What does this mean for Africa at the Summit?

Generally, the assumption is that Africa is lagging behind in achieving the MDGs compared to other regions. While at the individual country level there would be strong indications of African governments making progress toward realizing the MDG targets, as a whole the image of the continent's progress does not reflect a positive outcome. A report released in March 2010 by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, entitled Assessing Progress in Africa towards the MDGs, 2010, using data from the 2007 levels, supports this assumption. 

Part of the challenges faced in Africa in achieving poverty reduction is two-fold. First, the benchmark in halving poverty by 2015 was initially set at those people living on less than $1 dollar a day. But recently that benchmark was shifted to people living below $1.25 a day, meaning higher costs to poverty alleviation programs.

In addition it meant the number of poor have increased, which makes poverty reduction harder to achieve and causes contagion effects for the other indicators.

Second, under Goal 8, The Global Compact, meeting the aid disbursement targets also complicated the situation. Most donors did reach the target of 0.7 of GNI while the promise of doubling of aid at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles by 2010 has not materialized. Also debt relief programs intended to enable African governments to channel money toward social welfare programs were unsustainable because of other added burdens like the oil price spike.

But what is most worrying about the MDG targets is that the benchmarks are set from 1990, which means a 25-year period is being assessed in which halving poverty and achieving other key indicators is being compressed within a 15-year timeframe. For most countries this is unfair, but for Africa this is really distressing since many African countries started from an exceedingly low base, and therefore even where the progress has been good, it does not seem as if Africa is moving ahead steadily because the comparison with other regions makes the achievements negligible.

At the same this is not to absolve the weak structural socio-economic conditions in African economies, which pose challenges to achieving the MDGs. For instance, it was recently announced that over the next five years if there is to be access to clean water for most Africans, then at least $25 million per annum is needed. Moreover, while the commodity boom had lead to growth spurts for those energy rich countries, development remained sluggish because of bureaucratic inertia in funneling the money into productive industrial capacities.

So where to over the next five years?

The best practice for African countries at the Review Summit is to demonstrate one voice where they agree that they will push ahead with the most critical targets based on country level assessments. As much as this may be a difficult choice, it is perhaps a better solution for Africa since it may force national governments to refocus and recalibrate their national planning programs to keep the MDG focus beyond the 15-year framework. This will assist in using human resources and finances more prudently.

By trying to achieve the MDGs by 2015 it creates the impression that this is more a quantitative game than a qualitative exercise in sustainable development. Perhaps Africa can shift this around by taking the decision that it will work toward those goals that are critical and achievable over the next five years.

Sanusha Naidu is the Research Director of the Emerging Powers in Africa program based with Fahamu in South Africa. She can be contacted at: Sanusha.naidu@gmail.com