The Drum Beat 818 - 2022 SBCC Summit: Personal Impressions

• 1. Things are getting lively in the SBCC world!
  Compared to previous SBCC Summit events, held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (2016), and Nusa Dua, Indonesia (2018), the 2022 event seemed to have higher levels of critical debate, questioning, and dialogue. Perhaps it was the tone set by the plenaries with some challenging themes (artificial intelligence (AI), social movements, Town Hall, Minga and FemNET approaches, etc.). Or maybe it was the additional space that was created for questions and comment. Perhaps it is just where we are at as a field of work - more confident and more willing to challenge? Maybe we are all getting used to the Summit environment? Or perhaps we just thirsted for in-person interaction after COVID-19 lockdowns? Your impression? (Declaration: I was a member of the Plenaries organising group.) Click here to comment.
   
• 2. We are getting bolder.
  There seemed to be less inclination, even from the bigger organisations focused on demand generation and service support, to position their communication, social change, behaviour change and community engagement action as simply support for the "real action" - expanded use of proven commodities such as vaccines, insecticide-treated bednets, water pumps, family planning practices, and so on. Are we now seeing ourselves more and more as an equal part of the development strategic tapestry? Click here to comment.
   
• 3. What we often hear loudest may not be what is really happening.
  For anyone in regular contact with the northern Development "capitals" (e.g., Geneva, Washington, New York, Seattle, London), it is hard to come away with any impression other than that we are heading rapidly down an individual-focused behavioural science/economics/nudge highway. There were certainly sessions and side events based around these themes. But there were some clear indications that much of this field of work is on a different road and perhaps even using a different map. Few of the 200-plus questions in the plenaries referenced this approach. The Insights group hardly mentioned it. These priority suggestions from one Insights panellist encapsulated points many made: Participation, Meaningful youth involvement, Communication as a key component, and Power dynamics. Responses to a survey of Summit attendees on their priorities were dominated by a focus on implementing social change principles - e.g., amplifying the voices of those most affected. As one participant asked me: Are we now on a two-track process: behaviour change and social change? Your thoughts? Click here to comment.
   
• 4. Challenge of the Summit?
  In a plenary with 1,500 people present, one voice rose from the floor, pressing: "Can we please ask the funders to decolonize themselves?" (a remark that generated a big round of applause.) Or perhaps Karna Eugene's closing comment (also online): "We need to decolonize the SBCC and give more importance to communication". What is your challenge of the Summit? Click here to comment.
   
• 5. Is our strategic scope getting too wide, and will that come back to bite us?
  All communities and fields of work need a common identifying point. But now, based on presentations in Marrakech, it seems the SBCC field of work is seeking to implement (across all possible understandings of behaviours and social processes and all Sustainable Development Goals - SDGs) strategies that range from behavioural economics to AI and from school curricula to gamification. Are we somehow losing the core connective tissue that used to unite this field - communication? Or will this broadening serve to make us more dynamic and relevant? Click here to comment.
   
• 6. Humility rules.
  Of course, Summits, by their very nature, set up a dynamic in which we all feel we need to make our case, push our barrow, be seen, demonstrate "our way", etc. But when I asked a random group of people, out of all the plenary panellists (as everyone had the opportunity to see all of them) with whom they would most welcome having a long meal and one-on-one chat, almost all said Avexnim Cojti. And two of the key reasons were: her very deep knowledge and strategic nous and her genuine humility (with thanks to Antje Becker-Benton for identifying Cultural Survival). Of all the plenary panelists, whom would you invite to join you for a long dinner and a one-on-one chat? Click here to comment.
   
• 7. Take simple steps, or build deep foundations?
  There seemed to be two types of approaches to planning work in the SBCC space. There is the very specific, problem-focused "small and simple" (then test, review, amend, etc.) approach perhaps best embodied by human-centred design: Everything has a rapid response, is immediate, and should be kept manageable in scale and vision - that kind of feel. But then there is an approach focused on building really deep, very solid foundations for future action across multiple, related issues and dynamics at very significant scale. This latter approach was exemplified in initiatives such as "What's Your Story" by Heartlines in South Africa, the aforementioned Minga approach to rights and lives of indigenous people in Peru, Romper El Silencio on national peace building through critical historical thinking in Colombia (from Citurna and Imaginario), the (original) Breakthrough work in India on gender-based violence (e.g., StreeLink), and lots more. Sadly, this is not an option to which you can say "both!" If donors and large agencies continue to go with the former (do what's quick, simple, specific, and problem focused), they will squeeze the latter (build deep and solid foundations for effective, at-scale action on the large issues). Where do you sit? Click here to comment.
   
• 8. It takes extreme heat to make the strongest steel.
  The Summit sessions highlighted some really challenging environments - for example, Sudanese political context, new-era Afghanistan, Myanmar governance and accountability, nomad populations, corruption, mis/disinformation, COVID-19, and many more. These and other "hot" situations are producing strategies and action that have real steel and strength, such as the nationwide set of resistance committees and cultural safe spaces in Sudan, and community engagement and gender strategies in modern-day Afghanistan. It is those and other initiatives (e.g., from the past the work in transitional and post-apartheid South Africa, and the past decade in Myanmar) that have historically created (e.g., Soul City 4) and will most likely continue to create deep and instructive learning. What have you seen and learned from those situations? Click here to comment.
   

• 9. Where do governments fit in?
  From the public sector plenary panel, across the spectrum of sessions, to the posters, it was hard to get an understanding of the relationship we either have or want with governments. In most countries, governments do legitimately represent the preferences and views of people (with some major exceptions, naturally). And the United Nations (UN) agencies of course must have that close working/support relationship with governments. But the very nature of our field of work - with its focus on participation, engagement, voices of those most affected, dialogue, debate, formative research to inform priorities and methods, goals tied to external funding, etc. - can mean we at best work parallel to governments. The other side of this coin is the capacities of governments in communication for development, social change, community engagement and behaviour change. How should we relate to governments? Click here to comment.
   
• 10. Who sets the action agendas in communities and countries?
  An increasingly strong case was made that the major development organisations, UN agencies, funders, and bilaterals need to provide more space and support for countries, communities, and genuinely local and national organisations to define and make their own decisions related to both priorities and strategies. On the one hand, we say, "listen to communities". And then we say, "hey, this programme is about malaria or school curricula" or whatever. It is a contradiction we will need to figure out somehow. But how? Click here to comment.
   
• 11. Do we overuse "community"?
  Perhaps the most-used word in the Summit was "community" - community engagement, listening to communities, community voices, community participation, community involvement, community norms, and so on (though, interestingly, rarely community decision-making). It would have been interesting to get a clear picture from every one of the 1,800 heads in the Summit of what image they had when the word "community" was used. Are we talking just physical spaces such as villages and barrios, or people with a similar interest or experience such as groups of young women or migrant workers, or linkages of people in different spaces and places such as online or through associations, or....? Do we need to be a little more specific than just a general "community" reference? (If you done this would love to learn - please share.) Click here to comment.
   
• 12. Are we in the "Culture Club"?!
  Perhaps the second-most-used word after "community" was culture. It was almost impossible to hear any presentation and participate in any discussion without reference to the importance of culture, cultural norms, cultural diversity, cultural relevance, and so on. But there was often a tentativeness in that commitment to culture because, of course, an important part of what many strategies are trying to do is to change culture, which can shape factors including the status of girls, access to children after birth, who makes decisions, dialogue and debate patterns in households, family planning practices, and thousands more. So, what should be our rhythm and beat related to culture? Click here to comment.
   
• 13. There were some notable rebukes at the Summit.
  The best I heard was by Avexnim Cojti, who said to the AI panel something along the lines of: If you want to study and advance AI related to indigenous people, just remember that this is our knowledge; we own it, so you will play by our rules. What was the best rebuke you heard? Click here to comment.
   
• 14. What is a "region"?
  One significant development around the Summit was the initiation by people in each region of regional Summits. South Asia and Africa (Francophone and Anglophone initiatives) led the way, with Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Latin America also growing in strength. Unfortunately, for a lot of reasons (including visa issues for some key people and the invitation to do this panel coming very late in the process), the regional panel probably did not reflect the work that had taken place and the strength emerging. But it did pose another unasked question: What should be our regions? For example, there was neither a "North America" nor "Western Europe" region present on that panel. It is not enough to say the organisations in those regions are global. We are meant to be decolonising! And many organisations in South Asia, Africa, and Latin America have (or will develop) working relationships with organisations in other regions. They are or will be global. In my view, if we are going regional, then it needs to be all regions. For example, the Western European headquartered organisations should be from a Western European region. Yes or No? Why or why not? Click here to comment.
   
• 15. Can you feel extremely happy and hugely worried at the same time? PART 1 - The Happy!
  Who could not be happy?! Some reasons: 1,800 people present; impressive work shared; lots of critical (in the best sense) questions and debate; "room full" signs outside a number of sessions; insightful insights from the Insights Group; a much-improved balance between social change and behaviour change compared to the Nusa Dua Summit; genuine sense that we are all making progress (maybe due to what was highlighted throughout COVID-19); high-quality impact data; great ambience; and so much more. Many reasons to be really pleased. Are you happy? Click here to comment.
   
• 16. Can you feel extremely happy and hugely worried at the same time? PART 2 - The Worry!
  What happens now, as has always been the case, will be up to the big funders and the big agencies. Their actions set the context and environment for all the above and more. Can they create the space in their requests for proposals (RFPs) and planning processes to genuinely take into account decisions by the people most affected by an issue as to what their priorities and required strategies are? Or can they perhaps at least ensure there are negotiation spaces for figuring out priorities between countries and communities, and the donors themselves? Can they actively develop, support, and promote initiatives in which genuinely local and national organisations are in the driving seat? Can they change the often-implemented operating model of setting up country offices to support growth of local and national organisations that already have significant capacities? There are some big decisions coming up - at least one half-billion-dollar programme over 7 years up for renewal in next 2 years - and that is just one decision. What would you recommend to donors and large international organisations in order to help follow the direction set in Marrakech? Click here to comment.
   

ENQUIRY: Your priorities, opportunities and challenges!
 

What kinds of challenges and opportunities infuse your communication and media development, social and behavioural change work? This survey is a chance for you to let us know! We will report back on results and trends so you can gain insights from your peers in the network.
Click here to lend your voice.