Sustainable Development Goals

Towards safely managed sanitation

While the MDGs focussed on reaching 50% of the population without sanitation, the focus of the SDGs, the Sustainable Development Goals is to reach 100% PLUS the criterium that the sludge needs to be managed safely.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) differ significantly in their approach to sanitation, particularly in the management of faecal sludge.

MDGs: Established in 2000, the MDGs primarily targeted basic needs such as reducing poverty and improving health, with a specific focus on eradicating open defecation and providing access to improved sanitation facilities. However, they largely overlooked the entire sanitation service chain, including faecal sludge management after the initial provision of toilets.

SDGs: Launched in 2015, the SDGs encompass a broader and more integrated approach to sustainable development. Specifically, Goal 6 aims to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all by addressing the entire sanitation service chain. This includes not only access to toilets but also safe handling, treatment, and disposal of faecal sludge. The SDGs emphasise resource recovery from faecal sludge, promoting safer disposal methods and reducing health risks associated with poor sanitation practice.

This is illustrated in the SDG Sanitation Ladder.

The MDGs had a deadline of 2015 and were criticized for their limited scope and lack of inclusivity in addressing ongoing sanitation challenges. In contrast, the SDGs extend their timeframe to 2030 and set more ambitious targets that include comprehensive FSM practices as essential components of public health and environmental sustainability.

While both frameworks are voluntary, the SDGs encourage greater participation from various stakeholders, including local communities and private sectors, to enhance accountability in FSM practices. This participatory approach reflects lessons learned from the MDGs, which were often seen as top-down initiatives lacking local engagement.