Halfway through Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) period, only 15% of the SDGs are on track. Universal Health Coverage, for example, is going at one-half the pace needed to reach the 2030 targets. The SDGs are the world’s roadmap for development. Comprised of 17 goals and 169 targets, they were agreed by all countries in 2015 for attainment by 2030.
"People are not inspired by plans: they are inspired by results." THIS is inspiring as is a refocus on GSD. I also like first looking to what should be eliminated. A seven-year moratorium on planning meetings? That deserves more inquiry. Sign my up to the GSDs!
Peter, you always get straight to the heart of the problem. I learned the term 'pilotitis' from you and I can confirm that as I am on a jet liner recrossing the Atlantic after attending the RHSC Membership Meetings in Accra, Ghana there is still too much talking and planning and not enough of GSD. Time, money and resources continue to be misdirected due to redundancy and inefficiencies. Many resources are wasted bulking up the mired middle. Enough wringing of hands and confusing these gestures for action. Action happens on the ground, is measurable, but also, I might add, much more economical than the current bureaucratic approaches that lead to same old same old results. Positive impact requires a measure of risk. The private sector, by this I mean primarily SMEs, have solutions to a complexity of solutions that should be exploited. We SMEs have taken significant risks in order to continue to exist and position ourselves for sustainability. In fact, SMEs fuel national economies, so why not the achievement of the SDGs. Let's GSD.
Plans often don’t get implemented, and often the approach of breaking implementation down to short-term projects makes funders and service providers lose sight of the big picture. That’s why long-term impact and outcomes are not achieved. The sum of the parts must be greater…. and for that to occur through ‘implementing organisations’, the S that gets D must contribute to a broad theory of change, not just to the project or a funding stream.
The devil certainly is in the detail when one means to GSD.
Thank you Peter and I think we all agree we need to focus on getting things done now. I work with Impact Investing Ghana which is a local organization catalyzing impact investing through research and collaborative action between ecosystem players. This year through our partnership with the GSG we learnt about the SDG Impact Standards this year and really liked how their approach is quite simply a framework to help both entrepreneurs and investors embed and integrate SDGs in their work. It’s a great tool which we are looking to roll out in countries across the continent but would be great if more did so too. As you say, results speak louder than anything else. See https://sdgimpact.undp.org/ for more information, it’s a UNDP flagship initiative to mobilize private sector capital for SDG attainment.
I loved the case for implementation focus! But then make the case for another summit not so convincing and contradictory. Each organization can me the case for why their own summit matters so much!
I have felt that quite a lot of solutions and recommendations are vague and theoretical, which in itself is a barrier for effective implementation. Need for clarity is very much necessary to get things done.
Peter, another amazingly insightful piece. A former Canadian politician once said we suffer from “discussionitis”; a disease of eternally discussing things without getting much done. Your depiction reminded me of that. We’re indeed awash with photos ups of “exciting” and “impactful” programs that are always to be done in the future. Much less, as you suggest, by people showcasing s*** (sorry stuff-:) actually finished. Global efforts particularly those aimed at helping the global poor rarely have any sense of urgency. Diffusion of responsibility also means that no one can be really held accountable particularly for complex challenges like SDGs. Observing these makes many, myself included, disillusioned to almost a point of paralysis. Glad, there are Peters out there trying to shake the systems into getting S*** done by treating Discussionitis.
"People are not inspired by plans: they are inspired by results." THIS is inspiring as is a refocus on GSD. I also like first looking to what should be eliminated. A seven-year moratorium on planning meetings? That deserves more inquiry. Sign my up to the GSDs!
Peter, you always get straight to the heart of the problem. I learned the term 'pilotitis' from you and I can confirm that as I am on a jet liner recrossing the Atlantic after attending the RHSC Membership Meetings in Accra, Ghana there is still too much talking and planning and not enough of GSD. Time, money and resources continue to be misdirected due to redundancy and inefficiencies. Many resources are wasted bulking up the mired middle. Enough wringing of hands and confusing these gestures for action. Action happens on the ground, is measurable, but also, I might add, much more economical than the current bureaucratic approaches that lead to same old same old results. Positive impact requires a measure of risk. The private sector, by this I mean primarily SMEs, have solutions to a complexity of solutions that should be exploited. We SMEs have taken significant risks in order to continue to exist and position ourselves for sustainability. In fact, SMEs fuel national economies, so why not the achievement of the SDGs. Let's GSD.
Plans often don’t get implemented, and often the approach of breaking implementation down to short-term projects makes funders and service providers lose sight of the big picture. That’s why long-term impact and outcomes are not achieved. The sum of the parts must be greater…. and for that to occur through ‘implementing organisations’, the S that gets D must contribute to a broad theory of change, not just to the project or a funding stream.
The devil certainly is in the detail when one means to GSD.
Thank you Peter and I think we all agree we need to focus on getting things done now. I work with Impact Investing Ghana which is a local organization catalyzing impact investing through research and collaborative action between ecosystem players. This year through our partnership with the GSG we learnt about the SDG Impact Standards this year and really liked how their approach is quite simply a framework to help both entrepreneurs and investors embed and integrate SDGs in their work. It’s a great tool which we are looking to roll out in countries across the continent but would be great if more did so too. As you say, results speak louder than anything else. See https://sdgimpact.undp.org/ for more information, it’s a UNDP flagship initiative to mobilize private sector capital for SDG attainment.
I loved the case for implementation focus! But then make the case for another summit not so convincing and contradictory. Each organization can me the case for why their own summit matters so much!
I have felt that quite a lot of solutions and recommendations are vague and theoretical, which in itself is a barrier for effective implementation. Need for clarity is very much necessary to get things done.
Yes to a GSD Summit! And people who have not GSDed are not invited!
Peter, another amazingly insightful piece. A former Canadian politician once said we suffer from “discussionitis”; a disease of eternally discussing things without getting much done. Your depiction reminded me of that. We’re indeed awash with photos ups of “exciting” and “impactful” programs that are always to be done in the future. Much less, as you suggest, by people showcasing s*** (sorry stuff-:) actually finished. Global efforts particularly those aimed at helping the global poor rarely have any sense of urgency. Diffusion of responsibility also means that no one can be really held accountable particularly for complex challenges like SDGs. Observing these makes many, myself included, disillusioned to almost a point of paralysis. Glad, there are Peters out there trying to shake the systems into getting S*** done by treating Discussionitis.