Comments

Hmmm... I think it's actually an ad for the UN more than the SDGs. Shows countries coming together for good (presented generically as global goals). It doesn't really say much about the SDGs themselves (as others have noted) but it presents the UN in a fun, light but meaningful way. It's not going to make anyone care more about the SDGs but might help reset the image of the UN a touch among some people. But how does Norway get the moose? What about Canada? I am offended.

Easterly writes: "“A surge in foreign aid had been at the heart of the MDGs, but the SDGs just change the subject as fast as possible…" But in the SDGs (survived to final version I think): "17.2 Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of ODA/GNI to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries; ODA providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries" https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics The MDGs had no point seven target. So it would seem that aid has done better in the SDGs?

Yeah - I'm inclined to think a real person (at least for audiences not going to see kid's films) would have been better.

From a comms point of view, I just wonder who they are actually trying to communicate to with this ad. It doesn't do anything to explain what the goals are or their 'plan' is (I think it's pretty misleading to call the SDGs a plan! More like a wishlist...). Are they trying to talk to adults or children? For children, the message seems off, and for adults, the format seems off. And what do they want them to do? There is no strong call to action beyond remembering to visit a website, or to download an app (which I downloaded, but it just seems to want me to take a '360 degree' selfie which sounds terrifying). There's no real information provided -- just the kind of nice but sort of hollow words that the UN often gets pilloried for. For a cinema ad, where you have a fairly captive/undistracted audience compared to other broadcast media, I reckon they should have just used Malala or one of the other celebrities they trotted out over the weekend. A real, unanimated person talking and explaining the goals, or why they think the goals are a good thing, might not have been 'innovative' but it would surely have been more convincing.

I immediately thought Madagascar and Pixar [and forgot to turn the sound on first]. Poor optics, in my view.

Thank you, great initiative. It will greatly help the UPNG economics strand in terms of staff capacity enhancement.

Ok - so we have two votes in favour (Paul and Jo) and two against (Terence and James). Beyond whether you liked the ad or not: I think you both make interesting points. James, indeed, we don't actually have a plan, we have a desired set of desired outcomes. Good outcomes. But we're kidding ourselves if we know enough about how to get them (especially once we take political economy into account). We certainly don't have enough to say we have a plan. Paul, I agree that it is in the ad's favour that they manage to distil the essence of the goals into 3 key areas (more or less accurately). But as you say, I wonder how certain governments will react to the messaging. Maybe that will eventually be the power of the goals, to foster a normative vision that can be used to (partially) bind even recalcitrant governments? Or maybe the goals will just be ignored as inconvenient. I guess that all depends.

Hi Terence I thought the ad was rather fun - and comedians may have even more fun with the way the United Nations was portrayed. But it did encourage me to go through to main website (so click that up as at least one 'success' for the ad) and this included the interesting summary: "Global Goals for Sustainable Development. 17 goals to achieve 3 extraordinary things in the next 15 years. End extreme poverty. Fight inequality and injustice. Fix climate change." So is the real focus just on three things? There has been much discussion (including at yesterday's excellent seminar on the SDG's hosted by the Development Policy Centre) about whether there are too many goals (yet alone too many targets). If there really are only three key extraordinary outcomes being sought, then I think that is a positive. But will the government allow "Fix Climate Change" to be one of only three key logos on any updated DFAT wall? Cheers. Paul.

Terence - I think it's a flop. I too saw this at the cinema and found it cringe-making. 'We have a plan [or should that be Plan?]' Seriously? If anything, it comes across as a spoof on well-meaning global do-gooderism.

James, thank you for taking the time to write such a considered response and add your thinking to this conversation. Given the significance of the FPR and the amount of time and energy that has been invested in it to date, I think it merits analysis in its own right and we will be looking forward to seeing how its processes and impacts evolve over time.

Matthew and Tess, thanks for this analysis. I'd agree with you that the Framework for Pacific Regionalism only partially achieved its objectives at this year's Leaders' meeting. The weak outcome on ICT reminded me of the faintly plaintive language from the 2004 Leaders' meeting in Apia, when Leaders 'noted with appreciation that Australia will fund a study aimed at enhancing the compatibility of mobile phone systems in the Pacific.' As far as I know that never went anywhere. On cervical cancer, while this is of course a worthy cause, it's hard to see how it passed the regionalism test to make it onto the agenda in the first place: too many 'regional' health initiatives in the past have foundered on the rocks of different national health systems and circumstances. Certainly the Communique outcome suggests that Leaders (not to mention 'relevant technical organisations') were alive to this risk. (Maybe the fact that all of the Leaders were men had something to do with it too?) The Hiri Declaration strikes me as a real curate's egg. Certainly it includes important language which unambiguously stakes out the Forum's ground as 'the paramount regional organisation'. And it affirms a generalised wish to promote 'connections', 'connectivity' and 'greater regional economic integration'. But it's terribly wordy, and its aspirations and commitments are expressed so generically (eg '[We] commit ourselves to ... creating an environment that is conducive for business, trade and investment, economic growth and sustainable development to prosper') that it's hard to see how policymakers might take useful guidance from it, or how Leaders might be held accountable for implementing its terms over time. An aspirational document to be sure, but an influential one? All that said, I'd say the Framework - which is still in its early days - remains a very worthwhile initiative. Decluttering the Leaders' agenda, finding a way to conduct a civil society dialogue - these are objectives that are worth pursuing (as indeed are ways of making the post-Forum Dialogue less deadly). Secretary-General Meg Taylor should be feeling reasonably satisfied with her first Forum Leaders' meeting.

Hi HM, With regards to the ungated version of the first Vandermoortele article (linked to in paragraph 3). This now only seems to be available online in its final published pay-walled version. The link for the published version is not broken. If you are an academic or a student you ought to be able to obtain access via your institutional subscription. If you work for a government department you may find your department's library has a subscription. Also, if you are based in a developing country some development-related journals provide free access (usually automatically). So it may be worth trying to access the gated version. Another option would be to email the author and see whether they can share an earlier working paper version with you. With regards to the quoted Vandermoortele paper. This is now only available as a journal article. The MDG Conundrum: Meeting the Targets Without Missing the Point It is: Development Policy Review, 2009, 27 (4): 355-371 This may be free access (do a Google scholar search). If it is not I suggest the approaches I've just covered above. I mistakenly linked the William Easterly reference to a CDG paper. The correct Easterly link is: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2007/11/poverty-easterly (I've corrected this in the blog post text now too). With regards to the broken UN link. I suggest emailing them about it: The contact address they give on the broken link is kit.doco@undg.org The URL you were after was: http://undg.org/documents/6458-Making_the_MDGs_Matter__a_country_perspective.pdf The name of the document was 'Making the MDGs Matter: a country perspective'. Or you seem to be able to get the document from the Wayback Machine. This link should do the trick: http://web.archive.org/web/20051016051525/http://www.undg.org/documents/6458-Making_the_MDGs_Matter__a_country_perspective.pdf