2020 Sustainable Development Report PDF

THIS IS AN AUTHORS’ MANUSCRIPT TO BE PUBLISHED BY CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
June 2020
© Cambridge University Press
The views expressed in this report do not reflect the views of any organizations,
agency or programme of the United Nations.
Please cite this report as:

Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., Woelm, F. 2020.
The Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19. Sustainable Development
Report 2020. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This report has been prepared with the extensive advice and consultation of the
SDSN Leadership Council members. Members of the Leadership Council serve in
their personal capacities, so the opinions expressed in this paper may not reflect
the opinions of their host institutions. Members are not necessarily in agreement
with every detail of this report.
Design and Layout by Pica Publishing Ltd – www.pica-publishing.com

Acknowledgements
The report was coordinated by Guillaume Lafortune under the direction of Christian Kroll and Guido Schmidt-Traub
and the overall supervision of Jeffrey D. Sachs. Lead writers are Jeffrey D. Sachs, Guido Schmidt-Traub, Christian Kroll,
Guillaume Lafortune, Grayson Fuller and Finn Woelm. We are grateful to Carmina Baez Sarita for statistical support,
as well as to Jessica Espey, Hayden Dahmm, and Maryam Rabiee from the Thematic Research Network on Data and
Statistics (TReNDs) for their valuable comments.
The views expressed in this report do not reflect the views of any organizations, agencies or programmes of the
United Nations.
The report combines data and analyses produced by international organizations, civil society organizations, and
research centers. We thank all for their contributions and collaboration in producing the report. The full list of
contributing organizations can be found in the References section of this report.
We also thank the regional and national SDSN networks, experts, and government officials for responding to the
2020 survey on “national implementation and coordination mechanisms for the SDGs at the central/federal level.”
We also thank respondents to SDSN’s 2020 public-opinion surveys on “SDG Progress and Challenges” and on
“Covid‑19 and the SDGs.”
María Cortes-Puch, Elena Crete, Cheyenne Maddox, and Ryan Swaney provided communication support for the
launch of the report. Cambridge University Press and Roberto Rossi of Pica Publishing prepared the manuscript
for publication. We thank all staff members at SDSN and its member institutions, at Bertelsmann Stiftung and at
Cambridge University Press, especially Phil Good, who have supported this report.
Please notify us of any publications that use the SDG Index and Dashboards data or the Sustainable Development
Report, and share your publication with us at [email protected].
An interactive online dashboard and all data used in this report can be accessed at:
http://sustainabledevelopment.report.
ii Sustainable Development Report 2020 The Sustainable Development Goals and Covid-19
Table of Contents
Executive Summary vi
Part 1. Covid‑19, the SDGs, and the Recovery 1

1.1 Covid‑19 and the future of sustainable development 1
1.2 Comparing early Covid‑19 control in the OECD countries 15
Part 2. The SDG Index and Dashboards 23

2.1 The 2020 SDG Index 25
2.2 The SDG Index score over time 25
2.3 International spillovers 33
2.4 The SDG dashboards 37
2.5 Absolute SDG performance gaps in G20 countries 46
Part 3. Policy and Monitoring Frameworks

for the SDGs49
3.1 Political leadership and policy environment 49
3.2 Data, statistics and monitoring 57
Part 4. Methods Summary and Data Tables 63

4.1 Interpreting the Index and Dashboards results 63
4.2 Changes made to the 2020 edition, and main limitations 63
4.3 Methodology (summary) 66
4.4 Data tables 74
References 94
Part 5. Country Profiles 101
Sustainable Development Report 2020 The Sustainable Development Goals and Covid-19 iii
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 1 Short-term impacts of Covid‑19 on the Sustainable Development Goals 4
Figure 2 Six SDG Transformations 8
Figure 3 An SDG framework to map out possible short-term and longer-term government
responses to Covid‑19 10
Figure 4 Cumulative Covid-19 tests per 1,000 population 14
Figure 5 SDG Index and Dashboards: global, regional and subnational editions (2016–2020) 24
Figure 6 Progress on the SDG Index by regions (2010–2019) 28
Figure 7 Progress on the SDG Index by income group (2010–2019) 28
Figure 8 Countries whose SDG Index score has improved or decreased the most since 2015 29
Figure 9 Progress by SDGs and regions 30
Figure 10 Average spillover score against gross domestic product per capita (GDP per capita,
constant 2010 US$, ppp) 34
Figure 11 Domestic vs transboundary impacts (CO2 emissions and scarce water use) 36
Figure 12 2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) by United Nations sub-regions 40
Figure 13 2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) for East and South Asia 40
Figure 14 2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) for OECD countries 41
Figure 15 2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) for Eastern Europe and Central Asia 42
Figure 16 2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) for Latin America and the Caribbean 43
Figure 17 2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) for the Middle East and North Africa 44
Figure 18 2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) for Oceania 44
Figure 19 2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) for Sub-Saharan Africa 45
Figure 20 Comparative assessment of government strategies and policy actions for climate mitigation 52
Figure 21 Q.1. In your view, is your country on track to achieve the SDGs by 2030? 53
Figure 22 Q.2. Since 2015, how do you perceive government efforts and actions to implement the
six transformations in your country? 54
Figure 23 Q.4. In your view, what are the main barriers to achieving the SDGs in your country? 54
Figure 24 Q.1. In your view, in your country, what will be the impact of the Covid‑19 pandemic
on the achievement of the SDGs by 2030? 55
Figure 25 Q.2. In your view, in your country, what will be the impact of Covid‑19 on each of the
six SDG Transformations? 56
Figure 26 Q.3. In your view, is the current SDG framework and reporting process suited to help
prevent and mitigate major global risks (e.g., pandemics)? 56
Figure 27 Change in data availability (official data sources), 2010–2015 vs 2010–2020 (%) 60
Figure 28 Change in data availability (official data sources), 2010–2015 vs 2015–2020 (%) 60
Figure 29 Global data availability (in %) and average year of reference (in years) by SDGs
(official and non-official data sources) 61
Figure 30 The Four-arrow system for denoting SDG trends 72
Figure 31 Graphic representation of the SDG trends methodology 72
iv Sustainable Development Report 2020 The Sustainable Development Goals and Covid-19
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 1 Covid‑19 pilot Index and performance indicators for the OECD countries 20
Table 2 The 2020 SDG Index scores 26
Table 3 Absolute SDG performance gaps in 2020 (%) 47
Table 4 National government efforts to implement the SDGs 51
Table 5 Data availability and year of reference by sub-regions (official data sources),
including and excluding model-based estimates 59
Table 6 New indicators and modifications 64
Table 7 Major indicator and data gaps for the SDGs 65
Table 8 Imputations 69
Table 9 Indicators included in the Sustainable Development Report 2020 74
Table 10 Countries not included in the 2020 SDG Index due to insufficient data availability 82
Table 11 Indicator thresholds and justifications for the optimum values 83
Table 12 Indicators used for SDG Trends and period for trend estimation 88
Table 13 Spillover Index Score and Rank (compared with SDG Index Rank) 90
List of Boxes
Box 1 Lessons on preparedness 14
Box 2 National and subnational SDG indices and dashboards 24
Box 3 Public opinion survey on SDG Progress and Challenges 53
Box 4 Public opinion survey on Covid‑19 and the SDGs 55
Sustainable Development Report 2020 The Sustainable Development Goals and Covid-19 v
Executive Summary
Covid‑19 will have severe negative impacts on most SDGs. The world is facing the
worst public health and economic crisis in a century. As of June 20th, 2020, around
463,000 people had died from Covid‑19 across the world. The health crisis is affecting all
countries, including high-income countries in Europe and North America. The necessary
measures taken to respond to the immediate threat of Covid‑19, including the shut-
down of many economic activities for weeks, have led to a global economic crisis with
massive job losses and major impacts especially on vulnerable groups. This is a significant
setback for the world’s ambition to achieve the SDGs, in particular for poor countries and
population groups. The only bright spot in this foreboding picture is the reduction in
environmental impacts resulting from declines in economic activity: a key objective will
be to restore economic activity without simply restoring old patterns of environmental
degradation. However, all long-term consequences of the pandemic remain highly
uncertain at this point.
All countries need to strengthen the resilience of their health systems and
prevention programs. Some countries have outperformed others in containing the
pandemic, yet all remain at serious risk. No country has attained so-called herd immunity;
all remain highly vulnerable to new outbreaks. In line with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-
Being), all countries need to “Strengthen the capacity for early warning, risk reduction
and management of national and global health risks.” The Covid‑19 pandemic has shed
considerable light on the vulnerability of health systems, notably in high-income countries
that were thought best prepared to face epidemics. Besides greater investments, this
crisis shows that better measures and reporting are needed to track prevention programs,
healthcare system preparedness, and resilience to pandemics.
The SDGs and the Six SDG Transformations can inform the recovery from Covid‑19.
As the international community, regional organizations, and countries plan the post-
Covid‑19 recovery, it will be important to put the SDGs at the heart of policymaking.
Covid‑19 does not resolve the climate and biodiversity crises, and it is gravely amplifying
income inequalities and other forms of inequality. It has also shown us that countries
will only be able to protect themselves from global pandemics if health systems are
strengthened in every country. The SDR2020 shows that significant progress has been
achieved in many regions and on many goals over the past five years. Here we describe
how the SDGs and the six SDG Transformations (Sachs et al., 2019a) can guide the
immediate post-crisis recovery and frame long-term strategies towards more resilient and
sustainable societies.
Asian countries have made the most progress towards the SDGs since the adoption
of the goals in 2015. Asian countries have also responded most effectively to
the Covid‑19 outbreak. While the world as a whole has made progress on the SDGs,
countries in East and South Asia in particular have progressed the most in terms of their
SDG Index score. Countries in this region have also managed the Covid‑19 outbreak more
effectively than in other parts of the world. While the situation is still evolving, the shift of
the geopolitical and economic global center of gravity from the North Atlantic region to
the Asia-Pacific region is likely to be accelerated by the crisis.
vi Sustainable Development Report 2020 The Sustainable Development Goals and Covid-19
Executive Summary
Solidarity and partnerships are critical to address and prevent health, economic,
and humanitarian crises. Globalization and the destruction of wildlife habitats facilitate
the rapid spread of viruses around the world. Yet rather than losing the vast benefits that
globalization offers for economics, poverty reduction, technological advance, and the
enjoyment of each other’s cultures, it is important instead to make globalization more
fair, sustainable, and resilient to shocks. Concerted international action by policymakers,
business, civil society, and the scientific community can accelerate the identification of
solutions to the immediate crisis and strengthen globalization for the long term. Stronger
international and multisectoral partnerships can support mitigation strategies by sharing
best practices, and help prevent future disruptive events. The health, economic, and social
crises call for increased international collaboration and solidarity to support the most
vulnerable countries.
Data gaps and time lags in official statistics require urgent investments in statistical
capacity and increased coordination between governments and the private sector.
The pandemic has taught us once again the value of real-time information, and the
enormous costs of flying blind into a storm. Early detection of Covid‑19 outbreaks can
make all the difference between suppression of the pandemic and a full-scale outbreak.
The same is true across many SDG indicators, where timing matters enormously to save
lives, ecosystems, and effective governance. This year’s edition of the SDG Index and
Dashboards cannot integrate the impact of Covid‑19 on the SDGs due to time lags in
official statistics and reporting. This illustrates how crucial timely and disaggregated data
are across the SDGs. Major efforts should focus on increasing data availability and reducing
time lags in official statistics, and on leveraging the wealth of real-time data available from
non-traditional sources, including the research community and the private sector.
Sustainable Development Report 2020 The Sustainable Development Goals and Covid-19 vii
Part 1
Covid‑19, the SDGs,

and the Recovery
Part 1
Covid‑19, the SDGs, and the Recovery
The world is still in the early phase of the vast Covid‑19 crisis. Deaths and infections continue to mount (JHU, 2020;
Worldometer, 2020). Economies are in a deep and growing crisis. Inequalities within and among countries are rising, as the
poorest suffer a disproportionate share of the infections and deaths, and struggle more to make ends meet. Poverty and hunger
are soaring. And global tensions are rising. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has rightly called this crisis the
worst since World War II. The economic ramifications could rival those of the Great Depression in the 1930s (IMF, 2020a).
The implications of the pandemic encompass public to Covid‑19 which integrates health and economic
health, economics, social stability, politics, and geopoli- considerations.
tics. The crisis is unprecedented in severity at least since
the influenza epidemic at the end of World War I, and Poor performance on this index does not necessarily
still very uncertain in its trajectory. The world will change mean that countries have not responded appropriately
markedly. However, if we take the right approach to crisis to the Covid-19 outbreak under the circumstances they
management, we may learn important positive lessons were confronted with. In countries where personal
for the future – and if not, we may fall into a downward protective equipment (PPE) (e.g. masks) and test kits were
spiral of crisis. lacking and where capacities in intensive care units were
more limited, a strict and prolonged lockdown was most
The Sustainable Development Report 2020 (SDR2020) probably required for containing the spread of the virus
presents some early thoughts on the Covid‑19 crisis and and reducing death rates. Yet, we also underline how
the future of sustainable development. some countries that were better prepared (e.g. South
Korea) managed to deal with the disease outbreak more
This opening section is divided into two parts: efficiently so far by testing, tracing, and isolating rapidly
confirmed Covid-19 cases and through the immediate
In the first part, we review early responses and identify use of PPE among most of the population, which has
short-term priorities for action by governments and their greatly help in mitigating the negative economic impacts.
partners around the world, including the international Besides government actions, other factors can explain
community. We also describe how the Sustainable lower mortality rates from Covid‑19 such as geography,
Development Goals (SDGs) can help chart medium- demography, and other contextual factors including
term and longer-term responses to recover from the recent experiences with viruses’ outbreaks.
health, economic, social, and environmental impacts
of the pandemic. We believe that success will require
deep changes to how countries and the international
community operate, which we try to outline.
1.1 Covid‑19 and the future of
sustainable development
In the second part, we review how governments
have responded to the immediate health crisis and Clearly, the pandemic will have profound implications
describe emerging lessons for public health authorities, on progress towards the SDGs, which this report has
governments at large, and the public. The crisis has been tracking since 2016. The data we present in this
shown profound weaknesses in our public health 2020 report mostly dates from before the onset of the
systems, including in many of the richest countries that pandemic, so it does not account for the Covid‑19
were deemed to be well prepared for such a pandemic. impact. For this reason, this section outlines likely
Meanwhile, some countries, particularly in the Asia- implications on the SDGs by drawing on emerging data
Pacific region, have (so far) been successful in containing and findings from around the world. We underscore the
Covid‑19 and minimizing the damage to their societies. preliminary and uncertain nature of these findings, but
We present a novel approach and a pilot index to measure we hope they will help the global discussion on Covid‑19
the effectiveness of the OECD countries’ early responses and the SDGs.
Sustainable Development Report 2020 The Sustainable Development Goals and Covid-19 1
Part 1. The Sustainable Development Goals and Covid-19
This section also seeks to lay out a vision for the future of infected would recover, while a small proportion, perhaps
sustainable development and the SDGs. It is necessarily around 1%, would die from the illness. In a matter of just a
preliminary since we are only at what some have called few weeks the epidemic would end, since those infected
the end of the beginning of Covid‑19. Previous pandemics today would not infect others.
suggest that there may well be several new rounds of
outbreaks, and the implications on economies, social Yet the pandemic is not being suppressed in this quick
cohesion, the environment, and international diplomacy and orderly way. At the time of writing (late May 2020), the
are impossible to predict. As the UN Secretary-General number of new cases continues to grow rapidly in many
(UN 2020) has reminded us, some of the worst can be countries and regions, including Brazil, India, Russia, the
avoided, but only if countries act decisively and in unison, United States, and several countries in South America and
with strong international solidarity. Africa. Infected individuals continue to infect susceptible
individuals in large numbers. In many of these countries
The SDGs are the world’s shared goals for sustainable and regions, new infections are rising at a very fast pace. The
development, and Covid‑19 makes them more relevant virus has reached virtually every country on every continent.
than ever. It is critical that we “build back better,” but
the question is of course how to do so. In this section Yet the news on suppressing the pandemic is not all
we outline some preliminary ideas for how the SDGs bleak. Several countries, notably in the Asia-Pacific region
can provide the framework for national action and – including Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and
international cooperation in the wake of Covid‑19. Vietnam, among others – have shown that it is possible to
stop the epidemic, or at least to reduce the number of new
We distinguish between short-run and longer-term infections to small numbers. Success is based heavily on
priorities. In the short run, the absolute priority is to control intensive public health services and good hygienic practices
the spread of the virus in every country, including the among the population. People in these countries who show
poorest ones. Countries and the international community symptoms are tested and isolated. If their home conditions
also need to mitigate the impact on achievement of the are too crowded, they are quarantined in public facilities
SDGs, especially in vulnerable countries and population where they will not transmit the virus to family members
groups. International collaboration and partnerships or neighbors. Their close contacts are rigorously traced,
are needed to speed the fight against the pandemic, tested, and isolated or quarantined if necessary. People are
support macroeconomic stability, and avoid a disastrous routinely monitored for symptoms (such as fever) when
humanitarian crisis. In the longer term, we argue that they move in public places. People wear face masks and
the SDGs provide the framework to guide the recovery. regularly wash their hands to avoid spreading the virus,
Countries need to invest in stronger and more resilient and they keep their physical distance from others when in
health systems and pursue the other SDGs. We outline shops, public places, or their workplaces. Businesses allow
practical steps for how this might be achieved. employees to work from home whenever possible, monitor
their workforce for any symptoms of infection, and quickly
isolate any who might be infected. In short, every effort is
made to prevent infected individuals from infecting others.
Short-term priorities
Most countries around the world do not yet have such
Control the disease
high-quality public health systems. They lack adequate
The good news is that, in principle, Covid‑19 is testing, contact tracing, and quarantine facilities. They do
controllable. The pandemic could be stopped in its not aggressively monitor public places for people with
tracks if every infected person were kept safely away symptoms such as fever. Individuals do not always honor
from susceptible individuals during the period of physical distancing. People take undue risks by meeting
infectiousness, which is roughly one to two weeks. If together in large groups, such as at beaches, sports events,
that were to happen, the vast majority of those currently restaurants, parties, religious services, funerals, and other
2 Sustainable Development Report 2020 The Sustainable Development Goals and Covid-19
1. Covid-19, the SDGs, and the Recovery
1.1 Covid‑19 and the future of sustainable development
group occasions. They also often do not, or cannot, adhere unemployment, sudden poverty, a rise in hunger, rising
to strict hygiene measures, including hand-washing and domestic abuse, and other impacts of remaining at home.
the wearing of masks. The virus is then easily spread to
large numbers of people. Yet lifting lockdowns in the absence of adequate public
health measures can simply allow the pandemic to return
The wealthy countries of Western Europe and North with full force. Every country therefore faces a grim reality.
America were in fact among those with the greatest Either build up public-health capacity to contain the
number of infected people and deaths in the first months pandemic, as have those countries that have succeeded in
of the pandemic. The United States alone was reporting containing Covid‑19, or face the disastrous choice between
99,807 Covid‑19 deaths as of May 26, or 29% of the world’s an uncontained pandemic and economic collapse.
348,300 total reported Covid‑19 deaths at the time, despite
accounting for just 4% of the world’s population. That Clearly, the choice between death and economic
comes to a death rate of 302 per million population in the collapse is really no choice. The only viable option for
United States, compared with just 3 per million in China, all societies is to build effective public health systems
4 per million in Australia and New Zealand, 5 per million that can contain the pandemic, which could even allow
in South Korea, and 7 per million in Japan. Well-financed businesses to operate at a level close to that of before
healthcare systems did not spare the United States and the outbreak (Dorn et al., 2020). In fact, a synergetic
many countries in Western Europe. These countries had relationship between public health and a prosperous
hospitals but lacked testing capacities, contact tracers, and economy seems possible even in times of Covid‑19.
other control measures. Standard rankings of preparedness According to illustrative calculations by Dorn et al.,
also gave the wrong message: The United States often a favorable scenario may be one in which the virus’s
topped these conventional rankings (box 1), yet the reproduction rate, or R-value, falls to 0.75 (based on
country failed to respond effectively when the virus arrived. data from Germany), which presents the best possible
balance between new infections and economic costs due
The pandemic especially ravages countries with poor to shutdown measures. We will learn over the coming
leadership. Countries led by populists or strongmen weeks whether countries that are currently reopening
who dismiss science, weaken public health institutions, their economies have put in place the necessary public
or undermine transparency in the management of the health interventions to monitor, trace, prevent, and treat
disease are performing particularly poorly. The modeling infections, so as to prevent a second outbreak.
has shown that even a few weeks’ delay in response can
mean the difference between suppressing the pandemic Even though it is possible to contain and even to stop
and suffering a mass outbreak with a vast loss of life. Each the global pandemic through effective public-health
failure harms not only the country itself, but the rest of measures, it is more likely that the virus will continue to
the world as well. It sets back the revival of trade, tourism, spread widely and affect vast proportions of the world’s
investment, higher education, and other global activities. population. This is the result of poor public leadership in
many rich countries, combined with the lack of the means
With widespread transmission of the virus and inadequate and financing to contain the epidemic in poorer countries.
public health measures, most countries have resorted Poorer countries generally do not have large cadres of
to temporary lockdowns of economic and social life. public-health officials, though such cadres are an excellent
By cutting down sharply on daily contacts throughout investment not only in pandemic control but also
society – in shops, restaurants, offices, public transport towards meeting other objectives of SDG 3 (Good Health
and public spaces, and at events – transmission of and Well-Being). The poorer countries also do not have
the virus is slowed. Yet lockdowns are very costly and adequate testing facilities. It is also very difficult to keep
inefficient. Instead of isolating only infected individuals impoverished populations at home even for short periods
and their contacts, everybody is isolated. The economy of time. Some leaders, such as Pakistan’s Prime Minister
grinds to a halt, with very high costs in terms of mass Imran Khan (2020), have simply declared that they do not
Figure 1 Mainly positive impact

Short-term impacts of Covid‑19 on the Sustainable Development Goals Mixed or moderately negative impact
Highly negative impact
Impact still unclear
SDG 1 Highly negative impact

No poverty • Increased poverty due to job losses and economic lockdown
• Disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups (e.g., the poor)

Zero hunger • Food insecurity due to reduction in global food supplies and trade
• Hunger due to fall in incomes and reduced food availability during lockdown
• Higher food loss and waste due to transportation challenges and reduced labor availability
• Poorer nutrition due to interruption of school meals

Good health • Higher disease incidence and mortality from Covid 19
and well-being • Higher mortality from other causes because of overburdening of health systems
• Slight decline in mortality due to reduced economic and social activities
(e.g., traffic accidents)
• Potential short-term health gains due to lower environmental pollution
• Negative impact of confinement and lockdown on mental health
(e.g., anxiety and depression)
SDG 4 Mixed or moderately negative impact

Quality education • School and day-care closures
• Loss in the development of human capital
• Poorer nutrition due to interruption of school meals

Gender equality • Possible disproportionate economic impacts on women (e.g., job losses, poverty)
• Other social impacts on women from the lockdown (e. g., domestic violence)
• Higher mortality rates from the virus among men (because they suffer from more
chronic respiratory diseases due to higher smoking rate)

Clean water • Limited access to clean water among disadvantaged groups limits possibility of
and sanitation adhering to strict hygiene guidelines

Affordable and • Slowdown in economic growth contributing to a reduction in energy prices (e.g., oil),
clean energy which might increase access to energy but reduce incentives for renewables

Decent work and • Economic crisis in virtually all parts of the world
economic growth • Trade disruption
• Mass unemployment
• Business closures / bankruptcies
• Sharp decline in tourism activities
• Massive public deficits

Industry, innovation • Decline in industrial outputs
and infrastructure • Possible nationalization of some industries, and bankruptcies and closures of others
• Scientific collaboration to find treatments and vaccine
• Accelerated uptake of digital technologies, for e-health, e-education, e-governance,
and e-payments

Reduced inequalities • Disproportionate negative health and economic impacts on vulnerable groups
(including refugees and migrants), especially in countries with low safety nets
• Loss of jobs of lower-skilled, lower-wage labor

Sustainable cities and • Rise in urban poverty and vulnerability
communities • Shut down of public transports
• Lower access to public / green spaces
• Movements of population that vary across countries
• Sharp short-term reduction in pollution levels
SDG 12 Impact still unclear

Responsible consumption • Short-term reduction in natural resource use due to reduced economic activity
and production and consumption
• Pressure to loosen up regulations on circular economy and postpone the adoption
of new measures
• Increased plastic pollution (e.g., used to produce personal protective equipment)

Climate action • Short-term reduction in global GHG emissions
• Pressure to reduce environmental safeguards
• Lack of clarity on environmental investments
• Slowdown in economic growth contributing to reduction in energy prices (e.g., oil),
which might increase access to energy but reduce incentives for renewables

Life below water • Short-term reduction in threats to marine biodiversity due to reduced global
economic activity and consumption
• Pressure to reduce marine biodiversity and ecosystem safeguards

Life on land • Short-term reduction in threats to terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity
due to reduced global economic activity and consumption
• Pressure to reduce terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem
safeguards, including biodiversity and ecosystem regulations conventions
(for instance, on deforestation)

Peace, justice and strong • Increased pressure on governments to mitigate the health and economic
institutions consequences of the pandemic
• Pressure to increase accessible health care in countries that have not yet achieved
universal health coverage
• Increased public deficits and debt
• Disruption of legislative processes and public debates
• Suspension of freedom-of-information laws and transparency policies

Partnerships for the goals • Possible reduced responsiveness of international aid community to needs of
the poorest countries
• Possible reduction in international remittances and cross-border financing
• Closing of borders
• Slowdown in international trade
• Debt crisis
have the means to contain their county’s pandemic. The likely that one or more countries will default, pushing
consequences may well be horrendous for such countries. the bond-rating agencies to downgrade sovereign
But they would also be horrendous for other countries, developing-country debts more generally, and leading
since the virus and the damage it wreaks would continue to a freezing up of the system rather than a refinancing.
to spread across borders. The result would be a cascade of defaults and balance-of-
payments crises that would also touch many countries that
Therefore, the world as a whole is at a decisive moment. have hitherto managed their economies well.
With serious public-health efforts in all parts of the world,
containing the pandemic is feasible. Beyond the most direct impacts on poverty (SDG 1), food
security (SDG 2), health (SDG 3), the economy (SDG 8), and
multilateralism (SDG 17), Covid‑19 has numerous other
SDG impacts that are less widely discussed.
Mitigate negative impacts on the SDGs
Many fallouts from the Covid‑19 crisis on the SDGs are Vulnerable countries and population groups (including the
direct and obvious. Figure 1 summarizes these short- elderly, people with pre-conditions, homeless people,
term impacts. Some poor countries will face devastating low-skilled workers and refugees) are disproportionately
poverty as they lose a high proportion of their incomes affected by the short- and medium-term consequences
from commodity exports, tourism, and remittance flows. of the Covid‑19 crisis (United Nations, 2020). This can be
The terms of trade for many commodity exporters will expected to result in growing inequalities, undermining
fall sharply, as shown by the collapse in oil prices during progress towards the achievement of SDG 10 (Reduced
the first months of 2020. Domestic lockdowns in the Inequalities). On SDG 5 (Gender Equality), early evidence
poor countries will deprive the poor of their meagre daily suggests that women are disproportionally affected in many
incomes. Poverty and hunger will rise. ways by the Covid‑19 health and economic crises, including
through their greater exposure to labor market disruptions
Many food-importing developing countries could see and the increase in domestic violence stemming from
plummeting currencies, steeply rising domestic (and real) the lockdowns (Inter-Agency Standing Committee,
prices of imported food, and thus growing hunger, both 2020; UNFPA, 2020; Wenham et al., 2020). Meanwhile, the
hidden and overt (FAO, 2020; IFPRI, 2020). Much of Africa mortality rate of Covid‑19 is greater among men, due
in particular depends on food imports for staples, and perhaps to greater pre-existing behavioral risk factors, such
these countries will likely lose a substantial proportion as higher smoking rates, other co-morbidities, or biological
of their foreign-exchange income. The consequences factors (Reeves and Ford, 2020). The crisis also has negative
could be dire and could translate into social and political impacts on access to schools, especially for populations
instability, as well as hunger. that are poorly equipped with digital technologies.
Many emerging economies and frontier economies could The crisis also affects the functioning of political and legisla-
soon also face devastating challenges in refinancing their tive systems and the rule of law (SDG 16). Some governments
debts (Adrian and Natalucci, 2020). As the crisis unfolds, have introduced exceptional measures that increase their
governments face an intense budget squeeze, as revenues powers, allow them to rule by decree, and limit freedom of
decline while social spending rises. Moreover, many speech (Transparency International, 2020). As rightly empha-
developing country currencies will depreciate against the sized by the UN Security Council (Council of Europe, 2020),
dollar, raising the domestic currency costs of servicing the consequences of Covid‑19 are exacerbated in fragile
foreign dollar-denominated debts. It would be possible states, including in countries that face conflicts and civil wars.
in principle to refinance the debts falling due through
new private borrowing, IMF credits, or systematic rollovers At the same time, the crisis has brought about at least
of principal and interest. In practice, the international some temporary environmental benefits. Emissions of
financial system rarely works so systematically. It is more CO2 around the world have dropped significantly due to
reduced industrial activity, lower energy consumption, and destruction. These warnings are today more pertinent than
reduced transportation of material and people (Le Quéré et ever. If the Covid‑19 disaster accomplishes anything good,
al., 2020). CO2 emissions and emissions of nitrogen dioxide, it should be to shake the world from its complacency, so
a major air pollutant, declined sharply in China during the as seriously commit to the hard work of investing in a
early months of the pandemic (Ghosh, 2020; Myllyvirta, sustainable and inclusive future for humanity.
2020), although they are now rebounding strongly (CREA,
2020). Yet, the virus may also have a negative impact on The six SDG Transformations (Sachs et al., 2019a) provide
the enforcement of environmental laws, including on a detailed framework on which to construct integrated
deforestation, as industrial lobbies put pressure on public strategies to recover from Covid‑19 and to build back
authorities to loosen up restrictions or even postpone the better. They can be implemented in every country to help
adoption of new measures (Reuters, 2020). Meanwhile it address trade-offs and synergies across the SDGs. We
is unclear what impact Covid‑19 will have on investments, presented the SDG Transformations in last year’s report and
policies, and other short-term actions to tackle climate outline here how they will need to be rethought to help
change. Overall, we believe the direction of short-term guide medium- and longer-term responses to Covid‑19.
impacts on environmental and biodiversity goals (SDGs
12–15) is unclear. Most importantly, where Covid‑19- The core of the six Transformations is the recognition that all
related declines in economic activity have reduced 17 SDGs can be achieved through six major societal transfor-
environmental degradation, the restoration of economic mations, focused on: (1) education and skills, (2) health and
activity should aim to protect these environmental gains. wellbeing, (3) clean energy and industry, (4) sustainable land
use, (5) sustainable cities, and (6) digital technologies. All
While the global health situation remains gloomy, are guided by the twin principles of “leave no one behind”
mortality rates due to traffic accidents (covered under and “ensure circularity and decoupling” (See Sachs et al.,
SDG 3.6) have sharply declined in many parts of the 2019a for details, page 3). The six Transformations provide an
world (Kopf, 2020). There might also be other short-term action agenda for government ministries, businesses, and
health gains due to lower pollution levels. These must be civil society. They help governments and the international
continued as the world recovers from Covid‑19. community, as well as business and civil society, to frame
actionable strategies to achieve the SDGs and thereby make
our societies more prosperous, inclusive, and sustainable.
Medium- and long-term priorities To implement these transformations, in the medium-

Guide the recovery with the six SDG Transformations run, relationship between markets and governments
must be rebalanced, with governments playing a more
The SDGs provide an invaluable framework for recovery from central role in the economy through public investments,
Covid‑19. The pandemic has laid bare the fragile economic, redistribution of incomes from rich to poor, and
social, and environmental underpinnings of our world today. regulation of industry to ensure environmental and social
Despite the world’s vast wealth, scientific and technological sustainability. As a result of the pandemic, government
prowess, and supposed preparedness for disasters, and spending will have to increase sharply over the coming
despite repeated specific warnings of the risks of pandemics, one to three years, to mitigate the consequences of the
including many specific warnings of coronavirus pandemics, health and economic crises. And at least some of this
the world was not ready when the virus struck. increase in spending, for example on health coverage and
access to public services, should remain permanent.
The SDGs were adopted to address unnecessary risks and
fragilities across the economic, social, and environmental Already, public workforces including healthcare workers
domains. These include poverty, widening inequalities and first responders such as the police force have been
in income and access to decent lives, continued high heavily mobilized to respond to the health emergency.
disease burdens, and of course massive environmental Large-scale public-private partnerships are underway
Figure 2
Six SDG Transformations
Leave no one behind
Transformation 6 Transformation 1
Digital revolution for Education, gender
sustainable development and inequality
Sustainable cities Health, well-being
and communities and demography
Sustainable food, land, Energy decarbonization
water and oceans and sustainable industry
Circularity and decoupling
Source: Sachs, Jeffrey, G. Schmidt-Traub, M. Mazzucato, D. Messner, N. Nakicenovic, and J. Rockström (2019). “Six Transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals,” Nature
Sustainability, 2(9), 805–14. Available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0352-9
– in transport for example – and the role of government in Yet governments need to plan for the post Covid‑19
the health sector is expanding dramatically. Governments economy. Unemployment will remain very high. Jobs
are also stepping in to distribute key medical supplies lost in many sectors – retail, office support, construction,
such as protective equipment and sanitizers, support tourism, personal services, fossil-fuel energy – will not
research for treatments and vaccines, negotiate prices, and return, or at least not rapidly and robustly. Budget deficits
avert risks of food shortages (among other interventions). and financial imbalances will persist. Many enterprises will
Massive fiscal packages, mainly to support the incomes of go out of business. Non-government aggregate demand,
workers, combined with falls in GDPs will increase public including private consumption and investment, will most
spending as a share of GDP across the board. likely remain depressed.
The highest priority of every government must remain There are many complex choices ahead, with financing at
the suppression of the pandemic. There can be no the core. In many countries, state and local governments
economic recovery while the pandemic is raging. provide healthcare, education, social services, and local
infrastructure. But state and local governments will be Yet we will not go back to the pre-Covid‑19 economy.
strapped for cash. National governments, backed by their Hundreds of millions of jobs will have been lost as a direct
tax authority, their ability to borrow in capital markets, and consequence of the pandemic. Many of these jobs will
their access to central bank financing (directly or through never return. E-commerce will boom, but in doing so
open-market operations), will urgently need to share will further displace the bricks-and-mortar retail sector.
revenues with state and local governments. Many national Offices will give way to increased teleworking from home.
governments that borrow abroad in foreign currencies Education and healthcare will move increasingly online.
and require foreign exchange for vital imports such as The fossil-fuel industries will not recover, as the world
food and basic capital equipment will suffer a balance-of- rightly embraces renewable energy as a way out of the
payments crisis. The G20 countries have already granted a crisis. Countries such as Brazil, Indonesia, and Mexico that
debt-service moratorium to low-income countries (in April have recently banked heavily on their hydrocarbon sectors
2020). This will almost surely have to be extended to many will face a need for deep economic restructuring. So too
emerging-market middle-income countries as well. will traditional oil-exporting countries – including Angola,
the Gulf States, Nigeria, and Russia.
The length and depth of the global economic crisis will
depend largely on when the pandemic is brought under In the rebuilding phase, governments should support
control. If a vaccine proves to be successful on a rapid their economic recovery with a strong focus on
timeline, that is by late 2020 or during the first part of 2021, infrastructure investments that boost jobs and underpin
economic prospects will brighten dramatically – assuming the transition to a low-carbon economy, in line with
that the vaccine can be manufactured at scale and the Paris Agreement. Tens of millions of jobs can be
deployed globally during 2021. Without a vaccine, all will created directly by building new clean-energy systems
depend on the success or failure of public health measures based on solar and wind energy, long-distance power
to suppress virus transmission: testing, isolating, contact- transmission, smart grids, electric vehicles, hydrogen and
tracing, physical distancing, and safety in public spaces other synthetic fuels, and energy-efficient buildings. The
and work places through the use of face masks, sanitizers, European Green Deal, a United States “Green New Deal,”
and other hygienic measures (e.g., air circulation, UV lights). a sustainable Belt and Road Initiative, and regional “green
deals” in the ASEAN, South America, the Middle East,
As of this writing, in the late spring of 2020, the signs South Asia, and elsewhere, could provide the way forward
are very worrisome. Major outbreaks continue in large to massive job creation, renewed economic growth, and
parts of the world, and public health containment and environmental sustainability. In short, to the achievement
suppression approaches are not yet decisive in many of the SDGs and the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
major economies. The epidemic continues to spread
rapidly in Brazil, India, Mexico, Russia, the United States, The Six Transformations Framework for the SDGs can
and several other countries in South America and Africa. be a very useful guide for rebuilding:
The outlooks in many highly populous developing
countries such as Ethiopia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Transformation 1 (Education, Gender and Inequality).
and South Africa, remain guarded and tenuous. Countries will need to invest more in their education
systems to strengthen their resilience, particularly by
As the epidemic itself is brought under control or eventu- drawing on modern communication technologies. The
ally constrained by herd immunity once a large enough crisis is accelerating the rollout of digital tools in schools
proportion of the population has been infected, the time and in remote education and training – tools that have
for rebuilding the economy will be at hand. The sooner been used in many countries to strengthen the resilience of
that moment arrives, the brighter will be the prospects education systems in the midst of the crisis. Further invest-
for recovery. As of mid-2020, it seems likely that the Asia- ments in education in science, technology, engineering
Pacific region will start rebuilding first among the world’s and mathematics (STEM) subjects and in life-long learning
major regions. are needed to accompany these transformations and
Figure 3
An SDG framework to map out possible short-term and longer-term government responses to Covid‑19
Whole-of-government response (transversal)

• Increased role of government in key sectors (economy, health, food, social security)
• Re-think global supply chains and dependence for strategic equipment and materials
• Strengthen development cooperation to support recovery plans in countries most hit and in least
developed countries
• Strengthen statistical capacity, and the availability of timely data
• Strengthen government capacities to anticipate and manage unforeseen disruptive events
• Strengthen international platforms, exchanges and transparency among scientists/researchers (open science)
Transformation 1: Education, Gender, and Inequality

• Expand and strengthen public social security systems best suited to address the consequences of disruptive events
• Further investments in STEM education, digital skills, equity, and lifelong learning
• Further streamline basic health prevention measures in school programs (e.g., hand-washing) and provide
adequate supplies for good hygiene
• Place women’s needs and leadership at the heart of the response to the health and economic crises
Transformation 2: Health, Wellbeing, and Demography

• Strengthen the role of public health and disease prevention and surveillance (for both communicable and
chronic diseases).
• Increase the role of public authorities in the research for treatment and vaccines, and in providing access to
treatment and vaccines
• Accelerate efforts to achieve universal health care
• Strengthen public health emergency preparedness (including building stocks of essential equipment and
increasing flexibility to mobilize staff to respond to emergencies)
• Reduce dependence on other countries for key health supplies and equipment
• Expand digital health solutions (e.g., telehealth) to reduce the burden on hospitals and increase access to care
• Increase the quality and timeliness of health statistics
• Increase the resilience of health systems to respond to shocks/crises (e.g., increase capacity to build
hospitals and other infrastructures in record time)
Transformation 3: Energy Decarbonization and Sustainable Industry

• Use the Paris Climate Agreement as the vision for long-term change and to inform investment plans
and bailouts
• Build on positive short-term prospects due to plummeting industrial output and further the roll out of
digital services and e-commerce to accelerate the transition to climate neutrality
• Reduce international dependence for key industries and sectors in case of major disruptive events (e.g.
protective masks, food supply)
• Pursue efforts to enforce environmental treaties and national regulations despite the lockdown and
economic turmoil
Transformation 4: Sustainable Food, Land, Water and Oceans

• Strengthen food security and hygiene, including the reduction of risks of zoonotic diseases
• Emphasize the resilience and sustainability of food systems
• Accelerate efforts to provide universal access to water and sanitation, and increase focus on hygiene and
handwashing to help curb transmission of oral-fecal diseases
• Pursue efforts to reduce negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems to prevent future pandemics
Transformation 5: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• Address immediate threats to vulnerable groups in urban settlements (homeless, refugees), to avoid a deep
worsening of their living conditions and to make confinement measures more effective
• Strengthen the territorial distribution of doctors and availability of care, including in rural areas
• Further integrate vulnerable groups in urban settlements, including homeless people, refugees, and migrants
• Adapt public transportation systems to the need for physical distancing and hygiene, and to changing
patterns in working and commuting habits
• Develop integrated territorial strategies to address the impact of travel restrictions on business, exports,
and tourism activities
Transformation 6: Harnessing the Digital Revolution for Sustainable Development

• Further expand digital health solutions to reduce the burden on hospitals and increase access
• Develop and use online education tools
• Further development of other digital government services and e-commerce
• Further investments in STEMS, digital skills, equity, and lifelong learning
• Accelerate the adoption of measures that support a fair transition for workers affected by the digital and
technological revolution
Source: Authors’ analysis
boost skills. The economic shocks from Covid‑19 threaten vocal on the need to connect the Covid‑19 recovery to
to increase inequalities in all countries: the policy focus on investments in clean energy.
lowering these inequalities will likely rise in importance.
Countries will need to strengthen their social-protection Transformation 4 (Sustainable Food, Land, Water
systems (SDG 1.3 and SDG 10.4), including their ability to and Oceans) draws attention to the shorter-term risks
respond quickly to major crises. Gender-sensitive policies of food shortages, especially in low-income countries,
are also needed to mitigate risks of disproportionate eco- due to disruption in trade and supply chains and the
nomic and social impacts on women and girls. sudden collapse of incomes. Vulnerable households,
including in rich countries, will need financial support
Transformation 2 (Good Health and Well-Being) obvi- to mitigate the risks of food insecurity. In the medium
ously has the most prominent implications right now. In the and longer run, governments will need to accelerate
short- and medium-term, the role of public health systems in the further integration of healthy diets, food security,
disease prevention and surveillance will need to increase to agricultural systems, and natural resource management.
prevent further waves of Covid‑19 and future health crises. This is becoming self-evident not only to respond to
Governments will play a key role in developing and distrib- the increased percentage of undernourished people
uting Covid‑19 treatments and vaccines at global scale. As and obese people, but also to reduce the risks of future
in the case of education, the crisis will likely accelerate the zoonotic diseases. Governments should seize the post
transformation towards digital healthcare and telemedicine Covid‑19 recovery as an opportunity to accelerate the
to increase access to and efficiency of healthcare systems. transition towards sustainable and resilient food systems.
The Covid‑19 crisis has made it very clear that countries Transformation 5 (Sustainable Cities and
equipped with effective social protection systems and Communities). In the short run, there is an urgent
universal health coverage are best equipped to respond need to meet the needs of vulnerable groups (including
to such crises. This is also less costly, and it is precisely for homeless people and refugees) in urban settlements.
this reason that the SDGs call for countries to strengthen This is critical to avoid rapid deterioration of the living
their social safety nets and move towards universal health conditions of vulnerable people during the lockdown
coverage for key medical services. Meanwhile, nearly phase of pandemic control, but also to ensure that
40% of the world’s population has no health insurance or confinement measures are effective. This crisis will amplify
access to national health services (ILO, 2020). Providing inequalities in access to water, sanitation, and health
universal social-protection floors is within fiscal reach, services. Effective medium-term and long-term responses
although low-income countries might need financial will therefore require increased investments to accelerate
support to close the fiscal gap. Another benefit of effective the provision of universal access to water, sanitation,
social safety nets is that they mitigate the consequences and clean energy services. There will also be lasting
of lockdowns and thereby reduce the temptation to open implications of Covid‑19 on territorial development, urban
up economies too early, risking a new Covid‑19 wave. planning, and public transportation systems (OECD,2020).
Regional and local policy leaders will need to guide the
Transformation 3 (Energy Decarbonization and transformation of their territories in order to adapt to new
Sustainable Industry) provides the long-term realities including social distancing, changes in workplace
direction for a clean, green economy. This should guide practices and commuting patterns, and travel restrictions,
government investment plans and support to companies which will impact business and tourism activities.
and industries. Ironically, the crisis could lead to a decline
in the enforcement of environmental laws and major Transformation 6 (Harnessing the Digital Revolution
international conventions in some parts of the world. for Sustainable Development) has been greatly
Throughout, a major challenge during and post Covid‑19 accelerated by the Covid‑19 epidemic. Countries that
will be to direct the attention of senior policymakers to can afford it are accelerating the roll-out of digital
the climate crisis. The scientific community should be technologies and services in response to the crisis. The
digital technologies are playing an important role in International cooperation could speed a favorable and
sustaining social services, payments, schooling, and health rapid resolution to the pandemic. Indeed, there is no other
care during the lockdowns, and in enabling working way to succeed. Global cooperation would include the
from home to be effective for many occupations. The following measures:
importance of digital applications underscores the vital
importance of universal access to broadband services as (1) Disseminate best practices rapidly.
key to social inclusion, economic opportunity, and public The world needs urgently to learn from and to emulate
health. Governments, businesses, schools, health facilities, the strategies for fighting Covid‑19 adopted in the East
and others will be turning increasingly to online service Asia and the Pacific region. The WHO should urgently
delivery as a vital part of their activities in the years ahead. facilitate a rapid dissemination of best practices.
(2) Strengthen financing mechanisms for developing

countries. The IMF was created for global crises like
The urgent need for international cooperation this one. It needs ample firepower, including far greater
latitude to extend credits, either under existing facilities or
The current crisis, including hostilities among major through a new issuance of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).
powers, raises the specter of global conflict instead of Private creditors will need to refinance or capitalize debts
global cooperation. We are reminded of the great work falling due.
of economic historian Charles Kindleberger in The World
in Depression, 1929–1939. It was Kindleberger’s thesis (3) Address hunger hotspots. We need global support
that the Great Depression was so severe because there for the lead United Nations agencies, including the Office
was no global leader (no “hegemon” in the language of for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the
international affairs) and no adequate cooperation among Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the World
the major powers. The result was a breakdown of the Food Program (WFP), so that they can head off impending
global monetary and trading system that opened the way hunger crises and food insecurity.
to Hitler in Germany in 1933, and then on to World War II.
(4) Ensure social protection. As part of any
The early signs of this crisis are not good. The United comprehensive response to the pandemic, governments
States is attacking the WHO as being too pro-Chinese, should promote new instruments of social protection,
and is cutting off funding rather than supporting the including a new Global Fund for Social Protection that was
WHO for its vital work in suppressing the pandemic. In proposed to address SDG 1 (No Poverty) even before the
general, the United States is intensifying its attacks on pandemic, but which is even more urgently needed now
China and trying to divide the world between pro-US and in response to it.
pro-Chinese camps. The risk of a new Cold War is very
grave and should be avoided by all nations. (5) Promote new drugs and vaccines. Financing R&D
for Covid‑19 drugs and vaccines is an urgent global
The good news is that most of the world urgently wants public good. Without global cooperation, R&D will be
multilateralism and cooperation. The bad news is that inadequate and duplicative. And when breakthroughs
some countries do not, while others are paralyzed by are achieved, they will in turn require global cooperation
their own crises, budget deficits, and divisions of local for their mass uptake. The Global Fund and Gavi, the
politics. The multilateral situation is therefore fraught Vaccine Alliance are two exemplary institutions that serve
and needs bolstering. A possible outcome is a kind of as historical precedents for what will be needed for the
limping multilateralism, rather than strong and decisive rapid uptake of new drugs and vaccines, and can lead the
cooperation, in which accomplishments on the ground effort on the ground.
are modest and countless opportunities to avoid
hardships and suffering are lost.
Box 1. Lessons on preparedness
The risk of a pandemic – and specifically a coronavirus pandemic – has been widely forewarned year after year. Yet many regions,
including the United States and Europe, have not taken heed of these warnings in any meaningful way. Countries failed to invest
sufficiently in public health systems and now suffer the consequences.
The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the lack of preparedness of health systems to respond to such public-health emergencies,
including those of many OECD countries that before the crisis were thought better prepared. As of June 20th, the United States had
the highest number of reported cases and deaths due to Covid-19. As a share of their populations, apart from a few small city-states,
it is the OECD countries Belgium, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy and France that have reported the highest number of deaths
per capita. By contrast, several countries located closer to China, where the disease outbreak started – notably South Korea – have
managed the Covid-19 outbreak more effectively.
Before the Covid-19 outbreak, the United States and many Western European countries were rated highest for health preparedness.
For example, the United States and the United Kingdom topped the Global Health Security Index released in November 2019, shortly
before the first outbreak of Covid-19 (NTI, JHU, and EIU, 2019). President Trump cited this index early in the pandemic, in February
2020, to argue that the United States was rated “Number 1” in terms of preparedness (Hub staff report, 2020). But it quickly became
obvious that the level of preparation was not particularly great in the United States and in many other OECD countries.
There does not seem to be anything wrong with the assessment framework for preparedness to health threats adopted by the researchers.
Yet the Index seems to have overestimated the capacity of some countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France,
to implement widespread testing of suspected cases and to isolate them. For example, the United States scored better (98.2) than
Germany (84.6) and South Korea (92.1) on the dimension “detection and reporting capacity,” yet the United States took much more time
than Germany and South Korea to test a significant proportion of its population (see figure 4, below).
Figure 4
Despite good performance in the 2019 Global Health Security Index on “Detection and Reporting,” the
United States took longer than Germany and South Korea to test its population during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Cumulative Covid-19 tests per 1,000 population
No. of tests (per 1000 population)
25 Performance in Global Health Security
Index, November 2019
Category 2: Detection and Reporting
20
Germany
COUNTRY RANK SCORE
15 United States 1 98.2

South Korea 5 92.1
South Korea Germany 10 84.6
10
5 US gap in Covid-19 tests

United States performed in March
0
March 1 March 8 March 15 March 22 March 29 April 5 April 12
Date (2020) Source: Official sources collected by Our World in Data
Another interpretation of the gap between predicted and actual responses to Covid-19 is that some countries should have been able to
respond well to the Covid-19 health crisis but failed to do so because of a lack of information, poor political leadership, and other factors.
These might be “omitted variables” in the Global Health Security assessment framework or variables that go beyond the scope of the
GHS exercise (e.g. political leadership). As the world recovers from the Covid-19 crisis, it will be important to learn lessons from countries
that were the most effective in dealing with the pandemic outbreak, but also to strengthen existing indicators and monitoring systems
to track countries’ preparedness and resilience capacities.
Source: Authors analysis. Based on Lafortune, G (2020). “How much do we know about countries’ preparedness to respond to pandemics? Insights from two country-level indices.” SDSN Blog Post. Paris.
https://www.unsdsn.org/how-much-do-we-know-about-countries-preparedness-to-respond-to-pandemics-insights-from-two-country-level-indices
1.2 Comparing early Covid‑19 control in the OECD countries
It is important to understand why some of the richest can be suppressed at minimal economic cost. Some coun-
countries have failed to contain mass deaths from Covid‑19 tries, such as South Korea, have succeeded in cutting their
even thought they had ample warning. This section ERR through more targeted means, while others including
presents a simple quantitative model of the emergency Italy, Spain, and the United States have had to resort to
response and introduces an index to measure the effective- the cruder and costlier approach of economic lockdowns.
ness of early responses to Covid‑19 in OECD countries. Strict and prolonged lockdowns, although costly, was most
probably the right policy response for countries lacking
There is an enormous variation in the early Covid‑19 PPE and with lower testing and hospital intensive care
pandemic control measures taken across the OECD capacities. Strict and prolonged lockdowns contributed to
countries, covering the period March 4 through May 12. saving many thousands of lives (Flaxman et al, 2020).
The most marked difference is in the Covid‑19 death rate
per 1 million population, even given that death rates are This section introduces a pilot index of Covid‑19 control
difficult to compare across countries owing to widely that summarizes each country’s performance over the
differing reporting standards. In some OECD countries, three dimensions (mortality rate, ERR, and efficiency
such as Australia, Japan, Korea, and New Zealand, reported of control). We study all OECD countries except for the
Covid‑19 deaths remain below than 10 per million three middle-income countries of Latin America (Chile,
population. In other OECD countries, including Belgium, Colombia, and Mexico), where the virus came later,
France, Germany, Sweden, and the United States, deaths and Iceland due to the lack of relevant data on physical
are above 100 per million population, and in some cases mobility, which we use to construct the efficiency index.
many times higher. We are therefore left with 33 OECD countries in our sample.
A second important difference lies in the overall extent

to which the pandemic was suppressed during this early
Mortality rate
phase, which is measured by epidemiologists according to
the effective reproduction rate (ERR). An ERR < 1 signifies The mortality rate per million population for the OECD
effective suppression, while an ERR > 1 signifies ongoing countries as of May 12 is shown in table 1. We see that the
epidemic conditions. Some OECD countries suppressed mortality rate varies from a low value of 4 in Australia and
the transmission of the virus during March and April, for New Zealand to a high of 762 in Belgium. It is important
example South Korea and New Zealand. Other countries to emphasize that Covid‑19 mortality rates are imperfectly
had epidemic conditions with ERRs averaging far above measured, both within countries and across countries.
1.0. These include France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Some countries count only the deaths of individuals who
and the United States, among many others. have tested positive for Covid‑19, while others, such as
Belgium, include deaths that were likely due to Covid‑19,
A third difference lies in the efficiency with which the even if those deaths were not confirmed with a positive
pandemic is controlled. One way to cut the ERR below Covid‑19 test. Many countries exclude deaths that occur
1 is to lock down the economy. This reduces the viral at home or in nursing homes, which might account for
transmission but at the cost of an enormous disruption some 40% of their total. Nonetheless, even taking into
to the economy and to daily life. Another way to cut the account the inevitable errors in the measurements, the
ERR is through more focused strategies that emphasize actual differences in mortality rates are striking.
the isolation or quarantine of infected individuals, contact
tracing, quarantine of people exposed to carriers of the The high variation in mortality rates across the OECD
virus, and improved hygienic practices, such as wearing countries reflects several factors. Perhaps most importantly,
face masks. Through such targeted means, the pandemic mortality per million depends on the infection rate per
million. Unfortunately, insufficient testing and reporting in be between 2 and 3, with a typical estimate of around 2.4.
most countries mean that, at this stage, we lack accurate, D(0) is usually assumed to be around 6 days. Assuming
comparable data on the infection rates of their populations. these parameters (and acknowledging the many continuing
uncertainties about the virus), we can surmise an average
The variation in the mortality rate across countries also of 0.4 infections transmitted per day (= 2.4/6). If each indi-
reflects other structural factors, such as the intensive- vidual plausibly has around 20 contacts per day, a typical
care capacity of the hospital system; the population age assumption in the epidemiological literature, the probabil-
structure (because of high mortality rates among the ity of the virus being transmitted in any single contact (e.g.,
elderly); the burden of co-morbidities, such as obesity, in a casual conversation, or interpersonal proximity in a retail
respiratory infections, and hypertension in the population; shop, or sitting nearby an infected individual in a restaurant,
and the protections given to vulnerable groups, especially theater, or sports event) can be calculated as 0.4 infections
in settings such as nursing homes, retirement homes, per day/20 contacts per day = 0.02 infections per contact, or
worker hostels, and prisons. Some also suspect that genetic a 2% risk of transmission in any single contact.
differences might contribute to variations in mortality, but
these issues are poorly understood at present. In the basic model, the daily change in the number of
infected individuals I(t) as of day t is given by:
(2) I(t+1) – I(t) = N(t)*P(t)*I(t)*S(t) – [1/D(t)]*I(t)

Effective reproduction rate
The effective reproduction rate is defined as the average N(t)*P(t)*I(t)*S(t) is the number of new infections in
number of infections that an infectious individual transmits day t, while (1/D)*(t) is the number of currently infected
to susceptible individuals. In the most basic standard model individuals on day t who cease being infected, either
of epidemics, the ERR(t) as of day t is given as follows: because they die on day t or recover on day t. With a bit of
simple algebraic rearrangement of equations (1) and (2), we
(1) ERR(t) = N(t) x P(t) x D(t) x S(t) can derive a basic relationship between the daily growth of
new infections g(t) = [I(t+1) – I(t)]/I(t) and the ERR(t):
In this equation, N(t) is the average number of contacts
per day for an individual in the community; P(t) is (3) ERR(t) = 1 + D(t)*g(t)
the probability that a contact between an infectious
individual and a susceptible individual actually transmits The relationship in equation (3) is helpful in two ways.
the virus; D(t) is the average number of days that an First, we see that the growth of new infections g(t) is
infectious individual is circulating in an infectious state positive when ERR(t) > 1 and negative when ERR(t) < 1.
in the community; and S(t) is the share of the population Thus, the ERR(t) determines whether the epidemic is
susceptible to infection as of day t. We see that N(t) x D(t) expanding or contracting. Second, since we observe (or at
therefore is the average number of community contacts by least can estimate) the growth of the epidemic day by day,
an infectious person during the period of infectiousness. we can also estimate ERR(t) for each day.
P(t) times the number of community contacts measures
the number of times the virus will be transmitted. Since a Several epidemiologists are now publishing estimates of
fraction – S(t) – of those infectious contacts are susceptible ERR(t) on a daily basis. We use the estimates of Prof. Simas
to becoming infected, we have equation (1). Kucinskas (2020) of Humboldt University of Berlin. The
estimated ERR(t) averaged by day for the interval March 4
At the start of an epidemic – on day 0 – ERR is designated to May 12 is shown in table 1. We see that South Korea
as R0, the basic reproduction rate. In the case of Covid‑19, had the lowest average ERR in this period, at 0.76, while
S(0) is assumed to be equal to 1, that is, the entire popula- the United States, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Canada,
tion is assumed to be susceptible, since there is no known France and Spain had the highest average values of ERR,
intrinsic or acquired immunity. R0 is generally estimated to above 1.5 for the period.
Epidemic control efficiency pandemic the attack rate – meaning the proportion ever
infected in the population – would be considerably above
According to equation 3, the epidemic is suppressed by 1/2.4, with the mortality rate being commensurately
reducing ERR(t) to below 1.0. This can occur in four basic higher as well.
ways.
It is far more efficient to cut ERR(t) by slashing P(t) through
First, the average number of contacts per day N(t) in improved personal hygiene or by reducing D(t) through
the population can be reduced sharply. This is the basic early isolation or quarantine in public facilities. Cutting
motivation of the “temporary lockdown” that was put in D(t) efficiently limits the circulation of the few who are
place in many parts of the world in mid-March. Second, the infected, rather than the many who are susceptible.
probability of transmitting the disease per each contact
P(t) can be reduced by changes in personal behavior, Thanks to Google Community Mobility Reports (2020),
such as by wearing face masks, using hand sanitizers, and we have smartphone-based measurements for dozens
observing social distancing. Third, the infectious individual of countries of daily mobility within the community,
himself or herself can stop circulating in the public very including visits to retail establishments, restaurants,
early in the course of the illness by self-isolating at home grocery stores, pharmacies, transit stations and
or through quarantine in a public facility. In this case, an workplaces. The Google mobility measurements GM(t)
infectious individual only circulates for one or two days therefore offer a useful proxy measurement of the decline
before isolating. The number of days D(t) for which they are in daily contacts N(t) in a community. The data show the
potentially spreading the infection is thereby cut sharply. decline in visits relative to a baseline GM(0) during the
Fourth, the proportion of the population susceptible to interval from January 3 to February 6, 2020.
infection S(t) will fall over time, assuming that a bout of
illness also confers persistent immunity. If the pandemic Using the Google data, we show the proportionate
therefore infects enough of the population, S(t) will fall by decline in mobility, [GM(0) – GM(t)]/GM(0), in the final
enough to reduce ERR(t) to below 1.0. That is the painful (sixth) column of table 1. To calculate the decline, we take
way to stop the epidemic, which comes to a halt only after the simple daily average of four of Google’s community
a substantial proportion of the population has fallen victim mobility measures: visits to retail outlets and recreation,
to the disease. Assuming an R0 of 2.4, and assuming no visits to grocery stores and pharmacies, visits to transit
other behavioral changes that affect N(t), P(t), and D(t), we stations, and visits to workplaces. In all cases, the variable is
see that S(t) would have to decline to below 41.6% (= 1/2.4) equal to the decline in visits relative to the baseline period.
in order for ERR to fall below 1.0. In other words, almost
60% of a population would need to incur the infection The data show that visits among the community have
before “herd immunity” of the community is acquired. declined relative to the baseline in all OECD countries, but
by widely varying amounts. South Korea, which has not
A lockdown is an inefficient way to suppress the had a lockdown, shows a decline of 0.10, or 10%. On the
pandemic, and herd immunity is a deadly way to do so. other extreme, Italy and Spain show a decline in mobility of
In the case of a lockdown, daily contacts are slashed for 62% and 60% respectively – the most extreme lockdowns
everybody in the community across the board, whether in the OECD group. A few countries have reduced mobility
or not they are infectious – putting aside the question of by 25% or less – Australia, Japan, Latvia, South Korea, and
“essential workers” and partial lockdowns for the sake of Sweden – while several show reductions greater than 40%.
the discussion. The economy declines sharply. In the case
of herd immunity, more than half of the population incurs A useful measure of the efficiency of epidemic control is
the infection, which if the infection mortality rate (IMR) is to compare the decline in ERR(t) with the decline in N(t),
around 1%, as is generally believed, suggests that around as proxied by the Google data. If most of the reduction
0.5% of the population would succumb to the disease, in ERR(t) is brought about by a reduction in N(t), we can
a horrendously high toll. In fact, in an uncontrolled say that the epidemic control is inefficient. If most of the
decline in ERR(t) is achieved not by a reduction of N(t), but (6) CIECi = (1/3) * (MiN + ERRiN + ECEiN)
(implicitly) by a reduction in P(t)*D(t), we can say that the
epidemic control is efficient. According to this index, the top performing country is
South Korea. Indeed, South Korea has excelled on all
We therefore propose the following measure of epidemic three dimensions of epidemic control. It has kept the
control efficiency, ECE(t): death rate low, the ERR far below 1, and its economy has
remained open during the entire epidemic. The worst
(4) ECE(t) = [R0 – ERR(t)]/R0 – [GM(t) – GM(0)]/GM(0) performing economy is Spain, where the mortality rate is
among the highest, its ERR averages far above 1, and the
The first term on the right-hand side measures the economy has been in substantial lockdown nonetheless.
proportionate reduction in ERR(t), while the second term Some countries may have been artificially penalized in the
measures the proportion reduction in average daily con- data presented in this table due to their more-thorough
tacts. When the proportionate reduction in ERR(t) exceeds reporting of Covid‑19 deaths (counting probable cases
the proportionate reduction of mobility, ECE(t) > 0, and as well as tested cases). Thus, we should also mention the
we deem the epidemic control to be efficient. When five other very poor performers: Belgium, France, Italy, the
ECE(t) ≤ 0, we deem epidemic control to be inefficient. United Kingdom and the United States.
The ECE Is shown in the fourth column of table 1, while its
two right-hand-side components are shown in the fifth Many governments, including Spain, have learned rapidly
and sixth columns. We see that South Korea has demon- during the process and adapted policies accordingly.
strated by far the most efficient epidemic control during From April 6 onward, Spain has had an estimated R(t) less
the period of observation (March 4 to May 12), while Spain than 1, thereby dramatically curtailing the epidemic.
shows the least efficient control.
In general, South Korea owes its top ranking to its high-
quality public health system. Its remarkable early efforts
are described in an important report (Government of
Index of epidemic control
the Republic of Korea, 2020): not only did South Korea
We now create an overall index of epidemic control among go into high alert upon the first news of the Covid‑19
the 33 OECD countries, by combining the data on Covid‑19 epidemic in China, its biotech companies moved
mortality rates, effective reproduction rates, and epidemic rapidly to develop effective tests. By February 4, just
control efficiency. To construct the index, we follow the three weeks after Chinese scientists had posted the
usual procedure of the SDG Index described in this report. genome of Covid‑19, the company KogeneBiotech had
For each variable Xi for country i, we create a normalized developed an effective diagnostic kit (Lee, 2020). Five
variable XiN on a scale from 0 to 100, calculated as follows: other companies followed soon after. ICTs were put to
use in many ways: for emergency notifications from the
(5) XiN = [Xi – XMIN]/[XMAX – XMIN] x 100 government; in contact-tracing apps to let individuals
know of virus “hotspots” visited by Covid‑19-infected
XMIN is the minimum value of X among the 33 OECD individuals; to develop distance-learning curricula and
countries. XMAX is the maximum value. Clearly, when protocols; to provide advice for companies; and in many
Xi= XMIN, then XiN = 0, and when Xi = XMAX, then XiN = 1. other applications that were developed and deployed
For all other Xi, we have 0 < XiN < 1. within weeks.
To construct the index, we use the mortality rate M It is useful to point out some other patterns among
(Column 1), the ERR (Column 2), and the ECE (Column 3). OECD countries in the early control period. First, the
The final index score is denoted as the Covid Index of Asia-Pacific region in general has been high performing,
Epidemic Control (CIEC), and is calculated by averaging exemplified in the following rankings on our index of
across the three variables: epidemic control: South Korea, 1; Australia, 3; Japan, 6
and New Zealand, 9. With the exception of Japan, OECD Concluding thoughts
countries with a population of greater than 50 million
people did quite poorly, however. Germany ranks This section offers just a first attempt by the SDSN to
highest among large OECD countries, at 19, followed compare responses across countries, and considers only
by Turkey, 26; the United States, 28; Italy, 29; France, 30; the first months of the global pandemic. Yet even this first
the United Kingdom, 31; and Spain, 33. No doubt these glimpse reveals stark differences in policies and outcomes
large countries all received many infected travelers early across the OECD countries. Since it is vital for countries
in the pandemic, both visitors from China and residents to learn from each other in this pandemic, the SDSN will
returning from China. In this sense, the major countries, continue to monitor and compare the public-health
being the major travel hubs, were heavily “seeded” with performance of nations in the coming years as part of our
Covid‑19 early on. Yet they all evinced low levels of overall effort to measure progress towards the SDGs and
control, not only of their borders, but also of transmission to thereby foster best practices and accelerated learning
within the community. among national and local policy makers.
In general, Northern Europe has outperformed Southern

Europe, and Eastern Europe has outperformed Western
Europe. The Baltic states have all done well: Latvia, 2;
Lithuania, 4; and Estonia, 5. Within the Nordic countries,
Sweden is a distinctive outlier, not only in its policies, but
also in its ranking, with Norway ranking 10; Denmark, 12;
Finland, 14; and Sweden, 22. Sweden alone of these
countries tried to avoid a shutdown. Mobility fell by only
19% in Sweden, compared with Denmark, 29%; Norway,
30%; and Finland, 32%. Yet the ERR remains much higher
in Sweden, as does the mortality rate. Sweden has
received little benefit from its heterodox stand, at least
as of early May. Swedish public health officials claim that
Sweden will be better able to weather a second wave in
the fall, however, because of a higher level of acquired
immunity. Time will tell whether this approach will prove
to be correct in the long run, but it is more costly in the
short run.
The United States has generally underperformed in its

Covid‑19 response in relation to the average of the OECD
countries. In the United States too, there was no move
to a nationwide lockdown. Decisions were left mainly to
states and their governors. Most states introduced partial
lockdowns in mid-March but began to lift these by early
May. In any event, observance of the lockdowns was
decidedly uneven. Mobility declined by a relatively modest
27%, and its ERR remains among the highest in the OECD.
Mortality rates have also been high, although below that
of the highest mortality rates of Western Europe.
Table 1
Covid‑19 pilot Index and performance indicators for the OECD countries
Epidemic
Effective
Covid Deaths Control ERR Mobility
Rank Country Reproduction
Index Per Million Efficiency Decline Decline
Rate (ERR)
(ECE)
1 South Korea 0.90 5.00 0.76 0.63 0.36 0.10
2 Latvia 0.78 9.34 0.95 0.29 0.63 0.24
3 Australia 0.76 3.88 1.06 0.27 0.67 0.24
4 Lithuania 0.75 17.85 0.90 0.15 0.61 0.36
5 Estonia 0.75 46.14 0.94 0.21 0.73 0.31
6 Japan 0.73 5.08 1.25 0.29 0.70 0.16
7 Slovenia 0.72 49.18 0.83 0.07 0.78 0.46
8 Slovak Republic 0.72 4.77 0.96 0.07 0.74 0.42
9 New Zealand 0.71 4.34 0.80 -0.03 0.86 0.44
10 Norway 0.71 42.17 1.13 0.18 0.72 0.30
11 Greece 0.71 14.07 0.99 0.07 0.62 0.43
12 Denmark 0.70 92.00 1.11 0.19 0.73 0.29
13 Czech Republic 0.70 26.53 1.11 0.11 0.67 0.33
14 Finland 0.69 49.13 1.18 0.12 0.65 0.32
15 Hungary 0.68 43.48 1.14 0.06 0.63 0.32
16 Austria 0.65 70.13 1.16 0.00 0.58 0.44
17 Israel 0.64 29.04 1.22 -0.06 0.82 0.42
18 Luxembourg 0.64 166.13 0.95 -0.07 0.78 0.50
19 Germany 0.63 90.86 1.38 0.07 0.70 0.31
20 Switzerland 0.63 181.13 1.23 0.06 0.78 0.37
21 Poland 0.63 21.36 1.34 -0.05 0.52 0.38
22 Sweden 0.61 319.99 1.36 0.21 0.60 0.19
23 Netherlands 0.58 316.63 1.30 0.08 0.72 0.32
24 Canada 0.56 134.74 1.51 -0.10 0.63 0.37
25 Portugal 0.55 111.24 1.39 -0.21 0.65 0.49
26 Turkey 0.53 46.66 1.56 -0.25 0.65 0.38
27 Ireland 0.53 301.40 1.31 -0.14 0.73 0.44
28 United States 0.51 246.98 1.73 -0.05 0.63 0.27
29 Italy 0.49 508.74 1.19 -0.15 0.69 0.62
30 France 0.46 397.79 1.50 -0.21 0.68 0.54
31 United Kingdom 0.43 482.47 1.60 -0.15 0.60 0.43
32 Belgium 0.40 761.55 1.39 -0.10 0.67 0.45
33 Spain 0.39 575.26 1.50 -0.28 0.64 0.60
Source: Authors’ analysis.

Deaths per million are for May 12, 2020. The effective reproduction rate (ERR), epidemic control efficiency (ECE), and mobility decline are all calculated for the period March 4 to May 12, 2020. ERR
decline is calculated as (2.4 – ERR)/2.4, assuming R0 = 2.4.
Part 2
The SDG Index

and Dashboards
Part 2
The SDG Index and Dashboards
As in previous years, the Sustainable Development Report 2020 (SDR2020) presents and aggregates data on country
performance towards the SDGs. It is not an official SDG monitoring tool, but instead complements efforts of national
statistical offices and international organizations to collect data on and standardize SDG indicators. To this end, the
SDR2020 presents the most up-to-date data from official sources (the United Nations, the World Bank, and others) as
well as from non-official sources (research institutions and non-governmental organizations).
Due to time lags in data generation and reporting, this Transformation 3); making their use of land and oceans
year’s SDG Index and Dashboards do not reflect the sustainable (SDG Transformation 4); and developing low-
impact of Covid‑19. The projection of country trajectories carbon, resilient cities (SDG Transformation 5). The SDG
based on recent progress (business-as-usual, or BAU, dashboards provide a tool for such diagnoses (Box 2).
scenarios) may not provide a realistic sense of the likely
future, as Covid‑19 risks changing trajectories relating to Third, the SDG dashboards underscore the urgent need
many SDGs (see section 1). for investments in more timely and comprehensive SDG
data. As one example, SDSN’s Thematic Research Network
Nevertheless, the “pre-Covid‑19” SDG Index and on Data and Statistics (TReNDs), in collaboration with
Dashboards remain useful for understanding goal-by-goal various partners, has launched the Data4Now initiative,
progress across countries and regions since the adoption which aims to provide real-time updates on certain key
of the SDGs in 2015. This serves three purposes in a world SDG metrics.
that is being transformed by the effects of Covid‑19.
Using the same methodology as in previous years, the
First, the SDG data presented in this report can help SDG Index and Dashboards summarize countries’ current
countries understand pre-crisis vulnerabilities and performance and trends in relation to the 17 SDGs. This
challenges, which partly explain why so many countries year we include data for 166 countries. Owing to slight
were ill-prepared to respond to Covid‑19 (see Box 1). The changes in the indicator selection (see section 4), the 2020
SDG Index and Dashboards can support such diagnostics rankings and scores are not comparable with last year’s
in every country. results. For the first time, we are now able to estimate
changes in performance on the SDG Index using the
Second, as highlighted in section 1, the SDGs provide SDR2020 indicators, which are described in section 2.2.
the framework for the long-term recovery from Covid‑19. As every year, we encourage readers to look beyond the
The six SDG Transformations described in section 1 can aggregate SDG Index score and to consider countries’
help operationalize such a strategy. For example, our performances at the goal and indicator level.
report highlights high levels of inequalities that must
be addressed as part of the Covid‑19 recovery (SDG Detailed methodological information, sensitivity tests,
Transformation 1). Over the longer term, the impacts of and the independent statistical audit of the SDG Index
climate change might dwarf the dislocations caused by conducted by the European Commission in 2019 are
Covid‑19, so countries need to understand where they available on our website (www.sdgindex.org).
stand in terms of decarbonizing energy systems (SDG
2. The SDG Index and Dashboards
Box 2. National and subnational SDG indices and dashboards
Good data and clear metrics are critical for each country to take stock of where it stands on the SDGs, devise pathways
for achieving the goals, and track progress. Since 2016, the SDSN and Bertelsmann Stiftung have published the annual
global SDG Index and Dashboards. The methodology has been peer-reviewed (Schmidt-Traub et al., 2017) and was
audited in 2019 by the European Commission Joint Research Centre (Papadimitriou, Neves, and Becker, 2019).
To provide a better analysis of country and regional contexts, and to improve policy relevance, the SDSN in collabo-
ration with numerous partners has also developed regional and sub-national SDG indices and dashboards. Regional
assessments are available for Africa (2018, 2019 and 2020), the Arab Region (2019), the European Union (2019), the
Mediterranean Countries (2019), and Latin America and the Caribbean (2020). These reports differ from the global
edition in three ways: (i) they tailor the indicator selection to SDG challenges in each specific region; (ii) they use data
and statistics from the region (e.g., the European Commission in Europe, UN/ECLAC in Latin America), which can greatly
improve the analysis compared with the global Sustainable Development Report; and (iii) they include policy sections
that discuss regional policy challenges and implementation efforts. For these reasons, regional SDG indices and dash-
boards have been generating a lot of interest from governments and other stakeholders.
Another priority is sub-national assessments of SDG progress, which can highlight disparities across cities, provinces,
and regions within a country. The SDSN estimates that almost two-thirds (65%) of the 169 SDG targets underlying the
17 SDGs will not be reached without the engagement of and coordination with local, provincial, and regional govern-
ments. Similarly, UN-Habitat estimates that around one-third of all SDG indicators have a local or urban component.
SDSN and local partner organizations have therefore supported the development of sub-national SDG indices and
dashboards in Bolivia, Italy, Spain, and the United States, as well as the European Union. Many other sub-national reports
are in preparation.
Figure 5
SDG index and Dashboards: global, regional and subnational editions (2016–2020)
Global editions

SDG INDEX AND DASHBOARDS REPORT 2018
SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2017
SDG INDEX Global Responsibilities GLOBAL

International spillovers in achieving the goals
& DASHBOARDS
A GLOBAL REPORT JULY 2016 RESPONSIBILITIES

IMPLEMENTING THE GOALS
Sustainable Development Goals:

Are the rich countries ready?
Christian Kroll
with a foreword by Kofi Annan
Regional editions

SDG INDEX AND
DASHBOARDS REPORT 2019 Towards a strategy for achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals in the European Union
ARAB REGION
Includes the SDG Index and Dashboards for the European Union
2019 ARAB REGION SDG INDEX AND DASHBOARDS REPORT
and member states
Subnational editions
MIRANDO HACIA EL FUTURO: CIUDADES SOSTENIBLES
Leaving No U.S. City Behind Los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible en 100 ciudades españolas
SUSTAINABLE
THE U.S. CITIES SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS INDEX
ISSUE 2018
Novembre 2018 DEVELOPMENT
Informe urbano | Primera edición 2018 REPORT OF THE
Inés Sánchez de Madariaga, Javier García López y Raffaele Sisto
Report
Jessica Espey, Hayden Dahmm and Laurie Manderino
With contributions from John Biberman, Yingxin Ye, Gary Verburg, and Juan Puyana Italia UNITED STATES
2018
Per un’Italia sostenibile:

l’SDSN Italia SDGs City
Index 2018
Laura Cavalli, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei

Luca Farnia, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei
June 2018
Source: Authors’ analysis. Download the reports and databases at: www.sdgindex.org.
2.1 The 2020 SDG Index
2.1 The 2020 SDG Index

The SDG Index tracks country performance on the focus to a large extent on ending extreme poverty
17 SDGs, as agreed by the international community in and on access to basic services and infrastructure
2015 with equal weight to all 17 goals. The score signifies (SDGs 1–9). Moreover, poorer countries tend to lack
a country’s position between the worst (0) and the best adequate infrastructure and mechanisms to manage key
or target (100) outcomes. For example, Sweden’s overall environmental challenges covered under SDGs 12–15.
Index score (85) suggest that the country is on average Except for countries that face armed conflicts and civil
85% of the way to the best possible outcome across the wars, however, most low-income countries are making
17 SDGs. To ensure transparency and encourage further progress in ending extreme poverty and in providing
analyses, all underlying data is made available publicly on access to basic services and infrastructure, particularly
www.sdgindex.org. under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) and SDG 8
(Decent Work and Economic Growth), as illustrated by the
Following minor changes to the indicator selection for this SDG trends dashboards.
report, and last year’s audit by the European Commission
Joint Research Centre, the methodology and data for the
SDG Index and Dashboards are now mature and stable. 2.2 The SDG Index score over time
This year’s SDG Index and Dashboards include 85 global
indicators plus an additional 30 indicators for the OECD Overall, the world has been making progress towards
countries. We separated imported biodiversity threats into the SDGs. Figure 6 presents the evolution of SDG Index
terrestrial, freshwater (under SDG 15 – Life on Land), and scores since 2010 by region. The chart suggests some
marine (under SDG 14 – Life Below Water). We have also convergence overall, with regions that had lower 2010
added an indicator to track profit-shifting (under SDG 17 SDG Index scores progressing faster. Countries in East
– Partnerships for the Goals). This year, we are also able for and South Asia have progressed the most since 2010,
the first time to compile trends on transboundary impacts and since the adoption of the SDGs in 2015. Africa made
embodied in trade and consumption. All changes to the significant progress during the MDG period (2000–2015)
indicator selection are described in section 4 of this report. and has also made some progress since the adoption
of the SDGs. Latin America and the Caribbean, Eastern
As in previous editions, three Nordic countries top Europe and Central Asia, and the Middle East and North
the 2020 SDG Index: Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. Africa region also made progress between 2010 and
Most countries in the top 20 are OECD countries. Yet 2019 and have increased their SDG Index score by more
even these countries face significant challenges in than one point on average. Finally, OECD countries,
achieving several SDGs. Every country has a “red” score which have on average the highest SDG Index score,
on at least one SDG in the dashboards (Figure 14). progressed moderately since 2015. On average, progress
High-income countries perform poorly on spillover since 2015 has been faster in low- and middle-income
indicators (Table 13). Looking at trends, many high- countries compared with high-income countries
income countries are not making significant progress (Figure 7).
on sustainable consumption and production or the
protection of biodiversity, particularly in relation to There are significant disparities in the progress that
Goal 14 (Life Below Water), for which most high-income countries have made on the SDGs, including within
countries are stagnating. Covid‑19 will likely negatively regions. The three countries that have progressed the
impact progress towards most SDGs in the short and most in terms of the SDG Index score are Côte d’Ivoire,
medium-term, including in high-income countries. Burkina Faso, and Cambodia. By contrast, the three
countries that have declined the most are Venezuela,
Low-income countries tend to have lower SDG Index Zimbabwe, and the Republic of the Congo. In general,
scores. This is partly due to the nature of the SDGs, which conflicts and civil wars lead to reversal in SDG progress.
Table 2
The 2020 SDG Index scores
Rank Country Score Rank Country Score
1 Sweden 84.7 43 Greece 74.3

2 Denmark 84.6 44 Luxembourg 74.3
3 Finland 83.8 45 Uruguay 74.3
4 France 81.1 46 Ecuador 74.3
5 Germany 80.8 47 Ukraine 74.2
6 Norway 80.8 48 China 73.9
7 Austria 80.7 49 Vietnam 73.8
8 Czech Republic 80.6 50 Bosnia and Herzegovina 73.5
9 Netherlands 80.4 51 Argentina 73.2
10 Estonia 80.1 52 Kyrgyz Republic 73.0
11 Belgium 80.0 53 Brazil 72.7
12 Slovenia 79.8 54 Azerbaijan 72.6
13 United Kingdom 79.8 55 Cuba 72.6
14 Ireland 79.4 56 Algeria 72.3
15 Switzerland 79.4 57 Russian Federation 71.9
16 New Zealand 79.2 58 Georgia 71.9
17 Japan 79.2 59 Iran, Islamic Rep. 71.8
18 Belarus 78.8 60 Malaysia 71.8
19 Croatia 78.4 61 Peru 71.8
20 Korea, Rep. 78.3 62 North Macedonia 71.4
21 Canada 78.2 63 Tunisia 71.4
22 Spain 78.1 64 Morocco 71.3
23 Poland 78.1 65 Kazakhstan 71.1
24 Latvia 77.7 66 Uzbekistan 71.0
25 Portugal 77.6 67 Colombia 70.9
26 Iceland 77.5 68 Albania 70.8
27 Slovak Republic 77.5 69 Mexico 70.4
28 Chile 77.4 70 Turkey 70.3
29 Hungary 77.3 71 United Arab Emirates 70.3
30 Italy 77.0 72 Montenegro 70.2
31 United States 76.4 73 Dominican Republic 70.2
32 Malta 76.0 74 Fiji 69.9
33 Serbia 75.2 75 Armenia 69.9
34 Cyprus 75.2 76 Oman 69.7
35 Costa Rica 75.1 77 El Salvador 69.6
36 Lithuania 75.0 78 Tajikistan 69.4
37 Australia 74.9 79 Bolivia 69.3
38 Romania 74.8 80 Bhutan 69.3
39 Bulgaria 74.8 81 Panama 69.2
40 Israel 74.6 82 Bahrain 68.8
41 Thailand 74.5 83 Egypt, Arab Rep. 68.8
42 Moldova 74.4 84 Jamaica 68.7
2.2 The SDG Index score over time
Rank Country Score Rank Country Score

85 Nicaragua 68.7 126 Syrian Arab Republic 59.3
86 Suriname 68.4 127 Senegal 58.3
87 Barbados 68.3 128 Côte d'Ivoire 57.9
88 Brunei Darussalam 68.2 129 The Gambia 57.9
89 Jordan 68.1 130 Mauritania 57.7
90 Paraguay 67.7 131 Tanzania 56.6
91 Maldives 67.6 132 Rwanda 56.6
92 Cabo Verde 67.2 133 Cameroon 56.5
93 Singapore 67.0 134 Pakistan 56.2
94 Sri Lanka 66.9 135 Congo, Rep. 55.2
95 Lebanon 66.7 136 Ethiopia 55.2
96 Nepal 65.9 137 Burkina Faso 55.2
97 Saudi Arabia 65.8 138 Djibouti 54.6
98 Trinidad and Tobago 65.8 139 Afghanistan 54.2
99 Philippines 65.5 140 Mozambique 54.1
100 Ghana 65.4 141 Lesotho 54.0
101 Indonesia 65.3 142 Uganda 53.5
102 Belize 65.1 143 Burundi 53.5
103 Qatar 64.7 144 Eswatini 53.4
104 Myanmar 64.6 145 Benin 53.3
105 Honduras 64.4 146 Comoros 53.1
106 Cambodia 64.4 147 Togo 52.7
107 Mongolia 64.0 148 Zambia 52.7
108 Mauritius 63.8 149 Angola 52.6
109 Bangladesh 63.5 150 Guinea 52.5
110 South Africa 63.4 151 Yemen, Rep. 52.3
111 Gabon 63.4 152 Malawi 52.2
112 Kuwait 63.1 153 Sierra Leone 51.9
113 Iraq 63.1 154 Haiti 51.7
114 Turkmenistan 63.0 155 Papua New Guinea 51.7
115 São Tomé and Príncipe 62.6 156 Mali 51.4
116 Lao PDR 62.1 157 Niger 50.1
117 India 61.9 158 Dem. Rep. Congo 49.7
118 Venezuela, RB 61.7 159 Sudan 49.6
119 Namibia 61.6 160 Nigeria 49.3
120 Guatemala 61.5 161 Madagascar 49.1
121 Botswana 61.5 162 Liberia 47.1
122 Vanuatu 60.9 163 Somalia 46.2
123 Kenya 60.2 164 Chad 43.8
124 Guyana 59.7 165 South Sudan 43.7
125 Zimbabwe 59.5 166 Central African Republic 38.5
Annual assessments of progress on the SDG Index score

are affected by limited data availability and time lags for
certain indicators. Due to gaps in data availability and
time lags, these longitudinal trend lines include many
imputations based on closest available years. As noted
above, Covid‑19 will likely have a strongly negative
impact on SDG performance in many countries, but this
has not been reflected in the data available to date. See
the detailed trend database accessible on the SDG Index
website: https://www.sdgindex.org/.
Figure 6 Figure 7
Progress on the SDG Index by regions (2010–2019) Progress
Figure on the
7: Progress SDG
on the SDGIndex byincome
Index by income group (2010–2019)
group
(2010–2019)
SDG Index score SDG Index score

80 80
75 75
70 70
65 65
60 60
55 55
50 50
45 45
40 40
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
World High-income countries (HICs)

East and South Asia Upper middle-income countries (UMICs)
Eastern Europe and Central Asia Lower middle-income countries (LMICs)
Latin America and the Caribbean Low-income countries (LICs)
Middle East and North Africa
Oceania
OECD countries
Sub-Saharan Africa
Figure 8

Countries whose SDG Index score has improved or decreased the most since 2015
Côte d'Ivoire
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
World
Congo, Rep.
Zimbabwe
Venezuela, RB
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Percentage points
Note: Population-weighted averages.

Progress by SDGs be sufficient to achieve these SDGs by 2030 – including

ending extreme poverty.
Since 2015, the world has seen the most rapid progress
towards SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation By contrast, even before Covid‑19, many parts of the
and Infrastructure), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and world were progressing slowly or experiencing reversals in
Communities). Overall, as underlined by the United progress made towards SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 15
Nations Statistics Division, the percentage of people (Life on Land). The lack of progress towards SDG 2 is driven
living in extreme poverty globally in 2018 had decreased by increases in the number of people who suffer from
by 1.4 percentage points from the adoption of the undernourishment as well as a growing share of people
SDGs: from 10% in 2015 to 8.6% in 2018 (United Nations, who are overweight or obese. It is likely that Covid‑19
2019). Following these historic trends, this figure was will increase food insecurity and malnutrition, especially
projected to reach 6% by 2030, however Covid‑19 now for low-income people (FAO, 2020; IFPRI, 2020; World
threatens to increase extreme poverty in many countries. Food Programme, 2020). The accelerated loss of terrestrial
Access to basic transport infrastructure and broadband and freshwater biodiversity is affecting performance on
connection has also been growing rapidly. Ninety SDG 15 (Life on Land). Despite an increase in protected
percent of the world’s population live within range of a areas, reversals on this goal in many countries are driven
3G or higher-quality mobile network (United Nations, by biodiversity threats and deforestation, caused at least in
2019). Global investment in research and development part by unsustainable supply chains. This is confirmed by
has also been growing. At the same time, SDG 9 many international reports (IPCC, 2019; IPBES, 2019).
(Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) is the goal that
exhibits the largest spread between top and bottom There are indications that historic trends in progress
performers. This emphasizes the need to accelerate the towards SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 17
spread of technologies and innovation globally and to (Partnerships for the Goals) have also been declining
strengthen capacities and skills. As highlighted in the slightly, however global trend data is sparse, so we do not
SDG dashboards, the historic pace of progress may not present longitudinal charts for these goals.
World Middle East and North Africa

East and South Asia Oceania
Figure 9
Eastern Europe and Central Asia OECD countries
Progress by SDGs and regions Latin America and the Caribbean Sub-Saharan Africa
SDG 1 SDG 2
No poverty Zero hunger
SDG1 Score SDG2 Score
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
SDG 3 SDG 4
Good health Quality education
SDG3 Score and well-being SDG4 Score
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 9
Progress by SDGs and regions (continued) Latin America and the Caribbean Sub-Saharan Africa

SDG 5 SDG 6
Gender equality Clean water
SDG5 Score SDG6 Score and sanitation
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
SDG 7 SDG 8
Affordable and Decent work and
SDG7 Score clean energy SDG8 Score economic growth
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 9
SDG 9 SDG 11
Industry, innovation Sustainable cities
SDG9 Score and infrastructure SDG11 Score and communities
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
SDG 13 SDG 14
Climate action Life below water
SDG13 Score SDG14 Score
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2.3 International spillovers

Figure 9

SDG 15 SDG 16
Life on land Peace, justice and
SDG15 Score SDG16 Score strong institutions
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: Trend data for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) are not presented due to data gaps. For SDG 13
(Climate Action), goal score is based on the headline indicator “CO2 emissions per capita.” Other indicators for SDG 13 are included in the country profiles and dashboards. Due to incomplete trend data,
longitudinal results on SDG 14 (Life Below Water) are not presented for Oceania. See country profiles and dashboards for more information on indicator and goal trajectories.
Strategies to achieve the SDGs need to be implemented Spillovers must be understood, measured, and carefully
domestically without generating negative impacts on managed. Since 2017, the Sustainable Development Report
other countries (“spillovers”). The 2030 Agenda and the has presented the best available data on countries’ positive
SDGs recognize the importance of international spillovers. and negative spillovers, and these have been consolidated
SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) into a Spillover Index. The index score and rank are available
requires developed countries to take the lead in tackling for all countries in the Annex and have been included in the
spillovers. Greta Thunberg and others have accused rich country profiles. We group spillovers into three categories:
countries of “creative carbon accounting” by counting only
“production-based” emissions, leaving aside consumption- • Environmental spillovers cover international spillovers
based emissions embodied into trade.1 related to the use of natural resources and pollution.
Environmental spillovers can be generated in two ways:
1. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/10/17/
i) through transboundary effects embodied in trade,
greta-thunberg-accuses-rich-countries-of-creative-carbon-accounting and ii) through direct cross-border flows in air and water.
Trade-related spillover measures are obtained using the • Security spillovers include negative externalities –
consumption-based accounting (CBA) framework and such as the trade in arms, particularly in small arms
isolating the “import” component. Using tools such as (Adeniyi, 2017), and organized international crime
multiregional input–output (MRIO) databases, com- – which can have a destabilizing impact on poor
bined with databases on environmental, biodiversity and countries. Among the positive spillovers are invest-
social factors, we can estimate transboundary impacts ments in conflict-prevention and peacekeeping,
embodied in consumption and trade. Generating better including through the United Nations.
measures of cross-border flows (through air and water)
for each country remains an important research agenda.
Overall, high-income countries generate the largest
negative spillovers, which undermine other countries’
• Spillovers related to the economy, finance, and gover- efforts to achieve the SDGs. Small countries – such as
nance cover international development finance Luxembourg, Singapore and Switzerland – tend to trade
(e.g., ODA), unfair tax competition, banking secrecy, more than larger economies, and therefore generate
and international labor standards. high per-capita spillovers. Yet, there is a large variation
Figure 10
Average spillover score against gross domestic product per capita (GDP per capita, constant 2010 US$, PPP)
10
Singapore
20 Guyana
Average of spillover effects (0 = worst; 100 = best)
30
Kuwait Luxembourg
Switzerland
United Arab Emirates
40
Mauritius
50 France
United Kingdom Norway
Germany
Canada Ireland
60
Korea, Rep. United States
Japan
Brazil Brunei Darussalam Qatar
70
Russian Australia
South Africa Saudi Arabia
Federation Italy
80
Indonesia
China
India
90
Turkey
Argentina
100 Mexico
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
G20 countries GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$, PPP)
Note: The Spillover Index measures transboundary impacts generated by one country on others, which undermine their ability to achieve the SDGs. The Spillover Index covers financial spillovers (e.g.,
financial secrecy, profit-shifting), environmental and social impacts embodied into trade and consumption (e.g., imported CO₂ emissions, imported biodiversity threats, accidents at work embodied
into trade) and security/development cooperation (ODA, weapons exports). ODA is an example of a positive spillover. Scores should be interpreted in the same way as for the SDG Index, ranging from
0 (worst performance i.e., significant negative spillovers) to 100 (best possible performance, i.e., no significant negative spillovers). To allow for international comparisons, most spillover indicators are
expressed on a per capita basis. The Spillover Index scores and ranks are available in Table 13.
Source: Authors’ analysis.

in spillovers among countries with similar per-capita For the first time, the report this year integrates trends
incomes. This suggests that countries can reduce their over time for trade-related spillovers. Constructing MRIO
negative spillovers without reducing their per-capita databases and satellite datasets is very time consuming,
incomes. The spillover index is presented in each which leads to time lags in data reporting of three to
individual country profile. six years (Svenja Wiebe et al., 2018). This is an important
limitation of consumption-based and trade-related
Data on cross-border spillovers tends to be sparse and spillover measures. Efforts to increase the timeliness of
incomplete, and several spillovers lack clear conceptual global MRIOs are under way (Miao and Fortanier, 2018;
frameworks for measurement. The lack of data and mea- Stadler et al., 2018)
surement concepts derive partly from the complexity of the
issues. Another challenge is that national statistical offices In contrast to domestic impacts, we see no clear signs
are rarely mandated to measure international spillovers. of sustained reductions in spillovers generated by OECD
Moreover, a lot of work on international spillovers focuses countries. CO2 emissions in OECD countries declined
on individual supply chains (e.g., production of a pair of between 2010 and 2015 but imported CO2 emissions have
jeans) or specific products, such as palm oil from South-East increased overall compared to 2000 and have risen further
Asia. Such case studies have made a tremendous contribu- since 2009 (Figure 11). OECD countries are reducing their
tion towards our understanding of international spillovers, impact on domestic water scarcity. However, while scarce
but they cannot directly be incorporated into national-level water use embodied in imports has declined overall since
assessments. Translating the findings from case studies into 2000, no progress was seen between 2009 and 2013.
national metrics is a priority for future research into interna-
tional spillover indicators. More data-driven conversations are also needed to
reform the governance of global supply chains. Many
Focusing on spillovers embodied into trade, there is a international supply chains, particularly relating to land-
crucial need to better integrate consumption-based use and food systems are unsustainable. The ability of
accounting within monitoring and policy frameworks, individual companies to correct these failings can be
including in tracking and reducing greenhouse gas limited, so industry- and supply-chain-wide approaches
emissions (Kander et al., 2015). Consumption-based are needed. Several such industry initiatives exist (for
accounting has the advantage of incorporating the impacts coffee, palm oil, cocoa, and many other products). As part
generated by international transport. It also incorporates of a larger consortium, SDSN released a study in 2019
carbon leakages and attributes them to the countries on the governance of the soybean supply chain, and in
that externalize CO2 emissions (or other types of impacts). particular on the impact of trade imports from Europe and
As such, it brings complementary policy implications to China on major soybean producers, such as Argentina and
production-based accounting. While production-based Brazil (Czaplicki Cabezas et al., 2019). More work is needed
accounting rightfully emphasizes the principle of “product to understand how the governance of international
liability,” which states that producers are responsible for the supply chains can be and need to be reformed to curb
quality and safety of their products, consumption-based cross-country spillovers.
accounting emphasizes the responsibility of consumers
and international trade policies and agreements.
Figure 11
Domestic vs transboundary impacts (CO2 emissions and scarce water use)
OECD countries
Rest of the World (ROW)
Domestic: Energy-related CO2 emissions per capita (tCO2/capita) Spillover: CO2 emissions embodied into imports (tCO2/capita)
tCO₂/capita tCO₂/capita
12 2.5
10
2.0
8
1.5
6
1.0
4
2 0.5
0 0
00 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 00 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015
20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Source: Authors’ analysis. Based on Gütschow et al (2016) Source: Authors’ analysis. Based on Lenzen, M. et al. (2020)
Domestic: Scarce water use for domestic consumption and

exports (m3/Capita) Spillover: Scarce water use embodied into imports (m3/capita)
m/capita m/capita
100 35
95
30
90
85 25
80
20
75
15
70
65 10
60
5
55
50 0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 00 01 02 03 004 05 06 07 08 009 10 11 12 13
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 20
Source: Authors’ analysis. Based on Lenzen, M. et al. (2013) Source: Authors’ analysis. Based on Lenzen, M. et al. (2013)
2.4 The SDG dashboards

data, trends on SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below
Water) and, where available, on transboundary impacts
The SDG dashboards highlight the strengths and embodied in trade and consumption are alarming in most
weaknesses of each country in relation to each of the OECD countries. These countries need to undertake greater
17 SDGs. As described in the methodology section, efforts to decouple economic growth from negative envi-
dashboard ratings are based on data for the two indicators ronmental impacts, particularly in the wake of Covid‑19.
under each goal for which the country performs worst.
This means that, for example, good performance on OECD countries face persistent challenges related to
five out of seven indicators does not compensate for sustainable agriculture and diets – which are also major
poor performance on two indicators. In other words, our drivers of greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss.
methodology assumes low substitutability or compensation OECD countries perform relatively poorly on the indicators
across indicators in the construction of our composite index. on trophic levels (capturing the energy intensity and
long-term sustainability of average diets) and obesity.
This year, the dashboards include population-weighted Meanwhile, the closure of yield-gap remains well below
averages for each region and by income groups the 80% target in numerous OECD countries and below
(Figure 12). These regional comparisons are based on 50% in some. This underscores the need to increase the
the same set of indicators as used for the SDG Index. The efficiency of agricultural and land-use systems and to
OECD dashboards (Figure 14) include more indicators improve diets and sustainable food consumption.
than the other dashboards, however, owing to the
greater availability of data for these countries. SDSN is Inequalities in incomes as well as in access to services and
also promoting regional editions of the SDG Index and opportunities are growing challenges in most OECD coun-
Dashboards, including editions on Africa, the Arab Region, tries. Palma ratios, adjusted GINI coefficients, and elderly
Europe, and Latin America (Box 2). poverty rates are all high and are increasing in the majority
of the OECD countries. Disparities in health and education
outcomes by income and territorial area are also high.
Finally, gender pay gaps and the gender gap in minutes
OECD countries spent doing unpaid work need to be substantially reduced
to achieve SDG 5 (Gender Equality) in OECD countries.
The OECD dashboard reveals that, before the Covid‑19
outbreak, OECD countries were not on track to achieve the
SDGs. Compared to the rest of the world, OECD countries
perform better on goals related to socioeconomic out- East and South Asia
comes and basic access to infrastructure, including SDG 1
(No Poverty), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), SDG 6 Overall, East and South Asia is the region that has
(Clean Water and Sanitation), and SDG 7 (Affordable and progressed most on the SDG Index since the adoption
Clean Energy). Yet the indicator set does not capture well a of the goals in 2015. Most countries in the region also
country’s preparedness for health security challenges, due managed the Covid‑19 outbreak more effectively than
to the absence of a robust international measure (Box 1). many other parts of the world (section 1).
Covid‑19 has indeed highlighted the vulnerability of health
systems, including those of OECD countries (section 1.2), Countries in East and South Asia differ greatly in size and
and the need to strengthen resilience and prevention. in level of economic development. Correspondingly, SDG
challenges also vary greatly across countries in this region.
Major efforts are needed to accelerate progress towards Overall, the best performances are obtained on SDG 1
climate mitigation and biodiversity protection – SDGs 12 to (No Poverty), SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 7 (Affordable
15. In particular, some OECD countries perform especially and Clean Energy), although for each of these goals, at
poorly on associated spillover indicators. Based on available least one country in the region has a red rating (major SDG
challenge). Major challenges persist in most countries on (Good Health and Well-Being) and SDG 4 (Quality Education).
SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), In most countries in the region, a high homicide rate is
SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDGs 12–15 on climate change associated with a low share of people who feel safe walking
mitigation and biodiversity protection, and SDG 16 alone at night. Combined with high and often stagnating
(Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Trends on SDG 1 (or even increasing) perceptions of corruption, these factors
(No Poverty) are especially positive, with most countries explain poor performance and trends on SDG 16 (Peace,
in the region on track to eradicate extreme poverty. By Justice and Strong Institutions). Finally, as for other parts of
contrast, negative trends on SDG 13 (Climate Action) and the world, economic growth has not been decoupled from
SDG 15 (Life on Land) need to be reversed and will require negative environmental impact, which is evident in large
a significant acceleration of progress to achieve the 2030 achievement gaps on SDGs 12 through to 15.
targets in most countries. Vigilance is needed to ensure
that Covid‑19 does not change positive trajectories.
Eastern Europe and Central Asia The SDG performance of Middle East and North African
countries varies greatly. Conflicts in some countries lead to
Countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia obtain their poor and declining performance on most SDGs, particularly
best performance on SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 7 on SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-
(Affordable and Clean Energy). Compared to other regions, Being), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).
SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) remains
problematic, due to relatively high perceived corruption in Countries less affected by conflicts perform best on SDG 1
some countries, low freedom of speech, or high insecurity. (No Poverty) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).
As for other parts of the world, poor performance on SDGs Still, all countries in the region face major challenges in
12 to 15 on climate mitigation and biodiversity protection reaching SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), due to undernourishment,
require urgent policy attention. Access to basic services stunting, obesity, or issues related to agriculture and
and infrastructure, covered notably under SDG 6 (Clean sustainable land-use (such as poor nitrogen management).
Water and Sanitation) and SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Access to infrastructure, primarily covered under SDG 6
Energy), is improving rapidly. By contrast, trends on SDG 15 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 7 (Affordable and
(Life on Land) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) are Clean Energy), is generally high or improving at a fast
stagnating or reversing in most countries in this region. pace. However, further efforts are needed to strengthen
domestic labor rights and standards and to tackle negative
spillovers under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic
Growth); to enhance freedom of speech and address
Latin America and the Caribbean high levels of perceived corruption under SDG 16 (Peace,
Justice and Strong Institutions); and to make the transition
Latin American and Caribbean countries perform best towards more circular and green economies (SDGs 12 to
on SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean 15). High CO2 emissions embodied in fossil-fuel exports
Energy). They have also been experiencing progress on have a strongly negative impact on the performance of
SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 8 (Decent most countries in the region on SDG 13 (Climate Action).
Work and Economic Growth). Yet, compared to other parts
of the world, greater efforts are needed to reduce income There are persistent data gaps in the Gulf States for tracking
and wealth inequalities, which is underlined by the poor poverty at 1.90$/day and 3.20$/day, income inequality
performance of all countries in the region on SDG 10 (GINI coefficient), and working conditions (e.g., modern
(Reduced Inequalities). Improving access to and quality of slavery). Greater investments are therefore needed in
key services would help strengthen performance on SDG 3 budget surveys, household surveys, and data availability.
Sub-Saharan Africa Oceania

The average SDG Index score for countries in Sub-Saharan The SDG dashboards for Oceania reveal the relative lack of
Africa has improved significantly since 2015. Yet, all comparable data across the region. Due to this lack of data,
sub-Saharan African countries continue to face major chal- it is impossible to benchmark many small island developing
lenges in achieving the SDGs, and Covid‑19 threatens to states in Oceania against other countries. On the basis of
undo much of the progress made in recent years. Owing to the data available, small island states in the region perform
the poverty in the region, performance on socioeconomic best on SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)
goals and access to basic services and infrastructure (SDGs and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). By contrast, access
1 to 9) are poor compared to other world regions. In some to services, and their quality, covered under SDG 3 (Good
countries, insecurity and conflict have lowered perfor- Health and Well-Being) and SDG 4 (Quality Education), need
mance on various goals, including SDG 16 (Peace, Justice to improve. Similarly, access to infrastructure, covered under
and Strong Institutions). To improve the low performance SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 7 (Affordable
on this and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), countries and Clean Energy), and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and
need to strengthen their institutions and increase domestic Infrastructure), is lower than in most other regions. Small
resource mobilization. Relatively low levels of consumption island states perform well compared to the rest of the world
lead to somewhat better performances on SDGs 12 to 15 on climate mitigation (SDG 13), but they are of course
on climate mitigation and biodiversity protection, although among the countries that are the most vulnerable to
trends in pollution in urban areas, covered under SDG 11 climate change.
(Sustainable Cities and Communities), and forest loss and
biodiversity protection, covered under SDG 15 (Life on
Land), are flat for the region as a whole and moving in the
wrong direction in some countries.
The Covid‑19 outbreak and the disruption in international

supply chains, including the food supply chain, are likely
to have very negative impacts on SDG performance in
many sub-Saharan countries. International solidarity
and support will be needed to prevent losing the
development gains of recent decades.
Figure 12
2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) by United Nations sub-regions and income groups
DECENT INDUSTRY, RESPONSIBLE PEACE,

GOOD HEALTH CLEAN WATER AFFORDABLE WORK AND INNOVATION SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION LIFE JUSTICE PARTNERSHIPS
NO ZERO AND QUALITY GENDER AND AND CLEAN ECONOMIC AND REDUCED CITIES AND AND CLIMATE BELOW LIFE AND STRONG FOR THE
POVERTY HUNGER WELL-BEING EDUCATION EQUALITY SANITATION ENERGY GROWTH INFRASTRUCTURE INEQUALITIES COMMUNITIES PRODUCTION ACTION WATER ON LAND INSTITUTIONS GOALS
UN sub-regions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
East and South Asia
• LL •5D • DD •5D •5D • LD • DD • LL •DD • •• •55 • •• • DD •5• •5p • DD •5p
Eastern Europe and Central Asia
• p • D • D •5 • D • D • L • D •D • • •5 • • • L •5 •5 •5 • L
Latin America and the Caribbean
• • • D • D •5 •5 • D • L • D •D • • •5 • • • D •5 •5 •5 • •
•5 •5 •5 • p •5 •5 • D • • •5 • • •5 • • • L •5 • p • • • p
Oceania
•5 •5 •5 •5 •5 •5 •5 • D •D • • •5 • • • L • D • D •5 •5
Sub-Saharan Africa
• L • D • L • L • D • L • D • L •L • • •D • • •5 •5 • D • D • D
OECD
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
UN income groups
Low-income Countries
•5D •5D •5D •5• •55 •5D •5D • DD •5D • •• •55 • •• • LL •5p •55 •55 •55
Lower-middle-income Countries
• L • D • D • D • D • L • D • D •D • • •D • • • D •5 • p • D • p
Upper-middle-income Countries
• L • D • L • L • D • D • D • L •L • • •D • • •5 •5 • D • D • D
High-income Countries
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
SDG achievement Challenges remain Significant challenges remain Major challenges remain
L On track D Moderately Increasing 5 Stagnating p Decreasing • Data not available
Note: Excluding OECD specific indicators. Population-weighted averages. Source: Authors’ analysis
Figure 13
2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) for East and South Asia

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Bangladesh
• LL • DD • DD • LD •5D • DD • DD • LL •DD • •• • DD • •• • LL •5• • pp •5D • pD
Bhutan
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Brunei Darussalam
• L• • DD • DD •5D • DD • LL • DD •5D •LD • •• • L• • •• •5L •5D • pD • DD • LD
Cambodia
• L • D • D • • • D • L • D • L •L • • •D • • • D •5 • p • D • p
China
• L • D • D •5 •5 • L • D • L •D • • •5 • • • • • • •
India
• • • • • • • • • • • • • LL •55 •5p •5D • 55
Indonesia
• L• • DD • DD • D• •5D • LD • DD • LL •5D • •• •55 • •• • • • • •
Korea, Dem. Rep.
• L • D • D •5 • D • L • D • L •D • • •L • • • LL •5• • pp •5D • p•
Lao PDR
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Malaysia
• LL •5D • LD •55 •5D • LD • LL • LD •LD • •• • LD • •• •5L •55 •5p •5D • Lp
Maldives
• • • • • • • • • • •5 • • •5 • • • L • D • 5
Mongolia
• LD •5D • DD • LL •5D • DD • DD • DD •D5 • •• •D • • • L • D •5 •5 • p
Myanmar
• D • D • D • D • D • L •5 • L •D • • •5 • • • L • • •5 •5 • L
Nepal
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Pakistan
• LL •5D • DD •5p •55 • DD •55 • DD •D5 • •• •55 • •• • LL •55 • pp •5D • 55
Philippines
• • • • • • • • • • •D • • •5 • p • p • D • •
Singapore
• LL • DD • DD • LL •5D • DD •5L • LD •DL • •• • • • • • • •
Sri Lanka
• L • D • D • p • D • L • D • L •L • • •5D • •• • LD •55 •5p •55 • pD
Thailand
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Timor-Leste
•5L • DD • DD • LL •5D • LD • DD • LD •D5 • •• • LD • •• • L• •55 • pp • LD • pL
Vietnam
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Figure 14

2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) for OECD countries

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Australia
• LD • DD • LD • DD • LD • DD • LD • LD •DL •5D •5L • •• •55 •5• •5D • LD •5D
Austria
• D • D • D • D • L • D • D • L •L • D •5 • • • p •5 • L • D •5
Belgium
• L • D • L • L • D •5 • D • L •D •5 •5 • • •5 • D •5 • D • D
Canada
• D • D • D • D • D • L • D • D •D •5 • D • • •5 • D • p •5 • L
Chile
• L • D • D • D • D • L • D • L •D • D • D • • •5 • • • L • D • D
Czech Republic
• L • D • D •5 • L • D • L • D •L • L • D • • •D •D •L •D •L
Denmark
• D • D • D • L • D • D • L • D •D • D • L • • •5 •5 • L • L • D
Estonia
• L • D • D • L • D • L • L • L •L • L •5 • • •5 •5 • L • L •5
Finland
• L • D • L • D • L • D • D • D •L • D • D • • •5 • D • D • D • D
France
• D • D • D • D •5 • D • L • L •L •5 • D • • •5 • D • L • L • L
Germany
• L •5 • D • D • D • L • L • L •D • D • D • • •5 •5 • D • D •5
Greece
• L •5 • D •5 • D • L •5 • L •D • D • D • • • p • • • L •5 • D
Hungary
• L • D • L • D • D • D • L • L •L • L • D • • • p •5 • p • L • D
Iceland
• L • D • D • D • D • D • L • L •D • D • D • • •5 • D • L • L • p
Ireland
• D • D • L •5 •5 • L • D • D •D • D •5 • • •5 •5 •5 • L • D
Israel
• D • D • D • D • D • L • D • L •D •5 •5 • • •5 •5 • L • D • L
Italy
• D • D • L • L •5 • L • D • L •L • p • L • • •5 •5 • D • L • D
Japan
• L • D • L • L • D • L • D • L •L • • • D • • •5 •5 • p • D • D
Korea, Rep.
• D •5 • D • D • L • L • L • L •5 •5 • D • • •5 •5 • L •5 • p
Latvia
• D •5 • D • D • D • L • D • L •5 • p • D • • • p • D • L • L •5
Lithuania
• L • D • L •5 •5 • D • D • L •D •5 • D • • •5 • • • D • D •5
Luxembourg
• D • D • D • D • D • D • D •5 •5 •5 • L • • • D • D •5 •5 •5
Mexico
• L • D • D • D • D • D • D • L •L • L • L • • •5 • D • L • L •5
Netherlands
• L • D • D • D • L • L • L • L •D • • • D • • •5 • D • p • D •5
New Zealand
• L • D • L • D • L •5 • L • L •D • L • L • • •5 • D • L • L • L
Norway
• L • D • D • L • D • L •5 • L •D •5 • D • • • p • D • L • D •5
Poland
• L • D • D • D • L • L • L • L •D •5 • D • • • p •5 • D • D •5
Portugal
• L •5 • D •5 • D • D •5 • L •D • D • D • • • p • • • L • D •5
Slovak Republic
• L • D • D • D • D • D • D • L •D • D • D • • • p •5 • L • L • D
Slovenia
• D • D • L • D • D • L • D • L •D •5 • D • • • p • D •5 • L • D
Spain
• L • D • L • D • L • D • L • L •L •5 • D • • •5 •5 • L • L • L
Sweden
• L • D • L • D • D • D • L • L •L • p • L • • •5 • • • D • D •5
Switzerland
• D • D • D • D •5 • D • D • D •D •5 •5 • • •5 •5 •5 • p •5
Turkey
• D •5 • D • D • D • D • L • L •L • p • D • • •D •D •D •D •L
United Kingdom
• D •5 • D • D • D • L • D • L •L •5 • L • • •5 •5 • p • D •5
United States
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Note: Including OECD specific indicators. Source: Authors’ analysis
Figure 15
2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) for Eastern Europe and Central Asia

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Afghanistan
• L• •55 • DD • LD •5D • DD • LD • DD •5D • •• •55 • •• • LL •5• • pD •5D • DD
Albania
• • • D • • • • • L • D • L • • •D • • •L • • •5 • • • D • L • L
Andorra
• L •5 • D • D • D • L • L • D •D • • •5 • • • L • • •5 • D •5
Armenia
• L • D • D • p •5 • L • D •5 •5 • • •D • • • D • • •5 • D • D
Azerbaijan
• L • D • L • L • L • D • D • L •D • • •5 • • •D • • •D •D •L
Belarus
• L • D • D • • •5 • D • D • L •5 • • •5 • • •D • • •D •D •L
Bosnia and Herzegovina
• L • D • D • p • D • D • D • L •D • • •D • • •5 • D • L • D • L
Bulgaria
• L • D • D • p • D • L • D • L •D • • •5 • • •5 • D • L • D • •
Croatia
• L • D • L • L • D • D • D • L •D • • •D • • •5 • D • L • D • p
Cyprus
• D •5 • D •5 • D • D • L • D •D • • •5 • • • D •5 •5 • L • D
Georgia
• L • D • L • D • D • L • D • D •D • • •5 • • • D • • •5 • D • p
Kazakhstan
• L • D • D • D •5 • D • L • L •D • • •5 • • • L • • •5 • D • p
Kyrgyz Republic
• • • • • • • L • • • L • • • • •L • • •• •• •D • • •L •L • •
Liechtenstein
• L • D • D • L • D • D • L • L •D • • •D • • •5 • D • D • D • D
Malta
• L •5 • D •5 • D • D • D • D •5 • • •D • • • L • • •5 • D • D
Moldova
• • • • • • • • • • • D • L • • •L • • •• •• •D • • • • • • •p
Monaco
• L •5 • D • L • D • L • D • D •5 • • •5 • • •5 •5 • p • D • •
Montenegro
• D • D • D • L •5 • D • D • L •5 • • •5 • • •5 • • • D • D • D
North Macedonia
• L • D • D • p • D • D • D • D •D • • •5 • • •5 • D • L • D • p
Romania
• L •5 • D • L • D • D • D • L •D • • •D • • • D •5 •5 • D •5
Russian Federation
• • • • • • • • • • • D • L • • •L • • •• •• •5 • • • • • • • •
San Marino
• L • D • D •5 • D • D • D • D •D • • •5 • • •5 • • •5 • D • p
Serbia
• L •5 • D • L •5 • L • L • D •5 • • •5 • • • L • • •5 •5 • L
Tajikistan
• D •5 • D • • •5 • L • D • L •5 • • •5 • • •5 • • •5 •5 • •
Turkmenistan
• L • D • D • • • D • D • L • D •5 • • •p • • • L •5 •5 • D •5
Ukraine
• L •5 • D • D • D • L • L •5 •D • • •5 • • • D • • •5 • D • p
Uzbekistan
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Figure 16

2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) for Latin America and the Caribbean

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Antigua and Barbuda
• D• •5D • DD •5L • LD •5D • LL •5• •D5 • •• • D• • •• •5D • pD •55 • D• •5•
Argentina
• • • D • D • p • D • L • L • D •D • • •• •• •5 •5 • p • • • •
The Bahamas
•5 • D • D • L • D • L • L • D •D • • •• •• • • • • •
Barbados
• p • D • D • p • D • D • L • L •D • • •D • • •5L •55 • pD •55 • pL
Belize
•5 •5 • D •5 • D • D •5 • L •D • • •D • • • • • • •
Bolivia
•5 • D • D • L • D • L • L •5 •5 • • •D • • • LL •5• •55 •55 • L•
Brazil
• D • D • D • D • D • L • L • D •D • • •D • • • L • L • D •5 • p
Colombia
• L •5 • D • L • D • L • L • D •D • • •L • • •D •D •p •D •D
Costa Rica
• • •5 • D • L • D • D • L • L •D • • •5 • • • D •5 •5 •5 • •
Cuba
• • •5 •5 • • • • • • • L • • •D • • •• •• • L •5 • p • • • •
Dominica
• L • D • D • L • L • D • D • D •D • • •5 • • • L • D • D •5 •5
Dominican Republic
• D • D • D • D • D • L • L • D •D • • •L • • • L • L •5 • D • p
Ecuador
• L • D • D • p •5 • D • D • D •5 • • •D • • • L •5 •5 •5 • D
El Salvador
• • • p • D • L • L •5 • L • • •D • • •• •• •5 • • • p • • • •
Grenada
• D •5 • D •5 • D • D •5 • D •5 • • •D • • • L • D •5 • D • p
Guatemala
• L • D • D • • • D • D • L • p •5 • • •5 • • • p • D • L • L •5
Guyana
•5 •5 •5 • • •5 •5 •5 • D •D • • •5 • • • • • • •
Haiti
•5 •5 • D •5 • D • L •5 • L •D • • •L • • • LL •55 •5p •55 • pL
Honduras
• D •5 • D • p • D • D • D • L •5 • • •5 • • •5 • p • p •5 • D
Jamaica
• p •5 • D • • • D • D • D • D •D • • •D • • • L • L • D •5 • D
Nicaragua
• L • D • D • p • D • L • L • D •D • • •L • • •5 • D • p • D • •
Panama
• L • D • D • • • D • L • D • L •D • • •D • • • L • • •5 •5 •5
Paraguay
• D •5 • D • L • D • D • L • L •5 • • •D • • •5 • D • p •5 •5
Peru
• • •5 • • • p • • • • • L • • •D • • •• •• •5 • • • p • • • •
St. Kitts and Nevis
• D •5 •5 •5 • D • D • L • • •D • • •D • • •5 • • • p • p • D
St. Lucia
• • •5 • D • L • D •5 • L • • •5 • • •• •• • L • D • p • • •5
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
• p • D • D • p • D • D • D • D •5 • • •5 • • •5 • D • D • D • •
Suriname
• L •5 • D • • • D • D • L • L •D • • •5 • • •5 • p • p •5 • •
Trinidad and Tobago
• L • D • D • L • D • L • L • D •D • • •L • • •5 • D • p •5 • •
Uruguay
• p •5 •5 • p • D •5 • L • D •5 • • •5 • • • D •5 • D •5 • •
Venezuela, RB
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Figure 17
2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) for the Middle East and North Africa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Algeria
• L• •55 • LD • LL •55 • DD • LL •5L •DD • •• •5p • •• • LD •5p • pD •55 • ••
Bahrain
• L • D • D • L •5 • L • D • L •5 • • •D • • •5 • D •5 •5 • •
Egypt, Arab Rep.
•5 • D • D • L • D •5 • D • D •L • • •5 • • • D • D • p •5 • L
Iran, Islamic Rep.
• D • D • D • • •5 • L • L • D •D • • •5 • • • D •5 • p • D • p
Iraq
• D • D • D •5 •5 • L • L • D •L • • •5 • • • L • • •5 • D • p
Jordan
• • •5 • D •5 •5 • D • D • L •D • • •D • • •5 • p •5 • p • •
Kuwait
• L •5 • D •5 •5 • D • D •5 •D • • •p • • • L •5 •5 •5 • p
Lebanon
• • •5 •5 • • •5 • L •5 • D •5 • • •p • • • D • p • D •5 • •
Libya
• L • D • D •5 • D • L • D • D •D • • •p • • • L •5 • D •5 • p
Morocco
• • •5 • D •5 •5 • D • L • D •D • • •5 • • • D •5 •5 • D • •
Oman
• • •5 • D • D •5 • D • L • L •L • • •p • • •5 •5 • p •5 • •
Qatar
• • • D • D •5 •5 • D • D • D •D • • •D • • • D • D •5 •5 • •
Saudi Arabia
• • •5 • D • • •5 • D •5 • D •D • • •p • • •5 •5 •5 •5 • •
Syrian Arab Republic
• L •5 • D • L •5 • L • D • D •5 • • •5 • • • L •5 •5 •5 • L
Tunisia
• • •5 • D • L • D • D • D • L •L • • •5 • • • p • L •5 • D • L
United Arab Emirates
• • •5 •5 • p •5 • D • D • D •5 • • •5 • • • L • D •5 •5 • •
Yemen, Rep.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Figure 18
2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) for Oceania
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Fiji
• L• •5D •5D • pp •55 • DD • DD • L• •D5 • •• • D• • •• • D• •5D • p• • •• • LL
Kiribati
• • • • • • •5 •5 • D • D • • •5 • • •5 • • • • •5 • • • • • L
Marshall Islands
• • • • • D • • • • • D • D • • •5 • • •• •• • L •5 • p • • • L
Micronesia, Fed. Sts.
• • • p • • • p •5 • D • L • • •5 • • •• •• •5 •5 • • • • • •
Nauru
• • • p • • • • • • • L • L • • •D • • •• •• •• •• •• •• ••
Palau
•5 •5 •5 • • •5 •5 • D • L •5 • • •5 • • • L •5 • p •5 • p
Papua New Guinea
• L •5 • D •5 •5 • L •5 • D •D • • •D • • • L •5 • D • L • L
Samoa
•5 •5 • D • p •5 • p • D • • •5 • • •5 • • • L •5 • p •5 • L
Solomon Islands
• L •5 • D • • •5 • D • D • • •D • • •L • • • L •5 • • • L • L
Tonga
• • • p • • • p • p •5 • D • • •5 • • •• •• •L • • • • • • • •
Tuvalu
• D •5 • D • • •5 • D • D • L •D • • •5 • • • L •5 • p • L • L
Vanuatu
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Figure 19
2020 SDG dashboards (levels and trends) for Sub-Saharan Africa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Angola
•5p • DD •5D • L• •55 •5D •5D • LD •5D • •• •55 • •• • LL •55 •5L • DD • pp
Benin
• D •5 • D • • • D • L • D •5 •D • • •5 • • •5 • • • D • D • p
Botswana
•5 • D •5 • L •5 •5 •5 • D •D • • •5 • • • L • • • L • D •5
• p •5 • D • p •5 •5 •5 • L •5 • • •D • • • L • • • L •5 • p

Burkina Faso
Burundi
• D •5 • D • p • D • D • D •5 •5 • • •D • • •L •D •D •D •D
Cabo Verde
•5 •5 •5 • L • D •5 • D • L •D • • •p • • • L • D •5 •5 • p
Cameroon
•5 •5 •5 • • •5 •5 •5 • L •p • • •p • • •L • • •L •p •L
Central African Republic
• p •5 •5 • p •5 •5 •5 • D •5 • • •5 • • • L • • • L •5 • •
Chad
•5 •5 • D • p • D •5 • D • L •5 • • •5 • • • L •5 • p •5 •5
Comoros
• p •5 • D • • •5 • D • D • D •5 • • •5 • • • L •5 • L • p •5
Congo, Rep.
• D • D • D • L •5 •5 • D • D •D • • •5 • • • L •5 • D • D • D
Côte d'Ivoire
•5 •5 •5 • • • D •5 •5 • D •5 • • •5 • • • L • • • D • p •5
Dem. Rep.Congo,
• D •5 • D •5 • D • D •5 • D •D • • •D • • • L •5 • p •5 • •
Djibouti
• • • D •5 • • •5 •5 •5 •5 •5 • • •p • • • • •5 •5 • D • p
Equatorial Guinea
• • •5 • D • p •5 •5 •5 • L •5 • • •p • • • L •5 •5 • • • •
Eritrea
•5 •5 • D • D •5 •5 • D • D •5 • • •D • • • D • • •5 •5 • p
Eswatini
• L • D • D • • •5 •5 • D • L •D • • •5 • • • L • • •5 • D •5
Ethiopia
• D •5 •5 • • •5 •5 • L • D •D • • •5 • • • L •5 • L • p • p
Gabon
• D •5 •5 • L • D •5 •5 • D •5 • • •p • • •L •D •D •L •p
The Gambia
• D • D • D • D • D • D • D • L •D • • •5 • • • L • D •5 •5 • p
Ghana
• D •5 • D • p •5 •5 •5 • L •5 • • •5 • • • L • D • D •5 •5
Guinea
• D • D •5 • • •5 •5 •5 • L •5 • • •p • • • L •5 • L • D • •
Guinea-Bissau
• D •5 • D • • • D •5 • D • L •D • • •5 • • • L •5 • p •5 •5
Kenya
•5 • D •5 • D • D • D •5 • D •5 • • •D • • • L • • • D •5 • L
Lesotho
•5 • D • D • D • D •5 •5 • L •5 • • •p • • • L • D •5 •5 • •
Liberia
•5 •5 •5 • p • D •5 •5 • D •5 • • •D • • • L •5 •5 •5 • D
Madagascar
•5 • D • D • • • D • D •5 • D •5 • • •5 • • • L • • •5 • D •5
Malawi
• D •5 •5 • p •5 • D •5 • D •5 • • •D • • • L • • •5 •5 • D
Mali
• L • p •5 • D •5 • D •5 •5 •5 • • •5 • • • L • D • D •5 • p
Mauritania
• L • D • D • D • D • D • D • D •D • • •D • • •5 • p • p •5 • D
Mauritius
•5 • D • D • D • D • D •5 • L •p • • •D • • • L • D •5 •5 •5
Mozambique
•5 •5 • D • L • L •5 •5 • D •D • • •5 • • • D • D • L •5 • L
Namibia
•5 •5 • D •5 • D •5 •5 • D •5 • • •5 • • • L • • •5 •5 • p
Niger
• p •5 •5 • • •5 • D •5 •5 •D • • •5 • • • L •5 • D • p • •
Nigeria
•5 •5 • D •5 • D • D •5 • L •D • • •5 • • • L • • •5 •5 •5
Rwanda
• D • D • D • D •5 • D •5 • D •5 • • •D • • • L • D •5 •5 • p
São Tomé and Príncipe
• D • D • D •5 •5 • D •5 • D •D • • •5 • • • L • D • L •5 • p
Senegal
• • •5 • D •5 • • •5 • L • • •D • • •• •• •D •D •p •L •L
Seychelles
•5 • D •5 • D •5 • D •5 • D •5 • • •p • • • L •5 • L •5 • L
Sierra Leone
•5 •5 •5 • • • D • D •5 • D •5 • • •D • • • L •5 • p •5 • •
Somalia
•5 • D • D • L • D • D • D •5 •D • • •5 • • • D •5 •5 •5 • L
South Africa
• p • D •5 • • •5 •5 •5 • D •5 • • •p • • •L • • •D •p • •
South Sudan
• p •5 • D • D •5 • D • D • D •5 • • •5 • • • L • D • D •5 • p
Sudan
•5 • D • D • p • D • D • D • D •5 • • •5 • • • L • D •5 • D •5
Tanzania
•5 •5 •5 •5 •5 • D • D • L •D • • •p • • • L • p • D •5 •5
Togo
•5 •5 • D • p • D •5 •5 • L •D • • •p • • • L • • • D •5 •5
Uganda
•5 •5 • D • p • D •5 • D • D •5 • • •5 • • • L • • •5 • p • p
Zambia
• • •5 • D • • • D •5 •5 • L •5 • • •p • • •L • • •D •p •p
Zimbabwe
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2.5 Absolute SDG performance gaps in G20 countries
G20 countries comprise two-thirds of the world’s to 2 tonnes of CO2 per capita per year (equivalent to a
population and account for 85% of global gross domestic total reduction of 69.2% from current levels), the world
product and over 75% of global trade. They also generate would be 31% closer to achieving the SDG target on
80% of global energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions. CO2 emissions. Similarly, India alone represents 23.8% of
Table 3 illustrates the importance of G20 countries by the total achievement gap on SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).3 If
showing estimated absolute SDG performance gaps (in %) India eradicated undernourishment (currently 14.5% of
for each Goal to complement the per-capita analyses in the Indian population) the world would be 27.4% closer
the SDG Index and Dashboards. to achieving the SDG target on undernourishment.
The European Union also generates negative spillovers,
Absolute SDG performance gaps emphasize the in particular through trade and consumption, which
importance of the G20 countries in the post-Covid‑19 undermine other countries’ abilities to achieve the SDGs.
recovery. Apart from SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 4
(Quality Education), for which sub-Saharan Africa As G20 countries design recovery plans, it will be
accounts for most of the achievement gap, the G20 important to maintain the commitments, efforts, and
countries represent close to or more than 50% of the momentum for sustainable development if we are to
total performance gap for each Goal. A lack of action avoid major setbacks on SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean
and commitments from the G20 countries would make Energy) and SDGs 12 to 15 on climate and biodiversity.
it impossible to achieve the SDGs, depriving large shares The G20 countries can also play a pivotal role in
of the world’s population from achieving sustainable promoting sustainable supply chains by focusing on
development and improved living conditions. deforestation and other environmental damage. This will
help to achieve the SDGs and reduce risks of zoonotic
Due to their large populations, China and India account diseases and future pandemics.
for the largest shares of global SDG performance gaps.
For example: China, the United States, and the European
Union together represent close to 50% of the global
performance gap on Goal 13 (Climate Action).2 Focusing
on just one of the underlying metrics – energy-related CO2
emissions – we see that if China was to reduce emissions 3. SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) is measured using seven indicators: prevalence
of undernourishment, prevalence of stunting, prevalence of wasting,
prevalence of obesity, human trophic level, cereal yield, and sustainable
2. SDG 13 (Climate Action) is measured using three indicators: energy- nitrogen management. The full title of SDG 2 is “End hunger, achieve
related CO2 emissions per capita, imported CO2 emissions, and CO2 food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable
emissions embodied in fossil-fuel exports. agriculture.”
2.5 Absolute SDG performance gaps in G20 countries
Table 3

Absolute SDG performance gaps in 2020 (%)
Country SDG1 SDG2 SDG3 SDG4 SDG5 SDG6 SDG7 SDG8 SDG9 SDG10 SDG11 SDG12 SDG13 SDG14 SDG15 SDG16 SDG17 Spillovers
Argentina 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4
Australia 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.2 2.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 1.4
Brazil 1.8 2.2 1.8 2.3 2.0 1.1 0.6 3.3 2.3 4.6 1.7 3.6 1.4 2.0 2.9 3.3 1.5 0.9
Canada 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.5 2.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 2.2
China 1.8 10.5 11.7 5.4 10.7 17.2 20.1 10.3 10.5 16.0 13.5 13.7 17.2 23.2 18.7 18.2 22.8 12.4
Germany 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.4 3.3 3.7 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.5 5.3
France 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.3 2.3 2.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 4.7
United Kingdom 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.2 2.6 3.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.9 4.8
Indonesia 4.1 3.7 4.1 1.8 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.8 4.3 5.1 3.6 2.7 2.2 3.6 4.9 2.6 4.2 1.0
India 21.8 23.8 24.5 17.3 29.2 23.1 19.7 14.0 21.5 17.6 27.2 8.8 5.2 16.6 22.0 18.7 20.8 2.5
Italy 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.7 1.9 1.5 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 2.8
Japan 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.8 1.2 3.3 4.7 2.0 1.4 0.4 1.2 6.3
Korea, Rep. 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 1.2 2.1 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.7 2.4
Mexico 1.0 1.7 1.0 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.9 1.8 2.9 0.9 2.0 1.6 1.1 2.2 2.1 1.5 1.0
Russian Federation 0.0 2.3 1.4 0.6 1.5 1.6 0.6 1.7 1.3 2.0 1.0 2.7 4.0 2.3 1.6 2.5 1.3 4.7
Saudi Arabia 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.3
Turkey 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.1 1.4 0.8 0.4 1.5 0.9 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.8
United States 0.2 3.5 1.5 0.1 2.6 2.1 1.0 2.8 0.5 5.0 1.4 12.5 16.3 3.9 4.3 2.9 3.0 20.0
South Africa 1.8 0.7 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.6 1.3 0.7 1.7 0.5 0.9 1.4 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.7
European Union 0.3 4.6 1.5 1.1 3.1 2.6 1.4 4.7 2.1 3.1 2.7 14.7 14.6 6.1 2.9 3.1 4.7 23.5
Total G20 33.30 57.80 50.80 30.20 58.70 56.30 49.70 49.20 47.60 62.40 56.80 74.70 81.90 66.30 66.30 57.90 65.10 86.30

>20% 10-20% 2-10% 0-2%
Part 3
Policy and
Monitoring
Frameworks
for the SDGs
Part 3
Policy and Monitoring Frameworks for the SDGs
This section assesses policy efforts to implement the SDGs. It presents new expert and public opinion survey data to gauge
political leadership in support of the SDGs at the country level. As in other sections, our data does not account for the
impact of Covid‑19 in most countries. Results confirm that the SDGs have quickly become a widely used framework for
many national statistical institutes and other data providers. Yet further efforts are needed to address persistent data gaps
and data time lags in relation to the SDG indicators. The section therefore provides an overview of major data and statistics
initiatives introduced globally since the adoption of the SDGs in 2015. We argue that more policy trackers are needed to
increase visibility on how governments are pursuing the SDGs, strengthen accountability, and share data on best practices
and lessons learnt, which will help other countries accelerate progress towards the SDGs.
3.1 Political leadership and policy environment

Performance and outcome data provide essential (3) The content of government strategies and policy
information to track the implementation of the SDGs, but actions.
they should be complemented by other, more qualitative,
assessments of policy efforts and other actions in support Monitoring all three layers is important, but layer 3
of the goals. Performance and outcome data (e.g., poverty provides the most actionable and valuable information
rate, life expectancy, CO2 emissions) have limitations. on governments’ efforts to achieve the SDGs. In this
There is typically a two- to three-year lag (sometimes section we present primary data collected by the SDSN,
more) in data reporting, particularly for cross-country combined with third-party data that help track policy
comparisons. So tracking SDGs using outcome data alone efforts and commitments for the SDGs. For the first time,
means adopting a “rear-mirror view.” Such a view tracks we present findings from two public opinion surveys,
historic trends, which may be a poor guide to the future. conducted by the SDSN in March and April 2020, on “SDG
Governments that have introduced major policy reforms Progress and Challenges” and “Covid‑19 and the SDGs.”
might only see these efforts reflected in outcome data
after many years. Similarly, the impact of Covid‑19 will take
a long time to feed into outcome data. We therefore need
greater investments in real-time data. In addition, we need Public statements and public
“forward-looking” assessments of policies that provide a management practices for the SDGs
better sense of where countries are heading and track
the efforts of current administrations. As in previous years, The SDSN mobilizes its global network of experts every
this report therefore contributes to measuring the efforts year to track public statements by governments (layer 1)
made by governments in support of the SDGs. and the strategic use of some public practices (layer 2)
in support of the SDGs. Since 2018, this information has
Measuring government efforts in support of the SDGs is been collected through the SDSN survey on national
challenging, due to the broad and complex nature of the coordination and implementation mechanisms at the
goals. In the SDR2019, we introduced three layers for mea- central/federal level of government. The 2020 results and
suring government efforts to implement the long-term an indication of trends over time are presented in table 4.
objectives of the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement: This year’s survey covers 30 countries, including most of
the G20 and OECD countries, as well as countries with a
(1) High-level public statements by governments in population greater than 100 million people.
support of sustainable development.
(2) Strategic use of public practices and procedures We find a discrepancy between expressed political
towards achieving the goals (coordination mech- support for the SDGs and the integration of the SDGs
anisms, budgets, procurement, human-resource in strategic public policy processes, including national
management, data collection and audits); budgets. As in previous years, a large majority of
Sustainable Development Report 2020 The Sustainable Development Goals and Covid‑19 49
governments (25 out of 30) have made public statements of national SDG action plans), only some countries have
in support of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda via adopted more permanent stakeholder engagement
heads of states, ministers, or other cabinet members. mechanisms to inform policies, indicator selection, or
These statements often highlight implementation budgets (stakeholder engagement mechanisms at the
mechanisms and country initiatives to achieve key SDG subnational level – regions, provinces, municipalities –
transformations. We also find evidence in most surveyed were not covered by the survey.) The Finnish Citizens’
countries that the SDGs are being integrated into a Panel for Sustainable Development, established in 2018,
dedicated strategy or action plan, or into sectoral policies is a good example of a national stakeholder engagement
(e.g., health, education, industrial strategy, or economic mechanism for the SDGs.
development). Most countries have also identified a
coordinating unit or agency responsible for coordinating
implementation of the SDGs.
Content of government strategies
Yet only about a third of the countries surveyed (12/30) and policy actions
mention the SDGs or use related terms in their latest
official budget document. Of these 12 countries, only 4 To improve assessments of government efforts, one needs
mention the SDGs in their national budget as a dedicated to assess the content of policies – including national
section or budget line. The other 8 mention the SDGs targets, long-term pathways, and intermediate objectives
only in the overall narrative. In only half of the countries – to determine if they are consistent with achieving the
surveyed do the SDGs or related terms apply both to SDGs (layer 3). Such assessments would also track policy
domestic implementation (e.g., national health, education, implementation. Unfortunately, such “policy trackers”
social protection, economic development reforms) and are complex and costly to undertake. Moreover, most
international cooperation (e.g., aid allocation, foreign international organizations do not have the mandate to
policy). The cross-sectional budget analysis and tools assess their members’ policies in such ways.
developed by the Ministry of the Economy in Argentina
provides a good example of how a country has linked its The Covid‑19 outbreak saw a rapid increase in available
national budget with the SDGs.1 policy trackers to track government responses to the
health crisis, including but not limited to:
Over time, we find an increase in national monitoring
efforts. Most countries covered in the survey (28 out of • The IMF Policy Response to Covid‑19 (IMF, 2020b)
30) have either identified a national set of SDG indicators
or have launched dedicated platforms to report on the • The OECD Country Policy Tracker (OECD, 2020a)
availability of SDG indicators at the national level. On
average, countries that have developed national SDG • The Oxford Covid‑19 Government Response Tracker
indicator sets use about 112 indicators. These efforts (Oxford, 2020)
to strengthen monitoring mechanisms for sustainable
development are very much aligned with the SDGs. • The Yale School of Management Covid‑19 Financial
These findings are discussed in greater detail in section 3.2. Response Tracker and Visualization (Yale School of
Management, 2020)
By contrast, we find a slight decrease in stakeholder
engagement mechanisms for the SDGs. While many • The IGC Covid‑19 policy response tracker (IGC, 2020)
countries have launched stakeholder engagement
processes for specific objectives and deliverables The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) provides the best
(e.g., for Voluntary National Reviews, or the development example of an SDG Policy Tracker. Developed by a
research consortium specialized in the field of climate
1. https://www.minhacienda.gob.ar/onp/presupuesto_ciudadano/
seccion6.html
mitigation, CAT uses a methodology that evaluates
50 Sustainable Development Report 2020 The Sustainable Development Goals and Covid‑19
Table 4
National government efforts to implement the SDGs
SDG strategy/
High-level SDGs into Stakeholder
VNR Budget National monitoring
statements sectoral action engagement
plans
overarching
Date no. of
yes/no yes/no yes/no narrative/section *DI/IC yes/no yes/no
submitted indicators
or budget line
section or
Argentina 2017 and 2020 yes yes yes DI and IC no, but online reporting yes
budget line
Australia 2018 no no no no, but online reporting no
3. Policy and Monitoring Frameworks

section or
Austria 2020 yes yes yes DI and IC yes 200 yes
budget line
Bangladesh 2017 and 2020 yes yes no yes 40 yes
Brazil 2017 no yes no no, but online reporting no
overarching
Canada 2018 yes yes yes IC yes 60 yes
narrative
Chile 2017 and 2019 yes yes no yes 112 yes
China 2016 yes yes no no, but it is planned no
Denmark 2017 yes yes no no, but online reporting yes
overarching
Ethiopia 2017 yes yes yes DI yes 60 no
narrative
overarching
European Union not applicable yes yes yes DI and IC yes 100 yes
narrative
overarching
Finland 2016 and 2020 yes yes yes DI and IC no, but online reporting yes
narrative
overarching
Germany 2016 yes yes yes DI and IC yes 65 yes
narrative
Hungary 2018 no yes no yes 83 no
Israel 2019 yes yes no no, but online reporting no
section or
Japan 2017 yes yes yes DI and IC no, but online reporting yes
budget line
Mexico 2016 and 2018 yes yes no yes 169 yes
New Zealand 2019 yes yes no yes 100 no
Norway 2016 yes yes no no, but it is planned yes
section or
Pakistan 2019 yes yes yes DI yes 46 yes
budget line
Poland 2018 yes yes no yes 126 yes
overarching
Portugal 2017 yes yes yes DI yes 146 yes
narrative
Russia 2020 no no no no, but online reporting no
Saudi Arabia 2018 yes yes no yes 96 no
overarching
Slovenia 2017 and 2020 yes yes yes IC yes 70 yes
narrative
South Africa 2019 yes yes no yes 128 yes
overarching
Spain 2018 yes yes yes DI and IC yes 125 yes
narrative
Sweden 2017 yes yes no yes 294 yes
United Kingdom 2019 yes yes no no, but online reporting yes
United States Not planned no no no no, but online reporting no
TOTAL "yes" 25 27 12 28 112 20

Trend … = = = … … + … -
Note: Trend calculated based on the results of the 2018 and 2019 SDSN surveys. A positive or negative trend denotes a change of +/– 2 in the totals.
Source: SDSN 2020 Survey on national coordination and implementation mechanisms at the central/federal level of government (April, 2020).
* Di = Domestic Implementation Ic = International Cooperation
Figure 20
Comparative assessment of government strategies and policy actions for climate mitigation
Source: Climate action tracker (March, 2020)
both the content of Intended Nationally Determined Similar evaluations are needed for other SDG transforma-
Contributions (INDCs) (what governments propose to tions. The SDSN, in collaboration with partners, aims to
do) and current policies (what governments are actually promote the development of policy trackers for the six
doing) to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement. The SDG transformations (Sachs et al., 2019a). As one example,
latest CAT assessment covers 32 countries, including all as part of the Food and Land-Use Coalition, SDSN and
G20 countries, and the European Union (Climate Action partners are launching the Food, Environment, Land, and
Tracker, 2020). Development (FELD) Policy Action Tracker to measure
progress on SDG Transformation 4 (Sustainable Food,
The conclusions from the latest CAT assessment are very Land, Water, and Oceans).
clear: only six countries (Bhutan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia,
India, Kenya, and the Philippines) have made sufficient Covid‑19 makes policy trackers even more relevant,
commitments and efforts to hold global warming well given the long-term impacts of recovery strategies. As
below 2°C, and only two countries (Morocco and The an example, the Climate Action Tracker has released a
Gambia) are on track to hold warming below 1.5°C. roadmap for addressing the climate impact of Covid‑19
Government strategies and policy actions in the Russian and emerging recovery strategies (Climate Action Tracker,
Federation, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United 2020). Other organizations are proposing sustainability
States, and Vietnam are “critically insufficient” (the worst tests to assess recovery plans (Think Sustainable Europe,
label possible). 2020). These need to be tracked across countries.
Box 3. Public opinion survey on SDG Progress and Challenges
In April 2020, the SDSN surveyed the SDG community on progress made and major challenges and barriers faced in
implementing the SDGs. In total, 715 respondents from 104 countries participated. Respondents represented university
and research organizations (32%), non-governmental organizations (22%), the private sector (14%), students (14%),
governments (8%), international organizations (5%), and other (5%).
Overall, respondents considered that before the outbreak of the Covid‑19 pandemic, the world was not on track to
achieve the SDGs. Two-thirds of the SDG community believed that their country would only achieve up to half of the
goals. Only 16% of respondents believed that their country was on track to achieving all or most of the SDGs. This is
broadly consistent with the findings of the SDR2018, SDR2019 and SDR2020.

According to the respondents, governments should strengthen efforts to respond to the climate and biodiversity crises.
More than 50% of respondents considered that their governments had made only minor efforts over the past five years
to implement Transformation 3 (Energy Decarbonization and Sustainable Industry) and Transformation 4 (Sustainable
Food, Land, Water, and Oceans). These findings remain consistent when combined with the next survey question, which
asked about the importance and relevance of each transformation in the respondents’ countries. This resonates quite
well with the findings of major reports (IPCC, 2019; IPBES, 2019). Of the six SDG Transformations, respondents perceived
that their governments had made the greatest efforts towards implementing Transformation 6 (Digital Revolution for
Sustainable Development).
Finally, respondents identified three major challenges that impede further implementation of the SDG Transformations
and progress towards the SDGs. The first and most significant barrier in many countries is a lack of political leadership to
implement the 2030 Agenda. A second barrier is a lack of awareness of the SDGs among policymakers and the general
public. Lastly, short-termism and a focus on responding to immediate events over the pursuit of longer-term objectives
such as the SDGs represents a third barrier. This third barrier is likely to increase in relevance as countries shift their focus
to managing the consequences of the Covid‑19 pandemic.
Figure 21
Q.1. In your view, is your country on track to achieve the SDGs by 2030?
36% 33% On track and will achieve all SDGs

Rather on track and will achieve most SDGs
Moderately on track and will achieve about half of the SDGs
Rather not on track and will achieve less than half of the SDGs
13% 12% Off track and may not achieve any SDGs
No opinion
3% 3%
Box 3. (continued)
Figure 22
Q.2. Since 2015, how do you perceive government efforts and actions to implement the six transformations
in your country?
1. Education, Gender and Inequality

(%)
2. Health, Well-Being and

Demography (%)
3. Energy Decarbonization and

Sustainable Industry (%)
4. Sustainable Food, Land, Water

and Oceans (%)
5. Sustainable Cities and

Communities (%)
6. Digital Revolution for Sustainable

Development (%)
0% 1 0% 2 0% 3 0% 4 0% 5 0% 6 0% 7 0% 8 0% 9 0% 1 0 0%
Major efforts Moderate efforts Minor efforts No opinion
Figure 23
Q.4. In your view, what are the main barriers to achieving the SDGs in your country?
Lack of political leadership

Lack of awareness among people and policymakers
Major event that takes priority over other long-term goals
(war, epidemics, major social unrest, natural disaster)
Lack of effective public institutions
Lack of financial resources
Poor data and statistics
Low quality infrastructure
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Source: SDSN Public opinion survey on SDG Progress and Challenges (April, 2020). n=715.
Box 4. Public opinion survey on Covid‑19 and the SDGs
In April 2020, the SDSN surveyed the SDG community on the impact of the Covid‑19 pandemic on the achievement
of the SDGs. A total of 1,034 respondents from 110 countries participated in the survey. Respondents represented
university and research organizations (28%), the private sector (20%), non-governmental organizations (16%), students
(14%), governments (11%), international organizations (6%), and other (5%).
While the short-term impacts of Covid‑19 on most SDGs were expected to most likely be negative, a majority of respond-
ents considered that in the long run there might still be certain positive impacts. In total, 53% of respondents considered
that the impact of Covid‑19 would not be negative across the board for the achievement of the SDGs by 2030, and that
positive transformations might occur on some SDGs. Respondents also felt that uncertainty prevailed. Close to 10% of
respondents mentioned that it was too early to tell what the long-term impact of Covid‑19 on the SDGs would be.
Respondents also expected differentiated impacts of Covid‑19 on the six SDG Transformations. The greatest negative
impacts were expected on Transformation 1 (Education, Gender, and Inequality) and Transformation 2 (Health,

Well-Being, and Demography). At the same time, many respondents felt that the Covid‑19 crisis may provide an
opportunity to strengthen healthcare system preparedness and resilience, as well as improving prevention programs
in the longer term. Respondents expected more mixed impacts on Transformation 3 (Energy Decarbonization and
Sustainable Industry), Transformation 4 (Sustainable Food, Land, Water, and Oceans), and Transformation 5 (Sustainable
Cities and Communities). Respondents considered that the short-term benefits that the lockdown measures had on air
pollution and CO2 emissions might be offset in the long run by unsustainable recovery plans, the low cost of fossil fuels,
and the lack of enforcement of environmental and biodiversity conventions. Finally, respondents expected more positive
impacts on Transformation 6 (Digital Revolution for Sustainable Development), pointing to the growth of e-commerce,
remote working, digital health services, and online education services.
Finally, most respondents considered that the SDGs provide a framework that could help inform the recovery phase
and contribute to preventing future global health and other crises. Only 28% of respondents considered the SDGs
completely useless in helping to prevent and mitigate major global risks (e.g., pandemics) in the future. Yet even those
who believed that the SDGs could be a useful framework mentioned that monitoring and reporting processes must be
strengthened. Respondents also felt that the SDG reporting process, including voluntary national reviews (VNRs), should
have a stronger focus on the resilience of health and other systems, as well as on crisis prevention. Finally, respondents
considered that political leadership will be crucial to retain the SDGs as shared global priorities when countries recover
from the Covid‑19 outbreak.
Figure 24
Q.1. In your view, in your country, what will be the impact of the Covid‑19 pandemic on the achievement of
the SDGs by 2030?
43% 1. Positive, despite the current crisis it will accelerate the

37% implementation of most of the SDGs in the long run
2. Mixed, the current crisis will both accelerate and slow down
the achievement of the SDGs in the same proportion
3. Negative, the current crisis will slow down the implementation
of most of the SDGs in the long run
10% 10%
4. No opinion / Too early to tell
Box 4. (continued)
Figure 25
Q.2. In your view, in your country, what will be the impact of Covid‑19 on each of the six SDG
Transformations?
(%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Education, Gender Health, Well-Being Energy Sustainable Food, Sustainable Cities and Digital Revolution for
and Inequality and Demography Decarbonization Land, Water and Communities Sustainable
and Sustainable Oceans Development
Industry
Positive Mixed Negative No opinion / Too early to tell
Figure 26
Q.3. In your view, is the current SDG framework and reporting process suited to help prevent and mitigate
major global risks (e.g., pandemics)?
41%
28%
Yes
Moderately
17% 14% No
No opinion
Source: SDSN Public opinion survey on “Covid‑19 and the SDGs” (April, 2020). n=1,034.
3.2 Data, statistics and monitoring

Data and monitoring initiatives national reviews (VNRs), the main annual and
government-led SDG review mechanism, typically
The 2030 Agenda emphasizes the importance of reliable assess a country’s key challenges to and priorities
data and statistics. The focus on data and statistics is for achieving the SDGs. VNR indicators are not
stronger than that of the MDGs (SDSN, 2015). The 2030 harmonized internationally and lack comparability
Agenda states that “the goals and targets will be followed (Schmidt-Traub et al., 2017). Some countries publish
up and reviewed using a set of global indicators,” while annual SDG reports, led by government and/or civil
a dedicated section provides key principles of tracking society (National Sustainable Development Council of
progress and contextualizes SDG assessment processes Australia, 2019; NITI Aayog, 2019).
and instruments at all levels. The Agenda mandates that

the Inter-agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators 3. Goal-specific monitoring initiatives focus on
(IAEG-SDGs), the Statistical Commission, and the Economic monitoring progress towards individual SDG out-
and Social Council (ECOSOC) are to develop and frequently comes. Examples include the Global Hunger Index
update an SDG indicator framework. As of March 2020, (GHI) tracking SDG 2, and Goalkeepers, tracking SDGs
231 official SDG indicators, classified in three tiers, are used 1 to 6 (Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe,
to monitor the 17 SDGs and 169 targets (IAEG-SDGs, 2019). 2019; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2019). Equal
Measures 2030 focuses on data and metrics to track
National governments, multilateral organizations, civil progress on the “leave no one behind” principle of the
society, and businesses have also launched numerous 2030 Agenda (Equal Measures 2030, 2019), and the
initiatives to monitor progress on the SDGs since 2015. Global Slavery Index monitors progress on SDG 8.7
We identify seven major types of SDG data initiatives (Minderoo Foundation Walk Free Initiative, 2018).
below, but there are probably many others. Other goal-specific SDG monitoring initiatives include
Tracking SDG7: The Energy Progress Report (World Bank
1. International SDG monitoring reports focus on et al., 2019) and the SDG 11 Synthesis Report 2018 on
all 17 SDGs and provide comparative assessments of Cities and Communities (UNHABITAT, 2018).
SDG performance and progress across countries. At
the global level, such initiatives include the SDG Index 4. Policy trackers are needed to create forward-looking
and Dashboards (Sachs et al., 2017, 2018, 2019), the assessments of countries’ trajectories towards the SDGs.
UN Sustainable Development Goals Report and Progress As discussed in the previous section, the Climate Action
Cards (United Nations, 2019), and the OECD Measuring Tracker tracks national commitments and policies relat-
Distance to the SDG Targets reports (OECD, 2017, 2019). ing to SDG Transformation 3 (Energy Decarbonization),
Several regional reports have also become available. In in support of SDG 13 and the objectives of the Paris
the European Union, for instance, Eurostat publishes Agreement (Climate Action Tracker, 2018a). SDSN
Sustainable development in the European Union, the is launching the Food, Environment, Land, and
official SDG monitoring report (Eurostat, 2017, 2018, Development (FELD) Action Tracker as part of the Food
2019). The SDSN, in collaboration with partners, has and Land-Use Coalition. Similar policy trackers are
supported the production of SDG baseline assess- urgently needed for the other SDG Transformations.
ments for several regions since 2015 (SDG Center for
Africa and SDSN, 2018, 2019; Luomi et al., 2019; SDSN 5. Subnational and city-level SDG assessments track
and IEEP, 2019; Sachs et al., 2019b) – see also box 2. the efforts and performance of cities, provinces,
and regions. The SDSN has released monitoring
2. National SDG indicator and monitoring reports instruments for cities in Italy, Spain, the United
are based on a national set of indicators identified States, and across the European Union. The Local
by the government and/or civil society. Voluntary Data Action Solutions Initiative (LDA-SI) – a project
run by the SDSN’s USA-Sustainable Cities Initiative Data availability and timeliness for
(USA-SCI) and TReNDS – supports sub-national actors the SDGs
in engaging with the SDGs through local monitoring.
The OECD has launched A Territorial Approach to
Timely data is crucial for accurate monitoring of SDG
the Sustainable Development Goals, which assesses
progress and for evidence-based policymaking. This is
the distance of SDG targets for more than 600 cities
even more true after Covid‑19. To assess the current state
and regions (OECD, 2020). Local Governments for
of data and monitoring, we assessed data availability and
Sustainability (ICLEI), C40 Cities, and UN-Habitat have
timeliness of the indicators included in this SDR2020. Our
also launched SDG monitoring initiatives in cities. The
analysis highlights three major findings.
European Commission, through its Joint Research
Centre (JRC) and the Directorate-General for Regional
First, the inclusion of non-official statistics, including
and Urban Policy (DG REGIO), is also working on
model-based estimates, helps fill data gaps and can
monitoring the urban dimension of the 2030 Agenda
reduce time lags in official statistics. Using only official
for Sustainable Development.
statistics from United Nations custodian agencies, data
availability varies significantly among regions, from
6. Corporate benchmarks and sustainability metrics.
95% in OECD countries to 54% in Oceania (table 5).
The SDGs are increasingly used by large companies as
The average year of reference is 2016 for most regions
the underlying framework for environmental, social, and
(Eastern Europe and Central Asia, East and South Asia,
governance (ESG) reporting. The World Benchmarking
Middle East and North Africa, Oceania, and Sub-Saharan
Alliance is developing corporate benchmarks for major
Africa) and 2017 for OECD countries. Both data coverage
industries, while in close collaboration, the “Fixing the
and timeliness improve when adding model-based
Business of Food” coalition initiated by the Barilla Center
estimates (e.g., from IHME and the World Data Lab) and
for Nutrition is developing monitoring frameworks for
population surveys conducted by analytics companies
the food sector (World Benchmarking Alliance, 2019);
(e.g., Gallup World Poll).
SDSN and BCFN, 2019). The World Business Council
on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) facilitates the
Non-official statistics obtained through modelling,
exchange of best practices on SDG data (WBCSD, 2018).
population surveys, or other techniques come with
Many financial institutions and development banks
limitations. While they increase data availability and
have also developed SDG tools and procedures to track
timeliness, they do remain predictions. The accuracy
the SDG impact of their investments.
of the underlying models have been questioned, and
significant discrepancies have been found between
7. Capacity-building and partnerships to develop
model-based estimates and official statistics obtained
alternative data sources. PARIS21 has been named
several years after (Boerma, Victora, and Abouzahr,
the custodian agency to support statistical capacity-
2018; Shiffman and Shawar, 2020). Also, the models
building in low- and middle-income countries
and underlying assumptions are not always made
(PARIS21 and Partners for Review, 2019). The Thematic
transparent. Finally, the availability of such estimates
Research Group on Data and Statistics (TReNDs)
may reduce incentives to strengthen statistical capacity.
supports better SDG monitoring, evolving data
Large-scale household surveys conducted by analytics
governance, and new data-sharing policy and practice
companies typically have much lower sample sizes
standards (TReNDs, 2019). The Global Partnership
(usually 1,000 people) than national statistical offices
for Sustainable Development Data (GPSDD) was
require, which in turn will affect the reliability of the
established to help stakeholders across countries and
data. Data are not always collected face-to-face and the
sectors fully harness the data revolution for sustainable
questions and scales used may not represent the most
development. Together they are implementing
valid and reliable measurement approaches (OECD, 2017;
DATA4Now to increase the timeliness of SDG metrics
Praia City Group, 2020).
(GPSDD et al., 2019).
Second, it remains difficult to assess if the adoption of the years before 2015. We could not trace from international
SDGs has had a positive impact on the availability and data portals the date when the data was collected. So, a
timeliness of official statistics. On one hand, we find that data point obtained in 2016 with a reference year of 2014
there is now more data available to measure sustainable is counted under data available for 2010–2015 but not for
development than there was in 2015. Improvements the SDG period (2015–2020). Hence these findings may just
have been particularly pronounced in Oceania and reinforce the point made earlier on significant time lags in
Sub-Saharan Africa. On the other hand, many of the official data reporting. Third, we have limited our analysis to
data points available now have a year of reference that data from official sources that is presented in the SDR2020.
predates the adoption of the SDGs. When comparing A similar analysis conducted for all official UN indicators
data availability of 2010–2015 vs 2015–2020, we find that might yield other findings.
availability has declined in all regions except in OECD
countries (+0.3%). The slight increase in data availability for Finally, we find that data availability and timeliness vary

OECD countries is primarily due to new data on freshwater extensively across the SDGs. Using both official and
withdrawals (FAO) and mortality from air pollution (WHO). non-official data sources, we find that data coverage and
timeliness tend to be better for socioeconomic goals such
There are several ways to interpret these findings. First, as SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) and SDG 5 (Gender
it might be too early to evaluate the impact of statistical Equality). Data availability and timeliness to track SDG 10
projects and programs launched since the adoption of the (Reduced Inequalities) is more problematic, with many
SDGs in 2015. It takes many years to collect and standardize countries reporting outdated information or no information
official statistics in collaboration with national statistical for the GINI coefficient. At the global level, data availability
offices, especially when there are no agreed definitions or and timeliness are also low for environmental and biodi-
methods. Second, it is possible that datapoints collected versity goals, including SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption
and published between 2015 and 2020 have reference and Production) and SDG 14 (Life Below Water).
Table 5
Non-official data sources help address data gaps and time lags in official statistics
Data availability and year of reference by sub-regions (official data sources), including and excluding model-based estimates
Official data sources (excluding model-based Official data sources (including model-based
estimates and subjective measures) estimates and subjective measures)
Coverage (%) Avg. Year Coverage (%) Avg. Year

Eastern Europe & Central Asia 76.6 2016 78.3 2017
East and South Asia 82.3 2016 84.7 2017
Latin America and the Caribbean 76.7 2016 77.9 2017
Middle East and North Africa 73.3 2016 76.8 2016
OECD 95.0 2017 96.1 2017
Oceania 54.5 2016 53.1 2016
Sub-Saharan Africa 80.1 2016 82.9 2017
Note: This table focuses on indicators from official sources (e.g., UN custodian agencies) included in the SDR2020. It does not cover all official SDG indicators. Model-based estimates include data from
the World Poverty Lab and IHME. Subjective measures include population surveys conducted by the Gallup World Poll.
Figure 27 Figure 28
Overall, there are more official data available …Yet, it might be too soon to see an “SDG effect”
in 2020 than between 2010–2015 to measure on data availability and timeliness
sustainable development globally… Change in data availability (official data sources¹), 2010–2015
Change in data availability (official data sources¹), 2010–2015 vs 2015–2020 (%)
vs 2010–2020 (%)
(%)
9
4
ia n
As ea
l bb rica
3 tra Cari Af
Cen h e rth
2 a n d
As
ia
n dt ric
a No
es pe h aa Af nd
tri o ut c n a
un ur dS
o eri ha
ra Ea
s t
co nE Am nia
1 D te r t an
tin -Sa d le
ea
OEC Eas Eas La S u b
M i d
O c
0
0
s
nia ric
a
ric
a sia sia
be
an rie
ea Af Af hA a lA b nt -1
Oc ra n rt h o u t
n t r a r i
co u
ha No dS Ce eC EC
D
b -Sa a nd t an a nd d th O -2
Su st s e n
Ea Ea op aa
le Eur e ric
d rn
Mi
d Am -3
ste tin
Ea La
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
(%)
Note: (1) Excluding model-based estimates and other non-official statistics.

Figure 29
Data availability and timeliness vary extensively across the SDGs
Global data availability (in %) and average year of reference (in years) by SDGs (official and non-official data sources)
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
SDG1: End Poverty 2020
SDG2: Zero Hunger 2015
SDG3: Good Health and Well-Being 2017
SDG4: Quality Education 2016
SDG5: Gender Equality 2018

SDG6: Clean Water and Sanitation 2015
SDG7: Affordable and Clean Energy 2017
SDG8: Decent Work and Economic Growth 2016
SDG9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure 2017
SDG10: Reduced Inequalities 2014
SDG11: Sustainable Cities and Communities 2011
SDG12: Responsible Consumption and Production 2012
SDG13: Climate Action 2017
SDG14: Life Below Water 2017
SDG15: Life on Land 2018
SDG16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions 2018
SDG17: Partnerships for the Goals 2017
The outbreak of Covid‑19 underlines the need for more and capacity within national statistical offices. The need for
timely and disaggregated data. Beyond data needed on real-time contact tracing also brings to the fore ethical and
incidence, hospitalization, mortality, and the effective other concerns about new sources of data and the role
reproduction rate (ERR), countries need timely, accurate, private providers play in generating and using the data
and disaggregated data to design policy interventions (Orrell, 2020; Marks, 2020; Espey, 2020). The SDSN TReNDS
that address the needs of their most vulnerable network and Data4Now support partnerships between
population groups (Dahmm, 2020; Marks, 2020). For governments and other stakeholders (including the
comparison, the average time lag for data reported in the private sector) to increase data availability and timeliness
SDR2020 is three years. for the SDGs (GPSDD et al., 2019), while the Contract for
Data Collaborations (C4DC) project supports governments
At the same time, Covid‑19 and its aftermath pose serious in developing and executing data-sharing agreements
challenges for statistical systems. These include delays in for cross-sector data initiatives (GOVLAB, University of
planned censuses and surveys and reduced funding for Washington, World Economic Forum and TRENDs, 2020).
Part 4
Methods Summary
and Data Tables
Part 4
Methods Summary and Data Tables
4.1 Interpreting the Index and Dashboards results

The Sustainable Development Report 2020 describes each country’s progress towards achieving the SDGs and indicates
areas requiring faster progress. A country’s overall SDG Index score and its scores on individual SDGs can be interpreted as
a percentage of optimal performance. The difference between the score and 100 is therefore the distance, in percentage
points, that needs to be overcome to reach optimum performance. The same basket of indicators is used for all countries
to generate comparable scores and rankings.
Substantial differences in rankings may be due to 4.2 Changes made to the 2020
small differences in the aggregate SDG Index score.
Differences of two or three places between countries
edition, and main limitations
should not be interpreted as “significant,” whereas
differences of 10 places or more can show a meaningful Changes made to the 2020 SDG Index and
difference (JRC, 2019). Dashboards
The SDG dashboards provide a visual representation The 2020 SDG Index covers 166 countries, compared with
of each country’s performance on the 17 SDGs. The 162 countries in 2019. The additional countries included
“traffic light” color scheme (green, yellow, orange, and this year are Barbados, Brunei Darussalam, Somalia, and
red) illustrates how far a country is from achieving a South Sudan. The 2020 report also incorporates several
particular goal. As in previous years, the dashboards new indicators. These are shown in table 6, which also
and country profiles for OECD countries include identifies indicators that were replaced or modified due
additional metrics that are not available for non-OECD to changes in the methodology, and estimates produced
member countries. by data providers. The data for this year’s edition was
extracted between February and April 2020.
The SDG trend dashboards indicate whether a country
is on track to achieve a particular goal by 2030, based For the first time, the 2020 edition of the report features
on its recent performance on given indicators. Indicator time series data for several spillovers. This includes the
trends are aggregated at the goal level to give a trend following indicators:
indication of how the country is progressing towards
that SDG. • CO₂ emissions embodied in imports (tCO₂/capita)
• Scarce water consumption embodied in imports
This section describes how the SDG Index and (m³/capita),
dashboards are computed. A detailed methodology • Fatal work-related accidents embodied in imports
paper is accessible online (Lafortune et al., 2018). (per 100,000 population)
The European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC)

conducted an independent statistical audit of the
report’s methodology and results in 2019. The audit Limitations and data gaps
reviewed the conceptual and statistical coherence
of the index structure. The detailed statistical audit Due to changes in the indicators as well as some
report is also available on our website (http:// refinements in the methodology, SDG Index rankings
sustainabledevelopment.report). and scores cannot be compared with those of previous
editions. In spite of our best efforts to identify data for the
SDGs, several indicator and data gaps persist (table 7).
Part 4. Methods Summary and Data Tables
Table 6
New indicators and modifications
SDG Indicator Change
Universal health coverage (UHC) index of service coverage

3 Modification: Changed data source to WHO (2020)
(worst 0–100 best)
Participation rate in pre-primary organized learning

4 Modification: Changed data source to UNESCO (2020)
(% of children aged 4 to 6)
Modification: Underlying data source changed for a few countries. See

6 Anthropogenic wastewater that receives treatment (%)
https://epi.envirocenter.yale.edu/ for more information
6 Scarce water consumption embodied in imports (m³/capita) New, replaces "Imported groundwater depletion”
7 Share of renewable energy in total primary energy supply (%) Modification: Changed data source to OECD (2020)
Modification: To increase timeliness and country coverage, data source was

12 Production-based SO₂ emissions (kg/capita)
changed to Lenzen, M. et al. (2020)
Modification: To increase timeliness and country coverage data source was

12 SO₂ emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita)
changed to Lenzen, M. et al. (2020)
Modification: Indicator now excludes composted waste in addition to

12 Non-recycled municipal solid waste (kg/capita/day)
recycled waste
Modification: To increase timeliness and country coverage data source

13 CO₂ emissions embodied in imports (tCO₂/capita) was changed to Lenzen, M. et al. (2020). Carbon accounting is no longer
technology-adjusted
Modification: To avoid penalizing trade and transit countries, fuel exports

13 CO₂ emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita)
are now capped at the country’s level of production
Marine biodiversity threats embodied in imports (per million

14 New addition
population)
Terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity threats embodied in

15 New addition
imports (per million population)
16 Unsentenced detainees (% of prison population) Modification: Data now calculated as 3-year averages because of volatility
Modification: Changed data source for OECD countries to be consistent

17 Government spending on health and education (% of GDP)
with non-OECD countries
17 Corporate Tax Haven Score (best 0–100 worst) New, replaces "Tax Haven Score (best 0–5 worst)"
17 Shifted profits of multinationals (US$ billion) New addition
4.2 Changes made to the 2020 edition, and main limitations
Table 7
Major indicator and data gaps for the SDGs
SDG Issue Desired metrics
Resource-use efficiency (nutrients, water, energy)

Risky pesticides
2 Agriculture and nutrition
Food loss and food waste
Greenhouse gas emissions from land use
Affordability of healthcare
3 Health
Health-care system resilience and preparedness to face global health risks
Internationally comparable primary and secondary education outcomes
4 Education
Early childhood development
Gender pay gap and other empowerment measures
5 Women empowerment
Violence against women
6 Water Quality of drinking water and surface waters
Decent work
8 Decent work
Labor rights protections
Wealth inequality
10 Inequality
Vertical mobility
Environmental impact of material flows
Recycling and re-use (circular economy)
12 Sustainable consumption and production
4. Methods Summary and Data Tables

Chemicals
Waste shipments
Leading indicators for decarbonization
13 Climate change
Greenhouse gas emissions from land use
Maximum sustainable yields for fisheries
14 Marine ecosystems Impact of high-sea and cross-border fishing
Protected areas by level of protection
Leading indicators for ecosystem health
15 Terrestrial ecosystems Trade in endangered species
Protected areas by level of protection
Access to justice
16 Peace and justice Violence against children
Protection of the rights of civil society organizations
Non-concessional development finance
Climate finance
17 Means of implementation
Unfair tax competition
Development impact of trade practices
As underscored in previous editions of this report, 4.3 Methodology (summary)

governments and the international community must
increase investments in SDG data and monitoring systems
to close these gaps. The SDR2020 provides a comprehensive assessment of
distance to targets based on the most up to date data
To ensure maximum data comparability, we only use data available covering all 193 United Nations Member States.
from internationally comparable sources. The providers of This year’s report includes a total of 115 indicators with
this data may adjust national data to ensure international 85 global indicators and 30 indicators added specifically
comparability. As a result, some data points presented in for OECD countries, including several new indicators to fill
this report may differ from data available from national data gaps.
statistical offices or other national sources. Moreover,
the length of the validation processes followed by The following sections provide an overview of the
international organizations can lead to significant delays methodology for indicator selection, normalization,
in publishing some data. National statistical offices may aggregation and for generating indications on trends.
therefore have more recent data for some indicators than Additional information including raw data, additional data
presented in this report. tables and sensitivity tests are available online.
Looking forward
In future editions we will include additional and improved A. Data selection

SDG metrics as they become available, and we will aim
for greater comparability over time. In particular, a major Where possible, the SDR2020 uses official SDG indicators
priority in future editions will be to present trend data on endorsed by the UN Statistical Commission. Where insuf-
additional spillover metrics; such as SO₂ emissions, nitrogen ficient data is available for an official indicator and to close
emissions, and biodiversity threats embodied in imports. data gaps, we include other metrics from official and unoffi-
cial providers. Five criteria for indicator selection were used
To better inform regional and national discussions on the to determine suitable metrics for inclusion in the report:
implementation of the SDGs, we support the creation of
SDG indices and dashboards for regions (e.g., the Africa 1. Global relevance and applicability to a broad
SDG Index and Dashboards Report) and at sub-national range of country settings: The indicators are
levels (e.g., the US Cities Sustainable Development relevant to monitoring achievement of the SDGs
Report). SDSN is also working with partners to produce and applicable to the entire continent. They are
more regional and sub-national editions that can promote internationally comparable and allow for direct
evidence-based policymaking, mobilize regional and comparison of performance across countries. In
local communities, and identify persisting data gaps for particular, they allow for the definition of quantitative
monitoring the SDGs. performance thresholds that signify SDG achievement.
2. Statistical adequacy: The indicators selected represent
valid and reliable measures.
3. Timeliness: The indicators selected are up to date and
published on a reasonably prompt schedule.
4. Data quality: The data series used represent the best
available measure for a specific issue and derive from
official national or international sources (e.g., national
statistical offices or international organizations) or
other reputable sources, such as peer-reviewed
4.3 Methodology (summary)
publications. No imputations of self-reported national Goal 14 (Life Below Water). Imputed goal scores are used
estimates are included. solely for the computation of the index, and they are
not reported in the SDG dashboards or country profiles.
5. Coverage: Data must be available for at least 80% of
Similarly, we impute regional scores for each indicator
the United Nations Member States with a national
under Goal 4 to those countries missing data for that
population of more than 1 million people.
indicator. This is done exceptionally to reduce missing bias
from the many data gaps in the education data. In the case
of Goal 14 (Life Below Water), we hope to identify more
Data sources
metrics in the future to gauge the impact of landlocked
The data included in the SDR2020 come from a mix of countries on oceans. Imputed values are clearly marked in
official and non-official data sources. Most of the data the online datasets and in the country profiles.
come from international organizations (World Bank, OECD,
WHO, FAO, ILO, UNICEF, and others) which have extensive
and rigorous data-validation processes. Other data sources
include household surveys (Gallup World Poll), civil society C. Method for constructing the SDG Index
organizations and networks (Oxfam, Tax Justice Network,
and others) and peer-reviewed journals. The full list of The procedure for calculating the SDG Index comprised
indicators and data sources is presented in table 9. three steps: (i) censor extreme values from the
distribution of each indicator; (ii) rescale the data to
ensure comparability across indicators; (iii) aggregate the
indicators within and across SDGs.
B. Missing data and imputations
The purpose of the SDR2020 is to guide countries’

Normalization
discussions of their current SDG priorities based on
available and robust data. To minimize biases from missing To make the data comparable across indicators, each
data, the SDG Index only includes countries that have data variable was rescaled from 0 to 100, with 0 denoting worst
for at least 80% of the variables included in the global SDG performance and 100 describing the optimum. Rescaling
Index. The list of countries not included in the SDG Index is usually very sensitive to the choice of limits and extreme
due to insufficient data availability is presented in table 10. values (outliers) at both tails of the distribution. The latter
We include all United Nations Member States in the SDG may become unintended thresholds and introduce
dashboards and country profiles, which illustrates gaps in spurious variability in the data. Consequently, the choice
available SDG data for some countries. of upper and lower bounds can affect the relative ranking
of countries in the index.
Considering that many SDG priorities lack widely accepted
statistical models for imputing country-level data, we The upper bound for each indicator was determined
generally did not impute or model any missing data. We using a five-step decision tree:
made exceptions for the variables listed in table 8, often
because they would otherwise have not been included 1. Use absolute quantitative thresholds in SDGs
due to missing data. and targets: e.g., zero poverty, universal school
completion, universal access to water and sanitation,
To reduce missing-data biases in the computation of the full gender equality. Some SDG targets propose relative
SDG Index, we impute the regional mean goal scores to changes (such as Target 3.4: “reduce by one third
those goal scores that are missing or are missing data premature mortality from non-communicable diseases
for more than 75% of the indicators under that goal. This … “) that cannot be translated into a global baseline
applies primarily to Goal 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and today. Such targets are addressed in step 5 (page 69).
2. Where no explicit SDG target is available, apply Some countries already exceed the upper bound of
the principle of “leave no one behind” in setting certain indicators today, and more will do so in the
the upper bound to universal access or zero depri‑ coming years as the world progresses towards the SDGs.
vation for the following types of indicators:
To remove the effect of extreme values, which can skew
a. Measures of extreme poverty (e.g., wasting),
the results of a composite index, the JRC (OECD and JRC,
consistent with the SDG ambition to end extreme
2008) recommends censoring data at the bottom 2.5th
poverty in all its forms.
percentile as the minimum value for the normalization
b. Public service coverage (e.g., access to contraception). – as long as that value does not include observations
c. Access to basic infrastructure (e.g., mobile phone that are still part of the ordinary distribution. However,
coverage, wastewater treatment). sometimes the 2.5th percentile may contain outliers and
3. Where science-based targets exist that must be values that are part of a normally distributed set of data.
achieved by 2030 or later, use these to set a 100% When clear outliers were identified, an intermediate
upper bound (e.g., 100% sustainable management of value between the weakest outlier and the most extreme
fisheries, or greenhouse gas emissions from electricity “normal” value in the distribution was selected as the
to reach net-zero by 2070 at the latest to limit lower bound and we censored data at this level.
warming to below 2°C).
After establishing the upper and lower bounds, variables
4. Where several countries already exceed an SDG were transformed linearly to a scale of 0 to 100 using the
target, use the average of the top 5 performers following rescaling formula for the range [0; 100]:
(e.g., child mortality).
5. For all other indicators, use the average of the top x – min(x)
performers. For global indicators, the upper bound
x´ = * 100 (Eq.S1)
max(x) – min(x)
was set by taking the average value of the top 5 global
performers. For OECD indicators, the average of the
top 3 performers was used. where x is raw data value; max/min denote the bounds
for best and worst performance, respectively; and x’ is the
These principles interpret the SDGs as “stretch targets” and normalized value after rescaling.
focus attention on the indicators on which a country is
lagging behind. Each indicator distribution was censored, The rescaling equation ensured that all rescaled variables
so that all values exceeding the upper bound scored 100 were expressed as ascending variables (i.e., higher values
and values below the lower bound scored 0. denoted better performance). In this way, the rescaled
data became easy to interpret and compare across all
In some cases, the upper bound exceeded the indicators: a country that scores 50 on a variable is half-
thresholds to be met by 2030 in order to achieve the way towards achieving the optimum value; a country with
SDGs. For example, the SDGs call for reducing child a score of 75 has covered three-quarters of the distance
mortality to no more than 25 deaths per 1000 live from worst to best.
births, but many countries have already exceeded
this threshold (i.e., have mortality rates lower than 25
in 1000). By defining the upper bound as the “best”
outcome (e.g., 0 mortality per 1000 live births) – rather
than the SDG achievement threshold – the SDG Index
rewards improvements across the full distribution. This
is particularly important for countries that have already
achieved some SDG thresholds, but still lag behind
others on this metric.
Table 8
Imputations
SDG Indicator Imputation
1 Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) Data was not reported for those countries where no survey data was available.
1 Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) Data was not reported for those countries where no survey data was available.
FAO et al. (2015) report 14.7 million undernourished people in developed

regions, which corresponds to an average prevalence of 1.17% in the
2 Prevalence of undernourishment (%)
developed regions. We assumed a 1.2% prevalence rate for each high-income
country with missing data.
UNICEF et al. (2016) report an average prevalence of stunting in high-income

2 Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%) countries of 2.58%. We assumed this value for high-income countries with
missing data.
UNICEF et al. (2016) report an average prevalence of wasting in high-income

2 Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) countries of 0.75%. We assumed this value for high-income countries with
missing data.
For OECD countries, we imputed values from OECD enrollment data. For Japan
4 Net primary enrollment rate (%)
and Lebanon, the datapoint in the 2019 SDR was reported for this year.
For OECD countries, we imputed values from OECD enrollment data. For
4 Lower secondary completion rate (%) Bulgaria, Japan, Lebanon, and Namibia, the datapoint in the 2019 SDR was
reported for this year.
Demand for family planning satisfied by modern methods We impute modeled estimates from UNDESA Population Division for countries
5
(% of females aged 15 to 49 who are married or in unions) missing administrative data.

We assume missing data points for those countries in which the Walk Free
8 Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population)
Foundation's methodology has less confidence due to survey unavailability.
We impute values from the Global Innovation Index's indicator on university

The Times Higher Education Universities Ranking:
9 scores in the QS University Rankings for countries with missing data. We
Average score of top 3 universities (worst 0–100 best)
assumed a value of 0 for countries with no universities in the rankings.
We assumed zero R&D expenditure for low-income countries that did not
9 Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP)
report any data for this variable.
We impute the World Bank Gini coefficients for those countries missing data on
10 Gini coefficient adjusted for top income
the adjusted Gini coefficient from Brookings.
We assumed a value of 0 for countries with unreported export data and no

13 CO₂ emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita)
production across all three fossil-fuel types (coal, gas, oil).
We did not report data for countries with insignificant forest area as per the
Environmental Performance Index (2018). Countries with forest area but no data
15 Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average)
on drivers of permanent deforestation (shifting agriculture, urbanization, and
land use for commodity production) were assigned a value of 0.
Countries with missing values in the most current extraction from the UNODC
16 Homicides (per 100,000 population) were assigned the values that were available for the 2019 Sustainable
Development Report.
The best performing upper-middle-income countries have a child labor rate

16 Children involved in child labor (% of population aged 5 to 14) of 1% (UNICEF, 2015). We assumed 0% child labor for high-income OECD
members for which no data was reported.
Table 8
(continued)
SDG Indicator Imputation
Exports of major conventional weapons (TIV constant We assumed a value of 0 for countries with unreported export data and from
16
million USD per 100,000 population) which there are no major companies that produce weapons.
When data are missing from WHO or UNESCO, values were imputed from
the OECD System of National Accounts data. Alternatively, when OECD SNA
data wasn't available, values for health spending were imputed from the
17 Government spending on health and education (% of GDP)
OECD Health expenditure and financing database while values for education
spending were imputed from the Education at a glance: Educational finance
indicators database.
IMF data (taxes, social contributions, and other revenue, excluding grants) is
Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants imputed when countries are missing data in the World Bank database. The IMF
17
(% of GDP) data used is from the central government (incl. social security funds) sector. If
that is not available, we use data for the budgetary central government sector
A value of 0 was imputed to all countries not included in the index. Missing
data was assigned to those countries not included in the index and indicated
in the OECD Automatic Exchange of Information Implementation Report
17 Corporate Tax Haven Score (best 0–100 worst)
2018 (Nauru, Qatar and Bahrain). According to the report, these countries
have no system for direct taxation in place and do not have reciprocal
information-exchanges.
Weighting and aggregation D. Method for constructing the dashboards

The results of several rounds of expert consultations on We have introduced additional quantitative thresholds
earlier drafts of the SDG Index made clear that there is for each indicator, to group countries in a “traffic light”
no consensus across different epistemic communities table. Aggregating across all indicators for each goal
on assigning higher weights to some SDGs over others. yields an overall score for each SDG and for each country.
As a normative assumption, we therefore opted for a Table 11 presents these thresholds for each indicator.
fixed, equal weight to be given to every SDG to reflect
policymakers’ commitments to treating all SDGs equally
and as an “integrated and indivisible” set of goals (United
Thresholds
Nations, 2015, para. 5). This implies that to improve their
SDG Index score, countries need to place attention on To assess a country’s progress on a particular indicator, we
all goals, with a particular focus on goals that they are considered four bands. The green band is bounded by the
furthest from achieving and where incremental progress maximum rating that can be achieved for each variable
might therefore be expected to be fastest. (i.e., the upper bound) and the threshold for achieving the
SDG. Three color bands, moving from yellow to orange
To compute the SDG Index, we first estimate scores for and then red, denote increasing distance from SDG
each goal using the arithmetic mean of indicators for achievement. The red band is bound at the bottom by the
that goal. These goal scores are then averaged across all value of the 2.5th percentile of the distribution. Upper and
17 SDGs to obtain the SDG Index score. Various sensitivity lower bounds are the same as for the SDG Index.
tests have been available online, including compari-
sons of arithmetic mean versus geometric mean and Additional thresholds were established based on statistical
Monte-Carlo simulations at the Index and Goal level. techniques and in consultation with experts. The country
Monte-Carlo simulations call for prudence in interpret- assessments were subject to a public consultation as well
ing small differences in the Index scores and rankings as direct consultations with members of the Sustainable
between countries, as those may be sensitive to the Development Solutions Network. All thresholds were
weighting scheme. specified in absolute terms and apply to all countries.
Weighting and aggregation E. SDG trends

The purpose of the global SDG dashboards is to
highlight those SDGs that require particular attention Using historic data, we estimate how fast a country
in each country, and therefore should be prioritized for has been progressing towards an SDG and determine
early action. For the design of the dashboards, the same whether – if extrapolated into the future – this pace will be
issues related to weighting and aggregation of indicators sufficient to achieve the SDG by 2030. For each indicator,
apply, as discussed above for the SDG Index. SDG achievement is defined by the green threshold set for
the SDG dashboards. The difference in percentage points
Averaging across all indicators for an SDG might hide between the green threshold and the normalized country
areas of policy concern when a country performs score denotes the gap that must be closed to meet that
well on most indicators but faces serious shortfalls on goal. To estimate trends at the indicator level, we calculated
one or two metrics within the same SDG. This applies the linear annual growth rates (i.e., annual percentage
particularly to high-income and upper-middle-income improvement) needed to achieve the target by 2030 (
countries that have made significant progress on many i.e., 2010–2030), which we compared to the average annual
SDG dimensions but may face serious shortfalls on growth rate over the most recent period, for example, from
individual variables. 2015–2018. Progress towards achievement on a particular
indicator is described using a four-arrow system (figure 30).
As a result, the global SDG dashboards aggregate Figure 31 illustrates the methodology graphically.
indicator ratings for each SDG by estimating the average
of the two variables on which a country performed Specifically, each indicator trend was re-normalized on
worst. To this end, the indicator values were first a scale of 0 to 4, similar to the dashboard methodology.
rescaled from 0 to 3, where 0 corresponds to the lower Decreasing indicators were assigned a value of 0–1, where
bound, 1 to the value of the threshold between red and 0 is the highest rate of score decrease and 1 corresponds
orange (“red threshold”), 2 to the value of the threshold to no change whatsoever in the score over time. Indicator

between yellow and green (“green threshold”), and 3 to trends that are “stagnating” were assigned a value of 1–2,
the upper bound. For all indicators, the yellow–orange where 2 corresponds to 50% of the growth rate needed to
threshold was set as the value halfway between the red meet the target by 2030. Indicators that are “moderately
and green thresholds (1.5). Each interval between 0 and improving” were assigned a value of 2–3, where 3 is the
3 is continuous. exact growth rate needed to achieve the target by 2030.
Those indicators that are “on track” were assigned values
We then took the average of the two rescaled variables of 3–4, where 4 corresponds to the greatest improvement
on which the country performed worst to identify its over the period. Indicators that are “maintaining SDG
rating for that goal. We applied an additional rule that, achievement” were assigned a score of exactly 3. The
in order to score green for the goal, both indicators had individual bands are linear, but the continuous 0-to-4
to be green – otherwise the goal would be rated yellow. scale is not linear as a whole.
Similarly, a red score was applied only if both worst-
performing indicators scored red. If a country has only Overall goal trends were calculated as the arithmetic
one data point under an SDG, then the color rating for average of the rescaled values for all trend indicators
that indicator determines its overall rating for the goal. under each goal. An average of 0–1 corresponds to a
If a country has data available on fewer than 50% of the “decreasing” goal trend, 1–2 to a “stagnating” trend,
indicators under a goal, its dashboard color for that goal 2–3 to “moderate improvement,” and 3–4 to “on track
will be gray. or maintaining achievement.” The trend for an SDG was
calculated as the arithmetic average of all trend indicators
for that goal.
Figure 30
The Four-arrow system for denoting SDG trends
p 5 D L
On track or Maintaining
Decreasing Stagnating Moderately improving
SDG achievement
Decreasing score, i.e. Score remains stagnant or Score increases at a rate Score increases at the rate
country moves in the increases at a rate below 50% above 50% of the required needed to achieve the SDG
wrong direction of the growth rate needed to growth rate but below the by 2030 or performance
achieve the SDG by 2030 rate needed to achieve the has already exceeded SDG
SDG by 2030 achievement threshold
Figure 31
Graphic representation of the SDG trends methodology
Goal achievement
Green threshold
Performance in 2015
Extrapolated linear
annual growth rate
2015–2030
2015 2019 2030
Table 12 also provides the complete list of indicators used and treated as such when calculating the overall goal
to compute SDG Trends. Trend indicators were selected trend. However, countries that used to be above the green
from the indicators included in the SDG dashboards based threshold and that decrease to a score lower than the
on the availability of trend data. When the value for one green threshold obtain a “decreasing” trend.
year was not available, we used the closest available value
with a maximum one-year difference for calculating the Several other calculation methods were considered.
trend indications. The table also indicates the period over For instance, we tested the sensitivity of the results
which the trend was calculated. For several indicators, when using technical optimums (100 score) as
trends were calculated using data in 2015 as the start year. “goal achievement” and calculated distance to these
These indicators demonstrate how the situation in the optimums. This approach yielded harsher results and
country has changed since adoption of the SDGs. These is not consistent with our conceptual assumption that
indicators are particularly insightful for understanding lower green thresholds correspond to goal achievement.
how policy implementation efforts have corresponded to We also considered using compound annual growth
changing outcomes, and are marked with an asterisk in rates (CAGR) instead of linear growth rates. The two
table 12. Other SDG trends are calculated based on data approaches yield rather similar results however, and we
points that preceded the adoption of SDGs, because data could not identify a strong argument for using the more
is reported with long lags at the international level due to sophisticated CAGR method. Finally, while the dashboards
lengthy validation processes. are based only on the two worst indicators, trends are
generated using all indicators under the goal. This is
Small decreases in countries that are top performers because the dashboards aim to highlight goals where
are treated differently from small decreases in countries action is urgently required due to poor performance on
that are average or low performers. For top performers some of the underlying indicators, whereas the trends
only, very small decreases are now treated as “stagnating” aim to reflect the evolution of overall performance on the
trends. They are reported as such at the indicator level goal over time, including all indicators.
4.4 Data tables

Table 9
Indicators included in the Sustainable Development Report 2020
Legend
[a] denotes OECD-only indicators
[b] denotes indicators not used in OECD dashboard but that are used in the calculation of OECD countries’ index scores.
Reference
SDG Notes Indicator Source Description
Year
Estimated percentage of the population that is living under the poverty
Poverty headcount ratio at World Data threshold of US$1.90 a day. Estimated using historical estimates of the income
1 2020
$1.90/day (%) Lab (2020) distribution, projections of population changes by age and educational
attainment, and GDP projections.
Estimated percentage of the population that is living under the poverty
Poverty headcount ratio at World Data threshold of US$3.20 a day. Estimated using historical estimates of the income
1 2020
$3.20/day (%) Lab (2020) distribution, projections of population changes by age and educational
attainment, and GDP projections.
Relative poverty is measured as the share of the population whose incomes
Poverty rate after taxes and fall below half the median disposable income for the entire population. The
1 [a] 2017 OECD (2020)
transfers (%) income threshold for relative poverty changes over time with changes in
median disposable income.
The percentage of the population whose food intake is insufficient to meet dietary
energy requirements for a minimum of one year. Dietary energy requirements are
defined as the amount of dietary energy required by an individual to maintain
Prevalence of
2 2017 FAO (2020) body functions, health and normal activity. FAO et al. (2015) report 14.7 million
undernourishment (%)
undernourished people in developed regions, which corresponds to an average
prevalence of 1.17% in the developed regions. We assumed a 1.2% prevalence
rate for each high-income country (World Bank, 2019) with missing data.
The percentage of children up to the age of 5 years that are stunted, measured as
Prevalence of stunting in the percentage that fall below minus two standard deviations from the median
UNICEF et al.
2 children under 5 years of 2016 height for their age, according to the WHO Child Growth Standards. UNICEF et
(2020)
age (%) al. (2016) report an average prevalence of wasting in high-income countries of
2.58%. We assumed this value for high-income countries with missing data.
The percentage of children up to the age of 5 years whose weight falls
Prevalence of wasting in below minus two standard deviations from the median weight for their age,
UNICEF et al.
2 children under 5 years of 2016 according to the WHO Child Growth Standards. UNICEF et al. (2016) report an
(2020)
age (%) average prevalence of wasting in high-income countries of 0.75%. We assumed
this value for high-income countries with missing data.
Prevalence of obesity,
The percentage of the adult population that has a body mass index (BMI) of
2 BMI ≥ 30 2016 WHO (2020)
30kg/m² or higher, based on measured height and weight.
(% of adult population)
Trophic levels are a measure of the energy intensity of diet composition and
Human Trophic Level Bonhommeau reflect the relative amounts of plants as opposed to animals eaten in a given
2 2017
(best 2-3 worst) et al. (2013) country. A higher trophic level represents a greater level of consumption of
energy-intensive animals.
Cereal yield, measured as tonnes per hectare of harvested land. Production
Cereal yield (tonnes per
2 2017 FAO (2020) data on cereals relate to crops harvested for dry grain only and excludes crops
hectare of harvested land)
harvested for hay or green for food, feed, or silage and those used for grazing.
Sustainable Nitrogen Zhang and The Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (SNMI) is a one-dimensional
2 Management Index (worst 2015 Davidson ranking score that combines two efficiency measures in crop production:
0-1.41 best) (2019) Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) and land use efficiency (crop yield).
Global Yield A country's yield expressed as a percentage of its potential yield in the three
Yield gap closure
2 [a] 2015 Gap Atlas annual crops using the most land area, weighted for the relative importance of
(% of potential yield)
(2015) each crop in terms of surface area.
4.4 Data tables
Table 9
(continued)
Reference
Year
The estimated number of women, between the age of 15-49, who die from
Maternal mortality rate WHO et al.
3 2017 pregnancy-related causes while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of
(per 100,000 live births) (2020)
pregnancy, per 100,000 live births.
Neonatal mortality rate UNICEF et al. The number of newborn infants (neonates) who die before reaching 28 days of
3 2018
(per 1,000 live births) (2020) age, per 1,000 live births.
Mortality rate, under-5 UNICEF et al. The probability that a newborn baby will die before reaching age five, if subject
3 2018
(per 1,000 live births) (2020) to age-specific mortality rates of the specified year, per 1,000 live births.
The estimated rate of new and relapse cases of tuberculosis in a given year,
Incidence of tuberculosis
3 2018 WHO (2020) expressed per 100,000 people. All forms of tuberculosis are included, including
(per 100,000 population)
cases of people living with HIV.
New HIV infections

3 (per 1,000 uninfected 2018 UNAIDS (2020) Number of people newly infected with HIV per 1,000 uninfected population.
population)
The probability of dying between the ages of 30 and 70 years from

Age-standardized death rate
cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes or chronic respiratory diseases,
due to cardiovascular disease,
defined as the percent of 30-year-old-people who would die before their 70th
3 cancer, diabetes, or chronic 2016 WHO (2018)
birthday from these diseases, assuming current mortality rates at every age
respiratory disease in adults
and that individuals would not die from any other cause of death (e.g. injuries
aged 30–70 years (%)
or HIV/AIDS).
Age-standardized death rate
attributable to household
Mortality rate that is attributable to the joint effects of fuels used for cooking
3 air pollution and ambient air 2016 WHO (2020)
indoors and ambient outdoor air pollution.
pollution
Traffic deaths (per 100,000
3 2016 WHO (2020) Estimated number of fatal road traffic injuries per 100,000 people.

population)
The average number of years that a newborn could expect to live, if he or she
were to pass through life exposed to the sex- and age-specific death rates
3 Life expectancy at birth (years) 2016 WHO (2020)
prevailing at the time of his or her birth, for a specific year, in a given country,
territory, or geographic area.
Adolescent fertility rate (births
3 per 1,000 adolescent females 2017 UNDESA (2020) The number of births per 1,000 women between the age of 15 to 19.
aged 15 to 19)
The percentage of births attended by personnel trained to give the necessary
Births attended by skilled
3 2016 UNICEF (2020) supervision, care, and advice to women during pregnancy, labor, and the
health personnel (%)
postpartum period, to conduct deliveries on their own, and to care for newborns.
Estimated national routine immunization coverage of infants, expressed as
the percentage of surviving infants children under the age of 12 months who
Percentage of surviving
WHO and received two WHO-recommended vaccines (3rd dose of DTP and 1st dose of
3 infants who received 2 WHO- 2018
UNICEF (2020) measles). Calculated as the minimum value between the percentage of infants
recommended vaccines (%)
who have received the 3rd dose of DTP and the percentage who have received
the 1st dose of measles.
Coverage of essential health services (defined as the average coverage of
essential services based on tracer interventions that include reproductive,
Universal health coverage maternal, newborn and child health, infectious diseases, non-communicable
3 (UHC) index of service 2017 WHO (2019) diseases and service capacity and access, among the general and the most
coverage (worst 0–100 best) disadvantaged population). The indicator is an index reported on a unitless
scale of 0 to 100, which is computed as the geometric mean of 14 tracer
indicators of health service coverage.
Subjective well-being Subjective self-evaluation of life, where respondents are asked to evaluate
3 (average ladder score, worst 2019 Gallup (2020) where they feel they stand on a ladder where 0 represents the worst possible
0–10 best) life and 10 the best possible life.
Gap in life expectancy at birth Difference between maximum and minimum regional life expectancy at birth
3 [a] 2016 OECD (2020)
among regions (years) among regions.
Table 9
(continued)
Reference
Year
Gap in self-reported health
Gap in percentage of people who perceive their health status as good or very
3 [a] status by income 2018 OECD (2020)
good between the poorest 20% and the richest 20% of the population.
(percentage points)
Daily smokers (% of The percentage of the population aged 15 years and older who are reported to
3 [a] 2018 OECD (2020)
population aged 15 and over) smoke daily.
The percentage of children of the official school age population who are
4 Net primary enrollment rate (%) 2018 UNESCO (2020)
enrolled in primary education.
Lower secondary education completion rate measured as the gross intake ratio
to the last grade of lower secondary education (general and pre-vocational).
Lower secondary completion
4 2018 UNESCO (2020) It is calculated as the number of new entrants in the last grade of lower
rate (%)
secondary education, regardless of age, divided by the population at the
entrance age for the last grade of lower secondary education.
Literacy rate (% of population The percentage of youth, aged 15 to 24, who can both read and write a short
4 2018 UNESCO (2020)
aged 15 to 24) simple statement on everyday life with understanding.
Participation rate in
Participation rate in organized learning one year before the official primary
4 [a] pre-primary organized learning 2018 UNESCO (2020)
entry age.
(% of children aged 4 to 6)
Tertiary educational
The percentage of the population, aged 25 to 34, who have completed tertiary
4 [a] attainment (% of population 2018 OECD (2020)
education.
aged 25 to 34)
National scores in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),
an internationally standardized assessment that is administered to 15-year-
olds in schools. It assesses how far students near the end of compulsory
4 [a] PISA score (worst 0–600 best) 2018 OECD (2018)
education have acquired some of the knowledge and skills that are essential
for full participation in society. Country PISA scores for reading, mathematics,
and science were averaged to obtain an overall PISA score.
Variation in science
Percentage of variation in science performance explained by students’
4 [a] performance explained by 2018 OECD (2018)
socio-economic status.
socio-economic status (%)
Underachievers in science Percentage of students with a performance in science below level 2 (less than
4 [a] 2018 OECD (2018)
(% of 15-year-olds) 409.54 score points).
Percentage of students who are in the bottom quarter of the PISA index
Resilient students in science of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in the country/economy of
4 [a] 2018 OECD (2018)
(% of 15-year-olds) assessment and are in the top quarter of science performers among all
countries/economies, after accounting for socio-economic status.
Demand for family planning
The percentage of women of reproductive age, either married or in a union,
satisfied by modern methods
5 2018 UNDESA (2020) whose demand for family planning has been met using modern methods of
(% of females aged 15 to 49
contraception.
who are married or in unions)
Ratio of female-to-male mean The mean years of education received by women aged 25 and older divided by
5 2018 UNESCO (2020)
years of education received (%) the mean years of education received by men aged 25 and older.
Ratio of female-to-male labor Modeled estimate of the proportion of the female population aged 15 years
5 2019 ILO (2020)
force participation rate (%) and older that is economically active, divided by the same proportion for men.
The number of seats held by women in single or lower chambers of national

Seats held by women in
5 2020 IPU (2020) parliaments, expressed as a percentage of all occupied seats. Seats refer to the
national parliament (%)
number of parliamentary mandates, or the number of members of parliament.
Gender wage gap The difference between male and female median wages of full-time employees
5 [a] 2018 OECD (2020)
(% of male median wage) and those self-employed, divided by the male median wage.
The difference in time spent in unpaid work between men and women
Gender gap in time spent doing
5 [a] 2015 OECD (2020) in minutes per day. Unpaid work includes work, such as childcare, meal
unpaid work (minutes/day)
preparation, and cleaning.
4.4 Data tables
Table 9
(continued)
Reference
Year
The percentage of the population using at least a basic drinking water service,
Population using at least basic
6 2017 JMP (2020) such as drinking water from an improved source, provided that the collection
drinking water services (%)
time is not more than 30 minutes for a round trip, including queuing.
Population using at least basic The percentage of the population using at least a basic sanitation service, such
6 2017 JMP (2020)
sanitation services (%) as an improved sanitation facility that is not shared with other households.
The level of water stress: freshwater withdrawal as a proportion of available

freshwater resources is the ratio between total freshwater withdrawn by all
Freshwater withdrawal
major sectors and total renewable freshwater resources, after taking into
6 (% of available freshwater 2015 FAO (2020)
account environmental water requirements. Main sectors, as defined by ISIC
resources)
standards, include agriculture, forestry and fishing, manufacturing, electricity
industry, and services. This indicator is also known as water withdrawal intensity.
The percentage of collected, generated, or produced wastewater that is treated,
normalized by the population connected to centralized wastewater treatment
Anthropogenic wastewater
6 2018 EPI (2018) facilities. Scores were calculated by multiplying the wastewater treatment
that receives treatment (%)
summary values, based on decadal averages, with the sewerage connection
values to arrive at an overall total percentage of wastewater treated.
Water scarcity is measured as water consumption weighted by scarcity indices.
In order to incorporate water scarcity into the virtual water flow calculus, a
Scarce water consumption new satellite account was constructed where water use entries are weighted
Lenzen et al.
6 embodied in imports 2013 so that they reflect the scarcity of the water being used. The weight used is a
(2013)
(m³/capita) measure of water withdrawals as a percentage of the existing local renewable
freshwater resources. The Water Scarcity Index was used for converting total
water use into scarce water use.
The percentage of the population using a safely managed drinking water
service. A safely managed drinking water service is one where people use an
Population using safely "improved" source meeting three criteria: it is accessible on premises, water
6 [a] 2017 JMP (2020)
managed water services (%) is available when needed, and the water supplied is free from contamination.
Improved sources are those that have the potential to deliver safe water by
nature of their design and construction.

The percentage of the population using safely managed sanitation services.
Safely managed sanitation services are "improved" sanitation facilities that
Population using safely are not shared with other households, and where the excreta produced
6 [a] managed sanitation services 2017 JMP (2020) should either be treated and disposed of in situ, stored temporarily and then
(%) emptied, transported and treated off-site, or transported through a sewer with
wastewater and then treated off-site. Improved sanitation facilities are those
designed to hygienically separate excreta from human contact.
Population with access to

7 2017 SE4All (2020) The percentage of the population who has access to electricity.
electricity (%)
Population with access to The percentage of the population primarily using clean cooking fuels and
7 clean fuels and technology for 2016 SE4All (2020) technologies for cooking. Under WHO guidelines, kerosene is excluded from
cooking (%) clean cooking fuels.
CO₂ emissions from fuel

combustion for electricity and A measure of the carbon intensity of energy production, calculated by dividing
7 2017 IEA (2019)
heating per total electricity CO₂ emissions from the combustion of fuel by electricity output.
output (MtCO₂/TWh)
The share of renewable energy in the total primary energy supply. Renewables
include the primary energy equivalent of hydro (excluding pumped storage),
Share of renewable energy in
7 [a] 2018 OECD (2020) geothermal, solar, wind, tide and wave sources. Energy derived from solid
total primary energy supply (%)
biofuels, biogasoline, biodiesels, other liquid biofuels, biogases and the
renewable fraction of municipal waste are also included.
The growth rate of GDP adjusted to income levels (where rich countries are
expected to grow less) and expressed relative to the US growth performance.
World Bank
8 Adjusted GDP growth (%) 2018 GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy,
(2020)
plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of
the products.
Table 9
(continued)
Reference
Year
Walk Free Estimation of the number of people in modern slavery. Modern slavery is
Victims of modern slavery
8 2018 Foundation defined as people in forced labor or forced marriage. It is calculated based on
(2018) standardized surveys and Multiple Systems Estimation (MSE).
Adults with an account at
The percentage of adults, 15 years and older, who report having an account
a bank or other financial
Demirguc-Kunt (by themselves or with someone else) at a bank or another type of financial
8 institution or with a mobile- 2017
et al. (2018) institution, or who have personally used a mobile money service within the
money-service provider (% of
past 12 months.
population aged 15 or over)
Modeled estimate of the share of the labor force that is without work but is
Unemployment rate available and actively seeking employment. The indicator reflects the inability
8 [b] 2019 ILO (2020)
(% of total labor force) of an economy to generate employment for people who want to work but are
not doing so.
Fatal work-related accidents
Alsamawi et al. The number of fatal work-related accidents associated with imported goods.
8 embodied in imports 2010
(2017) Calculated using extensions to a multiregional input-output table.
The ratio of the employed to the working age population. Employed people
Employment-to-population are those aged 15 or older who were in paid employment or self-employed
8 [a] 2019 OECD (2020)
ratio (%) during a specified period. The working age population refers to people aged
15 to 64.
The percentage of young people who are not in employment, education
or training (NEET). Education includes part-time or full-time education, but
Youth not in employment,
exclude those in non-formal education and in educational activities of very
8 [a] education or training (NEET) 2018 OECD (2020)
short duration. Employment is defined according to the ILO Guidelines and
(% of population aged 15 to 29)
covers all those who have been in paid work for at least one hour in the
reference week or were temporarily absent from such work.
Population using the internet The percentage of the population who used the Internet from any location in
9 2018 ITU (2020)
(%) the last three months. Access could be via a fixed or mobile network.
The number of mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 population. Mobile

Mobile broadband
broadband subscriptions refer to subscriptions to mobile cellular networks
9 subscriptions 2018 ITU (2020)
with access to data communications (e.g. the Internet) at broadband speeds,
(per 100 population)
irrespective of the device used to access the internet.
Logistics Performance Index:
Survey-based average assessment of the quality of trade and transport related
Quality of trade and transport- World Bank
9 2018 infrastructure, e.g. ports, roads, railroads and information technology, on a
related infrastructure (2018)
scale from 1 (worst) to 5 (best).
(worst 1–5 best)
The average score of the top three universities in each country that are listed
in the global top 1,000 universities in the world. For countries with at least one
The Times Higher Education
Times Higher university on the list, only the score of the ranked university was taken into
Universities Ranking: Average
9 2020 Education account. When a university score was missing in the Times Higher Education
score of top 3 universities
(2020) World University Ranking, an indicator from the Global Innovation Index on the
top 3 universities in Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) University Ranking was used as
a source when available.
National The number of scientific and technical journal articles published, that are
Scientific and technical journal Science covered by the Science Citation Index (SCI) or the Social Sciences Citation
9 2018
articles (per 1,000 population) Foundation Index (SSCI). Articles are counted and assigned to a country based on the
(2020) institutional address(es) listed in the article.
Gross domestic expenditure on scientific research and experimental development
Expenditure on research and
9 2017 UNESCO (2020) (R&D) expressed as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). We assumed
development (% of GDP)
zero R&D expenditure for low-income countries that do not report any data.
The number of researchers per thousand employed people. Researchers
Researchers (per 1,000 are professionals engaged in the conception or creation of new knowledge,
9 [a] 2018 OECD (2020)
employed population) products, processes, methods and systems, as well as in the management of
the projects concerned
4.4 Data tables
Table 9
(continued)
Reference
Year
A triadic patent family is defined as a set of patents registered in various
countries (i.e. patent offices) to protect the same invention. Triadic patent
Triadic patent families filed families are a set of patents filed at three of these major patent offices: the
9 [a] 2017 OECD (2020)
(per million population) European Patent Office (EPO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO) and the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The number of triadic patent
families is "nowcast" for timeliness.
Gap in internet access by The difference in the percentage of household Internet access between the top
9 [a] 2019 OECD (2020)
income (percentage points) and bottom income quartiles.
Women in science and

engineering (% of tertiary Percentage of women tertiary graduates in natural sciences and engineering
9 [a] 2015 OECD (2020)
graduates in science and out of total tertiary graduates in natural sciences and engineering.
engineering)
The Gini coefficient adjusted for top revenues unaccounted for in household
Gini coefficient adjusted for Chandy and
10 2017 surveys. This indicator takes the average of the unadjusted Gini and the
top income Seidel (2017)
adjusted Gini.
The share of all income received by the 10% people with highest disposable
10 [a] Palma ratio 2017 OECD (2020) income divided by the share of all income received by the 40% people with the
lowest disposable income.
Elderly poverty rate (% of The percentage of people of 66 years of age or more whose income falls below
10 [a] 2017 OECD (2020)
population aged 66 or over) half the median household income of the total population.
Air pollution measured as the population-weighted mean annual
Annual mean concentration
concentration of PM2.5 for the urban population in a country. PM2.5 is
of particulate matter of less
11 2017 IHME (2017) suspended particles measuring less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter,
than 2.5 microns in diameter
which are capable of penetrating deep into the respiratory tract and can cause
(PM2.5) (μg/m³)
severe health damage.
The percentage of the urban population with access to improved drinking
Access to improved water
WHO and water piped on premises. An "improved" drinking-water source is one that, by
11 source, piped (% of urban 2017
UNICEF (2020) the nature of its construction and when properly used, adequately protects the
population)
source from outside contamination, particularly fecal matter.

The percentage of the surveyed population that responded "satisfied" to the
Satisfaction with public
11 2019 Gallup (2020) question "In the city or area where you live, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with
transport (%)
the public transportation systems?".
Population with rent Percentage of the population living in households where the total housing
11 [a] 2017 OECD (2011)
overburden (%) costs represent more than 40 % of disposable income.
The amount of waste collected by or on behalf of municipal authorities and
Municipal solid waste World Bank
12 [b] 2016 disposed of through the waste management system. Waste from agriculture
(kg/capita/day) (2018)
and from industries are not included.
Waste from electrical and electronic equipment, estimated based on figures
12 Electronic waste (kg/capita) 2016 UNU-IAS (2017) for domestic production, imports and exports of electronic products, as well as
product lifespan data.
Production-based SO₂ Lenzen et al. SO₂ emissions associated with the production of goods and services, which are
12 2012
emissions (kg/capita) (2020) then either exported or consumed domestically.
Emissions of SO₂ embodied in imported goods and services. SO₂ emissions

SO₂ emissions embodied in Lenzen et al.
12 2012 have severe health impacts and are a significant cause of premature mortality
imports (kg/capita) (2020)
worldwide.
Reactive nitrogen emitted during the production of commodities, which
are then either exported or consumed domestically. Reactive nitrogen
Production-based nitrogen Oita et al.
12 2010 corresponds to emissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides and nitrous oxide to the
emissions (kg/capita) (2016)
atmosphere, and of reactive nitrogen potentially exportable to water bodies,
all of which can be harmful to human health and the environment.
Emissions of reactive nitrogen embodied in imported goods and services. Reactive
Nitrogen emissions embodied Oita et al. nitrogen corresponds here to emissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides and nitrous
12 2010
in imports (kg/capita) (2016) oxide to the atmosphere, and of reactive nitrogen potentially exportable to water
bodies, all of which can be harmful to human health and the environment.
Non-recycled municipal solid The amount of municipal solid waste (MSW), including household waste, that
12 [a] 2018 OECD (2020)
waste (kg/capita/day) is neither recycled nor composted.
Table 9
(continued)
Reference
Year
Emissions of CO₂ that arise from the consumption of energy. This includes
Energy-related CO₂ emissions Gütschow et al.
13 2017 emissions due to the consumption of petroleum, natural gas, coal, and also
(tCO₂/capita) (2019)
from natural gas flaring.
CO₂ emissions embodied in Lenzen et al.

13 2015 CO₂ emissions embodied in imported goods and services.
imports (tCO₂/capita) (2020)
CO₂ emissions embodied in the exports of coal, gas, and oil. Calculated
UN Comtrade
CO₂ emissions embodied in using a 5-year average of fossil fuel exports and converting exports into
13 2019 (2020); EIA
fossil fuel exports (kg/capita) their equivalent CO₂ emissions. Exports for each fossil fuel are capped at the
(2020)
country's level of production.
Effective carbon rate The price of carbon emissions resulting from taxes and emissions trading
13 [a] 2016 OECD (2016)
(EUR/tCO₂) systems, excluding CO₂ emissions from biomass.
Mean area that is protected Birdlife

The mean percentage area of marine Key Biodiversity Areas (sites that are
14 in marine sites important to 2018 International et
important for the global persistence of marine biodiversity) that are protected.
biodiversity (%) al. (2020)
Ocean Health Index: Clean The clean waters subgoal of the Ocean Health Index measures to what degree
Ocean Health
14 Waters score 2019 marine waters under national jurisdictions have been contaminated by
Index (2019)
(worst 0–100 best) chemicals, excessive nutrients (eutrophication), human pathogens, and trash.
Fish caught from Sea around The percentage of a country’s total catch, within its exclusive economic
14 overexploited or collapsed 2014 Us (2018); EPI zone (EEZ), that is comprised of species that are overexploited or collapsed,
stocks (% of total catch) (2018) weighted by the quality of fish catch data.
Sea Around Us The percentage of fish caught by trawling, a method of fishing in which
14 Fish caught by trawling (%) 2014
(2018) industrial fishing vessels drag large nets (trawls) along the seabed.
Marine biodiversity threats

Lenzen et al.
14 embodied in imports 2018 Threats to marine species embodied in imports of goods and services.
(2020)
(per million population)
Mean area that is protected in Birdlife

The mean percentage area of terrestrial Key Biodiversity Areas (sites that are
15 terrestrial sites important to 2018 International et
important for the global persistence of biodiversity) that are protected.
biodiversity (%) al. (2020)
Mean area that is protected in Birdlife
The mean percentage area of freshwater Key Biodiversity Areas (sites that are
15 freshwater sites important to 2018 International
important for the global persistence of biodiversity) that are protected.
biodiversity (%) et al. (2020)
IUCN and
The change in aggregate extinction risk across groups of species. The index
Red List Index of species Birdlife
15 2019 is based on genuine changes in the number of species in each category of
survival (worst 0–1 best) International
extinction risk on The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
(2020)
The mean annual percentage of permanent deforestation over the period 2014
Permanent deforestation (% of Curtis et al. to 2018. Permanent deforestation refers to tree cover removal for urbanization,
15 2018
forest area, 5-year average) (2018) commodity production and certain types of small-scale agriculture. It does not
include temporary forest loss due to the forestry sector or wildfires.
Terrestrial and freshwater
biodiversity threats embodied Lenzen et al. Threats to terrestrial and freshwater species embodied in imports of goods and
15 2018
in imports (2020) services.
The number of intentional homicides per 100,000 people. Intentional
homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of
Homicides domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources,
16 2017 UNODC (2020)
(per 100,000 population) intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by
armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing,
such as killing in armed conflict.
Unsentenced prisoners as a percentage of overall prison population. Persons
held unsentenced or pre-trial refers to persons held in prisons, penal
Unsentenced detainees
16 2018 UNODC (2020) institutions or correctional institutions who are untried, pre-trial or awaiting a
(% of prison population)
first instance decision on their case from a competent authority regarding their
conviction or acquittal.
4.4 Data tables
Table 9
(continued)
Reference
Year
Percentage of population
who feel safe walking alone at The percentage of the surveyed population that responded "Yes" to the question
16 2019 Gallup (2020)
night in the city or area where "Do you feel safe walking alone at night in the city or area where you live?"
they live (%)
Survey-based assessment of protection of property rights, on a scale from 1
World
Property Rights (worst) to 7 (best). The indicator reports respondents' qualitative assessment
16 2019 Economic
(worst 1–7 best) based on answers to several questions on the protection of property rights and
Forum (2019)
intellectual property rights protection.
Birth registrations with
The percentage of children under the age of five whose births are reported as
16 civil authority 2018 UNICEF (2020)
being registered with the relevant national civil authorities.
(% of children under age 5)
The perceived levels of public sector corruption, on a scale from 0 (highest level
Transparency
Corruption Perception Index of perceived corruption) to 100 (lowest level of perceived corruption). The CPI
16 2019 International
(worst 0–100 best) aggregates data from a number of different sources that provide perceptions
(2020)
of business people and country experts.
The percentage of children, between the age of 5-14 years old, involved in
child labor at the time of the survey. A child is considered to be involved in
child labor under the following conditions: (a) children 5-11 years old who,
Children involved in child labor during the reference week, did at least one hour of economic activity or at least
16 2016 UNICEF (2017)
(% of population aged 5 to 14) 28 hours of household chores, or (b) children 12-14 years old who, during the
reference week, did at least 14 hours of economic activity or at least 28 hours
of household chores. We assumed 0% child labor for high-income countries for
which no data was reported.
Volume of major conventional weapons exported, expressed in constant 1990
Exports of major conventional Stockholm US$ millions per 100,000 population. It is calculated based on the trend-
16 weapons (TIV constant million 2019 Peace Research indicator value, which is based on the known unit production cost of a core set
USD per 100,000 population) Institute (2020) of weapons, and does not reflect the financial value of the exports. Small arms,
light weapons, ammunition and other support material are not included.
Reporters
Press Freedom Index Degree of freedom available to journalists in 180 countries and regions,
16 2019 sans frontières

(best 0–100 worst) determined by pooling the responses of experts to a questionnaire devised by RSF.
(2019)
Persons held in prison The prison population is composed of persons held in prisons, penal
16 [a] 2017 UNODC (2020)
(per 100,000 population) institutions, or correctional institutions.
Government spending on UNESCO The sum of public expenditure on health from domestic sources and general
17 health and education 2016 (2020); WHO government expenditure on education (current, capital, and transfers)
(% of GDP) (2020) expressed as a percentage of GDP.
For high-income and all OECD
The amount of official development assistance (ODA) as a share of gross
DAC countries: International
national income (GNI). It includes grants, "soft" loans (where the grant element
17 concessional public finance, 2017 OECD (2020)
is at least 25% of the total) and the provision of technical assistance, and
including official development
excludes grants and loans for military purposes.
assistance (% of GNI)
Other countries: Government Government revenue measured as cash receipts from taxes, social
17 revenue excluding grants 2018 IMF (2020) contributions, and other revenues such as fines, fees, rent, and income from
(% of GDP) property or sales. Grants are also considered as revenue but are excluded here.
The Corporate Tax Haven Score measures a jurisdiction’s potential to poach
Corporate Tax Haven Score Tax Justice the tax base of others, as enshrined in its laws, regulations and documented
17 2019
(best 0–100 worst) Network (2019) administrative practices. For countries with multiple jurisdictions, the value of
the worst-performing jurisdiction was retained.
The Index measures the contribution of each jurisdiction to financial secrecy,
on a scale from 0 (best) to 100 (worst). It is calculated using qualitative data to
Financial Secrecy Score Tax Justice prepare a secrecy score for each jurisdiction and quantitative data to create a
17 [a] 2020
(best 0–100 worst) Network (2020) global scale weighting for each jurisdiction according to its share of offshore
financial services activity in the global total. For countries with multiple
jurisdictions, the average score of the jurisdictions was used.
Estimation of how much profit is shifted into tax havens and how much non-
Shifted profits of Zucman et al.
17 [a] 2016 haven countries lose in profits from such shifting. Based on macroeconomic data
multinationals (US$ billion) (2019)
known as foreign affiliates statistics. Negative values indicate profit shifting.
Table 10
Countries not included in the 2020 SDG Index due to insufficient data availability
Country Missing Values Percentage of Missing Values

Andorra 37 46%
Antigua and Barbuda 24 29%
The Bahamas 20 24%
Dominica 39 46%
Eritrea 17 20%
Micronesia, Fed. Sts. 39 46%
Guinea-Bissau 17 20%
Equatorial Guinea 27 32%
Grenada 34 41%
Kiribati 37 44%
St. Kitts and Nevis 44 52%
Libya 18 21%
St. Lucia 25 30%
Liechtenstein 47 59%
Monaco 45 54%
Marshall Islands 45 54%
Nauru 49 58%
Palau 48 57%
Korea, Dem. Rep. 20 24%
Solomon Islands 24 29%
San Marino 45 54%
Seychelles 23 27%
Timor-Leste 21 25%
Tonga 28 33%
Tuvalu 47 56%
St. Vincent and the Grenadines 30 36%
Samoa 18 21%
4.4 Data tables
Table 11
Indicator thresholds and justifications for the optimum values
Optimum Lower Justification for

SDG Indicator Green Yellow Orange Red
(value = 100) Bound Optimum
1 Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 0 ≤2 2 < x ≤ 7.5 7.5 < x ≤ 13 >13 72.6 SDG Target
1 Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) 0 ≤2 2 < x ≤ 7.5 7.5 < x ≤ 13 >13 51.5 SDG Target
Average of 3 best
1 Poverty rate after taxes and transfers (%) 6.1 ≤10 10 < x ≤ 12.5 12.5 < x ≤ 15 >15 17.7
OECD performers
2 Prevalence of undernourishment (%) 0 ≤7.5 7.5 < x ≤ 11.25 11.25 < x ≤ 15 >15 42.3 SDG Target
Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years
2 0 ≤7.5 7.5 < x ≤ 11.25 11.25 < x ≤ 15 >15 50.2 SDG Target
of age (%)
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years
2 0 ≤5 5 < x ≤ 7.5 7.5 < x ≤ 10 >10 16.3 SDG Target
of age (%)
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult Average of 5 best
2 2.8 ≤10 10 < x ≤ 17.5 17.5 < x ≤ 25 >25 35.1
population) performers
Average of 5 best
2 Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2.04 ≤2.2 2.2 < x ≤ 2.3 2.3 < x ≤ 2.4 >2.4 2.47
performers
Average of 5 best
Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested
2 7 ≥2.5 2.5 > x ≥ 2 2 > x ≥ 1.5 >1.5 0.2 performers minus
land)
outliers (1 & 1/2SD)
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index
2 0 ≤0.3 0.3 < x ≤ 0.5 0.5 < x ≤ 0.7 >0.7 1.2 Technical Optimum
(worst 0–1.41 best)
Average of 5 best
2 Yield gap closure (% of potential yield) 77 ≥75 75 > x ≥ 62.5 62.5 > x ≥ 50 >50 28
performers
Average of 5 best
3 Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) 3.4 ≤70 70 < x ≤ 105 105 < x ≤ 140 >140 814
performers
Average of 5 best
3 Neonatal mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 1.1 ≤12 12 < x ≤ 15 15 < x ≤ 18 >18 39.7
performers

Average of 5 best
3 Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000 live births) 2.6 ≤25 25 < x ≤ 37.5 37.5 < x ≤ 50 >50 130.1
performers
Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000
3 0 ≤10 10 < x ≤ 42.5 42.5 < x ≤ 75 >75 561 SDG Target
population)
New HIV infections (per 1,000 uninfected
3 0 ≤0.2 0.2 < x ≤ 0.6 0.6 < x ≤ 1 >1 5.5 SDG Target
population)
Age-standardized death rate due to
cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or Average of 5 best
3 9.3 ≤15 15 < x ≤ 20 20 < x ≤ 25 >25 31
chronic respiratory disease in adults aged performers
30–70 years (%)
Age-standardized death rate attributable
3 to household air pollution and ambient air 0 ≤18 18 < x ≤ 84 84 < x ≤ 150 >150 368.8 SDG Target
pollution (per 100,000 population)
Average of 5 best
3 Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population) 3.2 ≤8.4 8.4 < x ≤ 12.6 12.6 < x ≤ 16.8 >16.8 33.7
performers
Average of 5 best
3 Life expectancy at birth (years) 83 ≥80 80 > x ≥ 75 75 > x ≥ 70 >70 54
performers
Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1,000 Average of 5 best
3 2.5 ≤25 25 < x ≤ 37.5 37.5 < x ≤ 50 >50 139.6
adolescent females aged 15 to 19) performers
3 Births attended by skilled health personnel (%) 100 ≥98 98 > x ≥ 94 94 > x ≥ 90 >90 23.1 Leave no one behind
Percentage of surviving infants who received 2
3 100 ≥90 90 > x ≥ 85 85 > x ≥ 80 >80 41 Leave no one behind
WHO-recommended vaccines (%)
Universal health coverage (UHC) index of
3 100 ≥80 80 > x ≥ 70 70 > x ≥ 60 >60 38.2 Leave no one behind
service coverage (worst 0–100 best)
Subjective well-being (average ladder score, Average of 5 best
3 7.6 ≥6 6 > x ≥ 5.5 5.5 > x ≥ 5 >5 3.3
worst 0–10 best) performers
Gap in life expectancy at birth among regions
3 0 ≤3 3<x≤5 5<x≤7 >7 11 Leave no one behind
(years)
Table 11
(continued)

Gap in self-reported health status by income

3 0 ≤20 20 < x ≤ 30 30 < x ≤ 40 >40 45 Leave no one behind
(percentage points)
Average of 3 best
3 Daily smokers (% of population aged 15 and over) 10.1 ≤18 18 < x ≤ 25 25 < x ≤ 32 >32 35
OECD performers
4 Net primary enrollment rate (%) 100 ≥97 97 > x ≥ 88.5 88.5 > x ≥ 80 >80 53.8 SDG Target
4 Lower secondary completion rate (%) 100 ≥90 90 > x ≥ 82.5 82.5 > x ≥ 75 >75 18 SDG Target
4 Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24) 100 ≥95 95 > x ≥ 90 90 > x ≥ 85 >85 45.2 Leave no one behind
Participation rate in pre-primary organized
4 100 ≥90 90 > x ≥ 80 80 > x ≥ 70 >70 35 SDG Target
learning (% of children aged 4 to 6)
Tertiary educational attainment Average of 3 best
4 52.2 ≥40 40 > x ≥ 25 25 > x ≥ 10 >10 0
(% of population aged 25 to 34) OECD performers
Average of 3 best
4 PISA score (worst 0–600 best) 525.6 ≥493 493 > x ≥ 446.5 446.5 > x ≥ 400 >400 350
OECD performers
Variation in science performance explained by Average of 3 best
4 8.3 ≤10.5 10.5 < x ≤ 15.25 15.25 < x ≤ 20 >20 21.4
socio-economic status (%) OECD performers
Average of 3 best
4 Underachievers in science (% of 15-year-olds) 10 ≤15 15 < x ≤ 22.5 22.5 < x ≤ 30 >30 48
OECD performers
Average of 3 best
4 Resilient students in science (% of 15-year-olds) 46.6 ≥38 38 > x ≥ 29 29 > x ≥ 20 >20 12.8
OECD performers
Demand for family planning satisfied by
5 modern methods (% of females aged 15 to 49 100 ≥80 80 > x ≥ 70 70 > x ≥ 60 >60 17.5 Leave no one behind
who are married or in unions)
Ratio of female-to-male mean years of
5 100 ≥98 98 > x ≥ 86.5 86.5 > x ≥ 75 >75 41.8 SDG Target
education received (%)
Ratio of female-to-male labor force
5 100 ≥70 70 > x ≥ 60 60 > x ≥ 50 >50 21.5 SDG Target
participation rate (%)
5 Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 50 ≥40 40 > x ≥ 30 30 > x ≥ 20 >20 1.2 SDG Target
5 Gender wage gap (% of male median wage) 0 ≤8 8 < x ≤ 14 14 < x ≤ 20 >20 36.7 Technical Optimum
Gender gap in time spent doing unpaid work
5 0 ≤90 90 < x ≤ 135 135 < x ≤ 180 >180 245 Technical Optimum
(minutes/day)
Population using at least basic drinking water
6 100 ≥98 98 > x ≥ 89 89 > x ≥ 80 >80 40 Leave no one behind
services (%)
Population using at least basic sanitation
6 100 ≥95 95 > x ≥ 85 85 > x ≥ 75 >75 9.7 Leave no one behind
services (%)
Freshwater withdrawal (% of available
6 12.5 ≤25 25 < x ≤ 50 50 < x ≤ 75 >75 100 Technical Optimum
freshwater resources)
Anthropogenic wastewater that receives
6 100 ≥50 50 > x ≥ 32.5 32.5 > x ≥ 15 >15 0 Technical Optimum
treatment (%)
Scarce water consumption embodied in Average of 5 best
6 0 ≤25 25 < x ≤ 37.5 37.5 < x ≤ 50 >50 100
imports (m³/capita) performers
Population using safely managed water services
6 100 ≥95 95 > x ≥ 87.5 87.5 > x ≥ 80 >80 10.5 Leave no one behind
(%)
Population using safely managed sanitation
services (%)
7 Population with access to electricity (%) 100 ≥98 98 > x ≥ 89 89 > x ≥ 80 >80 9.1 Leave no one behind
Population with access to clean fuels and Average of 3 best
7 100 ≥85 85 > x ≥ 67.5 67.5 > x ≥ 50 >50 2
technology for cooking (%) OECD performers
CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion for
7 electricity and heating per total electricity 0 ≤1 1 < x ≤ 1.25 1.25 < x ≤ 1.5 >1.5 5.9 Technical Optimum
output (MtCO₂/TWh)
Share of renewable energy in total primary Average of 3 best
7 51 ≥20 20 > x ≥ 15 15 > x ≥ 10 >10 3
energy supply (%) OECD performers
4.4 Data tables
Table 11
(continued)

Average of 5 best
8 Adjusted GDP growth (%) 5 ≥0 0 > x ≥ -1.5 -1.5 > x ≥ -3 >-3 -14.7
performers
Victims of modern slavery
8 0 ≤4 4<x≤7 7 < x ≤ 10 >10 22 Leave no one behind
Adults with an account at a bank or other
financial institution or with a mobile-money-
8 100 ≥80 80 > x ≥ 65 65 > x ≥ 50 >50 8 Technical Optimum
service provider
(% of population aged 15 or over)
Average of 5 best
8 Unemployment rate (% of total labor force) 0.5 ≤5 5 < x ≤ 7.5 7.5 < x ≤ 10 >10 25.9
performers
Fatal work-related accidents embodied in
8 0 ≤1 1 < x ≤ 1.75 1.75 < x ≤ 2.5 >2.5 6 Technical Optimum
imports (per 100,000 population)
Average of 3 best
8 Employment-to-population ratio (%) 77.8 ≥60 60 > x ≥ 55 55 > x ≥ 50 >50 50
OECD performers
Youth not in employment, education or training Average of 3 best
8 8.1 ≤10 10 < x ≤ 12.5 12.5 < x ≤ 15 >15 28.2
(NEET) (% of population aged 15 to 29) OECD performers
9 Population using the internet (%) 100 ≥80 80 > x ≥ 65 65 > x ≥ 50 >50 2.2 Leave no one behind
Mobile broadband subscriptions
(per 100 population)
Logistics Performance Index: Quality of trade
Average of 5 best
9 and transport-related infrastructure 3.8 ≥3 3 > x ≥ 2.5 2.5 > x ≥ 2 >2 1.6
performers
(worst 1–5 best)
The Times Higher Education Universities
Average of 5 best
9 Ranking: Average score of top 3 universities 50 ≥30 30 > x ≥ 15 15 > x ≥ 0 >0 0
performers
Scientific and technical journal articles Average of 5 best
9 1.2 ≥0.7 0.7 > x ≥ 0.375 0.375 > x ≥ 0.05 >0.05 0

(per 1,000 population) performers
Expenditure on research and development Average of 5 best
9 3.7 ≥1.5 1.5 > x ≥ 1.25 1.25 > x ≥ 1 >1 0
(% of GDP) performers
Average of 3 best
9 Researchers (per 1,000 employed population) 15.6 ≥8 8 > x ≥ 7.5 7.5 > x ≥ 7 >7 0.8
OECD performers
Triadic patent families filed Average of 3 best
9 115.7 ≥20 20 > x ≥ 15 15 > x ≥ 10 >10 0.1
(per million population) OECD performers
Gap in internet access by income (
9 0 ≤7 7 < x ≤ 26 26 < x ≤ 45 >45 63.6 Leave no one behind
percentage points)
Women in science and engineering
Average of 3 best
9 (% of tertiary graduates in science and 38.1 ≥33 33 > x ≥ 29 29 > x ≥ 25 >25 16.2
OECD performers
engineering)
Average of 5 best
10 Gini coefficient adjusted for top income 27.5 ≤30 30 < x ≤ 35 35 < x ≤ 40 >40 63
performers
Average of 3 best
10 Palma ratio 0.9 ≤1 1 < x ≤ 1.15 1.15 < x ≤ 1.3 >1.3 2.5
OECD performers
Elderly poverty rate Average of 3 best
10 3.2 ≤5 5 < x ≤ 15 15 < x ≤ 25 >25 45.7
(% of population aged 66 or over) OECD performers
Annual mean concentration of particulate
Average of 5 best
11 matter of less than 2.5 microns in diameter 6.3 ≤10 10 < x ≤ 17.5 17.5 < x ≤ 25 >25 87
performers
(PM2.5) (μg/m³)
Access to improved water source, piped
(% of urban population)
Average of 5 best
11 Satisfaction with public transport (%) 82.6 ≥72 72 > x ≥ 57.5 57.5 > x ≥ 43 >43 21
performers
Average of 3 best
11 Population with rent overburden (%) 4.6 ≤7 7 < x ≤ 12 12 < x ≤ 17 >17 25.6
OECD performers
Average of 5 best
12 Municipal solid waste (kg/capita/day) 0.1 ≤1 1 < x ≤ 1.5 1.5 < x ≤ 2 >2 3.7
performers
Table 11
(continued)

Average of 5 best
12 Electronic waste (kg/capita) 0.2 ≤5 5 < x ≤ 7.5 7.5 < x ≤ 10 >10 23.5
performers
Average of 5 best
12 Production-based SO₂ emissions (kg/capita) 0 ≤30 30 < x ≤ 65 65 < x ≤ 100 >100 525
performers
12 SO₂ emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita) 0 ≤5 5 < x ≤ 7.5 7.5 < x ≤ 10 >10 30 Technical Optimum
Average of 5 best
12 Production-based nitrogen emissions (kg/capita) 2 ≤20 20 < x ≤ 35 35 < x ≤ 50 >50 100
performers
Nitrogen emissions embodied in imports
12 0 ≤5 5 < x ≤ 10 10 < x ≤ 15 >15 45 Technical Optimum
(kg/capita)
Average of 3 best
12 Non-recycled municipal solid waste (kg/capita/day) 0.6 ≤0.8 0.8 < x ≤ 0.9 0.9 < x ≤ 1 >1 1.5
OECD performers
13 Energy-related CO₂ emissions (tCO₂/capita) 0 ≤2 2<x≤3 3<x≤4 >4 23.7 Technical Optimum
CO₂ emissions embodied in imports
13 0 ≤0.5 0.5 < x ≤ 0.75 0.75 < x ≤ 1 >1 3.2 Technical Optimum
(tCO₂/capita)
CO₂ emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports
13 0 ≤100 100 < x ≤ 4050 4,050 < x ≤ 8,000 >8,000 44,000 Technical Optimum
(kg/capita)
13 Effective carbon rate (EUR/tCO₂) 100 ≥70 70 > x ≥ 50 50 > x ≥ 30 >30 -0.1 Technical Optimum
Mean area that is protected in marine sites
important to biodiversity (%)
Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score
14 100 ≥70 70 > x ≥ 65 65 > x ≥ 60 >60 28.6 Technical Optimum
Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed
14 0 ≤25 25 < x ≤ 37.5 37.5 < x ≤ 50 >50 90.7 Technical Optimum
stocks (% of total catch)
Average of 5 best
14 Fish caught by trawling (%) 1 ≤7 7 < x ≤ 33.5 33.5 < x ≤ 60 >60 90
performers
Marine biodiversity threats embodied in
14 0 ≤0.2 0.2 < x ≤ 0.6 0.6 < x ≤ 1 >1 2 Technical Optimum
imports (per million population)
Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites
15 100 ≥50 50 > x ≥ 30 30 > x ≥ 10 >10 4.6 Technical Optimum
Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites
Red List Index of species survival
15 1 ≥0.9 0.9 > x ≥ 0.85 0.85 > x ≥ 0.8 >0.8 0.6 Technical Optimum
(worst 0–1 best)
Permanent deforestation
15 0 ≤0.05 0.05 < x ≤ 0.275 0.275 < x ≤ 0.5 >0.5 1.5 SDG Target
(% of forest area, 5-year average)
Terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity threats
15 0 ≤1 1<x≤2 2<x≤3 >3 10 Technical Optimum
embodied in imports (per million population)
Average of 5 best
16 Homicides (per 100,000 population) 0.3 ≤1.5 1.5 < x ≤ 2.75 2.75 < x ≤ 4 >4 38
performers
Unsentenced detainees Average of 5 best
16 7 ≤30 30 < x ≤ 40 40 < x ≤ 50 >50 75
(% of prison population) performers
Percentage of population who feel safe
Average of 5 best
16 walking alone at night in the city or area 90 ≥70 70 > x ≥ 60 60 > x ≥ 50 >50 33
performers
where they live (%)
Average of 5 best
16 Property Rights (worst 1–7 best) 6.3 ≥4.5 4.5 > x ≥ 3.75 3.75 > x ≥ 3 >3 2.5
performers
Birth registrations with civil authority
16 100 ≥98 98 > x ≥ 86.5 86.5 > x ≥ 75 >75 11 Leave no one behind
(% of children under age 5)
Average of 5 best
16 Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 88.6 ≥60 60 > x ≥ 50 50 > x ≥ 40 >40 13
performers
Children involved in child labor
16 0 ≤2 2<x≤6 6 < x ≤ 10 >10 39.3 Leave no one behind
Exports of major conventional weapons (TIV
16 0 ≤1 1 < x ≤ 1.75 1.75 < x ≤ 2.5 >2.5 3.4 Technical Optimum
constant million USD per 100,000 population)
Average of 5 best
16 Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) 10 ≤30 30 < x ≤ 40 40 < x ≤ 50 >50 80
performers
4.4 Data tables
Table 11
(continued)

Average of 5 best
16 Persons held in prison (per 100,000 population) 25 ≤100 100 < x ≤ 175 175 < x ≤ 250 >250 475
performers
Government spending on health and education Average of 5 best
17 15 ≥10 10 > x ≥ 7.5 7.5 > x ≥ 5 >5 0
(% of GDP) performers
For high-income and all OECD DAC countries:
International concessional public finance, Average of 5 best
17 1 ≥0.7 0.7 > x ≥ 0.525 0.525 > x ≥ 0.35 >0.35 0.1
including official development assistance performers
(% of GNI)
Other countries: Government revenue Average of 5 best
17 40 ≥30 30 > x ≥ 23 23 > x ≥ 16 >16 10
excluding grants (% of GDP) performers
Average of best
17 Corporate Tax Haven Score (best 0–100 worst) 40 ≤60 60 < x ≤ 65 65 < x ≤ 70 >70 100
performers (EU Report)
Average of 5 best
17 Financial Secrecy Score (best 0–100 worst) 42.7 ≤45 45 < x ≤ 50 50 < x ≤ 55 >55 76.5
performers
17 Shifted profits of multinationals (US$ billion) 0 ≥0 0 > x ≥ -15 -15 > x ≥ -30 >-30 -70 Technical Optimum
Table 12
Indicators used for SDG Trends and period for trend estimation
(* The trend estimations since the adoption of the SDGs are marked below)
SDG Indicator Period Covered

1 Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 2015–2019*
1 Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) 2015–2019*
1 Poverty rate after taxes and transfers (%) 2013–2016
2 Prevalence of undernourishment (%) 2014–2017
2 Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%) 2014–2017
2 Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) 2014–2017
2 Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population) 2013–2016
2 Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2014–2017
2 Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested land) 2014–2017
2 Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) 2012–2015
3 Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) 2014–2017
3 Neonatal mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 2015–2018*
3 Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000 live births) 2015–2018*
3 Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 population) 2015–2018*
3 New HIV infections (per 1,000 uninfected population) 2015–2018*
Age-standardized death rate due to cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or chronic respiratory
3 2010–2016
disease in adults aged 30–70 years (%)
3 Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population) 2013–2016
3 Life expectancy at birth (years) 2013–2016
3 Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1,000 adolescent females aged 15 to 19) 2014–2017
3 Births attended by skilled health personnel (%) 2012–2016
3 Percentage of surviving infants who received 2 WHO-recommended vaccines (%) 2015–2018*
3 Universal health coverage (UHC) index of service coverage (worst 0–100 best) 2010–2017
3 Subjective well-being (average ladder score, worst 0–10 best) 2015–2019*
3 Gap in self-reported health status by income (percentage points) 2014–2017
3 Daily smokers (% of population aged 15 and over) 2014–2017
4 Net primary enrollment rate (%) 2014–2017
4 Lower secondary completion rate (%) 2015–2018*
4 Participation rate in pre-primary organized learning (% of children aged 4 to 6) 2014–2017
4 Tertiary educational attainment (% of population aged 25 to 34) 2015–2018*
4 PISA score (worst 0–600 best) 2015–2018*
4 Variation in science performance explained by socio-economic status (%) 2015–2018*
4 Underachievers in science (% of 15-year-olds) 2015–2018*
4 Resilient students in science (% of 15-year-olds) 2015–2018*
5 Ratio of female-to-male mean years of education received (%) 2015–2018*
5 Ratio of female-to-male labor force participation rate (%) 2015–2019*
5 Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 2015–2019*
5 Gender wage gap (% of male median wage) 2014–2017
6 Population using at least basic drinking water services (%) 2014–2017
6 Population using at least basic sanitation services (%) 2014–2017
6 Scarce water consumption embodied in imports (m³/capita) 2010–2013
6 Population using safely managed water services (%) 2014–2017
6 Population using safely managed sanitation services (%) 2014–2017
4.4 Data tables
Table 12
(continued)
SDG Indicator Period Covered

7 Population with access to electricity (%) 2014–2017
7 Population with access to clean fuels and technology for cooking (%) 2013–2016
7 CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion for electricity and heating per total electricity output (MtCO₂/TWh) 2014–2017
7 Share of renewable energy in total primary energy supply (%) 2014–2017
Adults with an account at a bank or other financial institution or with a mobile-money-service provider
8 2014–2017
(% of population aged 15 or over)
8 Unemployment rate (% of total labor force) 2015–2019*
8 Fatal work-related accidents embodied in imports (per 100,000 population) 2007–2010
8 Employment-to-population ratio (%) 2015–2019*
8 Youth not in employment, education or training (NEET) (% of population aged 15 to 29) 2015–2018*
9 Population using the internet (%) 2014–2017
9 Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population) 2015–2018*
9 Logistics Performance Index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (worst 1–5 best) 2014–2018
9 Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 2015–2018*
9 Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP) 2014–2017
9 Researchers (per 1,000 employed population) 2014–2017
9 Triadic patent families filed (per million population) 2014–2017
9 Gap in internet access by income (percentage points) 2015–2018*
10 Gini coefficient adjusted for top income 2012–2015
10 Palma ratio 2013–2016
10 Elderly poverty rate (% of population aged 66 or over) 2013–2016
11 Annual mean concentration of particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) (μg/m³) 2014–2017

11 Access to improved water source, piped (% of urban population) 2014–2017
11 Satisfaction with public transport (%) 2015–2019*
11 Population with rent overburden (%) 2014–2017
13 Energy-related CO₂ emissions (tCO₂/capita) 2014–2017
13 CO₂ emissions embodied in imports (tCO₂/capita) 2012–2015
14 Mean area that is protected in marine sites important to biodiversity (%) 2015–2018*
14 Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 2015–2019*
14 Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) 2010–2014
14 Fish caught by trawling (%) 2010–2014
15 Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (%) 2015–2018*
15 Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 2015–2018*
15 Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 2015–2019*
16 Homicides (per 100,000 population) 2014–2017
16 Unsentenced detainees (% of prison population) 2015–2018*
16 Percentage of population who feel safe walking alone at night in the city or area where they live (%) 2015–2019*
16 Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 2015–2019*
16 Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) 2015–2019*
16 Persons held in prison (per 100,000 population) 2014–2017
17 Government spending on health and education (% of GDP) 2013–2016
For high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional public finance, including official
17 2014–2017
development assistance (% of GNI)
17 Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants (% of GDP) 2014–2017
Table 13
Spillover Index Score and Rank (compared with SDG Index Rank)
The Spillover Index measures transboundary impacts generated by one country on others, which may in turn undermine
the other countries’ capacities to achieve the SDGs. The Spillover Index covers financial spillovers (e.g., financial secrecy,
profit shifting), environmental and social impacts embodied into trade and consumption (e.g., imported CO2 emissions,
imported biodiversity threats, accidents at work embodied into trade), and security/development cooperation (ODA,
weapons exports). ODA is an example of a positive spillover. Scores should be interpreted in the same way as the SDG
Index score: from 0 (poor performance, i.e., significant negative spillovers) to 100 (good performance, i.e., no significant
negative spillovers). To allow for international comparisons, most spillover indicators are expressed in per-capita terms.
Country Spillover Index Score Spillover Index Rank SDG Index Rank
Afghanistan 99.3 24 139

Albania 94.3 82 68
Algeria 97.4 58 56
Angola 96.7 65 149
Argentina 94.0 86 51
Armenia 96.7 66 75
Australia 61.6 145 37
Austria 56.3 154 7
Azerbaijan 97.6 55 54
Bahrain 82.0 115 82
Bangladesh 99.4 23 109
Barbados 78.6 121 87
Belarus 96.3 69 18
Belgium 59.9 149 11
Belize 93.4 92 102
Benin 99.5 20 145
Bhutan 93.7 90 80
Bolivia 97.9 51 79
Bosnia and Herzegovina 95.8 73 50
Botswana 78.5 122 121
Brazil 97.3 60 53
Brunei Darussalam 67.6 136 88
Bulgaria 85.4 112 39
Burkina Faso 99.3 25 137
Burundi 99.8 7 143
Cabo Verde 95.3 76 92
Cambodia 98.8 34 106
Cameroon 99.5 19 133
Canada 60.6 147 21
Central African Republic 99.6 12 166
Chad 99.8 6 164
Chile 92.6 97 28
China 94.2 84 48
Colombia 94.7 79 67
4.4 Data tables
Table 13
(continued)
Comoros 100.0 1 146

Congo, Rep. 97.7 54 135
Costa Rica 89.6 106 35
Côte d’Ivoire 99.5 18 128
Croatia 83.1 113 19
Cuba 97.1 61 55
Cyprus 59.9 150 34
Czech Republic 69.7 129 8
Dem. Rep. Congo 99.4 22 158
Denmark 66.4 141 2
Djibouti 98.2 43 138
Dominican Republic 95.9 72 73
Ecuador 96.8 63 46
Egypt, Arab Rep. 98.5 37 83
El Salvador 92.6 98 77
Estonia 69.4 130 10
Eswatini 82.9 114 144
Ethiopia 99.7 9 136
Fiji 92.4 99 74
Finland 66.6 140 3
France 51.1 158 4

Gabon 93.0 95 111
The Gambia 97.9 52 129
Georgia 90.8 102 58
Germany 57.0 153 5
Ghana 97.4 59 100
Greece 69.4 131 43
Guatemala 97.0 62 120
Guinea 99.5 17 150
Guyana 22.2 165 124
Haiti 99.6 13 154
Honduras 96.0 71 105
Hungary 77.1 124 29
Iceland 60.3 148 26
India 98.8 36 117
Indonesia 97.6 56 101
Iran, Islamic Rep. 95.5 74 59
Iraq 98.3 40 113
Ireland 57.8 152 14
Israel 66.7 138 40
Italy 69.0 132 30
Jamaica 92.9 96 84
Table 13
(continued)
Japan 66.1 143 17

Jordan 89.2 107 89
Kazakhstan 94.0 87 65
Kenya 94.5 81 123
Korea, Rep. 68.6 135 20
Kuwait 36.6 162 112
Kyrgyz Republic 96.1 70 52
Lao PDR 99.2 27 116
Latvia 70.4 127 24
Lebanon 78.8 120 95
Lesotho 94.5 80 141
Liberia 98.0 49 162
Lithuania 65.6 144 36
Luxembourg 33.5 164 44
Madagascar 99.5 21 161
Malawi 98.9 32 152
Malaysia 86.3 111 60
Maldives 87.8 108 91
Mali 99.5 16 156
Malta 56.3 155 32
Mauritania 98.0 50 130
Mauritius 42.6 160 108
Mexico 94.9 78 69
Moldova 99.8 8 42
Mongolia 95.0 77 107
Montenegro 68.9 133 72
Morocco 98.1 47 64
Mozambique 99.5 15 140
Myanmar 100.0 2 104
Namibia 86.3 110 119
Nepal 99.1 29 96
Netherlands 44.9 159 9
New Zealand 70.1 128 16
Nicaragua 97.9 53 85
Niger 99.6 11 157
Nigeria 99.2 28 160
North Macedonia 93.8 88 62
Norway 54.1 156 6
Oman 79.8 119 76
Pakistan 99.6 10 134
Panama 81.9 116 81
Papua New Guinea 98.2 44 155
Paraguay 93.7 91 90
Peru 96.7 64 61
Philippines 98.1 45 99
4.4 Data tables
Table 13
(continued)
Poland 81.8 117 23

Portugal 66.7 139 25
Qatar 68.7 134 103
Romania 91.6 101 38
Russian Federation 78.3 123 57
Rwanda 98.8 35 132
São Tomé and Príncipe 95.4 75 115
Saudi Arabia 73.8 125 97
Senegal 99.0 31 127
Serbia 80.9 118 33
Sierra Leone 99.6 14 153
Singapore 12.4 166 93
Slovak Republic 72.7 126 27
Slovenia 66.4 142 12
Somalia 100.0 4 163
South Africa 92.0 100 110
South Sudan 99.9 5 165
Spain 61.3 146 22
Sri Lanka 96.5 67 94
Sudan 100.0 3 159
Suriname 90.6 103 86
Sweden 67.4 137 1
Switzerland 35.8 163 15
Syrian Arab Republic 98.4 38 126

Tajikistan 97.5 57 78
Tanzania 98.3 41 131
Thailand 93.8 89 41
Togo 99.3 26 147
Trinidad and Tobago 86.8 109 98
Tunisia 94.2 85 63
Turkey 93.3 94 70
Turkmenistan 90.4 104 114
Uganda 99.1 30 142
Ukraine 93.3 93 47
United Arab Emirates 37.4 161 71
United Kingdom 52.1 157 13
United States 59.2 151 31
Uruguay 90.0 105 45
Uzbekistan 98.1 48 66
Vanuatu 94.3 83 122
Venezuela, RB 96.4 68 118
Vietnam 98.3 39 49
Yemen, Rep. 98.9 33 151
Zambia 98.1 46 148
Zimbabwe 98.2 42 125
References
Cited in the text
Adeniyi, A. (2017). “The human cost of uncontrolled arms in Dorn, F., C. Fuest, M. Göttert, C. Krolage, S. Lautenbacher, S. Link,
Africa.” Oxfam, Oxford, UK. A. Peichl, M. Reif, S. Sauer, M. Stöckli, K. Wohlrabe, and T.
Wollmershäuser (2020). “Die volkswirtschaftlichen Kosten des
Adrian and Natalucci, 2020. Adrian, Tobias, and Natalucci Fabio. Corona-Shutdown für Deutschland: Eine Szenarienrechnung’”.
‘COVID-19 Worsens Pre-Existing Financial Vulnerabilities’. IMF ifo Schnelldienst 73, no. 04 (2020): 29–35.
Blog (blog), 2020. https://blogs.imf.org/2020/05/22/covid-
19-worsens-pre-existing-financial-vulnerabilities/. Equal Measures 2030 (2019). Harnessing the Power of Data for
Gender Equality: 2019 Global Report. Equal Measures 2030.
AEG-SDGs, 2019. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/
Espey, J. (2020). “Big data in a time of crisis: maximizing
Arroyo Marioli, F., F. Bullano, S. Kucinskas, and C. Rondón- its value – and avoiding its risks – in the fight against
Moreno (2020). “Tracking R of COVID-19: a new real-time COVID-19.” Insights, UNSDSN TReNDs – Thematic Research
estimation using the Kalman filter,” SSRN Scholarly Paper No. Network on Data and Statistics.
ID 3581633, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.
Eurostat (2017). Sustainable Development in the European
Beltram, S. (2020). “How to minimize the impact of Coronavirus Union — Monitoring Report on Progress towards the SDGs
on food security.” Insight, World Food Programme (WFP). in an EU context, 2017 Edition. Publications Office of the
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2019). The Goalkeepers European Union, Luxembourg.
Report 2019. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Eurostat (2018). Sustainable Development in the European
Boerma, T., C. Victora, and C. Abouzahr (2018). “Monitoring Union — Monitoring Report on Progress towards the SDGs
country progress and achievements by making global in an EU context, 2018 Edition. Publications Office of the
predictions: is the tail wagging the dog?” The Lancet, European Union, Luxembourg.
392(10147), 607–609. Eurostat (2019). Sustainable Development in the European
Climate Action Tracker (2018). Some Progress since Paris, but Union — Monitoring Report on Progress towards the SDGs
Not Enough, as Governments Amble towards 3°c of Warming. in an EU context, 2019 Edition. Publications Office of the
Warming projections global update. New Climate Institute European Union, Luxembourg.
and Climate Analytics, December 2018. Flaxman, Seth, Swapnil Mishra, Axel Gandy, H. Juliette T. Unwin,
Climate Action Tracker (2020). A Government Roadmap for Thomas A. Mellan, Helen Coupland, Charles Whittaker, et
Addressing the Climate and Post Covid-19 Economic Crises. al. (2020). ‘Estimating the Effects of Non-Pharmaceutical
New Climate Institute and Climate Analytics. Interventions on COVID-19 in Europe’. Nature, 8 June 2020,
1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7.
Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe (2019). Global
Hunger Index. Concern Worldwide, Welthungerhilfe, and the Ghosh, I (2020). “These satellite photos show how COVID-19
International Food and Policy Research Institute. lockdowns have impacted global emissions.” World Economic
Forum, 2020. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/
Council of Europe (2020). “COVID-19: Refugees are in a vicious emissions-impact-coronavirus-lockdowns-satellites/.
circle that make them particularly vulnerable.” Council of
Europe, Parliamentary Assembly. http://assembly.coe.int/ Google (2020). Community Mobility Reports. Google. https://
nw/xml/News/News-View-EN.asp?newsid=7852&lang=2 www.google.com/covid19/mobility/
CREA (2020). China’s Air Pollution Overshoots Pre-Crisis Levels for Government of the Republic of Korea (2020). “Flattening
the First Time. Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. the curve on COVID-19: how Korea responded to a
pandemic using ICT.” UNDP Seoul Policy Centre for
Cullen, M. (2020). Coronavirus: Food Supply Chain under Strain. Knowledge Exchange through SDG Partnerships, UNDP.
What to Do? Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), http://www.undp.org/content/seoul_policy_center/en/
24 March. home/presscenter/articles/2019/flattening-the-curve-on-
Czaplicki Cabezas, S., H. Bellfield, G. Lafortune, C. Streck, and covid-19.html, accessed May 26, 2020.
B. Hermann (2019). Towards More Sustainability in the Soy GPSDD, World Bank Group, United Nations, and SDSN
Supply Chain: How Can EU Actors Support Zero Deforestation (2019). Data4Now: Accelerating SDG progress through
and SDG Efforts? Climate Focus, Global Canopy, SDSN and GIZ. timely information (Concept Note). Global Partnership for
Dahmm, H. (2020). “In low-income countries fundamental Sustainable Development Data (GPSDD).
data issues remain for COVID-19 response.” Insights, UNSDSN Gütschow, J.; L. Jeffery, R. Gieseke, R. Gebel, D. Stevens, M. Krapp,
TReNDs – Thematic Research Network on Data and Statistics. and M. Rocha (2016) “The PRIMAP-hist national historical
Davies, E., S. Harman, J. True, and C. Wenham (2020). “Why emissions time series.” Earth System Science Data, Volume 8,
gender matters in the impact and recovery from Covid-19.” Issue 2, Page 571-603. Munich: European Geopyhsical Union.
The Interpreter, the Lowy Institute, 2020. https://www. Hub staff report, 2020. Hub staff report. ‘Here’s the Johns
lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/why-gender-matters- Hopkins Study President Trump Referenced in His
impact-and-recovery-covid-19 Coronavirus News Conference’. The Hub, 27 February 2020.
References
https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/02/27/trump-johns-hopkins-study- Marks, A. (2020). “In the fight against Covid-19: What do we know
pandemic-coronaviruscovid-19-649-em0-art1-dtd-health/. and to whom can we turn for answers?” Insights, UNSDSN
TReNDs – Thematic Research Network on Data and Statistics.
IFPRI (2020). Preventing global food security crisis under COVID-19
emergency. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Miao, G., and F. Fortanier (2018). Nowcast TiVA Estimates:
Methodology. OECD and WTO, Paris.
IGC (2020). COVID-19 policy response tracker. https://www.
theigc.org/covid-19/tracker/, accessed May 26, 2020. Minderoo Foundation. (2020). Protecting People in a
Pandemic. Walk Free, Mindaroo Foundation https://cdn.
IMF (2020a). World Economic Outlook, April 2020: The Great minderoo.org/content/uploads/2020/04/30211819/Walk-
Lockdown, International Monetary Fund. Washington. D.C. Free-Foundation-COVID-19-Report.pdf
IMF (2020b). Policy Responses to COVID19. International Myllyvirta, Lauri (2020). “Analysis: Coronavirus temporarily
Monetary Fund (IMF). reduced China’s CO2 emissions by a quarter.” Carbon
IPBES (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity Brief, 19 February 2020. https://www.carbonbrief.org/
and Ecosystem Services,Summary for Policymakers. analysis-coronavirus-has-temporarily-reduced-chinas-co2-
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity emissions-by-a-quarter.
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Advance unedited version. National Sustainable Development Council of Australia
IPCC (2019). Climate Change and Land. IPCC Special Report, (2019). SDG Progress Report: Australia. Monash University,
Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Melbourne, Australia.
Climate Change (IPCC). NITI Aayog (2019). SDG India: Index & Dashboard 2019–20. NITI
JHU (2020). COVID-19 Dashboard and Map. Center for Aayog, New Delhi, India.
Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins NTI et al., 2019. NTI, JHU, and EIU. ‘Global Health Security
University (JHU). https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html, Index’. Nuclear Threat Initiative, Johns Hopkins Center
accessed May 22, 2020. for Health Security and Economist Intelligence Unit,
Kander, A., M. Jiborn, D. D. Moran, and T. O. Wiedmann (2015). November 2019. https://www.ghsindex.org/about/.
“National greenhouse-gas accounting for effective climate OECD (2017). OECD Guidelines on Measuring Trust. OECD
policy on international trade.” Nature Climate Change, 5(5), Publishing, Paris.
431–435.
OECD (2020a). “Tackling the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis

Kopf, D. (2020). “Traffic collisions are plummeting in several US together: OECD policy contributions for co‑ordinated
cities.” Quartz, 24 March 2020. https://qz.com/1822492/traffic- action.” OECD, Paris. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/en/,
accidents-are-plummeting-because-of-the-pandemic/. accessed May 26, 2020.
Lafortune, G., G. Fuller, J. Moreno, G. Schmidt-Traub, and OECD (2020b). A Territorial Approach to the Sustainable
C. Kroll (2018). “SDG Index and Dashboards: detailed Development Goals: Synthesis Report. OECD Urban Policy
methodological pape.,” Bertelsmann Stiftung and Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Paris.
OECD and JRC (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite
Lederer, E. (2020). “UN chief says COVID-19 is worst crisis since Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD, Joint
World War II.” Associated Press News, March 31, 2020. Research Committee, Paris.
Lee, G. (2020). “South Korea approves first four COVID-19 test kits Orrell, T. (2020). “Checking our instincts: We need to remain
under urgent-use license.” Bioworld. https://www.bioworld. evidence-based and standards-driven in times of crisis.”
com/articles/433783-south-korea-approves-first-four-covid- Insights, UNSDSN TReNDs – Thematic Research Network on
19-test-kits-under-urgent-use-license, accessed May 26, 2020. Data and Statistics.
Le Quéré et al., 2020. Le Quéré, Corinne, Robert B. Jackson, Oxford University (2020). Oxford COVID-19 Government
Matthew W. Jones, Adam J. P. Smith, Sam Abernethy, Response Tracker. Blavatnik School of Government,
Robbie M. Andrew, Anthony J. De-Gol, et al. ‘Temporary University of Oxford, Oxford UK. https://covidtracker.bsg.
Reduction in Daily Global CO 2 Emissions during the ox.ac.uk/, accessed May 26, 2020.
COVID-19 Forced Confinement’. Nature Climate Change, 19
May 2020, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0797-x. Papadimitriou, E., A. Neves, and W. Becker. ‘JRC Statistical
Audit of the Sustainable Development Goals Index and
Luomi, M., G. Fuller, L. Dahan, K. Lisboa Båsund, E. Karoubi, and Dashboards’. European Commission, Joint Research Centre,
G. Lafortune (2019). Arab Region SDG Index and Dashboards July 2019. doi:10.2760/723763, JRC116857.
Report 2019, Abu Dhabi and New York: SDG Centre of
Excellence for the Arab Region/Emirates Diplomatic PARIS21 and Partners for Review (2019). National SDG Review:
Academy and Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Data Challenges and Opportunities. Partnership in Statistics
for Development in the 21st Century (PARIS21).
Polglase, K., G. Mezzofiore, and M. Foster (2020). “Here’s why Shiffman, J., and Y.R. Shawar (2020). “Strengthening
the coronavirus may be killing more men than women. accountability of the global health metrics enterprise.” The
The US should take note.” CNN Health. https://edition.cnn. Lancet, 395(10234), 1452–1456.
com/2020/03/24/health/coronavirus-gender-mortality-
intl/index.html Stadler K, R. Wood, T. Bulavskaya, C.J. Sodersten, M. Simas, S.
Schmidt, A. Usubiaga, J. Acosta-Fernandez, J. Kuenen, M.
Praia City Group (2020). Handbook on Governance Statistics. Bruckner, S. Giljum, S. Lutter, S. Merciai, J.H. Schmidt, M.C.
Praia Group on Governance Statistics. Theurl, C. Plutzar, T. Kastner, M. Eisenmenger, K. Erb, A. de
Koning, A. Tukker (2018). “EXIOBASE 3: Developing a time
Reeves, R. V. and T. Ford (2020). “Covid-19 much more fatal series of detailed environmentally extended multi-regional
for men, especially taking age into account.” Brookings input-output tables.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 22(3)502–
(blog), 15 May 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ 5. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12715
up-front/2020/05/15/covid-19-much-more-fatal-for-men-
especially-taking-age-into-account/. Svenja Wiebe, K., E. Lekve Bielle, J. Többen, and R. Wood (2018).
“Implementing exogenous scenarios in a global MRIO
Reuters (2020). “Brazil scales back environmental enforcement model for the estimation of future environmental footprints.”
amid coronavirus outbreak.” The Guardian, 27 March, 2020. Journal of Economic Structures, 7, Article number: 20 (2018).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/brazil-
scales-back-environmental-enforcement-coronavirus- Think Sustainable Europe (2020). “Europe’s recovery plans must
outbreak-deforestation pass five sustainability tests.” Euractiv. https://www.euractiv.
com/section/energy-environment/opinion/europes-
Sachs, J., G. Schmidt-Traub, M. Mazzucato, D. Messner, N. recovery-plans-must-pass-five-sustainability-tests/
Nakicenovic, and J. Rockström (2019a). “Six Transformations
to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.” Nature TReNDs (2019). Counting on the World to Act: A Roadmap
Sustainability, 2(9), 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1038/ for Governments to Achieve Modern Data Systems for
s41893-019-0352-9 Sustainable Development. UNSDSN and TReNDs – Thematic
Research Network on Data and Statistics. https://
Sachs, J., G. Schmidt-Traub, R. Pulselli, S. Cresti, and A. countingontheworld.sdsntrends.org/static/files/19COTW.pdf
Riccaboni (2019b). Sustainable Development Report 2019 –
Mediterranean Countries Edition. Sustainable Development UN-HABITAT (2018). SDG 11 Synthesis Report 2018 on Sustainable
Solutions Network for the Mediterranean Area (SDSN- Cities and Communities. United Nations Human Settlements
Mediterranean), Siena, Italy. Programme (UN-HABITAT), Nairobi.
Schmidt-Traub, G., C. Kroll, K. Teksoz, D. Durand-Delacre, and United Nations (2019). The Sustainable Development Goals
J.D. Sachs (2017). “National baselines for the Sustainable Report 2019, United Nations. New York.
Development Goals assessed in the SDG Index and
Dashboards.” Nature Geoscience, 10(8), 547–555. United Nations (2020). “Shared responsibility, global solidarity:
responding to the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19.”
SDG Center for Africa and SDSN (2018). Africa SDG Index and United Nations, March 2020.
Dashboards Report 2018. SDG Center for Africa and the
Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Kigali and Walk Free Foundation (2018). Global Slavery Index 2018. Walk
New York. Free Foundation, Broadway Nedlands, Australia.
SDG Center for Africa and SDSN (2019). Africa SDG Index and WBCSD (2018). SDG Sector Roadmaps: How to leverage the
Dashboards Report 2019. SDG Center for Africa and the power of sectoral collaboration to maximize business
Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Kigali and impact on the Sustainable Development Goals. World
New York. Business Council on Sustainable Development.
SDSN (2015). Indicators and a monitoring framework for World Bank, IEA, IRENA, UNSD, and WHO (2019). Tracking SDG7: The
Sustainable Development Goals: Launching a Data Revolution Energy Progress Report 2019. The World Bank, Washington DC.
for the SDGs. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, World Benchmarking Alliance (2019). Systems Transformations.
Paris and New York. World Benchmarking Alliance. https://www.
SDSN and BCFN (2019). Fixing the Business of Food. Sustainable worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/system-transformations/,
Development Solutions Network and Barilla Center for accessed February 7, 2019.
Food and Nutrition, New York and Milan. Worldometer (2020). COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic. Live
SDSN and IEEP (2019). 2019 Europe Sustainable Development updates. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/,
Report. Sustainable Development Solutions Network and accessed May 22, 2020.
the Institute for European Environmental Policy, Paris and Yale School of Management (2020). COVID-19 Financial
Brussels. Response Tracker Visualization (CFRTV). https://som.yale.edu/
faculty-research-centers/centers-initiatives/program-on-
financial-stability/covid-19-tracker, accessed May 26, 2020.
References
Databases Global Yield Gap Atlas (2015). A joint initiative of Wageningen

University and Research and University of Nebraska-
Alsamawi, A., J. Murray, M. Lenzen, and R. C. Reyes (2017). “Trade Lincoln. http://www.yieldgap.org
in occupational safety and health: tracing the embodied
human and economic harm in labour along the global Gütschow, J., Jeffery, L., Gieseke, R. (2019): The PRIMAP-hist
supply chain.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 187–196. national historical emissions time series (1850–2016). v2.0.
GFZ Data Services. https://doi.org/10.5880/pik.2019.001
Baldé, C.P., V. Forti, V. Gray, R. Kuehr, P. Stegmann (2017). The Global
E-waste Monitor 2017. United Nations University (UNU), Interna- IEA (2019). CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion 2019.
tional Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the International International Energy Agency, Paris. https://www.iea.org/
Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn/Geneva/Vienna reports/co2-emissions-from-fuel-combustion-2019
BirdLife International, IUCN, and UNEP-WCMC (2020). IHME (2017). Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 (GBD 2017).
Resources and Data. BirdLife International, International Health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
Union for Conservation of Nature and the United Nations
Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring ILO (2020). Ratio of female-to-male labour force participation
Center. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/ rate (%) (modeled ILO estimate). International Labour
Organization, Geneva. https://data.worldbank.org/
Bonhommeau, S., L. Dubroca, O. Le Pape, J. Barde, D. M. indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FM.ZS
Kaplan, E. Chassot, and A. E. Nieblas (2013). “Eating up the
world’s food web and the human trophic level.” Proceedings ILO (2020). Unemployment, total (% of total labor force)
of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(51), 20617–20. (modeled ILO estimate). International Labour Organization,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1305827110 Geneva. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS
Cashion, T., D. Al-Abdulrazzak, D. Belhabib, B. Derrick, E. Divovich, International Monetary Fund (2020). Government Finance
D. Moutopoulos, S.-L. Noël, M. L.D. Palomares, L. Teh, D. Statistics Yearbook. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
Zeller, and D. Pauly (2018). “A global fishing gear dataset for GC.REV.XGRT.GD.ZS?view=chart
integration into the Sea Around Us global fisheries databases IPU (2020). Proportion of seats held by women in national
(in review).” Sea Around Us, Vancouver, Canada. parliaments (%). Inter-Parliamentary Union, Geneva. http://
Chandy, L., Seidel B. (2017). The Brookings Institution. https:// data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS
www.brookings.edu/opinions/how-much-do-we-really- ITU (2020). World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.
know-about-inequality-within-countries-around-the-world/ International Telecommunication Union, Geneva. http://

Cuaresma, J. C., W. Fengler, H. Kharas, K. Bekhtiar, M. Brottrager, www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/wtid.aspx
and M. Hofer (2019). “Will the Sustainable Development IUCN, BirdLife International (2020). IUCN Red List.
Goals be fulfilled? Assessing present and future global International Union for Conservation of Nature and Birdlife
poverty.” Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 29. International. http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/
Curtis et al. (2018). “Classifying drivers of global forest loss.” database/?indicator=15.5.1
Science, Vol. 361 - 6407, pp. 1108–11. Data updated in 2020. Kaza, Silpa; Yao, Lisa C.; Bhada-Tata, Perinaz; Van Woerden, Frank.
Demirguc-Kunt et al. (2018). Global Financial Inclusion 2018. What a Waste 2.0 : A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste
Database. World Bank, Washington, D.C. https://data. Management to 2050. Urban Development;. Washington,
worldbank.org/indicator/FX.OWN.TOTL.ZS DC: World Bank.
FAO (2020). Cereal Yield (kg per hectare). Food and Agriculture Lenzen, M., D. Moran, A. Bhaduri, K. Kanemoto, M. Bekchanov,
Organization, Rome. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ A. Geschke, and B. Foran. (2013). “International trade of
AG.YLD.CREL.KG scarce water.” Ecological Economics, Vol. 94, pp. 78–85.
FAO (2020). Level of water stress: freshwater withdrawal as a Lenzen, M., D. Moran, K. Kanemoto, B. Foran, L. Lobefaro, and
proportion of available freshwater resources (%). AQUASTAT, A. Geschke. (2012). “International trade drives biodiversity
Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. http://www.fao. threats in developing nations.” Nature, 486, 109–112. (Dataset
org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/index.html?lang=en updated to 2015 by Isaac Russell Peterson, Matthew
Selinkske, and colleagues), doi: 10.1038/nature11145
FAO (2020). Prevalence of undernourishment (% of population).
Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. http://data. Lenzen, M., Malik, A., Li, M., Fry, J., Weisz, H., Pichler, P-P.,
worldbank.org/indicator/SN.ITK.DEFC.ZS Chaves, L.S.M., Capon, A. Pencheon, D. 2020 (under review),
The global environmental footprint of healthcare, The
FAO, IFAD, and WFP (2015). The State of Food Insecurity in the Lancet Planetary Health.
World 2015. Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets:
taking stock of uneven progress. FAO, Rome. National Science Foundation (2020). Scientific and Technical
Journal Articles. National Science Foundation, Arlington,
Gallup (2020). Gallup World Poll. VA. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IP.JRN.ARTC.SC
Ocean Health Index (2019). Ocean Health Index 2019 global UN IGME (2020). Mortality rate, neonatal (per 1,000 live births).
assessment. National Center for Ecological Analysis and United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality
Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara. http:// Estimation (UNICEF, WHO, the World Bank Group, and the
data.oceanhealthindex.org/data-and-downloads United Nations Population Division). http://data.worldbank.
org/indicator/SH.DYN.NMRT
OECD (2011). How’s Life? Measuring well-being. Table 4.2
Housing cost overburden rate by tenure status. Dataset UN IGME (2020). Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000 live births).
updated to 2018 by Marissa Plouin, Pauline Fron, and United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality
colleagues (Affordable Housing Database). https://doi. Estimation (UNICEF, WHO, the World Bank Group, and the
org/10.1787/9789264121164-en United Nations Population Division). http://data.worldbank.
org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT
OECD (2016). Effective Carbon Rates: Pricing CO2 through
Taxes and Emissions Trading Systems, OECD Publishing, UNAIDS (2020). HIV incidence per 1000 population (15–49).
Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264260115-en. Aidsinfo, Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS,
Geneva. http://aidsinfo.unaids.rg?did=55da49cd64e925b9
OECD (2018). PISA Database. Organisation for Economic 4e70b0ce&r=world&t=2018&tb=d&bt=dnli&ts=0,
Cooperation and Development, Paris. http:// 0&tr=world&aid=5970eccef7341ed11f26de5d&sav=
pisadataexplorer.oecd.org/ide/idepisa/dataset.aspx. Population: All ages&tl=2
OECD (2020). OECD Statistics. Organisation for Economic UNDESA (2020). Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1,000
Cooperation and Development, Paris. http://stats.oecd.org/ women ages 15-19). World Population Prospects, United
Oita, A., et al. (2016). Substantial nitrogen pollution Nations Population Division, United Nations Department
embedded in international trade. Nature Geoscience, 9, of Economic and Social Affairs, New York. http://data.
pp. 111–115, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2635 worldbank.org/indicator/SP.ADO.TFRT
Pauly D., and D. Zeller (2018). Sea Around Us. Concepts, Design UNDESA (2020). Family Planning – Model. United Nations
and Data. Sea Around Us, Vancouver, Canada. www.sea Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York.
aroundus.org. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/
theme/family- planning/cp_model.shtml
Reporters Without Borders (2019). World Press Freedom Index
2019. Reporters Without Borders (RSF). https://rsf.org/en/ UNDESA (2020). Proportion of women of reproductive
ranking/2019 age (aged 15-49 years) who have their need for family
planning satisfied with modern methods (% of women
Schwab, K. (2019). The Global Competitiveness Report 2019. aged 15-49 years). World Contraceptive Use 2018 (POP/
World Economic Forum, Geneva. https://reports.weforum. DB/CP/Rev2018). United Nations Department of Economic
org/global-competitiveness-report-2019 and Social Affairs, New York. https://www.un.org/en/
SE4All (2020). Access to clean fuels and technologies for development/desa/population/publications/dataset/
cooking (% of population). Sustainable Energy for All. contraception/wcu2018.asp
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.CFT.ACCS.ZS UNESCO (2020). UIS.stat. Government expenditure on
SE4All (2020). Access to electricity (% of population). education. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), Montréal,
Sustainable Energy for All. http://data.worldbank.org/ Canada. http://data.uis.unesco.org/
indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS UNESCO (2020). UIS.stat. Lower secondary completion rate,
SIPRI (2020). SIPRI Arms Transfers Database. Stockholm total (% of relevant age group). UNESCO Institute for
International Peace Research Institute, Stockholm. https:// Statistics (UIS), Montréal, Canada. http://data.uis.unesco.org/
www.sipri.org/ databases/armstransfers. UNESCO (2020). UIS.stat. Net enrolment rate, primary, both
Tax Justice Network (2019). Corporate Tax Haven Index 2019. sexes (%). UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), Montréal,
Tax Justice Network, London. https://corporatetaxhaven Canada. http://data.uis.unesco.org/
index.org/introduction/cthi-2019-results UNESCO (2020). UIS.stat. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS),
Tax Justice Network (2020). Financial Secrecy Index Montréal, Canada. http://data.uis.unesco.org/
2020. Tax Justice Network, London. https://www. UNESCO (2020). UIS.stat. Youth literacy rate, population 15-24
financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2018-results years, both sexes (%). UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS),
Times Higher Education (2020). World University Rankings Montréal, Canada. http://data.uis.unesco.org/
2020. Times Higher Education and the World Universities UNICEF (2017). Child labour. http://data.unicef.org/topic/
Insights, London. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ child-protection/child-labour/
world-university-rankings
UNICEF (2017). Birth registration. United Nations Children’s
Transparency International (2020). Corruption Perceptions Fund, New York. http://data.unicef.org/topic/child-
Index 2019. Transparency International, Berlin. https://www. protection/birth-registration/
transparency.org/cpi2019?/news/feature/cpi-2019
References
UNICEF (2020). Births attended by skilled health staff (% of WHO (2020). GHO Obesity (age- standardized estimate).
total). United Nations Children’s Fund, New York. http:// World Health Organization, Geneva. http://apps.who.int/
data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.BRTC.ZS gho/data/view.main.CTRY2450A?lang=en
UNICEF, WHO, and the World Bank Group (2020). Prevalence WHO (2020). GHO Road traffic deaths. World Health
of stunting, height for age (% of children under 5). United Organization, Geneva. http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Health main.A997
Organization, and the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development/The World Bank. https://data.worldbank. WHO (2020). Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 people).
org/indicator/SH.STA.STNT.ZS World Health Organization, Geneva. http://data.worldbank.
org/indicator/SH.TBS.INCD
UNICEF, WHO, and the World Bank Group (2020). Prevalence
of wasting, weight for height (% of children under 5). WHO (2020). World Health Expenditure Database. World
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Health Organization, Geneva. http://apps.who.int/nha/
Organization, and the International Bank for Reconstruction database
and Development/The World Bank. http://data.worldbank. WHO, et al. (2020). Maternal mortality ratio (modeled
org/indicator/SH.STA.WAST.ZS estimate, per 100,000 live births). World Health
United Nations (2020). UN Comtrade Database. United Organization, Geneva. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
Nations, NY. https://comtrade.un.org/data/ SH.STA.MMRT
UNODC (2020). Global Study on Homicides. United Nations WHO, UNICEF (2020). Immunization Coverage. World Health
Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna. https://dataunodc. Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund, Geneva
un.org/GSH_app and New York. http://data.unicef.org/topic/child-health/
immunization/
UNODC (2020). Total Persons Held Unsentenced. United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna. https:// WHO, UNICEF (2020). WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring
dataunodc.un.org/data/prison/total%20persons%20 Programme: Data and estimates. People using at least basic
held%20unsentenced drinking water services (% of population). World Health
Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund, Geneva
UNODC (2020). Total Prison Population. United Nations Office and New York. https://washdata.org/data
on Drugs and Crime, Vienna. https://dataunodc.un.org/
crime/total-prison-population WHO, UNICEF (2020). WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring

Programme: Data and estimates. People using at least
Walk Free Foundation (2018). Global Slavery Index 2018. Walk basic sanitation services (% of population). World Health
Free Foundation, Broadway Nedlands, Australia. https:// Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund, Geneva
www.globalslaveryindex.org/ and New York. https://washdata.org/data
Wendling, Z. A., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., Levy, M. A., de WHO, UNICEF (2020). WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Sherbinin, A., et al. (2018). 2018 Environmental Performance Programme: Data and estimates. World Health
Index. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund, Geneva
and Policy. http://epi.yale.edu. and New York. https://washdata.org/data
WHO (2018). Age-standardized death rate due to World Bank (2018). 2018 Logistics Performance Index (LPI).
cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and chronic World Bank, Washington, D.C. http://lpi.worldbank.org/
respiratory disease in populations age 30–70 years, per international/global
100 000 population. World Health Organization, Geneva.
https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.GSWCAH21v World Bank (2020). GDP per capita, PPP (current international $).
World Bank, Washington, D.C. https://data.worldbank.org/
WHO (2019). Tracking universal health coverage: 2019 indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD
Global Monitoring Report. World Health Organization,
Geneva. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/universal_health_ World Data Lab (2020). World Poverty Clock. World Data Lab,
coverage/report/2019/en/ Vienna. http://worldpoverty.io/
WHO (2020). Age-standardized death rate attributable to Zhang, X., and E. Davidson (2019). Sustainable Nitrogen
household air pollution and ambient air pollution, per Management Index. Earth and Space Science Open
100 000 population. World Health Organization, Geneva. Archive. https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10501111.1
https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.GSWCAH37v Zucman, G., T. Tørsløv, and L. Weir (2019). The Missing Profits of
WHO (2020). GHO Life expectancy and healthy life Nations: 2016 Figures. https://missingprofits.world
expectancy. World Health Organization, Geneva.
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.688
Part 5
Country Profiles
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
102
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Central African Republic 13
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
0 Low-income Countries 23
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
54.2
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
Cambodia 36
5
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
0 Sub-Saharan Africa 39
SDG Global rank

0 Lower-middle-income Countries 40
SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.
100 (best) to 0 (worst)

41
Syrian Arab Republic 42
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Significant challenges
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
0 East and South Asia
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
Azerbaijan 60
AFGHANISTAN
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
139 (OF 166)

Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65
Sustainable Development Report 2020

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
70.9
Armenia 71
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
L
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Dominican Republic 77
Bosnia and Herzegovina 78
0 Latin America and the Caribbean 79
Iran, Islamic Rep. 80
São Tomé and Príncipe 81
Cabo Verde 82
Upper-middle-income Countries 83
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86
Regional average score
CURRENT ASSESSMENT – SDG DASHBOARD

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
•
Vanuatu 90
China 91
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94
The full title of each SDG is available here: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainabledevelopmentgoals

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
0 Middle East and North Africa 105
Notes: The full title of Goal 2 “Zero Hunger” is “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”.
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
p
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11
0 Eastern Europe and Central Asia 117

Trinidad and Tobago 118
Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Information unavailable
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
10
Serbia 127
Oman 128
D
Lebanon 129
5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
Russian Federation 132
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
p Decreasing 5 Stagnating D Moderately improving L On track or maintaining SDG achievement • Information unavailable
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
The Sustainable Development Goals and Covid-19

25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
Afghanistan
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG
Brunei Darussalam 145

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
D
Israel 148
8
Portugal 149
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
0 High-income Countries 155
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE BY SDG
Norway 167
5
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
SDG
Netherlands 170
5
Mauritius 171
SDG
United Arab Emirates 172

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
AFGHANISTAN Performance by Indicator
SDG1 – No Poverty Value Year RatingTrend SDG9 – Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure Value Year RatingTrend
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) * NA NA • • Population using the internet (%) 13.5 2017 •5
Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) * NA NA • • Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population) 18.8 2018 • D
Logistics Performance Index: Quality of trade and transport-related
SDG2 – Zero Hunger 1.8 2018 • p
Prevalence of undernourishment (%) 29.8 2017 • p infrastructure (worst 1–5 best)
Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%) 40.9 2013 • 5 The Times Higher Education Universities Ranking: Average score of top 3
universities (worst 0–100 best)
* 0.0 2020 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) 9.5 2013 • L Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.0 2018 • 5
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population) 5.5 2016 • L Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP) * 0.0 2017 • •
Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2.2 2017 • L
Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested land) 2.0 2017 • 5 SDG10 – Reduced Inequalities
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) 0.7 2015 • p Gini coefficient adjusted for top income NA NA • •
SDG3 – Good Health and Well-Being SDG11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities
Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) 638 • L
2017 Annual mean concentration of particulate matter of less than
2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) (μg/m3)
56.9 2017 • 5
Neonatal mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 37.1 • D
2018
Access to improved water source, piped (% of urban population) 45.1 2017 • 5
Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000 live births) 62.3 • D
2018
Satisfaction with public transport (%) 45.3 2018 • p
Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 population) 189.0 •5
2018
SDG12 – Responsible Consumption and Production
New HIV infections (per 1,000 uninfected population) 0.0 • L
2018
Age-standardized death rate due to cardiovascular disease, cancer,
29.8 2016 • 5
Municipal solid waste (kg/capita/day) 1.7 2016 • •
diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease in adults aged 30–70 years (%) Electronic waste (kg/capita) 0.6 2016 • •
Age-standardized death rate attributable to household air pollution and
211 2016 • •
Production-based SO2 emissions (kg/capita) 5.1 2012 • •
ambient air pollution (per 100,000 population) SO2 emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita) 0.4 2012 • •
Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population) 15.1 2016 • 5 Production-based nitrogen emissions (kg/capita) 9.1 2010 • •
Life expectancy at birth (years) 62.7 2016 • 5 Nitrogen emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita) 0.2 2010 • •
Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1,000 adolescent females aged 15 to 19) 69.0 2017 • L SDG13 – Climate Action
50.5 2015 • L
Births attended by skilled health personnel (%)
64 2018 • 5
Energy-related CO2 emissions (tCO2/capita) 0.4 2017 • L
Percentage of surviving infants who received 2 WHO-recommended vaccines (%)
37.0 2017 • 5
CO2 emissions embodied in imports (tCO2/capita) 0.0 2015 • L
Universal health coverage (UHC) index of service coverage (worst 0–100 best)
Subjective well-being (average ladder score, worst 0–10 best) 2.7 2018 • p
CO2 emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita) 22.4 2015 • •
SDG14 – Life Below Water
SDG4 – Quality Education Mean area that is protected in marine sites important to biodiversity (%) NA NA • •
Net primary enrollment rate (%) NA NA • • Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) NA NA • •
Lower secondary completion rate (%) 53.2 2017 • L Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) NA NA • •
Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24) 65.4 2018 • • Fish caught by trawling (%) NA NA • •
SDG5 – Gender Equality Marine biodiversity threats embodied in imports (per million population) 0.0 2018 • •
Demand for family planning satisfied by modern methods (% of females
aged 15 to 49 who are married or in unions)
42.2 2016 • D SDG15 – Life on Land
31.7 2018 •
Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (%) 6.1 •5
2018
Ratio of female-to-male mean years of education received (%)
Ratio of female-to-male labor force participation rate (%) 59.5 2019 •
5
D
Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 0.1 •5
2018
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 27.0 2020 • p

Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 0.8 • p
2019
Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average) 0.0 • •
2018
SDG6 – Clean Water and Sanitation Terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity threats embodied in imports
0.0 2018 • •
Population using at least basic drinking water services (%) 67.1 2017 • L (per million population)
Population using at least basic sanitation services (%) 43.4 2017 •5 SDG16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources) 54.8 2000 • • Homicides (per 100,000 population) 7.1 2017 • L
Anthropogenic wastewater that receives treatment (%) 0.0 2018 • • Unsentenced detainees (% of prison population) 31.3 2015 • •
Scarce water consumption embodied in imports (m3/capita) 2.5 2013 • L Percentage of population who feel safe walking alone at night in the
12.5 2018 • p
SDG7 – Affordable and Clean Energy city or area where they live (%)
Population with access to electricity (%) 97.7 2017 • L Property Rights (worst 1–7 best) NA NA • •
42.3 2018 • •
Population with access to clean fuels and technology for cooking (%) 32.4 2016 • D Birth registrations with civil authority (% of children under age 5)
CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for electricity and heating Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 16 2019 • 5
NA NA • •
per total electricity output (MtCO2/TWh) Children involved in child labor (% of population aged 5 to 14) 29.4 2016 • •
5. Country Profiles
Exports of major conventional weapons (TIV constant million USD

SDG8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth * 0.0 2019 • •
Adjusted GDP growth (%) -7.3 2018 • • per 100,000 population)
36.6 2019 •
Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) 22.2 2018 • • Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) D
Adults with an account at a bank or other financial institution or with a SDG17 – Partnerships for the Goals
14.9 2017 • 5
mobile-money-service provider (% of population aged 15 or over) Government spending on health and education (% of GDP) 4.8 2016 • D
Unemployment rate (% of total labor force) 11.1 2019 • 5 For high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional
Fatal work-related accidents embodied in imports (per 100,000 population) 0.0 2010 • L public finance, including official development assistance (% of GNI)
NA NA • •
Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants (% of GDP) 12.2 2017 • D
Corporate Tax Haven Score (best 0–100 worst) * 0.0 2019 • •
* Imputed data point
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
104
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
L
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
70.8
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
Cambodia 36
5
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
ALBANIA
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
68 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
70.9
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
D
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
Lebanon 129
L
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Albania
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
D
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
ALBANIA Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 0.4 2020 • L Population using the internet (%) 71.8 2017 • L
Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) 4.4 2020 • L Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population) 62.8 2018 • L
SDG2 – Zero Hunger 2.3 2018 • •
Prevalence of undernourishment (%) 6.2 2017 • L infrastructure (worst 1–5 best)
* 0.0 2020 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) 9.4 2009 • D Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.1 2018 • 5
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population) 21.7 2016 • p Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP) 0.2 2008 • •
Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2.4 2017 • p
Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested land) 4.8 2017 • L SDG10 – Reduced Inequalities
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) 0.8 2015 • 5 Gini coefficient adjusted for top income 41.7 2012 • •
18.2 2017 • 5
Neonatal mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 6.5 • L
2018
Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000 live births) 8.8 • L
2018
Satisfaction with public transport (%) 50.5 2019 • 5
2018
New HIV infections (per 1,000 uninfected population) NA • •
NA
17.0 2016 • L
68 2016 • •
Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population) 13.6 2016 • L Production-based nitrogen emissions (kg/capita) 17.0 2010 • •
Life expectancy at birth (years) 76.4 2016 • D Nitrogen emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita) 2.0 2010 • •
99.8 2018 • •
94 2018 • L
59.0 2017 • 5
Subjective well-being (average ladder score, worst 0–10 best) 5.0 2019 • L
SDG4 – Quality Education Mean area that is protected in marine sites important to biodiversity (%) 60.1 2018 • L
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 94.5 2018 • D Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 56.7 2019 •5
Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24) 99.3 2018 • • Fish caught by trawling (%) 86.3 2014 •5
97.1 2018 •
Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (%) 76.1 • L
2018
L
L
Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 99.0 • L
2018
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 29.5 2020 • L

2019
2018
0.6 2018 • •
Population using at least basic drinking water services (%) 91.0 2017 •5 (per million population)
Population using at least basic sanitation services (%) 97.7 2017 • L SDG16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Anthropogenic wastewater that receives treatment (%) 2.7 2018 • • Unsentenced detainees (% of prison population) 44.3 2018 • D
63.0 2019 • D
Population with access to electricity (%) 100.0 2017 • L Property Rights (worst 1–7 best) 3.3 2019 • •
98.4 2018 • •
Population with access to clean fuels and technology for cooking (%) 77.4 2016 • L Birth registrations with civil authority (% of children under age 5)
CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for electricity and heating Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 35 2019 • p
1.0 2017 • L
5. Country Profiles

29.8 2019 •
Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) 6.9 2018 • • Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) L
40.0 2017 • 5
Unemployment rate (% of total labor force) 12.3 2019 • L For high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
106
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
L
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
72.3
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
Cambodia 36
5
5
Rwanda 37
ALGERIA
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
56 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
66.3
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
L
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
p
Tunisia 92
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
D
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
Lebanon 129
L
5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy
Algeria
141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG
•
Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
Israel 148
5
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
ALGERIA Performance by Indicator
24.5 2020 • •
Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested land) 1.0 2017 • p SDG10 – Reduced Inequalities
Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) 112 •5
38.9 2017 • p
2018
Access to improved water source, piped (% of urban population) 81.9 2017 • p
2018
Satisfaction with public transport (%) 57.7 2018 • L
2018
2018
14.2 2016 • L
50 2016 • •
Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population) 23.8 2013 • • Production-based nitrogen emissions (kg/capita) 9.9 2010 • •
96.6 2013 • •
80 2018 • p
Energy-related CO2 emissions (tCO2/capita) 3.4 2017 •5
78.0 2017 • L
SDG4 – Quality Education Mean area that is protected in marine sites important to biodiversity (%) 30.0 2018 •5
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 97.6 2018 • L Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 41.4 2019 •5
Lower secondary completion rate (%) 84.6 2018 • L Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) 64.9 2014 • p
Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24) 97.4 2018 • • Fish caught by trawling (%) 29.6 2014 • p
77.2 2013 • L SDG15 – Life on Land
92.8 2018 •
2018
L
p
2018

Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 0.9 • L
2019
2018
0.3 2018 • •
Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources) 127.7 2015 • • Homicides (per 100,000 population) 1.4 2015 • •
Anthropogenic wastewater that receives treatment (%) 33.1 2018 • • Unsentenced detainees (% of prison population) 12.0 2018 • L
64.3 2018 • •
99.6 2018 • •
1.8 2017 • L
5. Country Profiles

SDG8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth 0.0 2019 • •
45.8 2019 •
Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) 2.7 2018 • • Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) p
42.8 2017 • p
mobile-money-service provider (% of population aged 15 or over) Government spending on health and education (% of GDP) 7.4 2008 • •
Unemployment rate (% of total labor force) 11.7 2019 • p For high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional
NA NA • •
Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants (% of GDP) * 40.4 2011 • •
ANDORRA Western Europe
OVERALL PERFORMANCE SDG SDG

17 100 1 SDG
SDG
16 2
75
Index score Regional average score SDG
50
SDG
3
15
25
SDG
SDG
14 4
na 70.9 SDG
Andorra SDG
13 5
SDG
SDG
12 6
SDG Global rank NA (OF 166) SDG
SDG
11 7
SDG SDG
10 SDG
8
9
SPILLOVER INDEX AVERAGE PERFORMANCE BY SDG

100
80
60
40
20
Major challenges Significant challenges Challenges remain SDG achieved Information unavailable
SDG TRENDS
• D • • L D L • D
• L • 5 • D L L
ANDORRA Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) NA NA • • Population using the internet (%) 91.6 2017 • L
Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) NA NA • • Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population) 60.4 2018 • L
SDG2 – Zero Hunger NA NA • •
Prevalence of undernourishment (%) * 1.2 2017 • • infrastructure (worst 1–5 best)
Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%) * 2.6 2016 • L The Times Higher Education Universities Ranking: Average score of top 3
* 0.0 2020 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) * 0.7 2016 • L Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.0 2018 • p
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population) 25.6 2016 • p Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP) NA NA • •
Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) NA NA • •
Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested land) NA NA • • SDG10 – Reduced Inequalities
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) NA NA • • Gini coefficient adjusted for top income NA NA • •
Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) NA NA • • Annual mean concentration of particulate matter of less than
10.3 2017 • L
Neonatal mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 1.4 2018 • L Access to improved water source, piped (% of urban population) 99.0 2017 • L
Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000 live births) 2.9 2018 • L Satisfaction with public transport (%) NA NA • •
Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 population) 3.0 2018 • L
New HIV infections (per 1,000 uninfected population) NA NA • •
NA NA •
diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease in adults aged 30–70 years (%) • Electronic waste (kg/capita) NA NA • •
NA NA • •
Life expectancy at birth (years) NA NA • • Nitrogen emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita) 14.1 2010 • •
Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1,000 adolescent females aged 15 to 19) NA NA • • SDG13 – Climate Action
NA NA • •
99 2018 •
NA NA •
L CO2 emissions embodied in imports (tCO2/capita) 2.7 2015 •5
Universal health coverage (UHC) index of service coverage (worst 0–100 best) • CO2 emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita) 0.7 2017 • •
Subjective well-being (average ladder score, worst 0–10 best) NA NA • • SDG14 – Life Below Water
Net primary enrollment rate (%) NA NA • • Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) NA NA • •
Lower secondary completion rate (%) NA NA • • Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) NA NA • •
Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24) NA NA • • Fish caught by trawling (%) NA NA • •
NA NA• • SDG15 – Life on Land
99.0 2018 • L
Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (%) 26.1 2018 •5
Ratio of female-to-male labor force participation rate (%) NA NA • •
Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) NA NA • •
Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 0.9 2019 • L
Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average) NA NA • •
0.6 2018 • •
Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources) NA NA • • Homicides (per 100,000 population) 1.2 2011 • •
Scarce water consumption embodied in imports (m3/capita) 33.8 2013 •5 Percentage of population who feel safe walking alone at night in the
NA NA • •
100.0 2018 • •
CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for electricity and heating Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) NA NA • •
NA NA • •
per total electricity output (MtCO2/TWh) Children involved in child labor (% of population aged 5 to 14) NA NA • •
5. Country Profiles

Adjusted GDP growth (%) NA NA• • per 100,000 population)
24.6 2019 •
Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) NA NA• • Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) L
NA NA • •
mobile-money-service provider (% of population aged 15 or over) Government spending on health and education (% of GDP) 8.4 2016 • L
Unemployment rate (% of total labor force) NA NA • • For high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional
NA NA • •
Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants (% of GDP) NA NA • •
Corporate Tax Haven Score (best 0–100 worst) 69.0 2019 • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
110
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
p
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
52.6
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
Cambodia 36
5
Rwanda 37
ANGOLA
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
149 (OF 166)

Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
53.1
•
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
Suriname 111
5
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Angola
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
p
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
Norway 167
5
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
Sub-Saharan Africa
ANGOLA Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 21.0 2020 • p Population using the internet (%) 14.3 2017 • p
Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) 42.9 2020 • p Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population) 18.9 2018 •5
Prevalence of undernourishment (%) 25.0 2017 • D infrastructure (worst 1–5 best)
* 0.0 2020 • •
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population) 8.2 2016 • L Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP) NA NA • •
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) 0.9 2015 • p Gini coefficient adjusted for top income 45.1 2008 • •
32.4 2017 •5
2018
Access to improved water source, piped (% of urban population) 58.0 2017 • D
2018
Satisfaction with public transport (%) 32.2 2014 • •
2018
New HIV infections (per 1,000 uninfected population) 1.0 •5
2018
16.5 2016 • L
119 2016 • •
Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1,000 adolescent females aged 15 to 19) 150.5 2017 • 5 SDG13 – Climate Action
49.6 2016 • •
50 2018 • p
40.0 2017 • 5
Subjective well-being (average ladder score, worst 0–10 best) 3.8 2014 • •
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 78.0 2011 • • Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 55.0 2019 • p
Lower secondary completion rate (%) 20.7 2011 • • Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) 12.1 2014 • L
Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24) 77.4 2014 • • Fish caught by trawling (%) 28.9 2014 • D
29.8 2016 • 5 SDG15 – Life on Land
62.5 2018 •
2018
p
L
2018

2019
2018
0.6 2018 • •
46.2 2014 • •
Population with access to electricity (%) 41.9 2017 • D Property Rights (worst 1–7 best) 3.2 2019 • •
25.0 2018 • •
Population with access to clean fuels and technology for cooking (%) 48.1 2016 • 5 Birth registrations with civil authority (% of children under age 5)
CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for electricity and heating Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 26 2019 • D
1.7 2017 • L
5. Country Profiles

35.0 2019 •
29.3 2014 • •
Unemployment rate (% of total labor force) 6.9 2019 • D For high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional
NA NA • •
Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants (% of GDP) 16.4 2017 • p
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA Latin America and the Caribbean

17 100 1 SDG
SDG
16 2
75
50
SDG
3
15
25
SDG
SDG
14 4
na 70.4 SDG
Antigua and
Barbuda
SDG
13 5
SDG
SDG
12 6
SDG
11 7
SDG SDG
10 SDG
8
9

100
80
60
40
20
SDG TRENDS
• 5 D L D 5 L • D
• • • 5 p 5 • •
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) NA NA • • Population using the internet (%) 76.0 2017 • L
Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) NA NA • • Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population) 50.3 2017 • L
* 0.0 2020 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) * 0.7 2016 • L Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.1 2018 • 5
Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2.4 2017 •5
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) 1.3 2015 •5 Gini coefficient adjusted for top income NA NA • •
18.6 2017 • D
2018
Access to improved water source, piped (% of urban population) NA NA • •
2018
Satisfaction with public transport (%) NA NA • •
Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 population) 6.0 • L
2018
2018
22.6 2016 • p
30 2016 • •
Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1,000 adolescent females aged 15 to 19) 42.8 2017 • D SDG13 – Climate Action
100.0 2014 • •
95 2018 • L
73.0 2017 • L
CO2 emissions embodied in imports (tCO2/capita) 2.0 2015 •5
Subjective well-being (average ladder score, worst 0–10 best) NA NA • •
CO2 emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita) * 0.0 2018 • •
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 95.7 2018 • L Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 61.6 2019 • p
* 79.4 2017 • L SDG15 – Life on Land
Ratio of female-to-male mean years of education received (%) NA NA • • Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) NA NA • •
Ratio of female-to-male labor force participation rate (%) NA NA • • Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 0.9 2019 •5
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 11.1 2020 •5 Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average) 0.3 2018 • •
0.3 2018 • •
NA NA • •
NA NA • •
NA NA • •
5. Country Profiles

Adjusted GDP growth (%) 1.4 2018 • • per 100,000 population)
NA NA •
Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) NA NA • • Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) •
NA NA • •
mobile-money-service provider (% of population aged 15 or over) Government spending on health and education (% of GDP) 5.8 2009• •
Unemployment rate (% of total labor force) NA NA • • For high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional
NA NA • •
Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants (% of GDP) * NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
114
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
D
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
73.2
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
D
Cambodia 36
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
ARGENTINA
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
51 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
70.4
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
Challenges remain
5
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
L
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
Suriname 111
5
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
Lebanon 129
L
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Argentina
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
Israel 148
5
5
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
Norway 167
5
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
ARGENTINA Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) 2.9 2020 • 5 Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population) 80.7 2017 • L
Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%) 8.2 2005 • L The Times Higher Education Universities Ranking: Average score of top 3
16.4 2020 • •
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population) 28.3 2016 • p Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP) 0.5 2016 • p
Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2.4 2017 • 5
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) 0.3 2015 • L Gini coefficient adjusted for top income 46.7 2016 • •
13.3 2017 • L
2018
Access to improved water source, piped (% of urban population) 98.0 2017 • L
2018
2018
2018
15.8 2016 • L
27 2016 • •
Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population) 14.0 2016 • p Production-based nitrogen emissions (kg/capita) 46.6 2010 • •
99.6 2015 • L
86 2018 • p
76.0 2017 • L
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 99.2 2017 • L Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 81.9 2019 • L
Lower secondary completion rate (%) 89.8 2017 • p Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) 74.0 2014 • p
Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24) 99.5 2018 • • Fish caught by trawling (%) 60.5 2014 •5
* 81.4 2017 • L SDG15 – Life on Land
2018
Ratio of female-to-male mean years of education received (%) 101.9 2018 • L Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 39.6 •5
2018
Ratio of female-to-male labor force participation rate (%) 67.2 2019 • L Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 0.9 •5
2019
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 40.9 2020 • L Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average) 0.4 • •
2018
0.5 2018 • •
Population using at least basic sanitation services (%) 94.3 2016 • D SDG16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
44.2 2019 • 5
99.5 2018 • •
CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for electricity and heating Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 45 2019 • L
1.3 2017 • L
5. Country Profiles

28.3 2019 •
48.7 2017 • p
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
116
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
L
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
69.9
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
Cambodia 36
5
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

ARMENIA
SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
75 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
70.9
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
•
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
L
Suriname 111
5
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
Lebanon 129
L
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Armenia
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
Israel 148
5
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
ARMENIA Performance by Indicator
SDG2 – Zero Hunger 2.5 2018 • D
* 0.0 2020 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) 4.2 2016 • L Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.2 2018 • p
32.5 2017 • 5
2018
2018
2018
2018
22.3 2016 • L
55 2016 • •
Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population) 17.1 2016 • D Production-based nitrogen emissions (kg/capita) 9.1 2010 • •
99.8 2016 • L
92 2018 • L
69.0 2017 • L
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 90.7 2018 • p Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) NA NA • •
36.9 2016 • 5 SDG15 – Life on Land
100.0 2018 •
L
L
Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 26.8 2018 •5
Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 0.8 2019 •5
Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average) * 0.0 2018 • •
0.1 2018 • •
Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources) 64.2 2015 • • Homicides (per 100,000 population) 2.4 2017 • D
Anthropogenic wastewater that receives treatment (%) 8.8 2018 • • Unsentenced detainees (% of prison population) 36.3 2018 • p
89.1 2018 • L
98.7 2018 • •
0.7 2017 • L
5. Country Profiles

29.0 2019 •
47.8 2017 • L
mobile-money-service provider (% of population aged 15 or over) Government spending on health and education (% of GDP) 4.4 2016 •5
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
118
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
D
Guinea
5
18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
74.9
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
Cambodia 36
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
AUSTRALIA
Papua New Guinea 48

Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
L
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
37 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
77.3
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
Challenges remain
5
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
L
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
Suriname 111
5
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Australia
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
Israel 148
5
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
OECD Countries
AUSTRALIA Performance by Indicator
Poverty rate after taxes and transfers (%) 12.4 2018 • D Logistics Performance Index: Quality of trade and transport-related
infrastructure (worst 1–5 best)
4.0 2018 • L
SDG2 – Zero Hunger The Times Higher Education Universities Ranking: Average score of top 3
Prevalence of undernourishment (%) 2.5 2017 • L universities (worst 0–100 best)
73.1 2020 • •
Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%) 2.0 2007 • L Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 2.2 2018 • L
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) 0.0 2007 • L Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP) 1.9 2015 • •
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population) 29.0 2016 • p Researchers (per 1,000 employed population) 9.0 2010 • •
Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2.5 2017 •5 Triadic patent families filed (per million population) 13.5 2017 • p
Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested land) 2.7 2017 • L Gap in internet access by income (percentage points) 57.0 2008 • •
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) 0.6 2015 •5 Women in science and engineering (% of tertiary graduates in science
27.6 2015 • •
Yield gap closure (% of potential yield) 47.7 2015 • • and engineering)
SDG3 – Good Health and Well-Being SDG10 – Reduced Inequalities
2017 Gini coefficient adjusted for top income 36.9 2014 • •
2018 Palma ratio 1.3 2018 •5
2018 Elderly poverty rate (% of population aged 66 or over) 23.7 2018 •5
2018
SDG11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities
9.1 2016 • L 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) (μg/m3)
8.6 2017 • L
diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease in adults aged 30–70 years (%)
8 2016 • • Satisfaction with public transport (%) 56.6 2019 • 5
ambient air pollution (per 100,000 population)
Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population) 5.6 2016 • L Population with rent overburden (%) 9.9 2017 • p
Life expectancy at birth (years) 82.9 2016 • L SDG12 – Responsible Consumption and Production
Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1,000 adolescent females aged 15 to 19) 11.7 2017 • L Electronic waste (kg/capita) 23.6 2016 • •
Births attended by skilled health personnel (%) 99.7 2015 • L Production-based SO2 emissions (kg/capita) 144.6 2012 • •
Percentage of surviving infants who received 2 WHO-recommended vaccines (%) 95.0 2018 • L SO2 emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita) 15.2 2012 • •
Universal health coverage (UHC) index of service coverage (worst 0–100 best) 87.0 2017 • L Production-based nitrogen emissions (kg/capita) 105.4 2010 • •
Subjective well-being (average ladder score, worst 0–10 best) 7.2 2019 • L Nitrogen emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita) 9.0 2010 • •
Gap in life expectancy at birth among regions (years) 2.4 2015 • • Non-recycled municipal solid waste (kg/capita/day) 0.8 2017 • •
Gap in self-reported health status by income (percentage points) 8.9 2017 • L SDG13 – Climate Action
12.4 2016 • L
Daily smokers (% of population aged 15 and over) Energy-related CO2 emissions (tCO2/capita) 14.8 2017 •5
SDG4 – Quality Education CO2 emissions embodied in imports (tCO2/capita) 3.0 2015 •5
Net primary enrollment rate (%) * 100.0 2017• L CO2 emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita) 45100.5 2018 • •
Lower secondary completion rate (%) * 100.0 2017• L Effective carbon rate (EUR/tCO2) 2.6 2016 • •
Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24) NA NA • • SDG14 – Life Below Water
86.4 2017 • L
Participation rate in pre-primary organized learning (% of children aged 4 to 6)
51.4 2018 • L
Mean area that is protected in marine sites important to biodiversity (%) 66.0 2018 • L
Tertiary educational attainment (% of population aged 25 to 34)
499.0 2018 • L
Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 80.3 2019 • L
PISA score (worst 0–600 best)
10.0 2018 • L
Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) 73.7 2014 • p
Variation in science performance explained by socio-economic status (%)
18.9 2018 • p
Fish caught by trawling (%) 28.3 2014 • p
Underachievers in science (% of 15-year-olds)
Resilient students in science (% of 15-year-olds) 35.3 2018 • L
Marine biodiversity threats embodied in imports (per million population) 0.8 2018 • •
SDG15 – Life on Land
SDG5 – Gender Equality Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (%) 52.7 • L
2018
Demand for family planning satisfied by modern methods
(% of females aged 15 to 49 who are married or in unions)
* 83.1 2017 • L Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 36.6 •5
2018
Ratio of female-to-male mean years of education received (%) 100.8 2018 • L
2019
Ratio of female-to-male labor force participation rate (%) 84.7 2019 • L
2018
Terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity threats embodied in imports
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 30.5 2020 • D 2.7 2018 • •
Gender wage gap (% of male median wage) 11.7 2018 • L
Gender gap in time spent doing unpaid work (minutes/day) 139.4 2006 • • SDG16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
SDG6 – Clean Water and Sanitation
Homicides (per 100,000 population) •
0.8 2017 L
Population using at least basic drinking water services (%) 100.0 2017 • •
Unsentenced detainees (% of prison population) •
31.6 2018 p
Percentage of population who feel safe walking alone at night in the
64.3 2019 •
Population using at least basic sanitation services (%) 100.0 2017 • • city or area where they live (%) D
Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources) 6.2 2015 • • Property Rights (worst 1–7 best) 6.1 2019 • •
Anthropogenic wastewater that receives treatment (%) 92.7 2018 • • Birth registrations with civil authority (% of children under age 5) 100.0 2018 • •
5. Country Profiles
Scarce water consumption embodied in imports (m3/capita) 17.9 2013 • L Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 77.0 2019 • L
Population using safely managed water services (%) * 100.0 2017 • • Children involved in child labor (% of population aged 5 to 14) * 0.0 2016 • •
Population using safely managed sanitation services (%) 75.6 2017 • D Exports of major conventional weapons (TIV constant million USD
0.4 2019 • •
SDG7 – Affordable and Clean Energy per 100,000 population)
16.6 2019 •
Population with access to electricity (%) 100.0 2017 • L Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst)
168.5 2017 •
L
Population with access to clean fuels and technology for cooking (%) 100.0 2016 • L Persons held in prison (per 100,000 population) p
CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for electricity and heating per total
1.6 2017 • 5 SDG17 – Partnerships for the Goals
electricity output (MtCO2/TWh)
Share of renewable energy in total primary energy supply (%) 6.9 2018 •
Government spending on health and education (% of GDP)
5 For high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional
11.6 2016 • L
0.2 2017 • p
SDG8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth public finance, including official development assistance (% of GNI)
NA NA • •
Adjusted GDP growth (%) 0.0 2018 • • Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants (% of GDP)
0.0 2019 • •
Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) 0.6 2018 • • Corporate Tax Haven Score (best 0–100 worst)
Financial Secrecy Score (best 0–100 worst)
*
50.1 2020 • •
Adults with an account at a bank or other financial institution or with a
99.5 2017 • L 15.2 2016 •
mobile-money-service provider (% of population aged 15 or over) Shifted profits of multinationals (US$ billion) •
Fatal work-related accidents embodied in imports (per 100,000 population) 2.4 2010 • L
Employment-to-population ratio (%) 74.3 2019 • L
Youth not in employment, education or training (NEET)
10.8 2018 • L
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
120
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
Mozambique 16
Mali
D
17
L
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
80.7
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
L
Cambodia 36
Rwanda 37
AUSTRIA
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
7 (OF 166)
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
77.3
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
Challenges remain
5
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
•
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
D
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
Lebanon 129
L
L
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Austria
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
D
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
L
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
OECD Countries
AUSTRIA Performance by Indicator
Poverty rate after taxes and transfers (%) 9.4 2017 • L Logistics Performance Index: Quality of trade and transport-related
4.2 2018 • L
Prevalence of undernourishment (%) 2.5 2017 • L 54.1 2020 • •
Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%) * 2.6 2016 • L Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 1.4 2018 • L
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) * 0.7 2016 • L Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP) 3.2 2017 • L
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population) 20.1 2016 • p Researchers (per 1,000 employed population) 11.4 2018 • L
Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2.4 2017 • p Triadic patent families filed (per million population) 42.7 2017 • L
Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested land) 6.3 2017 • L Gap in internet access by income (percentage points) 13.6 2019 • L
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) 0.4 2015 • p Women in science and engineering (% of tertiary graduates in science
23.4 2015 • •
Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) 5 •
2017 L Gini coefficient adjusted for top income 32.0 2015 • L
Neonatal mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 2.1 •
2018 L Palma ratio 1.0 2017 • L
Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000 live births) 3.5 •
2018 L Elderly poverty rate (% of population aged 66 or over) 9.7 2017 • 5
Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 population) 7.1 •
2018 L SDG11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities
New HIV infections (per 1,000 uninfected population) NA •
NA • Annual mean concentration of particulate matter of less than
12.5 2017 • L
15 2016 • • Satisfaction with public transport (%) 73.0 2019 • L
Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population) 5.2 2016 • L Population with rent overburden (%) 5.0 2017 • L
Percentage of surviving infants who received 2 WHO-recommended vaccines (%) 85.0 2018 • p SO2 emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita) 20.6 2012 • •
Daily smokers (% of population aged 15 and over) 24.3 2014 • • Energy-related CO2 emissions (tCO2/capita) 7.1 2017 • p
Net primary enrollment rate (%) * 98.6 2017 • L CO2 emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita) 295.2 2018 • •
Lower secondary completion rate (%) * 98.6 2017 • L Effective carbon rate (EUR/tCO2) 29.3 2016 • •
100.0 2017 • L
40.5 2018 • L
Mean area that is protected in marine sites important to biodiversity (%) NA NA • •
491.0 2018 • p
Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) NA NA • •
14.8 2018 • D
Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) NA NA • •
21.9 2018 • p
Fish caught by trawling (%) NA NA • •
2018
* 83.6 2017 • L Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 71.2 • L
2018
Ratio of female-to-male mean years of education received (%) 94.6 2018 • 5
Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 0.9 • D
2019
2018
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 39.3 2020 • L 4.5 2018 • •
0.7 2016 L
21.0 2018 L
87.3 2019 •
Population using at least basic sanitation services (%) 100.0 2017 • • city or area where they live (%) L
5. Country Profiles
Scarce water consumption embodied in imports (m3/capita) 46.0 2013 • 5 Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 77.0 2019 • L
Population using safely managed water services (%) 98.9 2017 • L Children involved in child labor (% of population aged 5 to 14) * 0.0 2016 • •
Population using safely managed sanitation services (%) 96.7 2017 • L Exports of major conventional weapons (TIV constant million USD
0.1 2019 • •
15.3 2019 •
99.5 2017 •
L
Population with access to clean fuels and technology for cooking (%) 100.0 2016 • L Persons held in prison (per 100,000 population) L
L SDG17 – Partnerships for the Goals
1.0 2017 •
L For high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional
13.1 2016 • L
0.3 2017 • 5
NA NA • •
Adjusted GDP growth (%) 0.0 2018 • • Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants (% of GDP)
51.6 2019 • •
Financial Secrecy Score (best 0–100 worst) 56.5 2020 • •
98.2 2017 • L 4.3 2016 •
11.1 2018 • p
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
122
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
L
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
72.6
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
D
Cambodia 36
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
AZERBAIJAN
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
54 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
70.9
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
p
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
•
Vanuatu 90
China 91
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
L
Suriname 111
5
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Azerbaijan
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
Israel 148
5
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
Norway 167
5
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
AZERBAIJAN Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) 0.0 2020 • L Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population) 59.6 2018 • p
Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%) 18.0 2013 • D The Times Higher Education Universities Ranking: Average score of top 3
* 3.7 2019 • •
19.9 2017 • 5
2018
2018
Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 population) 63.0 • D
2018
NA
22.2 2016 • D
64 2016 • •
Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1,000 adolescent females aged 15 to 19) 55.8 2017 • p SDG13 – Climate Action
99.8 2016 • L
95 2018 • L
65.0 2017 • L
Subjective well-being (average ladder score, worst 0–10 best) 5.2 2019 • 5
Lower secondary completion rate (%) 84.7 2018 • p Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) NA NA • •
21.5 2006 • 5 SDG15 – Life on Land
94.4 2018 •
Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (%) 38.2 2018•5
5
L
Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 21.0 2018•5
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 17.4 2020 • 5
Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 0.9 2019• L
Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average) 0.0 2018• •
0.1 2018 • •
82.4 2019 • L
93.6 2018 • •
1.3 2017 • 5
5. Country Profiles

59.1 2019 •
28.6 2017 • p
NA NA • •
Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants (% of GDP) 35.1 2017 • L
THE BAHAMAS Latin America and the Caribbean

17 100 1 SDG
SDG
16 2
75
50
SDG
3
15
25
SDG
SDG
14 4
na 70.4 SDG
The Bahamas SDG
13 5
SDG
SDG
12 6
SDG
11 7
SDG SDG
10 SDG
8
9

100
80
60
40
20
SDG TRENDS
• D D p D L L D D
• • • 5 5 p • •
THE BAHAMAS Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) * NA NA • • Population using the internet (%) 85.0 2017 • L
Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) * NA NA • • Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population) 60.8 2018 • L
* 0.0 2020 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) * 0.7 2016 • L Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.1 2018 • 5
Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2.3 2017 • D
2017 L Annual mean concentration of particulate matter of less than
17.4 2017 • D
2018 L Access to improved water source, piped (% of urban population) NA NA • •
2018 L Satisfaction with public transport (%) NA NA • •
2018 L
New HIV infections (per 1,000 uninfected population) 0.6 •
2018 L SDG12 – Responsible Consumption and Production
15.5 2016 •
diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease in adults aged 30–70 years (%) L Electronic waste (kg/capita) 13.2 2016 • •
20 2016 • •
99.6 2014 • •
89 2018 •
75.0 2017 •
p CO2 emissions embodied in imports (tCO2/capita) 2.6 2015 •5
NA NA •
L CO2 emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita) 0.0 2015 • •
Subjective well-being (average ladder score, worst 0–10 best) • SDG14 – Life Below Water
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 74.2 2018 • p Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 61.8 2019 • D
Lower secondary completion rate (%) 92.2 2010 • • Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) 28.1 2014 • p
* 82.8 2017 • L SDG15 – Life on Land
Ratio of female-to-male mean years of education received (%) 102.6 2018 • L Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) NA NA • •
Ratio of female-to-male labor force participation rate (%) 82.4 2019 • L Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 0.7 2019 • p
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 12.8 2020 • p Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average) 0.4 2018 • •
0.4 2018 • •
Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources) NA NA • • Homicides (per 100,000 population) 30.9 2017 • 5
NA NA • •
NA NA • •
NA NA • •
5. Country Profiles

NA NA •
Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) NA NA • • Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) •
NA NA • •
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
126
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
68.8
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
p
Cambodia 36
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

BAHRAIN
SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
L
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
82 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
66.3
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
L
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
p
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
Lebanon 129
L
5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Bahrain
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG
•
Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
BAHRAIN Performance by Indicator
* 4.5 2019 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) * 0.7 2016 • L Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.2 2018 • D
Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested land) NA NA • • SDG10 – Reduced Inequalities
70.8 2017 • p
2018 L Satisfaction with public transport (%) 72.7 2017 • •
2018 L
NA •
11.3 2016 •
40 2016 • •
Life expectancy at birth (years) 79.1 2016 • L Nitrogen emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita) 7.5 2010 • •
99.7 2015 •
99 2018 •
L Energy-related CO2 emissions (tCO2/capita) 15.5 2017 • L
77.0 2017 •
L CO2 emissions embodied in imports (tCO2/capita) 1.5 2015 • D
6.2 2017 •
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 96.7 2018 • L Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 54.6 2019 • D
* 61.6 2017 • 5 SDG15 – Life on Land
Ratio of female-to-male mean years of education received (%) 97.9 2018 • p Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) NA NA • •
Ratio of female-to-male labor force participation rate (%) 51.0 2019 • 5 Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 0.8 2019 • p
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 15.0 2020 • D Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average) NA NA • •
0.1 2018 • •
Scarce water consumption embodied in imports (m3/capita) 30.1 2013 •5 Percentage of population who feel safe walking alone at night in the
59.9 2011 • •
NA NA • •
1.1 2017 • L
5. Country Profiles

61.3 2019 •
Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) * NA NA • • Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) p
mobile-money-service provider (% of population aged 15 or over)
82.6 2017 • L Government spending on health and education (% of GDP) 5.9 2015 • L
NA NA • •
Corporate Tax Haven Score (best 0–100 worst) * NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
128
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
L
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
63.5
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
D
Cambodia 36
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua
BANGLADESH
58
Congo, Rep. 59
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
109 (OF 166)

Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
67.2
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
L
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
p
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
16
SDG
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
10
Serbia 127
Oman 128
D
Lebanon 129
5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
Bangladesh
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
p
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
East and South Asia
BANGLADESH Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 4.3 2020 • L Population using the internet (%) 15.0 2017 •5
SDG2 – Zero Hunger 2.4 2018 • L
16.4 2020 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) 14.3 2014 • 5 Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.0 2018 • 5
60.8 2017 • D
2018
2018
2018
2018
21.6 2016 • 5
149 2016 • •
49.8 2016 • D
97 2018 • L
48.0 2017 • D
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 90.5 2010 • • Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 33.5 2019 •5
Lower secondary completion rate (%) 88.0 2018 • L Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) 1.7 2014 • L
77.9 2018 •
2018
p
D
2018

2019
2018
0.0 2018 • •
68.4 2019 • p
56.2 2018 • •
1.1 2017 • L
5. Country Profiles

50.7 2019 •
50.0 2017 • L
mobile-money-service provider (% of population aged 15 or over) Government spending on health and education (% of GDP) 2.0 2016 • p
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
130
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
Guinea
5
18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
68.3
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
•
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
Cambodia 36
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
BARBADOS
Papua New Guinea 48

Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
87 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
70.4
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
L
Challenges remain
5
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
L
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
Lebanon 129
L
5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Barbados
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
p
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
BARBADOS Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 2.4 2020 • 5 Population using the internet (%) 81.8 2017 • L
* 0.0 2020 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) 6.8 2012 • L Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.1 2018 • p
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) 1.2 2015 • 5 Gini coefficient adjusted for top income NA NA • •
23.1 2017 • D
2018
2018
2018
2018
16.2 2016 • L
31 2016 • •
99.0 2015 • L
85 2018 • p
77.0 2017 • L
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 96.7 2018 • L Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 64.1 2019 • D
Lower secondary completion rate (%) 100.7 2009 • • Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) 52.2 2014 •5
105.8 2018 •
L
L
Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average) 0.1 2018 • •
0.6 2018 • •
Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources) 87.5 2005 • • Homicides (per 100,000 population) 10.5 2017 • p
NA NA • •
98.7 2018 • •
NA NA • •
5. Country Profiles

NA NA •
Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) 2.7 2018 • • Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) •
NA NA • •
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
132
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
L
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
78.8
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
Cambodia 36
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

BELARUS
SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
L
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
18 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
70.9
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
•
Vanuatu 90
China 91
L
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
D
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Belarus
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
L
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
BELARUS Performance by Indicator
16.4 2020 • •
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population) 24.5 2016 • p Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP) 0.6 2017 • 5
18.8 2017 • D
2018
2018
2018
2018
23.7 2016 • L
61 2016 • •
99.8 2014 • •
97 2018 • L
76.0 2017 • L
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 94.9 2018 • L Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) NA NA • •
98.4 2018 •
2018
L
L
2018

2019
2018
0.0 2018 • •
61.5 2019 • L
100.0 2018 • •
1.7 2017 • D
5. Country Profiles

51.7 2019 •
Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) 10.9 2018 • • Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) 5
81.2 2017 • L
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
134
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
Mozambique 16
Mali
D
17
D
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
80.0
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
Cambodia 36
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

BELGIUM
SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
11 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
77.3
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
p
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
L
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
L
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Belgium
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
Israel 148
5
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
L
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
OECD Countries
BELGIUM Performance by Indicator
Poverty rate after taxes and transfers (%) 10.2 2017 • p Logistics Performance Index: Quality of trade and transport-related
4.0 2018 • L
Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2.4 2017 • D Triadic patent families filed (per million population) 35.7 2017 • L
26.0 2015 • •
2017 L Gini coefficient adjusted for top income 29.4 2015 • L
2018 L Palma ratio 0.9 2017 • L
2018 L Elderly poverty rate (% of population aged 66 or over) 8.8 2017 • 5
12.9 2017 • D
16 2016 • • Satisfaction with public transport (%) 58.5 2019 • p
Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population) 5.8 2016 • L Population with rent overburden (%) 8.9 2017 • 5
Births attended by skilled health personnel (%) NA NA • • Production-based SO2 emissions (kg/capita) 54.5 2012 • •
Gap in self-reported health status by income (percentage points) 27.6 2017 • 5 SDG13 – Climate Action
Daily smokers (% of population aged 15 and over) 18.9 2013 • • Energy-related CO2 emissions (tCO2/capita) 8.8 2017 • p
Lower secondary completion rate (%) * 98.8 2017 • L Effective carbon rate (EUR/tCO2) 7.6 2016 • •
98.4 2017 • L
47.4 2018 • L
Mean area that is protected in marine sites important to biodiversity (%) 93.4 2018 • L
500.0 2018 • L
Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 31.9 2019 • p
20.0 2018 • p
Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) NA NA • •
20.0 2018 • p
Fish caught by trawling (%) 97.1 2014 •5
2018
* 89.9 2017 • L Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 92.8 • L
2018
2019
2018
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 40.7 2020 • L 4.7 2018 • •
1.7 2017 L
35.6 2018 p
61.7 2019 •
Population using at least basic sanitation services (%) 99.5 2017 • • city or area where they live (%) p
5. Country Profiles
Scarce water consumption embodied in imports (m3/capita) 38.6 2013 • D Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 75.0 2019 • L
0.2 2019 • •
12.1 2019 •
88.1 2017 •
L
1.1 2017 •
5 For high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional
15.0 2016 • L
0.5 2017 • p
NA NA • •
Adjusted GDP growth (%) -0.1 2018 • • Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants (% of GDP)
67.8 2019 • •
Financial Secrecy Score (best 0–100 worst) 45.1 2020 • •
98.6 2017 • L -15.2 2016 •
12.8 2018 • L
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
136
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
p
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
65.1
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
BELIZE
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
D
Cambodia 36
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
102 (OF 166)

Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
70.4
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
p
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
p
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
10
Serbia 127
Oman 128
Lebanon 129
L
5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75

25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Belize
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
L
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
BELIZE Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 11.5 2020 • p Population using the internet (%) 47.1 2017 • L
Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) 24.1 2020 • p Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population) 38.0 2017 • L
* 0.0 2020 • •
23.0 2017 • D
2018
2018
2018
2018
22.1 2016 • 5
69 2016 • •
96.8 2016 • L
96 2018 • L
64.0 2017 • 5
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 95.9 2018 •5 Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 66.3 2019 • L
Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24) NA NA • • Fish caught by trawling (%) 78.2 2014 • p
65.9 2016 • 5 SDG15 – Life on Land
102.1 2018 •
2018
L
D
2018
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 9.4 2020 • D

2019
2018
0.2 2018 • •
50.2 2014 • •
95.7 2018 • •
NA NA • •
5. Country Profiles

Adjusted GDP growth (%) -5.2 2018• • per 100,000 population)
27.5 2019 •
Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) NA NA • • Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) L
48.2 2014 • •
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
138
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
Guinea
5
18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
53.3
Burkina Faso 27
BENIN
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
Cambodia 36
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
5
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
145 (OF 166)

Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
53.1
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
L
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
L
Suriname 111
5 5
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
10
Serbia 127
Oman 128
D
Lebanon 129
5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75

25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Benin
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
p
Israel 148
8
Portugal 149
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
SDG
Netherlands 170
5
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
Sub-Saharan Africa
BENIN Performance by Indicator
Prevalence of undernourishment (%) 10.1 2017 • 5 infrastructure (worst 1–5 best)
* 0.0 2020 • •
Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) 397 • D
39.0 2017 • p
Neonatal mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 31.3 •5
2018
Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000 live births) 93.0 •5
2018
2018
2018
19.6 2016 • 5
Municipal solid waste (kg/capita/day) NA NA • •
205 2016 • •
78.1 2018 • p
71 2018 • D
40.0 2017 • 5
Lower secondary completion rate (%) 45.8 2016 • • Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) NA NA • •
Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24) 60.9 2018 • • Fish caught by trawling (%) 1.5 2014 • L
25.9 2018 • 5 SDG15 – Life on Land
68.2 2018 •
Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (%) 77.4 2018 • L
5
L
Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average) 0.2 2018 • •
0.0 2018 • •
Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources) 1.0 2000 • • Homicides (per 100,000 population) * 1.1 2017 • L
54.1 2019 • L
85.6 2018 • •
CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for electricity and heating Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 41 2019 • D
21.7 2017 • p
5. Country Profiles

31.7 2019 •
38.5 2017 • L
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
140
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
L
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
69.3
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
D
Cambodia 36
BHUTAN
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
80 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
67.2
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
•
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
p
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Bhutan
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
L
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
East and South Asia
BHUTAN Performance by Indicator
Prevalence of undernourishment (%) NA NA • • infrastructure (worst 1–5 best)
Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%) 33.6 2010 •5 The Times Higher Education Universities Ranking: Average score of top 3
* 0.0 2020 • •
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) 0.7 2015 •5 Gini coefficient adjusted for top income 41.8 2017 • •
37.9 2017 • D
2018
2018
2018
2018
23.3 2016 • D
124 2016 • •
89.0 2016 • L
97 2018 • L
62.0 2017 • L
CO2 emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita) NA NA • •
50.0 2018 •
2018
p
L
2018

2019
2018
0.2 2018 • •
Anthropogenic wastewater that receives treatment (%) 0.0 2018 • • Unsentenced detainees (% of prison population) NA NA • •
63.1 2015 • •
99.9 2018 • •
Population with access to clean fuels and technology for cooking (%) 52.5 2016 •5 Birth registrations with civil authority (% of children under age 5)
NA NA • •
5. Country Profiles

29.8 2019 •
Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) NA NA • • Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) L
33.7 2014 • •
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
142
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
Guinea
5
18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
69.3
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
BOLIVIA
D
Cambodia 36
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
79 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
70.4
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
L
Challenges remain
5
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
•
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
Suriname 111
5
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
Lebanon 129
5
5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Bolivia
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG
•
Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
BOLIVIA Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 4.7 2020 • D Population using the internet (%) 44.3 2018 • D
* 0.0 2020 • •
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) 0.5 2015 • D Gini coefficient adjusted for top income 44.0 2017 • •
21.6 2017 • L
2018
2018
2018
2018
17.2 2016 • L
64 2016 • •
89.8 2016 • L
83 2018 • p
68.0 2017 • L
84.7 2018 •
Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (%) 50.2 2018• L
p
L
Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 49.4 2018•5
Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 0.9 2019•5
0.2 2018 • •
46.1 2018 • 5
91.9 2018 • •
Population with access to clean fuels and technology for cooking (%) 64.0 2016 • p Birth registrations with civil authority (% of children under age 5)
2.3 2017 • 5
5. Country Profiles

35.4 2019 •
54.4 2017 • L
mobile-money-service provider (% of population aged 15 or over) Government spending on health and education (% of GDP) NA NA • •
NA NA • •
Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants (% of GDP) 23.3 2007 • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
144
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
L
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
73.5
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
Cambodia 36
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
50 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
•
70.9
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
•
Vanuatu 90
China 91
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
D
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Bosnia and
Qatar 143
1
Herzegovina
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
L
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
Norway 167
5
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Performance by Indicator
* 7.0 2019 • •
27.7 2017 • 5
2018
2018
Satisfaction with public transport (%) 49.4 2018 • D
2018
2018
17.8 2016 • L
80 2016 • •
99.9 2015 • L
68 2018 • p
61.0 2017 • D
Net primary enrollment rate (%) NA NA • • Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 40.6 2019 • 5
Lower secondary completion rate (%) NA NA • • Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) NA NA • •
21.9 2012 • 5 SDG15 – Life on Land
78.9 2018 •
2018
5
p
2018

2019
2018
0.5 2018 • •
67.1 2018 • p
99.5 2018 • •
1.4 2017 • 5
5. Country Profiles

29.0 2019 •
58.8 2017 • L
mobile-money-service provider (% of population aged 15 or over) Government spending on health and education (% of GDP) NA NA • •
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
146
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
D
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
61.5
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
Cambodia 36
5
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
BOTSWANA
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
121 (OF 166)

Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
53.1
•
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
Challenges remain
5
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
•
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
L
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
10
Serbia 127
Oman 128
D
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50

SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Botswana
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
p
Israel 148
5
8
Portugal 149
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
Sub-Saharan Africa
BOTSWANA Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 16.1 2020 • D Population using the internet (%) 47.0 2017 • L
* 0.0 2020 • •
23.1 2017 • 5
2018
2018
2018
2018
20.3 2016 • D
101 2016 • •
99.7 2015 • L
95 2018 • L
61.0 2017 • 5
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 87.7 2014 • • Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) NA NA • •
* 78.2 2017 • L SDG15 – Life on Land
2018
Ratio of female-to-male mean years of education received (%) 96.8 2018 • 5 Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 46.0 •5
2018
Ratio of female-to-male labor force participation rate (%) 84.4 2019 • L Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 1.0 • L
2019
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 10.8 2020 • 5 Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average) 0.0 • •
2018
2.5 2018 • •
34.4 2018 • p
87.5 2018 • •
2.7 2017 • L
5. Country Profiles

25.1 2019 •
51.0 2017 • p
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
148
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
Guinea
5
18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
72.7
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
BRAZIL
Uganda 32
Index score
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
D
Cambodia 36
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
53 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
70.4
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
L
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
L
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
Lebanon 129
L
5 5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece
Brazil
140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
Israel 148
5
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
Norway 167
5
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
BRAZIL Performance by Indicator
SDG2 – Zero Hunger 2.9 2018 • 5
39.1 2020 • •
12.7 2017 • L
2018
2018
2018
2018
16.6 2016 • L
30 2016 • •
99.2 2015 • L
83 2018 • p
79.0 2017 • L
Lower secondary completion rate (%) 71.8 2011 • • Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) 31.6 2014 • p
106.6 2018 •
2018
L
L
2018

2019
2018
0.3 2018 • •
40.2 2019 • 5
96.4 2018 • •
0.7 2017 • L
5. Country Profiles

32.8 2019 •
70.0 2017 • D
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
150
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
68.2
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
•
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
Cambodia 36
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
88 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
67.2
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
Challenges remain
5
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM
90
China 91
D
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
L
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Brunei
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
Darussalam
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
Israel 148
5
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
L
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
East and South Asia
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM Performance by Indicator
40.6 2020 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) 2.9 2009 • L Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.7 2018 • L
Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2.4 2013 • •
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) 1.4 2015 •5 Gini coefficient adjusted for top income NA NA • •
5.9 2017 • L
2018 L Satisfaction with public transport (%) NA NA • •
2018 5
NA •
16.6 2016 •
13 2016 • •
100.0 2016 •
99 2018 •
L Energy-related CO2 emissions (tCO2/capita) 25.0 2017 • p
81.0 2017 •
L CO2 emissions embodied in imports (tCO2/capita) 2.2 2015 • D
NA NA •
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 93.1 2018 • D Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 57.2 2019 •5
NA NA• • SDG15 – Life on Land
100.0 2018 • L
2018
2018

2019
2018
0.4 2018 • •
Population using at least basic sanitation services (%) 96.3 2015 • • SDG16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources) NA NA • • Homicides (per 100,000 population) 0.5 2013 • •
NA NA • •
NA NA • •
1.7 2017 • 5
5. Country Profiles

51.5 2019 •
NA NA • •
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
152
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
L
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
74.8
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
D
Cambodia 36
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
BULGARIA
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
39 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
70.9
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
p
Challenges remain
5
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
L
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Bulgaria
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
L
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
BULGARIA Performance by Indicator
16.4 2020 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) 3.2 2004 • L Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.5 2018 • L
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) 0.5 2015 • D Gini coefficient adjusted for top income 40.9 2014 • •
19.1 2017 • D
2018
2018
2018
2018
23.6 2016 • 5
62 2016 • •
99.8 2015 • L
92 2018 • L
66.0 2017 • D
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 86.4 2017 • p Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 42.3 2019 •5
* 63.4 2017 • D SDG15 – Life on Land
2018
Ratio of female-to-male mean years of education received (%) 100.8 2018 • L Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 98.6 • L
2018
Ratio of female-to-male labor force participation rate (%) 80.4 2019 • L Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 0.9 • L
2019
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 26.7 2020 • D Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average) 0.0 • •
2018
1.1 2018 • •
58.4 2018 • 5
100.0 2018 • •
1.0 2017 • p
5. Country Profiles

35.1 2019 •
72.2 2017 • L
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
154
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
Guinea
5
18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
55.2
Afghanistan 26
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Uganda 32
Index score
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
Cambodia 36
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
5
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
137 (OF 166)

Algeria 63
BURKINA FASO
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
53.1
Armenia 71
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
L
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
•
Vanuatu 90
China 91
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
L
Suriname 111
5 5
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
Lebanon 129
5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Burkina Faso
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
Israel 148
5
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
Sub-Saharan Africa
BURKINA FASO Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 33.2 2020 • D Population using the internet (%) 16.0 2017 •5
Prevalence of undernourishment (%) 20.0 2017 • 5 infrastructure (worst 1–5 best)
* 0.0 2020 • •
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population) 5.6 2016 • L Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP) 0.7 2017 • L
Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) 320 2017• D Annual mean concentration of particulate matter of less than
42.9 2017 • p
Neonatal mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 24.7 2018• D Access to improved water source, piped (% of urban population) 74.3 2017 • p
Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000 live births) 76.4 2018• D Satisfaction with public transport (%) 55.4 2019 • L
Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 population) 48.0 2018•5 SDG12 – Responsible Consumption and Production
New HIV infections (per 1,000 uninfected population) 0.1 2018• L
21.7 2016 • 5
206 2016 • •
79.8 2015 • •
88 2018 • 5
40.0 2017 • 5
Subjective well-being (average ladder score, worst 0–10 best) 4.7 2019 • D
47.6 2018 •
2018
p
L
2018

2019
2018
0.0 2018 • •
Population using at least basic drinking water services (%) 47.9 2017 • p (per million population)
57.7 2019 • 5
Population with access to electricity (%) 25.5 2017 •5 Property Rights (worst 1–7 best) 4.0 2019 • •
76.9 2018 • •
NA NA • •
5. Country Profiles

24.5 2019 •
Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) 4.5 2018• • Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) L
43.2 2017 • L
NA NA • •
Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants (% of GDP) 18.9 2018 •5
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
156
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
p
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
53.5
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
Cambodia 36
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

BURUNDI
SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
143 (OF 166)

Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
53.1
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
p
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
•
Vanuatu 90
China 91
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
L
Suriname 111
5
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
Lebanon 129
5
5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Burundi
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
p
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
Norway 167
5
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
Sub-Saharan Africa
BURUNDI Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 75.9 2020 • p Population using the internet (%) 2.7 2017 •5
* 0.0 2020 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) 5.1 2016 •5 Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.0 2018 • 5
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population) 5.4 2016 • L Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP) 0.1 2011 • •
Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested land) 1.4 2017 •5 SDG10 – Reduced Inequalities
38.9 2017 • 5
2018
2018
Satisfaction with public transport (%) 39.4 2018 • D
2018
2018
22.9 2016 • p
180 2016 • •
85.1 2017 • L
88 2018 • p
42.0 2017 • 5
38.0 2017 • 5 SDG15 – Life on Land
75.0 2018 •
2018
D
L
2018

2019
2018
0.0 2018 • •
Population using at least basic sanitation services (%) 45.8 2017 • p SDG16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources) 10.5 2000 • • Homicides (per 100,000 population) 6.0 2016 • 5
Anthropogenic wastewater that receives treatment (%) 0.0 2018 • • Unsentenced detainees (% of prison population) 52.7 2018 • 5
65.7 2018 • L
83.5 2018 • •
NA NA • •
5. Country Profiles

52.9 2019 •
7.1 2014 • • Government spending on health and education (% of GDP) 6.5 2016 • p
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
158
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
D
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
67.2
Afghanistan 26
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
Cambodia 36
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
CABO VERDE
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
92 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
53.1
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
p
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
D
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
Cabo Verde
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
Israel 148
5
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
Norway 167
5
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
Sub-Saharan Africa
CABO VERDE Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 15.8 2020 • D Population using the internet (%) 57.2 2017 • L
Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) 35.5 2020 • D Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population) 66.8 2018 • p
Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%) NA NA • • The Times Higher Education Universities Ranking: Average score of top 3
* 0.0 2020 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) NA NA • • Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.0 2018 • p
Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2.2 2017 •5
Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested land) 0.2 2017 •5 SDG10 – Reduced Inequalities
34.8 2017 • p
2018
2018
2018
2018
17.2 2016 • L
99 2016 • •
91.4 2015 • 5
98 2018 • L
69.0 2017 • L
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 93.4 2018 •5 Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 62.2 2019 • L
Lower secondary completion rate (%) 68.2 2018 • p Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) 24.4 2014 • L
Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24) 98.1 2015 • • Fish caught by trawling (%) 33.7 2014 • •
92.3 2018 •
5 Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%)
L Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best)
NA NA • •
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 25.0 2020 • D Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average)
0.9 2019 • L
0.0 2018 • •
0.2 2018 • •
Population using at least basic drinking water services (%) 87.1 2017 • D (per million population)
NA NA • •
91.0 2018 • •
NA NA • •
5. Country Profiles

19.8 2019 •
NA NA • •
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
160
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
L
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
64.4
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
L
Cambodia 36
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
CAMBODIA
Papua New Guinea 48

Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
106 (OF 166)

Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
67.2
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
L
Challenges remain
5
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
L
p
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Cambodia
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
D
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
East and South Asia
CAMBODIA Performance by Indicator
* 0.0 2020 • •
25.6 2017 • D
2018
2018
2018
2018
21.1 2016 • D
150 2016 • •
Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1,000 adolescent females aged 15 to 19) 50.2 2017 • p SDG13 – Climate Action
89.0 2014 • •
84 2018 • 5
60.0 2017 • D
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 90.3 2018 • p Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 53.1 2019 • D
71.9 2018 •
2018
5
L
2018

2019
2018
0.0 2018 • •
55.5 2019 • L
73.3 2018 • •
1.6 2017 • L
5. Country Profiles

45.9 2019 •
21.7 2017 • p
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
162
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
Guinea
5
18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
56.5
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
p
Cambodia 36
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
CAMEROON
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
5
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
133 (OF 166)

Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
53.1
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
L
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
Suriname 111
5
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
Lebanon 129
5 5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Cameroon
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
p
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
Sub-Saharan Africa
CAMEROON Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 19.5 2020 • D Population using the internet (%) 23.2 2017 • D
Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) 36.9 2020 • 5 Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population) 14.0 2018 • D
* 0.0 2020 • •
72.8 2017 • p
2018
2018
2018
2018
21.6 2016 • 5
208 2016 • •
64.7 2014 • •
71 2018 • p
46.0 2017 • D
61.5 2018 •
2018
p
L
2018

2019
2018
0.0 2018 • •
43.6 2019 • p
66.1 2018 • •
0.7 2017 • L
5. Country Profiles

43.3 2019 •
34.6 2017 • L
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
164
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
L
Guinea
5
18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
78.2
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
Cambodia 36
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
CANADA
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
L
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
21 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
77.3
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
L
Challenges remain
5
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
Suriname 111
5
5
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
16
SDG
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
10
Serbia 127
Oman 128
D
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Canada
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
L
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
OECD Countries
CANADA Performance by Indicator
Poverty rate after taxes and transfers (%) 12.1 2017 • L Logistics Performance Index: Quality of trade and transport-related
3.8 2018 • L
Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2.4 2017 • D Triadic patent families filed (per million population) 15.3 2017 • p
Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested land) 4.0 2017 • L Gap in internet access by income (percentage points) 52.4 2007 • •
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (worst 0–1.41 best) 0.5 2015 • p Women in science and engineering (% of tertiary graduates in science
27.7 2015 • •
Yield gap closure (% of potential yield) NA NA • • and engineering)
2017 L Gini coefficient adjusted for top income 35.0 2013 • •
2018 L Palma ratio 1.1 2017 • L
2018 L Elderly poverty rate (% of population aged 66 or over) 12.2 2017 • p
6.4 2017 • L
7 2016 • • Satisfaction with public transport (%) 59.7 2019 • p
Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population) 5.8 2016 • L Population with rent overburden (%) 8.6 2016 • p
Births attended by skilled health personnel (%) 97.9 2014 • • Production-based SO2 emissions (kg/capita) 58.1 2012 • •
Gap in life expectancy at birth among regions (years) 11.5 2014 • • Non-recycled municipal solid waste (kg/capita/day) NA NA • •
12.0 2017 •
Daily smokers (% of population aged 15 and over) L Energy-related CO2 emissions (tCO2/capita) 14.4 2017 •5
Net primary enrollment rate (%) * 100.0 2017• L CO2 emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita) 3453.1 2019 • •
Lower secondary completion rate (%) * 100.0 2017• L Effective carbon rate (EUR/tCO2) 3.8 2016 • •
* 92.5 2016 • •
61.8 2018 • L
Mean area that is protected in marine sites important to biodiversity (%) 33.1 2018 • D
516.7 2018 • L
6.4 2018 • L
Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) 45.5 2014 •5
13.4 2018 • L
Fish caught by trawling (%) 30.9 2014 • D
SDG5 – Gender Equality Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (%) 26.5 2018•5
* 87.8 2017 • L Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 20.8 2018•5
Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 1.0 2019• L
Gender wage gap (% of male median wage) 18.5 2018 • 5
1.8 2017 p
38.9 2018 p
81.4 2019 •
Population using at least basic sanitation services (%) 99.3 2017 • • city or area where they live (%) L
5. Country Profiles
Scarce water consumption embodied in imports (m3/capita) 36.2 2013 • 5 Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 77.0 2019 • L
Population using safely managed sanitation services (%) 82.3 2017 • p Exports of major conventional weapons (TIV constant million USD
0.4 2019 • •
15.7 2019 •
113.4 2016 •
L
Population with access to clean fuels and technology for cooking (%) 100.0 2016 • L Persons held in prison (per 100,000 population) 5
0.9 2017 •
p For high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional
* 11.9 2015 • L
0.3 2017 • 5
NA NA • •
0.0 2019 • •
*
55.8 2020 • •
99.7 2017 • L 15.2 2016 •
11.9 2018 • L
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
166
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
Guinea
5
18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
38.5
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
p
Cambodia 36
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
5
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
166 (OF 166)

Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
53.1
•
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
•
Vanuatu 90
China 91
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
L
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
Lebanon 129
p
5 5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Republic
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Central African
Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
L
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
p
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
Sub-Saharan Africa
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 80.0 2020 • 5 Population using the internet (%) 4.3 2017 •5
Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) 91.5 2020 • 5 Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population) 5.3 2018 •5
* 0.0 2020 • •
56.8 2017 • p
2018
Access to improved water source, piped (% of urban population) 42.9 2016 •5
2018
2018
2018
23.1 2016 • D
212 2016 • •
40.0 2010 • •
47 2018 • 5
33.0 2017 • 5
28.7 2011 • 5 SDG15 – Life on Land
53.6 2018 •
2018
5
L
2018

2019
2018
0.0 2018 • •
52.1 2017 • •
Population with access to electricity (%) 30.0 2017 • D Property Rights (worst 1–7 best) NA NA • •
61.0 2018 • •
NA NA • •
5. Country Profiles

47.3 2019 •
13.7 2017 • •
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
168
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
p
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
43.8
Burkina Faso
CHAD
27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
Cambodia 36
5
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
5
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
164 (OF 166)

Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
53.1
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
p
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
•
Vanuatu 90
China 91
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
L
Suriname 111
5
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
Lebanon 129
5
5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Chad
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG
•
Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
Norway 167
5
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
Sub-Saharan Africa
CHAD Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 39.0 2020 • p Population using the internet (%) 6.5 2017 •5
SDG2 – Zero Hunger 2.4 2018 • 5
* 0.0 2020 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) 13.0 2015 • 5 Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.0 2018 • 5
66.0 2017 • p
2018
2018
2018
New HIV infections (per 1,000 uninfected population) 0.4 • D
2018
23.9 2016 • 5
280 2016 • •
20.2 2015 • •
37 2018 • p
28.0 2017 • 5
Subjective well-being (average ladder score, worst 0–10 best) 4.5 2018 • 5
CO2 emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita) NA NA • •
20.2 2015 • 5 SDG15 – Life on Land
36.1 2018 •
2018
5
L
2018

2019
2018
0.0 2018 • •
Population using at least basic drinking water services (%) 38.7 2017 • p (per million population)
Population using at least basic sanitation services (%) 8.3 2017 • p SDG16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources) 4.3 2005 • • Homicides (per 100,000 population) * 9.0 2015 • •
42.9 2018 • p
12.0 2018 • •
Population with access to clean fuels and technology for cooking (%) 3.1 2016 • p Birth registrations with civil authority (% of children under age 5)
CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for electricity and heating per Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 20 2019 • p
NA NA • •
total electricity output (MtCO2/TWh) Children involved in child labor (% of population aged 5 to 14) 51.5 2016 • •
5. Country Profiles

36.7 2019 •
21.8 2017 • D Government spending on health and education (% of GDP) 4.7 2013 • •
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
170
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
D
Guinea
5
18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
77.4
Afghanistan 26
CHILE
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Uganda 32
Index score
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
D
Cambodia 36
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
28 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
77.3
Armenia 71
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
Challenges remain
5
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
L
p
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
Lebanon 129
5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Chile
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
L
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
OECD Countries
CHILE Performance by Indicator
Poverty rate after taxes and transfers (%) 16.5 2017 • 5 Logistics Performance Index: Quality of trade and transport-related
3.2 2018 • L
Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%) 1.8 2014 • L Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.4 2018 • D
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) 0.3 2014 • L Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP) 0.4 2016 • p
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population) 28.0 2016 • p Researchers (per 1,000 employed population) 1.1 2017 • 5
Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2.3 2017 • p Triadic patent families filed (per million population) 0.5 2017 • 5
16.2 2015 • •
Yield gap closure (% of potential yield) NA NA • • and engineering)
2017 Gini coefficient adjusted for top income 51.5 2017 • 5
2018 Palma ratio 2.6 2017 • 5
2018 Elderly poverty rate (% of population aged 66 or over) 17.6 2017 • p
2018
SDG11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities
21.0 2017 • D
25 2016 • • Satisfaction with public transport (%) 58.1 2018 • L
Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population) 12.5 2016 • p Population with rent overburden (%) 13.9 2017 • p
24.5 2016 • •
Daily smokers (% of population aged 15 and over) Energy-related CO2 emissions (tCO2/capita) 4.6 2017 • p
SDG4 – Quality Education CO2 emissions embodied in imports (tCO2/capita) 0.7 2015 • L
Lower secondary completion rate (%) * 97.4 2017 • L Effective carbon rate (EUR/tCO2) -0.1 2016 • •
Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24) 99.0 2017 • • SDG14 – Life Below Water
93.6 2017 • L
33.7 2017 • L
Mean area that is protected in marine sites important to biodiversity (%) 24.8 2018 •5
437.7 2018 • p
14.1 2018 • L
Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) 41.5 2014 • D
35.3 2018 • p
Fish caught by trawling (%) 2.3 2014 • L
SDG5 – Gender Equality Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (%) 34.8 •5
2018
* 86.3 2017 • L Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 33.2 •5
2018
Ratio of female-to-male mean years of education received (%) 97.2 2018 • 5
2019
2018
Gender gap in time spent doing unpaid work (minutes/day) NA NA • • SDG16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Homicides (per 100,000 population) * 4.3 2017 • p
Unsentenced detainees (% of prison population) 31.3 2018 • p
47.4 2018 •
Population using at least basic sanitation services (%) 100.0 2017 • • city or area where they live (%) p
5. Country Profiles
Scarce water consumption embodied in imports (m3/capita) 5.0 2013 • L Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 67.0 2019 • L
Population using safely managed water services (%) 98.6 2017 • L Children involved in child labor (% of population aged 5 to 14) 6.6 2016 • •
0.0 2019 • •
25.7 2019 •
231.3 2017 •
L
1.1 2017 • 5 SDG17 – Partnerships for the Goals
L For high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional
10.3 2016 • L
NA NA • •
NA NA • •
0.0 2019 • •
*
55.8 2020 • •
74.3 2017 • L 5.3 2016 •
18.4 2017 • p
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
172
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
L
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
73.9
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
CHINA
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
D
Cambodia 36
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
48 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
67.2
•
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
p
L
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
10
Serbia 127
Oman 128
D
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75

25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
China
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
p
L
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
L
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
East and South Asia
CHINA Performance by Indicator
76.3 2020 • •
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%) 1.9 2013 • L Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1,000 population) 0.4 2018 • D
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population) 6.2 2016 • L Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP) 2.1 2017 • L
52.7 2017 • D
2018
Access to improved water source, piped (% of urban population) 92.2 2017 • D
2018
2018
NA
17.0 2016 • L
113 2016 • •
99.9 2015 • L
99 2018 • L
79.0 2017 • L
Net primary enrollment rate (%) NA NA • • Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 35.0 2019 •5
90.4 2018 •
2018
D Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%)
L Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best)
34.4 •5
2018
Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 24.9 2020 • 5 Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average)
0.7 • p
2019
0.0 • •
2018
0.6 2018 • •
Anthropogenic wastewater that receives treatment (%) 9.4 2018 • • Unsentenced detainees (% of prison population) NA NA • •
86.4 2018 • •
NA NA • •
CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for electricity and heating per Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 41 2019 • D
3.0 2017 • D
total electricity output (MtCO2/TWh) Children involved in child labor (% of population aged 5 to 14) NA NA • •
5. Country Profiles

78.9 2019 •
80.2 2017 • L
mobile-money-service provider (% of population aged 15 or over) Government spending on health and education (% of GDP) NA NA• •
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
174
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
D
Guinea 18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
70.9
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
D
D
Cambodia 36
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
Zimbabwe 46
COLOMBIA
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
67 (OF 166)
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
70.4
Sri Lanka 72
D
Venezuela, RB 73
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
L
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
D
L
Suriname 111
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
Lebanon 129
L
5
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro 142
Colombia
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
D
p
Israel 148
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
D
Norway 167
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
COLOMBIA Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $3.20/day (%) 11.3 2020 • D Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population) 52.3 2018 • L
29.6 2020 • •
16.5 2017 • L
2018
2018
2018
2018
15.8 2016 • L
37 2016 • •
99.2 2016 • L
92 2018 • L
76.0 2017 • L
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 92.9 2018 • L Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 63.5 2019 • L
Lower secondary completion rate (%) 75.7 2018 •5 Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch) 11.8 2014 • L
103.7 2018 •
Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (%) 41.4 2018• L
L
L
Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%) 39.3 2018• L
Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 0.7 2019• p
1.0 2018 • •
47.5 2019 • 5
96.8 2018 • •
CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for electricity and heating per Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best) 37 2019 • 5
1.0 2017 • L
total electricity output (MtCO2/TWh) Children involved in child labor (% of population aged 5 to 14) 7.8 2016 • •
5. Country Profiles

42.8 2019 •
Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population) 2.7 2018• • Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst) 5
45.8 2017 • D
NA NA • •
0
100
20
40
60
80

0 Oceania 1
Comoros 2
Myanmar 3
Sudan 4
Somalia 5
South Sudan 6
Chad 7
176
Burundi 8
Moldova 9
Ethiopia 10
Pakistan 11
Niger 12
Haiti 14
Sierra Leone 15
•
Mozambique 16
Mali 17
Guinea
5
18
Côte d'Ivoire 19
Cameroon 20
Benin 21
Madagascar 22
Congo, Dem. Rep. 24
Major challenges
Bangladesh 25
Afghanistan 26
53.1
Burkina Faso 27
Togo 28
Lao PDR 29
Nigeria 30
Nepal 31
Index score
Uganda 32
SDG TRENDS
Senegal 33
Malawi 34
Yemen, Rep. 35
Cambodia 36
5
5
Rwanda 37
India 38
SDG Global rank

SPILLOVER INDEX
Egypt, Arab Rep.

41
Vietnam 43
Iraq 44
Tanzania 45
COMOROS
Zimbabwe 46
Djibouti 47
Papua New Guinea 48
Philippines 49
Zambia 50
Morocco 51
Uzbekistan 52
•
Liberia 53
Mauritania 54
D
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
55
Bolivia 56
Gambia, The 57
Nicaragua 58
Congo, Rep. 59
Azerbaijan 60
Indonesia 61
Tajikistan 62
146 (OF 166)

Algeria 63
Ghana 64
Brazil 65

Cuba 66
Guatemala 67
Ecuador 68
Peru 69
Angola 70
Armenia 71
53.1
Sri Lanka 72
Venezuela, RB 73
p
L
Challenges remain
Belarus 74
Kyrgyz Republic 75
Honduras 76
Cabo Verde 82
Mongolia 84
Mexico 85
Colombia 86

Lesotho 87
Kenya 88
Albania 89
Vanuatu 90
China 91
D
Tunisia 92
SDG achieved
5
Argentina 93
Kazakhstan 94

North Macedonia 95
Thailand 96
Bhutan 97
Paraguay 98
Belize 99
Ukraine 100
Turkey 101
Gabon 102
Jamaica 103
Chile 104
El Salvador 106
SDG
13
Fiji 107
SDG
14
South Africa 108

SDG
12
Romania 109
Georgia 110
p
Suriname 111
5
Turkmenistan 112
SDG
15
Uruguay 113
Costa Rica 114
Jordan 115
Maldives 116
SDG
11

Namibia 119
Malaysia 120
Bulgaria 121
SDG
16
Croatia 122
Eswatini 123
Bahrain 124
Panama 125
Poland 126
SDG
Serbia
10
127
Oman 128
D
Lebanon 129
Barbados 130
Botswana 131
SDG
Hungary 133
Saudi Arabia 134
Slovak Republic 135
Latvia 136
New Zealand 137
9
Czech Republic 138

75
25
50
SDG
17 100
Estonia 139
Greece 140
Italy 141
Montenegro
Comoros
142
Qatar 143
1
Korea, Rep. 144

SDG

Sweden 146
0 OECD members 147
L
Israel 148
5 5
Portugal 149
8
SDG
Finland 150
Denmark 151
Slovenia 152
Japan 153
Lithuania 154
2
SDG
Australia 156
Spain 157
Canada 158
7
Iceland 159
SDG
Belgium 160
Cyprus 161
United States 162
Ireland 163
3
Germany 164
SDG
Austria 165
Malta 166
Norway 167
5
6
United Kingdom 168

SDG
France 169
4
Netherlands 170
SDG
Mauritius 171
SDG

Kuwait 173
Switzerland 174
Luxembourg 175
Guyana 176
Singapore 177
Sub-Saharan Africa
COMOROS Performance by Indicator
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%) 20.0 2020 • 5 Population using the internet (%) 8.5 2017 •5
* 0.0 2020 • •
20.5 2017 •5
2018
Access to improved water source, piped (% of urban population) 76.1 2017 •5
2018
2018
2018
22.9 2016 • 5
172 2016 • •
Production-based SO2 emissions (kg/capita) NA NA • •
ambient air pollution (per 100,000 population) SO2 emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita) NA NA • •
Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population) 26.5 2016 • 5 Production-based nitrogen emissions (kg/capita) NA NA • •
Life expectancy at birth (years) 63.9 2016 • 5 Nitrogen emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita) NA NA • •
82.2 2012 • •
90 2018 • L
52.0 2017 • D
CO2 emissions embodied in imports (tCO2/capita) NA NA • •
Net primary enrollment rate (%) 80.8 2018 • p Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best) 38.6 2019 • p
SDG5 – Gender Equality Marine biodiversity threats embodied in imports (per million population) NA NA • •
28.8 2012 • 5 SDG15 – Life on Land

2020 Sustainable Development Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 Sustainable Development Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 Sustainable Development Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIS IS AN AUTHORS’ MANUSCRIPT TO BE PUBLISHED BY CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

© Cambridge University Press

Please cite this report as:

Design and Layout by Pica Publishing Ltd – www.pica-publishing.com

Part 1. Covid‑19, the SDGs, and the Recovery  1

Part 2. The SDG Index and Dashboards 23

Part 3. Policy and Monitoring Frameworks

Part 4. Methods Summary and Data Tables 63

Part 5. Country Profiles 101

Covid‑19, the SDGs,

Figure 1 Mainly positive impact

SDG 1 Highly negative impact

SDG 2 Highly negative impact

SDG 3 Highly negative impact

SDG 4 Mixed or moderately negative impact

SDG 5 Mixed or moderately negative impact

SDG 6 Mixed or moderately negative impact

SDG 7 Mixed or moderately negative impact

SDG 8 Highly negative impact

SDG 9 Mixed or moderately negative impact

SDG 10 Highly negative impact

SDG 11 Mixed or moderately negative impact

SDG 12 Impact still unclear

SDG 13 Impact still unclear

SDG 14 Impact still unclear

SDG 15 Impact still unclear

SDG 16 Mixed or moderately negative impact

SDG 17 Mixed or moderately negative impact

Medium- and long-term priorities To implement these transformations, in the medium-

Leave no one behind

Circularity and decoupling

Whole-of-government response (transversal)

Transformation 1: Education, Gender, and Inequality

Transformation 2: Health, Wellbeing, and Demography

Transformation 3: Energy Decarbonization and Sustainable Industry

Transformation 4: Sustainable Food, Land, Water and Oceans

Transformation 5: Sustainable Cities and Communities

Transformation 6: Harnessing the Digital Revolution for Sustainable Development

Source: Authors’ analysis

(2) Strengthen financing mechanisms for developing

Box 1. Lessons on preparedness

15 United States 1 98.2

5 US gap in Covid-19 tests

Date (2020) Source: Official sources collected by Our World in Data

A second important difference lies in the overall extent

(2) I(t+1) – I(t) = N(t)*P(t)*I(t)*S(t) – [1/D(t)]*I(t)

In general, Northern Europe has outperformed Southern

The United States has generally underperformed in its

Source: Authors’ analysis.

The SDG Index

Box 2. National and subnational SDG indices and dashboards

SDG INDEX Global Responsibilities GLOBAL 

Sustainable Development Goals:

and member states

Per un’Italia sostenibile:

Laura Cavalli, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei

2.1 The 2020 SDG Index

2. The SDG Index and Dashboards

Rank Country Score Rank Country Score

Part 1. Covid‑19, the SDGs, and the Recovery 1

Part 2. The SDG Index and Dashboards 23

Part 4. Methods Summary and Data Tables 63

Part 5. Country Profiles 101

(2) I(t+1) – I(t) = N(t)P(t)I(t)S(t) – [1/D(t)]I(t)

SDG INDEX Global Responsibilities GLOBAL

2.1 The 2020 SDG Index

Annual assessments of progress on the SDG Index score

2.4 The SDG dashboards