Lessons of the Millennium Development

Goals for the SDGs Shiladitya Chatterjee

Conference on Sustainable Development Goals Assam Administrative Staff College 10-11 February, 2016

Plan of presentation• Performance on the MDGs• Lessons of the MDGs• The contributions made by the MDGs• Eight major lessons from the MDG experience

Performance on the MDGs

India’s performance has left much to be desired

Assam has made similar progress as most states

towards the MDGs

• Using 4-way classification of progress on each indicator

• Assam “on–track” on 9 out of 19 indicators; India “on-track” on 10

In several areas, Assam has made similar or even more progress than the India average

Population above poverty (%)

Primary survival Grade V:I (%)

Youth literacy rate (%)

Measles immunization rate (%)Skilled Birth attendance (%)

Water access (%)

Sanitation access (%)

52.2

63.21

76

50.700000762939542.4

71.545

27.0763

78.1

93

86.1

74.1

76.2

87.8

54.624775029266342.1

64.4

74.025.818.047.7

37.1

68

63.1

82.4

80.1

65.5

85.9

88

Selected indicator values earliest and latest for India and AssamIndia Earliest India Latest Assam Earliest Assam Latest

However, in terms of absolute achievements Assam has fallen behind, as other states have

done even better

GoaKerala

Tamil Nadu

Sikkim

Delhi

Tripura

Maharashtra

Himach

al Pradesh

Andhra PradeshPunjab

Manipur

Karnataka

Jammu & Kash

mir

Mizoram

Gujarat

West Bengal

Haryana

Uttarakhand

Meghalaya

Nagaland

Chhattisgarh

Rajasthan

Odisha

Assam

Madhya Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh

Arunachal P

radesh

Jharkhand

Bihar0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

0.8130.790

0.7360.719

0.6940.659 0.658 0.650

0.627 0.626 0.616 0.609 0.603 0.592 0.585 0.584 0.577 0.5650.530

0.506

0.466 0.464 0.452 0.4510.426

0.398 0.396

0.3420.313

Ranking of states by MDG Composite Performance Index latest year

The lessons of the MDGs

Some important contributions of the MDGs

• Introduced a comprehensive approach to development • Established concrete objectives with clear targets• Practical, results based approach

• Forged consensus among the development community on development priorities• Brought international peer pressure to bear on Governments

spurring action • For example, there was a surge in India’s efforts after mid 2000s

• MDG targets incorporated in 11th Five Year Plan (2007-12)• National Rural Health Mission (2005), MNREGA (2005), Universalization of ICDS (2006)

Universalization of Midday Meals Scheme (2003), Right to Education Act (2009)

Major lessons1. Avoid delays in starting

• Little action till 2005 even at Central level• Assam has rectified this for the SDGs

2. Expand participation• MDGs focused mainly on public sector, national government level• State governments played a minor role

• Assam now taking lead • Non-state players neglected

• Private sector• Can play a major role through PPPs and CSR

• Communities• Have a crucial role in monitoring and feedback e.g. Bangalore report card system

• Media• Must be effectively mobilized for advocacy and awareness

Major lessons3. Strengthen monitoring of the SDGs• MDG data remained poor; gaps large particularly in State-level data

• Drive to obtain state-level data needed for SDGs• No monitoring report at Centre till 2005; hardly any at State level • Lack of adequate monitoring makes it impossible to make course-corrections

• Annual state-level report on SDGs suggested

4. Avoid sector bias and move to outcome (results based) approach• MDGs failed to adequately address cross-sectoral impacts and synergies• Accounting for them requires good coordination at outcome (goal) level• Would need appropriate organizational structure such as working groups• Cross-sectoral effects will be particularly relevant in the SDGs

• Trade-offs between growth and environment; social objectives and environment etc.

Coordination of child hunger elimination

Eliminating Child

Hunger

Guaranteeing family’s access to

food

Targeted child and maternal

heath interventions

Women’s development

Major lessons5. The MDGs focused on average accomplishment at the aggregate level and not on reaching all disadvantaged groups – SDGs must correct this• Such as addressing needs of SCs, STs and OBCs• Remote or undeveloped geographical regions• Low income groups• Women

• Disaggregating SDG indicators to address these is needed.

Major lessons 6. Pay attention to “drivers” of development• Economic growth – not in MDG structure (now rectified)• Basic infrastructure – not in MDG structure (now rectified)• Women’s development

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.00.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

AP

BR

CG

GA

GJHR

JH

KA

KL

MP

MH

OR

PB

RJ

TN

UP

WB

AR

AS

HP

JKMN

MLNL

SK

TR

UK

f(x) = 0.0458113271163345 x + 0.340237402112469R² = 0.293410355769989

Growth and MDG Performance

Per Capita NSDP Average Growth Rate

MD

G P

erfo

rman

ce In

dex

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3520

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

APAS

BRCG

GJ

HRJK

JH

KA

KL

MP

MH

ORPB

RJ

TN

UP

WB

f(x) = 1.50927371113788 x + 41.3953810725349R² = 0.581436720196355

Impact of roads on births attended

Kilometres of roads per 10,000 populationPr

opor

tion

of b

irths

att

ende

d by

skill

ed h

ealth

per

sonn

el

Major lessons7. Prioritize resources for SDGs – (now specifically stressed in SDGs)• Health and education expenditure remained below norms

• Attention not only to raising resources but also placing adequate priority on SDG sectors • Insufficient human resources

• Attention to developing cadre of trained personnel in education and health

8. Improve implementation of programs• A number of well designed schemes were poorly implemented e.g. National

Rural Health Mission; MNREGA

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5000.25

0.35

0.45

0.55

0.65

0.75

0.85

Andhra Pradesh

Arunachal Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

GujaratHaryana

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

Uttarakhand

West Bengal

f(x) = 0.000514788830303113 x + 0.444893227047285R² = 0.374307821019278

Performance of states on MNREGA 2012-13 and the MDG Performance Index

Proportion of rural households provided work as proportion of rural poor households (%)

MDG

Per

form

ance

Inde

x

ReferencesS. Chatterjee, M.Hammill, N. Kumar and S. Panda (2015). Assessing India’s Progress in Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: Key Drivers of Inter-State Variations. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, South and Southwest Asia Regional Office Development Papers 1502. New Delhi. September 2015.

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Development Programme (2015). Making it Happen. Technology, Finance and Satistics for Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific. Manila and Bangkok, May 2015.

United Nations (2015). India and the MDGs Towards a Sustainable Future for all. UN India, New Delhi.

Thank You