OECD Policy Coherence Scan of Austria

Executive summary

In a context of geopolitical uncertainty, accelerating environmental impacts and sustained pressure on public finances, governments are increasingly required to deliver policies that are not only effective within individual sectors but coherent across policy domains and over time. Policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD), as defined by the OECD, provides a framework to align policies across sectors and levels of government, manage trade-offs and address domestic and international transboundary effects in support of the United Nations 2030 Agenda.

This scan assesses how Austria’s strategic, institutional and legal frameworks support PCSD, focussing on development policy and development co-operation. It examines how PCSD principles are integrated across the policy cycle and identifies strengths, gaps and opportunities for improvement.

A strong foundation but persistent implementation gaps

Austria has a robust legal and institutional basis to apply PCSD principles. The Federal Law on Development Co-operation (Bundesgesetz über die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, EZA-G) clearly defines development policy objectives of poverty reduction, peace and security, and environmental protection and establishes an obligation for policy coherence. The Three-Year Programme on Austrian Development Policy (Dreijahresprogramm der österreichischen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, 3YP) provides a medium-term strategic framework for co‑ordination, and Austria has well-established processes for results-oriented budgeting, gender mainstreaming, regulatory impact assessment and United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) reporting.

More broadly, Austria has taken a mainstreaming approach to sustainable development and SDG implementation, promoting broad ownership across ministries and levels of government.

However, PCSD principles are not yet applied consistently across the policy cycle. While coherence principles are referenced in sectoral strategies and processes, their application often depends on voluntary co‑ordination, individual initiative or informal arrangements. This results in an implementation gap between strategic intent and day-to-day policymaking, limiting Austria’s ability to systematically identify, manage and address policy interactions, trade-offs and transboundary effects, particularly on developing countries.

Opportunities to clarify institutional roles, mandates and strategic steering

Austria’s governance framework is characterised by clearly defined sectoral mandates. For development policy, roles and responsibilities are relatively well anchored in the EZA-G and operationalised through the 3YP, with the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs playing a central co‑ordinating role.

Responsibilities for overall SDG co‑ordination and broader policy coherence across sectors are shared among several institutions and co‑ordination mechanisms. While this reflects Austria’s consensual and decentralised governance culture, it also limits the ability to provide sustained strategic direction, prioritisation and follow-up across the policy cycle. The absence of a clearly mandated steering function for policy coherence beyond development policy means that no single actor is systematically responsible for elevating cross-sectoral trade-offs to higher administrative or political levels. As a result, coherence considerations often remain confined within sectoral silos.

Co‑ordination mechanisms: strong dialogue but limited steering capacity

Austria has developed an extensive architecture of co‑ordination and consultation mechanisms, including the Inter-ministerial Working Group on the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (Interministerielle Arbeitsgruppe zu den Nachhaltigkeitszielen, IMAG on SDGs) and the Inter-ministerial Working Group on the Three-Year Programme on Austrian Development Policy (Interministerielle Arbeitsgruppe zum Dreijahresprogramm der österreichischen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, WG 3YP). These bodies play important roles in facilitating dialogue, information exchange and mutual understanding across ministries.

Nonetheless, their mandates remain largely process- or sector-specific, and links between mechanisms are not always clearly articulated. Although sector-specific mandates provide clarity on responsibilities, they constrain the system’s capacity to address cross-cutting policy interactions in a strategic, forward-looking and operational manner, and duplication may occur where sectoral responsibilities overlap. In practice, priorities are often set through informal channels. Similarly, when trade-offs arise, co‑ordination bodies have limited authority to resolve them.

Using policymaking tools more strategically across the policy cycle

Austria has well-developed policymaking tools for planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation. These tools are applied at different stages of the policymaking cycle and generate significant data and insights. However, they are not systematically connected, and coherence considerations are not yet consistently integrated. Transboundary impacts of domestic policies on developing countries are neither specifically assessed in impact assessments nor monitored or evaluated. Matrices included in the 3YP represent a promising step towards establishing comprehensive monitoring frameworks, but the absence of agreed baselines, quantifiable targets and timelines currently limits their steering and accountability function. Evaluation findings are not always synthesised at the central level or systematically fed back into policy design and resource allocation.

Stakeholder engagement: a clear strength with scope to deepen impact

Austria involves civil society, social partners, academia and parliament in key processes related to development policy and SDG implementation. This includes consultations through regular SDG reporting (voluntary national reviews in 2020 and 2024), SDG dialogue fora and stakeholder engagement throughout the design, implementation and evaluation phases of the 3YP. These practices enhance the legitimacy, relevance and transparency of policymaking.

However, stakeholder feedback does not always demonstrably influence decisions and more structured mechanisms for feedback, monitoring and follow-up could strengthen trust and substantive impact.

Priorities for strengthening PCSD in policymaking

Strengthening policy coherence in Austria, in line with the OECD Recommendation on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, does not require creating new institutions or changes to constitutional arrangements. Rather, existing co-ordination mechanisms and policymaking tools could be used more strategically and systematically to identify and manage policy interactions, trade-offs and transboundary impacts. Key priorities include:

• Strengthening leadership and clarifying mandates for cross-cutting policy agendas: Clarify responsibilities at the technical level for identifying and managing cross-sectoral policy interactions.

• Strengthening the strategic role of existing co‑ordination bodies within their mandates: Leverage bodies such as the WG 3YP and IMAG on SDGs to move towards more structured identification of policy interactions, risks of duplication and trade-offs, and to support joint follow-up and learning.

• Making better use of existing tools across the policy cycle: Improve how planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation tools are used in combination to support coherent decision making and strengthen feedback loops.

• Systematically integrating transboundary and long-term impact considerations into policymaking: Incorporate the assessment of impacts on developing countries and future generations into policy design, impact assessment and reporting processes, building on existing analytical tools where possible.

• Deepening stakeholder engagement and improving transparency: Move towards more structured follow-up mechanisms, including clearer communication on how inputs inform decision making, priorities and adjustments over time.