Daily Times

The latest buzz in the development sector is on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which have succeeded the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). As opposed to eight MDGs, which were mostly concerned with socio-economic development, there are 17 SDGs which cover practically everything from the economy to social development, human rights and governance. The SDGs are thus far more ambitious than the MDGs were, and see human development as an all-encompassing state. Not surprisingly, there are also many more targets and indicators associated with the SDGs than with the MDGs. But the SDGs are also more flexible, with governments being given more leeway to adapt the SDGs to their needs, and to define targets in accordance with national priorities.

Like other developing countries, Pakistan is also wholly on board with the SDGs, and the planning commission, in partnership with UNDP Pakistan, is geared up to take the agenda forward. It’s a good time, therefore, to just pause for a minute and see what happened to the MDGs, which Pakistan, like other countries, signed on to in the year 2000.

The last year when Pakistan reported on the MDGs was 2013. Even that report came out after a delay, and reportedly some bickering, and after that, the government sort of lost interest, acknowledging that this was a lost cause. Of about 40 targets that Pakistan had set for itself, the country was, according to the report, on track to achieve 7, and had achieved 3. This record is in itself dismal enough but is rendered more dismal if one reviews the indicators that the country had supposedly done relatively well on (we will simply ignore the 35 plus targets that we were nowhere close to).

Let us examine the good news in a little more detail.

We were apparently on track to bring down poverty levels significantly. The government reported that population below the poverty line was 12.4 percent. By all accounts, this was a travesty. This poverty figure had been reported in 2010-11 and had been met with widespread derision. In fact, the planning commission was forced to constitute a technical committee to review it, and the committee found that the poverty line on which it was based had failed to account for essential non-food expenditure adequately. By the Planning Commission’s own estimates, poverty in Pakistan, for that year, was closer to 30 percent. Multi-dimensional poverty, which goes beyond income and expenditure estimates was close to 40 percent. All of this was clear by the time Pakistan reported on the MDGs, yet the figure of 12.4 percent was reported for official purposes. Who were we trying to fool?

There are similar stories behind the other indicators. The maternal mortality ratio was reported to be on track, although the last survey for which MMR had been calculated was seven years before this report was compiled, and that showed a fairly high rate. In any case, figures for MMR are highly unreliable because an accurate estimation of MMR requires a very large sample survey — MMR is calculated as per 100,000 live births, so the sample should cover at least that number. It’s expensive to conduct such large surveys, and the last one that was done in Pakistan was over a decade ago. In truth, we have no real estimate of MMR, and it was better not to report on it.

Another indicator which was reported to be on track was in HIV prevalence among pregnant women. This was probably correctly reported to be on track since HIV prevalence in Pakistan is likely to be low, but once again, it was based on a very small sample survey of women visiting antenatal clinics. It was thus better not to cite such an indicator. The proportion of the population with access to improved water sources was also cited as on the track, whereas improved water sources by government definitions simply mean anything that is coming out of the ground and is not surface water. There is no measure of water quality or potability involved here. We also reported that we have the requisite number of the area under wildlife conservation laws and that our energy efficiency is really good. The less said about that, the better.

The three targets that were reported as having been achieved were the proportion of seats held by women in the legislature — yes this was achieved as these are reserved seats. The other achievements related to the prevalence of diarrhoea and TB. Those do appear to be genuine, so kudos.

Not achieving the MDGs did not come with any approbation or sanctions. We were not going to be held accountable to anyone. It was simply a matter of setting goals for ourselves. Why not be honest about where we stand?

The SDG is another opportunity to start with a clean slate. One hopes that this time round, the government decides that accuracy is more important than looking good on paper.

The writer is an economist and policy analyst based in Islamabad

Overall, it was not so much that Pakistan did not achieve the MDGs — most countries did not. What was sad was how we obfuscated facts and manipulated the data to make ourselves look good on at least some counts