Nigeria Content Online

Last September, the
world gathered again in New York for the UN Special Review Summit on
the Millennium Development Goals (also known as the MDGs+10 Summit).
The event was a significant milestone in the global quest to halve
poverty and inequality by the year 2015. Two-thirds of the way down the
line, the world had to pause for a breath, as it were, to reflect on
what had been done so far and what more needed to be done.

As usual, the
Nigerian government and civil society were strongly represented, with
our officials reporting that the country is on track to achieve most of
the goals. On MDGs 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 relating to universal primary
education, gender and women’s empowerment, reducing child mortality,
combating HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and global partnership for
development, the lights show green and amber, says Nigeria’s 2010 MDGs
Report. The report, however, admits an emphatic red light for goals 1,
5 and 7 on extreme poverty and hunger, maternal health and
environmental sustainability.

To be fair, there
has been good progress on some of the goals. There has been an amazing
effort by the MDGs Office at the Presidency to channel debt relief
gains into poverty-reducing projects across the country. Despite
teething challenges, the Conditional Grants Scheme (CGS) which makes
funds available to states and local governments for use on locally
identified pro-poor priorities has been hugely successful in delivering
social infrastructure, strengthening the partnership between the three
tiers of government and improving public expenditure practices in some
ways.

But achieving the
MDGs for Nigeria does not begin and end with the MDGs Office or the
micro-level interventions it coordinates. What about the macro-economy?
In the past few years, we have seen growth in Gross domestic product
(GDP), but this has not been accompanied by any significant development
outcomes for the majority of Nigerians. Jobs are critical to poverty
reduction but they cannot be created in an economy that lacks the
critical infrastructure to support business. The commitment to building
Nigeria’s road network and overhauling the power sector, for instance,
must move beyond rhetoric to concrete action, if the private sector is
to gain the confidence it needs to play well in the economy.

Over 70 per cent of
Nigeria’s population, its poorest, may remain poor for a long time to
come because they continue to depend on the natural environment for
their survival. Unfortunately, while climate change continues to wreak
havoc on their livelihoods, governments at state and local levels
remain oblivious to the challenge, with little or no effort to
implement actions to promote adaptation at that level.

And then the
question of international partnerships for development keeps nagging.
Granted, the 2005 debt relief has led to the freeing up of at least $1
billion a year for pro-poor, MDGs-related spending. Yet those gains are
threatened by international protection for stolen assets which
continues to block progress in the fight against corruption in-country.
Besides, aid in-flows at under $10 per capita still fall far short of
donor promises, while the quality of that aid and the actual percentage
of it that touches the ground remain dubious. Civil society
partnerships, long proven to facilitate development efficiency, are
widely being undermined by aid agencies.

Even as
agricultural productivity in the country has increased, the vast
majority of Nigeria’s over 60 million peasant farmers are still locked
in a vicious cycle of poverty. This is mainly due to the skewed
international trade system which denies their products access to
markets while condoning massive dumping and subsidies for farmers in
the USA and Europe. Nigeria’s government and its international friends
need to realise that without a genuine international partnership for
development, the MDGs will turn out to be another celebrated waste of
time.

Lack of social
data, especially at sub-national levels, is still a huge obstacle to
monitoring progress. Similarly, coordination between targeted MDGs
projects and wider development efforts in the context of Vision 20:2020
seems to be lacking. Policy reversals and inertia usually associated
with change in political leadership in Nigeria also pose a serious risk
to the sustainability of MDGs projects.

But nothing appears
to be standing in the way of the MDGs like money. The MDGs Office is
currently implementing its projects in arrears, due to budget gaps. In
2010, over N65 billion was appropriated for the office but only N38
billion was released. Due to this shortfall, many of the 2008/09 quick
win projects and the CGS and monitoring and evaluation activities for
last year have been rolled over 2011. A review of Nigeria’s funding
gaps for the MDGs conducted in 2009 put the cost of meeting the MDGs
between 2010 and 2015 at $171 billion, or between US$19 billion and $27
billion annually.

At the current rate
of progress, and in the context of time constraints and limited
financial and human resources, Nigeria is very unlikely to achieve many
of the goals.

So beyond practical
action on the goals and targets, government must also be willing to
make an important strategic choice. It is critical at this point to
decide whether we still want to achieve all the goals in four and a
half years or we want to double up efforts to reach a few of the goals
that we consider most critical for the country’s long-term development.

Mr Bolton is an associate director of DevPro Group, a development consulting and policy advisory firm, based in Abuja.