Exact(3)
Take the original MDGs.
The strength of the original MDGs came from their prioritisation of a small number of clear goals.
The contrast between the scope and ambition of the new SDGs and the original MDGs reflects the profound differences between the state of the world in 2000 when the MDGs were launched, and where we are today in 2015.
Similar(57)
This report contains a proposed, 'Goal 4: Ensure Healthy Lives', which continues the original MDG priorities and expands them to include sexual and reproductive health and rights, but does not reference some of the most pressing global health challenges with GPGH opportunities, such as AMR and outbreak crises.
UNITED NATIONS MDG SUMMIT High-Level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly 20-22 September 2010, New York "Ten years on from the original adoption of the MDGs at the 2000 Millennium Summit, and despite remarkable progress in some countries, collectively we are falling short in their achievement".
When the original millenium development goals (MDGs) were formulated, happiness economics barely existed.
In the UN preface to the summit, it states: "Ten years on from the original adoption of the MDGs at the 2000 Millennium Summit, and despite remarkable progress in some countries, collectively we are falling short in their achievement.
Ten years on from the original adoption of the MDGs at the 2000 Millennium Summit, and despite remarkable progress in some countries, collectively we are falling short in their achievement.
Whatever the General Assembly's original intentions, numerous reports and studies have reinterpreted the MDGs as goals applying to each individual country [ 3- 5].
Although many of the original MDGs such as cutting maternal mortality by three-quarters and child mortality by two-thirds will notwo-thirds willim of halvinotglobel poverty between 1990 and 2015 was achieved five years early.The mets may have helped marginally, by creatheg aimardstick fof measuring progress, and by focusing minds on thalving of poverty.
Overall, the MDGs have a decent record.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com