Comments

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

Thanks for your comment and letting us know--we will see if we can track them down and fix. As this post is several years old it is very likely that the documents may have been moved by their respective hosts. Best, Ashlee.

I recently attended a Healthy Island training of trainers (TOT) in a district to get the TOT participants into helping village people to do their own ward planning so that it provides a direction in development at the community level where people are. However when asked if the LLG and District have the LLG and District plan, there was no such thing in the district. The CEO of the District and even the CEO of the LLG was nowhere to be seen in the district. This also meant that there was no work in the district as the CEO of the District has a new office and is living and working in the Provincial headquarters. To make the matter worse, the District was made a DDA not less than six months ago and most work and development should be happening in the district by now. There was no district and LLG plans in which a ward plan could be linked to. People nowadays are not stupid to ask how their plan will be linked up if their LLG and district does not have their plans. DDA is an opportunity for development where 90% of the population lives but it seems public servants are taking this as an opportunity to be away from their districts to perform other duties and on weekly allowances. I think a very bad precedent is being set here. Coming from a sector in which we advocate for better living and development at the community level and are always working closely with communities, l find it difficult to explain to people about such weaknesses and how they can overcome them. It is not easy when weakness hinders progress when people are at it. DDA is supposed to begin with capacity building to equip the district with skilled people, their place to work and to progress the development where it matters most. However, if the district is not prepared for that and cannot prepare to change to enhance DDA, than how do we expect DDA to work at the district level. And importantly, those of us trying to improve villages for a healthier and more prosperous life, how do we come into play? It is not easy to explain when people who do not know how they can make change are in such a position and if they cannot rally to make changes. Aggression in development should come about now. Every district needs people who have the vision to do so to take up these posts to make moves to change their district, so that some form of development takes place.

Hey! Great article; just a side note that several of your links are broken and the PDFs you referred to can't be tracked down.

It is an excellent realistic projection albeit disappointing, Chris. The aggregated picture of the projected achievements and performance by 2030 is not encouraging but disaggregated description suggests that the mutual learning and contextual understanding will likely to improve the performance and achievements of SDGs. The developed world has its own limitations to push for the SDGs but the countries like China and India or more precisely BRICS may give a big push in achieving SDGs by 2030. They are preparing themselves for such a push. The establishment of AIIB and a BRICS Development Bank are the right steps. Obviously, the global community and regional dispensations will show their sincere commitment towards the realisation of SDGs by 2030. The problem however will be with national governments which are practically held hostage by nexus in the developing countries. Both the ruling and counter elite in these countries therefore are very enthusiastic to hail and immediately endorse any meaningful proposal like the SDGs and proclaim to realise these goals but they very intelligently sabotage their achievement at the operational level due to their vested interest. The elite behaviour in these countries thus will determine the performance of the SDGs. The findings of the Ground Level Panel as five take aways are very important in this regard as advised by Anusha. However, the organisations which proclaim to be the voice of the voiceless and vulnerable sections of the society must also be under scanner for their vested interest and motives otherwise the realisation of the SDGs by 2030 will again remain an aspiration instead of reality.

It is all very well to be starry eyed in Canbera about aid. You have to wonder about the billion dollar black hole in our economy and how it was allowed to get there. This mass migration of people fleeing their homelands should draw attention to the lack of effectiveness of our aid and NGO programs in keeping people in their homes. Australia needs significant infrastructure upgrades to strengthen our economy through efficient transportation. If you don't want to hear this take a long drive around and through the desert and register the gaps that need to be plugged especially at a time when we are about to increase the level of migrant and refugee intakes. This a small country that has needed leadership to recognise that there is a demand for technology savvy people who are capable of building productive and intellectual strength into the backbone of the economy. We need to show how innovative solutions will help gain lost ground. There are clever people out there in rural Australia and we need more of them there rather than have them glued to their comfortable chairs and their eyes glassing over at computer screens in capital cities.