This chapter explores how Belgium applies the eight principles of the PCSD Recommendation—from strategic vision to co-ordination to monitoring and evaluation. Drawing on practical examples, the analysis highlights both institutional strengths and targeted opportunities to enhance coherence. The chapter offers insights and possible ways ahead for reinforcing co-ordination, embedding sustainability throughout the policymaking cycle, and cultivating an adaptive governance culture. It positions Belgium to move from strong foundations toward a more integrated, agile, and impact-oriented approach—bridging policy ambition with practical implementation.
OECD Policy Coherence Scan of Belgium
Strengthening Institutional Mechanisms for Sustainable Development
Abstract
This chapter situates the eight principles of the OECD Council Recommendation on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (hereafter the “PCSD Recommendation”) along six simplified stages of the policy cycle.
1. Strategy formulation: This stage involves identifying policy priorities and setting strategic goals. It includes gathering data, analysing problems and consulting with stakeholders to develop a clear policy direction.
2. Planning: In this stage, detailed plans are created to achieve the strategic goals. This includes drafting policy documents, outlining specific actions and allocating resources.
3. Budgeting: This involves allocating financial resources to support the planned actions. It includes preparing budgets, securing funding, and ensuring financial resources are used efficiently. This stage is also linked to public procurement for sustainable development.
Policy implementation (policy interactions)
4. Engagement: This stage focuses on involving stakeholders, including the public, in the policymaking process. It includes consultations, public hearings, and other forms of stakeholder engagement to gather input and build support for the policy.
5. Implementation: This is the execution phase of the planned actions. It involves co-ordinating activities, managing resources and ensuring that the policy is implemented as intended.
Policy evaluation (impacts)
6. Monitoring, reporting and evaluation: This final stage involves tracking the progress of the policy, reporting on its outcomes and evaluating its impact. It includes collecting data, analysing results, and making adjustments as needed to improve the policy’s effectiveness.
This chapter highlights current strengths, identifies gaps, and suggests potential pathways for enhancing policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD) to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The suggested ways ahead take into consideration government and stakeholder feedback on earlier drafts of this report, provided during a multi-stakeholder workshop held in Brussels on 18 March 2025 (see also Annex A). Each policy stage is assessed to determine the application of the eight principles of the PCSD Recommendation as essential mechanisms to systematically promote policy coherence for SDG achievement in an integrated manner. The alignment of the PCSD principles with the policy cycle stages is indicative rather than absolute for the purposes of this analysis (Figure 3.1).
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Strategic policy formulation is the first stage of the policy. This stage involves identifying policy priorities and setting strategic goals. It includes gathering data, analysing problems and consulting with stakeholders to develop a clear policy direction.
This section assesses how PCSD is integrated into strategy formulation in Belgium, focusing on the PCSD principle most relevant to this initial phase of the policy cycle. Principle 1 emphasises the need to build strong, inclusive political commitment and leadership for PCSD at the highest political level to foster whole-of-government approaches to PCSD. Among other actions, adherents should:
a) enhance whole-of-government approaches to PCSD by defining priority areas, time-bound action plans and key performance indicators for making progress on PCSD and communicating results to the public
b) systematically apply a poverty, gender and human rights perspective to PCSD frameworks in line with the 2030 Agenda's ambition of ending poverty in all its forms everywhere, empowering all women and girls and achieving gender equality
c) introduce measures to promote PCSD within government structures so that commitment to PCSD outlives electoral cycles and changes in government, cabinet compositions or government programmes, including identifying a lead institution responsible for promoting, overseeing and implementing PCSD
d) build leadership capacity in the public service to consistently formulate, implement and monitor policies coherent with sustainable development in and across sectors.
Strengths
Sustainable development is historically grounded and embedded in the core responsibilities of all federal government departments
By adopting the 2030 Agenda, the Belgian prime minister underlines the importance of Article 7bis of the Belgian Constitution. This article, in force since 2007, prescribes the pursuit of sustainable development in its social, economic and environmental dimensions. It underlines the responsibility of the federal state, communities, and regions to give priority to sustainable development goals and to take account of solidarity between generations in their actions.
In Belgium, policy coherence is underpinned by a commitment to PCD at the highest level of government, including through the formal enactment of the Law on Development Co-operation (Government of Belgium, 2013[1]). The PCSD Recommendation defines PCD and PCSD as:
Policy Coherence for Development (PCD): A principle of international development policy that aims to take into account the objectives of development co-operation in external and domestic policies in areas likely to affect developing countries.
Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD): An approach to integrating the dimensions of sustainable development throughout domestic and international policymaking. Its objectives in the context of the 2030 Agenda are to advance the integrated implementation of the 2030 Agenda by: 1) fostering synergies and maximising benefits across economic, social and environmental policy areas; 2) balancing domestic policy objectives with internationally recognised SDGs; and 3) addressing the transboundary and long-term impacts of policies, including those likely to affect developing countries.
Belgium’s Law on Development Co-operation stipulates that Belgium is committed to “maximum coherence between the different areas of Belgian policy” with the aim of increasing the effectiveness of development co-operation. The Belgian government also reinforced its commitment to strong multilateralism in the 2025 Government Agreement (Belgium Government, 2025[2]), pursuing the design and implementation of its foreign and European policy within the framework of co-operative federalism.
The federal government is committed to defending Belgium's interests and priorities and promote coherence at all levels of its foreign policy. Moreover, according to the OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Belgium 2020 (OECD, 2020[3]), the federal government, regional, and local governments have also committed to taking coherence into account when developing their respective policies and co-ordinating their efforts. This commitment is particularly important in the Belgian context, where regions and communities are mainly responsible for education, the environment, agriculture, economy, trade, finance and energy.
More recently, the Federal Plan for Sustainable Development (FPSD) (ICSD, 2021[4]) prepared by the Interdepartmental Commission for Sustainable Development (ICSD) and negotiated and approved by the federal government in 2021, emphasises that PCSD must be a key guiding principle for accelerating the implementation and achievement of the SDGs. The plan lays the foundations for federal policy on sustainable development to implement the 2030 Agenda and achieve the SDGs by 2030. As such, the plan details a series of actions to strengthen the whole-of-government approach to the SDGs in Belgium. The FPSD 2021 aims to ensure effective co-ordination to integrate the SDGs into existing political processes. To this end, the ICSD serves as an administrative co-ordination body to prepare political co‑ordination within the government.
The Law of 15 December 2013 on various administrative simplification provisions provides for an ex ante assessment of the potential consequences of draft regulations in an integrated manner in the economic, social, environmental and public authority fields. A regulatory impact analysis is therefore required on several criteria, such as sustainable development, gender, PCD, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and administrative burden. This impact analysis has been simplified into a single form by FPS Policy and Support (FPS BOSA) and is currently being reviewed by the government.
Inclusion is fostered by several policies and legislative initiatives
The Belgian federal government has undertaken reforms to rationalise its efforts and promote synergies in development co-operation, with the Directorate General for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid (DGD) responsible for defining the development co-operation strategy. The DGD acts as a strategic driver and co-ordinator, necessitating a stronger whole-of-government approach and reflection on the decentralisation level within the administration.
Initiatives that foster inclusivity in policymaking include, for example:
The Anti-Racism Law, dating from 30 July 1981 and amended by a law of 10 May 2007, seeks to punish certain acts inspired by racism and xenophobia. It covers different criteria: nationality, “so-called” race, skin colour, and descent or national or ethnic origin.
Several laws implement the principle of non-discrimination at the federal level, falling within the Anti-Discrimination Law and the Anti-Racism Law. The Anti-Discrimination Law was adopted on 10 May 2007. It covers the following protected criteria: age, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, wealth, religious or philosophical conviction, political conviction, trade union conviction, language, current or future state of health, disability, physical or genetic characteristic or social origin.
The Gender Law of 10 May 2007 refers to the protected criterion of sex. Distinctions based on pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, sex reassignment, gender identity and gender expression are also assimilated. Finally, the Sexism Law, which entered into force on 22 May 2014, aims to combat sexism in the public space and all forms of sexual harassment.
From the human rights perspective, Belgium ensures that human rights considerations are integral to its development policies. The federal government’s action plans include improving social security access, focusing on disadvantaged labour market groups, and ensuring the rights of persons with disabilities through the DG Inclusive 2025 plan.
Belgium's international actions in development co-operation prioritise universal social protection systems and supporting vulnerable populations through initiatives like the Belgian Dialogue Universal Social Protection 2030 network.
The legal and institutional framework provided by the Law of 5 May 1997 provides a strong foundation for PCSD
The whole-of-government approach to sustainable development in Belgium is established in the legal and institutional framework of the Act of 5 May 1997, followed by several amendments and Royal Decrees complementing the approach. This framework includes various structures such as the Federal Institute for Sustainable Development (FISD), the ICSD, the Team Sustainable Development (TSD) at the Federal Planning Bureau, the Federal Council for Sustainable Development (FCSD), and various mechanisms responsible for promoting, overseeing, co-ordinating, implementing and monitoring sustainable development.
FISD is the federal public service that assists the federal government with sustainable development by working on the preparation of sustainable development policy, including the preparation of the FPSD, co‑ordinating the implementation of sustainable development policy and providing expertise. It is organisationally attached to the Prime Minister's Chancellery and is under the political authority of the Minister for Mobility, Climate and Ecological Transition, in charge of sustainable development. It chairs and provides the secretariat for the ICSD and works closely with the TSD and the FCSD. FISD received permanent status in 2014, allowing it to strengthen its co-ordinating role. It will continue to grow and work on more domains; for example, FISD has developed training and tools related to sustainable development.
This framework collectively aims to ensure that sustainable development and the principles of PCSD are embedded in the policymaking process and operations of the Federal Public Services in Belgium, and to create a structure that endures beyond changing political landscapes. Moreover, a dedicated institutional framework for PCD is also established within the Belgian Development Co-operation Law. It includes a commitment for PCD since 2013.
Efforts have been made to build capacity and knowledge of sustainable development within the federal government
FISD has outlined five lines of action (SDGs Belgium, 2024[5]) for SDG implementation, including making the SDGs known to civil society, updating and integrating the SDGs in existing structures, implementing the SDGs via federal public services, improving coherence between different policy levels, and establishing partnerships. FISD has developed initiatives to support both government entities and non-governmental stakeholders in integrating sustainable development into their operations and policies. This includes a methodology for drafting annual action plans on sustainable development, which must be adopted by every federal public service in accordance with the Royal Decree of 22 September 2004. These plans incorporate the SDGs and are linked with administrative agreements, ensuring that sustainable development is integrated at a strategic level within these organisations. A manual is published and available on the FISD website (FISD, 2023[6]), for all organisations interested in using it.
In the past, FISD proposed training on sustainable reporting and identifying priorities of action for ministries. FISD also published a handbook for public services in this respect (FISD, 2014[7]). Finally, FISD (2023[8]) is organising peer learning and exchanges on an ad hoc basis for the co-ordinators of Sustainable Development Cells/Units within federal ministries on specific issues [digitalisation, how to build an action plan (FISD, 2015[9]) with a template (FISD, n.d.[10]), how to integrate the SDGs in policy briefs (note de politique générale), etc.]. As part of the FPSD 2021, it is planned that FISD will formulate a training offer for the management of ministries and federal institutions to increase knowledge to better integrate the SDGs into their strategies. The support will be provided jointly with the FPS BOSA at the request of the ministries. This underlines Belgium's interest in the ability of public service leaders and managers to formulate, implement and monitor policies consistent with sustainable development in all sectors.
Gaps
There is scope to enhance political commitment and foster a unified vision across governments
There is scope to strengthen commitment to PCSD at both strategic and political levels. At times, differing perspectives on scientific consensus present challenges, while political attention fluctuates – often intensifying around key events, such as the launch of a new FPSD. However, there is an opportunity to define clearer priority areas, time-bound actions and objectives to enhance the FPSD.
Parliament and the executive have additional potential to engage more systematically with sustainable development in general and PCSD in particular, which could be further emphasised as political priorities. Short-term issues capture immediate focus but highlight a need for ongoing political education and safe spaces that support more long-term and strategic engagement with sustainable development and PCSD. Political parties also navigate specific governance constraints that merit consideration in this context.
The FPSD functions as a co-ordination mechanism at the federal level, facilitating collaboration across various bodies. Nevertheless, a formal political directive to assign PCSD responsibility to a specific institution has not yet been established. In its SDG Preparedness Review (Court of Audit of Belgium, 2020[11]), the Court of Audit highlighted that, in contrast to the administrative level, there is an opportunity to deepen political commitment towards integrating sustainable development across ministerial responsibilities. The Court recommends that public authorities consider translating the SDGs into specific objectives within strategic plans, aligned with actionable strategic measures.
While federal commitments to sustainability exist, a more unified vision at the highest political levels could further strengthen leadership in advancing PCSD. Additionally, there is a growing need for agility, adaptability and reflexivity to effectively respond to emerging, interconnected crises.
Operational and strategic management practices for SDG implementation could be better aligned
There is an opportunity to deepen the understanding and integration of PCSD and PCD within the Belgian federal structure. Some stakeholders have expressed a need for greater clarity in distinguishing between these concepts to support more effective implementation. As mentioned above, the PCSD Recommendation defines PCD as a principle of international development policy that aims to take into account the objectives of development co-operation in external and domestic policies in areas that are likely to affect developing countries. In contrast, PCSD is defined as an approach to integrating the dimensions of sustainable development throughout domestic and international policymaking.
While PCSD aims to incorporate sustainability across all policy areas, PCD emphasises aligning government policies with development objectives, especially regarding their impact on developing countries – a historically significant focus in Belgium. The OECD’s position is that PCD is a key component of and contributes to PCSD.
Possible ways ahead
Strengthen the whole-of-government commitment to PCSD by leveraging the political influence of the highest levels of government and engaging the parliament in prioritising sustainable development policies and specific actions to improve policy coherence. Clarify and codify PCSD definitions within existing strategic frameworks to build a common understanding across the government. Make public the government’s political commitment regarding objectives and policy priorities for PCSD and outline how those priorities relate to the SDGs.
Conduct functional reviews of existing mechanisms for driving sustainable development and take measures to determine their specific mandates, functions, responsibilities and activities for enhancing PCSD. This will help mitigate the risks of duplication, gaps and fragmentation in promoting PCSD.
Identify best practices to improve the quality and consistency of opinions produced by advisory councils, their contribution to put PCSD and PCD principles into practice, and the best processes for ensuring that these opinions are understood and taken into account by the authorities.
Adopt a more strategic approach to promoting PCSD by identifying a limited number of key priorities or goals for enhancing PCSD, along with specific targets and indicators. Establish clear timelines, roles and responsibilities. Publicise the government’s plan to enhance policy coherence in relevant policy areas, highlighting clear links with the SDGs. Engage the public, working with CSOs, research institutions and partner countries, to raise awareness of government commitments supporting PCSD.
Strengthen capacities, capabilities, and expertise across the federal government to enhance PCSD. Take stock of existing skills and competencies and assess capacity needs for PCSD. Conduct training of civil servants, particularly in operational management, coupled with assessing their achievements in terms of sustainable development, the SDGs, and PCSD in their various tasks. The OECD’s online SDG skills assessment could help to further define focus areas.
Leverage the process to prepare Belgium’s Voluntary National Review (VNR) to the 2028 High-Level Political Forum. Encourage a strategic narrative that is aligned with PCSD principles and ensure active stakeholder engagement throughout the entire process.
Policy planning constitutes the second stage in the policymaking process and in building national policies fully informed by the 2030 Agenda. In this stage, detailed plans are created to achieve the strategic goals. This includes drafting policy documents, outlining specific actions, and allocating resources. It involves considering the diverse, often conflicting, economic, social and environmental priorities and identifying potential synergies and trade-offs while ensuring a balanced and integrated approach to planning and implementation. It also entails considering the potential long-term effects of policies. 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 sustainable development goals. This alignment is crucial to prevent duplication and allocate public resources more efficiently and coherently.
This section outlines Belgium’s strengths and weaknesses related to PCSD Principle 2, which calls for defining, implementing and communicating a strategic long-term vision that supports policy coherence and orients the government and stakeholders towards common sustainable development goals. To this end, adherents should, as appropriate:
a) develop a strategic long-term vision that defines desired sustainable development outcomes, scenarios and actions to enhance coherence across sectors and government levels and between external and domestic policies in areas that are likely to affect developing countries
b) use existing tools such as strategic foresight, scenario development, and systems thinking approaches in the formulation and implementation of policies to identify, prevent and mitigate actual and potential adverse impacts on the well-being and sustainable development prospects of future generations.
Strengths
Strategic visions and plans at the federal level support sustainable development
Before the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, the federal government established a Long-Term Vision (LTV) for Sustainable Development, comprising 55 objectives aimed at 2050 (see below), by means of a Royal Decree in 2013. Following the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, the Belgian government revitalised the Interministerial Conference on Sustainable Development (IMCSD) in 2015 as a co-ordination mechanism. With a specific mandate to oversee the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, the IMCSD approved a shared National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) in 2017. It serves as the foundation for promoting a coherent approach to sustainable development policies across Belgium, guiding the various government entities through an overall framework and strategic instruments.
The common vision of the NSDS is made up of five themes shared and defined by the various Belgian authorities and closely linked to the 17 SDGs: 1) Humanity: Eradicate poverty in all its forms and promote social cohesion and human development; 2) Planet: Protect, conserve and enhance natural capital; 3) Prosperity: Promote an economy that provides a high level of well-being for all; 4) Peace: Promote opportunities for peaceful sustainable development through effective governance; 5) Partnerships: Engagement and empowerment of all stakeholders. Each thematic area is followed by concrete actions described in the NSDS, supported by various instruments at all levels of government.
At the federal level, the federal strategy for sustainable development is implemented through several instruments:
The federal Long-Term Vision (LTV) for Sustainable Development (Government of Belgium, 2013[1]), developed by various stakeholders, including the PPS SD, the ICSD, the FCSD and the TFSD, as well as by input from civil society and the federal parliament, includes 15 themes and 55 objectives for 2050 pursued by the federal government in its policies. For each of the 55 objectives, one or more monitoring indicators are proposed and defined. These targets and indicators are designed to align with commitments made by Belgium at both international and European levels.
The Federal Plan for Sustainable Development (FPSD) determines the measures to be taken at the federal level to meet international and European commitments and the objectives set out in the LTV. A plan is drawn up at the beginning of each legislature for a five-year cycle, as stipulated in the Law of 5 May 1997 (amended by the Law of 30 July 2010). The FPSD is elaborated in different steps (FISD, 2023[12]): 1) the ICSD works in collaboration with experts from various federal administrations on the preliminary draft of the FPSD; 2) this preliminary draft is submitted for consultation to various stakeholders from civil society, who can formulate remarks and proposals for improvement; 3) the FCSD is required to draw up an opinion on this preliminary draft; 4) the ICSD collects these comments and adapts the text to draw up a draft FPSD; 5) the ICSD forwards this draft to the federal government; and 6) the federal government decides on the draft. It can modify, adapt and approve the text. Once approved by the federal government, the FPSD is definitive.
The Federal Reports on Sustainable Development: The 1997 Act entrusts the TFSD (now TSD) of the Federal Planning Bureau (FPB) with the task of drawing up a Federal Report on Sustainable Development over the course of a political cycle. This report is divided into two parts: an "assessment and evaluation" section and a "forward-looking" section.
Federal Public Service (FPS) Sustainable Development Action Plans: Each FPS must draw up an annual sustainable development action plan. One of the tasks of the Sustainable Development Cells is to draw up this plan for its organisation and follow it up through the Sustainable Development Cell's annual report. The content of this plan is referred to in the Royal Decree of 22 September 2004 (amended by the Royal Decree of 25 April 2014) establishing the Sustainable Development Cells. Guidelines (FISD, n.d.[10]) are given for the formulation of a Sustainable Development Action Plan (FISD, 2015[9]) within each ministry, taking those goals into account.
Strategic visions for sustainable development have also been developed and adopted at the regional level in Belgium, but reviewing those is beyond the scope of this report.
The institutional framework builds on existing tools and instruments for strategic foresight
In the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle established by law (Law of 1997), it is the responsibility of the FPB to evaluate and develop scenarios in a prospective approach (Federal Planning Bureau, n.d.[13]). Its missions include reporting on the evaluation of sustainable development policies and proposing long-term strategic foresight scenarios.
At the federal level, the main tool to identify potential adverse effects of a policy is the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) of regulatory proposals that goes to the Federal Council of Ministers (FISD, 2023[14]). It integrates 21 sustainable development and related themes, with the themes of administrative burdens, gender and PCD having their own legal bases and the theme of SMEs being related to an EU recommendation.
Within the Belgian federal sustainable development legal and institutional framework, the FCSD serves, among other roles, as a forum for political dialogue between civil society groups and the government, informing and raising awareness of sustainable development among citizens, organisations and public services. It is made up of representatives of various societal groups, including two representatives from youth organisations (FRDO-CFDD, 2025[15]), who advocate for the needs of future generations (FRDO-CFDD, 2025[16]).
The voice of youth is also supported by the government, through associations active in Belgium in the field of sustainable development, such as The Shift, Associations21 and Reset Vlaanderen, inspiring a comprehensive vision that prioritises the well-being of tomorrow's generations.
Gaps
There is scope to strengthen the use of the NSDS and the LTV as strategic frameworks for PCSD in practice
Belgium has an opportunity to strengthen its political commitment and long-term vision for PCSD, particularly given the division of responsibilities across different levels of government. While the NSDS was intended to provide a cohesive long-term vision, there is scope to enhance its implementation and utilisation as a guiding reference. Furthermore, alignment and co-ordination between regional and federal strategies could be improved to reduce fragmentation in decision-making processes, thereby increasing the effectiveness of sustainability initiatives.
The LTV, initially developed to guide the FPB, the ICSD, and FISD, predates the SDGs and does not fully reflect today’s global challenges. Since the LTV process, which began in 2010 and concluded in 2013, the subsequent adoption of the 2030 Agenda has provided an internationally recognised framework that further supports the alignment of national policies with the SDGs. Enhancing the NSDS and LTV in light of this agenda offers a valuable opportunity to reinforce Belgium's long-term vision for sustainable development.
The use of foresight tools for informed policymaking could be optimised
While the federal institutional framework for sustainable development includes valuable tools and instruments for strategic foresight, there is scope to extend and institutionalise foresight practices across public administration beyond the sustainable development sphere. Finland has a long track record in creating future-oriented structures of decision-making and provides interesting experiences in this area (Box 3.1).
Although some recent initiatives, such as foresight exercises on health and social protection policies post-COVID, have contributed to enhancing long-term planning, these efforts have not yet been systematically integrated across other policy areas. Similarly, the minister responsible for sustainable development has initiated a risk management approach related to planetary boundaries (e.g. through the Climate Risk Assessment Center [CERAC]) and established a new cell dedicated to resource management (customer relationship management [CRM]), yet the full potential of these initiatives in fostering a culture of foresight within federal and regional institutions remains untapped.
Another opportunity for improvement lies in making better use in policymaking of the analyses provided by the FPB. While the FPB generates valuable foresight insights, these analyses are not consistently leveraged to inform cross-sectoral decision-making or long-term policy planning, especially regarding systemic risks like climate change, demographic shifts and resource depletion. The FCSD also provides critical intergenerational and transgenerational insights that could be utilised more effectively to enhance decision-making processes.
In terms of inclusivity, while youth engagement is often emphasised as a representation of future generations, other groups such as older populations, migrants and marginalised communities are equally important for implementing the Leave No One Behind (LNOB) principle of the 2030 Agenda. Without systematic inclusion of these diverse groups in foresight processes, the potential of strategic foresight in comprehensively addressing the needs and challenges of various population segments is limited.
Possible ways ahead
Align diverse strategic visions to ensure coherent efforts in the pursuit of sustainable development: Given Belgium's regions' distinct economic dynamics and priorities, their long-term visions are naturally diverse. While the NSDS was designed to address these differences and promote alignment, further efforts are needed to strengthen coherence between regional and federal strategies.
During the workshop held within the framework of this project on 18 March 2025 in Brussels, federal officials underlined that current circumstances suggest that a potentially fruitful way to drive greater whole-of-government policy coherence could be to concentrate on connecting existing sector-specific plans as a means to “put the federal house in order” (“mettre de l’ordre dans la maison”) under an explicit approach that focuses on strengthening the government’s efficiency and effectiveness in designing and delivery policies and services that have an impact on sustainability, rather than embarking on an explicit exercise to update the SD vision itself or align strategic visions, which might not resonate optimally with the incoming government coalition.
Update the NSDS to drive sustainable development at the national level: Recommendation 4 of the Belgian Court of Audit's SDG Preparedness Review proposes that the various levels of government should consider the NSDS as a shared vision within which strategic plans and other political commitments to sustainable development are framed. However, they point out that the NSDS drawn up in 2017 has not been updated, and no concrete, quantified targets have been set for Belgium. This could be done by involving all levels of government via the IMCSD to ensure policy coherence and alignment and by strengthening the relevant institutional frameworks to support more effective implementation of this recommendation.
Include the SDGs in federal government policy briefs (note de politique générale) to guarantee that policies have an eye towards the future: The integration of SDGs in policy briefs of every member of the federal government could be a powerful tool. Currently, it remains an exercise in creating ownership and contributing to aligning existing policies towards the SDGs. However, as originally conceived, if used as a strategic tool, policy briefs could be used to identify priority issues and for scenario development to support the design of new policies to address the challenges of the 2030 Agenda.
The 18 March workshop underscored that a way forward in this area might focus on using the policy objectives in the incoming government’s policy accord (“Accord de gouvernement”) as a means to argue that pursuing greater coherence across policy areas in the accord can lead to greater effectiveness in achieving the incoming government’s policy objectives, most of which either implicitly or explicitly reflect sustainable development goals. Indeed, the government could focus on a small number of systemic or thematic policy areas (e.g. housing; food; etc) to strengthen policy coherence as a matter of necessity.
Finland has a long track record in creating future-oriented structures of decision-making. The Prime Minister’s Office coordinates and develops the whole-of-government strategic foresight work of the Government and of the Ministries. The focus of these activities is to link futures work and strategic foresight to decision-making processes by creating a shared understanding of future strategic operating environment, of critical uncertainties and of their possible alternative developments and implications. This work allows the government to prepare and be future-ready.
Government Report on the Future
Each electoral term, the Government submits a Report on the Future to Parliament, which aims to identify issues that will be important for decision-making and require particular attention in the future. The report also serves to open up debate for the years ahead.
Future operating environment analysis is the foundation for whole-of-government continuous foresight, and forms the first part of the Government Report on the Future. This is prepared jointly by all twelve Ministries of Finland and builds a shared understanding of future challenges and opportunities and improves opportunities for strategic planning and decision-making in all administrative branches and at all levels. The second part of the Report on the Future explores a key theme selected by the Government. In this part of the report, the Government can formulate policy guidelines and highlight the issues it considers most important for further consideration. A political steering group is appointed for the report.
The preparation of the report also involves dialogue with citizens on the Future of Finland. Citizens from different backgrounds are invited to participate, with an emphasis on young people. Feedback has indicated that these sessions have strengthened people-to-people trust, trust in institutions, and social resilience.
The Government Report on the Future amplifies Finland’s strategic capability by feeding into activities across the whole of government such as, for example, Government strategy sessions, sustainability reviews, policy planning and law drafting.
An audit report showed that the Government Report on the Future process has, in addition to strengthening the Government’s foresight capabilities, developed co-operation between ministries and initiated the internal development work of the ministries in foresight.
Note: Future operating environment analysis: The strategic analysis of the operating environment that identifies drivers of change affecting Finland’s future.
Source: (OECD, 2022[17]), Anticipatory Innovation Governance Model in Finland: Towards a New Way of Governing; https://doi.org/10.1787/a31e7a9a-en.
In the third stage of the policy cycle, financing comes into play after policies have been formulated and planned, necessitating a careful consideration of financial capabilities. Government budgeting emerges as a critical policy instrument, facilitating the strategic management of financial resources. This process is essential for supporting the implementation of various plans, programmes and policies aimed at achieving predetermined objectives related to the SDGs.
This stage is also linked to public procurement practices for sustainable development.
The following section assesses the extent to which the SDGs are integrated into the federal Belgian budget and procurement processes, in line with PCSD Principle 3. This principle calls for improving policy integration to better incorporate sustainable development into policy and finance and capitalise on synergies and benefits across economic, social and environmental policy areas, as well as between domestic and internationally recognised objectives, such as the SDGs. To this end, adherents should, as appropriate:
a) make strategic use of policy planning mechanisms and tools, including the budget process and public procurement, to manage synergies and trade-offs and integrate sustainable development into sectoral policies
b) incorporate a PCSD/sustainable development lens into national development plans, sustainable development strategies and financing plans and develop supporting tools such as guidelines or regulations, as well as co-ordination mechanisms for ministries and government agencies to align their mandates, policies and sectoral objectives with broader sustainable development goals
c) integrate regional and territorial development into sectoral policies to achieve greater synergies with long-term strategic planning for the implementation of the SDGs
d) take a whole-of-government approach to development policy and finance to diversify the resources and linkages beyond official development assistance that support sustainable development impact, including domestic resources, private investment, remittances and philanthropic flows, as well as the promotion and protection of human rights.
Strengths
Strategic use of policy planning mechanisms and tools aims to better integrate sustainable development into public policies
Since 2021, the federal government has decided that the yearly policy brief (note de politique générale) (La Chambre des représentants de Belgique, 2023[18]) presented at the parliament in view of granting the next yearly budget needs to indicate how it contributes to the SDGs. Specific guidelines were established and shared with federal ministerial cabinets and departments. Evaluations were undertaken in 2022, 2023 and 2024 but are not public. It promotes ownership of the SDGs and transparency around how the budget contributes to them. However, it currently falls short of addressing the gaps identified in the federal policies to make further progress towards the SDGs.
Most of the financial resources of the regions and communities come from the federal authority, which represents a high proportion of total public spending in Belgium (BOSA, n.d.[19]). According to the Court of Audit’s SDG Preparedness Review, the financial resources explicitly allocated to implementing the 2030 Agenda are not mentioned in the budget programmes.
Integration of sustainable development concerns within public procurement has existed since 2005 (Government of Belgium, n.d.[20]). Belgium's public procurement legislation (Public Procurement World, 2025[21]) is aligned with the principles of sustainable development, as per the European Union's directives and international agreements. The Belgian public procurement law, specifically the Act of 17 June 2016 and its implementing regulations, sets forth the general performance rules for public procurement contracts. The Belgian legislation transposes EU directives on public procurement, which includes Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement and Directive 2014/25/EU on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport, and postal services sectors, among others. These directives mandate stringent requirements for procurement contracts above certain European thresholds, ensuring compliance with general principles like non-discrimination, proportionality, transparency and free competition. They apply not only to contracts within the purview of EU or Belgian publicity thresholds but also to other government contracts, ensuring a broad application of sustainable procurement principles.
Belgium’s normative framework supports the integration of sustainable development into sectoral strategies, plans, programmes and policies
Since 2007, sustainable development has been a constitutional objective in Belgium, and the federal government has been using the Federal Strategy and FPSDs to ensure coherence between its policies and sustainable development objectives. Moreover, Belgium has a normative framework anchored in the Act of 5 May 1997 (SDGs Belgium, 2024[5]) that supports integrating sustainable development into sectoral strategies, plans, programmes and policies. It establishes an institutional framework for sustainable development, including structures like the ICSD and the FCSD. The Team Sustainable Development of the FPB reports on the current situation and makes policy evaluations and forecasts, supporting policy integration. The IMCSD contributes to implementing the 2030 Agenda through a national strategy and preparing Belgian contributions to European and multilateral reporting.
The Federal Public Planning Service for Sustainable Development was granted permanent status as FISD in 2014 and supports ministries and other stakeholders in integrating sustainable development into their core business. As previously mentioned, FISD has developed a common methodology for drafting annual action plans on sustainable development that federal public services must adhere to, as stipulated by the Royal Decree of 22 September 2004. This methodology is strongly interwoven with the SDGs and includes a manual developed by FISD, which federal public services and other interested organisations can use.1
Belgium also developed guidelines and operational plans (SDGs Belgium, 2024[5]) for public institutions to align their mandates, programmes and policies with the SDGs. For example, administrative agreements being drawn up by each public service include a common objective concerning sustainable development, which integrates sustainable development at a strategic level of the organisation. In addition, the latest version of the FPSD 2021 links each action to the SDGs, their targets, and the LTV objectives. A list of all plans and strategies contributing to the SDGs is also published as an appendix to the document, specifying the relevant SDG. Finally, the FPSD 2021 plans to strengthen links and exchanges between the various interdepartmental co-ordination bodies on gender equality, diversity, PCD and poverty to design more coherent policies that take account of their multidimensional aspects.
Belgium takes a forward-looking approach to development financing
The overarching objective of Belgium’s development co-operation is to achieve sustainable human development by eradicating poverty, exclusion and inequalities. Social and economic inequality is understood as a key driver of poverty and is one of the priority areas of Belgium’s federal development agency, Enabel. In 2023, the country’s official development assistance (ODA) (USD 2.8 billion [US dollars], preliminary data) decreased slightly, representing 0.44% of gross national income (GNI) (OECD, 2024[22]).
Belgium has also demonstrated a strong commitment to PCD, notably through its global approach, which integrates greater coherence into foreign policy (OECD, 2020[3]).
Belgium has modernised its policy framework, for example, through a partnership with the private sector on “digital for development”, particularly in fragile contexts. This demonstrates an adaptive and forward-looking approach to development challenges and financing. The impact of Belgium's federal development policies has also been enhanced by creating new multi-stakeholder partnerships, facilitating the integration of development issues into key sectors of the Belgian economy, such as the chocolate industry, pharmaceuticals and the diamond trade.
Gaps
Belgium could further advance the integration of SDGs into public budgeting and sustainable finance
Belgium could take additional steps to integrate the SDGs directly into public budgets. The FPS Finance prepares Belgium’s positions for the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) preparatory bodies, agreed upon at Directorate General European Affairs and Coordination (DGE) meetings chaired by FPS Foreign Affairs. However, these processes could benefit from more inclusive consultations. Positive steps in this direction are being made by the Task Force Sustainable Finance of FPS Finance.
A European Commission-funded research project implemented by Trinomics consultancy focused on developing policy options for a Belgian Sustainable Finance Strategy. This project provided policy recommendations to support financial market participants and advance sustainable finance by integrating sustainability into policy frameworks, enhancing disclosures and building capacity. As a result, the Belgian federal authorities have initiated the foundational work for a national Sustainable Finance Strategy, which is currently in progress.
The Court of Audit’s SDG Preparedness Review also highlighted that no government level, including the federal level, has estimated the financial resources needed to achieve the SDGs in its strategic plans for sustainable development. While budgets include resources relevant to the SDGs, these allocations are not directly linked to specific goals.
The OECD suggests a five-step approach for SDG budgeting:
Component 1. Strategic arrangements: This component outlines the foundational elements for effective SDG budgeting. It explores the essential governance structures and strategic arrangements. This includes looking at the Ministry of Finance's pivotal role (FPS BOSA and FPS Finance in the case of Belgium) and the supporting roles played by other departments across the government.
Component 2. Tools and methods: This component guides officials in selecting the most suitable SDG budgeting tools and methods for their specific budgeting systems. It explores how to integrate SDG perspectives throughout the budget cycle, from planning and formulation to performance monitoring.
Component 3. Enabling environment: This component focuses on creating a supportive environment for effective SDG budgeting. It explores how to develop guidance and training programmes that enhance the capacity of officials to implement SDG budgeting. Additionally, it gives tips for robust data collection, analysis and interpretation to support evidence-based decisions.
Component 4. Transparency and accountability: This component explores how transparency and accountability can enhance the credibility of SDG budgeting. It examines best practices for developing informative SDG budget statements and discusses the role of external stakeholders, including citizens and parliament, in informing, examining and improving the effectiveness of SDG budgeting.
Component 5. Impact: This component focuses on ensuring that evidence and analysis gathered through SDG budgeting is systematically considered in policy development and budget decision-making. It also shines a light on measurement frameworks and indicators that can be used to track the progress and effectiveness of SDG budgeting, strengthening its impact over time.
A proliferation of sectoral plans risks fragmentation
Belgium has established an institutional framework at the federal level to address trade-offs and synergies across areas, including sustainable development, gender mainstreaming, poverty reduction, and support for people living with disabilities. This framework provides a foundation for stability, yet there is scope to enhance policy coherence. Efforts to improve co-ordination have led to the creation of various structures, though challenges persist due to existing silos and the resulting complexities.
During fact-finding interviews, stakeholders highlighted that one of the main obstacles to achieving greater coherence is the growing number of specific plans and the limited co-ordination between them. While some plans are mandated at the EU level, others emerge for diverse reasons, including political considerations. Currently, at least 30 federal action plans exist, varying in their binding strength across administrations.
According to the OECD, Belgium’s expanded policy framework has introduced multiple thematic areas without clarifying their interaction or priority, which can dilute efforts towards strategic objectives. This diversity in focus areas presents financial and administrative challenges, potentially complicating management and monitoring processes. Additionally, plans are situated across different levels of federal government, making streamlining efforts more complex. Enhanced dialogue across services could further support integration, as many plans currently reference the SDGs only in annexes of the FPSD, limiting their direct alignment with SDG targets (OECD, 2020[3]).
Capacity building could strengthen efforts to enhance PCSD
Fact-finding interviews indicate a need to further develop capacity-building efforts for experts within co‑ordinating bodies. Specifically, support from leadership and additional resources – such as time, training opportunities, methodologies, and budget – would help strengthen these efforts. The OECD (2023[23]) also emphasises the value of conducting an inventory of skills needs and available expertise within the Directorate General for Development Cooperation (DGD) and its partners. Such an assessment would support formulating an action plan to optimise resource allocation.
In addition, a recent OECD report (OECD, 2023[23]) underscores the importance of enhancing policy analysis skills to produce high-quality, utilisation-focused evaluations, which are essential for informed decision-making.
Possible ways ahead
Reduce fragmentation and enhance coherence through improved policy integration: Streamlining existing sectoral plans and policies to ensure coherence and reduce the creation of silos is critical for effective, sustainable development. A comprehensive review of current plans, identifying overlaps and gaps, and consolidating, where necessary, can enhance policy coherence.
Explore options for SDG budgeting: Adopting an SDG budgeting framework inspired by, for example, Canada's Quality of Life Framework (Box 3.2) can ensure that financial resources are effectively allocated to meet SDG targets. This approach ensures that budgeting decisions are linked to an overarching set of priorities. Additionally, linking performance/results-based budgeting methods to the SDGs can further enhance their effectiveness. By guaranteeing that financing is explicitly linked to the accomplishment of certain SDG-related outcomes, this connection encourages accountability and makes it possible to continuously evaluate and enhance the effects of policy. This combined approach aligns financial planning with SDGs, ensuring that budgeting contributes meaningfully to attaining SDG targets.
The 18 March workshop pointed out that failing the adoption of an explicit SDG budgeting framework, strengthening existing data sets to reflect SDG impacts could advance the federal government’s capacity to measure spending performance on the SDGs while setting the stage for driving greater coherence over time in making decisions on spending as a function of pursuing sustainability.
Strengthen coherence across stakeholders in Belgium’s development co-operation: While progress has been made, the 2023 OECD-DAC Mid-term Review notes that there remains scope to further refine Belgium's thematic priorities, increase coherence and align human resources to match priorities. The review also suggests that increased budget flexibility and continued attention to country ownership could increase impact in fragile contexts (OECD-DAC, 2024[24]).
In 2018, Canada created the SDG Unit within the Department of Employment and Social Development to co-ordinate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. To strengthen accountability, the government published the Federal Agenda 2030 Implementation Plan in 2021, detailing federal departments' governance and accountability structures to advance the SDGs and support the national strategy, Moving Forward Together: Canada's National Strategy for the 2030 Agenda.
The Canadian government integrates the SDGs to improve policy coherence across federal operations through two main initiatives: the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (2022-2026), which sets sustainable development goals and actions aligned with the 2030 Agenda and the Quality of Life Framework (2021), which informs federal budgeting and decision-making by integrating the SDGs and other priorities into policy development.
The Quality of Life Framework, introduced by the Federal Department of Finance in 2021 and led by the Treasury Board Secretariat with measures from Statistics Canada, aims to go beyond gross domestic product (GDP) to better assess the life experiences of Canadians. Inspired by the practices of Iceland, New Zealand and Scotland (United Kingdom), the framework comprises 84 indicators in five domains: prosperity; health; environment; society and good governance; equity and inclusion; and sustainability and resilience as cross-cutting objectives. It has been integrated into budget analysis through annual declarations and complements existing impact assessment tools. The evolving nature of the framework promotes evidence-based decision-making and aims to identify emerging issues, thus improving the government's ability to define future policy priorities.
Source: Government of Canada (2023[25]), Canada’s 2023 Voluntary National Review – A Continued Journey for Implementing the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/employment-social-development/programs/agenda-2030/voluntary-national-review/2023-report/VNR_Main%20Report_EN_August%202.pdf.
This stage focuses on involving stakeholders, including the public, in the policymaking process. It includes consultations, public hearings and other forms of stakeholder engagement to gather input and build support for policy. Accelerating the implementation of the SDGs relies on greater engagement of stakeholders and parliaments in the decision-making process. As such, the 2030 Agenda calls for strengthening national ownership of development plans and budgets through greater stakeholder and parliamentary engagement. This includes, for example, improving the representation of all stakeholders and further involvement in consultations for preparing and presenting Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) to the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF). The fact-finding interviews also suggested leveraging the presence of staff on the ground, for example, by facilitating greater co-operation between United Nations officials and staff in recipient countries and parliaments to strengthen their oversight and legislative capacities.
The following section assesses the mechanisms that have been put in place in Belgium to consider PCSD in the engagement stage against Principle 6, which calls for engaging stakeholders effectively to sustain broader support for PCSD and its implementation. To this end, adherents should, as appropriate:
a) engage proactively with stakeholders in different phases of the policy cycle, including through the exchange of knowledge and expertise, to develop and prioritise initiatives for enhancing PCSD, making specific efforts to reach out to the marginalised and vulnerable groups in society and to advance inclusive social and economic development, in line with the aspirations of the SDGs
b) work with stakeholders to raise public awareness and mobilise support on sustainable development and government commitments supporting PCSD, through campaigns, policy dialogue, capacity building and information sharing.
Strengths
An institutional framework that fosters stakeholders’ engagement exists
Since 1997, Belgium has had an institutional framework for sustainable development in place, which includes various consultation structures. These include the IMCSD for dialogue between federal public services and representatives of the communities and regions and the FCSD as the advisory body composed of representatives of the major societal groups and academia. They formulate opinions and organise workshops and conferences to develop expertise on specific issues related to sustainable development. This set-up ensures stakeholder involvement in policy preparation and execution concerning sustainable development.
The exchange of knowledge and expertise with stakeholders is integral to policymaking. The Act of 1997 established a specific consultation mechanism during the elaboration of the FPSD. During the last public consultation in 2020, Belgium gave specific attention to vulnerable groups, trying to translate the LNOB principle into practice. Another recent example is the General Estates for a Just Transition (Just Transition, 2025[26]) held in Belgium, which aimed to organise a collective and democratic deliberation on the options for rallying to a desirable future, both socially and ecologically. A wide-ranging, multi-stakeholder participatory process, paying particular attention to vulnerable groups, took place around four axes: a high committee (experts), a forum (civil society organisations [CSOs]), the citizens' agora (a randomly selected citizen panel) and the federal public services.
Belgium promotes sustainable development through various multi-stakeholder platforms
The Belgian SDG Charter, launched in 2016 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, underscores renewed partnerships with the private sector. Promising multi-actor partnerships seek to influence domestic policies and practices in key sectors of the Belgian economy. Examples include the promotion of a charter on drug quality by the Be-cause Health platform, the Beyond Chocolate initiative to promote responsible chocolate production throughout the value chain and the Kimberley Process in the diamond sector. Following the good practice of the Beyond Chocolate Initiative, a Beyond Food Strategy also seeks to enhance partnerships between the private sector and public authorities (still under development). The OECD biofuel study financed by the DGD will contribute to the reflection and positioning of Belgium. Other events are also organised on specific policy areas. For example, the Coordination Committee for International Environmental Policy organises a biannual stakeholders' dialogue, including a special session on the SDGs and their links with the environment. Box 3.3 highlights an example from The Netherlands, where Responsible Business Conduct is promoted through voluntary agreements with business, trade unions, and civil society stakeholders
The Netherlands promotes Responsible Business Conduct through voluntary agreements with business, trade unions, and civil society stakeholders. In over a dozen sectors, the agreements have raised awareness of standards, and encouraged dialogue and exchange on better business practice (OECD, 2024). The agreements have increasingly reflected climate change challenges, such as the risk on food value chains, attention for climate risk in pension fund investments, and the need for sustainable and responsible sourcing in renewable energy value chains (OECD, 2023).
Evaluations showed that the agreements have improved dialogue and generated learning amongst stakeholders, in addition to having raised awareness of standards and led to improved reporting (IOB, 2019; Royal Tropical Institut KIT, 2020[70]). Two agreements also led to cross-border partnerships, thus increasing their market reach. These were with Belgium (natural stone) and Germany (garments and textiles).
These efforts have also demonstrated that working beyond the national level is essential. In many sectors, the market power of domestic players within global value chains is limited. International standards and joint initiatives can ensure a level playing field for all companies. The Netherlands, therefore, engages actively in EU legislative procedures and promotes RBC at the OECD and the United Nations.
Sources: (OECD, 2023[27]), The Netherlands' multi-stakeholder sectoral agreements promote Responsible Business Conduct, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/the-netherlands-multi-stakeholder-sectoral-agreements-promote-responsible-business-conduct_25ba114b-en.html; (OECD, 2024[28]), The Netherlands: Development Co-operation Profiles, https://doi.org/10.1787/2faea623-en.
Moreover, as the first multi-stakeholder forum for SDGs (SDGs Belgium, 2024[29]), the SDG Forum involves as many sectors as possible and offers a wide range of workshops, plenary sessions and panel discussions. It is organised by 20 partner organisations from all areas of the sustainable development sector. Together, they connect unusual suspects. The SDG Forum offers policymakers, companies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and academics the chance to meet and exchange SDG ideas and solutions. Since 2018, FISD has been one of the main partners organising the SDG Forum each year, the largest event related to sustainable development and SDGs in the Benelux, raising attention towards the 2030 Agenda and gathering all kinds of organisations dealing with sustainable development. FISD also finances the SDG Barometer every two years, evaluating how the SDGs are implemented within CSOs and the private sector. FISD has created a dedicated website (SDGs Belgium, 2024[30]), which contains comprehensive information about the SDGs in Belgium. This platform offers resources on Belgian and international sustainable development policies and communication materials and encourages citizen and organisational engagement with the SDGs.
The government also supports and promotes associations active in Belgium on sustainable development and the SDGs, such as The Shift (The Shift, n.d.[31]), Associations21 (Associations21, 2021[32]) and Reset Vlaanderen (Reset. Vlaanderen, n.d.[33]), particularly activities aimed at promoting capacity building around the 2030 Agenda within civil society and the private sector. According to the Court of Audit’s SDG Preparedness Review, almost all levels of government in Belgium have planned to consult the general public and stakeholders when preparing and implementing their sustainable development strategy.
These mechanisms are also present in the external dimension of federal policies and mechanisms demonstrate that the Belgian government recognises the vital role of civil society and non-governmental actors (NGAs) in development co-operation. There is a focus on strengthening the capacity of civil society to promote, claim and exercise rights within the SDG framework.
Multi-stakeholder partnerships in development co-operation policy support policy coherence
The co-operation strategy and legal frameworks, such as the Law on Development Co-operation, provide a foundation for partnerships, aligning with international agreements on sustainable development themes like poverty reduction, human rights, gender equality and environmental issues.
Reforms in Belgian development co-operation policy have been implemented since the OECD-DAC 2015 peer review (OECD, 2015[34]), focusing on rationalising efforts, promoting synergies, and increasing flexibility and impact. The DGD leads the development co-operation strategy, with enhanced autonomy for implementing partners such as Enabel and the Belgian Investment Company for Developing Countries (BIO). The DGD's role has shifted to a strategic driver and partner co-ordinator, preserving partners' decision-making independence. Enabel’s offices are hosted by embassies in all partner countries and territories, maintaining functional autonomy. This arrangement has strengthened interactions between heads of co-operation and local representatives. Enabel can be directly mandated by other FPS and co‑ordinates closely with ministries like defence and justice in fragile contexts.
Enabel has also been organising a large programme of global citizenship education (today called BeGlobal) for many years. Several Belgian NGOs are also active in this domain, and the DGD funds their programmes.
The Development Law also established an Advisory Council on Policy Coherence for Development, which since 2014 regularly produces opinions on that matter.
All members of the government are required to inform parliament on how they will contribute to the SDGs as part of the budget preparation
Parliaments play an essential role at all levels of government by enacting laws, adopting budgets and ensuring accountability, also regarding national plans and strategies, for the effective achievement of the SDGs, and as an interface between citizens and state institutions.
Since 2021, as part of the preparation of the annual budget, all members of the government have been required to indicate annually, in their general policy brief (note de politique générale) presented to parliament as part of the preparation of the annual budget, how they intend to contribute to the SDGs. The exercise is repeated every year and is subject to an annual assessment.
Moreover, the ICSD annual report (ICSD, 2024[35]) is sent each year to all members of the federal parliament (and federal advisory bodies such as the FCSD), giving them an overview of the implementation of the sustainable development policy across the FPS.
Gaps
Public consultation and engagement could be more systematic
There is an opportunity to further strengthen public consultation and engagement in Belgium. Currently, some ministries conduct public consultations on an ad hoc basis, publishing them on their ministerial websites. However, a centralised government platform listing all ongoing consultations could enhance accessibility and participation.
While the RIA may be shared with social partners during consultation, it is not currently released for public consultation (Figure 3.2). Fact-finding interviews also highlighted the value of expanding external consultation mechanisms, particularly by enhancing parliamentary processes. This would help to make the decision-making process more inclusive and effective and provide a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each party.
Source: OECD (2021[36]), “Belgium”, in Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2021/10/oecd-regulatory-policy-outlook-2021_c5274577/full-report/belgium_6e549198.html#indicator-d1e23336.
There is scope to strengthen dialogue with stakeholders on transboundary impacts
The Belgian federal government has established an ambitious institutional mechanism designed to analyse, engage with stakeholders, and shape policies that positively impact developing countries or at least avoid negative impacts. However, these co-ordination, dialogue, and impact analysis structures have seen limited activation, partly because the state has made few requests to do so, but also due to limited data. The administration stopped using them in 2019 (OECD, 2020[3]).
The different levels of government report differently to their respective parliaments
At the federal level, the parliament and the executive rarely interact on topics related to sustainable development and the SDGs. Short-term issues dominate the agenda.
According to the Court of Audit’s SDG Preparedness Review, most levels of government report regularly on SDG policy. However, only the federal level and the Walloon Region integrate their SDG plans into a multi-year policy and management cycle set by law, with periodic monitoring and reporting to parliaments.
Possible ways ahead
Promote stakeholders’ ability to contribute to government efforts on policy coherence: Leverage Belgium’s strong culture of stakeholder engagement by considering the creation of a central platform for publishing all consultations. Strengthen the role of civil society and NGAs in existing consultative bodies and promote participation beyond traditional consultations, including in participatory budgeting.
Leverage existing structures for stakeholders’ engagement on transboundary impacts of policies: Build on current efforts to engage stakeholders, including civil society, research institutions and partner countries, to raise awareness of government commitment and efforts to address the transboundary impacts of Belgian policies and supporting PCSD. This would reinforce transparency and accountability, strengthen trust, improve the legitimacy of sustainable development and policy coherence efforts, and foster greater public and partner support.
Create an SDG Committee or Sub-Committee: The creation of an SDG Committee or Sub-Committee in every parliament would make it possible to assess and analyse laws through an impact analysis that would include a sustainable development, gender and human rights lens and assess PCSD. The federal parliament could lead by example by establishing these arrangements. In Finland, the Parliamentary Committee for the Future in Finland supports SDG implementation (Box 3.4).
Appoint a parliamentarian rapporteur responsible for co-ordinating on PCSD: To address the interlinkages between the SDGs, it could be helpful to appoint one parliamentarian rapporteur in the SDG Committee who would be responsible for co-ordinating on PCSD across all committees and identifying cross-cutting issues. By having a dedicated rapporteur, each committee can ensure its initiatives and policies align with the broader SDGs, promoting a more integrated and holistic approach to governance.
Finland was the first country to set up a parliamentary committee dedicated to the Agenda 2030 issues. The parliament's Committee for the Future was first set up in 1993 as a temporary committee but has been a permanent feature of the Finnish Parliament since 2001. The counterpart cabinet member is the prime minister, and it comprises 17 members (MPs) of the Finnish Parliament. The committee serves as a think-tank for future policy, science and technology in Finland. Since 2017, the government´s implementation of Agenda 2030 has been submitted to the Committee for the Future during each electoral term.
Source: ESDN (2021[37]), Parliamentary Mechanisms in the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda, https://www.esdn.eu/fileadmin/ESDN_Reports/ESDN_Report_August_2021_Parliaments_and_SDGs_Final.pdf; and Parliament of Finland (n.d.[38]), Committee for the Future, https://www.eduskunta.fi/EN/valiokunnat/tulevaisuusvaliokunta/Pages/default.aspx.
This is the execution phase of the policy cycle, where planned actions are carried out. It involves co‑ordinating activities, managing resources and ensuring that a policy is implemented as intended. Coherent implementation of the SDGs requires horizontal sectoral integration and co-ordination between different policy departments and vertical coherence between all levels of government (local, regional, national, global), in line with PCSD Principles 4 and 5.
Specifically, Principle 4 (co-ordination and horizontal coherence) calls for ensuring whole-of-government co-ordination to identify and mitigate divergences between sectoral priorities and policies, including external and domestic policies, and to promote mutually supporting actions across sectors and institutions. To this end, adherents should, as appropriate:
a) use high-level co-ordinating mechanisms, whether located within the centre of government or a lead line ministry, as appropriate, to promote PCSD and the integration of sustainable development across central agencies, line ministries and other public institutions
b) establish clear mandates and capacities and mobilise adequate resources, as appropriate, for PCSD to identify policy divergences and conflicts related to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda
c) encourage formal governance arrangements and informal working methods that support effective communication between ministries and departments and between ministries and other public sector bodies under their aegis
d) build capacity in public administrations for PCSD and align training strategies and programmes for public actors with the principles and integrated nature of the SDGs.
Principle 5 (sub-national engagement and vertical coherence) calls for engaging appropriately sub-national levels of government in areas where they have a role in policy co-ordination to promote co‑ordinated actions and enhance coherence across levels of government for sustainable development. To this end, adherents should, as appropriate:
a) promote PCSD at different levels of government and work with key stakeholders to develop tools that support local and regional governments in applying PCSD in their legal frameworks, plans and actions for localising the SDGs
b) promote synergies among national, regional and local policies to better align with and contribute to relevant economic, social and environmental goals, including international commitments and international development co-operation objectives, within the scope of their responsibilities and in a balanced manner.
Strengths
SDG implementation in Belgium is a shared responsibility
In Belgium, the formulation and implementation of sustainable development policy is a collaborative effort among all levels of governance, encompassing the federal state, regional authorities, communities and municipalities. Operating within the framework of a federal system, Belgium comprises 565 cities and municipalities, with 285 located in Flanders, 261 in Wallonia, and 19 in the Brussels-Capital Region (belgium.be, 2025[39]). Furthermore, the administrative structure includes ten provinces, evenly divided between Flanders and Wallonia, each playing a distinct role in pursuing sustainable development objectives (Government of Belgium, 2023[40]). Only the Brussels-Capital Region is not divided into provinces.
As stated under Article 7bis of the Belgian Constitution, all levels of governance are responsible for sustainable development: every federal entity should pursue the objectives of sustainable development in its social, economic and environmental dimensions, considering solidarity between generations. The federal entities are characterised by parity in status, yet they possess distinct powers and obligations across various domains. Sub-national governments serve as principal facilitators of local authority endeavours, actively advocating and implementing sustainable development initiatives at the local level, as underscored in the most recent VNR (2023).
Several bodies and mechanisms for co-ordinating federal policy on sustainable development and drafting the FPSDs are composed of representatives of all the federal public services and the regions and communities, such as the ICSD (1997 Act) and the IMCSD (2012).
The NSDS (SDGs Belgium, 2024[41]), approved in 2017, is an important instrument for harmonising the Belgian implementation of the 2030 Agenda across the various federal, regional and communal authorities. Concretely, this national strategy allows a common vision of priority themes around which all authorities must act to improve the coherence of actions between public authorities and accelerate efficiency in achieving the SDGs.
The monitoring and implementation of the 17 SDGs of the 2030 Agenda in Belgium, according to Article 7bis of the Belgian Constitution, is a shared responsibility of all public authorities, including federal, regional, communal and local levels.
High-level co-ordinating mechanisms foster horizontal coherence at the federal level
The Act of 5 May 1997 (Government of Belgium, n.d.[42]), amended by the Act of 30 July 2010, and the Royal Decree of 2014, establish the legal and institutional framework for ensuring a whole-of-government approach and co-ordination of sustainable development policies in Belgium. It created and/or empowered federal institutional actors to involve systematic processes and co-ordination mechanisms to develop strategies, plans and policies that promote sustainable development (see Chapter 2). The key actors include:
Federal Institute for Sustainable Development (FISD): This federal public service assists the Belgian federal government in its sustainable development missions. It is attached to the Prime Minister's Chancellery and reports to the Minister for Sustainable Development. It also chairs and provides the secretariat for the ICSD and co-operates closely with the TFSD and the FCSD. As such, it acts as the driver of sustainable development policy in Belgium, working on the preparation of sustainable development policy, coordinating the implementation of sustainable development policy and providing expertise.
Interdepartmental Commission for Sustainable Development (ICSD): The ICSD gathers at least five times a year in plenary sessions (with delegates from all federal public services) to draw up, implement, support, co-ordinate and monitor federal sustainable development policy. Moreover, working groups prepare and follow transversal policies such as sustainable public procurement, social responsibility (including the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, Beyond Food Strategy, etc.) and federal strategies (e.g. FPSD, impact assessment, etc.). It co-operates closely with other actors in the federal sustainable development strategy, including the TFSD and the FCSD.
Team Sustainable Development (former TFSD) under the steering and responsibility of the Federal Planning Bureau (FPB): The TSD maps how policies are evolving through evaluations and forecasts. It draws up Federal Reports on Sustainable Development, interacting with other institutions, such as the FCSD, FISD and the ICSD. The Federal Reports on Sustainable Development are published in two parts (biannual) during the five-year cycle of a FPSD.
Federal Council for Sustainable Development (FCSD): The FCSD’s statutory missions include providing advice to the federal government; serving as a forum for an exchange of views on sustainable development, and a space for policy dialogue between civil society groups and the government; informing and raising awareness about sustainable development among citizens, organisations and public services; and proposing research in all areas related to sustainable development. FCSD members represent various societal groups: environmental organisations; development co-operation organisations; consumer, worker and employer organisations; youth organisations; and the scientific community. Representatives of the federal government, communities and regions, and environmental and socio-economic councils are non-voting members (FRDO-CFDD, 2025[43]).
Council on Policy Coherence for Development (CPCD): Its statutory missions include providing advice to the relevant Belgian ministers on federal measures that have an impact on developing countries, about the implementation of PCD, including impact assessment. Its priority areas are trade and finance, climate change, food security, migration and peace and security. The Council is composed of equal number of members from scientific community, academia and civil society experts on development. Representatives of the federal government are non-voting members (Council on Policy Coherence for Development, n.d.[44]).
Co-ordination of policies related to sustainable development and SDGs can also rely on other mechanisms, such as:
The Interministerial Conference for Sustainable Development (IMCSD): Composed of members of the governments of all federal and federated entities in charge of sustainable development, it is the main sustainable development co-ordination mechanism on the national level. Recently, it oversaw the preparation of the 2023 VNR and adopted a participatory approach to build the report based on contributions from all governments in Belgium, as well as local actors and stakeholders.
Sustainable Development Units or “Sustainable Development Cells”: Each FPS, including the Ministry of Defence, is required to set up a sustainable development unit. This unit is responsible for co-ordinating the internal implementation of the FPSD and monitoring it in the ICSD reports, notably by carrying out and/or co-ordinating sustainability impact assessments (SIAs) (e.g. public procurement).
Additional co-ordination platforms exist between different ministries on themes such as gender mainstreaming and poverty. Federal, regional and communal actors gather in multilateral co‑ordination meetings where trade-offs and synergies among economic, social and environmental, as well as political policy objectives, are identified and discussed.
International reporting is under the final responsibility of the DGE and the Transversal Multilateral Issues and Multilateral Co-ordination Service (COORMULTI).
In addition, the Act of 5 May 1997 includes the preparation and publication of FPSDs and generating Federal Reports on Sustainable Development. The FPSD outlines a five-year plan with actions and measures at the federal level to fulfil international and European commitments and align with the federal LTV for Sustainable Development. As previously mentioned, the federal administration implements the FPSD actions, and the TSD of the FPB regularly assesses their progress. The evaluation forms the foundation for the subsequent five-year cycle of sustainable development initiatives.
Various working methods strengthen communication between ministries
The governance arrangements for communication between ministries and departments in Belgium in the context of the SDGs involve specific laws, like the Act of 1997, policy notes submitted to ministers on different topics, and management, federal and national plans, e.g. the FPSD.
Belgium also recognises the need for training and raising awareness on the complexity of the SDGs in administrations, organisations and among citizens. In response, the federal government has launched several actions as part of the FPSD 2021.
First, in 2022, the federal government launched a major awareness and information campaign on the SDGs. Moreover, it compiled an exhaustive inventory of existing tools for implementing the SDGs across various public services and organisations. This inventory is available on the sdgs.be website under a dedicated "tools" tab. This initiative aims to identify gaps and create new tools, particularly for applying the LNOB principle and the international cross-border dimension.
Second, FISD, in collaboration with FPS BOSA, is planning training and support for management and middle management within ministries and federal institutions. This training aims to help civil servants integrate the SDGs into policies and identify spillover effects and transboundary impacts.
Mechanisms are also in place to support vertical co-ordination to integrate the SDGs
To achieve the NSDS and promote coherence in implementing sustainable development policy in Belgium, the IMCSD was established in 2012 at the national level and reactivated in 2015. It comprises federal, regional and community ministers responsible for sustainable development, development co-operation and regional minister-presidents. As the SDGs relate to federal, regional and communal competencies, this co-ordination mechanism is essential to implement the SDGs in Belgium efficiently, coherently and effectively.
The IMCSD’s mandate includes contributing to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda in Belgium, including the NSDS, the preparation of the Belgian contributions to European and multilateral reporting regarding the Belgian implementation of the 2030 Agenda and, at an administrative level, contributing to the preparation of the viewpoints Belgium will defend within the European Union and United Nations regarding the Belgian implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Moreover, in the context of the NSDS adopted in 2017, technical working groups with representatives of each level of governance are set up to prepare the decision of the ICMSD. There is one administrative steering group, a working party on NSDS, a working party on sustainable public procurement, and a working party on international policy (ESDN, 2020[45]).
SDG implementation at the local level is driven by the municipalities and the provinces
The Association of Flemish Cities and Municipalities (VVSG), the Union des Villes et Communes de Wallonie (UVCW) and Brulocalis in Brussels-Capital represent the municipalities. The Association of Flemish Provinces (VVP) and the Association of Walloon Provinces (APW) represent the provinces. These organisations aim to represent the interests of their members and share knowledge and network.
Local authorities are essential to achieving the SDGs, contributing significantly through public services and international co-operation. In Belgium, the 2030 Agenda guides local policy planning, implementation and monitoring, though adoption varies by region. Wallonia has appointed SDG officials and created roadmaps, while Flanders has fully integrated the SDGs into the local policy cycle with support from the VVSG and VVP, earning global recognition for their pioneering efforts. Brussels supports local Agenda 21 plans and regional climate programmes that incorporate the SDGs. Umbrella organisations provide resources and training and facilitate partnerships, exemplified by Wallonia's training sessions and tools to help local authorities implement the SDGs.
Finally, the ICSD is the main co-ordination mechanism between all federal public services and representatives of the communities and regions, with the federal public services providing the principal share of representatives. The ICSD is the structure designed to implement the SDGs in policy preparation and execution of the FPS in a qualitative, co-ordinated and integrated way. It has been commissioned to study how the SDGs can be integrated into existing structures, including the LTV for Sustainable Development and the FPSD.
Belgium’s development co-operation policy supports the alignment between national and international commitments
The Law of 1997 on the co-ordination of federal policy on sustainable development recognises the need to anchor federal policies on sustainable development within the context of international and European commitments in this matter and provide the overall framework.
The DGD is responsible for steering a significant share of ODA, developing strategies according to political orientations and monitoring co-operation programmes. The DGD has drafted sectoral and thematic strategy (OECD, 2020[3]) notes to guide decision-making and the allocation of ODA. While these notes aim to highlight the contribution of interventions to the SDGs, fact-finding interviews indicate that their operational scope and systematic usage have been limited. The ongoing revision of these strategy notes is expected to clarify thematic priorities, including issues of fragility, gender equality and environmental protection. This can enhance transparency and coherence of decisions across different government levels involved in international initiatives and development co-operation.
The DGD’s authority over its public partners is defined through management contracts with entities like Enabel and BIO, preserving their decision-making and operational independence. Belgium has strengthened its aid management systems with robust and flexible mechanisms, including ongoing risk management reform. Specifically, the DGD has developed an action plan to better structure its internal audit, strengthen grant management and ensure high-quality interventions, although some procedures remain administratively cumbersome.
Gaps
Current co-ordination mechanisms could be more effective in ensuring central/horizontal and vertical co-ordination
With the presidency rotating across various levels of government, the role of the IMCSD could potentially play a greater role in promoting PCSD. One step in this direction could be for the IMCSD to review and update the 2017 NSDS to foster a unified long-term vision across all levels of government in Belgium, as suggested in the Court of Audit’s SDG Preparedness Review.
The ICSD functions as a co-ordination body, bringing together representatives from federal public services and the communities and regions. It serves as a key structure for integrating the SDGs into the operations and policymaking processes of the FPS in a co-ordinated and qualitative manner. Tasked with exploring how the SDGs can be incorporated into existing frameworks, including the LTV for Sustainable Development (SDGs Belgium, 2024[5]), the ICSD is mobilised mainly to advance sustainable development policies (ICSD, n.d.[46]).
Strengthening its co-ordination role through clearer mandates and improving the frequency and support for contacts between focal points could enhance its effectiveness. While efforts are underway to increase focal point representation, these contacts often lack sufficient backing from their respective ministries. Turnover remains high both between and within the member mandates, and the ICSD could benefit from dedicated budgetary support.
One key improvement area is vertical co-ordination across Belgium’s different levels of government. Although mechanisms like the IMCSD exist to facilitate collaboration, regional and communal autonomy can sometimes lead to divergent policies that do not fully align with national sustainable development goals. Greater clarity in mandates or incentives could encourage regional and local governments to integrate SDGs more fully into their strategies and actions.
Roles and responsibilities are unclear, and resources for PCSD are limited
Although Belgium has strengthened its horizontal co-ordination mechanisms for sustainable development and for promoting PCSD, all interviewees during the fact-finding interviews in April 2024 indicated that the roles and responsibilities of these mechanisms remain unclear. This ambiguity hampers collaboration and co-ordination between stakeholders, potentially leading to inefficiencies and reduced operational impact.
PCSD requires adequate resources and prioritisation, both of which are essential for fostering coherence in federal plans. Moreover, there is limited hierarchical support and resources (time, expertise, methodologies) for participation in co-ordinating bodies. Ensuring that experts have the necessary support is crucial for effective participation and decision-making and for ensuring progress towards greater policy coherence.
Internal consultations need to happen earlier in the decision-making process
During the fact-finding interviews, interviewees stressed the need for more internal consultation, ideally through existing mechanisms, in advance of the Council of Ministers, where decisions are already made. This would enable more inclusive and coherent decision-making. Currently, decisions are often made without sufficient preliminary discussions, which can lead to fragmented and less effective policies. Enhancing internal consultations can make the decision-making process more inclusive and coherent, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of potential impacts and considerations from various departments and stakeholders. This approach would facilitate a more holistic understanding of issues, promote interdepartmental collaboration, and ensure that policies are well-rounded and reflect diverse perspectives.
Partnerships with multilateral organisations and civil society are often ad hoc, hindering long-term strategic collaboration and consistency. More structured and strategic partnerships could be helpful. To address this, there is a need to transition towards more structured and strategic partnerships that align with long-term objectives and sustainable development goals. Structured partnerships with multilateral organisations can provide access to broader resources, expertise and international best practices, enhancing the quality and impact of development projects. Establishing formal agreements and frameworks for collaboration can ensure that these partnerships are aligned with national priorities and sustainable development agendas, leading to more coherent and sustained efforts.
An ICSD working group addressing federal PCSD would be a good idea, as was addressed by the most recent FPSD. Interviewees suggested that a potential problem is that the FPSD is not a strong SDG implementation plan (lacking real targets) and lacks some legitimacy.
Possible ways ahead
Clarify roles and responsibilities for promoting PCSD: Establish clear and institutionalised processes to manage policy coherence and address trade-offs between policy priorities and potential transboundary impacts. Define and codify roles clearly defining the responsibilities of key actors involved in co-ordinating sustainable development, and make them public.
The 18 March workshop brought important nuances to this suggestion: All federal strategies currently require interdepartmental measures for cross-sector/cross-cutting measures, meaning that roles and responsibilities to pursue greater coherence are already defined. However, there is a need to drive a common understanding of key sustainable development concepts across the government. There is also a need to make sector/ministry mandates in this area public, if only to raise greater awareness across the system and in civil society regarding the roles, responsibilities and efforts deployed to enhance PCSD.
Strengthen the role of the IMCSD in supporting PCSD efforts: Encourage and mandate the IMCSD to play a proactive role in promoting PCSD and act as a central mechanism for policy coherence.
The 18 March workshop highlighted the need to clarify explicitly the relationship between Policy Coherence for Development (PCD - a longstanding pursuit of the federal government) and PCSD, which in Belgium is not explicitly defined.
Enhance the role of the ICSD to drive and inform legislation and policymaking to advance PCSD: Take steps to ensure that the ICSD focuses on this strategic transition rather than issues related to the operational levels.
Enhance existing internal consultations to support effective communication: Regular consultation mechanisms or bodies, prior to the Council of Ministers, would help make policymaking more inclusive and effective, and bring coherence to understanding interconnections and the role of the state in the decision-making process.
Establish structured and strategic partnerships: Move away from ad hoc partnerships towards more strategic, long-term collaborations with multilateral organisations and civil society. This could involve formalised collaboration agreements, multi-year work programmes and action plans.
The 18 March workshop underscored that the main co-ordinating bodies already engage with civil-society stakeholders, but that the degree of formality and institutionalisation of this engagement could be strengthened.
Improve coherence and efficiency: Ensure coherence between the activities of different structures and efficient resource allocation to prevent fragmentation. A guide developed in 2015 by the US Government Accountability Office suggests four steps analysts can follow to identify and evaluate instances of fragmentation, overlap and duplication among programmes (Box 3.5).
Enhance resource allocation for PCSD: Prioritise and adequately resource PCSD initiatives to foster coherence in federal plans. Providing top-down support backed by necessary financial resources and capacity-building efforts for experts participating in co-ordinating bodies is critical for effective participation and decision-making.
The Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide can help analysts identify options to reduce or better manage the negative effects of fragmentation, overlap and duplication and evaluate these options' potential trade-offs and unintended consequences. The guide suggests what information to consider and outlines four steps for undertaking a review:
Step 1 outlines how to identify fragmentation, overlap and duplication among a selected set of programmes and understand how the selected programmes are related.
Step 2 discusses how to identify the potential positive and negative effects of any fragmentation, overlap or duplication found in Step 1.
Step 3 outlines how to validate the effects identified in Step 2 and assess and compare the fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative programmes in order to determine their relative performance and cost-effectiveness.
Step 4 provides guidance on identifying options to reduce or better manage the negative effects of fragmentation, overlap and duplication.
The guide is meant to provide a framework for considering these issues. It offers an approach for conducting a fragmentation, overlap, and duplication review and selecting options to reduce or better manage negative effects. It is not intended to be exhaustive or provide step-by-step instructions on how to implement recommended actions.
Source: GAO (2015[47]), Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-15-49sp.
Monitoring, reporting and evaluation is the final stage of the policymaking process. It involves tracking the progress of a policy, reporting on its outcomes and evaluating its impact. It includes collecting data, analysing results and impacts, and making adjustments as needed to improve the policy’s effectiveness. It supports the design and implementation of evidence-based policies, reinforcing policy accountability and transparency, demonstrating results achieved against policy objectives, and assessing policy effectiveness, efficiency, outcomes and impacts. In this sense, informed, evidence-based decision-making is central to strengthening PCSD. Different types of monitoring, reporting and evaluation exist, such as ex ante, mid-term, evaluations during the implementation period, thematic evaluations, and ex post evaluations – each of them providing a different assessment in the policymaking cycle. This section reviews the mechanisms put in place in Belgium for the two PCSD principles most relevant to this phase of the policy cycle.
Principle 7 calls for analysing and assessing policy and financing impact to inform decision-making, increase positive impacts and avoid potential negative impacts on the sustainable development prospects of other countries, particularly developing countries. To this end, adherents should, as appropriate:
a) introduce, where possible, regular assessments to identify and assess potential positive and negative impacts on sustainable development, building on any existing tools such as regulatory, environmental, gender and social impact and strategic assessments
b) adopt ex ante and ex post impact assessment practices that take into account transboundary impacts, paying particular attention to the economic, social, gender and environmental impacts on developing countries as well as the promotion and protection of human rights.
Principle 8 calls for strengthening monitoring, reporting and evaluation systems to collect qualitative and quantitative evidence on the impact of policies and financing and report progress on PCSD. To this end, adherents should, as appropriate:
a) monitor and report back on policy and financing impacts, drawing on national, regional and local sources, where available, and publish regular reports about progress on PCSD, outlining progress made on addressing impacts on sustainable development at home and abroad
b) identify existing reliable and timely data, indicators and information that can help better capture economic, social and environmental externalities imposed beyond national borders (transboundary impacts); and understand the country’s contribution towards global efforts for implementing the 2030 Agenda
c) report regularly on PCSD and, where needed, build capacity and skills to strengthen data collection, management, storage and reporting processes
d) embed a policy coherence dimension in evaluation systems to inform decision-making regarding the linkages and potential trade-offs between sectoral policies as well as transboundary impacts.
Strengths
Regular assessments are in place
Regular assessments play a crucial role within Belgium's sustainable development framework, particularly exemplified by the FPB’s annual report on indicators for sustainable development. This is a comprehensive report on 78 indicators to track progress toward the SDGs. These indicators cover current well-being in Belgium, future generations' capacity to sustain this well-being, and Belgium's global impact. Since 2022, these indicators have been integrated with the SDG monitoring framework. The FPB's annual updates and composite indicators provide critical insights and support evidence-based decision-making, ensuring continuous evaluation and improvement of sustainable development policies (Federal Planning Bureau, n.d.[48]). The Court of Audit is also involved in undertaking ad hoc “in-depth” reviews on specific regulatory areas, such as agriculture, energy or youth.
The Belgian development co-operation policy (OECD, 2020[3]) is legally required to mainstream themes like gender equality, the environment, climate and natural resources in its programmes. These obligations are reflected in the management contracts of BIO and Enabel, as well as in the accreditation of NGAs. However, there is an indication that the impact of these requirements on programming remains limited, suggesting that while the legal framework exists, effective tools for quantitatively assessing the impact may still be underdeveloped.
Belgium’s Court of Audit has undertaken an SDG Preparedness Review
The Court of Audit (Court of Audit of Belgium, n.d.[49]) is a governmental institution established by the Belgian Constitution with significant independence and autonomy. It exerts external control over the budgetary, accounting and financial operations of the federal state, the communities, the regions, public service institutions, and provinces. The Court performs audits to ensure the sound use of public funds, focusing on economy, effectiveness and efficiency. It is responsible for monitoring the legality of public expenditures and receipts, assessing the extent to which the stated goals and objectives of public spending have been attained, and informing the legislative assemblies of the results of its audits. The Court submits its audit reports to the assemblies and councils (parliaments), providing transparency and accountability to the management of public funds.
In 2020, the Court of Audit published a report on the implementation, monitoring and reporting of the 2030 Agenda by public authorities in Belgium: the SDG Preparedness Review. The Court of Audit used the seven-step assessment model adopted by the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI). It made several recommendations based on its assessment of sustainable development policy in Belgium, including:
to renew IMCSD’s co-ordinating role (on hold since 2017) to ensure compliance with international commitments by continuing international reporting of VNRs, with updated and quantified targets aligned with the 2030 Agenda
to develop indicators covering all aspects of the SDGs, based on a sample large enough to be disaggregated across regions and explicitly linked to government programmes and strategic action plans, with target values and zero measures by FISD
to consider the new NSDS as a common vision for all levels of government and translate the global SDGs into concrete, quantified targets adapted to their own level of government, including by defining target values for indicators
to strengthen the planning and co-ordination of strategic plans and measures to ensure regular reporting to parliaments and the inclusion of stakeholders such as civil society
to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders
to ensure, via the monitoring and reporting bodies, that the indicators used by the authorities comply with the list of indicators drawn up by the Interfederal Institute of Statistics (IIS)
to improve reporting, communication and co-ordination in preparation for the next VNR.
Feedback and recommendations of this report were used to produce the latest FPSD in 2021.
Regulatory impact assessment is mandatory for primary legislation
RIA is mandatory in Belgium for all primary and some subordinate legislation submitted to the Council of Ministers at the federal level and is usually shared with social partners as a basis for consultation (OECD, 2021[36]). RIAs for subordinate regulations are, however, no longer published. Adopted at the end of 2013, Belgium’s RIA (EIGE, 2025[50]) is an ex ante assessment tool used to evaluate potential consequences of regulatory projects in social, economic and environmental fields, as well as their impact on public authority (integrated specific ex ante analysis on sustainable development, gender, PCD, SMEs, and administrative burden).
The Law of 13 February 2006 (Government of Belgium, 2006[51]) transposes into Belgian law Directive 2001/42/EC (European Parliament and Council, 2001[52]) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. It also transposes Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2003, providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment. The law aims to ensure a high level of environmental protection by integrating environmental considerations into the preparation of plans and programmes that are likely to have an impact on the environment, with a view to promoting sustainable development (Service public fédéral Santé publique, Sécurité de la chaîne alimentaire et Environnement de Belgique, 2016[53]).
A report on the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the draft plan and programme must be drawn up by the author of the plan (although he or she may subcontract this work to an external party, provided that the private party has no vested interest in the implementation of the plan in question). The SEA procedure (Service public fédéral Santé publique, Sécurité de la chaîne alimentaire et Environnement de Belgique, n.d.[54]) begins with the drafting of a report outline submitted to an advisory committee for assessment. This report must include information on various aspects, such as biodiversity, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage, landscapes, etc. Despite the precision of the legislative tools, certain notions remain open to interpretation.
Impact assessments specific to certain areas, such as SEA, also provide for a "transboundary" implementation procedure (Service public fédéral Santé publique, Sécurité de la chaîne alimentaire et Environnement de Belgique, n.d.[55]). Belgian authorities must be informed if a foreign project could impact the environment in Belgium. The federal government has 45 days to decide on a public consultation. Similarly, if a Belgian plan could affect a neighbouring country, that state is consulted. The results of these cross-border consultations must be considered in the final decision.
Belgium reports on ex post evaluations for SDG progress
Periodic ex post review of legislation in Belgium is mandatory for some legislation, and sunsetting clauses are sometimes used (OECD, 2021[36]).
The Act of 5 May 1997 establishes that Federal Reports on Sustainable Development are to be produced by the TFSD (now TSD) under the direction and responsibility of the FPB. These reports are published in two parts during the five-year cycle of an FPSD. The first part of the report is an ex post evaluation of Belgium's progress towards the SDGs, using three approaches to identify the areas in which policies need to be considered if the SDGs are to be achieved by women and men, in line with the LNOB principle of the 2030 Agenda. The assessment reports serve as a basis for the next five-year cycle of sustainable development initiatives.
To follow the achievements of actions to integrate the SDGs into federal policies, progress reports (FISD, 2023[8]) of each FPS are published and attached as an annex to the ICSD’s annual report, which is then provided to the government, parliament and other federal entities.
Concerning the external dimension, Belgium is reforming its approach to results-based management to emphasise the impact of its co-operation efforts on achieving the SDGs. This involves defining expected results in line with the SDGs, increasing results monitoring by implementing partners, and synthesising information across various funding channels. Belgium engages in evaluation partnerships, with partner governments involved in a significant portion of final project and programme evaluations.
The Office of the Special Evaluator facilitates rather than leads evaluation capacity building, supporting participation in seminars and training programmes organised by partners. At the federal level, the legal and institutional framework for sustainable development involves regular reporting exercises (see Principle 8a above).
Monitoring exercises are anchored in the institutional and legal framework and supported by indicators and SMART targets
The monitoring of sustainable development indicators is anchored in three FPB mandates, through the TFSD (now TSD):
Act of 5 May 1997 on the co-ordination of federal policy on sustainable development, in which the TFSD (now TSD) is tasked with publishing an inventory and assessing the existing situation.
Act of 14 March 2014, amending the Act of 21 December 1994, in which the TFSD (now TSD) is tasked with assessing a series of additional indicators to measure quality of life, human development, social progress and the sustainability of the Belgian economy in an annual report.
The monitoring of the SDG indicators in an annual assessment defined by the IIS.
The Law of 14 March 2014 calls for the creation of indicators to assess quality of life, human development, social progress and economic sustainability. These indicators, which complement GDP, have been published annually since 2016 by the National Accounts Institute (NAI) and the FPB, presented to the Belgian Parliament, and summarised in the Annual Report of the National Bank of Belgium. They are based on a methodology defined in 2016 by the “Conference of European Statisticians (CES) Recommendations on Measuring Sustainable Development" and structured around three dimensions: the well-being of people in Belgium (Here and Now), the impact on future generations (Future) and other countries (Elsewhere).
At the same time, in 2015, the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, accompanied by 231 indicators to measure their progress. In Belgium, a working group was set up by the IIS (Federal Planning Bureau, n.d.[48]) to monitor these SDGs, resulting in a list of 118 indicators, 78 of which are published online. As mentioned above, in 2022, these indicators were merged with those complementary to GDP to form a set of sustainable development indicators. The FPSD, adopted in 2021, provides for adjustments to the SDG indicators in line with the recommendations of the Court of Auditors. These changes include the retention, deletion, expansion and addition of indicators, with a first wave of changes in 2023 and a second planned for 2025. They were used to feed Belgium's VNR presented to the 2023 HLPF.
A study commissioned by FISD (2023[56]) assessed whether the 17 SDGs and their 169 targets meet the SMART criteria in the Belgian context. SMART stands for specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound, which are essential principles for managing and monitoring goals. The researchers checked whether the SDG targets were clearly defined, achievable, observable and time-bound. The study revealed that of the 169 targets, 119 meet the SMART criteria, while 50 do not. For the SMART targets, the study measures the distance between their achievement and the current situation in Belgium, compiling the results into a list of “objectives to which Belgium subscribes”. For the 50 non-SMART targets, SMART objectives were formulated at three different levels of ambition, also compiled in a list of “new objectives for Belgium”.
Belgium is building a results-based management approach supported by data
Since the FPB’s 2022 report, the set of indicators complementary to GDP has been merged with those monitoring the SDGs by the FPB. This combined set includes 78 indicators covering the three dimensions of sustainable development: current well-being in Belgium (Here and Now), future generations' ability to sustain this well-being (Later), and Belgium's global impact (Elsewhere). In spring 2023, a debate with experts and advisory councils was organised to refine these indicators, establishing societal consensus and setting priorities for improvement. The outcomes led to initial changes in the 2023 follow-up report, with further updates planned for 2025. These annual assessments, published by the FPB, ensure continuous monitoring and evaluation of progress towards the SDGs, with detailed information available on www.indicators.be (Federal Planning Bureau, n.d.[48]).
Ongoing efforts have the potential to further strengthen regulatory processes to the benefit of sustainable development
Currently, the FPS BOSA, in collaboration with the OECD, is working on two projects to strengthen regulatory processes. The first project is a “regulatory agenda” that would broaden the scope of applications and place them as early as possible in the decision-making process. Today, a person accessing the platform only learns of the existence of applications when it is too late. The new platform will enable all applications used in the decision-making process to be grouped together and interconnected for greater efficiency. The second project is being conducted with Statbel and aims to make statistics more accessible to political decision-makers to produce evidence-based and data-based policies.
Within the sustainable development legal and institutional framework at the federal level, regular reporting exercises are ongoing or planned. For example, the FISD commissioned three gap analyses in 2017, 2021 and 2024. The last edition includes a chapter on transboundary impacts.
Reporting to Parliament helps to make information on sustainable development more accessible to citizens
Belgium has six parliaments: the federal parliament; the Flemish, Walloon, and Brussels regional parliaments; the parliament of the German-speaking community; and the parliament of the French-speaking community (formed from members of the Walloon and Brussels parliaments). The scope of this report’s analysis, however, is limited to the mechanisms at the level of the federal parliament.
Various instruments and mechanisms are in place to report to the federal parliament in Belgium and to make information accessible to the public:
The NSDS includes a jointly developed vision by federal, regional, and communal authorities and encompasses a range of priority themes for action. This strategy aims to bundle the efforts of all entities and enhance the coherence of actions across different government levels. It is available for public consultation, indicating a level of transparency in the planning and strategy formulation process.
The review process of the VNR involves various levels of government, including the national level, and reflects a commitment to collaborative and transparent sustainable development practices. The VNR is an important tool for reporting progress and challenges in implementing the 2030 Agenda, which implies a level of public and parliamentary disclosure.
The reports from the ICSD and FPB are public and sent to the government, the parliament and several advisory bodies.
Additionally, the VNR (SDG Knowledge Platform, 2022[57]) plays a pedagogical and instrumental role in Belgium's efforts towards sustainable development. The preparation of the VNR involves representatives from various federal and regional entities. The review process involves various levels of government and reflects a commitment to collaborative and transparent sustainable development practices. Contributions from civil society were also included in the review.
There are independent evaluations of development co-operation policy
Concerning development co-operation, a comprehensive evaluation system has been established, building on the evaluation capacities of co-operation actors. The Office of the Special Evaluator (FPS Foreign Service, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, 2024[58]), part of the DGD, plays a key role in evaluating the results of Belgium's development co-operation. It assesses the monitoring and evaluation systems of the Belgian government and non-government actors responsible for the mid-term and final evaluations of their projects. This system covers projects, instruments, themes, sectors and countries, ensuring a continuum of evaluations. The evaluations are independent due to the institutional positioning of the Office, its budgetary and planning autonomy, and the control mechanisms in place for each evaluation. The Office reports directly to the management committee of the FPS Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade, and Development Co-operation and annually to the federal parliament, maintaining its independence and objectivity. It is also involved in monitoring the implementation of recommendations from evaluations, which are conducted up to two years after they are made.
Gaps
The consistency and use of economic and regulatory instruments could be enhanced
There is scope to improve the consistency and systematic application of economic and regulatory instruments, including RIA, as well as measures that directly support SDG targets. Since 2014, the RIA framework has integrated specific analyses related to sustainable development, gender, PCD, SMEs, and administrative burden in one tool. However, insights from fact-finding interviews indicated that the current RIA process is often perceived as a procedural formality rather than a strategic tool aligned with a long-term vision.
The implementation of rigorous impact assessments, compliance checks, and enforcement remains an area for improvement, especially in ensuring that policies align with the SDGs. A review of the RIA process is currently underway, offering the potential to integrate SDG considerations more systematically and strengthen the role of RIA. Ex post evaluations, however, are often seen as sporadic and are not routinely conducted, limiting the perceived value of these assessments and resulting in missed opportunities for learning and continuous improvement.
The analysis of cross-border policy impacts could be more systematic
The availability of information on specific indicators and methodologies that the Belgian federal government could utilise to monitor transboundary and long-term impacts within its sustainable development monitoring system could be improved. CSOs have noted that the analysis of cross-border impacts of Belgian domestic policies could be strengthened. Currently, PCD issues are addressed in one of the 21 questions in the RIAs for all new federal legislation reviewed by the Council of Ministers. However, this analysis is sometimes conducted late in the decision-making process, if at all, and is not consistently integrated into considerations for compensation measures (CNCD-11.11.11, 2019[59]). Additionally, these assessments are limited to future legislation and do not encompass an analysis of existing laws (OECD, 2020[3]). Discussions are underway to adapt the RIA framework to improve quality and integrate the SDGs more thoroughly. Planned updates include a revised RIA manual and the development of supporting tools, such as a dedicated website, a guidance manual, training sessions and communication resources, which will offer clearer and more current examples on completing the RIA process. With regard to long-term impacts, Flanders provides an noteworthy example: since 2008, its Child and Youth report (JoKER) is fully integrated into the regulatory impact analysis assessing the effects of new regulations on people aged 0-25 years (OECD, 2024[60]).
There is scope to strengthen impact reporting to parliament
There is an opportunity to establish more regular reporting practices to the federal parliament. The Court of Audit, in its SDG Preparedness Review, emphasises the importance of planned policy preparation and structured involvement of citizens and stakeholders. They recommend that strategic plans and measures be more explicitly co-ordinated and monitored to facilitate consistent reporting to parliament. Additionally, authorities are encouraged to clarify the roles of all public entities and estimate the resources needed to meet the objectives.
During fact-finding interviews, the absence of impact reporting at the federal level was highlighted, indicating that the current process may be perceived as a formality due to the lack of a legal requirement for implementation. This limitation impacts its effectiveness.
Better operationalisation of the 2030 Agenda in development co-operation programming could enhance financing impacts
The existing law and policy notes for development co-operation, established before the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, do not yet fully integrate SDG concepts (OECD, 2020[3]). The DGD has developed a conceptual framework to embed the SDGs within programming across various actors to address this. This initiative, part of the research project, The ‘SDGs as a Compass for Belgian Development Cooperation’, includes several guiding publications for governmental and non-governmental development actors.
The SDG Compass Guide offers practical and operational support throughout the programming cycle, highlighting key principles such as LNOB and the interconnectedness of the SDGs. The SDG Proofing Toolkit also provides structured tables and guiding questions to support the design of SDG-sensitive programmes and co-operation strategies. A scoping paper complements these tools by examining current practices and challenges within Belgian development co-operation channels, serving as a foundation for further dialogue and strategic planning.
The use of SMART targets and key performance indicators could be more effective
While SMART targets linked to the SDGs are discussed at the federal level, there is an opportunity to more effectively integrate them into budgeting and policymaking processes. Mainstreaming the SDGs across the federal government could provide a strong foundation for a strategic approach, ensuring these targets play a guiding role in resource allocation and policy design. Assessing the impact of new policies on the SDGs using existing indicators to account for social, environmental and economic impacts would further enhance their effectiveness and potential for meaningful impact.
Aligning national policies directly with the 17 SDGs and their targets is not always easy, particularly when it comes to evaluating and reporting on how policies contribute to achieving the SDGs. While there is a global indicator framework for tracking SDG progress, it does not specifically focus on the impact of policies. Therefore, a global framework to systematically take stock of and report on the contributions of policies to the SDGs would be helpful. The inventory in this scan can serve as a basis for the various Belgian entities, and successful implementation relies on strong co-operation and consensus between the federal state, regions and communities.
Evaluation culture within the federal administration is limited
An ongoing EU-funded project, implemented by the OECD, entitled “Capacity building for EIPM in a post-pandemic Europe”, is establishing a roadmap for the implementation of evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) within federal authorities. The objective of the roadmap (forthcoming) is to provide clear and tailored recommendations to Belgian authorities on how to strengthen the production of relevant policy data and promote their use in policymaking. Preliminary findings indicate a need to integrate evaluations into the policymaking process from the beginning. This ensures that necessary resources and data are available in time to conduct thorough evaluations. It is also important to build internal capacity for conducting evaluations, including developing analytical skills and data manipulation capabilities within federal authorities, and to focus on high-impact legislative proposals, maximising their effectiveness and relevance.2
Possible ways ahead
Strengthen impact assessments and compliance checks: Set up rigorous, systematic RIA and ex post evaluations of the impacts of policies on the SDGs and mechanisms for ensuring compliance. Advanced digital governance capabilities, which integrate data from various ministries and use big data and artificial intelligence for timely SDG-related data, could be explored to enhance monitoring and reporting.
Integrate the SDGs more explicitly into the RIA process: While Belgium has implemented RIA since 2014, the process needs to be refined to ensure it effectively integrates the SDGs and addresses cross-border impacts. This could involve revising the RIA manual to provide clearer guidance on integrating the SDGs and enhancing the analysis of cross-border effects. Additionally, practical trainings and capacity-building programmes can be organised for policymakers and analysts involved in conducting RIAs. These programmes could focus on methodologies for assessing cross-border impacts, integrating gender and social considerations, and aligning assessments with long-term SDGs.
The 18 March workshop underlined the need to use the RIA process to strengthen PCSD. It also pointed out that while RIA reports are accessible once the process is complete, there is no explicit/automatic initiative to publish RIA results per se. Hence, the workshop advocated for strengthening BOSA’s mandate in this area to publish RIA results systematically to improve transparency and accountability.
Use evidence to assess and evaluate the impact of the results: By systematically integrating empirical data and quantitative analysis into the policy cycle and by assessing what works, what does not, and why, policymakers can make informed decisions to refine strategies and design more effective interventions and coherent policies. A common framework of public policy evaluation for the whole federal administration (from ex ante to ex post and development of skills and capacities in this respect) could be useful. Additionally, spending reviews can offer additional insights into the efficiency and effectiveness of public spending, aiming to identify potential savings and reallocate resources to priority areas.
Reinforce the evaluation of transboundary impacts: The consideration of transboundary impacts could be integrated into the work of all federal ministries. PCD should remain relevant, as a part of PCSD. It is addressed well in the FPSD and could be addressed more comprehensively in the RIA. This could be enhanced by developing and using specific indicators, such as national footprint indicators, to assess the transboundary impacts of national policies, particularly in the fields of climate, environment and trade. The government could collaborate with international organisations and NGOs to harmonise indicators and monitoring methods. In the case of Germany, the government addresses transboundary impacts in its Sustainable Development Strategy (Box 3.6)
Establish robust feedback mechanisms and stakeholder engagement within the RIA process: This could involve regular consultations with CSOs, academic institutions and private sector stakeholders to gather diverse perspectives on the potential impacts of proposed policies. Feedback loops could be institutionalised to ensure that insights from impact assessments are incorporated into policy decision-making processes in a timely manner. This would require creating channels for continuous dialogue between RIA practitioners and policymakers.
Invest in research and innovation: Investing in research and innovation is essential to address gaps in quantitative assessment tools and analysis of cross-border impacts. This could involve funding research projects aimed at developing advanced modelling techniques for assessing transboundary effects and evaluating the socio-economic implications of policies. Collaborative research initiatives between academic institutions and government agencies can be supported to develop innovative approaches for measuring the impact of policies on sustainable development outcomes.
Reinforce the regularity and consistency of reporting to parliament: To track the implementation of policies aimed at achieving the SDGs in Belgium, the various levels of government could draw up regular reports indicating progress made, lessons learned, and/or areas for improvement. Regular monitoring and reporting to parliaments also need to be ensured, in line with the requirement for regular reporting as per the strategic plans for sustainable development and the SDGs. Canada has a process in place to ensure such reporting (Box 3.7).
The 18 March workshop underscored the need to strengthen parliamentary oversight of sustainable development matters more generally in Belgium.
Ensure the consistent use of the common set of SDG indicators developed by the IIS: While these indicators are already employed in the VNR to reflect progress across all Belgian entities, their practical integration into policymaking at regional and federal levels varies. Encouraging all entities to apply this shared set as a baseline for tracking progress would enhance alignment. By leveraging this shared data infrastructure, Belgium could avoid duplication, reduce disparities and promote a cohesive approach to achieving the SDGs.
The 18 March workshop suggested that the government identify a multidimensional federal policy cluster for use as a pilot to define in a clear and transparent fashion following stakeholder consultations, and report upon, key composite indicators for use in reporting on progress in pursing the policy cluster’s associated SDGs. Beyond the transparency/accountability rationale for proceeding this way, the workshop pointed out that the use of composite indicators will enable stakeholders within and beyond government to identify and understand clearly the policy and spending trade-offs that need to be made as the government pursues its specific courses of action within the chosen pilot policy cluster.
Germany has pursued further efforts to strengthen policy coherence, notably through its updated Sustainable Development Strategy (GSDS), which explicitly addresses transboundary impacts through a detailed analysis of spillover effects (OECD, 2024[61])
The GSDS recognises that German trade, consumption, and production patterns, as well as financial markets, can lead to negative or, on the other hand, positive effects in partner countries. Therefore, the GSDS emphasises the importance of designing measures from the outset in such a way that they do not hinder, but rather strengthen, the implementation of the global sustainability goals in other countries, especially in countries of the Global South.
The GSDS takes a cross-cutting approach to transboundary impacts, integrating this analysis in a dedicated section in each chapter. The GSDS is reviewed every four years.
Source: (OECD, 2024[61])OECD Development Co-operation Mid-Term Review: Germany, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews; https://one.oecd.org/official-document/DCD/DAC/AR(2025)3/1/en ; (BMUV, 2025[62]); Shaping Transformation Together and Fairly German Sustainability Strategy – Further Development 2025 [Transformation gemeinsam gerecht gestalten]; https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/975228/2335292/c4471db32df421a65f13f9db3b5432ba/2025-02-17-dns-2025-data.pdf?download=1 .
Canada has integrated the SDGs into the parliamentary reports of federal departments and agencies, notably in Departmental Plans and Departmental Results Reports. These reports ensure consistency and transparency in the information provided by federal departments and agencies on their respective contributions to achieving the SDGs.
Source: Government of Canada (2023[25]), Canada’s 2023 Voluntary National Review – A Continued Journey for Implementing the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/employment-social-development/programs/agenda-2030/voluntary-national-review/2023-report/VNR_Main%20Report_EN_August%202.pdf.
References
[32] Associations21 (2021), Associations21, https://associations21.org/.
[2] Belgium Government (2025), Accord de Coalition Fedreale 2025-2029, https://www.belgium.be/sites/default/files/resources/publication/files/Accord_gouvernemental-Bart_De_Wever_fr.pdf.
[39] belgium.be (2025), belgium.be, https://www.belgium.be/fr/la_belgique/pouvoirs_publics/communes (accessed on 6 May 2025).
[62] BMUV (2025), Shaping Transformation Together and Fairly German Sustainability Strategy – Further Development 2025, https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/975228/2335292/c4471db32df421a65f13f9db3b5432ba/2025-02-17-dns-2025-data.pdf?download=1.
[19] BOSA (n.d.), Financement des Communautés et Régions – contexte et généralités, https://bosa.belgium.be/fr/themes/budget-et-comptabilite/le-budget-federal/institutions-ou-autres-niveaux-de-pouvoir-3.
[59] CNCD-11.11.11 (2019), 2019 Activity Report, https://www.cncd.be/IMG/pdf/2020-06-rapport-annuel-activite-cncd-11.11.11-2019-web.pdf.
[44] Council on Policy Coherence for Development (n.d.), , https://www.ccpd-abco.be/.
[11] Court of Audit of Belgium (2020), Objectifs de développement durable - Programme 2030 de l’ONU: mise en oeuvre, suivi et rapportage par les pouvoirs publics en Belgique (Preparedness Review), https://www.intosai.org/fileadmin/downloads/focus_areas/SDG_atlas_reports/Belgium/Belgium_2020_F_prep_FuRep.pdf.
[49] Court of Audit of Belgium (n.d.), Court of Audit, https://www.ccrek.be/language_selection_page?destination=/node/10.
[50] EIGE (2025), Gender Impact Assessment in Belgium, https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/toolkits/gender-impact-assessment/belgium.
[37] ESDN (2021), Parliamentary Mechanisms in the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda, https://www.esdn.eu/fileadmin/ESDN_Reports/ESDN_Report_August_2021_Parliaments_and_SDGs_Final.pdf.
[45] ESDN (2020), Belgium Country Profile, https://www.esdn.eu/country-profiles/detail?tx_countryprofile_countryprofile%5Baction%5D=show&tx_countryprofile_countryprofile%5Bcontroller%5D=Country&tx_countryprofile_countryprofile%5Bcountry%5D=2&cHash=9af27ee9e6c33e083a75671cd21202d3.
[52] European Parliament and Council (2001), Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment, https://www.health.belgium.be/sites/default/files/uploads/fields/fpshealth_theme_file/12852470/Directive%202001-42-EC.pdf.
[13] Federal Planning Bureau (n.d.), Sustainable development, https://www.plan.be/aboutus/overview.php?lang=en&TM=41.
[48] Federal Planning Bureau (n.d.), Sustainable Development Indicators, https://www.indicators.be/fr/g/SDG-I/.
[6] FISD (2023), Développement durable, https://www.duurzameontwikkeling.be/fr.
[12] FISD (2023), Federal Plan for Sustainable Development, https://www.developpementdurable.be/fr/politique-federale/strategie-federale/le-plan-federal-de-developpement-durable-pfdd.
[8] FISD (2023), ICSD Reports, https://www.developpementdurable.be/fr/qui-sommes-nous/cidd/rapports-de-la-cidd.
[56] FISD (2023), Où en est la Belgique dans l’atteinte des SDG?, https://www.developpementdurable.be/fr/news/ou-en-est-la-belgique-dans-latteinte-des-sdg.
[14] FISD (2023), Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), https://www.developpementdurable.be/fr/politique-federale/strategie-federale/lanalyse-dimpact-sur-la-reglementation-air.
[9] FISD (2015), Manual for Drawing up a Sustainable Development Action Plan in a Federal Public Service, https://www.developpementdurable.be/sites/default/files/document/files/20e_2_2_4_manuel_plan_action_dd_fr.pdf.
[7] FISD (2014), Manuel de rédaction de rapports GRI G4 par les services publics, https://www.developpementdurable.be/sites/default/files/document/files/2c_2_1_9_2_2_2_manual_gri_fr.pdf.
[10] FISD (n.d.), FIDS template on how to integrate the SDGs in policy briefs, https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.developpementdurable.be%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fcontent%2Fcanevas_plan_action_fr_4.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK.
[58] FPS Foreign Service, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation (2024), Special Evaluation Office, https://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/policy/special-evaluation-office.
[15] FRDO-CFDD (2025), Composition of the council, https://frdo-cfdd.be/en/the-council/composition-of-the-council/.
[16] FRDO-CFDD (2025), Federal Council for Sustainable Development, https://frdo-cfdd.be/en/.
[43] FRDO-CFDD (2025), The Council, https://frdo-cfdd.be/en/the-council/.
[47] GAO (2015), Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide, US Government Accountability Office, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-15-49sp.
[40] Government of Belgium (2023), Second Belgian National Voluntary Review, https://www.sdgs.be/sites/default/files/content/VNR/vnr2023_belgium_final.pdf.
[1] Government of Belgium (2013), En 2050 : Une vision stratégique fédérale à long terme pour un développement durable [Federal Long-Term Vision for Sustainable Development], https://www.developpementdurable.be/sites/default/files/document/files/publicatie_langetermijnvisie_122014_fr_v01.pdf.
[51] Government of Belgium (2006), Loi relative à l’évaluation des incidences de certains plans et programmes sur l’environnement et à la participation du public dans l’élaboration des plans et des programmes relatifs à l’environnement, [Law on the assessment of the impact of certain plans and programmes on the environment and on public participation in the preparation of plans and programmes relating to the environment], https://www.health.belgium.be/sites/default/files/uploads/fields/fpshealth_theme_file/12850490/loi%20du%2013-02-2006.pdf.
[20] Government of Belgium (n.d.), Guide des Achats durables, https://guidedesachatsdurables.be/fr.
[42] Government of Belgium (n.d.), Sustainable development, https://www.belgium.be/en/economy/sustainable_development/sustainable_development#:~:text=To%20implement%20a%20sustainable%20development,FRDO.
[25] Government of Canada (2023), Canada’s 2023 Voluntary National Review – A Continued Journey for Implementing the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/employment-social-development/programs/agenda-2030/voluntary-national-review/2023-report/VNR_Main%20Report_EN_August%202.pdf.
[35] ICSD (2024), 2023 Activity Report, https://www.developpementdurable.be/sites/default/files/document/files/cidd_annualreport2023_fr.pdf.
[4] ICSD (2021), Federal Plan for Sustainable Development, https://www.duurzameontwikkeling.be/sites/default/files/content/pfdd_2021_fr.pdf.
[46] ICSD (n.d.), Interdepartmental Commission for Sustainable Development, https://www.duurzameontwikkeling.be/fr.
[26] Just Transition (2025), General Estates for a Just Transition, https://www.justtransition.be/en/general-estates.
[18] La Chambre des représentants de Belgique (2023), Budget et notes de politique générale de 2023, https://www.lachambre.be/kvvcr/showpage.cfm?section=/pri/budget&language=fr&rightmenu=right_pri&story=2023-budget.xml.
[22] OECD (2024), Development Co-operation Profiles, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2dcf1367-en.
[28] OECD (2024), “Netherlands”, in Development Co-operation Profiles, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2faea623-en.
[61] OECD (2024), OECD Development Co-operation Mid-Term Review: Germany, https://one.oecd.org/official-document/DCD/DAC/AR(2025)3/1/en.
[60] OECD (2024), OECD Youth Policy Toolkit, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/74b6f8f3-en.
[23] OECD (2023), “Improving decision making through policy evaluation in Belgium”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 31, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/08f7aef5-en.
[27] OECD (2023), The Netherlands’ multi-stakeholder sectoral agreements promote Responsible Business Conduct, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/the-netherlands-multi-stakeholder-sectoral-agreements-promote-responsible-business-conduct_25ba114b-en.html.
[17] OECD (2022), Anticipatory Innovation Governance Model in Finland: Towards a New Way of Governing, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a31e7a9a-en.
[36] OECD (2021), “Belgium”, in OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/32067bc3-en.
[3] OECD (2020), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Belgium 2020, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/026f1aad-en.
[34] OECD (2015), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Belgium 2015, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239906-en.
[24] OECD-DAC (2024), Mid-term Review of Belgium, DCD/DAC/AR(2024)3/3, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/AR(2024)3/3/en/pdf.
[38] Parliament of Finland (n.d.), Committee for the Future, https://www.eduskunta.fi/EN/valiokunnat/tulevaisuusvaliokunta/Pages/default.aspx.
[21] Public Procurement World (2025), The Laws - Belgium, https://resourcehub.bakermckenzie.com/en/resources/public-procurement-world/public-procurement/belgium/topics/1-the-laws.
[33] Reset. Vlaanderen (n.d.), Reset. Vlaanderen, https://reset.vlaanderen/.
[57] SDG Knowledge Platform (2022), Belgium, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/belgium.
[41] SDGs Belgium (2024), National Policy, https://sdgs.be/en/national-policy#:~:text=7bis%20of%20the%20Constitution%20%2C%20which,taking%20into%20account%20intergenerational%20solidarity.%22.
[5] SDGs Belgium (2024), Policy-making in Belgium, https://www.sdgs.be/en/policy-making-belgium.
[29] SDGs Belgium (2024), SDG Forum 2022, https://www.sdgs.be/fr/sdg-forum/sdg-forum-2022.
[30] SDGs Belgium (2024), SDGs Belgium, https://www.sdgs.be/fr.
[53] Service public fédéral Santé publique, Sécurité de la chaîne alimentaire et Environnement de Belgique (2016), Strategic Environmental Assessment, https://www.health.belgium.be/en/environment/environmental-policy/sea-strategic-environmental-assessment.
[55] Service public fédéral Santé publique, Sécurité de la chaîne alimentaire et Environnement de Belgique (n.d.), Cross-border procedure, https://www.health.belgium.be/sites/default/files/uploads/fields/fpshealth_theme_file/12856470/Proc%C3%A9dure%20transfronti%C3%A8re.pdf.
[54] Service public fédéral Santé publique, Sécurité de la chaîne alimentaire et Environnement de Belgique (n.d.), Transposition of Directive 2001/42/EC into Belgian federal law: SEA procedure, https://www.health.belgium.be/sites/default/files/uploads/fields/fpshealth_theme_file/-sea_procedure_en-mt.pdf.
[31] The Shift (n.d.), Belgium Sustainability Community, https://www.theshift.be/s/?language=en_US.
← 1. A manual, guidelines for elaborating action plans on sustainable development (2015) and a template is available on line on the FISD’s website at https://www.developpementdurable.be/fr/documents under the category “DD dans les services publics fédéraux”. A subsequent manual to help FPS to develop a strategy integrating the SDGs was published in 2019.
← 2. For more information, see https://bosa.belgium.be/fr/publications/spending-review-assessment-report-rrf-etape-208.