Press conference on millennium Project report

 

At the outset of the press conference to introduce the Millennium Project’s report, entitled, “Investing in Development:  A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals”, Secretary-General Kofi Annan made introductory remarks, a transcript of which is contained in Press Release SG/SM/9678 of 17 January.

The report, three years in the making, offers a comprehensive strategy for combating global poverty, hunger and disease, designed by 265 of the world’s leading scientists and development experts.  It contains a package of specific cost-effective measures that together could cut extreme poverty in half and radically improve the lives of at least 1 billion people by 2015. 

As the Project’s Director, Jeffrey Sachs, explained, the report was not a theoretical discussion, but a practical plan laying out quick wins and near-miraculous gains that could be achieved, from ensuring that Africa’s children slept under mosquito nets to the provision of school meals and the planting of nutrient-rich trees.  The research shows not only that extreme poverty could be halved by 2015, but also how that could be done, in rigorous technical detail.

Following is a near-verbatim transcript of the statements made by Project members in the introductory portion of the briefing:  the former Mexican President and a Project Task Force leader, Ernesto Zedillo; the Director of the United Nations Millennium Project, Jeffrey Sachs; and Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Jose Antonio Ocampo.

Opening Statements (Verbatim)

Mr. Zedillo:  In September 2000, I had the privilege of subscribing on behalf of my country, Mexico, to the United Nations Millennium Declaration.  In that milestone document, 190 heads of State and government committed the efforts of the international community to achieve the Millennium Development Goals with the aim of making extraordinary progress in the fight against poverty in the world by the year 2015.

Success in this endeavour was deemed indispensable not only to fulfil the legitimate aspirations for material prosperity and social justice held by billions of people around the world but also as a chief ingredient in the pursuit of international peace and security.  It was clear from day one that the Millennium Declaration, as important as it was, could be only the beginning of a long and intense effort to harness the will and the actions of all relevant stakeholders, in order to make the Goals not just a plausible purpose but a great achievement of international cooperation for the sake of humanity at large.

In 2001, I chaired the High-Level Panel on Financing for Development appointed by the Secretary-General.  We were asked to recommend a set of general strategies necessary to pursue the Millennium Development Goals.  Our report, among other concepts, submitted that although primary responsibility for achieving growth and equitable development lies with the developing countries themselves, the task of defeating extreme poverty cannot be accomplished without ambitious and well-executed international cooperation.

We concluded emphatically that the inescapable bottom line is that much more funding is needed for official development assistance.  We urged that the then-planned Conference on Financing for Development should serve to relaunch the percentage aid target of 0.7 per cent of donors’ gross domestic product.  For practical purposes, that target had been given up by the international community, as reflected in the fact that any reference to it was totally absent from the Millennium Declaration.  Fortunately, the Monterrey Consensus, of March 2002, indeed restored donors’ commitment to increase ODA, even to the 0.7 per cent target, as an integral part of the strategy to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

The report of the Millennium Project, which was ably -- and I should say, passionately, headed by my friend Jeffrey Sachs -- delivered today to the Secretary-General, in addition to validating the pertinence of the Monterrey Consensus, provides what was missing before:  a detailed blueprint of what it will take in terms of specific strategies, policies and resources -- both at the national and international levels -- to honour effectively the Millennium Development Goals.  With solid analysis and refined methods for costing actions, this report confirms that, in addition to better domestic policies in recipient countries, a much larger resource transfer from rich to poor countries is indispensable to attain the Goals.  All the coordinators of the individual task forces strongly endorsed that proposition.

Of course, more than money is needed from developed countries.  As co-coordinator of the task force on trade, I am compelled to emphasize the responsibility of the richest countries to lead by example in the construction of a multilateral trading system rid of the substantial impediments to the flow of goods and services across countries that still prevail despite the significant trade liberalization efforts of the last half century.  It is a robust conclusion of my task force’s report that poverty will fall faster worldwide if developed countries opened their markets significantly more to developing countries -- and if those countries also become more open -- provided the needed complementary policies were also put in place.

I am certain that all of the participants in the Millennium Project are hopeful that our analysis and proposals will help in the noble endeavour that you, Mr. Secretary-General, have so relentlessly promoted:  the launch of an unprecedented attack on poverty.  Our fervent hope is that you will find in our modest work reasonable arguments for reinvigorating the fundamental enterprise agreed at the Millennium Summit of 2000.  As always, it has been an honour to support, at your request, a cause embraced by the Organization you serve with so much skill, dedication, patience and prudence during a particularly complex moment in its history.

Mr. Sachs:  We thought we would start gently with 74 pages, but there is more -- lots more.  You do not have to read them all tonight.  But, actually, there are 13 books, with some still at the printer.  This is what stands behind the overview report.  What stands behind this are 265 of the world’s leading scientists and development practitioners, several of whom are here:  President Zedillo and Geeta Rao Gupta, whom the Secretary-General introduced.  I would also like to thank Roberto Lenten, who is sitting in the front row and who co-chaired the task force on water and sanitation, as well as Professor Don Melnick of ColumbiaUniversity, who co-chaired the task force on environmental sustainability, and Professor Ron Waldman, who co-chaired the task force on maternal and child survival.  They are three of the world’s leaders in their respective areas, and they also lead groups that were a remarkable combination of talents and experiences from all over the world.  This is truly a global effort.

It was an enormous privilege and honour for all of us to do this on your behalf, Mr. Secretary-General, because you have been the inspiration of the Millennium Development Goals.  You have guided them from a concept in a document that you shared with world leaders in 2000, through the Millennium Assembly and the Monterrey Consensus -- which Ernesto Zedillo mentioned -- to today, when we find that, throughout the world, they are the organizing principles of the poorest countries in their attempt to alleviate the suffering of their peoples and escape the poverty trap.  Working on your behalf and at your instruction has been an enormous privilege for all of us.  Let me summarize very briefly what we found, if I might.

I think the title is really almost all of it.  You can boil it down to just a few words after you have gone through all of this.  The title is Investing in Development.  What we are proposing is a strategy of investment to help empower the lives of very poor people who lack the tools, and sometimes even the basic means, to stay alive, much less to be productive members of a fast-paced world economy.  We are talking about investments in people themselves and in their health, nutrition, education, family planning and sexual and reproductive health services.  We are talking about investment in the physical environment, which is deeply degraded and threatening the lives and livelihoods of the poorest people in the world.  And we are talking about investment in basic infrastructure:  in electricity, roads, motor transport, safe water, sanitation and other related areas.  The essence of our analysis is that, with appropriate, proven, documented and scientifically based investments, it is possible to save millions of lives per year; it is possible to expand the economic opportunities and productivity of the poorest people in the world; and it is possible to enable the poorest of the poor to escape from the trap of poverty.  That is the essence of what the Millennium Development Goals mean:  not a new dependency, but an escape from dependency through economic empowerment and investment.

The other critical word of the title is “practical”.  We very much believe that we are offering a practical plan to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.  This is not a high-concept document; this is not a theoretical work or discussion about the state of the world.  This is a practical plan of how to proceed -- how systems that are organized at the country level to coordinate the actions of donors and poor countries to enable them to do better can work more effectively.

We lay out what we call “quick wins”, which are areas of -- you could say almost miraculous -- gain that could be accomplished, except that there is no miracle involved.  These are absolutely proven interventions, such as something as simple as ensuring that Africa’s children sleep under mosquito bed nets in the shortest period of time possible, saving more than 1 million lives per year at such remarkably low cost for the world.  It is almost unthinkable that we even have to ask, because what could be accomplished is so direct.  That also includes school meals for children -- which we know help children to learn, grow and think, as well as to attend school -- and providing replenishment of soil nutrients in order that we can carry out what the Secretary-General called for last summer in Addis Ababa, a green revolution for Africa.

Our scientists have shown the way.  It is in one of these reports in specific:  Halving Hunger:  It Can Be Done.  We have World Food Prize winners and leading agronomists who have documented how what enabled Asia to escape chronic famine -- the green revolution -- can bring very quick benefit to Africa at low cost and in an ecologically improved way:  through organic methods, fertilizer trees and other techniques that have been thoroughly proven.

So we show, I believe, that, practically speaking, we have within our hands the ability to do something that no other generation could have ever said before.  Our generation, for the first time in human history, really could see to it that extreme poverty on the planet is ended -- not just by half, but ended -- by the year 2025.  The Millennium Development Goals can take us halfway there and, by doing so, save millions of lives per year, take hundreds of millions of people out of chronic hunger and disease and utter, extreme impoverishment, and make possible the dream of a planet that is safe and prosperous for all.

The important thing, Mr. Secretary-General, that I will just conclude with, is we are not asking for one new promise from any country in the world -- only the follow-through on what has already been committed.  Exactly what was committed at the Millennium Declaration in September 2000, what was committed at Monterrey in March 2002, are the bases of our report.  Nothing new needs to be promised.  The time, we believe, is for action.  We know that with your leadership, we can look forward to that.

Let me thank you again on behalf of all 265 members of the task forces and the many, many people who were working in the Secretariat day and night.  I would like especially to thank John McArthur, who is standing there, who has worked round the clock, literally, for three years -- there has been no sleep for three years -- to enable us to reach this day.  It has been a profound honour to work on this project, and we look forward to continuing in what is your great effort, and all of ours, shared, to do make sure these goals become a reality.

Mr. Ocampo:  It is hard to add anything to what has been said, but let me start by congratulating personally Jeffrey Sachs for this very impressive effort into which he has put his very well-known intellectual capabilities, but also his very well-known capabilities as a communicator and, also, I would say, his passion -- as President Zedillo mentioned.

This is really a major contribution to world development.  I think, as the Secretary-General said, we hope that the events this year, with this at the centre of the agenda -- aside from the major event in September, may I also mention that we have also forthcoming the tenth anniversary of the Social Summit and the tenth anniversary of the Beijing Summit.  Let me say in particular how much I appreciate the great emphasis put on gender equity, as well, in the report.

I would like basically to mention four very simple issues that I find particularly important in this report.  The first is the magnificent use of a concept that is at the root of development economics for action in the developing world, which is the concept of a poverty trap and the need to overcome that poverty trap.  In that regard, I think the report mixes two views very well:  the possibility of quick means and fast-track countries that could lead to very rapid progress in some areas, but also -- and very importantly -- the focus on laggers, on areas where the international community is lagging behind, which I would say is sub-Saharan, on the one hand, but also some areas of the Millennium Goals, such as nutrition, maternal mortality, sanitation, pandemics and the environment.

The second issue that I want to stress is the very novel instruments that the report suggests -- novel in the sense of the current debates, some of them perhaps bringing back issues that were emphasized in the past.  That involves, first of all, the need for generalizing needs-based assessments -- assessments of the needs for funds, for a plan of action based on needs, including the Millennium Development Goals.  That, combined with the long-term strategies, all if we may say, a new form of planning, that is aimed, particularly, at the basic needs, including the Millennium Development Goals and, very importantly, the country strategies.

The third issue that I wanted to emphasize was actually well-placed by President Zedillo, which is the very novel way in which this report puts together the partnership that is at the root of the Monterrey conference -- the partnership between developing countries taking all the efforts overcome their own problems, together with a strong and coherent commitment from the developed countries, not only in the area of aid, but also of trade and other concerns.

Finally -- and, I would say, very importantly -- I want to emphasize a basic point that again cuts across the whole document, which is the fact that the Millennium Development Goals are based on human rights, and that, at the end of the day, when we are talking about fulfilling the Millennium Development Goals, we will also talking about economics and the social rights of people.  And that is very much at the centre of the United Nations agenda, which includes, of course, major commitments in the areas of human rights, but also, and very importantly, the collection of United Nations conferences and summits through which those human rights have taken very complete shape, which in turn is expressed in the Millennium Development Goals.

Questions and Answers (Summary)

After Mr. Annan left the briefing, Mr. Zedillo was asked why Latin America was doing well generally compared to other regions.  He said that, although it was doing better than sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, his was a region in which the number of people in extreme poverty had practically not diminished at all in the last quarter-century.  The region had been slow to grow, registering very low economic growth over the past 25 to 30 years.  Performance had been irregular in the region, owing also to other factors, such as the quality of social policies. 

Yes, the region was doing better than some others, but it was certainly doing worse than had been hoped.  “If we don’t do better in the coming years, we will be in serious trouble”, he added. 

Would nations come up with the required funding to meet the Millennium Development Goals, give the tsunami disaster and much-discussed donor fatigue? another correspondent asked.  Mr. Sachs said that the tsunami had actually showed the opposite of donor fatigue.  Several billion dollars had been raised in just a couple of weeks, from both the public and private sectors.  He had interpreted the outpouring of shared feeling around the world as a sense that everyone was in this together; as a readiness of the world to respond with several billion in the fastest pledge ever recorded.  In addition to the shocking and devastating tsunami, there was also a “silent tsunami” in Africa and other parts of the world, where as many children were dying each month -- some 150,000 -- from malaria, a preventable and treatable disease, as from the Indian Ocean tsunami. 

He said he hoped that the same spirit that had motivated the global response to the tsunami would also motivate a similar response to the “silent tsunamis”.  The year had begun with some reasons for optimism, both about the state of the human spirit and the readiness of many governments to lead right now on the Goals.

Unfortunately, not everything possible was being done, and people had overestimated the aid that actually went into the silent tsunamis.  He had hoped that, by laying out a practical plan, one could practically deliver.  The Goals were not United Nations-owned, but of the poor world; they were part and parcel of the strategies, ambitions and aspirations of the poorest countries in the world.

Mr. Zedillo, replying to another question, said the world was off-track in achieving several of the Goals.  The tsunami tragedy itself should not have a material impact on the world’s capacity to deliver on the Goals, but he agreed with Mr. Sachs that the reaction to the tsunami had shown that international solidarity was there.  There was enormous potential, not only in terms of resources, but also in terms of real political will to support other countries that were suffering other human disgraces. 

He said the report had sought to provide lucid, strong arguments as to why it would be much cheaper for the world and the rich countries to invest in development than in weapons.  It was better for peace and security to invest in development, he added. 

Asked about achievement of the Goals in the Middle East, Mr. Sachs said work was ongoing in that regard in the region.  In Yemen, for example, a pilot project was under way as part of the United Nations Millennium Project.  There, one saw, first and foremost, a tremendous ecological challenge.  The water stress throughout the Middle East was pervasive and getting worse, and the ecological conditions for growing food were deteriorating.  Countries there were in a race against time as populations were expanding.

There were other challenges, he said, noting that while many countries in the region had made a lot of progress in ensuring girls’ education, progress had been too slow in other areas.  Children and maternal mortality were falling short in a significant number of those countries.  Another broad trend in the Middle East was the tremendous level of youth unemployment.  The economies needed diversification and new outlets for growth, as many oil States were heavily concentrated in one or two commodities.  He urged every country in every region to undertake an honest needs assessment.

Another correspondent, referring to a statement on page 64 of the report’s summary that Member States seeking permanent seats on the Security Council should be prepared to fulfil the Official Development Assistance (ODA) target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP), asked if that meant that was a requirement for a permanent Council seat.

Mr. Sachs said that all developed countries had pledged that amount, as recently as March 2002 and again in September of that year.  He urged all developed countries to make concrete efforts towards that target.  Everybody signed up to that, yet Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg were the only developed countries that had actually achieved that.  Six more had recently set a timetable -- the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Spain, Ireland and Finland.  That represented 11 of 22 donor countries.  The other 11 should also honour their commitments, which the world first adopted in 1970 in the General Assembly.  What they had signed up to in Monterrey had been a “refresher”.

Countries that aspired to permanent membership in the Council were asking for a privilege of global leadership, and such a privilege came with responsibility, he said.  Development and security were inextricably linked, so the privilege of leading in security came with the responsibility of leading also in development.  Meeting the targets seemed to be part and parcel of that international leadership.  That was why that had been mentioned in the report, as well as in the report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change.

He replied to a follow-up question that each donor should reach 0.7 per cent no later than 2017.  He was not seeking new commitments, only asking countries to follow through on existing ones.  The report’s overview also included timetables showing where the shortfalls were right, on page 63. 

To a question about debt relief, and whether Mr. Sachs was ready to pronounce that some countries simply would not meet the Goals’ 2015 deadline, he said he thought that no country should be written off right now from achieving the development Goals.  A lot of “loose thinking” instead of analysis had been done.  That was very casual and very dangerous because lives were at stake.  Writing off people’s lives like that was not responsible.

In doing the true assessment, countries would find that the chances for rapid progress were far more dramatic than what was thought, he said.  Something as simple as a mosquito bed net or a tree that raised soil productivity had never been considered.  If things continued on a casual basis, it would not be possible to meet the goals in dozens of countries.  The price tag of reaching the goals was a lot more modest than what people thought, and it was within the envelope of the promises of rich countries, he stressed.

On debt, he said that the measure of debt sustainability should not be an artificial ratio.  The question that should be asked was what level of debt was consistent with achieving the Goals.  When viewed that way, most of the poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa needed aid inflows of grants of 20 per cent of GNP, sometimes more.  But, since they had no debt service capacity, their debts should be wiped off the books.  Creditors’ delay in accomplishing that was “really shocking”.  Many other countries had received debt relief much sooner than Africa, where some countries had waited two decades.

In a situation where people were dying and more was being spent on debt service than on the health system, and where donors were not responding, he said he believed in saving the people first.  He could not recommend to any government to pay debt service and let massive numbers of people die; that was not a way for the world to be organized.

Asked what he had planned for those donor countries not living up to their commitments, including the United States, Japan and Germany, he said that if Americans were asked in an opinion survey how much aid their country was giving, they would say approximately 25 per cent of the federal budget, or about 5 per cent of the GNP.  They would love to give only 0.7 per cent.  The American people were not against development aid.  They wanted to know how much there was and whether that would be effectively used to deliver results.  No blank check was being recommended.  Instead, assistance against rigorous plans of proven intervention was needed, and he thought the American people would be the first to want to support that. 

Mosquito bed nets did not end up in Swiss bank accounts, but saved the lives of millions of children, he said.  Asked later in the briefing how Americans could contribute to that effort, he said that Saving the Children had been promoting the nets.  The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria was another place.  He was also working with several faith-based organizations in that regard.  The nets cost $5 and lasted for five years.  That was one dollar per net per year, and often two children slept under a net, so that was 50 cents and saves lives in vast numbers.  In villages in Africa, people were so desperate for them, but lacked the money. 

Task force coordinator for the Project, Geeta Rao Gupta, who joined the podium after the Secretary-General’s departure, stressed that it was not okay not to meet the promises.  The exciting thing about the Project’s analysis had been that it showed practical ways to do seemingly impossible things, such as achieving gender equality.  There was evidence, for example, that if girls could get into secondary schools, the return for girls and women was very high, as well as for the national economies.  That could be done by making schools affordable and safe and by increasing such amenities as toilets, and by ensuring that curricula were made more “gender equitable”. 

The Millennium Development Goals actually offered a rare opportunity, and the next 10 years were very important for the global community, she added.  The first target of 2005 for achieving gender equality in primary and secondary education had already been missed, but instead of using that as proof that the Goals could not be met, she saw that as an opportunity to put in extra effort to ensure that that and other targets were met by 2015.

Asked to cite the advantages and handicaps of “sitting on the doorstep of an economic giant -- the US”, Mr. Zedillo said he called that “geographic determinism”, and Mexicans had learned the proximity with the United States as a great opportunity.  Over the last 10 to 15 years, Mexico had worked with its American partners to convert that “neighbourhood” into an opportunity.  Economic integration was just one of several instruments countries must use to develop.

Still, in Mexico, there were very substantial pockets of poverty, including extreme poverty.  He did not think, however, that Mexico or Brazil should be recipients of massive foreign aid.  They had the resources within their borders and just needed to continue improving their own policies and do what it took to grow their economies more dynamically.  Resources should be redirected to sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and to other countries in Latin America.

Mr. Sachs said there were no sacred cows, responding to a question about whether he was downplaying the role of the private sector in development.  The report contained a chapter on the private sector from several points of view.  A lot of emphasis had been placed on basic investments and infrastructure, and many of those were public investments.  It had also been stressed that economic development was basically private sector-led when the platform was available. 

In places without roads or electricity and basic services, there was a very significant public financing responsibility he said.  Private sector development was complementary, but it was not realistic to expect private investment to lead where there was no power, or no transportation.  So, building infrastructure was critical.  Next week in Davos, Switzerland, he said he would initiate a call for business to contribute in specific and concrete ways towards meeting the Goals. 

* *** *