Explore the vast range of titles available.

Non-technical summaryGlobalisation has narrowed the gap between producers and consumers. Nations are increasingly relying on commodities produced outside of their borders for satisfying their consumption. This is particularly the case for the European Union (EU). This study assesses spillover effects, i.e. impacts taking place outside of the EU borders, resulting from the EU's demand for food products, in terms of environmental and social indicators.Technical summaryHuman demand for agri-food products contributes to environmental degradation in the form of land-use impacts and emissions into the atmosphere. Development and implementation of suitable policy instruments to mitigate these impacts requires robust and timely statistics at sectoral, regional and global levels. In this study, we aim to assess the environmental and social impacts embodied in European Union's (EU's) demand for agri-food products. To this end, we select a range of indicators: emissions (carbon dioxide, particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide), land use, employment and income. We trace these environmental and social impacts across EU's trading partners to identify specific sectors and regions as hotspots of international spillovers embodied in EU's food supply chains and find that these hotspots are wide-ranging in all continents. EU's food demand is responsible for 5% of the EU's total CO2 consumption-based footprint, 9% of the total NOX footprint, 16% of the total PM footprint, 6% of the total SO2 footprint, 46% of the total land-use footprint, 13% of the total employment footprint and 5% of the total income footprint. Our results serve to inform future reforms in the EU for aligning policies and strategies with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement.Social media summarySignificant environmental and social spillover effects embodied in the EU's food supply chains.

Letter to the Editor

Evidence-based policymaking must be rooted in sound data to inform policy priorities, budget allocations, and tracking of progress. This is especially true in the case of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as they provide the policy framework that all 193 UN member states have pledged to achieve by 2030. Good data and clear metrics are critical for each country to take stock of where it stands, devise pathways for achieving the goals, and track progress. Current assessments of the EU’s performance on the SDGs, however, tend to reach different findings and policy conclusions on where the priorities for further action lie, which can be confusing for researchers and policymakers. In order to demystify the drivers of such differences and make them transparent, this paper compares and contrasts the results obtained by four SDG monitoring approaches. We identify three main elements that are responsible for most of the differences: (i) the use of pre-defined targets for calculating baseline assessments and countries’ trajectories; (ii) the inclusion of measures that track not only domestic performance, but also the EU’s transboundary impacts on the rest of the world; and (iii) the use of non-official statistics to bridge data gaps, especially for biodiversity goals. This paper concludes that there is not one “correct” way of providing an assessment of whether the EU and EU member states are on track to achieve the goals, but we illustrate how the different results are the outcomes of certain methodological choices. More “forward-looking” policy trackers are needed to assess implementation efforts on key SDG transformations.

The pandemic marks the third deadly outbreak due to a coronavirus after severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003 and Middle East respiratory syndrome in 2012.1,2 In the absence of effective testing and contact tracing systems in many countries, COVID-19 has claimed more than 500 000 lives and disrupted the entire world, sparing no region.3 In April, 2020, more than half of the world's population resided in countries enforcing a lockdown, resulting in hugely disruptive impacts on individuals, businesses, and entire sectors of society, such as global tourism and travel.4 Even countries that have suppressed the pandemic are experiencing harsh economic spillover effects from the rest of the world. WHO, the IMF, the World Bank, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, the UN World Food Programme, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and many others are on the front lines in coordinating the global response to the pandemic in the areas of public health, finance, food security and supply chains, schooling, and governance. Task force topics include: the nature, origin, and prevention of zoonotic diseases; public health systems for surveillance, testing, tracing, and isolating COVID-19 cases; the development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and medicines; the protection of vulnerable groups; wellbeing and mental health in the context of pandemic control; equitable and efficient financing of pandemic control; and building back better in the post-COVID-19 economy to achieve the global goals of sustainable development.

The Commission aims to offer practical solutions to the four main global challenges posed by the pandemic: suppressing the pandemic by means of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions; overcoming humanitarian emergencies, including poverty, hunger, and mental distress, caused by the pandemic; restructuring public and private finances in the wake of the pandemic; and rebuilding the world economy in an inclusive, resilient, and sustainable way that is aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Agreement. Data needs The UN Statistical Commission, working with partner UN institutions and with national statistical agencies, should prepare near-real-time data on highly vulnerable populations and their conditions, with a special focus on infection and death rates, poverty, joblessness, mental health, violence, hunger, forced labour, and other forms of extreme deprivation and abuses of human rights. The situation for developing countries will become increasingly dire as many countries find themselves facing rising social needs without the means to finance social services. [...]many developing countries currently do not have the kinds of social protection programmes that are most urgently needed at this juncture, such as unemployment insurance, income support, and nutrition support. Some developing countries will require considerable international concessional financing (ie, grants and low-interest, long-term loans) from the international financing institutions, notably the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the multilateral and regional development banks, as well as the orderly restructuring of their sovereign debts to both public and private creditors.

[...]the G20 countries should empower the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and multilateral development banks to increase the scale of financing and debt relief. To achieve meaningful results in 2021, COVAX should have guaranteed funds in 2021 of US$20–40 billion, which it would turn into firm agreements on expanded vaccine production. [...]members of the Developing Countries Vaccine Manufacturers Network should be engaged with the efforts of COVAX to produce low-cost vaccines at scale. If LMICs run deficits and open-market operations equivalent as a share of gross domestic product to those in the USA and Europe, most LMICs would incur steeply rising interest rates, depreciating currencies, and high inflation. [...]while HICs are running huge budget deficits,26 the poorest countries are reducing investment spending to make room for urgent social spending.27 Even worse, many of the poorest countries cannot cover the costs of urgent social needs.

This paper presents the methodological process and results of the OECD 2017 Open-Useful-Reusable Government data Index (OURdata Index). It is meant to present the methodology and outline the data collection and verification process; discuss key findings of the composite indicators including overall country scores and scores by pillars and sub-pillars; and show the outcomes of different statistical tests to assess the robustness of the results, including tests to evaluate the sensitivity of the indicators to various weighting schemes. The paper highlights the relevance of the Index to support the design and monitoring of open government data policies and practices leading to socio-economic outcomes and to the improved performance and efficiency of public sector organisations.