Critical Review of the Millennium Project in Nepal

“Our Common Future” harmonized development policies around a new sustainable development (SD) paradigm, and experts also emphasize the importance of a democratic and equitable approach to define and achieve sustainable development. However, SD targets and indicators are often defined by a suite of e...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ashma Vaidya, Audrey L. Mayer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2016-10-01
Series:Sustainability
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/10/1043
id doaj-848bd42c670d4c55a8531263696231b3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-848bd42c670d4c55a8531263696231b32020-11-25T00:54:07ZengMDPI AGSustainability2071-10502016-10-01810104310.3390/su8101043su8101043Critical Review of the Millennium Project in NepalAshma Vaidya0Audrey L. Mayer1Department of Social Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USADepartment of Social Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA“Our Common Future” harmonized development policies around a new sustainable development (SD) paradigm, and experts also emphasize the importance of a democratic and equitable approach to define and achieve sustainable development. However, SD targets and indicators are often defined by a suite of experts or a few stakeholder groups, far removed from on-the-ground conditions. The most common expert-led development framework, the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), promoted one set of targets and indicators for all developing countries. While progress towards these targets was routinely reported at the national scale, these targets may not reflect context-specific sustainable development. We evaluated the relevance and comprehensiveness of MDG 7 (environmental sustainability) for Nepal. Although Nepal has met most of the MDG 7 (e.g., forest cover, protected areas coverage, water and sanitation), on closer inspection these indicators do not provide adequate context for ensuring that these targets provide the intended levels of development. Simple forest cover and protected area indicators belie the dearth of ecological conservation on the ground, and water and sanitation indicators do not reflect the inequality of access based on poverty and regions. While the Millennium Development Goals align with broad sustainability concerns in Nepal, these indicators do not reveal its true development conditions.http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/10/1043sustainability assessmentNepalMillennium Development Goalsindicatorsdeforestationwater supplysanitationsustainable developmentenergy efficiencycarbon emissions
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ashma Vaidya
Audrey L. Mayer
spellingShingle Ashma Vaidya
Audrey L. Mayer
Critical Review of the Millennium Project in Nepal
Sustainability
sustainability assessment
Nepal
Millennium Development Goals
indicators
deforestation
water supply
sanitation
sustainable development
energy efficiency
carbon emissions
author_facet Ashma Vaidya
Audrey L. Mayer
author_sort Ashma Vaidya
title Critical Review of the Millennium Project in Nepal
title_short Critical Review of the Millennium Project in Nepal
title_full Critical Review of the Millennium Project in Nepal
title_fullStr Critical Review of the Millennium Project in Nepal
title_full_unstemmed Critical Review of the Millennium Project in Nepal
title_sort critical review of the millennium project in nepal
publisher MDPI AG
series Sustainability
issn 2071-1050
publishDate 2016-10-01
description “Our Common Future” harmonized development policies around a new sustainable development (SD) paradigm, and experts also emphasize the importance of a democratic and equitable approach to define and achieve sustainable development. However, SD targets and indicators are often defined by a suite of experts or a few stakeholder groups, far removed from on-the-ground conditions. The most common expert-led development framework, the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), promoted one set of targets and indicators for all developing countries. While progress towards these targets was routinely reported at the national scale, these targets may not reflect context-specific sustainable development. We evaluated the relevance and comprehensiveness of MDG 7 (environmental sustainability) for Nepal. Although Nepal has met most of the MDG 7 (e.g., forest cover, protected areas coverage, water and sanitation), on closer inspection these indicators do not provide adequate context for ensuring that these targets provide the intended levels of development. Simple forest cover and protected area indicators belie the dearth of ecological conservation on the ground, and water and sanitation indicators do not reflect the inequality of access based on poverty and regions. While the Millennium Development Goals align with broad sustainability concerns in Nepal, these indicators do not reveal its true development conditions.
topic sustainability assessment
Nepal
Millennium Development Goals
indicators
deforestation
water supply
sanitation
sustainable development
energy efficiency
carbon emissions
url http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/10/1043
work_keys_str_mv AT ashmavaidya criticalreviewofthemillenniumprojectinnepal
AT audreylmayer criticalreviewofthemillenniumprojectinnepal
_version_ 1725235438740832256