This chapter examines how Austria integrates policy coherence for sustainable development principles into the design phase of its development policy, from strategy formulation, planning and budgeting to stakeholder engagement. It highlights strengths, including a strong legal foundation, the strategic role of the three-year programmes, established inter-ministerial co‑ordination mechanisms, gender and results-based budgeting and a tradition of stakeholder consultation. At the same time, the chapter identifies opportunities to strengthen coherence through a more comprehensive national sustainability framework, clearer institutional mandates, stronger inter-ministerial co‑ordination, measurable targets, consideration of transboundary impacts and more systematic integration of sustainable development objectives into decision making processes.
OECD Policy Coherence Scan of Austria
Abstract
The policy design stage of the policy cycle includes strategy formulation, policy planning, high-level budgeting and stakeholder engagement. This first stage is crucial for establishing the foundations for policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD) by aligning priorities and objectives across sectors and ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered from the outset.
Strategy formulation is the first step in the policymaking process and focuses on assessing needs, identifying policy priorities and setting strategic goals. It involves gathering data, analysing the issues at stake, identifying policy options and engaging stakeholders within and outside the government to establish a clear and coherent policy direction. Using the OECD Recommendation on PCSD as the analytical benchmark, this section assesses whether Austria’s strategy-formulation arrangements help align objectives across sectors, identify and manage trade-offs and consider the transboundary impacts of domestic policies.
Strengths of the strategy formulation of Austria’s development policy
Long-standing legal basis underpinning development co-operation and PCSD
The Federal Law on Development Co-operation (Bundesgesetz über die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, EZA-G) provides the legal basis and strategic direction for Austria’s development policy. It establishes three core objectives: poverty reduction through socio‑economic development, peace and security, and protection of the environment and natural resources (§ 1(3)), and reaffirms Austria’s commitment to equal partnerships, gender equality and the needs of children and people with disabilities as fundamental guiding principles for its actions (§ 1(4)). Crucially, the law embeds the principle of policy coherence, mandating that objectives and principles of development policy must be considered in other policy areas (§ 1(2) and (5)).
By defining these objectives and principles in law, the EZA-G provides a durable foundation for strengthening policy coherence beyond electoral cycles. The practical effect of this obligation nevertheless depends on the institutional arrangements and tools used to identify and address interactions between development objectives and other policy areas.
Source:Republic of Austria (2025[1]), Dreijahresprogramm der österreichischen Entwicklungspolitik. 2025 bis 2027, https://www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Entwicklungszusammenarbeit/Dreijahresprogramm_2025-2027.pdf.
Commitment to multilateralism and development policy objectives in whole-of-government strategies
The foreign policy of the current government, like its predecessors, is driven by a strong commitment to multilateralism, rule of law, human rights, gender equality and anti-discrimination. In its current work programme, the government reaffirms Austria’s commitment to global peace and security, positioning this engagement within a broader international and European framework and referring to the European Union (EU) as the greatest peace project of all time. The government also commits to implementing the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by integrating them more strongly into the budget process, ensuring continuous monitoring by national statistical institute Statistics Austria, assessing the impact of legislation on the SDGs through the Impact-Oriented Regulatory Impact Assessment (Wirkungsorientierte Folgenabschätzung, WFA) and strengthening parliamentary involvement through annual referrals to the relevant committees.
The government programme further stresses the importance of a coherent, whole-of-government approach to development policy and of reaching the internationally and EU-agreed target for official development assistance (ODA) of 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) and 0.2% of GNI to least developed countries (LDCs).
The government identifies eradication of poverty, promotion of peace and environmental protection as the primary objectives of development co-operation and sets out self-determination of partner countries, social minimum standards, gender equality and the needs of children and people with disabilities as guiding principles of its actions, similar to previous governments. The increasing integration of migration into development policy underscores the importance of assessing synergies, trade-offs and potential effects on development outcomes. At the EU level, the government advocates for a stronger role of the EU in development co-operation, in particular in advancing EU interests in sustainable development, human rights and irregular migration. In this context, Austria calls for linking return agreements with development aid. This follows the previous government’s line which called for enhanced co-operation on security and defence and for a stronger EU role in development co-operation, recognising security, climate change, migration and trade as pressing global challenges (Republic of Austria, 2025[2]; Republic of Austria, 2020[3]).
By embedding development policy in the coalition agreement which guides the overall work of the current government, Austria has taken initial steps towards identifying synergies between national, EU and global commitments as well as across policy areas, with the aim of improving effectiveness of its efforts to accelerate progress towards the SDGs through its development policy.
Three-year programmes as strategic roadmaps for Austria’s development policy
Austria has a long-standing tradition of structuring its development policy through Three-Year Programmes (Dreijahresprogramm der österreichischen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, 3YPs), which provide a framework for setting priorities and outlining targeted interventions. Rooted in the EZA-G (§ 23), these programmes are intended to align development policy with Austria’s broader foreign policy interests and existing partnerships, while factoring in geopolitical developments. The SDGs serve as guiding principles, reinforcing Austria’s long-term commitment to sustainable development. The 3YPs are designed to support continuity by providing a medium-term vision that transcends electoral cycles and changes in government. The 3YPs also emphasise collaborative design, envisaging involvement of all relevant actors across government and civil society through a dedicated inter-ministerial Working Group on the Three-Year Programme on Austrian Development Policy (Interministerielle Arbeitsgruppe zum Dreijahresprogramm der österreichischen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, WG 3YP) created in 2023, as well as through additional stakeholder consultations.
The Austrian Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs (BMEIA), in accordance with the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF), drafts these programmes in consultation with the Austrian Development Agency (ADA) and the Advisory Council on Development Policy (Beirat für Entwicklungspolitik). Once finalised, the programme is submitted to the Council of Ministers for approval and forwarded to the National Council for information. This approach provides a formal basis for political endorsement at the highest political level and creates an entry point for co‑ordination and alignment across ministries. By articulating shared priorities and linking them to long-term international commitments such as the 2030 Agenda, the 3YP aims to strengthen policy coherence at the strategic level. It provides a reference framework that brings together diverse policy areas – such as foreign policy, climate, human rights, peace and security, and trade – and encourages greater collaboration among government bodies. This helps anchor development policy priorities beyond the remit of the BMEIA and supports mainstreaming its objectives into sectoral strategies.
EU priorities, international commitments and their impact on national policy priorities
Austria’s foreign and development policy is deeply embedded in the EU context, which in turn strongly aligns with international commitments such as the UN 2030 Agenda. As part of the European Union, Austria endorsed the European Consensus on Development in 2017, reaffirming the EU commitment to policy coherence for development and the need for integrated action that considers SDG interlinkages.
The EU legal framework incorporates a clear commitment to policy coherence for development, which contributes to PCSD. Articles 4(4) and 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) grant the EU competence in development co‑operation, establishing poverty reduction as a primary objective and requiring compliance with global commitments. They also mandate complementarity between EU member states’ development co‑operation policies and consideration of impacts on developing countries. Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union further integrates development policy into the EU’s broader external action.
The von der Leyen Commission 2024‑2029 prioritises migration, security and enlargement, and positions the Global Gateway initiative as a key instrument to steer investment and create long-term, mutually beneficial partnerships. It also calls for a systemic approach to assessing the impact of EU laws on non‑EU countries (European Commission, 2024[4]). These priorities are reflected in the 2026 European Commission work programme, which includes strategies on migration, security and economic partnerships, such as the Middle East Strategy and the rolling out of the Pact for the Mediterranean (European Commission, 2025[5]). All mission letters to European commissioners, including to Jozef Síkela (International Partnerships) and Dubravka Šuica (Mediterranean), reaffirm the EU commitment to the SDGs, highlighting poverty eradication, impact measurement of investments, stakeholder dialogue and partnerships, and coherence across policies such as migration, trade, security, energy and investment.
These legal obligations and political mandates provide a strong foundation for PCSD at the EU level and along with EU strategic priorities shape Austria’s development policy – as expressed through coalition agreements and the 3YPs for instance – and vice versa. Austria shares key EU development priorities, especially poverty eradication and both the EU and Austria have increasingly integrated migration into development policy. Austria’s 3YP emphasises multilateral engagement through alignment with EU development co-operation, joint activities and pooled funding to strengthen coherence, efficiency and impact. The 3YP also affirms Austria’s commitment to advancing its own development priorities – human rights, democracy, the rule of law, poverty eradication, gender equality, climate action, environmental protection and migration – within the EU agenda.
Last, Austria’s engagement with international mechanisms such as the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Development Co-operation Peer Review process provides an external perspective on its development policy and offers recommendations aligned with global best practices. While the peer review can further strengthen strategic formulation of Austrian development policy, progress in implementing its recommendations has been uneven. Some recommendations – such as improving ADA resourcing, addressing corruption risks and enhancing communication – have seen steps forward. However, systematic follow-up of recommendations will be important to fully realise their potential to enhance coherence and impact of development policy (OECD, 2023[6]).
Continuity of development priorities due to historical and EU enlargement engagement
Austria has a strong tradition of supporting conflict prevention, nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament, arms control and the rule of law as key foreign policy priorities. These priorities are particularly evident in Austria’s leadership in its immediate neighbourhood – Southeast Europe – where it plays an important role in promoting regional stability and European integration. The previous government’s work programme called for a clear perspective for EU accession for the countries in the Western Balkans and reaffirmed Austria’s commitment to supporting them through dialogue and bilateral conflict resolution (Republic of Austria, 2020[3]). The current government intends to continue along this path, maintaining Austria’s strong engagement in the region. Austria is also among the largest investors in the region, further reinforcing its strategic role in economic development and political stability (Republic of Austria, 2025[2]).
Austria’s regional focus is also evident in its involvement in multilateral platforms such as the Berlin Process, the Salzburg Forum and the EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR). The Berlin Process is a co-operation platform for the six Western Balkan countries, involving EU institutions, international financial institutions and the region’s civil society, youth and businesses. The Salzburg Forum, a security partnership initiated by Austria as the only EU member state at the time, aimed to support the EU accession of its members (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia). The EUSDR identifies 12 priority areas to improve transport connections, energy connections, environmental protection, socio-economic development and security in the macro-region (European Commission, 2010[7]).
In addition to the Western Balkans, various long-term strategies guide Austria’s engagement with specific regions and countries, such as the framework strategy with the EU Eastern Partnership countries, the regional strategy in Sub-Saharan Africa and country strategies on Burkina Faso, Ethiopia and Uganda.1
Evaluations of Austrian development co‑operation’s engagement in priority countries and regions, carried out by ADA, aim to ensure that Austria’s activities in the respective countries remains relevant, coherent and responsive to evolving trends. The most recent evaluation found that Austria’s stable and long-term commitment in specific regions is widely perceived as a key strength and added value, contributing to trust building and strong co‑operation relationships (ADA, 2025[8]).
Overall, this regional engagement supports policy coherence by promoting consistency and continuity and helping to create long-standing partnerships. It also provides a foundation to more comprehensively align Austria’s foreign, development, economic and trade policies as well as its position at the EU level on EU enlargement.
Opportunities to strengthen the design and formulation phase to support PCSD
Strengthening strategic alignment across sustainable development frameworks
Austria has an opportunity to strengthen strategic alignment across existing sustainable development frameworks and to anchor development policy clearly within the broader sustainability agenda. This could be achieved through a national sustainable development strategy. Findings from a report by the Austrian Court of Audit (ACA) highlight structural limitations of the current mainstreaming approach. First, because sustainable development is mainstreamed across government, no single institution is mandated to lead implementation efforts, and the role of the Inter‑ministerial Working Group on the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (Interministerielle Arbeitsgruppe zu den Nachhaltigkeitszielen, IMAG on SDGs) is largely limited to co‑ordinating reporting rather than driving policy action. Second, this approach has led to the proliferation of sectoral strategies that address individual or a limited number of SDG targets, contributing to fragmentation rather than coherence (ACA, 2018[9]).
In this context, Austria could address these gaps by clarifying shared priorities, leadership and responsibilities; strengthening arrangements for managing potential sectoral trade-offs; and linking sectoral strategies through common milestones and monitoring. Securing strong commitment to sustainable development and PCSD at the highest political level would be decisive for enhancing inter-ministerial collaboration, reducing parallel efforts, inconsistencies and inefficiencies in policy formulation and ultimately ensuring that sectoral policies align with shared long-term sustainability objectives rather than evolving in isolation.
Strengthening the legal architecture for coherent development policy
Despite its strong strategic orientation, the EZA-G does not fully address all design, implementation and evaluation aspects necessary to ensure policy coherence. In particular, it does not clearly define institutional roles and responsibilities beyond the mandate assigned to ADA. Section 3 on advice and co‑ordination could therefore be strengthened at the technical level. For example, the role of the WG 3YP could be formalised as the co‑ordination body responsible for ensuring coherent design, implementation and evaluation of development policy. This would complement the work of the Advisory Council on Development Policy, which provides high-level political advice to the Federal Minister for European and International Affairs. While the law recognises PCSD and its importance to development policy, its operationalisation could be enhanced. Integrated decision making could be mandated and responsibility for identifying and managing policy trade-offs could be assigned to relevant co‑ordination bodies such as the WG 3YP. This would also respond to findings of the last OECD DAC Peer Review, which identified whole-of-government co‑ordination and lack of sufficient mandates as one of the main challenges for development policy in Austria.
Second, according to the EZA-G (§ 2), development policy comprises only measures that form part of ODA and are reported to the OECD DAC. This definition excludes some measures with significant impact on development, such as certain actions in climate finance or peace and security, which are not fully captured in official ODA statistics. This creates co‑ordination challenges, as the BMEIA is responsible for co‑ordinating Austrian development policy through the 3YP but does not oversee all ODA spending. While other ministries and agencies are expected to align their action with the 3YP, they retain autonomy in setting their own priorities. This makes it difficult for the BMEIA to ensure consistent implementation, and leads to fragmented action and the risk of inefficiencies, contradicting action and duplications (ADA, 2025[8]).
Defining high-level headline targets
The development of clear headline targets on development policy would present an opportunity to strengthen the strategic direction of Austria’s development policy. While the government programme currently relies on the objectives set out in the EZA-G – poverty eradication, peace and security, and environmental protection – there is potential to enhance the role and impact of these objectives by translating them into a small number of high-level, measurable long-term targets. If politically endorsed, such targets – either per priority area or spanning across them – could help guide development policy across sectors.
The current 3YP already defines fields of action and priorities and includes associated targets. Although each target is accompanied by a measurable indicator, many of these indicators are operational in nature, lack baseline values and quantified end targets, and do not always capture development impacts. Examples include indicators such as the volume of food aid, an increase in the proportion of projects and programmes with an OECD DAC Gender Marker of 1 or 22 and regular meetings of the Humanitarian Coordination Platform (Humanitäre Koordinationsplattform, HuKoPla). Such indicators track inputs or processes rather than outcomes or long-term results.
Introducing high-level quantifiable benchmarks that are outcome and impact oriented could support greater policy coherence in several ways at the operational level. For example, it could help to align sectoral policies, as different ministries and actors may interpret priorities differently (see section on budgeting for additional elements). Second, benchmarks could improve monitoring by providing clearer criteria for assessing whether or not policies and concrete actions are delivering the desired results. Third, well-defined headline targets can encourage a more consistent and appropriate resource allocation and contribute to long-term financial planning to achieve the set targets.
Finally, headline targets can also help guide strategic resource allocation. Austria’s 3YP for 2025-2027 includes financial and allocation benchmarks intended to strengthen the focus on LDCs, including the international commitment to allocate 0.15–0.20% of GNI as ODA to LDCs and a target of directing a cumulative minimum of 20% of programmable bilateral development financing towards them. However, these benchmarks primarily concern financial inputs and allocations rather than to the poverty-reduction outcomes or impacts achieved. This makes it difficult to assess the extent to which the overall distribution of Austrian ODA is fully aligned with the poverty eradication objective set out in the EZA-G. In 2024, Austria allocated the highest share of gross bilateral ODA (23.4%) to lower middle-income countries, while LDCs received 11.9% (USD 102.7 million). Measured as “ODA per person in extreme poverty”, allocations amounted to USD 0.3 in LDCs, compared with USD 1.1 in lower middle-income countries and USD 2.1 in upper middle-income countries. Complementing the existing financial commitments with a small number of outcome- or impact-oriented benchmarks could help Austria assess whether its resource-allocation decisions are contributing effectively to poverty reduction and are consistent with its broader PCSD objectives.
Enhancing strategic direction and co‑ordination across ministries
There is significant potential to strengthen policy coherence by fostering a more unified and co‑ordinated approach to decision making on development policies. While the BMEIA and BMF are mandated to lead on development policy (§ 22 and 23 of the EZA-G and Section C of the 1986 Federal Ministries Act (Bundesministeriengesetz, BMG) implementing development co-operation measures is a shared responsibility across all ministries (Republic of Austria, 1986[10]). This results in a fragmented landscape with limited co‑ordination across government. While respecting the distribution of competences across government, there is scope to strengthen the co‑ordination functions of these lead institutions by equipping them with the necessary resources, expertise and analytical tools to identify policy interactions and potential negative transboundary effects, to address policy conflicts and to explore possible mitigating action.
Incentivising inter-ministerial collaboration, both at the political and technical levels, could also help address these challenges. Practical steps could include introducing joint headline targets through the 3YP or creating stronger requirements to bring decisions before the Council of Ministers, such as systematic coherence checks for submitted policy proposals. This could help break down existing silos and reduce the risk of inconsistencies. A broader opportunity lies in strengthening the links between development policy, national SDG priorities and relevant sectoral strategies through the development of a national sustainable development strategy. Combined with efforts to streamline Austria’s fragmented ODA landscape, such a strategy could significantly enhance co‑ordination and policy coherence across sectors.
While various country strategies exist, they currently focus on engagement in the context of development co-operation and only apply to countries receiving about 5% of Austria’s ODA in total. Turning them into broader, whole-of-government partnership strategies – particularly in contexts where multiple ministries are active such as the Middle East – would help align efforts, increase impact and promote coherence across Austria’s international engagement. As noted by various stakeholders, a shared geographical interest can serve as a practical incentive for different actors to co‑operate and align their activities.
As highlighted by the most recent strategic evaluation on the country strategies, (local) ownership of existing country strategies remains limited, partly due to a limited whole-of-government approach and insufficient stakeholder participation in the formulation of country strategies. In this regard, independent evaluations could further serve as a platform for more in-depth strategic discussions on joint priorities, potential synergies and trade-offs between initiatives by different actors within the same country or region (ADA, 2025[8]).
It remains to be seen to what extent the recent Africa Strategy for 2026-2029, developed as a whole-of-government strategy, will be able to create more coherence of Austria’s engagement on the continent.3
Insights emerging from existing practice by peers
Below are examples from countries having adopted specific measures to strengthen the inclusion of PCSD in the formulation of their development policy and strategy.
The German Sustainable Development Strategy
The German Sustainable Development Strategy (Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie, DNS) translates the ambitions of the 2030 Agenda into six transformation areas. Designed to guide action across sectors, these areas provide a clear purpose and direction to lead whole-of-government action on sustainable development.
The Federal Chancellery holds the lead responsibility for the DNS. This clear, high-level commitment signals that the agenda is both serious and stable enough to mobilise political capital needed to break down sectoral policy silos (Mazzucato et al., 2024[11]).
The DNS sets out timebound targets, supported by measurable indicators to track progress. Beyond providing a framework to guide complex transformations, these targets create a clear direction. This, in turn, can incentivise cross-sectoral co‑ordination and enable long-term public and private sector investment in support of overarching sustainability objectives (Mazzucato and Dibb, 2019[12]).
Importantly, the DNS was developed as a shared vision through a society-wide dialogue. This inclusive approach strengthens the social dimension of sustainability by valuing participation and inclusion as foundations for social cohesion. It also helps build broad ownership and commitment to a common long-term vision, in line with the 2030 Agenda pledge to leave no one behind.
The Spanish Cooperation Development Master Plan for Sustainable Development and Global Solidarity
The master plan sets out a vision on the role of international co‑operation in achieving a triple just transition (social, ecological, economic) and in delivering on the 2030 Agenda. It does so by defining objectives and priorities to guide Spanish co‑operation actions up to 2027.
The master plan respond directly to the mandate established in Law 1/2023 on Cooperation for Sustainable Development and Global Solidarity. This law strengthens the master plan by:
Setting a target of allocating 0.7% of GNI to ODA by 2030. This measurable and timebound target provides a clear framing for developing and monitoring a strategic vision.
Reinforcing the role of the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation as a cornerstone of the co‑operation system through increased capacities in human resources and partnership building. Strengthened leadership capacity can facilitate the agency’s role in the operational co‑ordination of stakeholders involved in the plan’s implementation.
Creating a Spanish Cooperation Evaluation Office and a High Council for Sustainable Development to support evidence-based decision making and more coherent actions across institutions and civil society, in the context of Spain’s decentralised co‑operation structure.
Aligning with Spain’s national Sustainable Development Strategy 2030, the EU (European Consensus on Development) and the international regulatory framework (2030 Agenda) to reduce risk of fragmentation across strategies and priorities.
Italy’s legal commitment to policy coherence for sustainable development
Italy has established a legal commitment to policy coherence by requiring that all government policies – whether directly related to development co-operation or not – strive to align with the objectives of its 2014 law on development co-operation. Building on this foundation, Italy’s National Action Plan on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, a key implementation tool of the country’s National Sustainable Development Strategy, further strengthens commitment and provides tools to national and local policymakers to systematically assess the impact of domestic policies on developing countries.
Sources: Own elaboration, with input from OECD (2021[13]), “Tools Insights Practices (TIPs) Fundamental: Policy coherence for development”, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/policy-coherence-for-development_410b523c-en.html; Government of Belgium (2021[14]), Le Plan Fédéral de Développement durable (The Federal Plan for Sustainable Development), https://developpementdurable.be/sites/default/files/2025-07/2022_10_01_PFDD_2021_26_fr.pdf; OECD (2022[15]), Italy’s National Action Plan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, https://doi.org/10.1787/54226722-en; Luxembourg Government (2019[16]), Luxembourg 2030: 3ème Plan National pour un Développement Durable, https://environnement.public.lu/content/dam/environnement/documents/developpement-durable/PNDD.pdf; Government of Spain (2023[17]), Ley 1/2023, de 20 de febrero, de Cooperación para el Desarrollo Sostenible y la Solidaridad Global (Law 1/2023 of 20 February, on Co-operation for Sustainable Development and Global Solidarity), https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2023-4512; German Government (2025[18]), German Sustainable Development Strategy Update 2025, https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/974430/1940716/1c63c8739d10011eb116fda1aecb61ca/german-sustainable-development-strategy-en-data.pdf; Mazzucato, M. and G. Dibb (2019[12]), “Missions: A beginner’s guide”, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/publications/2019/dec/missions-beginners-guide; Mazzucato, M. et al. (2024[11]), Mission Critical : Statecraft for the 21st Century, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/publications/2024/may/mission-critical-statecraft-21st-century; Government of Spain (2024[19]), Spanish Cooperation Master Plan for Sustainable Development and Global Solidarity (2024-2027), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation.
To build on progress and seize the opportunities identified above to advance Austria’s whole-of-government approach to development policy, the following recommendations are proposed to further enhance policy coherence for sustainable development in line with OECD standards and international commitments:
Reinforce political leadership and long-term commitment to PCSD: This could involve strengthening the visibility and continuity of Austria’s commitment to PCSD by integrating it more explicitly into existing legislation (e.g. through targeted amendments to the EZA-G) and embedding it within overarching national policy frameworks (e.g. the next 3YP 2028-2030) or designing a national strategy for sustainable development. This can help ensure sustained prioritisation of PCSD across political cycles.
Clarify co‑ordination responsibilities and mandates: This could involve strengthening the mandate of an existing lead ministry or inter-ministerial mechanism to co‑ordinate PCSD efforts across government (e.g. through adjustments to existing legal or regulatory frameworks, as appropriate) while respecting the constitutional distribution of competences across government, to enable more effective conflict resolution, resource alignment and strategic oversight, without creating new entities.
Introduce practical incentives for integrated policymaking: This could involve encouraging ministries and agencies to integrate development priorities into their work by building on existing mechanisms – such as the impact assessment framework (WFA) – to more systematically include (mandatory) policy coherence checks for new proposals, including assessments of transboundary impacts. Additional incentives could include: recognition or performance-based rewards for joint policy initiative across ministries, targeted funding for cross-sectoral policy proposals that promote sustainable development in line with global goals, or capacity-building support for ministries engaged in integrated policy design.
In this phase of the policymaking process, policy frameworks and action plans are developed to achieve strategic goals in a coherent manner. This includes outlining specific actions and allocating resources,4 considering the diverse and often conflicting, economic, social and environmental priorities, identifying potential synergies and trade-offs, determining potential long-term effects and ensuring a balanced and integrated approach. To achieve this, specific mandates and mechanisms are necessary, allowing ministries and public sector agencies to align their respective sectoral programmes, budgets and policies with shared SDGs. This is crucial to prevent duplication and allocate public resources as efficiently and effectively as possible. Effective planning also ensures that, later down the line, implementation is systematic and efficient. This section outlines how planning efforts of Austria’s development policy align with PCSD principles.
Strengths of Austria’s planning phase for development policy
Tradition of designing three-year programmes to create comprehensive policy frameworks
In addition to setting thematic and geographical priorities of Austria’s development policy at a strategic level, the 3YP guides implementation and resource allocation. It translates long-term development policy priorities and objectives into actionable strategies by identifying interactions between different policies, outlining concrete activities to be funded per thematic priority, determining relevant actors and allocating resources to policy priorities (at a high-level). For example, the 2022-2024 3YP allocated 20% of funding respectively to rural development and food security, to water and sanitation, and to sustainable energy generation and efficiency, a level of specificity that is absent in the 2025-2027 3YP.5
While maintaining the three long-term priorities of development policy – poverty eradication, peace and security, and environmental protection – the 3YPs have also, over time, integrated emerging global challenges. The 2022-2024 3YP emphasised the challenges of the aftermath of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, while the 2025-2027 3YP addresses democratic backsliding, demographic change and energy security. This demonstrates Austrian development policy’s responsiveness to evolving international dynamics and places development activities within a broader policy framework. Geographic priorities remain focused on the Western Balkans, Sub-Saharan Africa, LDCs and fragile states and regions in crisis.
A key strength of the 3YPs is their aim to operationalise PCSD principles, reinforcing Austria’s commitment to efficient, effective and transparent development policy. The programmes link interrelated SDGs, for example connecting water, energy and food security, and highlighting education as a driver of equality, health and poverty reduction. The 2025-2027 3YP explicitly refers to PCSD and SDG Indicator 17.14.1, embedding policy coherence as an enabler of the constitutional principles of economy, economic efficiency and appropriateness. It seeks to integrate PCSD principles more systematically across the policy cycle: not only during policy formulation through joint strategising, but also through joint monitoring (including implementation reporting) and joint evaluation. Moreover, the current 3YP envisages a stronger mandate to the WG 3YP to steer strategy development, oversee implementation and guide evaluation process on development policy activities. This reinforced commitment to policy coherence, among other things, responds to the recommendation of the OECD DAC Peer Review of 2020 (OECD, 2020[20]).6
Established inter-ministerial working groups
Several inter-ministerial working groups have been established to support more co‑ordinated planning and joint work on initiatives across government. Most relevant in the context of sustainable development and development policy are the IMAG on SDGs7 and the WG 3YP. While these mechanisms cover different aspects of the SDGs, they are complementary and, if effectively aligned, can jointly operationalise PCSD principles.
The IMAG on SDGs primarily focuses on the domestic implementation of the 2030 Agenda and aims to mainstream the SDGs across federal ministries. It brings together SDG focal points from all ministries and serves as a consultation mechanism to ensure that the SDGs are integrated across various federal initiatives. Chaired by the Federal Chancellery and the BMEIA, the IMAG on SDGs facilitates a whole-of-government approach to SDG implementation by promoting information exchange, cross-sectoral integration, stakeholder engagement and strategic alignment across national sectoral strategies. Its technical subgroup further enables focused discussions on cross-cutting issues. Austria’s first voluntary national review (VNR) (2020) highlights the IMAG on SDG’s role in co‑ordinating and communicating key measures and promoting the integration of the SDGs into sectoral strategies and programmes. The preparation of Austria’s second VNR (2024) called for a 15-month participatory process led by the IMAG on SDGs and involved federal ministries, provinces, municipalities and various stakeholders. This demonstrates the group’s important role in supporting alignment and inclusiveness.
The WG 3YP, on the other hand, is directly concerned with development policy for which the SDGs provide a universal framework relevant to both Austria’s domestic context and its external action. It was first established in 2023 under the 2022-2024 3YP as part of the yearly update to the Council of Ministers mandated by the EZA-G (§ 23). The group brings together key federal level stakeholders from relevant ministries – including finance, economy, energy and education – and institutions, such as ADA and the Development Bank of Austria (Oesterreichische Entwicklungsbank, OeEB).8 Its primary aim is to monitor the implementation of the 3YP through implementation reports (work on the Implementation Report of the 3YP 2022-2024 is currently ongoing) and to ensure policy coherence – both among development policy objectives themselves, and between these objectives and those of other policy areas – by promoting exchange and mutual learning. In addition, the WG 3YP is tasked with analysing development policy challenges in a multilateral context and developing whole-of-government responses such as the 3YPs. The drafting of the 3YP within the working group has been recognised by stakeholders as a positive example of a whole-of-government approach and a means to address potential inconsistencies across sectors. The active involvement of stakeholders including civil society organisations (CSOs) and non-governmental organisations ensures continuous feedback throughout the strategy’s development.
Taken together, the IMAG on SDGs and the WG 3YP address different but interconnected dimensions of sustainable development, domestic and external. This is supported by the Austrian government’s commitment to broad consultations. Feedback from processes such as the OECD DAC Peer Review process is actively incorporated, reflecting an effort to align with international best practices and to learn from global insights. These inclusive processes are intended to strengthen policy coherence at the national level, support the identification of potential negative transboundary effects and promote the contribution of various policy areas to Austria’s development objectives.
Operational responsibility delegated to ADA
The EZA-G entrusts ADA, among other operational actors, with the responsibility to carry out projects and programmes (§ 2 and 8). Country and regional strategies, relevant policy documents and inter‑ministerial strategies guide ADA’s work, particularly in cross-cutting topics such as water management, as well as in its collaboration with partners. The ADA Business Strategy 2022-2026 shows a strong commitment to global frameworks, notably the 2030 Agenda and its SDGs, while emphasising synergies and policy coherence with other development co-operation actors. As a federal agency, ADA can form partnerships with other Austrian development co-operation actors and can be entrusted to implement their funds, which supports a whole-of-government approach and complementarity in development policy. (ADA, 2022[21]).
In addition, ADA collects and compiles all Austrian development and climate finance statistics on behalf of the BMEIA. Centralising reporting and data collection supports maintaining consistent and transparent tracking of development finance. ADA’s operational mandate can also enhance policy coherence by ensuring that implementation aligns with strategic objectives and fosters greater co‑ordination across different actors and policy areas. This, however, hinges on close co-operation with the BMEIA to ensure that programming reflects broader policy priorities, and that strategic direction and implementation remain well aligned.
Opportunities to strengthen planning processes on development policy
Strengthening formal mechanisms and clarifying mandates to co‑ordinate policies and arbitrate conflicts of interest at the technical level
Austrian political culture, rooted in a tradition of consensus building, provides a solid foundation for inclusive dialogue and co-operation across policy areas. However, this approach can also lead to avoiding contentious issues or resolving policy conflicts through ad hoc compromises and concessions at the highest political level, for instance handling them informally prior to Council of Ministers’ sessions. Strengthening technical-level mandates to co‑ordinate and arbitrate between competing interests could enhance efficiency, transparency and policy integration. Such mechanisms could serve as a first instance for resolving disagreements and where no agreement is reached, issues could then be escalated to higher administrative and political levels.
The BMEIA co‑ordinates development policy, with the recent 3YPs placing renewed emphasis on collaboration between ministries and co-operation with the private sector. For example, stronger co‑operation between ADA, the OeEB and Austrian Economic Chamber as well as relevant ministries such as the Ministry of Economy, Energy and Tourism or the Ministry of Finance is considered as particularly relevant for economic development and supporting Austrian businesses in developing and emerging economies. At the multilateral level, the 3YPs reinforce Austria’s commitment to align with the EU, financial institutions and UN agencies, a commitment that the 2025-2027 3YP extends.
To fully realise these ambitions, existing inter-ministerial mechanisms such as the WG 3YP could be strengthened both structurally and operationally. Enhancing the group’s mandate, resources and analytical capacity would empower it to proactively identify policy integration and resolve conflicts between policy areas at the technical level and ultimately drive more coherent government action and development co‑operation activities. While the 3YPs acknowledge competing priorities and possible negative transboundary effects, there is an opportunity to translate this recognition into concrete mechanisms for conflict resolution, assessing transboundary impacts or identifying adaptive measures in response to external risks, such as political instability, economic downturns and budget cuts.
Stakeholders have noted that the IMAG on SDGs, formally established through a Council of Ministers’ decision, largely functions as a platform for information exchange and partnerships co‑ordination. Its work includes efforts to strengthen partnership co‑ordination through ongoing initiatives to formalise stakeholder participation and the planned development of an implementation roadmap. At the same time, its mandate and scope are defined by tasks assigned through Council of Ministers’ decisions and the government programme, which limits its ability to address underlying PCSD challenges. By contrast, the WG 3YP has a more operational mandate, namely to design and monitor implementation of the 3YPs.
While the 3YP formalises the BMEIA’s co‑ordinating role in Austrian development policy, the responsibilities of the various actors involved in implementing actions within their respective expertise could be further clarified. Although different actors are assigned to priority areas and activities, their specific roles in implementation, reporting and impact assessment remain vague.
This lack of clarity is consistent with findings from a recent report by the ACA which points to the existence of parallel structures in the administration of the Foreign Disaster Relief Fund and limited transparency in decision making processes, particularly regarding the determination of funding allocations and the selection of project partners (ACA, 2025[22]). These shortcomings underline the importance of clarifying roles and using existing co‑ordination mechanisms more effectively to align priorities, and ensure complementarity across development policy instruments.
Austria’s experience also underscores the need to better address international transboundary effects to avoid policy incoherences and neglected responsibilities. For example, the Austrian national raw materials strategy (Masterplan Rohstoffe 2030) has been cited by stakeholders for insufficiently addressing its potential negative impacts on developing countries. While Austria ranks 6th in the 2025 SDG Index, it performs rather poorly on transboundary impacts – ranking 151st out of 167, pointing to unsustainable consumption patterns and exploitative global supply chains that undermine global progress towards sustainable development (Sachs et al., 2025[23]). The inclusion of transboundary concerns in Austria’s second VNR and the 2025-2027 3YP marks an important step towards enhancing the visibility of these challenges and fostering more sustainable policies. Following the adoption of the current 3YP, its effective implementation – together with the operationalisation of instruments and mechanisms it introduces or strengthens – will represent an important step in strengthening policy coherence.
Aligning efforts across consultation mechanisms and between the political and technical levels
Various mechanisms exist at the national level to co‑ordinate work across ministries and engage stakeholders in development co-operation. This includes the IMAG on SDGs, the WG 3YP, the HuKoPla and the Working Group on International Climate Financing (Arbeitsgruppe für Internationale Klimafinanzierung, AGIK). However, it is not always clear how these mechanisms, which address intersecting policy areas, co‑ordinate their efforts. For example, the 3YP outlines the mandate of the WG 3YP and highlights the group’s role in formulating whole-of-governance responses to development policy challenges and strengthening coherence through national-level stakeholder engagement. However, it does not clarify how this group complements the objectives of other relevant co‑ordination mechanisms or how their respective work is operationally linked. Without clear links, there is a risk of contradicting strategies, overlapping activities and inefficient resource allocation. Strengthening co‑ordination enhances policy alignment, maximises impact and ensures that, for example, development and humanitarian efforts mutually reinforce each other.
Several options exist to enhance co‑ordination among existing mechanisms. As a first step, an institutional mapping could help clarify the scope, objectives, responsibilities, membership, timelines and outputs of each mechanism. This would support identifying overlaps, complementarities and potential gaps. Introducing commonly agreed principles such as PCSD, a whole-of-government approach or participatory policymaking along with open communication channels and regular exchanges between the mechanisms could further promote transparency on priorities and ongoing efforts and ensure a coherent and effective approach to policy design and planning.
Streamlining the architecture of co‑ordination mechanisms could also be considered. Initial measures could focus on clarifying interfaces, strengthening information flows and establishing predictable referral and feedback arrangements. The IMAG on SDGs and the WG 3YP, both co-chaired by the BMEIA, could take on a more strategic co‑ordination role given their involvement in setting policy priorities across sectors. Merging these two groups would raise legal, institutional and governance challenges, such as questions related to mandates, chairing arrangements and alignment with existing frameworks such as the EZA-G and Council of Ministers decisions. Strengthening structured exchange and co‑ordination between them may therefore be a more feasible and effective way to strengthen coherence between the external and internal dimension of integrating SDGs and related targets into sectoral strategies across ministries. Information flows and feedback loops between the two groups could be formalised to ensure that development policy objectives align with national SDG priorities and that learnings from operational planning (e.g. under the 3YPs) inform broader national efforts on SDG implementation. This could include occasional joint sessions (e.g. on an annual basis) or increased cross-participation, aligning indicators or creating shared dashboards and investing in joint training or capacity building. This strategic layer could then be complemented by a cluster of operational co‑ordination mechanism tasked with translating overarching principles and development objectives into sector-specific planning and implementation. This would help ensure that strategies are effectively implemented and deliver coherent outcomes across policy areas. Within this operational layer, the SDG Steering Group (part of the IMAG on SDGs) could play a central role, linking strategic priorities set by the IMAG on SDGs to concrete actions.9 AGIK could contribute as a specialised mechanism, building on its existing structure and human resources. It could be mandated to cover the climate dimension of the 3YP, including international climate financing, alignment with the Paris Agreement and related policy areas. Furthermore, it could be explored whether AGIK’s mandate could be expanded to integrate broader international “nature”-related issues, such as biodiversity and relevant processes under the biodiversity Conference of the Parties (COP), thereby strengthening coherence across climate and environmental priorities within development policy.
With PCSD-related discussions (i.e. on mandates, tools and capacities) taking place at the technical level within sectoral policy implementation, they often remain informal and lack high-level political backing. Stakeholders report parallel and overlapping dialogues across ministries, leading to inefficiencies and administrative fatigue. Without formal mandates and links between technical and political discussions, the potential to strengthen policy coherence remains untapped. Strengthening PCSD would require clearer institutional linkages between technical working groups and high-level decision-making bodies, supported by formal mandates that define roles, responsibilities and co‑ordination processes. A shared understanding, systematic prioritisation, strategic oversight or ministerial commitment to PCSD are still to be achieved.
Developing a timeline and measurable targets for development initiatives
The 3YPs include a detailed matrix that assigns goals to the individual thematic priority areas, outlines means of implementation and identifies potential indicators to measure progress (see Annex 1 to the 3YP). While these priority areas are aligned with SDGs, the corresponding indicators are only partially aligned with the SDG indicator framework. This structured framework provides a clear strategic direction, enhances transparency and supports PCSD by creating a shared reference point for different ministries and stakeholders to align their actions and measure progress. The matrix also represents an important step towards measurability, as it identifies key elements for implementation, such as priority areas, actors, instruments and indicators.
Nevertheless, the 3YPs do not set measurable targets apart from the internationally agreed target of dedicating 0.7% of national wealth to development co‑operation efforts and 0.2% to LDCs. This lack of quantifiable benchmarks makes it difficult to assess how far progress has gone towards fully achieving the intended goals, evaluate effectiveness and ensure alignment with broader policy objectives, ultimately weakening the feedback loop which is crucial for evidence-based policymaking. For example, under SDG 4 – to ensure equal, gender-sensitive and inclusive access to clean water and sanitation – the 2025-2027 3YP sets as a goal to “increase access to safely managed water and sanitation services” (Republic of Austria, 2025[1]). Progress is to be measured by the share of commitments of ODA and the target is an increase compared to the baseline. However, the 3YP does not specify the baseline, the extent of the commitments, the targeted increase or the expected impact in terms of improved access for the population.
A key first step for establishing measurable targets would be to systematically define baselines, which are essential for assessing progress over time. Based on these baselines, implementation measures and indicators can be further refined and, where necessary, adjusted to better reflect priorities and expected results. Austria already has multiple data systems that can be built on such as performance targets linked to the federal budget, SDG reporting, OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS) coding and various thematic markers including gender, inclusion and disaster risk reduction (OECD, 2025[24]). These frameworks can support the development of a robust monitoring system for the 3YP, which includes baselines and measurable targets.
Further, the 3YPs do not establish a clear timeline for their implementation within the three years of their duration, failing to define milestones or set deadlines for specific targets. Without clear deadlines for key actions in the short, medium and long terms, there is a risk that objectives are not pursued in a systematic and timebound manner and delays in implementation are harder to identify and address. Setting clear deadlines also facilitates tracking progress and holding the responsible actors accountable for implementation.
In the longer term, a fully developed matrix combining indicators, baselines, targets and timelines could serve as the basis for structured monitoring, including mid-term and final reporting, thereby strengthening results-based planning and accountability.
Stepping up measurement of transboundary impacts
In an increasingly interconnected world, accelerating progress towards sustainable development requires that donor countries like Austria ensure coherence within and across policy areas. Overall, Austria’s current impact assessment and control system does not account for transboundary impacts. While it aims to balance intended benefits and unintended consequences, it focuses on domestic impacts and does not evaluate the external effects of Austrian policies on developing countries. As a result, potentially significant transboundary effects may remain unidentified and or insufficiently addressed. Introducing proportionate screening for transboundary impacts, followed by more detailed impact assessment where potentially significant effects are identified, could help Austria better align its policies with sustainable development objectives, enhance the effectiveness of its policies, strengthen partnerships with partner countries, and contribute to a more sustainable and equitable global development framework.
Committing to high-level financial commitments to match policy priorities
Unlike previous 3YPs, the 2025-2027 3YP does not include explicit funding allocations for priority areas such as rural development, water or energy. Although ADA’s annual work programmes specify funding allocations for the upcoming year to priority countries and regions, high-level financial commitments within the 3YP remain important. They help ensure that strategic development priorities receive adequate and predictable funding and are less vulnerable to changing political and economic environments. As development policy relies on co-operation and co‑ordination with international partners, private sectors and civil society, clearly defined budgetary commitments strengthen trust and encourage co-funding and long-term engagement.
Insights emerging from existing practice by peers
Below are examples from countries having adopted specific measures to strengthen PCSD in their planning processes.
The Netherland’s action plan on policy coherence for development
The Netherlands developed an action plan on policy coherence for development (PCD) in the form of a government-wide letter to the House of Representatives, first drafted in 2016 and revised in 2018 and 2022. The action plan provides a framework and thematic focus to promote policy coherence for development in the Netherlands. For example, the 2022 revision focused on three themes: reducing the Netherlands’ climate, land and water footprint; tackling illicit financial flows and tax avoidance; and reducing vaccine and health inequalities. Defining concrete goals for each theme, also linked to the 2030 Agenda, the aim of the plan is to strengthen PCD by having relevant ministries make a shared commitment across policy areas.
Portugal: Strengthening the internal structure for SDG co‑ordination
PLANAPP – the Centre for Planning and Evaluation of Public Policies – is a state body based within the centre of government, responsible for steering strategic planning, delivering forward-looking policy analysis and co‑ordinating SDG implementation in Portugal.
PLANAPP’s co‑ordination role is strengthened by several elements:
High-level mandate: According to the Council of Ministers Resolution no. 5/2023, PLANAPP maps and monitors national plans and other public policy instruments that contribute to the implementation of the SDGs, ensuring greater coherence across sectors such as water management, clean energy, industrial innovation and urban development.
Inter-ministerial network: Through REPLAN, PLANAPP facilitates cross-sectoral co‑operation and knowledge-sharing on strategic planning and foresight, and aligning sectoral policies with cross-cutting strategies.
Anticipatory governance: Initiatives such as Portugal 2050: Scenarios and Vision build a long‑term strategic vision for the country through future scenario analysis and consultation with national and international stakeholders.
Ex ante analysis: In collaboration with the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, PLANAPP conducts ex ante reviews of planning instruments, providing recommendations to integrate sustainability into policymaking and strengthen strategic coherence across sectors.
Methodological tools: Guidance for legislative impact assessments ensure that new policies consider environmental, social and economic impacts.
Sources: OECD (2021[13]), “Tools Insights Practices (TIPs) Fundamental: Policy coherence for development”, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/policy-coherence-for-development_410b523c-en.html; Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs (2023[25]), Letter to Parliament on the action plan on policy coherence for development, https://www.government.nl/documents/parliamentary-documents/2023/02/06/letter-to-parliament-action-plan-on-policy-coherence-for-development; Otgaar, A., S. Bouman and K. Sizoo (2023[26]), Better aligned? Evaluation of the action plan on policy coherence for development, https://english.iob-evaluatie.nl/documents/2023/05/19/action-plan-policy-coherence-for-development; PLANAPP (n.d.[27]), “Homepage”, https://www.planapp.gov.pt/.
Effective planning ensures that implementation is systematic and efficient. The following recommendations could support Austria in addressing identified gaps in the planning phase of its development policy and in further aligning its approach with international standards and principles of PCSD:
Strengthen institutional capacities for policy integration: Enhance the authority and resources of operational co‑ordination bodies like the WG 3YP to support integrated planning and proactively address policy incoherences. This could involve procedural improvements or targeted legal amendments. The formulation of the next 3YP presents an opportunity to reinforce the WG 3YP’s role as a central co‑ordination platform for promoting PCSD.
Improve inter-ministerial co‑ordination for coherence: Conduct an institutional mapping to clarify the mandates, responsibilities and outputs of existing mechanisms, identify overlaps and gaps; and introduce shared co‑ordination principles such as PCSD. Consider organising the co‑ordination architecture into two complementary layers: a strategic layer to align internal and external SDG and development policy priorities and an operational layer to translate them into concrete action at the field level. Formalising information flows between these layers and ensuring high-level political engagement can further enhance coherence, accountability and sustained commitment to integrated policymaking.
Embed impact assessments and foresight into planning: Strengthen the use of existing tools such as regulatory impact assessments to consider more systematically the transboundary effects of national policies. Institutionalise (joint) foresight and scenario planning within government processes to anticipate future risks, challenges and opportunities related to sustainable development, with a view to inform policy design. The next 3YP could lead by example by systematically integrating foresight and PCSD assessments into its thematic priorities.
Set clear timelines and measurable targets for development initiatives and commit to high-level financial commitments to match policy priorities: Include timebound indicators and expected results for each thematic and geographic priority area in the next 3YP, along with indicative funding envelopes. This could strengthen accountability and predictability of Austria’s development co-operation.
Engage the parliament more systematically: Explore ways to remediate gaps in whole-of-government approaches by upgrading the role of the existing parliamentary sub-committee dealing with development co-operation and/or involve parliament more closely in matters related to PCSD – beyond budgetary discussions. The new 3YP could include regular parliamentary consultation, for example an annual PCSD progress briefing or joint session. This could contribute to strengthen the accountability dimension and address some of the co‑ordination challenges identified.
The next phase in the policymaking process involves allocating and managing financial resources to support planned actions. This includes preparing budgets, securing funding and ensuring efficient use of financial resources. Budgets, as key policy and priority-setting documents for governments, are essential tools for policy integration and coherence. They help align actions and sectoral priorities with SDGs and provide a recurring opportunity to discuss political and strategic directions. This section assesses the extent to which Austria’s national budget, including ODA, integrates the SDGs, as well as the use of tools such as green budgeting and climate financing, and SDG-related parliamentary budget discussions. Principle 3 of the OECD Recommendation on PCSD calls for incorporating sustainable development into policy and finance, capitalising on synergies and benefits across economic, social and environmental policy areas, and between domestic and internationally recognised objectives, such as the SDGs.
Strengths in the integration of sustainable development objectives in budget decisions
Results-based budgeting process and alignment with international frameworks
Austria carried out a large-scale reform to introduce performance-budgeting between 2009 and 2013. This includes, among others, legally binding Medium-Term Expenditure Frameworks, a simplified budget structure, performance mandates and outcome-oriented budget management (BMF, 2015[28]). This results-based budgeting process (and related monitoring mechanisms) is also embedded in ADA’s strategic planning, which determines the proportion of development co-operation programmes and projects dedicated to poverty reduction, gender equality and environmental protection. The BMEIA allocates ADA’s budget based on annual government budget negotiations and policy priorities. ADA further specifies the distribution of its annual budget in annual work programmes, which require approval from the BMEIA. Moreover, various international frameworks such as the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation or the European Consensus on Development guide the budgeting process for the agency’s actions (ADA, 2022[21]).
Austria has also initiated some promising practices when it comes to integrating the SDGs into its budgeting processes. The concept of “green budgeting”, introduced by the Ministry of Finance in 2022, and the efforts to incorporate climate finance strategies demonstrate an awareness and initial steps towards aligning financial flows with sustainable development priorities. For example, Austria’s International Climate Financing Strategy 2024-2030 (Strategie Österreichs zur Internationalen Klimafinanzierung) aims to deliver on recent COP agreements and Article 2(1)(c) of the Paris Agreement and to leverage private financing for climate adaptation and mitigation.10 By adopting a whole-of government approach, it positions climate financing as complementary to existing strategies such as the 3YP, the Ministry of Finance’s Strategic Guidelines for International Financial Institutions (Strategischer Leitfaden des BMF für die Internationalen Finanzinstitutionen) and the OeEB 5-Year Strategy. These efforts are supported by inter-ministerial co-operation, particularly through initiatives like the international financial institutions team at the Ministry of Finance, which co‑ordinates with the Ministry of Climate (BMK, 2024[29]).
A structured and outcome-oriented budgeting approach can help strengthen policy coherence for sustainable development by aligning financial planning and resource allocation with cross-cutting government objectives, including development policy objectives and the SDGs. It can also promote resource efficiency and encourage a more strategic use of public funds. Embedding performance indicators in budget planning enables regular monitoring and helps identify which initiatives are delivering the intended outcomes and which are not. This, in turn, can support a more critical assessment of policy initiatives, enabling policymakers to adjust course where needed.
Commitment to SDGs and policy coherence embedded in EU development co-operation funding programmes
The EU and its member states combined – including Austria - are the world’s largest providers of ODA, with Austria providing over 25% of its ODA via EU mechanisms (Austrian Parliament, 2025[30]) .
Global Europe, the EU funding programme for neighbourhood, development and international co‑operation, has a budget of EUR 79.5 billion in the current multi-annual financial framework from 2021 until 2027(Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/947), reflecting a 12% increase compared to the 2014‑2020 programming period. The programme’s founding regulation establishes the 2030 Agenda, the SDGs and the Paris Agreement as key objectives (Article 3(1)(b)). It mandates that the four thematic programmes – human rights and democracy, CSOs, peace and stability, and global challenges – be aligned with the SDGs (Article 4(3)). Additionally, the regulation underscores consistency, coherence and complementarity, emphasising policy coherence for development and requiring the EU to consider the impact of all policies on sustainable development and promote synergies (Article 5(1)).
Austria further contributes through third-party funded projects, which use EU and other donor funds to support targeted development projects in partners such as Albania, Kosovo and Mozambique (Austrian Parliament, 2025[30]).
This approach provides a framework for aligning development co-operation funding with broader EU policies, reinforcing PCSD by fostering co‑ordinated and mutually reinforcing efforts across sectors and funding mechanisms.
Consideration of SDGs through parliamentary budget discussions
Austria’s parliament discusses SDG implementation through budget debates as well as specialised committees and subcommittees that monitor progress towards sustainable development objectives. This approach supports not only domestic implementation of the SDGs but also contributes to strengthening Austria’s contribution to advancing sustainable development in other countries and, consequently, development policy objectives.
Specifically, the Austrian Parliamentary Budget Office (PBS) plays a central role in evaluating the alignment of the national budget with the SDGs. As part of its annual budget analysis, the PBS produces an “SDG map”, which provides a comprehensive overview of how budgetary allocations contribute to SDGs by linking SDG targets to detailed impact targets or indicators within the budget. These indicators illustrate how specific budgetary allocations contribute to outcomes such as improving access to education, reducing inequality or tackling climate change. The SDG map provides a useful resource for members of parliament (MPs), enabling them to evaluate whether budgetary decisions effectively support national and global sustainability objectives while also promoting transparency, accountability and informed debate. Furthermore, the PBS includes comparisons with relevant indicators from Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, allowing MPs to compare Austria’s progress to other EU countries. This broader perspective strengthens parliamentary discussions by helping identify areas for improvement and refine policy approaches.
Overall, linking performance information in the national budget to the SDGs can enhance transparency and support more coherent and sustainable governance. However, mapping budget objectives to the SDGs does not in itself demonstrate that SDG interactions or transboundary effects systematically influence allocation decisions. It encourages decision makers to balance short-term economic needs with long-term social and environmental goals, promoting investments with lasting positive impacts. Additionally, aligning the budget with SDG targets fosters international co-operation and strengthens Austria’s role in addressing global challenges such as climate change and inequality. Applying a similar approach to ODA could help ensure that ODA spending is systematically aligned with both SDG targets and other government priorities.
Opportunities to enhance the inclusion of PCSD objectives in the budgetary processes on development policy
Towards a more holistic approach to sustainable budgeting
A recent report by the ACA highlighted insufficient documentation by the BMEIA on how projects financed through the Foreign Disaster Relief Fund contribute to the SDGs. Key ACA findings include:
Limited strategic guidance and parallel structures: The majority of allocations (87% in 2022) were directed to ongoing crises in countries such as Syria and the BMEIA had at that time no formally defined strategy for these funds. Operational implementation was largely delegated to ADA, which carried out 94% of projects, while the BMEIA implemented the remaining 6% itself. This parallel administration resulted in duplication of effort and limited the ability to plan or align the use of funds strategically.
Insufficient documentation of SDG contributions: Austria is obliged to track and report contributions to the SDGs. However, the BMEIA’s documentation for projects implemented directly by the ministry was, according to the ACA, incomplete, making it impossible to verify how individual projects contributed to specific SDGs. There was no clear system linking projects to sustainability objectives, reducing transparency and accountability (ACA, 2025[22]).
Even though contributions of the fund represent a small share of Austria’s overall ODA, ranging from 2% in 2020 to 6% in 2021, this finding points to a broader opportunity for Austria to build on existing initiatives to develop a more comprehensive and systematic approach to integrating sustainability across all areas of government budgeting and to improve coherence in Austria’s development and humanitarian funding.
Expanding sustainable development considerations beyond climate and environmental policies to include other critical areas such as disaster relief, social inclusion and economic development, and broader development objectives at large, can enhance the overall impact of public investment and development policy. Austria could pilot proportionate integrated assessments in selected spending areas, combining environmental, social, long-term and transboundary considerations, and evaluate their usefulness and administrative burden before wider application.
Strengthen application of gender-related funding
The EZA-G enshrines gender equality as one of the guiding principles of Austrian development policy (§ 1(4)(3)), a commitment reiterated in the 3YP, which frames gender equality both as a goal and a basis for sustainable and inclusive development at the global level across all interventions of Austrian development policy. Since 2009, gender (responsive) budgeting has held constitutional status, requiring the federal government, states and municipalities to strive toward gender equality in budget management (Article 13(3) of the Federal Constitutional Law [Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz, B-VG]).
This constitutional commitment is reflected in key strategies and planning documents. The current work programme of the government emphasises the role of Austria’s foreign policy, including development policy, in advancing gender equality. The Guidelines for Implementing the EU Gender Action Plan in Austria’s Development Cooperation (2024-2030) provide direction to the country’s development co‑operation activities and implementing partners to ensure that all interventions – including humanitarian aid and private sector engagement – contribute effectively to gender equality and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Implementation tools include gender-responsive budgeting and gender lens investing alongside gender mainstreaming and targeted gender-specific interventions (BMEIA, 2024[31]). ADA’s 2025 work programme reiterates the commitment that 85% of all bilateral programmes and projects in priority countries and regions should contribute significantly or principally to gender equality (OECD Gender Markers 1 and 2). Moreover, it aims to increase the share of projects with Gender Marker 2 in Africa to 42.5% (ADA, 2025[32]). Austria has also adopted the UN target that at least 15% of all peacebuilding funds should have gender equality as a principal objective and has pledged to dedicate 15% of all humanitarian funding to gender-responsive measures.
Building on this, there is a key opportunity to further enhance a gender-responsive development policy and to systematically integrate gender considerations into overarching planning and budgeting frameworks, for example by setting specific funding targets for gender-focused initiatives in the 3YPs. According to stakeholders, beyond ADA, other development actors do not have gender-related funding commitments. Considering the cross-cutting nature of gender equality, clear funding commitments both within strategic frameworks as well as by relevant actors would promote more coherent and impactful implementation of Austria’s gender equality objectives and align stated priorities with adequate resource allocation.
Co‑ordinating financing sources for development policy
Austria’s ODA increased between 2018 and 2023 – with the 2023 budget rising by EUR 54.8 million compared to 2022 – but is following an upwards and downwards trend since 2024. Austria’s total ODA is projected to reach EUR 1.762 million in 2025, representing 0.36% of the country’s GNI, an increase of EUR 80 million compared to 2024. It is however forecasted to decline in 2026 with a total ODA volume of EUR 1.563 million, or 0.31% of GNI (BMF, 2025[33]). Austria’s ODA budget is supported by multiple actors, with the Federal Ministry of Finance, the Austrian Control Bank (Österreichische Kontrollbank, OeKB) and the OeEB contributing the largest financial share (ADA, 2022[21]). While contributions to international financial institutions and international organisations are legally binding, the financing of bilateral programmes depends on the strategic priorities of the respective ministries (OECD, 2020[20]; Austrian Parliament, 2025[30]).
Diversified financing sources can enhance budget stability and its ability to adapt to changing priorities of individual actors. However, they can also lead to duplication, fragmentation and/or inconsistencies. To avoid this, robust mechanisms are required to align funding priorities, co‑ordinate financed activities and pool resources for cross-cutting initiatives. Austria has yet to develop sufficiently systematic mechanisms to support policy coherence.
Insights emerging from existing practice by peers
Below are examples from countries having adopted specific measures to strengthen PCSD in their budgeting processes.
The Netherlands – Integrating well-being into budget reporting: At the request of parliament, the government uses the annual national budget process to report on “wider prosperity” (well-being), linking fiscal policy to broader societal outcomes. Since 2023, Statistics Netherlands has produced Well-being Factsheets alongside each ministry’s annual budget proposal, presenting progress on well-being and SDG indicators for the respective ministry’s priority policy areas. These factsheets are complemented by ministerial reflections, strengthening accountability and encouraging the use of evidence in policy and budgeting decisions.
Spain – Embedding SDG alignment in the budget process: Spain has institutionalised the integration of the SDGs into public budgeting through legal and procedural requirements. The General Budget Law (Article 37.2 d) mandates that a report on the alignment of the general state budgets with the SDGs accompanies the draft Law on General State Budgets submitted to parliament. In addition, ministerial orders require departments to assess how their spending programmes contribute to the SDGs, forming the basis for a consolidated report on the general alignment of the state budget (e.g. Ministerial Order HFP/535/2022 dictates the rules for preparing the general state budgets for 2023) This approach strengthens transparency, accountability and the systematic integration of sustainability considerations into fiscal policymaking.
New Zealand – Managing policy trade-offs through a well-being framework: New Zealand’s Treasury uses the Living Standards Framework to integrate well-being considerations into economic and financial policymaking. The framework provides a tool to understand the drivers of well-being and to assess the long-term, cross-sectoral and distributional impacts of policies, supported by a dashboard with key indicators. This enables the Treasury to provide systematic, evidence-based advice on policy impacts and trade-offs, helping decision makers balance competing objectives and align policies with broader well‑being priorities.
Sources: Own elaboration, with inputs from OECD (2021[13]), “Tools Insights Practices (TIPs) Fundamental: Policy coherence for development”, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/policy-coherence-for-development_410b523c-en.html; OECD (2024[34]), Unleashing Policy Coherence to Achieve the SDGs: An Assessment of Governance Mechanisms, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1c8dbf8-en; OECD (2025[35]), “New Zealand’s Living Standards Framework”, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/well-being-knowledge-exchange-platform-kep_93d45d63-en/new-zealand-s-living-standards-framework_70e1f17b-en.html; New Zealand Government (n.d.[36]), “Measuring wellbeing: the LSF Dashboard”, https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/higher-living-standards/measuring-wellbeing-lsf-dashboard.
To strengthen the integration of PCSD into Austria’s budgeting process, the recommendations in Box 2.6 could be considered.
Build on existing initiatives to expand and formalise green budgeting practices: Broaden the scope of green budgeting to encompass all dimensions of sustainability, including social equity and economic development, and formalise these practices through legislation and formal mandates to ensure consistency and compliance across all government departments.
Develop integrated budgetary frameworks: Strengthen budget transparency by requiring all ministries to report on how their budgets contribute to development co-operation objectives beyond official ODA statistics. This would support better oversight, align sectoral funding priorities and facilitate resource pooling for joint activities.
Invest in training and operational capacity: Provide targeted training for budget planners and financial managers across all ministries on using budgetary processes to strengthen policy coherence for sustainable development, enhancing their capacity to align resources effectively with long-term sustainability goals and development policy objectives. Complement these efforts with adequate human and financial resources to ensure that policy priorities are effectively translated into funding programmes and activities.
This phase emphasises the active involvement of stakeholders, including the public, in the policymaking process. It includes consultations, public hearings, communication campaigns and other forms of stakeholder engagement to gather input, foster inclusivity and build broad support for Austria’s development policy.11 Accelerating the implementation of the SDGs requires deeper stakeholder engagement. The 2030 Agenda highlights the need to strengthen national ownership of development plans and budgets through enhanced stakeholder and parliamentary participation. This includes improving stakeholder representation and involvement in the preparation and presentation of VNRs to the UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF). This section analyses the mechanisms in place in Austria to engage stakeholders to ensure a coherent and comprehensive development policy in line with Principle 6 of the OECD Recommendation on PCSD (OECD, 2019[37]).
Strengths in engaging stakeholders in development policymaking processes
Participatory approach to policymaking and involvement of civil society in drafting cross‑sectoral policies and reviews
Austria demonstrates a commitment to stakeholder engagement through various platforms and mechanisms that facilitate dialogue and collaboration across different sectors. This is vital for fostering broad political commitment to policy coherence and sustainable development.
The 2022-2024 and the 2025-2027 3YPs recognise the critical role of CSOs, the private sector, social partners, academia and engaged citizens in development co-operation and humanitarian aid, both as sources of expertise and as key actors for community engagement.
Inter-ministerial working groups, such as the IMAG on SDGs and the WG 3YP illustrate this participatory approach by aiming to integrate diverse perspectives into national policies. Engaging a wide array of stakeholders enriches policy discussions and ensures that policies are better informed by on-the-ground realities and expertise.
The involvement of CSOs in the drafting process of Austria’s VNRs indicates a commitment to inclusiveness and collaboration. The 3YPs also commit the government to holding at least one annual information and dialogue event, during which the chair and members of the WG 3YP inform and consult representatives of civil society on the implementation of the 3YP. These consultations are also an opportunity for relevant stakeholders to contribute, flag concerns and request further information on specific policy areas or planned actions.
Similarly, the SDG Dialogue Forum, held annually since 2021, brings together representatives from politics, administration, science, business, youth, culture and civil society to discuss key issues related to the 2030 Agenda in Austria. Findings were integrated into the IMAG on SDGs’ work programme, reinforcing the link between stakeholder input and national policy planning.12 A regional dialogue forum in 2024 complemented these exchanges by capturing perspectives and priorities at the subnational level.
Engagement with international mechanisms
The 3YPs highlight the importance of multilateral engagement, alignment with the EU on development policy and co-operation with partners in the framework of the UN. Austria actively engages with international mechanisms and platforms including the OECD DAC Peer Review, the OECD CRS and the HLPF which serve as a central platform for follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda.
This engagement further strengthens Austria’s strategy formulation by providing external validation and encouraging alignment with global best practices. For example, and as stated in the EZA-G, the list of development aid recipients drawn up by the OECD DAC must be considered when selecting priority countries (§ 3(1)). Regular reporting – such as through VNRs submitted to the HLPF – also serves as a highly visible and politically salient process, creating opportunities for broad stakeholder engagement, dialogue and public accountability around progress on the SDGs and development objectives.
Communication strategy on Austrian development policy
The 2025-2027 3YP introduces a communication strategy aimed at enhancing the visibility of Austrian development co-operation, ensuring transparency, raising awareness of global issues and the SDGs, mobilising public engagement and addressing disinformation, thereby contributing to SDG Target 4.7.
To promote transparency and accountability, ADA and the BMEIA publish project factsheets and evaluations on the ADA website, ensuring public access to information on activities and financial flows. Additionally, the 2025-2027 3YP underscores Austria’s commitment to better communicate the EU role in development at the global level, highlighting joint EU activities under the Team Europe approach.
Recognising the role of communication in political and citizenship education, the strategy further aligns with the European Declaration on Global Education to 2050 and relevant United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) initiatives.13
Coherent messaging and improved co‑ordination among stakeholders are important to ensure that Austria’s development efforts are aligned across sectors, mutually reinforcing and effectively contributing to SDGs and development policy objectives. Communicating the domestic benefits of investments abroad has also been an important element of these efforts. It would be equally important for other sectors to clearly communicate their policy objectives and priorities to increase transparency, raise awareness and enable informed discussion on potential trade-offs and inconsistencies where they arise.
The Freedom of Information Act (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz), which entered into force on 1 September 2025, abolishes constitutional official secrecy and introduces a general right to access to information. It creates both a proactive obligation to publish information and a fundamental right to request access to individual pieces of information from public authorities (Republic of Austria, 2024[38]). As policies and decisions across ministries become more visible and comparable, it enables CSOs, researchers and private stakeholders to analyse policy interactions, monitor outcomes or identify inconsistencies, overlaps and trade-offs between policies – core elements of achieving PCSD.
Opportunities to strengthen stakeholder engagement for more coherent development policymaking
Institutionalising stakeholder involvement
CSOs active in development co-operation, humanitarian assistance and global citizenship education in Austria play a vital role in highlighting challenges and offering evidence-based recommendations. Co‑ordinated under the umbrella body SDG Watch Austria, various organisations such as Global Responsibility – the Austrian Platform for Development and Humanitarian Aid – produce in-depth studies and policy papers on topics such as agriculture, finance and raw materials, and provide valuable insights that could significantly strengthen policy coherence. Umbrella organisations create a larger, more diverse pool of expertise and perspective, ensure that advocacy actions are consistent, coherent and complementary, and ultimately facilitate a co‑ordinated engagement with governments. This is vital in areas like development policy where on-the-ground expertise and cross-sectoral collaboration is key for coherent policymaking.
Austria already benefits from regular dialogue with civil society and exchange with the parliament on development co-operation and humanitarian assistance, as evidenced by the drafting and implementation of the 2025-2027 3YPs. These processes provide an important foundation for inclusive and informed decision making. Building on this, there is an opportunity to further institutionalise civil society participation, as an integral part of the policymaking process. Mechanisms for dialogue exist, but it is not always clear how stakeholder input influences policy decisions, which can diminish the effectiveness and relevance of engagement. While stakeholders in civil society generally view existing consultation and engagement processes as positive and somewhat effective, many feel that their input rarely translates into tangible influence on decision making at the political level. There are also inconsistencies in the level and depth of engagement across different actors and stages of the policy cycle, with the potential to better, and more systematically, leverage existing contributions.
Strengthening civil society involvement across ministries and throughout the policy cycle, i.e. not only in early consultations or final evaluations but also in intermediate phases such as mid-term reviews or monitoring activities, would strengthen relevance and impact of policy outcomes and address potential coherence-related concerns in a timelier manner. This is particularly relevant for development policy, where successful implementation hinges on knowledge and expertise of CSOs on the ground. Their systematic involvement such as in mid-term policy reviews could help identify challenges in reaching targets and shifting needs in partner countries and adapt policy initiatives accordingly.
Enhancing the communication and understanding of PCSD across government and society
There is a valuable opportunity to strengthen the visibility and understanding of PCSD across ministries and among the broader public. While stakeholders interviewed during the OECD fact-finding mission to Vienna in 2024 acknowledged the importance of policy coherence, the limited awareness of PCSD highlights the potential for developing a clear and targeted communication strategy that demonstrates its value added.
Currently, no explicit mandate requires ministries to incorporate PCSD in their work. This reinforces the perception that PCSD principles are predominantly relevant to environmental or foreign affairs rather than serving as a cross-cutting framework for sustainable development across all sectors and levels of government. Many stakeholders view PCSD as only indirectly relevant to their field or as an additional bureaucratic burden which can discourage adapting existing workflows despite recognition of its potential benefits. As a result, PCSD is often applied in an ad hoc manner, driven by specific teams – such as through the WG 3YP – rather than through streamlined, government-wide procedures. This is particularly relevant for development policy, where fragmented approaches can result in inconsistent strategies and programmes, conflicting initiatives of other policy areas (e.g. trade, migration and security) and missed opportunities to maximise impact.
Strengthening communication around PCSD is therefore essential to improving its uptake across government and society. Clearly articulating its practical value in addressing complex policy interactions, managing trade-offs and identifying synergies across sectors – for example through concrete examples, evidence of impact and cross-sectoral learning – can help shift perceptions and foster broader ownership across sectors. A more targeted and strategic communication effort can support the integration of coherence considerations into policymaking processes, moving from ad hoc application to a more systematic approach. Ultimately, this would help ensure more impactful policies that align with the SDGs and respond more effectively to complex, interconnected global challenges.
Insights emerging from existing practice by peers
Below are examples from countries having adopted specific measures to enhance understanding of and engagement with topics related to PCSD, across government and society.
Italy – Embedding stakeholder engagement in implementation: Italy’s Global Citizenship Education Action Plan serves as a key tool to mobilise a broad range of stakeholders and territories around sustainable development issues. By anchoring stakeholder engagement within the implementation of Italy’s National Sustainable Development Strategy, it helps translate strategic objectives into co‑ordinated action on the ground and strengthens ownership for sustainable development across society.
The United Kingdom – Using consultation to shape development policy: The United Kingdom’s International Development White Paper was developed following an extensive public national and international consultation process. This approach enabled the integration of diverse stakeholder perspectives into policy design, strengthening the ownership, legitimacy and coherence of the strategy, and helped raise awareness of how domestic and sustainable development are connected.
Sources: Own elaboration, with inputs from OECD (2021[13]), “Tools Insights Practices (TIPs) Fundamental: Policy coherence for development”, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/policy-coherence-for-development_410b523c-en.html; AICS (2023[39]), Piano di Azione Nazionale: Educazione alla Cittadinanza Globale (National Action Plan: Global Citizenship Education), https://www.aics.gov.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Piano-di-Azione-Nazionale-ECG.pdf; OECD (2024[40]), “Development Co-operation Mid-term Review of the United Kingdom”, DCD/DAC/AR(2024)3/17; Government of Ireland (2022[41]), “January 2023 Sustainable Development Goals National Stakeholder Forum”, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/208f7-january-2023-sustainable-development-goals-national-stakeholder-forum/.
To enhance the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement in Austria’s development policy and PCSD processes, the recommendations in Box 2.8 could be considered.
Strengthen the traceability of stakeholder input across policy cycles: Establish regular and structured engagement opportunities, such as public consultation rounds during key phases of the policy cycle, and clarify how stakeholder contributions are considered and how they influence policy choices. This could build on existing good practices, such as SDG Dialogue Fora and stakeholder consultations within the framework of the WG 3YP, while leveraging or adapting current platforms to support consistent involvement.
Enhance transparency and feedback loops: Strengthen trust and participation by clearly communicating how stakeholder input informs policy decisions. This could involve standardising and scaling up existing good practices, such as integrating outcomes of SDG Dialogue Fora into the work of the IMAG on SDGs, across all policy areas. Practical measures could include publishing consultation summaries, holding briefing sessions or issuing feedback reports that demonstrate how inputs have been taken into account.
Support stakeholder capacity for meaningful engagement: Provide targeted training and resources to stakeholders, particularly CSOs and private sector actors, to strengthen their capacity for effective and informed engagement in policymaking processes. This could include OECD-facilitated capacity-building workshops, peer learning, training sessions, toolkits, guidance materials and access to analytical tools and data to help stakeholders contribute evidence-based perspectives and promote more coherent and inclusive policy outcomes.
Communicate effectively the value of PCSD across stakeholder groups: Develop a targeted communication strategy to raise awareness of PCSD’s benefits and relevance. This could include embedding PCSD more visibly into the work of all ministries, for example through established structures like the WG 3YP, and promoting understanding of policy interactions, trade-offs and synergies to foster broader buy-in and reduce resistance to integrated approaches.
References
[22] ACA (2025), Entwicklungszusammenarbeit – Teilbereich Auslandskatastrophenfonds. Bericht des Rechnungshofes, Austrian Court of Audit, https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/2025_21_Auslandskatastrophenfonds.pdf.
[9] ACA (2018), Nachhaltige Entwicklungsziele der Vereinten Nationen, Umsetzung der Agenda 2030 in Österreich, Austrian Court of Audit, https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/Entwicklungsziele_Vereinten_Nationen_2030.pdf.
[32] ADA (2025), ADA-Arbeitsprogramm 2025, Austrian Development Agency.
[8] ADA (2025), Evaluation Synthesis of Austrian Development Cooperation’s Engagement in Priority Countries/Regions, Austrian Development Agency, https://ada.kontainer.com/resource/filedocument/1607136/view.
[21] ADA (2022), Unternehmenskonzept 2022-2026, Austrian Development Agency, https://ada.kontainer.com/cdn/TkRRnAVEknRq/ada-uk-2022-2026.pdf.
[39] AICS (2023), Piano di Azione Nazionale: Educazione alla Cittadinanza Globale (National Action Plan: Global Citizenship Education), Agenzia Italiana per la Cooperazione allo Sviluppo, https://www.aics.gov.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Piano-di-Azione-Nazionale-ECG.pdf.
[30] Austrian Parliament (2025), “Dossier EU & Internationales zum Thema Österreichische Entwicklungspolitik und -zusammenarbeit”, https://www.parlament.gv.at/dokument/dossiers-eu-internationales/Osterreichische-Entwicklungszusammenarbeit.pdf.
[31] BMEIA (2024), Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls. Guidelines for Implementing the EU Gender Action Plan in Austria’s Development Cooperation (2024-2030), Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, https://ada.kontainer.com/cdn/REkYw1WDVhSF/leitlinie-gender-2024-2030.pdf.
[33] BMF (2025), Entwicklungszusammenarbeit. Übersicht gemäß § 42 Abs. 4 BHG 2013, Federal Ministry of Finance, https://service.bmf.gv.at/Budget/Budgets/2025_2026/beilagen/Entwicklungszusammenarbeit_2025_2026.pdf.
[28] BMF (2015), The Budget Reform as a Transition to a New Budget World, Federal Ministry of Finance, https://www.bmf.gv.at/dam/jcr:71cc8f60-f609-4d0f-8bbb-9c185ba689bd/2015_BMF-HHRR_folder_E.pdf.
[29] BMK (2024), Strategie Österreichs zur Internationalen Klimafinanzierung. Für die Jahre 2024 bis 2030, Federal Ministry of Climate Change, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology, https://www.bmluk.gv.at/dam/jcr:b70fb437-f56a-4b6a-9994-bd7891dbc0ef/KFS%20Strategie%202024%20final.pdf.
[25] Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs (2023), Letter to Parliament on the action plan on policy coherence for development, https://www.government.nl/documents/parliamentary-documents/2023/02/06/letter-to-parliament-action-plan-on-policy-coherence-for-development.
[5] European Commission (2025), “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Commission work programme 2026”, COM(2025) 870 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:7f0c63c8-ae8f-11f0-89c6-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.
[4] European Commission (2024), Europe’s Choice. Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf.
[7] European Commission (2010), “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. European Union Strategy for Danube Region - EU Strategy for Danube Region”, COM/2010/0715 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52010DC0715.
[14] Government of Belgium (2021), Le Plan Fédéral de Développement durable (The Federal Plan for Sustainable Development), https://developpementdurable.be/sites/default/files/2025-07/2022_10_01_PFDD_2021_26_fr.pdf.
[18] Government of Germany (2025), German Sustainable Development Strategy Update 2025, https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/974430/1940716/1c63c8739d10011eb116fda1aecb61ca/german-sustainable-development-strategy-en-data.pdf.
[41] Government of Ireland (2022), “January 2023 Sustainable Development Goals National Stakeholder Forum”, Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-climate-energy-and-the-environment/publications/january-2023-sustainable-development-goals-national-stakeholder-forum/.
[16] Government of Luxembourg (2019), Luxembourg 2030: 3ème Plan National pour un Développement Durable, Ministère de l’Environnement, du Climat et du Développement Durable, https://environnement.public.lu/content/dam/environnement/documents/developpement-durable/PNDD.pdf.
[36] Government of New Zealand (n.d.), “Measuring wellbeing: the LSF Dashboard”, The Treasury, New Zealand Government, https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/higher-living-standards/measuring-wellbeing-lsf-dashboard.
[19] Government of Spain (2024), Spanish Cooperation Master Plan for Sustainable Development and Global Solidarity (2024-2027), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation.
[17] Government of Spain (2023), Ley 1/2023, de 20 de febrero, de Cooperación para el Desarrollo Sostenible y la Solidaridad Global (Law 1/2023 of 20 February, on Co-operation for Sustainable Development and Global Solidarity), https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2023-4512.
[12] Mazzucato, M. and G. Dibb (2019), “Missions: A beginner’s guide”, IIPP Policy Brief, No. 09, University College London Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/publications/2019/dec/missions-beginners-guide.
[11] Mazzucato, M. et al. (2024), Mission Critical : Statecraft for the 21st Century, University College London Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/publications/2024/may/mission-critical-statecraft-21st-century.
[24] OECD (2025), Creditor Reporting System. OECD Data Explorer, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/3c.
[35] OECD (2025), “New Zealand’s Living Standards Framework”, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/well-being-knowledge-exchange-platform-kep_93d45d63-en/new-zealand-s-living-standards-framework_70e1f17b-en.html (accessed on 11 March 2026).
[40] OECD (2024), “Development Co-operation Mid-term Review of the United Kingdom”, DCD/DAC/AR(2024)3/17, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/AR(2024)3/17/en/pdf.
[34] OECD (2024), Unleashing Policy Coherence to Achieve the SDGs: An Assessment of Governance Mechanisms, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1c8dbf8-en.
[6] OECD (2023), “Peer Review - Mid-term Review of Austria”, DCD/DAC/AR(2024)3/2, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/AR%282024%293/2/en/pdf.
[15] OECD (2022), Italy’s National Action Plan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/54226722-en.
[13] OECD (2021), “Tools Insights Practices (TIPs) Fundamental: Policy coherence for development”, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/policy-coherence-for-development_410b523c-en.html.
[20] OECD (2020), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Austria 2020, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/03b626d5-en.
[37] OECD (2019), Recommendation of the Council on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, OECD/LEGAL/0381, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/oecd-legal-0381.
[26] Otgaar, A., S. Bouman and K. Sizoo (2023), Better aligned? Evaluation of the action plan on policy coherence for development, Policy and Operations Evaluation Department, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, https://english.iob-evaluatie.nl/documents/2023/05/19/action-plan-policy-coherence-for-development.
[27] PLANAPP (n.d.), “Homepage”, Centre for Planning and Evaluation of Public Policies, https://www.planapp.gov.pt/.
[1] Republic of Austria (2025), Dreijahresprogramm der österreichischen Entwicklungspolitik. 2025 bis 2027, https://www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Entwicklungszusammenarbeit/Dreijahresprogramm_2025-2027.pdf.
[2] Republic of Austria (2025), Jetzt das Richtige tun. Für Österreich - Regierungsprogramm 2025-2029, https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:8d78b028-70ba-4f60-a96e-2fca7324fd03/Regierungsprogramm_2025-2029.pdf.
[38] Republic of Austria (2024), Änderung des Bundes-Verfassungsgesetzes und Informationsfreiheitsgesetz, https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/BGBLA_2024_I_5/BGBLA_2024_I_5.pdf.
[3] Republic of Austria (2020), Aus Verantwortung - Regierungsprogramm 2020–2024, https://www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Vertretungen/Bern/Dokumente/Regierungsuebereinkommen_Kurzfassung.pdf.
[10] Republic of Austria (1986), Bundesgesetz über die Zahl, den Wirkungsbereich und die Einrichtung der Bundesministerien, https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10000873.
[23] Sachs, J. et al. (2025), Financing Sustainable Development to 2030 and Mid-Century. Sustainable Development Report 2025, SDSN, Paris and Dublin University Press, Dublin, https://doi.org/10.25546/111909.
← 1. For example: Framework Strategy of the Austrian Development Cooperation with the EU Eastern Partner Countries: The Republic of Armenia, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova; Regional Strategy of Austrian Development Cooperation in Sub-Saharan Africa 2020-2030. Strengthening regional co‑operation by supporting the African Union and the regions of West Africa/Sahel, East Africa/Horn of Africa and Southern Africa; Uganda: Country Strategy 2019‑2025; Ethiopia: Country Strategy 2019‑2025; or Burkina Faso: Stratégie Pays 2019‑2025.
← 2. The OECD tracks development finance in support of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls using the OECD DAC gender equality policy marker – a statistical tool used to record activities with gender equality as a policy objective. The marker is based on development partners’ intentions at the design stage of the project or programme. Projects and programmes marked as “significant” or “principal” (Score 1 and Score 2) are considered by the OECD as development finance with gender equality objectives. See: DCD/DAC/GEN(2025)2.
← 3. At the time of writing, the document was approved by the Council of Ministers and forwarded to the National Council for consideration.
← 4. Resource allocation plays a key role in both the planning and budgeting phases of the policy cycle. In the planning phase, resource allocation is strategic and anticipatory – considering the resource implications of different policy options and setting the direction for long-term investment. The budgeting phase focuses on translating these into concrete financial commitments, aligns policy priorities with fiscal realities and determines how funds will be distributed across sectors, programmes or regions.
← 5. The 3YP covering the period 2025-2027 was approved by the Council of Minister on 25 June 2025 (BKA: 2025-0.498.770) (MRP_20250625_16.pdf).
← 6. The DAC recommends that Austria empower and resource a focal point or institution to lead on policy coherence for development, including responsibility for developing an action plan to address key areas of incoherence.
← 7. Established by a Council of Ministers Decision (86/11, dated 7/1/2016).
← 8. For more information see Presentation to the Council of Ministers (Vortrag an den Ministerrat) of 19 July 2023 on the 2023 update of the 2022-2024 3YP (Geschäftszahl: BMEIA: 2022-0.836.584).
← 9. The IMAG on SDGs is complemented by a more operational steering group. Established in February 2021, this steering group prepares an annual work programme for the IMAG on SDGs, proposing concrete measures to implement the SDGs. Its membership reflects the multidimensional concept of sustainability, covering ecological, economic and social aspects.
← 10. Article 2(1)(c) states: “This Agreement […] aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by: […] Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”.
← 11. As pointed out earlier, while stakeholder engagement is a key component at all stages of the policy cycle, this report assesses engagement primarily during the decision making phase.
← 12. The last SDG Dialogue Forum took place on 23 October 2025 in Vienna, Austria.
← 13. The European Declaration on Global Education to 2050 was adopted at the Dublin Congress on 4 November 2022. For more information, please see: European Declaration on Global Education to 2050 – GENE.