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