Sustainable Development Goals - Are the rich countries ready 2015

Sustainable Development Goals: Are the rich countries ready? Christian Kroll with a foreword by Kofi Annan Go al 1.1 1...

Author: Christian Kroll

27 downloads 991 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Sustainable Development Goals: Are the rich countries ready? Christian Kroll with a foreword by Kofi Annan

Go al 1.1 1: Po ve P 1.2 overt rty y Pov rat ert e yg ap Go al 2.1 2: Ag G ri 2.2 ross cultu Ob agric re a n esi ty r ultura d nu ate l n utr tritio ien tb n Go ala al nce 3 s 3.1 : H e a He l t h 3.2 alth Life y life sat exp isfa ect ctio anc y n Go al 4.1 4: Ed U uc 4.2 pper atio PIS seco n A r nd esu ary lts att ain me Go nt al 5.1 5: G e n S 5.2 hare der e Ge of w qua nd om lity er pay en in gap nat ion al p Go arli al am 6.1 6: W ent a s Fre ter shw a of t e 6.2 tota r with Pop l inte draw ula rnal als tion re as Go con sourc perc al ent es n e cte 7.1 7: En dt ow Ene ergy ast 7.2 rg ew ate Sha y inte r tr nsi re eat ty of me ren nt ew abl ee ner gy in T FEC

Summary table: Which country is fit for which goal?

1.1

Summary table: 1.2

rank 1 – 5 |

2.1 2.2 3.1

rank 6 – 13 |

3.2 4.1

rank 14 – 20 |

4.2 5.1

rank 21 – 27 |

5.2 6.1 6.2

rank 28 – 34 |

7.1

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Chile

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Korea, Rep. Japan

Luxembourg

Mexico

New Zealand Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovenia

Slovakia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

Turkey

United States

no data

7.2

Go al 8.1 8: Ec G on 8.2 NI p omy Em er ca and plo pita lab ym or ent -to -po pu Go lati al on 9.1 9: In rat io Gro frast 9.2 ruc ss fi Re xed ture sea rch capit and and al fo inn dev rma ova elo tion tio Go n pm al ent 1 0 10 exp .1 : Ine e P nd 10 alma qual itu .2 i re PIS ratio ty AS oci al J ust ice Go Ind al ex 1 11 1: C .1 i t 11 Partic ies .2 Ro ulate om ma sp er tter per son Go al 1 12 2: C .1 on 12 Muni sum .2 cip Do al w ptio n me stic aste and ma gen pro ter era ial t duct Go con ed ion al sum 1 13 3: C pti .1 o l n Pro ima du te cti r 13 elate on-b a .2 d Gre CO sed e enh 2 em ner ou issio gyGo se al gas ns em 14 14: O issi .1 ce on 14 Ocea ans sp .2 nH er Ov GD e a ere lth P xpl I n d oit e x ed fish Go sto al cks 1 5 15 .1 : Bio T 15 erres dive .2 r Re trial p sity dL ist rotec Ind ted ex for areas Go bir ds al 16 16: I .1 ns 16 Homi titut .2 i Tra cides ons nsp are ncy Co rru Go pti on al Per 1 17 7: cep .1 Glo tio O b ns 17 ffici Ind .2 al d al pa ex Ca r e t v pac elo ne r ity pm sh ip to e n mo t a nito ssis r th tan e S ce DG s 8.1

8.2

9.1

9.2

10.1

10.2

11.1

11.2

12.1

12.2

13.1

13.2

14.1

14.2

15.1

15.2

16.1

16.2

17.1

17.2

Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea, Rep. Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States

This table shows at a glance the relative performance of every OECD country for each goal. Deep green represents the leading countries in the respective indicator, while deep red indicates the least readiness. Looking at the countries’ relative performance, it becomes evident that not all of them are fit for the goals, and indeed no one country performs outstandingly in all goals. Every country has its own particular lessons to draw from the others. Moreover, even the bestperforming countries by today’s standards will need to strive for significant improvements over the next 15 years. The chapters in this study contain more detailed analysis of each indicator and country.

Sustainable Development Goals: Are the rich countries ready? Author: Christian Kroll, PhD with a foreword by Koﬁ Annan

Executive summary

Sustainable Development Goals: Are the rich countries ready? Background 1. World leaders from all UN member countries will gather on

own policies and performance reﬂected. Achieving the SDGs

September 25, 2015, in New York for a historic UN summit. It

will require major efforts in every country. Consequently,

will be opened by Pope Francis and aims to adopt new global

these goals have the power to question the way we live, how

goals to guide policy in the next 15 years.

we structure our economies, the way we produce, the way

2. Throughout the period 2000–2015, the UN Millennium

we consume. They can spark reform debates that ultimately

Development Goals (MDGs) have managed to focus the

increase awareness and highlight the particular responsi-

world’s attention on the key challenges faced by humanity.

bilities of the OECD nations in that regard. The SDGs will

Eight goals united the world in an unprecedented effort to

therefore demand fundamental policy changes in the rich

make people’s lives better. These goals were: (1) eradicate

countries themselves.

extreme poverty and hunger, (2) achieve universal primary education, (3) promote gender equality and empower women,

Key findings

(4) reduce child mortality, (5) improve maternal health, (6)

6. This study examines how high-income countries are currently

combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, (7) ensure

performing in this regard: Are the rich countries holding up

environmental sustainability, and (8) develop a global part-

their end of the global deal on sustainable development? Are

nership for development.

they doing their homework? It ought to be a ﬁrst systematic

3. Between 2016 and 2030, Sustainable Development Goals

assessment of developed nations on what are likely to become

(SDGs) ought to be at the center of the global political agenda.

the global policy goals for the coming 15 years. It is the ﬁrst

The 17 new goals are to be adopted during the UN summit

“stress test” of rich countries for the SDGs and presents a new

on September 25, 2015, in New York. The outcome document

SDG Index to assess country performance on the goals. More-

from this summit carries the title “Transforming our world:

over, the study highlights best practice in ways of achieving

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” In it, world

future SDGs. It provides a snapshot of evidence for the crucial

leaders commit themselves to “working tirelessly for the full implementation of this Agenda by 2030.” How this transformation could work is the subject of this study.

UN summit and much further beyond. 7. An in-depth look at the performance in the proposed 17 goals reveals that currently OECD countries vary greatly

4. What is new about the SDGs in comparison to the MDGs is

in their capacity to meet these bold ambitions. It becomes

not only their extended number and more participatory con-

evident that not all countries are ﬁt for the goals, and indeed

ception. While the eight MDGs were primarily aimed at end-

no one country performs outstandingly in every goal.

ing extreme poverty in all its forms in developing countries,

Each country has its own particular lessons to learn from

the most important novelty is that the SDGs will explicitly

the others. So in addition to the common challenges for all

broaden the focus to all countries – including the rich nations

high-income countries, this study offers a detailed proﬁle of

of this world.

the strengths and weaknesses of the individual countries.

5. From the high-income countries’ perspective, if the MDGs

Visualizations illustrate at a glance the achievements and

were the telescope through which they looked at the develop-

challenges of each nation across all 17 goals so that cherry-

ing world, the SDGs are the mirror in which they see their

picking is impossible.

4

Sustainable Development Goals

Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans,

Source: Outcome document for the UN summit on September 25–27, 2015: “Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”

seas and marine resources for sustainable development Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ 7891Transforming%20Our%20World.pdf

8. This stress test shows that especially Sweden, Norway, Den-

sustainable development, all countries are now developing

mark, Finland, and Switzerland can be considered ready for

countries. Thus, a new – more inclusive as well as sustain-

the SDGs. These countries, the ﬁt ﬁve, are therefore in a good

able – social and economic model must be strived for in the

position to foster further improvements in terms of sustain-

future.

able development going forward. Even these nations still

11. Best practices are becoming visible that can facilitate peer

have signiﬁcant deﬁciencies with regard to certain goals as

learning on the way toward such a new model that would

the country proﬁles illustrate. Nonetheless, stronger policy

fulﬁll the ambitious SDGs. Sweden, for example, managed

efforts are needed to follow in the footsteps of the likes of

to cut its already outstandingly low levels of greenhouse gas

Sweden and Norway for other countries to reach the ambi-

emissions relative to GDP by more than another third (35

tious set of UN goals by 2030.

percent) since 2006. Such enormous progress at an already

9. Without a doubt, all high-income countries will need to step

high level puts other countries to shame and is worthy of

up their efforts to ﬁght poverty and disease in the poorest

emulation. By contrast, countries such as Canada, Australia,

corners of the world. The SDGs, however, go further than that

and Estonia emit eight to ten times as much as Sweden rela-

and also call for domestic reforms in the rich countries them-

tive to GDP. Concrete policy instruments which have fostered

selves. The main challenges for the entire set of OECD coun-

this success in Sweden include the carbon tax on the use of

tries in terms of the SDGs as far as their own societies are

coal, oil, natural gas, petrol, and aviation fuel. It set the right

concerned are: fostering an inclusive economic model (goals

ﬁnancial incentives for the use of biomass, such as waste

8 and 10) as well as sustainable consumption and production

from forests and forest industries, in heating systems instead

patterns (goal 12). In the ﬁrst respect, sadly, the rich countries

of using carbon. Furthermore, it encouraged the growth of

in this world are no exception to the trend of a growing gap

non-energy-intensive industries, such as the service sector,

between rich and poor. Inequality keeps rising across these

which grew stronger than energy-intensive industries over

countries as well with the average income of the richest 10

the last years.

percent of the population now being about nine times that of

12. Rich nations must do more to achieve the SDGs globally but

the poorest 10 percent. In the latter respect, half of all OECD

also domestically. We must remain ambitious with regard

nations still draw less than 11 percent of their energy from

to the goals: if the MDGs helped developing countries halve

renewable sources – clearly more efforts are needed there.

mortality rates among children under ﬁve years of age over

Likewise, countries such as the United States and Denmark

the last 15 years, surely we can demand that the high-income

generate 725 and 751 kilograms, respectively, of municipal

countries use the SDGs to manage the transition toward a

waste per person every year. The UK and Estonia overexploit

more sustainable economic and social model. From now on,

their ﬁsh stock by 24 and 22 percent, respectively.

civil society will have to hold governments to their pledges

10. Their inability to ﬁght the growing social divide combined with their overuse of resources therefore shows that today’s

at the UN summit and accelerate the change over the next 15 years. This study shall be a start to make that happen.

high-income countries in their current shape can no longer serve as role models for the developing world. In terms of

5

Sweden

1

Norway

2

Denmark

3

.00 10

7.79 7.55 7.52

Finland

4 5

Germany

6

7.08

Netherlands

7

7.04

Belgium

8

7.00

Iceland

9

6.97

France 10

6.94

Canada 11

6.93

Austria 12

6.92

Japan 13

6.91

Slovenia 13

6.91

7.21

United Kingdom 15

6.83

New Zealand 16

6.80

Luxembourg 17

6.66

Australia 18

6.65

Spain 18

6.65

Ireland 20

6.47

Estonia 21

6.42 6.42

Poland 21

6.32

Korea, Rep. 23 Czech Republic 24

6.24

Portugal 25

6.23 6.13

Italy 26 Slovakia 27

6.02

Israel 28

6.01

United States 29

5.95

Greece 30

5.88

Chile 31

5.73

Hungary 32

Mexico 34

0

7.86

Switzerland

Turkey 33

9.0

0

7.0

8.0

0

0 6.0

0 5.0

0 4.0

0 3.0

0 2.0

1.

0

00

The world’s first SDG Index

5.55 5.19 4.91

The SDG Index illustrates the overall performance of each OECD country based on the 17 goals and 34 indicators examined in the study. In sum, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Switzerland are best prepared to meet the SDGs and in a good position to foster sustainable development by 2030. However, even these countries are faced with particular challenges, as the country profiles in this study illustrate.

Table of contents

Executive summary ........................................................ 4

Portugal ......................................................................... 43 Slovakia.......................................................................... 44

Foreword ..................................................................... 8

Slovenia ......................................................................... 45

1. Introduction: New goals for the world ..................... 12

Spain.............................................................................. 46

2. Methodology............................................................... 14

Sweden .......................................................................... 47 Switzerland .................................................................... 48

3. Country profiles .......................................................... 16

Turkey ............................................................................ 49

Australia......................................................................... 18

United Kingdom ............................................................. 50

Austria ........................................................................... 19

United States.................................................................. 51

Belgium.......................................................................... 20 Canada .......................................................................... 21

4. Performance by goal................................................... 52

Chile .............................................................................. 22

Goal 1:

Poverty ............................................................ 54

Czech Republic............................................................... 23

Goal 2: Agriculture and nutrition ................................. 56

Denmark ........................................................................ 24

Goal 3: Health ............................................................. 58

Estonia ........................................................................... 25

Goal 4: Education ........................................................ 60

Finland ........................................................................... 26

Goal 5: Gender equality ............................................... 62

France ............................................................................ 27

Goal 6: Water .............................................................. 64

Germany ........................................................................ 28

Goal 7: Energy ............................................................. 66

Greece ........................................................................... 29

Goal 8: Economy and labor .......................................... 68

Hungary ......................................................................... 30

Goal 9: Infrastructure and innovation........................... 70

Iceland ........................................................................... 31

Goal 10: Inequality ........................................................ 72

Ireland............................................................................ 32

Goal 11: Cities ............................................................... 74

Israel .............................................................................. 33

Goal 12: Consumption and production .......................... 76

Italy ................................................................................ 34

Goal 13: Climate ............................................................ 78

Japan ............................................................................. 35

Goal 14: Oceans ............................................................ 80

Korea, Rep. .................................................................... 36

Goal 15: Biodiversity ...................................................... 82

Luxembourg ................................................................... 37

Goal 16: Institutions ...................................................... 84

Mexico ........................................................................... 38

Goal 17: Global partnership ........................................... 86

Netherlands ................................................................... 39 New Zealand .................................................................. 40

5. Conclusions: Who is fit for the goals?....................... 88

Norway .......................................................................... 41

6. Bibliography ................................................................ 96

Poland............................................................................ 42

7. Appendix: Full list of indicators ................................ 98

7

Foreword

Foreword

Fifteen years ago, world leaders acknowledged that in a world of

· The number of people now living in extreme poverty has declined

plenty and astounding technological progress, the poverty, hun-

by more than half, falling from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 836 million

ger, and disease that so many of our fellow human beings still

in 2015.

faced was intolerable. At our UN Millennium Summit in 2000, the largest group of world leaders ever assembled signed the

· The proportion of undernourished people in the developing regions has dropped by almost half since 1990.

Millennium Declaration in New York and put the Millennium

· The number of out-of-school children of primary school age

Development Goals into action. Development issues had ﬁnally

worldwide fell by almost half, to an estimated 57 million in

reached the highest political level and, for the ﬁrst time, devel-

2015, down from 100 million in 2000.

oping countries were challenged to translate their development vision into nationally-owned plans.

However, despite some encouraging steps forward, we are still far from achieving all the targets we had set ourselves.

Today, there is no doubt that the eight Millennium Develop-

Too many people remain caught in extreme poverty, too many

ment Goals and their framework of accountability have helped

remain hungry and sick, too many mothers die in childbirth, and

people across the world to improve their lives and future prospects.

too many children still do not go to school.

They have not only helped to mobilise resources and provided a

We are also not yet doing enough to meet basic needs

much-needed sense of direction for national plans and interna-

and fulﬁll basic rights, to protect the environment, to build

tional cooperation; they have also delivered measurable results:

effective international partnerships for development, or to

· The mortality rate of children under ﬁve has been cut by more

harness private entrepreneurship to deliver public goods and

than half since 1990.

8

services to those in need.

One of the lessons of the last 15 years is that the world’s

This study therefore shows how the rich countries currently

biggest challenges cannot be solved in isolation. Consequently,

perform in all of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. It is

the new Sustainable Development Goals will be a universal set

a ﬁrst systematic assessment of what will become the global

of goals for all countries, including the rich nations of this world.

policy goals for the coming 15 years. It offers detailed proﬁles

High-income countries have a special responsibility – not only

of the strengths and weaknesses of each country and thereby

as donors of development assistance to provide crucial funds in

highlights best practice in ways of achieving the Sustainable

the quest to end extreme poverty. They will also have to do their

Development Goals. As such, it provides an evidence base for

homework and increase efforts towards a more sustainable and

policymakers, businesses, and civil society to act.

socially just economic model in their own countries. Promoting

I am thankful to the Bertelsmann Stiftung for highlighting

peaceful and inclusive societies, for instance, or ensuring sus-

this issue in such elaborate detail with the support of the Sus-

tainable consumption and production patterns are challenges

tainable Development Solutions Network. The study shows that

that OECD countries need to take on just as much, if not more

high-income countries must do more to achieve the Sustainable

than, the developing world. High-income nations must become

Development Goals. Their top priority, of course, must remain

leading examples of truly sustainable development.

ending extreme poverty in the poorest regions of the world.

The Sustainable Development Goals should be workable

However, rich nations will also have to adopt domestic reforms.

and understandable by people so they can ask governments to

This study will hopefully spark reform debates on sustainability

act. Civil society must be able to put pressure on governments

and social justice in many high-income countries. We owe it to

to hold them to account for what they pledge at the UN summit.

our planet and its people.

Kofi A. Annan Founder and Chairman of the Kofi Annan Foundation, Seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations (1997–2006) and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (2001)

9

Foreword

Foreword

The UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) helped unite

developed, i.e. donor countries. This rightly changes with the

the world in a joint effort to ﬁght extreme poverty and produced

new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which explicitly

impressive results, halving, for example, not only the mortal-

demand domestic reforms from high-income nations toward

ity rate of children under the age of ﬁve years and the number

more social justice and sustainability.

of people living in extreme poverty, but also the proportion of undernourished people in the developing world.

The world’s ﬁrst “stress test” of OECD countries with regard to the new global policy goals presented in this study is

However, there is a lot of unﬁnished business left that we

a crucial ﬁrst step for making the SDGs become a game changer

must focus on over the next 15 years. We must continue to ﬁght

in global development policies. We congratulate and thank the

poverty in the most desperate corners of the world, but this will

author as well as everyone else involved, in particular the UN

not be enough. The MDGs did not include the full spectrum of

Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The stress test

global issues regarding inequality and environmental issues.

shows that rich countries will fail the new goals if they do not

The MDG focus divided the world into developing countries and

take immediate steps toward a more sustainable and socially

10

just economic model. Only then will they be able to serve as role

point to give citizens the power to hold their governments to

models for the rest of the world. But the study also identiﬁes

account for what they pledge at the historic UN summit in New

best practices across all 17 goals and 34 OECD countries. Going

York in September 2015. We hope that the study will spark and

forward, we will have to learn from these good examples and

enrich reform debates in OECD countries in order to make these

discuss how they can be followed by others.

new goals a success story. In the interest of future generations,

The SDGs are not legally binding goals, they are merely

we have no time to lose.

political goals. They will only be achieved if civil society and citizens are effective in putting pressure on their own governments to pursue these goals. The SDGs should serve as leverage for politics to pursue a better economic and social model. The Bertelsmann Stiftung is ready to help make these goals a success. This study and the assessment it provides should be a starting

Aart De Geus

Dr. Stefan Empter

Chairman and CEO

Senior Director

Executive Board

Program “Shaping Sustainable Economies”

Bertelsmann Stiftung

Bertelsmann Stiftung

11

Introduction

1. Introduction: New goals for the world In the years 2000 – 2015, the UN Millennium Development

comprehensive process. Responding to criticism of the MDGs,

Goals (MDGs) have managed to focus the world’s attention on

speciﬁcally the lack of opportunities for participation during

the key challenges faced by humanity. Eight goals united the

their conception, the UN conducted the largest consultation

world in an unprecedented effort to make people’s lives better.

exercise in its history to ensure wide ownership of the goals.

These goals were (1) eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, (2)

Following the Rio+20 summit in 2012, an Open Working Group

achieve universal primary education, (3) promote gender equal-

(OWG) with representatives from UN member countries was

ity and empower women, (4) reduce child mortality, (5) improve

mandated to create a draft set of goals. It presented the ﬁnal

maternal health, (6) combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other dis-

draft to the UN General Assembly in September 2014. Alongside

eases, (7) ensure environmental sustainability, and (8) develop

the ofﬁcial negotiations of the OWG, the UN hosted numerous

a global partnership for development.

global conversations including eleven thematic and 83 national

Fifteen years after the MDGs were put in place, the number

consultations, as well as an online “My World” survey – the larg-

of people in extreme poverty, the under-ﬁve mortality rate, the

est survey in the history of the UN – which recorded the desired

maternal mortality rate, and the proportion of undernourished

policy priorities of over seven million participants to inform the

people in developing countries have declined by around half

OWG’s deliberations. The OWG proposal was then subject to

compared to their respective 1990 baseline levels. Many more

intergovernmental negotiations and will be signed into action in

girls are in school now and the primary school enrolment rate

September 2015.2

in developing countries currently stands at 91 percent. Access to sources of water has improved signiﬁcantly, and progress

“1. We, the Heads of State and Government and High Representatives,

was made in combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis

meeting at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from

with, for instance, over 6.2 million malaria deaths having been

25 – 27 September 2015 as the Organization celebrates its seven-

averted in the last 15 years. Nonetheless, there is still much

tieth anniversary, have decided today on new global Sustainable

unﬁnished business, with more modest accomplishments in a

Development Goals.

number of goals.1 So while levels of fulﬁllment vary across the goals, and

2. On behalf of the peoples we serve, we have adopted a historic deci-

although it might be argued that some improvements in liv-

sion on a comprehensive, far-reaching and people-centred set of uni-

ing standards would have come about without the targets, the

versal and transformative Goals and targets. We commit ourselves to

overall verdict on the MDGs is highly positive: they provided

working tirelessly for the full implementation of this Agenda by 2030.”

a viable framework for action, a mechanism for peer pressure between countries, and an overarching concept for assessing

Pledge by world leaders in outcome document of the UN summit in

improvements for those most in need.

September 20153

From 2016 – 2030, a new set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ought to be at the center of the global political

What is new about the SDGs in comparison to the MDGs is not

agenda. World leaders will adopt 17 goals during the UN sum-

only their extended number and more participatory conception.

mit on September 25, 2015, in New York (see box for the 17 pro-

While the eight MDGs were primarily aimed at ending extreme

posed SDGs). These goals are the result of an unprecedentedly

poverty in all its forms in developing countries, the most

1 UNDP (2015). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/mdg/the-millennium-development-goals-report-2015.html 2 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015 3 Outcome document for the UN summit on September 25–27, 2015: “Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/7891Transforming%20Our%20World.pdf

12

important novelty is that the SDGs will explicitly broaden the

In order to assess whether countries are ﬁt for the goals, two

focus to all countries – including the rich nations of this world.

“snapshot indicators” per goal are examined (see Chapter 2,

Nonetheless, policymakers in the OECD countries still gen-

Methodology). A glance at the performance against the 17 goals

erally look upon the SDGs as a development policy issue. The

proposed reveals that at present, OECD countries vary greatly in

task for high-income countries, one might assume, is simply to

their capacity to meet these ambitious goals. It becomes evident

provide greater levels of ofﬁcial development assistance (ODA),

that not all countries are ﬁt for the goals, and indeed no one

speciﬁcally, pushing efforts closer to the target of 0.7 percent

country performs outstandingly in every goal. Each country has

of GDP, which few countries have managed so far. The truth is,

its own particular lessons to learn from the others.

however, that the SDGs will not just require rich countries to

The evidence on OECD country performance in this study

increase development funds for others; they will need fundamen-

highlights the need for these countries to introduce domestic

tal policy changes in their own countries. If the MDGs were the

reforms in order to meet the SDGs. Focusing on the performance

telescope through which rich countries viewed the developing

of high-income countries should in no way distract attention

world, the SDGs are the mirror in which they see their own poli-

from the ﬁght to eradicate extreme poverty and the plight of

cies and performance reﬂected. In other words, every country

those in most desperate need. Truly sustainable development in

is now a developing country when it comes to an economic and

fact means, for OECD countries, that efforts in all policy areas be

social model which is both sustainable and socially just.

aligned toward the goal of ﬁghting extreme suffering around the

Consequently, these goals have the power to question the

globe in a coherent manner. Rich nations cannot buy their way

way we, citizens of the rich world, structure our economies, the

out of their responsibilities by merely increasing ODA while

way we produce, the way we consume, in short: the way we live.

continuing with their own highly unsustainable consumption

They can spark reform debates that ultimately increase aware-

and production patterns. This, of course, will ultimately impact

ness and highlight the particular responsibilities of high-income

the poorer nations. While richer countries will inevitably

nations in that regard. The SDGs will therefore demand funda-

look for trade-offs between different SDGs, they must strive

mental policy changes in the rich countries themselves so that

for the full set. And, as a consequence, this study will make

the OECD nations keep up their end of the global deal on sustain-

performance in all 17 goals visible for each country, a holistic

able development.

approach which makes cherry-picking impossible.

Sustainable development is a truly global endeavor, involv-

The remainder of this publication is structured as follows:

ing rich and poor countries alike. Challenges such as sustained,

Chapter 2 outlines the methodology, particularly the selection

inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, or sustainable

and presentation of the snapshot indicators. Chapter 3 then

consumption and production patterns are just as, if not more,

illustrates at a glance the strengths and weaknesses of each

pressing for the OECD as they are for the developing world. Eco-

country across the 17 goals. Chapter 4 presents and discusses

nomically advanced nations need to become leading examples of

the performance by goal: Bar charts are used to rank countries

sustainable development.4

on each goal and make visible the differences between them.

This gives rise to the question of how OECD countries are currently performing: Are they keeping up their end of the global

Chapter 5 outlines the lessons learned and policy options for the way forward.

deal on sustainable development? Are they doing their home-

It is clear already that rich nations must take these goals

work? Which countries offer “best practice” for which indicator,

seriously, not just globally but domestically as well. And they

and which ones are lagging behind? What can OECD countries

must do more to achieve them. Civil society will have to put pres-

learn from each other?

sure on governments to hold them to their pledge on these 17

This study aims to provide the answers. It will be the ﬁrst

goals. This study aims to be a ﬁrst step in making that happen.

systematic assessment of developed nations on what are set to become the major global policy goals for the next 15 years, in other words a “stress test” or “ﬁtness test” assessing the preparedness of OECD countries for the SDGs. Moreover, the study highlights the type of best practice that can help in achieving SDGs. It provides a snapshot of evidence for the crucial UN summit and much further beyond. 4 See for instance Sachs, J. (2015). The age of sustainable development. New York: Columbia University Press.

13

Methodology

2. Methodology

Monitoring the SDGs will be a crucial element of the strategy

and technical expertise from academia, civil society, and the

for achieving them. The SDGs must become management tools

private sector in support of sustainable development – two

for policymakers: We will only know if we are on track to meet

“snapshot indicators” per goal were selected based on the

the ambitious aims if we have a sound system of indicators in

following three criteria7:

place to guide our policies. In fact, as this study is being prepared, the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDGs (IAEG-SDGs), with the United

1. Feasibility: Data must be available today in good quality at least for OECD countries.8

Nations Statistics Division acting as its secretariat, is busy working out a catalog of indicators to create a full monitor-

2. Suitability: The indicator should represent the – often multifaceted –

ing system for the SDGs by March 2016.5 Naturally, this

goal in a broad sense like a headline indicator; there should be a close

monitoring system will include a wide range of indicators for

conceptual fit between goal and indicator; the indicators should be

a detailed view of each goal and target – many more indicators

appropriate for the particular challenges of economically advanced

will eventually be needed than we look at in this study.

nations.

The purpose of this analysis in the context of those global deliberations is to provide a concise snapshot of high-

3. Relevance: The indicator should stand a good chance of becoming

income countries’ present position with regard to their global

an actual part of the SDG monitoring system as currently being dis-

responsibilities for sustainable development in the year that

cussed by the IAEG-SDGs.

the SDGs are signed into action. This will make visible the shortcomings and best practices which policymakers can and

In the selection of indicators, we have also built on the SDSN

should act on over the coming 15 years. It provides a starting

Indicator Report9 – a comprehensive framework for SDG moni-

point for “transforming our world,” as the title of the outcome

toring which includes a proposed set of 100 Global Monitoring

document of the historical UN summit puts it. This snapshot

Indicators for which hundreds of organizations provided input

of evidence should therefore be easily accessible and easily

over 18 months – as well as on the Sustainable Governance

comprehensible, with a manageable number of indicators, but

Indicators10 of the Bertelsmann Stiftung, a country perfor-

should at the same time be comprehensive enough to provide

mance assessment framework involving over 140 indicators

a ﬁ rst glimpse of country performance. Clearly, two snapshot

for measuring sustainable governance, which is produced

indicators per goal cannot do justice to the complexity of

with a network of around 100 academics worldwide.

sustainable development; this will, of course, be fewer than

The overriding question of this exercise is: Are the rich

the IAEG-SDG system to come, and important aspects will be

countries ready for the SDGs? For this reason, we assign par-

omitted. Nonetheless, given the criteria for selection outlined

ticular relevance to the performance on each indicator relative

below, this study will offer a relatively detailed overview of

to other countries, namely whether a country makes it into the

country performance in the 17 new goals.6

top ﬁve of the 34 countries examined here. Naturally, there

With the support of the Sustainable Development Solu-

are many alternative ways of presenting this information,

tions Network (SDSN) – a network launched by UN Secretary-

including alternative cutoff points such as the top quartile or

General Ban Ki-moon in August 2012 to mobilize scientiﬁc

quintile of the distribution. As crude as the present approach

14

may appear, it provides a rough-and-ready illustration of the

monitoring system. There is only so much that statistical

number of dimensions in which a country can currently be

averages can tell us, and in the future they should be comple-

considered “best practice.”

mented by distributions and disaggregation (e.g. by age, sex,

The exact thresholds and baselines that signal achieve-

or employment status). Nonetheless, the averages presented

ment of each SDG must be worked out by experts and negoti-

here provide a starting point and a good indication of where

ated between and within countries in a sophisticated process

countries currently stand on the path toward the SDGs.

going forward. They should be both ambitious and feasible, exceeding even the best of today’s best practices. Nonetheless, the performance of the top ﬁve – as a rule of thumb for the purpose of this study – provides a substantive impression of a country’s ﬁtness for the respective goal. However, this study also allows the necessary, detailed look at performance across all dimensions. This method of benchmarking against the top countries gives us a reference point that is achievable for many other OECD countries, yet sufﬁciently ambitious that only a handful of countries have yet attained it. But even the current top performers must increase their efforts for a number of goals, including sustainable consumption and production patterns. Here, current performance benchmarks are simply not good enough in light of the earth’s capacities. In order to summarize country performance, the ﬁrst SDG Index has been compiled for this study (see results in Chapter 5) based on the 34 individual indicators presented in Chapter

5 Regular updates on the process are available at http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/

4. To calculate the index, the raw data for each indicator have

6 In the long run, to strike a good balance between accessibility and complexity of an SDG monitoring system, it might be possible to display the larger number of indicators concisely using a sub-index for each of the 17 goals.

been normalized to the interval [0;1] using a linear transformation, with the minimum and maximum values over the three observed data points as upper and lower boundaries. Subsequently, a score between one and ten has been assigned to the transformed data in such a way that for each indicator, a score of ten is the best and a score of one the worst result possible. The overall SDG Index was calculated as an unweighted arithmetic mean of the 34 individual indicators. The key theme of the SDGs, namely that no one gets left behind, should eventually also be reﬂected in the ﬁ nal

7 Thanks to the participants of an expert workshop hosted by the Bertelsmann Stiftung and SDSN in Paris in April 2015 on “SDG indicators for OECD countries” which provided input into the selection of indicators displayed here: Guido Schmidt-Traub, Eve de la Mothe Karoubi, Maria Cortes-Puch (all SDSN Paris), Simone Bastianoni (SDSN Mediterranean and University of Siena), Nilgun Ciliz (SDSN Turkey and Bosphorus University), Nicola Massarelli (Eurostat), Marco Mira d’Ercole (OECD), El Iza Mohamedou (PARIS21), Nicole Rippin (SDSN Germany and German Development Institute), as well as thanks to Wilfried Rickels (IfW Kiel) and all participants of a workshop at the Bonn Conference for Global Transformation (May 2015). The selection of indicators or views expressed in this publication do not represent an official position on the subject by the institutions that participants of the workshop are affiliated with. The author of this study bears full responsibility for the final selection of the indicators. 8 For the future, further improvements in data coverage and quality are, of course, desired. For this assessment of current performance, however, the indicator selection had to be restricted to the data that is already available. 9 Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2015). Indicators and a monitoring framework for the Sustainable Development Goals. http://indicators.report/ 10 http://www.sgi-network.org

15

Country profiles

Chapter 3 presents a detailed proﬁ le of the strengths and weaknesses of each country for all 17 SDGs. Charts are used to illustrate relative performance in each of the snapshot indicators discussed in more detail in chapter 4. The outer circles of the chart in green represent the best results moving to the worst at the center. A chart for a country that ranks highly in numerous indicators will have a large shaded area. Where values are missing (e.g., the ocean-related goals for landlocked countries) the line is interrupted. These charts and country proﬁles serve as an illustration of what a concise but informative SDG monitoring system could look like in the future. It would make it impossible for policymakers to cherry-pick selected goals, drawing attention to areas where their country excels and ignoring dimensions where performance is wanting. In this chapter, then, the whole set of 17 goals will be examined. What emerges is a holistic image of country performance across the entire catalogue of goals. In addition, detailed country reports which examine more dimensions than covered here in this study can be viewed at www.sgi-network.org. Country reports for low- and middle-income countries are available at www.bti-project.org.

16

3. Country profiles

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Denmark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Iceland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Korea, Rep. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Slovenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

17

Country profiles | Australia

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

AUSTRALIA Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

18th of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Australia ranks 18th out of 34 countries across all dimensions

for goal 14 (which calls for the sustainable use of oceans, seas

of this study’s SDG Index. It numbers among the top ﬁve in

and marine resources). The country comes in ﬁfth on the Ocean

seven of the 34 indicators. Australia’s performance, however,

Health Index and second on the use of its ﬁsh stocks. Australia’s

varies considerably. On eleven of the indicators it can be found

ﬁsh stocks are overexploited at a rate of “only” 15.2 percent,

in the bottom third.

better than the very high 17.8 percent OECD average and just 0.2 percent behind front-runner Japan, but still illustrating how

Strengths

some of today’s best performances simply are not good enough.

On average, Australians can expect to live 73 years in full health; this places the country among the best performers for

Weaknesses

this indicator. Australia is also among the top countries for goal

With 47 tons per capita, Australia has the worst rates of domes-

11 (inclusivity, safety, resilience and sustainability of cities and

tic material consumption among the OECD countries. The

human settlements). Australians enjoy considerable domestic

country also generates 647 kilograms of municipal waste per

space, with 2.3 rooms per person, with particulate matter air

capita, putting it 30th among the 34 countries studied. These

pollution below World Health Organization safety thresholds. In

two indicators jointly measure the sustainability of consump-

addition, the country ranks ﬁfth in gross agricultural nutrient

tion and production patterns (goal 12). Australia’s performance

balances with a surplus of just 15 kilograms per hectare of agri-

is equally dismal for goal 13 (which calls for action to combat

cultural land, indicating that nitrogen and phosphorous are used

climate change and its impacts). In terms of both greenhouse

in farming in a way that minimizes pollution. By comparison,

gas emissions and CO2 emissions from energy production, Aus-

the average OECD country has a surplus of 67 kilograms while

tralia ranks 33rd, with the country’s fossil fuel energy produc-

South Korea, the worst performer on this indicator, has a surplus

tion causing 17 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita. By

of 259 kilograms per hectare of agricultural land. Also notewor-

comparison, the top ﬁve countries each emit less than 5 tons

thy: Australia ranks among the top ﬁve countries in this study

per capita.

18

Austria | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

AUSTRIA Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

12th of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

Austria ranks twelfth out of 34 countries across all dimensions

With a score of 6.4, Austria ranks 29th among OECD countries

of the SDG Index. The country is among the top ten in twelve

on the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status. In

of the 34 indicators in this study, two of those in the top ﬁve.

other words, the impact of socioeconomic background on edu-

Austria’s performance varies considerably across the various

cational performance among Austrian pupils is among the

indicators, although it gravitates toward the mid-zone. The

highest in the OECD, making it hard for students from poorer

country features in the bottom ﬁve in just two indicators.

households to catch up. So while the country’s income gap between rich and poor is better than two-thirds of the coun-

Strengths

tries studied, its low PISA index ranking means that Austria’s

Austria comes in sixth among the 34 countries studied in terms

performance for goal 10 (which calls for reduction of inequality

of its renewable energy consumption. A laudable 30.6 percent

within and among countries) is highly mixed. The country also

of gross energy consumption comes from renewable sources.

ranks 29th for particulate matter air pollution. Also worrying:

The country also has lower greenhouse gas emissions per

with 21.7 tons per capita, Austria’s domestic material consump-

GDP than 28 other OECD countries. With emissions of 248.8

tion level places it among the bottom third of OECD countries.

tons per million measured in CO2 equivalents per GDP, Austria performs better than the 352.1-ton OECD average, but is still a long way behind the front-runner Sweden (which emits only 66.8 tons). The country is also a leader in wastewater management. Finally, Austria is in a very good position to implement and track SDG-related performance, featuring in the top three for SDG monitoring: more than 80 percent of SDG indicators used in this study are reported annually with a time lag no greater than three years.

19

Country profiles | Belgium

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results 5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.1

14.1

BELGIUM Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

8th of 34

13.2

5.2

13.1

6.1

6.2

12.2

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1 11.2

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

Belgium ranks eighth out of 34 countries across all dimensions

Belgium ranks last for particulate matter air pollution, with

of the SDG Index. The country is among the top ten in nine of

many Belgians exposed to levels exceeding World Health Orga-

the 34 indicators, four of those in the top ﬁve. Belgium’s perfor-

nization safety thresholds. Half of all OECD manage to keep

mance, however, varies considerably. For three indicators the

within these limits. In addition, Belgium annually withdraws

country ﬁnds itself among the bottom ﬁve.

51.8 percent of its total renewable freshwater resources, putting it at 31st among the 34 OECD countries, and indicating

Strengths

that the sustainability of its water resources is gravely endan-

Belgium does particularly well in terms of gender equality and

gered. Belgium is also among the bottom ﬁ ve countries for

the empowerment of women and girls (goal 5). With a relatively

gross agricultural nutrient balances, with nitrogen and phos-

low gender pay gap of 6.4 percent and a national parliament

phorous use that degrades the environment in contravention

which is 41.3 percent female, Belgium ranks second and third

of sustainable agriculture concepts (goal 2). On goal 7 (which

respectively. By contrast, the average gender pay gap across

calls for universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and

the OECD is 15.5 percent. With 2.2 rooms per person, Belgians

modern energy), Belgium ranks among the bottom 10 OECD

also enjoy considerable domestic space, which places the coun-

countries. The country’s relatively high primary energy inten-

try among the top ﬁve. In addition, the country ranks among

sity (6.4 petajoules per GDP) and low share of renewable energy

the top ﬁve on the poverty gap (the percentage by which the

consumption (5.3 percent) are unsustainable and threaten the

mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line). This posi-

energy supply of future generations.

tion, combined with a relatively favorable income gap between rich and poor (seventh, with a Palma ratio of 0.9), illustrates Belgium’s relative success at tackling poverty and inequality.

20

Canada | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results 5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.1

14.1

CANADA Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

11th of 34

13.2

5.2

13.1

6.1

6.2

12.2

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment

11.2 Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Canada ranks eleventh out of 34 countries across all dimen-

total renewable freshwater resources. This puts the country

sions of the SDG Index. It does signiﬁcantly better than its

fourth among the countries in this study.

neighbor, the United States, which comes in at 29th place. Canada is among the top ten on 15 indicators; on six indica-

Weaknesses

tors it ranks in the top ﬁve. Across the various goals, Canada’s

The Canadian government does, however, face policy challenges.

performance varies considerably, with six indicators ﬁ nding

Canada is 32nd for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (with only

the country among the bottom ﬁve.

Australia and Estonia faring worse) and 31st for CO2 emissions from energy production. The country’s fossil fuel energy produc-

Strengths

tion caused 15.3 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita. By

Canadians not only do better at school than other OECD

contrast, the top ﬁve OECD countries each emit less than half

countries, they also overcome socioeconomic background to

of Canada’s total GHG emissions and less than 5 tons per capita

a greater degree. On both PISA results and the PISA index of

through fossil fuel energy production. The country also ranks

economic, social and cultural status, Canada comes in ﬁfth.

among the bottom ﬁve countries in this study for primary energy

Canada also leads the OECD countries in making cities and

intensity (8.1 petajoules per GDP). The same is true of domestic

human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

material consumption where Canada (29.2 tons per capita) falls

(goal 11). With 2.5 rooms per person, Canadians enjoy consid-

far short of countries like Japan, Hungary and the United King-

erable domestic space, and particulate matter air pollution is

dom (all below 10 tons per capita).

below World Health Organization safety thresholds. Canada ranks third behind Turkey and Poland in protecting threatened animal species. A relatively low 9 percent of bird species in the country are threatened: the OECD average is 22 percent. In addition, Canada annually withdraws just 1.5 percent of its

21

Country profiles | Chile

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

CHILE Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

31st of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

Chile ranks 31st out of 34 countries across all dimensions of the

A sustainable economy requires innovation, yet Chile spends

SDG Index. Chile is among the top ten in seven of the 34 indica-

less on research and development than any other OECD coun-

tors in this study, but only once manages to crack the top ﬁve.

try (just 0.4 percent of GDP). By contrast, the top six countries

The country’s performance across the indicators varies consider-

in this study each spend between 3 and 4 percent of GDP on

ably. On 18 indicators Chile ﬁnds itself among the bottom third of

domestic R&D. The country’s last place for income gap between

countries in this study, nine of those placing it in the bottom ﬁve.

rich and poor (Palma ratio of 3.3) indicates that Chile has so far failed to adequately address inequality. Even more worrying,

Strengths

the country performs dismally for both indicators that measure

Chile performs well in protecting animal species, ranking ﬁfth

goal 4 (which calls for inclusive and equitable quality educa-

among the 34 OECD countries. A relatively low 11 percent of bird

tion and lifelong learning). The viability of a society depends

species in the country are threatened (compared to the 21.6 per-

to a large extent on the capabilities of its members, yet Chile

cent OECD average). Similarly, a comparatively low 15.8 percent

is still a long way from providing education opportunities on a

of Chile’s ﬁsh stocks are overexploited, ranking the country sixth.

par with most other OECD countries. In 2011, just 57.5 percent

This is somewhat better than the 17.8 percent OECD average. The

of Chileans had completed at least upper secondary education.

country also is among the top ten for taking urgent action to com-

In addition, the average Chilean student’s PISA score was 60.9

bat climate change and its impacts (goal 13). For example, the

points below the OECD mean, with only Mexico offering a

country’s fossil fuel energy production causes 4.5 tons of carbon

worse performance. Also alarming: the country’s high domes-

dioxide emissions per capita (sixth place in the sample). Chile

tic material consumption (41 tons per capita) ranks it 33rd,

also has lower greenhouse gas emissions per GDP than 25 other

surpassed only by Australia. By comparison, the average OECD

OECD countries. With emissions per GDP of 273 tons per million

country uses approximately 19 tons of materials per capita in

USD, the country performs better than the 352.1 tons OECD aver-

its economy.

age, but still short of the front-runner, Sweden (which emits just 66.8 tons). 22

Czech Republic | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2 16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

14.1

CZECH REPUBLIC

5.1

13.2

24th of 34

5.2

13.1

6.1

6.2

12.2

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

11.2 Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

The Czech Republic ranks 24th out of 34 countries across all

Unfortunately, the other indicator in goal 10, the PISA index of

dimensions of the SDG Index. For eight of the 34 indicators in

economic, social and cultural status, clouds this sunny picture,

this study the country is among the top ten of OECD countries,

with the Czech Republic ranking 30th among the 34 OECD

managing the top ﬁve for six indicators. The Czech Republic’s

countries. Truly fulﬁlling goal 10 (which calls for a reduction

performance, however, varies considerably. For 14 indicators

in inequality within and among countries) will require signiﬁ-

the country ranks among the bottom third, and for ﬁve indica-

cant policy action that ensures education opportunities are not

tors in the bottom ﬁve.

limited by socioeconomic status. In addition, the country ranks 32nd on particulate matter air pollution, with many Czechs

Strengths

exposed to levels which exceed World Health Organization

Czechs are second only to the Japanese for education rates, with

safety thresholds; in the same year, half of all OECD countries

92.8 percent completing at least upper secondary school. The

kept within these limits. The country’s bird species are also not

Czech Republic has made commendable strides toward ending

adequately protected; 52 percent of bird species are threatened

poverty in all its forms (goal 1). A relatively low 5.2 percent (the

(more than double the 22 percent OECD average). Also worry-

lowest rate in this study) of Czechs live below the poverty line,

ing: the Czech Republic ranks among the bottom ﬁve countries

far better than the 11.5 percent OECD average and almost on

in the sample for public sector corruption and primary energy

par with top performer Iceland. Similarly, the country’s poverty

intensity (7.1 petajoules per GDP).

gap (the percentage by which the mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line) places it among the top ten OECD countries. The Czech Republic’s gross ﬁxed capital formation (25.3 percent of GDP) ranks it ﬁfth and a relatively progressive Palma ratio (0.9) – the distance between the richest and the poorest 10 percent – ranks it fourth, indicating that some policies are helping to reduce inequality (goal 10). 23

Country profiles | Denmark

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

DENMARK Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

3rd of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Denmark ranks third out of 34 countries across all dimensions

ranks third in the Ocean Health Index, behind Estonia and New

of the SDG Index. The country is among the top ten for over half

Zealand. This high ranking indicates Denmark’s sustainable use

of the 34 indicators in this study, appearing in the top ﬁve eight

of marine ecosystems, ensuring that they are available not just

times. While Denmark’s performance varies, it maintains a very

now but also in the future.

high average. The country ﬁnds itself among the bottom third for ﬁve of the indicators, and in the bottom ﬁve for just one.

Weaknesses Despite its positive showing, Denmark is not without its chal-

Strengths

lenges. Danes generate 751 kilograms of municipal waste per

Among the 34 OECD countries, Denmark has the least corrupt

capita every year, one of the worst rates among OECD countries.

public sector. The country also ranks among the top ten for

By contrast, inhabitants in the ﬁve best-performing countries

homicide rates: just 0.8 per 100,000 inhabitants. These indicators

for this indicator generate between 293 and 347 kilograms

illustrate that Denmark is a leader in promoting peaceful and

per capita. And while it rates highly for income gap, the other

inclusive societies, providing equality of justice, and building

indicator for goal 10 (which calls for reducing inequality) ﬁnds

accountable public institutions (goal 16). In addition, Denmark’s

Denmark among the bottom ten on the PISA index of economic,

poverty rate of 6 percent puts the country right behind the Czech

social and cultural status. Addressing this weakness will require

Republic. Similarly, the Danes’ narrow income gap between rich

policy action that ensures education opportunities are not limited

and poor puts it in fourth place and demonstrates its success at

by socioeconomic status.

reducing inequality. Denmark also leads the way in citizens’ satisfaction with life. The Danish government is at the same time among the ﬁve most generous in development assistance, giving 0.9 percent of GNI (nearly $3 billion in 2014). Signiﬁcant ﬁnancial contributions to developing countries are essential to sustainable development on a global scale. Also noteworthy: the country 24

Estonia | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

ESTONIA Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

21st of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Estonia ranks 21st out of 34 countries across all dimensions of the

formation (27.8 percent of GDP) puts the country in third place,

SDG Index. For nine of the 34 indicators it is among the top ﬁve

with only South Korea and Norway performing better.

OECD countries and for ﬁve it tops the rankings. Estonia’s performance, however, varies greatly. For 13 indicators the country is

Weaknesses

among the bottom third, and among the bottom ﬁve for eight.

For all of its impressive accomplishments, Estonia faces signiﬁcant policy challenges. Estonia performs dismally in goal

Strengths

13 (which calls for action to combat climate change and its

The country tops the PISA index of economic, social and cul-

impacts). The country ranks last among the 34 OECD coun-

tural status. Educational opportunities are less limited by

tries for greenhouse gas emissions and 30th for CO2 emissions

socioeconomic status in Estonia than any other country in

from energy production. With emissions per GDP of 680 tons

the sample. Estonia is a leader among OECD countries when it

per million, the country emits nearly double the OECD aver-

comes to goal 15 (the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems

age and more than ten times the front-runner, Sweden (which

and the protection of biodiversity). The country is showing

emits 66.8 tons). Likewise, Estonia’s fossil fuel energy produc-

the way in protecting both its terrestrial biomes and animal

tion emits 12.3 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita; the

species. For example, a comparatively low 10 percent of the

top ﬁve countries each emit less than 5 tons per capita. Just as

country’s bird species are threatened, which puts the country

worrying: Estonia ranks among the three worst-performing on

at fourth. Similarly, Estonia leads the OECD countries in the

three diverse indicators: primary energy intensity, the gender

Ocean Health Index (which assesses the condition of marine

pay gap, and homicide. Estonia’s high primary energy intensity

ecosystems). Estonians also generate the least municipal waste;

(9.1 petajoules per GDP) is more than double that of each of the

the country’s 293 kilograms per capita is far below the OECD

top ﬁve countries. The country’s 31.5 percent gender pay gap,

average of 483 kilograms. Also of note: Estonia’s particulate

is more than double the OECD average. Finally, with a homicide

matter air pollution levels are below World Health Organiza-

rate of 4.1 per 100,000 inhabitants, the country is surpassed

tion safety thresholds. In addition, Estonia’s gross ﬁ xed capital

only by Turkey and Mexico. 25

Country profiles | Finland

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

FINLAND Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

4th of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Finland ranks fourth out of 34 countries across all dimensions

A third of Finland’s energy comes from renewable sources,

of the SDG Index. For more than half of the indicators the coun-

which is almost twice as much as the OECD average and the

try ranks in the top ten and in the top ﬁve for 13 indicators.

fourth-highest value of all countries. Finally, Finland’s parlia-

Finland’s performance varies across the different indicators,

ment is 42.5 percent female, second only to Sweden’s.

but it skews above average. It ﬁnds itself among the bottom third for ﬁve indicators and notably in the bottom ﬁve for just

Weaknesses

two indicators.

Finland’s relatively high primary energy intensity (8.2 petajoules per GDP) puts it well toward the bottom of the table, with

Strengths

only Estonia and Iceland performing more poorly. Similarly

Finland has made commendable strides toward ending poverty

alarming, the country’s high domestic material consumption

in all its forms (goal 1). A relatively low 6.6 percent of Finns live

(34.3 tons per capita) puts it 31st; by comparison, the OECD

below the poverty line, far better than the 11.5 percent OECD

average is around 19 tons per capita of materials in the econ-

average. Even more impressively, Finland has the narrowest

omy. Despite its impressive female representation in parlia-

poverty gap (the percentage by which the mean income of the

ment, Finland’s performance in goal 5 is brought down by a

poor falls below the poverty line) of any OECD country. Finland

disappointing average gender pay gap of 18.7 percent, below

is not only a champion when it comes to protecting marine

the OECD average of 15.5 percent, putting Finland 27th in the

resources, as illustrated by its good performance on the Ocean

sample.

Health Index. Particulate matter air pollution is also below World Health Organization safety thresholds. Furthermore, the country ranks third for PISA results. It secures the same position in terms of public sector corruption, with only Denmark and New Zealand having lower perceptions of corruption.

26

France | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

FRANCE Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

10th of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall France ranks tenth out of 34 countries across all dimensions of

ﬁfth among the countries in the sample. On average, the French

the SDG Index. France ranks among the top ten for eight of the 34

can expect 72 years of life in full health, putting the country

indicators in this study. Only three times, however, does it make it

among the top ten countries for this indicator.

into the top ﬁve. France’s performance varies between indicators, although it gravitates toward the mid-zone. On only four indica-

Weaknesses

tors does the country ﬁnd itself in the bottom third, and only once

In the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status,

among the bottom ﬁve.

France is second-last of all the OECD countries. Fully meeting goal 10 (which calls for a reduction in inequality within and

Strengths

among countries) will require signiﬁcant policy action that

France ranks among the top ten for urgent action to combat

ensures education opportunities are not limited by socioeco-

climate change and its impacts (goal 13). The country has lower

nomic status. Also, only 75.1 percent of the population have

greenhouse gas emissions per GDP than 29 other OECD coun-

completed at least upper secondary education; the top ﬁve

tries. With emissions per GDP of 230.8 tons per million USD,

countries in the sample had completion rates of at least 90 per-

France performs better than the 352.1-ton OECD average, but still

cent. The French generate 530 kilograms of municipal waste

far short of the front-runner, Sweden (which emits 66.8 tons). The

per capita, putting the country 24th among the OECD coun-

country’s fossil fuel energy production emits 5.3 tons of carbon

tries; inhabitants in the top ﬁve countries generate between

dioxide per capita (eighth place in the sample). France has also

293 and 347 kilograms per capita.

made commendable strides toward ending poverty in all its forms (goal 1). A comparatively low 8 percent of French live below the poverty line, better than the 11.5 percent OECD average. In addition, the country’s low poverty gap (the percentage by which the mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line) places it

27

Country profiles | Germany

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

GERMANY Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

6th of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Germany ranks sixth out of 34 countries across all dimensions

(although tempered by a poor showing in the protection of ani-

of the SDG Index. It is among the top ten for twelve of the 34

mal species). Germany also has a relatively low homicide rate

indicators in this study, but only twice manages a top ﬁve plac-

of 0.7 per 100,000 inhabitants, putting it in the top ten, and

ing. Across the various indicators Germany’s performance

relatively high expenditure on research and development (2.9

varies, although it hovers around the median. On seven indica-

percent of GDP).

tors the country ﬁnds itself in the bottom third, yet only twice among the bottom ﬁve.

Weaknesses The sustainability of agriculture in Germany is severely threat-

Strengths

ened by nitrogen and phosphorous use, coming in at 26th for

As Europe’s economic powerhouse, Germany ranks among the

this indicator. A surplus of 94 kilograms per hectare of total

top countries in the sample for promoting economic growth

agricultural land indicates a high risk of pollution soil and

and employment. With a GNI in 2014 of $46,840 per capita, the

water. In addition, Germany is in 28th place for waste per cap-

country ranks sixth (although it needs to do more to ensure that

ita: at 614 kilograms, far more than inhabitants in the top ﬁve

this growth is inclusive and sustainable, as goal 8 requires). In

countries, who generate between 293 and 347 kilograms per

addition, 73.8 percent of working-age Germans are in employ-

capita. Germany’s use of total renewable freshwater resources,

ment, putting the country in sixth place. The country’s narrow

which it draws on at an annual rate of 30.2 percent, puts the

poverty gap (the percentage by which the mean income of the

country among the bottom ﬁve. In addition, the country ranks

poor falls below the poverty line) puts it at fourth among the

29th among the 34 countries in the sample for protection of

countries in the sample. Germany also excels in conserva-

animal species; 36 percent of bird species are threatened,

tion, designating 17 percent or more of terrestrial biomes as

signiﬁcantly higher than the 22 percent OECD average. Also

protected areas, a distinction it shares with seven other OECD

worrying: many Germans are exposed to particulate matter air

countries. This demonstrates the country’s commitment to

pollution exceeding WHO safety thresholds, ranking the coun-

sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity

try in 27th place in this indicator.

28

Greece | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results 5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.1

14.1

GREECE Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

30th of 34

13.2

5.2

13.1

6.1

6.2

12.2

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

11.2 Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

Greece ranks 30th out of 34 countries across all dimensions

One of Greece’s many challenges, particularly during the coun-

of the SDG Index. For eight of the 34 indicators in this study

try’s current economic crisis, is its troublingly low employ-

it can be found among the top third of OECD countries, three

ment rate. In 2014, 49.4 percent of working-age Greeks were

indicators of those in the top ﬁve. Greece’s performance varies

in employment, the worst ﬁgures for any OECD country. This

considerably, with alarmingly low values in some indicators:

has fueled an alarmingly wide poverty gap (the percentage

the country is among the bottom third for a full 16 indicators,

by which the mean income of the poor falls below the poverty

and in the bottom ﬁve for seven.

line), only exceeded by that found in Italy, Mexico and Spain. Another major challenge relates to the need for resilient infra-

Strengths

structure, sustainable industrialization and innovation (goal

Greece trails only Iceland and Spain for gross agricultural

9). Greece ranks last in gross ﬁ xed capital formation and only

nutrient balances with 12 kilograms per hectare of agricul-

two places higher for gross domestic research and development

tural land surplus, indicating nitrogen and phosphorous use

expenditure. Building a sustainable economy requires innova-

in farming that minimizes environmental degradation. The

tion, yet the country spends just 0.8 percent of GDP on research

country also ranks fourth among the 34 OECD countries for its

and development – only Chile and Mexico spend less. The

relatively narrow gender pay gap; at 6.9 percent, it is less than

country’s perceived level of public sector corruption is among

half the OECD average of 15.5 percent. Also noteworthy: Greece

the highest on a par with Italy and exceeded only by Mexico.

ranks ﬁfth for use of its ﬁsh stocks. A comparatively low 15.7

Given its many challenges, it should come as no surprise that

percent of the country’s ﬁsh stocks are overexploited, better

Greece ranks at the very bottom for life satisfaction. Greeks’

than the 17.8 percent OECD average. At 12.1 tons per capita,

life satisfaction has in fact declined the most compared to all

Greece has low enough domestic material consumption to put

other OECD nations in recent years.

it in the top ten.

29

Country profiles | Hungary

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

HUNGARY Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

32nd of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

Hungary ranks 32nd out of 34 countries across all dimen-

Hungary is one of the least successful OECD countries in

sions of the SDG Index. For six of the 34 indicators used in

ensuring healthy lives and well-being (goal 3). Hungarians, on

this study it features among the top third of OECD countries,

average, can expect 65 years of life in full health, ten years

and in the top ﬁve for three of them. Hungary’s performance,

less than their Japanese counterparts. Hungary’s performance

however, is very much mixed. For 18 indicators the country is

in gender equality (goal 5) is offset by the number of women

among the bottom third, and in the bottom ﬁve for an alarm-

in parliament; with 9.3 percent, only Japan has fewer. Hungary

ing eleven indicators.

is also among the ﬁve worst-performing countries for goal 11 (making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient

Strengths

and sustainable). Hungary’s environmental proﬁ le is particu-

At 10 tons per capita, Hungary’s domestic material consump-

larly alarming: it is second-last for particulate matter air pol-

tion is almost half the OECD average of around 19 tons per

lution and only one place higher for use of renewable water

capita of materials in the economy, putting it in third place. Fur-

sources; its annual rate of 93.1 percent severely threatens the

thermore, the country’s fossil fuel energy production causes

sustainability of its water resources. Similarly, the country

4.4 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita (ﬁfth place in

protects just 5 percent of its terrestrial biomes; meanwhile

the sample). Hungary is also among the top ten for its relatively

eight OECD countries have designated 17 percent or more. All

narrow 8.7 percent gender pay gap, signiﬁcantly better than

of this may help explain why Hungarians rank 32nd for life

the OECD average of 15.5 percent. Finally, Hungary is in a very

satisfaction.

good position to monitor SDGs in the future with over 83 percent of the SDG indicators used in this study reported annually with a time lag no greater than three years.

30

Iceland | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

ICELAND Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

9th of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Iceland ranks ninth out of 34 countries across all dimensions

these indicators, Iceland leads the OECD. Icelanders are also

of the SDG Index. The country is in the top third for almost

largely unaffected by homicide, and when it comes to reducing

half of the indicators in this study, and twelve of them ﬁ nd

inequality (goal 10), Iceland is among the top ﬁve countries. The

Iceland in the top ﬁve. Iceland in fact comes out on top for

country ranks fourth in the Palma ratio, the comparatively small

a commendable six indicators, and although its performance

income gap between rich and poor (0.9), and second for its score

varies, it skews above average. For eight of the indicators the

on the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (which

country ﬁ nds itself among the bottom third, and in the bottom

assesses the degree to which socioeconomic status limits educa-

ﬁve for three indicators.

tion opportunities). Finally, Iceland leads the world for its use of renewable energy sources (76.7 percent) – effectively all from

Strengths

geothermal and hydropower.

Iceland leads the OECD countries in employment with 82.8 percent of its working-age citizens employed. Iceland has also made

Weaknesses

progress toward ending poverty in all its forms (goal 1). The

While Iceland utilizes the OECD’s highest share of renewable

country has a low poverty rate among OECD countries, with just

energy, it also has the least efﬁcient energy use with a primary

6.1 percent of Icelanders living below the national poverty line,

energy intensity of 22 petajoules per billion in GDP, well ahead

far better than the 11.5 percent OECD average. Yet, the country’s

of the OECD average of six petajoules. This woefully inefﬁcient

performance on goal 1 is mixed. Iceland’s poverty gap (the per-

energy use makes Iceland’s success in goal 7 (which calls for

centage by which the mean income of the poor falls below the

a sustainable energy sector) very much mixed. Also worrying,

poverty line) ranks 18th among the countries in the sample. The

the country only ranks 31st in gross ﬁ xed capital formation.

country has particulate matter air pollution below World Health

Finally, the country performs poorly on biodiversity: 44 per-

Organization safety thresholds and annually withdraws just 0.1

cent of bird species are threatened (about double the 22 percent

percent of its total renewable freshwater resources. In both of

OECD average).

31

Country profiles | Ireland

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

IRELAND Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

20th of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

Ireland ranks 20th out of 34 countries across all dimensions

Ireland’s exemplary energy efﬁciency is offset by the low

of the SDG Index. On seven of the 34 indicators in this study

proportion of renewables in its energy mix: just 5.2 percent,

the country is among the top ten OECD countries, featuring in

putting it in 29th place. Fully meeting goal 7 (which calls for

the top ﬁve for two. However, Ireland’s overall performance is

universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and mod-

mixed. For nine indicators the country ranks among the bottom

ern energy) will require signiﬁcant policy action to ensure that

third, and in the bottom ﬁve for ﬁve indicators.

current energy needs are met without jeopardizing future generations. The Irish government faces other policy challenges:

Strengths

the country protects just 1.8 percent of its terrestrial biomes,

Ireland ranks among the top countries for goal 11 (making

putting it at dead last among OECD countries. By comparison,

cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and

eight OECD countries have designated 17 percent or more of

sustainable). The Irish enjoy relatively generous domestic

their terrestrial biomes as protected areas. The country also

space, with 2.1 rooms per person, and particulate matter air

has appallingly low female representation in parliament; the

pollution below World Health Organization safety thresholds.

most recent elections, in 2011, put women in just 15.7 percent

In addition, Ireland withdraws a mere 1.6 percent of its total

of seats. At 24.9 tons per capita, Ireland’s domestic material

renewable freshwater resources every year, placing it among

consumption level puts it among the bottom ﬁve countries; the

the top ten in this study. Ireland’s efﬁcient energy use is also

average OECD country uses approximately 19 tons per capita of

noteworthy, beating every other country with a primary energy

materials in the economy.

intensity of just 3.4 petajoules per billion in GDP – the OECD average is six petajoules per GDP. Finally, Ireland is among the best countries in terms of SDG monitoring due to a good capacity to track progress and failures with regard to the indicators examined here.

32

Israel | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

ISRAEL Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

28th of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

Israel ranks 28th out of 34 countries across all dimensions of the

Israel annually withdraws 260.5 percent of its total renewable

SDG Index. Israel is among the top ten for four indicators, twice

freshwater resources, putting it at the very bottom of the 34

making it into the top ﬁve. For 16 indicators (almost half of the

OECD countries. Israel is also among the worst ﬁve countries

indicators), however, the country ﬁnds itself among the bottom

in gross agricultural nutrient balances, indicating nitrogen

third of countries in this study, and on seven indicators in the

and phosphorous use in farming that pollutes the ecosystem.

bottom ﬁve.

With 136 kilograms per hectare of agricultural land surplus, the country performs far worse than front-runners Iceland,

Strengths

Spain and Greece. In addition, Israelis annually generate 620

A sustainable economy requires innovation, and Israel spends

kilograms of municipal waste per capita, putting the country

more on research and development than any other OECD coun-

at 27th. By comparison, inhabitants in the top ﬁve countries

try (4.2 percent of GDP), roughly 80 percent of which comes

generate between 293 and 347 kilograms per capita. One of

from business. In addition, the country ranks fourth in life

the country’s other great challenges is its troublingly high

satisfaction, as measured by surveys. Also noteworthy: Israel

poverty rate, at 20.9 percent there is a greater proportion of

ranks among the top ten countries for the efﬁciency of its

people living in poverty than any OECD country apart from

energy use with a primary energy intensity of 4.4 petajoules

Mexico. Similarly, the income gap between rich and poor in

per billion in GDP, signiﬁcantly better than the OECD average

Israel puts the country at 30th, suggesting little progress at

of six petajoules. Finally, a respectable 85 percent of Israelis

reducing inequality. The country ranks 31st in this study with

complete upper secondary education, putting the country on

a 21.8 percent gender pay gap, wider than the OECD average

track to reach goal 4 by 2030: ensuring inclusive and equitable

of 15.5 percent. And while development assistance is essential

quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportuni-

to strengthening the means to develop sustainably on a global

ties for all.

scale, Israel ranks 32nd in the sample. The Israeli government gives less than 0.1 percent of its GNI to development assistance.

33

Country profiles | Italy

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

ITALY Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

26th of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Italy ranks 26th out of 34 countries across all dimensions of

primary energy intensity of 4.1 petajoules per billion in GDP,

the SDG Index. For nine of the 34 indicators in this study the

below the OECD average of six petajoules.

country is among the top third OECD countries, and among the top ﬁve for three of those. Italy’s performance, however, varies

Weaknesses

considerably. For 16 indicators (nearly half of the measures) the

Italians’ perception of public sector corruption is as high as the

country ranks among the bottom third, and in the bottom ﬁve

Greeks’, the two joint second only to Mexico. One of the coun-

for ﬁve indicators.

try’s great challenges is its worryingly high unemployment rate. In 2014, only 56.5 percent of working-age Italians were

Strengths

in employment, putting the country 31st in the OECD. Italy

Italians can expect longer lives in full health than anyone in

also ranks 31st for particulate matter air pollution, with levels

the OECD, with the exception of the Japanese. On average,

exceeding WHO safety thresholds. Goal 4 calls for inclusive

Italians can expect 73 years of life in full health, demon-

and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all,

strating some policy success in targeting healthy lives and

yet Italian students can only manage average PISA results and

well-being (offset by low life satisfaction, the other indicator

school completion rates. In 2013, only 58.2 percent of Italians

for goal 3). At 11 tons per capita, Italy’s domestic material

had completed at least upper secondary education, well below

consumption level puts it among the ﬁve most frugal OECD

the top ﬁve countries in the sample, where completion rates are

countries, some distance below the OECD average of approxi-

90 percent or above. Given its many challenges, it is hardly sur-

mately 19 tons per capita of materials in the economy. Italy

prising that Italy ranks among the bottom third for life satisfac-

also has one of the lowest rates of obesity in the sample. A

tion, with its self-reported scores declining in recent years.

relatively low 10.4 percent of Italians are overweight or obese, ranking the country ﬁ fth. Also noteworthy: Italy is among the ten most efﬁcient countries for energy use, with a

34

Japan | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

JAPAN Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

13th of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Japan ranks 13th out of 34 countries across all dimensions of

leader in both of the indicators for goal 4 (which calls for inclu-

the SDG Index. For 14 of the indicators, the country is among

sive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning).

the top third, with nine indicators in the top three, and for an

In 2013, all Japanese had completed at least upper secondary

impressive six indicators Japan comes out on top. The country’s

education.

performance tends toward above average overall, although twelve of the indicators put Japan in the bottom third, and ﬁve

Weaknesses

in the bottom ﬁve.

Japan performs particularly poorly on gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls (goal 5). A high gender

Strengths

pay gap of 26.6 percent puts it at 32nd (OECD average: 15.5

Japan is a leader on goal 12, which calls for sustainable con-

percent), while it comes last for national parliament seats held

sumption and production patterns. With 9.5 tons per capita,

by women – just 8.1 percent. In the top ﬁve countries, over a

Japan has the lowest domestic material consumption among

third of seats in parliament are held by women. In addition, 16

the OECD countries. Its output is correspondingly low; 354 kilo-

percent of Japanese live below the poverty line, signiﬁcantly

grams of municipal waste per capita puts it sixth in the sample.

higher than the 11.5 percent OECD average. The country’s

By comparison, the per capita averages across the OECD are 19

long-term sustainability will depend on the Japanese gov-

tons and 483 kilograms respectively. The Japanese have least

ernment tackling both the plight of the poor as well as the

cause to fear homicide, with a rate of 0.3 percent per 100,000

discrimination of women in Japanese society. Only when all

inhabitants putting it in joint second place with Iceland. Japan

members of Japanese society are afforded equal opportunities

is also among the slimmest countries in the OECD, with an

can the country truly thrive.

obesity rate of just 3.6 percent. Moreover, Japan ranks ﬁrst in healthy life expectancy. On average, the Japanese can expect to live 75 years in full health. Also noteworthy: the country is a

35

Country profiles | Korea, Rep.

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2 16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

14.1

REPUBLIC OF KOREA

5.1

13.2

23rd of 34

5.2

13.1

6.1

6.2

12.2

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

11.2 Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

South Korea ranks 23rd out of 34 countries across all dimensions

One of South Korea’s greatest challenges remains its gender

of the SDG Index. For twelve of the 34 indicators in this study it

pay gap. At 36.6 percent, this disturbingly wide gap puts the

can be found among the top third, and on eight indicators in the

country at the bottom of the list, far exceeding the OECD aver-

top ﬁve. On 15 of the indicators the country is among the bottom

age of 15.5 percent. South Korea’s poverty gap (the percentage

third, and in the bottom ﬁve for a worrying ten indicators.

by which the mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line) also puts it among the bottom ﬁve. The country ranks

Strengths

last on renewable energy use: only 1.3 percent of Korean gross

South Korea’s PISA results are the best in the OECD. The aver-

energy consumption comes from renewable sources. By com-

age Korean student’s PISA score was 45 points above the aver-

parison, the top ﬁve countries for this measure each use over

age in the sample. The country is also a leader in goal 9 (which

30 percent renewable energy. South Korea’s gross agricultural

aims for resilient infrastructure, sustainable industrialization

nutrient balances also sends it to the bottom of the table. The

and innovation). South Korea ranks ﬁrst in gross ﬁ xed capital

country’s 259 kilograms per hectare of agricultural land sur-

formation (28.8 percent of GDP) and second in gross domestic

plus indicates levels of nitrogen and phosphorous use that harm

research and development expenditure. A sustainable economy

the environment and threaten terrestrial ecosystems as well as

requires innovation and the country has met this challenge

freshwater supplies. Following these two indicators, it should

by spending 4.2 percent of GDP on research and development,

come as no surprise that South Korea ranks among the bottom

more than double the OECD average. South Korea should also

ﬁve on goal 13 (which calls for urgent action to combat climate

be commended for particulate matter air pollution below World

change and its impacts). The country has higher greenhouse

Health Organization safety thresholds as well as its low rate of

gas emissions per GDP than 30 other OECD countries.

obesity (4.6 percent of Koreans are obese, putting it in second place). These values go hand in hand with the country’s high healthy life expectancy, for which it ranks second.

36

Luxembourg | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

LUXEMBOURG Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

17th of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

Luxembourg ranks 17th out of 34 countries across all dimensions

Luxembourg’s fossil fuel energy production is particularly alarm-

of the SDG Index. For 12 indicators the country is among the top

ing, emitting 19.5 tons of carbon dioxide per capita. This puts it

third, and on seven indicators among the top three. Luxembourg

at the bottom of the OECD, where the top ﬁve countries each emit

even manages ﬁrst for three indicators, and overall the country’s

less than 5 tons per capita. Luxembourg’s poor showing here

performance tends toward above average. For ten of the indica-

is a result of the country’s poor energy mix; renewable sources

tors the country ﬁnds itself among the bottom third, and on ﬁve

account for just 3.7 percent of total energy consumption. Policy

indicators in the bottom ﬁve.

action is required to ensure that the country can meet current energy needs without threatening future generations, as goal 7

Strengths

requires. Goal 9 (resilient infrastructure, sustainable industrial-

Luxembourg ranks among the best-performing OECD coun-

ization and innovation) represents another major challenge. The

tries on wastewater treatment and air quality. Luxembourg

country ranks 32nd in gross ﬁxed capital formation (15.9 percent

has also made commendable strides toward ending poverty in

of GDP) and 28th for gross domestic research and development

all its forms (goal 1). The country’s poverty rate of 8.3 percent

expenditure. Economic sustainability requires innovation, yet

puts it among the top ten. Luxembourg’s gender pay gap (6.5

the country spends a comparatively low 1.2 percent of GDP on

percent) is also among the lowest in the sample (third place).

research and development. Luxembourg is also to be found among

Also noteworthy: with a GNI in 2013 of $57,830 per capita

the bottom ﬁve when it comes to protecting animal species.

(based on PPP), the country ranks third. The government is also among the ﬁve most generous in development assistance, giving 1 percent of its GNI. The country is also a leader in protecting its terrestrial biomes, designating 17 percent or more of its terrestrial biomes as protected areas.

37

Country profiles | Mexico

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

MEXICO Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

34th of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

Mexico ranks last out of 34 countries across all dimensions

One of Mexico’s greatest policy challenges remains ending

of the SDG Index. Nonetheless, it manages a top ten placing

poverty in all its forms (goal 1). With 21.4 percent of Mexicans

for seven of the 34 indicators in this study, two of those in the

living below the national poverty line, the country has the

top ﬁve. For over half of the measures, on the other hand, the

worst poverty rate in this study and nearly double the OECD

country ﬁnds itself among the bottom third, and in the bottom

average. Also worrying is Mexico’s wide poverty gap (the per-

ﬁve for 16 indicators.

centage by which the mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line) where the country ranks 33rd. In 2013, just 38.4

Strengths

percent of Mexicans had completed at least upper secondary

Mexico has the lowest energy-related carbon dioxide emis-

education, the second lowest rate in the OECD. In addition, the

sions in the sample. The country’s fossil fuel energy production

average Mexican student’s PISA score was 80 points below the

causes emissions of 3.7 tons of CO2 per capita; the ﬁve worst-

OECD mean. Relative equality of opportunity in education is

performing countries for this measure each emit over three

not enough to offset low uptake and quality, which threaten to

times that amount. The country ranks fourth on the PISA index

hobble the Mexican economy for decades to come. Mexicans

of economic, social and cultural status, indicating that Mexi-

are also at the greatest risk of homicide, with a rate of 18.9 per

cans’ education outcomes tend not to be limited by socioeco-

100,000 inhabitants. Finally, perception of public sector corrup-

nomic status (although they remain at a very low level overall).

tion is the highest in the OECD.

Also noteworthy: Mexico ranks well for the sustainability of its consumption and production patterns (goal 12). For both consumption and waste, Mexico comes in at eighth place: 12 tons per capita domestic material consumption, 360 kilograms per capita municipal waste generation.

38

Netherlands | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results 5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.1

14.1

NETHERLANDS Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

7th of 34

13.2

5.2

13.1

6.1

6.2

12.2

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

11.2 Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall The Netherlands ranks seventh out of the 34 countries across

poverty line, better than the 11.5 percent OECD average. These

all dimensions of the SDG Index. The country is among the

strengths may in part explain the country’s seventh place

top third for 17 of the 34 indicators in this study, managing

ranking for life satisfaction.

the top ﬁve for three of them. For nine measures the country ﬁ nds itself among the bottom third, and on ﬁve indicators in

Weaknesses

the bottom ﬁve.

The Netherlands ranks second-last for freshwater withdrawals, annually withdrawing 96.5 percent of its total renewable

Strengths

freshwater resources and severely threatening the long-term

The Netherlands is among the best-performing OECD countries

viability of Dutch water resources. The Netherlands is also

for ODA, meaning that it is among the more generous donors

among the bottom ﬁve in the sample on gross agricultural

relative to GDP per capita. It also performs well for at least

nutrient balances (an indicator of excessive fertilizer use). The

part of goal 6 (which targets sustainable water management

country’s 198 kilograms per hectare of agricultural land sur-

and sanitation), with all Dutch homes connected to public or

plus indicates levels of nitrogen and phosphorous use that pol-

independent wastewater treatment. While this success on goal

lute the environment. Similarly worrying: the country is placed

6 is commendable, the country performs poorly on the goal’s

32nd for renewable energy use with just 3.6 percent of Dutch

other measure: gross freshwater withdrawals. The Netherlands

gross energy consumption coming from renewable sources. By

is among the top countries in the sample for economic pros-

comparison, the top ﬁve OECD countries for this measure each

perity and employment (goal 8). With a 2014 GNI of $47,660

use over 30 percent renewables. Finally, the Netherlands ranks

per capita (based on PPP), the country ranks ﬁfth. In addi-

29th on particulate matter air pollution.

tion, 73.1 percent of the Netherlands’ working-age population were in employment in 2014, ranking the country seventh. A comparatively low 7.8 percent of the population live below the

39

Country profiles | New Zealand

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2 16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

14.1

NEW ZEALAND

5.1

13.2

16th of 34

5.2

13.1

6.1

6.2

12.2

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

11.2 Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall New Zealand ranks 16th out of 34 countries across all dimen-

with 31.5 percent of gross energy consumption coming from

sions of the SDG Index. The country is in the top third for 13 of

renewable sources (mostly hydro and geothermal).

the 34 indicators in this study, and for eight indicators makes it into the top ﬁve. For ten measures the country ﬁnds itself

Weaknesses

ranked in the bottom third, four of those in the bottom ﬁve.

At 31.3 percent, New Zealand has one of the highest rates of obesity in this study; outweighed only by Mexico and the

Strengths

United States. The country’s obesity rate is more than triple

New Zealand is in the commendable position of having the

that of the top ﬁve countries. Also alarming: New Zealand

narrowest gender pay gap among the 34 OECD countries, with

ranks 32nd on the PISA index of economic, social and cultural

5.6 percent. By comparison, the average gender pay gap across

status. Addressing this weakness will require policy action that

the OECD is 15.5 percent. Moreover, New Zealand is perceived

ensures students’ educational opportunities are not limited by

to have one of the least corrupt public sectors in the sample,

their socioeconomic background. It should also be mentioned

ranking second behind Denmark. This indicator illustrates

that New Zealand is among the least efﬁcient users of energy,

that New Zealand has had some success in promoting peaceful,

with a primary energy intensity of 6.8 petajoules per billion

equal and inclusive societies, and building accountable public

in GDP. Although close to the OECD average of 6 petajoules, it

institutions (goal 16). The country should also be applauded

nonetheless demonstrates a need for efﬁciency improvements.

for its top ﬁve ranking in a diverse range of environmental

Finally, the country’s domestic material consumption level of

indicators. New Zealand ranks second on the Ocean Health

23.7 tons per capita puts it among the bottom ten countries; the

Index, which assesses the condition of marine ecosystems. The

OECD average here is approximately 19 tons per capita.

country annually withdraws 1.5 percent of its total renewable freshwater resources, putting New Zealand third, behind Iceland and Norway. The country ranks ﬁfth for renewable energy,

40

Norway | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

NORWAY Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

2nd of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Norway ranks second out of 34 countries across all dimensions

of its total renewable freshwater resources and ranking ﬁfth

of the SDG Index. For 20 indicators Norway is in the top third,

on the Ocean Health Index (which assesses the condition of

an impressive 16 of those in the top ﬁve. However, four of the

marine ecosystems).

measures ﬁnd the country among the bottom third, one of them in the bottom ﬁve.

Weaknesses At 35.6 tons per capita, Norway’s high domestic material

Strengths

consumption represents a major policy challenge for Norway.

Norway ranks among the top three countries for promoting sus-

Only Chile and Australia perform more poorly here, while the

tainable economic growth and productive employment (goal 8),

OECD average is 19 tons of material per capita. The country’s

with 75.3 percent of working-age Norwegians in employment in

winning performance on environmental indicators is offset by

2014. Norway is also one of the most generous OECD countries

its excessive fertilizer use. With 108 kilograms per hectare of

in ﬁnancial contributions to developing countries, giving a laud-

agricultural land surplus, this indicates levels of nitrogen and

able 1.1 percent of its GNI (approximately $5 billion in 2014).

phosphorous use that pollute the environment, threatening

Also commendable: Norway is among the top ﬁve countries in a

ecosystems and water quality, and put Norway at 28th for this

range of environmental measures. The country is second only to

indicator.

Sweden for greenhouse gas emissions. With emissions per GDP of just 109.3 tons per million USD, Norway performs far better than the OECD average of 352.1 tons. The country also ranks second in renewable energy, behind Iceland, with an admirable 56.9 percent of gross energy consumption drawn from renewable sources (almost entirely hydro). It is also second only to Iceland, once again, when it comes to water, withdrawing just 0.8 percent

41

Country profiles | Poland

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

POLAND Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

21st of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Poland ranks 21st out of 34 countries across all dimensions of

8 percent of bird species under threat (compared to the 22 per-

the SDG Index. The country is among the top third on ten of the

cent OECD average). A comparatively low 16.7 percent of the

34 indicators in this study; for ﬁve of these, it ranks among the

country’s ﬁsh stocks are overexploited, putting the country

top ﬁve. On seven indicators the country ﬁ nds itself among the

tenth and ahead of the 17.8 percent OECD average, but there is

bottom ﬁve nations.

still room for improvement.

Strengths

Weaknesses

Goal 4 calls for inclusive and equitable quality education and

Poland faces challenges in a wide range of policy areas. Rela-

lifelong learning to ensure that all members of society have the

tively few Polish households are connected to public or inde-

skills needed to achieve their potential; Poland performs well

pendent wastewater treatment (64 percent); only Mexico and

in both of the measures of this goal. In 2013, 90.1 percent of

Turkey fare worse for this indicator. Healthy life expectancies

Poles had completed at least upper secondary education, put-

are among the shortest in the OECD, putting the country in the

ting the country in ﬁfth place. High PISA results (sixth in the

bottom ﬁve. On average, Poles can expect 67 years of life in full

sample) point to the quality as well as the quantity of educa-

health – eight years less than their Japanese counterparts. With

tion. Also noteworthy: Poland ranks among the top ten for its

a 2014 GNI of $24,090 per capita (based on PPP), the country

narrow gender pay gap. Men in the country earn on average

performs worse than 29 other OECD nations, and over $13,000

just 10.6 percent more than their female counterparts (around

below the OECD average. Poland’s greenhouse gas emissions

5 percentage points over the OECD average). In addition, the

also require attention, offsetting its positive performance in

country comes in second for its relatively low municipal waste

other environmental indicators. With emissions of 520.7 tons

(297 kilograms per capita) and among the leading countries

per million USD as a percentage of GDP, Poland performs far

in particulate matter air pollution. Also signiﬁcant: Poland is

worse than the 352.1 tons OECD average, coming in 30th.

second only to Turkey in protecting animal species, with just

42

Portugal | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results 5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.1

14.1

PORTUGAL Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

25th of 34

13.2

5.2

13.1

6.1

6.2

12.2

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

11.2 Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Portugal ranks 25th out of 34 countries across all dimensions

in GDP. Portugal also achieves an admirable 27.9 percent in

of the SDG Index. The country is in the top ten for eight of the

renewable energy (gross ﬁnal energy consumption). Portugal

34 indicators and among the top ﬁve for four measures. For 13

further protects its terrestrial biomes and freshwater resources

indicators the country is among the bottom third, and on four

by moderate fertilizer use, putting the country in ﬁfth place for

indicators in the bottom ﬁve.

gross agricultural nutrient balances.

Strengths

Weaknesses

Portugal ranks among the top ten countries in the sample for

The Portuguese have among the lowest levels of life satisfac-

goal 13 (which calls for action to combat climate change and

tion in this study, with only the Greeks expressing greater

its impacts), coming in seventh for greenhouse gas emissions

dissatisfaction. Another challenge for Portugal’s government

and a commendable fourth on CO2 emissions from energy

comes in the area of resilient infrastructure, sustainable

production. With emissions per GDP of 249.8 tons per million

industrialization, and innovation (goal 9). Portugal ranks 24th

USD, Portugal emits considerably less than the OECD average,

for gross domestic research and development expenditure (1.4

though still short of front-runner Sweden (which emits 66.8

percent) and a dismal 33rd in gross ﬁ xed capital formation. The

tons). The country’s fossil fuel energy production causes a com-

long-term viability of any economy depends on innovation and

paratively low 4.4 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita.

prioritizing investments in the future. Finally, Portugal has

It should come as no surprise that Portugal also ranks among

worryingly low education completion rates. Only 39.8 percent

the top ten for energy sustainability (goal 7), with a primary

of Portuguese have completed at least upper secondary educa-

energy intensity of 4.1 petajoules per billion in GDP, putting it

tion; by comparison, the top ﬁve countries in the sample had

in ﬁfth place, and an admirable 27.9 percent of renewables in

completion rates of 90 percent or above.

its energy mix. The country ranks ﬁfth on efﬁcient energy use with a primary energy intensity of 4.1 petajoules per billion

43

Country profiles | Slovakia

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results 5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.1

14.1

SLOVAKIA Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

27th of 34

13.2

5.2

13.1

6.1

6.2

12.2

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

11.2 Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

Slovakia ranks 27th out of 34 countries across all dimensions

One major policy challenge for the Slovakian government is

of the SDG Index. For seven of the 34 indicators the country

equitable, high-quality education. Despite its impressive ﬁn-

is among the top third of OECD countries, and among the top

ishing rates, Slovakia is at the very bottom of the PISA index

ﬁve for three. Slovakia’s performance, however, varies consid-

of economic, social and cultural status. Fully meeting goal 10

erably. For 15 indicators (nearly half of the measures) it can be

(which calls for a reduction in inequality) will require signiﬁ-

found among the bottom third, and on eight indicators in the

cant policy action that ensures education opportunities are not

bottom ﬁve.

limited by socioeconomic status. Student performance is also troubling, with the average Slovakian student’s PISA score 70

Strengths

points below front-runner South Korea, putting it 30th among

Sustainable consumption and production patterns are essential

OECD countries. Also worrying: the country ranks 31st on

for minimizing a country’s ecological footprint. Each year, Slo-

gross ﬁ xed capital formation (21 percent of GDP). In compari-

vaks generate just 304 kilograms of municipal waste per cap-

son, the top ﬁve economies are each investing between 25 and

ita, nearly 180 kilograms lower than the OECD average; only

29 percent of GDP. The business climate is further affected by

Estonia and Poland perform better here. Slovakia also comes

a high degree of perceived public sector corruption. While Slo-

in third for access to education, with a laudable 91.9 percent

vakia’s rank in Transparency International’s CPI has ﬂuctuated

of Slovaks completing at least upper secondary education. The

over the previous three years, the country is now among the

country’s impressively narrow income gap between rich and

bottom ﬁve countries for this indicator.

poor puts it in ﬁrst place. The number of people living below the poverty line is also relatively low – 8.3 percent, putting Slovakia ahead of the 11.5 percent OECD average and into the top ten.

44

Slovenia | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

SLOVENIA Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

13th of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

Slovenia ranks 13th out of 34 countries across all dimensions

Slovenia’s performance puts it solidly in the mid-zone. On goal

of the SDG Index. Slovenia is among the top third for ten of the

3, however, which calls for healthy lives and well-being for all,

34 indicators in this study and in the top ﬁve for four. Across

the country’s performance is wanting. Slovenia ranks among

the diverse measures, however, Slovenia’s performance varies.

the bottom ﬁve for life satisfaction. Based on self-reporting col-

On seven indicators, the country ﬁ nds itself among the bottom

lected by Gallup, Slovenians’ life satisfaction has also declined

third, but only once among the bottom ﬁve.

somewhat in the most recent survey year. Moreover, Slovenians fall just short of the average in healthy life expectancy, rank-

Strengths

ing the country 26th. Slovenians can expect 69 years of life

Slovenia can be commended for the narrowest income gap

in full health, ﬁve years less than the Japanese. The country’s

between rich and poor (Palma ratio) among the 34 countries

score on Transparency International’s CPI also leaves room for

of the OECD. This second place ranking is associated with the

improvement, bearing in mind that a sustainable economy with

country’s similarly low poverty gap (the percentage by which

satisﬁed citizens requires trust in government institutions.

the mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line), for

Among the 34 OECD countries, Slovenia came in 26th for per-

which it also ranks second. Slovenia’s laudable performance

ceived public sector corruption.

in both of these measures illustrates considerable success at addressing poverty and inequality. Also noteworthy: the country ranks fourth (on par with Spain and behind Luxembourg and Japan) for its homicide rate, which in 2012 was a comparatively low 0.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. Slovenia also deserves praise for particulate matter air pollution below World Health Organization safety thresholds.

45

Country profiles | Spain

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

SPAIN Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

18th of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Spain ranks 18th out of 34 countries across all dimensions of the

gross agricultural nutrient balances (an indicator of exces-

SDG Index. The country ﬁnds itself in the top third on 15 of the

sive fertilizer use).

34 indicators in this study and on seven indicators makes it into the top ﬁve. Spain’s performance varies signiﬁcantly, ﬁguring in

Weaknesses

the bottom third for 13 indicators and the bottom ﬁve for three.

One of Spain’s greatest policy challenges will come in ending poverty in all its forms (goal 1). Most alarming, the country

Strengths

has one of the widest poverty gaps (the percentage by which the

Spaniards, on average, can expect 73 years of life lived in

mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line) among

full health, longer than the OECD average (71 years) and

the 34 OECD countries. This is coupled with a relatively high

second only to the Japanese (75 years). The country also has

poverty rate, with 15.9 percent of Spaniards living below the

a low homicide rate of 0.6 per 100,000 inhabitants (on par

poverty line, putting the country in 26th place. Despite some

with Slovenia and behind Luxembourg and Japan). On gender

ﬂuctuation, over the last ten years, this rate has remained high.

equality and the empowerment of women and girls (goal 5),

This worrying performance is linked to one of the lowest rates of

Spain performs well. With a national parliament which is

employment in this study. In 2014, 56.8 percent of working-age

39.7 percent female and a relatively narrow gender pay gap of

Spaniards were in employment; only Greece, Turkey, and Italy

8.6 percent (OECD average: 15.5 percent), the country ranks

fared worse. With relatively few opportunities for entry into the

fourth and seventh, respectively. A comparatively low 15.7

workforce, many Spaniards drop out of education. In 2013, just

percent of Spain’s ﬁ sh stocks are overexploited, putting the

55.5 percent of Spaniards had completed at least upper second-

country in fourth place for this indicator. While this is some-

ary education, one of the lowest rates in the OECD.

what better than the 17.8 percent OECD average, there has been a slight rise in overexploitation over the decade. Finally, Spain comes in second (behind Hungary and Iceland) for

46

Sweden | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

SWEDEN Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

1st of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Sweden comes out on top of the 34 OECD countries across all

Finally, Sweden leads the OECD in female representation in

dimensions of the SDG Index. For 21 of the 34 indicators, well

parliament: 45 percent.

over half, the country ranks among the top third, and in the top ﬁve for an admirable ten indicators. On ﬁve indicators the

Weaknesses

country can be found among the bottom ten, but never in the

Although the country’s renewable energy share is impressive,

bottom ﬁve.

it doesn’t use energy as efﬁciently as it could. With a primary energy intensity of 6.3 petajoules per billion in GDP, Sweden

Strengths

ranks 26th for energy efﬁciency. The country also ranks among

The Swedish government can take pride in policy success on a

the bottom ﬁve for terrestrial biome protection. Sweden pro-

number of fronts. It is among the top three countries for urgent

tects just 8 percent, well below the 17 percent that eight OECD

action to combat climate change and its impacts (goal 13). The

countries have designated as protected areas. Also requiring

country also has lower greenhouse gas emissions per GDP than

attention is the country’s performance on the indicators that

any other OECD country. Furthermore, its fossil fuel energy

measure goal 4 (inclusive and equitable quality education and

production causes just 4.3 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per

lifelong learning). While Sweden’s performance is average

capita (putting it third in the sample). Sweden also ranks third

with regard to upper secondary completion, the country ranks

for renewable energy consumption, with the share of renew-

only 28th on PISA results.

ables in its energy mix rising by nearly 30 percent since 2004. These accomplishments should serve as a model for others. At the same time, a comparatively high 74.9 percent of workingage Swedes were in employment, putting the country in fourth place. Earnings are also high, with a GNI in 2014 of $46,710 per capita (based on PPP), putting Sweden in seventh place.

47

Country profiles | Switzerland

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results 5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.1

14.1

SWITZERLAND Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

5th of 34

13.2

5.2

13.1

6.1

6.2

12.2

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

11.2 Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall Switzerland ranks ﬁfth out of 34 countries across all dimen-

institutions (goal 16). The Swiss also have a homicide rate of just

sions of the SDG Index. While the country’s performance

0.7 per 100,000 inhabitants, making them the sixth safest (from

varies, it skews above average. On 20 of the 34 indicators the

violent crime). The country is also perceived to have one of the least

country ranks among the top third, nine of these rank in the

corrupt public sectors in the sample, ranking ﬁfth. With regard to

top ﬁve. For seven of the indicators, however, the country ﬁ nds

urgent action on climate change (goal 13), Switzerland can once

itself among the bottom third, and in the bottom ﬁve for three.

again be found among the best-performing OECD countries.

Strengths

Weaknesses

The Swiss have made admirable progress toward meeting the

Switzerland comes third-last in this study for municipal waste

SDGs. The country is among the top ten OECD countries for ensur-

generation. The Swiss annually generate a 712-kilogram moun-

ing healthy lives and promoting well-being (goal 3). The average

tain of municipal waste per capita. Among the 34 OECD coun-

Swiss national can expect 72 years of life lived in full health, just

tries, only Denmark and the United States perform worse. The

three years less than the Japanese. In addition, the Swiss rank

average in the top ﬁve countries for this indicator is between

ﬁrst for self-reported life satisfaction. These strengths are comple-

280 and 350 kilograms per capita. Switzerland’s environmental

mented by Switzerland’s equally commendable second place rank-

proﬁle is mixed, with the country among the top countries in

ing for goal 8 (which calls for sustainable economic growth and

one dimension of goal 15 (sustainable use of terrestrial ecosys-

productive employment). The country’s GNI in 2013 of $59,600

tems and the protection of biodiversity): Switzerland protects

per capita (based on PPP) is over $22,000 more per capita than

17 percent of its terrestrial biomes, ranking the country ﬁrst

the OECD average. In addition, 79.8 percent of working-age Swiss

jointly with various others. However, 35 percent of Switzer-

nationals were in employment in 2014. Switzerland has proven

land’s bird species are under threat. Finally, monitoring the

that it is a desirable place to live and work. Based on the measures,

SDGs in Switzerland will be problematic: the country has the

the country is a leader in promoting peaceful and inclusive soci-

lowest statistical coverage of the indicators used in this study

eties, providing equal justice, and building accountable public

to assess performance in the SDGs.

48

Turkey | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

5.1

14.1

TURKEY Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

33rd of 34

13.2

6.1

6.2

12.2

11.2

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment 7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

5.2

13.1

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

Turkey ranks second-last among the 34 countries across all

Turkey ranks among the least successful OECD countries for

dimensions of the SDG Index. For seven indicators Turkey is

ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being (goal 3). Tur-

among the top third, and in the top ﬁve for three. For over half

key has the shortest healthy life expectancy in our 34-country

of the measures, however, the country ﬁnds itself among the

study. Turks, on average, can expect just 65 years of life lived in

bottom third and, most alarmingly, in the bottom ﬁve for 16

full health, a decade less than the average Japanese. In addition,

indicators.

based on self-reporting collected by Gallup, the country ranks 30th on life satisfaction, although this has slightly improved in

Strengths

the three most recent survey years. Turkey’s performance in

Turkey has demonstrated some success with the sustain-

goal 4 (inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong

able use of terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity (goal 15).

learning) is worrying. In 2013, only 31.9 percent of Turks had

A commendably low 4 percent of bird species in the country

completed at least upper secondary education. Although this

are threatened, far better than the 22 percent OECD average.

rate has risen in recent years (26.6 in 2007, 28.4 in 2010), it is

However, the country has designated only 2.3 percent of its ter-

still the lowest in the OECD. By comparison, the top ﬁve coun-

restrial biomes as protected areas (eight OECD countries are

tries in the sample had completion rates of 90 percent or above.

protecting at least 17 percent). A relatively low 15.8 percent

Coupled with an average PISA score 35 points below the OECD

of Turkish ﬁsh stocks are overexploited (better than the 17.8

mean, this means that Turkey’s education policies have much

percent OECD average), putting the country in seventh place.

room for improvement.

Furthermore, the country’s fossil fuel energy production causes a comparatively low 4 tons of CO2 emissions per capita. By comparison, the ﬁve worst-performing countries for this measure each emit nearly three times as much.

49

Country profiles | United Kingdom

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2 16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

14.1

UNITED KINGDOM

5.1

13.2

15th of 34

5.2

13.1

6.1

6.2

12.2

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

11.2 Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall The United Kingdom ranks 15th out of 34 countries across all

treatment (on both of these measures, the United Kingdom

dimensions of the SDG Index. The United Kingdom is among the

shares top ranking with a number of other countries in this

top third for eleven of the 34 indicators in this study and in the

study).

top ﬁve for six indicators. For seven indicators the country ﬁnds itself among the bottom third, and in the bottom ﬁve for two.

Weaknesses The United Kingdom’s performance on goal 7, which calls for

Strengths

universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and mod-

The United Kingdom has a commendably low rate of domestic

ern energy, is unsatisfactory. The country comes second-last

material consumption (DMC); at 9.6 tons per capita of materi-

for renewable energy, with just 3.2 percent of total energy

als in the economy, it is second only to Japan. It should further

consumption coming from renewable sources. The United

be noted that the UK’s DMC has improved steadily since 2005.

Kingdom comes in 29th for its income gap between rich and

The UK government is also among the ﬁve most generous in

poor, illustrating that the government is failing to adequately

development assistance, giving 0.7 percent of GNI (equivalent

tackle inequality. On goal 2 (which calls for improved nutrition

to nearly $20.5 billion in 2014). It is to be applauded for signiﬁ-

and sustainable agriculture) the United Kingdom only man-

cantly ramping up its development assistance in recent years,

ages 27th place, with high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous

even during the global ﬁnancial crisis, a time when many coun-

used in farming which are harming the environment. Finally,

tries reduced their development assistance.

the country has an alarmingly high rate of obesity, with one in

The United Kingdom is also among the best-performing OECD countries for air quality and wastewater treatment. The country’s particulate matter air pollution does not exceed safety thresholds set by the World Health Organization and all British homes are connected to public or independent wastewater

50

four Britons affected, compared to just one in ten in Switzerland or Norway.

United States | Country profiles

Goal: Global partnership 17 Official development assistance 17.1 Capacity to monitor the SDGs 17.2

1 Goal: Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate 1.2 Poverty gap

1.1

17.2

1.2 2.1

17.1

Goal: Institutions 16 Homicides 16.1 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2

16.2 16.1

3.1 3 Goal: Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy 3.2 Life satisfaction

3.2

15.2

Goal: Biodiversity 15 Terrestrial protected areas 15.1 Red List Index for birds 15.2

15.1

4.1

4.2

14.2

Goal: Oceans 14 Ocean Health Index 14.1 Overexploited fish stocks 14.2

Goal: Climate 13 Production-based energy- 13.1 related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2 per GDP

2 Goal: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Gross agricultural nutrient balances 2.2 Obesity rate

2.2

14.1

UNITED STATES

5.1

13.2

29th of 34

5.2

13.1

6.1

6.2

12.2

Goal: Consumption and production 12 Municipal waste generated 12.1 Domestic material consumption 12.2

11.2 Goal: Cities 11 Particulate matter 11.1 Rooms per person 11.2

6 Goal: Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources 6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment

7.2 8 Goal: Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita 8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

8.1

11.1 10.2

10.1

9.2

9.1

8.2

Goal: Inequality 10 Palma ratio 10.1 PISA Social Justice Index 10.2

rank 1 – 5 |

5 Goal: Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments 5.2 Gender pay gap

7 Goal: Energy 7.1 Energy intensity 7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC

7.1

12.1

4 Goal: Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment 4.2 PISA results

9 Goal: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation 9.2 Research and development expenditure

rank 6 – 13 |

rank 14 – 20 |

rank 21 – 27 |

rank 28 – 34 |

no data

Overall

Weaknesses

The United States ranks 29th out of 34 countries across all dimen-

The US does face a number of major policy challenges. Ameri-

sions of the SDG Index. For seven of the 34 indicators in this

cans generate the second most municipal waste per capita: 725

study the country is among the top third, and in the top ﬁve for

kilograms every year. In comparison, inhabitants in the top ﬁve

three indicators. The country’s performance, however, varies sub-

countries generate between 293 and 347 kilograms. Similarly

stantially. For 16 indicators (nearly half) the United States can be

ecologically worrying is the fact that fossil fuel energy produc-

found among the bottom third, and in the bottom ﬁve for seven.

tion emits 16.2 tons of carbon dioxide per capita, putting the country in 32nd place. The United States also has the highest

Strengths

incidence of obesity of any OECD country, with more than one

The US can be commended for the nation’s high performance

in three Americans affected. This is more than triple the rate in

on a number of SDGs. Its economic strength in terms of gross

each of the top ﬁve countries. Another major policy challenge is

national income (GNI) ranks the US fourth – important for goal

ending poverty in all its forms (goal 1). The United States ranks

8. Americans overall beneﬁt from particulate matter air pollu-

30th for its high poverty rate and 29th for its wide poverty gap.

tion below safety thresholds set by the World Health Organiza-

A shamefully high 17.4 percent of Americans live below the

tion, and with 2.4 rooms per person, they enjoy considerable

national poverty line, signiﬁcantly above the already high 11.5

space, which explains the very good performance on goal 11.

percent OECD average. Similarly worrisome, the country’s high

The country’s performance is mixed when it comes to goal 15

poverty gap (the percentage by which the mean income of the

(which calls for the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems

poor falls below the poverty line) is ahead of only South Korea,

and biodiversity protection), though. A comparatively low 12

Greece, Spain, Mexico, and Italy. With a large gap between

percent of bird species are threatened; ranking the US sev-

rich and poor, the country only outranks Turkey, Mexico, and

enth. However, the country has designated just 8.4 percent of

Chile. This demonstrates that the United States is failing to

its terrestrial biomes as protected areas (eight OECD nations

adequately tackle inequality – a threat to social cohesion and

have designated 17 percent or more).

economic growth.

51

Performance by goal

Chapter 4 displays and discusses the performance of OECD countries in each of the proposed 17 SDGs. Two snapshot indicators per goal illustrate where countries stand in the year the SDGs are signed, thereby showing which countries are best prepared for the respective goal and could therefore be a role model for other nations. This analytical work enables countries to ﬁ nd ways to learn from each other and discuss the adoption of best-practice strategies. Each goal will be discussed separately in the subsequent section but, of course, it must be noted that there are many interlinkages between them that should be incorporated when devising holistic strategies for policy action.

52

4. Performance by goal

Goal 1: Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Goal 2: Agriculture and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Goal 3: Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Goal 4: Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Goal 5: Gender equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Goal 6: Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Goal 7: Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Goal 8: Economy and labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Goal 9: Infrastructure and innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Goal 10: Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Goal 11: Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Goal 12: Consumption and production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Goal 13: Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Goal 14: Oceans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Goal 15: Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Goal 16: Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Goal 17: Global partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

53

Performance by goal

1. Poverty 1.1 Poverty rate

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

08

08

07

06

08

06

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

07

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

2. 3

3

9

4

5 .0

.9 12

8

.29 –7

0 .5

1 1.9

3

.9 5

.45

.4 8

.0 16

–3

–3

–5

4 9. 2

9 7.6

.5 0

.36

.6 8 –1

–6

–5

.5 0

3

62

6

8

3. 2

.4 15

3. 2

5 2. 3

0

.74

.7 13

0

–6

.11 11

4

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

.0 13

. 28 –1

20

20

20

0 7.5 –1

. 69

4

.0 9

–4

–9

0. 3 –1

. 26 –8 08 20 .9 9 20 08 1 20 0 .9 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

% Change 04

05

04

05

03

05

05

04

05

04

05

05

05

05

05

05

03

04

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

04

05

05

05

05

9

.5 7

.5 13

.86

–6

–2

6 1.7

.6 8

7 5.3

5 3.1

–2

.30

. 85

.61 10

–6

–0

.21

1 1.7

–8

.9 4

.86

–8

–9

1 3. 8

9 5.1

. 49

5 1.8

58

0

.5 9

.05 21

.6 8

–6

0

–5

3 1.9 –2

0

4 1.5 –1

.71 14

3

.21 21

.5 24

9 1.5

5 5.4

21.4

20.9

19.2

17.8

16.0

15.2

14.6

14.0

13.8

12.6

11.7

11.5

11.5

10.6

10.4

10.3

10.0

9.8

9.8

9.7

9.6

9.5

8.7

8.3

8.3

8.3

8.0

7.8

6.6

6.1

6.0

5.2

10.00

7.7

15.00

13.0

20.00

17.4

25.00

5.00

Cz

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

15

15

14

13

12

11

8

8

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

ech

Re pu b De lic nm ark Ice lan d Fin lan d No Ne rwa y the rla nd s Fra nce Ir Lux elan em d bo ur Slo g vak Ge ia rm an y Au str i a Be lgi um S Ne wede w Ze n ala n Slo d Un ven ite dK i ing a Sw dom itze rla n Hu d ng ary OE CD Polan d av era ge Est on i Ca a na da Ita Po ly rtu g Au al str alia S Ko pain rea ,R ep Gr . eec e Un Japa ite dS n tat es Ch ile Tur key Isra e Me l xic o

1

0

Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012, except DNK, NOR, FRA, DEU, SWE, NZL, CHE, CAN, CHL, TUR, ISR: 2011, GBR: 2010, JPN: 2009)

Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere Ending extreme poverty in all its forms is a ﬁtting ﬁrst goal

being at a record high compared to the entire past half century.

for a catalog whose eventual purpose is to improve people’s

The poorest 10 percent and the richest 10 percent across the

lives. The absence of poverty is the very condition upon which

OECD drift ever further apart. While the latter had seven times

other goals can be built, such as making cities and human

as much income as the former 25 years ago, today they earn

settlements inclusive and safe, or promoting peaceful societies.

about nine times as much. OECD countries can only serve as

The primary focus of policy should always be those in the most

role models for the developing and middle-income nations in

desperate need.

terms of a viable social and economic model if they make sure

Of course, poverty in OECD nations is of a very different

that theirs is an inclusive and sustainable one.

nature to the poverty of, for instance, Sub-Saharan Africa.

The principle of the SDGs, leaving no one behind, clearly

Countries with such immense ﬁnancial resources as the ones

also applies within the rich countries themselves. In fact, the

listed here should, however, make sure that they govern their

OWG proposal for goal 1 speciﬁcally includes a target to “reduce

own societies in a way that allows everybody to take part in

at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of

the wealth that is created. They are increasingly failing at this

all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to

task, though, with income inequality in OECD countries now

national deﬁnitions” by 2030.11 As the ﬁgures show, countries

11 Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals (2014). https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=1579&menu=1300

54

1.2 Poverty gap

08 .5 3 21

3

.05

.9 6

3.6

23

25

9 7.6

0

2

4 3. 2

9. 8

4.2

0

5 9. 4

.3 4

. 25

0.3

26

–6

4

.74

.5 14

–2

5

4 5.7

.9 6

0.6

–0

7

.05 17

0.6

.13

5

1 6 .0

29

9. 6

.70

4 7.8

26

.16 14

.14

.0 4

–4

–3

.0 6 11

0

.42

2 0. 4

–0

41.2

40.0

39.5

39.3

38.2

36.9

34.7

33.6

33.2

32.7

32.5

32.3

31.9

31.3

31.1

30.8

30.6

30.2

30.1

30.0

29.7

28.4

27.5

26.1

25.8

25.5

25.5

25.1

24.3

24.0

. 87

4

23.8

–2

5 1.8

23.1

04

04

7

0. 3 –1

2.9

9

. 33 –1

.2 14

3

.27 13

.7 16

9

.61

3

9

.42

–4

3.0 –1

–3

4 3.1

6

0.0 –1

.3 12

5.4 –1

6

.9 9

.2 10

–0

.42

2 8 .0

20

8

7 7.4 6 3 .5 –1 2 4.8 –2 4 2.7 –3

6 7.2

5

.8 12

8 .6

2 0. 4

3

.24 –1

. 85

0.7

0

–6

22.8

20

20

05

05

05

04

05

05

03

05

05

05

04

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

03

05

04

04

05

05

04

05

05

05

30.0

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

35.0

39.2

6 .3 –1

3

.30 –1

4.8

40.0

21.7

20

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

06

08

06

08

08

07

08

08

07

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

45.0

25.0

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

% Change

20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

8

8

7

6

5

4

3

1

Fin lan Slo d ven Be ia lgi u Ge m rm an y Fr Sw ance Cz itzerl ech an Re d pu b Au lic str alia S Ne wede w Ze n Lux alan em d bo urg Po lan d De nm ark Ire lan Slo d vak i Ca a na da OE Hun CD ga av ry era ge Ic Ne eland the rla nd s Tur key Isra Po el rtu ga l Ch ile Est on ia Jap an Un Au ite d K stria ing do m N Un orw ay ite dS Ko tates rea ,R ep Gr . eec e Sp ain Me xic o Ita ly

2

0

Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012, except DEU, FRA, CHE, SWE, NZL, DNK, CAN, TUR, ISR, CHL, NOR: 2011, GBR: 2010, JPN: 2009)

vary in their ability to ﬁght poverty. The poverty rate displayed

poor falls below the poverty line. Thus, it tells us how severe

in ﬁgure 1.1 is the ratio of the number of people whose income

poverty is in each country with respect to the mean income

falls below the poverty line, deﬁned as half the median house-

levels. Finland (21.7 percent) and Slovenia (22.8 percent) hold

hold income of the total population. It is therefore a measure of

the top places here, while Italy (41.2 percent) has a higher gap

how widespread poverty is deﬁned by the respective national

than Mexico (40 percent). Many countries with high poverty

standard. The OECD average is 11.46 percent. The differences

rates also display high poverty gaps. But there are exceptions.

between nations above and below that average, however, are

Norway, for example, which is among the top ﬁve in terms

signiﬁcant. The Czech Republic (5.2 percent), Denmark (6.0

of poverty rate, is among the bottom group of countries with

percent), Iceland (6.1 percent), and Finland (6.6 percent) all

regard to the poverty gap.

show a poverty rate below 7 percent, while at the bottom of the ranking in Israel (20.9 percent) and Mexico (21.4 percent), poverty concerns more than one in ﬁve citizens. To add to the picture, the poverty gap (ﬁgure 1.2) holds information on the percentage by which the mean income of the

55

Performance by goal

2. Agriculture and nutrition 2.1 Agricultural nutrient balances

06

06

0. 8 –1

.47

.73

–8

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

9

.76

5.3

–6

0

. 87

2 4.4

–8

5 .0 –1

6

.5 0 12 6 1.7 –1

.79 –7

.9 0

–3

–2

8 4.1

2

8 .4

.16

2. 2

–3

–2

–4

0 1.7 –6

2 3 .9

5 1.2 –3 2

4 .5 –1

3 7.7

9 2 .9 –2 03 20 . 49 –5 03 5 20 2. 4 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

–9

.8 4 –7

20

20

.0 0 25 6 4.7 –2

0

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

8

8 7.2 03 20 .73 23 03 20 5 3. 4 03 1 20 9.9 –2 03 1 0. 8 –1 5 6.2

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

.4 19

235.3

300.0

198.0

250.0

258.6

06

06

06

06

06

06

.24 18 06 20 0 1.2 06 5 20 7.1 –1 06 5 20 4 .3 –2 7

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

4

03

03

0 0.0 –5 03 20 .9 0 –4 03 8 20 2 .5 –2 03 2 4 .0 –1 20

20

20

20

6

0

5

6 1.6 06 2 20 1.9 –2 06 8 20 7.7 –3 06 5 20 4.1 –3 06 0 20 9.7 –1 06 20 0 06 20 . 82 5 –3 06 6 20 2. 3 –2 06 5 20 6.2 10 06 1 20 3. 8 –2 06 5 20 0.0 –2 06 20 .11 61 06 7 7.1 –4

20

06

.2 12

3

0

5 .9 –1

5 .0

2

.3 13

0.0

6 .6

–5

.17

5.6 –4

–2

20

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

7 7.2 –2

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

% Change

136.1

108.0

102.0

94.0

90.0

79.0

71.0

61.4

57.0

56.0

54.0

53.0

51.0

43.0

36.8

33.0

32.0

29.5

29.0

28.0

24.0

23.8

21.1

21.0

17.0

12.0

10.0

9.0

50.0

14.5

100.0

67.0

150.0

123.0

200.0

–

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Ice

lan d Sp ain Gr ee Au ce str al Po ia rtu ga Est l on ia Me xic Ca o na da Au str i Sw a ed en Un ite Italy dS tat e Slo s vak Hu ia ng ary Tur key Fin lan d Fra nce Ire lan d S l o Cz ech veni Re a pu bli c P Ne olan w d Z OE CD ealan d av e Sw rage itze rla De nd nm Lux a em rk bo urg Un Germ ite d K any ing do m No rw ay Be lgi um Ne Israe the l rla nd s Ja Ko pan rea ,R ep. Ch ile

1

0

Unit: Kg per hectare of agricultural land, deviation from 0, Source: OECD (data refer to 2009, except NZL: 2010, GRC, EST, MEX, ITA, HUN, FRA, SVN, CHE, LUX, DEU, BEL, NLD: 2008)

Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture In many corners of the world, the plight of hunger and food

At the same time, OECD nations face their own particular issues

insecurity still lead to immense suffering among millions

with nutrition among their citizens due to increasingly wide-

of people. Famines and disasters threaten the livelihoods of

spread overconsumption of unhealthy food resulting in ever-

entire regions. OECD countries have largely overcome such

growing levels of obesity. Thus, a holistic approach is needed to

challenges and ought to do their utmost to help other nations

tackle food insecurity in poor countries as well as unsustainable

overcome them, too. Such problems are furthermore linked

food consumption practices in rich countries. Such seemingly

to deﬁciencies in the OECD nations themselves that need to

disparate issues are related and ought to be tackled in conjunc-

be dealt with: Agriculture must be made more sustainable if

tion. Furthermore, nutrition-related problems have important

we are to ensure its beneﬁts for future generations and larger

spillover effects on other SDGs. In fact, the health-related costs,

proportions of our current generation. High-income countries

for example, of obesity are alarming: The WHO attributes 44

must become leading examples in the quest to reconcile the

percent of diabetes cases and 23 percent of ischemic heart dis-

need for good-quality food with a cautious treatment of those

ease to being overweight,12 leading to massive strains on health

natural resources upon which the agricultural economy is

budgets in many countries.

very much dependent. 12 http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/obesity/en/

56

2.2 Obesity rate

28.50

28.30

25.40

25.10

23.00

22.70

22.30

21.00

21.00

19.00

18.40

18.30

16.90

16.60

15.80

15.80

15.70

15.40

14.70

13.80

13.40

12.40

12.00

11.80

10.40

10.00

15.00

10.30

20.00

14.50

25.00

19.60

30.00

24.70

35.30

32.40

35.00

31.30

40.00

4.60

5.00

3.60

10.00

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

22

22

21

20

19

18

17

15

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Ja Ko pan rea ,R ep No . Sw rway itze rla nd Ita l Sw y Ne eden the rla nd s Au str De ia nm ar Be k lgi um Fra nce Ge rm an Po y rtu ga l Isra el Fin lan d Po lan d Sp ain Slo vak ia S OE lov CD en av ia era ge Est on ia G Cz ech reec Re e pu bli c Ice lan d T Lux urke em y bo urg Un ite Irelan dK d ing do m Ch il Ca e na d Au a str alia H Ne unga r w Ze y ala nd Me Un ite xico dS tat es

1

0

Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012)

Figure 2.1 shows one dimension of how successful countries

percent, respectively, of the population affected. In New Zea-

are in fostering sustainable agriculture, as illustrated here

land (31.3 percent), Mexico (32.4 percent), and the US (35.3

by the nitrogen and phosphorous balance expressed as N and

percent), obesity concerns around a third of the population.

P surplus intensities per hectare of agricultural land (kilo-

Currently, a level of around 10 percent or less would put a

grams per hectare of total agricultural land; deviation from

country in the top ﬁve of this indicator. Many places are still

0). Most countries suffer from a surplus which indicates a

far off such a target.

risk of polluting soil, water, and air. In the case of Hungary, however, the deviation from 0 is due to a deﬁcit of 33, which could undermine soil fertility. The OECD average lies at 67 on this indicator. While Iceland (nine) and Spain (ten) lead the table of nations with values of ten or below, the Netherlands (198), Japan (235), and Korea (259) display scores of almost or over 200. By contrast, the latter two countries have the lowest rates of obesity as pictured in ﬁ gure 2.2, with only 3.6 and 4.6

57

Performance by goal

3. Health 3.1 Healthy life expectancy

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3 1.4

0

3 1.4

0

0

0

0

0

3 1.4

3 1.4

0

0

0

1 1.4

0

0

0

0

0

9 1.3

0

0

0

% Change 20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

65

67 65

66

67

67

68

67

69

69

69

70

70

71 70

71

71

71

71

71

71

71

71

71

71

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

72

73 72

73

73

74

73

75

8

6

8

6 .5

3.0

7 3.1

3.0

2 1.5

5 6 .3

9

4

7 1.4

4

2.9

2.9

5 4 .5

2.9

5 1.4

1 4.4

0

0

0

5 1.4

2.9

0

2.9

2.9

1 4.4

2.9

5 1.4

5 1.4

6

1 1.4

2. 8

0

6

5 4.3

6

2.9

2. 8

5 4.3

2. 8

8

9

1 1.4

4.2

9

9

5. 8

4.2

4.2

4 2.7

76

64 62

Au

Jap an str alia 1 2 Ko Italy rea 2 ,R ep. 2 Sp ain Ca 2 na da Fra nce 6 Ice lan 6 d I s rae 6 Lux l em 6 Ne bou r w Ze g 6 ala n Sw d 6 Sw eden itze 6 rla nd Au str 6 Be ia 1 4 lgi um Fin 14 la Ge nd 1 rm an 4 y 1 Gr eec 4 e 14 Ire Ne land the 1 rla nd 4 No s 14 rw a Po y 1 Un rtu 4 ite d K gal OE ing 14 CD do av m 1 era 4 ge Ch De ile 2 Cz ech nmar 4 Re k 2 pu bl 4 Slo ic 2 6 ve Un ite nia dS tat 26 e Est s 26 on ia Me 2 xic 9 o 29 Po lan Slo d 2 vak 9 Hu ia 2 9 ng ary Tur 33 key 33

60

Unit: Years, Source: WHO (data refer to 2013)

Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages A healthy life is in many ways a fundamental right for every

majority of OECD countries score over 70 healthy life years

citizen of the world and at the same time the condition for

now, with the top ﬁve at least at 73 and top performer Japan at

economic and social progress. Consequently, there are many

even 75 years. Less than 70 healthy life years are experienced

interlinkages between health and other goals examined here.

by people in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, the United States

Goal 3 seeks to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being

(69), Poland (67), Slovakia (67), Estonia (67), and Mexico (67).

for all at all ages.” We consider health and well-being therefore

Hungary and Turkey are at the bottom of the table with only

to have (at least) two components: physical and mental health.

65 years. However, having improved by four years since 2000,

The WHO regularly examines healthy life expectancy (HALE)

the example of Turkey shows that signiﬁcant improvements are

as a measure that applies disability weights to health states to

possible in this regard in a fairly short time period that can

compute the equivalent number of years of life expected to be

impact positively on many people’s lives.

lived in full health. Not only can one be more productive if one

In addition, the Gallup World Poll regularly surveys

is in good health and play a conducive part in the economy of

people’s life satisfaction, or subjective well-being, by asking

one’s country. It is also a basic condition for enjoying a high

them: “Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from zero

quality of life overall. Figure 3.1 shows that, thankfully, the

at the bottom to ten at the top. The top of the ladder represents

58

3.2 Life satisfaction

4.8

5.1

5.6

5.2

5.7

5.6

5.8

5.9

5.8

6.1

6.0

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.7

6.6

6.8

6.9

6.8

6.9

6.9

7.0

7.2

7.0

7.3

7.2

7.3

7.3

7.4

7.3

.77

8 8.1 –1

–8

0

2 3 .9

0

7.4

07

08

08

08

08

9

6

.45

5 3. 4

–3

8

.78 27

6.7

0. 2 –1

.32 11

.0 8

0 .9 –1

0

–3

7 1.4

. 43 –1

.07 12

3 1.4

7.5

20

20

20

20

06

08

08

08

08

06

08

08

07

08

08

08

0

7 4.1

.89 –7

.74

4 1.5

–2

.70

. 33 –1

–2

0

. 33 –1

7 1.3

0

.9 0

7 1.3

.5 0

–3

0

–2

0

7.4

1 1.1 –1

.92 –1

6

2 6.1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

06

08

08

7.5

11

11

11

5.6

7

.0 0

2 1.8

–5

3 .5

4

.35

5 .9 –1

–6

9

.6 4 –1

3.3

0

.9 0

.14 –7

7 3.1

–2

.45 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

7.5

20

20

20

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11 2

. 82

. 82

6

.0 0

4 .6

–2

–2

–8

0

6 .0

.70

1 1.4

–2

.9 5

9 1.3

–3

.35 –1

.63

.35 –1

–2

0

0

0

0

. 85

8.7

–3

6.0

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

08

11

11

09

08

11

7.0

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

8.0

% Change

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

33

34

30

32

30

27

29

26

27

25

24

21

21

21

18

20

18

15

15

13

15

11

13

11

7

7

7

7

4

4

4

1

1 De

nm ark Ice Sw land itze rla nd Fin lan d Isra el No rw Au ay str ali Ca a Ne nada the Ne rland w Ze s ala nd S Un wede ite dS n tat Ge es rm an y Ire lan d Au str Be ia l g iu Lux em m bo urg Un Ch ite il dK ing e do m OE M CD exic o a Cz vera ech ge Re pu bli c Fra nce Sp a Slo in vak ia Ita ly Ja Ko pan rea ,R ep. Po lan Slo d ven ia Est on ia Tur ke Hu y ng a Po ry rtu ga Gr l eec e

1

0

Unit: Standardized scale, Source: Gallup (data refer to 2014, except ISL: 2013)

the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder

on the life satisfaction question best are a country’s gross

represents the worst possible life for you. On which step

domestic product, a lack of corruption, good levels of health,

of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand

personal freedom, but also – and especially – social support

at this time?” This question of perceived, self-reported life

(measured for instance by having someone to count on in times

satisfaction can in an important manner enhance objective

of trouble) and generosity. These ﬁ ndings hint at important

portrayals of the quality of life in a country with a people’s

trade-offs between potentially conﬂ icting goals, leading the

perspective. Figure 3.2 illustrates that average scores on this

report’s authors to demand, for instance, that economic growth

indicator range from merely 4.8 in crisis-struck Greece to 7.5

should not be pursued to the point where community cohesion

in Switzerland, Iceland, and Denmark. The latter nations man-

may suffer. The relationship between sustainable development

age therefore to provide an environment in which people are

as deﬁ ned by the SDGs and subjective well-being is further

subjectively satisﬁed, and these countries also score highly on

examined in this study in Chapter 5.5.

many other more objective dimensions of human well-being analyzed in this study. As the latest World Happiness Report13 has shown, the six factors which explain country performance 13 Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., and Sachs, J. (eds.) (2015). World Happiness Report, New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network. http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/04/WHR15.pdf

59

Performance by goal

4. Education 4.1 Upper secondary attainment

71.4

67.2

40.0

31.9

39.8

50.0

38.4

60.0

57.5

58.2

70.0

55.5

72.2

75.1

72.8

75.8

75.7

76.3

78.3

76.7

80.5

78.4

82.4

83.1

82.5

83.7

83.2

85.0

85.9

85.5

87.2

86.3

89.6

7

90.1

6.7

1 6 .6

.12 16

4

6

5 4 .5

5 .5

3

5 .5

8

4.3

6

6 2.7

3.6

7 4 .0

3.3

0

8 7.3

.23 –1

6 .9

5 1.7

6

8

89.6

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

3.6

0

.2 18

0

5

2. 8

2. 6

6

9

3.0

3. 2

7 2. 2

2.0

3 1.8

1 3.1

91.9

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

.23

6 1.6

–0

0 2.1

9 1.1

2

5 2 .5

0. 2

5 1.5

3 2.1

0

90.6

.32 12

0

.55

5 8 .3

25

1 4 .9

3

9 .5 –1

5.4

.30

7

6

8 7.1

–2

8 .5

3. 2

7 6 .0

4

2 3. 4

4.8

6 20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

100.0

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

5.3

7

3

3 .5

6

0

5

2 3.0

2. 4

6

3.6

4 .0

4

5 1.8

3 .5

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

92.8

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

2. 6

9

8 1.4

3. 4

8

0.7

0 .5

3 1.6

1 1.4

9

4 0.7

8

1 1.8

0 .9

6 1.4

0 .9

0

80.0

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

90.0

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

100.0

% Change

30.0 20.0 10.0

34

33

31

32

ug a Me l xic o Tur key

Po rt

Sp

ain

30

29

ly

ile Ch

28

Ita

26

27

24

25

23

22

20

21

19

17

18

15

16

14

12

13

10

11

9

7

8

5

6

3

4

2

Cz

ech

Re

Jap an pu bli Slo c vak ia Est on ia Un Polan ite dS d tat e Ca s Sw nada itze rla Ge nd rm an y Fin lan Slo d ven ia I Ko srael rea ,R ep Sw . ed en Au str Hu ia ng ar No y Lux rwa Un emb y ite o d K urg ing do De m nm ark OE CD Irelan d av e Ne rage the rla n Au ds str alia Fra nc Be e lgi um I Ne celan w Ze d ala nd Gr eec e

1

0

Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (AUS, CAN, CHL, ISR, JPN, KOR, MEX, NZL, USA) or Eurostat (data refer to 2013, except CHL: 2011)

Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all A good education holds the key to success in many areas of

On average, OECD countries provide more than three-quarters

life. Such a basic truth should lead one to assume that ensur-

of their population with this level of education (76.3 percent).

ing inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting

The top ﬁve countries, however, score above 90 percent here:

lifelong learning opportunities for all is very high on the

Poland (90.1 percent), Estonia (90.6 percent), Slovakia (91.9

agenda in every country studied here.

percent), the Czech Republic (92.8 percent), and Japan (100

And yet, the distribution in ﬁgure 4.1 shows that there

percent). In Portugal, Mexico, and Turkey the ﬁgure is below

are signiﬁcant differences with regard to the achievement of

40 percent. Chile, in particular, is also to be named among the

that goal. It displays the percentage of the population having

bottom group. The country has come down to 57.5 percent com-

completed at least upper secondary education. Upper second-

pared to 71.4 percent in 2010.

ary education (ISCED 3) corresponds here to the ﬁnal stage of

As well as granting people access to education, it is, of

secondary education in most OECD countries. It is therefore a

course, imperative to ensure that its quality is high. Luckily,

measure for how successful countries are in providing citizens

the OECD regularly examines the skills of pupils in its member

with access to a certain level of education.

countries in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). As a proxy for the quality of education examined

60

4.2 PISA results

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

–0

–0

.63

.6 8

1 1.7

. 33

9

.5 6 –1

–3

.72

.27

3.3

–2

–3

.35

.83 –1

–0

4 0.7

0 1.1

.86

.8 8

.19

4 1.6

–0

–0

–0

9

2 0.0

0 .5

7

5 1.9

2.7

.8 4

7 0. 4

–2

0 0.1

. 22 –1

7

5

0 .9

3.7

.01

7 0. 2

–0

7

.83

3. 8

–0

.5 9

2 2. 4

–2

7 2.0

4 0. 2

% Change

417.25

436.32

465.63

462.30

474.12

471.87

482.13

486.60

484.49

489.54

488.03

489.57

492.12

489.62

497.22

495.94

498.21

499.81

498.86

500.31

500.05

502.46

509.77

509.19

515.11

512.48

515.56

518.75

518.42

522.22

520.50

529.40

526.08

3

0

6 2.7

2.0

5.3

2 1.9

9

1 1.2

6

3.0

9

.73 –1

0.6

7 1.4

3 .9

1 3.7

542.45

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

.72

5 1.6

–0

7

.39

7 3.0

2.7

–0

2

.41 –1

. 25

. 33

.05

.0 8

. 25

. 20

0. 8

–2

–3

–0

–0

–0

–0

9

.38

6 1.0

–2

.37

0.6

–0

.55

.38

6 0.1

–0

–0

.13

. 69 –1

–0

1 2. 3

540.40

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

500.00

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

600.00

400.00 300.00 200.00 100.00

2 Ita 3 Po ly 2 rtu 4 g Hu al 2 5 ng ary Ice 2 lan 6 Sw d 27 ed en Isra 28 Slo el 2 vak 9 ia 3 Gr eec 0 e Tur 31 key Ch 32 ile Me 3 xic 3 o 34

21

22

20

19

17

18

16

14

15

12

13

11

9

10

7

8

5

6

4

3

1 Ko re

a,

Re p. Jap an Fin lan d Est on ia Ca na da Po Ne land the rl Sw ands itze rla nd Ire lan Ge d rm a Au ny str al B ia Ne elgiu m w Z Un ite ealan dK d ing do m A Cz ech ustri Re a pu bli c Fra nce Slo ven i OE Den a CD ma av rk era ge No r Un ite way dS Lux tate em s bo urg Sp ain

2

0

Unit: Points on standardized scale, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012)

here, we display the arithmetic average of the points achieved

For this indicator to be used in universal SDG monitoring, it

on the PISA exercise regarding reading, mathematics, and sci-

would be desirable to ever further extend its coverage to more

ence scales in ﬁgure 4.2. They range from 417 to 542. On aver-

countries around the globe in the future. We are revisiting the

age, OECD countries score around 497 points. Canada (522),

PISA scores in this study when considering goal 10 (inequal-

Estonia (526), Finland (529), Japan (540), and above all the

ity) by examining the impact of socioeconomic background on

Republic of Korea (542), however, are in the top ﬁve here with

student performance.

scores of 522 and above. These countries quite literally hold important lessons to learn for all other OECD nations, but in particular, those whose values are below 470, which are Greece (466), Turkey (462), Chile (436), and Mexico (417). Ireland and Poland show the biggest improvements over the last few years here. They managed to improve their scores compared to 2009 from 497 to 516 in the case of Ireland, and from 501 to 521 in Poland, indicating how progress can be made here.

61

Performance by goal

5. Gender equality 5.1 Share of women in national parliaments

10.00

8.10

9.30

15.00

14.40

15.70

15.80

15.70

18.70

18.30

19.00

21.00

19.50

22.60

22.50

24.30

26.00

25.10

27.77

26.20

28.30

31.30

31.00

33.30

31.40

33.30

36.50

33.90

38.70

37.40

39.10

39.70

39.60

0

.81

41.30

8

5 .0

–4

.9 4 41

39.70

–2

5.6

0

1 1.4

7

6.8

3 .9

08

08

6

. 85

.21 27

40

.3 14

.89 14 08 2 20 0.7 –2 08 20 .0 4 56 08 20 0 7.3 08 20 .5 3 13 08 20 . 33 –5 08 20 .18 –1 08 0 7.1 –1 20

20

20

08

08

08

08

2

. 33 17

.2 12

5

. 49 –7

3. 8

45.00

11

11

11

11

11

3

8

.27 11

8 .9

.8 16

20

.0 4

–4

0 20

6 1.3 –1

0 08

08

08

08

42.50

20

20

20

20

20

11

11

11

11

.3 12

20

20

20

20

.5 12

3

5 1.3

2 .5

20

20

0

3

.17

2. 2

–4

7 2.1

.9 12

20.00

20

20

20

20

11

11

11

11

11

1 1.2

6

. 62

5.2

38

7

0

6

.2 13

8.7

08

08

08

08

08

9

.45 –1

0

2. 8

2

.83

9.7

–0

.2 19

0 7.3 08 20 0 08 20 1 1.4 08 20 1 1.4 08 1 2.1 14

20

20

20

20

20

08

08

08

08

5 7.6

.89

1 2. 4

–4

25.00

20

20

20

20

20

11

11

11

11

9. 0

.37 45

2 3. 4

.35 19

8

4 20

20

20

20

20

08

08

08

08

30.00

20

20

20

20

11

11

11

11

11

5.2

5

.9 10

.7 42

.91

8 20

20

20

20

35.00

20

20

20

20

20

11

11

11

–4

0

0

0

.2 10

8

7

8 .6

0

0.6

40.00

20

20

20

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

45.00

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

50.00

% Change

5.00

34

33

30

32

29

30

28

26

27

24

25

23

21

22

19

20

18

17

15

16

14

12

12

10

11

9

7

8

4

6

3

4

2

Sw

ed en Fin lan Be d lgi um Ice lan d Sp ain No rw De ay n Ne mark the rla nd s Me xic o Ge Ne rman w Ze y ala nd Au str Slo ia ven ia Ita Po ly r Sw tugal itze Lu rlan OE xemb d ou CD av rg era ge Fra nce Au str ali Ca a na da Un ite Polan dK d ing do m Isra e Gr l Cz ech eec Re e pu bli c Est on i a S Un lovak ite i dS a tat es Ch ile Ire Ko land rea ,R ep. Tur ke Hu y ng ary Jap an

1

0

Unit: Percent, Source: World Bank (data refer to 2014)

Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls Signiﬁcant progress was made in many OECD countries over the

in parliament is close to or above 40 percent. In Sweden’s parlia-

past decades in terms of ﬁghting gender inequality. Nonethe-

ment, 45 percent of seats are held by women and the proportion

less, there are still many areas in which complete equality has

even stood at 47 percent only a few years ago. Mexico also shows

not been achieved and where the success rates vary between

a relatively high rate of female MPs with 37.4 percent, just ahead

nations. Two such areas are displayed here. Figure 5.1 shows

of Germany (36.5 percent).

the proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments.

By contrast, a country as economically successful as Japan

Representation in the highest political spheres is a strong sym-

only manages to give 8 percent of its seats to women – which is

bol as well as a proxy for gender equality in a number of areas of

the lowest proportion measured in any OECD country in the last

daily life – such as representation in executive positions in large

seven years and even a decrease on Japan’s low level in 2008

businesses or civil society organizations. The OECD average for

(9.4 percent). Hungary and Turkey also score below 15 percent

representation of women in national parliaments is only a little

and have lots of catching up to do on this goal. The trend in these

more than a quarter (27.8 percent). This low score certainly does

countries at least is a positive one, as Turkey’s rate was just 9.1

not do the role of women in society any justice. In Iceland, Spain,

percent in 2008, and Hungary’s previously stood at 8.8 percent.

Belgium, Finland, and Norway, at least, the proportion of women

Along with strengthening the representation of women in high

62

5.2 Gender pay gap

20

20

20

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

09

10

10

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

10

10

10

10

10

.5 9 –7

0

.27 –7

0

1 5.3

0. 2

7 0.1

.9 4

.12

7 1.2

–0

.15

–0

.18

–5

28

.8 4

.0 0

–4

–9

.61 –1

0

.18 21

.86

.0 76

–2

–4

8

.14

0.0

–9

2 7.4 –1

.4 4 32 10 20 7 5.4 10 20 .0 6 –5 10 20 .5 0 –1 10 20 3 0.3 10 20 .35 –0 10 20 .29 –0 10 20 .10 –0 10 20 . 43 47 10 20 .32 36 10 20 .6 6 41 10 6 20 8 .0 –1 10 5 20 3.1 –1 2 3. 3

20

20

20

20

20

% Change 20

20

20

20

20

07

06

07

07

06

07

07

07

06

07

3.7

36.60

8

.63

.02 12

.18

–9

–2

.74

.83 11

–2

6 1.9 –1 . 69

. 62

9 12

.45

4

.91

–6

–9

0.6

8 –2

.8 4 –9 07 9 20 1.6 –1 07 20 .01 –4 06 0 20 1.3 –1 07 20 .81 –8 07 20 . 20 –5 07 1 20 1.1 –1

20

20

20

20

20

07

07

07

07

8

6

0 8.1

4 .6

–5

.4 0

8 .6

–3

–2

.9 8 –6 07 2 20 2. 6 –1 07 4 5.2 –1

20

20

20

20

20

07

07

02

07

07

.92 59 06 5 20 7.1 –3 06 20 .9 5 74 07 0 20 1.7 –3 07 20 .29 –1 07 1 8 .0 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

31.50

40.00

26.60

35.00

21.80

20.50

19.00

18.70

18.50

18.20

18.00

17.90

17.50

16.60

16.30

16.00

15.50

15.46

15.40

14.10

14.10

14.10

12.80

11.60

11.10

8.70

8.60

7.80

7.00

6.90

6.50

5.60

10.00

6.40

15.00

10.60

20.00

15.10

25.00

20.10

30.00

5.00

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

13

13

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

1

ala nd l Lux gium em bo urg Gr eec No e rw De ay nm ark Sp a Hu in ng ary Po lan d Ita l Slo y ven ia Ire lan d Fra nce Ice lan Slo d vak i Sw a ed en OE M CD exic o a Cz vera ech g Re e pu bli c Ch ile Po rtu ga Un Germ l ite d K any i Un ngdo m ite dS tat Au es str alia Au s tr Sw itze ia rla nd Fin lan Ca d na da T Ne urke y the rla nd s Isra el Jap an Est o n Ko rea ia ,R ep. Be

Ze w Ne

2

0

Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2013, except BEL, GRC, DNK, ESP, POL, ITA, SWE, PRT, AUT, FIN: 2012, ISL, CHL, DEU, ISR: 2011, LUX, SVN, FRA, CHE, TUR, NLD, EST: 2010)

political ofﬁces, a remaining deﬁciency in many OECD countries

then has grown to 16 percent. This means that the once strong-

is the gap in salaries between the sexes. The gender wage gap dis-

performing nation in this regard is now ranked below OECD

played in ﬁgure 5.2 is deﬁned as the difference between median

average on this indicator, which stands at 15.46 percent.

wages of women relative to the median wages of men. Korea, Japan, and Turkey are again in the bottom group in this facet of gender equality with a difference of 36.6 percent, 26.6 percent, and 20.1 percent, respectively. They ﬁnd themselves in the company of Estonia (31.5 percent), Israel (21.8 percent), and the Netherlands (20.5 percent). A small difference of 7 percent or less is to be found in Norway, Greece, Luxembourg, Belgium, and New Zealand (5.6 percent). Hungary had narrowed the gap to a mere 3.65 percent in 2007, but since then let it increase to 8.7 percent. A worryingly large increase is also noted for Chile, where in 2006 the gap stood at a formidable 3.96 percent, but since

63

Performance by goal

6. Water 6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

07

07

07

07

02

07

07

02

07

02

02

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

02

02

02

07

07

02

07

07

07

02

07

07

0

.5 2

.42 –7

0

0

0

0

9

.6 8

–0

0

–5

0

0

1 1.7

0

0

0

0

0

0

.7 15

0

0

0

0

0

3 1.7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

% Change 20

20

20

20

20

20

20

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

2

.72

.42

6.7

28

–3

5 7.5 –1

0

.4 6

0 7.5 –1

9

.79

9. 4

–9

0

0

0

–3

. 67

6 19

0

43

.02

.13

. 82

–2

8 –2

22

0

3 1.2

0 02 20 .55 –1 02 20 0 02 20 0 02 20 5 8.7 02 20 .5 2 –4 02 20 6 1.0 02 20 8 2.0 02 20 .35 –2 02 20 .35 23 02 20 . 03 –3 02 9 20 6 .6 –1 2 6.4 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

260.53

300.00 250.00 200.00

51.80

39.28

30.19

29.19

25.62

24.88

22.31

22.27

20.94

19.63

17.67

16.98

16.33

15.81

14.13

12.92

8.99

6.65

6.47

6.02

5.46

5.05

4.59

4.00

1.61

1.53

1.53

1.48

1.45

0.77

0.10

50.00

11.00

100.00

96.45

93.05

150.00

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

5

5

4

3

2

Ice lan No d rw Ne a w Ze y ala nd Ca na da Fin lan Sw d ed en Ire lan d Ch i l Au e str al Slo ia ven Slo ia Lux vaki em a b Sw ourg itze rla nd Un Au ite d K stria ing do De m Cz ech nmar Re k pu bli c Est on ia Fra nce Un Gree c ite dS e tat es Tur key Me xic o Jap an Po rtu ga l Po lan d OE CD It av aly era ge Sp ain Ge rm a Ko rea ny ,R e Be p. lgi um Hu Ne ngar y the rla nd s Isra el

1

0

Unit: Percent, Source: World Bank (data refer to 2013)

Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all Water is a fundamental building block of life on our planet.

supply, and use for public services, commercial establish-

Our water resources not only affect the well-being of our com-

ments, and homes. Withdrawals for agriculture and industry

munities but also the success of our agriculture and industry.

are total withdrawals for irrigation and livestock production

Universal access to water and the sustainable use of water

and for direct industrial use (including withdrawals for cool-

resources are prerequisites for the viability of all human

ing thermoelectric plants). Withdrawals also include water

settlements. How communities manage both freshwater and

from desalination plants in countries where they are a sig-

wastewater has far-reaching effects. Freshwater withdrawals

niﬁcant source. Withdrawals can exceed 100 percent of total

that exceed the natural replenishment rate and inadequate

renewable resources where extraction from non-renewable

wastewater management threaten local as well as regional

aquifers or desalination plants is considerable or where there

communities and ecosystems.

is signiﬁcant water reuse.

Figure 6.1 displays water resource stress. Annual fresh-

The OECD countries vary greatly in how sustainably they

water withdrawals refer to total water withdrawals (not count-

use their water resources. Both Iceland and Norway can be

ing evaporation losses from storage basins). Withdrawals

particularly commended for annually using less than 1 per-

for domestic uses include drinking water, municipal use or

cent of their total renewable water resources in 2013. On the

64

6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

10

10

09

05

04

10

09

9

10

09

10

10

10

10

10

09

9 19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

1

10

09

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

04

10

10

10

10

9 19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2 .5

0

0

3

5 1.1

2

1 3. 4

5

2. 2

5.7

0

.18 41

0

0

3 1.0

2 1.0

0

0

0

1 1.0

0

0

1 1.0

7 4.1

0

0

0

% Change

62.0 52.0

70.0

64.0

73.0

72.0

73.0

81.0

80.0

86.0

88.0

87.0

91.0

88.8

92.0

93.0

92.0

97.0

96.0

97.0

99.0

98.0

99.0

99.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

4

7

100.0

.0 13

.5 7 21

0

0

100.0

07

05

05

04

0

.8 15

5. 8

100.0

20

20

20

05

07

5

7

0

7

3 .9

3 .5

1 3.6

3 .5

0

5 3. 4

5 2. 3

0

4 1.0

.02 –1

6

4 1.0

4.2

0

0

.11 11

0

0

0

.0 0 –1

0

0

0

0

80.0

20

20

20

9

07

06

07

07

07

07

07

9 19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

1

07

06

07

06

07

07

9 19

20

20

20

20

20

20

7

05

07

06

03

04

02

00

06

9 19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

100.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

–

–

31

32

30

29

28

26

26

25

23

24

21

22

18

20

17

18

16

14

14

13

10

10

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Au st De ria nm ark Fin lan d F Lux ranc em e b Ne ourg the rla nd Sw s Sw eden Un itze r ite d K land ing do Ge m rm an Slo y vak ia Sp ain Isra e Ca l na da No rw ay Ire lan d Ita ly Gr Ko eece rea ,R ep OE Slo . CD ven av ia era ge Jap an Est on ia Cz ech Chil Re e Ne publ w Ze ic ala n Be d lgi um Ice lan Hu d ng a Po ry rtu ga l Po lan d Me xic o Tur k Au ey Un stral ite i dS a tat es

1

0

Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2013, except AUT, NLD, SVK, ESP, GRC, EST: 2012, IRL, JPN, CZE: 2011, GBR, DEU, ISL, MEX, TUR: 2010, CAN, ITA, CHL, BEL, POL: 2009, PRT: 2005, HUN: 2004, NZL: 1999)

other hand, Hungary and the Netherlands each extracted over

population is connected to wastewater treatment, still leaving

90 percent and Israel, in last place among the 34 countries

room for improvement to reach SDG number 6, namely ensur-

in this study, withdrew 261 percent of its renewable water

ing availability and sustainable management of water and

resources.

sanitation for all.

Our second indicator measures the percentage of the population connected (through a system of conduits) to public or independent wastewater treatment. These wastewater collecting systems are often operated by public or semipublic entities. Figure 6.2 states the fact that entire populations of nine OECD countries are connected to managed sanitation services. Yet performance on this measure is not universally stellar, with seven countries dropping below 75 percent. Mexico (62 percent) and Poland (64 percent) are each over 20 percentage points below the OECD average and only 52 percent of Turkey’s

65

Performance by goal

7. Energy 7.1 Energy intensity

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

8

.92

.01

.5 3

5. 8

–2

–5

–6

6 2.1

.9 9 –1

. 33

. 20

2 1.7

–4

–0

.12

. 33

.02

.24

.4 8

. 85 –7

–3

–9

–0

–6

–6

8

.0 9

.6 8

.5 0

6.8

–4

–0

. 33

–6

–5

.3 4 –1

.42 –1

2

.93

.41

9. 8

–9

–6

.35 –1

.37

.18 –1

.81

.38

–0

–3

–9

.6 6 –7

.5 6 –4 1 0. 3 –1

. 69 –7

% Change 20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

29

2

.19

8.2

.79

.5 6

. 67 –7

–8

–0

8 1.9 –1

.30

1 2. 4

–4

.4 6

. 26 –7

6

.5 6

–4

.23 –1 8 9.1 –1

–5

.9 6

.38

.02

.16

4.8 –1

–3

–6

–4

–0

0

1 8.7

0

.5 7

2.9

–8

. 85

.6 8

4.7

–2

.4 8

–4

–9

9

. 65

.13 –7

–6

.5 3

0. 2 –1

.6 0

.29

.30

.5 8

–4

–2

–4

–4

–8

2 1.3

21.97

25.00

20.00

9.12

8.15

8.14

7.88

7.13

6.44

6.32

6.30

6.16

6.07

6.01

5.82

5.81

5.81

5.63

5.39

5.38

5.13

5.02

4.90

4.82

4.74

4.74

4.59

4.53

4.43

4.29

4.14

4.05

4.02

3.89

5.00

3.41

3.35

10.00

6.82

15.00

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

20

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

11

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Un

Sw

Ire lan itze d rla ite nd dK ing do De m nm a Po rk rtu ga l Ita ly Sp ain Isra e Au l str i Ge a rm an y Jap an Gr eec e T Lux urke em y bo urg Me xic No o Ne rwa y the rla nd s Fra nce Ch i Hu le ng ary Po lan OE Slo d CD ven av ia era g Slo e vak Au ia Un stral ite i dS a tat e Sw s ed en B Ne elgiu m w Cz Zeal ech an Re d p Ko ublic rea ,R ep Ca . na da Fin lan d Est on ia Ice lan d

1

0

Unit: Petajoules per GDP in billion const. int. 2005 USD PPP, Source: IEA (data refer to 2012)

Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all Sustainability and energy are tightly intertwined. In many

have beneﬁted from abundant renewable sources, but failed to

OECD countries, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions

utilize this relative advantage efﬁciently. Iceland is the most

largely come from burning fossil fuels in electricity produc-

striking case in point, utilizing the highest share of renewable

tion, heating, and transportation. As such, how we choose to

energy (effectively all from geothermal and hydropower) and,

produce, distribute, and use energy has a tremendous impact

simultaneously, having the highest energy intensity.

on the pace of climate change. Goal 7 calls not only for uni-

Primary energy intensity is used as a proxy for energy

versal access to affordable and reliable energy services, but

efﬁciency, illustrating how we can increase the “extent to

just as signiﬁcantly for substantially increasing the share of

which economic growth is decoupled from energy use – a key

renewable energy and doubling energy efﬁciency. The national

requirement for sustainable energy and decarbonization.”14

governments in the sample have shown great variation in the

Primary energy intensity is the ratio between total primary

extent to which they are pursuing policies that foster a sustain-

energy supply and gross domestic product (GDP), PPP-adjusted.

able energy sector. Some have made signiﬁcant strides because

The higher the primary energy intensity, the less efﬁcient the

of aggressive, forward-looking energy policies that prioritize

energy sector. As illustrated in ﬁgure 7.1, Ireland, Switzerland,

investments in energy efﬁciency and renewable sources. Others

and the United Kingdom have the most efﬁcient energy sectors

14 Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2014): Pathways to deep decarbonization. http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DDPP_ Digit.pdf

66

7.2 Share of renewable energy in total final energy consumption

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

25 .9 6

8

. 33 67

4.3

7 1.3

. 33 11

.16

.8 8 47

65

6

. 28

.76

4.3

20

28

.73

.74

.10 47

22

30

2 2. 3

.83 97

.81 19

.36

.8 4 27

40

8

.5 0 27

.03

.15

7

.4 13

63

33

0 .9

. 33 20

5 7.5

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

.36 35 8 1.1 –1

5

.5 8

20

20

20

20

20

20

5.2

4

20

8 .0

0

1 4.7

8 .6

.3 4 –1

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

33

76.67

.0 9

.31

.6 6

.6 0 61

69

.17

6 16

.5 8

–6

52

8

0

. 33

.17 57

–9

8

7

.9 5

.0 15

–0

.6 32

.76

.2 24

–0

.35

.27 –7

3

.45

. 62

–3

69

36

5.3

4

5.6

8 9.1

–2

.8 12

.38

.36

–8

–2

.19

8 7.1

22

0

.3 4

.11 –7

–3

6

.35

.27

.9 16

25

–4

1 2. 4

5

.5 19

2.7

6 1.0

56.90

1.29

3.16

3.71

3.56

5.20

4.15

5.30

7.57

7.27

9.05

8.53

9.46

9.97

10.00

9.49

10.84

10.04

10.90

12.25

11.13

14.85

14.19

17.93

19.87

20.00

18.80

21.41

21.24

30.00

25.13

40.00

27.88

33.48

50.00

26.96

47.36

60.00

31.46

. 97 11

70.00

30.56

07

80.00

20

20

20

20

20

90.00

% Change

33

34

31

32

30

28

29

26

27

25

23

24

21

22

20

18

19

16

17

15

14

12

13

11

9

10

7

8

5

6

4

3

1

Ice lan No d rw a Sw y ed en F Ne inlan w Ze d ala nd Au str Po ia rtu ga l Ch ile Est on De ia nm a Sw itze rk rla n Ca d na d OE Slo a CD ven av ia era ge Sp ain Tur key Fra nce Gr eec Slo e vak Ge ia rm an y Ita ly Me xic o P Cz ech olan Re d pu bl Hu ic ng ary Is Un ite rael dS tat Au es str al Be ia lgi um Ire lan d Lux Japa n em b Ne ourg t Un herl a ite d K nds ing Ko dom rea ,R ep.

2

0

Unit: Percent, Source: World Bank (data refer to 2010)

among the OECD countries (each below 4 petajoules per GDP).

percent (almost entirely hydro), and Iceland a laudable 76.7

These countries demonstrate that economic growth and energy

percent (effectively all from geothermal and hydro). At the

efﬁciency can go hand in hand. Ranking at the bottom of the

other end of the spectrum, Japan, Luxembourg, the Nether-

sample, Canada, Estonia, and Finland each have more than

lands, the United Kingdom, and South Korea each use less

double and Iceland more than ﬁve times the energy intensity of

than 5 percent renewables in their energy sector. South Korea,

the top-performing countries.

the most ecologically alarming country on this measure, uses

Figure 7.2 illustrates the extent of energy use from renew-

just 1.3 percent.

able sources. This indicator measures the total ﬁnal renewable energy consumption in total ﬁnal energy consumption (renewable energy consumption includes hydro, modern and traditional biomass, wind, solar, liquid biofuels, biogas, geothermal, marine, and waste). The top countries on this measure each use well above the 17.9 percent OECD average in renewable energy, with Sweden using 47.4 percent (mostly hydro), Norway 56.9

67

Performance by goal

8. Economy and labor 8.1 GNI per capita

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

.5 14 3

0

.81

.7 18

26

6

.14

.9 9

4

.3 16

20

30

8.8

.70 –7

9 7.7

5

7 7.7

4 .9

3

.42 16

7

1 3.0

0. 2

4

9

8.8

9

. 22 17

5.6

.6 13

8 .4

7 3.0

.17 13

6

.27 31

.2 14

1 7.7

.71 10

1 7.1

7

3

1 8 .6

8 .9

4

9

.9 15

0

.91 13

5 .0

5. 8

9.5

.92 12

% Change

16710

21570

20000

19040

23830

25690

24090

26130

25970

26970

28650

30000

28010

32860

32550

33760

34710

34620

37920

37515

40000

38370

40000

39720

42530

40820

42880

43400

43030

46160

45040

46710

47660

50000

46840

57830

55860

5

4

3

5 9. 4

.0 16

.6 15

.8 13

.03

.4 8 21

–2

.71 14

8

2 0.3

2

0. 2

6 .5

6

5 0 .5

. 25

4 .0

–0

4 7.5

0

1 9. 4

2.7

6

4

.76

0 .9

–3

5.4

65970

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

3

0 3.3 2 0. 3 –1 6

2. 4 –1

8 7.3

1 7.9

9 1.2

4 7.5

2 9. 4

6

7 2.1

8.2

5 3.3

6 1.1

6

6.2 –1

9

.0 14

5 .0

59600

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

60000

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

70000

10000

34

33

31

32

29

30

28

26

27

24

25

23

21

22

19

20

Ko Italy re Ne a, Re p. w Ze ala nd Sp ain Isra Slo el ven ia Cz Portu ech ga l Re pu bli c Gr eec Slo e vak ia Est on ia Po lan Hu d ng ary Ch ile Tur key Me xic o

17

18

15

16

14

12

13

10

11

9

7

8

5

6

3

4

2

Sw

No rw itze ay Lux rlan em d Un bou r ite dS g Ne tate s the rla n Ge ds rm an Sw y ed De en nm ark Au str i Ca a na da Be lgi u Au m str alia Ice lan d Ire lan d Fin lan d Un ite Fran ce dK ing do m OE CD Japa n av era ge

1

0

Unit: Current int. USD PPP, Source: World Bank (data refer to 2014, except CHE, LUX, AUT, FIN, ESP, SVN, CZE, SVK: 2013, NZL: 2012)

Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all Promoting sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic

goal among many policymakers will be put in perspective by

growth as well as full and productive employment – as goal

many other societal goals which we need to pursue with at least

number 8 states – are not ends in themselves. They form the

equal rigor.

basis of people being able to make a decent living and to provide

Nonetheless, research has shown that a high gross

for their families. The problem with pursuing growth by itself

national income (GNI) per capita is not only positively corre-

is that it is neither automatically inclusive nor sustainable. Poli-

lated with a number of other desirable quality of life outcomes15,

cies must be put in place to ensure that economic growth, i.e.

but also with people’s subjectively reported feelings of happi-

an increase in the sum of goods and services produced, does

ness and life satisfaction16. Figure 8.1 shows how countries

not come at the expense of future generations. Likewise, the

compare with regard to GNI per capita based on purchas-

beneﬁts of growth ought to be shared across the population and

ing power parity (PPP). GNI is the sum of value added by all

not just by the upper end of the income distribution scale – as is

resident producers plus any product taxes (less subsidies) not

increasingly the case in OECD countries (see also Chapters 4.1

included in the valuation of output plus net receipts of primary

and 4.10). A comprehensive catalog of goals such as the SDGs

income (compensation of employees and property income) from

can ensure that a previous focus on growth as the main policy

abroad. PPP refers to the conversion to international dollars

15 Kassenböhmer, S. C., and Schmidt, C. M. (2011): Beyond GDP and Back: What Is the Value-Added by Additional Components of Welfare Measurement? SOEPpapers 351. DIW Berlin. 16 Delhey, J., and Kroll, C. (2012): A ‘happiness-test’ for the new measures of national well-being: How much better than GDP are they? WZB Discussion Paper SP I 2012 201, June 2012 http://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2012/i12-201.pdf

68

8.2 Employment-to-population ratio

49.42

49.55

56.78

60.00

56.52

60.97

60.44

61.31

61.78

61.68

62.22

61.90

62.62

64.20

63.89

66.64

65.35

66.92

68.15

67.86

68.96

68.89

69.56

71.60

71.08

72.64

72.30

72.66

73.12

72.80

74.24

73.80

8

.05

.3 4

3.3

–3

–0

.47

1 5.3

.63

.9 4

.32

–3

–2

–0

–0

3 1.6

75.31

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

.9 6 –2 07 20 0 3. 8 07 20 .63 –1 07 7 20 0.6 –1 07 20 .24 –1 07 20 .17 –3 07 7 20 3. 2 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

6

.5 9

0. 4

.6 8

.78

.77

9

.9 5

–0

–2

–2

–0

–4

0. 4

.76

0 3.1

.78

–3

.0 0

.03

74.89

1 7.0 –1

.0 6

3

.83

7

4 7.0

–2

–4

2

0. 2

2. 2

3

3.7

4.6

.18

7

.0 6

.5 2 11

–0

–4

. 49

4.8

4

–3

2

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

–2

–2

–8

0

7 2.0 07 20 .0 9 –7 07 20 .0 9 –3 07 20 .6 6 –1 07 2 20 2. 0 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

07

07

07

07

82.23

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

0 .5

9

3. 2

8 2.1

.7 12

0

9 2.1

0 .9

0 6.1

4

.9 0

.6 13

–0

.0 6 –1

8

6 1.0

3.3

4

.74

3.6

.14

–0

–2

4 20

20

20

20

79.84

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

3

1 3.7

2. 6

.07

3. 8

–0

8

9 1.5

4.2

70.00

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

80.00

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

90.00

% Change

50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00

33

34

31

32

30

28

29

26

27

25

23

24

21

22

20

19

17

18

16

14

15

12

13

11

9

10

7

8

5

6

4

3

1 Sw

Ice lan itze d rla n No d rw ay S Ne wede w Ze n ala Ge nd rm a Ne the ny rla nd s De nm ark Un Ja ite d K pan ing do m Ca na d Au a str alia Au str ia E Cz ech stoni Re a pu bli c F Un inlan ite d dS tat es OE I sra CD av el e Lux rage em b Ko ourg rea ,R ep. Fra nce Slo ven Po ia rtu ga l Ch ile Be lgi u Hu m ng ary Po lan d Ire lan Slo d vak ia Me xic o Sp ain Ita ly Tur key Gr eec e

2

0

Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2014)

using purchasing power parity rates. The strongest economies

(66.92 percent) for all OECD countries. Iceland and Switzerland,

by that measure are Norway (USD 65,970), Switzerland (USD

however, lead the table by some margin with 82.23 percent and

59,600), Luxembourg (USD 57,830), and the USA (USD 55,860).

79.84 percent, respectively.

Chile (USD 21,570), Turkey (USD 19,040), and Mexico (USD 16,710), by contrast, have a GNI that is roughly half of the OECD average (USD 37,515). While the employment-to-population ratio does not give us any information about whether people’s jobs are decent, it does provide us with an idea of the size of a country’s workforce. It is measured as the proportion of a country’s population that is employed, whereby ages 15 and older are generally considered the working-age population. Less than half the population in Turkey (49.55 percent) and Greece (49.42 percent) are in labor, while on average, the ﬁgure is around two-thirds

69

Performance by goal

9. Infrastructure and innovation 9.1 Gross fixed capital formation

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

–9 .23

3

6

7

.86

6 .5

–8

2 .9 –1

5

.4 8

6.4 –1

–9

.76

8 .0

–9

. 49 –1

. 26

.5 6

9 7.4

–5

–4

7

.01

.7 14

–2

9

. 26

2 .5 –1

.5 3

. 22

7

.8 4

–0

–3

–6

–3

.37 11

2 .5 –1

9 3.0 –3 11 1 20 0.0 –2 11 4 20 6 .9 –1 11 20 0 2.0 11 6 20 9.1 –1 11 20 .12 16 11 20 2 8 .4 11 20 .02 –9 11 20 .38 –8 11 20 .12 –7 11 1 20 9. 2 –1 11 20 1 6 . –0 11 5 20 1.1 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

% Change 20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

–3 6 .0 6

8 1.0 –2

4

.0 9

9 .5

. 43 –1

–3

–6

.39

4 7.6 –3

–9

.92 –7

.18 –1

9 5.1

4 8.1

7

8

0

5 .9

3 .5

8

9. 2 –1

–2

–3

.35

.5 6

0.7 –1

–8

.6 4

–6

–3

. 22 –1 3

9

. 87

5 .0 –1

–2

8 6.1

7 0. 4

.0 8

.61

.70

.18

3.0 –1

–4

–6

–0

–0

3 2.7 –1 08 20 .4 6 –8 08 7 20 2. 0 –1 08 20 . 85 –6 08 20 .9 0 –8 08 6 20 7.1 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

15.85

14.88

15.97

17.39

16.53

18.67

17.66

18.88

19.03

18.96

19.47

19.34

20.00

19.71

20.26

19.76

20.88

20.43

21.00

21.83

21.49

21.93

21.86

21.98

23.13

21.99

23.34

23.14

23.57

25.28

25.00

24.07

27.76

26.73

28.82

30.00

28.77

35.00

10.58

15.00 10.00 5.00

34

33

31

32

29

30

28

26

27

24

25

23

21

22

19

20

18

17

15

16

14

12

13

10

11

9

7

8

5

6

3

4

2

Ko re

a, Re p No . rw ay Est on ia A u Cz ech strali Re a pu bli Ca c Sw nada itze rla nd S Ne wede w Ze n ala nd Au str ia Fra nce Hu ng ary Me xic Be o lgi um Jap an Ch i Sl le OE CD ovak av ia era ge Fin lan d Un Polan ite dS d tat e Slo s ven ia Sp ain De nm ark Tur key Isra Ge el rm an Ne Un therl y an ite d dK ing s do m Ire lan d Ita ly Ic Lux elan em d bo ur Po g rtu ga Gr l eec e

1

0

Unit: Percent of GDP, Source: IMF (data refer to 2014)

Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation The long-term viability of an economy depends on innovation and

Figure 9.1 illustrates one such dimension which captures an

prioritizing investments in the future. Innovation is fuelled by both

aspect of goal 9. Gross ﬁ xed capital formation (GFCF) gives an

public and private investments that sustain a vibrant research sec-

indication of how much of the new value added in an economy

tor, staffed by a growing pool of highly skilled researchers. Invest-

is invested rather than consumed. Investment or gross capital

ing in the future also requires upgrading infrastructure and the

formation is measured by the total value of the gross ﬁxed

technological capabilities of industries “to make them sustainable,

capital formation and changes in inventories and acquisitions

with increased resource-use efﬁciency and greater adoption of

less disposals of valuables (i.e. investment minus disposals). As

clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial pro-

a percentage of GDP, South Korea, Norway, Estonia, Australia,

cesses.”17 Countries must focus their policies not only on driving

and the Czech Republic show the highest GFCF (each in excess

economic growth and high employment in the present, but also on

of 25 percent). These countries are making forward-looking

building a sustainable foundation for future growth and employ-

investments that should bode well for economic success in

ment. SDG number 9 therefore calls on governments and citizens

the future. Conversely, Portugal and Greece show the lowest

to build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustain-

GFCF among the 34 OECD countries (14.9 percent and 10.6

able industrialization, and foster innovation.

percent, respectively). Reigniting these economies will require

17 Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals (2014). https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=1579&menu=1300

70

9.2 Research and development expenditure

22 .4 8

.38

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

–2 20

20

20

20

20

20

20

.6 4

.05

0

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

4 1.8 –1

–3

–0

6

.30

9.9

43

0

5.3

.0 9

2

.8 14

–2

–3

2 .5

. 26

.76

7

8

.37 11

25

–0

4 .9

8 .4

5

20

9. 0

9 4.1

20

20

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

06

07

07

07

07

07

04

07

07

07

07

07

9

.37

6 .5

23

6 3.7

5

.8 8

.78 37

28

4

.6 8

.7 16

–8

3

8.8

9. 3

.32

5 7.9

36

.9 4

.24 19

30

2

.19

0

–4

0. 2

.0 0

6

5 .5

48

2. 6

2 1.5

8 4.1

1 9. 6

8 7.6

. 65

5

0

.13 11

44

4.2

.8 10

9

2

3 1.9

.7 12

.7 16

.24 –1

2

.9 9

.36 11

–5

0.39

0.54

0.83

0.80

0.94

1.00

0.87

1.16

1.24

1.17

1.37

1.26

1.50

1.41

1.62

1.58

1.65

1.63

1.74

1.98

2.00

1.92

2.01

1.99

2.13

2.28

2.50

2.23

2.73

2.59

2.85

2.99

3.00

2.96

3.30

3.47

3.50

3.06

0 1.7 –1

.5 15

4.15

07

07

4.00

3.31

4

20

20

1 2. 6 6 1.1 –1

6 .6

4

.74 19

6.4

4.21

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

09

10

10

10

10

10

10

08

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

.8 4 17 10 20 .78 18 10 20 80 . 33 10 20 97 . 33 10 20 .05 20 10 20 .45 11 10 0 20 2. 8 –2 10 20 . 43 –8 09 20 .12 –8 10 20 9 3.0 10 1 20 0.6 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

4.50

% Change

0.50

33

34

31

32

30

28

29

26

27

25

23

24

21

22

20

18

19

16

17

15

14

12

13

11

9

10

7

8

5

6

4

3

1

I Ko srael rea ,R ep. Jap an Fin lan Sw d ed De en nm ark Au Sw stria itze rla Ge nd r m Un ite any dS tat e Slo s ven Be ia lgi um Fra nce OE Aus CD tral av ia era ge Ice Ne land t Cz herla ech nd s Re pu bli c Est on i No a Un rw ite ay dK ing do m Ca na da Ire lan Hu d ng a Po ry rtu ga l Ita ly Ne Spa i w Ze n Lux alan em d bo urg Tur key Po lan Slo d vak ia Gr eec e Me xic o Ch ile

2

0

Unit: Percent of GDP, Source: OECD (data refer to 2013, except AUT, MEX: 2014, CHE, IRL: 2012, AUS: 2011)

substantial investments in modernizing infrastructure and

sustainability requires such innovation, yet a number of coun-

industries. Without these aggressive investments, no recovery

tries are failing to meet this challenge. Turkey, Poland, Slova-

can be realistically expected. Harsh austerity measures that

kia, Greece, Mexico, and Chile each spend less than 1 percent

hamper or even scale back such investments simply perpetuate

on R&D. On their current trajectory, the long-term viability of

the painful status quo.

their economies could be signiﬁcantly hindered by their com-

Our second snapshot indicator for goal 9 is a measure of

paratively weak ability to contribute to necessary innovations.

innovation potential. Gross domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD) is the total intramural expenditure on R&D performed during a given year, expressed as a percentage of GDP. Figure 9.2 illustrates the extreme variation in GERD that exists across the countries in this study. By far the top performers, both Israel and South Korea, each spend more than 4 percent of their annual GDP on research and development (more than double the OECD average of 2.01 percent). Economic

71

Performance by goal

10. Inequality 10.1 Palma ratio

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

06

08

07

08

08

08

08

08

06

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

07

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

–4

0

.9 6

.32

.72

4

9

8

0

4 .6

4 .6

3

2 .5

4 .0

0

5 5.4

3. 2

3

–4

4.2

–8

6 .0

.5 2 –7

.15

6

. 28

–6

–3

.8 8

8.2

2

–0

4.7

7

.03

8

3.7

–6

2. 8

.81

2 6.1

–4

7 7.8

4

.0 0

.19

–4

–3

5.6

.10 –1

–2

. 43

0 6.1

–5

0

.75

9 7.6

–5

% Change 20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

04

04

05

05

05

05

05

03

05

04

05

04

03

05

05

05

05

05

04

05

05

04

05

05

05

05

05

04

05

05

05

3.26

.77

2 1.8

–9

9

.61

. 20 –1

–0

.70

4

3.7

8

–9

5 .0

.91 –7

2. 4

.75 –7

8

0

5 1.4 –1

3

.6 13

0

2

2. 8

2 .5

2 3 .9

5.2 –1

7

. 26

6

. 20 –7

0 .9

–9

6 1.9

.6 12

.11 11

7

.0 0

.05 –1

–9

.18 18

3 5.1

0

9

.8 8

6 .6 –1

–4

8 .6 –1

2.93

3.50 3.00

1.55

1.37

1.36

1.34

1.30

1.28

1.26

1.24

1.23

1.23

1.22

1.18

1.18

1.13

1.11

1.10

1.09

1.04

1.04

0.99

0.96

0.96

0.91

0.90

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.85

0.84

1.00

0.82

1.50

1.07

2.00

1.74

1.99

2.50

0.50

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

22

22

21

19

19

18

17

16

15

14

12

12

11

9

9

8

7

4

4

4

3

2

Slo vak Slo ia ven i N a Cz ech orwa Re y pu b De lic nm ark Ice lan Be d lgi um Fin lan d Au str ia Sw Ne eden the rla nd Hu s n Sw gary itze rla Ge nd rm an y Po lan d Ir Lux elan em d b Ko ourg rea ,R ep Ca . na da Ne Franc w Ze e ala n Au d str alia Est on ia OE CD Ita av ly era ge Sp ain Jap an Gr eec Po e Un rt ite d K ugal ing do m Isra Un ite e dS l tat es Tur key Me xic o Ch ile

1

0

Unit: Ratio, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012, except NOR, DNK, SWE, CHE, DEU, KOR, CAN, FRA, NZL, ISR, TUR, CHL: 2011, GBR: 2010, JPN: 2009)

Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries Inequality is a growing problem in almost all OECD coun-

percent of people with the lowest disposable income. Figure 10.1

tries. Recent research has shown that in the EU, for instance,

shows how OECD countries compare in this regard. The share is

the gap between northern and southern member countries is

comparatively small in Slovakia (0.82), Slovenia (0.84), Norway

increasing, in addition to the divide within countries18. At the

(0.85), the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Iceland (all 0.87). In

same time, studies have shown that less inequality is in fact

23 OECD countries, however, the top 10 percent earn more than

beneﬁcial to growth. Rich countries must therefore ﬁnd ways

the bottom 40 percent combined, with the United States (1.74),

to integrate more equality with economic progress in order to

Turkey (1.99), Mexico (2.93), and Chile (3.26) showing the most

19

be viable examples for the rest of the world . OECD countries

severe levels of income inequality.

are currently not on the right track since the gap between the

Inequality extends beyond income alone, though. As

richest 10 percent and the poorest 10 percent is at a record level

an example of inequalities in education, an area where the

(see also Chapter 4.1).

basis of one’s entire life is formed, ﬁ gure 10.2 displays the

The so-called Palma ratio represents the share of all income

strength of the impact of one’s socioeconomic background

received by the 10 percent of people with the highest disposable

and educational success. Chapter 4.4 has shown how the level

income divided by the share of all income received by the 40

of educational achievement varies across OECD countries

18 Schraad-Tischler, D., and Kroll, C. (2014). Social Justice in the EU – A Cross-national Comparison. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. http://news.sgi-network.org/uploads/tx_amsgistudies/Social-Justice-in-the-EU-2014.pdf 19 Ostry, et al. (2014): Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth. IMF Staff Discussion Note. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf OECD (2015): In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2015-In-It-Together-Chapter1-Overview-Inequality.pdf

72

10.2 PISA Social Justice Index

09

09

09

09

09

3

1 8.7

0.7

–2

.5 2 –7

1 4 .6

2 1.0 –2 5 6 .9

–2

6 1.9

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

–9

7

. 65

8 7.3

. 33

.9 18

43

5 1.3 –1

6

.03 33 4 7.7 –1

.91

.47 19

49

5 6.1

.6 6

2

5 .0 –1

–5

4.8

3 1.8 2 5.3 –1

2 4.3

.4 8

.5 0

–0

39

.70 20 06 20 70 . 64 06 20 5 3.6 06 20 .78 14 06 20 . 20 37 06 2 20 6 .0 –1 03 9 20 3. 4 –1 06 20 .6 8 15 06 20 .8 8 39 06 20 . 22 89 06 20 .35 19 06 20 .0 6 68 06 20 .76 91 06 20 6 9. 6 06 3 20 0.7 –2 5 0.1 –1

20

20

20

4

20

8

20

20

2 .5 –1

3.0

2

5 7.4 –3

–3

0. 2

. 67 11

–2

8 3. 6 12 09 20 .9 8 27 09 20 .41 –1 09 5 20 2.1 –3 09 20 .4 8 18 09 7 20 9. 3 –1 09 20 6 9.9 09 5 20 0 .5 –3 09 20 .80 14 09 20 .93 19 09 3 20 9.1 –1

20

20

20

20

20

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

2 4.8 –1 09 20 . 67 –7 09 8 20 7.3 –1 09 6 20 1.1 –2 09 5 20 1.9 –2 09 9 20 0. 4 –4 09 0 20 2. 0 –1 09 20 . 49 –4 09 20 .71 –0 09 4 20 0.1 –4 4 3.1 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

% Change

13.39

16.00

10.90

14.00

2.00

6.76

6.42

6.37

5.99

5.89

5.82

5.62

5.61

5.22

5.18

5.04

4.98

4.96

4.77

4.75

4.30

4.20

4.17

3.92

3.45

2.99

2.98

2.57

2.47

2.41

2.27

1.87

1.76

4.00

2.07

6.00

4.06

8.00

6.30

8.47

10.00

8.51

12.00

34

33

32

31

30

29

28 Cz

ech

Au

ile str Re ia pu bli c H Ne unga r w Ze y ala nd Fra nce Slo vak ia

27 Ch

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

1 Ice

Est

on

ia lan No d rw ay Me xic Ca o na da Fin Ko land rea ,R ep. Ita ly Jap an Sw ed en Sp ain G Ne reece the Un rlan d ite dS s tat es Un ite Turk ey dK ing do m Po lan d Isra el A OE u CD stral av ia era g Po e r Sw tugal itze rla Ge nd rm an Slo y Lux veni em a bo urg Ire lan d De nm ark Be lgi um

2

0

Unit: Standardized scale, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012)

as measured by the Programme for International Student

A score of ﬁve would put a country near the OECD average on

Assessment (PISA).

this indicator. Estonia (1.76), Iceland (1.87), and Norway (2.07),

Moreover, the PISA index of economic, social, and cultural

though, manage to generate for all students a fairly level play-

status reﬂects how inequalities in socioeconomic background

ing ﬁeld for their start in life. These countries show that a high

impact on student success. It was created on the basis of the

level of educational attainment – which becomes evident by

following variables: the International Socio-Economic Index of

their good performance displayed in Chapter 4.4 – can go hand

Occupational Status (ISEI); the highest level of education of the

in hand with giving students from all backgrounds access to

student’s parents, converted into years of schooling; the PISA

good education. In fact, a country can only lay a ﬁrm founda-

index of family wealth; the PISA index of home educational

tion for future innovation in a globally competitive economy if

resources; and the PISA index of possessions related to “classi-

it taps into the intellectual resource of students from all back-

cal” culture in the family home. The PISA Social Justice Index is

grounds. By contrast, countries such as New Zealand (8.51),

the product of the strength of the relationship between reading/

France (10.90), and Slovakia (13.39) still need to catch up sig-

science/mathematics performance and ESCS and the slope of

niﬁcantly in this respect.

the socioeconomic gradient for reading/mathematics/science.

73

Performance by goal

11. Cities 11.1 Particulate matter

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

.57 21

.33

9 1.7

8 10

4 2.9

20

20

20

20

20

20

.24

88

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

.33 33 .00 00 13 3 8.3 10 0 0.3 –3

.00 75

50 87.

9 7.6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

.00 80 09 20 0 09 0 20 0.0 –3 09 20 0 09 0 20 0.0 –4 09 .00 00 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

% Change 06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

9 9. 2 –3 0 4 .0 –4 1 2. 4 –7 2 2. 8 –1 9 1.1 –7 0 8 .0

8 7.1

–6

–9

6

4 1.5 –8

6 .3

3 3.1

–8

7 7.2 –2 3 3 .5

–2

.0 0

7

0

.0 0

8 .5

5 –7

0

–2

.0 0

.0 0

.0 0

.0 0

0.0

00 –1

25

–5

00 –1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

00 –1

0

0

0

0

00 –1

0

0

57.00

62.00

70.00

50.00

60.00

8.00

7.00

15.00

14.00

9.00

32.00

28.00

25.00

23.00

35.00

34

33

32

31

29

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

18

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Au

str ali Ca a na da Est on ia Fin lan d Ice lan d Ire Ko land rea Lux , Rep . em Ne bou rg w Ze ala n No d rw ay Po lan Po d rtu g Slo al ven ia Sp ain S Un ite wede dK n i Un ngdo m ite dS tat es Ch i De le nm ark Fra nce Isra e OE Gr l CD ee av ce era ge Me xic o Tur key Slo vak ia Jap Ge an rm a Sw itze ny rla nd A Ne ustria the rla nd s Cz Ita ech l y Re pu bl Hu ic ng a Be ry lgi um

1

0

1

0

3.00

10.00

5.00

20.00

12.53

30.00

21.00

40.00

32.00

50.00

Unit: Percent of population exposed to >15 ug/cbm, Source: Yale (data refer to 2012)

Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable Today, more than half of the world’s population lives in urban

as the United Kingdom and the United States, the population

areas. It is thus incumbent upon states and societies to foster

is on average not exposed to particulate matter concentrations

policies that help make cities and human settlements more

exceeding this threshold. However, in the other half of the

inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, as SDG number

OECD nations, the picture looks different. In the Czech Repub-

eleven states. In this cross-national comparison we look at two

lic, Hungary, and Belgium, for instance, more than 50 percent

aspects that can be ascribed to this complex and multidimen-

of the population is on average exposed to particulate matter

sional goal.

levels above the threshold. These three countries lag farthest

The ﬁ rst indicator refers to air pollution and potential

behind. And also countries such as Germany (25 percent of

health stresses caused by high particulate matter concentra-

the population), Switzerland (28 percent), the Netherlands (32

tions. Figure 11.1 shows the respective proportion of the popu-

percent), Austria (32 percent), and Italy (35 percent) still have

lation whose exposure to “PM2.5” is above the WHO threshold

some catching up to do.

of 15 micrograms per cubic meter. In 17 OECD member states,

The second indicator used here and portrayed in ﬁgure 11.2

including several small countries such as Estonia, Iceland,

refers to potential overcrowding as measured by the average

Luxembourg, and Slovenia, but also some large countries such

number of rooms in a dwelling per person. The indicator thus

74

11.2 Rooms per person

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

0

22 . 22

0

. 33

0

–8

.0 10

9

.0 10

9. 0

0

. 69 –7

0

0

0

. 25

. 25

4 7.1

–6

.88

–6

0

–5

0

0

0

6

0

6

0

5 .5

6

5 .5

0

0

0

0

5.2

0

0

0

. 85

5 4.3

–3

5 4.3

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.1

1.2

1.4 1.2

1.4

1.5

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.6

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.7

1.8

1.8

1.9

1.8

1.9

1.9

2.0

1.9

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.2

2.1

2.4

2.3

2.5

2.5

2.4

3.0

1.0 0.5

34

30

30

30

30

27

27

27

24

24

24

21

21

21

19

19

18

14

14

14

14

10

10

10

10

7

7

7

5

6

4

2

1 Ne

w

Ca na d Ze a ala Un nd ite dS tat Au es str al Be ia lgi um Ir Lux elan em d b Ne ourg the rla nd No s rw De ay nm ark Fin lan d Un S ite d K pain ing do m Fra n Ge ce rm an y Jap Sw an itze rla n Sw d OE ed CD av en era ge Au str Po ia rtu ga Est l on ia Ice lan d Cz Slove ech nia Re pu bli c I tal Ko rea y ,R ep. Ch ile Gr eec e Isra e l Hu ng ary Po lan Slo d vak ia Tur key Me xic o

2

0

Unit: Number of rooms, Source: OECD (data refer to 2015)

provides some information on housing conditions in terms of

These domains are particularly relevant outside the OECD

space. The top ﬁve countries in this respect are Canada, New

nations since 90 percent of global road deaths, for instance,

Zealand, the United States, Australia, and Belgium, where the

occur in low- and middle-income countries.

respective room per person ratio is between 2.3 and 2.5. The midﬁeld comprises a number of countries with on average 1.6 to 1.8 rooms per person. Countries such as Japan, Germany, France, Sweden, Austria, Portugal, and Switzerland belong to this group. At the bottom of the league table, however, we ﬁ nd several countries where a person has – on average – only one room at his or her disposal: Mexico (1.0), Turkey, Slovakia, Poland, and Hungary (all 1.1). Further indicators which could be relevant to this goal include, but are not limited to, widespread access to public transport or the number of people killed in road accidents.

75

Performance by goal

12. Consumption and production 12.1 Municipal waste generated

20

20

20

20

20

09

09

09

09

09

8

7 8 .3

0. 2

9

3

.5 0

0 .9

–3

0

6 .5 –1

2

.16

3.7

.83

–0

–9

7

.93

. 69 –1

–0

3

0. 8 –1

9. 3

7 5.4

. 49 –7

.19

2

.78

1 2.7

–9

–3

.21

6.8 –1

–6

0 7.5 –1

0

.86

9

5 1.9 –2

–2

0

8

2. 0 –1

5. 8

.29

.4 8

–5

–2

.5 4

.9 8

.9 8 –1

–2

–0

.01 –6 1 3. 3 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

661

647

626

614

587

580

530

525

504

501

494

493

484

483

458

455

438

429

418

409

407

385

378

360

358

354

347

307

304

607

712

300

297

293

400

5

500

4 .0

9

.5 6

.31 –7

–0

6

.23

0. 2

–6

0

4 .9

3 1.3

0 7.8 –1

.19

.81 –7

6

–0

9

.3 4 –1

4 .0

.4 0

3. 4

. 65

.83

–8

–2

–4

8

7 7.9 –1

6 1.6

.5 6 –1

5 .0 –1

600

06

06

06

06

00

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

.03 –4 06 20 .29 –7 06 20 .71 –3 06 20 .83 11 06 20 0 04 20 5 1.5 06 20 0 1.7 06 20 5 4 .0 06 20 .12 –8 06 20 0 06 20 6 2.1 06 6 20 1.4 –1 2 7.1 –3

20

20

20

20

20

20

700

751

06

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

04

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

800

725

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

% Change

200 100

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

Un

ite

Ita

ly Fin d K land ing do m No rw ay G Ne reece the rla nd s Fra nce Au str ia Ire lan d Isra e l Ge Ne rman w Ze y ala n Au d str Lux alia em b Sw ourg itze rl Un ite and dS tat De es nm ark

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Est

on ia Po lan d Cz Slova ech kia Re pu bli c Ice lan d Ja Ko pan rea ,R ep Me . xic Hu o ng ary Ch ile Tur key Slo ven i Ca a na da Po rtu g Be al lgi um Sp ai Sw n OE ed CD av en era ge

1

0

Unit: Kilograms per capita, Source: OECD (data refer to 2013, except KOR, MEX, GRC, AUT, IRL, USA: 2012, JPN: 2010, CHL, AUS: 2009, CAN: 2004)

Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns Sustainable development is only possible when all countries

well as from selected municipal services (e.g. street cleaning).

make sure that their consumption and production patterns

Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Iceland are

do not undermine the planet’s environmental boundaries, as

the top ﬁve OECD countries in terms of limiting the production

well as the social and economic conditions in other countries.

of municipal waste. However, the variation across the OECD

The rich countries have a special responsibility to bear in this

nations is immense. Whereas in top-ranked Estonia “only” 293

respect since economically advanced countries produce and

kilograms waste per person is generated per year, Denmark

consume much more than less developed countries. Goal 12 is

and the United States come in the last places with 751 and 725

therefore particularly relevant for the highly developed coun-

kilograms per capita, respectively. More than 600 kilograms of

tries and the world’s fast-emerging economies.

municipal waste is also generated per capita and year in Israel,

The indicator in ﬁgure 12.1 assesses how much municipal waste is generated per capita and per year in each OECD coun-

Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, where the respective ﬁgure is even 712 kilograms.

try. Municipal waste includes waste originating from house-

The indicator presented in ﬁgure 12.2 – domestic material

holds, commerce and trade, small businesses, ofﬁce buildings

consumption (DMC) – refers to the amount of materials directly

and institutions (schools, hospitals, government buildings) as

used in an economy (apparent consumption) and is deﬁned

76

12.2 Domestic material consumption

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

.0 12 6

3 20

3.0

0

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

5 1.9 –1

.9 0 –1 8 3 .9 –2 8 8 .0 –1 8 3.0 –1 1 0.6 –1 3

9

.79

.61

6 .3

2. 3 –1

22

–2

5. 8 –1

–6

2 0. 4 –1 08 20 .41 –9 08 20 . 62 –3 08 0 20 4.7 –2 08 20 .8 8 –3 08 0 20 6 .5 –2 08 20 . 82 –4 08 6 20 0.6 –3 08 7 20 6.4 –2 08 6 20 2. 0 –1 08 3 20 8.1 –2 08 7 20 1.2 –1 08 4 20 2. 6 –2 08 20 4 2. 4 08 20 0 08 20 3 1.2 08 20 .6 0 –2 08 8 20 6.1 –1 08 2 20 6.8 –2 08 5 4.1 –1 2

20

20

% Change 05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

–5 .14

7 3. 4

. 87 –1

3 7.0

3. 2

.15

47.00

2

9

9

.76 –7

–3

–8

.4 19

5 0.1

9

2 .5 –1

0 .5

.42

.4 4

.76 16

–4

–9

.30

0

. 22

0 1.1

–4

–6

5.3

.15 19

2 2. 3

8

5

.41 12

7

.7 16

9. 8

0

0.7 –1

8

.31

2. 2

–4

.0 8

5.3

0

–2

.92

4 5.1

.81

1 7.2

.15

–8

–2

–3

–8

41.00

50.00

10.00

24.87

21.96

21.74

21.48

21.26

20.76

19.76

18.94

16.80

16.64

16.22

15.57

15.36

15.26

14.44

14.11

13.35

12.59

12.06

12.04

11.94

11.69

11.57

10.98

9.99

9.47

15.00

9.59

20.00

12.87

25.00

18.80

30.00

23.72

35.00

29.20

34.32

40.00

35.60

45.00

5.00

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

1 Un

ite

dK

Jap an ing do Hu m ng ary Ita Ne the ly rl Sw ands itze rla nd Tur key Me xic o Gr eec e Fra nce Sp a Slo in vak ia Isra Slo el ven Ge ia rm an Po y rtu g Ko rea al ,R ep Ice . lan d Cz Belg ech ium Re Lu publi OE xemb c ou CD av rg era g De e nm ark Po lan Sw d ed Un e ite dS n tat es Au str ia E Ne ston i w Ze a ala nd Ire lan Ca d na da Fin lan No d rw ay Ch Au ile str alia

2

0

Unit: Tons per capita, Source: OECD (data refer to 2010, except JPN, HUN, FRA, SVK, SVN, PRT, ISL, CZE, LUX, POL, SWE, NZL, CAN, AUS: 2011, TUR: 2009, NOR: 2008)

as the annual quantity of raw materials extracted from the domestic territory minus total exports plus total imports. The indicator is important in the context of a new global sustainable development agenda as it sheds light on each country’s use of resources in absolute terms. Japan, the United Kingdom, and Hungary are the only three OECD countries where domestic material consumption is below 10 tons per capita. Italy and the Netherlands follow in places four and ﬁve with approximately 11 and 11.6 tons per capita. By contrast, domestic material consumption is more than four times as high in last-ranked Australia (47 tons). Alongside Australia, the bottom group also includes Canada (29.2 tons), Finland (34.3 tons), Norway (35.6 tons), and Chile (41 tons).

77

Performance by goal

13. Climate 13.1 Production-based energy-related CO2 emissions

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

–3

–6 .70

.31

2

.73

. 82

–4

–0

.2 12

. 67

.42

.10 13

–2

–2

7

2

0.6

8

.7 12

8.7

6

6

0.6 –1

4

3.3

0. 3 –1

8

9 0.1

0.7

.0 6

.21

1 0. 4

–6

–4

.30 –3 5 3. 3 –1

7

.03

.10

.11

0 1.8 –2

–5

–5

–6

.5 9

9

.18

0.7 –1

–5

–5

6

.6 4

.8 15

3 .5 –1

5

.5 2

–8

–5

5

.0 13

5 .0

% Change 20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

. 97

4 5.1 –1

–0

2 1.3 –1

9

.01

.0 8 –7

–5

9

. 33

6 .3

–2

9

. 85

0 .5 –1

–8

.0 8

8

.5 0

0.7 –1

–3

–9

9. 0 –1

6

.72

5 .5

–2

4 8 .5 –1 06 2 20 2 .5 –1 06 20 .23 –5 06 1 20 1.2 –1 06 20 .38 –4 06 3 20 6.2 –1 06 20 .18 –7 06 20 .5 9 –4 06 8 20 7.8 –1 06 1 20 6 .0 –1 06 0 20 0 .9 –1 06 2 20 8.2 –1 06 4 20 1.9 –1 06 20 .6 4 –9 06 20 .5 0 –7 06 20 8 5. 8 06 4 20 3.0 –1 06 20 .5 9 –7 06 1 5 .0 –1

20

20

20

20

16.17

12.30

10.37

10.25

9.59

9.40

9.26

9.22

9.13

8.35

7.75

7.68

7.62

7.25

7.21

7.18

7.11

6.64

6.15

5.90

5.78

5.76

5.26

5.19

4.47

4.39

4.36

4.25

5.00

4.02

3.72

10.00

6.99

15.00

11.86

15.30

20.00

17.00

19.47

25.00

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Me

xic o Tur key Sw ed e Po n rtu ga l Hu ng ary Sw Chile itze rla nd Fra nce Ice lan d Sp ain Slo vak ia Ita De ly nm ark Gr eec e Sl Un ite oven dK ia ing do m No rw Ne ay w Ze ala nd Po lan d Au str ia OE CD Irelan d av era ge Fin la Ge nd rm an y Isra Be el lgi um Cz J ech apa Re n p Ne ubli c the rla nd Ko rea s ,R ep Est . on ia C Un anad ite dS a tat Au es str Lux a em lia bo urg

1

0

Unit: Tons CO2 equivalent per capita, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012)

Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts The highly developed industrialized nations’ responsibility to

In the ﬁve leading countries, Mexico, Turkey, Sweden, Portu-

combat climate change is obvious and cannot be overestimated.

gal, and Hungary, as well as in sixth-ranked Chile, production-

Similar to the issue of sustainable consumption and production

based CO2 emissions are below 5 tons per capita. These coun-

patterns, the rich countries need to become leading examples

tries’ performances stand in stark contrast to the respective

if the goal of combating climate change and its consequences

emission levels of countries placed at the bottom of the list,

is not to remain mere lip service. Effectively reducing CO2 and

such as Canada, the United States, Australia, and Luxembourg.

other greenhouse gas emissions is imperative in this regard.

Here, CO2 emissions range from 15.3 (Canada) to 19.47 tons per

The data displayed in ﬁgures 13.1 and 13.2 show how far many

capita (Luxembourg).

OECD countries are still lagging behind compared to the respec-

The second snapshot indicator links emission levels to the

tive benchmark countries of the sample. Figure 13.1 provides

size of a country’s economy, and refers to total greenhouse gas

information on production-based CO2 emissions per capita.

emissions per GDP. Greenhouse gas emissions include land use,

“Production-based” means that emissions refer to gross direct

land-use change, and forestry, and are measured in CO2 equiva-

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, emitted within the

lents as a percentage of GDP (tons per million constant 2005 int.

national territory excluding bunkers, sinks, and indirect effects.

USD PPP). The ﬁndings are remarkable: While Sweden is by far

78

13.2 Greenhouse gas emissions per GDP

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

09

09

09

01

09

06

09

09

09

09

09

09

00

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

06

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

.42 45

5

. 85 –7

3.6

0

.79

. 28 –7

0

–5

9

.73 –7

8 .3

.3 4

.4 4

.42 13

–9

7 6.4

.6 4

.74

.38

–0

–2

–9

–5

8

.0 4

.4 4

–4

–3

–4

.21

5. 8

–9

5 7.8 –1

.73

.0 4

.29

.15

0 1.9 –2

–2

–4

–4

0

.63

.14

.30

–4

–2

–5

5

. 62

–8

22

2

.8 4 –7

9. 6

5. 8 –1

% Change 06

06

06

06

06

06

00

4

3

.0 4

5 .9

–6

6

.0 0

8 .4 –1

–6

5 .0

0

8 4.1 06 20 .5 3 –2 06 8 20 8.2 –1 06 20 0 01 8 20 0. 8 –1 06 20 0 06 1 20 4.7 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

06

06

.9 4 –9 06 9 20 1.3 –1 06 20 .41 –9 06 6 20 1.0 –1 06 20 .10 –5 06 20 .0 6 –5 06 7 20 1.9 –1 06 1 20 9 .5 –1 06 3 20 2. 6 –1 06 20 .15 –4 06 9 20 0 .5 –1 06 20 . 69 –8 06 20 0 06 4 20 6 .9 –1 06 0 20 6.4 –1 06 7 20 4.2 –1 06 20 .5 8 –5 06 8 20 0 .5 –4 06 20 .0 6 –5 06 7 20 9. 4 –1 2 2 .9 –2

20

20

66.75

100.00

680.01

640.53

555.18

520.69

512.64

496.04

461.12

424.96

389.72

353.34

352.14

340.51

334.47

328.13

326.45

319.49

317.50

316.63

301.44

289.55

289.43

280.05

275.08

251.88

249.80

248.81

230.80

160.28

200.00

109.26

300.00

205.35

400.00

273.03

500.00

374.29

600.00

476.81

700.00

572.74

800.00

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

1 Sw

ed e No n Sw rway itze rla nd Fin lan d Fra nce Au str Po ia rtu ga l Sp ain Ch ile Un ite d K Italy ing do Slo m ven De ia nm ar Slo k vak Be ia lgi um J Ne apan the r Lux land em s bo u Ge rg rm an y Ire lan d OE Hun CD ga av ry era ge Isra el Un Turk ey ite d Ne Stat e w Ze s ala nd Gr eec e Ice Cz ech lan Re d pu bli c Me xic o Po Ko land rea ,R ep Ca . na Au da str alia Est on ia

2

0

Unit: Tons CO2 equivalent per million const. 2005 int. USD PPP, Source: UNFCCC, IEA (data refer to 2012, except ISR: 2010, CHL, MEX: 2006, KOR: 2001)

the top-performing country with an amount of 66.75 tons, Estonia comes in last place with 680 tons – more than ten times as much as in the case of the leading country. Moreover, Sweden is the only country ranked among the top ﬁve on both indicators chosen here. With regard to greenhouse gas emissions per GDP, Norway, Switzerland, Finland, and France follow in places two to ﬁve. In ﬁ fth-ranked France, however, emissions are already nearly four times as high as in Sweden. At the negative end of the spectrum, Canada and Australia again ﬁ nd themselves in the bottom group. Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions per GDP amount to 641 tons, which means that the country ranks second to last on both indicators of goal 13.

79

Performance by goal

14. Oceans 14.1 Ocean Health Index

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

.72 –1

.61 –1

.5 2 –1

. 49 –1

8

. 49 –1

3.0

.86

.23

.47 –1

–2

–4

4

.45 –1

0

0

0

2.9

.74

1 4.4

0

–2

.35 –1

7 1.3

.32 –1

.32 –1

0

.30 –1

2 1.3

.30 –1

0

6

.27 –1

2 .5

% Change

61.00

60.00

57.00

66.00

65.00

67.00

66.00

67.00

68.00

68.00

68.00

70.00

69.00

70.00

70.00

71.00

70.75

71.00

73.00

71.00

75.00

74.00

75.00

76.00

75.00

77.00

76.00

.92

77.00

–4

0

3 3.1

.47 –1

0

.74

.14 –7

0

0

–2

80.00

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

. 43 –1

.41

.11 13

2

3

.78

–5

–2

4 .6

3.0

0

.35 –1

0

9 1.3

1 4.1

7

.30 –1

0

0

2. 6

78.00

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

3 1.3

2 1.3

.8 8

8 1.2

–4

70.00

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

12

12

12

12

12

80.00

20

20

20

20

20

90.00

50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 –

–

–

–

–

–

28

27

24

26

24

22

22

19

19

19

18

15

15

15

12

12

11

12

10

7

7

7

5

5

3

3

2

Ne

w

Est on i Ze a ala De nd nm ark Fin lan Au d str ali No a rw a Be y Ne lgium the rla nd s S Un ite wede dK n ing do Ge m rm an y Fra nce Ita K l OE orea, y CD Re p . av era ge Ca na d Po a rtu ga l Sl Un oven ite ia dS tat es Ch ile Gr eec e Ire lan d Isra el Po lan d Jap an Sp ain Ice lan d Me xic o Tur key Au Cz ech stri Re a pu bl Hu ic Lux ngar em y bo ur Slo g Sw vakia itze rla nd

1

0

Unit: Standardized index, Source: Ocean Health Index (data refer to 2014)

Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development Goal 14 refers to a key dimension of environmental sustainabil-

Synthesis at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the Uni-

ity. Decisive action is necessary to limit the human-caused deg-

versity of British Columbia’s Sea Around Us Project, Conserva-

radation of marine ecosystems and to restore marine resources

tion International, the National Geographic Society, and the New

for sustainable development. Setting up protected marine areas,

England Aquarium.

establishing sustainable ﬁshing quotas in order to protect threat-

The ten goals that the index refers to are food provision,

ened species, and reducing CO2 emissions can, among other

artisanal ﬁ shing opportunities, natural products, carbon

measures, serve as potential strategies to curb the negative

storage, coastal protection, sense of place, coastal livelihoods

human impact on our marine environment.

and economies, tourism and recreation, clean waters, and

The Ocean Health Index evaluates the condition of marine

biodiversity. A healthy ocean is therefore considered to be

ecosystems according to ten human goals, which represent the

one that can sustainably deliver a range of beneﬁts to people

key ecological, social, and economic beneﬁts that a healthy

now and in the future. Figure 14.1 shows that Turkey and

ocean provides. It is developed by the contributions of more than

Mexico lag farthest behind on the index, whereas Estonia,

65 experts on marine science, economics, and sociology under

New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Australia form

the leadership of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and

the top group.

80

14.2 Overexploited fish stocks

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

–0 . 20

8

4 7.9

3. 4

5

6 0.7

4.7

.13

.19 10

–4

. 22

.86 –1

–3

.37

0 1.0

0 1.0

–6

2 0.3

8

.4 6

4.4

–2

0

.31

. 25 –7

–3

.9 5

7 0.1

–0

.13 –1

8 1.9

. 22

. 22

5 3 .5

–0

–6

% Change 20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

7 9. 3

.17 14

1 3.6

3

2 3.1

4.4

0

0

. 65 17

4.3

7

4.4

9

.10

5.6

–0

4 .5

9

.61

5 5 .5

39

9

. 03

2.9

–3

3

. 97

. 25

9. 0

–2

–0

9

2 6.4

0.7

4

3 0.1

3 .5

.0 6

2 .9 –1

–6

1 1.9

24.04

22.22

20.47

19.72

19.44

18.59

18.33

18.08

17.94

17.83

17.80

17.65

17.51

17.16

17.03

16.67

16.52

16.29

15.84

15.76

15.70

15.21

15.18

14.94

20.00

15.66

25.00

21.25

30.00

15.00 10.00 5.00 –

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

1 Au

Jap an str alia Ko rea ,R ep. Sp ain Gr eec e Ch ile Tur ke Po y rtu ga Me l xic o Po lan No d rw a Ca y na da Ita ly S OE CD wede n av Ne erag w e Ze ala De nd nm ark Ice lan Ge d rm an y Ire lan d F Un inlan ite dS d Ne tate s the rla nd s Fra nce Un E ite ston dK i ing a do m Au str ia Cz Belg ech ium Re pu bl Hu ic ng ary Lux Israe l em bo ur Slo g vak Slo ia v Sw enia itze rla nd

2

0

Unit: Percent, Source: Yale (data refer to 2011)

In this cross-national comparison, Australia also performs – in relative terms – well on the second indicator, which

these countries to better protect and conserve their respective marine resources.

assesses for each country the extent to which ﬁsh stocks are overexploited and collapsed within the countries’ exclusive economic zones. Besides Australia, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Greece are those countries within the OECD with the lowest share of overexploited ﬁsh stocks by exclusive economic zone. In these countries, overexploitation amounts to approximately 15 percent. From an ecological point of view, these ﬁgures are still much too high. However, things look even less encouraging in those countries at the bottom of the ranking on this indicator. In France, Estonia, and the United Kingdom, overexploitation rates are between 21.25 percent (France) and 24.04 percent (United Kingdom). This clearly underlines the need for

81

Performance by goal

15. Biodiversity 15.1 Terrestrial protected areas

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

0

6

3

3

0. 8

0

0.0

0. 8

7 0.0

0

6

3

0. 2

0

0.0

0

8 1.3

9

0

0.3

0

4

2. 8

0 1.8

4 1.7

0

0

0

0

6

1 0.0

0

0

0

0

0

0. 2

0

0

.6 14

0

0

0

% Change

6.17

8.00 6.00

5.03

8.39

8.04

8.54

8.43

10.00

8.55

10.31 8.56

10.70

10.66

12.22

12.29

12.25

12.97

12.71

13.74

14.34

14.27

14.68

14.58

14.72

16.27

14.93

17.00

16.72

17.00

17.00

17.00

17.00

3

17.00

0

0. 2

0

8

1 2. 3

9

9

3. 2

9

2. 3

0. 8

0

3. 4

0

17.00

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

3

9 0.1

3. 4

6 5.7

0 1.0

.45 13

17.00

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

06

06

06

06

06

9

9

9

0.7

3.3

3 .5

0

0

.80 31

3 0.1

12.00

20

20

20

20

06

06

06

06

06

06

0

0

0

.15 19

1 0.0

0

9 1.9

0

0

2 1.1

0

0

.2 35

14.00

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

16.00

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

2.33

4.00

1.76

18.00

2.00

34

33

31

32

29

30

28

26

27

24

25

23

21

22

20

19

17

18

15

16

14

12

13

10

11

9

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Est on Ge ia r Lux man em y b Ne ourg the rla nd s Po lan Slo d v Sw eni Un itze a r ite d K land in Cz ech gdom Re pu bli c Gr eec e Jap an Au str Be ia lgi um Ice lan d Sl Ne ovak i w Ze a ala nd Fra nce No rw a OE Den y CD ma av rk era g Au e str alia Isra e Me l xic o Ita ly Ch ile Sp ain Po rtu ga Fin l Un lan ite dS d tat e Ca s na da Sw Ko eden rea ,R e Hu p. ng ary Tur key Ire lan d

1

0

Unit: Percent, Source: Yale (data refer to 2012)

Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss Goal 15 is the direct counterpart to goal 14. Both goals high-

and the United Kingdom. While most countries have held

light the importance of protecting and preserving the sustain-

these relatively high levels for a number of years now, the

ability of natural resources and quality of the environment.

Netherlands only joined the top group recently with a further

The ecological dimension of sustainable development implies

improvement compared to their 2009 level of 14.83 percent.

that governments and societies must shape effective policies to

However, there is still much room for improvement for these

secure the natural foundation of human existence and leave an

countries. The bottom four countries are Korea, Hungary,

intact ecosystem for future generations. The two snapshot indi-

Turkey, and Ireland. Here, the respective share of protected

cators used in our analysis refer to two very important aspects

terrestrial biome area is extremely small. In Ireland, for

of goal 15: protecting terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity.

instance, only 1.76 percent of the country’s terrestrial biome

With regard to the ﬁ rst indicator, ﬁ gure 15.1 shows that

area counts as protected area. What is encouraging to see at

the best-performing OECD countries have so far managed to

least is that in no country examined here has the terrestrial

protect 17 percent or more of their terrestrial biome areas.

biome area shrunk in recent years. In Estonia and Iceland, for

This benchmark group consists of Estonia, Germany, Lux-

instance, it was expanded by around a third between 2006

embourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Switzerland,

and 2009. The stagnation and low levels of expansion shown

82

15.2 Red List Index for birds

28

28

27

24

24

24

22

21

21

20

16

16

15

15

14

14

13

12

11

11

10

4

8

10

9

20

15

19

27

30

27

35

40

36

44

50

52

50

60

–

–

Po ly 2 rtu 6 g itze al 2 6 rla Ge nd 2 rm an 8 y Ice 2 l an 9 Lux d em 3 Cz ech bour 0 Re g 3 p 1 ub Ne l w Ze ic 32 Un a ite d K land ing do m

23

Sw

Ita

23

23

20

20

20

18

18

17

16

14

14

11

11

11

9

9

8

7

5

5

4

3

1

Tur key Po lan Ca d na da Est on ia Ch Ko i le re Un a, Re ite p dS . tat e s Au str alia Gr eec e Jap an Fra nc Hu e ng ar No y rw De ay nm ar Sw k ed en Isra Be el lgi um Me xic Ne OE ther o CD land s av era ge Fin lan d Ire lan Slo d vak ia Au str i Slo a ven ia Sp ain

2

0

Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to latest available)

by many countries, however, will put goal 15 under strain in those places if policymakers do not act soon. With regard to a country’s performance on preventing biodiversity loss, ﬁ gure 15.2 displays the OECD’s Red List Index for Birds as a well-established proxy measure. Iceland, Luxembourg, and the Czech Republic show the strongest deﬁciencies on this indicator, and Switzerland and Germany also belong to the bottom group. Here, governments need to strengthen their efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species. By contrast, Turkey, Poland, Canada, Estonia, Chile, and Korea form the benchmark group. The percentage of threatened bird species in the top ﬁve countries ranges from 4 percent (Turkey) to 11 percent in Chile and Korea.

83

Performance by goal

16. Institutions 16.1 Homicides

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

09

20

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

18.90

8

3.7 –1

2.7

5 7.6 –1

3

5

3.3

.35

. 25

9. 0 –1

–3

–4

.0 0

–6

30

0

.88

0.0

–5

–2

9

3 1.4 –2 3

3. 3 –1

. 69 –7

.0 0

4.2 –1

0

25

0.0 –1

7

0

9

0.7

0.0

4.2 –1

–3

0

0

–2

7 7.3 –4

.80 82 06 6 20 8.2 –2 06 4 1.7 –2 9

20

20

.18 11

0

20

2 20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

06

06

06

06

06

06

.0 9 –9 06 0 20 2 .5 –1 06 20 .5 0 12 06 0 20 0.0 –2 06 20 .0 0 80 06 7 20 8 .5 –2 8 8.1 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

.30 30 7 4 .0 –2

4 .0 –2

6

6.2 –1

8

.8 92

5. 8

.5 6

3

0

. 67

2.7

–5

–2

3

–6

9

9 7.6

8 .3

2 .5 –1

9. 0

8

. 33

5.3 –1

–8

3

7

3.3

6 .6 –1

.0 0

6

0

8 .4

0.0

2

0

2

2. 2

–3

0

50

0

–3

–2

0

–2

2. 2

2 .5 –1

–2

3

.0 0

3.3

0

0

0.0

5 .0

40

0

–3

–2

0

–8

% Change

20.00 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00

4.30

3.80

3.10

2.70

1.87

1.80

1.70

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.30

1.20

1.10

1.10

1.00

1.00

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.60

0.60

0.30

0.20

2.00

0.30

4.00

1.70

6.00

4.10

8.00

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

26

26

23

23

23

22

21

19

19

17

17

14

14

14

11

11

11

6

6

6

6

6

4

4

2

2

Lux

em

bo urg Ice lan d Jap an Slo ven ia Sp ain Au st De ria nm a Ge rk r Ne man y the rl Sw ands itze rla nd Ko Italy rea ,R ep. P Cz ech olan Re d pu bli No c rw ay S Ne wede w n Z Un ite ealan dK d ing do m Au str alia Ire lan d Fra nc Po e rtu ga Ca l na da Gr eec Slo e vak ia Fin lan d Isra e l B OE CD elgiu m av era g Hu e ng ary C Un ite hile dS tat e Est s on ia Tur key Me xic o

1

0

Unit: Per 100,000 inhabitants, Source: UNODC (data refer to 2013, except KOR, ISR, CHL, TUR: 2012)

Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels There has been much discussion in the multi-stakeholder Post-

With regard to the latter aspect, the rate of intentional homi-

2015 Development Agenda process on whether speciﬁc objec-

cides in ﬁ gure 16.1 provides some information on whether

tives on “good governance” could, for the ﬁrst time, be incorpo-

societies can be considered peaceful, stable, and inclusive.

rated into the SDGs. Several reports and contributions, among

These attributes can be assigned to the broad majority of

others the report of the High-Level Panel of eminent persons

OECD countries. Homicide rates are generally low in most of

on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, rightly pointed out that

these nations. Less than one intentional homicide occurs per

good governance practices based on the rule of law are impor-

100,000 inhabitants per year in Luxembourg, Iceland, Japan,

tant “enablers” for sustainable development. Although the terms

Slovenia, Spain, Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Nether-

“good governance” and “rule of law” are not directly mentioned

lands, Switzerland, Italy, Korea, Poland, the Czech Republic,

in goal 16, the objectives of building effective, accountable,

Norway, and Sweden. However, there are also some countries,

and inclusive institutions as well as providing access to justice

such as the United States (4.7 homicides) and Estonia (5.0),

for all clearly reﬂect the underlying ideas of good governance.

where homicide rates are clearly above average. Mexico is the

Sustainable development requires sound institutions, legal cer-

biggest outlier in this regard with 18.9 homicides per 100,000

tainty, and peaceful and inclusive societies.

20

inhabitants per year. This underlines the country’s massive

20 See for instance Schraad-Tischler, D. (2013): Enabling factors for sustainable development – strengthening rule of law and other key sustainable governance indicators. Available from www.sgi-network.org

84

16.2 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

.6 16

6

7

.47

.2 10

26

.0 0

4 7.1

25

.91 15

.39 17

5 1.8

.23

. 69 –1

–3

5 3. 4

8

.91 10

3. 2

. 43 –1

1 7.8

. 69 –7

3

9 1.3

4.2

.0 0

. 33 –1

–5

. 82

3 1.3

0

–4

.0 9

.9 0

. 25 –1

–9

.5 3

–6

–3

.74

.4 4

.45

.27

–6

–2

–4

.32

–6

–5

.21

.13

–4

–2

% Change

35.00

43.00

45.00

43.00

51.00

50.00

55.00

54.00

60.00

58.00

60.00

61.00

69.00

63.00

69.24

69.00

72.00

74.00

73.00

76.00

74.00

76.00

79.00

78.00

80.00

79.00

82.00

81.00

86.00

83.00

86.00

89.00

87.00

92.00

0

7 6 .6 –1 5

6 7.6

8.7 –1

–2

.70

8

0.0

–8

–2

.80

5.3 –1

91.00

08

08

08

08

08

08

.5 7

–9

–3

. 62

4 1.9 –1

7

. 33

–4

–3

.5 19

0

50.00

20

20

20

20

20

20

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

. 03

.70

5 1.4

–3

–3

.74

9

.6 0

5 4.3

–2

–2

9.5

4 2.7

60.00

20

20

20

20

20

20

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

.74

0 1.3

–6

7 1.2

5 1.1

0

. 22

1 2. 4

0

–2

70.00

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

08

08

08

08

08

08

08

4

.92 13

0

4.4

8 1.0

5 2.1

80.00

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

08

08

08

08

08

08

90.00

20

20

20

20

20

20

100.00

40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00

32

34

31

32

30

29

27

28

26

24

23

24

20

22

20

19

16

18

16

14

14

11

13

11

10

9

8

7

5

5

4

3

1 De

Ne

w

nm ar Ze k ala nd Fin lan Sw d ed e No n Sw rway itze Ne rland the r Lux land em s bo ur Ca g na Au da str a Ge lia rm an y Un I ite celan dK d ing do m Be lgi um Jap an Un Irelan ite dS d tat es Ch ile OE A CD ustr av ia era ge Est on ia Fra nce Po rtu ga l Po lan d Isra el Sp ain Slo v Ko enia rea ,R ep. Cz Hung ech ary Re pu bl Slo ic vak ia Tur key Gr eec e Ita ly Me xic o

2

0

Unit: Standardized index, Source: Transparency International (data refer to 2014)

problems when it comes to guaranteeing safe living condi-

or even asked for bribes. Besides Mexico, Turkey, Italy, and

tions for its population.

Greece exhibit the strongest weaknesses in this regard. By

Mexico also ranks last on the second indicator shown

contrast, the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, and

in ﬁ gure 16.2. The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranks

Sweden feature traditionally in the CPI’s top group and can

countries and territories based on how corrupt their public

be regarded as leading examples. New Zealand and Switzer-

sector is perceived to be. It is a composite index – a combi-

land also belong to the top ﬁve. Countries such as the United

nation of polls and expert surveys – drawing on corruption-

States, Austria, and France only ﬁ nd themselves in the mid-

related data collected by a variety of reputable institutions.

ﬁeld together with Chile, Estonia, and Portugal.

High levels of corruption undermine legal certainty, hamper effective policy implementation, and threaten the legitimacy of a political system as a whole. Governments must do more to strengthen mechanisms that prevent public servants and politicians from accepting bribes, such as providing spaces and ways that allow people to shame ofﬁcials that accepted

85

Performance by goal

17. Global partnership 17.1 Official development assistance

20

20

20

0

5

0.0

0

–2

6.2

0

.18 18

3

.5 12

8 .3

2

. 43 71

.0 0

.2 16

25

0.99

0

0

5 1.0 –2

. 25 31

. 82 31

. 65 17

1 7.4

6 .0

.70

.24 17

–3

–3

0

.45

.4 4

.5 8 31

–5

44

.8 4

1 5.4

48

1 5.4

. 33

.03 41

0

58

3

.35 12

.5 10

0

.13 14

4.3

0.08

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

0.08

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

1.10

0

9

8

5.2 –3

3

. 33

5.3 –1

33

0

8 .3

8

4 7.4

.0 0

–6

50

7

.5 2

.0 0

4.4

6 .6

–9

–3

9 7.5

5

1 9. 4

–5

–2

–2

8.7 –1

3

0

5

8 .0

0

8

9

9

5 .0

3. 8

5.6 –1

–2

–2

5.3 21

3 5.1

9. 6

.6 4

–2

25

9

0 .9

6

.5 9

9. 0

–2

–6

0

.71

.5 24

–5

0 1.9

0.07

0.11

0.12

0.11

0.13

0.14

0.13

0.16

0.15

0.19

0.19

0.20

0.19

0.24

0.21

0.27

0.26

0.36 0.27

0.36

0.41

0.40

0.39

0.41

0.49

0.60

0.45

0.80

0.60

0.71

0.85

1.00

0.64

.4 13

1.07

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

0 10 1 20 1.1 –1

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

1.20

% Change

–

–

30

32

28

30

28

25

27

24

25

23

22

19

19

19

18

17

14

16

14

13

12

10

10

9

7

8

5

6

3

4

2

Lux

Sw ed em en bo ur No g rw a Un Den y m ite d K ark in Ne gdom the rla nd Fin s Sw land itze rla n Be d lgi um Ge rm an y Tur key Ire lan d OE CD Franc e av era ge Au Ne stral i w Ze a ala nd Au str i Ca a na da Ice lan d Jap an Po Un rtug ite a dS l tat es Ita ly Est on ia S Ko pain rea ,R e Slo p. ven ia Cz Hung ech ary Re pu bli c Gr eec e Po lan Slo d vak ia Isra el Ch ile Me xic o

1

0

Unit: ODA as percentage of GNI, Source: OECD (data refer to 2014)

Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development Revitalizing the global partnership for sustainable develop-

have not managed to fulﬁll the target of providing at least 0.7

ment depends crucially on the political will and the genuine

percent of their respective GNI for ODA. In fact, as ﬁgure 17.1

commitment of developed countries to foster global public

clearly shows, this target is far out of sight for the vast majority

goods and to promote equal socioeconomic opportunities in

of OECD countries. There are only ﬁve countries meeting the

developing countries. OECD countries must seek to ensure that

target already: Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, and

their national policies are in alignment with international strat-

the United Kingdom. Luxembourg’s and Sweden’s spending on

egies in this regard. Policy coherence for development is thus a

ODA even exceeds one percent of the two countries’ respective

necessary condition for a truly global partnership.

GNI. By contrast, rich countries such as Japan and the United

In this context, the so-called donor countries also have

States only spend a mere 0.19 percent.

to live up to their self-declared standards regarding ofﬁcial

In addition to the aspect of revitalizing the global part-

development assistance (ODA). ODA is deﬁned as ﬂows to

nership for sustainable development, goal 17 also refers to the

developing countries and multilateral institutions provided by

challenge of strengthening the means of implementation. An

ofﬁcial agencies, including state and local governments, or by

effective implementation of the new SDGs depends heavily on

their executive agencies. Most OECD member states, however,

the availability, comparability, and quality of timely data for the

86

67.74

72.73

69.70

68.75

70.00

72.73

72.73

75.76

72.73

75.76

78.13

77.42

78.79

78.79

81.82

79.09

81.82

81.82

78.79

80.00

81.82

81.82

81.82

81.82

81.82

81.82

81.82

81.82

81.82

81.82

81.82

83.87

81.82

83.87

84.85

90.00

83.87

84.85

17.2 Capacity to monitor the SDGs

60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00

Sp

Jap

an 1 ain Au Cz 1 ech stri Re a pu bl 3 Hu ic 3 ng a Be ry 3 lgi um Ca 6 na De da nm 6 ark Fin lan 6 d Fra nce 6 Gr eec 6 e Ice lan 6 d Ire 6 Ko land rea 6 Ne , Rep the . rla nd 6 s Po lan 6 Po d rtu 6 g Slo al ven 6 ia Un 6 ite Turk ey dK OE ing CD do 6 av m era 6 ge Est on Ge ia 2 rm an 1 y Isra 21 el 2 Lux Chil 1 em e 2 bo ur 4 Slo g 2 vak 5 i Sw a 26 ed e Au n 2 str alia 6 2 Ita 8 l No y 28 r Un ite way d 28 Ne Stat e w Ze s 28 ala nd M 32 Sw exico itze 3 3 rla nd 34

0

Unit: Percentage of SDG indicators used in this study that are reported annually with time lag no greater than three years, Source: Bertelsmann Stiftung (data refer to 2015)

individual indicators. Countries therefore have to strengthen

top performers in this respect are Spain and Japan with nearly

their statistical capacities to make sure that progress on the

85 percent. Switzerland, Mexico, and New Zealand, by con-

implementation of the SDGs can be tracked and monitored in a

trast, have to improve their reporting standards. In the case of

transparent and reliable way.

these three countries, the percentage of timely data regularly

Against this backdrop, our second snapshot indicator

reported for the SDG indicators used in this study is still below

refers to the percentage of SDG indicators used in this study

70 percent, showing that the demand for a data revolution actu-

that are reported annually with a time lag no greater than

ally extends beyond the poorest countries.

three years in the respective country. This indicator is calculated as the number of indicators reported divided by the number of indicators applicable for the respective country, multiplied by 100. Figure 17.2 shows that many OECD countries are already faring quite well on this indicator. Twenty out of 34 OECD member states provide timely data on an annual basis for more than 80 percent of the SDG indicators selected here. The

87

Conclusions: Who is fit for the goals?

5. Conclusions: Who is fit for the goals? 5.1. Countries that are ready for the SDGs: The fit five

Sweden

1

Norway

2

Denmark

3

0

.00 10

0

9.0

0

8.0

7.0

0

0

6.0

0

0

5.0

4.0

0

3.0

2.0

1.

0

00

Figure 1: The world’s first SDG Index

This stress test has shown that, of all OECD countries, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Switzerland are best prepared

7.86

for the SDGs. They form the top ﬁve on the aggregated SDG

7.79

Index which summarizes performance across all 34 indicators

7.55

and 17 goals examined in this study.21 These countries, the “ﬁt

7.52

ﬁve,” are therefore in a strong position to foster further improve-

Finland

4

Switzerland

5

Germany

6

7.08

economic and social model which is sustainable and inclusive

Netherlands

7

7.04

is possible. Nonetheless, they must maintain their ambition

Belgium

8

7.00

since even these countries have their particular challenges,

Iceland

9

6.97

France 10

6.94

Canada 11

6.93

Austria 12

6.92

Japan 13

6.91

Slovenia 13

6.91

United Kingdom 15

6.83

tries need to step up their policy efforts and follow the likes of

6.80

Sweden and Norway if they are to reach the UN’s ambitious set

7.21

New Zealand 16

ments in the SDGs in the future. They demonstrate that an

sometimes considerable in scope, as the country proﬁles have illustrated. Despite certain shortcomings, though, these countries have managed best overall so far in generating favorable results regarding economic, social, and environmental policy in the diverse ﬁelds we have examined. The 29 other OECD coun-

of goals by 2030.

Luxembourg 17

6.66

Australia 18

6.65

Sweden, for instance, demonstrates how to achieve a

Spain 18

6.65

strong yet low-carbon economy. The country leads the OECD

Ireland 20

6.47

nations with its low greenhouse gas emissions, while its

Estonia 21

6.42

fossil fuel energy production causes just 4.3 tons of carbon

Poland 21

6.42

dioxide emissions per capita as well as a renewable energy

Korea, Rep. 23

6.32

Czech Republic 24

6.24

Portugal 25

6.23

Italy 26

6.13

Slovakia 27

6.02

Israel 28

6.01

share of over 47 percent (third place on both indicators). At the same time, the economy is among the strongest in the OECD with 74.9 percent of working-age Swedes in employment (fourth) and a GNI of USD 46,680 per capita (seventh). The particular responsibility of high-income countries when

United States 29

5.95

it comes to the SDGs extends to three types of goals: 1) domestic

Greece 30

5.88

sustainability targets to reform how societies in the OECD them-

5.73

Chile 31 Hungary 32 Turkey 33 Mexico 34

5.55 5.19 4.91

selves are organized, 2) do-no-harm targets to minimize negative external effects of domestic policies for other countries, and ﬁnally 3) international responsibility targets related to the rich nations’ commitment to ﬁghting poverty in the developing world.22

21 For details of how the SDG Index was constructed, see Chapter 2, Methodology. 22 Typology by the Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives (2015): Goals for the rich. https://www.globalpolicywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RG-Goals-for-the-Rich-Advaced-Unedited-Version.pdf

88

Thus, next to strengthening the global partnership for develop-

For a number of goals, however, high-income countries dif-

ment and reducing inequality within and between nations, this

fer greatly in their performance on the SDGs. This is especially

study has shown that the main challenges overall for the entire

evident with respect to goals 12 (sustainable consumption and

set of OECD countries in terms of the SDGs related to domestic

production) and 13 (tackling climate change). While in Estonia,

reforms remain: a) fostering an inclusive economic model (goals

Poland, and Slovakia, for instance, citizens generate below 310

8 and 10) as well as b) sustainable consumption and production

kilograms of waste per capita every year, the ﬁgure is more

patterns (goal 12).

than twice as high in Denmark (751 kilograms), the United

In the ﬁrst respect, sadly the rich countries in this world

States (725 kilograms), and Switzerland (712 kilograms). Like-

are no exception to the trend of a growing gap between rich and

wise, greenhouse gas emissions amount to less than 110 tons

poor. In most OECD nations, the richest 10 percent earn more

of CO2 equivalent as a percentage per million GDP in Sweden

than the poorest 40 percent combined. Inequality keeps rising

and Norway, while six countries each emit more than 500 tons

across these countries, and the average income of the richest

(Mexico, Poland, South Korea, Canada, Australia – and Estonia

10 percent of the population is now about nine times that of

with 680 tons). The share of renewable energy (goal 7) is around

the poorest 10 percent. This trend will threaten not only social

or above 50 percent in the top three countries Iceland, Norway

cohesion, but also economic growth.

and Sweden, while in 17 OECD countries it is below 11 per-

In the latter respect, countries such as the USA and Den-

cent – including in the Netherlands (3.56 percent), the United

mark generate 725 and 751 kilograms of municipal waste per

Kingdom (3.16 percent), and South Korea (1.29 percent). Finally,

person every year. Half of all OECD nations still have a share of

gender equality (goal 5) is in a good state, at least as indicated

renewable energy below 11 percent – clearly more efforts are

by the share of women in the national parliaments in Sweden,

needed there. The UK and Estonia overexploit their ﬁsh stock

Finland, and Belgium with over 40 percent, while less than 15

by 24 and 22 percent, respectively. One can only imagine what

percent of MPs in Turkey, Hungary, and Japan are female.

would happen if the likes of India and China followed the path that these countries have chosen. In fact, their inability to ﬁght the growing social divide

5.3. The ideal country: A vision for the future

coupled with their overuse of resources begs the question

Going forward, all nations will have to effectively handle poten-

whether today’s high-income countries really can still serve as

tial trade-offs between the 17 goals, thus managing to foster a

role models for the developing world. In terms of sustainable

stronger economy and balanced social policies and protecting

development, all countries are now developing countries. Thus,

the environment at the same time. Governments and citizens

a new – more inclusive and sustainable – social and economic

must reconcile the manifold and often diverging policy goals

model must be strived for in the future.

with one another. Building upon the benchmarking in this study, the ideal country in terms of the 17 goals for sustainable development

5.2. The great divide: Where OECD nations lie far apart

would therefore be one that by 2030 will have managed to (1)

This comparison of OECD countries across all 17 SDGs has

tackle poverty even better than the Czech Republic and Finland,

shown that in some areas, countries perform at a similar level.

(2) promote sustainable agriculture and nutrition even better

The range of scores is quite narrow for some indicators; in other

than Iceland and Japan, (3) ensure healthy lives and well-being

words: OECD nations pretty much all play in the same league

for all even better than Japan and e.g. Denmark, (4) ensure

here. This is true, for instance, with regard to homicide rates,

inclusive and equitable quality education even better than Japan

as captured by goal 16. All OECD countries are very safe places

and Korea, (5) promote gender equality even better than Swe-

to live, with homicide rates ranging from 0.2 (Luxembourg) to

den and New Zealand, (6) ensure availability and sustainable

4.3 (Turkey) per 100,000 inhabitants. Mexico is the only drastic

management of water even better than Iceland and e.g. Austria,

exception here, with a rate of 18.9. A similar picture emerges

(7) ensure access to affordable and modern energy even bet-

concerning the capacity to monitor the SDGs (goal 17). Although

ter than Ireland and Iceland, (8) promote economic growth and

all countries will need to improve their statistical coverage, they

employment even better than Norway and Iceland, (9) build

currently all report between around 68 percent and around 85

resilient infrastructure and foster innovation even better than

percent of the indicators used in this study annually, with a time

South Korea and Israel, (10) reduce inequality even better than

lag no greater than three years.

Slovakia and Estonia, (11) make cities and settlements safe even

89

Conclusions: Who is fit for the goals?

Table 1: The best and worst performers in all 17 goals and 34 indicators

better than e.g. Australia and Canada, (12) ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns even better than Estonia

Goal

and Japan, (13) cut emissions even better than Mexico and

Best countries

Worst countries

1.1

Czech Republic

Mexico

1.2

Finland

Italy

2.1

Iceland

Korea, Rep.

2.2

Japan

United States

(17) revitalize the global partnership for sustainable develop-

3.1

Japan

Turkey

ment and strengthen the means of implementation of the SDGs

3.2

Denmark and others

Greece

through monitoring even better than Sweden, Japan, and Spain

4.1

Japan

Turkey

4.2

Korea, Rep.

Mexico

5.1

Sweden

Japan

5.4. Lessons from rising stars

5.2

New Zealand

Korea, Rep.

If countries are trying to get serious about learning from

6.1

Iceland

Israel

each other, then the most promising way to facilitate such

6.2

Austria and others

Turkey

7.1

Ireland

Iceland

7.2

Iceland

Korea, Rep.

SDGs over the past few years – both in terms of percentage

Economy and labor

8.1

Norway

Mexico

change23 on all respective indicators and with regard to rank

8.2

Iceland

Greece

Infrastructure and innovation

9.1

Korea, Rep.

Greece

9.2

Israel

Chile

transferred successfully to other nations, taking into account

10.1

Slovakia

Chile

differing contexts and particular challenges.

10.2

Estonia

Slovakia

Poverty

Agriculture and nutrition Health

Education

Gender equality

Water

Energy

Inequality

Sweden, and combat climate change, (14) conserve oceans even better than Estonia and Japan, (15) protect terrestrial ecosystems and halt biodiversity loss even better than e.g. Estonia and Turkey, (16) promote peaceful societies and effective institutions even better than Luxembourg and Denmark, and ﬁnally

(see Table 1 for details).

peer learning is to look at the success (and failures) that other nations have displayed. Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the biggest improvements and the worst deteriorations in the 17

change. There are too many lessons for them all to be spelled out here, and they will need to be analyzed in depth going forward. Reform debates need to focus on which policies can be

For example, Sweden has managed to cut its already outstandingly low levels of greenhouse gas emissions relative

11.1

Australia and others

Belgium

11.2

Canada

Mexico

Consumption and production

12.1

Estonia

Denmark

shame and is worthy of emulation. By contrast, countries such

12.2

Japan

Australia

as Canada, Australia, and Estonia emit eight to ten times as

Climate

13.1

Mexico

Luxembourg

much as Sweden relative to GDP. Concrete policy instruments

13.2

Sweden

Estonia

14.1

Estonia

Turkey

14.2

Japan

United Kingdom

as waste from forests and forest industries, in heating systems

15.1

Estonia and others

Ireland

instead of using carbon. Furthermore, it encouraged the growth

15.2

Turkey

Czech Republic

16.1

Luxembourg

Mexico

16.2

Denmark

Mexico

scious mindsets are still less common than in Sweden, such

17.1

Sweden

Israel

measures can lead to signiﬁcant objective improvements in a

17.2

Japan, Spain

Switzerland

range of areas without necessarily harming economic growth,

Cities

to GDP by another third (35.1 percent) since 2006. Such enor-

Oceans

Biodiversity

Institutions

Global partnership

mous progress at an already high level puts other countries to

which have fostered this success in Sweden include the carbon tax on the use of coal, oil, natural gas, petrol, and aviation fuel. It set the right ﬁnancial incentives for the use of biomass, such

of non-energy-intensive industries, such as the service sector, which grew stronger than energy-intensive industries over the last few years. Even countries in which environmentally con-

and consequently bring about much-needed changes in public awareness of these issues.24 23 The levels at which the respective countries perform need to be taken into account when interpreting the table of improvements in percentage. The fact that the UK, for instance, managed to increase its share of renewable energy by 170 percent might seem impressive at first sight, but must be seen in context of the country still being second to last in this regard. Much stronger efforts from one of Europe’s leading economies are needed here. 24 The policy instrument of sustainability strategies must also play a more prominent role in the future. A global comparison of sustainability strategies can be found in: Bertelsmann Stiftung (ed.) (2013). Winning Strategies for a Sustainable Future. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung

90

Likewise, ﬁghting inequality is an issue that many OECD

Table 2: Biggest improvements and deteriorations in percentage

countries are not addressing successfully enough: Turning Most improvement

the tide with regard to the growing gap between rich and poor will require more focused policy efforts. One can see,

Goal

Country

to narrow the income gap between rich and poor more than

1.1

Ireland

–27.9

Sweden

83.0

any other country, cutting the Palma ratio by 23.4 percent and

1.2

New Zealand

–23.2

Ireland

55.5

2.1

Greece

– 61.3

Luxembourg

40.6

2.2

–

–

–

–

3.1

South Korea

7.4

–

–

past success, as becomes evident in the dramatically wors-

3.2

Chile

17.2

Greece

–27.3

ening performance over the last few years with regard to the

4.1

Portugal

45.8

Chile

–15.0

country’s PISA Social Justice Index ranking. In contrast, for all

4.2

Turkey

7.1

Sweden

–4.4

5.1

Slovenia

150.4

Hungary

–16.2

5.2

Luxembourg

–58.1

Chile

304.2

grounds, climbing up 18 places on the aforementioned PISA

6.1

Slovakia

–39.5

Slovenia

201.9

Social Justice Index and thereby giving reason to be cautiously

6.2

Ireland

41.2

Canada

– 1.0

optimistic. Overall, however, such disparities illustrate that for

7.1

Slovakia

–26.6

Iceland

36.8

7.2

United Kingdom

170.4

Turkey

–15.6

8.1

Chile

47.1

Luxembourg

–12.0

home, this study has made clear that ﬁghting extreme poverty

8.2

Israel

15.1

Greece

–19.5

in the poorest regions of the world must remain the top priority

9.1

Norway

10.6

Greece

–57.2

for high-income countries over the period of the SDGs. It will

9.2

Slovakia

84.6

Luxembourg

–29.5

10.1

Slovakia

–23.4

Sweden

21.5

10.2

United States

–50.0

Slovakia

102.1

by 17 places) and ﬁnally reach the eventual goal of 0.7 percent.

11.1

Slovakia

–76.1

Denmark

150.0

For all its domestic problems, Spain should therefore take inspi-

11.2

Turkey

22.2

Slovakia

–8.3

ration from those nations which have kept their ODA levels at

12.1

Iceland

–38.4

Greece

13.8

12.2

Ireland

–49.2

Poland

43.2

13.1

Denmark

–35.8

Chile

22.7

13.2

Sweden

–35.1

Estonia

51.5

14.1

United States

13.1

Greece

–6.9

14.2

Japan

–11.9

Italy

40.1

15.1

Estonia

35.2

–

–

15.2

–

–

–

–

16.1

Luxembourg

–89.5

Mexico

103.2

goods and services produced in an economy in order to chart

16.2

Poland

32.6

Slovenia

–13.4

progress in a comprehensive way. Would a focus on strength-

17.1

Turkey

355.6

Spain

–62.2

ening the economy yield automatic rewards for sustainable

17.2

–

–

–

–

for instance, that over the last few years, Slovakia managed

consequently climbing up 13 places in the ranking. This does not allow the country’s government to slow down their efforts, however, since a growing gap in education in Slovakia could lay the foundation for future inequalities to rise and jeopardize

its deﬁciencies regarding income inequality, the United States managed to lower the gap in terms of educational performance between students from high and low socioeconomic back-

a challenge as complex as inequality, a holistic approach that

Percentage change*

Worst deterioration Country

Percentage change*

captures multiple dimensions will be required. Aside from domestic reform with regard to problems at

therefore be necessary for nations at similar income levels such as Turkey to step up their ODA at least as much (given Turkey’s signiﬁcant increase that led to an improvement in the ranking

least constant despite signiﬁcant domestic problems – rather than cutting their ODA level by 62 percent.

5.5. Are the best performers in sustainable development also the most economically powerful or the happiest? A widespread belief is that economic power is the basis upon which progress in other ﬁelds can build. The SDGs contain many dimensions of quality of life beyond merely the sum of

development as deﬁ ned by the SDGs and as measured by our 34 indicators? Figure 2 shows the relationship between GDP

*Change from oldest to latest year covered in the respective indicator.

91

Conclusions: Who is fit for the goals?

Table 3: Biggest improvements and deteriorations in rank positions

and the SDG Index that was produced in this study. Although the relationship is positive – meaning that economic power

Most improvement

Worst deterioration

usually goes together with a stronger performance in all other

Goal

Country

Rank change*

Country

Rank change*

dimensions of progress in the 17 SDGs – there are a number

1.1

Ireland

10

Sweden

–12

Poland, Estonia, Portugal, and the Czech Republic are just as

1.2

New Zealand

15

Austria

–14

strong as the US with regard to sustainable development in

2.1

Greece | Slovenia

5

Hungary | Luxembourg

–8

the broad sense as captured by the SDG Index. However, they

2.2

–

–

–

–

3.1

South Korea

19

United States

–5

3.2

Iceland

18

Greece

–12

US. Given its economic power, the US should show leadership

4.1

Luxembourg

9

New Zealand

–6

and do more to translate this strength into a more sustain-

4.2

Poland

13

Sweden

–14

able future – probably more so than any other nation in this

5.1

Slovenia

18

Estonia

–7

5.2

Luxembourg

12

Chile

–17

6.1

Finland | Slovakia

1

Slovenia

–5

how happy people are and how sustainable their lifestyle is.

6.2

United Kingdom

14

Canada and others

–4

A widely held notion is that living in a sustainable fashion

7.1

Poland | Slovakia

7

Greece

–8

would force us to abandon habits in our day-to-day lives

7.2

Germany | Italy

6

Australia

–9

which were conducive to – or perhaps even invaluable to – our

8.1

Germany

7

Ireland

–7

8.2

Germany | Israel

11

Ireland

–12

9.1

Canada

17

Greece | Iceland

–20

where people have a higher life satisfaction. The exceptions are

9.2

Estonia | Slovenia

9

Luxembourg

–10

Chile, Mexico, Israel, and the US, where deﬁcits in sustainable

10.1

Slovakia

13

Japan

–9

development seem to affect people’s life satisfaction less than in

10.2

United States

18

Denmark

–14

11.1

United States

19

Israel

–20

11.2

Turkey

4

Mexico

–3

12.1

Iceland

16

Greece

–11

12.2

Hungary

16

Poland

–13

13.1

Denmark

11

South Korea

–6

13.2

Slovakia

10

Estonia

–12

14.1

South Korea

11

Greece

–7

more sustainable development in the near future, though? The

14.2

Mexico

12

Finland

–15

Sustainable Governance Indicators – an assessment framework

15.1

Estonia

16

Austria and others

–3

of country performance involving a network of around 100

15.2

–

–

–

–

16.1

Luxembourg

24

Greece

–14

16.2

Poland

9

Austria

–8

the rule of law, while the Governance Index examines how well

17.1

Turkey

17

Spain

–13

developed reform and governance capacities are in the coun-

17.2

–

–

–

–

tries of the OECD.25 Figures 4 and 5 show the correlations of

of interesting observations to be made here. For instance,

manage to generate those other goods deemed valuable for sustainable development with signiﬁcantly fewer economic resources, as their GNI per capita is roughly half of that of the

study of OECD countries, given its size and important role on the global stage. A related question concerns the relationship between

happiness. Figure 3 shows that this would not be the case, though. In fact, countries that do better in terms of sustainable development as measured by the SDG Index are also countries

other countries. This ﬁ nding leaves food for thought for those who are trying to strengthen public awareness of the need for sustainable development.

5.6. Governance and reform capacity outlook Going forward, countries will need to increase their political efforts to foster progress on all dimensions of the SDGs. Which countries seem capable of managing policy reforms toward

academics worldwide – contain both a Democracy Index and a Governance Index. The Democracy Index assesses how each country compares with regard to the quality of democracy and

the respective index with the SDG Index that captures country *Rank change from oldest to latest year covered in the respective indicator.

25 For details of the composition of the two indices, see http://www.sgi-network.org

92

performance that was examined in this study.

6

str alia Au str Be ia lgi um Ca na da Cz ech Chil Re e pu b De lic nm ark Est on ia Fin lan d Fra nce Ge rm an y Gr eec Hu e ng ary Ice lan d Ire lan d Isra el Ita ly Ja Ko pan rea Lux , Rep . em bo urg M Ne exico the Ne rland w Ze s ala n No d rw ay Po lan Po d rtu g Slo al vak Slo ia ven ia Sp ain Sw Sw eden itze rla nd Un ite Turk ey dK i Un ngdo m ite dS tat es

Au

Key

4

SWE

PRT

GRC ISR

4

20,000 30,000

4

5 40,000

MEX 50,000

ISR

USA

5

HUN

6

AUS

7

CHL

IRL

CZE

KOR

TUR

LUX

SVK

POL EST 60,000

ISL CAN

NZL CHE

AUT NLD DEU

GBR ESP

7

FIN

TU R GB R US A

CZE ISL AUT CAN AUS

NLD

ES P SW E CH E

SVK GBR

DEU

PR T SV K SV N

JPN BEL

X ME X NL D NZ L NO R PO L

EST NZL ESP

KO R

FIN

LU

FRA

ITA JPN

SVN

IRL ISR

POL

FIN FR A DE U GR C HU N ISL

5

E DN K ES T

7

CZ

AU S AU T BE L CA N CH L

SDG Index

6

Life satisfaction (2014)

Figure 2

8

DNK

NOR

CHE

IRL LUX

KOR ITA

CHL USA

HUN

TUR

MEX

GNI per capita (2014, USD PPP)

70,000

Figure 3

8

DNK NOR SWE

BEL

ITA

FRA

JPN SVN

PRT

GRC

SDG Index

8

93

Conclusions: Who is fit for the goals?

It becomes evident that in both cases the cross-country corre-

by examining the relationship between an objective good

lation is positive, indicating that sustainable development as

with people’s life satisfaction.29

deﬁned by the 17 SDGs goes hand in hand with the quality of

A related challenge is that there are certain trade-offs

democracy and the governance capacities in OECD countries.

between the goals. Consequently, it will therefore be difﬁ -

A closer look reveals interesting speciﬁcations, though. With

cult to pursue all goals to the same extent all the time. The

regard to the quality of democracy, it emerges that Hungary,

aforementioned country-speciﬁc priorities could therefore

Turkey, Mexico, and South Korea display deﬁcits which might

also inform the relative weights given to each SDG and the

jeopardize progress on the SDGs, even if those goals were

corresponding Global Reporting Indicators in every respec-

widely accepted among the electorate. Likewise, in terms of

tive nation. Varying priorities can be reﬂected in a hierarchy

governance capacities of political actors, the Governance Index

of the different goals to enable handling trade-offs between

shows that certain countries would have a harder time imple-

policy choices and therefore guide policymakers in the alloca-

menting change toward the SDGs, even if there was signiﬁcant

tion of resources.

political will among policymakers to do so. Countries with such deﬁcits regarding political steering capability include Hungary, Greece, Turkey, Slovakia, Portugal, and Mexico. The picture

5.8. We must remain ambitious because we can

is different for the US, Poland, Ireland, and Australia. These

This study examined how high-income countries are cur-

countries may lag behind the front-runners in terms of truly

rently performing with regard to the SDGs. It ought to be a

sustainable development, such as the Scandinavian countries.

ﬁ rst systematic assessment of developed nations on what are

However, a stronger performance with regard to governance

likely to become the global policy goals for the coming 15

gives reason to be optimistic that if the political will is there to

years. It is the ﬁ rst “stress test” of rich countries for the SDGs.

improve a nation’s performance regarding the SDGs, the imple-

An in-depth look at the performance in the proposed 17

mentation of the necessary policy changes appears more likely

goals revealed that OECD countries currently vary greatly in

to be successful.

their capacity to meet these bold ambitions. It became evident

Governments alone, however, will not be able to gen-

that not all countries are ﬁt for the goals, and indeed no coun-

erate sufﬁcient progress in terms of the SDGs. Sustainable

try is showing a stellar performance in all goals. Each country

development is a challenge that requires policymakers as well

has their own particular lessons to learn from the others.

as businesses and consumers to join forces and align business

It is now clear that rich nations must do more to achieve

models, codes of practice, and modes of consumption with the

the SDGs goals both globally and domestically. The challenge

needs of future generations.26

is huge: Financing the SDGs will require an unprecedented effort. Nonetheless, we must remain ambitious with regard to the goals: If the MDGs helped developing countries to reduce

5.7. Country-specific priorities and trade-offs between the goals

mortality rates among children under ﬁve by half during the

Of course, the priorities and challenges differ to a certain

SDGs enable high-income countries to manage the transition

extent for every nation. The country proﬁ les in this study

toward a more sustainable economic and social model. Going

have shown in which areas countries lag behind and lead the

forward, civil society will have to put pressure on govern-

way, respectively. In addition, however, people of every nation

ments to hold them to account for what they pledge at the UN

may prioritize certain goods more than others. Overarching

summit and accelerate the change over the next 15 years.

development strategies such as the SDGs must therefore be

This study shall be a start to make that happen.

last 15 years, then we have every reason to demand that the

complemented with country-speciﬁc goals. In other words, a mix of “Global Reporting Indicators” and “Complementary National Indicators”27 seems appropriate to strike a balance between universal SDGs and “Customized Development Goals (CDGs)”28 for every nation. Such country-speciﬁc priorities can be identiﬁed in an evidence-based manner, for instance, 26 How small and medium-sized companies can incorporate the notion of sustainability into their everyday practices was outlined, for example, in: Bertelsmann Stiftung and Council for Sustainable Development (2014). Leitfaden zum Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitskodex (Guidelines for the German Sustainability Code). Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. 27 Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2015). Indicators and a monitoring framework for the Sustainable Development Goals. http://indicators.report/ 28 Kroll, C. (2014). What makes people happy and why it matters for development. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/sep/03/happiness-economics-wellbeing-mdgs 29 Kroll, C. (2015). Global Development and Happiness: How can data on subjective well-being inform development theory and practice? Oxford Development Studies, Volume 43, Issue 3, p. 281 – 309. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600818.2015.1067293#abstract

94

6

str alia Au str Be ia lgi um Ca na da Cz ech Chil Re e pu b De lic nm ark Est on ia Fin lan d Fra nce Ge rm an y Gr eec Hu e ng ary Ice lan d Ire lan d Isra el Ita ly Ja Ko pan rea Lux , Rep . em bo urg M Ne exico the Ne rland w Ze s ala n No d rw ay Po lan Po d rtu g Slo al vak Slo ia ven ia Sp ain Sw Sw eden itze rla nd Un ite Turk ey dK i Un ngdo m ite dS tat es

Au

Key

4

5

7

GRC

4

5 6

NLD

SVN FRA

JPN

PRT

HUN

CZE

5

4

6

BEL ESP

EST KOR ITA ISR

AUT GBR

ITA ISR SVK

ISL

CAN SVN LUX AUS

CZE PRT EST

GRC

7 8

NOR DNK

CHE CAN

AUT

IRL POL

GBR AUS

7

8

TU R GB R US A

DNK

ES P SW E CH E

KOR NLD

PR T SV K SV N

5

FRA

X ME X NL D NZ L NO R PO L

ESP

KO R

ISL BEL

LU

JPN

ITA JPN

7

IRL ISR

FIN FR A DE U GR C HU N ISL

E DN K ES T

4

CZ

AU S AU T BE L CA N CH L

SDG Index

6

SDG Index

Figure 4

8

SWE NOR

CHE DEU FIN

IRL POL NZL

CHL USA

HUN TUR MEX

SGI Democracy Index (2015)

9 10

Figure 5

8

SWE

FIN

DEU

NZL LUX

SVK

USA

CHL

TUR

MEX

SGI Governance Index (2015)

9

95

Bibliography

6. Bibliography

Bertelsmann Stiftung (ed.) (2013).

Kassenböhmer, S. C., and Schmidt, C. M. (2011).

Winning Strategies for a Sustainable Future.

Beyond GDP and Back: What Is the Value-Added

Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.

by Additional Components of Welfare Measurement?

https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/publikationen/publikation/did winning-strategies-for-a-sustainable-future-1/

SOEPpapers 351. DIW Berlin. http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/ diw_01.c.368539.de/diw_sp0351.pdf

Bertelsmann Stiftung and German Council for Sustainable Development (2014).

Kroll, C. (2014).

Leitfaden zum Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitskodex

What makes people happy and why it matters for development.

[Guidelines for the German Sustainability Code].

The Guardian.

Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/ﬁleadmin/ﬁles/Projekte/31_ Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien/Leitfaden_zum_Deutschen_Nachhaltigkeitskodex.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/ 2013/sep/03/happiness-economics-wellbeing-mdgs

Kroll, C. (2015). Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives (2015).

Global Development and Happiness: How can data on subjec-

Goals for the rich.

Oxford Development Studies, Volume 43, Issue 3,

https://www.globalpolicywatch.org/wp-content uploads/2015/02/RG-Goals-forthe-Rich-Advanced-Unedited-Version.pdf

tive well-being inform development theory and practice? pp. 281–309 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/ 13600818.2015.1067293#abstract

Delhey, J., and Kroll, C. (2012). A “Happiness Test” for the New Measures of National

OECD (2015).

Well-Being: How Much Better than GDP are they?

In It Together: Why Less Inequality Beneﬁts All.

WZB Discussion Paper SP I 2012-201, June 2012.

OECD Publishing, Paris.

http://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2012/i12-201.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2015-In-It-Together-Chapter1Overview-Inequality.pdf

Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., and Sachs, J. (eds.) (2015).

Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals (2014).

World Happiness Report. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network. http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/04/WHR15.pdf

96

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page= view&type=400&nr=1579&menu=1300

Ostry, J. D., Berg, A., and Tsangarides C. G. (2014). Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth.

Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2014).

IMF Staff Discussion Note.

Pathways to deep decarbonization.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf

http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DDPP_Digit.pdf

Outcome document for the UN summit on September 25–27, 2015.

Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2015).

“Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for

Indicators and a Monitoring Framework

Sustainable Development.”

for the Sustainable Development Goals.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ 7891Transforming%20Our%20World.pdf

http://indicators.report/

UNDP (2015). Sachs, J. (2015).

The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015.

The age of sustainable development. New York: Columbia University Press.

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/mdg/ the-millennium-development-goals-report-2015.html

Schraad-Tischler, D. (2013). Enabling factors for sustainable development – strengthening rule of law and other key sustainable governance indicators. Available from www.sgi-network.org

Schraad-Tischler, D., and Kroll, C. (2014). Social Justice in the EU – A Cross-national Comparison. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. http://news.sgi-network.org/uploads/tx_amsgistudies/ Social-Justice-in-the-EU-2014.pdf

97

Appendix

7. Appendix: Full list of indicators Goal 1: Poverty 1.1

Poverty rate, cutoff point 50 percent of median disposable income

Goal 5: Gender equality 5.1

Source: World Bank Gender Statistics URL: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx Date of retrieval: February 5, 2015

Source: OECD online database URL: stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: August 7, 2015 5.2 1.2

Share of women in national parliaments

Poverty gap, cutoff point 50 percent of median disposable income

Gender pay gap Source: OECD online database URL: stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: August 7, 2015 (first data point), May 1, 2015 (second and third data point)

Source: OECD online database URL: stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: August 6, 2015

Goal 6: Water Goal 2: Agriculture and nutrition 2.1

Source: OECD online database URL: stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: May 1, 2015 2.2

6.1

Gross agricultural nutrient balances, N and P surplus/ deficit intensities per square kilometer of agricultural land, deviation from zero

Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators URL: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx Date of retrieval: March 29, 2015

6.2

Obesity rate

Percentage of population connected to wastewater treatment Source: OECD online database URL: stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: May 13, 2015 (second and third data point)

Source: OECD Obesity Update 2014 URL: http://www.oecd.org/health/obesity-update.htm Date of retrieval: May 5, 2015

Goal 7: Energy Goal 3: Health 3.1

7.1

Healthy life expectancy

Source: IEA CO2 Emissions Highlights 2014 URL: http://www.iea.org/publications/ freepublications/publication/co2-emissions-from-fuelcombustion-highlights-2014.html

Source: WHO Global Health Observatory Data Repository URL: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.688 Date of retrieval: August 6, 2015 (first data point), March 3, 2015 (second and third data point) 7.2 3.2

4.1

Life satisfaction

Source: World Bank, Sustainable Energy For All URL: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx Date of retrieval: February 6, 2015

Goal 4: Education

Goal 8: Economy and labor

Upper secondary attainment

PISA results Source: OECD PISA 2012 (first data point), OECD PISA 2009 (second data point), OECD PISA 2006 (third data point) except USA (OECD PISA 2003) URL: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/

98

Share of renewable energy in TFEC

Source: Gallup World Poll URL: http://www.gallup.com/services/170945/world-poll.aspx

8.1

Source: Eurostat online database, OECD online database (AUS, CAN, CHL, ISR, JPN, KOR, MEX, NZL, USA) URL: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: February 6, 2015 4.2

Energy intensity

GNI per capita, PPP Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators URL: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx Date of retrieval: August 6, 2015 (first data point), March 6, 2015 (second and third data point)

8.2

Employment-to-population ratio Source: OECD online database URL: stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: August 6, 2015 (first data point), February 6, 2015 (second and third data point)

Goal 9: Infrastructure and innovation 9.1

Gross fixed capital formation as percent of GDP Source: IMF World Economic Outlook April 2013 URL: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/ weodata/index.aspx Date of retrieval: April 21, 2015

9.2

Research and development expenditure Source: OECD online database URL: stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: August 7, 2015 (first data point), February 6, 2015 (second and third data point)

Goal 10: Inequality 10.1

Palma ratio Source: OECD online database URL: stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: August 7, 2015

10.2

11.1

Source: Ocean Health Index URL: http://www.oceanhealthindex.org/Comparison/ Date of retrieval: May 13, 2015 14.2 Percentage of fish stocks overexploited and collapsed by exclusive economic zone

Source: Environmental Performance Index, Yale University URL: epi.yale.edu

Goal 11: Cities

15.2 Red List Index for birds

Particulate matter, share of population exposed to >15 ug/cbm

Rooms per person

Municipal waste generated Source: OECD online database URL: stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: August 6, 2015 (first and second data point), February 6, 2015 (third data point)

Goal 15: Biodiversity

Source: Environmental Performance Index, Yale University URL: epi.yale.edu

Source: OECD online database URL: stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: May 5, 2015

Goal 16: Institutions 16.1 Homicides

Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Homicide Statistics URL: https://data.unodc.org/ (first data point), http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/data/GSH2013_ Homicide_count_and_rate.xlsx (second and third data point) Date of retrieval: August 6, 2015 (first data point), February 6, 2015 (second and third data point) 16.2 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index

Source: Transparency International URL: http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/

Domestic material consumption Source: OECD online database URL: stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: May 1, 2015

Goal 13: Climate 13.1

14.1 Ocean Health Index

15.1 Terrestrial protected areas

Goal 12: Consumption and production

12.2

Goal 14: Oceans

PISA Social Justice Index

Source: OECD online database URL: stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: August 7 (first data point), May 1 (second and third data point)

12.1

Source: UNFCCC (GHG), IEA CO2 Emissions Highlights 2014 (GDP) URL: http://unfccc.int/di/FlexibleQueries.do http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/ghg_profiles/ items/4626.php (CHL, ISR, KOR, MEX), http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/ co2-emissions-from-fuel-combustion-highlights-2014.html Date of retrieval: February 6, 2015 (UNFCCC)

Source: OECD PISA 2012 (first data point), OECD PISA 2009 (second data point), OECD PISA 2006 (third data point) except USA (OECD PISA 2003) URL: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/

Source: Environmental Performance Index, Yale University URL: epi.yale.edu 11.2

13.2 Greenhouse gas emissions per GDP

Production-based energy-related CO2 emissions per capita Source: OECD online database URL: stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: May 1, 2015

Goal 17: Global partnership 17.1 Official development assistance as percentage of GNI

Source: OECD online database URL: stats.oecd.org Date of retrieval: August 6, 2015 (first data point), March 9, 2015 (second and third data point) 17.2 Percentage of SDG indicators used in this study that are reported annually with time lag no greater than three years in the respective country

99

Publishing information Bertelsmann Stiftung September 2015

Research and editorial assistance Sascha Matthias Heller, Berlin

Bertelsmann Stiftung Carl-Bertelsmann-Straße 256 33311 Gütersloh ∙ Germany www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de

Editing Textklinik, Düsseldorf Dr. Barbara Serfozo, Berlin Statistics and calculations advisor Dr. Margit Kraus (Calculus Consult)

Author Dr. Christian Kroll

Responsible Dr. Christian Kroll Phone +49 5241 81-81471 ∙ Fax +49 5241 81-81999 [email protected]

Graphic design kopfstand, Bielefeld Photography (cover) Dimitrios Stefanidis – iStockphoto.com Printing Druckhaus Rihn, Blomberg

SDG Index

SDG Index

Sweden

1

Norway

2

Denmark

3

7.86 7.79 7.55 7.52

Finland

4

Switzerland

5

Germany

6

7.08

Netherlands

7

7.04

Belgium

8

7.00

Iceland

7.21

9

6.97

France 10

6.94

Canada 11

6.93

Austria 12

6.92

Japan 13

6.91

Slovenia 13

6.91

United Kingdom 15

6.83

New Zealand 16

6.80

Luxembourg 17

6.66

Australia 18

6.65

Spain 18

6.65

Ireland 20

6.47

Estonia 21

6.42 6.42

Poland 21

6.32

Korea, Rep. 23 Czech Republic 24

6.24

Portugal 25

6.23 6.13

Italy 26 Slovakia 27

6.02

Israel 28

6.01

United States 29

5.95

Greece 30

5.88

Chile 31

5.73

Hungary 32 Turkey 33 Mexico 34

5.55 5.19 4.91

.00 10

0 9.0

8.0

7.0

0

0

0 6.0

0 5.0

0 4.0

0 3.0

0 2.0

1.

0

00

This figure displays the world‘s first SDG Index. It illustrates the overall performance of each OECD country based on the 17 goals and 34 indicators examined in the study. In sum, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Switzerland are best prepared to meet the SDGs and in a good position to foster sustainable development by 2030. However, even these countries are faced with particular challenges, as the country profiles in this study illustrate.

Address | Contact Bertelsmann Stiftung Carl-Bertelsmann-Straße 256 33311 Gütersloh Germany Phone

+49 5241 81-0

Dr. Christian Kroll Phone

+49 5241 81-81471

[email protected]

www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en www.sgi-network.org