SDGs: 17 Goals. 17. Really?!!!

In September 2015, the United Nations Member States adopted the Sustainable Development Goals, which include 17 goals. 17!  Before I even read the goals, I rolled my eyes. 17. Seriously! In the middle of a heated discussion about the world's virtues and ills, a Nigerian friend of mine stopped, looked at me and said, "You really do believe all that United Nations, we are the world stuff, hunh?" That got a good laugh from all of us. I really do. So, I was shocked by my own sarcastic attitude towards the goals. I actually refused to read them until a congressional staffer called my office and asked a question about them.

Last month, I participated in a congressional delegation trip to the United Nations to discuss the health SDG goal, as in singular. One health goal: good health and well-being. I was a bit rebuffed that global health was reduced to one goal and could not have been more snarky about the whole concept. There were too many to take in. I could relate to the goals in the top tier. They focused on issues that I had been seeking to address throughout my professional career: ending poverty and hunger, improving health, expanding access to clean water and sanitation.  And then I got to the second tier, and I thought, "Wow! That's progressive. The world has committed to accelerating the use of and access to clean energy, reducing inequities, and advancing responsible consumption and production. Really?" Hunh. That's a lot to commit to accomplish in 15 years.

But wait, there's more: act on the climate and the dying ocean. "Why don't we just say we're going to have world peace in 15 years," I thought curtly. Shut the front door, it's in there!!! I was convinced that the authors of the SDGs took a cue from the Ms. America pageant. We all know the running joke. No need to explain. The SDGs don't technically end with world peace. It's the next to last goal.

I've clearly set the stage for you. I arrived in New York pessimistic about the SDGs and only really interested in the health SDG. The UN delegates had a tall order: to get me to stop rolling my eyes at the thought of addressing 17 goals in 15 years. I will give them an A for effort. One UN official after the next lauded the consultative fashion in which the SDGs were developed. Civil society, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and Member States all contributed to the development of these goals. The UN folks told us that the consultative method raises buy-in and heightens the likelihood of success. The officials also told us that they are excited about the SDGs because they apply to the world. Whereas the MDGs were aimed at addressing issues of poverty, inequity, and poor health in low- and middle-income countries, the SDGs is a commitment to address all 17 issues worldwide. High-income countries are on the hook to address these issues too.

The UN folks also got me to appreciate the interconnected nature of the SDGs. They are organized to illustrate that achieving the goals on the top tier can only be achieved by addressing the underlying issues in the second and third tiers. Ending poverty and hunger (SDG 1 and 2, respectively) can only be achieved through improved access to decent work and economic growth (SDG 8). Good health and well being (SDG 3) are threatened by climate change (SDG 13). And so on.

I get how interconnected issues are. In my previous post I talked about how governance, access, and quality impacted the ability to improve health. In future posts, I'll likely try to convince at least one person that water and sanitation should be considered part of health. I just felt that we should have a smaller set of goals that we worked on with the underlying issues included as targets. The UN folks pushed back and told us that several groups had actually come to the General Assembly and argued that the Millennium Development Goals were not expansive enough and urged UN Member States to adopt goals that addressed more issues.

I responded by arguing the virtues of the MDGs: they were tangible, measurable, and allowed us to focus. Have you ever sat down to write a paper, and while you were researching you kept going down one rabbit hole after the other? Each piece of information you found was more intriguing than the previous one. And then you look up, three hours have passed, and you have a hodgepodge of nothing. That is what I argued would happen with the expansive SDGs goals: groups would be deterred by the size of the challenge and lacked solid issues around which to coalesce.

I left New York more optimistic about the SDGs and less befuddled, but not quite wholly on board. Then I read this article. Ohhhhh! The SDGs are about creating a paradigm shift. About changing our thinking. It is not "us" (read industrialized nations) trying to make "them" (read developing countries) better. It's all of us committing to making the world a better place together. It's recognizing that we all contributed to the state of the planet and that no matter where we sit (finance, agriculture, energy, etc.) we all have a role to play in solving the world's ills...and ushering in world peace. (I couldn't help it). Okay. I'm on board now. For someone who believes in systems approaches and multi-sectoral solutions to health problems, it sure took a lot for me to get this concept. Go figure.

Were any of you like me? Were you overwhelmed by the SDGs? Did I help you to feel better about it? I hope so, because I really do believe in all of this UN stuff.