UN OWG Proposed Target 1.5

[[{"fid":"952","view_mode":"teaser","fields":{"format":"teaser","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":""},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"class":"media-element file-teaser"}}]]

RATING: GOOD Building resilience to environmental shocks and disasters through early warning systems have low absolute costs (around $1B globally), and can provide benefits in terms of lives saved and economic losses avoided between 4 and 36 times the investment, depending on the assumptions (Hallegate, 2012). Poverty-reduction is a clear way to improve vulnerability to social and economic shocks, which as stated in 1.1 and 1.2 has a GOOD or FAIR rating. For others, the provision of humanitarian aid during food emergencies has a PHENOMENAL rating. However, The window for prevention of humanitarian food disasters is small and this needs to be explicitly measured in a target.

Setting the Right Global Goals

Just have three minutes? Watch the video:

You can read about our prioritization project, setting smart, cost-effective goals in this op-ed published around the world including Turkey, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Uganda, South Korea, Costa Rica and the Philippines.

Download the entire report

In our recent report, not just the target above, but all 169 targets have been assessed by 60 teams of the world’s top economists. The targets have been categorized into five ratings based on evidence of economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits. While we applaud that the UN Open Working Group's final outcome document contains 43 fewer targets than the previous document, we are concerned that many targets have simply been combined, therefore reducing the number of both phenomenal and poor targets assessed according to our cost-benefit analysis. Our new assessment includes suggestions for how these can be improved as reported in this article by the Financial Times.