Dear Ministers, Ambassadors,
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like to commend Pathfinders
for their work accelerating action to implement the SDG16 targets on peace,
justice and inclusion (SDG16+).
Lack of access to justice brings huge
human and social costs as it cuts across many areas of life, contributing to
increasing inequalities and leaving people behind.
Certain groups are particularly
affected and face additional legal hardship, and it is key to focus efforts on
Those include children and youth, women,
victims of violence and discrimination, people with disabilities, and indigenous
We can see the positive impact of
justice interventions when they target these groups. For example, in Ecuador,
clients of legal aid clinics, mostly poor women and their children, reported a
positive change in their lives after having benefited from legal aid services: 83%
reported that their living situation was better, 77% said they felt safer and
66% indicated that their self-esteem had improved.[i]
The group that I want to focus on today,
Inclusive and people-centred justice
systems, must take into account the specific needs of children. This requires at least three levels of
First, we need to invest in data and evidence to measure and monitor access
to justice. The OECD, jointly with the Open Society Justice Initiative, has
designed a Legal Needs Survey and Access
to Justice Guide, to inform policy design. It helps to understand what people
need when they seek justice, the obstacles they face, and the kind of justice
they receive. We are now working to adapt it to be suitable to map children’s
needs and experiences.
Second, we need a
regular dialogue and a compendium of good practices on what works and has
delivered. This is
why we have created the platform Global Roundtables on Equal Access to
developed a set of principles to help countries to ensure that their justice
systems and services respond to the needs of people and advance the
child-friendly justice agenda.
Finally, we need to
strengthen the business case for access to justice for children by demonstrating
the costs of lack of justice as well as the benefits of specific justice
interventions. The OECD’s White Paper on the Business Case on Access to Justice
shows that unmet legal needs can cost countries up to 3% of GDP, but we need to
better understand how the children’s agenda fits into this, as their needs in
terms of access to justice are complex and cross-cutting.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Thank you for your attention. The OECD
stands ready to support the implementation of this agenda and we look forward
to working with countries and our global partners to continue building
peaceful, just and inclusive societies and make justice a reality for all by
OECD White Paper on Building a Business Case for Access to Justice
Dear Mayors, Distinguished guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am delighted to join you for the 2nd
Local and Regional Governments Forum on the 2030 Agenda. Thanks to UN DESA,
UN-Habitat, Local 2030, and the Global Task Force of Local and Regional
Governments for convening this important event on “Connecting Global Ambition
and Local Action” to achieve the SDGs.
Let’s begin by recalling that no
country is on track for achieving all 17 Goals, and in developing countries
alone the average annual funding gap for the SDGs amounts to 2.5 trillion US
In the face of this challenge, the
OECD established an Action Plan on the SDGs to support and guide
Members, Partner countries, and the international community with the
implementation of the SDGs.
One fact that stands out loud and
clear is that we cannot do this without sub-national governments. The OECD
estimates that at least 100 of the 169 targets underlying the 17 SDGs will not
be reached without proper engagement and coordination with local and regional
Cities are particularly critical. We
know that urbanisation continues to grow all over the world, with cities
accounting for over 80% of global GDP today and projected to house 70% of the
global population by 2050.[ii]
This makes cities hotspots for inequalities and environmental stresses. Income
inequality – which has been rising in the last decades – is higher, on average,
in cities than in their respective countries.
The health implications of inequalities in cities is striking: while the richest 40% of urban dwellers are likely to reach the age of 70 or more, the poorest struggle to reach 55 years.[iii]
Cities are also major polluters,
being responsible for over two-thirds of energy consumption and more than 70%
of CO2 emissions globally. The OECD has estimated that outdoor air pollution
could cause 6 to 9 million premature deaths a year by 2060, with cities
particularly hard hit. And of course, many cities are on the front line of
climate change. In fact, the data shows that 89% of cities – home to over 2
billion people – are located in areas that are highly vulnerable to economic
losses from natural disasters. [iv]
But cities also play a huge role in determining the response to these multiple challenges. Data from the OECD World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment shows that subnational governments are responsible for almost 60% of total public investment in the OECD, and for almost 40% worldwide. They are also responsible for 64% of environment and climate-related public investment.
For all these reasons, the OECD
launched last year at the High Level Political Forum in New York a Programme
on “A Territorial Approach to SDGs”, which aims to support cities and
regions to develop, implement and monitor strategies to overcome these
challenges and deliver on all of the SDGs.
We are currently monitoring ‘pilot’
cities and regions in Denmark, Japan, Argentina, Russia, Belgium, Germany,
Iceland, Norway, and Brazil that are already using this Territorial Approach to
guide their policy actions.
Following the impressive work that these regions and cities are conducting, we have identified four main findings:
we clearly see that the SDGs provide a framework that helps cities and
regions to address local issues. We see it in Kitakyushu for instance – the
city is leaning on the SDGs related to clean energy (SDG7) and climate action
(SDG13) to rethink its environmental action. It is working on eco-industry
development and offshore wind power generation as new avenues to improve the
local environmental footprint and create jobs.
cities and regions are not just using SDGs to track progress and measure
performance, but also to guide decision-making, design local development
plans, allocate their budgets, and shape policies and strategies. This is
the case for instance in the Belgian region of Flanders and in the city of
Bonn. Its Municipal Council adopted earlier this year
the city’s first sustainability strategy that is building on the SDGs to set
ambitious objectives in terms of energy-efficient building standards, clean and
affordable energy and low-carbon means of transport.
cities and regions value the SDGs as a vector to collaborate more and better
with the private sector. For instance, subnational authorities can
promote sustainable public procurement to promote greener practices in the
private sector, or de-risk private investments for SDG-related solutions. This
is already the case in the country of Viken, Norway and the province of Cordoba
in Argentina, for example.
The fourth and last finding I
would like to highlight is that, while cities and regions are already using
existing local or national indicators to measure their progress vis-à-vis the
SDGs, an internationally-comparable and localised indicator framework is
To fill this important gap, we are
developing an OECD Localised Indicator Framework for SDGs, to be launched at
the 10th World Urban Forum in Abu Dhabi in 2020, that will allow
over 600 regions and 650 cities in OECD and partner countries to measure their
progress on the SDGs at the local level, and to learn where they stand
vis-à-vis their peers.
The framework will build on the
OECD’s unique Regional and Metropolitan databases as well as on UN statistics,
the Gallup World Poll, the Global Human Settlement population grids and more,
to consolidate over 100 indicators.
Ladies and gentlemen,
the 2030 Agenda will not happen
without cities and regions. The SDGs offer cities and regions and a dynamic and
global opportunity to step up their efforts, and put people at the centre.
The OECD is committing to continue
playing a leading role, working at the international, the national, the
regional, the sub-regional and the local level. Which is why I call on all of
you to join us at the 2nd OECD Roundtable of Cities and Regions
for the SDGs on 9 December in Bonn to advance this vital work together.
Dear Ministers, Esteemed Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen,
On behalf of the Permanent
Missions of the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and the OECD, I am very
pleased to welcome you to this event on Placing
Well-being at the Heart of Climate Policy.
The UN SG has convened
this climate summit with the objective of boosting ambition and accelerating
climate action because we are still not doing enough.
To achieve either a 1.5°C
or below 2°C goal, the IPCC assesses that global CO2 emissions will need to
fall by 20-45% by 2030 relative to 2010.
Yet energy-related CO2
emissions rose by an estimated 1.7% in 2018, driven by rapid increases in
This is very concerning,
and is an alarm bell for increased action, which is sounding alongside the demands
of our young people, who are striking in the streets, and leading the first UN
Youth Summit .
I add my voice to theirs:
we need radical action, and we need it fast. We have seen some steps in the
right directions in the lead-up to the Summit, with some countries and actors
making important efforts to accelerate action. For example:
— Last month France and the UK pledged to double their contributions to
the Green Climate Fund, joining a similar pledge last year from Germany and
— The private
sector is also making progress, with 21 companies with a combined market
capitalisation of over USD 1.3 trillion committing to step up efforts to cut
emissions from their operations in line with limiting gobal temperature rise to
-The OECD is playing its part to drive this action to be faster and more ambitious. And in line with the our inclusive growth initiative and productivity-inclusiveness nexus, we are advancing climate actions that are more people-centric, that exploit synergies to improve people’s lives and the health of our planet and its rich biodiversity.
We just launched a report Accelerating Climate Action: Refocusing Policies Through a Well-Being
Lens which applies a well-being persepective to identify synergies and
trade-offs between climate action and well-being goals.
The aim of this event is
to explore how placing people’s well-being at the centre of decision making can
increase political and social support for more ambitious mitigation action.
To take us forward, I would like to call on the OECD Secretary-General, Angel Gurría, to tell us more about this study and share his vision for solutions to the climate emergency, that also foster well-being and inclusion.
Dear Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen, Let me start by thanking the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Latvia for co-hosting this important event. We have gathered at a decisive moment. Across the globe, July 2019 was the hottest month ever recorded, and this builds on a worrying trend: 9 out of the 10 hottest months of July have happened since 2005.[i] With an increase in global temperature of around 1 degree Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels, we are now witnessing a plethora of extreme weather events and damaging threats to unique ecosystems. Land degradation and deforestation are exacerbating this effect and put global food security at risk, as the latest IPCC report warns. All of this comes at a time when we are already facing the planet’s sixth mass extinction of biodiversity. Our planet is in crisis! Moreover, at a time when we urgently need co-ordinated and far-sighted action to safeguard our collective future, the willingness and ability to act for the common good is in short supply. Progress is being made, but it is not enough Some countries show that ambitious climate action is possible. Costa Rica is on track to become the world’s first carbon-neutral nation. Sweden will be carbon neutral by 2050. New Zealand has banned new permits for offshore oil and gas exploration. Norway is dropping fossil fuel investments from its national pension fund, the world’s biggest wealth fund, to redirect 20 billion US dollars towards renewables.[ii] Twelve countries have already communicated their long-term low-emissions development strategies to the UNFCCC. Although these steps are important, they are not enough. Overall global emissions and investments are still going in the wrong direction. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are growing at an alarming pace. The emissions pathways set out by national governments will take us to a world that will be around 3 degrees (Celsius) warmer by 2100. Furthermore, although climate change was historically caused by industrialised nations, emerging economies are now also major contributors to the problem, and the impact and consequences are strongly felt across the globe. Wealthier countries will need to move faster and further; but all countries will need to contribute to achieving zero net carbon dioxide emissions globally in the second half of the century. We need to do more, we need to do it better, and, most importantly, we need to do it faster.
Accelerating Climate Action: Refocusing Policies through a Well-Being Lens Accelerating climate mitigation action to achieve the Paris goals is vital to our collective well-being. But we need to rethink our approach. In many cases, climate mitigation raises concerns such as the effect of carbon prices on affordability of energy, and the impact of climate policies on jobs. It is also important to remember that those most at risk from these challenges are developing countries and the world’s most vulnerable populations. These concerns may limit policy action. But we must also remember that our climate-change inducing habits can also take a major toll on well-being.
Take air pollution from coal plants, for example: in 2013, nearly 23,000 premature deaths in the European Union could be attributed to coal plants. That’s almost equivalent to the number of fatalities in road-traffic accidents (26 000)! In another recent study, we calculated the tremendous burden of ambient air pollution: this cost was estimated at around 3.2 million deaths and 5.1 trillion US dollars in BRIICS and OECD countries in 2015. We need to leverage synergies between mitigation policy and other well-being goals. We also must anticipate, manage, and minimise trade-offs that could otherwise block progress.
The OECD’s recent report on Accelerating Climate Action: Refocusing Policies through a Well-Being Lens, identifies and addresses three key actions to move forward: First, we must refocus our climate policies through a well-being lens. Placing people’s well-being at the centre of decision-making helps increase the political and social support for more ambitious mitigation action, and also overcome the barriers to change. The “well-being lens” put forward by the report takes into consideration the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) when analysing a range of economic sectors. Adopting this approach can lead to different policy perspectives on climate mitigation in five economic sectors, those that are responsible for more than 60 percent of global emissions: electricity, heavy industry, residential, surface transport, and agriculture.
In the transport sector, for example, the well-being approach would prioritise accessibility, and not only physical movement, which too often leads to car-dominated cities, congestion, and air pollution. Moreover, it would ensure that people could easily access jobs, services, and amenities using sustainable transport modes, such as walking, cycling, public transport, and even new modes of transport.
Second, we must rethink societal goals. The OECD recognises that promoting better policies for better lives requires a rethinking of societal goals. It means prioritising improvements in people’s well-being that include – and go beyond – traditional economic activity indicators such as GDP. We must ensure that policy decisions consider multiple well-being objectives – including climate – and do not focus on single goals in isolation. This means defining our goals by how healthy we are; the quality of our air, our water and the nature of our societies, alongside material dimensions such as jobs and income. Third, we must reframe our measurement system. We need to take a more comprehensive set of indicators that can help monitor and set criteria to ensure progress on multiple policy priorities, while making synergies and trade-offs between them visible. For example, Transport for London is using multiple accessibility indicators to guide new development and leverage private investment in infrastructure improvements. These indicators describe the extent to which citizens are able to access the transport system and travel between locations to access jobs and services. This is also why the OECD is supporting initiatives launched today at this UN Climate Summit. In particular, we are supporting the Leadership for Urban Climate Investment initiative (LUCI), by developing a tool to measure and track subnational climate finance.
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, The climate action goals that were agreed upon in 2015 in Paris, while challenging and ambitious, are also achievable. But we are lagging behind on what needs to be done. We must accelerate action, for the good of our planet, our well-being today, and for the good of future generations. I very much hope that the agenda of putting people at the centre of climate action can help governments take the necessary steps to save our planet. The OECD is here to help. Let us not lose hope. You can count on the OECD! Thank you, and I look forward to the fruitful discussions this afternoon.
 CAN et al., 2016  Roy, R. and N. Braathen (2017), “The Rising Cost of Ambient Air Pollution thus far in the 21st Century: Results from the BRIICS and the OECD Countries”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 124, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d1b2b844-en.
Angel for presenting the key messages of the new report, highlighting the potential
of a shift in perspective, of a new people-centred narrative, in accelerating
climate mitigation actions.
I am now
delighted to introduce our panel:
H.E. Mr. Linas Linkevicius is the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania
H.E. Mr. Richard Brabec is the Minister of the Environment of the Czech Republic
H.E. Mr. Juris Pūce, Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development, Latvia
Ms. Maimunah Mohd Sharif, Executive Director of UN-Habitat, the United Nations Human Settlements Programme
Ms. Thembi Nkadimeng, Mayor of Polokwane and President of the South Africa Local Government Association, who will give us her perspective on the relevance of these issues at the sub-national level
Mr. Michael Liebreich, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Liebreich Associates, who will share his views in light of his wide expertise, which includes environmental, energy, infrastructure, gender, and finance amongst others.
To H.E. Mr. Linkevicius, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Lithuania:
Lithuania faces two
simultaneous challenges. On the one hand, the energy mix is dominated by – largely
imported – fossil fuels; on the other, inequality remains high relative to most
Applying a well-being lens, how can the need to decarbonise the energy mix be reconciled with political pressures to take into account labour market conditions? What are the opportunities for responding to these issues in an integrated manner?
To H.E. Mr. Richard Brabec, Minister of the Environment, Czech Republic:
In the Czech Republic, a steady decrease in industrial
energy consumption has contributed to a 60% cut in energy-related GHG
emissions. Still, the Czech Republic remains one of the most energy-intensive
economies in the OECD, largely due to heavy industry.
How could application of the well-being approach put forward by the OECD support efforts to reduce GHG emissions from the industrial sector while ensuring continued employment as well as not impoverishing communities?
To H.E. Mr. Juris Pūce, Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development, Latvia:
In Latvia, we have seen that with an increase in per
capita income, a growing share of the population has relocated from city
centres to the suburbs where they can buy larger homes, resulting in urban
sprawl, and a rapid increase in the number of private vehicles.
Considering the government’s commitment to limit GHG emissions by, among other “developing an environmentally friendly transport system ”, how can Latvia overcome the challenge of having to manage emissions from the transport sector while at the same time taking broader well-being and development considerations into account?
To Ms. Thembi Nkadimeng, Mayor of Polokwane and President of the South Africa Local Government Association:
Polokwane has a reputation for being one of the
greenest municipalities in South Africa, as well as being one of the fastest growing.
Polokwane is managing urban sprawl
using densification policies that have the potential to reduce GHG emissions and
bring other benefits, e.g. public transport and less pollution. But these
benefits depend on how the city takes into account the well-being implications
of mitigation policies not only at the city-level, but also at the
neighbourhood level and in individual dwellings (e.g., homes, apartments,
How has the city government integrated its policies towards the residential sector with its aims of improving and scaling up public transport in the city?
To Mr. Michael Liebreich, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Liebreich Associates:
Decarbonisation of the electricity
sector has become a policy priority. Still, the sector is off-track to meet
global mitigation goals.
How can we accelerate the decarbonisation of the energy sector while bringing in well-being benefits?
To Ms. Maimunah Mohd Sharif, Executive Director of UN-Habitat, the United Nations Human Settlements Programme:
The UN adopted in 2016 the New Urban Agenda, which outlines that cities and human settlements should be the places where all inhabitants enjoy equal rights and opportunities in just, healthy, affordable and sustainable areas. Based on UN-Habitat’s experience in defining this Agenda, what are the opportunities for a focus on well-being to further advance progress on mitigation in urban contexts?
Thank you for those insights into the breadth of opportunities related to applying the well-being approach to accelerating climate action.
Before opening the floor
to questions from the audience, I would like to invite Ms. Helena Molin Valdés,
Head of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition Secretariat of the United Nations
Environment Programme, to contribute to the discussion from an international
Helena, what are your
thoughts on how broader well-being considerations could lead to climate
Thanks to our panel and to
all of you for a very interesting discussion. There is a lot of value in shifting
our perspective on well-being and climate action, and I look forward to the
release of the second part of this report, which puts forward detailed policy
recommendations for each sector, in early 2020.
I would like extend
special thanks to the Czech Republic, Latvia and Lithuania for co-hosting this
event. And I look forward to working together to ensure an acceleration to
climate action that fosters well-being and safeguards the needs
of future generations.
Excellencies, ladies and
gentlemen, thank you for joining us.
The 45% reduction for a 1.5°C goal assumes little overshoot of CO2 emissions
and therefore limited
requirement for atmospheric CO2 removal. The 20%
figure corresponds to a 66% chance of keeping the
am delighted to represent the OECD in this discussion.
remember that almost 1 in 10 jobs held by workers under 30 were destroyed during the
crisis. In Spain, Greece and Ireland, the number of employed youth halved
between 2007 and 2014. A decdade since
the crisis, despite rapid technological change
and growing global integration, many young people have grown up with persistent
unemployment, poor quality jobs, high social exclusion, and stalling social
OECD’s recent study The Broken Social
Elevator, showed that it takes on average five generations for a child born
in the poorest families in OECD countries to reach the median income.
Youth are being left behind. Almost 14% of
OECD youth are not in employment, education, or training (NEET), with the rate
for young women five percentage points higher than for young men. Migrant youth
are also affected. In most OECD countries, youth born outside their country of
residence are 1.5 times more likely to be NEET than native-born youth.
the future of our youth remains uncertain, and inequalities prevail, young
people are losing hope and losing trust. Trust in government among youth is below
the level of the 50+ generation in the OECD, and the civic disengagement of youth with a migrant brackground is even
Despite this crisis, existing
youth policies remain insufficient: over one fifth of countries do not have a
youth policy, and many do not invest sufficient resources in young people.
The OECD is working
across many fronts to address these shortfalls: we have over 20
country-specific youth action plans and we are developing national policy reviews
to promote youth entrepreneurship, youth well-being policy reviews, and
country-tailored analysis advice for migrant integration, including migrant
The OECD is also working
with countries to equip youth with the skills, the resilience and the confidence to seize the opportunities
of the digital age, including through the PISA Global Competence Framework and
national skills strategies.
The OECD is committed to continue our collaboration and
ready to collaborate on (1) GenU country work; (2) the creation of a knowledge
platform; and (3) the update of the 2007 World Development Report.
The OECD will
support GenU by working to refine and measure targets, making countries aware
of specific GenU initiatives and sharing relevant information and knowledge
gained through OECD engagement with member countries on youth policies and
Additionally, the OECD can support GenU in
developing youth action plans. Looking at
the list of countries that GenU plans to work with [Kenya, Bangladesh, India, Rwanda, Mexico, South Africa and Ethiopia],
the OECD is particularly well-placed to mobilise its extensive knowledge on
Mexico, South Africa and Ethiopia.
The OECD can
also contribute to the update of the World
Development Report of 2007: Development and the Next Generation, to analyse
what has happened since 2007, what worked, what did not, and where that ‘next
generation’ stands now.
The OECD would also like to draw attention
to vulnerable youth in developed countries. For
example, young people who are living in foster families or institutions. OECD
countries are working to address the distinct challenges and exclusion they
face, but initiatives are often difficult to scale up.
therefore encourages GenU to expand its framework and strategy to include
vulnerable youth in developed countries.
We look forward to deepening our
engagement with GenU in the ways I
have just described, to give all young people the skills to
thrive in the future they deserve.
The first UHC monitoring report, produced by the WHO and the World Bank was published in 2015. In their 2017 declaration, G20 health ministers invited “the WHO to identify appropriate indicator frameworks and to monitor progress on HSS [health systems strengthening] and UHC worldwide, working jointly with the World Bank, the OECD and other relevant stakeholders”. Both the 2015 and 2017 Global monitoring reports had two main chapters – service coverage and financial protection. The 2019 monitoring report focuses for the first time on gender issues and primary health care (PHC). The OECD has previously provided data, particularly in the development of the 2017 report. We also contributed to the drafting of the 2019 report. Chapter 1 presents data on service coverage. Overall coverage is improving, although the rate of improvement is slowing. At the same time coverage of non-communicable diseases and service capacity have hardly changed. Chapter 2 covers financial protection. The overall finding is a situation where financial protection is deteriorating, pushing more people into poverty. The World Bank will cover this chapter in the panel discussion.
What for you are the key messages on social determinants and data gaps in this report?
As the report shows, poor people have
lower coverage, even for basic health services., including those that have
achieved universal or near-universal coverage of services, health outcomes are
directly linked to the socio economic status of people. And according to OECD
evidence, some low income group life
expectancy is lower among the poor and less educated. In some East European
countries the gap is larger than 8 years!
We know that across the OECD people with low income are less likely to see a doctor or utilise preventive services, the poor are 12% less likely to see a specialist than the rich and are more likely to smoke and be obese.
The OECD Inclusive Growth Initiative has
led the way in demonstrating that one dimension of inequality can serve to
entrench others, they reinforce
themselves in a vicious cycle of accumulated disadvantages (which is why it now
takes an average of five generations in the OECD from a child from the lowest
income group to reach the median). Poor education contributes to poor health,
and you add the low quality jobs, and you have a tragic picture. No wonder people
are angry and lack trust.
Being in the climate weak, environmental
impacts on health outcomes are also strongly determined by our socio economic
As we take this inclusiveness approach,
we also have to apply the gender lens and this report shows that health
coverage is lower among women living in poverty and in rural areas, and while
access to sexual, reproductive and child healthcare services is improving, many
women and children are still not being reached, especially in Africa.
The push back to progress in this field
is also being affected by a new wave of highly conservative attitudes in major
To address these challenges we need healthcare
systems that put people’s health outcomes at the center. Managing complex
health systems could push goverments to focus on inputs, and on pressures from
different interest groups, but the focus should be people’s health.
At the OECD this is what we are trying to
do with our policy tools on health, ranging from tackling the opioid crisis and
obesity, to looking at the quality, beyond the the covereage of healthcare.
We need data and policy analysis that
goes beyond national averages and sheds light on inequalities by gender and
socioeconomic status, as well as on people’s experiences and needs as patients.
This is why the OECD has created a new
Patient-Reported Indicators Survey, called PaRIS.
Yes closing data gaps is key, but what
really matters is what we measure, and how to ensure it is connected to
also need to increase spending, but the finance will deliver better if we bring
it together with an strategic approach focused on best practices and knowledge
sharing, because countries are spending vastly different amounts with very
In education, we have this with PISA, and
I invite everyone to join PaRIS, to help shape healthcare systems that delivers
for the SDG’s.
Please count on the OECD to keep working with all of you in this collective effort.
Key message: what would your take away message be?
key takeaway – we need to do better. Much better. We need to ensure health
systems are responsive to people’s needs; and we need to improve our measurement
of the quality of care across socioeconomic groups.
do we do this? – We do this by incorporating the outcomes and experiences of
patients and communities into health policy. We need to move to a situation where
patients and local communities help to design and build the health systems of
the future, making them truly people-centred.
are areas where the OECD can make a difference, including with our PaRIS
survey. We are looking forward to working in collaboration with you, our
partners, to make progress.
Welcome to the NAEC group. I am very pleased to
welcome a record participation of the Chairs of OECD committees. I would also
like to welcome the Ambassadors and Economic Counsellors. We are looking
forward to your views and guidance on how to take NAEC forward.
This gathering is timely as the global community
grapples with an urgent set of interconnected and complex economic,
environmental and social challenges.
It brings together experts who believe our current
policy approaches are no longer adequate to address them, and that have worked
with us to develop a better understanding of the interaction of risk and
complexity. They have also joined us in
adopting a “systems thinking” approach to promote anticipation and resilience.
Our point of departure is that the systems that
govern our lives are under stress. Conservation scientists warn that up to a million
plant and animal species face extinction and we see our kids striking. Ocean
acidification and warming is driving rapid and dramatic changes in marine ecosystems
and nearly one million species are currently threatened with extinction driven
by our increasing demands for food and energy.
After a three year plateau from 2014-2016, energy-related carbon dioxide
emissions are rising again, reaching unprecedented levels in 2018.
Climate experts say rising sea and temperature levels will impact the health
and security of billions of people, and is already destroying the life in the
sea. Economists wonder when the next global financial crisis or economic
recession will hit. They are also puzzled by the secular stagnation in many
countries. People worry, with good reason, about widening social divides and
societal and political fragmentation, and the fast pace of digital
transformation. Social mobility is broken: OECD evidence shows that for the
child of a poor family to reach the average income would take 5 generations on
average across OECD countries. Meanwhile, the Amazon burns.
The question is straightforward. Are our strained
systems meeting their limits? Are we approaching a tipping point? How resilient
are our systems to shocks?
Fundamentally, these challenges are to the systems
we inhabit and interact with, the biophysical environment, the socio-political
system and the economic system. These are interlinked, and complex, made up of
the interactions of billions of actors in trillions of exchanges. These
interactions generate convoluted causal chains, emergent macro-phenomena, and
are often governed by non-linear dynamics including tipping points and feedback
We must acknowledge that the understanding of such
systems and the devising of solutions to wicked problems more often than not
stand in opposition to the mainstream linear thinking that has been dominant in
economics. We must recognize the shortcomings of our models, that include many
assumptions that are at odds with reality, including the general equilibrium,
the representative agent, or the rational behaviour. Looking at aggregate
outcomes and average results, on stocks and not flows is not going to help.
The obvious place to start was with the models
being used across the world by financial institutions, governments,
international organisations and academics. In the field of economics, we are
often told the story of homo economicus as guiding principle. A rational
individual capable of complex optimisation problems. Under the false premises
of homogeneity, we can aggregate all such individuals in a linear fashion,
reducing the complex dynamics of groups, regions or countries down to a single,
or few, representative agents. Real people are not like that.
The economic, social and environmental crisis we
are confronting tell us that life is more complex than what our models can
capture, that our economic systems are influenced by culture, hope, fear,
perceptions, and a host of other fundamentals of human interactions that
sociology, psychology, history and biology, to name but a few, can help us
Indeed we are seeing the weaknesses in our existing
economic models exposed with every step taken to adapt them to our complex
reality. Essentially, economics in the early 21st century was, and
still is, in a position similar to that of astronomy in the middle of the 16th
century, just before the Copernican revolution, where the models were becoming
ever-more sophisticated technically to try to compensate for the fact that they
did not correspond to reality.
Solving issues in our world of complex,
inter-connected systems requires transformative change in the fundamentals of
economics and a new narrative underlying the need for a systems approach to
human well-being and sustainability.
One of the tranches of rethinking starts with the
core mission of the OECD – economic growth. Neoclassical economics painted an
attractively simple and easy to understand narrative: Grow first, fix later. This
all hinged on the belief that GDP growth was an end in itself building
erroneous beliefs that simply growing the pie would reduce inequality, or that
technological progress would automatically take care of environmental damages
resulting from growth. This overarching idea gave priority to economic
efficiency. The stride for economic efficiency, and its benefits, were
supported by “evidence” from incomplete, “objective” economic models. However,
the social and environmental consequences of this narrative, along with the
remaining imbalances that brought on the 2008 crisis in the first place, show us
that the myopic focus on economic growth through economic efficiency has dire
We must understand that the implications of a
faulty “grow first, redistribute later” throws the ecosystem of complex systems
that we live in completely out of balance. We must understand that GDP growth
is not an end in itself but rather a means to prosperity. Most importantly
though, we must ensure that growth is inclusive for all and makes use of our
natural resources sustainably and safely. An additional advantage with such a
narrative is that our policy options become more clear, allowing us to exploit
synergies and trade-offs between different objectives.
We also need to redefine the role of the state. The
orthodox view is that markets generally produce positive outcomes that
eventually increase welfare, and so the state should “interfere” as little as
possible, and only to correct market failures. However, we need states to
provide a sound regulatory framework that invests in people, places and firms
that are left behind, and direct markets and growth to promote the well-being
of planet and citizens.
The state also has to change its silo-based
approach to capture the complexity of the systems policymaking is dealing with.
We need to think about how policies interact and influence each other, and be
prepared to react to unintended consequences.
If we are to succeed in a transforming the system
we currently inhabit to generate a sustainable society with increasing
well-being we cannot limit ourselves to the “safe space” of established ideas,
where like-minded people discussed how to adjust their techniques and practices
so they would do better next time. That’s not easy, as any criticism is
characterised as opposition to free market economics.
Nothing could be more wrong. The role of the market
in economics does not lose its central role in the functioning of an economic
system, but we need to listen to those that think differently. Those that do
not see the market as efficient or optimal, but as a means for exchange and the
evolutionary selection process for business plans and ideas. Roberto Unger,
another NAEC contributor, put it well when he said that sometimes what we need
is “disensus”, to avoid the herd thinking that blinds us to reality.
Therefore, the OECD launched the New Approaches to
Economic Challenges Initiative, often referred to simply as NAEC, in 2012 to
understand the shortcomings of the predominant analytical frameworks we rely
on, and to establish the basis for new frameworks, approaches and techniques to
produce sound people-centric policy advice.
We need to give policymakers more information, but
it’s most likely impossible to design a single GDP-like figure that would
reflect the many different aspects that need to be considered in any meaningful
way. A new suite of indicators is required, and this what the Framework for
Policy Action for Inclusive Growth aims to do, as well as the Well Being
Framework, that broadens the dimensions of well being.
NAEC is helping us to do all this.
This conference together experts who believe our
current policy approaches are no longer adequate to address the complex,
interconnected and dynamic nature of today’s environmental, economic and social
problems. Meeting systemic challenges requires a better understanding of the
interaction of risk and complexity. Greater collaboration across scientific
disciplines is needed to strengthen public policy.
We will explore new analytical tools and techniques
and promote “systems thinking” to improve anticipation and resilience.
Contributing to the debates will be experts from a range of fields, including
economics, political science, engineering, physics, and biology.
Beyond the discussions, we have produced a number
of reports on a new economic narrative, and I want to welcome our partner
institutions and people of NAEC who have worked with us all year through to
better address and understand the complex time we are living in. With their
help, we have prepared several reports for this discussion to:
First, explore a new growth narrative with the
support of the HLAG of the SG. I welcome
its members with us today,
Second, to advance new analytical frameworks with
the task force of Complex Systems Thinking and IIASSA and we have its Chairman
Third to advance resilient strategies and
approaches to contain systemic threats, prepared by Igor Linkov,
Fourth, to inform on progress on the NAEC
Innovation Lab, including agent based modelling, machine learning and
artificial intelligence, and even neuroeconomics (thanks to Alain Kirman) will
allow us to capture better the interaction of risk and complexity. This joint
work with the Chief Economist and Chief Statistician looks promising.
Our gratitude to Slovakia, Sweden (The Swedish
Innovation Agency – VINNOVA), Partners for a New Economy (P4NE) and Leslie
Harroun with whom we are co-organising this event and the Investment firm
Baillie Gifford for their support for these work, and their financial contributions.
And thanks also to our co-chairs, Ambassador Erdem and Irena Sodin.
All of this contributes to the development of a new
framework that integrates the economy, and economics, with a range of other
activities, insights and approaches to help tackle the environmental, social
and economic challenges that dominate the global policy agenda.
Over the next two days, we will have the help of
some of the world’s best thinkers to help us develop that framework. We will
discuss very technical subjects, but this is not an academic debate – time is
short – action is needed and that is what NAEC is about –not just new thinking
but new acting.
We want to apply your insights to policy. We want
you to analyse with members and Committees how new approaches will provide
different and better analyses. Give us the ideas, concepts, tools and
narratives to help make our systems work better for better lives. I am looking
forward to a fruitful discussion.
IPBES (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services
of the Intergovernmental Science- Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (editors). IPBES
IEA (2019), Global Energy and CO2 status report, IEA Publishing, Paris.
Es un honor presentarles nuestra edición 2019 del estudio Panorama de la Educación, que este año se centra en la Educación Terciaria. Se trata de un tema cada vez más importante porque, hasta donde podemos predecir, la demanda de personas con conocimientos y habilidades avanzadas seguirá aumentando.
Además, una Educación Terciaria de calidad mejora la movilidad social y provee oportunidades a la población para ampliar sus horizontes, perfeccionar su capacidad de pensar de forma crítica, y prepararse para la vida en un mundo que evoluciona rápidamente.
La Educación Terciaria no solo es importante para los individuos, sino también para la comunidad y para la sociedad.
Por ejemplo, los adultos con Educación Terciaria poseen mejores habilidades y una mayor productividad, mientras que también afirman tener un mejor estado de salud y estar más implicados en su comunidad y en la sociedad. Además, la inversión en la calidad y la participación en Educación Terciaria devuelve beneficios a la sociedad: mayor recaudación de impuestos, menores transferencias sociales y criminalidad, mayor productividad, y, en general, mayor prosperidad económica y mejores niveles de vida.
Permítanme destacar algunos de los hallazgos clave de este informe y sus implicaciones para España.
Los datos del estudio Panorama de la Educación confirman la creciente importancia de la Educación Terciaria.
Las competencias que provee dicho nivel educativo siguen siendo muy demandadas en el mercado de trabajo, a pesar de que el número de personas con un título a nivel terciario creció en los últimos años. El porcentaje de jóvenes entre 25 y 34 años que posee un título de educación terciaria es de 44% en España, mismo porcentaje que el promedio de la OCDE: ¡mayor que nunca!
DIAPOSITIVA (desempleo por nivel educ.)
La Educación Terciaria tiene un fuerte impacto positivo en el mercado de trabajo, tanto a nivel de empleo como de salarios. Entre los adultos de 25 a 34 años en España, la tasa de desempleo es de 25% para aquellos con un nivel educativo por debajo de la segunda etapa de Educación Secundaria, de 18% para los que sí la superaron, y de solo 12% para aquellos con Educación Terciaria.
Además, en España, un nivel de educación más alto protege a las personas frente al desempleo de larga duración: el 40% de los desempleados con Educación Terciaria han estado desempleados durante un año o más, frente al 48% de aquellos que no alcanzaron la segunda etapa de Educación Secundaria.
En términos de salarios, en España, los adultos con estudios terciarios ganan un 57% más que los graduados de la segunda etapa de Educación Secundaria, porcentaje similar al promedio OCDE y ligeramente superior al promedio UE23, de 52%.
Además, esta brecha aumenta con la experiencia profesional.
Pero el mercado no recompensa a las mujeres con estudios terciarios en la misma medida que a los hombres.
Entre los empleados a tiempo completo con estudios terciarios, las mujeres ganan menos que los hombres en todos los países de la OCDE, si bien la brecha de género en España es menor que la brecha promedio en la OCDE.
En 2017, las españolas entre 25 y 64 años con Educación Terciaria cobraban el 82% del salario de los hombres con el mismo nivel educativo, frente al 75% en promedio en la OCDE.
En todo caso, en los países que cuentan con datos por ámbito de estudio, se observa que en algunos ámbitos las mujeres están más “penalizadas” que en otros. Es el caso del ámbito de los negocios, la administración y el derecho en la mayoría de países con datos.
La incorporación al mundo laboral de un creciente número de mujeres ha suscitado un mayor interés por parte de las autoridades en la expansión de los programas de Educación y Atención a la Primera Infancia (EAPI). Dichos programas constituyen un pilar fundamental sobre el que asentar las bases del desarrollo cognitivo y mitigar los efectos de la falta de equidad a lo largo de la vida.
En este rubro, España cuenta con mejores resultados que la mayoría de países de la OCDE. En 2017, el 97% de los niños de 3 a 5 años estaban matriculados en programas EAPI, frente al 87% en promedio en la OCDE.
Los datos también nos muestran la importancia que España concede a las primeras etapas de EAPI, con un 36% de niños menores de 3 años matriculados en programas EAPI, 10 puntos porcentuales por encima del promedio de la OCDE y 21 puntos porcentuales más que en 2005.
Un financiamiento público sostenido es esencial para asegurar la calidad y el buen desarrollo de los programas EAPI. Una dotación económica adecuada facilita la contratación de personal cualificado con suficiente experiencia para apoyar el desarrollo cognitivo, social y emocional de los niños. En 2016, el gasto total en los programas educativos para los niños de 3 a 5 años ascendió a 0.5% del PIB en España, siendo el promedio en la OCDE del 0.6%. Y el gasto anual por niño (6,900 dólares) fue inferior al de los países de la OCDE (8,100 dólares).
En España, la ratio entre niños/personal docente en Educación Infantil se encuentra por debajo del promedio de la OCDE y de los países UE23 en el nivel de educación preprimaria (CINE 02): 14 alumnos, frente a los 16 en promedio en los países de la OCDE, y a los 15 en el entorno UE23. En el ámbito de los programas de desarrollo educacional de la primera infancia (CINE 01), la ratio en España es similar a la de los países de la OCDE y la UE23, situándose en 10 alumnos por grupo.
Un descenso de las ratios entre niños y personal docente en el ámbito de la educación de la primera infancia no solo favorece las relaciones interpersonales, sino que, además, permite al personal docente y de apoyo volcarse más eficazmente en las necesidades individuales de los niños, a la vez que se reduce el tiempo de clase dedicado al tratamiento de situaciones disruptivas.
Ahora bien, la educación requiere un gasto público acorde a su importancia.
En 2016, el gasto educativo en los niveles desde Primaria a Terciaria en España fue del 4.3% del PIB, del cual 3.1% se destinó a la educación no terciaria y 1.2% a la Terciaria. En cada nivel educativo, el gasto directo en España fue similar al promedio de la UE23, aunque inferior al promedio OCDE.
Cabe destacar que, en el período 2010-2016, el gasto total como porcentaje del PIB en todos los niveles educativos en España se redujo en un 4.7%, un descenso menor que el del promedio de la OCDE (7.7%) y de la UE23 (10.3%).
Sin embargo, el gasto educativo por estudiante a tiempo completo en España es menor que en la mayoría de países de la OCDE.
En 2016, España gastó un total de 9,500 dólares por estudiante, frente a los 10,500 dólares en promedio en los países de la OCDE. La diferencia se debió principalmente al gasto por estudiante en Educación Terciaria, que en España fue de 12,600 dólares, frente a 15,600 dólares en promedio en la OCDE.
Sin embargo, en términos de PIB per cápita, España alcanza el promedio OCDE: el gasto por estudiante a tiempo completo desde Educación Primaria a Terciaria fue del 26% del PIB per cápita, y del 23% el destinado a la educación no terciaria.
Ahora bien, ¿cómo se financia la educación? No solo el sector público invierte en este rubro, sino que también el sector privado contribuye de manera importante.
En 2016, el 14% del gasto total en instituciones educativas de Educación Primaria y Secundaria en España procedió de financiamiento privado, por encima del 10% en promedio en la OCDE y del 8% en promedio en países de la UE23.
El financiamiento privado es especialmente importante en Educación Terciaria, donde el gasto privado cubre el 33% del coste educativo de este nivel, similar al promedio de la OCDE (32%) y superior al de la UE23 (24%).
Un requisito indispensable para el éxito de un sistema educativo son los profesores, y hay que poner el foco en atraer a los mejores a la profesión docente.
Los salarios reglamentarios iniciales del profesorado en España son considerablemente más elevados que en promedio en la OCDE.
Al igual que en el entorno OCDE, el salario del profesorado incrementa con la experiencia, aunque no crece a la misma velocidad que en otros países.
La diferencia en los niveles retributivos entre España y el promedio OCDE se estrecha para el profesorado con 15 años de experiencia. Por ejemplo, los docentes españoles de primera etapa de Educación Secundaria al inicio de su carrera ganaron 11,300 dólares más que el promedio OCDE, aunque esta ventaja se redujo a los 4,800 dólares para el profesorado con 15 años de experiencia.
Señoras y señores,
Los datos que se presentan en nuestra serie Panorama de la Educación ayudan a informar sobre el rango de intervenciones y políticas que se necesitan para lograr el objetivo de una educación equitativa y de calidad.
Es nuestra responsabilidad compartida ayudar a los jóvenes a aprovechar al máximo las oportunidades existentes y tomar decisiones informadas sobre su futuro.
Para lograr esto, debemos ampliar las oportunidades, aumentar las opciones de programas y calificaciones, y construir puentes más fuertes con el mercado laboral. Esto también significa invertir en la orientación de los estudiantes para que cada uno encuentre su lugar en la sociedad y pueda contribuir con el máximo de su potencial.
Solo entonces los estudiantes podrán adquirir el conocimiento y las competencias que puedan llevarlos adelante y cambiar sus vidas para mejor.
and Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen.
I am delighted
to be here today to welcome you to the National Consultation on Women’s
Economic Empowerment in Egypt. I would like to thank Her Excellency Sahar Nasr,
Minister of Investment and International Co-operation of Egypt, for hosting
Minister Nasr co-hosted the launch of the MENA-OECD Women’s Economic Empowerment Forum (WEEF) here in Cairo two years ago and is co-Chair of the Forum, alongside Her Excellency Marie-Claire Swärd-Capra, Swedish Ambassador to Algeria.
I would also
like to thank His Excellency, Jan Thesleff, Ambassador of Sweden to Egypt, for
his strong personal support for this meeting and more broadly for Sweden’s
leadership in the OECD’s gender equality work.
particularly fitting to discuss women’s empowerment here in Cairo. For
centuries, Egypt has been called “Masr,
oum el dounia” – the mother of the world. Indeed, its history has been
shaped by powerful women.
Many of the women (and men) sitting in this room today are continuing in their footsteps! Over the centuries, Egypt has succeeded in blending many cultures and religions to become a dynamic, diverse society, and it has become one of the MENA region’s biggest economies. However, this pre-eminence also comes with growing expectations from its burgeoning, young population.
Egypt has taken
important steps to further women’s rights. I am very glad that H.E. Ambassador
Moushira Khattab accepted to be with us today and to moderate this afternoon’s
discussion on the power of role models in achieving gender equality. During the
2000s, the remarkable work she led at the institutional level resulted in a
range of reforms meant to put an end to early marriages, human trafficking, and
female genital mutilations (FGM). Egypt played a leading role among African
countries in the fight against FGM, and the law that was adopted to criminalise
it in 2008 was taken as an example by many African countries.
reduce gender-based discrimination continued. In 2014, Egypt prohibited
gender-based violence in its constitution – which is not the case for all OECD
countries – and formulated a National Strategy for combating violence against
President Al Sissi declared the “year of Egyptian women” and released the “Egyptian Women Vision 2030: Women
Empowerment Strategy”. The same
year, Minister Nasr helped champion Egypt’s Investment Law No. 72 to protect
women investors from discrimination.
Council of Women, presided by Dr. Maya Morsi (in the audience), is leading a number of efforts, including a
campaign to ensure that women are no longer denied the right to inherit. Most
recently, at the G7 meeting in Biarritz, President Al Sissi reminded world
leaders of the importance of boosting women’s empowerment.
Additionally, women in the MENA region are proving increasingly qualified to take advantage of opportunities. While in many Western countries, low female participation in STEM fields is a significant concern, the opposite is true in many MENA countries.
UNESCO, 34-57 percent of STEM graduates in Arab countries are women and one in
three start-ups in the Arab World is founded or led by women.
are just a few examples, they show the growing momentum in Egypt in support of
greater women’s economic empowerment. But the fact remains that despite these
efforts, gender equality remains a long way off in Egypt, as it does to varying
degrees in countries across the world.
In Egypt, as
elsewhere, the challenges women face from economic, political and legislative
barriers are compounded by deeply-held gender stereotypes.
percent of Egyptians (almost two thirds) think that children will suffer when
the mother is employed outside the home.[i] More than 70% of men and women believe that wives
should tolerate violence to keep the family together.[ii]
Let me share
with you a shocking statistic: eighty-seven percent of Egyptian
women and girls aged 15-49 have experienced female genital mutilation, the
highest in the world.[iii]
These practices not only
endanger people’s well-being and the social fabric, but they also threaten the
economy: it is estimated that violence against women and families cost an estimated 2.17 billion Egyptian pounds (over € 115
million) in 2015.[iv] I hope very
much to see Egypt represented at a global conference the OECD is holding in
Paris on tackling violence against women on 5-6 February 2020.
We at the OECD are fundamentally convinced that gender equality is a pre-condition for building happier, healthier and more prosperous societies. For this reason, we have made women’s economic, political and social empowerment a core pillar of our work.
publication “The Pursuit of Gender
Equality: An Uphill Battle” shows that gender inequality still pervades all
aspects of social, political and economic life, in countries at all levels of
development. The OECD SIGI 2019 Global
Report shows that at the current pace, it will take more than 200 years, or
nine generations, to achieve gender equality and fully unlock women’s
Side-lining women from the economy comes at a great cost. Our data shows that the impact of discrimination in laws, attitudes and practices costs the MENA region a staggering USD 237 billion.[v] So how can we move past these barriers to unlock the potential of women in Egypt?
This was the
question that we first asked in our 2017 publication Women’s Economic
Empowerment in Selected MENA Countries: The Impact of Legal Frameworks in
Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia (hold up report). As I have mentioned earlier, significant changes
are underway to advance gender equality – including legal reforms and other
grassroots initiatives – in Egypt and other MENA countries.
To capture this progress, and gain greater insight
into the drivers of change, the OECD is partnering with the Center of Arab Women
for Training and Research (CAWTAR) on working on a follow-up publication to our
The purpose of today’s consultation is thus to listen and learn from our Egyptian partners about how they have succeeded in advancing legislative reforms in favour of women’s economic empowerment and pinpointing which challenges remain to be addressed.
This meeting provides an opportunity to brainstorm potential solutions together; solutions that could work for Egypt and perhaps also inspire change elsewhere.
But let us not making the mistake of thinking that the law is enough and is the only solution. I really hope that today’s meeting will also mark the start of a renewed commitment in setting the priorities for a successful reform process. Administrative tools and policy support are crucial for the legislative measures to be implemented and enforced. There can’t be effectiveness without implementation and enforcement. Let’s keep this in mind.
During today’s event, we will also have an important session on how role-modelling programmes can help combat engrained gendered stereotypes. I am proud that the OECD launched an initiative in Mexico – NiñasSTEMPueden – that has been very successful in using role models to encourage girls to enter the STEM field, and it has been chosen to be showcased in November’s Paris Peace Forum.
I look forward to hearing from the inspiring women and men role models here about the innovative ways they have pushed the envelope for greater gender equality in Egypt.
I look forward to the rest of the day’s discussions. Thank you