Egypt drives its planning efforts through Egypt Vision 2030, a strategic framework that acts as the government’s compass to modernise the administration and implement priority public policies in key sectors such as health, the environment, local development and more. This chapter explores the Ministry of Planning, Economic Development and International Cooperation’s (MPEDIC) structures and mandates and the sustainable development units (SDUs) within line ministries responsible for strategic planning and policy co‑ordination for Egypt Vision 2030. Additionally, it reviews the governance framework for delivering and measuring the impact of planned results of Egypt Vision 2030, focusing on performance indicators and institutional collaboration to monitor policy outcomes. By strengthening a number of governance practices and tools, and adopting or modernising others, Egypt could boost its planning efforts to improve inclusive and sustainable governance outcomes over time.
OECD Public Governance Reviews: Egypt
Abstract
The Government of Egypt continues to demonstrate a strong commitment at the highest political level to pursue the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by translating its whole-of-society commitment into a strategic framework entitled Sustainable Development Agenda: Egypt Vision 2030 (hereafter Egypt Vision 2030). This framework is the country’s first strategy of its kind. Egypt Vision 2030 is also aligned with African Agenda 2063 priorities. It not only acts as the governing framework for all development programmes and projects, but it also serves as the government’s compass to modernise the administration and implement priority policies in key sectors such as health, environment, local development and more. Its practical potential in contributing to the pursuit of the SDGs includes steering whole-of-government efforts to improve the delivery of better policies and services to citizens.
The Government started updating Egypt Vision 2030 in 2018. This resulted in a comprehensive reform of the framework in 2021-22, using a multi-stakeholder process, to ensure that Egypt Vision 2030 reflected the significant impact of the COVID crisis on Egypt’s economic, social, environmental and public governance circumstances as well as of rapidly evolving world events that are affecting the country and the region, such as climate change (including growing water scarcity), high population growth (Government of Egypt, 2021[1]) and unexpected events leading to global shocks that impacted the price of commodities.
The rationale driving this update process includes the desire to ensure a more rigorous alignment of national goals with the SDGs, emphasise the complementarity and interdependence of the three pillars of economic, social and environmental sustainability across sectors and take into account such whole-of-government strategic initiatives as the GoE’s economic reform programme, initiated in 2016, to ensure that Egypt Vision 2030 reflects the government-wide structural changes resulting from these reforms. Indeed, the Sustainable Development Agenda update has been pursued as one of several institutional and technical measures the country is taking to accelerate the achievement of sustainable development and the adoption of good governance instruments, mechanisms and reforms.
This review’s first chapter focuses on strategic planning, whole-of-government co-ordination of Egypt Vision 2030 and ongoing and needed efforts to ensure the implementation of this ambitious strategic framework. In so doing, this chapter examines two areas. First, it looks into the: structures and mandates of the Ministry of Planning, Economic Development and International Cooperation (MPEDIC)1 and sustainable development units (SDUs) for monitoring the implementation of Egypt Vision 2030. The chapter also provides an overview of the governance framework relating to the delivery and measurement of the impact of Egypt Vision 2030’s planned results.
Despite significant progress, evidence suggests that strengthening a number of governance practices and tools, and adopting or modernising others could boost Egypt’s efforts in pursuing the SDGs and unlock its untapped potential to improve inclusive and sustainable governance outcomes over time. This chapter concludes with a set of tailored, evidence-based and OECD good-practice-based, actionable recommendations relevant to the Egyptian context.
Leveraging strategic planning for the effective implementation of Egypt Vision 2030
Strategic planning enables the pursuit by all levels of government of the policy goals of strategic importance, to sustain growth and development and enhance people’s well-being. One key factor underpinning effective strategic planning is the ability to build and mobilise around a common vision of the future; consensus on this vision can facilitate co-ordination across administrative silos and policy areas to pursue the commonly-desired outcomes that give effect to that vision (OECD, 2020[2]). A common vision thus fosters a whole-of-government view, allowing for the identification and steering of integrated, multidimensional strategic priorities. This approach ensures that public institutions work together towards common goals, resulting in coherent policy responses that reflect the multidimensionality of the policy challenges facing governments and people. Moreover, strategic planning helps address horizontal, multidimensional priorities in a consistent, efficient and organised manner. This becomes particularly relevant in an environment characterised by policy volatility and unpredictability, where events, demands and support interact and change in highly variable, inconsistent and unexpected ways. Hence, strategic planning provides a structured approach to tackling complex challenges, ensuring a proactive and adaptive governance response.
Strategic planning is crucial to design, steer and implement a nation’s trajectory towards sustainable development. The GoE, recognising this significance, has embarked on an ambitious reform agenda aimed at driving the country’s growth and development by 2030 in a sustainable manner. A commendable example of this commitment lies in the adoption of the national sustainable development agenda, Egypt Vision 2030, which serves as the main overarching governance framework for Egypt’s development. This framework translates into the Egyptian context and presents a roadmap to implement the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda), and the African Agenda 2063 in Egypt. What sets this framework apart is its holistic approach, which emphasises the cross-sector complementarity and interdependence of the three traditional dimensions of sustainable development (economy, environment, and social development) and showcases a promising approach for incorporating sustainable development as part of the public administration’s fabric.
The country’s strategic planning efforts for Egypt Vision 2030 demonstrate a commitment to long-term development and fostering good governance by aligning various government strategies under this overarching vision. Efforts have been made to foster alignment between medium-term sector-based strategies and Egypt Vision 2030 through workshops and direct exchanges. However, findings from OECD interviews reveal that ensuring compliance and coherence across these strategies remains a challenge, as there is no clear hierarchy among these frameworks, nor does there appear to exist an institutional mandate to enforce alignment at the level of other ministries.
As the central planning hub within the Egyptian administration, MPEDIC is charged with co‑ordinating the strategic planning process to translate the countries’ vision for sustainable development into annual actionable plans, as per Decree-Law No. 18 of 2022, also known as the New Planning Law. The New Planning Law explicitly outlines the different national, central, regional and local planning tiers. It emphasises the coherence between all levels of national plans (central, regional and local) while designating the Supreme Council for Planning and Sustainable Development to steer these planning efforts among the Egyptian government. The council shall have a technical secretariat headed by MPEDIC.
At the national level, the General Framework for Comprehensive Development stands as the highest overarching planning framework. The national plan for long-term sustainable development and its mid-term plan play a pivotal role as instrumental planning based on a programmatic approach. At the central level, sectoral long- and mid-term plans operate as detailed breakdowns of the national plan for sustainable development, segmented by sectors. All these components collectively fall under the umbrella of the “national planning documents”.
At the regional and local levels, and in alignment with the long-term national sustainable development plan and the national urban development strategy, several plans are slated for development. These include regional strategic plans (both long- and mid-term), governorate strategic plans (both long- and mid-term) and strategic plans for local units encompassing districts, cities and villages.
At the micro level, the Annual General Plan for Economic and Social Development functions as the national short-term plan. It encompasses annual plans in all public administration entities, as per the New Planning Law No. 18 of 2022, and aligns seamlessly with the other top tiers, the national plan for sustainable development and sectoral strategic plans. Executive regulation will further illustrate the procedures of developing these plans and define the role of the different actors.
The New Planning Law gives MPEDIC the mandate to co‑ordinate, guide, follow up and evaluate all long- and mid-term sustainable development plans and annual socio-economic development plans at the central and local levels. The law stipulates that MPEDIC ought to provide guidance by developing and making use of a guide that defines the desired goals of preparing a plan at the national, regional, local and sectoral levels and the determinants for choosing policies, programmes, projects and activities. MPEDIC is also made responsible for studying plan proposals and analysing the effectiveness of each of the programmes, projects and activities contained therein, as well as ensuring the consistency and integration with national, regional, local and sectoral plans. Line ministries, governorates and local units at the central and local levels will be required to submit periodic follow-up reports on the progress of socio-economic development projects. For example, MPEDIC conducts formal meetings and discussions and sends formal letters following official communication with line ministries and governorates to emphasise the significance of each project and programme concerning the national vision.
Through the annual strategic planning process, MPEDIC undertakes various steps to ensure a co‑ordinated approach for identifying priorities and allocating investments for sustainable development projects. Notably, the planning cycle is initiated during the first quarter of July of the preceding fiscal year. The ministry identifies priority policy areas under the umbrella of Egypt Vision 2030. MPEDIC’s minister subsequently issues a letter at the beginning of the second quarter (October) to all involved ministries requesting the following information to build the plan: annual objectives of the ministry, proposed policies and activities to achieve said objectives, a timetable for implementation of investment projects and the roles of implementing partners. At the start of the third quarter (January), MPEDIC co‑ordinates with the Ministry of Finance (MoF) on the amount of funding made available through the public treasury to finance sustainable development investments. This is followed by a MPEDIC review process to study project proposals and subsequently discuss the plans with relevant line ministries and governorates. In March, the plan is presented to the Council of Ministers and is subsequently reviewed and approved by the House of Representatives before July. Alongside this process, MPEDIC moves towards linking sustainable development projects and investments with the SDGs.
The Sustainable Development Unit in MPEDIC is responsible for co‑ordinating with sustainable development focal points of line ministries and national entities covered by Prime Minister’s Decree No. 1146/2018, which supports establishing new functional units within the public administration. Finally, the unit is also mandated to prepare plans and scenarios to confront crises and disasters.
The Strategic Management Unit in MPEDIC, supports MPEDIC’s strategic planning efforts. It developed a manual on how to build effective planning processes, highlighting the importance of strategic planning to reach long-term goals such as the SDGs and Egypt Vision 2030 (Box 2.1). This manual was published on MPEDIC portal to assist and guide public administration entities through the strategic planning process. While this framework exists, it needs updating to include the latest Egypt Vision 2030 goals. Furthermore, findings from OECD interviews revealed that this instrument is mostly used internally and could be further leveraged among sustainable development focal points and public administration entities’ strategic management units to improve strategic planning capacities. Decree No. 1146/2018 was followed by the Central Agency for Organization and Administration’s (CAOA) Decree No. 86 of 2019 regarding the creation of organisational units for strategic management in the state’s administrative bodies. In addition, the New Planning Law No. 18 of 2022 stipulates the general framework for the Public Administration Entities, strategic plans in light of Egypt Vision 2030. It also ensured consistency between the strategic plan, operational plan and the relevant budget, and negotiations with MPEDIC regarding the unit’s investment plan funding.
The Strategic Management Unit in MPEDIC developed a Strategic Planning Manual to: i) introduce the importance of strategic planning in policymaking and its overall implementation in Egypt; ii) explicitly state the link between strategic planning and reaching long-term goals such as the SDGs and those of Egypt Vision 2030; iii) provide a guide to build successful strategic planning processes across government, explaining the different stages of the strategic planning process, indicating how to implement each step as well as use tools and models; and iv) provide a guide to the governance of the planning process, roles and responsibilities for developing and approving the strategic plan, with a time frame to ensure integration between the different respective actors. The manual also contains several good practices and examples of successful strategic planning procedures in sectors such as education, the environment and the economy (including MPEDIC and MoF strategies).
It starts by describing the relevance of strategic planning to policymaking. According to the manual, strategic planning helps to set clear, specific and measurable goals, which are central for preparing the budget and allowing the state to achieve its desired goals. These goals are translated into integrated and interrelated action plans that seek to reconcile the pursuit of long-term goals with the need to respond to short-term imperatives, helping to pursue strategic priorities while responding to short-term shocks.
In Egypt, several bodies such as ministries, governorates or local units, are in charge of developing strategic plans. Strategic plans flow from three main policy pillars: the government action programme, the SDGs and Egypt Vision 2030. These units from across the public administration are in charge of preparing their own strategic plans based on their ministerial or sectoral goals to reflect consistency of the pillars with the Vision. These plans are prepared for three years; each unit then reviews them and further develops them to reflect changes and integrate monitoring results. As such, ministry-based or single-sector strategic planning consists of developing a vision and mission, setting strategic goals and objectives, identifying performance indicators, allocating quantitative targets and enacting relevant programmes/policies to achieve the stated goals, all aligned with the country’s general strategic policy framework.
Sector-based strategic plans must be linked to the country’s objectives as identified in the government action programme, the SDGs and Egypt Vision 2030. Action plans must refer to these guiding pillars and integrate strategic objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs) to align with these country priorities. In this framework, units are responsible for reviewing the government programme in detail during the preparation of the strategic plans and ensuring that they are linked to the long-term goals.
The manual outlines seven key stages for building successful strategic plans: i) preparing to build the action plan; ii) reviewing/defining the vision, mission and institutional values; iii) analysing the current situation and identifying points of strategic focus; iv) building strategic objectives and measurement indicators; v) defining and detailing policies/programmes; vi) creating links and interdependence between strategic objectives; and vii) preparing the Programme Performance Budget. The manual also presents guidance on the number of days needed to complete each stage in the design of a strategic plan, the kinds of stakeholders that should be involved at each stage and a checklist to ensure that all relevant elements have been implemented at each stage of the planning design process.
Source: MPED (2019[3]), Strategic Planning Manual, Ministry of Planning and Economic Development.
MPEDIC has also implemented an electronic planning system, the Integrated System for Investment Plan Preparation and Monitoring (ISIPPM), which links ongoing and proposed public projects to the SDGs. This integration of the SDGs into the planning process ensures that projects and programmes align with the broader vision of sustainable development.
Ministries contacted by the OECD seem to demonstrate consideration of Egypt Vision 2030 in their strategic plans:
The Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, for example, incorporates Egypt Vision 2030, 2030 Agenda, the Egyptian constitution and Africa Agenda 2063 objectives into its sector-based strategic plans, including their latest artificial intelligence plan. Additionally, an annual circular is issued to guide the implementation of general ministerial strategies, ensuring coherence and consistency across the Egypt Vison 2030 strategic framework.
The recent development of the strategy for food and nutrition also serves as a commendable example. The Ministry of Health and Population engaged all relevant ministries working on food and nutrition to connect Egypt Vision 2030 with this strategy, in so doing fostering integration and synergies.
As another example, the Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities has integrated the objectives of Egypt Vision 2030 into its strategies and incorporated dedicated indicators, ensuring clarity and measurability relating to how its strategies are contributing to achieving the relevant Egypt Vision 2030 SDGs.
The Ministry of Finance (MoF) adopts a distinct approach by issuing an annual statement on the budget and economic objectives, using a participatory process. This statement is distributed to budget agencies across ministries and informs the strategic planning process, thereby connecting it with Egypt Vision 2030. As is the case in several OECD countries, the MoF’s strong impact on strategic planning for sustainable development is evident, as the availability of financing influences decision-making on the allocation of funds to optimise the pursuit of the SDGs through ministerial plans and programming.
To effectively pursue Egypt Vision 2030, it is essential to establish a robust system that ensures alignment between ministerial strategies and the sustainable development framework. Currently, MPEDIC lacks influence to ensure compliance with alignment requirements despite having this as part of its mandate. It cannot reject strategic documents for inconsistencies, impose sanctions for non-compliance or offer incentives to promote alignment. Rather, MPEDIC relies on its position as a central government agency and its persuasive powers to co‑ordinate efforts. While some sectoral plans demonstrate linkages with Egypt Vision 2030, a lack of a formal governance framework, particularly in terms of mandates and incentives, compels all ministries to actively collaborate and identify potential synergies to pursue Egypt Vision 2030 more deliberately. Collaboration among ministries remains largely discretionary. Addressing this gap requires a robust system with clear processes to ensure alignment between strategic documents across all levels. The New Planning Law can play a crucial role in establishing this system that would allow. MPEDIC’s involvement from the outset of the planning process, reducing reliance on authority to achieve compliance.
Furthermore, while MPEDIC localisation efforts (see next sections) underscore the recognition that “place” is a specific feature that shapes the implementation of any national vision, the absence of robust regional sustainable development strategies that reflect the specifics of different places and the existence of pronounced disparities across Egypt’s regions poses challenges to the coherent and equitable implementation of the national Sustainable Development Agenda in Egypt. This advice is reflected in the detailed recommendations presented at the end of this chapter.
Strengthening policy coherence
As the OECD assessment “Integrated Governance for Coherent Implementation of the SDGs in Egypt” (Igrioglu, Ostry and Allam, 2020[4]) first underlined, the current institutional setting, while demonstrating important potential in sustaining cross-silo co-ordination, poses several challenges to the effective delivery of sustainable development in Egypt:
A key challenge relates to the practical difficulties in pursuing a meaningful whole-of-government approach and ensuring policy coherence in practice. The evidence gathered from the review, including a fact-finding mission and questionnaire responses, indicates that challenges remain in aligning the sector-specific strategies and priorities of various institutions and stakeholders within the comprehensive framework of Egypt Vision 2030. These challenges persist due to the absence of a multi-year, integrated implementation plan for Egypt’s sustainable development agenda. Such a plan should encompass both the macro perspective by providing a multidimensional strategic view and the micro level by addressing technical, sector-specific and project-based elements. Indeed, ministry examples listed above notwithstanding, and despite the multidimensionality of Egypt Vision 2030, sector-based strategies and plans still tend to be developed within institutional silos. Notably, these tend to be pursued in isolation by their respective line ministry and have yet to be fully aligned and integrated into the vision. This slows the exploration of SDG linkages across policy areas to capitalise on potential synergies while pursuing the SDGs more coherently. However, greater efforts at alignment and integration is currently being pursued, and could be enhanced, as Egypt transitions to the new planning Law, led by MPED, as well as the mid-term government plan 2024-2027.This is addressed in the next sections.
This silo-based planning extends to the design and use of composite Egypt Vision 2030 indicators that combine two or more data sources into a single measure, therefore providing a simple representation of complex and multidimensional concepts: despite the efforts of MPEDIC, CAPMAS and the National Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (NIGSD) to translate 2030 Agenda indicators into the national Egyptian context, these indicators are still only applied against the vision. High-level indicators for line ministry sector strategies have been developed in isolation of Egypt Vision 2030 indicators and are not necessarily aligned with their relevant counterparts within the vision (that said, the review notes significant advances in this area at the project level – see the relevant section below). Ideally, these high-level indicators should be aligned (if not identical) and track performance in a common manner across the vision, the government programme, all single-sector strategies and, eventually, the national performance-based budget (see relevant section below).
The need for enhanced institutionalisation of co-ordination mechanisms will be necessary for the adoption of a unified approach to communications and co‑operation between government entities. The absence of decrees in this area demonstrates the discretionary character of co-ordination mechanisms, notably the National Committee for Monitoring the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (see below). For instance, MPEDIC’s responsibilities as rapporteur of the national committee are not clearly expressed within the existing mandate of the committee. Likewise, SDUs in line ministries (when these exist) are ad hoc and tend to be under-resourced. There is no adequate inter-ministerial task force or working group that brings together at the working level the different strategic units to carry out and follow-up on the operational work required to give effect to the strategic guidance of the National Committee.
In addition, vertical co-ordination could also be further strengthened with specific action plans and SDUs at the governorate level, tailored to the needs and priorities of each governorate (or cluster of governorates – see recommendations below) and, where feasible and appropriate, with municipal/local authorities. As mentioned, the localisation of the SDGs at the governorate level has already been initiated by MPEDIC, yet with more resources; it could be broadened and deepened through both top-down and bottom-up processes: top-down leadership and steering, alongside bottom-up action, engagement and ownership. MPEDIC is already aware of these challenges and is working on these matters with several governorates but more could be done with more resources. The existing missing linkage between the national vision and strategies with local actions and priorities limits the successful implementation of the vision in the governorates and nationally.
In this connection, the OECD Recommendation on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (2019[5]) underlines that integrating SDGs into the mandate of existing institutions is essential to deliver effectively on the SDGs and, in Egypt, on the vision. Public institutions have acknowledged their important role in contributing to the attainment of the SGDs. Nevertheless, limited institutional clarity, roles and responsibilities among governmental stakeholders at the national and governorate levels, as well as mandate overlap/duplication, can affect ongoing efforts to pursue sustainable development effectively. For instance, when working on localising initiatives in Egypt, assigning specific responsibilities to the Ministry of Local Development, the Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities and MPEDIC would be beneficial. This allocation should prioritise integrating the SDGs into the aspects of their mandates related to local development. While public entities undertake efforts to contribute to the SDGs, programmes and initiatives would benefit from scaling and enhancing coordination to achieve impactful results for the SDGs. Such an approach can foster a more cohesive and unified strategy for municipal and urban development initiatives. Ultimately, it empowers governorates to contribute to achieving the SDGs more effectively.
Evidence from the review fact-finding mission suggests that MPEDIC is aware of these challenges and is working to address some of them. For example, the more deliberate harnessing of the government programme for this purpose could contribute to improved co-ordination and integration. In addition, by leveraging the ISIPPM system that links projects to the SDGs, Egypt can demonstrate (and quantify) the progress it is making in integrating sustainability into its planning processes. Egypt can also strengthen its strategic planning framework by harmonising timelines, objectives, indicators and reporting activities. By doing so, it could be in a position to implement Egypt Vision 2030 more effectively, thereby fostering sustainable development and inclusive growth in a way that leaves no one behind. These issues are discussed in the next sections. This advice is reflected in the detailed recommendations presented at the end of this chapter.
2023 update of Egypt Vision 2030
In 2016, Egypt launched the first version of Egypt Vision 2030 to enact a specific set of public policies to reach concrete climate, social and economic goals by 2030. It was developed through a participatory approach with the involvement of several actors (i.e. experts, academics, private sector representatives, civil society, government officials and international development institutions) and several stages (i.e. preparatory stage, identification of the main directions, selection of the most important policies, development of the strategy’s document and launch of the community dialogue). As a result, Egypt Vision 2030 was composed of three main pillars reflecting a classic approach towards sustainable development with a social, environmental and economic dimension. For each pillar, several workshops were organised for key stakeholders to identify the main objective, sub-objectives, KPIs, quantitative targets, challenges that prevent achieving quantitative targets, new suggested indicators and policies, programmes and projects to reach the stated goals/sub-goals.
MPEDIC has just finished updating of the vision to consider the latest international, regional and local changes and challenges that have emerged since its inception in 2016. This process was conducted to ensure that the vision addresses the additional critical challenges currently facing the nation, including water scarcity and high population growth (Government of Egypt, 2021[1]), the effects of the COVID crisis on the country and its public services. The Egypt Vision 2030 update is a key initiative among a multitude of institutional and technical measures that the country is taking to accelerate its pursuit of sustainable development and good governance. The updating process was based on a participatory approach led by a task force that brought together relevant stakeholders and actors led by government entities, representatives from the private sector and civil society, and a group of experts and academics from various disciplines.
As a result, the updated version of Egypt Vision 2030 presents:
Four guiding principles: putting the citizen at the core and centre of development; guaranteeing equity and accessibility for all; improving resilience and adaptation; and strengthening sustainability.
Seven enablers for attaining sustainable development and achieving the goals by 2030: financing; technology and innovation; digital transformation; data generation and availability; supportive legislative and institutional environment; supportive cultural values system; and population growth control.
Six strategic goals: improving Egyptians’ quality of life and raising their living standards; social justice and equality; integrated and sustainable environmental system; diversified, knowledge-based and competitive economy; well-developed infrastructure; and governance and partnerships.
Thirty-two complementary and interdependent general goals to achieve the six strategic goals in Egypt.
Despite achieving these key milestones, the timeline for fully adopting the updated Egypt Vision 2030 remains uncertain. The delays over the past four years stem from the challenges of co‑ordinating multiple agendas, managing disparities in capacities and resources across ministries, adapting to various ongoing crises and engaging in consultations with internal and external stakeholders. The complexities involved in these aspects have contributed to the prolonged nature of the adoption process. Nevertheless, the adoption of the New Planning Law over the coming years will aid to expedite this process and provide an opportunity to enhance the alignment of sector strategies. Accordingly, the New Government Programme (2024 – 2027) draws heavily on Egypt Vision 2030 by operationalising it through actionable steps with specific time horizons.
The update of the country’s vision was pursued as part of a multitude of institutional and technical measures and actions that the country is taking to accelerate the achievement of sustainable development. A number of these key developments and challenges to overcome are discussed below.
Steering and enabling from the centre of government a whole-of-government approach towards sustainable development in Egypt
The existing institutional framework governing the implementation of Egypt Vision 2030 emphasises the importance of MPEDIC as a key centre of government (CoG) body, serving the highest level of the executive branch. CoGs are the support structure serving the highest level of the executive branch of government (including, for example, presidents, prime ministers and their equivalents) (OECD, 2020[2]). These structures help the head of government and ministers to make decisions by ensuring they receive evidence-informed, co-ordinated and coherent advice. They also co-ordinate the various players in the policy process to help ensure the quality and capability of the policy system and play an important role in strategic planning (see Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2).
CoGs contribute towards co‑ordinating long-term policies and priority setting in various ways:
They are technically policy-neutral, which means they can help reach consensus without resorting to lowest-common-denominator negotiations.
They have convening power borrowed from the head of government and can pressure departments to adjust policies and commit resources.
They are mandated to ensure the consistency and prudency of government decisions and to promote evidence-based, strategic and consistent policies.
They are increasingly playing a leadership role with respect to strategic priorities, including on sensitive policy issues, designing action plans in co‑operation with relevant departments and leading in project management.
One test of their effectiveness is their ability to play a mediator role when ministries disagree.
Several provide technical and advisory support to line ministries to help them adjust and meet the extra demands of horizontal projects.
Source: OECD (2024[6]), Steering from the Centre of Government in times of complexity: Compendium of Practices.
Source: OECD (2024[6]), Steering from the Centre of Government in times of complexity: Compendium of Practices.
MPEDIC is the driving force behind the vision update and is responsible for co‑ordinating and monitoring the vision and nationwide implementation of the SDGs. MPEDIC’s mandate is drawn from Prime Minister’s Decree No. 139 from 2020; however, according to institutional interlocutors, it appears too soon to identify specific gaps or lacunae in the mandate itself. Egypt also has a comprehensive General Planning Law but MPEDIC interlocutors consulted by the OECD are not currently applying it as executive regulations have not yet been issued. This extensive planning framework, ranging from strategic levels to local units, was officially enacted in 2022 but does not seem to be directly integrated into Egypt Vision 2030. However, MPEDIC must consider leveraging this planning legislation to prevent the development of silos and ensure effective strategic planning.
In order to ensure that institutional and decision-making arrangements governing sustainable development and the SDGs enable institutions to work together collectively, several co-ordination mechanisms have been created to foster institutional collaboration and mainstream sustainable development successfully into national and subnational policies across sectors. That said, these arrangements notwithstanding, the next section suggests that co-ordination tools and mechanisms could be further formalised and resourced to integrate sector-based strategies and priorities of different institutions and stakeholders more effectively into Egypt’s framework for sustainable development and good governance.
As is the case in Egypt, several OECD countries such as Belgium and Germany (Box 2.2 and Figure 2.3) steer sustainable development policies from their CoG. This provides significant added value, including but not limited to:
Driving the alignment and mainstreaming of sustainable development strategies with the government’s general programme and sector-specific strategies that are being pursued to implement it, by integrating sustainable development into general government policymaking and leading the design of dedicated action plans for sustainable development that bring together institutional mechanisms, evaluation frameworks and coherence tools to integrate and mainstream sustainable development into government policymaking.
Engaging political leaders at the CoG to ensure high-level support for sustainable development policies systemwide.
Improving policy coherence across ministries and levels of government.
Ensuring closer involvement of civil society in policy formulation.
Strengthening the capacity of governments to design, implement and monitor coherent and integrated policies for sustainable development.
Leveraging the convening power of the CoG to co‑ordinate government policies for sustainable development more efficiently.
Source: OECD (2024[6]), Steering from the Centre of Government in times of complexity: Compendium of Practices.
Belgium
Belgium was one of the first countries to create a sustainable development strategy based on the commitments from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio (known as the Earth Summit). Its federal sustainable development strategy is defined by the Act of May 1997 and was revised in 2010. It outlines a “report-plan-do-check-act” cycle and the mutually supporting roles of three institutions to prepare, adopt, implement and improve sustainable development policies:
The Inter-departmental Commission for Sustainable Development (ICSD) brings together focal points from each federal public service and oversees the planning and monitoring processes. Since 2002, it is supported by a dedicated administration: the Federal Public Planning Service for Sustainable Development. This institution was transformed in 2013 into the Federal Institute for Sustainable Development. It was subsequently moved to the CoG by making it a part of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister. This stresses the strategic importance of sustainable development and gives the topic more political clout and convening power.
The Task Force on Sustainable Development (TFSD) of the Federal Planning Bureau (FPB) is in charge of reporting, policy evaluations and forecasting.
The Federal Council for Sustainable Development (FCSD), as the stakeholders’ advisory council, organises the participation of major groups in sustainable development policymaking. Major groups refer to distinct sectors of society that play pivotal roles in shaping and implementing sustainable policies and practices, including businesses, civil society organisations, academia, indigenous communities and more.
The 2010 revision of the Act of May 1997 defines a federal long-term vision for sustainable development. This long-term vision was adopted by Royal Decree in 2013. It contains 55 long-term objectives with a 2050-time horizon and proposes a set of indicators to report on the progress towards reaching these objectives. The vision is the reference framework for the federal strategy on sustainable development and the activities of the institutions defined in the act. The act also calls for the preparation of Federal Plans for Sustainable Development and federal reports on sustainable development.
Germany
The first German Sustainable Development Strategy (GSDS) was adopted by the German government in 2002. Since 2004, the strategy has been updated every four years. The German government overhauled the strategy in the light of the 2030 Agenda, adopting a new edition on 11 January 2017. The latest update began in October 2019 and was approved by the Cabinet on 11 March 2021. The strategy has been maintained over five changes of government, documenting the broad, constant political consensus in Germany regarding the importance of sustainable development.
Due to its overarching, cross-cutting relevance and special significance, the responsibility for the GSDS lies within the CoG at the Federal Chancellery. This approach stresses that sustainable development is a top-level priority for Germany.
Headed by the Federal Chancellery and comprising all of the federal ministries, the State Secretaries’ Committee for Sustainable Development is the German government’s key steering committee regarding the GSDS. Since 2018, it has been advised by a dialogue group made up of various societal stakeholders. The State Secretaries’ Committee is of primary importance when it comes to enhancing the consistency of policy measures. The decisions made at its meetings provide a yardstick and touchstone for those shaping policy at the ministerial level.
Sources: Government of Belgium (n.d.[7]), Federal Strategy for Sustainable Development, https://www.developpementdurable.be/fr/politique-federale/strategie-federale; Government of Germany (n.d.[8]), State Secretaries' Committee for Sustainable Development in the UN Languages, https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/issues/sustainability/state-secretaries-committee-for-sustainable-development-in-the-un-languages-447864.
Leveraging co-ordination for effective implementation of Egypt Vision 2030
Inter-ministerial committees (at the political and strategic policy levels) and inter-departmental committees (at the technical level) each play important roles in the work of CoGs by bringing together policymakers from different ministries to discuss policy coherence and implementation. In Egypt, effective horizontal (between ministries) and vertical (across levels of government) co-ordination is essential to successfully implement Egypt Vision 2030. By fostering intra- and inter-ministerial discussions, establishing inter‑departmental committees, strengthening existing co-ordination mechanisms, ensuring intra- and inter-ministerial communications and transparency, and providing technical support to sustain effective co‑ordination, Egypt can enhance policy coherence, alignment and collaboration across ministries.
To foster greater co-ordination, it is crucial to facilitate regular and structured inter-ministerial discussions at the strategic policy level, including at the level of ministers and the political leadership, at the technical levels and with local administrations. Efforts in this regard have initiated with the formation of three ministerial groups following the recent government reshuffle in 2024, notably the human development group, industrial development group and the economic group. Each ministerial group consists of several ministers that meet weekly to guarantee the effectiveness of the government’s performance. Regular inter-ministerial discussions at the strategic policy level can ensure high-level ownership while encouraging in-depth exchanges that can enable ministries to align their policies and actions with the broader objectives of Egypt Vision 2030 and the Government Programme. By promoting horizontal cross-ministerial and vertical collaboration with all levels of government, the implementation process can benefit from diverse perspectives, expertise and experience, including the sharing of good practices across ministries and institutions, whether in policy design or project delivery, that is proving to work in the pursuit of the SDGs.
Horizontal whole-of-government oversight and steering
In some OECD countries, high-level committees mandated to steer strategy formulation and oversee implementation while ensuring its coherence are organised by thematic clusters (e.g. addressing economic and trade, social and cultural, and foreign and defence policies). At the “top” of a committee hierarchy, some countries have established a whole-of-government steering committee at the ministerial level, in some cases chaired by the head of state or government, to provide overarching integrated guidance in the pursuit of the Government Programme and SDGs. In Canada, this committee is called the Cabinet Committee on Agenda, Results and Communications and is supported by a Sub-committee on Intergovernmental Coordination. Chaired by the Prime Minister, it reports directly to the full cabinet (the Council of Ministers) (Box 2.3).
Cabinet committees carry out most of the day-to-day work of the Council of Ministers.
Committees are composed of ministers; they each have a specific membership and areas of responsibility, which are set by the Prime Minister (except for the Treasury Board, whose mandate and membership are established in law). Key Cabinet committees include:
The Cabinet Committee on Agenda, Results and Communications is chaired by the Prime Minister and supported by its Sub-Committee on Intergovernmental Coordination. This is the main strategic committee, hierarchically situated just below full Cabinet. It “manages the government’s overall strategic agenda and priority setting and tracks strategy implementation. It also undertakes focused and deep analyses of key priority issues and themes, and their strategic implications”.
The Treasury Board “acts as the government’s management board and provides oversight of the government’s financial management and spending, as well as oversight on human resources (HR) and digital transformation initiatives. This committee is the employer for the public service and establishes policies and common standards for administrative, personnel, financial and organisational practices across government.”
Two Cabinet Committees on Economy, Inclusion and Climate (Committees “A” and “B”). There two committees facilitate workload management and include issues such “as sustainable and inclusive social and economic development, post-pandemic recovery, decarbonisation, the environment, as well as improving Canadians’ health and quality of life.”
The Cabinet Committee on Global Affairs and Public Security “considers issues concerning Canada’s engagement with and participation in the international community, including trade promotion and national defence.” It also considers threats and risks to the safety and security of Canada and Canadians, manages ongoing emergencies caused, inter alia, by climate change and natural disasters, and ensures strategic, integrated and forward-looking leadership for emergency management (mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery).
The Cabinet also includes a standing Task Force on Services to Canadians, which is mandated to examine ways to provide more effective and efficient government services to urgently address service delays and enhance citizen experience for Canadians.
The prime minister and the deputy prime minister (who is also the Minister of Finance) are ex officio members of all committees.
All federal ministers and departments/agencies are responsible for integrating the 2030 Agenda into their work and advancing the SDGs that fall within their respective areas of responsibility. Federal departments and agencies consider the goals and principles of the 2030 Agenda when developing and implementing federal programmes and initiatives. They are also responsible for reporting to Canadians on how their programmes and initiatives contribute to advancing the SDGs that fall within their mandate. Hence, all Cabinet committees examine SDG/Agenda 2030-related issues as an integral part of their responsibility areas.
Source: Government of Canada (n.d.[9]), Taking Action Together – Canada’s 2021 Annual Report on the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/agenda-2030/taking-action-together.html.
The National Committee for Monitoring the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals
The National Committee for Monitoring the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, falling under the purview of the Prime Minister, was reconstituted by Prime Minister’s Decree No. 1125 of 2017 (amended by Prime Minister’s Decree No. 1410 of 2017) to stipulate the members of the seven ministers, in addition to the heads of the National Council for Women and the National Council for Motherhood and Childhood, and representatives of ministries and other entities, including the CAPMAS. The decree stipulates that MPEDIC acts as rapporteur of the committee. According to information gathered during the OECD’s fact-finding missions and questionnaire, the Committee is responsible for the co-ordination between the ministries and governorates regarding the implementation of the SDGs and vision, defining and solving the challenges and obstacles that face implementation, adopting capacity-building plans that support the implementation of the vision, reviewing and approving performance reports and presenting them to the president of the state and the House of Representatives. However, despite this information, there is no clear official document clearly outlining the Committee’s mandate. Based on the information provided in the OECD survey and during the OECD’s fact-finding missions, it appears that the committee faces several challenges:
So far, the committee has met twice at the technical level, once in 2021 and once in 2023.
The mandate of the committee is deemed incomplete by institutional stakeholders, lacking specific roles and responsibilities that should be fulfilled.
The scope of the committee’s authority is also unclear as a formal mandate seems to be lacking.
The GoE could, therefore, establish mechanisms to facilitate the committee’s work and enable periodic monitoring. This could be done through the creation of dedicated technical/working-level working groups that specialise in related SDGs such as health and well-being, economic growth and employment, etc. Furthermore, data dashboards and analytical software could be used to analyse and visualise progress. Another element could be creating formal channels for stakeholder engagement between the members and collectively agreeing on working methods to enhance the results of the committee. It is worth noting that the composition of the National Committee has evolved since its creation in December 2015 to include stakeholders from different institutions; however, representatives from the governorates are not included. While the committee was initially comprised of 8 institutions based on the original decree, it is currently composed of representatives of 17 ministries and state entities, ensuring a more inclusive approach and including:
The Information and Decision Support Centre (IDSC) affiliated with the Egyptian Cabinet, is a governmental, non-profit think-tank offering professional and specialised services to decision-makers. Under its sustainable development research programme, the IDSC aims to study and analyse development policies to achieve SDGs, measure indicators of progress in implementing government plans in the field of sustainable development, strengthen government efforts with strategic partners and civil society organisations to advance the development path, providing recommendations on the policies and procedures that can be followed to achieve the SDGs and on how to follow up and evaluate them.
As the official statistical agency of Egypt, CAPMAS collects, processes, analyses and disseminates statistical data and conducts the census, including the SDGs. A specialised unit for sustainable development in CAPMAS focuses on the development of indicators related to the SDGs and is responsible for the classification, identification and measurement of indicators used in the SDGs.
Egypt could benefit from further clarification, broadening, deepening and formalisation of the National Committee's mandate, responsibilities and mechanisms to strengthen the effective monitoring and evaluation of SDG implementation in Egypt. More generally, although stakeholders reported during the review’s fact-finding missions that it sustains good partnership relations with key counterparts in government, notably MPEDIC, it underscored the fact that this inter-institutional dialogue on sustainable development matters of common interest, while productive, is not adequately formalised to generate a common work plan or agenda to address Egypt Vision 2030 issues systematically.
It is also important to note that OECD countries are increasingly integrating SDG responsibilities into existing committee structures and mandates rather than creating new ones: while SDG-related committees were initially created in parallel to and/or separate from existing structures, as the governance of the pursuit of sustainable development and 2030 Agenda “matured” since 2016, pursuing the SDGs is being progressively mainstreamed across all government structures and mandates. Existing committee structures have seen their mandates and responsibilities explicitly broadened, updated and strengthened (with the parallel SDG committees being folded into these existing structures) to address strategies relating to the pursuit of the SDGs as part of their regular oversight and steering responsibilities for government programming and strategic planning in general.
The Canadian case (Box 2.3) demonstrates how Canada has integrated SDG and 2030 Agenda planning and implementation into its government operations. This is achieved by having the existing Cabinet committee structure oversee SDG implementation as a crucial aspect of strategic decision-making on all government priorities. No parallel or separate committee structure focuses solely on overseeing the pursuit of Canada’s 2030 Agenda strategy.
The Canadian example also shows that the lead institution managing the co-ordination of a country’s pursuit of its 2030 Agenda strategy is no longer necessarily a CoG institution. In Canada, due in no small part to the evolution and current maturity of its mainstreaming efforts, this leadership role has migrated from the CoG to the Department of Employment and Social Development, the federal government’s main social policy ministry. That said, as Box 2.7 in the next section below points out, all three federal CoG institutions (the Privy Council Office, the MoF and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the government’s management board ministry) are intimately involved in the day-to-day and strategic decision-making on 2030 Agenda implementation (as are all other ministries through the Cabinet committee process).
Some OECD countries only have a single minister-level steering committee at the summit of a committee hierarchy; the thematic committees are composed of senior officials (either existing or, in their absence, new ones) and have been mandated to steer thematic sustainable development strategy setting and advise the inter-ministerial steering committee in their thematic areas of responsibility.
This high-level, whole-of-government committee structure is supported by mirror inter-departmental committees of officials at the technical level; these are responsible for providing data, evidence and advice to their respective high-level committees. In addition, the main inter-ministerial oversight/steering committee is usually chaired by the head of government or a CoG minister and is supported by a CoG institution that works closely with relevant line ministry strategy units and/or SDUs to feed the strategic policy decision-making process at the steering committee level.
Indeed, inter-departmental co-ordination arrangements serve different purposes and have different benefits, for instance:
They provide a forum for high-level political monitoring, decision-making and co-ordination across different ministries.
They can help to ensure that policies are aligned with/integrated into the government programme’s strategic priorities and objectives.
They can facilitate the development of cross-cutting policies that address complex, multidimensional issues that require input from multiple ministries.
Drawing from such successful examples as Belgium (Box 2.4), inter-departmental committees can bring together relevant ministries working on thematic issues and ensure coherence in the implementation of multidimensional Egypt Vision 2030 goals. These committees can provide a platform for resolving inter‑ministerial challenges; their technical expertise and authority can effectively bridge different policy domains and promote integrated approaches to design and implement strategies in pursuit of the SDGs.
The Interdepartmental Committee for Sustainable Development (ICSD) is responsible for preparing and co‑ordinating actions by federal ministries and public services in the field of sustainable development.
The committee is mandated by law to:
Propose areas of work for the Federal Institute for Sustainable Development (FISD) and the Federal Planning Bureau as part of their designated tasks outlined in the Sustainable Development Act of May 1997.
Co‑ordinate the summary report of its members that they must compile 18 months before the end of the ongoing Federal Plan for Sustainable Development (FPSD).
Prepare the FPSD draft when a new government takes office.
Formulate a proposal regarding the modalities of the public consultation concerning the Federal Plan for Sustainable Development (FPDO) draft.
It is composed of representatives from all federal government services and the Ministry of Defence. The Belgian Regions and Communities are also invited to appoint an observing member. The FISD, as the dedicated federal administration for sustainable development located within the CoG, assumes the secretariat and chairmanship of the committee.
Source: Government of Belgium (n.d.[7]), Federal Strategy for Sustainable Development, https://www.developpementdurable.be/fr/politique-federale/strategie-federale.
In addition to establishing inter-departmental committees (or mandating existing ones), it is essential to strengthen and leverage existing co-ordination mechanisms. This can be achieved by identifying and enhancing formal and informal co-ordination committees and groupings, establishing temporary or ad hoc committees as needed and promoting the formation of “communities of practice” within relevant sectors, potentially at any and all levels of the administration. These mechanisms can facilitate communication, information sharing and collaborative decision-making, ensuring alignment with the goals and targets of Egypt Vision 2030. Box 2.5 provides examples of this type of ad hoc community of practice in Finland and the United Kingdom.
United Kingdom: Cross-government horizon-scanning delivery
An assessment of horizon scanning across the UK Government revealed that while efforts were being made in government departments, these could be better co-ordinated. To this end, a cross-government Horizon Scanning Programme headed by the Cabinet Secretary and its advisory group was created to funnel information from an existing network of officials in various government departments, identify emerging trends and risks, and co-ordinate work on cross-cutting themes that affect multiple parts of government.
The programme aimed to ensure greater co-ordination of existing resources and benefitted from ministerial oversight by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Minister for Government Policy and the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office. During 2013, cross-departmental work took place in informal “communities of interest” to identify horizon-scanning results relating to a series of work streams, notably changing young people’s social attitudes, the future of demographic change in the country and changing the supply and demand of resources.
The Government of Finland’s Change Agent Network
Upon the release in 2013 of a report on the “government of the future”, the government of Finland’s Change Agent Network of young civil servants, an ad hoc group of like-minded professionals from across the central government, published a kind of policy “manifesto” on “how to build a government that facilitates sustainable growth”. In quoting the report, “the public sector – central government, regional government and local authorities – plays a key role as an enabler of sustainable growth, proactively adopting and testing new ideas and operations and scaling up good practices for wider use”, the network declared that “it’s time for the public sector to step up and seize the moment”.
The informal network declared inter alia:
“Ministries remain too detached and isolated from one another, without sufficient co-ordination and co-operation. The challenges and problems faced by our society cut across all boundaries, including attitudinal, professional and especially administrative. Time pressure, dwindling resources and the sheer scale of problems mean we have to change course quickly. Have ministries set aside enough time for innovation and the development of new directions and approaches, have they invested enough in creating the conditions and the kind of management culture where people are inspired to exchange ideas and to work together? … A stronger emphasis on multi-sector co-operation and collaboration, both across government and with civil society, will also add significant flexibility to ministries and improve their ability to sense and predict change… It is crucial that political leaders and senior civil servants support new practices and send out the message that even less formal and more experimental approaches are permitted and even encouraged…”.
This network had no formal status; its membership was entirely voluntary. Its plea for greater horizontal collaboration illustrated perhaps the beginning of a fundamental shift in values away from tradition-bound vertical management in the Government of Finland.
Sources: OECD (2015[10]), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Estonia and Finland: Fostering Strategic Capacity across Governments and Digital Services across Borders, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264229334-en; Government of Finland (2013), Government Report on the Future - well-being through sustainable growth, http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-287-070-4; Kasemets, L. (2014), “Background report for the Integrated Public Governance Review of Estonia and Finland”, unpublished.
Effective communications sustain transparency, which can play a crucial role in enhancing more effective co-ordination. Sharing annual reports or meeting notes, agendas, decisions and actions taken with all members is recommended to increase transparency. It is also recommended to ensure that stakeholders participate in co-ordination bodies for sustainable development as identified in the Earth Summit outcome document The Future We Want (UN, 2012[11]).
Technical support for co-ordination mechanisms is vital to their success. This support is multifaceted and ranges from providing thematic data and evidence on the strategic policy issues being discussed at inter‑departmental committees to providing training opportunities for relevant officials. It is usually provided by the CoG unit(s) reporting to the head of state/government, in close co-ordination with strategic management units (SMUs) in the relevant line ministries, as mentioned above. This type of technical support is crucial when policy issues of strategic importance are being debated at the ministerial-level whole-of-government inter‑departmental steering committee on the SDGs, for example. Offering training workshops on effective co-ordination practices can also enhance the capacity of officials involved in co-ordination roles. These workshops can provide guidance on co‑ordinating multi-sectoral initiatives, facilitating collaboration, managing conflicts and leveraging available resources efficiently. By equipping participants with the necessary skills and knowledge, the implementation of Egypt Vision 2030 can be significantly strengthened.
The sustainable development units
At the operational level, both SDUs and sustainable development focal points have been established in different ministries to enhance inter-institutional co-ordination. These units and focal points are designed to serve as key contacts for raising awareness on SDGs, to ensure that, within their own entities, sustainable development strategies are aligned with the vision and facilitate the co‑ordination and monitoring process led by MPEDIC’s SDU.
Dedicated SDUs throughout a public administration (i.e. in line ministries) are a good way to implement sustainable development policies in a coherent and whole-of-government manner (OECD, 2021[12]). They can ensure:
Political commitment and leadership: SDUs can help mobilise whole-of-government action and orient policy development towards sustainable development.
A strategic long-term vision: These units can help develop a strategic long-term vision for sustainable development that is integrated across all policy areas.
Policy coherence: SDUs can help ensure policy coherence across different sectors and levels of government.
Monitoring and evaluation: These units are well placed to monitor the pursuit of their ministry’s sustainable development strategies on a regular basis and lead evaluation exercises periodically to measure the performance of strategy against outcomes. This presupposes that these units can effectively lead co-ordination efforts for this purpose across policy and operational units within their ministry. This is usually accomplished through standing intra-ministerial committees mandated for this purpose, as well as through cross-government “community of practice” arrangements (see below).
Strategic communications: These units are well placed to contribute to whole-of-ministry and whole-of-government communications efforts, both internally within the public administration at the national and local levels and externally with civil society stakeholders and citizens.
The provision of advice on training needs both in their units and their ministries relating to strategic planning, project management, effective communications and other enablers underpinning the good governance of 2030 Agenda implementation.
Participation and engagement/outreach: These units can help involve civil society and other stakeholders in developing and implementing sustainable development policies.
The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (2019[5]) and the OECD Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance (2020[2]) provide a comprehensive standard to help countries equip policymakers and key stakeholders with the necessary institutional mechanisms and policy tools to enhance policy coherence, address integrated economic, social and environmental challenges and accelerate progress towards sustainable development. Based on this guidance, several key considerations and challenges need to be addressed to empower the SDUs, including the status of SDUs in Egypt, the need to clarify, codify and institutionalise their mandates through functional reviews, mapping exercises, resource allocation and capacity-building efforts.
A significant observation during the OECD’s fact-finding missions is that SDUs are not uniformly integrated into the structures of all ministries. Only five ministries have explicitly established a dedicated unit (MPEDIC, as well as the Ministries of Tourism, of Agriculture, of Education and of Environment). To address this issue, a functional review and mapping exercise could be conducted by MPEDIC’s SDU to determine whether SDUs exist under different names or if institutional overburden is an obstacle to their establishment since several other ministries make use of sustainable development focal points or of their existing strategic management units (SMUs), instead of SDUs.
This differentiation in the level of institutionalisation highlights the need for greater consistency across ministries. Furthermore, as mandated by the Prime Minister in 2018, SMUs are present in most government entities. Streamlining existing units and their expertise could be a cost-effective approach to supporting sustainable development initiatives rather than establishing new structures with incremental institutional and financial costs. Another department that was established in MPEDIC by decree of CAOA No. 86 of 2023 called “follow-up long, medium, and annual sustainable development plans and programs”2, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the sustainable development plans across each entity.
In this connection and in the context of constraints on public resources, Egypt could consider mandating ministry sustainable development focal points or SMUs in those ministries that have yet to create SMUs to carry out the ministry’s Egypt Vision 2030 responsibilities. Indeed, as functional and institutional arrangements mature in the GoE, consideration could be given to blending together ministry SMUs and SMUs so that, over time, a single planning unit becomes responsible for advancing both the ministry’s Egypt Vision 2030 and general ministry-wide strategic goals. This could serve to hasten the mainstreaming of Egypt Vision 2030 implementation efforts as part of the pursuit of the government’s general development goals for the country; it could also, over time, lead to greater optimisation of limited human and financial resources.
A first objective, though, ought to be the formalisation and institutionalisation of the sustainable development planning and co‑ordination function in all key ministries and agencies across the GoE, as well as in key governorates (see next section).
In any event, a mapping exercise could facilitate the establishment of a community of practice comprising ministry SDUs/SMUs/SDG focal points for Egypt Vision 2030 as a valuable step toward enhancing co‑ordination and collaboration across ministries. This community could serve as a platform for sharing best practices, exchanging knowledge and promoting integrated approaches to sustainable development. It can help foster a coherent, cohesive and synchronised implementation of the national sustainable development agenda.
Respondents to the OECD’s survey shared that they were unaware of a strategic document outlining the mandate of the SDU regarding the implementation of Egypt Vision 2030. To address this gap, it is crucial to formulate a formal document that clearly outlines the roles and responsibilities of the SDU, building on existing information in Decrees No. 86 of 2019, establishing the Strategic Management Units (SMUs), and No.86 of 2023 establishing the SDU in MPEDIC. This formal document needs to be disseminated and circulated among PAEs, in a way that guarantees that the mandate of the SDU is put into practice among those entities. It would also serve as a guiding framework to empower the SDU to carry out its responsibilities effectively. In this context, the establishment of SMUs by the legal decree 86/2019 within all PAEs, can support the operationalization of some of MPEDIC’s SDU functions within line ministries and entities. As one of the mandates of the SMUs is preparing the framework for the entity’s strategic plan and ensuring its alignment with Egypt Vision 2030. In capacity building, MPEDIC’s SDU primarily focuses on training and providing direct support to government entities in aligning their sectoral strategies with the vision. For example, it has recently supported the Ministry of Health in aligning its Food and Nutrition Strategy with Egypt Vision 2030. However, there is a need to establish a specific mechanism for identifying capacity-building needs. Currently, capacity-building activities are mostly demand-driven, based on specific challenges observed by MPEDIC. Co‑ordinating with Egypt’s NIGSD could provide valuable insights and expertise in this area (OECD, 2024[6]).
In conclusion, institutionalising and formally empowering SDUs/SMUs in every ministry and entity is crucial for advancing sustainable development in Egypt. To further institutionalise and empower these units, clarifying and formalising their roles and responsibilities through a legal decree, conducting functional reviews and mapping exercises, allocating adequate resources, creating communities of practice, developing an implementation plan and identifying capacity-building needs are essential. By addressing these considerations in line with good practices such as in Romania (Box 2.6) or Canada (Box 2.7), which harnesses SDUs/SMUs, focal points/policy leads and policy integration and coherence initiatives to mainstream Canada’s Federal Implementation Plan for the 2030 Agenda (analogous to Egypt Vision 2030) as an integral component of general government decision-making, Egypt can enhance the effectiveness and integration of SDUs/SMUs, leading to more co‑ordinated and impactful implementation of its Egypt Vision 2030.
Recent efforts in Romania have enhanced the strategic planning framework by focusing on bolstering line ministry capacity and reforming the budgetary process. Institutional innovations, such as establishing sustainable development hubs within each ministry, are of particular significance. These hubs aim to promote coherence and co-ordination by ensuring that all institutions are actively involved in implementing Romania’s Sustainable Development Strategy 2030 (ROSDS), a strategic framework with the longest timeframe.
The hubs are mandated to align a whole-of-government implementation of the SDGs and play a central role in promoting and supporting sustainable development policies and expertise beyond the central authorities and the Department of Sustainable Development located within the Prime Minister’s Chancellery. Furthermore, they ensure that other policies do not work at cross-purposes with the ROSDS. Concretely, each hub pursues the implementation of the SDGs related to the field of activity of each institution while acting as the liaison between its institution, the Department of Sustainable Development and the National Institute of Statistics. The hubs also contribute to the ROSDS’ monitoring framework by reporting on the progress of dedicated sustainable development indicators and monitoring the overall implementation of the National Sustainable Development Strategy.
A hub is formed by existing staff with competency in the field of sustainable development. As of 2020 each line ministry has appointed one or two persons to their respective hub. Dedicated training programmes have been developed to counter the issue of staff’s insufficient expertise.
The Sustainable Development Hubs across the government in Romania constitute a successful deployment of a new co-ordination mechanism that strengthens coherence, co-ordination and strategic planning. Strong leadership can replicate these efforts in other cross-cutting policy areas. The Department of Sustainable Development receives extra political leverage from the leadership of a state counsellor. This innovative governance framework for sustainable development has also been recognised by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs as Romania received the 2021 United Nations “prize for innovation and excellence in public service”.
Source: OECD (2023[13]), “Coherence and co-ordination at the Centre of Government in Romania”, OECD Publishing, Paris.
The government of Canada is fostering policy coherence by helping departments (ministries) co‑ordinate their efforts on the SDGs. Canada’s 2021 Federal Implementation Plan for the 2030 Agenda (FIP) enhances federal co-ordination and leadership to advance the SDGs. It provides a governance structure to advance the SDGs more effectively, notably through departmental leads:
At the federal level, Employment and Social Development Canada leads the co-ordination of Canada’s implementation of the 2030 Agenda. A Sustainable Development Goals Unit was established in 2018 within the department, leading efforts in the implementation of the FIP. Please note that the Privy Council Office exercised the original institutional lead for the 2030 Agenda, the federal CoG unit directly serving the prime minister and Cabinet.
Leads and co-leads for each of the 17 SDGs have been appointed in each contributing federal department and agency.
Horizontal leads have been appointed to help advance the cross-cutting, whole-of-government objectives of leaving no one behind, advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and making a positive impact through Canada’s international implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Horizontal leads help all departments and agencies ensure that cross-cutting objectives are being considered in their work to advance the SDGs.
Horizontal leads have also been appointed to facilitate the adoption of enabling functions to implement the 2030 Agenda successfully. These include the federal government’s three CoG institutions, the Privy Council Office, the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, which are collectively responsible for advancing policy coherence and ensuring that the SDGs are considered, accounted for and reflected in the government of Canada’s priorities. It also includes Statistics Canada, the national statistical office, for its enabling functions with respect to data and reporting.
Other mandatory federal processes support policy coherence. For example, the government has been integrating the 2030 Agenda into major policies, such as the Quality of Life Framework, introduced in 2021, which sets out the government’s approach to taking into consideration quality-of-life impacts in policy and budgetary decision-making. Another example is the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, which addresses federal sustainable development from an environmental perspective.
Efforts have also been made to strengthen institutional mechanisms to support policy coherence across each federal department. For instance, the SDGs have been integrated into all annual departmental plans (DPs) and Departmental Results Reports (DRRs).
These two documents are key components of the government’s annual planning and resource management cycle. Tabled in Parliament and made available to all Canadians, they describe departmental priorities, strategic outcomes, programmes, expected results and the resources used to achieve those results.
For the latest DPs and DRRs, departments and agencies are reporting on their contributions towards advancing the SDGs, thus ensuring consistent and transparent reporting on the SDGs across the entire system.
Source: Government of Canada (n.d.[9]), Taking Action Together – Canada’s 2021 Annual Report on the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/agenda-2030/taking-action-together.html.
Using additional government co-ordination mechanisms in Egypt
The recent deployment of SMUs across the government, serving as experts in the specific activities relevant to their respective institutions, could support the development of a new co-ordination mechanism as a network of SDUs co‑ordinated by MPEDIC. However, several challenges to their deployment have been identified above. MPEDIC is thus invited to explore additional mechanisms for co-ordination. In Egypt, bilateral co-ordination is commonly used but limited to informal contacts or formal letters. Inter‑ministerial agreements or memoranda of understanding (MoUs), for example, in Costa Rica or the United States, could merit further thought (Box 2.8):
Inter-ministerial agreements serve as instruments for co‑operation between national institutions and can potentially involve non-governmental stakeholders undertaking activities defined by law or policy. In contrast to existing informal contacts, inter-ministerial agreements provide a structured framework for collaboration. These agreements can take various forms, such as legally binding contracts, strategic documents, action plans or executive orders. They help establish a clear framework for horizontal co‑operation when this is not explicitly defined in existing law or through existing administrative systems. By promoting formalised co‑operation, inter-ministerial agreements can enhance co-ordination and facilitate the implementation of sustainable development policies and projects.
An alternative is making use of MoUs, which are typically less formal than inter-ministerial agreements and provide a basis for general principles of co‑operation. They describe broad concepts of mutual understanding, shared goals and plans between parties. While MoUs may not have the same level of binding force as formal inter-ministerial agreements, they offer flexibility and enable collaborative efforts among multiple stakeholders. MoUs can serve as a framework for co‑operation in specific areas of sustainable development, allowing for greater alignment and co‑ordination among involved entities.
Egyptian interlocutors also identified dedicated co-ordination efforts between MPEDIC and strategic sectors, such as energy, in the form of regular meetings held since the preparation and launch of Egypt Vision 2030. These special arrangements exist for critical priorities, recognising their indispensable role in industrial development and overall progress.
United States
MoUs are commonly used as a co-ordination mechanism in the United States, especially in the environmental sector. The United States Environmental Protection Agency notably has MoUs with key relevant central government bodies, including the Department of Agriculture and the now Office of Marine Safety, the U.S. Fire Administration the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the National Park Service and the Central Statistics Office.
Costa Rica
Costa Rica is a prime example of the way in which inter-ministerial agreements can enhance the coherence of government action on environmental and climate commitments. Costa Rica’s sectoral agreements for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are sectors’ response to meet national and international commitments, such as the Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement.
Source: OECD (2019[14]), OECD Accession Review of Costa Rica in the Fields of Environment and Waste, OECD, Paris; EPA (n.d.[15]), US EPA Search - Memorandum of Understanding, https://search.epa.gov/epasearch/?querytext=memorandum+of+understanding&areaname=&#/.
Vertical co-ordination across levels of the administration
The 2030 Agenda explicitly calls for governments to collaborate with local and regional governments in the implementation of the SDGs. As such, vertical co-ordination can play a crucial role in the successful implementation of Egypt Vision 2030. The involvement of governorates is essential to achieving a participatory approach in the strategic planning process and driving bottom-up development. MPEDIC has made efforts to reinforce the role of governorates in achieving inclusive and sustainable growth as well as balanced regional development. These initiatives include localising the SDGs at the governorate level, establishing a competitiveness index for governorates, measuring the Human Development Index on a governorate level and others. To support these initiatives, a Governors’ Council, led by the prime minister, also conducts periodic meetings to discuss topics such as localisation.
To bridge the divide between the national and local levels, MPEDIC SDU has also developed a series of localisation reports measuring progress in each of the 27 governorates towards attaining the SDGs (MPED, 2020[16]). Since 2019/20, it has also published its annual “citizen plan” on line, which provides information on public investments directed by the government for each governorate and how it is distributed across different sectors (MPED, 2022[17]). The ministry has also spearheaded important efforts on rural development through the Haya Karima (Decent Life) initiative launched in early 2019. This initiative seeks to bring about a profound urban development transformation in over 4 500 villages across 20 governorates through 175 administrative centres. Through Prime Minister’s Decree No. 2700 of 2020, an implementation committee involving all line ministries and relevant authorities was created to oversee the implementation of Haya Karima. This oversight body is informed by the work of four subcommittees on utilities and infrastructure services (led by the Ministry of Local Development), economic development and job creation (led by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency), social interventions (Ministry of Social Solidarity) and performance monitoring (led by MPEDIC). Stakeholders during OECD interviews shared that key progress has been achieved by reaching over 58% of Egypt’s total population and through the progressive establishment of citizen committees in certain villages to support local needs assessment processes.
However, various challenges have been identified within the governorates:
Very few of them have SDUs and not all governorates have dedicated focal points for sustainable development.
They have limited capacity to generate local data that can be used for the implementation of Egypt Vision 2030. This hampers their ability to bring the vision into local communities and effectively align their planning with the vision.
As a result, consulted interlocutors have flagged a lack of understanding of the strategic framework for sustainable development and the SDGs. Consequently, the governorates often prioritise the localisation agenda less than other issues.
Furthermore, the absence of formal co-ordination mechanisms with MPEDIC, insufficient HR and competencies in the area of sustainable development, limited budget allocations and a lack of tools and methodologies to pursue the SDGs at the local level have been identified as hampering the implementation of Egypt Vision 2030.
To address these challenges and ensure successful implementation of Egypt Vision 2030, building capacities in key governorates and enhancing vertical co-ordination between the governorates and MPEDIC is crucial. Recently, the SDU in MPEDIC launched 27 reports to localise the SDGs in different governorates. These reports are to be updated annually to document the progress of each governorate in its efforts towards achieving the SDGs. Furthermore, the localisation of SDGs and Egypt Vision 2030 is being promoted by adopting the Governorate-level Investment Allocation Formula (GIAF), a formula-based process introduced in 2018 for allocating local investment funds efficiently across the 27 governorates. An inter-ministerial committee chaired by MPEDIC is administrating this process.
MPEDIC can contribute by providing support to establish SDUs and build capacity to gather relevant local data, fostering a better understanding of sustainable development and SDG localisation and creating formal co-ordination mechanisms. Additionally, allocating sufficient budget, developing HR and competencies, and providing appropriate tools and methodologies to key governorates will enable all governorates to contribute to the realisation of Egypt Vision 2030 more effectively. MPEDIC can also make use of existing governance mechanisms, including the GIAF Committee and the National Committee for Monitoring the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (in which governorates are currently not included) (Box 2.9) to harness effective vertical co-ordination as a tool to pursue Egypt Vision 2030 effectively across the country.
At the end of this chapter, the OECD offers detailed recommendations on how Egypt could harness the governorates to contribute effectively to advancing Egypt Vision 2030 in a way that reflects Egypt’s regional disparities and harnesses the country’s specific regional strengths and attributes to optimise Egypt’s national sustainable development potential.
Japan’s expanded SDGs Action Plan 2018 is another example of national commitment to support local efforts. The second pillar of the action plan on “regional revitalisation” focuses mainly on the localisation of the SDGs through its Future Cities initiative comprising 29 local governments, 10 of which were selected as SDGs Model Cities and receiving financial support from the government to implement their SDG strategies. The initiative also promotes the establishment of SDG governance structures by local governments following the national SDGs Promotion Headquarters headed by the Prime Minister within the Cabinet Office. Considered a “model city” within the selection process, Kitakyushu was one of the first cities in Japan to put in place an SDGs Future City Promotion Headquarters, headed by the mayor. The SDGs Headquarters guides the rest of the city administration in the implementation of the SDGs. Other institutional structures put in place are the SDGs Council and SDGs Club, promoting multi-stakeholder engagement on the SDGs (see below) and the Public-Private SDGs Platform (chaired by the mayor of Kitakyushu)
In Argentina, the National Council for the Coordination of Social Policies (Consejo Nacional de Coordinación de Políticas Sociales, CNCPS), responsible for co-ordinating the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, is promoting co-operation agreements with the provinces to promote vertical co‑ordination of the SDGs. Together with the Cooperation Agreement, the CNCPS provides provinces with an adaptation guide, including methodological suggestions on the utilisation of the SDGs as a management and planning tool at the subnational level. The CNCPS also invites provinces to participate in the voluntary Provinces Report (Informe Provincias), which seeks to highlight annual progress on the adaptation of the SDGs in each territory in relation to the SDGs under review by the high-level political forum every year. At the time of signature, the province had already adopted the goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda, set up focal points responsible for the local implementation of the SDGs and provided adequate resources. However, the signature was a trigger for using the adaptation guide as a key tool to ensure consistency between the provincial and national SDG indicator frameworks. The province also committed to reporting the localisation process to the CNCPS.
In Brazil, the Social and Economic Development Council (CEDES) is promoting a state-wide agreement to support the implementation of the SDGs with regional associations and municipalities. In August 2019, 16 out of 19 regional associations and 248 out of 399 local governments had already formalised their commitment to the 2030 Agenda through this mechanism. The council also works to strengthen communication between governments and civil society to better engage citizens in the implementation process of the SDGs.
Source: OECD (2020[18]), A Territorial Approach to the Sustainable Development Goals: Synthesis report, https://doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715-en.
Leveraging the PARP to strengthen the implementation of Egypt Vision 2030
Egypt has a long history of attempting PAR to improve policy and service design and delivery and to ultimately support the development of Egypt and the well-being of its citizens. The latest effort is enshrined in the PARP that was launched after a brainstorming exercise involving experts within the Higher Committee for Administrative Reform chaired by the Prime Minister (APRM, 2020[19]). The co-ordination and implementation of the PARP is led by the CAOA (see Chapter 3 for further information).
The complexity of Egypt’s organisational structures was identified as one of the leading causes of inadequate service delivery and administrative issues, and the need to enhance capacity to deliver on priorities and long-term objectives (Gobba, 2020[20]). To address these issues, the PARP focuses on five pillars:
1. Institutional reforms to enhance the efficiency of the state administration.
2. Capacity building and development to improve civil service performance.
3. Legislative reforms to create a legal framework that ensures a disciplined public administration and enables leadership to carry out its responsibilities in a flexible matter.
4. Improved government services to serve citizens better.
5. Information/information technology systems to establish, complete and integrate databases.
The PARP is the main focus of this review’s Chapter 3 on PAR. However, the GoE’s PAR agenda is highlighted as a priority within Egypt Vision 2030. This strategic document offers the following vision for Egypt’s public sector:
“An efficient and effective government administrative body that is characterised by professionalism, transparency, justice, and responsiveness. That offers quality services and that can be held accountable. The administration is able to increase citizen satisfaction, and strongly contributes to the achievement of Egypt’s development goals and in improving the status of the Egyptian people (MPED, 2023[21]).”
Egypt Vision 2030 also identifies six guiding principles on PAR that track the five pillars of the 2014 Administrative Reform Plan, the main ones of which relate to legal, institutional, human and financial reforms as well as service delivery. These principles include the need to: adopt a comprehensive approach to PAR as well as gradual and sustainable reform processes; adopt elements of proficiency and competency in employment, promotion and wages, along with standards of quality and excellence in the provision of public services; expand the usage of technology in public administration; and establish partnerships with civil society and the private sector.
Evidence from this review’s questionnaire responses and fact-finding mission suggests that there is an opportunity to enhance co-ordination between the entities on the PARP, in particular, and on how the PARP can be harnessed to support the pursuit of Egypt Vision 2030, both through policy integration and indicator alignment. Strengthening institutional co-ordination between CAOA and MPEDIC could also positively impact the PARP by combining MPEDIC’s substantive expertise on co-ordination and on translating the SDG indicators into the national context with CAOA’s technical expertise on administrative reform. This would also contribute to strengthening organisational awareness across the government of the importance of the PARP in the pursuit of Egypt Vision 2030’s SDGs. Since both functions and institutional arrangements were part of the same ministry prior to the Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform’s disbanding in 2018, institutional memory and relations could be used to strengthen this co‑ordination.
To increase co-ordination, integration and coherence and advance Egypt Vision 2030, CAOA could further focus on the following elements of the framework for administrative reform and the Egypt Vision 2030:
Creating the basis of a monitoring and evaluation framework by linking KPIs to Egypt Vision 2030 to measure progress in the pursuit of relevant SDGs. This should lead to designing and rolling out a multi-year, actionable PARP implementation plan to ensure the satisfactory delivery of the six pillars of the PARP. This plan should present a concrete timeline for delivering clear objectives, identifying intermediate goals and confirming the allocation of the human and financial resources required to achieve them.
Leading co-ordination with MPEDIC on integrating the PARP within the Egypt Vision 2030. CAOA should continue to work with its counterpart units in MPEDIC, starting with the SDU, to mainstream the PARP within the Sustainable Development Agenda. This should include aligning strategic goals, targets and KPIs across the PARP and Egypt Vision 2030 and aligning the PARP monitoring and evaluation framework with that of this strategic framework.
Beyond co-ordination, a series of enablers can serve to support effective strategic planning efforts. Both the OECD Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance (2020[2]) and the 2019 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (2019[5]) identify a series of key strategic enablers of effective and efficient public governance. These can be used to support sound strategic planning and include:
Generating and managing robust data and evidence, needed to sustain effective strategic planning and evidence-based decision-making, including using effective performance information through CoG-led work routines.
Results-based budgeting methods that enable policymakers to determine whether public spending is achieving the results anticipated in the strategic plan.
Strategic HR planning, management and capacity building.
This section discusses each of these in turn.
Leveraging evidence for effective strategic planning
Robust data are crucial for effective strategic planning (OECD, 2020[2]). Performance information, especially when collected systematically, can be used to measure the progress of policies and priorities against set targets and whether policies and projects are moving the country along the path to achieving the results and outcomes they were adopted to pursue. Robust performance information can thus enable the government to identify and address any issues that arise and, using effective feedback loops that integrate performance information into the policymaking process, help the government adjust course if policy and spending efforts are not achieving projected results or when results are sub-optimal. Ultimately, monitoring and evaluation are essential tools for ensuring that strategic plans can effectively achieve their intended outcomes, including, of course, sustainability outcomes (OECD, 2020[22]).
In line with Egypt’s commitment to the 2030 Agenda, the government has recognised monitoring, evaluation and feedback systems as an important pillar within the governance framework for sustainable development. This commitment has been illustrated in Egypt’s voluntary national reviews (VNRs) undertaken by the United Nations. Egypt demonstrated international leadership by having volunteered to conduct three VNRs on SDGs in 2016, 2018 and 2021.
Egypt’s efforts to strengthen performance frameworks have also resulted in the establishment of specialised monitoring and evaluation units in certain ministries and government bodies, including MPEDIC and the Ministry of Investment (previously known as the General Authority for Investment and Free Zones). In addition, MPEDIC has created two electronic systems linking SDGs with investment planning and performance management. The first is the ISIPPM, which aims to establish an integrated electronic system that enables public entities to formulate development plans, request appropriate funding through simplified electronic forms and facilitate the monitoring of projects. It serves as the main information structure for proposed projects, supporting the achievement of the SDGs, Egypt Vision 2030 objectives and the Government Programme.
The ISIPPM system standardises assessments and trade-offs in project selection, facilitating the preparation of economic plans for the seven regions of Egypt. It tracks various economic, social, and development data, including demographic data, economic and financial information, natural and technological resources, infrastructure and existing and planned projects. It provides analytical tools, mathematical models and accounting programmes to assist in data analysis and strategic decision-making.
This wealth of data allows MPEDIC and its officials to monitor development progress, identify investment needs in different sectors, analyse future challenges and opportunities, and take necessary measures to achieve the goals set in development and investment plans. However, an SDG lens seems to be missing, as it is impossible to see the progress made on SDGs or dedicated sustainable development indicators through the implementation of investment projects. The Information Centre at MPEDIC, under the purview of the Office of the Deputy Minister, is responsible for managing the ISIPPM, while line ministries, government entities and governorates contribute to the system with their data and information.
The second system, Egypt’s National System for Monitoring and Evaluation – known as ADAA – is a government-based network that facilitates the monitoring and evaluation of all state entities. Through quarterly reports sent to the Council of Ministers, parliament and the Administrative Control Authority, ADAA enables the government to assess the performance of the state administrative apparatus in accordance with international standards. This system is intricately linked to the state budget.
The objectives of ADAA include implementing government-approved development targets, fostering co‑ordination between ministries and agencies, highlighting national achievements, aligning government objectives with the performance of agencies and employees, improving service quality for citizens, ensuring effective public spending and measuring the impact of development programmes on SDGs. Notably, all indicators within ADAA are connected to the 17 SDGs of the 2030 Agenda, illustrating the system’s alignment with the United Nations’ development objectives.
Moreover, ADAA focuses on monitoring the performance of each government entity through entity-specific performance indicators. These indicators are updated on a quarterly basis and cover the entire process of plan preparation, follow-up and assessment of development impact. The system incorporates over 3 000 performance measurement indicators, including 380 indicators specifically designed to measure the strategic impact of various government programmes. ADAA is an electronic system with an informative graphical interface that visually represents each government entity and its affiliated bodies.
However, the implementation of ADAA is currently facing certain challenges; these include linking the monitoring of investment projects and activities funded out of the current national budget to high-level, outcomes-based performance indicators, ensuring full verification of implementation rates that may require increased staffing due to the extensive number of projects involved (over 10 000 projects) and obtaining data from line ministries, which necessitates co-ordination and collaboration between the various entities responsible for investment planning, budgeting, strategic planning and sustainable development within each ministry, across the entire government and in the governorates.
Despite these implementation challenges, Egypt’s National System for Monitoring and Evaluation through ADAA constitutes a significant effort in effectively assessing performance, tracking progress and aligning government activities with the government’s strategic objectives and SDGs. In the 2022/23 fiscal plan, the performance indicators included within ADAA were integrated within the ISIPPM. In this respect, over 800 performance indicators were merged to reflect 230 programmes being delivered by 212 public entities.
It is important to note here that the NIGSD, through its Governance Centre, pursues several pathways to enhance good governance in Egypt’s public administration from the sustainable development perspective. It monitors and assesses efforts employed across different dimensions related to governance in Egypt and publishes a yearly report about Egypt’s performance in international, national and regional indicators that inter alia evaluate the government’s efforts in the area of sustainable public governance. It also offers training and capacity-building programmes to promote, enhance and raise awareness of governance from the sustainable development perspective. In this regard, the NIGSD houses a Sustainable Development Centre (SDC), which tracks Egypt’s different sustainable development indicators by mandate. According to its responses to this review’s questionnaire, the NIGSD SDC sends regular reports and recommendations to MPEDIC about Egypt’s performance as well as the challenges it identifies in this area as a means to help policymakers adjust their policies and actions. MPEDIC SDU also consults the NIGSD SDC on multiple issues related to sustainable development. Hence, the NIGSD SDC and MPEDIC SDU work in collaboration. This relationship should be formally institutionalised so that the NIGSD can contribute meaningfully to the work of MPEDIC in general and more specifically towards the ongoing work of the National SDG Monitoring Committee.
Overall, despite these improvements in terms of data management, several challenges persist in terms of data gathering, data sharing, data disaggregation (by different classifications, such as geographic location, gender, income and disabilities) and the alignment of indicators using common definitions and methodologies to strengthen policy alignment and coherence. The example of Italy’s Coherence Matrix could be instructive in this regard (Box 2.10).
Challenges also remain in ensuring vertical and horizontal co-ordination in collecting and using data, to determine the kind of data that need to be collected across levels of government, and in building lasting capacity at the governorate level to generate and share relevant regional data on a national level.
The Coherence Matrix is a living document compiling the linkages across existing policies’ objectives, targets and indicators relevant to Italy’s long-term sustainability objectives, as outlined in its National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS). The matrix is intended to analyse different sectoral policies that contribute to Italy’s strategic choices for sustainable development and highlight common key policy indicators for each strategic choice. The matrix is applied during policy formulation, whereby each ministry, region or local authority will use it as a basis of information for filling in the Coherence Fiche (below) for new investments and policies and during ex ante and ex post assessments.
The Coherence Fiche is a qualitative evaluation tool that shows the contribution of a specific policy proposal in relation to indicators of NSDS objectives and targets. It is used to identify potential trade‑offs, synergies and transboundary impacts of the proposed policy compared to other policies identified in the Coherence Matrix. The estimated costs associated with implementing the policy proposal are tagged against their positive or negative contributions to the NSDS. This initiates a process to sketch potential mitigation strategies or cross-sectoral actions to balance interactions with existing policies.
The foreseen Sustainability Dashboard will generate and constantly update an integrated picture of how Italy is progressing towards the implementation of the NSDS. Sustainability Dashboard indicators will derive from the Coherence Matrices and will improve the government’s capacity to look across indicator frameworks and assess positive and negative interactions of sectoral policies.
Source: OECD (2022[23]), Italy's National Action Plan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, https://doi.org/10.1787/54226722-en.
Creating work routines at the CoG for effective monitoring
Work routines, through which data are collected and disseminated according to a set rhythm that generates a recognisable pattern, are widely recognised as a crucial success factor in promoting the use and value of performance information in the policymaking process. These routines add stability and predictability in an environment that is often characterised by rapid change and pressure to deliver. Concretely, they give decision-makers a good overview of the state of play so that they can easily identify policy areas in need of intervention to safeguard progress (OECD, 2024[6]).
Building a regular dialogue between the highest-level decision-makers and experts will also increase the likelihood of sustaining trust between those demanding and those supplying evidence for strategic planning and the realisation of long-term visions. In addition, finding the right information can be a challenge. The expertise at the CoG is therefore sought after as its helicopter view and its ability to play the “challenge function” by asking key questions of sector ministries and presenting data and evidence as a way to ensure their validity and utility allows the CoG to identify the most valuable pieces of information that will create the picture of the highest strategic use and benefit for the highest-level decision-makers.
Egypt presents examples of useful work routines at the CoG: MPEDIC regularly engages with line ministries on how to feed project-based performance information into the ISIPPM and ADAA databases (see previous section). The Ministry of Environment, for its part, reports working with line ministries to mainstream sustainable development governance arrangements that provide sector-based sustainable development performance data to CAPMAS, while the Ministry of Local Development reports networking regularly with line ministries to streamline co-ordination capacity (both between departments within a single ministry and vertically between a ministry and its counterparts in the governorates) on local project delivery.
These practices remain ad hoc and atomised. Hence, MPEDIC, either alone or in partnership with others (with CAOA and/or NIGSD), could conduct a functional review/mapping exercise to identify and codify key useful work routines that already exist within the public administration and use existing inter-institutional co-ordination mechanisms to raise awareness of these good practices generally and encourage their uptake and mainstreaming across the system. This can serve to hasten the uptake of good governance practices across the public administration in Egypt in the pursuit of Egypt Vision 2030-related policy and service design and delivery. This advice is reflected in the relevant sub-sections at the end of this chapter.
The following practice could inspire Egypt to embed a routine that offers high-level updates on the progress of Egypt Vision 2030: in the United Kingdom (Box 2.11), a fixed work routine enables the Prime Minister to receive regular updates on the implementation of policy priorities. This debrief was agreed upon by both the Prime Minister’s top political advisors and experts within the civil service, generating the perception that this analysis is legitimate.
Monthly and six-monthly state of affairs presented to the Prime Minister
The United Kingdom introduced reporting routines at the heart of the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (PMDU), which sets the rhythm for the unit’s work. There are two reporting routines to the prime minister: monthly delivery notes and six-monthly delivery reports.
The monthly delivery notes summarise the progress of each of the Prime Minister’s priorities. They highlight the main issues encountered in a short and data-driven fashion and describe what is planned. Where necessary, some notes can be even more frequent.
Six-monthly delivery reports are designed to comprehensively assess the state of play for all the Prime Minister’s priority areas in a given department. They are written by the head of the PMDU for the Prime Minister and copied to the secretary of state and lead officials. Usually, drafts are first discussed with lead officials. Each priority’s delivery report is just one page and is intended to:
Report progress against trajectories for the priority.
Outline what success looks like for the priority over the next six months.
Determine the best path forward and identify key actions that need to be taken.
Reveal areas of disagreement between the delivery unit and lead department.
Act as a reference document against which to chart progress.
Source: Institute for Governance (2015[24]), Adapting the PMDU Model, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/inside-out%20adapting%20the%20pmdu%20model.pdf.
An innovative way to create work routines is hosting data-driven review meetings, as in the United States (Box 2.12), which are being progressively deployed by the CoG to support decision-making on policy priorities. They represent a strategic tool to monitor and improve the performance of policies and institutions and are characterised by their structured format that focuses on frequency and regularity. Whereas data are the main topic of discussion, dialogue should consider context and broader information that cannot be easily quantified. Data-driven review meetings highlight the need for continuous improvement, effectiveness and efficiency. The engagement of high-level leadership in these meetings is shown to increase effectiveness, as exemplified in the United States, where securing the engagement of the deputy secretary has shown to have a strong positive impact on the overall process.
The 2010 Government Performance Reporting and Modernization Act introduced the need for quarterly review meetings on each long-term federal government priority goal to discuss the progress achieved during the most recent quarter, overall trend data, the likelihood of meeting and the planned level of performance against quarterly targets and milestones.
The federal government’s priority goals are categorised according to their risk of not achieving their planned level of performance. For those federal government priority goals that have the greatest risk of not meeting their planned level of performance, review meetings allow for the identification of prospects and strategies for performance improvement, including any needed changes to agencies, organisations, programmes activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies or other activities. The accuracy and reliability of the data used to measure progress towards the priority goal is also discussed.
These meetings are organised by the director of the Office of Management and Budget with the support of the Performance Improvement Council. Meetings include officials from the agencies, organisations and programme activities that contribute to the accomplishment of each Federal Government priority goal.
Since then, agencies have started to organise regularly scheduled, structured and rigorously prepared data-driven meetings to review performance indicators with department or programme personnel. According to the United States Government Accountability Office, to engage in data-driven reviews, programmes need to have identified their strategic priorities, leadership support must be authentic to engage in the process and programmes must have the capacity to gather and synthesise data related to those priorities. On the latter, though, several agencies are able to produce data-rich analyses that identify trends and potential performance issues. Performance Improvement Officers reported that having accurate, timely and useful data available remains a major challenge.
Source: The White House (2019[25]), Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4174; The White House (2010[26]), The 2010 Government Performance Reporting and Modernization Act (GPRAMA), https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ352/PLAW-111publ352.pdf.
Measuring the impacts of policy measures in society has also become increasingly important for governments’ credibility, accountability and functioning. Traditional metrics such as macro-economic statistics or line-item budgetary indicators are no longer sufficient to provide a comprehensive understanding of citizens’ living conditions and the impact of public policies and spending on improving citizens’ outcomes. To address this, some countries have embraced a citizen-centred well-being approach driven by their CoG institutions. In New Zealand, for example (Box 2.13), this approach involves regularly evaluating key aspects of citizens’ lives on both qualitative and qualitative metrics such as inclusiveness, quality of workplaces and jobs, environmental standards, subjective well-being, trust and safety. By adopting this approach, governments ensure that ministries and agencies maintain a focus on the societal benefits that single-sector and whole-of-government policies are expected to deliver. This well-being approach closely aligns with the principles of sustainable development in that it promotes social, economic and environmental factors that contribute to long-term prosperity and quality of life. This recognises that sustainable development requires a coherent balance between economic growth, social equity and environmental stewardship to support the well-being of current and future generations. This approach encourages transparency, accountability and responsiveness to citizen concerns. By adopting a well-being approach driven by the CoG, governments can foster a more holistic understanding of societal progress and prioritise policies that promote sustainable development and enhance the well-being of their citizens.
In 2021, the Treasury developed the New Zealand LSF, a flexible framework that prompts thinking about policy impacts across the different dimensions of well-being as well as the long-term and distributional issues and implications of policies.
The LSF supports Treasury analysts by providing a framework to understand the drivers of well-being and to consider the broader impacts of our policy advice systematically and consistently. It allows the Treasury to draw on a range of data and evidence to understand the dependencies and trade-offs across the different elements of well-being.
Associated with the LSF, the CoG also developed the LSF Dashboard, which is a measurement tool that provides a range of indicators for well-being outcomes that the Treasury believes are most important to inform New Zealand well-being reporting and Treasury policy advice on cross-government well-being priorities. The LSF Dashboard includes trends over time, distributional differences across the population and population groups (for example, by gender, ethnicity, region) and international comparisons where possible. The Treasury updates data in the LSF Dashboard every six months (around April and October) to support ongoing well-being reporting. A new version of the LSF Dashboard was released on 12 April 2022 to keep up alignment with the LSF.
The Treasury is now required by the Public Finance Act to prepare a report every four years on the state of well-being in New Zealand. Its primary purpose is to inform the Treasury’s advice to the government on policy priorities for improving well-being, such as advice on budget priorities and well‑being and stewardship reporting. Using indicators, the report describes:
The state of well-being in New Zealand.
How the state of well-being has changed over time.
The sustainability of and any risk to the state of well-being in New Zealand.
Source: Government of New Zealand (n.d.[27]), Our Living Standards Framework, https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/higher-living-standards/our-living-standards-framework.
Leveraging budgeting as a strategic planning tool
Budgeting is one of the key strategic instruments of government policymaking and planning, as the budget reflects and projects a government’s spending priorities. The 2015 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Budgetary Governance (2015[28]) underlines the significance of aligning budgets with the medium-term strategic priorities of the government and structuring budget allocations in a way that corresponds with national objectives. The Recommendation also calls upon governments to ensure that performance, evaluation and value for money are integral to the budget process. No development plan can be successful without securing adequate resources. Integrating the SDGs into the budget process helps ensure that the collection and allocation of public resources are carried out in ways that contribute to both the SDGs and national development goals. In addition, as more countries move from line item to performance-based budgeting, the results achieved in performance budgets must also mirror the country’s sustainable development objectives/SDGs and their indicators.
As underscored in the 2020 OECD working paper “Integrated Governance for the Coherent Implementation of the SDGs in Egypt” (Igrioglu, Ostry and Allam, 2020[4]), countries that do not adopt a results-based fiscal framework may face challenges in measuring the impact of spending on the pursuit of the SDGs, as line-item budgeting does not allow for the measurement of fiscal performance as a function of the pursuit of strategic goals and outcomes. Being able to measure whether public funds earmarked for the construction of a school actually led to the building of the school does not enable a government to measure whether that school has led to better educational outcomes, better jobs and less poverty.
Several OECD countries, including Mexico and Norway, have been using performance-based budgeting to align all of their projects and programmes with the SDGs (Box 2.14). Hence, ensuring that performance evaluation and value for money are integral to the budget process and are clearly linked to the SDGs is critical.
Norway
Following the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, the Government of Norway incorporated the national reporting mechanisms on the SDGs into the budget process. The Ministry of Finance is responsible for ensuring a co-ordinated budget to foster SDG implementation and allocates each of the 17 SDGs to a specific co-ordinating ministry. These ministries collaborate with other ministries involved in following up on the relevant targets. Ministries prepare annual progress reports submitted to the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance incorporates the progress report on the implementation of the SDGs as a white paper in the national budget, which is presented annually to the Norwegian parliament along with the state budget. This engages the parliament in a constructive dialogue on the 2030 Agenda and ensures annual reporting on the follow-up of the SDGs to Parliament through a formalised process.
At the subnational level, the government uses existing mechanisms for co-operation with local and regional authorities, such as regular consultations between the central government and local authorities. Consultative meetings take place as plenary and bilateral meetings between the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities and the ministries. These meetings serve as a platform for dialogue in discussing the distribution of revenues in relation to the tasks carried out by the local authorities, the financial situation of the local authorities and efficiency measures. The consultations also include arrangements for involving the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities in the ministries’ studies on the cost of reforms and impact assessments on how legislative proposals affect municipalities.
Mexico
The experience of Mexico highlights that national planning and budgetary processes provide vital tools to advance the SDGs. In Mexico, the National Planning Law was updated in 2017 to mandate all federal institutions to contribute to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. A Specialized Technical Committee on the Sustainable Development Goals (CTEODS) was formed with the leadership of the Office of the President and the National Institute of Statistics and Geography. The technical committee developed a framework with the Ministry of Finance to integrate planning, public finance management, policymaking and oversight to support the pursuit of the SDGs.
Within this framework, the Ministry of Finance has identified mechanisms to link budget allocations with the SDGs with a view to strengthening strategic planning, monitoring and evaluation. In particular, the Ministry of Finance identified specific budget items and estimated the allocation sufficient to contribute to SDG progress by using a results-based management perspective. The application of a results-based budgeting framework has enabled Mexico to acquire the necessary information to:
Identify links between current national planning and the SDGs.
Assess the percentage of SDGs linked to government programmes and, conversely, the number of programmes linked to each SDG.
Communicate the country’s starting point and what has been achieved.
Make public policy decisions and budget allocations based on an initial analysis of how much is currently invested to pursue each SDG.
Sources: Igrioglu, G., A. Ostry and M. Allam (2020[4]), “Integrated Governance for Coherent Implementation of the SDGs in Egypt”, https://doi.org/10.1787/524b2c85-en; Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2016[29]), Norway’s Follow-up of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals, https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/departementene/ud/vedlegg/utvikling/sdg_rapport_full_en.pdf; OECD (2018[30]) Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development 2018: Towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301061-en.
In Egypt, the MoF determines the overall budget that can be spent on an annual basis on public investment projects (see Chapter 6 of the budget law). Within this budgetary framework, MPEDIC can identify and prioritise public investment project proposals with line ministries, which happens through a negotiation process and results in a programme of public investment projects approved by the Cabinet and validated by the Parliament.
Project proposals are tagged in line with the SDGs. That said, guidance from MPEDIC on developing project proposals is currently at a minimal level and there are no formal requirements in terms of impact assessments or stakeholder consultations. However, MPEDIC sets certain quality requirements for projects over a specific threshold and aims to produce manuals and handbooks on these matters for ministry use.
In this context, Egypt is gradually undertaking a process of managing the move from line-item budgeting to programme and performance-based budgeting. The implementation of the latter aims to overcome challenges in linking the national budget to the SDGs. In order to facilitate the implementation of programme and performance-based budgeting, the MoF has developed a unified template to frame each project proposal. This reform will enable a sounder monitoring and evaluation process on pursuing the SDGs. In particular, it will help match public expenses and investments to goals and KPIs related to the SDGs.
In order to strengthen capacities and skills across the government to implement performance-based budgeting, MoF in collaboration with MPEDIC, organised a series of technical training activities and workshops with the ministries piloting programmes and performance-based budgeting. These activities focused on how to apply this type of budgeting in Egypt’s state budget. Despite these efforts, evidence from the project survey responses and discussion with interlocutors during the OECD fact-finding mission suggests that the capacity for costing proposed projects remains uneven at the line ministry level. Accordingly, the MoF is continuing its efforts to build capacities for programme and performance-based budgeting, both in the ministry itself and in line ministries. This is being carried out with the support of the OECD.
A related challenge is linking investments to the SDGs and identifying their socio-economic and environmental impacts as a function of their contribution to advancing the SDGs. The application of governance tools such as sustainable impact assessments (SIAs), environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and regulatory impact analysis (RIA) is not mandatory and appears to be patchy across different policy areas. Evidence across the OECD (Igrioglu, Ostry and Allam, 2020[4]) demonstrates that the systematic application of RIA, SIAs and EIAs, both ex post and ex ante, helps deliver more effectively on the SDGs by requiring economic, social and environmental impacts to be taken into account in all strategic planning documents.
As it pursues its enhanced implementation of results-based budgeting, Egypt could inter alia focus on strengthening standard-setting and guidance capacity within MPEDIC for linking the SDGs and public investment projects (Chapter 6). Working with the MoF and other key players, including CAPMAS and the line ministries responsible for managing infrastructure projects, MPEDIC should partner with CAOA and the NIGSD to provide formal and continuous training on the definition of minimum requirements for project proposals from line ministries regarding project development methodologies (problem definition, socio-economic and environmental impact assessments, cost-benefit analysis, RIA, stakeholder consultation, project costing and budgeting, risk assessments, linking with SDGs, and monitoring and evaluation).
At the strategic policy level, ensuring that Egypt Vision 2030 gets mainstreamed within the government’s general strategic planning, monitoring and evaluation framework can also be supported by the application of such tools as public consultation mechanisms, impact assessments and results-based budgeting, including an effective and systemic application of RIA, SIAs and EIAs. The Belgian and German examples of assessing any government initiative as a function of its impact on sustainability using the impact assessment framework could be instructive in this regard (Box 2.15).
Germany
It is mandatory in Germany to assess the impact of all proposed laws and regulations on the principle of sustainable development. Within the SIA framework, Germany has also introduced an online tool to assess proposed laws and regulations with regard to the GSDS as well as SDGs. The SIA serves as an instrument to check whether and how intended legislation contributes to implementing Germany’s National Sustainability Strategy. All draft bills are evaluated by the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Sustainable Development to conduct quality assurance for the SIA.
Belgium
Belgium introduced an ex-ante impact assessment tool, the Sustainable Development Impact Assessment (SDIA), which is integrated into the RIA. The SDIA was made a mandatory requirement in 2007 and screens the impact of draft regulations in terms of sustainable development. Therefore, the RIA assesses the impact of preliminary draft regulations against the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.
The RIA (including the SDIA) is one of the documents that must be presented to the Council of Ministers along with the draft regulation for approval. Officials in charge of drafting regulations, such as members of ministerial cabinets and/or members of administrations, are responsible for filling in the impact assessment form in a web-based platform where they can also find guidance.
Sources: Igrioglu, G., A. Ostry and M. Allam (2020[4]), Integrated Governance for Coherent Implementation of the SDGs in Egypt, https://doi.org/10.1787/524b2c85-en; OECD (2018[30]), Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development 2018: Towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301061-en; Government of Germany (2016[31]), German Sustainable Development Strategy, https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/Nachhaltigkeitwiederhergestellt/2017-06-20-nachhaltigkeit-neuauflage-engl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2; Government of Belgium (n.d.[7]), Federal Strategy for Sustainable Development, https://www.developpementdurable.be/fr/politique-federale/strategie-federale.
More broadly, MPEDIC could harness and, where necessary, formalise existing co-ordination tools (committees, etc.) to strengthen the alignment of key performance targets and indicators across the government’s key strategic planning instruments, including Egypt Vision 2030 and whatever annual/pluriannual action plans are developed to implement it, the national budget as it evolves into a results-based budget, the government programme, the PARP and the government’s key sector-based strategies. Over time, Egypt’s capacity to measure the impact of its spending, whether related to infrastructure projects, policy modernisation or the modernisation of its public service, on the pursuit of the SDGs identified in its framework planning instruments should become seamless.
Strengthening capacities for sustainable development and SDG implementation
The effective planning and management of HR – from merit-based recruitment and hiring practices through transparent promotion and mobility rules, training capacity, rewards and recognition, and the treatment of the senior civil service as a specific framework that is vital to managing the political-administrative interface successfully – constitute key tools to pursue sustainable development effectively. These will be discussed in Chapter 4.
Thanks to the work of the NIGSD, the training arm of MPEDIC, significant efforts have been made to strengthen capacities for sustainable development in the Egyptian public sector. However, targeted efforts to empower MPEDIC’s SDU seem to be lacking. As an independent, self-sufficient institution, the NIGSD is renowned both at home and abroad for its excellence in providing governance, digitalisation and sustainable development training programmes for domestic and international clients. As a governmental organisation, it fosters partnerships with public and private sector partners to deliver its training programmes. As a service provider, beyond providing advice and consulting services, training is a main pillar of its activities aimed at both private and public institutions across all sectors. Training provision is paid for upon request and can be provided directly if authorised by the NIGSD Board of Trustees or MPEDIC. In fact, according to evidence garnered during the review’s fact-finding missions and from the NIGSD questionnaire responses, depending on its agenda and priorities, MPEDIC assigns and funds specific training programmes and initiatives to be delivered by the NIGSD as its main training service provider. For instance, following an MPEDIC request, the NIGSD has recently delivered two batches from the “Be an Ambassador” initiative and four editions of the African Women Leadership Program (See Chapter 7 for further details on these programmes).
Furthermore, MPEDIC faces several challenges in fulfilling its role in planning and implementing Egypt Vision 2030 government-wide, including barriers in identifying specific HR capacity-building needs, hindering the enhancement of technical expertise within its units and across national administration. Limited financial resources and the absence of formal agreements with crucial training service providers pose constraints on training initiatives. Additionally, a need for greater awareness among relevant parties hinders the optimal utilisation of available HR.
MPEDIC can consider several strategies to address these challenges and enhance capacity building. First, establishing continuous channels of communication between MPEDIC and other ministries and entities, such as CAOA, which would facilitate the identification of gaps and enable the specification of HR capacity-building needs in such key disciplines as policy development, strategic planning, data management and indicators work, communications, etc. This could be achieved through the SDUs and community of practice (see recommendations in the previous section). Such a platform could promote knowledge sharing, facilitate discussions on capacity-building needs and foster collaboration among stakeholders.
Furthermore, increasing the number of training courses provided by MPEDIC through the NIGSD could help build the skills and expertise of personnel within line ministries and other entities. Key potential training, HR management and planning partners in this area could be CAOA and the NIGSD. This would ensure a comprehensive understanding of Egypt Vision 2030 and strengthen implementation efforts. Authorities sending more than one person for training and promoting knowledge dissemination and collaboration within the entities as a means to build institutional capacity over time would also be beneficial. Additionally, MPEDIC could seek technical support from relevant ministries, such as CAOA, NIGSD and MCIT, to enhance their capacity-building initiatives and provide specialised expertise in sustainable development (Box 2.16).
Strengthening HR capacities for sustainable development, which includes empowering MPEDIC ’s SDU and building its needed capabilities alongside the governance of training service provision, is crucial for the effective implementation of Egypt Vision 2030. To address the HR capacity challenges in the civil service faced by MPEDIC, it is important to identify specific needs, enhance training and capacity-building capacities, allocate adequate financial resources and improve awareness among entities of available support. In particular, this support includes clarifying, strengthening and formalising training partnerships between MPEDIC, NIGSD, CAOA and the National Training Academy (NTA) also mandated to train civil servants, notably by enhancing inter-institutional co-ordination with formal MoUs and other tools to ensure that the civil service at all levels (including within the governorates) receives robust, multidimensional sustainable development training. This step can empower the SDU and build its needed capabilities.
Moreover, aligning skill levels across ministries and sustainable development focal points, which are at the moment uneven and hinder implementation, can enhance MPEDIC’s effectiveness in providing capacity building and support to line ministries and other entities, fostering a co‑ordinated and impactful approach towards overall sustainable development in Egypt. In so doing, these partnerships can ensure complementarity in training-services design and delivery while eliminating any overlap and duplication and address whatever gaps exist in the training curricula on offer to all levels of the public administration across all components of sustainable development policy. Recommendations to this effect are presented at the end of this chapter.
The Romanian Department for Sustainable Development created a dedicated programme on sustainable development together with the Bucharest University of Economic Studies. This course aims to create sustainable development experts in order to fill a current gap in the Romanian labour force. These experts are necessary to implement the Romanian Sustainable Development Strategy but are also highly sought after by the private sector.
The programme’s core value lies in fostering qualified HR capable of driving sustainable change. This innovative educational approach focuses on merging theoretical knowledge with practical application. By developing a balance between tradition and innovation, the programme prepares experts to address real-world sustainability issues in an effective manner.
The Romanian focal points for sustainable development in the public sector will also complete this training programme to ensure they build dedicated capacities for sustainable development.
Source: Government of Romania (n.d.[32]), Become an Expert in Sustainable Development, http://romania-durabila.gov.ro/2022/09/15/resurse-educationale-expert-in-dezvoltare-durabila/.
This chapter underscores the imperative for the GoE to adopt a comprehensive, whole-of-government approach to pursue the SDGs and the ambitious Egypt Vision 2030 framework effectively. Building upon recent advancements, the GoE must address critical governance challenges. These challenges encompass the enhancement of inter-institutional co-ordination, which currently remains informal, under resourced‑ and ad hoc. Additionally, there is a pressing need to achieve functional policy coherence, especially in the context of a multi-year, multidimensional sustainable development agenda. Furthermore, it is vital to overcome data collection and processing bottlenecks and translate outcome-based performance information into actionable policy insights. The current siloed approach to training and the absence of formal communication and outreach frameworks for effective information sharing across the entire government system must also be addressed. Lastly, formal mechanisms for communication and outreach should be established to bolster accountability and foster more robust engagement with civil society and citizens. MPEDIC, as a crucial agency within the CoG, is well positioned to spearhead this paradigm shift across the administration, ultimately enabling the GoE to make (and measure) tangible progress towards both the SDGs and the successful implementation of its ambitious reform agenda.
The OECD offers the following actionable and tailored recommendations for consideration by the GoE, notably the Ministry of Planning, Economic Development and International Cooperation. These recommendations are clustered under the thematic sections addressed in this chapter and carry equal priority and importance. Their order tracks their corresponding sections in the chapter.
Implementing these recommendations in full will require the dedication of human and financial resources over time; the GoE, and MPEDIC in particular, notably its SDU and SMU, could craft an implementation plan in full consultation with key institutional partners, notably the CAOA, establishing priorities, time frames and sequencing for the adoption of the recommendations across the PGR as a function of the government’s general strategic political and policy priorities and of the availability of the human and financial resources that will be required to carry out the plan. This will require the government to make specific decisions to allocate existing and incremental resources to implement the PGR recommendations properly.
In order to kickstart Egypt’s enhanced strategic planning efforts, the initial focus could prioritise the following actions:
Initiate a co‑ordinated effort to align and integrate Egypt Vision 2030 with the General Framework for Comprehensive Development, the overarching framework for national planning. Utilise the updated Egypt Vision 2030, complemented by long- and medium-term programmes, to constitute the national plan for sustainable development as the highest tier of the planning document. This process, led by MPEDIC’s SDU and SMU, should involve key government partners, use the New Planning Law and help leverage the General Framework for Comprehensive Development to plan actions and measures and deliver on the strategic objectives towards achieving Egypt Vision 2030.
Simultaneously, bolster institutional planning and co‑ordination for Egypt Vision 2030 implementation by strengthening MPEDIC's SDU and SMU, allocating sufficient resources to empower these units and building co‑ordination networks with SDUs/SMUs in line ministries.
Conduct a functional review to identify and formalise ministerial focal points for sustainable development and strategic planning. Then, ensure that these ministerial focal points receive adequate resources to engage in cross-government co‑ordination for effective strategic planning and implementation of the sustainable development agenda.
Additionally, enhance government-wide horizontal co-ordination by establishing a governance framework of the national planning framework through ministerial or prime-ministerial decrees, including reinforcing the National Committee for Monitoring the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and creating additional operational working groups along the strategic priorities of Egypt Vision 2030 led by MPEDIC. This entails formalising mandates, roles and responsibilities of inter-ministerial committees and incentivising collaboration through carrot-and-stick mechanisms. MPEDIC’s SDU should create a central repository of templates and guidelines to strengthen and streamline collaboration and support the development of an online platform focusing on tracking the strategic goals of Egypt Vision 2030 and the SDGs.
Overview of complete actionable and tailored recommendations
1. Pursue the implementation of the updated Egypt Vision 2030 by using a plan that drives co-ordination, integration and coherence across Egypt’s strategic planning frameworks
Led by MPEDIC's SDU and SMU, working closely with key partners across the government, this approach focuses on:
Harmonising frameworks, establishing a consistent planning horizon (three-year increments with 2030 as the endpoint) across all key government strategies and Egypt Vision 2030 itself. Leveraging the national plan for mid-term sustainable development and the annual general plan for economic and social development as the primary instrument for implementing Egypt Vision 2030. Finally, clearly defining roles and responsibilities across all ministries to avoid duplication of efforts. The tools offered by Decree-Law No. 18 of 2022 (New Planning Law) should be used as a basis to start this work.
Measuring implementation performance, developing a comprehensive and robust monitoring framework for Egypt Vision 2030 aligned with the national plan for mid-term sustainable development. Regular reporting on progress towards Egypt Vision 2030 goals and dissemination of these reports widely to stakeholders, including government officials, civil society organisations and the general public. Encouraging public participation in discussions about the implementation and potential revisions of Egypt Vision 2030.
2. Strengthen and consolidate institutional planning and co-ordination arrangements
2.1. Strengthen whole-of-government institutional capacity for sustainable development and Egypt Vision 2030 planning:
Empower and equip MPEDIC’s SDU and SMU by allocating sufficient financial resources, human capital and technology infrastructure to enable them to co‑ordinate and execute whole-of-government responsibilities effectively in all relevant matters related to sustainable development and Egypt Vision 2030 planning and implementation.
Conduct an operational, functional review to identify existing SDUs/SMUs and optimise resource allocation. Consider consolidating existing units where possible to optimise resource allocation. Pilot these reviews in a few ministries to identify under-utilised resources that can be redeployed to strengthen SDUs/SMUs and minimise the need for additional funding.
Formalise ministerial focal points in close co-ordination with CAOA, these units will act as the central point of contact for all Egypt Vision 2030-related matters within their respective ministries. Notably by participating in the inter-ministerial committees chaired by MPEDIC and others for the purpose of steering and monitoring the implementation of Egypt Vision 2030 (including the committees on data and indicators).
Ensure adequate resource allocation for the ministerial SDUs/SMUs within each line ministry. This will empower them to effectively engage in cross-government co‑ordination to pursue Egypt Vision 2030 planning and implementation by fully participating in the established inter-ministerial arrangements.
2.2 Strengthen whole-of-government sustainable development and Egypt Vision 2030 planning capacity
a) Ensure that dedicated units in all relevant line ministries can engage in effective planning:
Ensure that ministerial focal points for sustainable development and strategic planning act as the primary access point for ministry staff on all matters related to sustainable development and Egypt Vision 2030 to co-ordinate intra-ministry implementation planning.
Mandate these units to:
Interface with MPEDIC’s SDU and SMU on strategic policy planning matters, including participation in inter-ministerial committees.
Ensure sectoral strategies and projects align with Egypt Vision 2030 goals.
Interface with MPEDIC, CAPMAS and NIGSD on all matters relating to performance information and KPIs, ensuring over time that indicators and targets are progressively more aligned across all government strategies.
Collaborate with MoF and MPEDIC on adoption of performance-based budgeting.
Co‑ordinating with MPEDIC and the Ministry of Local Development on the localisation strategy.
Facilitate communities of practice among ministerial focal points, sectoral analysts, planners, project managers and data officers for Egypt Vision 2030. Encourage collaboration, knowledge exchange and best practice sharing to enhance implementation and performance assessment.
b) Strengthen the use of evidence:
Institutionalise co‑ordination among MPEDIC's SDU and SMU, CAPMAS and NIGSD for effective data generation, sharing and utilisation in planning and implementing Egypt Vision 2030.
Utilise existing co‑ordination mechanisms, such as the National Committee for Monitoring the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, to monitor the implementation of the SDGs and existing and future committees of ministerial focal points (SDUs/SMUs).
Enhance the overall use of evidence for strategic planning:
Develop a user-friendly online platform for collaborative data sharing among ministries, CAPMAS, the NIGSD and governorates. Include features like data upload, analysis tools and secure access controls.
Provide standardised data templates and guidelines within the platform for consistency and compatibility across ministries and government levels.
Conduct training sessions and offer ongoing support for platform usage through webinars, tutorials and a helpdesk.
Integrate the platform seamlessly with existing co‑ordination mechanisms to enable automatic data sharing and updates, reducing administrative burdens.
c) Leverage budgeting processes:
Continue and accelerate the fully-fledged implementation of results-based budgeting. MoF and MPEDIC sustainable development and strategic management units should broaden and deepen their co-ordination with each other and the NIGSD to support line ministries in this regard on an ongoing basis.
Strengthen capacity in line ministries and in the CoG to conduct sustainable impact assessments and feed the resulting evidence into the budget-setting process.
Working together, MPEDIC, MoF and CAPMAS should ensure that all KPIs and targets are aligned across the National Budget, the Government Programme, the PARP and SDA/Egypt Vision 2030, etc. (making use of existing co-ordination mechanisms, formalising and resourcing them where necessary).
d) Deliver robust and multidimensional training:
Enhance and formalise inter-institutional co‑ordination between MPEDIC, CAOA, NIGSD and NTA, expanding to include non-governmental and private training providers. Develop and sustain a comprehensive capacity development programme for civil servants within sustainable development and strategic management units. This programme should encompass training modules and curricula focusing on:
Multi-year/medium-term policy development and strategic planning.
Cross-silo co‑ordination tools and methods.
Indicator development.
Performance Management frameworks.
Communications and outreach mechanisms/tools.
Leverage the network of ministerial focal points for sustainable development and strategic planning, especially with the establishment of more SDUs/SMUs. Empower these focal points to identify training needs and relay this information to MPEDIC, CAOA and NTA, led by MPEDIC’s sustainable development and strategic management units.
Collaborate with CAOA to establish a community of practice comprising HR officers from line ministries and agencies. This community will facilitate the sharing of successful sustainable development training initiatives and good practices.
2.3. Strengthen government-wide horizontal co-ordination
MPEDIC should establish a governance framework through ministerial or prime-ministerial decrees with mandates and incentives for inter-ministerial committees overseeing Egypt Vision 2030. This framework should clearly articulate roles, responsibilities and reporting lines for each committee and involved institution. Regularly assess the effectiveness of these committees and adjust as needed.
This governance framework should strengthen the National Committee for Monitoring the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals:
Clarify and document the committee’s structure and mandate, aligning it with the anticipated Supreme Council for Planning and Sustainable Development.
Regularise committee meetings, convening them at fixed intervals (e.g. quarterly) for consistent progress reviews and issue discussions.
Establish specialised working groups with technical representatives from relevant ministries, focusing on specific SDG clusters like health, economy and employment.
Ensure active participation from a diverse range of institutions, including non-governmental stakeholders, in committee activities.
Conduct a comprehensive review of existing good practices in inter-institutional co‑ordination for Egypt Vision 2030. Identify and codify these best practices for broader dissemination and application across all government ministries.
MPEDIC’s SDU should establish a central repository of templates, guidelines and an online library accessible through collaborative platforms to streamline collaboration with ministries, facilitate their contributions and ensure alignment with their specific needs and objectives.
2.4. Strengthen vertical co-ordination to improve Egypt’s localisation efforts
MPEDIC, working with the Ministry of Local Development, should formalise a localisation strategy for Egypt Vision 2030 by defining clear objectives, deliverables and timelines for implementing and monitoring the strategy at the governorate and possibly municipal levels.
Enhance the role and mandate of the GIAF Committee by transforming it into a national-level “Localisation Committee” of officials led by MPEDIC and comprised of key institutions, including the Ministry of Local Development, MoF, CAPMAS and representatives of the governorates and municipalities, specifically focused on overseeing the implementation of the national localisation strategy for Egypt Vision 2030.
Identify pilot governorates from each economic region of Egypt to implement the localisation strategy. Establish and resource focal points (SDUs/SMUs) for sustainable development and Egypt Vision 2030 within these pilot governorates.
Establish a community of practice among these governorate-level SDUs/SMUs. This community will facilitate knowledge sharing, collaboration and mutual learning in implementing the localisation strategy for Egypt Vision 2030.
References
[19] APRM (2020), Country Review Report of the Arab Republic of Egypt, African Peer Review Mechanism.
[15] EPA (n.d.), US EPA Search - Memorandum of Understanding, United States Environmental Protection Agency, https://search.epa.gov/epasearch/?querytext=memorandum+of+understanding&areaname=&#/.
[20] Gobba, R. (2020), “Administrative simplification strategy with reference to the Egyptian case”, Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, https://www.emerald.com/insight/2632-279X.htm.
[7] Government of Belgium (n.d.), Federal Strategy for Sustainable Development, https://www.developpementdurable.be/fr/politique-federale/strategie-federale.
[9] Government of Canada (n.d.), Taking Action Together – Canada’s 2021 Annual Report on the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, http://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/agenda-2030/taking-action-together.html).
[1] Government of Egypt (2021), Voluntary National Review.
[31] Government of Germany (2016), German Sustainable Development Strategy, https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/Nachhaltigkeitwiederhergestellt/ 2017-06-20-nachhaltigkeit-neuauflage-engl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2.
[8] Government of Germany (n.d.), State Secretaries’ Committee for Sustainable Development in the UN Languages, https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/issues/sustainability/state-secretaries-committee-for-sustainable-development-in-the-un-languages-447864.
[27] Government of New Zealand (n.d.), Our Living Standards Framework, https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/higher-living-standards/our-living-standards-framework.
[32] Government of Romania (n.d.), Become an Expert in Sustainable Development, http://romania-durabila.gov.ro/2022/09/15/resurse-educationale-expert-in-dezvoltare-durabila/.
[4] Igrioglu, G., A. Ostry and M. Allam (2020), “Integrated Governance for Coherent Implementation of the SDGs in Egypt”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 35, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/524b2c85-en.
[24] Institute for Governance (2015), Adapting the PMDU Model, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/inside-out%20adapting%20the%20pmdu%20model.pdf.
[21] MPED (2023), Egypt Vision 2030, https://mped.gov.eg/DynamicPage?id=115&lang=en.
[17] MPED (2022), Citizen Plan, Ministry of Planning and Economic Development, https://mped.gov.eg/CitizenPlan?id=62&lang=en.
[16] MPED (2020), SDGs Localization Reports, Ministry of Planning and Economic Development, https://mped.gov.eg/DynamicPage?id=107&lang=en.
[3] MPED (2019), Strategic Planning Manual, Ministry of Planning and Economic Development.
[29] Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2016), Norway’s Follow-up of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals, https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/departementene/ud/vedlegg/utvikling/sdg_rapport_full_en.pdf.
[6] OECD (2024), Steering from the Centre of Government in Times of Complexity: Compendium of Practices, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/69b1f129-en.
[13] OECD (2023), Coherence and co-ordination at the centre of government in Romania, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 34, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3feaa33e-en.
[23] OECD (2022), Italy’s National Action Plan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/54226722-en.
[12] OECD (2021), Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development - Guidance Note, https://web-archive.oecd.org/2021-11-24/617484-pcsd-guidance-note-publication.pdf.
[18] OECD (2020), A Territorial Approach to the Sustainable Development Goals: Synthesis report, OECD Urban Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715-en.
[22] OECD (2020), Improving Governance with Policy Evaluation: Lessons From Country Experiences, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/89b1577d-en.
[2] OECD (2020), Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance: Baseline Features of Governments that Work Well, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c03e01b3-en.
[14] OECD (2019), OECD Accession Review of Costa Rica in the Fields of Environment and Waste, OECD, Paris.
[5] OECD (2019), Recommendation of the Council on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, OECD/LEGAL/0381, OECD, Paris, https://web-archive.oecd.org/2019-12-11/540409-recommendation-on-policy-coherence-for-sustainable-development-eng.pdf.
[30] OECD (2018), Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development 2018: Towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301061-en.
[10] OECD (2015), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Estonia and Finland: Fostering Strategic Capacity across Governments and Digital Services across Borders, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264229334-en.
[28] OECD (2015), OECD Recommendation of the Council on Budgetary Governance, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/principles-budgetary-governance.htm.
[25] The White House (2019), Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, White House of the United States of America, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4174.
[26] The White House (2010), The 2010 Government Performance Reporting and Modernization Act (GPRAMA), White House of the United States of America, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ352/PLAW-111publ352.pdf.
[11] UN (2012), The Future We Want - Outcome Document A/RES/66/288, United Nations, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.html.
← 1. At the time of writing, the Ministry of Planning and Economic Development (MPED) and the Ministry of International Cooperation (MOIC) were merged into the Ministry of Planning, Economic Development and International Cooperation (now MPEDIC) in 2024.
← 2. The formal name in Arabic as per the decree الإدارة العامة لمتابعة آداء خطط وبرامج التنمية المستدامة طويلة ومتوسطة المدى والسنوية