The Millennium Development Goals: Trade, Aid and Debt

A global partnership for a global cause
The ultimate achievement of the UN Millennium Declaration of 2000 was its articulation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a comprehensive set of eight time-bound, global targets which have lent vital cohesion to international development policy, provided qualitative and quantitative benchmarks by which to hold governments accountable to development pledges, and presented viable solutions for some of the world’s most serious problems.

The MDG's: '8 ways to changes the world' 1. eradicate extreme poverty & hunger 2. achieve universal primary education 3. promote gender equality 4. reduce child mortality 5. improve maternal health 6. combat HIV/AIDS, milaria & other diseases 7. ensure environmental sustainability 8. develop a global partnership for development

Encompassing health, education and poverty, the MDGs constitute a global partnership between the developed and developing countries of the world – in the words of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, “a global deal […] built on mutualcommitments and mutual accountability”. A key aspect of this partnership is the sharpened clarity of the link between international development, on the one hand, and national security, on the other. The UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (2004) has lent validity to thisassociation, most notably by naming ‘poverty, infectious diseaseand environmental degradation’ as one of six clusters of contemporary threats to human security. In so doing, the High-Level Panel has done much to ensure that internationaldevelopment remains a priority on the agenda at the Millennium Summit in September 2005.

Too important to fail
In February 2005, the international team of experts conducting the UN Millennium Project concluded an exhaustive review of progress achieved thus far on the MDGs. It subsequently presented its findings to the UN Secretary-General in a report entitled Investing for Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the MillenniumDevelopment Goals. In it, the team sets out an inarguable case for throwing full support behind the MDGs: as “afulcrum for international development policy”, “a means to a productive life”, and “a linchpin to global security”, the MDGs are simply “too important to fail".

There are eight broad targets to be met by 2015; each Goal, however, is measured by multiple indicators. For example, progress on Goal 4, the MDG relating to the reduction in child mortality, is ranked against 1) the under-five mortality rate; 2) the infant mortality rate; and 3) the proportion of 1-year old children immunised against measles. In total, the eight MDGs currently encompass 48 statistical indicators.

Despite the unprecedented consensus existing in favour of the MDGs, forecasts based on these indicators suggest that most of the targets will not be met by 2015. Those successes which have been achieved, furthermore, are highly uneven, with progress in East Asia, Northern Africa and Latin America offset by stagnantand even deteriorating conditions in Sub-Saharan Africa. The UN Millennium Project identifies several reasons forthe lag. Paramount among these is the enduring inability of many developing countries to participate productively in the international economic system. This, in very large part, is due to the asymmetry of the global economy, in which rich countries have created, and helped to perpetuate, obstacles to sustainable, productive economic activity in poor countries. These obstacles, which stem primarily from the debilitating interplay among unfair trade, insufficient aid and unsustainable debt, collectively thwart improvements to human capital and infrastructure – themselves essential prerequisites to economic development; hence why MDG 8, which demands action by developing countries to address these imbalances, is absolutely imperative for the achievement of the MDGs as a whole.

From charity to justice MDG 8, which calls for ‘a global partnership for development’, is ranked against 17 indicators. The bulk of theseassess 1) the levels and quality of aid from donor countries; 2) the degree of market access for exports from developing economies; and 3) the sustainability of developing countries’ debt burdens. MDG 8 specifically commits donor countries to allocating 0.7% of their gross national incomes (GNI) to overseas developmentassistance (ODA), cancelling all official bilateral debt to the most seriously indebted countries, and ensuring tariff- and quota-free access to exports from the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Driving MDG 8 is the principle that international development should move away from charity towards justice, and away frompalliatives towards definitive capacity-building; as Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Minister DouglasAlexander has said, “only by rebalancing our global resources […] can poor countries hope to leave poverty behind permanently".

A small number of donor countries have surpassed their commitments as defined by Goal 8. Many more, however, have fallen abysmally short of what should have been accomplished by this point in time. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, those countries with better records – namely Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands – have produced reports in which their progress has been documented and evaluated. The UK, too, has recently released its own report, The UK’s Contribution to Achieving the Millennium Development Goals, in which it underscores its commitment to the fulfilment of the MDGs through international partnership, and evaluates the UK’s contribution to the Millennium process thus far.

The UK contribution
The UK has taken progressive steps to integrate the MDGs across the relevant departments of state, in order to ensure a coherent and comprehensive approach to its international development strategy. Thus, key roles are played, for example, by the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office, and the Department of Trade and Industry, though the Department for International Development (DfID) remains the primary vehicle for the UK’s overseas development policy. DfID has identified the MDGs as the chief point of reference underpinning its overall objectives, and the targets DfID sets for itself and by which it is held accountable to Parliament and the Treasury are heavily centred on the MDGs. It is important, however, that this domestic scrutiny is carried over into the international sphere, and that the UK’s leadership of the G8 and the EU produces decisive steps towards reforming the international regimes for trade, aid and debt, so as to provide the ‘enabling environment’ required to make the MDGs possible.

‘More and better aid’ - The UK is among those countries which have not yet fulfilled their pledges to direct 0.7% of GNI to overseas aid: the most recent available estimate put the relevant figure for the UK at just 0.34%, which represents an increase of only 0.02% since the signing of the Millennium Declaration in 2000. In July 2004, however, the government publicly announced its plans to reach the target by 2013 – contingent upon the continuation of favourable rates of economic growth in the UK. Greater aid commitments by the UK and other donor countries are imperative for the attainment of the MDGs – in fact, global development assistance needs be more than doubled over the next few years.

''Trade justice' - For every $1 of aid received by developing countries, it is estimated that $2 is dissipated on barriers to trade put up by rich countries. The EU is widely deemed a leading culprit in trade protectionism, in particular through subsidies levied through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Tellingly, the daily incomes of the world’s poorest 2.7 million people are outstripped by the amount cows in the EU receive per day in CAP subsidies. Also of concern are the ongoing re-negotiations of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the EU and trading partners in the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. EPAs were created to allow the latter group’s exports preferential access to EU markets; ending the arrangement threatens to reverse progress by unfairly forcing fragile economies to compete with advanced industrial economies. It is crucial, therefore, that the UK continues to encourage decisive reform of this harmful system, and that it uses its presidencies of the EU and the G8 to secure significant reductions in both EU and world trade barriers.

‘Enhanced debt relief’ - During the Jubilee Debt Campaign in 2000, activists frequently pointed out that the $140 million raised by Live Aid was roughly equal to Africa’s weekly debt repayments. Debt compromises the ability of developing countries’ governments to allocate revenue and aid to those social programmes which are necessary to achieve the MDGs. The UK government has in the past been support increased debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, a framework for governing debt cancellation for the world’s most severely indebted countries. The UK presently exceeds HIPC requirements, providing 100% relief on all debts owed by HIPCs. Furthermore, the UK has recently obtained the agreement in principle of G7 finance ministers to offer up to 100% of multilateral debt relief for the poorest countries. While this represents a step forward, more concrete assurances of comprehensive debt relief are required – ‘agreements in principle’ are not enough unless implemented.

Conclusion
Achieving the MDGs across all regions of the world depends on substantially greater amounts of aid, meaningful reform of the international trading system and comprehensive debt relief. Should the UK and its developed country partners fail to implement the necessary changes, they will have effectively deprived developing countries of the tools needed for ending poverty, abolishing disease and fulfilling the entire gamut of targets set by the MDGs.