Wednesday, December 27, 2006

u.n.'s millennium development goals

Sounds great, right? Ten years for action to solve water problems.

Peter Gleick writes about a related UN proposition in "The Millennium Development Goals for Water: Crucial Objectives, Inadequate Commitments" (The World's Water 2004-2005). After reviewing the goals and the size of the problem, he concludes,

"The failure to meet basic human needs for water is widely acknowledged to be a major development failure of the twentieth century. In recognition of this failure, the United Nations and the world community adopted a set of ambitious development goals to try to address unmet issues of poverty and human development, including two goals to provide safe and reliable access to water and sanitation services. Despite this laudable goal, and fine rhetorical efforts, pratical actions and commitments to provide universal coverage for water and sanitation continue to be inadequate. The price for this will be paid by the poorest populations of the world in sickness, lost eduational and employment opportunities, and for a staggeringly large number of people, early death. Even if the official Millennium Goals set for water are met--which is unlikely given the curret level of commitments by national governments and international aid agencies--as many as 32 million people, and perhaps many more, will die by 2020 from preventable water-related diseases. This is morally unacceptable in a world that values equity and decency. At present, it appears unavoidable."

See also http://www.worldwater.org/

2 comments:

Michael E said...

To put the MDGs in better perspective: from now until 2015 we will have to provide access to clean water to about 210,000 persons and sanitation to about 450,000 persons EACH DAY.

Anonymous said...

Gosh, much more than 32 million have died in the developing world simply because the developed countries have done their best not to rid the tropics of malaria, but the UN doesn't give a damn due to religious concerns about DDT. How can anyone take Gleick very seriously under such circumstances?