MDGs Vs. SDGs?

 

The SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) is the outcome of the Rio+20 conference. The SDGs is to build upon the MDGs with the post 2015 development agenda with overreaching goals, targets and indicators. The SDGs are the new post2015 international development agenda focusing more on the weaknesses of the MDGs. The SDGs are said to be more comprehensive than the MDGs, outcome-oriented and have more specified indicators. The SDGs assessed the MDGs in three aspect one is that they are not global and that they ultimately put obligations on the developing countries, second is that they are short to medium term and thirdly is that environmental goals are not reflected sufficiently

The MDGs is remarkable successful in given its attention in mobilizing its resources to address the major gaps in human development, they help support poverty eradication and increasing primary education.

MDG’s have their negative lessons, they are considered weak in terms of justice, equity, exclusion and vulnerability. For example the MDG7, which was on environmental sustainability, it is predominantly weak because its neglect land degradation and climate change, they focus on drinking water or sanitation forgotten that climate change has the power to unwrap most of the development achievements. Another aspect is that the MDGs in some cases only commit the developing countries and do not apply to developed countries with an exception of MDG8, which is related to international cooperation and ODA. 

zakiyyah tukur 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “MDGs Vs. SDGs?

  1. I agree 100%

    The MDG’s were a continuation of the SAP’s and now the SDG’s are a continuation of the MDG’s with slight more focus on sustainable development.

    The MDG’s was supposed to end relative poverty by 2015, has it done this, Of course not.
    It was meant to empower women, has it achieved this? Maybe a few cases to show but overall of course not.
    Sustainable development also an MDG, has it been achieved? Not at all.

    Looking more deeper into the MDG’s you realize that they were never meant to be achieved, it is simply another method of controlling developing countries and for the western countries, specifically america to gain access to countries and vital resources.

    Looking at countries who have signed up to the MDG’s shows you how hypocritical it is. Just an image to make the world believe the UN is working really hard trying to bring about justice and equality.
    China has some of the worst human rights abuses against women. It is also one of the highest polluting counties.
    Yet, the MDG’s have not been able to address these effectively.

    Another example is the MDG on education. It says that it will send out foreign teachers, something along those lines.
    If they really did care, they would be sending people from the developing countries to the west to learn and get educated and then return back to their home country where they will then teach the locals. This will be more sustainable in the long term, as it will really boost education in developing countries, where in some places non exists.
    Unfortunately, the MDG’s want it the other way around. Again proving that they don’t really want so many people to be educated from the developing countries as then they will be able to take them on.

    It is a really sad state we are living in, global dominance has blurred the vision to the harsh extreme condition of the people of the third world, and instead they are being used as a publicity tool to further the interests of the UN and America and all those who are involved.

    Mohammad Uzair

  2. Thank you so much for the relevant examples, the MDGs are not on the right track to reach their goals by 2015 because they are a lot to be done. And I agree with you that the MDGs were not meant to be achieved, I keep on asking myself how possible is it for the SDGs to achieved their goals when the MDGs have not achieved one goal 100%? Just look at the $1 a day strategies for reducing poverty, it’s hardly for many people in the African countries to earn $1 a day, however the MDGs have 1 year to go. To be honestly on my own opinion, the MDGs are not accountability in favor of the poor people.
    Zakiyyah tukur

  3. MDGs have now been continued with SDGs. But, for who’s benefit? MDG1 eradicate extreme poverty; under a dollar a day. This does not provide any means of development if I use to earn under a dollar a day and now earn a dollar one cent in what world does that mean I’m not in extreme poverty???? This blurred vision UN have of poverty is absolutely crazy. Back to my question who benefits; well definitely not those who now just earn above a dollar, these goals are only here to publish the UN’s “hard work”, so they can do as they like to the country which detract from what is really important!!!
    Munira Abukar

  4. Well, I agreed with you Munira, the answer for the MDG1 for extreme poverty eradication, millions of people still are in extreme poverty from my point of view, I just ignore the MDG1 because poverty is something that needs a long time plans to achieve or obtain a certain goal. And for those that are benefiting more from the MDG’s definitely are the developed countries, because they have improved their living standard with the MDGs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s