2. The institutionalisation of policy coherence: An overview of challenges and trends

Abstract

Experience shows that the ability of a government to consistently produce effective, efficient, sustainable and coherent policies is dependent on the mechanisms, tools and processes used to manage and co-ordinate policy design and implementation. While there is no one-size-fits-all, this chapter highlights eight key mechanisms (principles) for policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD) and explores how each of these generates policy change in favour of sustainable development – including in a complex global reality. The analysis, which is based primarily on the results of the OECD 2022 Survey on Institutional Capacities and Tools to enhance Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, highlights the main trends, opportunities and challenges faced by 25 countries in enhancing PCSD.

2.1. Introduction

This chapter highlights institutional mechanisms and arrangements put in place by 25 countries 1 to enhance policy coherence and foster a whole-of-government implementation of the 2030 Agenda. It focuses on the functioning of diverse institutional mechanisms across the policy-making process to enhance policy coherence for sustainable development. It also explores how such institutional mechanisms and arrangements are generating policy changes and contributing to accelerate progress on the SDGs. It highlights some of the most common challenges that governments face in enhancing coherence.

The chapter is structured according to the eight guiding principles of the OECD Recommendation on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD), namely: 1) Political Commitment and Leadership, 2) Strategic Long-term Vision, 3) Policy Integration, 4) Whole-of-Government Coordination, 5) Subnational Engagement, 6) Stakeholder Engagement, 7) Policy Impacts, and 8) Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation (OECD and OECD/LEGAL/0381, 2019[1]). It draws from the results of the ‘2022 OECD Survey on institutional capacities and tools to enhance policy coherence for sustainable development’, and from published official sources and reports, such as the Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) to the UN High-Level Political Forum (HLPF). It includes key findings on how Adherents are implementing the guiding principles set out in the OECD Recommendation on PCSD.

Figure 2.1 provides a snapshot of the situation across the 25 examined countries and across key institutional mechanisms for PCSD. Overall, there is widespread commitment to enhance policy coherence for sustainable development in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. However, challenges remain in translating this commitment into practice. Even where explicit commitments to PCSD are included in strategic frameworks or enshrined by law, capacities that allow for systematic consideration of policy impacts, trade-offs and synergies may be limited. This calls for strengthening governments’ capacities to cope with multiple global challenges, their interconnections and their potential effects on sustainable development.

Twelve countries responded to the survey:2 an overview of their responses is shown in Figure 2.1, followed by a more detailed analysis in chapter 2 of country trends and efforts in overcoming these challenges: overall, the picture of countries’ efforts in enhancing policy coherence for sustainable development is one of strength in commitment and leadership for PCSD, limited at the level of capacities and tools for the integration, monitoring and assessment of sustainable development initiatives

Figure 2.1. Institutional mechanisms to support Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD)

However, a number of factors make policy coherence challenging to implement in practice. These include: the complexity of policy interactions, particularly when dealing with cross-cutting issues that involve multiple sectors, different levels of government, or opposing stakeholder groups; the lack of shared goals and objectives, which can make it difficult to assess the coherence of different policies and initiatives; insufficient data and information on the actual or potential impacts of different policies, given that this data may be difficult to obtain, particularly in cases where policies have not been systematically monitored or evaluated; resource constraints, including time, expertise, and financial resources, which can hinder the thoroughness of the evaluation and the implementation of recommendations for improvement; institutional barriers, such as siloed government departments or agencies, can hinder effective policy co-ordination and integration to manage competing priorities and trade-offs; and resistance to change from stakeholders who are invested in the status quo, in view of potential needed changes to existing policies, practices, or institutional arrangements (Figure 2.2). The following sections situate these challenges in the context of the PCSD Recommendation and analyse country trends in addressing them.

Figure 2.2. Obstacles to implementing policy coherence for sustainable development, by level of importance

2.2. Building political commitment and leadership for policy coherence

Many global and transboundary challenges belong to the category of ‘wicked problems’, even if they are also emerging as crises. Wicked challenges cut across diverse policy areas, and do not necessarily have an institutional “home”; the logical option is to manage them in an integrated way. Part of the complexity of these global challenges is that they cut across jurisdictions, stakeholders and generations. Political commitment and leadership that fully understands the characteristics of the main challenges help governments to not only design integrated policy solutions at the domestic level, but also to shape national positions on the international scene in a collaborative and cohesive manner.

The political level is responsible for identifying key policy issues, setting priorities, formulating responses to critical challenges, allocating resources and adjusting policies in light of their outcomes and impacts. Political commitment at the highest level of government, as highlighted by the OECD Recommendation on PCSD, is a precondition for policy coherence. According to experience, this political commitment needs to be backed by defined priority areas, time-bound actions and dedicated measures to promote coherence in policy design and implementation within government structures. These efforts to foster whole-of-government action for PCSD are recognised by many countries as key to making progress in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, and sustainable development more widely.

Building political commitment and leadership for PCSD, however, remains in many cases limited by key obstacles. In the 2022 PCSD Survey, two-thirds of surveyed countries (8 of 12 surveyed) report ensuing the sustained commitment to PCSD beyond the electoral cycles to be an important obstacle to implementation. The absence of defined priority areas, time-bound actions, or KPIs for making progress on PCSD is also reported as being an important obstacle to PCSD implementation (Figure 2.2. Building commitment across the government is particularly challenging when policies are multi-sectoral or longer-term oriented given the potential of conflict between various interests in the public and private sectors.

The majority of countries analysed in this chapter use a range of mechanisms to institutionalise commitment and leadership for PCSD and the SDGs (Figure 2.3). Such commitment is usually expressed by governments through written or oral official statements, and through adherence to the OECD Recommendation on PCSD. Drawing on lessons from recent OECD country support, concrete measures to address common obstacles in building commitment and leadership for policy coherence are being identified.

Figure 2.3. Mechanisms for building political commitment and leadership for PCSD

Identifying a lead institution or commissioner for PCSD is one measure which can be used to promote a commitment to PCSD that outlives electoral cycles and changes in government. Lead inter-ministerial bodies such as Luxembourg’s Inter-Departmental Commission on Sustainable Development (CIDD), which has an explicit mandated to promote coherence in the implementation of the SDGs, and the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Development (CID), which is mandated by law to help ministries considering the international and transboundary impacts of domestic policies, are playing this role. The CIDD and CID have been in place since 2004 and 1996 respectively to enhance coherence and coordinate the implementation of the National Sustainable Development Plan (PNDD) domestically and at international level. They foster commitment to PCSD across line ministries over time and provide an institutionalised exchange platform allowing to bridge thematic areas, such as finance and development co-operation.

More than half of the countries analysed in this chapter (13 of the 25 countries) designate lead institutions for promoting, overseeing, and implementing PCSD (Figure 2.3). For example, in 2020 the Norwegian government appointed the Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation as a coordinating body for national implementation of the SDGs. This has led to increased cross-sectoral cooperation and a holistic approach to sustainable development. Spain's Sustainable Development Strategy includes a commitment to the gradual implementation of a Comprehensive System of Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development. This system is designed based on a diagnosis promoted by the Secretary of State for the 2030 Agenda through documentary analysis and consultations with the three bodies of governance for the 2030 Agenda. A Division for the Coordination and Monitoring of the Comprehensive System of PCSD is being implemented to foster the adoption of coordination mechanisms between sectors and levels of government and help identify and mitigate divergences between sector priorities and policies (Government of Spain, 2022[2]).

Building a strong commitment to PCSD also requires the definition of priority areas, and greater investment into analysis and monitoring on policy coherence and sustainability targets. Action plans, such as Italy’s National Action Plan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development ( (OECD, 2022[3])) (Box 2.1), are essential mechanisms to orient government policy-making towards coherent sustainable development policies.

Box 2.1. Italy’s National Action Plan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development

Italy has recently developed a National Action Plan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development that brings together the institutional mechanisms, evaluation frameworks and coherence tools needed to integrate sustainable development into government policy making.

Importantly, the Action Plan provides targets and measurable processes for each action to help track progress. This supports the effective operationalisation of the implementation of the goals of the 2030 Agenda and sets out an incremental path to mainstream sustainability as the standard for decisions making.

Source: (OECD, 2022[3]), Italy's National Action Plan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, https://doi.org/10.1787/54226722-en

Several countries direct political commitments towards concrete action by setting priority areas, and KPIs on policy coherence. For example, the Netherlands has defined an action plan on policy coherence, with specific measures to further reduce spillover effects. The action plan contains goals, policy action and indicators linked to the SDGs focusing on five priority areas with a strong emphasis on means of implementation (SDG 17) and sustainability/greening of international policy: combatting tax evasion and avoidance, development-friendly trade agreements, development-friendly investment regime; increasing sustainability of production and trade, and combatting climate change. This issues-based approach helps to identify synergies and trade-offs, and to monitor the coherence of policies. In Ireland, a key commitment under the National Implementation Plan for the Sustainable Development Goals 2022-24 involves mainstreaming the SDGs across national policies, so that when relevant sectoral policies are developed or reviewed, Ireland’s commitments under the SDGs will be taken into account. Spain’s “Action Plan for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda” was approved in 2018 through an inclusive national participatory process involving all Ministerial Departments, the Autonomous Communities, local entities, and organisations. It aims at accelerating a coherent sustainable development through the identification of lever policies and transformative measures fostering the generation of synergies between different actors, sectors, and policies towards a common vision (Government of Spain, 2019[4])

Legislation is also used to reinforce commitments to policy coherence (7 of the 25 countries studied in this chapter). In Greece, for example, the “Executive State” law adopted in August 2019 entrusts the General Secretariat of Coordination of the Presidency of Government with the task of enhancing coherence and coordination of the whole Government work, including all public policies and legislative initiatives that are inextricably linked to the SDGs, along with developing and proposing horizontal and cross-sectoral public policies. In Luxembourg, the law on Development Cooperation of 9 May 2012 as well as the 2013-2018 Luxembourg Development Cooperation Programme and the updated Development Cooperation Strategy “The road to 2030” state that Luxembourg will ensure that national policies are in line with the 2030 Agenda pursuing a whole-of-government approach on development action (Luxembourg Government, 2018[5])

Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) presented to the High-level Political Forum (HLPF) have also been widely used as to report government commitments to PCSD as a means of implementing the SDGs. In some cases, such as in Italy’s VNR, PCSD is further incorporated as a lens for assessing and reporting on SDG implementation (Box 2.2). The VNR process has also been used by some countries as a platform to strengthen inclusive commitments and approaches to sustainable development and engage stakeholders in policy coherence efforts. For example, Sweden’s 2021 VNR introduced inputs from exchanges and peer learning with other countries, including Colombia and Spain. These international perspectives, along with the consultation of actors in Swedish society, ensure that VNR production is itself a mechanism for introducing inclusive approaches to sustainable development.

Box 2.2. Italy’s Voluntary National Review 2022: PCSD as a lens for reporting on SDG implementation

The VNR provides three thematic insights, respectively on policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD), localising the SDGs and stakeholder engagement. Through these three areas, the VNR reports on the level of integration of the 2030 Agenda in the planning processes at national (horizontally) and local level (vertically) as well as the efforts to ensure and support participation in decision making processes.

Italy conceived the VNR as a collective year long process involving main actors at national, regional and local level through the participatory mechanisms set in place since 2017 to implement the National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) and the Three-Year Programming and Policy Planning Document. The Ministry for Ecological Transition, in close cooperation with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, coordinated the VNR preparatory process at national level. The involvement of Regions, Autonomous Provinces and Metropolitan Cities, through ad hoc VNR/VLR roundtables set up under the auspices of the NSDS vertical coordination mechanisms, reflects the importance that Italy attributes to integrated territorial approach and to effective multilevel governance which is crucial to decline national sustainability objectives in regional and local planning processes.

Source: (Government of Italy, 2022[6]; VNR 2022 Italy Report, n.d.[7])

Moreover, as argued in chapter 1, a better balance between policy and governance of global and transboundary challenges may help focusing more on the trajectories towards solutions – for which a governance and institutional framework is essential – and less exclusively on filling the policy ‘gaps’ between the goals and targets, and the current situation. Moving forwards on trajectories communicates also more positively than filling gaps – the first suggests traction, the latter points at the risks and delays caused by potholes.

2.3. Adopting a strategic long-term vision

A specific challenge for long-term governance for sustainability is that many investments have a long lead time: investments in environmental infrastructure or sustainable mobility often take more time to deliver results than a political cycle of a government (Meuleman and In ’T Veld, 2010[8]). Hence, overcoming the inherent short-termism of the electoral cycle and implementing long-term policies for addressing global challenges might be difficult for governments, especially while facing trust deficits.

Long-term strategic visions provide a pathway to a whole-of-society transformation They are essential frameworks to guide the government in supporting just and equitable transitions, balancing today’s needs and those of future generations; promoting innovation, harmonising the long-term and transformative nature of the SDGs with more pressing short-term priorities, and sending predictable signals to investors about envisaged long-term societal changes. Long-term strategic visions are essential for promoting the necessary commitment to policy coherence and sustainable development that extends beyond electoral cycles.

Overall, there is widespread engagement with both the development of long-term visions and tools for long-term planning according to the 2022 OECD survey on PCSD. However, challenges remain in delivering on these visions, and defining long-term strategies that extend beyond the 2030 horizon. At the core of these challenges is the tension between delivering on short term outcomes versus investing in strategies to tackle less visible long-term issues. Indeed, as shown in Figure 2.2, a lack of long-term measures to ensure commitment beyond electoral cycles emerged as the most important obstacle to PCSD implementation identified in the 2022 survey on PCSD.

Yet, even where long-term objectives are set, capacities that allow for systematic consideration of future well-being may be limited. Capacity in human resources and insufficient expertise of policy makers on the topic of PCSD ranked third and fourth respectively as obstacles to PCSD implementation faced by countries.

Many of the same mechanisms used by countries to outline political commitment also function to define strategic long-term visions, as highlighted by the results of the 2022 OECD survey on PCSD. These include sustainable development strategies, action plans for SDG implementation, and priority areas for sustainable development. Planning tools are also used to identify potential long-term impacts of policies on sustainable development. These include tools such as strategic foresight, scenario development, and systems thinking, which are used to identify and mitigate the potential adverse impacts of policies on future wellbeing. All countries surveyed report the use of at least one type of planning tool to identify potential long-term impacts of policies on sustainable development, the most frequently used being impact assessments and strategic foresight (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4. Long-term planning tools used by countries to enhance policy coherence

Importantly, to reconcile short-term and long-term objectives, policymakers can adopt a two-pronged approach. This involves (i) developing immediate actions to address pressing concerns, and (ii) working on long-term strategies to achieve sustainable outcomes. In parallel, to minimise the influence of political pressures on policy coherence, policymakers should prioritise evidence-based decision-making and promote transparency in the policy process. This includes conducting rigorous research, engaging with external experts, and involving stakeholders in policy discussions. Encouraging public participation and fostering a culture of openness can help create a more informed and accountable policy-making environment.

The 2030 Agenda provides a core framework for coherent sustainable development in the medium term. Several countries (9 of the 25 countries) have built on the 2030 Agenda, through sustainable development strategies and national action plans, to align national development strategies with long-term and transboundary objectives. In 2018, Spain presented an Action Plan for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The action plan clearly expressed the Government’s commitment to the ‘three-fold dimension’ of the 2030 Agenda: 1) to promote the SDGs in domestic policies; 2) to promote them in its foreign policy and action, in which development cooperation plays an essential role; and 3) to ensure coherence between these two spheres, from the standpoint of the SDGs. Commitment to the Action Plan was solidified through the adoption of the Sustainable Development Strategy 2030, that places sustainability and the rights of people at the centre of social and ecological transition. To further pursue policy coherence, Spain refers to Agenda 2030 as a cornerstone for the elaboration and implementation of its National Recovery and Resilience Plan. Linkages were identified to each of the 17 SDGs for over 90% of the measures introduced in the NRRP, with a particular focus on SDG 9: Industry, innovation and infrastructure; SDG 8: Decent work and economic growth, and SDG 13: Climate action (Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2021[9]).

Strategic long-term goals on specific policy or thematic areas are also used. For example, Finland’s government programme defines strategic goals for the development of a socially, economically and ecologically sustainable Finland. This includes a ‘Carbon neutral Finland that protects biodiversity’, which sets a target year for a carbon neutral Finland to 2035. The Government programme also includes an explicit pledge for long-term policymaking and for fair and equal treatment across generations.

Importantly, the value of long-term strategies is not to predict the future but to sketch a vision of a desirable future, add scenarios showing how this could happen, or how not (as potential futures), and what would be robust and resilient measures that contribute towards achieving the vision in all or most scenarios. The ability of governments to address global and transboundary challenges brings renewed attention to focus on long-term and transgenerational issues.

In this context, governments are developing innovative approaches designed to tackle some of the trade-offs and limitations involved in defining effective long-term strategies. In Wales, consistent consideration of long-term perspectives is brought to decision making by the Commissioner for Future Generations, a position created by the Well-Being of Future Generations Act (2015) (Box 2.3).

Box 2.3. innovative approaches to tackle limitations in defining long-term strategies

Wales: The Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015

The Well-being of Future Generations Act requires public bodies in Wales to think about the long-term impact of their decisions, to work better with people, communities and each other, and to prevent persistent problems such as poverty, health inequalities and climate change.

Each of the 48 public bodies listed in the Act must work to improve the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales. To do this they must set and publish well-being objectives.

These objectives will show how each public body will work to achieve the vision for Wales set out in the seven well-being goals:

A Prosperous Wales
A Resilient Wales
A More Equal Wales
A Healthier Wales
A Wales of Cohesive Communities
A Wales of Vibrant Culture and Thriving Welsh Language
A globally Responsible Wales

Public bodies must then take action to make sure they meet the objectives they set.

Within the twelve months after a Senedd election, Ministers must also publish a ‘Future Trends Report’ containing:

Predictions of likely future trends in social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales; and
Any related analytical data and information that the Welsh Ministers consider appropriate.

In preparing the report, Ministers must take account of the SDGs and the impact of climate change on Wales.

Finally, the Act establishes a Future Generations Commissioner for Wales. The Commissioner’s role is to act as a guardian for the interests of future generations in Wales, and to support the public bodies listed in the Act to work towards achieving the wellbeing goals.

Luxembourg in Transition

‘Luxembourg in Transition’ is an example of an initiative in support of policy integration in the fields of spatial planning, urban planning, landscape and architecture, supported by environmental disciplines as well as the humanities and social sciences. This displays recognition by the Ministry of Energy and Spatial Planning of the broader and coherent approach to spatial planning that is adapted to future challenges. The Ministry organised an urban-architectural and landscape consultation entitled ‘Luxembourg in Transition – Spatial visions for the low-carbon and sustainable future of the Luxembourg functional region’ (Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 2020[10]). The aim of the consultation was to support the design of a territorial strategy adapted both to the challenges of the global environmental emergency, and broad citizen consensus. Luxembourg in Transition brought together 10 international multidisciplinary teams of professionals to envision scenarios and proposals for how the territory of Luxembourg and its border regions can achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. In tandem, a Citizens’ Committee of 30 participants (the Biergerkommitee Lëtzebuerg 2050) evaluated the projects’ results. At the end of the process, recommendations on territorial strategy were made and contributed to the development of the Programme for Spatial Planning (Programme directeur d’aménagement du territoire - PDAT).

Source: (Wales, 2015[11]; Ministère de l’Énergie et de l’Aménagement du territoire, n.d.[12])

Luxembourg has raised awareness and a sense of ownership in a long-term vision through its participative Luxembourg in Transition Project (Box 2.3). In Germany, the Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU, 2021[13])recommended making national long-term strategies a key topic in order to provide orientation for current climate policy. Up to now, countries have only been obliged to submit short-term 'nationally determined contributions' (NDCs) to climate-change mitigation. It was noted that these may need to become far more ambitious and to start promoting policies conducive to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. The Council called on countries to formulate and communicate long-term strategies that go beyond climate neutrality and aim for global climate stabilisation, offering guidelines for strengthening NDCs and a basis for an internationally coordinated sustainability policy. For example, and in line with this approach, the German Federal Constitutional Court imposed on German legislators a constitutional obligation to formulate long-term strategies to reduce CO2 emissions beyond 2030 (German Federal Constitutional Court, 2021[14]).

Other examples of mechanisms to institutionalise the long-term dimension and to ensure a longer time horizon than one political cycle include an all-party Sustainable Development Committee in the Parliament, integration of the SDGs in the national budget, and mechanisms for foresight.
Whilst the 2030 Agenda provides an important framework for medium term goal setting, few countries have established strategic visions that extend beyond this timeline. Only 4 of the 25 studied in this chapter have begun focusing their strategies on 2050 or a similar point in time (African Union Commission, 2015[15]). For example, Belgium has defined 2050 visions at both the federal and regional level. The federal long-term vision focuses on how quality of life, social justice, and economic development can be balanced against ecological constraints. Inputs from experts and civil society were used to produce 55 objectives, as well as a series of indicators to monitor their progress. In addition, when Finland reformed its National Strategy for Sustainable Development in 2016, it decided not to draft a new strategy, but to prepare a commitment to sustainable development with a strategic long-term vision that extends up to the year 2050, titled “the Finland we want by 2050” (Government of Finland, 2016[16]).

Foresight is a set of tools and methods, in addition to a mindset and approach that can allow decision-makers to strategically engage with the future. Some tools include horizon scanning, visioning and the development of scenarios that explore multiple plausible futures. The Government of Canada has invested in a centre of excellence in foresight, Policy Horizons Canada, that conducts cutting edge futures research, provides foresight learning and networking opportunities to public servants, hosts a world-class futures event, and directly supports departments and agencies to use foresight in their work. Reporting to a Deputy Minister Steering Committee, Policy Horizons Canada’s institutional structure ensures a high level of buy-in from public service leadership. Another example is Finland, which is home to foresight networks within national and regional government, academia, civil society and the private sector who together form a complex anticipatory ecosystem. By involving so many parts of society, this ecosystem combines bottom-up and top-down approaches with a high degree of inclusiveness (OECD, 2022[17]). These initiatives act to address trade-offs and strengthen the incorporation of long-term perspectives into wider government work.

2.4. Fostering Policy Integration

The 17 interconnected SDGs provide a comprehensive framework as starting point for addressing interconnected global and transboundary challenges. The SDGs, which were not designed as isolated targets but to be mutually supportive, provide the basis to identify key interlinkages between goals and targets at different policy areas. In this context, policy integration to reduce fragmentation in governments’ operations and activities is essential to deal with interconnected global challenges. It entails a process by which institutions align their mandates, policies and sectoral objectives to the SDGs, and whereby policy decisions take into account the interactions (synergies and trade-offs) among economic, social and environmental policy areas with a view to addressing the multiple dimensions of sustainable development challenges in a more balanced manner (OECD, 2019[18]).

Addressing policy trade-offs requires a thorough analysis of the costs and benefits associated with different options. Techniques like cost-benefit analysis, multi-criteria analysis, and stakeholder consultation can help identify the most balanced and equitable solutions. In addition, transparent decision-making processes and open communication with affected stakeholders can promote understanding and acceptance of necessary trade-offs.

The introduction of systematic or government-wide measures for policy integration, however, can be a demanding exercise that can require a significant degree of PCSD. For instance, encouraging government-wide participation in measures to incorporate a sustainable development lens will rely on clearly communicating the benefits of PCSD across government, which is reported by 73% of countries as an important obstacle to PCSD and a further 9% as an extremely important obstacle (Figure 2.2). Beyond this, the development of tools or guidelines on sustainable budgeting or procurement can be limited by resources and government capacity.

Countries employ a wide range of mechanisms for policy integration, which include strategic policy planning mechanisms and tools, and the application of a PCSD lens and guidelines in the development of laws, regulations, policies, and strategies (Figure 2.5). The SDGs frequently act as the guiding framework for policy integration efforts.

Figure 2.5. Mechanisms for integrating sustainable development into policies.

The budget process and public procurement are used systematically by some countries (19% of respondents to the 2022 OECD Survey on PCSD) as a mechanism for improving policy integration (Figure 2.6).

In sustainable budgeting, the annual budget is informed by, linked to, and/or restructured to consider the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. This is an essential tool to mainstream the SDGs in all government policies. SDG budgeting may also improve the capability to address global and transboundary challenges, because the SDGs address major transitional policy areas, and the interlinkages between the SDGs are known. Assessing the sustainability impact of budget policy allows more informed budget decisions that help progress national and international climate and other environmental goals, as well as social and economic goals. Key tools used in OECD countries are green budget tagging, cost benefit analysis and carbon assessment of budget measures. Greece (2021), for example, has applied a framework of green budgeting through the use of indicators on sustainability and environmental footprints in drafting the State Budget. The overall aim of this initiative is to increase and enhance transparency, coherence, resilience, inclusiveness and efficiency in public financial management.

Sustainable public procurement (SPP) can be a catalyser of economic and social innovation towards sustainability. Public procurement amounts to around 12% of GDP on average in the OECD countries and can have a significant impact on climate and the environment (negative or positive) depending on the purposes and the way public procurement is conducted. SPP covers the three dimensions of sustainable development, i.e. economic development, social development and environmental protection. While SPP may not be the most important mechanism to address global transboundary issues of the disaster type, it can become a strong accelerator for transition-type global challenges, where it supports innovation and new markets for sustainable products. Public procurement was at the forefront of delivering essential public services during the global COVID-19 pandemic crisis by ensuring the functioning of key supply chains. The ability of governments to manage procurement contracts and verify product supply chains is a critical area in which enhanced analytical capacity, more resources and a change in attitudes are required.

Figure 2.6. Tools and processes for policy integration

Other approaches to foster integration include the incorporation of a sustainable development lens into the drafting of laws and strategies (stat). In 2016, the Norwegian Government decided that the 2030 Agenda should provide the main direction for Norwegian national and international policy. Accordingly, the SDG are incorporated into all policy documents, including budgets, strategies, and action plans; all action plans and white papers provided by the ministries must review the SDGs when relevant, and that all ministries should include the SDGs in their guidance and performance agreements (letter of appropriation) with their state agencies and institutions. In Greece, the Manual and Template on Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) (2020) incorporates a distinctive index addressing the consistency and compatibility of the proposed regulatory measures with the three dimensions of sustainable development and the SDGs. Some countries, such as Luxembourg (Box 2.4) and Germany, are pioneering electronic tools that integrate sustainable development objectives into legislative procedure (see also section 2.8 on Policy Impacts). Other innovative tools include SDG Synergies, produced by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), which has been used to survey synergies and trade-offs between the SDGs at national level.

Box 2.4. Luxembourg – The Sustainability Check

In 2022, the Government Council approved the phased introduction of a sustainability check ('Nohaltegkeetscheck') into the legislative procedure by adding a sustainability sheet to the constituent documents of a bill.

This sheet will form an integral part of the annexes to the bills and will provide relevant information on the sustainability of the standards being considered. By transparently setting out these additional analytical and contextual elements in the preliminary control of the sustainability of planned measures, the quality of the public debate will be enhanced and this will contribute to the acceptability of the measures to the public.

The Council has decided to implement the sustainability audit in several stages, the first stage of which consists of the compulsory implementation of the "textual" part and the optional implementation of the "indicators" part of the sustainability audit.

In a second step, following the introduction of the sustainability fiche in a simplified electronic format, it will be integrated by the Central Legislation Service (SCL) into the overall concept of the complete dematerialisation of the legislative and regulatory procedure.

Source: (OECD, 2023[19]), Luxembourg Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD) Light-touch institutional scan

Moreover, improved policy integration can target coherence between foreign and domestic policy. Switzerland’s Foreign Policy Strategy 2020-23 aims to strengthen the basis for coherence in foreign policy and between foreign and domestic policy. Sustainability is one of the strategy’s four thematic pillars, whereby Switzerland will strive for sustainable development that gives equal consideration to environmental, economic and social dimensions. To this end, relevant structures within the Federal Administration have been set up, which work nationally and internationally with all relevant stakeholders to promote environmental protection and the sustainable use of natural resources, as well as sustainable economic and social development. Despite linking bilateral co-operation frameworks to the SDGs, Spain’s development co-operation system suffers from a lack of a systemic approach and limited linkages with its foreign policy objectives. Three ministries are engaged in development cooperation with their own strategies, thematic and geographical scope, and budget allocation. To address this issue, Spain is strengthening the leading and convening role of the SECI (State Secretariat for International Co-operation) to create whole-of-government policy, reinforce inter-ministerial co-ordination and further pursue policy coherence for development (OECD, 2022[20]).

System thinking is an important approach to support addressing global and transboundary challenges at the national level. Complex challenges are often systemic problems. There may be a variety of causes which influence each other, and a partial solution can aggravate other parts of the system. A powerful tool to help understanding these interrelations over time is preparing causal loop diagrams (CLDs). They not only represent linkages, but also whether each linkage improves or deteriorates the situation. Figure 2.7gives a (simplified) example. Because a systemic representation of a complex challenge always implies some subjective assessments, it is important to develop such diagrams in a cross-sectoral setting, and with involvement of stakeholders.

Figure 2.7. Example of a Causal loop Diagram on greening the economy

Another tool that could also be used in combination with causal loop diagrams, is ‘design thinking’ (Figure 2.8). Design Thinking is a way to launch inclusive and participatory innovation processes for better SDG implementation (UNDP Global Centre for public Service Excellence, 2014[22]). It is an approach to tackling complex problems by understanding the human needs involved, by re- framing the problem human-centric ways, inclusive co-creation of ideas and developing and testing viable solutions. It promotes designing public service innovation “from outside in”, i.e. from the experiences and expectations of the citizens. It can be considered a creative process as well as a mindset.

Figure 2.8. The design thinking approach in five steps

‘Action learning’ could be stimulated to close the gap between environmental challenges which international reports have identified (including the related tipping points, spillover effects, ecological footprints), and what countries tend to report in their Voluntary national Reviews on the SDGs. It is not clear to which extent this is a policy gap, a knowledge gap, or both, One potential solution to address this issue would be organising regional capacity building workshops to examine discrepancies, build awareness and promote peer learning (United Nations Environment Programme, 2022[24]).

Recently too, in some cases, the strengthened central coordination of government responses due to the pandemic may result in a window of opportunity to evaluate, re-asses and revise how the different parts of the governance toolbox for global and transboundary challenges are linked or should be connected. For example, in order to achieve a sufficient level of resilience to environmental, economic or social shocks, a five-year strategic plan could be accompanied by a rolling action plan with concrete actions for one year and tentative actions for the following four years. The planning and management ‘package’ could include monitoring, reporting and evaluation on a one- or two-yearly basis, while foresight activities (e.g., horizon scanning and scenario exercises) could be embedded in the routines of the administration to keep the long-term challenges visibly on the agenda.3 To complete the approach, specific measures and tools could be integrated that stimulate private sector and civil society actors to contribute to transition processes by taking initiatives, innovating their services and products, and establishing innovative partnerships. Additionally, throughout these processes, it is important to ensure that short- and long-term objectives are aligned and working in the same direction. Similarly, there could also be scope to explore cross-country collaboration and long-term planning to facilitate coherent responses to global challenges.

2.5. Ensuring Whole-of-Government Coordination

A defining characteristic of global and transboundary challenges is that they cannot be tackled by a single institution or a single government alone. Global challenges are multi-sectoral and require involvement of a range of ministries. The Covid-19 pandemic, for example, has highlighted the close and complex interconnections between the environment, health, and the habitat changes induced by human activity, as well as the need for integrated and cross-country solutions (OECD, 2020[25]). In a context of highly interconnected global challenges, this calls for establishing functional mechanisms to tackle silo-thinking between and within government departments and agencies. But countries reported facing challenges in this regard. These can be linked to, for example, the absence of a lead institution for PCSD, the absence of clear roles and responsibilities for PCSD, and difficulty in communicating the benefits of PCSD across the government.

Fragmented government action to address global issues, and incoherent policies increase the risk of actions offsetting each other, they reduce effectiveness and can have important economic costs (for example, inefficient subsidies that distort trade and competitiveness and that encourage wasteful spending and consumption); environmental costs (for example, overuse of natural resources and carbon emissions that spill over globally), and social costs ( for example, inefficient subsidies that benefit primarily the better-off at the expense of the poor).

To address the interconnected nature of public policy issues, policymakers should adopt a holistic approach. This involves analysing the broader context of a problem, identifying the root causes, and recognising the potential ripple effects across different sectors. Solutions such as systems thinking and interdisciplinary collaboration can help policymakers better understand and address complex, interconnected issues. There is also strong need for governments to strengthen existing institutional mechanisms for horizontal co-ordination (between entities of a particular tier) and vertical co-ordination (between international, national and subnational levels) to develop integrated solutions. Having in place efficient mechanisms and processes at appropriate levels for inter-ministerial co-ordination to resolve policy divergences and trade-offs between different sectoral priorities is essential to promote mutually supporting actions across sectors and institutions. Dedicated coordination mechanisms also facilitate the sharing of information and allocation of responsibilities and resources for SDG implementation.

Effective cross-sectoral coordination requires clear lines of communication and collaboration between various government departments and agencies. Regular meetings, joint task forces, and interdepartmental committees can facilitate information sharing and the development of cohesive policies. The use of shared objectives, performance indicators, and a common policy framework can also improve coordination and coherence. Yet, given the variety of governance arrangements and administrative cultures across countries, there is no one-size-fits all approach to ensure whole-of-government coordination. Despite this, Survey results highlight the more frequent use of two broad coordination mechanisms: Cross-governmental committees (at the Ministerial and working/analyst level), and a coordination unit in the institution responsible for Sustainable Development and/or the implementation of the SDGs. For example, at the level of Minister, Spain’s Government Delegated Commission for the 2030 Agenda acts as the first level of dialogue for institutional cooperation (Government of Spain, 2020[26]). Bringing together fifteen ministries, the Commission promotes, follows up on, and evaluates the policies and actions required for the compliance of the 2030 Agenda, guaranteeing the consistency of the multiple policies (Government of Spain, 2020[26]). At the working level, Luxembourg’s Inter-departmental Commission on Sustainable Development and Inter-ministerial Committee on Development are in place to foster PCSD across government administration (Box 2.5). Greece has incorporated into Public Administration a monitoring mechanism for the redistribution of competences of responsibilities between the different levels of governance. Following the adoption of the corresponding law, Greece is in the process of creating a web application for the establishment of a repository aiming at the distribution of organisational information for the entire Public Administration, as well as a system for organising and monitoring multi-level governance policies and better utilising the resources of the Public Administration for the implementation of these policies.

Box 2.5. Luxembourg: Mechanisms for Whole-of-Government Coordination and PCSD

Luxembourg is exploring ways to strengthen government coordination using existing mechanisms. Luxembourg’s National Plan for Sustainable Development (PNDD) includes as an action point greater coordination between the Inter-Departmental Commission on Sustainable Development (CIDD), which is explicitly mandated to promote PCSD, and Inter-ministerial Committee for Development Cooperation (CID), which is mandated by law to help ministries considering the international and transboundary impacts of policies. Joint meeting between the two bodies provide opportunities to enhance coherence across sectoral policies, as well as between domestic and international priorities. Strengthening a whole-of-government approach in the area of development cooperation, Luxembourg applies a joint cross-sectoral programming in partner countries through the drafting of Indicative Cooperation Programmes (ICP).

The Sustainability Check is a tool that will enable further coordination through the provision of up-to-date information on policy synergies and trade-offs. The tool can systematise the findings of the CID on coherence between national and international policies, and be used to inform the pre-conseil meetings.

In addition, the mechanism of the “Pre-Conseil meeting”, held in preparation of each government ministerial meeting, allows civil servants to solve policy tensions, balancing ministerial views and potential trade-offs before moving the decision to a political level. Although this mechanism does not specifically hold a responsibility for ensuring PCSD, it is where de-facto policy arbitration takes place.

Source: (OECD, 2023[19]), Luxembourg Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD) Light-touch institutional scan

Germany has a good practice example since many years, but it works under the constraint that each minister has a relatively wide discretion to take decisions without agreement of other ministries. This ‘Ressortprinzip’ is even laid down in Article 65 of the German Constitution. The Federal Chancellery coordinates sustainable development, including policy coherence for sustainable development. A State Secretaries’ Committee is the central steering institution of the country’s National Sustainable Development Strategy 2016, updated in 2021. It is composed of representatives of all ministries and chaired by the Head of the Federal Chancellery. The whole-of-government approach taken by Germany also requires all ministries to participate actively (Niestroy et al., 2019[27]). New Zealand also demonstrates a good practice in terms of sensitisation and involvement of technical ministries. By including line ministries in annual, formal High-Level Consultations with Pacific countries, they enhance understanding of the trade-offs in policy coherence across important agencies (OECD, 2023[28]). The commitment to policy coherence within and beyond the Pacific is clearly stated in key policy and strategic documents, including the individual country four-year plans, which embrace the Māori principle Turou Hawaiiki (Navigating together) and acknowledge the significant overlap between New Zealand's domestic policy decisions and those affecting the Pacific (OECD, 2023[28]).

In the context of sustainable development, whole-of-government coordination is essential to deal with the divide between those who tackle domestic issues and those who work on external challenges. Moreover, national frameworks and systems often lack built-in checks and balances to systematically screen policies for transboundary and global impacts. Historically, external (cross-border, transboundary, global) challenges have been the exclusive domain of departments of Foreign Affairs and/or Development Co-operation. The adoption in 2015 of the 2030 Agenda and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) made promoting global sustainability a universal task, with the coordination shifting away in many countries from Foreign Affairs toward the Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry of Finance or a special Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (or: e.g., Sustainable Transition) (Niestroy et al., 2019[27]). Notwithstanding this change, many national civil servants still consider the SDGs as something ‘external’. To address this, some countries are stimulating policy officers to follow an SDG training (e.g., Romania, Cyprus). An increasing number of countries have benefited from the dialogue in the OECD Network of National Focal Points for PCSD to bring together the domestic and international perspective of SDG implementation, e.g. Canada, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland.

Some governments may benefit from small size, which facilitates effective informal communication between departments. Other countries have a high degree of local and regional self-government, whereby goals such as the SDGs are common responsibilities carried out at all levels of society. Where this is the case, mechanisms for whole-of-government coordination are linked less directly to sustainable development outcomes. For this reason, strategies for strengthening coordination must be equally adapted to the specific country context.

Nevertheless, wider use of two broad mechanisms has the potential to strengthen coordination across government in a range of contexts. First, the establishment of clear mandates to identify and manage policy divergences and conflicts related to sustainable development. Few countries have established mechanisms with specific mandates to promote PCSD and arbitrate policy tensions. Second, capacity building, such as training requirements intended for staff and line ministries on sustainable development, or in human resources more generally. Indeed, capacity in human resources, as well as insufficient expertise of policy makers on the topic of PCSD, are amongst the highest rated obstacles to PCSD implementation reported in the 2022 OECD Survey on PCSD, as illustrated in Figure 2.2. This makes capacity building exercises an effective lever for change (Box 2.6).

Box 2.6. Skill sets to help civil servants overcome cross-cutting and global challenges

In the OECD report on capacities needed to deliver the SDGs, eight dimensions are distinguished inspired by PCSD, which generally contribute to the ability of governments to connect domestic policymaking and implementation with global and transboundary challenges. The first four represent the functional dimension, the following four are transversal: (OECD, 2020[29])

Turning vision into plans (Strategic Vision): identify and analyse the problem or opportunity, develop hypotheses about what the issues may be, predict the consequences of the decisions made on the specific issues and develop an implementation plan;
Delivering high quality policy (Implementation and governance mechanisms): carry out the potential solution, ideally on a small scale first, and measure the results;
Measuring progress and continuously adapting to change: continuously collect timely and quality data, study the data collected and result obtained and deploy governance mechanisms that allow for preparedness and quick adaptation;
Reacting to change: carefully assessing policy delivery and the context in which it unfolds, then adapting processes accordingly. Complementing these functional dimensions, the framework suggests four additional, transversal dimensions related to the specific nature of SDG implementation:
Transversality and long-term perspective: strengthen the ability to identify, analyse and exploit the linkages between policies across different sectors, in a long-term perspective that allows for both resilience and sustainability;
Involving stakeholders and promoting dialogue: proactively seek contributions and feedback from citizens, private sector, civil society and competence providers;
Holistic, value-based leadership: promote inclusive, transparent management processes that can increase efficiency and accountability of public service;
A culture of evidence: formulate and adapt policies on the basis of factual information and knowledge, as opposed to ideology or inertia. This implies the ability to read, interpret, and effectively use data.

Source: (OECD, 2020[29]), Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Policy-Making: Lessons from Country Experiences, OECD Public Governance Reviews, https://doi.org/10.1787/86331250-en

In March 2023, Poland’s central government launched an OECD-developed capacity building programme, which aims at strengthening civil servants’ skills to implement the SDGs in an integrated and coherent manner. The programme responds to identified challenges related to, among others, lack of knowledge about the 2030 Agenda, insufficient communication across the government, and limited insight to the information and data resources that exist on sustainable development. The capacity building programme is complemented by an online knowledge-sharing platform, where civil servants can find information that corresponds to their area of expertise as well as their level of seniority.

Capacity building also includes leadership development. Strengthening leadership to tackle complex global and transboundary challenges is not only important for formal (political and administrative) leaders but needs a dual approach: investing also in participatory leadership development by training civil servants to lead in their policymaking and implementation programmes. Good practice examples in for instance Italy, Luxembourg and Romania show that PCSD mechanisms (structures, processes, mandates) are not only able to support national policy implementation, but can also leverage the capacity to integrate addressing the impacts of global challenges.

However, there may be institutional, legal, and cultural (mindsets) constraints for policy makers to think and act globally, such as the lack of communication and coordination structures with neighbouring and other countries. Sectoral ministries may not be allowed to directly work with the same ministries on the other side of a national border, as such transboundary work is often the remit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Sectoral Ministries usually are also not permitted to negotiate with their counterparts internationally without green light from the centre of government.

Being a responsive and professional national actor in multilevel settings requires domestic government capacities and tools beyond, for example, having established an international unit. Commonly identified mechanisms and tools to stimulate effective transboundary and international collaboration in response to global challenges at the organisational level could include:

Peer-to-peer learning programmes and activities. In Africa (African Peer Review Mechanism APRM) and Europe (Technical Assistance and Information Exchange TAIEX) transboundary or multi-country workshops are organised to discuss success and failure.
Multi-country or international steering/coordination groups with a metagovernance task to steer and monitor national and other actors. This is under discussion and partially in place in the areas of protection of oceans and seas (SDG 14), sustainable tourism, and in global standard-setting by private companies.
Ministries and government agencies are usually characterised by silo-thinking: a mind-set which hampers smooth and synergetic collaboration across the borders of the ‘silos’. One of the contributions to overcome silo-thinking could be breaking down the ministerial structures, but this decreases transparency (who does what) and accountability. The challenge is therefore to bridge the silos by ‘teaching silos to dance’ (Ingeborg Niestroy and Louis Meuleman, 2016[30]). Training can contribute to this.
In order to align crisis management approaches with stakeholder engagement and evidence-informed decision making, public officers could be trained to apply different governance approaches for different problems, mixing approaches and switching between them according to what the situation requires. Training in applying meta-governance makes the full governance toolbox available, including the tools from governance styles seldom used (Meuleman, 2018[31]). It improves the ability of policymakers to do a meta-analysis of the lessons learned from past governance frameworks and of the wider governance environment, beyond the narrow set of tools and mechanisms, and actors, which is usually analysed because of efficiency reasons. The meta-approach focuses on effectiveness, while keeping efficiency on board.

2.6. Engaging appropriately Sub-National levels of government

An integrated approach to deal with global challenges and implement the 2030 Agenda requires high degrees of policy coherence across levels of government. Many economic, environmental and social challenges have become globalised as well as localised. This so-called ‘glocalisation’ can be seen as the result of interactions between steered and autonomous actions and processes from actors at all levels of social organisation. It reflects some of the inner tensions between policy and governance actors in multi-level arrangements. In addition, it can be seen as a systemic counter reaction to globalisation.

Regional and local authorities are in a unique position to identify and respond to sustainable development needs at the community level. They are closer to citizens and are often the first to identify emerging economic, social and environmental challenges. They may be the best to address such problems before they rise to a national scale. They are also essential for delivering a wide range of essential public services (education, health, infrastructure, water, transport, housing, etc.) as well as the economic, social and environmental transformations needed to achieve the SDGs. This is acknowledged through the increasing emphasis on the need to localise the SDGs.

The localisation of sustainable development practices is an important building block for achieving effective outcomes at the national level. The challenge is ensuring a consistent implementation and avoiding significant disparities in sustainable development at the regional or local level. These can arise due to uneven financial resources, limited human capacities, and incomplete data for monitoring the implementation of sustainable development strategies. Regional strategies can address these issues directly, such as Colombia’s strategy for the implementation of the SDGs (Box 2.7).

Just as there are a range of arrangements for sub-national government in OECD countries, so there are a variety of approaches to sub-national engagement for PCSD (Figure 2.9). Formal agreements between different levels of government can be used to outline and direct coordinated approaches to sustainable development. The most frequent example of this from survey data was legislation and regulations (5 of 11 countries surveyed), to align policies vertically.

Figure 2.9. Mechanisms for subnational engagement in SDG implementation

Box 2.7. Colombia: Strategy for the Implementation of the SDGs

Recognising the importance of territorial strategies for sustainable development

An evaluation of the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals in Colombia highlighted the regional disparities in achieving the goals.

As a result, Colombia’s National Council for Economic and Social Policy defined a strategy (The CONPES 3918 document) for the implementation of the SDGs that prioritises territorial development as one of its four objectives. Through the document, it is recognised that, although the SDGs are global goals, their achievement depends on success in cities, regions and municipalities.

Strategic action for SDG implementation at the regional level

The CONPES 3918 document addresses the implementation of the SDGs at the regional level through five main lines of action:

Pedagogy on the SDGs:

Delivered throughout the national territory by the Administrative Department of the Public Function (el Departamento Administrativos de la Función Pública DAFP), with the support of the Higher School of Public Administration (la Escuela Superior de Administración Pública (ESAP). The aim is to provide public servants with the qualifications to design and implement policies according to the SDGs.

Monitoring progress on the SDGs at the territorial level;
Visibility of good local practices for the implementation of SDGs;
Implementation of SDG markers in regional planning and budget instruments;
Differentiated support to the territories for the implementation of the SDGs.

Note: Translated from the original Spanish

Source: (República de Colombia, 2018[32]) Estrategia para la Implementación de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) en Colombia, https://assets.ctfassets.net/27p7ivvbl4bs/c15L6fPoswiGYUy64Uy4k/d2d1c2b218757846743c6eb335d5b380/CONPES_3918_Anexos.pdf

Mechanisms for exchange and dialogue are also used to promote PCSD, informal or ad-hoc meetings being the most commonly reported in the survey (7 of 12 responding countries). These can take place as a part of the work of designated bodies, such as the Local Government Council on Sustainable Development (지속가능발전 지방정부협의회) in Korea, which devises solutions for implementing the SDGs and addressing common challenges at the sub-national level and promotes awareness within society. Institutional coordination mechanisms, such as established coordinating bodies, are also used by many countries for sub-national engagement (4 of 12 responding countries). In Spain, The Sectorial Conference for the 2030 Agenda is a consultative and cooperation body between the General State Administration, the Autonomous Communities, the Autonomous Cities of Ceuta and Melilla, and the Local Entities. The Sectorial Conference for the 2030 Agenda has the capacity to adopt joint plans, of a multilateral nature, to commit joint actions to achieve the common objectives within the framework of the 2030 Agenda. Furthermore, the establishment of a Sectorial Commission as an advisory body allows to collect decentralised institutions’ contributions to the efforts in promoting the SDGs. Some countries such as Sweden have a high degree of local and regional self-government that is responsible for most of the SDGs. As a result, mechanisms for sub-national engagement as a part of PCSD are less of a priority.

The SDGs are also being used to incentivise better collaboration between national and subnational governments, referred to as vertical coherence or multi-level governance (MLG) (Box 2.8). Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs) on the SDGs contribute to both local-level and vertical coherence. These reviews have become increasingly popular, but observed a decrease in 2022: in 2018, nine VLRs were presented at the HLPF; 11 in 2019; 21 in 2020; 49 in 2021, and 29 in 2022. The UN supports the VLRs with among others guidance (UN DESA, 2020[33]). A review of VLRs (UN DESA, 2021[34]) highlights examples such as the establishment in Cabo Verde of 22 Local “Platforms” as multistakeholder spaces to link national and local SDG strategies. In Spain, the Network of Local Entities for the 2030 Agenda, integrating 317 local entities, aims to promote the coordination of actions towards the implementation of the 2030 Agenda at the local level.

Box 2.8. Multi-level governance for sustainable development

Although levels of government within a country are usually legally and politically separated, they are still intertwined and related in a multi-level governance (MLG) arrangement. Active multilevel governance has shown to be beneficial for addressing global challenges such as urban sustainability. An example is sustainable production and consumption (SDG 12).

Multilevel governance can take different forms, under different governance styles. Successful multi-level governance and enhanced vertical coherence call for adapting inter-governmental roles and aligning institutional frameworks to improve the quality of public services and the effectiveness of public investment. It also calls for adequate data coupled with robust mechanisms for accountability, monitoring and evaluation.

More broadly, sustainability multi-level governance requires combining top-down and bottom-up relations and also horizontal relations. The specificities of each level – including cultural (values and traditions) preferences – necessitate a sufficient level of flexibility, also in legal terms, on all levels, and even an ‘exit clause’ for the lower levels has been proposed in order to accommodate innovative initiatives. It could be argued that each level of government should have the possibility to develop governance arrangements which are tailor-made to both the area and to the type of challenges.

Source: (OECD, 2020[35]), The multilevel governance of the Sustainable Development Goals, Chapter 4, https://doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715-en

2.7. Engaging Stakeholders Effectively

Engaging proactively with stakeholders in all phases of the policy cycle, including through the exchange of knowledge and expertise, helps to ensure a holistic perspective on global challenges and sustainable development priorities. It also helps to give voice to diverse interests, identify potential trade-offs, raise public awareness and create ownership. Engaging stakeholders and understanding their needs is in the self-interest of governments because it normally ensures a broader range of solutions, practical knowledge beyond scientific evidence, and more support for political decisions. The OECD Reinforcing Democracy Initiative (RDI) indicates that this is particularly important in a context of low levels of trust in government and dissociation of some groups of citizens from traditional democratic institutions (OECD, 2022[36]).

Not involving stakeholders in determining the knowledge base for policymaking (‘joint fact finding’) can result in long-lasting disputes on the validity of the evidence underpinning the decisions. Stakeholder participation may bring more conflicts into the policy process, but this can be mitigated by organising deliberations based on the mutual gains approach to negotiations and other co-creation tools. Policies are more likely to be implemented if they incorporate mutual benefits for all parties and create a sense of ownership through engagement of diverse stakeholders.

Enabling effective stakeholder engagement implies that all stakeholders should have fair and equitable access to the decision-making process in order to balance the policy debates and avoid capture of public policies by narrow interest groups. A coherent implementation of the SDGs requires mechanisms for engagement whereby governments and stakeholder can come together to identify common challenges, set priorities, contribute to the development of laws and regulations, align initiatives and mobilise resources.

While stakeholder engagement may slow down the early stages of, policy making but can result in acceleration of later phases. This is not only the case for national challenges but also for issues with a global and transboundary character. It is important to make an explicit, transparent decision on the level of stakeholder engagement during a policymaking process, not only because of management of expectations, but also because the different options are related to different mindsets (Figure 2.10).

Figure 2.10. Different levels of stakeholder engagement and related mindsets

Results from the survey conducted in 2022 on institutional capacities for PCSD, confirm that stakeholder engagement is both widespread and implemented through a diverse range of mechanisms. All responding countries report using mechanisms for engaging national and sub-national stakeholders in the support of PCSD and its implementation, including marginalised and vulnerable groups (Figure 2.11). Workshops were the most commonly reported mechanisms used for stakeholder engagement (more than half of surveyed countries), and encompassed a number of different formats. Including:

Consultations and co-working for the preparation of VNRs, sustainable development strategies (e.g. for 2030), and sub-national programmes
Workshops on the methodology and usage of government PCSD tools, notably on impact assessment frameworks/checks
OECD led workshops on PCSD
Events to bring together different CSOs

Figure 2.11. Has your country developed initiatives, at national level, to engage marginalised and vulnerable groups proactively in the policy-making process?

Many countries such as Canada (Box 2.9) employ a range of different mechanisms that enable engagement with different stakeholder groups. Innovative technologies are increasingly being harnessed to engage with a wider range of stakeholders and exchange information, knowledge, and practices to promote sustainable development. For instance, Spain has created a virtual platform, El Día Después, to enable transformative partnerships (SDG 17) through facilitated communication between actors from civil society, academia, and decision-makers. The Netherlands has established sectoral voluntary agreements bringing together business, trade unions, and civil society stakeholders to promote Responsible Business Conduct. Agreements have raised awareness of standards and encouraged dialogue and exchange on better business practice (OECD, 2023[38]).

A range of different initiatives are described in the provided examples. These include:

Councils of Government for marginalised and vulnerable groups
Consultation and representation in major stakeholder groups, whose inputs contribute to sustainable development policies and plans
Government operating grants for organisations whose main task is to bring the voice of marginalised or vulnerable groups into decision-making
Action plans, strategies, and bills that mainstream the principle of leaving no one behind in public policies

Box 2.9. Canada: Stakeholder Engagement

Ad-hoc conferences with experts

Government of Canada representatives participate on an ad-hoc basis at conferences hosted by Canadian civil society and private sector organisations or universities focused on sustainable development, in order to share information and encourage better effectiveness in line with evidence-based best practice.

Similarly, experts participate on Canadian delegations at numerous international and multilateral conferences, including the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development to ensure that Canada represents multistakeholder perspectives in these forums, increasing policy coherence across various sectors.

Conferences/national workshops with participation from interest groups and CSOs

Together|Ensemble is Canada’s annual national conference devoted to tracking progress on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The conference represents an all-of-society approach to addressing Canada’s toughest sustainable development challenges, bringing together the private sector, academia, government, and civil society.

Online consultations

In June 2019, Canada released Towards Canada’s 2030 Agenda National Strategy. This was an important step to move the 2030 Agenda forward. As a first step toward the National Strategy, it drew on extensive public consultations and in-person feedback. More than 2,500 Canadians took part in events in more than 30 cities across all provinces and territories. The consultation process reached almost 42,000 people online. The results showed support among Canadians for the SDGs – and underlined the substantial work needed to increase awareness of the 2030 Agenda. More recently, to develop its first whole-of-government and whole-of-society annual report – Taking Action Together: Canada’s 2021 Annual Report on the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (released July 2022) – Canada gathered input from stakeholders and partners through online consultations. The report highlights initiatives across Canada by all levels of governments, Indigenous Peoples, a wide range of civil society organizations, the private sector and academia that contribute to advancing the SDGs at home and abroad.

Global Affairs Canada has established regular consultations with civil society partners and other stakeholders as part of the implementation plans for various strategies and policies related to sustainable development. Various methods of consultation are used to connect with stakeholders on regular and ad-hoc bases. Furthermore, on March 11, 2022, Canada released the 2022 to 2026 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy for a 120-day public consultation period (ending July 9, 2022). The consultations feature various online methods for reaching Canadians including social media, an engagement website, an electronic version of the strategy and a series of public webinars.

Social media platforms

Communications and engagement with Canadians through Canada’s dedicated webpage to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda 4 and social media directly support the three following goals:

• broaden public awareness of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs in Canada

• support and inspire partners and stakeholders to take action on the SDGs

• drive the online conversation on the Government of Canada’s progress on the 2030 Agenda.

Systematic collection of the inputs of sub-national government entities

For the first Canada’s Annual Report on the 2030 Agenda – Taking Action Together: Canada’s 2021 Annual Report on the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, a consultation with provinces and territories has been conducted to collect input on initiatives contributing to achieving the SDGs. As part of the consultations on the draft 2022 to 2026 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, Environment and Climate Change Canada engaged with the provinces and territories to encourage their review and feedback.

Source: (Government of Canada, 2021[39]; Government of Canada, 2019[40])

Links with stakeholders can be an opportunity to boost government capacity in specialist areas. For example, strengthening the role of Universities by involving PhD students working on PCSD to conduct studies and link their findings to practical policy making.

2.8. Analysing and Assessing Policy Impacts

The increasing interconnectedness of global challenges require governments to step up efforts and develop mechanisms to anticipate and address unavoidable impacts of their policies on other countries and globally. However, identifying, assessing and monitoring transboundary impacts present particular challenges due to their pervasive nature. They include limited or no data at appropriate stages of the policymaking process; capacity to interpret the data and establish clear causal links between actions in one country and effects in another country where often externalities are not linear; and national (political) interests that do not necessarily consider the circumstances and needs of countries in other parts of the world (OECD/EC-JRC, 2021[41]). The survey findings also indicate that, overall, there is still a lack of awareness of the need to consider transboundary impacts in policymaking. Indeed, only 9 out of 25 examined countries have a requirement to analyse transboundary impacts in policymaking (Figure 2.1).

Efforts in the United States to tackle the climate crisis and counter corruption acknowledge that sustainable development is not a zero-sum game (OECD, 2022[42]). Yet, while it has a long-established mechanism for analysing the consequences and effects of regulations on Americans, it does not systematically assess the impacts on development co-operation objectives or developing countries (OECD, 2022[42]). Achieving policy coherence requires a strategic vision, political leadership and effective mechanisms including tools to identify and address negative spill over effects.

Having the necessary mechanisms, capacities, tools and data for assessing policy impacts can be used to inform decision-making, increase positive impacts and avoid potential negative impacts on the sustainable development prospects, including those of other countries. Impact assessment tools are the primary mechanism used to achieve this PCSD guiding principle. (Figure 2.12).

Figure 2.12. Describe how regularly impact assessments on sustainable development are carried out when developing policies (ex ante) in your country?

Based on the experience of conducting impact assessments in a wide range of areas, common challenges could be highlighted in the use of qualitative approaches to assess, monitor, and evaluate the impacts of policies. They can include but not limited to gaps in data availability, quality, consistency and comparability; challenges with data integration from different sources and disciplines (e.g., social, economic, and environmental data); privacy and ethical concerns, particularly when dealing with personal-level data; as well as resource constraints, which can affect the quality and comprehensiveness of the data used in the assessment. Other challenges can include methodological limitations, given that selecting appropriate methods and integrating them effectively can be challenging, especially when addressing multidimensional and interconnected sustainability issues; difficulties with stakeholder engagement, which can be time-consuming and may face challenges such as power imbalances, conflicting interests, communication barriers and resource constraints; difficulties in identifying acceptable trade-offs between social, economic, and environmental dimensions, policy and institutional barriers; and complexity and resource-intensity of monitoring and evaluation efforts. These can place higher demands in terms of resources and capacities than some of the other guiding principles for PCSD.

Another challenge is ensuring that assessment and evaluation is a systematic process. For example, in some legislative proposals transboundary impacts are most likely assessed, but this is not part of regular RIA procedure. At the same time, many aspects that are at the heart of sustainable development are assessed in the RIA process (environmental, social, economic impacts), but those are not labelled explicitly as an assessment of impacts on sustainable development.

Addressing these issues requires a combination of technical expertise, stakeholder collaboration, and commitment to the principles of sustainable development. For example, to help close data gaps, countries can employ various strategies, such as leveraging partnerships and collaborating with local organisations, and research institutions, utilising technology, ensuring consistent data collection methodologies and reporting standards, employing data aggregation or disaggregation techniques, and developing data management plans and protocols that address privacy and ethical concerns, while ensuring transparency and accountability in data use. More broadly, conducting effective RIAs calls for interdisciplinary collaboration to combine different approaches and perspectives, addressing the multidimensional nature of sustainability issues. It also calls for capacity building and training opportunities to empower marginalised or underrepresented stakeholders, leveraging partnerships with external organizations, such as Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), employing transparent and participatory decision-making processes that allow for open dialogue and negotiation between stakeholders, fostering cross-sectoral collaboration and coordination between different government agencies to ensure a more cohesive policy environment, and establishing clear objectives, indicators, and targets for the RIA process, allowing for the systematic assessment of progress and effectiveness. Recognising these challenges can allow countries to work towards more effective and robust RIAs, ultimately contributing to better decision-making and more sustainable outcomes (OECD, 2010[43]).

Requirements for impact assessments can be included in sustainable development Acts, such as in Korea:

Article 10 of the Sustainable Development Act stipulates, “The State and local governments shall endeavour to make the administrative plans and policies that they formulate pursuant to other statutes consistent with the basic principles prescribed in Article 49 of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth and the basic plans for sustainable development prescribed in Article 50 of the same Act.”
Article 11 of the Sustainable Development Act stipulates, “The head of a central administrative agency, who intends to enact or amend any statute, the contents of which may affect sustainable development, shall notify the Committee of the contents thereof.”
Article 13 of the Sustainable Development Act stipulates, “The Sustainable Development Committee under Article 15 shall evaluate national sustainability every two years with the sustainable development index."

Implementation can also be encouraged through the use of template and guidelines, such as in Greece. The new Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Manual and Template adopted by the Presidency of the Government in 2020, which accompanies all draft laws and secondary legislation of major socioeconomic importance, addresses, inter alia, the potential transboundary dimensions and impacts of the proposed regulatory measures. In a similar vein, the new Manual and Template on Ex-post Evaluation of Legislation, to be published by the Presidency of the Government , examines, among other things, the extent to which the existing legislation has transboundary implications and contributes to the achievement of the SDGs, at national and international level. In addition, Greece has set up, within the Presidency of the Government established by the Executive State law in August 2019, a monitoring and review mechanism responsible for measuring progress towards the implementation of the whole government programme and public policies, including measures and actions with transboundary aspects and implications.

Indeed, RIA and ex post evaluation mechanisms can serve as excellent means to bring in the available evidence and assess the impacts of different options for new policies and legislation. Where sustainable development has become the over-arching policy framework in many countries in all global regions, an in the European Union, integration of the SDGs in IA and evaluation could be a logical next step, particularly as part of the governance of global and transboundary challenges. Good practice is emerging in the EU, where the European Commission in April 2021 announced that it will make reference to all relevant SDGs mandatory in all its Impact Assessment procedures and evaluations (European Commission, 2021[44]). This aims to ensure a comprehensive, whole-of-government approach to knowledge for policy at the EU level. Yet, in most OECD countries, such an integration of SDGs and regulatory impact assessment is not yet established. Good practice exchange between EU countries has stimulated many of them to revise their RIA systems and guidelines (ps4sd, n.d.[45]).5

Half of the surveyed countries report having requirements to conduct analysis of transboundary impacts when implementing legislation/regulation/policies/programmes (Figure 2.13). Mechanisms and requirements for conducting analysis of transboundary impacts, applied for example to policies, regulations, and draft laws vary by country in basis, focus, and the scale of transboundary impacts assessed. Foundations for the different reported requirements include:

EU directives
Requirements by law
Regulatory impact assessment manuals and templates, which accompany draft laws and secondary legislation of major socioeconomic importance
Mandatory quality requirements within impact assessment frameworks, which can be applied at any time during the policy process
Documents produced by national councils for economic and social policy

Figure 2.13. Are there requirements to conduct analysis of transboundary impacts when implementing legislation/regulation/policies/programmes?

Some country responses specify the SDGs (1 of 5) or environmental impacts (2 of 5) as the focus of their assessments of transboundary impacts, whilst others maintain a broad focus. In terms of scale, one country reports requirements which are focused on border effects. These are the consequences that arise mainly in border regions, due to the proximity of the neighbouring country and the importance of daily activities across the border. For instance, the influence of different excise duties on the choice to buy goods in neighbouring countries.

Besides capacity, having sufficient knowledge about the national impacts of global and transboundary challenges, and the impact of national challenges on other countries, is a precondition for effective governance. It may be efficient to organise evidence to inform policymaking decentralised, i.e., in each ministry, but this can only be effective if there is a common agreement across ministries about minimum quality requirements of the knowledge to be used.

Moreover, how transboundary or global an issue is may change over time. Sometimes, national problems start having international consequences. In the aftermath of the financial-economic crisis of 2009 the European Commission initiated a successful annual cycle of economic governance review and dialogue with all its member states to jointly tackle issues. This ’European Semester’ (European Commission, n.d.[46]) has from the beginning in 2011 applied a problem-based dialogue approach on economic and social challenges, and meanwhile also covers progress on the SDGs. Instead of asking who is responsible to solve a pressing problem, the focus lies on analysing the problem, their components, and the relevant actors. In the Semester country reports, the EU presents good practice examples from its member countries and suggests solutions, regardless of whether problem or solution is formally an EU competence.

The OECD clusters issues that transcend borders along five transboundary flows. They are the main channels through which domestic policies and development patterns of individual countries directly affect both countries ‘elsewhere’ and global public goods (Table 2.1). (OECD/EC-JRC, 2021[41])

Table 2.1. Examples of indicators by transboundary flows
Financial flows	Movement of people	Trade flows	Environmental flows	Knowledge transfer
Official development assistance (ODA)	Foreign born population, stock	Value-added embodies in trade flows	CO₂emissions	Patent applications
Foreign direct investment (FDI)	Refugee population, stock	Total value of export and import	Material footprint	Industrial design applications
International remittances	International tourists, flow	Imports from developing countries	Trade of environmentally related goods	Charges for the use of the intellectual property
Other Private transfers	International students, flow	Human rights risks embodied in trade	Red List Index	Trademark applications
Philanthropic transfers			Forest area	Government support to R&D
			Trade in waste and scrap
Source: (OECD/EC-JRC, 2021[41]), Understanding the Spillovers and Transboundary Impacts of Public Policies: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for More Resilient Societies, https://doi.org/10.1787/862c0db7-en

More generally, while a number of different initiatives and methodologies exist to measure transboundary impacts, limitations remain. Some consider the effects on sustainable development only in the broad sense, or within an SDG context but only from the perspective of a single country. Others, for instance from the UNECE/Eurostat/OECD Task Force on Measuring Sustainable Development (TFSD), have developed comprehensive conceptual frameworks, but have yet to be operationalised with a full set of indicators.

Finally, whilst some countries have adapted the TFSD framework for the development of their own sustainable development frameworks, national statistical systems primarily focus on what happens within national borders, and their measurement of transboundary phenomena such as trade or migration is mainly directed towards measuring the size of the in/outflows, rather than their impacts. Domestic-level indicators thus need to be complemented by measures of economic, social and environmental externalities imposed beyond national borders. This implies, for example, looking at the extent to which consumption in a country is depleting stocks of natural resources in other countries, or the extent to which existing terms of trade undermine other countries’ ability to develop sustainably. Nevertheless, existing initiatives provide a wealth of concepts and suggested indicators on which a comprehensive global model for measuring transboundary impacts can be based.

The alignment of such governance tools with global agendas such as climate and the SDGs, which are integrated, universal and transformative in nature, provides a solid basis for collective and coherent action to address global challenges. Regular reporting on SDG implementation by countries across the world, e.g. through the common Voluntary National Review (VNR) process, and new innovative digital tools for processing and visualising this data bring additional opportunities for governments to strengthen their capacities to ensure policies that systematically integrate global considerations into domestic policy making.

2.9. Strengthening Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation systems

Governments need now more than ever robust monitoring, reporting and evaluation systems to inform the design of coherent strategies for addressing interconnected global challenges and accelerating progress on the SDGs. Monitoring, reporting and evaluation need to be used more proactively to assess how policies are performing in pursuing sustainable development and to ensure that policies can be effectively implemented and adjusted to maintain their coherence over time. Monitoring and evaluation: Regular monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of public policies is essential for maintaining coherence. M&E frameworks should include clear objectives, indicators, and targets that allow for the assessment of policy effectiveness and alignment with overall goals. Feedback loops should be established to ensure that findings from M&E activities inform policy adjustments and improvements.

Collecting qualitative and quantitative evidence and data and building capacity to measure policy impacts, including transboundary and long-term impacts is indispensable to enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.

Measuring policy coherence represents a major challenge to all countries. Even the global SDG indicator 17.14.1 which focuses institutional mechanisms for promoting policy coherence lacks data. It has data available only for 27 countries. Measurement of transboundary effects and long-term impacts on sustainable development remain challenging. It requires significant resources and models which would be based upon assumptions that have not yet been validated. It entails looking at economic social and environmental variables where the externalities are not linear. Estimating these types of effects requires the use of data and models, which themselves contain uncertainties. It is also difficult to aggregate or to compare the various aspects of sustainable development, since they occur in different time scales

Less than half of the surveyed countries reported using indicators or other available data to monitor transboundary impacts (Figure 2.14). Examples included:

Environmental indicators (e.g. air pollution)
National indicators for sustainable development, which include a sub-set of indicators labelled as "Global responsibility and policy coherence".
A monitoring and review mechanism responsible for measuring progress towards the implementation of government work and evaluating systematically strategic public policies and reform measures, including those which are closely related to the SDGs and have a transboundary dimension, on the basis of robust, high-quality and quantified evidence.
A set of specific national indicators for the SDGs with a view to monitoring the quantitative progress made towards the achievement of the 17 SDGs at national level. These SDGs national indicators, which reflect the economic, social, environmental and institutional aspects of the SDGs, including their potential transboundary dimensions and implications, are subject to regular revisions, based on the available official statistics and data.

Figure 2.14. Does your country monitor transboundary impacts using indicators or other available data?

Greece for example has established, within the Presidency of the Government, a robust and comprehensive monitoring, reporting and review mechanism, which measures progress towards the effective implementation of government work and evaluates systematically strategic public policies and reform measures, including those which are inextricably linked to the SDGs and promote policy coherence for sustainable development, on the basis of reliable, high-quality quantified evidence and data. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Policy and Operations Evaluation Department conducts regular evaluations that specifically consider the cross-border aspect of Dutch policies. These evaluations have covered various policy measures such as taxation, trade, and responsible business conduct. A recent evaluation examined the cross-government action plan on policy coherence.6

The General Secretariat of Coordination (GSCO) of the Presidency of the Government, which is responsible for ensuring the effective coherence of the entire government work and the coordination of the whole policy cycle, including the design, monitoring and evaluation of public policies, supports the ministries to formulate their Annual Action Plans that contain sectoral and horizontal actions, projects and measures aimed at implementing their public policies on a yearly basis. The GSCO makes sure that the policy measures and actions included in the Annual Action Plans are coherent and aligned with the country’s strategic national priorities and international obligations, a set of which being the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. Progress reports on the formulation and implementation of the Action Plans are submitted, on a regular basis, to the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers. Moreover, sustainable development is piece and parcel of the National Reform Plan updated on a yearly basis and regularly monitored and reported on.

The whole monitoring and reporting process is performed by using a special Management Information System, called "ΜΑΖΙ", in which all the implementation details, including responsible parties, deadlines, deliverables and intermediate milestones, are stored. The evaluation of public policies involves, inter alia, setting target values for key performance indicators measuring the immediate output or long-term outcome of the policy goals that have been set by the Government program, including policy coherence for sustainable development. The GSCO monitors the achievement of these target values within the agreed timeframe and cooperates closely with the ministries to examine and evaluate the performance of their policies in view of their short-term and long-term objectives, both in the context of an ex-ante and ex-post evaluation process.

2.10. Policy insights: Mechanisms, tools and capacities for PCSD to address global and transboundary challenges

This chapter has aimed to show that the application by governments of mechanisms, tools and capacities for PCSD can make countries more prepared for and resilient to global and transboundary challenges. The following insights emerge for policy action to apply PCSD principles throughout the policy cycle to cope with multiple global challenges, their interconnections and their economic, social and environmental consequences.

2.10.1. Strengthening institutional mechanisms for managing global solutions to global challenges

Strengthen national institutions to make them fit to go global, by:

Moving from a 2030 perspective (medium-term) towards a 2050 perspective (long-term) when planning for and reporting on sustainability transformations. Inter-generational principles and indicators as well as age-disaggregated data are useful means for planning, implementing and reporting on long-term measures on PCSD.
Defining and adopting priorities, time-bound actions or key performance indicators to monitor the implementation and strengthen enforceability of agreed-upon PCSD measures.
Establishing functional mechanisms to tackle silo-thinking between and within government departments and agencies.
Engaging stakeholders for a broader range of solutions and for more buy-in and support for political decisions.
Ensuring a communication strategy and initiatives across multiple channels to keep both citizens and the whole government informed and aligned with the government’s strategic view on implementing the SDGs and expected outcomes of a policy area.
Considering that national action in a multilevel global governance environment should consider the impacts of policies ‘here and now’, ‘elsewhere’, and ‘later’. This includes more systematic mapping of critical interactions (synergies and trade-offs) across policies in the implementation of the SDGs, as well as analysis of unintended impacts (positive or negative) of policies not expressly intended to promote the SDGs.

2.10.2. Governance tools for sustainable development

Make use of tools for bringing about the necessary measures and changes, by:

Establishing foresight mechanisms to ensure the knowledge to integrate the long-term dimension in policies.
Using systems thinking and design thinking tools to support the analysis of systemic problems, and use these tools in a cross-sectoral setting, and with involvement of stakeholders.
Taking global and transboundary challenges into account in budgeting, public procurement, the work of supreme audit institutions, and other financial tools, institutions and mechanisms.
Integrating global and transboundary impacts in the rules for regulatory impact assessment (RIA) mechanisms and ex post evaluation mechanisms.
Investing in international regulatory co-operation (IRC) to collectively ensure that domestic policy making does not negatively affect other countries or global commons.
Expanding the use of monitoring and reporting tools to consider the international and transboundary dimension of sustainable development;
Utilising the online OECD PCSD Toolkit, which contains many tools and methods to support governments in addressing global and transboundary challenges, such as SDG Synergies, iSDG model and SDG Interlinkages Analysis & Visualisation Tool, to identify the most important interactions between SDG goals and targets at different policy areas.

2.10.3. Civil service capacities

Being a responsive, proactive and professional national actor in multilevel settings requires domestic government capacities and tools beyond, for example, having established an international unit. This requires skills and capacities, such as proposed in the OECD report on Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Policy-Making. A range of learning and development opportunities helps civil servants to anticipate and address cross-cutting and global issues. They need the skills to tackle complexity, the capability to bridge silos, and the knowledge and experience to apply all available governance tools.

Invest in capacity through dedicated learning and development, by:

Establishing a dual leadership development approach, investing at the same time in top leadership for sustainable development in global challenges, and in participatory leadership training for civil servants to lead in their policymaking and implementation programmes.
Investing in the ability of governments to connect domestic policymaking and implementation with global and transboundary challenges, for example by fostering knowledge exchange between Foreign Affairs ministries and domestic-focused line ministries.
Investing in capacities and tools to stimulate effective transboundary and international collaboration in response to global challenges, including, at the personal level, language skills, cultural sensitivity, negotiation skills, and communication skills.
Developing dedicated and tailored SDG training courses for civil servants at different level of seniority.

References

[15] African Union Commission (2015), Agenda 2063. The Africa we want.

[23] Allio, L. (2014), Design Thinking for Public Service Excellence Design Thinking, UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence, Singapore.

[21] Bassi, A. (2016), Moving towards integrated policy formulation and evaluation: The green economy model, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295181846_Moving_Towards_Integrated_Policy_Formulation_and_Evaluation_The_Green_Economy_Model.

[44] European Commission (2021), Better Regulation: Joining Forces to Make Better Laws, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:219:FIN (accessed on 17 April 2023).

[46] European Commission (n.d.), The European Semester, https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-and-fiscal-policy-coordination/european-semester_en (accessed on 17 April 2023).

[14] German Federal Constitutional Court (2021), Constitutional complaints against the Federal Climate Change Act partially successful, https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2021/03/rs20210324_1bvr265618en.html (accessed on 17 April 2023).

[10] Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (2020), Luxembourg in Transition - point sur la Consultation internationale urbano-architecturale et paysagère, Portail de l’aménagement du territoire, https://amenagement-territoire.public.lu/fr/actualites/2020/10-2020/20201026_CP.html (accessed on 2 May 2023).

[39] Government of Canada (2021), Taking Action Together: Canada’s 2021 Annual Report on the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, Sustainable Development Goals Unit, Gatineau, Quebec.

[40] Government of Canada (2019), TOWARDS Canada’s 2030 Agenda National Strategy Interim Document, Sustainable Development Goals Unit, Gatineau, Quebec.

[16] Government of Finland (2016), The Finland we want by 2050 ─ Society’s Commitment to Sustainable Development Vision, Commission on Sustainable Development.

[6] Government of Italy (2022), Voluntary National Review Italy 2022, The Ministry for Ecological Transition and The Ministry for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

[2] Government of Spain (2022), EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the Progress Report 2022 of the 2030 Sustainable Development Strategy, Ministry for Social Rights and the 2030 Agenda.

[26] Government of Spain (2020), Rebuilding the Common. 2030 Agenda Implementation in Spain. Progress Report.

[4] Government of Spain (2019), Progress report. The implementation of the 2030 AGENDA in Spain, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation.

[30] Ingeborg Niestroy and Louis Meuleman (2016), “Teaching Silos to Dance: A Condition to Implement the SDGs”, International Institute for Sustainable Development, http://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/teaching-silos-to-dance-a-condition-to-implement-the-sdgs/ (accessed on 17 April 2023).

[5] Luxembourg Government (2018), The road to 2030, https://cooperation.gouvernement.lu/dam-assets/politique-cooperation-action-humanitaire/documents-de-reference/strat%C3%A9gie/Strat%C3%A9gie-MAEE-EN.pdf.

[37] Meuleman, L. (2022), From Action Plan to Implementation, and from Policy to Governance’. Presentation at the International conference: The National Action Plan for the implementation of Romania’s Sustainable Development Strategy 2030.

[31] Meuleman, L. (2018), Metagovernance for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351250603.

[8] Meuleman, L. and R. In ’T Veld (2010), “Sustainable development and the governance of long-term decisions”, in Knowledge Democracy: Consequences for Science, Politics, and Media, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_18.

[12] Ministère de l’Énergie et de l’Aménagement du territoire (n.d.), Luxembourg in Transition, https://luxembourgintransition.lu/ (accessed on 2 May 2023).

[27] Niestroy, I. et al. (2019), Europe’s approach to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals: Good practices and the way forward, European Parliament, https://doi.org/10.2861/28364.

[38] OECD (2023), Development Co-operation TIPs: The Netherlands’ multi-stakeholder sectoral agreements promote Responsible Business Conduct, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2faea623-en.

[19] OECD (2023), Luxembourg Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD) Light-touch institutional scan, https://one.oecd.org/document/GOV/PCSD(2023)1/en/pdf.

[28] OECD (2023), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: New Zealand 2023, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/10883ac5-en.

[36] OECD (2022), Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy: Preparing the Ground for Government Action, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/76972a4a-en.

[17] OECD (2022), Foresight and Anticipatory Governance in Practice, Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic and OECD’s Strategic Foresight Unit, http://www.oecd.org/strategic-foresight/ (accessed on 17 April 2023).

[3] OECD (2022), Italy’s National Action Plan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/54226722-en.

[20] OECD (2022), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Spain 2022, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eed71550-en.

[42] OECD (2022), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: United States 2022, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6da3a74e-en.

[35] OECD (2020), A Territorial Approach to the Sustainable Development Goals: Synthesis report, OECD Urban Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715-en.

[25] OECD (2020), “Building a coherent response for a sustainable post-COVID-19 recovery”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d67eab68-en.

[29] OECD (2020), Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Policy-Making: Lessons from Country Experiences, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/86331250-en.

[18] OECD (2019), Recommendation of the Council on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, OECD/LEGAL/0381, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0381 (accessed on 1 July 2020).

[43] OECD (2010), Guidance on Sustainability Impact Assessment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264086913-en.

[41] OECD/EC-JRC (2021), Understanding the Spillovers and Transboundary Impacts of Public Policies: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for More Resilient Societies, OECD Publishing, Paris/European Union, Brussels, https://doi.org/10.1787/862c0db7-en.

[1] OECD and OECD/LEGAL/0381 (2019), “Recommendation of the Council on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development”, http://legalinstruments.oecd.org (accessed on 6 February 2023).

[45] ps4sd (n.d.), Project Peer to Peer for Sustainability in Impact Assessment, https://www.ps4sd.eu/peer-to-peer-for-sustainability-in-impact-assessment/.

[32] República de Colombia (2018), Estrategia para la Implementación de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) en Colombia, https://assets.ctfassets.net/27p7ivvbl4bs/c15L6fPoswiGYUy64Uy4k/d2d1c2b218757846743c6eb335d5b380/CONPES_3918_Anexos.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2023).

[9] Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Institute for European Environmental Policy (2021), Europe Sustainable Development Report 2021, https://www.sdgindex.org/reports/europe-sustainable-development-report-2021/ (accessed on 17 April 2023).

[34] UN DESA (2021), 2021 Voluntary National Reviews Synthesis Report, https://desapublications.un.org/publications/2021-voluntary-national-reviews-synthesis-report (accessed on 17 April 2023).

[33] UN DESA (2020), “Global Guiding Elements for Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs) of SDG implementation”, https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2019/05/nua-english.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2023).

[22] UNDP Global Centre for public Service Excellence (2014), Design Thinking for Public Service Excellence, https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/GPCSE_Design%20Thinking.pdf.

[24] United Nations Environment Programme (2022), Strengthening the Environmental Dimension of the Voluntary National Reviews in Asia-Pacific: Lessons Learned and Ways Forward, https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/41430 (accessed on 17 April 2023).

[7] VNR 2022 Italy Report (n.d.), VNR 2022 Italy Report, https://hlpf.un.org/countries/italy/voluntary-national-review-2022.

[11] Wales (2015), Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015.

[13] WBGU (2021), Beyond Climate Neutrality, German Advisory Council on Global Change , Berlin, https://www.wbgu.de/en/publications/publication/pp12-2021 (accessed on 17 April 2023).

Notes

← 1. Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland

← 2. Canada, Colombia, Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Republic of Korea Romania

← 3. Strategic foresight is indispensable for achieving resilience. Strategic foresight is a structured and systematic way of using ideas about the future to anticipate and better prepare for change. It is not about predicting the future; it explores different possible futures alongside the opportunities and challenges they might present. It uses the techniques of horizon scanning, megatrends analysis, scenario planning and visioning. Foresight can support government policymaking by better anticipating changes that could emerge in the future, revealing options for experimentation with innovative approaches, and by futureproofing of existing or proposed strategies and policies. See https://www.oecd.org/strategic-foresight/

← 4. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/agenda-2030.html?msclkid=5400db38b82c11ec9a5af81e343a27da

← 5. See e.g., the project Peer 2 Peer for Sustainability in Regulatory Impact Assessment with peer learning workshops on mainstreaming SDGs in RIA in around twenty EU countries.

← 6. OECD DAC Peer Review publication forthcoming (2023)

╳

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

https://doi.org/10.1787/a6cb4aa1-en

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at https://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.