You are on page 1of 21

Millennium Development Goals and post-2015 Development

The eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which range
from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS
and providing universal primary education have been a
milestone in global and national development efforts. The
framework has helped to galvanize development efforts and guide
global and national development priorities. While three of the
eight goals have been achieved prior to the final deadline of 2015
progress has been uneven within and across countries. Thus
further efforts and a strong global partnership for development are
needed to accelerate progress and reach the goals by 2015. To
learn more about the work of ECOSOC and the United Nations on
the MDGs, click on the panel in the upper-right hand corner.
A global development agenda beyond 2015
The outcome document of the 2010 High-level Plenary Meeting of
the General Assembly on the MDGs requested the SecretaryGeneral to initiate thinking on a post-2015 development agenda
and include recommendations in his annual report on efforts to
accelerate MDG progress. The outcome of the Rio+20
Conference on Sustainable Developmentinitiated an inclusive
intergovernmental process to prepare a set of sustainable
development goals (SDGs). There is broad agreement on the
need for close linkages between the two processes to arrive at
one global development agenda for the post-2015 period, with
sustainable development at its centre.
Building on its success in reviewing progress on the MDGs
through the Annual Ministerial Review (AMR), the Economic and
Social Council will play a major role in the preparations,
implementation and follow up of a post-2015 development

agenda. The ECOSOC strengthening process and the Councils

mandated role in the integration of the three dimensions
of sustainable development should also bolster the Councils role
as a monitoring platform in the post-2015 era. In addition,
dialogue is being initiated through the Development Cooperation
Forum (DCF) on the possible features of a renewed global
partnership for development, and characteristics of a monitoring
and accountability framework. Representatives from
governments, civil society, philanthropic organizations, academia
and the private sector are being engaged in these conversations,
which will also examine the broader implications for
development cooperation of a post-2015 development agenda.
The Economic and Social Council will play a major role in the
preparations, monitoring and implementation of a post-2015
development agenda. This will build on the Councils success in
reviewing progress on the MDGs through theAnnual Ministerial
Review (AMR), as well as its broader support to advancing the
UN development agenda. Dialogue is being initiated through
the Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) on the possible
features of a renewed global partnership for development in the
post-2015 setting, and characteristics of a monitoring and
accountability framework. Representatives from governments,
civil society, philanthropic organizations, academia and the private
sector are being engaged in these conversations, which will also
examine the broader implications for development cooperation
of a post-2015 development agenda. The ECOSOC
strengthening process and the Councils role coming out of the
Rio+20 Conference in the integration of the three dimensions
of sustainable development should further bolster the Councils
role in the post-2015 era.
The Secretary-General established the UN System Task Team on
the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda. Chaired by the
Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the United

Nations Development Programme, the team brings together the

efforts of more than 60 UN agencies and international
The Task Team is currently focusing its analytical work on the
global partnership for development, monitoring and indicators and
financing for sustainable development. Moreover, the Technical
Support Team to provide inputs to the Open Working Group of the
General Assembly on the SDGs has been established under the
umbrella of the Task Team to ensure early convergence of the
post-2015 and SDGs processes.
In its first report to the Secretary-General in May 2012, Realizing
the Future We Want for All, the Task Team outlines a vision for the
post-2015 development agenda and suggests four key
dimensions of inclusive economic and social development,
environmental sustainability and peace and security. Members of
the Task Team also prepared a set of18 think pieces that explore
how different themes could potentially be reflected in a new
The Task Team published a second report on A Renewed Global
Partnership for Development in March 2013. The report provides
recommendations on key dimensions and a potential format for a
global partnership in the post-2015 era. It advises that the
partnership should include universal commitments calling for
actions from all countries, according to their national capabilities.
It should build on existing commitments such as those reflected in
the MDGs, the Monterey Consensus and the Johannesburg Plan
of Implementation, but must also be broadened and strengthened
to address the large array of global challenges we face today.
In July 2012, the Secretary-General launched his High-level Panel
of Eminent Persons to provide guidance and recommendations
on the post-2015 development agenda. The panel is chaired by
the Presidents of Indonesia and Liberia and the Prime Minister of

the United Kingdom. Its 27 members include representatives from

the private sector, academia, civil society and local authorities.
The Panel will publish its report in May 2013.
National consultations on a post-2015 development agenda are
under way in more than 70 countries. The United Nations
Development Group has organized a set of eleven thematic
consultations, on conflict and fragility; education; environmental
sustainability; governance; growth and employment; health;
hunger, food and nutrition; inequalities; population dynamics;
energy; and water. A report with the preliminary findings from the
national and thematic consultations was launched in March 2013.

Sustainable development goals

One of the main outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference was the
agreement by member States to launch a process to develop a
set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which will build
upon the Millennium Development Goals and converge with the
post 2015 development agenda (click here for information on
different work streams). It was decided establish an "inclusive and
transparent intergovernmental process open to all stakeholders,
with a view to developing global sustainable development goals
to be agreed by the General Assembly".
In the Rio+20 outcome document, member States agreed that
sustainable development goals (SDGs) must:
1. Be based on Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of
2. Fully respect all the Rio Principles.

3. Be consistent with international law.

4. Build upon commitments already made.
5. Contribute to the full implementation of the outcomes of all
major summits in the economic, social and environmental
6. Focus on priority areas for the achievement of sustainable
development, being guided by the outcome document.
7. Address and incorporate in a balanced way all three
dimensions of sustainable development and their
8. Be coherent with and integrated into the United Nations
development agenda beyond 2015.
9. Not divert focus or effort from the achievement of the
Millennium Development Goals.
Include active involvement of all relevant stakeholders,
as appropriate, in the process.
It was further agreed that SDGs must be:
Easy to communicate
Limited in number
Global in nature

Universally applicable to all countries while taking into

account different national realities, capacities and levels of
development and respecting national policies and priorities.
The outcome document further specifies that the development of
SDGs should:
Be useful for pursuing focused and coherent action on
sustainable development
Contribute to the achievement of sustainable development
Serve as a driver for implementation and mainstreaming of
sustainable development in the UN system as a whole
Address and be focused on priority areas for the
achievement of sustainable development
The Rio+20 outcome document The Future We Want resolved to
establish an inclusive and transparent intergovernmental process
on SDGs that is open to all stakeholders with a view to developing
global sustainable development goals to be agreed by the UNGA.
The outcome document mandated the creation of an intergovernmental Open Working Group, that will submit a report to
the 68th session of the General Assembly containing a proposal
for sustainable development goals for consideration and
appropriate action. The outcome document specifies that the
process leading to the SDGs needs to be coordinated and
coherent with the processes considering the post 2015
development agenda and that initial input to the work of the Open
Working Group will be provided by the UNSG in consultation with
national governments.

Integrated Action Plan to Develop Tribal and backward Districts

in LWE Areas

At the time of presentation of the budget for the year 2010-11, the
Government had announced its decision to introduce a special scheme to
address the development of 33 Left Wing Extremism (LWE) affected
districts. It was inter-alia, stated that the Planning Commission would
prepare an Integrated Action Plan (IAP) for the affected areas and that
adequate funds would be made available to support the action plan. The
33 districts (later expanded to 34) referred to in the Finance Ministers
announcement were a sub-set of the 83 LWE affected districts identified
by the Ministry of Home Affairs for coverage under its Security Related
Expenditure (SRE) Scheme. This sub-set consisted of those districts
where more than 20% of the Police Stations experienced some incidents
of naxal violence. Subsequently, West Medinipur district of West
Bengal was added to the list due to the situation prevailing there, taking
the total to 35 districts.
Implementation of IAP
IAP was formulated as an additional central assistance scheme
on 100% grant basis in November 2010. To begin with, the Integrated
Action Plan (IAP) for 60 tribal and backward districts was to be
implemented with a block grant of Rs.25 crore and Rs.30 crore per
district during 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively for which the funds
were to be placed at the disposal of the Committee headed by the
District Collector and consisting of the Superintendent of Police of the
district and the District Forest Officer.
The district level committee will have flexibility to spend the
amount for development schemes according to need, as assessed by
it. The Committee would draw up a Plan consisting of concrete
as School Buildings, Anganwadi Centres, Primary Health Centres,
Drinking Water Supply, Village Roads, Electric Lights in public places

such as PHCs and Schools etc. The concerned Development

Commissioner/ equivalent officer in charge of development in the State
shall be responsible for scrutiny of expenditure and monitoring of IAP.
The Planning Commission will undertake macro level monitoring
of the scheme and implementation of the scheme will be reviewed and
suitable decisions taken on the modalities for implementation of the
scheme as a part of the 12th Five Year Plan.
Salient features of the scheme
The salient features of the guidelines are:

The district level committee should draw up a plan

consisting of concrete proposals for public infrastructure and
services such as school buildings, Anganwadi centres, Drinking
Water supply, Village Roads, electric lights in public places
such as PHCs and schools etc. The schemes so selected should
show results in the short term.
A suitable form of consultation is to be ensured with the
local Members of Parliament on the schemes to be taken up the
under the IAP.
The expenditure on the projects should be over and above
State/Central/Centrally Sponsored Schemes. The district level
committee should ensure that there is no duplication of
expenditure on the same project.
The State Government will release the funds directly into
the bank account opened for this purpose by the District
Collector or District Magistrate. The State Government will
ensure that funds are transferred to this bank account within 15
days of the release of the funds to the Consolidated Fund of the
State Government failing which the State Government should
transfer to the district penal interest at RBI rate.

Achievements Under IAP

The implementation of the scheme commenced in the year
2010-11 and Rs.25 crore per district i.e. total Rs.1500 crore for the year
2010-11 was released in December, 2010. The districts immediately
finalized the works to be taken up, completed the tender processes
wherever required and the works on the ground commenced
immediately in all the 60 districts. Currently, the implementation of IAP
in the districts is in full swing. The total funds released so far for the
year 2011-12 is Rs.1090 crore and the total funds released so far since
the commencement of the Scheme is Rs.2590 crore. Against the total
amount of Rs.2590 crores released so far to the 9 States, the expenditure
as on 27.12.2011 is Rs.1468.83 crore i.e. 56.71% of the funds released.
Under the IAP, so far 62327 projects for an amount of
Rs. 3230.02 crore have been taken up in the 9 States. These include
construction of School Buildings/School Furniture, Anganwadi Centres,
Drinking Water facilities, Rural roads, Panchyat Bhawan/Community
development/trainings, minor irrigation works, electric lighting, health
centres/facilities, Ashram Schools, construction of toilets, construction
of multi-purpose chabutra, construction of passenger waiting hall,
special coaching classes for students, construction of ANM centres,
development of play grounds etc. 44.42% of projects taken up so far
have been completed i.e., 27687 projects have been completed so
far. State-wise details of physical progress as on 27.12.2011 vis--vis
projects sanctioned are: Andhra Pradesh- 702 (1140), Bihar - 2367
(12889), Chhattisgarh - 6115 (14718), Jharkhand- 5621 (11769),
Madhya Pradesh - 1446 (5352), Maharashtra - 2667 (4398), Orissa 6829 (15087), Uttar Pradesh - 1337 (1548) and West Bengal - 603
Parameters to Qualify under IAP

While formulating the scheme, the Planning Commission

considered that the scheme should not be limited only to the severely
LWE affected districts. It was proposed by them that the scheme should
cover other tribal and backward districts also and the following criteria
was adopted to identify districts for inclusion in the scheme:

Whether the district is included in the list of 83 SRE

districts identified by the Ministry of Home Affairs;
Whether the tribal population exceeds 25%;
Whether the forest area exceeds 30%;
Whether the poverty ratio in the district exceeds 50%;
Whether the district is covered under the Backward
Regions Grant Fund (BRGF).

Districts meeting four of the above-mentioned five criteria and

forming a contiguous block were selected for coverage under the
proposed scheme. Thus, with this criteria, a total of 60 districts were
selected for coverage under the scheme.
Districts Covered
The 60 districts comprised 48 districts covered under the SRE
scheme and 12 other districts not falling under the SRE scheme. The 60
districts thus selected are : Adiliabad and Khammam (2 districts) in
Andhra Pradesh; Arwal, Aurangabad, Gaya, Jamui, Jehanabad, Nawada
and Rohtas (7 districts), in Bihar; Bastar, Bijapur, Dantewada, Jashpur,
Kanker, Kawardha, Koriya, Narayanpur, Rajnandgaon and Surguja (10
districts) of Chhattisgarh; Bokaro, Chatra, Garwha, Gumla, Hazaribagh,
Kodarma, Latehar, Lohardaga, Paschim Singhbhum, Palamu, Purbi
Singhbhum, Ramgarh, Saraikela and Simdega (14 districts) of
Jharkhand; Anuppur, Balagahat, Dindori, Mandla, Seoni, Shahdol, Sidhi
and Umaria (8 districts) in Madhya Pradesh; Gadchiroli and Gondiya (2
districts); Balangir, Debagarh/Deogarh, Gajapati, Kalahandi,
Kandhamal/Phulbani, Kendujhar/Keonjhar, Koraput, Malkangiri,

Mayurbhanj, Nabrangpur, Nuapada, Rayagada, Sambalpur, Sonapur and

Sundargarh (15 districts) of Orissa; Sonbhadra (1 district), Uttar
Pradesh; Paschim Medinipur (1 district) in West Bengal.

The Development Commissioner of the State/equivalent
officer incharge of development in the State is responsible for scrutiny
of expenditure and monitoring of the IAP in the State. In order to
facilitate the monitoring, the States are required to send district-wise
monthly progress reports in the prescribed format and also upload the
information on the Management Information System(MIS) along with
photographs of the works.
Regular monitoring of the IAP is being carried out by the MemberSecretary, Planning Commission through video conferences with the
District Collectors/District Magistrates and Development Commissioner
of the States concerned. So far 14 such video conferences/meetings
have been held including the Video Conference meetings held by the
Union Home Minister, Union Minister of Rural Development and MoS
(Independent charge) for Environment and Forests. In addition, the
Review Group headed by the Cabinet Secretary also reviewed the
progress of implementation of IAP with the Chief Secretaries of 9 States
through video conference meeting.
Provisions for change in IAP
The Ministry of Home Affairs has also constituted an
Empowered Group of Officers with Member-Secretary, Planning
Commission as its Chairperson. The Empowered Group, inter-alia, has
overriding powers to modify existing norms/guidelines on

implementation of various development programmes and flagship

schemes in consultation with the Ministries/Departments concerned.
States Response to IAP
The implementation of IAP has been successful and the
scheme has had a very good response. A number of requests had been
received from the Chief Ministers, Members of Parliament and State
Governments for inclusion of more districts under the IAP. On the basis
of requests received from the State Govts., the Govt. of India has
decided on 07.12.2011 to include additional 18 LWE affected districts
under IAP from the financial year 2011-12 onwards and to provide
block grant of Rs.30 crore to each of these districts during the current
financial year.
Conclusion: The Governments approach is to deal with Left Wing
Extremism activities in a holistic manner, in the areas of security,
development, rights of local communities, administration and public
perception. In dealing with this decades old problem, it has been felt
appropriate, after various high-level deliberations and interactions with
the State Governments concerned that an integrated approach aimed at
the relatively more affected areas would deliver results. With this in
view, a detailed analysis of the spread and trends in respect of LWE
violence has been made and 83

affected districts in nine States have been taken up for special

attention on planning, implementation and monitoring of security
situation and development schemes.

The G33 is a group of developing countries that
coordinate on trade and economic issues. It was created
in order to help a group of countries that were all facing
similar problems.
The G33 has proposed special rules for developing
countries at WTO negotiations, like allowing them to
continue to restrict access to their agricultural markets.

Despite the name, there are currently[citation needed] 46

member nations.

Antigua and Barbuda












Cote d'Ivoire




Democratic Republic of the Congo


Dominican Republic

Saint Kitts and Ne

El Salvador

Saint Lucia


Saint Vincent and




Sri Lanka






Trinidad and Toba











The G-33 group of developing countries has tabled a

new proposal on farm trade and food security, trade
sources say, in a bid to fast-track elements of the draft
Doha accord ahead of the WTOs ministerial meeting next
The group, which includes China, India, and other
countries with a sizeable share of smallholder farmers,
would like trade ministers to support more flexible rules
for farm subsidies in the WTOs green box - those that
are exempt from any ceiling or reduction commitments
on the grounds that they cause not more than minimal
trade distortion.
Negotiators told Bridges that the proposal has been
circulated in advance of an informal meeting this Friday
of the WTOs agriculture negotiations committee. The
meeting was initially called to discuss two separate
proposals from the G-20 developing country group, which

favours reform of developed country farm policies. (See

Bridges Weekly, 3 October 2012)
However, some officials warned that the G-33 proposal
might be less likely to garner consensus than the G-20s
initiative. It might be seen as a slightly different beast,
one negotiator cautioned.
Low-income, resource-poor farmers
The G-33 proposal, a copy of which has been seen by
Bridges, calls for new rules on public stockholding for
food security purposes and on domestic food aid. The
group says that if a developing country government
purchases food for its stocks at administered prices in
order to support low-income, resource-poor producers,
they should not have to count this towards the aggregate
measure of support they provide - an amount referred to
as the AMS by trade negotiators, and capped for each
country under WTO rules.
Similarly, if developing country governments acquire food
for domestic food aid at subsidised prices, they should
not have to count these towards their AMS ceiling, so
long as the food was procured generally from lowincome or resource-poor producers in developing
The group also proposes that several kinds of developing
country farm programmes should be exempt from any
ceiling on subsidies by classing them with other green

box programmes at the WTO. Policies and services

related to farmer settlement, land reform programmes,
rural development, and rural livelihood security in
developing countries should be among them, the group
The three clauses are all taken unchanged from a part of
the draft Doha agriculture text that members have
tended to see as being close to consensus, subject to
progress in the talks as a whole. However, the draft text
itself has now been unchanged for four years as a result
of the broader impasse in the talks.
Absent from the G-33 proposal were two elements agricultural state trading enterprises, and international
food aid - that had been included in an earlier draft
prepared by India, which has taken the lead in pushing
for the initiative at the WTO.
Market price support
Some delegates told Bridges that they expected the
proposal to be controversial amongst the broader
Would countries be well served to open up the way to
market price support in the green box? asked another,
who feared the proposal could de-rail the whole build-up
for MC9 - negotiators shorthand for the upcoming ninth
WTO ministerial conference next year.

Others suggested that, with the exception of some of the

larger developing countries, many simply lacked the
resources to support farmers in this way.
Proposals to expand significantly the current provision of
subsidised food in India under the countrys Food
Security Bill had some negotiators particularly worried,
while others expressed concern that surplus foodstocks
were being exported. (See Bridges Weekly, 18 July
However, another negotiator from the group rejected this
assessment. Nobody is going to be hurt by the
proposal, the source said.
A problem of definition?
Negotiators observed that the term low income or
resource poor producers has not been defined, even
though it appears in both the WTOs current Agreement
on Agriculture and the draft Doha accord.
However, one delegate pointed out that Indias most
recent official farm subsidy notification to the WTO states
that 98.97 percent of farm holdings fell into this category.
(See Bridges Weekly, 15 June 2011) A previous
notification, for marketing year 1995-96, put the figure at
79.5 percent, and defined low-income resource-poor
producers as those with operational land holdings of ten
hectares or less.

In response to a question on the subject from the US,

India also told a September meeting of the WTOs
committee on agriculture that farmers are not allowed to
have more than ten hectares of irrigated land.
Brazilian delegates told the same meeting that low
income or resource poor farmers produce 22.9 percent of
the value of agricultural production in their own country.
One negotiator expressed concern about the broader
implications of the proposal. How does this affect other
countries? the source asked.
A bumpy road to Bali
Trade officials have recently discussed whether the Bali
ministerial could deliver a deal on easing customs
administration and cutting time at border crossings known as trade facilitation - perhaps accompanied by an
agreement on the administration of import quotas for
farm goods, as the G-20 have suggested.
In comments to Bridges, a G-33 official nonetheless
argued that these two areas are not seen as being
enough for a Bali package.
One developing country negotiator told Bridges that some
countries did not want a Bali deal to include trade
facilitation. This is why they are bringing issues that
wont succeed, claimed the source.

Others supported the view that the G-20 proposals were

more likely to gain traction quickly among the broader
WTO membership.
The G-33 proposal will present a difficult challenge, one
source cautiously observed.
ICTSD reporting.