Prises de position

Cette document est disponible seulement en anglais.

We've got it good

If you think Canada's UN quality-of-life ranking is something to worry about, take a look at Malawi, says STEVE MASON

Printed in the Globe and Mail, July 9 2003.

By now, most everyone has heard the news: Canada has slipped from third to eighth place in the United Nations' quality-of-life index, the ranking which, for many years, bestowed upon our country the No. 1 spot. Our drop in the Human Development Report's annual ranking certainly makes for good water-cooler conversation and catchy newspaper headlines -- but that's about all the attention it deserves.

While the rankings will no doubt generate much debate and discussion among policy-makers, journalists and citizens over "what went wrong," the rest of the 2003 report deals with more critical issues that could better occupy our energies. By addressing these issues, our government and citizens can make meaningful contributions to ending human poverty.

But first, what did go wrong? How did we end up in eighth place in 2003 when only three years ago we were still riding high at No. 1? The first thing to note is that the three broad indices used to calculate the rankings -- life expectancy, education, and gross domestic product per person -- do not reflect a nuanced view of the situation in a given country. Precisely because they are crude statistics, they are easily obtainable from the majority of the world's countries. Thus, while they give a fairly comprehensive overview of where countries fit into the global scale of human development, they do a poor job of distinguishing between one country and its neighbours in the ranking.

There is very little difference, for example, between Canada and the other countries in the top 20. To three decimal points, we have the same index value as the two countries ahead of us: Belgium and the United States. The index only becomes meaningful when one takes a step back and sees the shockingly vast disparities between countries with high rankings and those with low ones. Life expectancy in Canada is 79.2 years; in Malawi, which is ranked 162nd, it's half that: 38.5 years.

In fact, Canada has not really "dropped" at all. Our lower ranking in 2003 is due primarily to statistical differences in how educational enrollment is calculated. It is these statistical discrepancies that make it impossible to compare rankings between one edition of the report and the next. The real message for Canada is that our human development value is increasing, and has been doing so since the index was first published in 1975. Life expectancy, education, and GDP per person have all been steadily improving in Canada.

We can debate the methodology used, and factors considered in calculating the rankings, but this overlooks the fact that the index isn't intended to be used as a bragging tool by countries such as Canada, but rather as an instrument to assess where development needs are greatest. If Canada is to concern itself with any one specific element of its domestic performance, it should look carefully at the report's Human Poverty Index. This index was introduced in recent years to give a clearer indication of how wealth is distributed within countries, and Canada has consistently ranked low among its peers. This year, we rank 12th out of the 17 countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development due to relatively high percentages of adults lacking functional literacy skills and people living below the poverty line.

But the issue that should be of real concern to all Canadians is the one that is the focus of the 2003 report: the Millennium Development Goals. These eight goals, agreed upon at a historic gathering of world leaders at the UN in 2000, are as straightforward as they are ambitious. Setting 2015 as a deadline, they commit all countries to the following: Halving the number of poor and hungry; achieving universal primary education; eliminating gender disparities; reducing by two-thirds child mortality rates and by three-quarters the maternal mortality rate; halting and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other major diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability by reversing the loss of natural resources; halving the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water and improving access to sanitation.

These goals are unique not only because of high-level political buy-in, but also because they are measurable, time-bound, interconnected, and provide a unique tool through which governments can be held accountable to their commitments. The verdict in the 2003 Human Development Report is that the world is not on track to achieve these goals by 2015. At the current rate, for example, it will take 130 years to reach the first goal of halving poverty and hunger. Some countries are actually regressing, and the goals are becoming less achievable.

If they are to be achieved, countries like Canada will need to meaningfully address the eighth and final goal, which calls for a global partnership between rich and poor countries as a critical factor in achieving the seven others. This goal is based on the understanding that poverty is a global problem and the world's poor are of concern to all nations, rich and poor alike.

Unlike the other seven goals, though, there were no specific targets set for the achievement of this goal. And while the United Nations Development Program and other entities are actively monitoring progress on the goals in developing countries, no similar monitoring regime exists in rich countries.

In order to ensure that Canada is living up to its commitments under the Millennium Declaration, it is up to individual Canadians and civil society groups to call on our government to set measurable and achievable targets for the eighth goal -- and then hold it accountable for meeting those targets.

There are at least four areas in which Canadians can ask our government for time-bound targets which can be monitored: the reduction of unsustainable debts owed to us by the least developed countries; the dismantling of unfair trade subsidies and tariffs that make it considerably harder for those in poor countries to enter the global market; the continued increase of official development assistance and the creation of better access to technological progress in poor countries.

Poverty, disease, and environmental degradation are not problems that respect national borders. For Canada to commit to a well-defined action plan to contribute meaningfully to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals is not a question of charity. It is a matter of national interest far more compelling than whether our human development ranking is first, third or eighth.

Steve Mason is Executive Director of the United Nations Association in Canada.