"At this defining moment in history, we must be ambitious. Our actions must be as urgent as the need and on the same scale", Kofi Annan, Secretary General, United Nations- ‘In larger freedoms: towards development, security and human rights for all’ (March 2005)

Six years ago on a September morning at the UN General Assembly in New York, 189 Heads of State set themselves a tough and ambitious task, i.e. to achieve a set of Goals and targets which would end global poverty by 2015.The Millennium Declaration signed on this day gave birth to the now famous eight Millennium Development Goals and its associated 18 targets (www.mdg.lk), to which the worlds’ Governments are now committed.

Some compared this to the "Promissory Note" written by the architects of the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, whereby they guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the citizens of the USA.

Others expressed cynicism that, like in many other global declarations of the past century, this declaration too would remain only as an Agenda item at numerous conferences and seminars that were bound to follow.

For instance, the 1978 pledge "Health for All by 2000" was a highly publicized promise made by world leaders of that time. However, we greeted the dawn of 2000 with an HIV/AIDS pandemic, resurgence of TB and Malaria rampant among millions in the world. Similarly at the World Summit for Children in 1990, it was pledged to ensure universal access to primary education by 2000.This global commitment to education for all continues to be talked about even today, in 2006, where nearly 190 million 5yr olds are still not enrolled in primary school.

However, the signing of the Millennium Declaration created a palpable sense of urgency for Governments to seriously commit themselves. The Millennium Declaration thus became an important global statement, and it continues to inspire hope that the series of quantified and time bound goals to reduce extreme poverty and deprivation will be met. The first seven goals call for sharp cuts in poverty, illiteracy, gender disparities in education, child/maternal mortality, disease prevalence and environmental degradation. The eighth goal spells out a commitment to partnerships - between the rich and the poor countries, between Governments and the non Government sectors, between the industry and politicians – to work together to achieve the first seven goals.

The MDGs recognize quite correctly that extreme poverty has many dimensions, not just low income but vulnerability to disease, exclusion from basic education, chronic hunger and under nutrition, lack of access to basic utilities like clean water and sanitation, and environmental shocks and degradation, like deforestation and land erosion that threaten lives and livelihoods.

The optimism that came with the pronouncement of the MDGs was augmented by several high profile events that followed the signing of the Millennium Declaration in 2000. The first was in November 2001 where the US Government promoted the launch of a new global trade round in Doha, Qatar, emphasizing the need for reforming the trading systems so that it meets the needs of the world’s poorest countries. Next came an even more important event in Monterey, Mexico in March 2002, where all rich and developed nations (those belonging to the G8) pledged to contribute 0.7 per cent of GDP as Official Development Assistance (ODA) to poor countries, through the now famous Monterey Consensus. Then came the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, where these same commitments were reiterated. In May 2002 the UN General Assembly was dedicated for the cause of children. This special session of the UN, the first of its kind, led to the declaration "World fit for Children", which addressed many issues concerned with education, health, nutrition, protection and empowerment of children of the world.

All these were followed by lesser known seminars, conferences and other activities in many parts of the world, all of which focused on the same themes. But several years on, and less than a decade left for 2015 – the salient year for MDG achievement – its seems appropriate to assess our progress. Already one Goal, i.e. getting as many girls as boys into school, has been missed by most countries (Sri Lanka fortunately is an exception in this case), According to UNICEF, 9 Million more girls than boys are left out of school every year. If we aim to give every girl and boy a decent primary education by 2015, recent rates of progress must double in South Asia and quadruple in Sub Saharan Africa.

Education, especially for girls empowers families to break the cycle of poverty for good. Young women with a good primary education are twice as likely to stay away from HIV/AIDS. Their incomes will be 10-20 per cent higher, for each year completed in school .Evidence over time shows that educating women is the single most powerful weapon against malnutrition. Without achieving Universal Primary Education the other MDGs cannot be achieved.

Following on the Monterrey Consensus rich nations pledged to support primary education in poor nations. The Education for All (EFA), Fast Track Initiative (FTI) was launched by donor nations to ensure that developing nations that come forward with good policies and clear plans for achieving EFA are rewarded with increasing aid. This is compatible with the donor countries’ pledge that ‘no country seriously committed to EFA will be thwarted in their achievements of these goals due to lack of resources’. Thirteen developing countries have already won approval for their plans and have commenced implementation. The balance 38 has to do so by 2006.

Indeed the FTI has great potential to become an effective global partnership to achieve quality and EFA. But some 40 per cent of additional aid promised to the FTI countries is yet to arrive. The overview for the Global Compact for Education 2005 describes how many OECD countries lag behind their FTI commitment. ‘The School Report’ prepared in this connection shows how the G8 countries are trailing at the bottom of the class while Scandinavian countries are heading the list. If the FTI was implemented as promised by all 22 OECD countries more than 75 per cent of the worlds’ out of school children could in fact be drawn into class rooms.

For poor countries success depends on not just receiving aid, but planning and setting sensible targets within the bounds of the resources available is also equally important. Yet that’s not all. Simultaneously efforts must be taken to minimize corruption and to prevent siphoning of monies meant for educational upliftment.

Bending of rules governing school construction and management which include charging inordinate fees for admission to school (either legally or illegally) hurts the poor and the dispossessed.

Similarly misappropriation of funds, failure to respect academic and other criteria for school scholarships and meals, favoritism and nepotism in personnel management and academic fraud are all examples of gross corruption, which pose a major threat to achieving the EFA goals and the MDGs. Ensuring that education gets a prominent place in each country’s Poverty Reduction Strategy is a must.

In the education sector, target specific flexible innovations like mobile schools/libraries/science and computer labs for nomadic populations, recruiting and training teachers for multigrade teaching and implementing workable open/community schooling programmes with the support of village and community networks is important. Extensive campaigns to protect teachers, principals and others involved in school management from the deadly scourge of HIV/AIDS through preventive educational programmes and other combative strategies must be on board fast. This is especially relevant to schools in the sub Saharan African states where death and disability of such personnel due this pandemic is taking a severe toll on education delivery to those who need it most.

Breaking the cycle – "poverty and education" - is the hardest challenge in achieving the MDGs. In the regional context it is fortunate that Sri Lanka sits comfortably in relation to the education and health targets of MDGs 2, 3,4,5,6. ( i.e. MDG 2, Achieve universal primary education, MDG 3, promote gender equality and empower women,MDG 4 reduce child mortality,MDG 5 improve maternal health, MDG 6 combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases). Having some of the best indices for South asia - i.e., adult literacy 92.5 per cent, Primary net enrolment 95 per cent and primary retention 97.6 per cent (EFA Development Index 0.956), Gender Parity Index (GPI) 0.995 for primary, under 5 child mortality 15/1000, maternal mortality 92/100,000 - it is so tempting to feel comfortable. Srilanka, although a low middle income country (per capita income US $1030) with an average economic growth of 5-6 per cent GDP, and a budgetary allocation for education and health of 3 per cent and 1.7 per cent of GDP respectively, is ranked 93 in the Human Development Index of the UNDP. These achievements are indeed praiseworthy.

However, we cannot ignore some glaring facts that tend to get ‘hidden’ and ‘buried’ beneath this somewhat rosy picture. On the one hand the figures obtained by the census in 2001 did not take into consideration data from the Northern and Eastern parts of the country; the areas that are most affected by the conflict.

The vast disparities of the figures between districts, between provinces and between communities are sometimes too obvious to ignore and makes one feel that the national figures are indeed spurious or deceptive.For instance, despite a national primary enrolment of 95 per cent the most wealthy district of Colombo located in the Western Province which has nearly 50 per cent of the country’s GDP, 6-10 per cent of 6yr olds are not enrolled in primary class. These pockets of non enrolment are found in the slum areas, some of which are located in the heart of the metropolis.

In the Jaffna district the non enrolment is significantly high and in the deep south about 8 per cent of primary children are out of school in Galle and Matara districts while the figures for the hill country (e.g. Nuwara eliya district ) is as much as 15 per cent and in Putlam and that coastal belt non enrolment amongst the same age group is 11 per cent.

In the Ampara district in the Eastern province non enrolment of 6yr olds in primary school is as high as 14 per cent. The Primary NER figure of 95 per cent is calculated from data obtained through the Population and Housing census of 2001which was not carried out in the North and East Province except for the Ampara district. As this province includes areas affected by the conflict, the non enrolment figure could be much higher than the national average

The reasons for non enrolment and poor retention vary from region to region and they include security concerns due to political turmoil, poor infrastructure, environmental hazards, harsh climate and gross poverty. Reasons for such poor enrolment have been analyzed, discussed and debated repetitively and suitable recommendations have been made. Similarly successive Governments have used a variety of initiatives (including the introduction of the Compulsory Education Act of 1998) to ameliorate these problems, but with marginal success. The issues have only snowballed into bigger ones that are somewhat less manageable.

Hence the necessity for us in SriLanka to not be lulled into a sense of complacency or pride in relation to MDG (or EFA) achievements. Yes, we have a long long way to go. And like our neighbours in the region we too have a gamut of issues to grapple with.

South Asian states are after all, only next to the Sub Saharan states as the most economically backward and deprived parts of the globe. It is home to about 2 billion of the worlds most poor and dispossessed people.

What it means is that we in the region must strive hard to climb out of the pit of poverty to reach the vast economic strides that others in Asia took to become some of the most economically and technologically advanced nations in the world.

But to get there, championing the MDGs in public speeches alone won’t help.

On the one hand Governments must give priority to achieving MDGs on schedule by first, ensuring that country’s Poverty Reduction Strategies - PRS (and ‘pro poor’/’shared growth’ strategies) are practically linked to the MDGs.They must be committed politically and morally to actually implementing the PRS. As an indispensable adjunct, Governments must create adequate awareness among the public and also enlist the support of all relevant stakeholders if it is truly serious about accomplishing the MDG agenda.

On the other hand donors must ensure that external aid is linked strongly and appropriately to the sectors relevant for MDG achievements.Not only must aid be integrated with adequate technical support to the agencies concerned, but the latter must also be held accountable for its appropriate use. Aid should also support the policy making process, politically and administratively.

This should naturally include advice on analytical work, knowledge exchange, consensus building, and other relevant areas.

Too often we have heard of aid going down the drain when adequate’ plumbing mechanisms’ failed to take precedence over the actual disbursement of funds, sometimes at the cost of vast social infrastructure projects that may have saved millions of lives or given thousands better schooling. Donors must make a conscious effort to help Governments to prepare financial, investment and public management plans to suit the needs of each country. It must also avoid presenting to Governments a basket of dollars as a fait accompli asking them to use it as they wished within their own ‘limited absorptive capacity’.

Mostly, achieving MDGs on target must cease to be buzz words and mere fashionable rhetoric. Its importance must be understood first, and then the implications of not reaching the targets must be realized, by those who matter.