How the Global Goals build on the Millennium Development Goals

Overview

Most important structural change between the two frameworks: universality and millennium Development Goals and the Global Goals.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

1. 1

   Why was a successor framework needed in 2015?

   Model answer

   Because the Millennium Development Goals expired at the end of that year with their work unfinished: extreme poverty had been halved but not ended, hundreds of millions were still hungry, universal primary education had not been reached, and maternal and child mortality targets were missed. There was also broad agreement that the framework had been too narrow, ignoring inequality, employment, infrastructure, governance, conflict and above all climate change, and too one-sided, imposing targets on poor countries alone. A successor was needed both to finish the job and to widen the agenda.

2. 2

   In what ways do the Global Goals continue the Millennium Development Goals?

   Model answer

   They keep the same core anti-poverty agenda: goals on poverty, hunger, health, education, gender equality and water all carry forward earlier goals, in most cases with the same underlying concerns. They keep the method: a fixed end date, numbered goals with measurable targets and statistical indicators, and annual global reporting. They keep the idea of a global partnership, now the seventeenth goal. And they explicitly take on the unfinished business of the earlier framework, converting targets that were to be halved into targets to be ended. In that sense the Global Goals are a continuation and completion rather than a fresh start.

3. 3

   How do the two frameworks differ in scale and coverage?

   Model answer

   The Millennium framework had 8 goals and 21 targets; the Global Goals have 17 goals and 169 targets. The earlier goals were concentrated in the social sectors: poverty, schooling, gender, child and maternal health, and disease. The Global Goals add whole areas that were absent, including decent work and economic growth, industry, innovation and infrastructure, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities, responsible consumption and production, affordable clean energy, climate action, oceans, land, and peace, justice and strong institutions. The agenda has therefore moved from a short list of poverty outcomes to a comprehensive plan covering the economy, society, the environment and governance together.

4. 4

   Explain the most important structural change between the two frameworks: universality.

   Model answer

   The Millennium Development Goals set targets that were to be achieved in LEDCs; MEDCs had no domestic obligations and appeared only as donors under the eighth goal. The Global Goals apply to every country, so an MEDC must report on its own poverty, inequality, emissions, waste and gender gaps as well as on its aid. This matters because it recognises that deprivation, discrimination and unsustainable consumption exist everywhere, and that some of the biggest obstacles to development in LEDCs, notably climate change and consumption patterns, originate in MEDCs. It reframes development from charity done to poor countries into a shared agenda with mutual accountability. The cost is loss of focus: a framework that is about everything everywhere is harder to prioritise than one aimed squarely at extreme poverty.

5. 5

   How does the environmental content of the two frameworks differ?

   Model answer

   The earlier framework had one environmental goal, ensuring environmental sustainability, with loosely worded targets on integrating sustainable development into policy, biodiversity loss, water and sanitation and slum dwellers. Its measurable achievements were largely confined to drinking water. The Global Goals treat the environment as central, with separate goals for clean energy, responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below water and life on land, and environmental targets threaded through the economic and social goals. This reflects both the failure of the earlier goal and the recognition, formalised in the Paris agreement of the same year, that climate change would undo development gains in the poorest countries if left unchecked.

6. 6

   How does the ambition of the targets differ between the two frameworks?

   Model answer

   The Millennium targets were mostly proportional reductions: halve the proportion in extreme poverty, halve the proportion suffering hunger, reduce child mortality by two-thirds, cut maternal mortality by three-quarters. The Global Goals set absolute or 'zero' targets: end poverty in all its forms, end hunger, ensure universal access to water, sanitation, energy and education. This is more ambitious and closes the loophole by which a target could be met while hundreds of millions remained deprived, but it also makes failure much more likely, since ending something entirely is far harder than halving it.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.