THIS year, 2015, marks the end of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The end of MDGs should not mean that all the targets set in them are reached. Instead, their place is taken by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The advance edition of the Global Monitoring Report 2015/2016: Development Goals in an Era of Demographic Change, a joint publication of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, keeping this transition in mind, depicts the world to be at a “global development crossroads”.

Before proceeding to learn about what this change implies, let us recap some of the facts that relate to the achievements (or failures) of the MDGs. The report estimates that in 2012, 900 million people were living on less than $1.90 a day – the new international poverty line. It projects that this number will come down to 700 million this year, 2015. An important aspect we find when we look at the poverty figures is that all these are based on the calculations of respective countries. For example, the report approvingly quotes the 'poverty reduction' in our country, taken from the various studies commissioned by the government, which were challenged and proved to lack credibility. The report chooses to ignore these criticisms and go by the official records, thus grossly under-representing the number of poor.

GRAVE

CHALLENGES

However, the same report is forced to acknowledge that the income of the bottom 40 percent of the people slowed from 4.6 to 2.9 percent and the average income growth for the entire population declined from 3.0 to 1.7 percent. So, it is forced to accede that the 'depth of remaining poverty' and the 'unevenness in shared prosperity' are two grave challenges facing the world.

Similarly, the report accepts that the progress on achieving targets related to health and nutrition was tardy. One in every five children who is under the age of five remain undernourished, and nearly 860 million people continue to live in slums. Though improvement is witnessed in the access to school education, quality of education remains a prime concern, with income of families playing a determinant role.

With the advances made in research and development of medicines to combat HIV, today, the patients receiving treatment are having nearly the same life expectancy as those without HIV. But there is an important phrase in the above sentence that determines life and death – it is, patients receiving treatment. The report puts the cat out of the bag, when it states, “three-fifths of those people living with HIV, mostly in developing countries, lack access to antiretroviral drugs”. This virtually means every third person in those five suffering from HIV is not having access to medicines, thus reducing the person’s life span. People continue to die of preventable diseases. For example, in 2013, 1.5 million people lost their lives to tuberculosis, importantly, many in the prime of their productive lives. In the same year, 4,53,000 children lost their lives to malaria, while nearly 198 million cases of this disease were registered.

Expressing its concern over the alarming pollution levels and environmental degradation that is happening everywhere, the report notes that in 2010, nearly 11 to 21 percent of all deaths in developing countries were caused by these factors. Pointing to the contradiction between capital's greed for profits and thus its neglect of environment, the report states that only about 25 percent of the countries in the world have managed to grow economically while 'simultaneously decreasing their environmental externalities'.

This being the status of the MDGs, with the overall global trend pointing to the failure in achieving the set targets, now, the world is asked to move to the SDGs. One should not forget that if individual countries are accounted for their progress on the MDGs, countries like India in South East Asian region and many others in Sub-Saharan Africa stand woefully behind the targets. Notwithstanding these differences, or rather, failing to move the countries to achieve the set targets and afraid that harping on the same issues time and again, without any visible progress will affect the credibility of institutions, a new nomenclature is being promoted – SDGs.

The SDGs, it seems, emerged from “wide-ranging stakeholder engagements, reflecting views from 193 governments and more than 7 million respondents to an online survey conducted by the United Nations (UN) and from the insights of a UN High Level Panel of Eminent Persons (from government, civil society, and private sector), the Open Working Group of the UN General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals and the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing”. The Financing for Development Conference held in July this year in Addis Ababa, the UN General Assembly meeting in September have endorsed the SDGs and the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) Conference of the Parties in December in Paris is also expected to stamp its approval.

According to the IMF and the World Bank, while similarities with the MDGs are apparent, the “transition from the MDGs with 8 goals, 21 targets, and 60 indicators, to the SDGs with 17 goals, 169 targets, and 304 indicators reflects a fuller recognition of the multidimensional nature of development”.

Delving on the distinctions between the MDGs and SDGs, the Report argues that “the SDGs represent a global compact that is applicable to all countries” and seek to “accelerate progress with a strong focus on implementation”. The SDGs are, it seems, framed after learning from the experiences of working with the MDGs and this had taught that for the success of SDGs, better implementation, “based on strengthened policies and institutions, as well as resource mobilisation”, will be essential to “accelerate progress between now and 2030”.

Essentially, the argument is that the SDGs' focus will be on quality. To achieve the SDG targets, the IMF and the World Bank warn, “investment needs require a shift from 'billions' in official development assistance to 'trillions' in investments. The big question that remains to be answered is when the governments of various countries have failed to mobilise the 'billions' for the MDGs, where will these 'trillions' come from? The report itself mentions that Official Development Assistance (ODA) is at present only 0.3 percent of GDP, which is well below the target of 0.7 percent of GDP. Moreover, with global growth expected to slowdown than expected in this year and this trend predicted to continue even in the long-term (2016-30), the report accepts that this will affect resource mobilisation for achieving the targets. Also, the availability of jobs, even in the periods of marginal growth is becoming limited by the day and will have a debilitating effect on the reduction of poverty.

ATTACK ON

SUBSIDIES

The World Bank and the IMF have promised to support the SDGs by aligning their “strategy for engagement through the goals of ending poverty and promoting shared prosperity in a sustainable manner”. Both of them have their own ideas of 'ending poverty' and 'sharing prosperity', which they do not hide. The report itself provides glimpses to their ideas: “Around 8 percent of government spending around the world, equivalent to $1.9 trillion, is spent on subsidies in one form or another, with energy subsidies alone costing the public purse about $300 billion (IMF 2014). The recent fall in oil prices presents a golden opportunity to eliminate or dramatically reduce such subsidies”. This is the crux of their strategy to eliminate poverty – eliminate subsidies. Any reasonable person, who is grounded in experience working with the poor at the grassroots, will scoff at such an absurd idea. The poverty reduction witnessed in Latin America and in China was possible because of heavy investment from the State and by providing subsidies. Elimination of subsidies, will only further increase poverty, deprivation and hunger.

The 'World Bank Group', has another prescription – “strengthening public expenditure management systems, including enhanced independent oversight, multi-year budgeting, and fiscal responsibility laws, can also contribute meaningfully. Private resources play a central role, and efforts should focus on incentivising flows”. And the prescribed private sources include, foreign direct investment, bank loans and capital markets, for which the respective governments of the developing countries should enable by changing public policy to “lower and manage risk or increase the rewards associated with private investment”. The report ‘innocently’ states that the World Bank and the IMF will seek to serve as, 'leveraging machines' to help catalyse the private sector flows (through both advice and policy-based lending), and by helping to underpin strong macroeconomic conditions and investment climates”.

Here lies the crux of the matter for the new SDGs and the interest shown by the IMF and the World Bank. They want the international finance capital to prise open the markets of developing countries to their exploitation. This is one of the surest ways, they feel, will help them come out of the economic crisis. Development is the garb they want to don, to further their exploitation. IMF and World Bank, as usual, are promoting their agenda by sugar coating. Underneath, of course, lies the bitter pill of 'austerity', cut in State's role in providing welfare and relief to the people. Beware! As Marx said, Hic Rhodus, hic salta! (leap now) into the struggles.