UN OWG Proposed Target 2.4
RATING: POOR – this goal is poorly specified and calls for outcomes that are unrealistic and internally inconsistent. It would be improved by focusing on key aspects where interventions are known to be effective. For example, improving resilience of crops through agricultural research and development has a GOOD rating. Other policies to improve resilience to disasters include weather-based crop insurance (FAIR, but likely need significant financial subsidies), integrated fertility management and water quality improvements. These have a FAIR rating.
Better wording: Increase spending on agricultural R&D by x% to promote resilient crop varieties
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.