Effective monitoring of the MDGs is central to their achievement. This is critical not only for accountability and transparency, but also for ensuring that policies and structures are reformed so as to meet the MDGs.

Monitoring the role of donor countries in honouring their commitments under MDG 8 is just as important, if not more so, as monitoring the achievements of developing countries in Goals 1-7. National parliaments should play a more active role in ensuring national scrutiny of policies included within MDG 8.

We ask therefore the Luxembourg government to take a lead in ensuring that the EU mid-term of the MDGs addresses the pressing needs of the poor and identifies next steps leading up to eradicating poverty worldwide.

Missing points

Trade and subsidies : Taking coherence in development policy seriously also means recognizing the urgency to make out of the Doha round negotiations a real development round. Although trade distorting domestic subsidies are reflected in the report (p.51), this is not enough. We not only urge the Luxembourg government to push other governments to abolish export credits and subsidies as soon as possible, but also claim for a clear timeframe for these measures. These efforts to be made should be made clear explicitly in the MDG review. Furthermore, in terms of coherence between the MDG and the Doha round agenda, MDG reports should include impact assessments of trade agreements, as their impact is crucial for the rural poor.

Global democratic institutions : MDG reports need to indicate to what extend, reporting countries are making efforts to increase transparency as well in their partner countries which they support by ODA, but also in their own country. In developing countries this includes initiatives for public consultation, such as public hearing ex ante that projects are taking place and monitoring ex post by southern civil society organisations. In donor countries MDG reports should not fail to show to what respect they do or do not consult civil society organisations in the review of priorities of their development assistance and to what extend parliament is consulted in cases where major shift of development policy take place (e.g. in the negotiation of development budget in the framework of the future EU’s financial perspectives).

Debt : although Luxembourg has no official debt towards Developing Countries and is so far not involved in debt negotiations, the Luxembourg government is as any other ODA donor country member of major International Finance Institutions (IFIs), MDG reports should reflect to what extend initiatives to support debt cancellation to low income countries are promoted within these IFIs, acknowledging the relationship between the MDGs and debt.

Private sector : the human and labour rights aspect of development is completely missed out in the official UN indicators to measure achievements on goal 8, and which form the basis of the EU stock taking on MDGs. In that respect the role of private sector in the development of poor countries is not reflected. MDG reporting should therefore report on national efforts to promote codes of conduct for the corporations, the level of ratification of UN/ILO conventions and what is done to promote them among private companies. The responsibility of private sector is to be taken seriously in terms of social, democratic, labour and cultural rights as well as in terms of the environmental impact of its operations.

Transparency

In the drafting of the national report on the MDGs, there was no attempt by the Luxembourg government to involve or consult representatives from civil society, including academics, NGOs etc. We deplore the complete missing of openness to the contributions that civil society has to make. The new minister for the Luxembourg development cooperation, M. Schiltz, has reaffirmed the central role NGOs can play in make the MDGs achievable and in helping to combat poverty worldwide. As for now, however, the government policy on transparency has not progressed