poverty!
MYTH: A major achievement of the MDGs is the
reduction of the number of poor in the South living
on less than a $ a day.
FACT: On the contrary! This statistical proportion,
firstly, fails to reflect ground reality of the poor. The
FACTS against MYTHS — AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2005
equation of a $1 a day measurement of poverty fails
to distinguish between the widely different experiences
of the poor; it cannot be measured on the simplistic
notion of incomes. Moreover, the MDGs themselves
set an objective on poverty that obscures the
complexity of the problem and such a measurement
is misleading. In his book, “End of Globalize” John
Ralston Saul noted that after all. people at $3 a day
could be living a life of pure despair in a savage slum
of Lagos, a life far worse than that at $1 a day in a
stable slum like Kong Toy in Bangkok, where there is
a societal structure”!
According to the World Bank the number of people
living on less than $1 a day fell to 1.1 b. in 2001 from
1.5 b. in 1981 - a much trumpeted trend that mostly
reflects the economic rise of India and China. Yet, it
also maintains that the number living on less than $2
day rose to 2.7 b. in 2001 from 2.4 b in 1981. In its
recent report the Bank also noted that the “...1.6 b
people in the middle, between the $1 and $2 day poverty
lines, are still very poor and remain vulnerable to
economic slowdowns”. Thus, according to the abovementioned author, if the goal posts were moved, and
$2 a day was the benchmark—the preferred measure
of some anaysists - it would suggest that global
poverty is actually increasing. ‘The evolution from the
$1 category to the $2 category might mean a marginal
improvement or nothing at all or a worsening of
poverty”. There are no clear signs of progress and there
may be serious slippages, except in perhaps India and
China.
According to another recent report, by the UNDP,
another 1.7 b. people could be living on $2 a day by
2015 if current trends continue. According to some
experts, this data could signal rising inequality, - which
may or may not point to a arise in the absolute number
of people living in poverty. “In really poor countries,
this would not be a good sign as it can point to a
deterioration of other social indicators such as health
and education and nutrition”.
The $1-a-day figure is referred to as the extreme
poverty line and is calculated on a purchasing power
parity basis. This method attempts to account for
inflation while also measuring the relative purchasing
power of different countries’ currencies for the same
types of goods and services. But it is difficult to broadly
measure the impact of inflation on different income
groups whose baskets of commonly purchased goods
are not the same, with food a heavy component of
expenditure by the world’s poorest. So a person in a
country “A” could move well over the $1-a-day
threshold but the extra income could simply be eaten
up by a sharp rise in his or her staple diet.(*Ed
Stoddard) Africa is one place where there is a
consensus. It is well known that Africa is getting poorer
by just about any definition! Using the $1-a-day or
less measurement, the World Bank states the number
of Africans living in extreme poverty almost doubled
F —— — — — — —i — — — — — — — — —
_
il
4
The Poverty Equation
I
j
*
<
■'!
I
|
|
!
I
|
|
5
;
;
8
L
The measurement of inequality, applying the
Gini coefficient, where the more equal a
society, the lower is its score on scale of 0
to 1. India scores 0.33. (C.C.) Almost all the
0
|
j
n
'
countries that do significantly better (i.e.
those with a scale better than 0.30) belongs
to the former socialist bloc, or to
Scandinavia. Outside of these special
3
categories, the only countries to emerge as
significantly more equal than India are Japan,
Taiwan and Pakistan.
I]
|
|
As against this, almost all countries in South
D
America and most countries in Africa are
significantly more unequal - with a Gini
coefficient in all cases more than 0.50. Even
China scores an unflattering 0.45. This would
suggest that India is a middle-of-the road
country when it comes inequality, and
significantly more equal that it’s main
competitor country.
0
I
1=3 MH MM BCD na KE=1 S3=3 BOHI E=J D=3 t= EX3 MH E=>=1
|
|
s
p
I
‘
8
J
in 20 years, rising to 313 m. in 2001 from 164 m. in
1981.
Finally, the conclusion based on this measurement of
poverty must be tempered by the qualification that
India measures consumption inequality, whereas some
other countries in the World Development Report Table
measures income inequality.
MYTH: A positive development indicator of the
MDGs in the South is the drop in population growth
e.g. India has already succeeded to avert millions
of births due to its adoption of the effective family
planning strategy.
FACT: As far as India’s position on this is concerned,
the credit for the number of birth averted does not lie,
with family planning methods like contraceptives alone
as this does not necessarily reflect a declining birth
rate! Although there had been no family planning
programmes during the early 2O‘h century, the decadal
birth rate came down from 49.2 in 1911 to 39.9 in 1951,
and thereafter, despite immense effort and expenditure
to 37.2 in 1981. Much of the decline is owing to the
socio-economic development process that had taken
place, particularly the marginal increase in female
literacy and raising the minimum age of marriage of
girls. Although the couple protection rate increased
over the years to achieve the short-term demographic
goals fixed at various points of time, it has never been
possible to achieve the same.
In the present state of development of the South this
claim will hardly materialize. Further, whether
population growth in the South can be slowed down
depends on what political decisions are taken. A key
FACTS against MYTHS — AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2005
6
■
I
I
requirement in this vital decision is the implementation
of the resolution adopted at the 1994 Conference on
World Population in Cairo. The core elements of this
specific progaramme are a qualitative and quantitative
improvement in reproductive health care, including
family planning, and the empowerment of women for
instance, by improving women’s legal, economic and
social status.
Since the last couple of years, many countries of the
South adopted important measures in realising the
goals of the Cairo Conference. Progress had also been
reported from many Islamic States. Contrary to the
myth, Islam’s views of family planning is not basically
rejectionist. Bangladesh, Iran, Indonesia and other
predominately Islamic States have long since made it
a state responsibility to provide services for
reproductive health and family planning. Yet, despite
this positive trend the Cairo action program on the whole
fails to get the same level of support it commanded
10 years ago. Backing is still strong and the 1994
resolution was endorsed at all international
I conferences. Indeed, 4 of the MDGs address key
i ’points raised at Cairo.
I
Even within the context of weak MDGs with one of its
major agendas being family planning and strategy to
control population growth there has been stiff
resistance from the conservative sections of society.
Action programmes like qualitative and quantitative
I improvement in reproductive health care and women’s
empowerment by improving women’s legal, economic
and social standing is strongly opposed. These
programs no longer receive the same level of support
it commanded in earlier years. At the Cairo Conference
for the US had strongly championed the case of
women’s reproductive rights. Now under President
George Bush this program faces very stiff opposition.
Such political interference has also affected the MDGs
I with the unilateral US decision of diluting it. Any
I reference to the MDGs has been seriously challenged.
Along with the US the Vatican as well as also other
) ^fundamentalist religious groups in the Islamic and Latin
| ^American States have sharply protested against the
I
concept of reproductive rights, which merely
acknowledges that youth have a right to sex education
and family planning. What is new today is the
I
composition of the opposition camp. Since 2001, the
US has also taken a conservative line running contrary
r
to the goals of the Cairo action program. On the very
day he became President, for example, Bush adopted
a policy which prohibits the disbursement of US Aid to
organisations that have anything whatsoever to do with
abortion. US policy, moreover, is not only weighted
against abortion; it also propagates abstinence and
marital fidelity in place of modern contraceptives with adverse implications.
As far as this issue in rest of the South is concerned,
in one respect the affect of such political considerations
with revisions in the MDGs actually paves the way for
rapid population growth! To illustrate: In the Philippines
the Bishops Conference in 2003 opposed — and in
the end blocked - legislation that would have allowed
public funds to be used for family planning purposes.
Interestingly, in contrast, Muslim Filipino clerics in 2004
issued a fatwah to promote family. 80% of the Filipino
population, however, are Catholics and their clergy is
resolutely opposed to modern methods of “family
planning”.
References:
1.
Wulf, Dr. A. Health, a Millennium Goal, D + C, # 89, Frankfurt, 2005
2.
Patel,S.,- Hasan, A., & Satterthwaite, D. How to
Meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
in Urban Areas, Environment & Urabanisation,
No.1, 2005
3.
Securing Rights: Citizens’ Report on MDGs,
Wada Na Todo Abhiyan, New Delhi,
4.
Macro Economic Policies and the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs), SNDT Women’s
University, Mumbai, 2005
5.
Hiddleston, S. Can the UN Summit on Poverty
Deliver? Hindustan Times, September 13, 2005
(Delhi)
6.
Family Planning Subtracted from MDG Equation,
ICYO - Youth-Information @goole groups.com
7.
Hagele, M.t Hinz.C. The Urgency of Family
Planning, D + C, #6, Bonn, 2005
8.
Millennium Goals & Poverty, Critical Concerns,
CED, September, Mumbai, 2005.
9.
Stoddard, E. Measuring Poverty. Does a Dollar A
Day makes Sense? Daily News and Analysis,
September 9, 2005, Mumbai
10.
Saith, A. Poverty Lines versus Poor, EPW, No.
43, 2005
FACTS against MYTHS — AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2005
Summary of the Millennium Development Goals and their targets2
8 Millenium Development Goals
18 Millennium development targets
1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
1 and 2. Between 1990 and 2015: halve the
proportion of people:
whose income is less than US$1 a day
who suffer from hunger
2. Achieve universal primary education
3. By 2015: all boys and girls able to complete
the full course of primary school
3. Promote gender equality and empower women
4. Eliminate gender disparity in primary and
secondary education, preferably by 2005, and to
all levels of education no later than 2015
4. Reduce child mortality
5.1990-2015: reduce by two-thirds the under-five
mortality rate
5. Improve maternal health
6.1990-2015: reduce by three-quarters the
maternal mortality ratio
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7 and 8. By 2015: to have halted and begun to
reverse:
the spread of AIDS
the incidence of malaria and other major
diseases
7. Ensure environmental sustainability
9-11
Integrate principles of sustainable development
into country policies
1990-2015: halve the proportion without safe
water and basic sanitation
Significant improvement in lives of at least 100
millions slum dwellers by 2020
8. Develop a global partnership for development
12-18
Fairer trading and financial systems
Address special needs of least-developed, land
locked and small island states
Deal with debt problems
Strategies for work for youth
Access to affordable essential drugs
Access to benefits of new technologies,
especially information-communications technology
GMO
GMO
GMO
Please feel free to reproduce material from this publication but with due credit.
MM BMM UE3
K33 MM MS CM C3il M> C2H
Facts against Myths is a bi-monthly bulletin of factual information on a number of development myths and fallacies, etc,
including information against alien development models, paradigms and false concepts on caste, creed and gender.
Produced and Published by:
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra, D-1 Shivdham, 62 Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai 400 064, INDIA
i&J£
2882 2850 & 2889 8662
Fax: 2889 8941
Email: vak@bom3.vsnl.net.in
Website: www.vakindia.org
Design & Layou*: Kartiki Desai
Printed by: Sudhir Joglekar
2 $ 3 Emerald Corner, Maratha Colony, Tilakwadi, Belgaum 590 006
S
094481 - 44124
Position: 5484 (1 views)