The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Dutch context
After considering well-being as a whole in Chapter 2 and the distribution among population groups in Chapter 3, this chapter focuses on individual themes within well-being. It is centred on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. The UN set 17 global goals and linked several specific objectives to each goal. In September 2015, government leaders from 193 countries committed themselves to this sustainable development agenda, which runs until 2030.
In February 2021, at the request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, CBS published a report on where the Netherlands stands five years after the national implementation and ten years before the goals are due to be met (CBS, 2021a). In addition to monitoring, that report contains the policy goals formulated for each SDG goal. An initial assessment was also made of the relationships between the various goals of the SDG agenda. In addition to the trade-offs referred to in part of the SDG agenda (trying to achieve one goal can be detrimental to the achievement of other goals), the agenda includes numerous potential synergy effects. By identifying so-called ‘cross-links’ more systematically, CBS aims to respond to ambitions of policy-makers. This does require more research, however.
Chapter 4 of the Monitor describes the trends in the Netherlands and the Netherlands’ position in the EU for each SDG. This is done with the aid of indicators grouped according to the resources that are deployed and existing opportunities, their use, outcomes and citizens’ perceptions of them. In addition to the internationally established indicators in the SDG agenda, indicators appropriate for the Dutch context were sought for the objectives (SDGplus).
Figures for 2020 have been included for a large number of the indicators. 2020 was an exceptional year due to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic and the measures taken to counter the spread of the virus. However, the focus of the Monitor of Well-being is not so much on the short term as on the medium term and the trends over the past eight years (2013–2020). It should be noted that in order to make the indicators internationally comparable, ratios are calculated which are divided, for example, by the number of inhabitants, the surface area of the Netherlands, GDP or hours worked. Such ratios may be significantly affected by the sharp contraction of GDP in 2020. When looking at trends, both the numerator and denominator are important.
The dashboards of SDG 1, SDG 6 and the two dashboards of SDG 10 have been revised in the 2021 Monitor of Well-being, in consultation with subject experts, the focus group comprising ministries and policy analysis agencies, and the SDG alliance coordinators. Other dashboards also include some changes, including revisions of the series used, base year shifts, adjustments of age limits or the use of different sources. Hence it is not always possible to compare the current status of the indicators directly with those of the previous Monitor. To overcome this, CBS publishes Excel tables with the complete time series and the associated metadata on its website each year. Wherever a trend reversal is mentioned, the trend over the 2013–2020 period is compared to the trend over the years 2012–2019, which is the reference period of the previous Monitor, with both trends being calculated on the basis of the current data series.
4.1Summary overview
Figures 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 give an impression of the Netherlands’ position in relation to the SDGs, ten years before the goals are due to be achieved (in 2030). It should be noted here that the report focuses on the SDG targets that are relevant to the Netherlands and that it is actually an SDG-‘plus’ report. Alongside the official SDG indicators established by the UN, CBS has added indicators from the CES framework, in line with the remit of the Monitor of Well-being. Section 4.3 examines in greater detail how the indicators used to monitor progress in the 17 SDGs were chosen.
With regard to the trends over the 2013–2020 period, it is notable that a relatively large number of indicators show a green trend (and are therefore moving towards the goal). The indicators concerned are SDG 2 (No hunger), SDG 4 (Quality education), SDG 5 (Gender equality), SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation), SDG 7 (Affordable and sustainable energy), SDG 11 (second dashboard, sustainable cities and communities: living environment) and SDG 13 (Climate action).
In the case of SDG 3 (Good health and well-being), SDG 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure: first dashboard, mobility), SDG 10 (Reduced inequalities: second dashboard, financial sustainability), SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities: first dashboard, housing), SDG 15 (Life on land) and SDG 16 (Peace, justice and strong institutions: second dashboard, institutions) there are a relatively large number of indicators showing a red trend. This indicates that these SDGs are moving further away from the goal.
The picture is largely unchanged with regard to the comparison with the other EU countries: The Netherlands continues to be the leader for SDG 1 (No poverty), SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth: second dashboard, labour and leisure time), SDG 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure: second dashboard, sustainable business) and SDG 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure: third dashboard, knowledge and innovation), SDG 10 (Reduced inequalities: first dashboard, social cohesion and inequality), SDG 16 (Peace, justice and strong institutions: second dashboard, institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the goals).
The Netherlands is lagging behind in the case of SDG 13 (Climate action). ) Few indicators are available for SDG 14 (Life below water) 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 has now attained a position in the middle group.
4.2Measuring the SDGs in the Netherlands
The UN has broken down the goals of the 17 SDGs into 169 targets. The governments of the UN member states are responsible for monitoring progress in relation to the goals and targets. The national statistical offices naturally play a major role in this work. CBS published the first measurement for the Netherlands back in 2016 (CBS, 2016).
CBS has now integrated the system for measuring well-being (CES framework) and for monitoring of the SDGs in a single publication. This has major advantages in that both frameworks cover the same area in terms of content and policy. While the approach related to well-being expresses a general intention (well-being that is inclusive and sustainable ‘here and now’, ‘later’ and ‘elsewhere’), in the SDG agenda it is translated into specific targets. This gives policy-makers practical guidance. The two agendas can therefore reinforce each other considerably, which is clearly demonstrated by the positive reactions from society and the government. Numerous ministries have said that they found the linking of well-being and SDGs to be very relevant to their work. Well-being also features prominently in the election manifestos of political parties, the work of policy analysis agencies and the choices made by organisations such as Dutch Employers’ Organisation VNO-NCW and the Dutch Organisation for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (MKB-Nederland) when charting new courses: besides economic growth, business also prioritises an inclusive society – with employment and equal opportunities – and a sustainable living environment.noot1
Linking the well-being framework to the SDGs has also helped CBS to translate the SDG agenda to the Dutch context. The well-being indicators make key underlying principles of the SDG agenda clearer and more comprehensible, even if they are difficult to measure. The main concern here is the aim of the 2030 agenda to achieve a balance, providing well-being for people ‘here and now’ and people ‘elsewhere’, as well as carefully considering the interests of future generations (‘later’). The integration of the two measuring systems also helps to identify and document progress better in the various policy areas thanks to the specific goals set by the SDGs. Lastly, the well-being indicators in Chapter 3 also show clearly whether people (or groups of people) can benefit from developments in well-being or are actually disadvantaged. This evidence-based information helps in assessing the ‘leave no one behind’ principle in de SDGs.
4.3Selection of themes and indicators
A selection of indicators has been made for each SDG and together these form a dashboard. On the left, the dashboards show the most up-to-date figure for each indicator, and the direction of the medium-term trend (calculated for this edition from data for the 2013–2020 period). The right-hand side of the dashboard contains information on the Netherlands’ international position in the EU27.noot2
The SDG dashboards in this chapter are relevant to the Dutch policy context and can be seen as SDGplus dashboards, as they contain more than just official UN indicators. The selection of indicators takes account of the following aspects:
- A balanced distribution between resources that are used and the opportunities that this creates, the use made of resources and opportunities, the outcomes related to that use and the perceptions of citizens.
- Almost all indicators used to describe the state of well-being and resilience in Chapter 2 and derived from the CES framework have been included. These cover some SDGs better than others: it is notable that the UN’s work strongly emphasises ‘here and now’ indicators, while indicators reflecting the use of resources are less well represented. In addition, a relatively large number of ‘input indicators’ have been included in the SDG list, but indicators of outcomes are somewhat neglected. Where necessary, CES indicators have therefore been included in the dashboards to ensure balance in the set of indicators.
- Where possible, indicators from the UN SDG agenda have been included, provided they are relevant to the current Dutch policy debate. This builds on earlier work by CBS in the area of the SDGs. However, additional data research would be needed to include more indicators. For example, data from these indicators are not always available in time, although CBS tries to obtain them where possible. There is often also a lack of consistent time series with sufficient data points, or international comparisons. In accordance with the system used in this Monitor, this information is necessary to assess the extent to which indicators show a significant rising or falling trend and how the situation in the Netherlands compares to that in other countries. The dashboards can only be meaningfully completed if such information is provided.
The number of potential indicators for some of the themes in Chapter 4 was so large, and the SDG agenda so broad, that a number of goals have been divided into different themes and associated dashboards. A collection of indicators of limited scope was assembled for each SDG. The selection of indicators is based on a system of decision-making rules aimed at making the collection of indicators as balanced and neutral as possible.
Some indicators in the dashboards can give rise to a discussion on how to interpret them. First, a number of indicators for resources and opportunities prompt questions as to the expected effect on well-being. Examples are spending on health care, development cooperation, hours worked in education and environmental investments, where a rising trend does not by definition indicate an increase in well-being. It depends whether the increased use of resources actually brings results. Whether this expenditure, these investments or these hours worked are effective or ‘necessary’ depends on the desired outcomes and is determined by the policy debate. The basic principle of the measuring system is that all these aspects (resources, opportunities, use, outcomes and perception) should be considered in relationship to one another in this debate.
The selection of indicators, the statistical methods used to compile the dashboards, and the decision-making rules for the observations described in the text are addressed in the explanatory notes accompanying this publication (CBS, 2021b). For some indicators, the international comparison is inevitably based on data that differ somewhat conceptually from the Dutch data used to define and document the trend-related development.
For all policy themes, indicators were sought that came from a reliable source and that were as timely as possible, internationally comparable and consistently measured over time. Where indicators were equally suitable, data quality was the decisive factor, although in a number of cases the relevance to policy outweighed the data quality.
No international comparison is possible for some of the indicators, because no comparable data are available for other countries.
Colour codes
The Monitor uses colours to clarify the outcomes of the various indicators. For each indicator, two aspects are illustrated: the direction of the trend in the Netherlands in the 2013–2020 period and the position of the Netherlands in the EU27 in the most recent year with sufficient observations.
| For trends, the colours designate: | For positions, the colours designate: |
|---|---|
| Green | Green |
| The trend is moving in the direction associated with an increase in well-being. | The Netherlands is in the top quartile of the EU ranking. |
| Grey | Grey |
| No significant rise or fall in the trend. | The Netherlands is in the middle of the EU ranking, between the first and third quartiles of the frequency distribution. |
| Red | Red |
| The trend is moving in the direction associated with a decrease in well-being. | The Netherlands is in the bottom quartile of the EU ranking. |
The colours are allocated only on the basis of the first-order effects. For example, in the first order, an increase in individual consumption is good for the consumer. In the second order, higher consumption causes environmental pollution, obesity, water consumption and CO2emissions in other countries, etc.
If an indicator shows a medium-term trend that is moving in the direction associated with a decrease in well-being, and the Netherlands’ position in Europe is in the lowest quartile, CBS shows this in this Monitor as a ‘red’ trend and a ‘red’ position. The colour code signals to the reader that he or she needs to take a close look at the phenomenon pointed out by the indicator. The same applies to a completely green indicator. Resources and opportunities are not seen in the context of more or less well-being, but only in terms of more or fewer available resources.
The colour codes serve only as signals They are expressly not a normative interpretation. The Monitor indicates how the Netherlands is faring in terms of various aspects of well-being, showing the trade-offs that we as a society are confronted with. It is the task of political decision-makers and policy-makers to consider actions and draw policy conclusions based on this information.
Notes in the dashboards mean the following:
- For the Monitor of Well-being, CBS has estimated an annual figure for the most recent year in order to facilitate the political debate. This is a provisional first estimate.
- For this indicator, the number of data points in the 2013–2020 period is insufficient to calculate a trend.
- Data quality insufficient to determine a trend.
- Initial provisional results from the Natural Capital Accounts (NCA).
- In contrast to Figure 2.4.2 in Chapter 2 (the ‘elsewhere’ wheel), in Chapter 4 this indicator is interpreted for SDG 17 as being favourable or unfavourable in terms of well-being. This indicator is defined in the SDG agenda. Each SDG indicator has a desired direction. From this point of view, more spending is seen as increasing well-being.
SDG 1 No poverty
SDG 1 is focused on reducing all forms of poverty. This includes both financial aspects and the impact of poverty on people’s lives. The SDG agenda calls for attention to be focused particularly on social protection, equal economic rights and resilience of poor and vulnerable groups. Although poverty issues in the Netherlands are of a different order than those in the world’s least developed countries, people here are also at risk of relative poverty. Various indicators have therefore been added for the Dutch context. Government policy focuses on preventing and combating poverty and problematic debt, with particular attention devoted to children living in poverty (CBS, 2021a). The coronavirus crisis has made this issue all the more relevant. Poverty and debt are being tackled through accelerated measures by local authorities and civil society organisations, and through coronavirus-related support packages such as TOZO, NOW and TONK.
The dashboard shows income developments in the Netherlands, how high the risk is of income poverty or social exclusion and to what extent people are concerned about their financial situation. People’s material well-being is defined here as the standardised disposable income of the household in which they live. This income is the basis for their expenditure, savings or investments. People with a low disposable income and little capital are at risk of poverty. If as well as having low income the household is also struggling with serious financial constraints or is not very active in the job market, members of the household are also at risk of social exclusion. In addition to the level of disposable income, the dashboard also addresses the question of how secure people perceive their livelihood to be.
The dashboard has been slightly revised for this edition of the Monitor. For some indicators the unit has been adjusted. The amounts are now expressed in constant prices with a 2019 base year.noot3 Consequently, the results cannot be compared directly to those of the previous edition.
The impression based on the trends is quite favourable. Ten of the twelve indicators show a rising or a neutral trend in well-being. Not all figures for 2020 are yet available. The effects of the coronavirus crisis on income, wealth and debt will only become visible over the longer term. The positions in the EU rankings present a clear picture: nearly all internationally comparable indicators put the Netherlands among the leaders in Europe.
Resources and opportunities
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities concern the financial means people have at their disposal and any support available. Here the picture is positive in the medium term, with three favourable (green) trends over the 2013–2020 period. In 2019, the average standardised disposable income per household was 30,800 euros. Very high incomes pull up the average; the median disposable income, at 27,500 euros, was therefore below the average disposable income. The Netherlands occupies a high position in the European ranking for these indicators. Median household wealth trended higher, reaching 49,800 euros on 1 January 2019. That is 12,000 euros more than the year before. The increase is mainly due to the continued rise in value of owner-occupied homes.
The median purchasing power of the population in 2019 was 1.3 percent higher than in the previous year. The increase in 2017 and 2018 was half that much.noot4 There are no figures yet on the impact of coronavirus on median purchasing power. In any case, people in employment benefited from the fact that in 2020 the rise in collectively agreed pay (3.0 percent) far exceeded inflation (1.3 percent), although this increase in pay results from agreements made largely before the coronavirus crisis. The first results of the national accounts indicate an increase in real disposable income of 2.4 percent in 2020.
Use concerns the use of various forms of financial support. For this category, there are currently no known indicators that meet the quality criteria of this publication.
Outcomes for this SDG relate to the proportion of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion. The picture here is more mixed. There are two unfavourable medium-term trends: rises in the number of homeless people and long-term poverty. Having affordable independent accommodation is considered to be a basic need. At the beginning of 2020, 34 out of every 10,000 inhabitants aged 18–64 were sleeping in temporary accommodation, in the open air or in indoor public places. Most of them were men. The effect of the coronavirus crisis cannot yet be determined, as the measurements were taken just before the outbreak of the pandemic. Over 3 percent of households had been living below the low-income threshold for at least four years in 2019. That is nearly 400,000 households. A positive point, however, is the gradual decline in the proportion of children under 18 living in a household with income below the low-income threshold for at least one year. In 2019, this was 7.8 percent of minors, compared to 9.9 percent at the beginning of the trend period in 2013.
For the following indicators the trend is neutral. According to the first estimates by Eurostat, the EU’s statistical office, 16.3 percent of the population were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2020, slightly fewer than in 2019.noot5 With this relatively low percentage, the Netherlands compares favourably with other countries in the EU. Relative poverty, the share of the population having to make ends meet with income below the European poverty threshold, rose by 0.4 percentage points to 13.6 percent between 2019 and 2020.noot6 This put the Netherlands in eighth place in the EU27 in 2019. The poverty gap, which is how far the median income of poor people is below the poverty threshold, was unchanged in 2020 compared to 2019. Here too the Netherlands ranks relatively favourably in the EU, in seventh place. For the first time CBS has calculated the proportion of households struggling with registered problematic debts. This indicator shows that 8.3 percent of households were in this situation in 2018.
Subjective assessment refers to how people perceive the security of their livelihood. The percentage of people who say they are very concerned about their financial future fell again in 2020. In 2020, almost one in four adults were struggling with such worries, while in 2013 – the first year that this was measured – the share was still one in three.
SDG 2 Zero hunger
SDG 2 aims to end hunger, guarantee food security and promote better nutrition and sustainable farming. Compared to other countries, malnourishment and food insecurity are not a frequent occurrence in the Netherlands. This dashboard therefore focuses on the sustainability of food production and the impact of food production on the quality of the living environment and animal welfare. The dashboard also covers an aspect of SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), namely food waste.
Dutch policy covers all the targets of SDG 2 and is primarily the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, although it also touches on health policy (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport), mission-driven innovation policy (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy) and fisheries policy (Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management) (CBS, 2021a). The main commitment takes the form of the five Food Policy action lines and the commitment to circular agriculture for 2030. The aim of the National Agricultural Soils Programme (NPL) is that in 2030 all Dutch agricultural soils will be managed sustainably, so that the soil can function optimally and the quality is and remains as high as possible for future generations. Sustainably managed soils are also important for SDG 15, Life on land, as well as SDG 2.
Trends in the Netherlands present a predominantly positive picture, but the position relative to other EU countries is more mixed. The country ranks among both the leaders and the laggards. Agricultural production is very high compared to that of other EU countries, but the Netherlands sometimes lags behind in more sustainable forms of production. The acreage devoted to organic farming and high-protein crops is relatively small, for example, and the livestock density is relatively high.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Resources and opportunities concern the land area and labour available for food production. The acreage of arable land is trending downwards and in 2020 covered just under 44 percent of the total surface area (land and water) of the Netherlands. Although the trend in the production value of agriculture is neutral, the international position is high: in 2020 the Netherlands ranked second in the EU, with more than 170 million euros of production value (2010 prices) per thousand labour years.
Use relates to how, and how sustainably, food is produced. There are many favourable trends here, but the Netherlands sometimes occupies very low positions internationally. The acreages devoted to organic farming and high-protein crops increased further, to 3.8 percent and 0.5 percent of the total acreage of arable land respectively. As a result of organic farming and the cultivation of crops such as legumes and soy beans, more animal-friendly, environmentally friendly and meat-replacement food is becoming available. The acreage is nevertheless still small compared to other EU countries. The Netherlands also has the highest livestock density in Europe. Although this leads to higher food production, it is viewed negatively in the context of sustainable production (animal welfare and pressure on the environment).
Sales of chemical plant protection products (per million euros of agricultural production volume) show a downward trend, although in 2019 they still amounted to almost 350 kg per million euros of agriculture production volume. Relatively low amounts of plant protection products are therefore used compared to other EU countries. There is also a decreasing trend in the use of antibiotics in livestock farming. The use of antibiotics in livestock farming can lead to bacteria resistance, with harmful consequences for both humans and animals.
Outcomes describe food affordability and the impact of food production on the living environment and animal welfare. Many of the effects on the local environment and water quality are related to nitrogen and phosphorus uptake rates. The crop uptake of nitrogen amounted to 59 percent of total nitrogen input from mineral fertilisers in 2020. The remaining nitrogen evaporates into the surrounding air after fertiliser application or remains in the soil, and subsequently leaches into ground and surface water. The phosphorus uptake was substantially higher than for nitrogen, at almost 88 percent. There is a prospect of a balance being achieved. The Netherlands is in a middle position internationally.
Consumers are taking advantage of the wider range of more sustainably produced food. Both the market share of organic food (3 percent in 2019) and the proportion of meat with a sustainability label (33 percent in 2019) show a rising trend. The Netherlands has a target of no more than 63 kg of food waste per capita in 2030, but is still a long way from this target: although the estimated amount of food waste was lower in 2018 than in 2013 (127 kg versus almost 134 kg), waste and feed statistics indicate that the decline has not continued in recent years. The trend has therefore turned from green to grey.
Subjective assessment relates to how satisfied people are with food quality and supply, and with the living environment and animal welfare. For this category, there are currently no known indicators that meet the quality criteria of this publication.
SDG 3 Good health and well-being
SDG 3 aims to achieve good health for people of all ages. This includes preventing premature deaths caused by poor maternal and child care, as well as addressing physical illness and psychological problems.
Dutch policy is aimed at further reducing neonatal and infant mortality. Policy is also focused on the prevention of communicable diseases in general. In addition, there is a particular focus on non-communicable diseases, including through prevention and improved access to mental healthcare. The measures in the National Prevention Agreement on smoking, obesity and problem drinking contribute to this. In the prevention and treatment of excessive use of addictive substances, the Netherlands focuses on preventing use and combating the crime that is often associated with it (CBS, 2021a).
For general public health and health care, 2020 was a difficult year due to the arrival of COVID-19, an infectious disease caused by a novel coronavirus. The number of hospital admissions of coronavirus patients was high and regular care had to be scaled back. There was also heavy pressure on nursing and care homes. As far as mortality is concerned, a first provisional estimate by CBS for 2020 puts the total number of coronavirus deaths at 20,030. Of these, 17,357 died from confirmed COVID-19 and a further 2,673 from suspected COVID-19 (less testing was carried out particularly at the start of the pandemic). These figures are based on death certificates issued by doctors. Almost six in every ten people who died from COVID-19 in 2020 were users of the care system under the Long-Term Care Act.
The results take account of the recent developments, but the SDG 3 dashboard focuses mainly on the medium term, the 2013–2020 period. The picture is mixed. Two of the indicators showing a clear trend, point to increasing well-being and five to a decline in well-being. If we look at the position in the EU, we see that the Netherlands has a high and therefore favourable position for five indicators, while for two others it is low down in the rankings.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities relate to the resources used to maintain and improve the health care system. Spending on health care as a percentage of GDP has been gradually decreasing and stood at 10 percent of GDP in 2019. The trend is red. The number of care hours worked per capita was slightly lower in 2020 than in 2019. Care here includes both health care (cure) and care and welfare (care). The trend is neutral. The Netherlands is high in the European ranking for this indicator and therefore devotes a relatively large number of hours to care.
Use concerns behaviour that affects health and the use people make of the care services. Obesity, alcohol consumption and smoking are three important indicators of a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle. A growing proportion of the population aged 20 and over is overweight: in 2020, 51.1 percent of the population aged 20 and over had a BMI of 25.0 kg/m2 or more, based on self-reporting of body height and weight. This represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points since 2013, the beginning of the trend period, so the trend is red. For alcohol consumption, the trend has turned from green to neutral. Consumption compares favourably with that in other EU countries, however, with the Netherlands ranking fourth out of 21 EU countries in 2018. The percentage of smokers remains on a downward trend. In 2020, just under 19 percent of the population aged 12 and over smoked, whereas at the beginning of the trend period in 2013 the figure was just over 23 percent.
An indicator for the use of health care is the measles vaccination rate. For the first time in five years, the national vaccination coverage was higher than a year earlier: 93.6 percent of children born in 2017, had been vaccinated – at age two – in 2019. The trend is red, however. The WHO recommends vaccination coverage of 95 percent for measles, but the Netherlands is still below that level. Vaccination coverage is also low compared to other EU countries (15th out of 22 countries in 2018). Figures for 2020 are not yet available, but the vaccination programme continued as planned during the coronavirus pandemic.
Outcomes refer to the physical and mental health of the population in relation to the quality of health care. Diabetes is one of the most common chronic illnesses and is also responsible for a substantial disease burden.noot7 In 2019, 4.7 percent of the Dutch population were taking diabetes medication. The average hospital stay for inpatients is stable and shorter in the Netherlands than in the other EU countries. These figures cover the period up to the end of 2019, so they do not include coronavirus admissions. Waiting times for outpatient care increased up to 2018; the trend is red. In 2018 the waiting times between the first appointment and the start of treatment exceeded the ‘Treek’ limitnoot8 of four weeks in almost 29 percent of cases. It is likely that delayed care due to coronavirus has made waiting times even longer.
Healthy life expectancy is a measure that combines mortality risks and poor health. It can be applied in several ways. Life expectancy (at birth) in health that is perceived as good or very good is used here. In 2020, mortality due to coronavirus was 10 percent higher than could be expected based on mortality in previous years and demographic trends. In total, more than 16,000 deaths were recorded between March and November in which coronavirus was the established or suspected cause. This led to a decrease in life expectancy. However, people’s appreciation of their own health was particularly high. 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. The healthy life expectancy of women in the Netherlands is relatively low in comparison with women in other EU countries. Men in the Netherlands occupy a middle position in Europe. The figures used to make the international comparison are based on a different variant of healthy life expectancy than the figures used for the trend in the Netherlands. The international comparison concerns life expectancy without limitations.noot9
In 2020, 4.6 percent of the population aged 16 and over faced serious limitations in their daily functioning due to long-term health problems. These are limitations that have lasted six months or longer. This group is becoming smaller and the trend has changed from grey to green (i.e. downwards). The position within the EU is also favourable. The mental health of the population is measured in its most extreme form by looking at developments in the number of suicides. A second indicator is the ‘mentally healthy population’, which shows how people felt in the four weeks prior to the survey, using the five questions of the Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5). Of the population aged 12 and over, just over 88 percent obtained an MHI-5 score of 60 or more in 2020 and are therefore considered to be mentally healthy. For this indicator, the medium-term trend has been downward (red) since 2013, and the Netherlands is in the middle group in the EU (in 2017).
Subjective assessment concerns people’s satisfaction with both their own health and the Dutch health care system. In the pandemic year 2020, people were clearly more positive about their own health. The percentage of the population perceiving their health as good or very good rose from 78.7 percent in 2019 to 81.5 in 2020. The trend has turned from red to grey. The Netherlands occupies a relatively high position within Europe for this indicator.
SDG 4 Quality education
SDG 4 aims to achieve a good education for everyone. Adequate and accessible education is important for people in all age categories and in all stages of life, from pre-school and primary education through to vocational and higher education, followed by ‘lifelong learning’. The quality of education is a determinant of the competencies of pupils and students and the population as a whole. Education additionally ensures that current and future employees will have the skills they need to work in a knowledge-intensive environment.
The Netherlands has formulated policy to achieve all targets. Dutch policy focuses on guaranteeing and improving the quality of education and giving young people opportunities through education, training or work. Access to education for all boys and girls is already in place in the Netherlands. Various measures have been taken in the field of ‘lifelong learning’ (also known as life-long development). Most policy relating to SDG 4 has been formulated by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, but relevant policy proposals have also been presented by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (CBS, 2021a).
This dashboard presents a mixed picture, but is mostly favourable. Indicators that show a trend show a positive one from the point of view of well-being (as formulated in the SDG agenda) for six indicators and a negative one for two indicators. In the EU rankings, the Netherlands is among the leaders for seven indicators, and among the laggards for just one indicator.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities relate to the range and affordability of education. Government spending on education as a percentage of GDP (5.0 percent in 2019) is trending downwards, which is unfavourable for well-being. The Netherlands occupies a middle position in Europe in this regard. The number of hours worked in education per capita actually increased in the past trend period, to almost 41 hours per capita in 2020, but this is low in comparison with other EU countries (21st out of 26 countries in 2019).
Use refers to participation in education. In 2018 nearly 97 percent of children from the age of 4 to the age when education becomes compulsory were in education. The trend has changed from red to neutral. The Netherlands ranks fairly highly in the EU, sixth out of 26 countries. Our country occupies a middle position in terms of early school leavers and the trend is downward (and hence positive). The Dutch policy goal of a school drop-out rate of less than 8 percent in 2020 has been achieved: 7.0 percent of young people aged 18–24 left education prematurely, i.e. without a basic qualification (at least senior general secondary education (havo) or pre-university education (vwo), basic vocational training (mbo-2) or former qualifications of a comparable level). There are two targets concerning early school leavers: one is international and the other is a national target derived from it. The indicator in this Monitor concerns the international target: the total group of early school leavers aged 18–24 and participation in both government-funded and privately funded education. The trend in lifelong learning is also favourable and involved 19.5 percent of the population aged 25–64 in 2019. Within the EU, the Netherlands occupies a high position.
Outcomes concern the educational attainment level and levels of specific skills. The age limits for these indicators have been adjusted in the 2021 Monitor. The results apply to the population aged 15–74 and are therefore in line with the labour force statistics, where the upper limit is also set at 74, and with the breakdown into population groups in Chapter 3.
The policy target of more than 40 percent of 30–34‑year-olds being highly educated in 2020 was achieved as early as 2010. More than half of this age category is now highly educated (53.1 percent). This target is now coming within the reach of a much wider age category: 34.2 percent of the population aged 15–74 were highly educated in 2020. Both age categories show a rising trend. The proportion of the population with a medium education level has declined in recent years, and the trend is downward (red). Within Europe, the Netherlands occupies a middle position in terms of education level but a high position for highly educated people aged 30–34. It should be noted here that although all EU countries report education level based on the same international classification (ISCED), education systems differ greatly between countries.
The scores for the final tests for pupils in group 8, the PISA scores of 15‑year-olds and the PIAAC studies (among the adult population aged 16–65) give an impression of the specific skills. The Education Inspectorate uses a baseline measurement for the 2018/’19 academic year, looking for the first time at the results of all five final tests to see whether pupils are sufficiently proficient in reading and arithmetic at the end of their primary schooling. Therefore it is not possible to look back to previous years. The international position in these two indicators is derived from the PISA study conducted among 15‑year-olds in the OECD countries every three years. The Dutch PIAAC scores for adult skills are high compared to other countries, but the last measurement again dates from 2012. PIAAC is an international OECD study conducted among adults, which only takes place once every 10 years. A new round started in 2018 and the results will be published in late 2023. Lastly, digital skills are essential in a knowledge-intensive economy. On this point, the Netherlands was at the top of the European rankings in 2019.
Subjective assessment refers to how people experience education and their educational opportunities. People in the Netherlands express considerable satisfaction with their education opportunities: almost 83 percent of the adult population were satisfied in 2020 and the trend is rising.
SDG 5 Gender equality
SDG 5 is aimed at equal treatment of men and women and an equal position in society. This should be achieved by ending the disadvantages suffered by women and girls in particular across a wide range of areas, including coercion and violence, employment and health care, and influence in public life.
Dutch policy largely covers SDG 5. The most important policy input takes the form of the Emancipation Memorandum to tackle domestic violence and measures aimed at a more equal division of care responsibilities within the family. Most policy proposals and measures relating to SDG 5 have been drawn up by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. The government is also implementing relevant policy measures in the context of SDG 10 on inclusion and non-discrimination, but in a more general sense (CBS, 2021a).
With regard to the trend in the Netherlands, a majority of the indicators in this dashboard are green. The picture with regard to the Netherlands’ international position is more mixed, however. The Netherlands is in a strong position for three indicators, but for three others it is low in the European rankings.noot10
Use
Outcomes
Resources and opportunities concern the rights and freedoms of men and women and the opportunities they have to use them. For this category, there are currently no known indicators that meet the quality criteria of this publication.
Use relates to the extent to which women and men participate in society and the economy. In the 2020/’21 academic year, women made up the majority of students in higher education in the Netherlands (over 52 percent). The trend has changed from neutral to rising. In most other European countries, the percentage of female students is even higher than in the Netherlands; if there is any disadvantage here, it is among men.
For both men and women, the trend in employment (the proportion of employed people aged 15–74) is increasing. There was a small decrease in 2020, however, particularly among men. At 72.5 percent, the participation rate for men in 2020 was still around 8 percentage points higher than that of women (64.2 percent). The difference has narrowed since 2013, however. In the EU27, the Netherlands was among the leaders in 2019, for both women and men.
Outcomes refer to the effects of participation on gender equality. The results are developing favourably from the perspective of well-being, with green trends in many cases. The percentage of women who earn at least the level of income support through employment and are therefore economically independent has grown faster than that of men since the start of the trend period (2013). In contrast to employment, this concerns men and women aged between 15 and the state pension entitlement age, excluding school pupils and students. This catch-up has narrowed the difference from nearly 21 percentage points in 2013 to over 17 percentage points in 2019.
The gender gap in remuneration is also gradually narrowing. The difference in hourly pay between men and women decreased by 3 percentage points to 13.7 percent between 2013 and 2020. This puts the Netherlands in a middle position within the EU. For both women and men, the highly educated percentage is increasing, with the share for women being slightly larger than for men. However, women in the Netherlands occupy an average position internationally, while men are in the leading group in Europe. Women in some other EU countries improved their education level even more.
In the case of women in management positions, the trend turned from neutral to green (rising). Just over a quarter of higher and middle management positions were occupied by women in 2020. However, this is still low (22nd position) compared to other EU countries. The proportion of female members of parliament is decreasing. The trend is red. In 2020, women made up one-third of members of the House of Representatives, placing the Netherlands in a middle position within the EU. Based on the preliminary results, the percentage of elected women appears to have risen sharply after the 2021 elections: four out of ten members of the new House of Representatives are expected to be women.
Healthy life expectancy, i.e. life expectancy in health that is perceived as good or very good, is broadly similar for women and men. At birth, women are expected to live for over 65.9 years in good perceived health and men for 66.5 years. Compared to women in other EU countries, women in the Netherlands are low in the rankings, while the men are in a middle position. The figures used to make the international comparison are based on a different variant of healthy life expectancy than the figures used for the trend in the Netherlands. The international comparison concerns life expectancy without limitations.noot11
One of the focal points of this SDG’s aim of a safe society for all citizens is less intimidation of and violence against women. Physical and/or sexual abuse by a partner or former partner is one aspect of this. On this point, there is a downward trend, which is favourable. In 2019 1.3 in every thousand women aged 15 and over in the Netherlands reported having been a victim of physical or sexual abuse by their current or former partner. In 2013 this applied to more than two in a thousand women.
Subjective assessment relates to people’s experience of gender equality or inequality. For this category, there are currently no known indicators that meet the quality criteria of this publication.
SDG 6 Clean water and sanitation
Access to drinking water and sanitation and sustainable water management are at the heart of SDG 6. Access is well regulated in the Netherlands, but indicators of the affordability of drinking water have been included. This dashboard focuses on water quality and the efficiency of water consumption. Policy relevant to SDG 6 is formulated mainly by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management and the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, but there are also contributions from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. The main focus is on integrated freshwater management to ensure the availability of water and on combating water pollution (CBS, 2021a). Less harmful discharges, reuse of water and lower water consumption should improve water quality and prevent water shortages. Discharges of pollutants, either directly or through the soil, affect the quality of inland waterways and groundwater. Water purification reduces the pollution and improves water quality. Lastly, using water more efficiently reduces the pressure on freshwater sources in times of increasing economic activity.
Indicators have been added to this dashboard for this edition. The trend in the Netherlands is predominantly positive, with the exception of animal species characteristic of freshwater habitats and chemical water quality. In the case of this SDG a comparison with other EU countries is only possible for a few indicators, and these show that the Netherlands has only an average to low score.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities concern the means used to provide households with clean and affordable drinking water. Drinking water provision is very well regulated in the Netherlands. The water companies have succeeded in reducing their costs (from 1.23 euros per m3 in 2013 to 1.15 euros in 2019). The trend in the average price for drinking water customers is neutral, however, because in addition to the production costs, charges are also levied for groundwater tax, distribution refunds, mains water tax and VAT. This part of the costs has therefore risen.
Use relates to the degree of purification of urban waste water, the extraction of water from the environment and the efficiency of drinking water use (water productivity). Trends in almost all indicators are positive. The purification efficiency for nitrogen and phosphorus from urban waste water was high in 2019, at 85 and 87 percent respectively. The rising trends indicate a continuous improvement in the efficiency of water purification. Adding together the use across the economy, over 400 m3 of fresh surface water was extracted per capita in 2018. In 2013, the beginning of the trend period, the volume was 575 m3. In addition, almost 70 m3 of groundwater was extracted per capita in 2018, considerably more than in previous years (average around 60 m3). The dry summer of 2018 led to substantially more water consumption by farms and water companies. On the other hand, the fact that energy companies need less and less fresh water for cooling slightly reduces the extraction per capita. Compared to other EU countries, the Netherlands extracts a considerable amount of fresh surface water, partly because of the large number of companies that are intensive users of cooling water. After discharge, that cooling water becomes available again for reuse. Water productivity – a measure of the efficiency of water consumption by industry – improved substantially between 2013 and 2018, from less than 60 euros of value added per m3 (2015 prices) to almost 90 euros per m3. Dutch water productivity is still fairly average compared to that of other EU countries.
Outcomes refer to the quality of surface water and the sustainability of water consumption. Only the level of water stress seems to be trending in the right direction, with a decrease of around 5 percentage points from 2013 to 15.4 percent in 2018. This concerns the ratio of extracted freshwater to the available renewable freshwater sources, also referred to as water extraction intensity or water stress. The other indicators show a stable or even red trend.
Animal species that are typical of freshwater and marshes have shown a declining trend since 2013, after a long, steady rise. There are various reasons for this declining trend and they differ from one group of species to another. Water quality is clearly still far from being good enough everywhere for these specific animal species.
The biological water quality (for algae, water plants, fish and macrofauna) and chemical water quality (based on 53 chemical substances or groups of substances) are assessed in this dashboard according to the system used in the European Water Framework Directive. CBS converts this data in the Natural Capital Accounts to the percentage of surface water of good quality. Although many small bodies of water comply with the standard, in terms of total surface area only a relatively small proportion of Dutch water is compliant. By 2020, 3.6 percent of surface water was of good biological quality and 5.1 percent met chemical quality standards. The trend in chemical quality is downward; in 2013 the percentage was still above 10.
The trend in inland bathing water quality has turned from green to neutral. In 2020, 73.5 percent of inland water was rated ‘excellent’. Indirectly, this indicator is also relevant to the production of drinking water, since in the Netherlands surface water in particular is extracted alongside groundwater for use as drinking water.
Subjective assessment concerns satisfaction with drinking water. In 2019, customers of water companies gave their water an 8.7 (out of 10) rating, the highest rating ever. This satisfaction is measured once every three years, so there are not enough data points in the 2013–2020 period to calculate a trend.
SDG 7 Affordable and clean energy
SDG 7 focuses on energy security, sustainability and energy efficiency. These have been a key subject of Dutch public and political debate in recent years. Most of the policy for SDG 7 has been drawn up by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. Energy policy is devised in the context of the Climate Agreement: the Integral National Energy and Climate Plannoot12 contains policy for the 2021–2030 period (see also SDG 13). Policy goals and initiatives have also been formulated by the Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the basis of the innovation agenda, environmental policy and agricultural policy (CBS, 2021a).
Energy security in the Netherlands is high. The dashboard for SDG 7 is therefore aimed at renewable energy and energy efficiency. The main causes of greenhouse gas emissions (see SDG 13) are fossil fuel combustion for electricity, manufacturing, road vehicles, and residential and other buildings. The development and use of technologies for energy conservation and renewable sources are essential to reduce energy use and fossil fuel dependency. This will have a positive effect on future levels of well-being.
The trend in the Netherlands (2013–2020) is predominantly positive, with an increase in employment and investment in the growing sustainable energy sector and the use of renewable energy, as well as a decrease in the energy intensity of the economy. Nevertheless, the Netherlands still lags far behind the other EU countries for some of these indicators.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Resources and opportunities relate to the availability and affordability of energy and, with particular relevance to the Netherlands, investment in a sustainable energy supply. Investment in renewable energy and energy savings shows a rising trend and represented 1.1 percent of GDP in 2018. Employment in the sustainable energy sector also trended higher to 0.8 percent of total employment in 2019.noot13
The operational capacity for renewable electricity in the Netherlands increased in the 2013–2020 trend period from 202 to 964 megawatts per million inhabitants. Growth has been exceptional particularly in recent years: in 2020, capacity was 43 percent higher than in 2019. The increase is partly due to the expansion of wind farm capacity with the addition of two new, large wind farms off the Zeeland coast. The electrical capacity of installations to generate solar power grew substantially. In 2019 the Netherlands ranked 18th out of 27 EU countries for this indicator. This indicator refers to operational capacity, not actual energy generation. The latter is considerably lower than the potential capacity, particularly in the case of solar energy. Of the total renewable electricity produced in 2020, almost half was generated by wind turbines (45 percent). Biomass came second with 29 percent and solar panels accounted for 26 percent.
In addition to these three green trends, there are also two red trends. The current energy supply in the Netherlands is still based largely on the combustion of fossil fuels. From this perspective, it is important that there are sufficient fossil energy reserves. The trend in fossil energy reserves deemed producible from a commercial and social perspective is therefore red, as they decreased further. This is connected with the decision to phase out gas extraction in Groningen. From the perspective of the subsidence issues in the extraction area this is favourable, but from the perspective of climate objectives it is less so, because – given the need for fossil fuel – Groningen gas has a relatively good CO2 footprint compared to, for example, Russian gas.noot14 Since there is continued demand for energy even though reserves are decreasing, the dependence on energy imports is rising, which is undesirable (red trend). In 2019, nearly two-thirds of energy was provided by imports. In 2013, at the beginning of the trend period, the volume was barely one-quarter. The Netherlands thus ranked 13th in the EU in 2019.
Household spending on energy as a percentage of total consumer spending is used as an indicator of the affordability of energy. This share was 3.3 percent in 2020, a low percentage compared to the other EU countries. The trend has turned from green to grey, although the percentage is unlikely to decrease much further.
Use concerns amounts of energy used and saved. The trend in total energy consumption has turned from green to grey. The Netherlands is in a low position compared to other EU countries. Energy intensity, a measure of the energy efficiency of the economy, or how much energy is consumed in relation to its size, shows a decreasing trend, which is positive. In 2019, the Netherlands occupied an average position in the EU. With regard to this international comparison it should be noted that the composition of economic activity and thus energy use in production processes may vary considerably from one country to the next.
Outcomes relate to the affordability, sustainability and wastage of energy. The consumption of petroleum products shows a rising (red) trend, despite a decrease of almost 19 percent by 2020. The trend in fossil fuel imports is neutral, but as the major importer of fossil fuels in 2019 the Netherlands is right at the bottom of the EU ranking. A large proportion of these imports are re-exported, however. The trend in the share of renewable energy is positive. This grew further, from 5 percent in 2013 to nearly 9 percent in 2019. Hence there has been some catching up, but this indicator still places the Netherlands at the lower end of the EU ranking: 25th in 2019. A factor here is that compared to other countries such as Germany the Dutch government was for many years reluctant to provide financial incentives for renewable energy. This has certainly changed in recent years. The Netherlands’ low position is also due to the low consumption of wood in households and the low availability of hydro power.
Subjective assessment refers to satisfaction with the price and availability of energy sources. For this category, there are currently no known indicators that meet the quality criteria of this publication.
SDG 8.1 Decent work and economic growth: economy and factors of production
The objective of SDG 8 is twofold. The first dashboard of SDG 8 focuses on making economic growth more sustainable and efficient, devoting attention to innovation, entrepreneurship and the environment. GDP is a measure of the size of a country’s economy. It can be calculated on the basis of production, income or expenditure. An increase in GDP usually results in greater material well-being in the short term, measured in terms of median disposable income and individual consumption. But there is a downside, as economic activities can be damaging to people’s welfare, the living environment and well-being over the long term. To produce goods and services, an economy needs input from the various factors of production: capital, labour and raw materials. One important question in this regard is how sustainably and productively these are used. A second question is how profits and income are distributed among citizens and businesses. Together, these factors determine the extent to which economic growth is efficient and sustainable. The second aspect of SDG 8, decent work for all, will be dealt with in a separate SDG 8 dashboard.
Dutch policy covers the bulk of SDG 8. Most of the policy related to SDG 8 has been drawn up by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. In addition, policy measures and proposals have been formulated by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the Ministry of Justice and Security, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (CBS, 2021a). In 2019, the Growth Strategynoot15 was launched with a view to economic growth and increasing earning power.
This dashboard shows six trend reversals, all from green to neutral. The economy contracted sharply in 2020 due to the coronavirus measures. The damage was nevertheless limited compared to other EU countries. Five indicators, including GDP per capita, show a green medium-term trend (2013–2020), with only one indicator showing a red trend. In international comparisons, the Netherlands achieves scores for six indicators that put it among the leaders in Europe, while just one indicator places it low in the ranking.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities concern the volumes of labour, capital and knowledge used to produce goods and services, and the possibility of ultimately buying or selling this production for consumption or other purposes. The trends in this part of the dashboard are rising (green): hours worked, investment in tangible assets and median disposable income (available for the period up to and including 2019). The number of hours worked decreased significantly, however, in 2020, to 762. In 2019 the number was 795. The picture is mixed: the share of GDP represented by gross investments in tangible fixed assets is relatively small. In terms of hours worked per capita the Netherlands occupies a middle position and in terms of median disposable income the Netherlands is at the top of the ranking.
Use concerns the productivity and sustainability of the use of factors of production, and consumption. A number of economic ratios can be used to measure this. Here there are three trend reversals from green to neutral: in the knowledge capital stock, labour productivity and individual household consumption. Labour productivity (value added per hour worked) and individual consumption are high compared to other EU countries. The trend in physical capital stock per hour worked is downward and hence red. On the other hand, the Netherlands is the most efficient of all EU countries in its use of raw materials in the production process. The trend in raw material productivity is also improving.
Outcomes relate to the rate, efficiency and sustainability of economic growth. The volume of GDP was 3.7 percent smaller in the 2020 coronavirus year than in 2019. GDP per capita contracted slightly more, by 4.3 percent, but the medium-term trend remains upward. Here too the Netherlands occupies a high position in the European ranking. One-third of GDP is generated by exports to other countries, and this share is stable. The labour income share (LIS) illustrates the distribution of profit and remuneration in the economy, as the ratio of remuneration from labour (of employees and the self-employed) to total earned income. A higher LIS is favourable for working people. According to the definition used by CBS, CPB and DNB, the LIS in 2020 was 77.6 percent. The position of Dutch LIS relative to other countries is only indicative. Comparisons with other countries are difficult because there are many different definitions. The LIS of the Netherlands nevertheless appears to be relatively high (2017 figures). Lastly, the raw materials footprint was 7.5 tonnes per capita in 2019 and the trend is stable. CBS is currently working to improve the methods used to calculate it.
Subjective assessment refers to the confidence of consumers and producers. The business cycle is an important determinant of confidence in the economy, but the government policy also has an effect (e.g. coronavirus measures and support packages for businesses). All three sentiment indicators were dominated by pessimism in 2020, with the trend turning from green to grey.
Sentiment can fluctuate widely, both positively and negatively. Net consumer confidence stood at –20 in 2020. Confidence in the general economic climate was hit hardest, while consumers’ willingness to buy declined much less. Pessimistic consumer sentiment was also dominant in 2013, at the start of the trend period. The net figure in that year was –31. Industrial producer confidence plunged after the first coronavirus measures, but the gloom steadily abated in the months after April. The annual figure for 2020 was –7.6. Sentiment in manufacturing was strongly negative, but significantly less gloomy than in 2009 at the time of the credit crisis (annual figure –13.9). The third sentiment indicator, sentiment among all non-financial companies, also turned down, but here too the mood was less subdued than in 2009, with a reading of –13.5 versus –22.8.
SDG 8.2 Decent work and economic growth: labour and leisure time
The objective of SDG 8 is twofold. Economic growth must become more sustainable and efficient, with a focus on innovation, entrepreneurship and the environment. This aspect is covered in the first dashboard of SDG 8. The second aspect of this SDG is aimed at decent work for all, especially vulnerable groups, in good working conditions. Decent work is important for people to earn an income and participate in society, and also for their self-esteem. The question of whether they can find and keep a job and whether that job will pay them a sufficient wage to get by is very important for many people. In addition, they want to work in decent conditions, perform relevant and interesting tasks and achieve a good work-life balance. Leisure time also makes life worthwhile, enabling people to relax, engage with others and develop themselves further.
Dutch policy covers the bulk of SDG 8. Most policy measures and proposals relating to SDG 8 have been drawn up by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. Contributions also come from the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the Ministry of Justice and Security, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (CBS, 2021a). In addition to the Growth Strategy, which addresses economic growth and increasing earning capacity, various measures are deployed to achieve decent work for all and to support people who are unable to take control of their own careers.
The picture for this dashboard is predominantly positive. 2020 figures are already available for many indicators, but some effects of the coronavirus crisis may not be discernible until later. Six indicators show an improving trend in well-being over the medium term (2013–2020), with only one showing an unfavourable trend. Positions in the European ranking are also high in most cases.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities concern options for participating in the labour market and the number of jobs available. The medium-term trends from 2013 in this part of the dashboard are all positive. It should be noted that some effects of the coronavirus crisis may not become clear until later. A high vacancy rate is good for jobseekers and at the end of 2020 there were 25 vacancies per thousand jobs (admittedly down from 33 in 2019, but in 2013 there were only 12). Unemployment was relatively low at 3.8 percent of the labour force, despite the impact of the coronavirus crisis on the job market. Long-term unemployment (twelve months or longer) is less common, amounting to less than 1 percent in 2020. Unused labour potential amounted to 11.5 percent in 2020. Although this is 1 percentage point higher than in 2019, it is clearly less than the 18 percent-plus in 2013. The Netherlands compares favourably with other EU countries: unemployment is low and there is a relatively large number of vacancies for jobseekers in the Netherlands.
Use relates to participation in the job market. Over 68 percent of all 15–74‑year-olds were in work in 2020. This is slightly lower than in 2019, when the highest employment in fifty years was recorded. The fall in the number of people in work and the employment rate between March and May 2020 was exceptionally large, but the rate recovered partially later in the year. The trend in this indicator is rising (green). The Dutch employment rate is the highest among the EU countries. The average working week in 2020 was almost 27 hours worked per worker. Working hours are very low compared to those in other European countries. The trend has changed from green to neutral. This means there is no further increase in material well-being due to work. There may be a positive (second-order) effect of this relatively low number of hours worked, however, in that work does not have to be a focus of attention for people who, for example, are caring for children or other family members and/or value leisure time highly.
Outcomes relate to the proceeds of work, working conditions and occupational safety. The average hourly wage is relatively high in the Netherlands compared to the rest of the EU (adjusted for purchasing power). According to CBS and TNO, 15.7 percent of employees suffered from burn-out symptoms several times a month or more frequently in 2020. This was the year in which a lot of work was done from home. In 2019, the figure was 17 percent. The medium-term trend is nevertheless upward and red.
Subjective assessment relates to whether people are satisfied with their jobs, working conditions and leisure time, and whether they are worried about work and finances. Nearly 18 percent of employees were concerned about job security in 2020. This percentage is higher than in 2019 (16.5 percent), but the medium-term trend is downward (green). In April 2020 the coronavirus measures brought an abrupt end to households’ positive expectations regarding their financial situation for the next 12 months. The balance of positive and negative answers fell during that month to –17 percent. After the initial shock, however, consumers gradually became less gloomy. The annual figure for 2020 is –3. The trend did change from green to neutral between 2013 and 2020 though.
For the other indicators, there are positive developments between 2019 and 2020, and the Netherlands is relatively high in the EU rankings. The proportion of workers experiencing a work-life imbalance decreased from 9.7 percent in 2019 to 7.6 percent in 2020, possibly due to many people working from home and having less commuting time. The Dutch are in the lead in Europe in this respect. Over three-quarters of employees were satisfied with their working conditions in 2020. On this criterion the Netherlands ranked second in the EU in 2015, the most recent year for which a comparison can be made. The number of employees satisfied with their job (almost four out of five in 2020) was also fairly high compared to other countries. The trend in leisure time has changed from decreasing (red) to grey. The Netherlands is among the EU countries with the highest satisfaction with leisure time.
SDG 9.1 Industry, innovation and infrastructure: infrastructure and mobility
This broad SDG has three components: infrastructure and mobility, industry and sustainable business, and knowledge and innovation. The first task is to ensure accessible infrastructure and mobility for all. This dashboard therefore concerns not only the physical infrastructure (which is already highly developed in the Netherlands), but also the mobility of people and freight. Mobility and infrastructure enable people to work, keep in touch with each other and pursue activities in their leisure time. Personal mobility includes transport to and from work. Mobility also has negative effects on society and the environment, however, including time lost in traffic congestion, unsafe traffic situations and the burden on the environment.
The part of this SDG relating to infrastructure and mobility is within the remit of various ministries; most of the measures originated at the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. Policy has also been formulated by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (CBS, 2021a). The blueprint Mobility to 2040noot16 sets out the aim of creating a safe, robust and sustainable mobility system that has a minimal negative impact on the living environment, such as less noise nuisance, air pollution and energy consumption. The National Environmental Vision (NOVI)noot17 aims for optimum accessibility of cities and core economic areas in Stedelijk Netwerk Nederland (Dutch Urban Network). Consciously combining walking, cycling, public transport and reduced car use contributes to a healthy living environment and a healthy lifestyle.
Coronavirus measures had a major impact on mobility in 2020, as people were advised to work from home as much as possible and stay in their own neighbourhoods. This affected levels of congestion and air pollution. Initial figures from Rijkswaterstaat for 2020 show that the number of traffic jams and the level of congestion decreased significantly compared to 2019, particularly following the government’s call to work from home (the period from 13 March to 31 December).noot18
The indicators in the first SDG 9 dashboard show a mixed picture. Five indicators point to a declining trend in well-being, while four are developing favourably. For three indicators the Netherlands is among the leaders and for two it is among the laggards. Figures for 2020 are only available for a limited number of indicators, so the picture is not yet complete.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities concern resources available for developing and maintaining the infrastructure network and the possibilities this offers for the mobility of people and goods. The density of the public road network is trending upwards, which is beneficial for accessibility. A vital link for accessibility is good quality public transport that is easy to access. No indicator has yet been included for this. The share of GDP invested in civil engineering amounted to 2.4 percent in 2020. The trend has changed from downward (red) to neutral.
Use describes the volume of transport movements with various forms of transport. This Monitor does not yet contain very recent figures for use, but it is clear that the coronavirus severely limited mobility. Air traffic was largely at a standstill and there were far fewer check-ins on public transport. It was also quieter on the roads, with many people working from home and limited visits to other people.
There is a declining trend in the ratio of passenger transport volume to GDP. Freight transport also shows a downward trend, turning from neutral to red. These are measures of transport intensity, which show that transport in passenger-kilometres grew at a slower pace than the economy (figures up to and including 2018). This is seen as negative for well-being in the context of mobility. Motorised mobility expressed in passenger-kilometres mostly took place by car in 2018 (86 percent) or train (11 percent). This ratio has remained fairly constant over the years. The above figures are obtained from Eurostat, the statistical office of the EU. Kilometres travelled by bicycle come from a different data source and cannot therefore be compared directly with those of other modes of transport. For this indicator, there are not yet enough data points in the 2013 to 2020 period to calculate a trend.
The government is encouraging the use of electric and hydrogen-powered cars that allow fuel-efficient and cleaner travel than conventional cars, because direct CO2 emissions are lower. The direct emissions from an all-electric car are considered to be zero. This Monitor does not take account of energy consumption and emissions associated with the production of electric and other cars, the demand for raw materials (including rare materials such as lithium and cobalt) and the way in which these are mined in developing countries. The number of fully electric and hybrid cars as a proportion of the total number of cars rose considerably, from 1.6 percent on 31 December 2013 to 5.9 percent at the end of December 2020.
Outcomes relate to the effects of all traffic on the main road network, such as traffic congestion and delays, accidents, pollution and noise nuisance. From 2013, travelling on the main road network took more and more time due to congestion and delays. The trend is red. Full 2020 figures are not yet available for this indicator, but the coronavirus measures led to a substantial reduction in traffic on the main road network, resulting in less congestion and delays.noot19 In 2019 there were 38 deaths in traffic accidents per million inhabitants, compared to 34 in 2013. The trend has changed from neutral to red (rising). However, the number of fatalities is relatively low (fourth position) compared to other EU countries (in 2018). In contrast to these red trends, the trends in CO2 emissions per capita from domestic traffic and transport and Dutch aviation are green. Aviation emissions are relatively high compared to other EU countries: in 2019 (the most recent year for which this comparison is available on the basis of air emissions calculations), the Netherlands occupied 23rd place. Emissions from Dutch aviation halved in 2020, the year of coronavirus. Air traffic was severely restricted from March of that year and came to a virtual standstill in April.
Subjective assessment refers to noise nuisance and satisfaction with commuting time. An increasing number of households have to contend with noise pollution from traffic or neighbours. More than one-quarter were affected in 2020. The trend is also red. Within the EU in 2019, the percentage was higher only in Malta. Satisfaction with commuting time is high: 84.3 percent in 2020. The trend has changed from red to grey.
SDG 9.2 Industry, innovation and infrastructure: sustainable business
This broad SDG has three components: infrastructure and mobility, industry and sustainable business, and knowledge and innovation. This second dashboard focuses on making businesses stronger and more sustainable and on increasing access to high-value markets and finance for small businesses. Indicators have been added to the SDG agenda that are relevant (also in policy terms) to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and activity in developed countries such as the Netherlands. CSR also touches on other SDGs: access to credit for small businesses, employee conditions, more sustainable production processes, and inclusive and sustainable value chains within and across national borders. In the Netherlands, the main topics in this regard are relations between employers and employees, the role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and large companies and sustainable production processes and products.
The policy commitment to SDG 9 falls within the remit of several ministries, as it is multifaceted. Some of the goals under SDG 9 are less relevant to the Netherlands. For example, the Netherlands has no specific policy aimed at increasing the share of manufacturing in the economy. The focus is more on sustainability and inclusiveness. Most of the policy measures originate from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. Policy has also been formulated by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (CBS, 2021a).
This dashboard presents a rosy picture. In all cases, the trend is stable or rising, and the Netherlands occupies average or even high positions in the EU rankings.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities describe options for companies to make their production processes, energy use and value chains sustainable. Two of the four indicators show a favourable trend from the perspective of well-being. Over 7 percent of SMEs cited access to finance as the biggest constraint on business operations in 2020. At the beginning of the trend period, in 2013, the figure was still nearly 20 percent. The percentage of businesses facing this problem is low compared to other EU countries. The importance of companies active in environmental protection and the management of natural resources is steadily increasing. In 2020, the value added of this environmental sector represented 2.4 percent of GDP, and the trend is green (rising). The environmental sector now accounts for 2.3 percent of total employment. In 2020, 88 of the 100 companies in the Netherlands with the highest turnover were transparent about their business operations in relation to CSR; they published a sustainability report. This is 6 percentage points higher than in the penultimate measurement in 2017.
Use concerns companies’ efforts to make their production processes, energy use and value chains sustainable. The energy intensity of the economy – a measure the efficiency of energy consumption – shows a decreasing trend. With regard to domestic consumption of materials, the Netherlands was in the leading group of the EU ranking at over 9,500 kg per capita in 2019. The trend has changed, however. Whereas this indicator previously showed an improvement (green), the trend is now neutral.
Outcomes refer to the actual sustainability of production processes and value chains. The Dutch business community mostly consists of medium-sized and small firms (up to 250 employees). They generated just over 61 percent of the value added of the entire non-financial sector in 2019. This puts the Netherlands in a middle position among European countries. The greenhouse gas intensity of the economy is on a downward trend: fewer greenhouse gases are being emitted per unit of production. This indicates an improvement in the eco-efficiency of the economy. The high position of the Netherlands compared to other countries with regard to the labour income share (LIS) is indicative: an international comparison of this measure of the distribution of earned income between labour and capital providers is difficult to make because there are many different definitions.
Subjective assessment provides a picture of satisfaction with working conditions together with the level of trust in banks and large companies. Confidence in banks rose sharply in 2020, and confidence in large companies also increased. Both indicators show trend reversals. For trust in large companies, the trend was previously red but is now stable, while for trust in banks it changed from neutral to rising. According to CBS and TNO figures, more than three-quarters of employees were satisfied with their working conditions in 2020. With an increase of 2 percentage points each year, satisfaction increased substantially in both 2019 and 2020. The latest figures for other countries in 2015 show a high level of satisfaction with working conditions in the Netherlands.
SDG 9.3 Industry, innovation and infrastructure: knowledge and innovation
This broad SDG has three components: infrastructure and mobility, industry and sustainable business, and knowledge and innovation. This final dashboard for SDG 9 focuses on knowledge, which is essential for increasing economic performance and finding solutions to pressing societal issues. Knowledge can be converted into new technologies and processes, which in turn can be used to improve products and production processes and make them more sustainable. In addition, knowledge has sociocultural and intrinsic value. Important aspects in this regard are public and private investment in knowledge, expanding ICT and other technology and an increasing stock of knowledge capital. Internet access is essential for access to knowledge.
The policy commitment to SDG 9 falls within the remit of several ministries, as it is multifaceted. Most of the policy measures originate from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. Policy has also been formulated by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (CBS, 2021a).
The picture for this dashboard is mostly positive. Apart from the declining trend in physical capital stock per hour worked and public expenditure on R&D, all indicators show a stable or even rising trend. The position in the EU ranking is also favourable. The Netherlands is only lagging behind on one indicator: gross investments in tangible fixed assets.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities concern money, manpower and infrastructure to develop, share and apply knowledge and innovation. Gross investments in tangible fixed assets as a percentage of GDP (mainly investment in machinery and equipment) increased to almost 17 percent by 2020, but the share is still low compared to other EU countries (12th out of 15 EU countries in 2019). Proportionally, however, there is substantial investment in ICT in the Netherlands, amounting to almost 4 percent of GDP in 2020. The number of hours worked in research and development continues to trend higher, but the Netherlands occupied a middle position among the 16 EU countries surveyed in 2019. The Netherlands leads the European ranking in broadband internet connections and access, and the trend continues to rise. Both indicators are already above 96 percent of the population aged 12 and over in 2019.
R&D intensity (R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP) stood at 2.2 percent in 2019. For the Netherlands as a whole and for private expenditure by the business sector, R&D intensity is stable. The public share of R&D expenditure (0.7 percent of GDP) shows a declining trend (red). From an international perspective, the Netherlands had average scores for all three R&D indicators in 2019.
Use relates to the creation of knowledge, innovations and knowledge networks. The trend in scientific publications is rising (green): Around 350 more publications per million inhabitants were produced in 2019 than in 2013 (3,038 in that year). More than one-third of Dutch companies with more than 10 employees were technologically innovative in 2018. Although the number of patent applications per million inhabitants decreased somewhat in 2019, the trend since 2013 remains neutral. For all three use indicators, the Netherlands is in the top six of the European ranking in 2018 or 2019.
Outcomes concern the extent to which new technology and knowledge are embedded in the stock of capital goods required by present and future generations. The physical capital stock (machinery, tools and other means of production) is calculated per hour worked. The number of hours worked increased substantially up to the end of 2019, more than the volume of capital stock itself, causing this indicator to trend lower. The trend in the knowledge capital stock changed from rising to neutral. This indicator is also calculated per hour worked. Compared to 11 other EU countries, the Netherlands had average scores for both types of capital stock in 2019.
Subjective assessment relates to people’s trust in science and innovation. Trust in science is measured every three years by the Rathenau Institute. In 2018, the score was 7.1 out of 10. Trust is fairly constant over the years, but there are not enough data points in the 2013–2020 period to calculate a trend.
SDG 10.1 Reduced inequalities: social cohesion and inequality
SDG 10 aims to reduce inequality within and between countries. Social cohesion within countries is promoted by reducing social and economic inequalities and increasing opportunities and inclusion for all. Many indicators have been added to take account of the Dutch policy context. This first dashboard for SDG 10 focuses on social cohesion, inclusion and equality. Social cohesion is indispensable for the proper functioning of society. It is based on the social infrastructure, such as family ties, neighbours, friends, clubs and associations, as well as interpersonal care and support. People must be able to take part in these relationships, in order to feel they are part of a group. Migration issues occupy a special place in this context. The financial sustainability of our well-being related to SDG 10 and the financial situation of households are covered in a separate dashboard: 10.2.
Income policy in the Netherlands has traditionally been aimed to a certain extent at achieving a balanced distribution of income. To this end, household income – income from work and assets – is redistributed by levying premiums and taxes on the one hand and by providing benefits on the other. There is not so much structural and coherent policy for well-being beyond income. Policy-making aimed at reducing inequality is distributed among many separate SDGs, making it difficult to pursue a coherent agenda. Non-discrimination is enshrined in both the Constitution and the Equal Treatment Act. Most policies relating to SDG 10 fall under responsibility of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Kingdom Relations. Policy proposals have also been formulated by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (CBS, 2021a).
This dashboard shows a fairly positive picture. Many indicators show a stable or rising trend. However, there are also downward trends: in contacts with family, friends or neighbours; in participation in clubs and associations; and in voluntary work. The time spent on social contacts is therefore decreasing. This trend is visible over a longer period and is likely to have been reinforced in the coronavirus year 2020 due to measures taken to curb the spread of the virus. Compared to other European countries, the performance of the Netherlands in social cohesion and inequality is average to good.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities concern in principle social capital, social structures and material inequality (income and wealth). In the context of this SDG the aim is to reduce inequality. Indicators are only available for material inequality. Income inequality in the Netherlands is not very high compared to other EU countries. In 2019, the sum of all incomes (at personal level) in the category with the top 20 percent was more than four times higher than the sum in the category with the bottom 20 percent of incomes (the 80/20 ratio). The Gini coefficient for income inequality, which is based on the standardised disposable household income attributed to individual persons, has a value between 0 and 1: the closer to zero, the more evenly the incomes are distributed. In 2019 the coefficient was 0.28 for the Netherlands. Both measures have shown a stable value for many years. Low income can impede full participation in society. Relative poverty rose to 13.6 percent in 2020 according to an initial Eurostat figure.
Two new indicators of household wealth have been added to this section of the dashboard. For both indicators, the trend has turned from stable to decreasing (green). Vulnerable households are those with a combination of low income and little or no (liquid) assets to compensate. Their share decreased from 7 percent in 2013 to 6 percent in 2019. The Gini coefficient for wealth inequality also runs from 0 (total equality) to 1 (total inequality). In 2019 this Gini coefficient stood at 0.76, which is relatively high. Wealth inequality between households is decreasing, partly due to rising house prices. For the lower- and middle-income groups, the home is the most important asset. In the case of wealthier people, other assets make up a larger share of their wealth.noot20
Use concerns social interactions and participation in society through organisations and clubs, as well as voluntary work. Here three trends are red, but the Netherlands ranks highly in international terms. Seven out of ten people in the Netherlands had contact with family, friends or neighbours at least once a week in 2020. In addition, almost 42 percent of the population participated in the activities of a club or association at least once a month, and nearly 44 percent did voluntary work. Social cohesion ultimately also relies on informal help for people outside the household, such as informal care. One in three people in the Netherlands provided some form of informal help in 2020 and this share is stable.
Outcomes concern the extent of social cohesion as well as exclusion and discrimination. It is notable that one-third of the Dutch population had a relatively positive opinion of immigrants in 2018, and the trend has turned from grey to green.noot21 The Netherlands occupies seventh place in the list of 23 EU countries for which this figure is available. A new indicator in this dashboard is the poverty risk of self-employed persons. In 2018, nearly 7 percent of them lived in a household below the low-income threshold, but this percentage is decreasing (it was still above 10 percent in 2013). In addition, the study of in-work poverty risk shows that in 2018 1.5 percent of 15–74‑year-olds mainly receiving income from employment were part of a household with an income below the low-income threshold. Although employees have a lower risk of poverty, they still make up the largest group of working people. The absolute number of low-income earners among them is therefore higher.
Subjective assessment concerns people’s trust in each other, feelings of shared standards and values and social exclusion. People in the Netherlands have a high level of trust in other people compared to other EU countries and the trend is rising. However, nearly 9 percent of the population consider themselves to belong to a group suffering from discrimination. The Netherlands’ score is average in the EU. Over 43 percent of the population had the perception that norms and values had remained the same or improved in 2019. That is somewhat lower than in 2018, but the medium-term trend (2013–2020) is rising, and that trend has turned from grey (stable) to green (rising). Almost half of the population of the Netherlands feel they have a lot of freedom to decide how to arrange their lives. This is a fairly large proportion compared to the other 26 EU countries (third position).
SDG 10.2 Reduced inequalities: financial sustainability
SDG 10 aims to reduce inequality within and between countries. Many indicators have been added for the Dutch policy context, resulting in this second dashboard for this SDG, which focuses on 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. Financial systems may prove vulnerable when confronted with an ageing population, economic crises, increasing globalisation and changing solidarity between generations and population groups.
This dashboard presents a mixed picture, with five red and four green trends. The Netherlands ranks high in the EU for just one indicator (green pressure).
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities concern the sustainable financing of the welfare state and the accrual of pensions and capital without placing a burden on future generations. Demographic pressure provides insight into the relationship between the working and non-working part of the population. Grey pressure (the ratio of people aged 65 and over to those aged 20–64) and green pressure (the ratio of young people aged under 20 to those aged 20–64) have both developed unfavourably in terms of the sustainability of well-being, particularly over the past decade. The Netherlands is nevertheless in the top group of EU countries with regard to green pressure. There is also a declining trend in the share of government expenditure on health and on social protection expressed as a percentage of GDP. (Figures for 2020 are not yet available.) This is beneficial from a sustainability perspective, so the trend is green.
Pension capital accrued through pension funds is not freely available or transferable, but it does contribute to households’ financial security. Estimated pension capital has therefore been added as an indicator to the dashboard. Pension capital has been estimated on the basis of factors including life expectancy and the expected return on pension contributions (adjusted for inflation). It averaged over 160,000 euros per household in 2018. If pension capital is added to other wealth, the total amounts to almost half of households’ total wealth.noot22
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 are able to pay out current and future pensions. The coverage ratio in the fourth quarter of 2020 was 100.3 percent, compared to 104.0 percent at the end of 2019. In the supervision of pension funds, the government applies a minimum policy coverage ratio related to the average of twelve monthly coverage ratios. Pension funds that fall below this threshold are required to implement a recovery plan to improve their coverage. According to DNB, the policy coverage ratio at the end of 2020 was 95.0 percent (compared to 102.2 percent in 2019).
Use concerns the withdrawal of resources from accrued capital. For every 100 participants who accrued pension rights with pension funds in 2019, around 58 received benefits from a pension fund. The trend in this indicator is rising and red due to population ageing. Furthermore, the number of self-employed people is rising and, unlike salaried workers, they are responsible for their own pension provision. Part of this group builds up little or no pension, posing an additional risk to future well-being. The trend in the pension entitlements indicator has changed from green to neutral. The expected pension from work (estimated using the median gross pension income of persons aged 65–74) was 51 percent of income from work (approximated on the basis of median gross income from work of 50–59‑year olds) in 2020. It only includes pension accrued during the working life, i.e. excluding state pension provision. (The first pillar of pensions in the Netherlands is provided by the government. Every Dutch person receives a basic state pension, the AOW. This is laid down in the General Old Age Pension Act.)
Outcomes concern the level of incurred debt and the sustainability of financial systems. Opposite the debts, households have savings (currency and deposits) and non-financial assets, such as their homes. Dutch households had an average of just over 100,000 euros of debt in 2019. The trend is rising (turning from neutral to red) and the Netherlands is at the lower end of the EU ranking (22nd out of 24). Households with a home loan have an average mortgage debt of almost 200,000 euros (in 2019). The level of these debts is rising (red). In the case of savings the trend is neutral; with an average of 55,000 euros per household, the Netherlands occupied a middle position in Europe in 2019.
Government debt as a percentage of GDP – also referred to as the gross debt ratio – stood at just under 49 percent at the end of 2019. This key indicator of the state of public finances was thus almost 20 percentage points lower than at its peak in 2014. This provided a relatively favourable starting position when the coronavirus schemes (especially the NOW and TOZO schemes) caused expenditure to rise sharply in 2020. The deferral of tax payments, another of the government’s coronavirus measures, reduced the flow of funds into the public purse. In the space of one year debt increased by 40 billion euros to 435 billion euros, or 54.5 percent of GDP. The formal European ceiling is 60 percent of GDP, but due to the exceptional circumstances the European Commission temporarily suspended the European budget rules.
Subjective assessment concerns uncertainty about – and confidence in – the future. Remarkably, the percentage of people expressing concern about their financial future fell again in 2020 (the trend is green), but it remains high. In 2020, almost one-quarter of the adult population had such concerns.
SDG 11.1 Sustainable cities and communities: housing
SDG 11 focuses on sustainable living and life in cities and communities. The focus of this dashboard is on adequate housing. Life takes place to a large extent in and around our home; having safe, affordable, good-quality housing with adequate space improves people’s sense of well-being. Where people live is determined not only by their work location and social ties but also to a large extent by the availability of suitable and affordable housing. Housing market mobility is important for first-time buyers and those wishing to move up the housing ladder. Personal well-being is also clearly affected by how much people enjoy their home and how much it costs them to live there.
The Dutch government has formulated policy for all targets of SDG 11. Given the scope and variety of the sub-goals, various ministries are involved (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport and Ministry of Foreign Affairs) (CBS, 2021a). A key policy initiative in this dashboard is the housing policy. Policy related to the Environment and Planning Act, heritage, mobility (see also SDG 9), the (European) Agenda for the City, the City Deals and the Regional Deals, is relatively more concerned with the living environment which is the focus of the second dashboard of SDG 11.
For the housing theme, the trend is mixed, with five negative compared to four positive trends. The international position of the Netherlands is a mix of high and low scores. The Netherlands performs well within the EU in terms of satisfaction with the living environment, perceived housing costs and available housing. The proportion of total housing expenses in disposable household income is high compared to other EU countries, however.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities concern the stock and affordability of owner-occupied and rented homes. The number of dwellings available per thousand inhabitants was 456 in 2020, and the trend is rising. Despite this increase, the housing market is tight because the housing stock is still not meeting demand. As a result of new construction, the housing stock grew by 69,000 dwellings in 2020. Changes in housing stock are also caused by demolition, by combining dwellings, by separating them into smaller units, and by converting existing non-residential into residential property. An example of the latter is when a commercial property is turned into dwelling units. In 2020, 23,000 additional dwellings were added to the housing stock other than through the construction of new-build homes.noot23 Based on forecasts by the Economic Institute for Construction and Housing, housebuilding is expected to fall in 2021. Since 2019, the number of building permits issued has been relatively low, due to the nitrogen and PFAS issues and subsequently the coronavirus crisis.
Housing affordability is under pressure. This is measured on the basis of the trend in rents and the cost of buying and owning an owner-occupied home. Both indicators show a rising trend, i.e. a decrease in well-being. In 2020, both indicators continue to show a decrease in well-being. The median ratio between the asking price and the selling price showed a rising trend between 2015, when measurement began, and 2020. In 2020, as in 2019, the median selling price was equal to the median asking price. From an international perspective, the price index for expenditure on and ownership of an owner-occupied home is fairly high. The Netherlands ranked 22nd out of 26 EU countries in 2019. The price index for residential rentals puts the Netherlands in the middle group (18th in 2020).
In 2020, more than 22 percent of income was spent on housing. This share marks a change from a neutral to a decreasing trend. This is positive from the perspective of affordability. In 2016, housing costs still amounted to 24.7 percent. Housing costs are high compared to other EU countries (23rd place in 2019).
Use concerns the rented or owner-occupied homes that people live in and their chances of moving up the housing ladder. There are two ways to measure the proportion of people who live in rental accommodation that does not fit their circumstances: financially (rent does not match their income) and physically (size of accommodation does not match household size). In 2018, 15.5 percent of households lived in social housing with a rent that was too low in relation to their income. There are insufficient data points to calculate a trend, but the share did drop by 1 percentage point in 2018 compared to 2015. In 2020, nearly 5 percent of the population lived in a home with too few rooms according to international standards. This percentage is trending higher, but it is still low compared to other EU countries (in 2019). The average mortgage debt of households with a mortgage was over 198,000 euros in 2019. This was almost 9,000 euros more than at the beginning of the trend period in 2013. This is the entire debt on which interest is payable. Accrued funds for mortgage repayment through endowment insurance policies, savings mortgages, investment mortgages and similar products cannot be observed and have not been deducted. Again, the trend is upward (red).
Outcomes concern the quality of the home, the living environment and perceived cost of housing. The quality of homes is generally good: over 85 percent of the Dutch population lived in a home without serious defects such as a leaking roof, rotting window frames or problems with damp walls, floors or foundations in 2020. One in ten households consider the housing costs to be very high. This feeling has diminished, however, and the trend is green. Compared to other EU countries, this percentage is relatively low (third place in 2019). Nearly 70 percent of the population own the home they live in. Although that share showed a rising trend between 2013 and 2020, the Netherlands occupies a middle position within the EU.
Subjective assessment concerns people’s level of satisfaction with their home and their neighbourhood. At 87.5 and 85.9 percent, the satisfaction of the adult population with the home and the neighbourhood respectively was high in 2020. The outcome for both was almost the same as in 2019. However, with its high population density, the Netherlands has a fairly high percentage of households that experience nuisance in the neighbourhood (18.5 percent in 2020).
SDG 11.2 Sustainable cities and communities: living environment
SDG 11 concerns not only housing (dashboard 11.1), but also the environment in which people live. The SDG aims to make the local living environment safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable. There is a lot of pressure on the living environment and the available space.
Many different ministries are involved in policy concerning this SDG: Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (CBS, 2021a). SDG 11 also has many points in common with other SDGs, such as 6, 9 and 13. The government is working on the National Environmental Vision to address issues that impact the physical living environment, such as urbanisation, sustainability and climate adaptation, in a coherent manner. This includes the National Environment and Planning Act, which brings together all current legislation on the living environment and is expected to come into force on 1 January 2022. Other important elements are the heritage policy, the mobility policy, the (European) Agenda for the City on issues such as rapid urbanisation and the impact of urbanisation on the environment, City Deals and Region Deals. Disaster resilience can be found in the integrated water management policy and in climate adaptation.
This second dashboard for SDG 11 focuses on environmental factors: the amount of space per person, waste processing and government spending on the environment. Other indicators relate to concentrations of particulate matter in urban air and crime. The picture is mixed. The trend in the Netherlands shows five indicators moving towards and two moving away from the SDG targets. Compared to other EU countries, the Netherlands mainly occupies a middle position or a position at the bottom of the list.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities concern the space available and expenditure on protecting the quality of the living environment. Since the population of the Netherlands continues to grow, the total amount of space (land and water surface area) per capita is shrinking. In 2020 there was 89 m2 less space per capita than at the beginning of the trend period in 2013. The Netherlands is the second most densely populated country in the EU: only in Malta do people have less space. The accessibility or attractiveness of the space was not taken into account. CBS is currently working on additional indicators to measure spatial pressure in the framework of the Natural Capital Accounts.
Government spending on environmental protection, expressed as a percentage of GDP, is reasonably constant and now stands at 1.4 percent of GDP. The Netherlands spends a proportionally large amount on environmental protection, as evidenced by its second place among 24 EU countries in 2019.
Use concerns how people use their living environment. A positive point in this respect is that local authorities have had to collect less waste over the years, so the trend is green. In 2013, this waste amounted to 563 kg per person; in 2019 it was 552 kg. The Netherlands is in a middle position within Europe, however. It should be noted that possible differences in the types of waste collected by municipal services in different countries may affect the ranking.
Outcomes concern the quality and safety of the living environment. On a per capita basis, emissions of acidifying substances (sulphur oxide, nitrogen oxide and ammonia) show a downward trend. The EU National Emission Ceilings Directive for emissions of acidifying substances sets new rules for emission ceilings and the monitoring of emissions against these ceilings from 2020. Another positive feature is the steady downward trend in the urban background concentration of particulate matter. Particulate matter is a collective term referring to suspended particles in the air. This Monitor includes the finer fraction of particulate matter, PM2.5; these are particles with a diameter smaller than 2.5 micrometres.
Another aspect of the living environment is nature. The indicator for urban birds is a measure of nature in the city. These birds are not faring well: urban breeding birds as a group have declined by more than half since 1990. Although some species of birds are more at home among people and buildings than in the countryside, the index has fallen substantially. This indicates that the urban environment has become less suitable as a breeding ground for urban birds. CBS is currently working on a revision of this indicator. The new results are expected to be available in the spring of 2021. No European comparison can be made for this indicator.
With regard to safety in the living environment, the number of people in the Netherlands who report having been victims of crime is decreasing steadily; the trend since 2013 has been downward (green). In 2019, crime affected 13.7 percent of the population aged 15 and over. In 2013 the figure was 20 percent.
Subjective assessment describes how people experience their living environment. In 2019, 1.4 percent of the population often felt unsafe in their own neighbourhood and the trend since 2013 has been downward, i.e. green. Compared to other EU countries, a large proportion of households suffered from unpleasant occurrences such as noise nuisance, vandalism, crime and pollution in the immediate vicinity of their homes. The percentage in 2020 (18.5 percent) was nevertheless slightly lower than in 2019.
SDG 12 Responsible consumption and production
SDG 12 concentrates on the transition to a circular economy with less dependence on raw materials. The aim is to make more efficient use of raw materials (including high-quality reuse of materials) and to encourage the reduction and reuse of waste. Food waste should also be curbed. Lastly, companies, governments and consumers are encouraged to make conscious choices. This all eases the pressure on the environment and reduces dependence on raw materials, thus limiting the negative impact on future generations.
Dutch policy covers all parts of SDG 12. Most policy for SDG 12 was drawn up by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy and the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Policy, but policy documents were also produced by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (CBS, 2021a). The government-wide Circular Economy 2050 programmenoot24 (Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management) provides the overarching strategy, with contributions from, for example, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (circular agriculture) and the Ministry of Economic Affairs (making Dutch basic industry more sustainable). There is also regional and city policy (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Kingdom Relations) and central government itself contributes through the policy on socially responsible procurement (SRP). Business is encouraged through corporate social responsibility (CSR). There are important cross-links between SDG 12 and in particular SDGs 2, 6, 7, 13 and 15.
The picture for this SDG over the medium term (2013–2020) is neutral to positive. With regard to the trend in the Netherlands, four indicators show green scores. The Netherlands also performs fairly well within the EU, with four positions among the leaders in Europe and a very low position only for the amount of hazardous waste (on a per capita basis).
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities concern the possibilities for sustainable production and consumption. Of the 100 companies in the Netherlands with the highest turnover, nearly 90 published an annual sustainability report in 2020. Such an annual CSR report provides insight into the extent to which a company produces sustainably. It is also clear that the importance of the environmental sector in the economy is growing. Companies in this sector produce goods and provide services that benefit the protection of the environment or the management of natural resources. The trend in their value added is positive; it reached 2.4 percent of GDP in 2020. The trend in employment in the environmental sector is neutral; it accounted for 2.3 percent of total employment in 2020. Internationally, the Netherlands occupied a middle position in 2018 for value added of the environmental sector.
Use concerns the volume of raw materials and other materials used and waste generated. The government wants to halve the use of abiotic raw materials between 2014 and 2030 and create a completely circular economy by 2050. In the case of domestic materials consumption, 2019 saw the trend change from green to grey, as consumption recently stopped falling; in that year it was over 9,500 kg per capita. However, the international position of the Netherlands is still high: third in the EU in 2019.
Decoupling waste generation from economic growth is also a policy goal. This means that economic growth is accompanied by a decrease in waste generation, either in relative terms or even in absolute terms. The trend in the amount of municipal waste per capita is decreasing. In 2019, it was over 550 kg. The trend in quantities of industrial and hazardous waste per capita is stable: in 2019 the Netherlands produced over 1,400 kg of industrial waste and in 2018 almost 300 kg of hazardous waste per capita. Industrial waste has recently decreased by more than 4 percent, however. For hazardous waste, the Netherlands ranks low (red), in 21st place in the EU in 2018. For municipal waste the Netherlands is midway in the European ranking, while no international comparison has been made for industrial waste.
Outcomes concern the efficiency of raw material use and the reuse of waste. Dutch producers are becoming increasingly efficient with the raw materials they need: the trend in raw material productivity is green and rising. The Netherlands led the EU ranking in 2019. For the raw materials footprint – the total amount of raw materials used per capita – the trend is neutral. CBS is working on improving the method used to calculate this footprint.
The government aims to halve the amount of waste that is not recycled, composted or converted into energy between 2012 and 2022. In 2019, three-quarters of industrial waste was reused as a product or material, mostly through recycling companies or traders in waste and scrap metal. This percentage also includes useful applications of industrial waste as foundation material for road surfacing or as covering material in landfill sites, but not the use of waste as a (secondary) fuel with energy recovery.
The reuse and composting rate of municipal waste has increased further, to 56.9 percent. Around two-thirds of hazardous waste was recycled separately in 2018. The Netherlands has been high in the EU ranking for the separate collection of municipal waste and even hazardous waste for a number of years. No international comparison was made for the recycling of industrial waste.
The country footprint is a measure of land use for Dutch consumption, i.e. the amount of land required worldwide to satisfy consumption by Dutch citizens and the government. A growing population and rising prosperity, for example, can increase the demand for biofuels. And if agricultural land becomes unusable due to erosion, salinisation, urbanisation or desertification, more natural areas will be exploited, resulting in a loss of biodiversity. The most recent year for which this footprint is available is 2017. For this indicator, the number of data points in the 2013–2020 period is insufficient to calculate a trend.
Subjective assessment describes people’s concerns about pollution, wastage, use of raw materials and other aspects of sustainability. In 2020, over 14 percent of the adult population reported nuisance from waste, pollution or other environmental problems.
SDG 13 Climate action
SDG 13 is aimed at tackling climate change as a result of human actions. The focus is on resilience and climate adaptation, the implementation of national policy with measures to mitigate climate change and increase awareness and capacity building with regard to climate change. This policy originates from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (CBS, 2021a). The Climate Agreement and the resulting Climate Act are at the heart of this. In addition, there is the Delta Programme, which aims to protect the Netherlands against flooding and the consequences of extreme weather. The policy is closely linked to the commitment to renewable energy (SDG 7), circularity (SDG 12), circular agriculture (SDG 2), industry, infrastructure and mobility (SDG 9), urban development (SDG 11) and water (SDG 6).
This dashboard focuses on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Energy savings and renewable energy (see SDG 7) are factors in reducing these emissions. Due to imports of goods and services for domestic consumption, Dutch economic activities also affect greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in the world.
For the medium-term trend in the Netherlands (2013–2020), the picture is primarily neutral to positive. Only cumulative CO2 emissions are developing unfavourably from the perspective of well-being. The international comparison is less encouraging; despite the mostly positive developments, the Netherlands occupies a low position for several indicators compared to other EU countries.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities concern the means used in the Netherlands to combat climate change and cope with its effects. The trend in government spending related to reducing the Dutch impact on the climate (climate mitigation) is rising. In 2020, the total was 0.3 percent of GDP. No international comparison is available.
Use describes the ways in which the Netherlands contributes to climate change. The Dutch contribution to the globally agreed target for limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, and preferably 1.5 degrees Celsius, was set out in the Climate Agreement of June 2019. The national climate targets for 2030 and 2050 are laid down in the Climate Act. By 2030, greenhouse gas emissions should be 49 percent lower than in 1990. Until recently, this was more ambitious than the 40 percent reduction that applied to Europe, but on 11 December 2020 the EU decided to change the 2030 reduction target for Europe to 55 percent. The Dutch reduction target for 2050 is 95 percent, with 100 percent CO2‑neutral electricity production.
Greenhouse gas emissions were 24.5 percent lower in 2020 than in 1990, according to an initial calculation (March 2021) by CBS and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)/National Emissions Register. This is close to the Urgenda target of a reduction of at least 25 percent between 1990 and 2020. The difference is small and lies within the margin of error for greenhouse gas emissions. Thanks in part to lower coal consumption in the electricity sector and fewer transport movements in 2020 due to the coronavirus crisis, the trend has changed from neutral to green. The question is how much the emissions will rise once the restrictive measures are scaled back or lifted. The reduction since 1990 was mainly the result of halving methane and nitrous oxide emissions. In 2020, CO2 emissions were down by 14 percent compared to 1990; in 2019 they were down by 6 percent. Greenhouse gas emissions per capita show a downward trend and amounted to 9.5 tonnes in 2020. This trend reduction is positive, but emissions are still high compared to other EU countries (23rd out of 27 countries).
Companies with the highest levels of greenhouse gas emissions are required to participate in the Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), an instrument with which the EU aims to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in accordance with the agreements in the Kyoto Protocol. Holders of emission allowances are permitted to emit a specified amount of greenhouse gases. Emissions by sectors covered by the EU ETS were required to be reduced by 21 percent by 2020 compared to the 2005 level. There are no national targets for the ETS. The ETS reduction for the EU27 as a whole was 33 percent in 2019. This is more than enough to meet the EU target for 2020. In 2019, the Netherlands was at the bottom of the Europe ranking with an ETS reduction of only 8.5 percent.
Outcomes concern the total Dutch contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. The cumulative CO2 emissions indicator is calculated by taking the sum of annual CO2 emissions from 1860 onwards and dividing it by the sum of the annual population in the same period. The amount of accumulated CO2 emissions is rising steadily because more is being emitted per capita than in the past. Cumulative CO2 emissions give an indication of the Dutch share of global historical CO2 emissions. The Dutch contribution to these emissions is relatively high, ranking 13th out of 16 EU countries. The trend in the greenhouse gas intensity of the economy – the volume of emissions per euro of GDP – is decreasing, which is positive.
The trend in the greenhouse gas footprint is also decreasing. This footprint, a measure of total greenhouse gases emitted as a result of Dutch consumption, amounted to 14.4 tonnes of CO2 equivalents per capita in 2020. This is significantly less than in 2019 and represents a decrease of 8.2 percent.
Subjective assessment refers to climate concerns and the extent to which people perceive climate change to be a problem. This was asked once in the European Social Survey, in 2016. At that time over three-quarters of the Dutch population were worried about climate change and its effects. The Dutch score was around the average of 17 EU countries.
SDG 14 Life in water
SDG 14 focuses on the protection of seas and oceans and on the sustainable use of marine resources. Seawater covers around three-quarters of the planet and constitutes the world’s largest ecosystem. The increasing negative effects of climate change, overfishing and pollution threaten both the intrinsic value of the ecosystem itself and the use made of it. The dashboard includes indicators on the prevention and reduction of pollution and the sustainability of the North Sea fishery.
Although there is a great deal of measurement data available on the various marine waters of the Netherlands (part of the North Sea, the Wadden Sea and the estuaries), there are as yet few summarising indicators with sufficient measurement frequency, timeliness and uncontroversial interpretation that can be included in the monitoring. Because only a few EU countries border the North Sea, it is also not easy to make an international comparison. This year, CBS and Rijkswaterstaat will begin a study of the natural capital of the North Sea. It will focus on the ecosystem services provided by the North Sea, and their monetary value. Explicit attention will also be devoted to the biodiversity and environmental quality of the area, and the pressure on it. A pilot project has also been launched to take stock of data on the Wadden Sea region, also with the aim of recording the environmental quality and biodiversity of this area in indicators.
Policy measures for SDG 14 originate from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management and the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (CBS, 2021a). The North Sea Policy Document 2016–2021 contains the overarching policy for the North Sea, to which many international agreements are linked. There are many cross-links with other SDGs: 2, 7, 12, 13 and 15. The North Sea Agreement, for instance, focuses on transitions (nature, food, energy). Increased sustainability of the sector is a key objective of European fisheries policy. The Coastal Pact is important for climate adaptation and the policy on combating litter affects circularity. The Wadden Sea is covered by the Draft Agenda for the Wadden Sea Region 2050.
Outcomes
Resources and opportunities concern the size of the marine area and the resources used to maintain and protect it. A large proportion of Dutch marine waters are located within protected areas, but many activities still take place. For example, a lot of fishing still takes place around the periphery of Dogger Bank (a Natura 2000 area). As various forms of protection and use overlap, this protection has not been fully implemented across the whole area. For this reason it is not possible to give a clear picture of relevant developments.
Use relates to marine economic activity, recreation and nature protection. The Dutch marine area is used intensively for shipping, fishing and recreation. In addition, an increasing part of the North Sea is being used for offshore wind farms and experiments are under way to generate other forms of renewable energy. No indicators fulfilling the quality requirements of this report are currently available to describe these uses for the whole marine area of the Netherlands.
Outcomes describe the quality of seawater and natural life in and around Dutch marine waters. The sustainability of Dutch fishing is determined for four main commercial fish species by comparing current fish stocks with sustainable fish stocks (i.e. stocks necessary to maintain a healthy population). In 2019 the populations of three of the four fish species (herring, plaice and sole) was large enough to be labelled sustainable; for cod this was not the case.
In 2020, more than three-quarters of Dutch coastal bathing water qualified as ‘excellent’. The Netherlands is at the bottom of the middle group in the European ranking for the bathing water quality of its coastal waters and the more general ‘clean water index’. The North Sea fauna indicator is a – not very recent – indicator that gives an impression of developments in biodiversity in the water and life on the seabed. CBS hopes to update this indicator in the autumn of 2021. Looking at the series available for 1990–2015, the average population of animals in the open (offshore) North Sea has declined by almost one-third. Of the total of 140 species in this indicator, 57 decreased significantly and 35 increased (in number). The number of benthos – the largest group in this indicator with 85 species – in particular decreased. The biodiversity of the deep North Sea is therefore under pressure.
Experience relates to people’s concerns about pollution and life in the seas and oceans. Indicators are not yet available for this purpose either.
SDG 15 Life on land
SDG 15 concerns the protection, restoration and sustainable management of all forms of life on land. Protecting and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity can strengthen resilience to increasing population pressure, intensification of land use and climate change. Healthy ecosystems underpin processes that have a major impact on well-being, such as the availability of clean water and air, the presence of insects for pollination and opportunities for relaxation, recreation and education. Nature has intrinsic value for well-being ‘here and now’ and for future generations. It is also a critical factor: once ecosystems are destroyed, the damage may prove irreparable.
The policy for SDG 15 originates particularly from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management and the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, in some cases jointly with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (CBS, 2021a). The Climate Agreement sets targets for the reduction of CO2 (and equivalents such as methane and nitrous oxide) for agriculture and land use. The aim of the National Agricultural Soils Programme (NPL) is that in 2030 all Dutch agricultural land will be managed sustainably, so that the soil can function optimally and the quality is and remains as high as possible for future generations. Sustainably managed soils are also important for SDG 2, and the Climate Agreement also touches on SDG 13.
In the dashboard the trend in the Netherlands is predominantly red and grey. Negative developments can be seen in the case of indicators for nature space, and biodiversity indicators. The international comparison presents a mixed picture. Only expenditure on the environment and environmental protection is relatively high.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities concern how much natural space there is and the resources for restoration and protection. Government spending on environmental protection amounted to 1.4 percent of GDP in 2019. The Netherlands spends a relatively large amount on this compared to other EU countries. Total environmental expenditure (environmental costs and investments by governments and businesses) is also relatively high compared to other EU countries, although the trend is downward. The available area per person is the smallest of all EU countries with the exception of Malta and is continuing to decrease, as the population continues to grow. Less than 15 percent of the land area is covered with nature and forest, putting the Netherlands at the bottom of the ranking of 26 EU countries.
A new indicator is the area of ‘green and blue space, excluding regular agriculture’ per capita. This indicator from the Natural Capital Accounts shows a decreasing trend. The total number of hectares of this space shows a small increase between 2015 and 2018, almost entirely due to fields and grassland with some form of agricultural nature management. However, this growth conceals the decrease in size of many other landscape units such as hedges, rows of trees, hedgerows and woodland in the Netherlands. The indicator for green and blue space does not include the area of the North Sea or the acreage used for regular agriculture. They would be so dominant due to their size that development in all other landscape units would no longer be visible. In addition, the inclusion of the entire North Sea area would not be representative of the available space per capita. The area of the Wadden Sea and the IJsselmeer has been included, however, which explains the relatively high number of square metres per capita.
Use concerns the protection and use of natural space and its ecosystems and the pressure put on the natural system by human activities. In the Netherlands, nature is protected within the Netherlands Nature Network (NNN). The NNN comprises existing and new nature areas and includes national parks and Natura 2000 areas, as well as land farmed under agricultural nature management schemes and land purchased for nature development. At the end of 2019, the NNN acreage made up more than 20.7 percent of the land area. The acreage of natural space is increasing, with more than 41,000 hectares of the intended 80,000 hectares of additional natural space by 2027 now having been achieved.
Phosphorus and nitrogen surpluses, mainly caused by agriculture, have negative consequences for the quality of the surface water and ecosystems such as heathland, forests and dunes. The nitrogen surplus, i.e. the part of nitrogen from manure that is not absorbed by agricultural crops but leaches into soil as well as ground and surface water, was the highest in the Netherlands compared to 18 other EU countries in 2017.
Outcomes concern the quality of ecosystems and biodiversity. The Netherlands is the second-largest exporter of agricultural products in the world. This production has a downside: very high nitrogen deposition. Where nitrogen deposition is greater than natural vegetation can cope with, it exceeds the critical load value. This threatens the survival of natural areas that are exposed to such conditions and specific species will disappear as a result. In 2018, the critical load value was exceeded in more than 71 percent of all natural land areas in the Netherlands.noot25 The trend is neutral, but the percentage is high.
The indicator for farmland (meadow, field and farmyard) birds is a measure of the quality of the agricultural area. The downward trend for this indicator points to deteriorating living conditions for these species. This index was almost forty percent lower in 2019 than in the base year (2000=100). Geese are birds that do well, but they are not typical farmland birds. The Red List Index indicates that 60.9 percent of species (across seven species groups of animals and higher plants) in the Netherlands are not at risk, but that the trend is red: the proportion of threatened species therefore increased between 2013 and 2020. Land fauna is not faring well either: the trend here is also red. In 2019, this index was 17 percent lower than in the 1990 base year.
Subjective assessment describes how people experience the quality of nature areas and concerns about pollution and the disappearance of species. In 2020, 14.2 percent of the population said they were were affected by pollution and contamination or other environmental problems. That represents a small decrease compared to 2019. The Netherlands occupies a middle position within Europe.
SDG 16.1 Peace, justice and strong institutions: security and peace
SDG 16 aims to promote a peaceful and safe society. The goals concern security and peace as well as institutions. This first dashboard (16.1) focuses on security and peace; institutions are dealt with in a second dashboard for this SDG (16.2). Security and peace include reducing all forms of violence and the resulting deaths. Particular attention is devoted to violence against children and organised crime. In a secure society, everyone has access to the legal system, and corruption is combated. Feelings of a lack of safety – with the accompanying feelings of vulnerability and uncertainty – can have a major impact on personal life. How safe people feel therefore has an effect, both objectively and subjectively, on well-being ‘here and now’. It is the task of the armed forces, police and judiciary to increase and maintain security, through both prevention and the legal system. Public trust in these bodies can increase the sense of security.
Dutch policy covers the bulk of SDG 16. Most policy measures and proposals in the area of this SDG have been drawn up by the Ministry of Justice and Security and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Kingdom Relations. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have also formulated policy for parts of SDG 16. The most important input is provided as part of the security and anti-subversion policy. Attention is also paid to access to justice (CBS, 2021a).
In terms of trends, this dashboard presents a mixed picture. Most indicators point to stable or increasing well-being. With regard to the Dutch position in the European rankings, the picture is more mixed. For three indicators the Netherlands occupies a leading position, while for two others the country is low in the EU rankings. It is not possible to make international comparisons for all indicators in this dashboard.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities in this context relate to the means used to guarantee fair legal processes and national security. Public spending on public order and security is no longer on a downward trend; the trend has turned from red to grey. Spending on national defence has also changed from a neutral to a rising (i.e. green) trend. The Netherlands occupies a middle position in Europe for both indicators. The operational strength of the police, on a per capita basis, is declining. The number of officers who have direct contact with citizens and/or contribute directly to core tasks has decreased from a peak of 307 FTEs per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013 to 288 FTEs in 2020. This is low (20th place) compared to 24 other EU countries.
Use for this SDG is the number of people who come into contact with the judiciary or who appeal to the judicial authorities. The number of people in prisons, penitentiaries and disciplinary institutions is relatively low by international standards, although the trend has changed from green (decreasing) to neutral; the number increased to 65 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2018. However, the number of underage suspects (as a percentage of all suspects) who have come to the attention of the police is high compared to other EU countries (21st out of 24 in 2018). The percentage has hovered around 10 to 11 percent for a number of years.
Outcomes relate to crimes committed and the number of victims. The number of people in the Netherlands who report having been victims of traditional forms of crime such as violence, burglary, theft and vandalism is decreasing steadily. It reached 13.7 percent of the population aged 15 and over in 2019. In 2013, at the beginning of the trend period, the figure was still 19.8 percent. The police also registered fewer of these crimes: 46.4 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2020 compared to 65.9 in 2013. The trend is green, i.e. downward, for both indicators. Viewed internationally, the level of reported crimes is average. Victims of cybercrime (digital forms of identity theft, fraud when buying and selling, hacking and cyber bullying), which are recorded separately, stood at 13 percent in 2019. A proportion of crime remains unrecorded. Not all crime is reported, but the types of crimes that are recorded may also differ from one country to another. No new figures on the crime victim rate are available for this Monitor, as they are obtained from a two-yearly study.
It is difficult to gain a picture of the level of human trafficking, because many victims do not come to the attention of the authorities. This makes the data quality insufficient to identify a trend. The data from the National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings included in the Monitor relates to registered victims.noot26 The number of victims in 2019, at 1,661 (9.6 per 100,000 inhabitants), was considerably higher than in 2018, when it was 780, the lowest recorded since measurements began in 2009. There are indications that only a relatively small proportion of victims come to the attention of the authorities. The National Rapporteur, together with experts on size estimates of hidden populations and with UNODC, made the first reliable estimate of the total population of victims of human trafficking for 2017. This showed that in the Netherlands there are probably between 5,000 and 7,500 victims of human trafficking annually.
The proportion of young men who were victims of sexually transgressive behaviour was 2 percentage points lower in the last measurement by the Rutgers Knowledge Centre on Sexualitynoot27 in 2017 than in the previous measurement in 2012. That represents a halving of the original figure. Among young women, there was a decrease of 6 percentage points in 2017 compared to the previous measurement in 2012. The percentage fell from 17 to 11 percent. The measurement frequency of this indicator is too low to identify a trend. Moreover, no international data are available.
Subjective assessment concerns trust in the judicial system, the police and how safe people feel. Trust in the rule of law is one of the six aspects of good governance measured by the Worldwide Governance Indicators of the World Bank. People in the Netherlands have a relatively high degree of trust in the judicial system, including the police and the courts. Only the Scandinavian countries and Austria have higher levels of trust.
There is a clear decline in the percentage of people who often feel unsafe in their own neighbourhood; this trend is green.
SDG 16.2 Peace, justice and strong institutions: institutions
In addition to security and peace (see previous dashboard), SDG 16 also relates to institutions, in particular in relation to accountability and transparency at every level, with inclusive and representative decision-making. Public access to information and protection of fundamental freedoms are also important goals within SDG 16. Efficient, accountable and transparent institutions are essential for the development but also the maintenance of well-being. The quality of these institutions helps ensure the coherence and effectiveness of policy. It is also important for institutions to be accountable if a society is to function openly and democratically. After all, citizens’ trust in the government is instrumental in active public participation in the community.
In this second SDG 16 dashboard, a relatively large number of additional indicators have been added to reflect the Dutch policy context. Most policy in the area of SDG 16 is drawn up by the Ministry of Justice and Security and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Kingdom Relations. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have also formulated policy for parts of SDG 16. For institutions, these policies refer in particular to the openness of the government and accessibility of government services (CBS, 2021a).
In terms of trends, this dashboard presents a less favourable picture, with three red trends versus one green trend and two trend changes from green to stable. Compared to other European countries, however, the Netherlands scores very well on this SDG: the Netherlands is at the top of the EU rankings for almost all indicators.
Resources and opportunities
Use
Outcomes
Subjective assessment
Resources and opportunities here concern the resources the government has at its disposal to carry out its tasks and provide services for its citizens. Government spending on general public services as a percentage of GDP has continued to decline, decreasing to 4.1 percent in 2019. This is around half of a percentage point less than at the beginning of the trend period in 2013. The trend is red: the availability of fewer resources for the government is deemed to have a negative impact on well-being. The Netherlands is currently in the lowest region of the EU rankings (21st out of 24 EU countries in 2019).
Use in this context refers to citizens’ use of public services and services of civil society organisations. Active citizen participation in society is essential for a well-functioning democracy. One indicator to measure participation is the coverage of collective labour agreements. This coverage is linked to trade union membership, but also to the validity of agreements for other companies and workers in the same industry. The proportion of employees covered by collective labour agreements decreased to 77.6 percent in 2017; in 2013 the figure was 85.7 percent. A more direct indicator of active participation is the percentage of eligible voters who vote in general elections. The turnout in 2017 was 81.9 percent. In the last elections, in 2021, voting was possible not only on 17 March but also on 15 and 16 March because of the coronavirus measures. People aged 70 and over were also able to cast a postal vote. That led to a turnout of 78.7 percent, slightly lower than in 2017, but slightly higher than in 2012. This result is not yet visible in the dashboard, as the 2021 elections fell outside the trend period of this publication. Compared to other European countries, voter turnout in the Netherlands is generally high. This comparison takes into account the turnout in all countries in the last year in which parliamentary elections were held.
Outcomes concern the quality of public services, the openness and efficiency of the government and public participation. At the European level, the Netherlands is at the top of the ranking for all these aspects. The high position of the Netherlands in the Corruption Perception Index in 2020 – fourth in the EU and eighth of the total of 180 monitored countries – shows that the Dutch public sector (score 82/100) is largely seen as free of corruption. The Dutch score has decreased slightly, however, and the medium-term trend (2013–2020) is red. The minimum number of days needed to start a business legally was used as a measure of government efficiency. In the Netherlands, this was reduced to three-and-a-half days in 2019. Here too the Netherlands occupies a leading position within the EU.
The green trend that the Netherlands had until last year has changed into a stable trend for two indicators in this section: quality of government regulation and business start-up time.
Subjective assessment here concerns the question of whether citizens trust the government. Trust in institutions is high compared to other European countries and the trend is rising. Trust grew substantially in 2020: in 2019, 69.5 percent of the population said they trusted the police, the House of Representatives and the courts, compared to 63.1 percent in 2019. In 2013, at the beginning of the trend period, trust was still much lower at 56 percent.
SDG 17 Partnerships for the goals
The seventeenth and final SDG has a somewhat different character. It concerns the importance of forming and maintaining partnerships to achieve the other 16 goals. International cooperation is essential to strengthen capacity and release resources to implement the sustainable development agenda. This requires coherent policy, a cooperative environment and entry into new global partnerships. SDG 17 concerns the effect that developments in the Netherlands have on other countries; the colours green, grey and red are assigned in the dashboard on this basis.
Unfortunately, no properly measurable indicators are available for most of the sub-goals under SDG 17. A number of these sub-goals are aimed at developing policy instruments to support sustainable development in other countries. These are goals for which it is not possible to devise an indicator in the conventional sense. Instead, for each country an indication is given of the extent to which such policy instruments do or do not exist. This means that SDG 17 cannot be described in the same way as the previous SDGs. It remains difficult to make SDG 17 more measurable. Statistical agencies in other countries are also grappling with this issue. CBS aims to provide additional indicators to allow a better description of this SDG.
The Dutch policy covers most of SDG 17, but – like this goal – is largely part of Dutch foreign policy, particularly the FTDC (foreign trade and development cooperation) policy. Most of the policy was therefore drawn up by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There are also contributions from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Kingdom Relations and the Ministry of Finance. The Netherlands also works at European level to achieve the SDGs both outside and inside Europe. In the EU, the Netherlands is focusing particularly on international corporate social responsibility (ICSR) and policy coherence for (sustainable) development (CBS, 2021a).
In this SDG, we measure only four indicators, for a small number of sub-goals. It is not (yet) possible to classify resources and opportunities, use, outcomes and subjective assessment. It is therefore impossible to provide a general picture of the direction in which this SDG is developing, or of the Netherlands’ international position. For this reason, here we only describe the trends and positions for the four individual indicators separately.
General
In terms of development aid and remittances (wages and salaries earned by non-residents as a percentage of gross national income), the Netherlands is fairly high in the EU ranking: 0.6 percent of Dutch GNI went to development aid, while remittances were worth 1.6 percent of GNI in 2019. In contrast to the wheel in Figure 2.4.2 (Chapter 2), these indicators are interpreted in the SDG dashboard as being favourable or unfavourable in terms of well-being. The indicators are presented here in the context of the SDG agenda. From this perspective, increased spending is interpreted as rising well-being in the countries receiving the aid or remittances. It is important to note that the percentage of remittances is subject to a number of measurement problems. The indicator concerns remittances of wages and salaries earned by non-residents, but these figures may also include cash flows from private investors. Among the countries with the highest percentage of remittances are Luxembourg and, to a lesser extent, Malta and Cyprus. Tax advantages may also have an impact. Furthermore, it is difficult to distinguish non-residents who live in a country for more than 12 months, and remittances through unofficial bodies are not measured. It is not clear to what extent these measurement problems influence the figures, because payment systems vary greatly from country to country.
The trend in total imports from LDCs has changed from green to grey, due to a decrease in imports in 2020. The expected well-being effects of trade between the Netherlands and the LDCs are most likely lower than before. The Netherlands is nevertheless very highly placed in the European rankings. This is not surprising, because the Netherlands has traditionally maintained very close trade relations with these countries. However, it should be noted that the volume of trade flows may be overestimated, because the figures also include re-exports. Re-exports involve goods that have been imported into the Netherlands and leave the country again in a (virtually) unprocessed state. It is still technically very difficult to filter these re-exports out of total imports.
Increasing numbers of students from countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA: the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) come to Dutch universities. The proportion of students from countries outside the EEA in the total number of students enrolled for the first time on 1 October for a Bachelor’s or Master’s university programme has risen sharply (green trend). In 2013, the total was 7.5 percent, but in 2019 it already stood at 13.4 percent. The increase in the number of English-language study programmes and the number of international students is considered to be beneficial to well-being elsewhere in the world, on the basis of knowledge transfer to other countries. The well-being effects may also be positive for the Netherlands: highly educated foreign students who stay and work in the Netherlands will contribute to the Dutch economy.
4.4Towards an analysis of interlinkages within and between SDGs
The 2030 Agenda for the SDGs is unique: it addresses all relevant well-being issues in the social, economic and environmental fields, throughout the world. However, the breadth of the agenda raises the question of whether it is possible to achieve all the goals and targets simultaneously. Besides possible synergy effects (investing in one SDG also ensures progress in other SDGs), there may also be trade-offs (where progress in one SDG results in a deterioration or stagnation in others). With less than ten years to go before the targets are due to be met, it is important to identify these interlinkages and to develop them (synergies) or limit them (trade-offs).
This section considers the interlinkages between targets within and between SDGs in the Netherlands. This is an initial exercise to determine how these interlinkages can be analysed. This section briefly explores three possible perspectives: (1) the bridge between ‘here and now’, ‘later’ and ‘elsewhere’ in Chapter 2. This concerns the way in which the concepts of well-being and SDGs are interlinked; (2) a closer inspection of trends by type of indicator (resources and opportunities, use, outcomes and subjective assessment); and (3) a quantitative test of the degree of interlinkages indicating possible synergy and trade-off effects within the SDG agenda. This is an initial exercise. These interlinkages will be further developed in the next edition of the Monitor.
Much has already been published on interlinkages in the SDG agenda, for example by the IAEG-SDGs Interlinkages Working Group established by the UN.noot28 The relationships between ‘here and now’, ‘later’ and ‘elsewhere’ and the SDG agenda, as well as the grouping by indicator type, are based on insights from the theoretical literature. As far as the detection of possible synergies and trade-offs is concerned, an inductive or empirical approach is adopted. Statistical analysis is used to determine which series are statistically consistent. However, statistical connections do not necessarily imply an underlying causal connection. Quantitative analyses do nevertheless have the advantage of indicating how connections between SDG targets may change over time.
CBS and the three policy analysis agencies (PBL, SCP and CPB), each in accordance with their statutory task and expertise, aim to develop analyses of interlinkages for the Netherlands in the years ahead.
A bridge between well-being ‘here and now’, ‘later’, and ‘elsewhere’ and the SDG agenda
Chapter 2 deals with well-being on the basis of the ‘here and now’, ‘later’ and ‘elsewhere’ dimensions. The pillars of each dimension in the CES framework are economy, society and ecology. These three pillars build a bridge from the CES framework to the SDG agenda, as the individual SDGs can be classified under one of the pillars. This ultimately connects them and allows the possible mutual synergies and trade-offs to be explored. Whereas the approach in Chapter 2 was general and describes well-being that is inclusive and sustainable ‘here and now’, ‘later’ and ‘elsewhere’, the SDG agenda translates it into specific targets. This gives policy-makers practical guidance. The two approaches can therefore reinforce each other considerably.
As Figure 4.4.1 shows, the three pillars have a clear relationship with the SDG agenda. We disregard SDG 17 (partnerships) here. This SDG is relevant to the entire SDG agenda and aims to coordinate the various SDG activities worldwide.
The biosphere, the basis of all activities, is the dominant pillar under SDGs 6, 13, 14 and 15. Water, climate and natural life on land and in the sea therefore make up the whole ecology (biosphere). On top of that comes the society pillar, which touches on eight SDGs. All social themes fall under this heading: income, food, health, education, emancipation, security, living environment and energy transition (SDG 7, affordable and clean energy, is placed under the ‘society’ heading in the international literature). We have adopted this classification, although SDG 7 is of course also very significant for the ‘biosphere’ pillar). The top layer or pillar is the economy, for SDGs 8–12, with the economy and work, sustainable production and consumption, and financial sustainability. It is important that an economy focused on well-being is properly rooted in society (‘leave no-one behind’) and the biosphere (respecting planetary boundaries).
This classification may give rise to discussion about why a particular SDG is in one specific pillar rather than another. However, this also immediately tells us something about interlinkages between SDGs. Here are some examples:
- SDG 2 could be in the economy pillar, or even in ecology. For the Netherlands, the focus of the dashboard is on indicators for agriculture and its sustainability. Agricultural activities have an impact on the climate, the living environment and the economy. In the Netherlands, there is hardly any hunger, but there are problems with healthy diet and lifestyle.
- SDG 7 focuses on the energy transition, and its affordability affects society. But it is also determined by the development of the economy. The energy transition is closely linked to SDG 13, climate action, which in Figure 4.4.1 falls under the biosphere pillar.
- In this Chapter SDG 10 is divided for the Dutch policy context into two dashboards, 10.1 for social inclusion and 10.2 for financial sustainability. In the case of SDG 10.1, it can be assumed that this mainly belongs to the society pillar. But as in the case of SDG 1 (poverty), the link to the economy cannot be ignored.
Trends by type of indicator in more detail
Earlier in this chapter, the SDG indicators in each dashboard were classified by type. They have been grouped according to the resources that are deployed and the opportunities this creates, their use, outcomes and citizens’ perceptions of them. This classification is based on theoretical literature, in particular the combination of concepts from policy development and policy evaluation with the pillars in the CES measurement system. As noted earlier, some indicators may give rise to debate about their effects on well-being, especially in the case of resources and opportunities. However, this can only be determined in the policy debate. The selection of indicators by type is not based on a causal model of the theme in question. The selection only provides a balanced (and concise) overview of the basic information on a theme.
The SDG framework assumes that the policy debate considers all of these aspects (resources, opportunities, use, outcomes and subjective assessment) in conjunction with each other, rather than in isolation. This makes it easier to identify possible relationships between the different groups of indicators in an SDG, and sometimes between SDGs. A group of indicators of a certain type moving consistently over time in the same direction as another group or type of indicators – or in the opposite direction – may indicate an interlinkage within or between SDGs. The following subsection goes a small step further and attempts to quantify whether statistical connections can indeed be demonstrated. This is to provide a starting point for further research into whether this is actually the case and whether there could be a causal relationship.
Figure 4.4.2 gives an overview of the trends in all indicators measured for each SDG by type of indicator. The examples below show how this figure can be interpreted.
How can the wheels in Figure 4.4.2 be read? Figure 4.1.1 (Section 4.1) summarises the trend colours for each whole SDG. This is based on the trend colours by type or group of indicators within an SDG dashboard, which can produce a more mixed picture. For example:
- a relatively large number of SDG 6 trends are green according to the summary in Section 4.1. The SDG 6 wheel in Figure 4.4.2 shows that this is mainly due to the indicators for resources and opportunities and use. But a number of outcome indicators are red. This could be investigated to identify a possible imbalance. For this SDG, the subjective assessment indicator does not have a sufficient number of data points available to calculate a trend.
- It is notable that the picture of SDG 9 dashboard 1 (infrastructure and mobility) is very mixed. All types of indicators have red, green or neutral trends.
- For SDG 15 (Life on land) it is striking that the resources and opportunities are mostly decreasing. For use, there is an indicator showing an upward trend (green). By contrast, the indicators for outcomes are neutral to negative.
- For SDG 16 dashboard 2 (institutions), resources and opportunities, use and outcomes are mostly red to neutral, whereas subjective assessment shows a green trend.
Quantitative analysis of possible interlinkages between and within SDGs
Interlinkages within and between SDGs can also be analysed on the basis of an inductive or empirical approach. In early 2021, CBS made an initial effort to quantify the main SDG combinations of synergies and trade-offs for the Dutch situation (CBS, 2021a). This statistical information can help policy-makers to avoid impending trade-offs. Empirical research shows that when targets develop less equally over time, this can ultimately lead to a trade-off situation. The transition process towards the 2030 goals can be better defined if there is greater insight into the degree of interlinkage between the components of the SDG agenda.
Based on the time series available for the SDG indicators, CBS has carried out a quantitative test to ascertain which time series correlate strongly with each other in the Dutch situation. The results presented are experimental and therefore still provisional. CBS would like to conduct further research into this and invest in methodological improvements. However, the method used now is internationally accepted, namely the Engle-Granger two-step co-integration test. This co-integration test is used to examine whether two time series have the same underlying trend. The test yields a p-value. The closer 1–p is to 1, the stronger is the similarity in the movements of the trend. A value of more than 0.95 (i.e. a p-value of less than 0.05) is considered to be a very strong (statistically significant) relationship. We assume here that there is an expected or possible synergy or trade-off at a value (1–p) of 0.90 or higher.
Figure 4.4.3 is a schematic representation of the results of this statistical analysis. The figure shows only those relationships that were found to be statistically significant (i.e. with p equal to or less than 0.10). The bottom row and the right-hand column in the figure indicate the extent to which there are potential synergies and trade-offs within one SDG. The large block shows expected linkages between SDGs. Red dots indicate possible trade-off effects. Progress on one target or SDG means a regression or stagnation in another. The blue dots indicate possible synergies with other targets, or other SDGs. The size of the dots indicates whether the effect is relatively large or small, and based on the size and colour of the dots it is possible to see where the greatest potential synergies and trade-offs lie.
a)Statistical significance (p ≥ 0.1) based on the Engle-Granger cointegration test for the strength of the relationship between time series.
A number of SDGs sometimes appear to show conflicting targets within the same SDG, giving rise to trade-off effects. This is the case particularly in SDG 12. The greatest potential synergy effects within SDGs are likely to occur in SDGs 13 and 15, and to a slightly lesser extent SDGs 2, 3, 10, 11 and 12.
The two figures below show the SDGs between which the biggest synergies or trade-off effects can be expected.
These first preliminary results suggest that progress on SDG 13 in particular (climate action) may have positive effects on other SDGs and vice versa (SDG 13 is part of six of the ten SDG combinations in the top 10 strongest potential synergy effects). In the Netherlands, the energy transition and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are major policy objectives. It can therefore be expected that the most important synergies for the Netherlands will be found in SDG 13 in particular. It is also gratifying to see that progress is being made in the important policy areas of poverty reduction, particularly in the poorer countries, and climate action, specifically in the Netherlands, which is in any case statistically linked to progress in other SDGs.
Among the top 10 possible trade-off effects, the dominant goal is SDG 10 (reduced inequalities), which is included in the list in no fewer than nine out of ten cases. This suggests that progress in the other SDGs has a negative impact on SDG 10 (and vice versa).
It should be emphasised that these are preliminary research results and that they are intended to uncover statistical relationships; the results may indicate possible synergies and trade-offs. Actual synergies or trade-offs can only be deemed to exist when follow-up research shows that there are also clear causal connections. The three policy analysis agencies (CPB, PBL and SCP) will also examine this theme more closely in their research on well-being.
4.5References
References
CBS, 2016, Measuring the SDGs: an initial picture for the Netherlands. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
CBS, 2021a, Vijf jaar implementatie SDG’s in Nederland, 2016–2020. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
CBS, 2021b, Monitor Brede Welvaart & Sustainable Development Goals 2021: een toelichting. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague, Heerlen, Bonaire.
Noten
https://www.vno-ncw.nl/nieuws/ondernemersverenigingen-nieuw-rijnlands-model-met-brede-welvaart-als-kompas
Formerly EU28; the United Kingdom (UK) withdrew officially from the EU on 31 January 2020.
Indicators expressed in constant prices show the development of volume, with an adjustment for prices based on the consumer price index. An adjustment has also been made for differences in household size and composition (standardisation).
With regard to the use of the median, it should be noted that half of the population saw a smaller increase or even a fall in purchasing power.
Eurostat calculates this risk on the basis of household income in 2019.
This concerns the European poverty threshold used by Eurostat, which is set at 60 percent of the median income, rather than the criterion used by CBS (low-income threshold and policy-based minimum).
https://www.volksgezondheidenzorg.info/onderwerp/diabetes-mellitus/cijfers-context/ziektelast
This target was agreed by care providers and the care insurance sector in 2005. Its name is derived from the location of the meeting (Den Treek) at which targets for maximum waiting times were set for a wide range of health care situations.
These are long-term limitations, due to health problems, in people’s normal activities. This is called the Global Activity Limitations Indicator (GALI).
For this theme, see also the CBS Emancipation Monitor
These are long-term limitations, due to health problems, in people’s normal activities. This is called the Global Activity Limitations Indicator (GALI).
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2019/11/01/integraal-nationaal-energie-en-klimaatplan
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2019/12/13/kamerbrief-over-groeistrategie-voor-nederland-op-de-lange-termijn
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2019/06/07/schets-mobiliteit-naar-2040
https://www.denationaleomgevingsvisie.nl/default.aspx
https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/nieuws/archief/2021/03/aantal-files-vorig-jaar-met-681-procent-afgenomen
See also Materiële welvaart in Nederland 2020
This concerns the opinions of people aged 15 and over on the following statement: ‘People who have come here from other countries have made the country a worse or better place to live’ on a scale from 0 (worse place to live) to 10 (better place to live). A positive opinion is a score of 7 or over.
Including pension capital also reduces wealth inequality, according to CBS analysis.
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2021/04/ruim-69-duizend-nieuwbouwwoningen-in-2020
https://www.afvalcirculair.nl/onderwerpen/beleid-circulaire/rijksbreed-programma/
https://www.nationaalrapporteur.nl/publicaties/rapporten/2020/10/16/slachtoffermonitor-mensenhandel-2015-2019
https://www.rutgers.nl/producten/seks-onder-je-25e-2017