Comprehensive picture
The Monitor of Well-being & Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) shows how the Netherlands is faring with regard to well-being. The focus is primarily on the medium term, but this fourth edition now also devotes more attention to developments over the past year.
The Monitor describes the development of well-being ‘here and now’, the potential well-being of future generations (‘later’) and the effect of our actions on well-being in other countries (‘elsewhere’). This is based on a structured set of indicators that describe the many aspects of well-being. In addition to the economy and labour, these indicators concern matters such as health, education and the living environment. Lastly, the publication looks at progress towards achieving the 17 SDGs in the Netherlands, based on both SDG and well-being indicators (the SDGplus indicators). The SDGs were drawn up by the United Nations (UN) in 2015 and signed by 193 countries (UN, 2015). The SDGs are well aligned with the pursuit of rising well-being. Underlying principles of the SDG agenda, such as the key principle of ‘leave no one behind’, attention to our carbon footprint and the five Ps (people, planet, peace, prosperity and partnership), are all very relevant to our quality of life and to ensuring that it is future-proof.
The coronavirus pandemic has led to society increasingly being viewed from a ‘well-being’ perspective. After all, what is more important: the economy and employment or public health? The Monitor provides the necessary information to allow reflection on such issues. It also raises the question whether the coronavirus crisis has exacerbated existing inequalities and vulnerabilities. Lastly, the Monitor assesses whether we as a society are still on course to meet the 2030 goals of the SDG agenda, or whether the coronavirus pandemic has led to a regression.
This comprehensive picture consists of two parts. Part I summarises the main conclusions of the Monitor. This devotes particular attention to developments over the past year, particularly the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. It also looks at the resilience of well-being. Part II deals in greater detail with well-being ‘here and now’, ‘later’ and ‘elsewhere’, as well as the main indicators in the SDG agenda.
Part I: Summary
Well-being ‘here and now’
Well-being in the Netherlands today is described on the basis of eight themes: subjective well-being, material well-being, health, labour and leisure time, housing, society, safety and the environment.
Well-being ‘here and now’ developed positively over the 2013–2020 trend period. Over 80 percent of the indicators in this dashboard show a stable or even rising trend, even though for most of them the Netherlands is already at the top of the European ranking. For the themes of subjective well-being, material well-being, housing and safety, all indicators show a stable or rising level of well-being. The picture with regard to the themes of health, labour and leisure time, society and the environment is more mixed, with one or two indicators for each theme showing red.
Six indicators in the ‘here and now’ dashboard show a trend reversal. In three cases the trend has changed in a positive direction. In the trend period of the previous Monitor (2012–2019), the long-term trends for ‘long-term unemployment’ and ‘values and norms’ were stable (grey). These are coloured green in the 2013–2020 trend period. For ‘satisfaction with leisure time’, the previous red trend has turned into a stable trend. In all these cases, progress was therefore made from the point of view of well-being. However, three indicators – ‘satisfaction with life’, ‘individual consumption’ and ‘quality of inland bathing waters’ – show a deterioration: the trend in these indicators was previously green but has now has changed to stable (grey).
How to use the ‘Trends in well-being’ illustrations
In the three ‘wheels’ depicting Trends in well-being here and now, later and elsewhere, the inner ring gives information on the medium-term trend (based on available data for 2013–2020). The outer ring shows the most recent year-on-year change. Move to or tap on an indicator to show what it measures. By clicking you get more information on the developments for the Netherlands and on the Dutch ranking compared to other EU countries. Where possible, time series are included from 1995.
| For the trends and the year-on-year change, the colours denote: | For the EU ranking he colours denote: |
|---|---|
| Green | Green |
| The indicator is moving in the direction associated with an improvement of well-being. | The Netherlands is in the upper quartile of the EU ranking. |
| Grey | Grey |
| No significant increase or decrease in the indicator. | The Netherlands is in the middle of the EU ranking. |
| Red | Red |
| The indicator is moving in the direction associated with a deterioration in well-being. | The Netherlands is in the lower quartile of the EU ranking. |
Well-being ‘later’
Here the Monitor examines the extent to which the current generation in the Netherlands is leaving sufficient resources for future generations. The sustainability requirement is fulfilled if the amount of economic, natural, human and social capital remains (at least) constant over the long term.
The dashboard for well-being ‘later’ shows future well-being coming under greater pressure than current well-being: 32 percent of the indicators in this dashboard show a decline in well-being. In the ‘here and now’ dimension the corresponding figure is 19 percent. The proportion showing a decline is even greater in the specific case of natural capital, at 45 percent. For human capital and social capital, all indicators show a stable to rising trend. The picture with regard to economic capital is mixed.
For two indicators in the ‘later’ dashboard, the trend has reversed in a direction that is unfavourable from the perspective of well-being. These are the ‘knowledge capital stock’ and ‘average household debt’. The trend in the former was still green in the previous Monitor, but it is now (2013–2020) stable. In the case of ‘average household debt’ the trend has turned from grey to red.
Well-being ‘elsewhere’
Dutch society also has an influence on the rest of the world, which is reflected in well-being ‘elsewhere’. Central to this are the flows of income and resources between the Netherlands and other countries. Within well-being ‘elsewhere’ we distinguish two themes: ‘trade and aid’, and ‘environment and resources’.
In the well-being ‘elsewhere’ dashboard, well-being in the ‘trade and aid’ theme is stable to rising. The picture for the ‘environment and resources’ theme is mixed, with two indicators showing a decline in well-being. Seven indicators in this dashboard show a trend reversal, five of them in a positive direction. Two positive changes concern ‘trade and aid’, while the other three concern ‘environment and resources’.
In the case of the ‘trade and aid’ theme, more trade is beneficial from the perspective of well-being. The medium-term trend shows the value of ‘imports of goods from Africa’ turning from red to grey: the declining trend in imports over the 2012–2019 period has stabilised over the 2013–2020 period. For the value of ‘imports of goods from America’, the trend has now changed from stable to rising (green). This also indicates an increase in well-being. By contrast, the medium-term trend in ‘total imports of goods’ per capita from least developed countries (LDCs) is now stable (grey), whereas it was previously rising (green).
The ‘environment and resources’ theme concerns the depletion of raw materials and auxiliary products. In this case, less trade is more beneficial for the development of well-being. The volume of ‘imports of metals’ (from all over the world) showed an improvement, as the trend changed from red (in this case rising) to stable. The volume of ‘fossil fuels imports from LDCs’ and ‘imports of non-metallic minerals from LDCs’ also developed favourably. In this case, the medium-term trend changed from stable to green (decreasing) over the 2013–2020 period. In the case of one indicator for this theme, the trend reversal meant a deterioration from the perspective of well-being: the medium-term trend in the volume of ‘imports of non-metallic minerals’ (from all over the world) over the 2013–2020 period is stable, whereas it was previously decreasing and therefore green.
Distribution of well-being
How is well-being distributed among the various population groups? Education level and migration background are the main distinguishing factors (for more details see Chapter 3 of the Monitor). The low-skilled group scores below average on a relatively large number of indicators. The precise opposite is true of the highly educated group, which has above-average scores for many well-being indicators. Personal characteristics such as age, sex, education level and migration background are interrelated. For example, people with a non-western migration background are on average fairly young and quite likely to be low-skilled. Older people are also relatively likely to be low-skilled. The difference in the accumulation of favourable or unfavourable outcomes is greatest between low-skilled and highly educated people. This also applies if the interrelationship between the various personal characteristics is taken into account. After education level, the biggest distinguishing factors are age and migration background. Sex plays the smallest role.
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
In this Monitor, the progress made by the Netherlands in relation to the 17 SDGs is measured on the basis of 255 different indicators (see Chapter 4). For all 17 goals, we look at the Netherlands’ position for each indicator compared to the other EU countries. In addition, for each SDG all indicators were examined to identify any trend in the direction of the goal, a neutral trend or a movement away from the goal.
The dashboard below shows for each SDG how many indicators show a trend in the 2013–2020 period moving towards the goal, how many show a stable trend and how many show a trend moving away from the goal. It is notable that a relatively large number of indicators have a green trend colour (and are therefore moving towards the goal). We see this with SDG 2 (Zero hunger), SDG 4 (Quality education), SDG 5 (Sex equality), SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation), SDG 7 (Affordable and clean energy), SDG 11.2 (Sustainable cities and communities: second dashboard, living environment) and SDG 13 (Climate action).
In SDG 3 (Good health and well-being), SDG 9.1 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure: dashboard 1, mobility), SDG 10.2 (Reduced inequalities: second dashboard, financial sustainability), SDG 11.1 (Sustainable cities and communities: first dashboard, housing), SDG 15 (Life on land) and SDG 16.2 (Peace, justice and strong institutions: second dashboard, institutions) we see a relatively large number of indicators with a red trend colour. This indicates that these SDGs are moving further away from the goal. There are no indications that these red trends are caused by coronavirus, in other words that trends have been reversed by outliers in the last year.
This edition of the Monitor shows the position within the EU27. The United Kingdom is no longer included in the comparison. The picture is largely unchanged in comparison with the (now 26) other EU countries. The Netherlands is in the leading group for SDG 1 (No poverty), SDG 8.2 (Decent work and economic growth: second dashboard, labour and leisure time), SDG 9.2 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure: sustainable business) and SDG 9.3 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure: knowledge and innovation), SDG 10.1 (Reduced inequalities: social cohesion and inequality), SDG 16.2 (Peace, justice and strong institutions: institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the goals).
The Netherlands is lagging behind in the case of SDG 13 (Climate action). For SDG 14 (Life below water) there are few indicators available and the position is difficult to determine, as not all EU countries have a coastline or share the same sea.
For SDG 7 (Affordable and clean energy) and SDG 15 (Life on land) the Netherlands is positioned in the middle group. In previous editions of the Monitor, the Netherlands lagged behind other countries for these two SDGs.
The dashboard below summarises the Netherlands’ average position across all indicators for each policy theme. For each internationally comparable indicator, the Netherlands’ position in the EU has been converted into a percentage with the last place being 0 percent, the first place being 100 percent and the precise midpoint (for example, seventh out of the 13 countries) being 50 percent. The Netherlands’ average position in each policy theme is an unweighted average of all indicators.
Well-being and coronavirus in 2020
2020 was an exceptional year because of the coronavirus pandemic. In this section, we look more specifically at the changes in well-being in 2020 as compared to 2019. When analysing the figures, the most striking feature is the economic contraction in 2020. Real per capita GDP declined by 4.3 percent last year. This contraction did not feed through to households. The national accounts show that households’ real disposable income rose by 2.4 percent last year, outstripping the growth recorded in 2019. Real disposable income rose mainly because employees earned more: their pay increased by 15.4 billion euros (4.1 percent) to 393.4 billion euros. Collectively agreed wages rose by 3.0 percent in 2020, the strongest growth for 12 years. The real increase in collective labour agreement pay was the largest in 34 years. The number of jobs and the number of hours worked fell, but government support measures meant that many employees continued to receive full pay. The volume of individual consumption per capita nevertheless fell sharply in 2020, with a contraction of 5.7 percent. In these uncertain times, consumers may have been reluctant to make purchases or less able to visit shops, hospitality outlets and similar establishments.
The picture with regard to well-being is very mixed. First, it is notable that satisfaction with life fell by 2.5 percentage points in 2020, to 84.8 percent. The many measures taken to combat the spread of coronavirus may have had an impact on satisfaction with life. Furthermore, 2020 saw a marked decrease in social contacts with family, friends and neighbours and there was a significant reduction in voluntary work. The developments in the latter two indicators cannot be attributed unequivocally to coronavirus, as these trends were also observed in previous editions.
There are also positive developments. Healthy life expectancy of both men and women has increased, for example. Due to coronavirus, mortality was 10 percent higher in 2020 than could be expected based on mortality in previous years and demographic trends. This led to a decrease in life expectancy. However, people’s appreciation of their own health was particularly high in 2020. This combination of elements – both of which are used in the calculation – led to healthy life expectancy being significantly higher for both men and women in 2020 than in 2019. People are also more satisfied with the environment in their immediate surroundings and with the amount of leisure time they have. Another example is trust in institutions, which rose strongly by 6.4 percentage points in 2020 to reach 69.5 percent. Trust in the House of Representatives in particular increased sharply last year. Ultimately it is clear that the distribution of well-being across the various population groups has not changed greatly. In the 2020 coronavirus year, broadly the same groups score above or below average as in 2019.
This does not alter the fact that society has been hit hard by the pandemic. Last year more than 20,000 people died in the Netherlands from the effects of coronavirus. In 17,537 cases the established cause of death was COVID-19. According to CBS, 2,673 other people are believed to have died from the effects of the virus. Many people are suffering from health problems and certain sectors, such as hospitality and culture, have been hit hard.
Resilience
The new resilience dashboard included in this Monitor shows the resilience of households and the robustness of the economy, society and the biosphere (see Chapter 2). It devotes attention to the position of vulnerable groups in society and also considers dependence on other countries as well as government power. These indicators are intended to give an impression of the Netherlands’ ability to absorb any future shocks.
How to use the ‘Trends in well-being’ illustrations
In the three ‘wheels’ depicting Trends in well-being here and now, later and elsewhere, the inner ring gives information on the medium-term trend (based on available data for 2013–2020). The outer ring shows the most recent year-on-year change. Move to or tap on an indicator to show what it measures. By clicking you get more information on the developments for the Netherlands and on the Dutch ranking compared to other EU countries. Where possible, time series are included from 1995.
| For the trends and the year-on-year change, the colours denote: | For the EU ranking he colours denote: |
|---|---|
| Green | Green |
| The indicator is moving in the direction associated with an improvement of well-being. | The Netherlands is in the upper quartile of the EU ranking. |
| Grey | Grey |
| No significant increase or decrease in the indicator. | The Netherlands is in the middle of the EU ranking. |
| Red | Red |
| The indicator is moving in the direction associated with a deterioration in well-being. | The Netherlands is in the lower quartile of the EU ranking. |
The ‘resilience’ dashboard presents a positive picture, with hardly any of it coloured red. Households’ resilience is high and the indicators for vulnerable groups are all moving in a positive direction (the trends are green). The government also has a high degree of power. With regard to dependence on other countries, one indicator is red: dependence on energy imports. The picture with regard to the robustness of the economy, society and the biosphere is not clear-cut, as there are both green and red trends. In the case of the robustness of the biosphere, the amount of green and blue space (excluding regular agriculture) per capita is trending lower. The robustness of society is greater than that of the biosphere, with rising (green) trends and high positions. Lastly, the robustness of the economy presents a mixed picture. The proportion of highly educated people in the population aged 15 to 74 shows a rising trend, but the physical capital stock per hour worked is decreasing.
All these indicators suggest that Dutch society is relatively well prepared to absorb external shocks. This is borne out by the indicators in the well-being ‘here and now’ dashboard and the figures on the distribution of well-being. Well-being has not come under significant strain, even amid the coronavirus pandemic.
Part II: Well-being in the light of the SDGs
Well-being ‘here and now’
For each of the eight themes in the ‘here and now’ dashboard, we now look in more detail at how well-being has developed. For each theme, we first discuss the indicators that appear in green or red in the dashboard. These developments are then viewed in the broader context of indicators in the SDG agenda, on which Chapter 4 is based.
Subjective well-being: In the previous Monitor, satisfaction with life showed a rising (green) trend. In the current measurement it is stable (grey). The personal well-being index, which is composed of 12 indicators describing eight dimensions of well-being, rose in the years 2013–2020.
Material well-being: Consumption growth lags behind GDP growth. Real per capita GDP in 2019, before the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, was almost 9.7 percent larger than at the start of the trend period in 2013, while the volume of actual individual consumption was 5.4 percent larger. Median household disposable income trended higher during this period. However, the trend in individual consumption changed from green to stable (grey). The volume of individual consumption per capita contracted by 5.7 percent in 2020. GDP per capita fell slightly less, by 4.3 percent.
SDG 10 shows that income inequality and relative poverty in the Netherlands remained stable over the past trend period (2013–2020). Median household wealth (SDG 1) shows a rising trend, mainly due to the steady rise in the value of owner-occupied homes. In addition, the percentage of households having to live on long-term low incomes trended higher in the years from 2013 to 2020. The poverty risk of minors (the percentage belonging to a family with income below the low-income threshold) has decreased. There is also a declining trend in the percentage of people who are very worried about their financial future. It is notable that this financial concern about the future continued to decrease in 2020.
Health: Apart from healthy life expectancy, which has shown a stable trend for men and women in recent years, there are less favourable developments in the health area: a rising medium-term trend in the percentage of overweight people, increasing waiting times for specialist care (observed even before the coronavirus outbreak) and a declining trend in vaccination coverage for measles. Furthermore, a growing proportion of the population feels mentally unhealthy. On the other hand, there are a number of positive medium-term trends. The percentage of the population over the age of 12 who smoke has decreased. In addition, the percentage of people whose daily functions are seriously limited by chronic disability has decreased. The trend has changed from grey to green, with the Netherlands also occupying a high position in the EU ranking for this indicator. Perceived health in the Netherlands showed a declining trend in previous measurements, whereas now it is stable. In 2020, the percentage of the population describing their health as good or very good increased by 2.8 percentage points to 81.5 percent.
Labour and leisure time: SDG 8 shows that the labour theme in the Netherlands is trending positively across a broad front. It should be noted that this is based on annual figures over the medium term. The trend seen in labour figures in 2020, and the trend recorded over the year itself, differed from the previous trend in various respects.
The percentage of the labour force unemployed for more than one year was 2.5 percent in 2013, at the beginning of the trend period. This long-term unemployment declined after 2015 to reach 0.9 percent by 2020. The trend has changed from stable to green. The trend in net labour participation over the 2013–2020 period is rising, although a decrease was recorded in the final year. That was the first decrease recorded since the previous economic crisis. There is also an upward trend in the vacancy rate (the number of vacancies per thousand jobs). With regard to job retention concerns among employees, the medium-term trend is downward, although these concerns increased again in 2019 and particularly in 2020. The only unfavourable medium-term trend in this SDG is in mental fatigue caused by work (among employees). The percentage of employees experiencing work fatigue rose from 14.4 percent in 2014 (the first year of measurement) to 15.7 percent in 2020. It peaked in 2018 at 17.3 percent.
Satisfaction with leisure time has increased sharply in recent years. In the previous measurement the trend was red, whereas now it is grey (stable). Satisfaction with leisure time has also shown a marked increase recently, improving from 74.2 percent in 2019 to 76.4 percent in 2020. Time lost as a result of traffic congestion and delays also trended higher from 2013 to 2019. Lastly, the proportion of the population who are highly educated has increased from 28.3 percent of the population aged 15–74 in 2013 to 34.2 percent in 2020. The fact that the contribution of education to well-being is measured here as the relative size of the highly educated population does not mean that other types of education, such as vocational training and craftsmanship, are not important for well-being. It is clear, however, that highly educated people generally achieve a higher level of well-being in numerous areas of society (see Chapter 3 of the Monitor).
Housing: SDG 11 shows a rising trend in the number of homes available. An increasing number of people nevertheless live in inadequately sized homes, although this is not a major problem by European standards. The picture with regard to housing costs is less positive, with a rising trend. From the point of view of well-being, however, it is positive that the total housing costs of rented and owner-occupied homes (i.e. expenditure as a percentage of disposable income) have trended lower in recent years. The trend has changed from grey to green. These housing costs are nevertheless high by European standards (the Netherlands ranked 23rd in the EU27 in 2019). The trend in perceived housing costs is also positive, as they are seen as decreasingly problematic over the 2013–2020 period. The Netherlands is among the leaders in Europe in this regard (third in the EU27 in 2019). Compared to other countries, Dutch people experience a lot of nuisance in the neighbourhood (25th place in the EU27 in 2019).
Society: There are downward (red) trends in both contact with family, friends and neighbours and the amount of voluntary work over the 2013–2020 period. Rising (green) trends can be seen in people’s trust in each other and in institutions. Trust is high in the Netherlands by European standards. Lastly, the percentage of people who have a positive opinion on the standards and values in the Netherlands increased from 37.3 percent in 2013 to 43.3 percent in 2019.
Safety: The percentage of people who often feel unsafe in their neighbourhood decreased from 1.8 in 2013 to 1.4 in 2019. The percentage of victims of crime fell from 19.8 percent in 2013 to 13.7 percent in 2019. No 2020 figure is yet available for either indicator. The figures for SDG 16 show that the trend in the number of police officers per 100,000 inhabitants is decreasing and therefore red.
The environment: The amount of natural space managed in the Netherlands Nature Network (NNN) is increasing. Urban exposure to particulate matter also shows a green trend. In the case of both land fauna and fresh water and marsh fauna the trend is downward. These indicators are therefore red. The trend in the quality of inland bathing waters changed from rising (green) to stable, with almost three-quarters rated as ‘excellent’.
Well-being ‘later’
Well-being ‘later’ concerns the resources that future generations will need in order to achieve at least the same level of well-being as the current generation. The choices that the Dutch make collectively ‘here and now’ have consequences for future generations in the Netherlands. All manner of resources, referred to here as ‘capital’, are needed to maintain quality of life. We distinguish between economic, natural, human and social capital. The important point is that the amount of capital per capita must be at least constant over the longer term.
Economic capital: Economic capital comprises physical capital (SDG 8) and knowledge capital (mainly SDG 9). Financial sustainability is addressed in SDG 10.
The physical capital stock per hour worked shows a red trend. The number of hours worked rose sharply up to the end of 2019, more than the volume of the capital stock itself, causing this indicator to trend lower. Figures for SDG 8 also show that gross investment in tangible assets is low by European standards. The Netherlands occupies a middle position in terms of the number of hours worked per capita. The strength of the Dutch economy appears to lie clearly in labour productivity. This type of productivity, measured as gross value added per hour worked, is high compared to other European countries and is closely linked to the highly developed knowledge economy. SDG 9 shows that the Netherlands occupies a high position in the EU ranking for a large number of innovation indicators. In addition, gross investments in tangible fixed assets and the number of hours worked in research and development (R&D) have trended higher. There is also a trend towards improved access to finance for SMEs.
As far as households are concerned, it can be noted that Dutch households had on average just over 100,000 euros of debt in 2019. The trend is rising (changing from neutral to red), placing the Netherlands at the bottom of the EU ranking (22nd out of 24 countries measured). Opposite the debts, households have savings (currency and deposits) and non-financial assets, such as their homes. Median household wealth shows a rising (green) trend. The increase is mainly due to the continued rise in value of owner-occupied homes.
SDG 10 (dashboard 2) describes the financial sustainability of Dutch well-being and the financial situation of households. Debts are incurred and capital is accrued collectively as well as individually. The financial liabilities of the government and households have an impact on the well-being of future generations. The pension funds’ coverage ratio – the ratio of assets (pension capital) to liabilities (pension entitlements of all participants) – gives an impression of whether the funds will be able to pay out current and future pensions. This coverage ratio was 100.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2020, compared to 104.0 percent at the end of 2019. The trend in the pension entitlements indicator has changed from green to grey. The expected occupational pension (estimated on the basis of the median gross pension income of persons aged 65 to 74) was 51 percent of income from employment (approximated on the basis of the median gross income from employment of 50- to 59‑year-olds) in 2020. It only includes pension accrued during the working life, i.e. excluding state pension provision (the first pillar).
Government debt as a percentage of GDP stood at just under 49 percent at the end of 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic. This key indicator of the state of public finances was over 19 percentage points lower than at the peak in 2014. It provided a relatively favourable starting position when the coronavirus support measures (especially the NOW and TOZO schemes) caused expenditure to rise sharply in 2020. At the end of 2020, the gross debt ratio stood at 54.5 percent of GDP, more than 13 percentage points below the peak in 2014. The medium-term trend remains downward. The formal European ceiling for government debt is 60 percent of GDP.
Natural capital: This is a broad theme that recurs in many SDGs. The following components can be distinguished: energy consumption and climate change (SDGs 7 and 13); quality of soil, water and air; emissions and waste (SDGs 6, 11 and 12); and nature and ecosystems (SDGs 14, 15).
- Energy and climate change: The operational capacity for renewable electricity in the Netherlands increased in the 2013–2020 trend period from 202 to 964 megawatts per million inhabitants (green trend). Energy consumption, converted into kilograms of oil equivalents per capita, is high in the Netherlands by European standards (23rd in the EU27 in 2019), but energy is being used ever more efficiently. (Energy intensity shows a decreasing and therefore green trend.) Employment in the sustainable energy sector is also trending higher. The share of renewable energy in total energy consumption has increased, although it remains low by European standards (25th in the EU27 in 2019). In addition, SDG 13 shows that greenhouse gas emissions per capita have trended lower in recent years, although they remain high by European standards. The Netherlands ranked 23rd in the EU27 in 2018.
- Quality of soil, water and air (emissions and waste): For SDG 6, which focuses on water, we see that water stress (the percentage of fresh water drawn from available water sources) shows a green trend. Water quality is under pressure, however. The percentage of surface water of good chemical quality has declined in recent years. The figures for SDG 12 show that the trend in both the total volume of municipal waste and the proportion of municipal waste recycled is green, and that the environmental sector’s share of GDP has trended higher. The increase in raw material productivity (expressed in euros of GDP per kilogram of material used) is also favourable. The Netherlands leads the way in Europe for this indicator. One of the aims of SDG 11 (dashboard 2) is to make the local living environment sustainable. A large number of the related indicators are green. Emissions of acidifying substances (sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides and ammonia) are declining, as is urban exposure to the finer fraction of particulate matter.
- Nature and ecosystems: With regard to the state of nature and ecosystems, SDG 14 (Life below water) shows that the trends are stable and that the Netherlands has an average score in the Clean Water Index in 2020 (16th in the EU27 in 2020). SDG 15 (Life on land) includes indicators on the state of nature and biodiversity on land. As stated above, the percentage of the total land area covered by managed natural spaces in the NNN is trending higher. A number of other indicators in the SDG 15 dashboard nevertheless paint a gloomier picture. For example, the amount of green and blue space per capita is declining. This acreage per capita includes green and/or natural areas in both cities and the countryside, excluding regular agriculture and excluding the North Sea. Three biodiversity indicators, namely the Red List Indicator, land fauna and the farmland bird index, are also trending lower. The state of natural land areas and biodiversity similarly is also poor in a European context: the percentage of natural spaces and forest areas is among the lowest in Europe and the nitrogen surplus per hectare of arable land is the highest of all 19 EU countries for which figures are available.
Human capital: This theme looks at how humans can contribute to well-being from an economic perspective. This type of capital has three components. First, the labour volume: the total number of hours worked in society. In addition to this quantitative measure, the quality of labour is also considered. This focuses on the health, educational level and skills of the labour force. These components have already been discussed, under well-being ‘here and now’.
Social capital: The social capital of society comprises the social contact people have with each other and the trust that is hopefully built up between people as a result. People’s trust in institutions is another important component of social capital.
With regard to social participation, SDG 10 shows a declining trend for indicators such as contact with family. The Netherlands ranks highly among EU member states in this area, however. This high level of social participation is also reflected in the high level of trust citizens have in one another and in the main institutions, as well as in their endorsement of key values and norms. Trust in people and institutions shows a green trend in both cases.
Well-being ‘elsewhere’
In the well-being ‘elsewhere’ dashboard, we distinguish two themes: ‘trade and aid’ and ‘environment and resources’.
Trade and aid: Here we look at the way in which the Netherlands can make a positive contribution to the well-being of other countries. In this context, in line with the Brundtland Reportnoot1, particular attention is paid to the income flows between the Netherlands and the LDCs. The UN has labelled these (47) countries the poorest in the world.
Imports of goods from America, Asia and Oceania have trended higher in recent years (2013–2020). In the dashboards these are coloured green because this trade is expected to have had a beneficial effect on the regions in question. Remittances sent by migrants in the Netherlands to people in their country of origin have also increased. This amount is expressed as a percentage of gross national income and rose from 1.1 percent in 2013 to 1.6 percent in 2019.
The environment and resources: This theme looks at the degree to which the Netherlands puts pressure on the environment or stocks of raw materials in other countries. Two indicators show a red trend, namely import of metals from the LDCs and total imports of biomass. An improvement can be seen in imports of fossil fuels from LDCs and imports of non-metallic minerals from LDCs.
A number of trend reversals have occurred compared to the trend period of the previous Monitor (2012–2019). Imports of metals (from all over the world) show an improvement, as the trend has changed from red (in this case rising) to stable. The volume of imports of fossil fuels from LDCs and imports of non-metallic minerals from LDCs also developed favourably. Here, the medium-term trend has changed from stable over the 2012–2019 period to green (decreasing) over the 2013–2020 period. Lastly, the trend in the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint is downward and green. In the case of one indicator for this theme, the trend reversal meant a deterioration from the perspective of well-being: the medium-term trend in the volume of imports of non-metallic minerals (from all over the world) over the 2013–2020 period is stable, whereas it was previously decreasing (green).