UN OWG Proposed Target 6.2

RATING: GOOD. Like water access, the costs for basic options (pit latrine, pour flush, community well) are low, and the quantifiable benefits are considerable (time saved and health benefits). For more complex sanitation improvements such as providing piped water and sewer sanitation, the costs are naturally higher. Within this setting, the rating is FAIR. (see Hutton, 2012; Rijsberman and Zwane, 2012; Whittington et al. 2008)

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.