Comments

I read the Easterly piece not knowing who Easterly is (it is assumed that readers of this blog are part of the aid/development industry and are familiar with him: his identity is not explained to readers). I read the piece because I have indeed been 'slightly nauseous' this week on reading the hullaballoo about the SDG goals, as Ashlee indicates. For the life of me I cannot believe the hype generated by a statement of 2030 goals that is, as far as I can see, unlikely to make the slightest bit of difference to sum total of global poverty, disadvantage, discrimination and fear anytime soon. This is utopianism. Wild utopianism, given credibility by an assembly of world governments who presumably felt obliged to concur with the goal of ending world poverty by 2030. Did anyone suggest it might be done by 2025? Or 2040? That's not the point, of course. It's the intent, not the detail that matters. Which is why, presumably, I have read statements from some governments and civil society organisations suggesting that these goals might be difficult to budget for, and not easy to implement. Indeed. Implementation and budgeting for utopian goals are not easy to do.

Thanks Terence. Watching it again, my impression is the same: I like it. The ad highlights the fact that every state agreed, and every state is expected to work towards the goals in some shape or form, not just developing countries: everyone, together. It is also great to see the effort kicked-off so quickly, unlike the MDGs where it took about five years before the promotional programme really got going. The aim was to promote the SDGs to as many people as possible within seven days (7 billion people, even) - a good idea, and one that indicates the UN is going to work hard to 'sell' these goals. For sure, there are major issues, as Philippe Krause from Team Chimera pointed out. But the realities on the ground should not prevent aspiration, and that's what the SDGs are more than anything. I think the ad captures this well. Besides, who can resist Liam Neeson?

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.