Chapter 4. Tracking progress in policy coherence for sustainable development1

Policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD) is an integral part of the means of implementation for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as recognised by SDG target 17.14. This chapter aims to support country efforts to develop national indicators and targets for tracking progress in policy coherence. It applies the Framework for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development to the six thematic SDGs to be reviewed by the United Nations High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) in July 2017. Specifically, the framework encourages countries to consider three elements of the policy making process: institutional mechanisms; policy interactions; and policy effects on other countries and future generations. It also urges them to identify different sets of indicators for each PCSD element, depending on the particular challenge or objective they wish to monitor.

Introduction

Policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD) is an integral part of the means of implementation for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG target 17.14 calls on all countries to enhance PCSD. The global indicator to measure progress on this target, as agreed by the Inter-Agency Expert Group on SDG Indicators, aims to capture the “Number of countries with mechanisms in place to enhance policy coherence for sustainable development”. The 2030 Agenda states that “Targets are defined as aspirational and global, with each Government setting its own national targets guided by the global level of ambition but taking into account national circumstances”.

This chapter aims to support country efforts to develop national indicators and targets for tracking progress towards SDG target 17.14.2

It develops further our monitoring framework for PCSD, as outlined in previous editions of this report. Specifically, the framework, which encourages countries to consider three inter-related elements of the policy-making process – institutional mechanisms; policy interactions; and policy effects – is applied to the six SDGs to be reviewed by the United Nations High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) in July 2017:

Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation.
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.

Every year, in tandem with the selected thematic goals, the HLPF also reviews SDG 17 on the Means of Implementation (MoI). The MoI targets under SDG 17 and under each of the thematic SDGs are key to realising the 2030 Agenda and they are of equal importance with the other goals and targets. They call for the mobilisation of financial resources as well as capacity building and the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms. Public finance, both domestic and international, will play a vital role in providing essential services and public goods and in catalysing other (e.g. private) sources of finance.

Elements of the OECD Coherence Monitor

As part of SDG 17, policy coherence for sustainable development is inextricably linked to processes and means and there is no one single indicator for tracking progress. Instead, countries will need to identify different sets of indicators for each PCSD element, depending on the particular objective or challenge they wish to monitor (Figure 4.1).

Tracking progress on institutional mechanisms

A key lesson from the first year of implementation is that there is no single blueprint for enhancing policy coherence in SDG implementation. To achieve sustainable development there are different approaches, visions, models and tools available to each country, in accordance with its national circumstances and priorities. It is up to each country to determine its institutional mechanisms for formulating, co-ordinating, monitoring and ensuring coherence in SDG implementation.

Chapter 1 suggests that countries’ progress in adapting institutional mechanisms for coherent SDG implementation can be assessed against eight “PCSD building blocks”. They are (i) political commitment and leadership; (ii) integrated approaches to implementation; (iii) intergenerational timeframe; (iv) analysis and assessments of potential policy effects; (v) policy and institutional coordination; (vi) local and regional involvement; (vii) stakeholder participation; and (viii) monitoring and reporting. Forthcoming work by the OECD could potentially identify existing or develop new process indicators for each of these eight building blocks. Such indicators would be of a qualitative nature and relate to the institutional arrangements, processes and working methods needed to design and implement more coherent policies and to monitor progress over time.

Assessing policy interactions

The SDGs represent an indivisible set of global priorities that incorporate the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. Making progress on the SDGs therefore requires careful consideration of the interactions between these three dimensions, as well as between different goals and targets. This is essential for ensuring that progress in one goal does not undermine progress in other goals.

To identify appropriate sets of indicators to assess policy interactions at the national level, the OECD Framework for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (the PCSD Framework) suggests three steps (OECD, 2016a):

Map out critical interactions across the 17 SDGs and 169 targets. The focus should be on areas where inter-linkages are well known, and where possibilities for synergies, conflicts and trade-offs are high.
Prioritise PCSD areas based on the critical interactions identified in the mapping exercise. Special attention should be paid to areas with high potential impact and where fundamental trade-offs need to be managed.
Review data availability and identify existing national-level indicators for assessing the interactions. The analysis from the mapping exercise could be used to set a baseline against which to measure progress.

Indicators to track progress on PCSD will necessarily vary from country to country depending on their natural attributes, economy, institutional setup, and political and social variables. They will likely include combinations of input, output and outcome indicators from diverse disciplines.

Input indicators relate to resources including knowledge expertise and capital assets required to achieve certain outputs, e.g. funds allocated to health care. Output indicators usually measure activities, goods or services that are required to achieve the desired outcome, e.g. the number of surgical operations. Outcome indicators capture the changes that result from the inputs (funds) and outputs (surgeries), e.g. the reduction in the number of preventable deaths during a given period of time.

Additionally, indicators that capture the (intensity of) use of natural resources and capital stocks would help clarify to what extent different sectors might be competing for the same resources, and gauge whether the aggregate demand for satisfying diverse sectoral objectives or human needs is within the constraints of global ecosystems.

Considering policy effects

Sustainable development depends on how a society uses its various economic, natural and social resources. The more sustainably and efficiently these resources are used and managed here and now, the more capital is left for people elsewhere on the planet and later for future generations. Enhancing policy coherence for sustainable development therefore requires a more systematic consideration of policy effects both domestically and abroad, as well as over long periods of time:

The here and now dimension of sustainable development covers the diverse aspects of well-being of the current generation and involves trade-offs between economic, social and environmental objectives. As such, it corresponds to and will be treated synonymously with policy interactions for purposes of this analysis.
The elsewhere dimension of sustainable development requires a better understanding of the transboundary effects of domestic policies and involves measuring economic, social and environmental externalities imposed beyond national borders. The transmission channels for such cross-border impacts include e.g. financial flows (ODA, remittances, loans); imports/exports of goods and services, including through the participation in global value chains (GVCs); knowledge transfer, as well as diffusion of waste products. Indicators for capturing this dimension include so-called “footprint indicators” which calculate, for example, the environmental pressure attributable to consumption in one country on resources or conditions in another country.
The later dimension of sustainable development requires balancing the needs of current and future generations, as well as short-term and long-time priorities. This relates to how much economic, social, human and natural capital today’s citizens leave behind for tomorrow’s citizens. To this end, indicators to assess capital stocks can be used to assess long-term impacts. These include indicators reflecting economic capital (e.g. physical, financial, knowledge), natural capital (e.g. energy and mineral resources, land and ecosystems, water and air quality, climate), human capital (e.g. knowledge, skills, competencies and attributes embodied in individuals) and social capital (e.g. the quality of interpersonal relationships and institutions).

Structure, scope and limitations

The chapter applies the PCSD Framework to each of the six thematic Goals that are to be reviewed by the High Level Political Forum in July 2017. Specifically, for each goal the chapter:

Selects and elaborates on a few critical interactions between the goal in question and the other five goals up for review.
Outlines a number of policy effects that might result from the implementation of the goal and which can have implications for other countries and for future generations.
Provides an overview of indicators that can be used at national level for assessing the selected interactions and policy effects.

By limiting the scope to the six goals, however, many important interactions with other goals are left out of the analysis (e.g. between SDG2 on food and agriculture, SDG6 on water and sanitation, and SDG7 on sustainable energy). Annex Table 4.A1.1 aims to address this limitation by providing an overview of some of the main interactions with other relevant goals.

The suggested indicators for each goal focus on the interactions between goals and policy effects on other countries and future generations. For an overview of the Organisation’s indicators (along with policy instruments and dialogue platforms) that can be used to inform the implementation of each individual goal, please refer to the mapping exercise that was presented to Ministers in 2015, as part of the document “Supporting the Post-2015 Agenda for Sustainable Development: The Role of the OECD and its Members”.

Finally, the chapter does not suggest absolute correlation and/or causation between the indicators presented, nor does it in any way attempt to compare or rank countries.

Assessing interactions and policy effects on other countries and future generations

The following sections aim to support country efforts to develop national indicators and targets for tracking progress in policy coherence, as called for by SDG target 17.14. As such, they complement the broader context-setting analysis in Chapter 3.

Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Sustainable Development Goal 1 aims to eradicate extreme poverty for all people by 2030, and to reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions. It calls for the implementation of nationally appropriate social protection systems and for ensuring that all men and women have equal rights and access to economic resources, basic services, and ownership and control over land and other forms of property. It also calls upon countries to build the resilience of the poor and vulnerable and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.

SDG1 is a fundamental goal that is directly or indirectly linked to all other goals. Access to education and health care, gender equality and decent jobs, for example, are all major enablers for inclusive growth and development. Other underpinnings for poverty reduction include peace and political stability, sound macroeconomic management, strong institutions, well-defined property rights and good governance. But the achievement of the 2030 Agenda will require governments to not only foster positive synergies, but also to identify and prevent potential negative trade-offs between eradicating poverty on the one hand and achieving sustainability on the other (ICSU-ISSC, 2015).

Indicators for considering the interactions and policy effects outlined below are presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 within this chapter.

Table 4.1. Indicators to inform selected interactions in relation to SDG1
SDG1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere
	Interaction	Indicators for consideration	Data sources*
Potential trade-off	Raising incomes of small-scale food producers (SDG2.3), including fishers, without compromising the sustainability of water (SDG6) and land (SDG15) resources, and fish stocks (SDG14.4 and 14.6)	Poverty rate; Income poverty headcount; Income poverty gap Rural poverty gap at national poverty lines (%) Employment by activity; Value added by activity Nutrient balance (nitrogen and phosphorus, kg/ha) Land use and land cover change Share of world marine fish stocks that are overfished; fully fished; underfished (%)	OECD National Accounts Statistics OECD Labour Market Statistics OECD Agri-Environmental Indicators State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, FAO
Potential trade-off	Changing dietary habits and consumption patterns (SDG12) due to higher average incomes (SDG1) without putting pressure on the environment (SDGs 6, 13, 14 and 15)	Poverty rate; Income poverty headcount; Income poverty gap World meat prices (USD/t) Meat consumption per capita (kg/person/year) Contribution of fish to animal protein (grams or %)	OECD National Accounts Statistics OECD Agriculture Statistics: Agricultural Output OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, FAO
← * Data is produced/compiled by the OECD unless otherwise noted.

Table 4.2. Indicators to inform transboundary and intergenerational effects in relation to SDG1
SDG1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere
	Policy effect	Indicators for consideration	Data sources*
Elsewhere	ODA (SDG17.2) to LDCs targets poor people	Net ODA to least developed countries (USD)	OECD International Development Statistics: Detailed Aid Statistics
	International trade (SDGs 17.10-12) and investment (SDGs 17.3-5) can benefit all countries	Trade Facilitation Indicators: Advance Rulings: Prior statements by the administration to requesting traders concerning the classification, origin, valuation method, etc., applied to specific goods at the time of importation; the rules and process applied to such statements Appeal Procedures: The possibility and modalities to appeal administrative decisions by border agencies Co-operation – External: Co-operation with neighbouring and third countries Co-operation – Internal: Co-operation between various border agencies of the country; control delegation to customs authorities Fees and Charges: Disciplines on the fees and charges imposed on imports and exports Formalities – Automation: Electronic exchange of data; automated border procedures; use of risk management Formalities – Documents: Simplification of trade documents; harmonisation in accordance with international standards; acceptance of copies Formalities – Procedures: Streamlining of border controls; single submission points for all required documentation (single windows); post-clearance audits; authorised economic operators Governance and Impartiality: Customs structures and functions; accountability; ethics policy Information Availability: Publication of trade information, including on internet; enquiry points Involvement of the Trade Community: Consultations with traders Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (0 = open; 1 = closed): Restrictions on market entry conditions Restrictions on the movement of people Other discriminatory measures Barriers to competition Regulatory transparency FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index (0 = open; 1 = closed) Foreign equity limitations Screening or approval mechanisms Restrictions on the employment of foreigners as key personnel Operational restrictions, e.g. restrictions on branching and on capital repatriation or on land ownership	OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators OECD Services Trade Restrictiveness Database OECD FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index
	The exchange of information for tax purposes can benefit all countries (SDGs 16.4 and 17.1)	Number of agreements on exchange of information for tax purposes between OECD and developing countries	Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes Peer Reviews
Later	Improving resource efficiency will increase prosperity now and in the future	Domestic Material Input (DMI) Domestic Material Consumption (DMC)	OECD Environment Statistics: Material resources OECD Productivity Statistics
← * Data is produced/compiled by the OECD unless otherwise noted.

Example of interactions

Raising incomes of small-scale food producers (SDG2.3), including fishers, without compromising the sustainability of water (SDG6) and land (SDG15) resources, and fish stocks (SDGs 14.4 and 14.6)

Agriculture has a crucial role to play for poverty reduction, due to its dual role in supplying food and providing incomes to poor and potentially food-insecure farmers. Today, more than two thirds of the world’s poor live in rural areas and more than half of the world’s poor depends, either directly or indirectly, on agriculture for their livelihoods. Similarly, fisheries provide an important source of both food and income globally. The FAO (2016a) estimates that over 55 million people were engaged in the primary sector of capture fisheries and aquaculture in 2014 – with many more, particularly women, involved in post-harvest and service sectors.

The heavy reliance by farmers and fishers on natural resources for their livelihoods makes them particularly vulnerable to environmental degradation. Policy coherence for sustainable development requires balancing the income-generating opportunities offered by agriculture and fisheries with the sustainable management of land and seas.

Changing dietary habits and consumption patterns (SDG12) due to higher average incomes (SDG1) without putting pressure on the environment (SDGs 6, 13, 14 and 15)

Higher incomes (and urbanisation) lead to food consumption changes that favour increased proteins from animal sources in diets. The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2016-2025 projects that growth in the demand for meats will stem mostly from income and population growth, especially in countries with large middle classes in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East (Figure 4.2). While the global meat industry provides food and a livelihood for billions of people, it also impacts on air and water quality, ocean health and GHG emissions and it is the largest user of land globally.

Changes in dietary preferences due to rising incomes across the world are also expected to lead to further increases in the demand for fish and fish products. At the same time, the FAO suggests that the share of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels has decreased from 90% in 1974 to 68.6% in 2013. Pollution (both from industry and agriculture) and climate change also undermine the ocean’s capacity to produce food.

Responding to income-induced dietary changes will thus require careful consideration of the interactions between food production, environmental impacts and planetary boundaries.

Transboundary and intergenerational policy effects

Official Development Assistance (SDG17.2) to least developed countries

Due to strong growth in private finance, the relative importance of official development assistance (ODA) has diminished in many countries. However, it continues to represent the bulk of external financial resources in the least developed countries (LDCs), which have only limited capacity to attract flows beyond aid. For these countries, concessional finance accounted for 72% of total external finance supplied by OECD economies in 2013. By contrast, in other countries, concessional finance represents only 11% of total external finance (OECD, 2015b).

The majority of DAC countries fall short of the United Nations target of allocating 0.15% of their Gross National Income (GNI) to LDCs.3 In total, DAC countries provided 0.09% of their GNI as ODA to least developed countries in 2014 (Figure 4.3).

To better reflect the new global development landscape, the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) is currently modernising its statistical system. A new ODA measure is part of this modernisation and will help to ensure that the right incentive frameworks, and financing and investment tools, are in place to help all countries achieve a successful financing for development strategy and realise the SDGs.

International trade (SDGs 17.10-12) and investment (SDGs 17.3 and 17.5) can benefit all countries

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognises that international trade is an engine for inclusive economic growth and poverty reduction. While protectionism has a negative impact on the global economy, with developing countries often being the hardest hit, full liberalisation of trade in goods and services would help increase average real incomes in all countries. Similarly, international investment spurs prosperity and economic development both in home and recipient countries.

The OECD provides its member countries (and an increasing number of partner countries) with different tools and indicators to monitor the development and evolution of their trade and investment policies. This allows them to benchmark their performance (and level of openness/restrictiveness) against that of other countries:

The OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators help governments to identify areas for action to improve border procedures, reduce trade costs, boost trade flows and reap greater benefits from international trade. The indicators show that reducing global trade costs by 1% would increase worldwide income by more than USD 40 billion, 65% of which would accrue to developing countries (OECD, 2013a).
The OECD Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI) helps identify which policy measures restrict trade in services. Trade in services plays an increasingly important role in the global economy and the growth and development of countries. Yet, it is often impeded by trade and investment barriers and domestic regulations.
The OECD FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index (FDI Index) measures statutory restrictions on foreign direct investment. A country’s ability to attract foreign direct investment is affected by many other factors too (e.g. market size, state ownership, integration with neighbouring countries and geography), but FDI rules are nonetheless a critical determinant of a country’s attractiveness to foreign investors.

Since 2009, the OECD has also been working together with WTO and UNCTAD to monitor and report on G20 countries’ trade and investment measures.4 The most recent report notes that the overall stock of trade-restrictive measures continues to grow, while the overall direction of investment policy measures taken by G20 countries remains oriented towards further liberalisation (OECD-WTO-UNCTAD, 2016).

The exchange of information for tax purposes can benefit all countries (SDGs 16.4 and 17.1)

Tax evasion and avoidance in OECD countries can lead to significant illicit financial flows from developing countries. Fighting them is necessary for poverty reduction and for enabling effective domestic resource mobilisation by governments in those countries (OECD, 2014a). To combat tax crimes, effective information among countries is essential. The number of agreements on exchange of information between OECD countries and developing countries – which has steadily increased since 2000 – can be used to indicate progress in this area (Figure 4.4). Information exchange facilitates the implementation of international tax standards and other instruments to put an end to bank secrecy and other means of tax evasion and avoidance.

Improving resource efficiency will increase prosperity now and in the future

Prosperity and well-being need not be achieved by increasing the “weight of nations” in terms of the resources they consume. The problem is not growth per se, but the composition of that growth. By improving resource efficiency it is possible to decrease the amount of virgin materials that are extracted and used, as well as the associated environmental impacts. The challenge ahead is to move towards a society where more value can be created with less natural resource input in a way that does not compromise the needs of future generations (OECD, 2016b).

Monitoring natural resources – the way they are used in economic activity and contribute to economic outputs – and how their use impacts on the environment requires comprehensive data on natural resource flows and indicators that monitor progress. Indicators based on Material Flows Analysis (MFA) are useful to measure progress on resource productivity. They also provide insights into the economic efficiency and environmental effectiveness with which materials are used in the production and consumption chain up to final disposal. A commonly used indicator is material productivity (or intensity), relating economic output to the amount of materials (or raw materials) used as inputs. It is defined as GDP per Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) or per Domestic Material Input (DMI). Box 4.1 elaborates on these various concepts in more detail.

Box 4.1. Concepts for monitoring natural resource use

Material Flows Analysis (MFA) studies how natural resources and materials flow into, through and out of a given system (usually the economy) and how these flows interact with the economy and the environment. It is based on methodically organised physical flow accounts that provide data on the material inputs taken from the environment into the economy (e.g. resources extracted or harvested from the surrounding natural environment or imported from other countries), the transformation and use of inputs within the economy (from production to final consumption) and the material outputs from the economy to the environment as residuals (waste, pollutants) or to other countries in the form of exports. The data are compiled from available production, consumption and trade data, and from environment statistics (on waste, emissions etc.).

Domestic Material Input (DMI) measures the material inputs into the economy, accounting for the domestic extraction of materials and imports. Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) measures the amount of materials consumed in an economy (i.e. the direct apparent consumption of materials). It is composed of two elements, namely the domestic extraction and the physical trade balance (which equals imports minus exports). DMC equals DMI minus exports.

Source: OECD, 2014b.

Importantly, without more ambitious policies, the costs and consequences of inaction on important environmental challenges will be significant. The OECD’s Cost of Inaction and Resource Scarcity; Consequences for Long-term Economic Growth (CIRCLE) project aims at identifying how feedbacks from poor environmental quality, climatic change and natural resource scarcity are likely to affect economic growth in the coming decades.

Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

Sustainable Development Goal 2 calls for an end to hunger and all forms of malnutrition by 2030. It aims to double agricultural productivity and the incomes of small-scale food producers, and to implement resilient agricultural practices that help maintain ecosystems and strengthen our capacity for climate change adaptation. Meeting this goal will require increased investment in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development, and plant and livestock gene banks to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries. It will also require the correction and prevention of trade restrictions, distortions and support policies in world agricultural markets, as well as the adoption of measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets to help limit extreme food price volatility (OECD, 2016a). Essentially, in this context, policy coherence for sustainable development means feeding a growing population without depleting our natural resource endowments.

Indicators for considering the interactions and policy effects outlined below are presented in Tables 4.3 and 4.4 within this chapter.

Table 4.3. Indicators to inform selected interactions in relation to SDG2
SDG2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture
	Interaction	Indicators for consideration	Data sources*
Potential trade-off	Raising agricultural productivity (SDG2.3) without depleting natural resources (SDGs 6, 7, 13, 14, 15)	Total Factor Productivity of agriculture Carbon productivity of agriculture, i.e. the amount of agricultural GDP per unit of carbon equivalents emitted by agriculture Methane (CH₄) emissions, through enteric fermentation in ruminant animals Nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions, produced by soil denitrification CH₄ and N₂O emissions, from manure decomposition. Energy productivity of agriculture, i.e. the ratio of agricultural GDP per unit of direct use of energy (solid fuels, oil, gas, electricity, renewables, heat and industrial waste); and trends in the volume of renewable energy produced by agriculture** Water use intensity, i.e. irrigation water per hectare of irrigated area; and the share of irrigated area in total agricultural area Nutrient flows and balances: Changes in nitrogen (N) intensity (gross N balance per ha of agricultural land) related to changes in agricultural production Changes in phosphorus (P) intensity (gross P balance per ha of agricultural land) related to changes in agricultural production Changes in commercial fertiliser intensities, calculated by dividing the annual consumption of commercial fertilisers with the area of arable land	OECD Agri-Environmental Indicators OECD Green Growth Indicators for Agriculture OECD Productivity Statistics: Productivity by industry OECD Environment Statistics: Water
Potential trade-off	Diversifying rural incomes (SDGs 1 and 2.3) without diverting land (SDG15) and water (SDG6) resources from food to biofuels production (SDG7.2)	Poverty rate; Income poverty headcount; Income poverty gap Rural poverty gap at national poverty lines (%) Employment by activity; Value added by activity Share of biofuels and waste in total renewable energy supply (%) Share of agricultural land area used for biofuels production (%)	OECD National Accounts Statistics OECD Labour Market Statistics IEA Renewables Information
← * Data is produced/compiled by the OECD unless otherwise noted.
← ** Table note: These indicators should be studied in conjunction with those concerning GHG emission productivity, R&D and patents related to energy efficiency and renewable energy, energy prices and taxes, and carbon pricing and biofuel support.

Table 4.4. Indicators to inform transboundary and intergenerational policy effects in relation to SDG2
SDG2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture
	Policy effect	Indicators for consideration	Data sources*
Elsewhere	ODA (17.2) to food and nutrition security targets people in other countries	Net ODA to food and nutrition security (USD)	OECD International Development Statistics: Detailed Aid Statistics
	Support to agriculture (SDG2b) can have negative impacts on other countries via its effects on production and trade	Producer Support Estimates (PSE) National Protection Coefficient (NPC)	OECD Producer and Consumer Support Estimates database
	Biofuel subsidies (SDG7.2) can have unintended consequences for food prices (SDG2.c), including in other countries	Support to biofuels (USD) Agricultural commodity prices	OECD Fertiliser and Biofuels Support Policies database FAO Food Price Index Agricultural Market Information System OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook
Later	Support to pesticides and fertilisers to raise agricultural productivity (SDG2.3) can lead to excess nutrients in soil (SDG15) and water (SDGs 6 and 14)	Support to pesticides and fertilisers (USD)	OECD Fertiliser and Biofuels Support Policies database
	Land use changes and increased productivity (SDG2.3) can lead to greater pressure on terrestrial ecosystems (SDG15)	Land use, state and changes (square kilometers) Certified organic farm area as a share of total agricultural area (%)	OECD Agri-Environmental Indicators
	Food loss and waste (SDG12.3) can lead to increased GHG emissions (SDG13) and over-consumption of water (SDG6) and land (SDG15)	Food waste in OECD countries (tonnes; litres/household) Food wastage carbon footprint, i.e. a product’s total amount of GHG emissions emitted throughout its life cycle (kilograms of CO₂ equivalents) Food wastage water footprint: Water withdrawal or water diversion from a surface water or groundwater source (km3) Consumptive water use, i.e. water no longer available to the immediate water environment (km3) Land use, i.e. surface of land, including cropland and grassland, necessary to produce food (hectares)	OECD Food Waste dataset FAO Food Wastage Footprint (FWF) model
← * Data is produced/compiled by the OECD unless otherwise noted.

Example of interactions

Raising agricultural productivity (SDG2.3) without depleting natural resources (SDGs 6, 7, 13, 14, 15)

Tracking trends in decoupling inputs to production from economic growth is an important issue for measuring progress towards more sustainable agriculture. Broadly speaking, productivity can be defined with respect to (OECD, 2014b):

The economic-physical efficiency (i.e. the value of output or value added per unit of resource inputs used).
The physical or technical efficiency (i.e. the amount of resources input required to produce a unit of output, both expressed in physical terms, such as land for the production of cereals). The focus is on maximising the output with a given set of inputs and a given technology or on minimising the inputs for a given output.
The economic efficiency (i.e. the money value of outputs relative to the money value of inputs). The focus is on minimising resource input costs.

However, protecting and managing the natural resource base cannot rely on improvement in resource productivity alone; it will also be necessary to de-link economic growth from environmental pressure (OECD, 2014b). Moreover, productivity or intensity indicators need to be gauged in the specific (country) context regarding the country’s level of development or endowment of natural assets.

To capture agriculture’s potential impact on the environment, the OECD suggests looking at indicators on carbon productivity (Figure 4.5); energy productivity (Figure 4.6); water use intensity; and nutrient flows and balances, amongst others. From a broader perspective, Total Factor Productivity (TFP) for the aggregate agricultural sector (available for OECD and a number of partner countries) provides the most comprehensive measure of overall productivity performance. TFP captures those inputs and outputs for which there are market transactions and do not take into account the role of the environment in agriculture production. A comprehensive TFP indicator that accounts for the use of natural resources and production of undesirable environmental outputs is needed. While the task of measuring inter-country agricultural environmentally-adjusted TFP is challenging, new efforts to do so are being launched at the OECD.

Diversifying rural incomes (SDGs 1 and 2.3) without diverting land (SDG15) and water (SDG6) resources from food to biofuels production (SDG7.2)

Raising the incomes of the poor is the single most important requirement for achieving global food security. In the short to medium term, this requires policies and investments that raise economic returns within agriculture. In the long run, however, there is a need to anticipate the structural changes in agriculture that accompany successful economic development, including a declining share of agriculture in GDP as the economy develops and diversifies (Brooks, 2012).

The exploitation of sustainable biofuel technologies, for example, can offer several opportunities for rural job creation and income generation. At the same time, however, biofuels production could conflict with food production if food crops and biofuel crops compete for the same land and water. Via its potential effect on food prices, biofuels production could also increase the share of income that people spend on food.

Transboundary and intergenerational policy effects

Official Development Assistance (SDG17.2) for food and nutrition security

Total ODA, multilateral and bilateral, for food and nutrition security (FNS) in 2015 amounted to over USD 14 billion, up 17% in real terms from 2010. Its share of total ODA over that period however has been stable around 8%, implying that ODA for FNS has only kept pace with the overall rise in total ODA (Figure 4.7).

Compared to 2010-2012, there has been little change in the composition of ODA for FNS. Most ODA for FNS has been predominantly allocated to agriculture (around 50% between 2010 and 2015), the second largest category being emergency food aid with around 25% of ODA. However, some slight shifts can be noted for ODA to developmental food aid where its share declined from 13% in 2010-12 to 9% in 2013-15, while ODA for nutrition increased from 4% in 2010-2012 to 6.5% in most recent years.

Support to agriculture (SDG2b) can have negative impacts on other countries via its effects on production and trade

Open markets have a pivotal role to play in raising production and incomes. Trade enables production to be located in areas where resources are used most efficiently and has an essential role in getting food from surplus to deficit areas. An immediate contribution that OECD countries can make to improve global food security is thus to eliminate trade-distorting agricultural support that prevents an efficient allocation of resources.

The OECD Producer and Consumer Support Estimates database contains agriculture support indicators that express policy measures with numbers in a comparable way across time and between countries. Specifically, agricultural support is defined as the annual monetary value of gross transfers to agriculture from consumers and taxpayers, arising from governments’ policies that support agriculture, regardless of their objectives and their economic impacts.

The Percentage Total Support Estimate indicator (%TSE) represents the total of policy transfers to the agricultural sector expressed as a share of GDP. The Percentage Producer Support Estimate (%PSE) represents policy transfers to agricultural producers, measured at the farm gate and expressed as a share of gross farm receipts. TSE transfers consist of transfers to agricultural producers (measured by the PSE), consumers (measured by the CSE) and support to general services to the agricultural sector (measured by the GSSE). Transfers included in the PSE are composed of market price support, budgetary payments and the cost of revenue foregone by the government and other economic agents.

On average, OECD countries have reduced the amount of support they provide to agriculture, and remaining support is less production and trade-distorting than before (Figure 4.8).

Producer protection, measured by the Producer Nominal Protection Coefficient (NPC) is defined as the ratio between the average price received by producers (measured at the farm gate), including net payments per unit of current output, and the border price (measured at the farm gate). For instance, an NPC of 1.10 suggests that farmers, overall, received prices that were 10% above international market levels. Figure 4.9 shows that NPCs in most countries have fallen from high levels in 1995-97 (OECD, 2016c).

The movement in many countries away from price and output related support and towards other forms of transfers that are less tied to commodity production means that market signals become a more important guide for producers’ decisions. It also improves farmers’ flexibility in their production choice.

Biofuel subsidies (SDG7.2) can have unintended consequences for food prices (SDG2.c), including in other countries

Since the early 2000s, the development of global biofuel markets has been driven by policies fostering their production and use, such as blending mandates, exemptions from taxes applied to corresponding petroleum fuels, and investment support. These policies were initially motivated by a combination of factors, including presumed improved energy security and a reduction in GHG emissions (OECD-FAO, 2016). However, the evidence suggests that the high level of government support for the biofuels industry contributes only little to reduced greenhouse-gas emissions and other policy objectives, while it adds to a range of factors that raise international prices for food commodities around the world (albeit the overall net effect is uncertain).

The OECD Fertiliser and Biofuel Support Policies database is a compilation of policies relating to support within the fertiliser and biofuels sectors of several countries. For biofuels, the data cover the period from 1995 to 2012. The data are based on public sources, complemented by government and other information where available.

With regard to information on food prices, the FAO Food Price Index (FFPI) provides a measure of the monthly change in international prices of a basket of food commodities; the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) monitors market and policy drivers that impact on global food prices and their volatility in the short-term; and the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook provides an assessment of medium-term prospects for national, regional and global agricultural commodity markets.

Support to pesticides and fertilisers to raise agricultural productivity (SDG2.3) can lead to excess nutrients in soil (SDG15) and water (SDGs 6 and 14)

The way governments design their agricultural support policies may have unintended consequences for the environment. For example, fertiliser support policies, which aim to reduce crop production costs and increase yields, also contribute to marine pollution. This undermines the effectiveness of other policy instruments (e.g. payments, taxes, regulations), which aim to address pollution from agriculture. Policy coherence requires balancing these different objectives.

Data for fertiliser support in the OECD Fertiliser and Biofuel Support Policies database cover the period from 2000 to 2012, depending on data availability.

Land use changes and increased productivity (SDG2.3) can lead to greater pressure on terrestrial ecosystems (SDG15)

The relationship between changes in agricultural production and agricultural land area can provide a broad indication of the environmental performance of agriculture. Increases in agricultural production and land use can lead to greater pressure on the environment, as may the intensification of production on a reduced farm area. Environmental pressure, however, will depend on the extent to which farming practices limit the pressures, such as improving resource efficiency (OECD, 2013b).

Forthcoming work by the OECD on land use and ecosystems in agriculture will illustrate the potential benefits of improving policy design and investigate synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services, importance of market and policy drivers in ecosystem service provision, and the performance of current agricultural and agri-environmental policy package in promoting a balanced set of ecosystem services.

Food loss and waste (SDG12.3) can lead to increased GHG emissions (SDG13) and over-consumption of water (SDG6) and land (SDG15)

International organisations estimate that between 30-40% of food is lost or wasted worldwide each year. The effective management of food loss and waste will require coherence across a range of policy areas, including agriculture, the environment, food safety and health. Addressing the problem will also require adequate measurement. To date, however, there is no harmonisation on definitions of “food loss”, “food waste” or “food wastage”, or on methodologies for data collection. This poses significant challenges for the development of more targeted measures to reduce waste. Box 4.2 highlights some ongoing initiatives that aim to address this problem.

Box 4.2. International collaboration for reducing and measuring food loss and waste

The OECD Working Party on Agricultural Policies and Markets launched the Food Chain Analysis Network (FCAN) in 2010. It provides a platform for dialogue on issues concerning the food chain between government officials, private sector stakeholders, non-governmental organisations and academic experts. Industry participation is co-ordinated through the OECD Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC).

The FAO, together with the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Food Programme (WFP), has launched a Community of Practice (CoP) on Food Loss Reduction. The CoP hosts an online exchange of knowledge between international, regional, national and local stakeholders.

The FAO is working on a Food Loss Index (FLI) Indicator for the UN Sustainable Development Goal 12.3, and has developed a definition for the recovery and redistribution of safe and nutritious food for direct human consumption and guidance in order to deter the waste of such food.

In 2015, at the request of the G20, the FAO and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) launched the FAO-IFPRI Technical Platform on the Measurement and Reduction of Food Loss and Waste. The Platform, which builds upon existing initiatives such as the FAO Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction (SAVE FOOD) and the CoP, documents experiences of G20 members and other countries and brings in a focus on low-income developing countries.

The EU and Member States are also committed to meeting SDG target 12.3. The Communication on Circular Economy calls on the Commission to establish a Platform dedicated to food waste prevention. The EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste (FLW) aims to support all actors in: defining measures needed to prevent food waste; sharing best practice; and evaluating progress made over time.

Source: OECD Food Chain Analysis Network (FCAN), 2016.

The reduction of food waste in high- and medium-income countries may not directly help to tackle food insecurity in low-income countries, but it does reduce competition for limited natural resources, making these available for other uses and in other countries. With regard to intergenerational policy effects, earlier work by the FAO estimates the impact of food wastage on the environment by using indicators for carbon and water footprints. Their findings are sobering: if integrated into a country ranking of top GHG emissions, food wastage would appear third after USA and China; the blue water footprint (i.e. the consumption of surface and groundwater resources) of food wastage is about 250 km³ (or three times the volume of lake Geneva); and produced but uneaten food occupies almost 30% of the world’s agricultural land area (FAO, 2013).

Food waste reduction can also bring economic benefits, such as lower costs for businesses and reduced prices for consumers. OECD-based scenario has estimated that a 20% reduction in food loss and waste – for a broad number of countries and commodities – between 2014 and 2023 would generate an accumulated total of USD 2.52 trillion in consumer savings over the ten-year period (OECD, 2016d).

Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Health constitutes human capital in sustainable development as well as being an important outcome in itself. It is related to every other aspect of development, either as an input or as a consequence of activity in another goal (ICSU-ISSC, 2015). For example, unhealthy living conditions related to environmental degradation increase the risk of both non-communicable and infectious diseases. A recent study by the WHO (2016a) estimates that 12.6 million deaths globally, representing 23% of all deaths, were attributable to the environment, most of them in low- and middle- income countries.

Sustainable Development Goal 3 calls upon countries to ensure health and well-being for all, at every stage of life, and addresses all major health priorities, including reproductive, maternal and child health; communicable, non-communicable and environmental diseases, universal health coverage; and access for all to safe, effective, quality and affordable medicines and vaccines.

Indicators for considering the interactions and policy effects outlined below are presented in Tables 4.5 and 4.6 within this chapter.

Table 4.5. Indicators to inform selected interactions in relation to SDG3
SDG3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
	Interaction	Indicators for consideration	Data sources*
Synergy	Improving food security and nutrition (SDGs 2.1-2) to end preventable deaths of newborns and children (SDG3.2)	Number of undernourished (millions) and (%) of undernourishment Children aged <5 years stunted (%) Overweight or obese population (Measured/Self-reported, % of population aged 15+)	The State of Food Insecurity in the World, FAO Global Database on Child Growth and Malnutrition, WHO OECD Health Statistics: Non-medical determinants of health
Synergy	Harnessing the potential of new technologies (SDG9.5) to improve treatment prospects of patients	Business enterprises expenditure on R&D (BERD) performed in the pharmaceutical industry (USD) Percentage of BERD performed in the pharmaceutical industry (%)	OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators
← * Data is produced/compiled by the OECD unless otherwise noted.

Table 4.6. Indicators to inform transboundary and intergenerational policy effects in relation to SDG3
SDG3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
	Policy effect	Indicators for consideration	Data sources*
Elsewhere	ODA (SDG17.2) to the health sector targets people in other countries	Net ODA to the health sector (USD)	OECD International Development Statistics: Detailed Aid Statistics
	Sanitary and phytosanitary measures to ensure safe food (SDG2.1) can have unintended effects on other countries	Number of sanitary and phytosanitary measures in force by country	TRAINS Database, UNCTAD
	Patents for pharmaceuticals and medical technology can have unintended effects on other countries (SDG3.b)	Patent applications worldwide, pharmaceuticals Patent applications worldwide, medical technology	OECD Patent Database WIPO Statistics Database
	Migration (10.7) of health workers can undermine health services in other countries (SDG3.c)	Employment and unemployment rates by gender and place of birth (%) Share of foreign-born health professionals (%) Share of foreign-trained health professionals (%) Remittances, inflows/outflows (USD)	OECD International Migration Statistics Migration and Remittances Data, World Bank
← * Data is produced/compiled by the OECD unless otherwise noted.

Example of interactions

Improving food security and nutrition (SDGs 2.1-2) to end preventable deaths of newborns and children (SDG3.2)

Food security is a common challenge for all countries, but its implications and policy responses vary depending on specific national contexts. Similarly, food and nutrition-related health problems are different in different countries depending on people’s access to nutritious food – or lack thereof.

On the one hand, over 790 million people still remain food insecure, the majority of whom are concentrated in South Asia and Africa, according to the FAO. The prevalence of undernourishment poses severe threats to human health and wellbeing. Globally, in 2014, nearly one in four children under the age of five had stunted growth – a measure commonly used to indicate the cumulative effects of undernutrition and infection (UN, 2016).

At the other extreme, too much food and poor nutrition can lead to overweight and obesity, and related health problems such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, musculoskeletal diseases, and some cancers. As shown in Figure 4.10, the majority of the population, and one in five children, are overweight or obese in the OECD area – although variations across countries are large.

Harnessing the potential of new technologies (SDG9.5) to improve treatment prospects of patients

A wide array of new technologies promises to improve treatment prospects of patients, but at the same time they present new challenges for health system governance. The OECD considers ways of managing the use of these often very expensive technologies, at an appropriate cost (OECD, 2017). Data on business enterprises expenditures on R&D (BERD) performed in the pharmaceuticals industry can inform this debate.

Transboundary and intergenerational policy effects

Official Development Assistance (SDG17.2) to the health sector

Total ODA (multilateral and bilateral) for health in 2015 stood at over USD 26 billion, up 40% in real terms from 2010. Its share of total ODA over that period however has been stable around 12%. The data show that ODA for health has only kept pace with the overall rise in total ODA. Average annual growth over the period 2010-2015 was 8% annually (OECD International Development Statistics).

Sanitary and phytosanitary measures to ensure safe food (SDG2.1) can have unintended effects on other countries

Unsafe food poses global health threats to everyone, with new challenges arising from globalisation, intensification of agriculture and fisheries to meet increasing food demand, urbanisation and changes in consumer habits, and climate change. Public and private food safety regulations (e.g. sanitary and phytosanitary measures) are intended to protect consumers, but if and when they are overly stringent they can act as non-tariff measures. This may have unintended negative consequences for food exporters with limited capacity and resources to comply with them. For example, the FAO has noted that compliance cost with SPS-related obligations on some least developed countries can exceed total governmental development budgets for all expenditures. UNCTAD’s Trade Analysis Information System (TRAINS) can be consulted for data on such non-tariff measures.

Patents for pharmaceuticals and medical technology can have unintended effects on other countries (SDG3.b)

On average, people are living longer and healthier lives today than ever before. New medicines, vaccines and health technologies are all contributing to this. Yet, millions of people across the world, notably in developing countries, cannot access the care and/or the medicines they need. This is due in part to incoherencies between the intellectual property rights of inventors, international human rights law, trade rules and public health in the context of health technologies (United Nations Secretary-General High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, 2016). Patents, for example, have an important role to play in stimulating health care innovation, but can also contribute to increasing the price of medicines in poor countries, or making access to new technologies more difficult.

Migration (10.7) of health workers can undermine health services in other countries (SDG3.c)

Filling vacancies for skilled health workers in OECD countries by recruiting from low-income countries risks undermining the progress these countries are making towards better health services. At the same time, however, these migrants often earn more money in OECD countries and can provide an important source of remittances (SDG10c) that benefit their countries of origin.

In 2013-14, some 460 000 foreign-trained doctors and 570 000 foreign-trained nurses were working in OECD countries, accounting for about 17% of all doctors and 6% of nurses on average. More than one-third of these foreign-trained doctors and nurses were coming from other OECD countries. In many countries, the absolute number of foreign-trained doctors and nurses has increased between 2006 and 2013-14, but their share has come down, as the number of domestically-trained doctors and nurses increased more rapidly (OECD, 2016e).

Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Sustainable Development Goal 5 calls for gender equality and empowerment of all women and girls. It seeks to eliminate all forms of discrimination, violence and harmful practices and ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights. It also seeks to recognise and value unpaid care and domestic work and ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities in all spheres of life. While progress has been made in recent years, for example with regard to girls’ access to education, gender equality remains a persistent challenge in many countries across the world and represents a major disabler to sustainable development (UN, 2016).

Gender equality and equal rights for all – men and women, boys and girls – is not only a human right in itself, but also imperative for making sustained economic progress. The positive correlation between gender equality and GDP per capita supports the argument that the empowerment of women translates into more efficient use of a country’s human and social capital endowment.5 Important enablers for gender equality – that also spur economic growth and development – includes education, control and ownership of land and other resources, and the ability to participate in public life and decision-making.

Indicators for considering the interactions and policy effects outlined below are presented in Tables 4.7 and 4.8 within this chapter.

Table 4.7. Indicators to inform selected interactions in relation to SDG5
SDG5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
	Interaction	Indicators for consideration	Data sources*
Synergy	Closing the gender wage gap (SDG8.5) to reduce poverty overall (SDG1)	Gender wage gap (total, % of male median wage)	OECD Social and Welfare Statistics
Synergy	Improving women’s access to land (SDG1.4) to achieve food security (SDGs 2.1-2)	Secure access to land by women Number of countries having ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)	OECD Social Institutions and Gender Index Country reports to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, United Nations
Synergy	Empowering women to foster innovation (SDG9.5) and economic development	Share of tertiary qualifications awarded to women in computing (%) Share of tertiary qualifications awarded to women in engineering (%) Share of women inventors among all inventors (%)	OECD Education Statistics OECD Patent Database OECD Gender Portal
← * Data is produced/compiled by the OECD unless otherwise noted.

Table 4.8. Indicators to inform transboundary and intergenerational policy effects in relation to SDG5
SDG5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
	Policy effect	Indicators for consideration	Data sources*
Elsewhere	ODA (17.2) to gender equality and women’s economic empowerment targets people in other countries	Net ODA to gender equality and women’s economic empowerment (USD)	OECD International Development Statistics: Detailed Aid Statistics
Later	Increased access by women to productive assets (SDG1.4) can reduce land degradation (SDG15.3)	Discriminatory practices which undermine women’s rights to own, control or use land and non-land assets Discriminatory practices that restrict women’s access to financial services Social norms imposing that women’s assets be mediated only by men.	OECD Social Institutions and Gender Index
Later	Increased access by women to clean energy (SDG7) can reduce GHG emissions (SDG13) from e.g. cooking	GHG emissions (CO₂ equivalents) Main cooking fuel among households	Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Household Energy Database, WHO
← * Data is produced/compiled by the OECD unless otherwise noted.

Example of interactions

Closing the gender wage gap (SDG8.5) to reduce poverty overall (SDG1)

Closing the gender wage gap will generate additional welfare gains and reduce poverty overall as women (to a greater extent than men) tend to reinvest their income in improved nutrition, health and education – not only for themselves but also for their children and other household members. This contributes to increasing living standards and reducing not only income poverty but also “non-income poverty” in the long term.

Improving women’s access to land (SDG1.4) to achieve food security (SDGs 2.1-2)

Gender equality and women’s empowerment would significantly strengthen the prospects of achieving global food security. The FAO (2011) suggests that if women were given the same access to productive resources as men, they could increase yields on their farms by 20–30%. This could raise total agricultural output in developing countries by 2.5–4%, which could in turn reduce the number of hungry people in the world by 12–17%.

In many countries, women’s access to land is influenced not so much by laws and government policies, but by deeply entrenched social institutions related to e.g. religion, norms and cultural traditions.

The OECD Development Centre’s Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) is a cross-country measure of discrimination against women in social institutions (formal and informal laws, social norms, and practices) across 160 countries. Discriminatory social institutions intersect across all stages of girls’ and women’s life, restricting their access to justice, rights and empowerment opportunities and undermining their agency and decision-making authority over their life choices. As underlying drivers of gender inequalities, discriminatory social institutions perpetuate gender gaps in development areas, such as education, employment and health, and hinder progress towards rights-based social transformation that benefits both women and men. Covering five dimensions of discriminatory social institutions – discriminatory family code; restricted physical integrity; son bias; restricted resources and assets; and restricted civil liberties – the SIGI’s variables quantify discriminatory social institutions such as unequal inheritance rights, early marriage, violence against women, and unequal land and property rights.

Specifically, the sub-index for restricted resources and assets captures discrimination in women’s rights to access and make decisions over natural and economic resources. This includes discriminatory practices which undermine women’s rights to own, control or use land and non-land assets; discriminatory practices that restrict women’s access to financial services; and social norms imposing that women’s assets be mediated only by men. The 2014 SIGI results suggest that the laws or customary practices of 102 countries still deny women the same rights to access land as men (www.genderindex.org).

Empowering women to foster innovation (SDG9.5) and economic development

Frequently in OECD countries, women are underrepresented among students and graduates of degrees in the so-called STEM fields of study, i.e. science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Graduates with degrees in STEM areas are in demand in the labour market and they are often amongst the best paid workers. Therefore, increasing the pool of women graduating in these areas can be critical to both women’s economic empowerment as well as the development of the economy overall. Innovation too can benefit from a concentration of individuals with STEM skills (OECD, 2014c). Yet, Figure 4.11 shows that, while the share of female inventors among all inventors has increased steadily and significantly in the past few decades, it still remains a low 8% in the OECD area.

The OECD Gender Data Portal includes additional indicators that shed light on gender inequalities in education, employment, entrepreneurship, health and development, showing how far we are from achieving gender equality and where actions are most needed.

Transboundary and intergenerational policy effects

Official Development Assistance (SDG17.2) in support of gender equality and women’s empowerment

Gender equality and women’s economic empowerment extend beyond SDG5 and are affected by development co-operation flows via several channels. In 2013-14, aid committed to women’s economic empowerment by DAC members amounted to an average of USD 8.8 billion per year – a rise from USD 5.2 billion in 2007-08 and the first upward trend in aid to gender equality in the economic and productive sectors since 2007 (OECD, 2016g). However, aid targeting women’s economic empowerment as the principal objective remains low compared to other sectors. Gender equality is fairly well integrated into donor support to agriculture and employment, but the proportion of aid to e.g. infrastructure sectors (energy, transport) is small.

Increased access by women to productive assets (SDG1.4) can reduce land degradation (SDG15.3)

For many women across the world, in addition to meeting subsistence needs for food, land also provides an asset and means for accessing credit, agricultural extension services and new technologies. Women’s limited access to land and other productive assets can therefore also affect their ability to sustainably manage and conserve the land that they depend on for their income – potentially exacerbating land degradation.

Increased access by women to clean energy (SDG7) can reduce GHG emissions (SDG13) from e.g. cooking

Women can be important agents of change in relation to both climate change mitigation and adaptation. For example, the majority of rural poor are using biomass in traditional open fires for cooking and heating. Access to e.g. kerosene, electricity and improved cook stoves would not only reduce the hours women spend cooking and their exposure to smoke, but it would also increase fuel efficiency and significantly reduce harmful GHG emissions (A. Shankar, 2015). The WHO Household Energy database can be consulted for information on cooking practices that is used as proxy for exposure to household air pollution. This database allows further assessment of the burden of disease attributable to indoor smoke from solid fuels use. Together with the potential from emissions arising from incomplete combustion of these traditional fuels, this information is crucial to inform and assist policy-makers to take better health and climate change-related decisions.

Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation

Infrastructure, industrialisation and innovation are three important aspects of sustainable development. Infrastructure provides the basic physical systems and structures essential to the operation of a society or enterprise. Industrialisation drives economic growth, creates job opportunities and thereby reduces income poverty. Innovation advances the technological capabilities of industrial sectors and prompts the development of new skills (UN, 2016).

But the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 9 must not occur at the expense of other (environmental) goals, and short-term (business) interests must not compromise long-term objectives. Industrialisation that is not inclusive and sustainable risks leading to depletion of natural resources; air, water and soil pollution; degradation of land quality; and generation of hazardous waste. Policy makers need to factor in that infrastructure’s long lifetime drives needs and flows of energy and materials over long periods, which in turn creates environmental pressures and impacts over long periods (ICSU-ISSC, 2015). They also need to ensure that infrastructure investment is consistent with global pathways to net-zero global GHG emissions by the second half of this century.

Indicators for considering the interactions and policy effects outlined below are presented in Tables 4.9 and 4.10 within this chapter.

Table 4.9. Indicators to inform selected interactions in relation to SDG9
SDG9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation
	Interaction	Indicators for consideration	Data sources*
Potential trade-off	Promoting industrialisation (SDG9.2) without contributing to ocean acidification (SDG14.3)	Industrial Production and Sales (MEI) World CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion by sector, industry (%) World CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion by sector, electricity and heat (%) Fossil fuel subsidies (USD) Government support to shipbuilding (USD) Number of vessels Sea level temperatures (Co) Ocean acidification (pH units)	OECD Industry and Services Statistics IEA CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion annual data OECD-IEA Inventory of Estimated Budgetary Support and Tax Expenditures for Fossil Fuels OECD Inventory of Government Subsidies and Other Support Measures to the Shipbuilding Industry NASA Earth Observations
Potential trade-off	Increasing transport opportunities (SDGs 9.1 and 11.2) without compromising health outcomes (SDGs 3.6 and 3.9)	World CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion by sector, transport (%) Number of deaths due to air pollution Statistical Value of Life Road traffic casualties, i.e. injuries and fatalities (per million inhabitants) Motorisation rates (private cars per 1000 inhabitants)	IEA CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion annual data OECD Road Safety database Global Health Observatory data repository, WHO International Organisation of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
← * Data is produced/compiled by the OECD unless otherwise noted.

Table 4.10. Indicators to inform transboundary and intergenerational policy effects in relation to SDG9
SDG9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation
	Policy effect	Indicators for consideration	Data sources*
Elsewhere	ODF (SDG17.2) for infrastructure targets other countries	Official Development Finance for infrastructure (USD)	OECD International Development Statistics: Detailed Aid Statistics
Elsewhere	Intellectual property rights can have adverse impacts on other countries (SDGs 3.b and 9.5)	Number of patent applications worldwide by field of technology; and Number of trademark applications by industry sector International co-inventions in patents (% of an economy’s total patents)	OECD Patent Database OECD STI Micro-data Lab: Intellectual Property Database WIPO Statistics Database
Later	Environment-related technologies (SDGs 9.4 and 17.7) can contribute to sustainable development	Intensity and development speed in environment-related technologies	OECD Science, Technology and R&D Statistics
← * Data is produced/compiled by the OECD unless otherwise noted.

Critical interactions

Promoting industrialisation (SDG9.2) without contributing to ocean acidification (SDG14.3)

PCSD requires balancing industrial growth against environmental and climate concerns. Industrial production refers to the output of industrial establishments and covers sectors such as mining, manufacturing and public utilities (electricity, gas, water etc.). Among them, the electricity sector is the largest GHG emitter, with implications for climate change and ocean warming.

Increasing atmospheric CO₂ emissions not only results in the warming of the planet but also in ocean acidification, which in turn affects certain marine creatures and ultimately the ocean’s biomass. The ocean represents a net sink for carbon dioxide, absorbing an estimated 30% of anthropogenic emissions. In the last century, this has led to an acidification of near surface layers of roughly 0.1 pH units, i.e. about 30% more acidic (IOC-UNESCO and UNEP, 2016).

Increasing transport opportunities (SDGs 9.1 and 11.2) without compromising health outcomes (SDGs 3.6 and 3.9)

Decarbonising the transport sector would yield several important co-benefits, including reduced congestion, less health impacts from local pollutants, and more opportunities for economic growth (OECD-ITF, 2017). However, emissions from the transport sector are growing rapidly, representing 23% of world CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion, or 18% of all man-made CO₂ emissions in 2015 (Figure 4.12). The road sector accounted for three quarters of total transport emissions (IEA, 2016a). The main driver of the still-upward trend in traffic-generated emissions is the historically unprecedented growth of traffic itself, which in turn results primarily from strong economic growth in China.

The health impacts of local air pollution, particularly from road transport, are much larger than previously thought. Globally, more than three million people die from air pollution every year, and many more suffer from asthma to heart disease as a result (OECD, 2014d).

Every year, over 1.2 million people die in road traffic accidents, making it the number one cause of death among young people aged 15-29 years (OECD-ITF, 2017). In developing countries, increases in GDP per capita and disposable income drive up motorisation rates, which in turn can lead to more traffic accidents – in addition to other negative externalities such as pollution and congestion. There are few global estimates of the costs of injury, but some research suggests that road traffic crashes cost countries approximately 3% of their gross national product. This figure rises to 5% in some low- and middle-income countries (WHO, 2016b).

Transboundary and intergenerational effects

Official Development Finance (SDG17.2) for infrastructure6

The 2030 Agenda and the related financing framework emphasise the need for developing countries to fill the significant infrastructure gap in order to achieve the SDGs. The OECD Development Assistance Committee has been collecting and analysing financial data of major bilateral and multilateral development partners to infrastructure, contributing to the monitoring of SDG9 and infrastructure support. But current financing is insufficient: while roughly USD 1 trillion is spent on infrastructure in developing countries every year, two to three times this amount would be necessary to meet the needs up to 2030, especially in energy and water and sanitation (Miyamoto and Chiofalo, 2016).

Infrastructure development can also help developing countries to participate in GVCs. The ability of developing country firms and industries to engage in trade is determined much more by the quality of their port facilities (sea and air) than by the types of preferential access that they might enjoy in advanced economies (OECD-WTO-WBG, 2014).

Intellectual property rights can have adverse impacts on other countries (SDGs 3.b and 9.5)

Recent decades have witnessed an overall surge in intellectual property rights (IPR) applications worldwide. Firms rely not only on patents but also increasingly on other types of IPR, such as trademarks and copyrights, to protect their product and process innovations on the markets (OECD, 2015c). Policy coherence for sustainable development requires ensuring that intellectual property systems in advanced economies do not have adverse impacts on low-income countries.

For example, research on important diseases or new crops affecting developing countries, but carried out in developed countries, may be hampered or promoted by IPRs. Similarly, practices in developed countries may allow knowledge or genetic resources originating in developing countries to be patented without prior arrangements for sharing any benefits from commercialisation. In some cases, developing country exports to developed countries may be restricted as a result of such protection (Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, 2002). Information on patents might in some cases also be used for considering environmental impacts.

The OECD/STI Micro-data Lab contains records on intellectual property rights documents from several administrative sources encompassing patents, trademarks and design rights. The OECD STI Scoreboard, in turn, features indicators traditionally used to monitor developments in science, technology, innovation and industry, and complements them with new and experimental indicators that provide new insights into areas of policy interest.

Environment-related technologies (SDGs 9.4 and 17.7) can contribute to sustainable development

Over the period 2000-12, a continuum of “bursts” in different areas characterised the development of environment-related technologies, including acceleration in the development of biofuels and fuels from waste (2007-09), and the series of open-ended bursts underway in transport-related technologies; the generation of renewable energy; and energy accumulation and efficiency. By examining the intensity and development speed in environment-related technologies, OECD analysis shows that, in comparison to the start of this period, recent bursts seem to last longer and consist of a higher number of inventions (Figure 4.12).

Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

The ocean and open seas cover 70% of the Earth’s surface area, host the largest connected ecosystem in the world and play a central role in climate stability, oxygen generation, nutrient cycling, food production and coastal protection (ICSU-ISSC, 2015). Oceans also provide livelihoods and tourism benefits, as well as subsistence and income. Competition for marine space increases with the number and extent of economic activities that depend on it. Beyond capture fisheries and aquaculture, tourism, maritime transport, extraction of minerals and hydrocarbons, production of electricity through windmills and tidal wave systems, naval activity, dumping and disposal of waste from production on land all use marine space. In addition to space conflicts these activities will also compete for scarce resources in harbours and other infrastructure (OECD, 2016h).

Sustainable Development Goal 14 calls on all countries to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources. To be successful, governments will need to strike the right balance between the need to protect the world’s oceans and seas; to provide food; and the desire to unleash the great potential offered by the future of ocean-based industries.

Indicators for considering the interactions and policy effects outlined below are presented in Tables 4.11 and 4.12 within this chapter.

Table 4.11. Indicators to inform selected interactions in relation to SDG14
SDG14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
	Interaction	Indicators for consideration	Data sources*
Potential trade-off	Harnessing the potential of aquaculture for meeting increased demand for food (SDGs 2.1-2) without generating negative environmental externalities	Production of main species groups of fish for human consumption from inland aquaculture and marine and coastal aquaculture (tonnes) Fish-in-fish-out ratio Fishmeal inclusion rate in aquaculture feeds (%) Production of fish meal and fish oil (Mt, product weight)	OECD Agriculture Statistics: Fisheries OECD Environment Statistics: Water OECD Agri-Environmental Indicators OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, FAO
Potential trade-off	Developing coastal industries (SDG9) without generating marine litter and debris (SDG14.1)	Oil spillage (tonnes) Prevalence of microplastics on fishing resources	Global Marine Oil Pollution Information Gateway, UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection, sponsored by IMO, FAO, UNESCO-IOC, UNIDO, IAEA, UN, UNEP, UNDP Global Partnership on Marine Litter, UNEP
← * Data is produced/compiled by the OECD unless otherwise noted.

Table 4.12. Indicators to inform transboundary and intergenerational effects in relation to SDG14
SDG14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
	Policy effect	Indicators for consideration	Data sources*
Elsewhere	Transboundary water decision-making impacts on people in all countries	Cumulative Human Impact Index (risk based on hazard) Sea Level Rise Index (risk based on exposure) Human Development Index (risk based on vulnerability) Exclusive Economic Zones (million km2) Areas beyond national jurisdiction (million km2)	Transboundary Water Assessment Programme Ocean Observing and Climate Systems, United Nations
	Fisheries access agreements can affect the sustainability of fish stocks (SDGs 14.4 and 14.6) and the viability of the fisheries sector, including small-scale artisanal fishers (SDG14.b), in other countries	Number of fisheries access agreements between OECD and developing countries Share of fish tonnage landed within maximum Sustainable Yield (%) Share of world marine fish stocks that are overfished; fully fished; underfished (%) Areas beyond national jurisdiction (million km2)	OECD Fisheries Reviews The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, FAO
	Tariff escalation on fish and fish products can harm exporters in other countries (SDGs 17.10-12)	Tariff rates on fish and fish products Trade in fish (millions of tonnes): Developed country exports and imports Developing country exports and imports	OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook Tariff Analysis Online, WTO Tariff Download Facility, WTO
	Financial support to fisheries (SDG14.6) can contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, including in other countries	Financial Support to Fisheries (USD): Transfers to individual fishers Net general Services Cost recovery charges Fishing fleet (number of vessels) Fish landings, volume (tonnes)	OECD Financial Support to Fisheries database OECD Fisheries Reviews The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, FAO
Later	Ratifying the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures can reduce illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries, including in other countries (SDG14.4)	Number of countries having ratified the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures	FAO
Later	Marine protected areas can help ensure the conservation and sustainable use of ocean ecosystems (SDGs 14.2 and 14.5)	Marine protected areas (%) Indicators on Terrestrial and Marine Protected Areas (OECD, forthcoming)	OECD Environment Statistics UNEP-WCMC’s World Database on Protected Areas
← * Data is produced/compiled by the OECD unless otherwise noted.

Example of interactions

Harnessing the potential of aquaculture for meeting increased demand for food (SDGs 2.1-2) without generating negative environmental externalities

The significant growth of the aquaculture sector and its potential to produce more food is threatened by the environmental impacts of production, such as discharges of organic wastes, emissions of nitrogen and phosphorus; its dependence on wild fish as feedstock; and competition for space where it operates (e.g. with tourism, maritime transport, ocean energy and dumping and disposal of waste from land-based activities).7 The use of antibiotics in fish farming is another source of concern because of the potential harm to humans and the environment. Nonetheless, with the exception of chicken, the production of aquatic animals generally leads to lower emissions of nutrients than terrestrial animals (OECD, 2015d).

In terms of total food supply, capture fisheries can be expected to be surpassed by aquaculture in coming years. Most fish used for fish meal and oil for feed are not suitable for human consumption, though this is changing. Increasing demand for aquaculture feeds must not undermine the management of the “industrial” fish stocks used to produce them (OECD, 2015d). Innovations to reduce the fish-in-fish-out ratio, certification schemes to ensure that the fish stocks used for fish meal and oil products are sustainably managed, and the promotion of non-carnivorous aquaculture species can all contribute to weakening the link between capture fisheries and aquaculture.

Developing coastal industries (SDG9) without generating marine litter and debris (SDG14.1)

The continuous growth in the amount of solid waste thrown away and the very slow rate of degradation of most items, are together leading to a gradual increase in marine litter found at sea, on the sea floor and on coastal shores. It is an economic, environmental, human health and aesthetic problem posing a complex and multi-dimensional challenge (UNEP, 2016). Marine litter is also one of the clearest symbols of a resource inefficient economy. Valuable materials are polluting beaches and damaging the environment instead of being pumped back into our economy.

Marine litter results mainly from human land-based activities, including wastes released from dumpsites near the coast; tourism and recreational use of the coasts; fishing industry activities; and ship-breaking yards. The major sea-based sources include abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear; shipping activities; and legal and illegal dumping.

Transboundary and intergenerational policy effects

Transboundary water decision-making impacts on all countries

The open ocean is by international convention the largest transboundary space, with ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction covering about half of the Earth’s surface. Governance of the open ocean is mediated largely through global international treaties based on particular themes, e.g. climate change, fisheries, pollution and biodiversity, as well as some regional conventions. There are however numerous challenges to assessing how human wellbeing is affected by and linked to changes in the open ocean, one of them being the limited natural science data on the state of the ocean (e.g. physical, chemical, biological). In an initial assessment of the risk on humans from transboundary water decision-making, the Transboundary Water Assessment Programme (TWAP) Open Ocean Assessment analyses risks based on hazard (ocean, ecosystem degradation); exposure (population at risk); and vulnerability (based on the human adaptive capacity to deal with degraded ocean ecosystems (IOC-UNESCO and UNEP, 2016).

Fisheries access agreements can affect the sustainability of fish stocks (SDGs 14.4 and 14.6) and the viability of the fisheries sector, including small-scale artisanal fishers (SDG14b), in other countries

Fisheries access agreements provide opportunities for distant water fleets (fishing vessels that fish outside their own countries’ waters) and also important revenue to developing coastal states. While these agreements can be a way for developing countries to gain control over illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, they are at times driven by excess fleet capacity by the countries seeking access. Consequently, fisheries access agreements risk potentially crowding out local fishing and undermining livelihoods. Often, they also comprise a large part of the host country’s budget, making reform difficult, and can lead to corruption when the funds are diverted (OECD, 2013c).

Tariff escalation on fish and fish products can harm exporters in other countries (SDGs 17.10-12)

World trade in fish and fish products has expanded significantly in recent decades, with a much larger share of developing countries in fisheries trade. In 2014, exports of developing countries were valued at USD 80 billion, corresponding to 54% of total world fishery export value (FAO, 2016a). An important source of foreign currency earnings, fishery trade is also impacted by international trade regimes. While OECD average tariff rates for fish are lower than for e.g. agricultural products, they do not reflect tariff peaks or tariff escalation. Tariff escalation implies that the tariffs rise as the degree of processing in an item increases, making it more difficult to export fish paste or tinned fillets than fresh fish. In practice, this means that in those cases where developing countries could benefit from fish processing, they might be penalised by higher tariffs when attempting to add value to the raw material for export.

Financial support to fisheries (SDG14.6) can contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, including in other countries

All OECD countries provide some form of financial support to their fisheries sectors. While such support is intended to help the fishing industry to develop, it often encourages the persistence of overcapacity, which in turn puts pressure on already strained fish stocks (OECD, 2013c).

The OECD is supporting WTO negotiations towards a multilateral trade deal on fisheries subsidies by improving the evidence base, via increased reporting on policies in the Fisheries Support Estimate (FSE) database. The OECD’s FSE database collects information on policies supportive of the fisheries sector and classifies them using a consistent method agreed to by participating countries.8 It currently includes most OECD member countries with significant marine fisheries and is rapidly expanding to include other participating economies, including Argentina and Chinese Taipei. The OECD is the only international organisation that measures and reports policy effort in the fisheries sector on an annual basis. Work will also be undertaken to better understand the impacts of support to fisheries on overfishing and overcapacity, the two overarching concerns of global action on fisheries subsidies.

At present it is difficult to undertake an objective assessment of how absolute levels of support have changed at the OECD level as the number of countries for which data is available in the FSE database is not constant over time and has recently increased. Assessing changes in relative terms is thus more informative at the present time but work is continuing with the goal of ultimately being able to provide a comprehensive set of FSE figures at both the OECD and a wider level. Figure 4.13 shows that support as a proportion of the value of landings has decreased at the OECD level.

Ratifying the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures can reduce illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries, including in other countries (SDG14.4)

IUU fishing undermines the sustainability of fisheries. Illegal and unreported fishing alone is estimated to cost the global economy up to USD 23 billion annually (OECD-FAO-UNODC, 2016). Illegally caught fish not only jeopardises marine ecosystem but also threatens the food security and livelihoods of millions of people around the world. Furthermore, governments (often in developing countries) lose out on licensing fees and other tax revenues. An important step in the fight against IUU fishing was the entry into force of the 2009 FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing in June 2016.

Ongoing OECD work aims to update previous work on key determinants of IUU fishing and collect data on the current regulatory and institutional situation in OECD countries and other countries. The OECD will monitor progress towards meeting SDG14 targets associated with ending IUU fishing, recognising also the strong links with SDG1, SDG2 and SDG16. The project aims to include countries where IUU fishing occurs and has a significant impact on policies at the global level.

Marine protected areas can help ensure the conservation and sustainable use of ocean ecosystems (SDGs 14.2 and 14.5)

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are one of the policy instruments available to help ensure the conservation and sustainable use of our vast yet vulnerable ocean ecosystems. The OECD is currently working on a methodology for calculating the extent of terrestrial and marine protected areas, by country, type and IUCN management categories, applying GIS analysis to UNEP-WCMC’s World Database on Protected Areas. The method allows summarising the data on protected areas across countries and over time in a more detailed and harmonised way than previously available. This can provide an indication of the extent and focus of countries’ conservation efforts and also to some extent measure progress towards achieving the Aichi Targets and the Sustainable Development Goals (OECD, 2016i and OECD, forthcoming, 2017).

References

Brooks, J.(ed.) (2012), Agricultural Policies for Poverty Reduction, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264112902-en.

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (2002), Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights: Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy, London.

FAO (2016a), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, Rome.

FAO (2013), Food wastage foot print: Impact on natural resources, Summary Report.

FAO (2011), The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-2011: Women in agriculture – closing the gender gap for development, Rome.

FAO, IFAD and WFP (2015), The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015 – Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress, Rome, FAO.

FCAN (2016), Summary Report of the OECD Food Chain Analysis Network on reducing Food Loss and Waste in Retail and Processing, Paris 23-24 June 2016.

ICSU-ISSC (2015), Review of the Sustainable Development Goals: The Science Perspective, Paris, International Council for Science (ICSU).

IEA (2016a), CO₂ Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2016, IEA, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/co2_fuel-2016-en.

IOC-UNESCO and UNEP (2016), Open Ocean: Status and Trends, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

Miyamoto, K. and E. Chiofalo (2016), Official Development Finance for Infrastructure: With a Special Focus on Multilateral Development Banks, OECD Development Co-operation Working Paper 30.

OECD Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, http://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency.

OECD Health Statistics, https://doi.org/10.1787/health-data-en.

OECD (forthcoming, 2017), Marine Protected Areas: Economics, Management and Effective Policy Mixes, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2017), New Health Technologies: Managing Access, Value and Sustainability, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266438-en.

OECD (2016a), Better Policies for Sustainable Development 2016: A New Framework for Policy Coherence, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264256996-en.

OECD (2016b), Policy Guidance on Resource Efficiency, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264257344-en.

OECD (2016c), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_pol-2016-en.

OECD (2016d), Food Loss and Waste in the Agro-Food Chain, OECD Agriculture Policy Note, April 2016.

OECD (2016e), Health Workforce Policies in OECD Countries: Right Jobs, Right Skills, Right Places, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239517-en.

OECD (2016f), Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/entrepreneur_aag-2016-en.

OECD (2016g), Tracking the money for women’s economic empowerment: Still a drop in the ocean, OECD DAC Network on Gender Equality, June 2016.

OECD (2016h), The Ocean Economy in 2030, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251724-en.

OECD (2016i), Marine Protected Areas: Economics, Management and Effective Policy Mixes, Policy Highlights, December 2016.

OECD (2015a), Supporting the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda: The Role of the OECD and its Members, C/MIN(2015)13, Meeting of the Council at Ministerial Level, 3-4 June, 2015.

OECD (2015b), Taking Stock of Aid to Least Developed Countries, Third International Conference on Financing for Development.

OECD (2015c), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2015: Innovation for growth and society, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2015-en.

OECD (2015d), Green Growth in Fisheries and Aquaculture, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264232143-en.

OECD (2014a), Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries: Measuring OECD Responses, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264203501-en.

OECD (2014b), Green Growth Indicators for Agriculture: A Preliminary Assessment, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264223202-en.

OECD (2014c), Enhancing Women’s Economic Empowerment through Entrepreneurship and Business Leadership in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2014d), The Cost of Air Pollution: Health Impacts of Road Transport, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264210448-en.

OECD (2013a), OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators: Transforming border bottlenecks into global gateways, May 2013.

OECD (2013b), OECD Compendium of Agri-environmental Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264186217-en.

OECD (2013c), Fishing for Tomorrow: Managing fisheries for sustainable development, Coherence for Development report, Issue 2.

OECD (2012), Gender equality in education, employment and entrepreneurship: Final report to the MCM 2012, Paris.

OECD-FAO (2016), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2016-2025, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2016-en.

OECD-FAO-UNODC (2016), Tax crime and other crimes in the fisheries sector, Conference Brochure, OECD-FAO-UNODC Conference and Workshop on Improving Co-operation in the Fight Against Fish crime, 13-14 October 2016.

OECD-ITF (2017), ITF Transport Outlook 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789282108000-en.

OECD-WTO-UNCTAD (2016), 16^th Report on G20 Trade and Investment Measures (Mid-May to Mid-October 2016), 10 November 2016.

OECD-WTO-WBG (2014), Global Value Chains: Challenges, Opportunities, and Implications for Policy”, Report prepared for submission to the G20 Trade Ministers Meeting, Sydney, Australia, 19 July, 2014.

Shankar, A. (2015), Strategically engaging women in clean energy solutions for sustainable development and health, GSDR 2015 Brief, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Center for Global Clean Air.

UN (2016), Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: Report of the Secretary-General, E/2016/75.

UNEP (2016), Marine Litter: The Issue, http://web.unep.org/gpa/what-we-do/global-partnership-marine-litter/marine-litter-issue, accessed 3 March 2017.

UNESCO IOC and UNEP (2016), The Open Ocean: Status and Trends, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.

United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines (2016), Report of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines: Promoting innovation and access to health technologies.

WHO (2016a), Preventing disease through healthy environments: A global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risk, World Health Organisation, Geneva.

WHO (2016b), Road traffic injuries, Fact sheet, World Health Organisation, Geneva.

ANNEX 4.A1. An illustration of interactions between the Sustainable Development Goals

Table 4.A1.1. Example of interactions with additional goals
(Bold interactions are those elaborated on in the body of this chapter.)
SDG1	Raising incomes of small-scale food producers (SDG2.3), including fishers, without compromising the sustainability of water (SDG6) and land (SDG15) resources, and fish stocks (SDG14.4 and 14.6) Raising incomes of the poor to enable them to afford the food (SDG2) they need to lead healthy lives (SDG3) Changing dietary habits and consumption patterns (SDG12) due to higher average incomes (SDG1) without putting pressure on the environment (SDGs 6, 13, 14 and 15) Reducing income inequality (SDG10) to reduce overall poverty (SDG1)
SDG2	Raising agricultural productivity (SDG2.3) without depleting natural resources (SDGs 6, 7, 13, 14, 15) Diversifying rural incomes (SDGs 1 and 2.3) without diverting land (SDG15) and water (SDG6) resources from food production to biofuels production (SDG7.2) Ending malnutrition (SDGs 2.1-2) to reduce mortality from non-communicable diseases (SDG3.4) Raising agricultural productivity without exacerbating freshwater stress (SDG6.4) Raising agricultural productivity without undermining climate change mitigation and adaptation (SDG13)
SDG3	Improving food security and nutrition (SDGs 2.1-2) to end preventable deaths of newborns and children (SDG3.2) Achieving universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water (SDG6.1) to reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from water pollution and contamination Ensuring universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services (SDG7.1) to reduce the disease burden from air pollution (SDG3.9) Harnessing the potential of new technologies (SDG9.5) to improve treatment prospects of patients
SDG5	Closing the gender gap in education (SDG3) to reduce poverty (SDG1) Closing the gender wage gap (SDG8.5) to reduce poverty overall (SDG1) Ensuring women’s access to sexual and reproductive health (SDG5.6) to reduce maternal mortality (SDG3.1) Improving women’s access to land (SDG1.4) to achieve food security (SDGs 2.1-2) Empowering women to foster innovation (9.5) and economic development
SDG9	Promoting industrialisation (SDG9.2) without contributing to ocean acidification (SDG14.3) Improving agricultural infrastructure (SDG 2.a) and innovation to achieve global food security (SDGs 2.1-2) Increasing transport opportunities (SDGs 9.1 and 11.2) without compromising health outcomes (SDGs 3.6 and 3.9) Promoting industrialisation (SDG9.2) without contributing to climate change (SDG13)
SDG14	Providing food from fish (SDGs 2.1-2) without depleting global fish stocks (SDG14.4 and 14.6) Harnessing the potential of aquaculture for meeting increasing demand for food (SDGs2.1-2) without generating negative environmental externalities Developing coastal industries (SDG9) without generating marine litter and debris (SDG14.1) Unleashing the potential of ocean power (SDG7) without damaging marine biodiversity (SDGs 14.2 and 14.5)

Notes

← 1. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlement in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

← 2. This chapter draws and expands on the analysis in “Tracking progress on SDG 17.14 to enhance PCSD – Translating the global aspiration into national targets and indicators”, a background note prepared for the 11th Meeting of the National Focal Points for Policy Coherence, held in Paris on 28 October 2016.

← 3. In 2014, only eight member countries reached this target (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom).

← 4. The Group of Twenty (G20) represents 80% of global trade.

← 5. See for example the Global Gender Gap Index produced by the World Economic Forum.

← 6. Official Development Finance (ODF) consists of Official Development Assistance (ODA), which is concessional, and Developmental Other Official Flows (OOF), which are non-concessional. It excludes export credit OOF as its main objective is not developmental.

← 7. Conversely, aquaculture is impacted by externalities from other sectors and activities that deteriorate water quality or decrease water availability such as agricultural run-offs, municipal sewage and industrial waste.

← 8. The FSE database can be explored on the OECD’s statistics portal at: http://oe.cd/fse-stats.