IE : wake-up call on millennium goals : Oct 14,2007
wake-up call on millennium goals
N K Singh
Posted online: Sunday, October 14, 2007 at 0000 hrs
This is a busy season in more ways than one. Adding to the plethora of reports from various agencies comes a joint report from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and Economic & Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) on the Millennium Development Goals: Progress in Asia & the Pacific 2007.
These goals were adopted in 1990 and designed to achieve prescribed quantitative targets by 2015. This year is the halfway mark and the report assesses the progress made in Asia and the Pacific. It classifies countries into four broad categories: the early achievers, who have already met the 2015 target; those on track and expected to meet the target; those who are slow and off-target, that is, expected to meet the target but not by 2015; and finally, those who are firmly off-target, either showing no progress or regressing.
Where does India figure in overall terms? First the good news. We have been rated as early achievers on primary enrollment, which at 95 per cent helps shore up regional averages despite the dropout rate of 27 per cent. Similarly, on HIV, TB prevalence and death rate, forest cover, urban and rural water, we have been rated as having achieved the target. However, we will miss achieving the target on poverty reduction, underweight children, and urban and rural sanitation. The two areas in which we have regressed are carbon dioxide emission and CFC consumption.
Without considering how credible our achievements are in the areas in which we are said to have met the MDG targets, let us focus on our weaknesses. First, the goal of eradication of extreme poverty and hunger has two components one relates to income poverty, and the other to hunger and malnutrition.
Poverty income is being measured in achieving an income of a dollar a day, and on this criterion, with a 2004 poverty rate of 34.3 per cent we have travelled less than half the distance to its 2015 target, though subsequent economic growth has been more rapid and could see a sharper decline in poverty.
Prima facie this is at variance with recent figures released by the Ministry of Labour & Employment suggesting that the percentage of poor people has come down to 21.8 per cent in 2004-05, based on the National Sample
Surveys (NSS) 61st round on household expenditure.
No doubt countries adopt and interpret data differently. However, as Angus Deaton points out, the notion of a poverty line of a dollar a day is a simple one and counts and monitors poverty reduction with a common, international standard. Therefore, there is merit in our adopting a methodology corresponding to an international norm. This will be simpler for policy makers and other stakeholders.
The report also mentions the recently favoured criterion of less than two dollars a day for determining the vulnerable poor. This is not very different from some of the classification used in the Arjun Sengupta report on the unorganised sector.
The issue of poverty methodology, classification and assessment needs to be more authoritatively addressed. Adding to the present confusion is the wide variations on poverty numbers from the CSSO data and the household estimates based on the parameters and rankings suggested by the Ministry of Rural Development.
Such absence of clarity will seriously undercut the credibility of the Planning Commissions renewed effort to formally adopt the XIth Five Year Plan before the end of this year. For many of the poorer and demographically dense states, the key to any meaningful development strategy lies in redressing poverty. While improved governance, infrastructure, health and education are obviously the path forward, the continued ambiguity on poverty estimation and its implications on allotment of funds leaves state governments confused and vulnerable.
Second, on environmental sustainability the carbon dioxide emission (in metric tonnes per capita) we have deteriorated from 0.2 in 1990 to 1.2 in 2004. For consumption of ozone-depleting CFCs (in ODP metric tonnes) we have gone from a negligible earlier figure to 1,958 in 2004.
Indias commitments on environmental parameters must address issues of alternative renewable fuels, energy efficiency, appropriate energy pricing and symmetry on international obligations. These concerns go beyond the MDGs in devising strategies to secure both double digit-growth and compliance to acceptable environmental norms. Balancing environmental sustainability with rapid growth is never easy.
The report card thus presents a mixed verdict. Notwithstanding success in some areas, the key issue of poverty redressal remains under-addressed. The newly emerging environmental concerns also need a more cohesive response. The MDG assessment report is a useful wake-up call.
N K Singh
Posted online: Sunday, October 14, 2007 at 0000 hrs
This is a busy season in more ways than one. Adding to the plethora of reports from various agencies comes a joint report from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and Economic & Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) on the Millennium Development Goals: Progress in Asia & the Pacific 2007.
These goals were adopted in 1990 and designed to achieve prescribed quantitative targets by 2015. This year is the halfway mark and the report assesses the progress made in Asia and the Pacific. It classifies countries into four broad categories: the early achievers, who have already met the 2015 target; those on track and expected to meet the target; those who are slow and off-target, that is, expected to meet the target but not by 2015; and finally, those who are firmly off-target, either showing no progress or regressing.
Where does India figure in overall terms? First the good news. We have been rated as early achievers on primary enrollment, which at 95 per cent helps shore up regional averages despite the dropout rate of 27 per cent. Similarly, on HIV, TB prevalence and death rate, forest cover, urban and rural water, we have been rated as having achieved the target. However, we will miss achieving the target on poverty reduction, underweight children, and urban and rural sanitation. The two areas in which we have regressed are carbon dioxide emission and CFC consumption.
Without considering how credible our achievements are in the areas in which we are said to have met the MDG targets, let us focus on our weaknesses. First, the goal of eradication of extreme poverty and hunger has two components one relates to income poverty, and the other to hunger and malnutrition.
Poverty income is being measured in achieving an income of a dollar a day, and on this criterion, with a 2004 poverty rate of 34.3 per cent we have travelled less than half the distance to its 2015 target, though subsequent economic growth has been more rapid and could see a sharper decline in poverty.
Prima facie this is at variance with recent figures released by the Ministry of Labour & Employment suggesting that the percentage of poor people has come down to 21.8 per cent in 2004-05, based on the National Sample
Surveys (NSS) 61st round on household expenditure.
No doubt countries adopt and interpret data differently. However, as Angus Deaton points out, the notion of a poverty line of a dollar a day is a simple one and counts and monitors poverty reduction with a common, international standard. Therefore, there is merit in our adopting a methodology corresponding to an international norm. This will be simpler for policy makers and other stakeholders.
The report also mentions the recently favoured criterion of less than two dollars a day for determining the vulnerable poor. This is not very different from some of the classification used in the Arjun Sengupta report on the unorganised sector.
The issue of poverty methodology, classification and assessment needs to be more authoritatively addressed. Adding to the present confusion is the wide variations on poverty numbers from the CSSO data and the household estimates based on the parameters and rankings suggested by the Ministry of Rural Development.
Such absence of clarity will seriously undercut the credibility of the Planning Commissions renewed effort to formally adopt the XIth Five Year Plan before the end of this year. For many of the poorer and demographically dense states, the key to any meaningful development strategy lies in redressing poverty. While improved governance, infrastructure, health and education are obviously the path forward, the continued ambiguity on poverty estimation and its implications on allotment of funds leaves state governments confused and vulnerable.
Second, on environmental sustainability the carbon dioxide emission (in metric tonnes per capita) we have deteriorated from 0.2 in 1990 to 1.2 in 2004. For consumption of ozone-depleting CFCs (in ODP metric tonnes) we have gone from a negligible earlier figure to 1,958 in 2004.
Indias commitments on environmental parameters must address issues of alternative renewable fuels, energy efficiency, appropriate energy pricing and symmetry on international obligations. These concerns go beyond the MDGs in devising strategies to secure both double digit-growth and compliance to acceptable environmental norms. Balancing environmental sustainability with rapid growth is never easy.
The report card thus presents a mixed verdict. Notwithstanding success in some areas, the key issue of poverty redressal remains under-addressed. The newly emerging environmental concerns also need a more cohesive response. The MDG assessment report is a useful wake-up call.
Publication : IE; Section : Opinion; Pg : 7; Date : 14/10/07
URL : http://www.indianexpress.com/story/228112.html