The report suggests 48 priority actions, which is a proposition I find tough for those not good at multitasking. Here is but one of the 48: “Invest in public sector capacity and infrastructure to identify trade-offs and drive large-scale change, enable complex decisionmaking, leverage digital technologies and boost implementation partnerships”. I can’t find anything really wrong with such a statement, but I have my doubts that this hillarious piece of advice will move us forward. Having explained the failure of the global community to achieve the SDGs, the report now proposes an SDG Stimulus. This is, as you rightly guessed, a call for more money, especially for money from the usual donors for strengthening of the UN. It will be discussed during the SDG Summit on 18/19 September in New York.
The Chatham House think-tank instantly railed against the report, suggesting that the SDGs should be suspended in favour of better goals. Such as fighting climate change, protecting biodiversity, food security and fixing the international financing system. As much as I tried, I couldn’t figure out what the Chatham House would do differently from the UNSG or DESA. Therefore, Back to Earth with a few clarifications:
1. Progress Happens. With or without the SDGs.
Development does not happen because someone or many proclaimed the SDGs. People want progress. People with aspirations drive change. Every mother and every father wants a better life for their children. This is what they demand from their governments. Most of them have no idea about the SDGs and they don’t care about them. Whether or not a government has signed an agreement with other governments, including with dictators, war mongers, gangster governments, religious fanatics, lunatics or the United Nations, is of no concern to most people.More significantly, the accountability of any government always goes to its own people first. This is true for any government, whether it likes the idea or not. Some governments may pay lip service, do nothing, or wait for the international community to restructure its financial system so aid keeps flowing.
The UN is an intergovernmental body meant to solve issues BETWEEN countries. It's role is to mediate. It has to do with internationally accepted standards of behaviour such as justice, fairness, observation of human rights or non-violent conflict resolution, so that progress in one country does not come at the costs of another. The rest should be left to the experts.
2. Development happens, but not because of aid.
The appropriation of success is typical for the United Nations and the aid industry, including the cottage industry of self anointed development experts and consultants. They erroneously believe that, only because they provide aid, progress happens. Looking back on any country’s success story, including any high income or donor country, none of these success stories had to do with aid. In contrast, everyone agrees that ‘development success’ has to do with good policies and good governance. The corollary is that in the presence of an uncaring government development does not happen, or only very slowly, with or without aid.It is an illusion that an uncaring government can be more effectively swayed by the aid community to do the right thing, than by the will of its own people. If this sounds somewhat flippant, consider the role of aid in Niger, Sudan, or Afghanistan.
On rare occasions, aid may have given an extra spin to a national effort. UNICEF might have had a lucky hand being in the right place at the right time with an exceptionally good idea during the heydays of EPI. This was by chance, not by design.
On rare occasions, aid may have given an extra spin to a national effort. UNICEF might have had a lucky hand being in the right place at the right time with an exceptionally good idea during the heydays of EPI. This was by chance, not by design.
3. SDGs do not help to focus
It is one of the great mysteries of this millenium why anyone believes that the SDGs concentrate government or donor attention. The SDGs are the opposite of focus. Whatever you want to do or spend your money on, you’ll find an SDG where it fits under. When politicians are in a fix – and all of them inevitably are because that is the nature of their job – they won’t look at the SDGs for guidance. They do what pleases their citizens, their lobbyists or themselves. What difference do the SDGs make in Niger, Sudan, South Sudan, Ukraine, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Mali, Burkina Faso, Iran, Russia, Myanmar, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, or any of your favorite tourist spots? Will the Taliban, the Junta, or Putin say: Oh well, I lost my priorities; let me see the list of the SDGs.4. The Illusion of focus
Everybody focuses on their immediate and most urgent problems. For some it may be child survival, for others it may be care of the elderly. In one country some children are thin, and others obsese. Someone is a scientist, someone else likes to watch movies. The world is multifaceted and colourful, and all things happen simultaneously all the time. The archaeologist is not re-training to become a public health specialist because his government signed up to Health for All. There is not ‘one focus’ that all citizens of a country would subscribe to as their top priority, except for having a decent government. Let WHO aid the doctor, and let UNESCO aid the archaeologist. The people of a country will determine their most urgent needs and priorities and we hope that they find ways to agree among themselves.5. …but the climate!
True. Climate change has become the most urgent concern – especially for large economies that are primarily responsible for carbon emissions, and those that suffer from the most devastating consequences. I am not quite sure, though, why the Maldives would need to articulate their own climate goals and carbon action plans, though of course they should remind others that they soon will be submerged. The 1.5 degree temperature threshold is not a compromise negotiated among 190 governments, but the result of scientific insight und supported by people who care. On a global scale, young people are doing more to keep the pressure up, than any new UN conference.6. So what about the UN, then?
It makes sense to keep track of initiatives, successes and failures made by countries and record progress, so everyone can learn from each other. But the pursuit of the SDGs by UN agencies themselves has created a separate industry of civil servants and consultants operating in a parallel world, reporting on UN agency actions that nobody cares about. This distracts from the core functions of the UN, and undermines its credibility and significance. The UN creates more noise for raising funds that will ensure the survival of its ever expanding workforce and bloated bureaucracy, than for helping to solve disagreements between countries.The UN is an intergovernmental body meant to solve issues BETWEEN countries. It's role is to mediate. It has to do with internationally accepted standards of behaviour such as justice, fairness, observation of human rights or non-violent conflict resolution, so that progress in one country does not come at the costs of another. The rest should be left to the experts.
*****
More Insights from Outside the Bubble, by Detlef Palm
Detlef can be contacted via detlefpalm55@gmail.com
Bravo Detlef for bringing a fresh dose of common sense to the verbiage of the SDGs, in trying to be All things to All, we end up in a thicket of words that only have meaning to those who are the keepers of the files/flames. Our development models are now passe. In 2018, I conducted an informal survey of the then emerging green tech energy sector players in Canada -- while recognition of the SDGs was around 60 percent, most of those who responded said they were only moderately useful and when they were it was mostly totemic in nature and good for PR. So, for these folks, the SDGs really provided a sheen of PR gloss, they were actually looking for fora -- like the conference that I attend every year --where they could interrogate technical, financial, marketing issues and not just a recitation of platitudes. The UN is so very important, there are huge areas of critical work with respect to the interlinked overhang of climate change and its impacts in all areas of human development -- how does the system become less scelrotic and more relevant to peoples and communities and nations? Gosh, we cannot even set up an effective peace keeping in Haiti!! Sad day for us who served under the baby blue banner
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the UN is a family of 193 countries with different set of governance, economy and development stage. Whenever, any documents are to be produced for global use all 193 members have to be made happy. It is done by taking into account inputs of all these 193 member states. It is also important to mention that UN delegates nominated by their countries are usually based on political affiliation not based on the capacity of their neurons. This is especially true of developing countries. The end result is the incomprehensible text. You quoted a perfect example – “Invest in public sector capacity and infrastructure to identify trade-offs and drive large-scale change, enable complex decisionmaking, leverage digital technologies and boost implementation partnerships”.
ReplyDeleteBravo! Detlef you have with your usual tinge of sarcasm articulated the realities. In most countries, SDGs are buzz words in the capitals in discussions with UN agencies/ donors.
ReplyDeleteSree
Thanks for this. SDGs are the latest jargon that "empowered UNRC offices" use to justify their existence. UNRC and UNDP (still the lines are blurred - they just have different email extensions) are all over the SDGs and scheming to support "localisation of SDGs" with governments where we work. There are SDG units in the ministry of XX that UNPD/RC support with technical assistance. There are UN joint funds for SDG acceleration - tiny pots of money that require at least 3 UN agencies to apply for (we call this jointness) going through huge hoops to get small money and then engage in cumbersome reporting back. SDGs are the headlines in our RAM and in UNINFO and each UNCT must have goals, outcomes, outputs and sub output in the cooperation framework must have SDG all over it (even what what used to be UNDAF > UNDAP > is now UNSDCF: UN Strategic Development Cooperation Frameworks - what a mouthful of BS. And you are right - no one ever thinks of UNDGs in any government or village or city or slum or suburb - they are getting by everyday to find a better life and they all have different ideas what that means - getting an iphone, getting water, getting food, losing weight, walking less to draw water or farm, walking more to lose the beer gut, go the gym, go to the farm, school at home, build a school to get away from home, march in the streets, stay at home and shout in ALL CAPS on the keyboard, wear a condom, get a sex change, etc.
ReplyDeleteDear Detlef,
ReplyDeletethis is so refreshing, thanks so much for sharing your thoughts.
I wish there were more people from the inside of UN Agencies being so upfront about the elephant in the conference room.
I have never understood the buzz around endless wishlists. To me, they are counterproductive and they project mold and spiderwebs on the emblem of the UN.
bea
SDG’s are only goals to be reached. If they do not represent the peoples needs they need to be redrawn. Perhaps there should be different goals for different type of countries , lower income, middle income and so forth so that the goals are relative to needs.
ReplyDeleteDetlef is raising issues that need to be addressed. From my vantage point in West Africa, the SDGs as used by the UN system, are too often detrimental to the effectiveness of the UN, limiting creativity and innovation, and undermining country driven prioritisation.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAlways witty and perceptive, Detlef's critique of the UN and SDGs is often tinged with sarcasm and cynicism but contains a big dose of reality-check. Agree completely with him that the SDGs lack focus and are meant to satisfy too many stakeholders' wish lists arrived at through political negotiations rather than any feasibility study or cost-benefit analysis.
For those of us who worked on a more limited set of goals like those of the World Summit for Children and the MDGs, most SDGs seemed like a list of “desirable” goals rather than “doable” ones as UNICEF’s Jim Grant used to emphasize.
Bjorn Lomborg of Copenhagen Consensus offers a helpful counterpoint to the SDGs in his book “Best Things First” that makes a compelling case for investing heavily on 12 most cost-effective interventions or “best buys” first, even as we pursue broader SDGs and some narrower country specific goals simultaneously.
Bravo. Another straight-talking piece.
ReplyDeleteThink ‘politics’ where politicians will talk at great length – remembering always that their message is tailored to winning the next election, rather than benefitting the electorate that put them in power. Isn’t this why if you want something useful done, go to an NGO/PVO rather than a bureaucracy?
Who will stand out from the crowd and show how the UN can set achievable and necessary goals – like saving the planet, for instance – because without a well-functioning planet, the SDGs are totally meaningless?