achieving the millennium developmeny goals in the asia-pacific region - the role of international...

7/29/2019 Achieving the Millennium Developmeny Goals in the Asia-Pacific Region - The Role of International Assistance

1/16

Achieving the Millennium Development Goalsin the Asia-Pacific region: The role of

international assistance1

Simon Feeny* and Matthew Clarke*School of Economics, Finance and Marketing, RMIT University, Level 12, 239 Bourke Street, Melbourne,

VIC 3000, Australia.Email: [email protected]

School of International and Political Studies, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia.Email: [email protected]

Abstract: The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are a set of international development

targets agreed to by members of the United Nations in 2000. The goals aim to improve many of thedimensions of extreme poverty and are to be achieved by 2015. This paper provides an overview ofthe issues relevant to the achievement of the MDGs in the Asia-Pacific region. The paper begins bydiscussing the critiques of the MDGs before assessing whether countries in the region are on trackto achieve them. Issues relating to data availability and accuracy are discussed and the need to tailorthe MDG targets to the special circumstances of some Asia-Pacific countries is examined. The paper

proceeds by discussing the role of international assistance via international foreign development aidand non-governmental organisations in the achievement of the MDGs. The paper concludes withsome policy implications for the international donor community.

Keywords: foreign aid, Millennium Development Goals, non-governmental organisations

Introduction

At the United Nations (UN) MillenniumSummit in September 2000, UN memberstates committed themselves to achieving theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs). TheMDGs comprise a set of eight internationallyagreed goals to improve the well-being of the

poor in developing countries. They include:(i) eradicating extreme poverty and hunger;(ii) achieving universal primary education;(iii) promoting gender equality; (iv) reducingchild mortality; (v) improving maternal health;(vi) combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and otherdiseases; (vii) ensuring environmental sustain-ability; and (viii) developing a global partner-ship for development. The MDGs emanatedfrom a number of development-related confer-ences during the 1990s. The eight goals will be

assessed against the achievement of 18 targetsand 48 indicators outlined in the appendix tothi

The Asia-Pacific region is often said to bemaking good progress towards the MDGs.However, the region is extremely diverse andanalysis at the regional level masks significantdifferences in the progress towards the MDGsmade by individual countries. Indeed, Asia andthe Pacific are largely incomparable as regions.They differ in terms of geography, history, popu-

lation, natural resources, access to internationalmarkets and global integration. Asia includesthe worlds largest countries: China and India,while the Pacific includes a large number ofSmall Island Developing States (SIDS). The per-formance of Asian countries has varied greatlybut in general the region has experienced con-siderable reductions in poverty during recentdecades. However, Pacific island countrieshave, in general, not performed as well. Inparticular, the Melanesian countries of Papua

New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatupresent considerable development challenges.B f th i ll i P ifi i l d

Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 49, No. 2, August 2008ISSN 1360-7456, pp198212
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/16

countries have received far less internationalattention than Asia and other areas of the world.

The objective of this paper is to provide anoverview of the issues relevant to the achieve-ment of the MDGs in the Asia-Pacific region.Critiques of the MDGs are discussed in the

next section. Although the MDGs represent animportant commitment to reducing poverty indeveloping countries, the support for them hasnot been universal. This section investigateswhy. The third section assesses the progressmade by Asia-Pacific countries towards achiev-ing the MDGs since 1990; the baseline onwhich the goals are to be assessed. Specifically,it examines whether they are on track to achievethe goals given their current rate of progress,highlighting the MDGs that present the greatestchallenges and the individual countries that areat greatest risk of missing the developmenttargets. Issues of data accuracy and reliabilityare also discussed. The fourth section arguesthat some Asia-Pacific countries that will clearlybe unable to achieve the MDGs by 2015 shouldadopt tailored MDG targets that are still ambi-tious but are also realistic. This should maintainor increase the support for their achievement.The paper proceeds by discussing the role of

international assistance through internationaldevelopment aid and non-governmental organi-sations (NGOs) in the achievement of theMDGs in the fifth section. Finally, the lastsection concludes with some important impli-cations for the international donor community.

Critiques of the MDGs

Recent international pledges to increase foreignaid and lower barriers to trade provide some

evidence that the developed world hasembraced the achievement of the MDGs.However, the enthusiasm for their achievementis not universal. Criticisms include the goalsbeing both too ambitious and not ambitiousenough, being irrelevant to the Pacific region,masking reality by relying on averages, and pri-oritising quantitative indicators over qualitativeindicators. These criticisms are discussed inturn.

The MDGs are the starkest commitment yet

to reducing poverty made by the internationalcommunity. However, it is sometimes arguedth t t t h h l i ld t b

2015 are simply too ambitious or unrealisticand could potentially lead to successes beinglabelled as failures. Some countries might makeconsiderable progress towards the MDG targetsbut miss their achievement by 2015. This couldundermine the future support for aid in donors

and the stimulus for reform in recipients(Clemens et al., 2007). This paper recognisesthat this might be true for some countries in theAsia-Pacific. However, as argued in the fourthsection, the MDGs should be tailored in theseinstances rather then rejected.

Conversely, it is sometimes argued that theMDGs are not ambitious enough. Even if theMDGs are achieved by 2015 we will still beliving in a world with millions of people living inincome poverty and millions of children dyingprematurely. Further, it is sometimes assertedthat the MDGs are too narrow in focus and thatthere are a number of important aspects of well-being that are not included in the MDGs. Again,this should not be viewed as a reason to rejectthe achievement of the MDGs but rather usethem as valuable yardsticks for further develop-ment progress. The MDGs should not be seen asan end in themselves but as a way for bench-marking progress towards the eventual eradica-

tion of global poverty (UNESCAP, 2003).The relevance of the MDGs (especially theprimacy of poverty) is sometimes questionedfor the Pacific. Many Pacific countries preferthe term hardship to poverty. Social networksoften prevent hunger and outright destitution.Instead, the nature of poverty in the Pacific oftenrelates to a lack of access to basic services and alack of income-earning opportunities. It isalso sometimes argued that other developmentindicators are more relevant for the Pacific coun-

tries. Although HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis andmalaria all represent significant health concernsin the Pacific region, there has also been a rise innon-communicable or lifestyle diseases suchas diabetes and hypertension (ADB, 2003).Further, obesity rates and tobacco use areamong the highest in the world (SPC, 2004). Thisprovides further evidence of the need to tailorthe MDGs to individual country circumstances.

A more technical criticism is that some of theMDGs relate to averages that can mask inequal-

ity in development across and within countries.The goal of halving income poverty at a globall l i lik l t b hi d i th l ti l

Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the Asia-Pacific region


3/16

near future because of progress made by justtwo very large countries: China and India.However, there has been little change inincome poverty for many living in these coun-tries, particularly those living in some ruralareas largely untouched by their recent eco-

nomic booms. Moreover, many other countriesare likely to miss the achievement of this goal bya wide margin. The poor do not necessarily gainfrom average progress (Vandemoortele, 2002).Progress towards the MDGs is likely to be verydifferent for different social groups within acountry. For example, a reduction in childmortality does not necessarily mean that childmortality has been reduced for certain disad-vantaged groups. Reducing inequality betweendifferent groups within countries is likely toremain a significant development challengeafter 2015.

A further criticism of the MDGs is that theyrelate to quantitative rather than qualitativetargets. Some of the target indicators for the firstseven MDGs are measures focusing on theprovision of activities without any analysis ofthe quality of outcomes or access to services.For example, higher enrolments in schools andgreater access to health services might actually

be matched by deterioration in the quality ofeducation and health care. This issue is particu-larly relevant for Pacific countries where educa-tional standards are often said to be declining.It is important that donors and developing-country governments ensure, for example, thatchildren receive a valuable education withaccess to textbooks, classrooms and skilledteachers once they are enrolled at school.

Despite these criticisms, this paper arguesthat support for the MDGs should not be under-

mined. Rather than reject the MDGs, the criti-cisms outlined earlier relate to a number ofissues that need to be considered when strivingto achieve them. The existence of developmentgoals is important. The MDGs have alreadybeen successful in raising awareness of devel-opment issues and mobilising resources. Theyhave gained unprecedented support from gov-ernment and non-government bodies aroundthe world and virtually all aid donors have nowpledged to increase their aid. Moreover, inter-

national donors and governments have becomemore accountable for their performance at

d i t NGO d i il i t

monitor progress towards the goals, highlightingtheir failures and identifying areas needingmore resources.

Tracking progress towards the MDGs in

the Asia-Pacific regionIt is important to track the progress towardsachieving the MDGs in order to highlight thecountries and goals at greatest risk and to estab-lish priorities for the allocation of resources.Tracking progress towards the achievement ofthe MDGs in the Asia-Pacific region is ham-pered by the availability and reliability of rel-evant data. This is particularly true for Pacificcountries. Data in the Pacific are rarely col-lected and compiled in a timely and regularmanner, and using different sources of datamakes comparability difficult. Further, data forPacific countries are often not made widelyavailable.2

The data relating to many of the targets forthe baseline year of 1990 do not exist for manyPacific countries. Questions then arise as to howthe achievement of the MDGs will be assessedin 2015 for these countries. For example, givenno data relating for the number of people in

poverty in the baseline year 1990, it is impos-sible to assess whether such countries haveachieved the headline goal of halving the pro-portion of people living on less than $1 a daybetween 1990 and 2015. Moreover, Pacificcountries are characterised by high levels ofinequality. Ideally, data would be disaggregatedwithin countries to identify large regional differ-ences as well as differences across gender andethnic groupings. Unfortunately, such data arenot readily available and it is therefore very hard

to identify trends and monitor the developmentprogress that has been made in these countriesover recent years.

Tracking the progress towards the MDGs forAsia-Pacific countries is also complicated bysome countries having already tailored thetargets (while others are in the process of doingthis). The tables in succeeding discussions onlyprovide an indication of the progress made bycountries towards some of the original MDGtargets. However, the tables are useful in pro-

viding indications of which targets and coun-tries are progressing well and which are faring

l P i t k d f ll l d

S. Feeny and M. Clarke


4/16

middle-income countries in Eastern, Southernand South-East Asia and the low- and middle-income Pacific countries of Oceania.3 Resultsfrom the exercise are presented in Tables 1 and2. Further details are provided in the notes tothe tables.

Table 1 summarises the progress of Asiancountries towards the MDGs. It demonstratesthat while four countries are on track to achievethe MDGs Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand andVietnam there are five countries at severe riskof not achieving them: India, North Korea, Laos,Mongolia and Pakistan. There are insufficientdata to assess the progress made by Afghanistan,Bhutan and Timor-Leste. The other countries inAsia are classified as at risk of not achieving theMDGs. The MDG target most at risk of not beingachieved is that of universal primary education.While many Asian countries have high primaryschool enrolment rates, insufficient progress isbeing made to fulfil this target. Poor progress isalso being made towards the targets of reducinghunger and child and maternal mortality rates.

Table 2 highlights the poor availability ofdata for Pacific countries, which makes trackingprogress towards the MDGs for this region verydifficult. The Cook Islands, Kiribati, Micronesia

and Tokelau are countries that do not haveenough data to meaningfully evaluate theirprogress towards MDGs. Fiji, Niue, Tonga andVanuatu are classified as being on track toachieve the MDGs. Table 2 also indicates thatNauru and the Solomon Islands are at severerisk of not achieving the MDGs by 2015, withfive other Pacific countries classified as being atrisk of not achieving the MDGs. Far greaterprogress at reducing child and maternal mortal-ity and improving access to safe water is

required in the Pacific region. Overall, bothtables indicate that unless there are goodreasons to believe that a much faster progresswill be made towards MDGs in coming years,the majority of countries in the Asia-Pacific willfail to achieve them by 2015.

Tailoring the MDGs

The previous section indicates that some Asia-Pacific countries have little realistic hope of

achieving the MDGs by 2015. Many of thecountries that are at severe risk of not achievingth MDG f d t f il t t Th

governments of fragile states either lack thecommitment and/or the capacity to reach theMDGs. Therefore it is difficult (and not alwayssensible) to work towards achieving theMDGs as they are currently framed in thesecircumstances.

In Asia, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq, Laos,Myanmar, North Korea, and Timor-Leste areoften referred to as fragile and the same appliesto Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, theSolomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu in thePacific. Given the likelihood that these coun-tries will fail to achieve the MDGs by 2015, it isvery likely that the governments of these coun-tries, together with international aid donors, willbe heavily criticised for a lack of action even ifgood development progress has been made.This will further weaken the support for aid andany important reforms undertaken by develop-ing countries could be undermined outcomesthat must be avoided.

Therefore, in countries where it is clear thatthe MDGs cannot be met, the MDG targetsshould be tailored. This will lead to greateraction to achieve them. In tailoring the MDGtargets, it is important that the revised targets areambitious but realistic. If they are not ambitious,

they are unlikely to lead to necessary reforms ormobilise additional resources. If they are overlyambitious, they are unlikely to gain support.Revised targets should be devised by develop-ing countries and incorporated into their long-term development strategies.

A few countries in the Asia-Pacific have takenthis lead with UN backing. Papua New Guineahas tailored the goals, making some targets lessambitious but more realistic for the country toachieve by 2015. Conversely, Thailand has tai-

lored the goals to be more ambitious. Thailandstailored goals include reducing poverty to lessthan 4% by 2009 and achieving universal sec-ondary (as well as primary) education by 2015.Not only might the goals need to be tailored butadditional goals might need to be added. Cam-bodia, for example, has included a goal for zeroimpact from landmines.

The role of international assistance

The achievement of the MDGs rests primarilywith the governments of Asia-Pacific coun-t i It i th li i f d l i t



5/16

Table

1.

Progresstow

ardstheMDGsAsiancountries

Goal1

povertyandhunger

Goal2

education

Goa

l3

gen

der

Goal4

childhealth

Goal5

m

aternalhealth

Goal7

environment

Overallprogress

Target1

Targ

et2

Target3

Targets4

,5and6

Target5

Target6

Target10

fghanistan

Insufficientdata

anglade

sh

Atrisk

hutan

Insufficientdata

ambodi

a

Atrisk

hina

Atrisk

dia

Severerisk

donesia

Ontrack

an

Atrisk

oreaPD

R

Severerisk

aos

Severerisk

Malaysia

Ontrack

Maldives

Atrisk

Mongolia

Severerisk

Myanmar

Atrisk

epal

Atrisk

akistan

Severerisk

hilippines

Atrisk

riLanka

Atrisk

hailand

Ontrack

morLeste

Insufficientdata

ietnam

Ontrack

Ontrack

Off

track

InsufficientData

Notes:

Targetsaredefinedintheappendix.C

ountriesareclassifiedasontrackif

theircurrentrateofprogress(calcula

tedusingavailabledata)issufficient

toachievetheMDG

rgetifm

aintained.

ThefinalcolumnprovidesanindicationofcountriesoverallprogresstowardstheMDG

targets.

Ac

ountryisclassifiedasatriskofnotachievingtheMDGs

itisoff

tracktoachieveatleastone-thirdoftheMDG

targets(forwhichdataarea

vailable).Acountryisclassifiedasat

severeriskofnotachievingtheMD

Gsifitisofftrackto

chievea

tleasttwo-thirdsofthetargets(forwh

ichdataareavailable).Acountryisclassifiedashavinginsufficientdataifd

ataareavailableforlessthanthreeM

DG

targets.

Progress

owardsM

DG

3ofpromotinggenderequality

isassessedbyexaminingtheaverage

progresstowardsthreeMDG

targets

ofeliminatinggenderdisparityatprimary,secondaryand

rtiaryle

velsofeducation.

MDG,

M

illennium

DevelopmentGoal.



6/16

Table

2.

ProgresstowardstheMDGsPacificcountries

Goal1

povertyandhunger

Goal2

education

Goal3

gender

Goal4

childhealth

Goal5

maternalhealth

Goal7

environment

Overallprogress

Target1

Target2

Target3

Targets4,

5,

6

Target5

Target6

Target10

ookIsla

nds

Insufficientdata

ji

Ontrack

iribati

Insufficientdata

Marshall

Islands

Atrisk

Micrones

ia

Insufficientdata

auru

Severerisk

iue

Ontrack

alau

Atrisk

apuaNe

w

Guinea

Atrisk

amoa

Atrisk

olomon

Islands

Severerisk

okelau

Insufficientdata

onga

Ontrack

uvalu

Atrisk

anuatu

Ontrack

Ontrack

Offtrack

Insufficientdata

Notes:

Targetsaredefinedintheappendix.C

ountriesareclassifiedasontrackif

theircurrentrateofprogress(calcula

tedusingavailabledata)issufficient

toachievetheMDG

rgetifm

aintained.

ThefinalcolumnprovidesanindicationofcountriesoverallprogresstowardstheMDG

targets.

Ac

ountryisclassifiedasatriskofnotachievingtheMDGs

itisoff

tracktoachieveatleastone-thirdoftheMDG

targets(forwhichdataarea

vailable).Acountryisclassifiedasat

severeriskofnotachievingtheMD

Gsifitisofftrackto

chievea

tleasttwo-thirdsofthetargets(forwh

ichdataareavailable).Acountryisclassifiedashavinginsufficientdataifd

ataareavailableforlessthanthreeM

DG

targets.

Progress

owardsM

DG

3ofpromotinggenderequality

isassessedbyexaminingtheaverage

progresstowardsthreeMDG

targets

ofeliminatinggenderdisparityatprimary,secondaryand

rtiaryle

velsofeducation.

MDG,

M

illennium

DevelopmentGoal.



7/16

governments that largely dictate developmentand how and which people in developing coun-tries will benefit from interventions designed toimprove well-being. However, international aiddonors and NGOs can also play important rolesin the achievement of the MDGs.

Making policy recommendations for inter-national assistance that apply to the wholeAsia-Pacific region is difficult. The role of theinternational community in assisting with theachievement of the MDGs will differ markedlyin each country depending on its specific cir-cumstances. The SIDS of the Pacific require veryspecific attention. They are constrained by smalldomestic markets, volatile economic growthrates, a heavy dependence on imports, a vulner-ability to natural disasters and climate change,and often a lack of natural resources. Most are along distance from major international markets.Indeed, the eighth MDG includes a target toaddress the special needs of SIDS.

However, one common characteristic amongmany countries in the Asia-Pacific is a strongruralurban divide. Often the very poor arelocated in rural areas dependent upon agricul-ture for their livelihoods. This is true of theregions largest countries like China and India

as well as many of the Pacific islands. Therefore,to effectively assist with the achievement of theMDGs, rural areas should be the focus of theactivities of international aid donors and NGOs.

The role of foreign development aid

For some Asian countries, foreign aid flows frominternational donors represent a minor source ofdevelopment finance. Domestic revenues andprivate flows are far more important than

foreign aid. This is particularly true for theregions largest countries: China, India andIndonesia. Foreign aid will play only a veryminor role in progress towards the MDGs inthese countries. However, foreign aid remains avery important source of finance for many low-income developing countries.4

The governments of these countries do nothave the domestic resources to fund the inter-ventions necessary for MDG achievement andsome are unable to attract significant levels of

private capital. As the UN Millennium Projectasserts, The role of aid is therefore to push the

l t f th it l t k i f t t

human capital, public administration and soforth. . . . above the threshold needed for selfsustaining growth (UN, 2005: 50).

In concordance with MDG 8, to develop aglobal partnership for development, interna-tional donors have started scaling up their

foreign aid programmes in order to assist withthe achievement of the MDGs. Official Devel-opment Assistance (ODA) increased to a recordhigh of over US$106 billion in 2005 (beforedeclining slightly in 2006 to $103.9 billion).5

Further, given a number of recent pledges bycountries to increase aid, ODA from Develop-ment Assistance Committee (DAC) members isestimated to increase to US$130 billion in 2010(OECD, 2007). According to some estimates,this level of aid might be enough to achieve theMDGs, and it is close to the UN MillenniumProject estimate of US$135 billion by 2015required for the achievement of all the MDGs.6

However, not everyone believes that scalingup aid will assist in the achievement of theMDGs. Critics of foreign aid argue that foreignaid is wasted on unproductive activities, pre-vents necessary policy reform and lines thepockets of corrupt government officials. The aideffectiveness debate is almost entirely focused

on its impact on economic growth. This is un-fortunate. While economic growth will play acentral role in achieving the first MDG ofhalving income poverty, the empirical literatureprovides limited information regarding theimpact of aid on other MDG targets. Thissection briefly summarises the literature exam-ining the impact of aid on economic growthbefore examining ways in which foreign aid canassist with progress towards the MDGs otherthan through its impact on economic growth. It

also argues that donors must increase thequality as well as the quantity of their foreignaid to assist with the achievement of the MDGs.

The impact of foreign aid on economicgrowth Foreign aid is expected to spur eco-nomic growth by funding investment or increas-ing productivity. Infrastructure such as roads,ports, and airports will increase the flow ofgoods and services and spur income-earningopportunities. Foreign aid in the form of appro-

priate policy advice can also help recipientgovernments create a domestic environment

d i t th i t t d f i



8/16

investment that will raise employment. Whileearly studies often failed to uncover a relation-ship (either positive or negative) between aidand economic growth, the vast majority ofnumerous recently published studies have pro-duced results consistent with the notion that on

average, economic growth would be lower inthe absence of foreign aid (see McGillivrayet al., 2006 for an extensive review of the recentliterature). So while foreign aid is likely tohave failed to have its desired impacts in somecircumstances and much can be done toimprove its effectiveness there is a large andincreasing body of work that suggests that onaverage, aid works.

However, foreign aid is sometimes found towork better in some countries or environmentsthan in others. Most notably, some studies havefound that it works best in recipients with goodmacroeconomic policies (Burnside and Dollar,2000; Collier and Hoeffler, 2004). Otherresearchers find that aid works best in politicallystable countries (Chauvet and Guillaumont,2002), more democratic countries (Svensson,1999) and countries outside the tropics (Dal-gaard et al., 2004). Aid is also found to be effec-tive at mitigating the impacts of trade shocks

and natural disasters (Collier and Dehn, 2001;Guillaumont and Chauvet, 2001).7

Although the empirical finding that aid worksbest in countries with better macroeconomicpolicies and levels of governance has beenshown to be empirically weak (Dalgaard andHansen, 2001; Hansen and Tarp, 2001), there isstill a strong belief in the policy community thataid effectiveness is higher in such environments.Consequently, some donors have adopted poli-cies of selectivity whereby more aid is provided

to countries with perceived better policies andlevels of governance.8 Unfortunately, countrieswith better governance are often those thatneed less aid. If strict policies of selectivity arepursued by the international community, far lesswill go to poorly governed countries, which arein far greater need of assistance. This is particu-larly important given that many Asia-Pacificcountries are characterised by poor levels ofgovernance. Aid donors need to find appropri-ate levels in poorly governed countries and find

appropriate ways of providing aid in these set-tings.9 Donors can also seek to improve gover-

i i i t t i th h it

building in recipient public sectors, improvingfinancial and economic management, strength-ening the legal and judiciary system, improvinghuman rights and democracy, and strengtheningcivil society.

Another important finding from many aid-

effectiveness studies is that foreign aid is effec-tive at spurring economic growth up to a certainthreshold of aid. Past this threshold, its impactdiminishes or becomes smaller. An explanationis that there are likely to be limits to the amountsof foreign-aid inflows that an economy can effi-ciently absorb. This has important implicationsfor the scaling up of foreign aid. Estimates of thelevel of aid at which its incremental impact onrecipient country growth diminishes vary, butit typically seems that this occurs at around20% of recipient GDP or higher (Feeny andMcGillivray, 2006).

The impact of foreign aid on human well-being Importantly, foreign aid can helpachieve other MDG targets in numerous waysother than through increasing the rate ofeconomic growth in recipient countries. Forexample, assistance for rural development andraising agricultural productivity will increase

food security and reduce hunger. To achieveuniversal primary education, donors shouldhelp fund the construction of schools and theinfrastructure required for people to have accessto schools. They can also assist with the provi-sion of school materials, the development ofschool curriculum and the training of schoolteachers. By helping to fund the educationsector, donors can assist with the elimination ofschool fees, which is likely to be very importantin getting children to school in many Asia-

Pacific countries. Achieving universal primaryeducation will assist with eliminating genderinequality in Asia-Pacific countries. In manycountries there are large disparities between thesexes. Donors should also target projects thatimprove the economic participation of womenand which are likely to improve their health andeducation status.

Foreign aid has a proven track record inproviding important improvements in health.Levine and the What Works Working Group

(2004) demonstrate that foreign aid played animportant role in the eradication of smallpox,

t lli t b l i i Chi li i ti



9/16

polio in the Americas, reducing maternalmortality rates in Sri Lanka, controlling riverblindness in Africa, preventing infant deathsfrom diarrheal disease in Egypt through oralrehydration programmes, controlling trachomain Morocco, reducing guinea worm disease in

Africa and Asia, and eliminating measles insouthern Africa.

To achieve the health-related goals of reduc-ing child and maternal mortality rates and com-bating HIV/AIDS and other major diseases,donors should assist with the construction ofhospitals and medical centres, undertakevaccination and immunisation programmes,and promote health awareness and healtheducation. Further foreign aid can contribute tothe MDGs by funding HIV/AIDS preventionprogrammes. Donor-funded HIV/AIDS pro-grammes have had notable success in Thailandand Cambodia.

To assist with the goal of environmental sus-tainability, donors should assist recipient coun-tries with the management and sustainable useof their natural resources. This is particularlyimportant in the Asia-Pacific because a largeproportion of the populations of these countriesrely on agriculture, forestry and fishing for their

livelihoods. Interventions in certain sectors willassist in the achievement of more than oneMDG. Improvements in education are likely toimprove health, for example, and improvementsin health are likely to lead to higher incomes.Furthermore, by assisting countries to provideclean water and improved sanitation donorswill not only help achieve MDG targets associ-ated with Goal 7, but will help lead to improve-ments in health.

Aid delivery and the quality of aid In additionto increasing the quantity of foreign aid,increases in its quality will also be required.Many Asia-Pacific countries are host to a largenumber of international aid donors that workacross a range of sectors implementing numer-ous different projects. This leads to high trans-action costs of aid. Recipient governmentshave to deal with numerous donor meetings,participate in discussions of project proposals,implementation and project evaluations.

Donors are increasingly using programme-based approaches to aid delivery to reduce thet ti t f id P id l t

to funding to support a particular sector such aseducation or health and is not tied to specificprojects. However, the success of programmeaid largely relies on strong leadership and gov-ernance in recipient countries. To improve thequality of their aid, international donors should

also adhere to the principles of the Paris Decla-ration on Aid Effectiveness.10

The role of NGOs

Over 85% of NGOs are involved in activitiesthat are aimed at promoting or achieving theMDGs (Foster and Wells, 2004). To achieve theMDGs, development interventions must occurat different levels (see Fig. 1). Improvements in

the lives of the poor can be effective at thecommunity (micro) level, at the regional orprovince level (meso), at the national level(macro), or at the international level (supra-macro). Interventions may include both pro-gramming and advocacy activities. NGOs havethe greatest capacity to impact on achievementof MDGs through programming at the microand meso levels and through advocacy at themacro and supramacro levels.

Interventions at the community or grass

roots levels are called micro-interventions andaccount for a significant proportion of NGOactivities. Such interventions would include arange of activities such as the provision of edu-cation services, care and support for those withHIV or malaria, supplementary feeding pro-grammes, agricultural extension programmes,or microfinance schemes. At the micro level,activities will be specifically focused on particu-lar target groups. Key stakeholders will include,

for example, local leaders, youth representa-tives, religious leaders, and local governmentofficials. These stakeholders are likely to beinvolved in decision making and programmemanagement. Working closely with recipients,NGOs can assist in achieving many of theMDGs directly with those in greatest need.

NGO interventions at the regional or provin-cial level are meso-interventions. At this point,

Micro SupramacroMacroMeso

Figure 1. Continuum of development interventionsb



10/16

NGOs are often given the responsibility toaddress state or market failure in order to delivercertain services to entire communities or certaincohorts within those communities. NGOs areseen to have a greater ability to access thesecommunities and the flexibility to deliver ser-

vices to communities that are often excluded bymainstream delivery mechanisms. Such servicesmay include the provision of health care,HIV/AIDS awareness, education, or agriculturalextension services. As with micro-interventions,meso-interventions still directly address theneeds of community members and may alsoinclude key stakeholders within the planningand management process. However, thebreadth and scope of these projects requires ahigher level of oversight and control. NGOsundertaking meso-interventions may subcon-tract some programming activities to a numberof smaller community-based NGOs.

Interventions at the national level are macro-interventions. At the macro-level NGOs aremore likely to be focusing on influencing gov-ernment policy around certain developmentissues rather than actually delivering actualgoods and services. NGOs, either workingindependently, but more commonly working

together, will identify certain needs affecting thewider nation and seek to pressure the nationalgovernment to address these needs in a moreeffective manner. An important role of NGOsoperating at the macro level is to monitorprogress against the MDGs and hold thenational government accountable for theirachievement. For example, NGOs may seekadditional funds to support better education andtraining outcomes, or they might identify certaingroups within a country lacking access to social

services. They might also try and improve thelevel of governance by focusing on increasingparticipation in the political process by callingon national governments to allow greater free-doms in various public spheres. At this level,NGOs should also play an important role inconsultations with government regarding anytailoring of the MDGs to specific country cir-cumstances and lobby governments on the pri-orities to be addressed in national developmentstrategies.

Cross-border interventions also occur andare called supramacro interventions. Rarely do

h i t ti i l NGO ki

directly with communities. Rather, these areinterventions aimed at changing policy orincreasing financial support for needs that affectmore than a single nation. The most effectiveexamples of NGOs undertaking supramacrointerventions involve a number of NGOs acting

in concert. Because of the coordination andsophisticated requirements of undertaking thesetransnational interventions, local communitiesare often used to illustrate need and less so asdrivers of these campaigns. At the supramacrolevel, coalitions of NGOs will play an importantrole in raising global awareness of the MDGsand making sure they are on the agenda ofhigh-level international conferences andsummits.

NGOs may find themselves undertakingactivities at different levels of interventionsalong this continuum simultaneously (seeKorten, 1990; De Senillosa, 1998, typologies ofNGOs). While they may be participating as oneof a consortium of NGOs pressuring the inter-national community to provide additional aidor debt relief, they may also be implementingsupplementary feeding programmes at thevillage level. The roles undertaken by NGOswill depend on the values that underpin their

existence and the expertise and experience theyhave. While some NGOs will prefer to focuson programming interventions, others may seegreater impact through advocacy, while manywill see programming and advocacy activitiesas complementary and equally necessary toachieve the MDGs.

NGO programming and the MDGs Initiatingdevelopment programmes has been the mainactivity undertaken by NGOs since their incep-

tion. NGOs predominately work at the grassroots level, focusing on community develop-ment interventions. NGOs have a reputation fordelivering services more efficiently than govern-ment providers. They are also effective at reach-ing the poor, which is vital for the achievementof the MDGs (Masud and Yontcheva, 2005). Thefocus of NGOs on improving health, education,economic security and gender equality are allvery much in concordance with the MDGs(Hunt, 2004). Implementing development inter-

ventions is most effective when NGOs are ableto work closely with the targeted community.Th f th NGO ( i l ti



11/16

agency for that matter) moves away from thoseit is seeking to serve, the less effective theintervention will be. NGOs are therefore moreeffective in implementing programming inter-ventions at the micro and meso levels (Fig. 2).

Within the micro and meso levels, NGOs areworking directly with targeted communities.Within this proximity they are best able toprovide services to those in real need but alsodiscern changing needs over time. As NGOsmove away from direct beneficiaries and begin

to work at the macro-level (or beyond) they losethat intimacy with the communities and face thesame difficulties faced by government organisa-tions around the blindness of bureaucracy anddeceit of distance. Changing circumstancesoccur unseen and greater numbers of those inneed fail to be reached.

NGO advocacy and the MDGs NGOs canalso play an important role through advocacy

and placing constant pressure at both thenational and international level to place moreresources in the areas that will enhance theachievement of the MDGs (Micklewright andWright, 2004; Prasad and Snell, 2004). NGOshave now begun to increase their advocacyinterventions to achieve this end (see Hudson,2000; Chapman and Wameyo, 2001; Clark,2003). Advocacy is a particularly importantintervention in terms of achieving the MDGs(Foster and Wells, 2004). Advocacy pro-

grammes are more effective when taken atthe macro or supramacro levels as they aremost effective when they directly address thoseresponsible for the policy environment. Fordevelopment issues, this is generally at thenational level or international level. While it isnecessary at times for local communities tolobby and seek support from local authorities toaddress more grass roots concerns, the impactin terms of direct beneficiaries of these advo-cacy efforts will be quite limited (Fig. 3).

Seeking to effect change requires certain skillsand knowledge. It is more likely that NGOs will

d t k ti l i d t d t

at the macro and supramacro levels to achievepositive outcomes (Chapman and Fisher, 2000;Collins et al., 2001). Within developing coun-tries, the major impediment in achieving posi-tive change in favour of the poor is that it oftenchallenges the status quo, and this inevitably (atleast in the short term) threatens the position ofthe dominant elite. This elite wields significantpolitical power. Advocacy requires gainingaccess to those in decision-making positions butalso raising public awareness and public support

in order to shift the balance of power. In thisregard, advocacy requires both internal (private)and external (public) pressure. Smaller NGOsare unlikely to be able to effectively achieve this.Nor is it likely that a single larger internationalNGO (INGO) will be able to achieve this either.Rather coalitions, such as seen recently advocat-ing for debt relief through the Jubilee 2000and Make Poverty History campaigns, are ableto gain public support and gain private access tokey stakeholders at the national and interna-

tional levels (see Edwards and Gaventa, 2001;Grenier, 2003). The cost to NGOs of workingtogether is the loss of direct connection with thecommunities for whom they are advocating. Sowhile the Live 8 concerts were taking place aspart of the Make Poverty History campaigns in2006, there was very little evidence of partici-pation and ownership of these campaign eventsby poor community members. This is not to saythat local grass roots NGOs are not included,but the direct representation of communitymembers is weakened as the advocacy cam-paign grows.

Conclusion and policy implications

This paper has provided an overview of theissues regarding the achievement of the MDGsin the Asia-Pacific. It discussed the critiques ofthe MDGs but argues that none of these cri-tiques provides sufficient reason not to embrace

the MDGs. An examination into whether Asia-Pacific countries are on track to achieve theMDG i di t th t t t t f

Micro Meso Macro Supramacro

Figure 2. The effectiveness of NGO programminginterventions

Micro Meso Macro Supramacro

Figure 3. The effectiveness of NGO advocacyinterventions



12/16

most countries in the region will not achievethe goals by 2015. An important policy recom-mendation arising from the research is that forcountries for which the MDGs are clearly unat-tainable, the targets should be tailored. Anyrevised targets must be ambitious but realistic.

Tailoring the targets will ensure that any devel-opment successes are not turned into failuresand should lead to far greater domestic andinternational action to achieve them.

While recognising that the achievement ofthe MDGs rests largely with developing-countrygovernments, the paper highlighted a number ofimportant roles for international developmentaid and NGOs. To varying degrees, donors andNGOs need to change the focus of their activi-ties and the way they operate to assist with theachievement of the goals. In particular, bothinternational aid donors and NGOs need tofocus their efforts on the poorest parts of Asia-Pacific countries, often located in rural areas.There is a large and sometimes growing dispar-ity between rural and urban areas in manycountries in the region and people in isolatedrural communities that are often difficult toreach. However, countries cannot achievegoals such as universal primary education until

schools are accessible for everyone.The paper has also highlighted a serious lackof appropriate data with which to monitorprogress towards the MDGs in the region, par-ticularly for Pacific countries. Far greater assis-tance needs to be provided to some countriesfor the collection and analysis of accurateand reliable statistics. The need for regularlyupdated, publicly available, accurate datacannot be overstated. It will assist both interna-tional donors and NGOs with their activities.

The absence of reliable and widely accessibledata makes it very difficult for NGOs and civilsociety to hold governments accountable fortheir actions. It also makes it difficult to identifythe geographic areas and groups of the popu-lation in most need. Further, better data andstatistics will lead to evidence-based policymaking and more effective aid.

Notes

1 This paper is the result of work being undertaken aspart of a research project entitled Achieving theMillennium Development Goals: The Role of Aid

Trade and NGOs with a Focus on the Asia-Pacific(LP0562486). The project is generously supported bythe Australian Research Council and World Vision ofAustralia. The views expressed in this paper are thoseof the authors and not necessarily those of the fundingorganisations.

2 For the analysis of progress towards the achievement of

the MDG is the Asia-Pacific region, this paper utilisesthe Millennium Development Goal Indicators Data-base from the UN (UNSTATS, 2006).

3 Progress towards eight MDG targets relating to the firstfive MDGs and a further MDG target relating to goalseven is examined. Progress towards the MDG of com-bating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases is notassessed as data are only available for recent years.Goal 8 calls for a global partnership for developmentand includes a further seven targets. However, progresstowards this goal and is subjective and is not examinedin this paper.

4 These countries include Afghanistan, Bangladesh,

Cambodia, India, Laos, Mongolia, North Korea, Nepal,Pakistan, Vietnam and Timor-Leste in Asia and PapuaNew Guinea, and the Solomon Islands in the Pacific.

5 ODA is the most commonly used measure of foreignaid. It is defined by the DAC of the OECD. To qualify asODA, flows to developing countries must consist ofgrants or loans that are: (i) undertaken by the officialsector; (ii) with promotion of economic developmentand welfare as the main objective; and (iii) loans mustbe provided at concessional financial terms (with inter-est rates below market rates). In addition to financialflows, technical cooperation is included in aid. Assis-tance for military purposes is excluded (OECD, 2007).

6 The Zedillo et al. (2001) report estimated that an extraUS$50 billion per year of foreign aid would berequired to achieve the MDGs (in comparison to 2001levels, which were US$54.3 billion in current dollars),while Devarajan et al. (2002) estimated that annual aidflows would need to increase by US$5462 billion inorder to achieve the goals. However, these estimatesdepend upon policies improving in recipient countriesand are likely to be underestimates. Moreover, theselevels are below the ODA to Gross National Incometarget of 0.7% for international donor countries. Thislevel of aid has been a long-standing developmenttarget, originally committed to back in 1970. Govern-

ments reasserted their commitment to this target at theInternational Conference on Financing for Develop-ment held in Monterrey, Mexico, 2002.

7 The finding that aid spurs growth is confirmed bystudies examining foreign aid effectiveness in Pacificcountries. This implies that the poor growth records ofmany of these countries cannot be attributed to foreignaid (see Gounder, 2001 for the case of Fiji; Gounder,2002 for the case of the Solomon Islands; Feeny, 2007for Melanesian countries; and Sugden and Pavlov,2005 for a number of Pacific countries).

8 Such a policy is exemplified by the USAs MillenniumChallenge Account development fund, created in2004 whereby eligible low-income countries are ratedaccording to a number of criteria relating to governingjustly investing in people and promoting economic



13/16

freedom. The rationale for the policy is that thesecriteria are essential conditions for development.

9 Radelet (2004) argues that donors should provide mostof their support in the form of long-term commitmentsfor budget support or programme aid to central gov-ernment in well-governed countries. However, smallershort-term projects delivered through NGOs are more

appropriate in poorly governed countries.10 The Paris Declaration is an international agreement to

improve the quality of foreign aid. It was signed inMarch 2005 by over 100 government ministers andheads of agencies. The declaration commits countriesand organisations to continue increasing efforts inimproving key areas based around five principles: (i)ownership; (ii) alignment; (iii) harmonisation; (iv) man-aging aid for results; and (v) mutual accountability(OECD, 2005).

References

Asia Development Bank (ADB) (2003) Millennium develop-ment goals in the Pacific: Relevance and progress.Manila: Asian Development Bank.

Burnside, C. and D. Dollar (2000) Aid, policies and growth,American Economic Review90(4): 847868.

Chapman, J. and T. Fisher (2000) The effectiveness of NGOcampaigning: Lessons from practice, Development inPractice 10(2): 151165.

Chapman, J. and A. Wameyo (2001) Monitoring and evalu-ating advocacy. London: Action Aid.

Chauvet, L. and P. Guillaumont (2002) Aid and growthrevisited: Policy, economic vulnerability and political

instability. Paper presented at the Annual BankConference on Development Economics, ABCDE-Europe, Towards Pro-Poor Policies, Oslo, 2426 June2002.

Clark, J. (ed.) (2003) Globalizing civic engagement: Civilsociety and transnational action. London: Earthscan.

Clemens, M., C. Kenny and T. Moss (2007) The troublewith the MDGs: Confronting expectations of aid anddevelopment success, World Development 35(5):735751.

Collier, P. and J. Dehn (2001) Aid, shocks, and growth,World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 2688.Washington, District of Columbia: World Bank.

Collier, P. and A. Hoeffler (2004) Aid, policy, and growth inpost-conflict societies, European Economic Review48(5): 11251145.

Collins, C., Z. Garoyo and T. Burdon (2001) Jubilee 2000:Citizen action across the north south divide, in M.Edwards and J. Gaventa (eds.), Global citizen action,pp. 135148. London: Earthscan.

Dalgaard, C-J. and H. Hansen (2001) On aid, growth andgood policies, Journal of Development Studies 37(6):1735.

Dalgaard, C-J., H. Hansen and F. Tarp (2004) On theempirics of foreign aid and growth, Economic Journal114(496): 191216.

De Senillosa, I. (1998) A new age of social movements: Afifth generation of non-governmental organisations inthe making Development in Practice 8(1): 40 52

Devarajan, S., M. Miller and E. Swanson (2002) Goals fordevelopment: History, prospects and costs. WorldBank Policy Research Paper No.2819. Washington:World Bank.

Edwards, M. and J. Gaventa (eds.) (2001) Global citizenaction. London: Earthscan.

Feeny, S. (2007) Impacts of Foreign Aid to Melanesia,

Journal of the Asia-Pacific Economy 12(1): 3460.Feeny, S. and M. McGillivray (2006) Scaling-up foreign aid:

Absorptive capacity, growth and poverty reductionconsiderations. Paper Presented at the UN-WIDERConference on Aid: Principles, Policies, and Perfor-mance, World Institute of Development EconomicsResearch, Helsinki, June 2006.

Foster, J. and P. Wells (2004) We the peoples: A call toaction for the UN Millennium Project. Ottawa,Canada: North-South Institute and World Federationof United Nations Associations.

Gounder, R. (2001) Aid-growth nexus: Empirical evidencefrom Fiji, Applied Economics 33(8): 10091019.

Gounder, R. (2002) Empirical evidence of the relationshipbetween foreign aid and economic growth: The caseof the Solomon Islands, in B.M. Arvin (ed.), New per-spectives on foreign aid and economic development,pp. 141169. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

Grenier, P. (2003) Jubilee 2000: Laying the foundation for asocial movement, in J. Clark (ed.), Globalizing civicengagement: Civil society and transnational action,pp. 86108. London, Earthscan.

Guillaumont, P. and L. Chauvet (2001) Aid and perfor-mance: A reassessment, Journal of DevelopmentStudies 37(6): 6687.

Hansen, H. and F. Tarp (2001) Aid and growth regressions,

Journal of Development Economics 64(2): 547570.

Hudson, A. (2000) Linking the levels: The organisation of UKdevelopment NGOs advocacy, Research report forDfID. Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Hunt, J. (2004) Aid and development, in D. Kingsbury,J. Remenyi, J. McKay and J. Hunt (eds.), Key issues indevelopment, pp. 6790. New York: Palgrave.

Korten, D. (1990) Getting to the 21st century: Voluntaryaction and the global agenda. Bloomfield, Connecti-cut: Kumarian Press.

Levine, R. and the What Works Working Group (2004)Millions saved, proven successes in global health.

Washington, District of Columbia: Center for GlobalDevelopment.

McGillivray, M., S. Feeny, N. Hermes and R. Lensink (2006)It works; no it doesnt; well, it can, but thatdepends . . . : 50 years of controversy over the macro-economic impact of development aid, Journal ofInternational Development 18: 10311050.

Masud, N. and B. Yontcheva (2005) Does foreign aid reducepoverty? Empirical evidence from nongovernmentaland bilateral aid, IMF Working Paper WP/05/100.Washington, District of Columbia: International Mon-etary Fund.

Micklewright, J. and A. Wright (2004) Private donations forinternational development, in A. Atkinson (ed.), Newsources of development finance, pp. 132155. Oxford:Oxford University Press



14/16

OECD (2005) The Paris declaration on aid effectiveness.Paris: OECD.

OECD (2007) DAC development cooperation report 2006.Paris: OECD.

Prasad, S. and D. Snell (2004) The survival of justice: SouthPacific trade unions and NGOs during a decade of lostdevelopment, Development in Practice 14(12): 267

279.Radelet, S. (2004) Aid effectiveness and the millennium

development goals, Center for Global DevelopmentWorking Paper Number 39. Washington, District ofColumbia: Center for Global Development.

Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) (2004) PacificIslands Regional Millennium Development GoalsReport 2004. Prepared in cooperation with the UnitedNations and the UN/CROP MDG Working Group.Noumea, New Caledonia: SPC.

Sugden, C. and V. Pavlov (2005) Foreign aid and growth inthe Pacific Islands, Focus Economics Working PaperNumber 9. Brisbane: Focus Economics.

Svensson, J. (1999) Aid, growth and democracy, Economicsand Politics 11(3): 275297.

United Nations (UN) (2005) Investing in development: Apractical plan to achieve the millennium developmentgoals. London: Earthscan.

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asiaand the Pacific (UNESCAP) (2003) Promoting the Mil-lennium Development Goals in Asia and the Pacific:Meeting the challenges of poverty reduction. NewYork: United Nations.

UNSTATS (2006) United Nations Millennium IndicatorsDatabase. Retrieved 4 January 2006, from Website:http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Default.aspx

Vandemoortele, J. (2002) Are the MDGs feasible? New York:UNDP.

Zedillo, E. et al. (2001) Recommendations of the high-levelpanel on financing for development. UN GeneralAssembly Document A/55/1000. New York: UnitedNations.

Appendix

The Millennium Development Goalsand Targets

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hungerTarget 1: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, theproportion of people whose income is less than$1 a day

Target 2: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, theproportion of people who suffer from hunger

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education

Target 3: Ensure that, by 2015, children every-where, boys and girls alike, will be able tocomplete a full course of primary schooling

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empowerwomenTarget 4: Eliminate gender disparity in primaryand secondary education preferably by 2005and in all levels of education no later than2015

Goal 4: Reduce child mortalityTarget 5: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990and 2015, the under-five mortality rate

Goal 5: Improve maternal healthTarget 6: Reduce by three-quarters, between1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and otherdiseasesTarget 7: Have halted by 2015 and begun to

reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS

Target 8: Have halted by 2015 and begun toreverse the incidence of malaria and othermajor diseases

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainabilityTarget 9: Integrate the principles of sustain-able development into country policies andprogram and reverse the loss of environmentalresources

Target 10: Halve, by 2015, the proportion ofpeople without sustainable access to safe drink-ing water and basic sanitation

Target 11: Have achieved, by 2020, a significantimprovement in the lives of at least 100 millionslum dwellers

Goal 8: Develop a global partnership fordevelopmentTarget 12: Develop further an open, rule-based,predictable, non-discriminatory trading and

financial system (includes a commitment togood governance, development, and povertyreductionboth nationally and internationally)Some of the indicators listed below will bemonitored separately for the least developedcountries, Africa, landlocked countries, andsmall island developing states.

Target 13: Address the special needs of the leastdeveloped countries (includes tariff and quota-free access for exports enhanced program of

debt relief for HIPC and cancellation of officialbilateral debt, and more generous ODA forcountries committed to poverty reduction)

http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Default.aspxhttp://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Default.aspx


15/16

Target 14: Address the special needs of land-locked countries and small island developingstates (through the Program of Action for theSustainable Development of Small IslandDeveloping States and 22nd General Assemblyprovisions)

Target 15: Deal comprehensively with the debtproblems of developing countries throughnational and international measures in order tomake debt sustainable in the long term

Target 16: In cooperation with developingcountries, develop and implement strategies fordecent and productive work for youth

Target 17: In cooperation with pharmaceuticalcompanies, provide access to affordable, essen-

tial drugs in developing countriesTarget 18: In cooperation with the private sector,make available the benefits of new technologies,especially information and communications

Source: UN (2005)



16/16

achieving the millennium developmeny goals in the asia-pacific region - the role of international...

Documents