jp8589 WRI.qxd - World Resources Institute

MAKING GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES WORK
TABLE 3 ADDITIONAL TARGETS AGREED TO AT THE WORLD
SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Biodiversity
Fisheries
Water
Chemical
Pollution
■ Encourage by 2010 the application of the ecosystem
approach (Paragraph 30)
■ Establish representative marine protected area
networks by 2012 (Paragraph 32)
■ Achieve by 2010 a significant reduction in the
current rate of loss of biodiversity (Paragraph 44)
■ Maintain or restore fish stocks to a level that can
produce a sustainable yield by 2015 (Paragraph 31)
■ Develop integrated water resources management and
water efficiency plans by 2005 (Paragraph 26)
■ By 2020, minimize significant adverse effects on
human health and the environment associated with
the production and use of toxic chemicals, via use of
transparent, science-based risk assessment and risk
management procedures, and taking account of the
precautionary principle (Paragraph 23)
Source: United Nations 2002, Johannesburg Plan of Implementation
countries. But at the same time, many countries have not drawn
on existing data from other environment-related efforts, such as
National Strategies for Sustainable Development, State of
the Environment Reports, and National Biodiversity Action
Plans (UNDP 2005b:5).
Getting the Targets and Indicators Right
One of the most important innovations of the MDG approach
is its ability to make governments more accountable for their
performance in improving human well-being. By stating goals
and measuring progress in clear, straightforward language, the
MDGs make it easy for civil-society groups to evaluate progress
toward human development goals and to issue a public “report
card” on a government’s success or failure. Unfortunately,
the lack of clear, comprehensive targets and indicators for
measuring the capacity of ecosystems to provide sustainable
environmental income for the poor means that the “accountability
effect” of the MDG approach is not yet applicable to the
world’s environmental goals. Until the environmental framework
of the MDGs is fixed, short-run progress towards the other goals
is at risk of being unsustainable.
Realigning the MDG framework to correct its environmental
shortcomings begins with an acceptance of ecosystems as the
key to environmental income, the most direct way that nature
affects the poor. This realignment should be guided by the recent
findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a four-year
study conducted by more than 1,300 scientists from 95 countries
to ascertain the consequences of ecosystem change for human
well-being (MA 2005a). The scientists determined that in all
regions, and particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, the condition
and management of ecosystems is a “dominant factor” affecting
the chances of success in fighting poverty. They concluded that
the degradation of ecosystems is already a “significant barrier”
to achieving the MDGs. In fact, many of the regions facing the
biggest hurdles in reaching the MDGs coincide with those
experiencing significant ecosystem degradation (MA 2005a:18).
Reconceptualizing Target 9
Reframing MDG-7 requires that the wording of Target 9—not
to mention its conceptual underpinnings—should make clear the
importance of ecosystems to the poor, and be grounded in an
appreciation of the central role of healthy, well-functioning
ecosystems in ensuring sustainability.
The current wording of Target 9 has two quite distinct pieces:
Target 9: (1) “Integrate the principles of sustainable development
into country policies and programs and (2) reverse
the loss of environmental resources.”
Both pieces need to be treated separately and reworded. In
addition, another component needs to be added to Target 9 to
capture the importance of natural resource access to the poor.
(See Table 4 for a summary of suggested changes in the wording
and indicators of Target 9, as discussed below.)
1. Focus on ecosystem capacity
Let’s first deal with the second half of Target 9: “reverse the loss
of environmental resources.” Conceptually, this is the most
157