A/67/270 demographic data, in order to design better programmes and policies for sustainable development” (see General Assembly resolution 65/1, para. 68). 42. The current development framework already calls for the disaggregation of data according to different stratifiers, such as sex, to the greatest extent possible. 26 Experience has shown, though, that such calls are not sufficient by themselves — they need to be linked to goals and targets that offer an incentive for progress in reducing inequalities. At the technical level, the challenge of capturing the distributional dimensions of inequality is exacerbated by data constraints that make it difficult to track them. However, with the necessary political commitment, these challenges can be overcome, as will be further outlined below in the examination of some proposals to address inequalities in access to water, sanitation and hygiene. 43. By itself, disaggregation does not automatically result in the reduction of inequalities. It provides a tool for the collection of more detailed and accurate data, but policymakers need to act on the information it reveals. As difficult as it may be to track inequality given certain data constraints, the real challenge lies at the political level, because the way in which development, poverty and their inherent inequalities are measured has tremendous influence on the direction of policies, the allocation of resources and ultimately, the effectiveness of responses. Therefore, the aim of reducing inequalities must not only be captured at the level of indicators and disaggregation of data, but must be reflected in specific goals and targets against which progress can be measured. 44. The post-2015 framework must be explicitly designed to reveal who remains invisible, where efforts have failed, and how development continues to exclude entire population groups. Based on these findings, goals, targets and indicators must be framed in a way to reduce inequalities and target the most disadvantaged. They must not continue to focus solely on aggregate outcomes. The inherent difficulty of this process should not detract from the fact that it is a legal and moral imperative. The inclusion of goals, targets and indicators that focus on the reduction of inequality within the post-2015 framework will help to draw attention to the groups and individuals most in need, trigger the creation of more precise data and adjust development aims to better respond to the reality on the ground. 45. In response to the concern about averages hiding inequalities, some have proposed that future targets be made universal, so that no group can be left behind. 27 Under this option, the goal could not be considered achieved unless everyone is reached. However, setting universal access as the goal — as laudable and necessary as it is — does not by itself guarantee equal access and is insufficient to ensure priority for the most disadvantaged. Universal access at a specified target date can continue to bring focus on aggregate outcomes without setting incentives to reduce uncovered inequalities through targeting or prioritizing the most disadvantaged. To the contrary, specifying that a goal be “universal” alone may result in incentives for States to continue to prioritize the relatively well-off and easy-to-reach in order to demonstrate rapid progress towards the goal of universal access. Under that scenario, the most disadvantaged would often be the last to be __________________ 26 27 12-45653 See the official list of Millennium Development Goals indicators, available from http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Host.aspx?Content=indicators/officiallist.htm. See, for example, John McArthur, “Getting to zero: finishing the job the Millennium Development Goals started”, Global Agenda Council on Benchmarking Progress (2012). 13