Evaluation of the technical meeting on the 2010 Caribbean Millennium Development Goals report

The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) Subregional Headquarters for the Caribbean convened a two-day technical meeting to review the draft Caribbean report on the Millennium Development Goals, “Caribbean Millennium Development Goal Achievement and Prognosis: A 2010 Review” and provide guidance to the Consultant in the finalisation of the report. The technical meeting was convened within the framework of the United Nations Development Account-funded project “Strengthening the Capacity of National Statistical Offices in the Caribbean Small Island Developing States to fulfil the Millennium Development Goals and other Internationally Agreed Development Goals”. The meeting was held at ECLAC Subregional Headquarters for the Caribbean, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, on 24-25 June 2010. The Caribbean report was intended to provide an assessment of achievements and constraints in the countries of the subregion to accomplish the Goals 10 years after the Millennium Declaration in 2000. The report would also contribute to the ECLAC Latin America and Caribbean report.

Latin America and the Caribbean: looking ahead after the Millennium Development Goals: Regional monitoring report on the Millennium Development Goals in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2015

Foreword by Alicia Bárcena

Will International Pursuit of the Millenium Development Goals Alleviate Poverty in Mountains?

Since September 2000, when world leaders agreed on time-bound, measurable goals to reduce extreme poverty, hunger, illiteracy, and disease while fostering gender equality and ensuring environmental sustainability, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have increasingly come to dominate the policy objectives of many states and development agencies. The concern has been raised that the tight timeframe and financial restrictions might force governments to invest in the more productive sectors, thus compromising the quality and sustainability of development efforts. In the long term, this may lead to even greater inequality, especially between geographical regions and social strata. Hence people living in marginal areas, for example in remote mountain regions, and minority peoples risk being disadvantaged by this internationally agreed agenda. Strategies to overcome hunger and poverty in their different dimensions in mountain areas need to focus on strengthening the economy of small-scale farmers, while also fostering the sustainable use of natural resources, taking into consideration their multifunctionality.

A preliminary analysis of the impact of UN MDGs and RIO+20 on corporate social accountability practices

This chapter explores the impact of UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Rio + 20 in improving Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices. While MDGs and Rio + 20 have suggested additive guidelines for improving CSR practices, they do not provide a strong legislative mandate. We find both MDGs and Rio + 20 have had limited cumulative effect on CSR practices and discourses within the corporate reports. UN bodies should bring a new policy and regulatory framework that addresses limitations in the principles espoused in the MDGs and Rio + 20. An independent monitoring system (a social compliance audit mechanism) can be mandated in an attempt to make incremental substantive change.

Habitat for Humanity: Calibrating Best Practice Against the MDGs

Poverty alleviation lies at the heart of contemporary international initiatives on development. The key to development is the creation of an environment in which people can develop their potential, leading productive, creative lives in accordance with their needs, interests and faith. This entails, on the one hand, protecting the vulnerable from things that threaten their survival, such as inadequate nutrition, disease, conflict, natural disasters and the impact of climate change, thereby enhancing the poor’s capabilities to develop resilience in difficult conditions. On the other hand, it also requires a means of empowering the poor to act on their own behalf, as individuals and communities, to secure access to resources and the basic necessities of life such as water, food, shelter, sanitation, health and education. ‘Development’, from this perspective, seeks to address the sources of human insecurity, working towards ‘freedom from want, freedom from fear’ in ways that empower the vulnerable as agents of development (not passive recipients of benefaction).

Recognition of the magnitude of the problems confronted by the poor and failure of past interventions to tackle basic issues of human security led the United Nations (UN) in September 2000 to set out a range of ambitious, but clearly defined, development goals to be achieved by 2015. These are known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The intention of the UN was to mobilise multilateral international organisations, non-governmental organisations and the wider international community to focus attention on fulfilling earlier promises to combat global poverty. This international framework for development prioritises: the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achieving universal primary education; promoting gender equality and empowering women; reducing child mortality; improving maternal health; combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and developing a global partnership for development. These goals have been mapped onto specific targets (18 in total) against which outcomes of associated development initiatives can be measured and the international community held to account. If the world achieves the MDGs, more than 500 million people will be lifted out of poverty. However, the challenges the goals represent are formidable. Interim reports on the initiative indicate a need to scale-up efforts and accelerate progress.
Only MDG 7, Target 11 explicitly identifies shelter as a priority, identifying the need to secure ‘by 2020 a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers’. This raises a question over how Habitat for Humanity’s commitment to tackling poverty housing fits within this broader international framework designed to allievate global poverty. From an analysis of HFH case studies, this report argues that the processes by which Habitat for Humanity tackles poverty housing directly engages with the agenda set by the MDGs. This should not be regarded as a beneficial by-product of the delivery of decent, affordable shelter, but rather understood in terms of the ways in which Habitat for Humanity has translated its mission and values into a participatory model that empowers individuals and communities to address the interdependencies between inadequate shelter and other sources of human insecurity. What housing can deliver is as important as what housing itself is.

Examples of the ways in which Habitat for Humanity projects engage with the MDG framework include the incorporation of sustainable livelihoods strategies, up-grading of basic infrastructure and promotion of models of good governance. This includes housing projects that have also offered training to young people in skills used in the construction industry, microfinanced loans for women to start up their own home-based businesses, and the provision of food gardens. These play an important role in lifting families out of poverty and ensuring the sustainability of HFH projects. Studies of the impact of improved shelter and security of livelihood upon family life and the welfare of children evidence higher rates of participation in education, more time dedicated to study and greater individual achievement. Habitat for Humanity projects also typically incorporate measures to up-grade the provision of basic sanitation facilities and supplies of safe, potable drinking water. These measures not only directly help reduce mortality rates (e.g. diarrheal diseases account for around 2 million deaths annually in children under 5), but also, when delivered through HFH project-related ‘community funds’, empower the poor to mobilise community resources, develop local leadership capacities and even secure de facto security of tenure from government authorities.

In the process of translating its mission and values into practical measures, HFH has developed a range of innovative practices that deliver much more than housing alone. The organisation’s participatory model enables both direct beneficiaries and the wider community to tackle the insecurities they face, unlocking latent skills and enterprise, building sustainable livelihood capabilities. HFH plays an important role as a catalyst for change, delivering through the vehicle of housing the means to address the primary causes of poverty itself. Its contribution to wider development priorities deserves better recognition. In calibrating the success of HFH projects in terms of units completed or renovated alone, the significance of the process by which HFH realises these outcomes is often not sufficiently acknowledged, both within the organisation and externally. As the case studies developed in the report illustrate, the methodologies Habitat for Humanity employs to address the issue of poverty housing within the developing world, place the organisation at the centre of a global strategic agenda to address the root causes of poverty through community empowerment and the transformation of structures of governance.

Given this, the global network of HFH affiliates constitutes a unique organisational framework to faciliate sharing resources, ideas and practical experience across a diverse range of cultural, political and institutional environments. This said, it is apparent that work needs to be done to better to faciliate the pooling of experience and lessons learnt from across its affiliates. Much is to be gained from learning from less successful projects, sharing innovative practices, identifying strategic partnerships with donors, other NGOs and CBOs, and engaging with the international development community on how housing fits within a broader agenda to alleviate poverty and promote good governance.

A review of climate risk information for adaptation and development planning

Although the use of climate scenarios for impact assessment has grown steadily since the 1990s, uptake of such information for adaptation is lagging by nearly a decade in terms of scientific output. Nonetheless, integration of climate risk information in development planning is now a priority for donor agencies because of the need to prepare for climate change impacts across different sectors and countries. This urgency stems from concerns that progress made against Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) could be threatened by anthropogenic climate change beyond 2015. Up to this time the human signal, though detectable and growing, will be a relatively small component of climate variability and change. This implies the need for a twin-track approach: on the one hand, vulnerability assessments of social and economic strategies for coping with present climate extremes and variability, and, on the other hand, development of climate forecast tools and scenarios to evaluate sector-specific, incremental changes in risk over the next few decades. This review starts by describing the climate outlook for the next couple of decades and the implications for adaptation assessments. We then review ways in which climate risk information is already being used in adaptation assessments and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of three groups of techniques. Next we identify knowledge gaps and opportunities for improving the production and uptake of climate risk information for the 2020s. We assert that climate change scenarios can meet some, but not all, of the needs of adaptation planning. Even then, the choice of scenario technique must be matched to the intended application, taking into account local constraints of time, resources, human capacity and supporting infrastructure. We also show that much greater attention should be given to improving and critiquing models used for climate impact assessment, as standard practice. Finally, we highlight the over-arching need for the scientific community to provide more information and guidance on adapting to the risks of climate variability and change over nearer time horizons (i.e. the 2020s). Although the focus of the review is on information provision and uptake in developing regions, it is clear that many developed countries are facing the same challenges. Copyright © 2009 Royal Meteorological Society