The changing global and local contexts and the progress of the MDGs indicates that there is disparity both between the goals and the geographical regions of the world. This has nevertheless brought an opportunity to rethink progress and validity of the goals and the indicators. Although issues such as poverty, nutrition, health, education are likely to remain valid even after 2015, there are bound to be new issues that might carry more relevance. Identification of these issues as well as the institutions that need to play greater roles is essential if we want to look beyond 2015. The overarching question is what sort of global initiatives are desired, and who is to take the lead for building that momentum? A significant political dialogue that includes all the stakeholders backed by in-depth research at the global level must be part and parcel of that momentum, as well as of development planning and implementation.

Nepal’s progress on MDGs, given its vulnerable geopolitical situation and fragile economic environment, has remained painstakingly slow. The country’s overall economic growth during the last six decades has also not been impressive in comparison to its South Asian neighbours. The per capita growth has been even less favourable, being the lowest in the region since 1990. While the government’s claim of poverty reduction by 25 percent[1] is a welcome development, the level and the perception of poverty, particularly in the rural areas, remains high. Equally concerning is the fact that while at the national level poverty incidence might have reduced, inequality has risen over the same period. However, despite these adverse initial conditions and poor macroeconomic settings, understanding how poverty and other related indicators have moved positively needs more careful scrutiny. Moreover, this is happening notwithstanding the challenges of a post-conflict transformation, successive unstable governments and general instability. This raises interesting questions. How is it possible to reduce poverty and child mortality when the government has been almost non-functional for the last several years? What would be the desired role of the state beyond 2015? What would be the role and impact of new and emerging non-state actors in addressing the goals beyond 2015? This paper aims to discuss these very issues in connection with Nepal’s performance regarding MDGs and possible strategies for beyond 2015.

[1]NPC. 2010, Poverty measurement practices in Nepal and number of poor, National Planning Commission, Government of Nepal.