The 2015 deadline to reach the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) raises the question of what it will cost and who will fund meeting the
MDGs. Analysis reveals that achieving the MDGs is at least as much about
policies as about financing.
About a 100 of us,
mainly OECD staff turned up to listen to the discussion on “What would it take to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (#MDGs) by 2015?” on 11 July 2012 in Paris. This was the 4th DAC Development debate, a joint
venture between The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and DevelopmentCo-operation Directorate (DCD). For the first hour we
were presented with the main findings of the Development Centres’ study “Canwe still achieve the Millennium Development Goals? From cost to policies.” OECD, April 2012.
The aim of the study was to:
a) revisit the cost
estimations of the Millennium Development Goals to which development agencies
contributed during the early 2000s and
b) provide an
assessment of developing countries’ own capacity to fund additional development
investment through domestic resources (taxes in particular) and external resources
such as FDI, remittances, private donations and aid.
This means moving away
from a donor-centric approach and focusing more on each country’s individual
resources and capacities to achieve the MDGs.
The study highlighted the following policy
implications:
1. The financial
cost of meeting the MDGs related to poverty, education and health is in the
order of USD 120 billion. This would imply a tripling of the current
level of country programmable aid, i.e. the portion of aid that actually
goes from OECD countries to partner countries.
2. As Aid is unlikely to rise to meet
this funding gap by 2015, countries will need to find new sources of funding
and make better use of existing ones. Therefore, the quality of public
policies and institutions are important to meet the MDGs. Tax collection,
public expenditure and the investment climate must continue to improve in
developing countries. But to succeed, we need the political will and also we
need policy coherence and aid effectiveness.
3. One size
does not fit all to fund the MDGs. The challenges countries face, and their
capacity to meet them, vary considerably. In upper middle-income countries
with annual income above USD 4 000 per person, tax potential estimates show
that there is enough room to stimulate tax collection to achieve the MDGs.
4. Middle-income
countries have to look more at
inequality than the lack of resources. The goals are affordable
domestically using targeted cash transfers and spending on poverty, education
and health.
5. In other developing countries, as
institutional reforms take years to bear fruit, tax revenue mobilisation is
not a short-term solution.
6. Official Development Assistance
is expected to remain at current levels for the future. And that is the best-case
scenario. More than ever, aid will need
to be complemented by private capital, development cooperation among countries
of the South, remittances from migrants and private donations.
7. The main challenge is to
ensure that all these resources contribute
to sustainable, inclusive growth and to social development.
I
assume that many, like myself wondered what had happened over the last 12
years… In 2000, the international community came together to agree
upon the MDGs and in so doing committed itself to working together to put an
end to poverty, hunger, disease and lack of adequate shelter by 2015. The
initial determination and drive had gone, and it
somehow felt like this last stretch was going to be a challenge, as if there just wasn't much momentum left.
Also, can and should one really put a
price tag on such things…what’s the cost of resolving climate change, conflicts
in fragile countries? The MDGs were conceived to be met at a global level, but
the last 12 years have shown the limitations of this approach, such as the
difficulty in adopting the right time-frame, determining costs and official
development assistance (ODA).
The Bottom
Line
So, USD 120 billion
is needed to achieve six of the key MDGs but that’s more than the size of the
official development assistance that can be raised in the foreseeable future.
Yet, it is not insurmountable if the whole range of development resources is
fully mobilised.
David McNair of Save the Children (content partner on Wikiprogress) in his Guardian Blog, “Who's going to pay for the MDGs?” argues that “Aid alone is not enough, but transparency and accountability are essential if tax revenues are to be used to plug the financing gap”.
Well, sitting
in that room I felt like we would need far more than what both the study above and
McNair propose, the international community will have to find some of that initial passion and motivation if we are
to have any chance of achieving the MDGs in the final home run.
Finally
there are important lessons that must be drawn from experiences so far for the
designers of the framework that follows on from the MDGs – it must be a
framework that tackles inequality as well
as poverty and
factors in how different components of well-being (income,
health, etc.)
contribute to people's personal sense of
how their lives are and what they value in their lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment