sdg indicator 2.4.1 methodological note final · indicator 2.4.1 focuses on agricultural land, and...

1

SDGIndicator2.4.1

PROPORTIONOFAGRICULTURALAREA

UNDERPRODUCTIVEANDSUSTAINABLEAGRICULTURE

METHODOLOGICALNOTE

As approved by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG indicators,

6 November 2018

2

ThismethodologicalnotehasbeendevelopedwiththetechnicalandfinancialsupportoftheGlobalStrategytoImproveAgriculturalandRuralStatistics.

3

Contents 1. Introduction:..............................................................................................................................4

BackgroundonSDGindicators.......................................................................................................4

Target2.4:Sustainableagriculture................................................................................................4

2. ProcessfordevelopingSDGindicator2.4.1...............................................................................4

3. Methodologyforconstructingtheindicator..............................................................................5

Stepsinvolvedinconstructingtheindicator..................................................................................6

CharacteristicsofIndicator2.4.1...................................................................................................6

Datacollectioninstrument.............................................................................................................9

Definingthemesandsub-indicators..............................................................................................9

Assessingsustainabilityperformanceforeachsub-indicator......................................................12

Periodicity....................................................................................................................................12

Samplingdesign...........................................................................................................................12

Reportingtheindicator................................................................................................................13

Useofalternativedatasourcestoconstructtheindicator..........................................................15

4. References................................................................................................................................16

Annex:Themes,sub-indicatorsandmetadatasheets.....................................................................18

1.Farmoutputvalueperhectare................................................................................................19

2.NetFarmIncome......................................................................................................................21

3.Riskmitigationmechanisms.....................................................................................................23

4.Prevalenceofsoildegradation.................................................................................................24

5.Variationinwateravailability...................................................................................................26

6.Managementoffertilizers........................................................................................................28

7.Managementofpesticides.......................................................................................................30

8.Useofbiodiversity-friendlypractices.......................................................................................32

9.Wagerateinagriculture...........................................................................................................34

10.FoodInsecurityExperienceScale(FIES).................................................................................35

11.Securetenurerightstoland...................................................................................................37

4

1. Introduction:

Background on SDG indicators InSeptember2015, theUnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyadoptedthe2030DevelopmentAgendaandanassociated17SustainableDevelopmentGoals (SDGs).TheresultantSDGsareaccompaniedby169targetsunderthevariousgoalsandasetof232 indicatorstomonitorprogresstowardtheSDGs. Responsibility for the development of indicators is given to the United Nations StatisticalCommission(UNSC)whichestablishedanInter-AgencyExpertGroupforSDGindicators(IAEG-SDG)comprising28membercountries.

WhiletheinternationalsystemofofficialstatisticsisembodiedintheUNSCandmembercountries,inpracticethemeasurementandinternationalreportingofthecomprehensivesetofSDGtopicsiscoordinated througha rangeof internationalagencies.Theseagencies, including theOECD,WHO,FAO,IMF,WorldBank,ILO,havedevelopedstatisticalandmeasurementexpertiseintheparticularareasthatfallwithintheirbroaderroles.UndertheauspicesoftheIAEG-SDG,variousagenciesweregiven“custodianship”forthefinalizationoftheappropriateindicatorsforthedifferentSDGtargetsand for the co-ordination of data collection following endorsement of the indicators, includingleading the co-ordination with other international agencies. FAO was given custodianship of 21indicatorsacrosssixSDGs.

Among the large number of SDG indicators, some of the indicators are based on currentlyestablishedmethodsanddata(TierI);othershavemethodsbutdatacollectionismorelimited(TierII);andfinallythereareindicatorsforwhichagreeddefinitionsandmethodsneedtobedeveloped(Tier III). The indicator for sustainable agriculture currently falls into the Tier III category. ThedevelopmentofthemethodsdescribedinthisdocumentsupporttheconsiderationofthisindicatorasaTierIIindicator.

Target 2.4: Sustainable agriculture This document focuses on the indicator for Target 2.4, one of eight targets under SDG 2: “Endhunger; achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”.Specifically,Target2.4 is to“By2030,ensuresustainable foodproductionsystemsand implementresilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintainecosystems,thatstrengthencapacityforadaptationtoclimatechange,extremeweather,drought,floodingandotherdisastersandthatprogressivelyimprovelandandsoilquality.”

2. ProcessfordevelopingSDGindicator2.4.1Led by FAO in collaboration with the Global Strategy to improve Agricultural and Rural Statistics(GSARS), work progressed through 2015 - 18 to establish a methodology to measure progresstowards achieving Target 2.4. A two-page methodology note was endorsed by the IAEG-SDG inMarch2016.Themethodologicalnotedescribed,inbroadterms,anapproachtothemeasurementofthisindicatorofwhichthemostchallengingaspectisthedefinitionofproductiveandsustainableagriculture.

Through2016 research focusedonabroad ranging literature reviewon frameworksandmethodsformeasuringandmonitoringsustainableagriculture(Hayati,2017)conductedbytheGSARS.Akeyaspectofallapproachestomeasuringsustainableagricultureistherecognitionthatsustainabilityisa multi-dimensional concept, and that these multiple dimensions need to be reflected in theconstructionoftheindicator.

AtechnicalmeetingwasconvenedinDecember2016 involvinganumberofexperts insustainableagriculture to establish priority areas for measurement for indicator 2.4.1. The results of thatmeetingweredrawntogethertocompleteafirstdraftofthemethodologicalpaper.ThatdraftwaspresentedtotheFebruary2017meetingoftheScientificAdvisoryCommittee(SAC)oftheGSARS.

5

Utilizingtheirfeedback,anupdateddraftwascompletedtosupportdiscussionatanExpertGroupMeeting(EGM)onindicator2.4.1heldinRomefrom3-5April,2017.TheEGMgatheredagriculturestatisticiansfromeightcountriesacrossall regions,civilsocietyandprivatesectorrepresentatives,aswellasthematicexpertsfromacademiaandfromFAOTechnicalDepartments.ThepurposeoftheEGM was to review the methodology developed and to provide guidance on the approach, thedimensions,themesandsub-indicatorsofferedfordiscussion,aswellasthemodalitiestoconstructIndicator2.4.1.

Akeyaspectinthedevelopmentofthemethodwastheselectionofrelevantthemes,sub-indicatorsand the sustainability criteria for each sub-indicator. Following the EGM, detailed descriptions ofmethodsforsub-indicatorsacrossallthreedimensionsofsustainability–economic,environmentalandsocial–weredevelopedandthemethodologicaldocumentwasfurtherrefined.Onthebasisofresearch and discussion, in particular involving engagement with thematic experts, a set ofdocumentswasdevelopedtosupportdesktestingoftheindicatorinselectedcountries.

InOctober2017, themethodologicaldocumentswere submitted toanonlineglobal consultation,invitingallNationalOfficesinchargeofagriculturalstatisticstoprovidetheircomments.

InNovember2017,themethodologywassubmittedtotheIAEG-SDGat its6thMeeting inBahrain.The recommendations of the IAEG-SDGwere towait for the results of the country pilots and re-submit themethodology after having taken their results into account. In addition, the IAEG-SDGprovidedaseriesofcommentsontheapproachandmethodology.

PilotdeskstudieswerecarriedoutinBangladesh,EcuadortheKyrgyzRepublicandRwandaduringthelastquarterof2017,andinBelgiuminearly2018.Thegoalwastotesttheproposedapproachand review the metadata sheets for the respective indicators to: 1) assess its clarity andcompleteness;2)takestockofwhatdataareavailableatacountrylevel;and3)verifywhethertheindicatorcanbeconstructedusingtheinformationalreadyavailableatthecountrylevel.Resultsarepresentedinseparatereports.InApril2018,participantsfromthefivepilotcountriesgatheredinatechnicalmeetingatFAOtopresenttheresultsoftheirdeskstudiesandworkoutmodificationstothemethodologicaldocumentwiththeteaminchargeofSDG2.4.1development.

Resultsfromtheglobalconsultation,fromtheIAEG-SDG,andfromthecountrypilotswerereviewedandanalyzed,andtheapproachwasmodifiedinordertoaddresstheissuesidentifiedthroughtheseprocesses, resulting in a first revision of the methodology document, dated 22 May 2018. ThisversionwassharedwiththemembersoftheIAEG-SDG,andtwowebinarswereorganizedtopresentthe methodology and discuss IAEG-SDG questions and comments. Member countries were theninvitedtoprovidetheircommentsinwriting.

Allcountrycontributionswerethenanalyzedandusedinthepreparationofasecondrevision.Themethodologypresentedinthisdocumentistheresultoftheaboveprocess.

3. MethodologyforconstructingtheindicatorNote:Thefollowingterminologyhasbeenusedinthisdocument:

• Indicator:Overallmeasureofsustainableagriculture.• Dimension:Thedimensionsofsustainability:economic,environmental,social.• Themes: Specific areas within a dimension (e.g. land productivity, biodiversity, decent

employment,etc.)• Sub-indicator: Variableused tomeasureperformanceof the farm in relationwitha given

theme.• Sustainabilitycriteria:Critical/thresholdsvaluesagainstwhichtheperformanceofeachsub-

indicatorisassessedtoclassifythefarmintermsofthesustainabilitylevel.

6

Steps involved in constructing the indicator Deriving an indicator for sustainable agriculture involves several steps. Although these steps arepresented ina linear fashion, inpractice, adegreeof iterationwas required throughprocessesofdiscussionandinvestigation.Thisisespeciallythecaseforsteps3,5and6inwhichthedescriptionoftherelevantapproachforassessingsustainabilityperformancedependsonthesub-indicator,butat thesame time, thechoiceof sub-indicatorwill likelybeclosely informedby thedatacollectioninstrument:

1. Determining thescopeof the indicator:Thechoicemade for indicator2.4.1 is to focusoncropsandlivestockproductionthusexcludingforestry,fisheriesandaquaculture.

2. Determiningthedimensionstobecovered:Thechoicemadeforindicator2.4.1istoincludeenvironmental,economicandsocialdimensionsinthesustainabilityassessment.

3. Choosingthescaleforthesustainabilityassessment:Thechoicemadeforindicator2.4.1isfarmlevelwithaggregationtohigherlevels.

4. Selectingthedatacollectioninstrument(s).5. Selectingthethemeswithineachdimension,andchoosingasub-indicatorforeachtheme.

Thesub-indicatorsshouldsatisfyanumberofcriteria(describedbelow).6. Assessing sustainability performance at farm level for each sub-indicator: Specific

sustainabilitycriteria are applied inorder to assess the sustainability levelof the farm foreachthemeaccordingtotherespectivesub-indicators.

7. Decidingtheperiodicityofmonitoringtheindicator.8. Modalityofreportingtheindicator.Thesetofsub-indicatorsarepresentedintheformofa

dashboard. The dashboard described above offers a response in terms of measuringsustainabilityatfarmlevelandaggregatingitatnationallevel.

Characteristics of Indicator 2.4.1 The methodology note endorsed by the IAEG-SDG defines the Indicator 2.4.1 as “Proportion ofagriculturalareaunderproductiveandsustainableagriculture”,whichisexpressedbythefollowingformula:

𝑆𝐷𝐺2.4.1 = !"#$ !"#$% !"#$%&'()* !"# !"!#$%&$'() !"#$%!"#!$% !"#$%&'(&#)' !"#$ !"#!∗

This implies the need to measure both the extent of land under productive and sustainableagriculture(thenumerator),aswellastheextentoflandareaunderagriculture(thedenominator).Thenominatoristhesubjectofthisnoteanditscomputationisdescribedinthesections“Assessingsustainability performance for each sub-indicator” and “Reporting the indicator at national level”.The denominator, in turn, is a function of the scope of the indicator, which is discussed in thefollowing section. It is the agricultural land areamanaged by agricultural holdings, defined as thesum of agricultural area utilized by agricultural holdings that are owned (excluding rented-out),rented-in,leased,sharecroppedorborrowed1.

Themethodologicalnote further indicates that the constructionof the indicatormust respect thefollowingconditions:

• The indicatormust reflect the priorities as they are expressed in the SDG target 2.4. andtherefore consider issues related to resilience, productivity, ecosystem maintenance,adaptationtoclimatechangeandextremeevents,andsoils.

*Stateorcommunallandusedbyfarmholdingsisnotincluded,seediscussioninsection“Spatialscope:thedenominator”

7

• Thepreferreddatasourceisthefarmsurvey.• The need to define productive and sustainable agriculture implies the use of criteria to

distinguishbetweensustainableandunsustainableareas.Measurement scope: the focus is on agricultural production Indicator 2.4.1 focuses on agricultural land, and therefore primarily on land that is used to growcropsandraiselivestock.Thischoiceofscopeisfullyconsistentwiththeintendeduseofacountry’sagriculturalareaasthedenominatoroftheaggregateindicator.

Moreprecisely,thefollowingparagraphsindicatewhatisincludedandexcludedfromthescopeoftheindicatorintermsofactivitiesandareas:

Includedwithinthescope:

• Bothintensiveandextensiveproductionsystems(includingintensivelivestockproduction).• Subsistenceagriculture.• Stateandcommonlandwhenusedexclusivelyandmanagedbytheholding.• Food and non-food crops and livestock products (example crops such as tobacco, cotton,

andlivestockraisedfornon-foodproductslikesheepforwool).• Cropsgrownforfodderorforenergypurposes.• Agro-forestry(treesonthefarm).• Aquaculture,totheextentthatittakesplacewithintheagriculturalarea.Forexample,rice-

fishfarmingandsimilarsystems.

Excludedfromthescope:

• Stateandcommonlandnotusedexclusivelybytheagricultureholding(seenextsection).• Nomadicpastoralism.• Productionfromgardensandbackyards.Productionfromhobbyfarms2.• Holdingsfocusingexclusivelyonaquaculture.• Forestandotherwoodedlands,whennotpartofanagriculturalholding.• Foodharvestedfromthewild.

Beyonddefiningthemeasurementboundaryforagriculturalproductionthefollowingconsiderationsarealsotobenoted:

First, fromanenvironmentalperspective, thescopeof the indicator focusesontheenvironmentalimpacts of farming, i.e. the direct impacts that farming practices, farmer choices and farmingmethodshaveontheenvironment.Thisimpliesthatallpossibleimpactsthatarebeyondthisscopearenotconsidered.Onecaseconsideredoutsidethescopeoftheindicator,forexample,islandusechange,inparticularthetransformationfromnaturalvegetationtoagriculturalland.

Fromasocialperspective,theapproachalsofocusesonfarmingasasourceoflivelihood.Thus,thesocial impact of farming activities in terms of household livelihood and food security is included.Accesstoproductiveresources,includingland,isconsidered,asitimpactsdirectlytheperformancesof agriculture, but access to basic services, for instance (water, education, health care) for farmhouseholds3isconsideredoutsideofthescopeoftheassessment.

2AtaskteamhasbeencreatedbyFAOonrequestbycountriestodefinehobbyfarmsconsistently.TheproposalondefinitiononcedevelopedwillbediscussedinthenextmeetingoftheUNSC.InthemeanwhileithasbeenagreedthatcountrieswilldefinehobbyfarmsaspertheirnationalcriteriaandremovethesefarmsfromthepopulationofinterestforSDGindicators.3ThedefinitionisbasedonthestandardsetbytheWorldCensusofAgriculture2020.Seechapter26:http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4913e.pdf

8

Intermsofagriculturalvaluechain,thescopeoftheassessmentstopsatthefarmgate.Itdoesnotextendtothesustainabilityofthetransportation,storage,processing,distributionandmarketingofagriculturalproducts–theagriculturalvalue-chain-although it isacceptedthattheefficiencyandeffectivenessofthedeliveryoftheseservicesmaybesignificantinassuringtheprovisionoffood.Ofparticular relevancehere is the issueof foodwaste,which, for varying reasonsdependingon thecountry,islikelytobeasignificantissueintheassessmentofsustainableprovisionoffood.SDG12addresses the issue of sustainable consumption and production and specific indicators exist tocapturesustainabilityinthevaluechain.

Likewise,theproposedapproachdoesnottakeintoconsiderationthesustainabilityofsupplychainsthatprovideinputstoagriculturalproduction.Forexample,theavailabilityandcostoffertilizerswillnotbecapturedexcepttotheextentthattheyaffectfarmprofitabilityorsoilhealth.Notehoweverthat, inthisspecificcase, thedecline insoilhealthorwaterpollutionduetonutrient imbalance iswithinscopeofindicator2.4.1.

Finally, the impacts of agricultural production systems on the health of end-consumers and theirdietaryoutcomes(exceptforthefarmhouseholditself)isoutsidethescopeoftheindicator.Spatial scope: the denominator An important aspect is to determine the agricultural land area of a country to be used asdenominator and the conceptual scope for the sustainability assessment. Agricultural land area isdefined by FAO as the sum of arable land plus permanent crops plus permanent meadows andpastures(FAOSTATLandUseQuestionnaire,2018;SEEAAFF,2018)4.Twopracticalpointsneedtobeconsidered:

• determiningtheextenttowhichthecoverageanddesignofthefarmsurveyencompassestheentireagriculturallandarea;

• determining theextent towhich the totalareaof landunder themanagementof farmers(the agricultural holding) is different from the associated agricultural land areas. Theagriculturalholdingmaybelargerthantheagriculturallandareabecauseitcanalsoincludeforexample,areasleftforconservation,farmbuildings,etc.

Forthepurposeofcalculatingtheindicator,thestatisticalunitisnecessarilytheagriculturalholdingtowhichanagricultural landarea isassociated.Sustainability foreachsub-indicator isassessedatthe levelof theagriculturalholding (i.e. farm level) and thenassociatedwith theagricultural landareaofthatholding.

Particular considerationmust be given to common land that cannot be clearly associated with aparticular agricultural holding. In some regions, these landsmay represent a large percentage ofagricultural landareas.This isrelevantinmanycountriesinwhichasignificantnumberoffarmers,withorwithoutland,relyonlivestockfarmingusingcommonlands(pastoralists,agro-pastoralists).

Commonlandisincludedinthescopeinsofarasitcanbeassociatedwithandisundertheexclusivecontrolofaparticularagriculturalholding.Whatisoutsidethescopeoftheindicatorarelargeareasof landthatarenotmanagedbutusedbydifferentagriculturalholdingswithoutanymanagementarrangement.

The FAOdefinition of total agricultural land area includes these common lands that are a part ofpermanent meadows and pastures. However, the scope of indicator 2.4.1 is to capture to whatextentproducersmakeuseofthelandundertheirdirectcontrolinasustainableway,andseveralofthe proposed sub-indicators imply a certain level of control on the land. Furthermore, the globalareaofcommonlandrepresentsalargeshareofagriculturallandarea.Includingcommonlandsinthecalculationofagriculturalsustainabilitywouldthereforebiassubstantiallytheresultsatcountry,regionalandgloballevels.Pilotstudieshaverecommendedtoexcludecommonlandfromthesurvey4ThenationallevelstatisticsarecollectedbyFAOfrommembercountriesanddisseminatedinFAOSTAT.

9

andfocusonagriculturalholdingsonly.Thisisalsoinlinewiththeinstrumentselectedtomeasureindicator 2.4.1 (the next section). In conclusion the denominator for indicator 2.4.1 has beenmodifiedasagriculturallandareaminuscommonland.ThisdecisionneedstobeconsideredinthebroaderframeworkofthefullsetofSDGindicators,consideringinparticulartheindicatorassociatedwithSDGTarget15.3.Farm typology and scope In some developed countries, agricultural surveys limit their coverage to farms with a value ofoperations above a certainmonetary threshold in order to exclude hobby farmers. In developingcountries, applying this threshold would tend to exclude smaller and subsistence farms whosecontribution to total agricultural area and overall sustainability may be substantial. Thismethodology requires that all types of agricultural holdings be taken into consideration,with theexceptionofhobbyfarms,andconsideringthescopeasdescribedabove.

Data collection instrument An earlier version of the methodology suggested a combination of different data collectioninstruments to monitor the various sub-indicators. In the consultations undertaken, however,several countries did highlight the difficulties in combining data from different sources andrequestedthatthisbeavoidedtotheextentpossible.Thisrevisedmethodologyisbasedonthefarmsurveyasmaindatacollectioninstrumentforallsub-indicators,butitalsodiscussesthepossibilityofusingacombinationofdifferentdatasourcesasanalternativeoptionforthosecountrieswishingtodoso.

By focusing on the agricultural holding and the agricultural land area associatedwith it, the farmsurveyoffersanopportunityforcollectingdatathroughasingleinstrumentforIndicator2.4.1.Thisdecision is in linewith countries’ efforts, supportedby FAO, todevelop farm surveys as themostappropriate tool for generating agricultural statistics. It also benefits from the FAO work indevelopingtheAgriculturalIntegratedSurvey(AGRIS)programme,whichhasbeenrecentlyfinalized.

Thedecisiontofocusonfarmsurveyhasimplicationsonthetypeofinformationthatitispossibletocapture in order to cover the different dimensions of sustainability.While farm surveys are wellsuited to measure the economic dimension of sustainability, they may not be the ideal tool formeasuringenvironmentalandsocialsustainabilityintermsofimpact/outcomes.

Typically, environmental impacts of agriculture are measured through monitoring systems likeremotesensing,soilandwatersampling,orothertoolsassociatedwithaspecificarea,ratherthanwithasingleagriculturalholding.Forseveralenvironmentalthemes,itisunlikelythatfarmerswouldbe able to assess the environmental impact of their farming practices on issues like fertilizerpollutionorpesticideimpact.Usingafarmsurveyinstrument,insteadofenvironmentalmonitoringsystems,thereforeimpliesmovingfrommeasuringoutcome/impacttoassessingfarmers’behavior.Wheneverpossible,however,therevisedmethodologycontinuestofocusonmeasuringoutcomes.

The sub-themesunder the socialdimensionareusuallybest captured throughhousehold surveys.While in themajorityof casesagriculturalholdingsare closely associatedwitha givenhousehold,thisisnotalwaysthecase,andthereforecapturingthesocialdimensionofsustainabilitythroughafarmsurveyposescertainchallenges.

Defining themes and sub-indicators Selecting themes The literature review (Hayati, 2017) identified a large number of potential sustainability themesacrossthethreedimensionsofsustainabilityand,foreachtheme,usuallyalargenumberofpossiblesub-indicators.Thekeyconsiderationsintheselectionofthemesarerelevanceandmeasurability.Interms of relevance, the relationship between the associated sub-indicator and sustainableagriculture outcomes at farm level should be strong. Following this approach, only sub-indicatorsthatareresponsivetofarmlevelpoliciesaimedatimprovingsustainableagricultureareconsidered.

10

In termsofmeasurability,only a “core” setof themesand sub-indicators forwhichmeasurementandreportingisexpectedinthemajorityofcountriesareselected.

Twopointsdeservetobementioned.First,therearemanyrelevantsubthemesandsub-indicatorsbut,fromanoperationalpointofview,it is impossibletoconsideralloftheminordertomeasureprogress towards sustainable agriculture. The subject is too complex, and the factors influencingsustainable agriculture are too diverse across countries, for reaching a consensus on an indicatorthatcoversallsustainabilityissueswhileremainingmanageableanduniversallyvalid.FAOthereforeproposestomeasureindicator2.4.1throughacoresetof11themesforglobalreportingpurposes.Countries may consider including additional themes to ensure that their national indicator forsustainableagricultureisrelevantfornationalpolicy-making,butforthesakeofSDGreporting,andtoensureinternationalcoherence,theyarerequestedtoreportonIndicator2.4.1byusingthecoresetof11sub-indicatorsassociatedwiththe11themes.

Second, the selection of themes for this indicator must be seen in the context of other SDGindicators thatcover the full rangeofeconomic,environmentalandsocial themesassociatedwithsustainable development. This is especially importantwhen recalling that, for Indicator 2.4.1, theintention is to focus on a farm level assessment of sustainable agriculture, rather than provideinformationtosupportamoregeneralizeddiscussiononthecontributionofagriculturalactivitytovariouseconomic,environmentalandsocialoutcomes.Criteria for selecting sub-indicators Selectingthemostappropriatesub-indicatorforeachthemeisadistinctstepintheprocess.Foranygiven theme, indeed, theremay bemultiple sub-indicators that are relevant and/or measurable.Consequently, in selecting the sub-indicators for indicator 2.4.1 the following six key criteria havebeenconsidered:

• Policy relevance: the indicatormustbeeasilyunderstood (reasonswhy it is selected) andthe results easily interpretedbypolicymakers (is agricultural sustainability decreasedandwhy?Whichpoliciesneedstobeimplementedtoaddresstheissue?).

• Universality: the indicatormustberelevant forallcountries intheworld,bothdevelopinganddeveloped.

• International comparability: theway indicators are computedmust ensure comparabilityacross countries in order to ensure global reporting. Comparability, however, does notnecessarily mean the use of absolute standards. For instance, agricultural wages may becomparedwith the nationalminimumwage rate, even if thesewage rates vary fromonecountry to another. Similarly, compliance with national environmental standards ornationally recognized certification systems canbe considered in computing environmentalsub-indicators,evenifnationalcriteriavaryfromonecountrytoanother.

• Measurability:many themes are important sustainability issues but theirmeasurement isdifficult, complex or would involve costs that cannot be sustained in the framework of aregular monitoring exercise. To the extent possible, alternative measures have beenproposed to maintain indicators that are considered relevant while offering feasiblemeasurementsolutions.

• Cost effectiveness: cost effectiveness is related tomeasurability. The cost associatedwithindicatormeasurement have systematically been considered in relationwith the accuracyandreliabilityoftheresultsobtainedthroughdifferentmeasurementoptions.

• Minimumcross-correlationbetweensub-indicators:Inselectingalimitedsetofthemesandsub-indicators, efforts were made to reduce cross-correlation between different sub-indicators.Highcross-correlationbetweensub-indicatorswouldimplythattwoormoresub-indicatorscapturethesamesustainabilityissue.Inthiscase,theinclusionofonesinglesub-indicator, instead of several, would be sufficient to adequately measure agriculturalsustainabilityperformances.

Sub-indicatorsmaybeoffivebroadtypes.Theymaybe:

11

• Impact/outcomeindicatorsthatrecordwhatthestateorchangeinstateofenvironmental,economicandsocialfactorsandassociatedflowsofbenefitsorcosts.

• Awareness indicatorsrecordthelevelofawarenessandknowledgeofinterviewedpersonsin relation with a given sustainability issue. Awareness is considered a prerequisite steptowardsaddressingsustainabilityissues.

• Behaviorindicatorsthatcapturepeoples’attitudesinrelationtoagivensustainabilityissue.Whilebehaviorisinfluencedbyawareness,thetwocanalsobedisconnected.

• Practice indicators that measure specific and codified agricultural methods applied on afarm.

• Perceptionindicatorsthatrecordpeoples’viewsaboutaspecificissue.

ForthepurposesofSDGreportingandconsistentapplicationacrosscountries,itisconsideredthatimpact/outcome indicators should be the preferred focus ofmeasurement: if an outcome can bemeasured, it is the most objective way to measure performances in relation with a givensustainabilitytheme.Intheabsenceofthepossibilitytomeasureoutcomes,capturingfarmbehaviorthrough carefully crafted questions, can be considered acceptable proxies to assess sustainabilityperformances.

In general, measuring sustainability performances through farm practices presents severalchallenges.Theimpactofagivenpracticeoftenvariesfromoneplacetoanother,andfromonefarmtype to another, and what can be considered sustainable in one setting may not be suitable inanother. Care should be taken, therefore, when proposing indicators on practices to ensure thattheyareuniversallyrelevantinrelationwiththesustainabilityissuetheyaremeanttoaddress.

Perception indicators should be used carefully and are not considered to be amenable to themeasurementofmanysustainabilitythemesastheyofferalevelofsubjectivityhardlyacceptableinthecomputationofanindicatorlikeindicator2.4.1.List of sub-indicators Theproposedlistofthemesandsub-indicatorswasobtainedthroughaseriesofconsultations,andonthebasisoftheabovecriteria.Thelistofselectedthemesandsub-indicatorsisprovidedinTable1. Intotal11themesare included.Themethodologyforthecompilationofthesub-indicatorsandfordefiningtheassociatedsustainabilitycriteriaisdescribedindetailinAnnex1.Annex1alsoliststheminimumsetofdata itemsneeded toproduce the relevant information for the sub-indicator.Moreover, questionnairemodules that contain theminimumsetof questionsneeded tomeasureeach sub-indicator at farm level have also beendesigned. Thesequestions canbe integrated intoexistingfarmsurveysforensuringacomprehensiveassessmentofindicator2.4.1.

Whenever the farm survey focuses on understanding level of awareness, farmers’ behavior or, insomecases,practicesorperception,thequestionsarecraftedinawaythattheykeeptheiruniversalrelevancetotheextentpossible.Table 1: Revised list of themes and sub-indicators (see definitions in Annex and supporting documents) No. Theme Sub-indicators

1 Landproductivity Farmoutputvalueperhectare

2 Profitability Netfarmincome

3 Resilience Riskmitigationmechanisms

4 Soilhealth Prevalenceofsoildegradation

5 Wateruse Variationinwateravailability

6 Fertilizerpollutionrisk Managementoffertilizers

7 Pesticiderisk Managementofpesticides

8 Biodiversity Useofbiodiversity-friendlypractices

9 Decentemployment Wagerateinagriculture

12

10 Foodsecurity Foodinsecurityexperiencescale(FIES)

11 Landtenure Securetenurerightstoland

Assessing sustainability performance for each sub-indicator For each sub-indicator, criteria to assess sustainability levels are developed. The concept ofsustainabilityimpliesanideaofcontinuousprogressandimprovementtowardsbetterperformancesacross all themes, and such performances can therefore bemore or less sustainable. In order tocapture the concept of continuous progress towards sustainability, a ‘traffic light’ approach isproposed,inwhichthreesustainabilitylevelsareconsideredforeachsub-indicator:

• Green:desirable• Yellow:acceptable• Red:unsustainable.

While a certain level of subjectivity is unavoidable, this approach allows identification, for eachtheme, of conditions of critical unsustainability (red), conditions that can be considered ‘ideal’(green)and,inbetween,intermediateconditionsthatareconsidered‘acceptable’butwouldneedtobe scrutinized in terms of possible improvements (yellow). This approach also acknowledges thetrade-offs existing between sustainability dimensions and themes, and the need to find anacceptablebalancebetweenthem.

achsub-indicator isassessedatthe leveloftheagriculturalholding.Thesustainability level isthenassociatedwith theagricultural landareaof theagriculturalholding.All sub-indicators foragiven

agriculturalholdingthereforerefertothesameagriculturelandarea.

Periodicity SDG Indicator 2.4.1measures progress towardsmore sustainable and productive agriculture. Formany sub-indicators, it is likely that changes will be relatively limited from a year to another.Furthermore,the3-yearperiodicitywillenablecountriestohavethreedatapointsontheindicatorbefore2030.Itisthereforerecommendedthatthesurveybeconductedeverythreeyears.

Sampling design Thesurvey’ssamplingdesignmustrespondtotheneedtocapturethestructureandthedifferenttypologiesofagriculturalholdings. Inparticular, it is importanttodevelopaspecificdesignfortheholdingsofthenon-householdsector(commercialfarms,corporations…).Aprobabilisticsamplingisrequiredtoallowtheassessmentofestimationserrorsandtheextrapolationofthestatisticsusingthesamplingweights.Stratificationisrecommendedtoimprovetheprecisionoftheestimationsandproduce disaggregated statistics. Possible stratification variables include agricultural holding types

Progresstowardssustainableagriculture:managingtrade-offsacrosssustainabilityobjectives

Achievingsustainableagricultureisaprogressiveprocessofidentifyingandstrikingabalancebetweenagriculture’ssocial,economicandenvironmentalobjectives.Thisprocessreflectstheevolutionofsociety’sknowledgewhichhasanimpactonhowsustainabilitygoalsandprioritiesaresetinpractices.Assessmentofagriculturalsustainabilitymustthereforebeseenasadynamicprocesssubjecttoperiodicrevisions.thetrafficlightapproachhelpsdefiningthe‘hardboundaries’ofunsustainabilityforeachtheme,aswellasdesirableconditions,helpingtoassesstrade-offsacrossthedifferentsustainabilitythemes.Thecriteriaproposedinthismethodologyreflectcurrentlevelofknowledgeandbroadconsensusonsustainabilityconditionsandpracticesforeachsub-indicator.Theyshouldberevisedperiodicallytoreflectprogressivechangesinknowledge.

13

(householdandnon-household),productionsystems(crop,livestock,mixed)andotherkeyelementstobeconsidered:irrigated/nonirrigated;organic/nonorganic;andtakingintoaccountsub-nationalspecificities.Thiswillallowreportingtheindicatoratnationalandsub-national levelsandestimatecorrespondingprecisions.

Reporting the indicator The final step in the sustainability assessmentprocess is to report the results at sub-national andnational levels. In order to report results at subnational level, that level of geographicaldisaggregationshouldbeaplannedsamplingdomainofthefarmsurveytowhichthefarmdatacanbeextrapolated.Reporting through a dashboard Therevisedmethodologyproposestofocusonadashboardpresentingthedifferentsub-indicatorsseparately.Thedashboardischosenforreportingtheindicator,assustainabilityisaboutfindinganacceptable balance between its three dimensions. It offers several advantages, including thepossibility of combining data from different sources and clarity about the main unsustainabilityissues: countries can easily visualize their performance in terms of the different sustainabilitydimensionsandthemes,andunderstandwherepolicyeffortscanbefocused(seebelow).

ExampleofdashboardforSDGIndicator2.4.1

Computation of results and construction of the dashboard is performed for each sub-indicatorseparately:foreachsub-indicator,aggregationatnationallevelisdonebysummingtheagriculturallandareaofallagriculturalholdingsbysustainabilitycategory(red,yelloworgreen),andreportedaspercentageofthetotalagriculturallandareaofthecountry(minusthecommonland,asdiscussedearlier).Computing Indicator 2.4.1 from the dashboard The methodological note endorsed by the IAEG-SDG indicates that the sub-indicators are to beaggregated so as to be able to report progress towards sustainable agricultural at country levelthroughasinglemeasure.

Ideally, to obtain the proportion of agriculture area that is sustainable, the assessment ofsustainabilityshouldbemadeacrossallsub-indicatorsforeachfarmthatispartofthesample.Thefarm would then be assigned a sustainability level that is the most constraining across all sub-

14

indicators,andtheresultswouldthenbeaggregatedatthenationallevel.However,thisimpliesthata single data collection instrument (the farm survey) is used to collect information on all sub-indicatorsforagivenagriculturalarearepresentativeofthecountry’sagriculturalarea. Ifdifferentsources are used to collect information on the different sub-indicators (see next section), it isimpossibletoassesssustainabilityatthelevelofthefarmholding.

Inorder toallowfor thepossibility tousealternativedatasources, Indicator2.4.1 isderived fromthedashboardat country level, and isassociatedwith the resultof the sub-indicator that ismostlimiting sustainability performances. This is to check amongst all sub-indicators one that hasachieved the least ‘desirable + acceptable’ sustainability level (or the highest level ofunsustainability)atthecountrylevel(seeexampleabove).

Respectingthe‘trafficlight’approach,thefollowingvaluescanthenbecalculated:

𝑆𝐷𝐺241! = min!:!!!!

(𝑆𝐼! !)

where:

SDG241d=proportionofagriculturallandareathathaveachievedthe‘desirable’level(estimatedbyexcess,seenotebelow)

SIdn=proportionofsub-indicatornthatisclassifiedas‘desirable’

minreferstotheminimumlevelofSIdnatnationallevelacrossall11sub-indicators

SDG241distheproportionofagriculturalareaforwhichallsub-indicatorsaregreen.

𝑆𝐷𝐺241!!! = min!:!!!!

(𝑆𝐼! + 𝑆𝐼!)!

where:

SDG241a+d = proportionof agricultural land area thathaveachievedat least the ‘acceptable’ level(estimatedbyexcess,seenotebelow)

SIdn=proportionofsub-indicatornthatisclassifiedas‘desirable’

SIan=proportionofsub-indicatornthatisclassifiedas‘acceptable’

minreferstotheminimumlevelof(SIdn+SIan)atnationallevelacrossall11sub-indicators

SDG241a+distheproportionofagriculturalareaforwhichallindicatorsareeithergreenoryellow,anacceptablesituation,butthatcouldbeimproved.

𝑆𝐷𝐺241! = 1 − 𝑆𝐷𝐺241!!! = max!:!!!!

(𝑆𝐼! !)

where:

SDG241u = proportion estimated by default of agricultural area that is ‘unsustainable’ (see notebelow)

SIun=proportionofsub-indicatornthatisclassifiedas‘unsustainable’

maxreferstothehighestvalueofSIunacrossall11sub-indicatorsatnationallevel

SDG241u=istheproportionofagriculturalareaforwhichatleastonesub-indicatorisunsustainable,andisthereforeclassifiedasunsustainable.

15

Theperformancesofcountriesovertimecanbemeasuredbythechange inthevalueofSDG241dandSDG241a+d.Anincreaseovertimeindicatesimprovement,whiledecreaseindicatesdegradation.

Note: It shouldbenoted that thechoiceofusing the resultsof thedashboardatnational level tocomputeIndicator2.4.1.ratherthancompilingresultsatfarmlevelandaggregatingthemfurtheratnationallevelwillsystematicallyover-estimatetheproportionofagriculturalareaundersustainableand productive agriculture. The reason is that the probability is high that different holdings willperformbadly (red) in termsofdifferent sub-indicators. The total area considered ‘unsustainable’willthereforelikelybehigherinrealitythanbylookingatthelimitingfactoraggregatedatnationallevel through the dashboard. This shortcoming is compensated by the higher level of flexibilityofferedbythemethoddescribedabove.

Use of alternative data sources to construct the indicator SeveralcountrieshavesuggestedusingexistingdatasourcesoralternativedatasourceslikeremotesensingandGISonthegroundsthatthese instrumentscanbemorecost-effectiveandsometimesprovide more reliable results than farm surveys. The table below indicates possibleinstruments/sourcesofinformationforeachsub-indicator.

No. Sub-indicators Possibledatacollectioninstruments

1 FarmoutputvalueperhectareAgriculturalsurveys,householdsurveyslinkedwithadministrativerecordsandmarketsurveys,remotesensing,agriculturalandlivestockcensus

2 NetfarmincomeAgriculturalsurveys,householdsurveyslinkedwithadministrativerecordsandmarketsurveys,agriculturalandlivestockcensus

3 RiskmitigationmechanismsHouseholdsurveyswithagriculturalinformation,communitysurveys,administrativerecords

4 Prevalenceofsoildegradation

Environmentalmonitoringsystems,soilsampling,remotesensingcalibratedwithgroundobservations,GISdata/maps/modelscalibratedwithgroundobservationsandsamplings

5 VariationinwateravailabilityRiverflowsrecords,waterlevelrecords,abstractionrecords,remotesensing,GISinformation/maps/hydrogeologicalmodels,administrativesources,householdsurveys

6 ManagementoffertilizersEnvironmentalmonitoringsystems(soil,waterquality),agriculturalsurveys,GISdata/mapsandmodelsbasedonsaledata,agriculturalsurveysandadministrativesources

7 ManagementofpesticidesEnvironmentalmonitoringsystems(soil,waterquality),agriculturalsurveys,modelsbasedonactivesubstancesaledata,agriculturalsurveysandadministrativesources

8 Useofbiodiversity-friendlypracticesEnvironmentalmonitoringsystemsincludingremotesensing(landuse/landcover),GISdata/maps

9 WagerateinagricultureLaborforcesurvey,Householdsurveywithagriculturalmodule,administrativedata

10 Foodinsecurityexperiencescale(FIES) Householdsurveys,healthdata

11 SecuretenurerightstolandHouseholdsurveyswithagriculturalmodule,administrative/legalsources

Theuseofsuchinstrumentscanbeconsidered,butseveralaspectsneedtobecarefullytakenintoaccount prior to using alternative data sources. First of all, it should be demonstrated that thealternative source gives results of at least same quality as the surveys and ensure international

16

comparability.Inordertoproduceconsistentandreliabledataasperrecommendedperiodicity,itisadvised that the use of alternative data sources may be considered when the available datasetsfulfillthefollowingcriteria:

• Can be reflected in or attributed to agricultural land area in the country, consideringdifferentfarmtypologiesandagriculturalregions;

• Can be associatedwith the country’s agricultural productions systems, particularly crops,livestockandthecombinationsinbetween;

• Capture the same aspect/phenomenon as the proposed farm survey (as described in thesub-indicator metadata sheets) with at least a documented same quality, consideringscientificstandards;

• Are representative of the situation at the national level (with respect to agricultural landarea)takingintoaccountmainagriculturalregiontypes;

• Arecompliantwithinternational/nationalstandardsandclassificationssystemsinordertoensuretheindicatortobeinternationallycomparable;

• Dataareavailableatthesamelevelofterritorialdisaggregationasthefarmsurvey.• Thewaysandmeanstoadjustforunder-coverageandnon-coverage(whenneeded)should

beclearlydevisedanddescribed;• Datacollectionyearandperiodicityarehomogenousacrossthesub-indicators.

Finally,usingdifferentdatasourcesimpliesthatmechanismsshouldbeput inplaceatthecountryleveltocoordinateregularlytheflowofrequiredinformationgeneratedbyvariousinstitutions.

Alternative data sourcesmay also be used to complement and/or validate farm survey data. Thiscombinedapproachhasthepotentialtoimprovethevalidityandsoundnessofresults,inparticularin countries that have well-established monitoring systems and that are able to produce qualityinformationconsistentlyovertime.Theinformationfromothersourcesmaybeusedandleveragedindifferentwaysdependingonqualityandregularityofitscollation.Forexample:

• Replace farm survey questions,when alternative sources of information are available andrespondtothecriterialistedabove.

• Complementfarmsurveyquestions,byprovidingadditionalcontextual informationhelpfultointerprettheresults.

• Crosscheckthefarmsurveyresultstoidentifyanyinconsistenciesandensuretherobustnessoftheindicator.Thisvalidationexercisecanbedoneex-postorduringthedatacollectionbyproviding the external data to the enumerators before going to the field. In thisway, theenumeratorscanprobewhethertheresponsestothefarmsurveyareconsistentwiththeaprioriexternalknowledge.

In any case, it is recommended that countries complement the farm survey with a monitoringsystem that canmeasure the impact of agriculture on the environment (soil,water, fertilizer andpesticidepollution,biodiversity)andonhealth(pesticidesresiduesinfoodandhumanbodies).Thiswill provide additional information and help crosschecking the robustness of indicator 2.4.1 withregardtotheenvironmentaldimensionofsustainability.

4. ReferencesFAO.1988.ReportoftheFAOCouncil,94thSession,1988.Rome.

FAO. 2014. Building a common vision for sustainable food and agriculture: Principles andapproaches,FAORome.

FAO.2017.ReportfromtheExpertGroupMeetingonSDGindicator2.4.1.April,2017.

17

FAO, 2018. LandUse Classification. In: SEEA Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Annex I, pg. 120,130-135.FAOandUNSD,Rome,Italy.

GlobalStrategy for ImprovingAgriculturalandRuralStatistics.2017.Handbookon theAgriculturalIntegratedSurvey.

Hayati,D.2017.LiteratureReview:ALiteratureReviewonFrameworksandMethodsforMeasuringandMonitoring Sustainable Agriculture. Technical Report n.22. Global Strategy Technical Report:Rome.

18

Annex:Themes,sub-indicatorsandmetadatasheets

Table3:Listofthemesandrelatedsub-indicators

No. Theme Sub-indicator

1 Landproductivity Farmoutputvalueperhectare

2 Profitability Netfarmincome

3 Resilience Riskmitigationmechanisms

4 Soilhealth Prevalenceofsoildegradation

5 Wateruse Variationinwateravailability

6 Fertilizerpollutionrisk Managementoffertilizers

7 Pesticiderisk Managementofpesticides

8 Biodiversity Useofbiodiversity-friendlypractices

9 Decentemployment Wagerateinagriculture

10 Foodsecurity Foodinsecurityexperiencescale(FIES)

11 Landtenure Securetenurerightstoland

19

1. Farm output value per hectare Dimension:Economic

Theme:LandProductivity

Land productivity is ameasure of agricultural value of outputs obtained on a given area of land.Maintaining or improving the output over time relative to the area of land used is an importantaspectinsustainabilityforarangeofreasons.Atfarmlevel,thelandproductivityreflectstechnologyandproductionprocessesforgivenagro-ecologicalconditions.Inabroadersense,anincreaseinthelevelof landproductivityenableshigherproductionwhilereducingpressureon increasinglyscarcelandresources,commonly linkedtodeforestationandassociated lossesofecosystemservicesandbiodiversity.

Coverage:Allfarmtypes(exceptthosethatpurchasemorethan50%ofthefeedfortheirlivestock)

Description:

Thesub-indicatorisdescribedasfarmoutputvalueperhectare(cropsandlivestock).

Informationonfarmoutputsandagriculturalareashouldbestandardinformationavailablefromfarmsurveysthusprovidingagoodbasisforassessmentatfarmlevel.

• Farm output: The volume of agricultural output at farm level generally takes into accountproductionofmultipleoutputs,e.g.croptypesandcropandlivestockcombinations,etc.Sincethevolumeofagriculturaloutputsisnotmeasuredincommensurateunits(e.g.notalloutputsare measured in tonnes, and tonnes of different output represent different products), it isnecessarytoestablishanappropriatemeansofaggregation,inthiscaseusingamonetaryunit.Asimplewaytoenableaggregationistoreflectthemultipleoutputsproducedbyasinglefarmintermsofvalues(i.e.quantitymultipliedbyprices).

• Farmagriculturallandarea:definedastheareaoflandusedforagriculturewithinthefarm5.

Sustainabilitycriteria:

Distancefromthe90thpercentileofthenationaldistribution6:

• Green(desirable):Sub-indicatorvalueis≥2/3ofthecorresponding90thpercentile

• Yellow (acceptable): Sub-indicator value is ≥ 1/3 and < 2/3 of the corresponding 90thpercentile

• Red(unsustainable):Sub-indicatorvalueis<1/3ofthecorresponding90thpercentile

Dataitems

Referenceperiod:calendaryear

5AccordingtotheSEEA-AFFclassificationandtheclassificationoftheWorldAgriculturalCensus20206Thepercentileiscalculatedbymajorproductionsystem(crops,livestock,crops/livestock)andbymajoragriculturalareasofthecountryandfarmproductivityiscomparedwithsimilarfarmsinsameagriculturalarea.

20

1.1. Quantitiesandfarmgatepricesofthe5maincropsorlivestockproductsandby-productsproducedbythefarm

1.2. Quantitiesandfarmgatepricesofotheragriculturalproducts(agro-forestryoraquacultureproducts)producedbythefarm

1.3. Agriculturalareaoftheholding1.4. Distributionofsourcesofanimalfeedusedontheagriculturalholding(sameas8.2)

⃝1 percentageproducedontheagriculturalholding

⃝2 percentagepurchasedfromoutsidetheholding

21

2. Net Farm Income Dimension:Economic

Theme:Profitability

An importantpartof sustainability inagriculture is theeconomic viabilityof the farm,driven toalargeextentbyitsprofitability.Profitabilityismeasuredusingthenetincomethatthefarmerisabletogainfromfarmingoperations.Availabilityanduseofinformationonfarmeconomicperformance,measuredusingprofitability,willsupportbetterdecisionmakingbothatmicroandmacro-economiclevel. Since performancemeasures drive behaviour, better information on performance can alterbehaviour and decision-making by government and producers both in large-scale commercialfarmingandmediumandsmall-scalesubsistenceagriculture.

Coverage:Allfarmstypes

Description:

Thesub-indicatormeasures ifthefarmisconsistentlyprofitableovera3-yearperiod.Thefocusofthis sub-indicator is on income from farming operations as distinct from the total income of thefarminghousehold,whichmayincludeothersourcesofincomesuchas,forexample,employmentinlocalbusinessesbyotherfamilymembers,tourismactivity,etc.

Formula7:

𝑁𝐹𝐼 = 𝐶𝑅 + 𝑌! − 𝑂𝐸 − 𝐷𝑒𝑝 + ∆𝐼𝑛

where:

• NFI=TotalNetFarmIncome• CR=Totalfarmcashreceiptsincludingdirectprogrampayments• Yk=Incomeinkind• OE=Totaloperatingexpensesafterrebates(includingcostsoflabour)• Dep=Depreciation• ΔInv=Valueofinventorychange.

Estimating profitability at a farm level will generally require compilation of basic farm financialrecords, i.e.daily,weekly,monthlyor seasonal transactions inanorganizedway. Ingeneral, largecommercial farmsmaintaindetailedfinancialrecordshowever, incaseofmediumfarmsandsmallsubsistenceagriculture, recordkeeping isseldompracticedand inmostof thecountries itdoesn’texistatall.

Incasewhendetaileddataarenotavailableatfarmlevel,thenestimateswillbecalculatedbasedonfarmerdeclarationofoutputsandinputsquantityandvalue.Inthesecases,depreciation,variationofstocksandtaxesmaybeneglected.Thisisdescribedbelowassimplifiedoption(1).

Asecondsimplifiedoption(shortquestionnaire)isalsooffered,basedonfarmer’sdeclarationoftheagriculturalholding’sprofitabilityoverthe lastthreecalendaryears. It isrecommendedtousethissimplifiedoptiononlywhenotheroptionsarenotfeasible.


Forafarmtobeprofitablethenetfarmincomeshouldbeabovezero.

• Green(desirable):abovezeroforpast3consecutiveyears

• Yellow(acceptable):abovezeroforatleast1ofthepast3consecutiveyears

7SeeStatisticsCanadaat:http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-010-x/21-010-x2014001-eng.pdf

22

• Red(unsustainable):belowzeroforallofthepastconsecutiveyears

Dataitems

Referenceperiod:lastthreecalendaryears

Detailedoption

Datafromfarmfinancialrecords,i.e.daily,weekly,monthlyorseasonaltransactionsinanorganizedway(ingeneral,largecommercialfarmsmaintaindetailedfinancialrecordsonthebasisofwhichtheNFIcanbecalculatedasperaboveequation).

Simplifiedoption(1)

Tobeusedwhenthedetaileddataarenotavailableat farm level (betteradaptedtosmallholdersand household sector). Variables to be calculated are Farm Cash Receipts; Income in kind; Directprogrampayments;andOperatingExpenses.

1.1 Outputquantity(cropsandlivestockproductsandby-productsmarketedorself-consumed)1.2 Farmgatepricesofaboveoutputs1.3 Inputsquantityandprices1.4 Incomefromotheron-farmactivities1.5 Operatingexpenses

Simplifiedoption(2)

1.1 Respondent’sdeclarationonagriculturalholdingprofitabilityoverthelast3calendaryears

23

3. Risk mitigation mechanisms Dimension:Economic

Theme:Resilience

Resilienceencompassabsorptive,anticipatoryandadaptivecapacitiesandreferstothepropertiesofasystemthatallowsfarmstodealwithshocksandstresses,topersistandtocontinuetobewell-functioning(inthesenseofprovidingstability,predictablerules,securityandotherbenefitstoitsmembers).


Description:

Thissub-indicatormeasurestheincidenceofthefollowingmitigationmechanisms:

• Accesstooravailedcredit8.• Accesstooravailedinsurance.• Onfarmdiversification(shareofasingleagriculturalcommoditynotgreaterthan66%inthe

totalvalueofproductionoftheholding).

Accesstocreditand/orinsuranceisdefinedhereaswhenagivenserviceisavailableandtheholderhasenoughmeanstoobtaintheservice(requireddocuments,collateral,positivecredithistory,etc.).Broadly,accesstooneormoretheabove3factorswillallowthefarmtoprevent,resist,adaptandrecoverfromexternalshockssuchas,floods,droughts,marketfailure(e.g.priceshock),climateshockandpest/animaldiseases.


Afarmholdingisconsideredresilientifithasavailedorhasthemeanstoaccesstheriskmitigationmechanismsasfollows:

• Green(desirable):Accesstooravailedatleasttwooftheabove-listedmitigationmechanisms.

• Yellow(acceptable):Accesstooravailedatleastoneoftheabove-listedmitigationmechanisms.

• Red(unsustainable):Noaccesstothelistedmitigationmechanisms.

**************

Dataitems

Referenceperiod:lastcalendaryear

3.1. Agriculturalholdingaccesstocredit,insuranceorotherfinancialinstruments:

• Credit(formal,informal)• Insurance

3.2 Listofotheron-farmactivitiesapartfromcropsandlivestock

3.3 Valueofproductionforthelistedon-farmcommodities

8 Includecashloansandin-kindloans(e.g.,seedsprovidedbyanotherfarmerandrepaidwithashareoftheharvest,seeds,etc.)onlyforagriculturerelatedinvestments.

24

4. Prevalence of soil degradation Dimension:Environmental

Theme:Soilhealth

Many of the processes affecting soil health are driven by agricultural practices. FAO and theIntergovernmentalTechnicalPanelonSoils(ITPS)have identified10mainthreatstosoil functions:soil erosion; soil organic carbon losses; nutrient imbalance; acidification; contamination;waterlogging;compaction;soilsealing;salinizationandlossofsoilbiodiversity.


Description:

The sub-indicator measures the extent to which agriculture activities affects soil health andthereforerepresentsasustainability issue.Areviewof the10threats tosoil showsthatallexceptone (soil sealing,which is the lossofnatural soil to construction/urbanisation)arepotentiallyandprimarily affected by inappropriate agricultural practices. Ideally, therefore, all soils underagriculturallandareainacountryshouldbethesubjectofperiodicmonitoringinordertoassesstheimpact of agriculture on soils. This requires detailed surveys and sampling campaigns, associatedwithlaboratorytesting.Inordertoproposeamanageablesolutionwhilecapturingthemaintrendsinthecountryintermsofsoilhealth,thefarmsurveyfocusesonthefourthreatsthatcombinethecharacteristicsmorewidespread (fornationalmonitoring, countriesmaychoose toaddanyof theotherareasindicatedabove,dependingonrelevance),andeasiertoassessthroughfarmsurveys:

1. Soilerosion2. Reductioninsoilfertility3. Salinizationofirrigatedland4. Waterlogging

Thefarmsurveycapturesfarmer’sknowledgeaboutthesituationoftheagriculturalholdingintermsof soildegradation.Experiencehas shown that farmersareverymuchawareof the stateof theirsoils,healthanddegradation level.Farmersmayalsobeofferedtheopportunitytomentionotherthreatsthantheabovefour.Other data sources on soil healthmay either complement the information collected through thefarmsurveyandofferopportunitiesforcross-checkingfarmers’responses;orbeusedasalternativesourcesofdata.Priortothefarmsurvey,adeskstudycouldcollectallavailableinformationonsoilhealth, including using national official statistics or statistics available from international agenciessuchasFAO.Thistypicallyincludesmaps,models,resultsfromsoilsampling,laboratoryanalysisandfieldsurveys,andallexistingreportonsoiland landdegradationatnational level.Onthebasisofthisinformation,mapsortables(byadministrativeboundariesorotherdivisionsofthecountry)canbeestablished,showingthethreatstosoilsaccordingtotheabove4categoriesofthreats.Sustainabilitycriteria:Proportionofagriculturalareaofthefarmaffectedbysoildegradation.

• Green(desirable):Thecombinedareaaffectedbyanyofthefourselectedthreatstosoilhealthisnegligible(lessthan10%ofthetotalagricultureareaofthefarm).

• Yellow(acceptable):Thecombinedareaaffectedbyanyofthefourselectedthreatstosoilhealthisbetween10%and50%ofthetotalagricultureareaofthefarm.

• Red(unsustainable):Thecombinedareaaffectedbyanyofthefourselectedthreatstosoilhealthisabove50%ofthetotalagricultureareaofthefarm.

**************

25

DataitemsReferenceperiod:lastthreecalendaryears

4.1 Listofsoildegradationthreatsexperiencedontheholding

o Soilerosion(lossoftopsoilthroughwindorwatererosion)o Reductioninsoilfertility9o Salinizationofirrigatedlando Waterloggingo Othero Noneoftheabove

4.2 Totalareaoftheholdingaffectedbythreatsrelatedtosoildegradation

9Reductioninsoilfertilitywillbeexperiencedbyfarmersasprogressivereductioninyieldandwillbetheresultofanegativenutrientbalancebywhichtheamountofnutrientapplication(includingthroughmineralandorganicfertilizers,legumes,orgreenmanure)islowerthantheamountthatislostandexportedbycrops.

26

5. Variation in water availability Dimension:Environmental

Theme:Wateruse

Agriculture, more specifically irrigated agriculture, is by far the main economic sector usingfreshwater resources. Inmany places, water withdrawal from rivers and groundwater aquifers isbeyond what can be considered environmentally sustainable. This affects both rivers andundergroundaquifers.Sustainableagriculturethereforerequiresthatthatlevelofuseoffreshwaterfor irrigation remains within acceptable boundaries. While there is no internationally agreedstandards ofwater use sustainability, signals associatedwith unsustainable use ofwater typicallyincludeprogressivereductioninthelevelofgroundwater,dryingoutofspringsandrivers,increasedconflictsamongwaterusers.

Coverage:Allfarmtypes

Description:

Thesub-indicatorcapturestheextenttowhichagriculturecontributestounsustainablepatternsofwateruse.Ideally,thelevelofsustainabilityinwateruseismeasuredatthescaleoftheriverbasinor groundwater aquifer, as it is the combined effect of all users sharing the same resource thatimpactwatersustainability.Thefarmsurveycapturesfarmers’awarenessandbehaviourinrelationwithwater scarcity, and associates themwith three levels of sustainability. These awareness andbehaviourareexpressedintermsof:

- whetherthefarmeruseswatertoirrigatecropsonatleast10%oftheagricultureareaofthefarmandwhy,iftheanswerisnegative(doesnotneed,cannotafford);

- whetherthefarmerisawareaboutissuesofwateravailabilityintheareaofthefarmandnoticesareductioninwateravailabilityovertime;

- whetherthereareorganizations(waterusersorganisations,others)inchargeofallocatingwateramongusersandtheextenttowhichtheseorganisationsareworkingeffectively.

Otherdatasourcesmayeithercomplementthefarmsurveyonwateruseandofferopportunitiesforcross-checking farmers’ responses; or be used as alternative sources of data. Prior to the farmsurvey, a desk study should collect all available information on water balance, including nationalofficialstatisticsorstatisticsavailablefrominternationalagenciessuchasFAO.Informationonwaterresourcesanduseisusuallycollectedbytheentitiesinchargeofwatermanagementormonitoringandareorganisedbyhydrologicalentity(riverbasinorgroundwateraquifer).Theytypicallyincludehydrologicalrecords(riverflow,groundwaterlevels),modelsandmapsshowingtheextentofwaterusebyhydrologicalentity.


Farmsustainabilityinrelationwithwaterusewillbeassessedasfollows:

• Green(desirable):doesnotusewaterforirrigatingcropsonmorethan10%oftheagricultureareaofthefarm,orwateravailabilityremainsstableovertheyears

• Yellow(acceptable):useswatertoirrigatecropsonatleast10%oftheagricultureareaofthefarm,doesnotknowwhetherwateravailabilityremainsstableovertheyears,orexperiencesreductiononwateravailabilityovertheyears,butthereisanorganisationthateffectivelyallocateswateramongusers.

• Red(unsustainable):inallothercases.

27

Dataitems

Referenceperiod:lastthreecalendaryears

5.1 Irrigatedagriculturalareaoftheholding

5.2 Reductioninwateravailabilityexperiencedontheholding

5.3 Existenceoforganizationsdealingwithwaterallocation

28

6. Management of fertilizers Dimension:Environmental

Theme:Fertilizerpollutionrisk

Agriculture can affect the quality of the environment through excessive use or inadequatemanagement of fertilizers. Sustainable agriculture implies that the level of chemicals in soil andwater bodies remains within acceptable thresholds. Integrated plant nutrient managementconsiders all sources of nutrients (mineral and organic) and theirmanagement in order to obtainbestnutrientbalance.Measuringsoilandwaterqualitycapturestheextentandcausesofpollution,butestablishingmonitoringsystemsofsoilandwateriscostlyandnotalwaysfeasibleincountries.

Note:themanagementofplantnutrientsaddressestwosustainabilityissues:avoidingpollution,andmaintainingagoodlevelofsoilfertility.Thissub-indicatoraddressesthefirstissue,whilethesecondoneisaddressedundersub-indicator4‘Soilhealth’.


Description:

Theproposedapproach isbasedonquestions to farmersabout theiruseof fertilizer, inparticularmineral or synthetic fertilizers, their awareness about the environmental risks associated withfertilizer andmanure applications, and their behaviour in terms of plant nutrientmanagement10.Managementmeasuresconsideredtohelpreducingriskisasfollows:

1. Followprotocolsasperextensionserviceorretailoutletrecommendationsorlocalregulations,notexceedingrecommendeddoses

2. Useorganicsourceofnutrients(includingmanureorcompostingresidues)alone,orincombinationwithsyntheticormineralfertilizers

3. Uselegumesasacovercrop,orcomponentofamulti/croporpasturesystemtoreducefertilizerinputs

4. Distributesyntheticormineralfertilizerapplicationoverthegrowingperiod5. Considersoiltypeandclimate11indecidingfertilizerapplicationdosesandfrequencies6. Usesoilsamplingatleastevery5yearstoperformnutrientbudgetcalculations7. Performsite-specificnutrientmanagementorprecisionfarming128. Usebufferstripsalongwatercourses.


Farmsustainabilityinrelationwithfertilizerpollutionriskwillbeassessedasfollows:

• Green(desirable):Thefarmdoesnotusefertilizers13orusesfertilizersandtakesspecificmeasurestomitigateenvironmentalrisks(atleastfourfromthelistabove)

• Yellow(acceptable):thefarmusesfertilizersandtakesatleasttwomeasuresfromtheabovelisttomitigateenvironmentalrisks

• Red(unsustainable):farmerusesfertilizeranddoesnottakeanyoftheabovespecificmeasurestomitigateenvironmentalrisksassociatedwiththeiruse.

10Inordertokeepthequestionnairemanageable,themoduledoesnotconsiderdifferenttypeofcroporpractice.Themethodthereforeassumesthatifafarmerreportsbestpractices,thesepracticesareappliedovertheentirefarm.Itmaythereforeover-estimatetheareaundergoodpractices.11Soiltype,combinedwithclimate,andinparticularthefrequencyandintensityofrainfallevents,areimportantelementstoconsiderindecidingfertilizerapplicationdosesandfrequencies.12Precisionfarmingisafarmingmanagementconceptbasedonobserving,measuringandrespondingtointerandintra-fieldvariabilityincrops.13Fertilizerstobeconsideredincludemineralandsyntheticfertilizersaswellasanimalmanure.

29

**************

Dataitems


6.1 Useofsyntheticormineralfertilizeroranimalmanure/slurrybytheagriculturalholding(Y/N)

6.2 Specificmeasurestakentomitigatetheenvironmentalrisksassociatedwiththeexcessiveuseormisuseuseoffertilizersasperlistbelow:

⃝1 Followprotocolsasperextensionserviceorretailoutletrecommendationsorlocalregulations,notexceedingrecommendeddoses

⃝2 Useorganicsourceofnutrients(includingmanureorcompostingresidues)alone,orincombinationwithsyntheticormineralfertilizers

⃝3 Uselegumesasacovercrop,orcomponentofamulti/croporpasturesystemtoreducefertilizerinputs

⃝4 Distributesyntheticormineralfertilizerapplicationoverthegrowingperiod⃝5 Considersoiltypeandclimateindecidingfertilizerapplicationdosesandfrequencies⃝6 Usesoilsamplingatleastevery5yearstoperformnutrientbudgetcalculations⃝7 Performsite-specificnutrientmanagementorprecisionfarming⃝8 Usebufferstripsalongwatercourses.

30

7. Management of pesticides Dimension:Environmental

Theme:Pesticiderisk

Pesticidesareimportantinputsinmodernagriculture(cropandlivestock),butifnotwellmanagedtheycancauseharmtopeople’shealthortotheenvironment.Practicesassociatedwithintegratedpest management (IPM14) exist that contribute to minimise risks associated with the use ofpesticidesandlimittheirimpactonhumanhealthandontheenvironment.TheInternationalCodeofConductonPesticideManagementdefinesbestpracticeinpesticidemanagement.


Description:

Theproposedsub-indicatorisbasedoninformationontheuseofpesticidesonthefarms,thetypeofpesticideusedandthetypeofmeasure(s)takentomitigatetheassociatedrisks15.Itconsidersthepossibilitythattheholdingadoptsspecificmeasurestohelpreducingrisksassociatedwithpesticideuse.Listofpossiblemeasures:

Health

1. Adherencetolabelrecommendationsforpesticideuse(includinguseofprotectionequipmentwhileapplyingpesticides)

2. Maintenanceandcleansingofprotectionequipmentafteruse3. Safedisposalofwaste(cartons,bottlesandbags)

Environment

1. Adherencetolabelrecommendationsforpesticideapplication2. Adoptanyoftheabovegoodagriculturalpractices(GAPs):adjustplantingtime,applycrop

spacing,croprotation,mixedcroppingorinter-cropping3. Performbiologicalpestcontrolorusebiopesticides4. Adoptpasturerotationtosuppresslivestockpestpopulation5. Useofpestresistant/tolerantcultivars,diseaseresistant/tolerantlivestockbreedand

standard/certifiedseedandplantingmaterial6. Systematicremovalofplantpartsattackedbypests7. Maintenanceandcleansingofsprayequipmentafteruse8. Useonepesticidenomorethantwotimesorinmixtureinaseasontoavoidpesticide

resistance.

14IntegratedPestManagement(IPM)isanecosystemapproachtocropproductionandprotectionthatcombinesdifferentmanagementstrategiesandpracticestogrowhealthycropsandminimizetheuseofpesticides(FAO).15Inordertokeepthequestionnairemanageable,themoduledoesnotconsiderdifferenttypesofcroporlivestock.Thus,thebestpracticescouldconcernonlyonecroporlivestock,whilepracticesmaybedifferentforotherones.Themethodthereforeassumesthatifafarmerreportsbestpractices,thesepracticesareappliedovertheentirefarm.Itmaythereforeover-estimatetheareaundergoodpractices.

31


Farmsustainabilityinrelationwithpesticideswillbeassessedasfollows:

• Green(desirable):Thefarmdoesnotusepesticidesorusesonlymoderatelyorslightlyhazardous16pesticides(WHOClassIIorIII).Inthiscase,itadherestoallthreehealth-relatedmeasuresandatleastfouroftheenvironment-relatedmeasures

• Yellow(acceptable):farmerusesonlymoderatelyorslightlyhazardouspesticides(WHOClassIIorIII)andtakessomemeasurestomitigateenvironmentalandhealthrisks(atleasttwofromeachofthelistsabove)

• Red(unsustainable):farmeruseshighlyorextremelyhazardouspesticides(WHOClassIaorIb),illegalpesticides,orusesmoderatelyorslightlyhazardouspesticideswithouttakingspecificmeasurestomitigateenvironmentalorhealthrisksassociatedwiththeiruse(fewerthantwofromanyofthetwolistsabove).

Dataitems


7.1 Useofpesticidesforcroporlivestockbytheagriculturalholding(Y/N)

7.2 Useofhighlyorextremelyhazardousorillegalpesticidesbytheagriculturalholding(Y/N)

7.3 Measurestakentoprotectpeoplefromhealth-relatedrisksassociatedwithpesticides:

1. Adherencetolabelrecommendationsforpesticideuse,includinguseofpersonalprotectionequipment(Y/N)

2. Maintenanceandcleansingofprotectionequipmentafteruse(Y/N)3. Safedisposalofwaste(cartons,bottlesandbags)(Y/N)

7.4 Measurestakentoavoidenvironment-relatedrisksassociatedwithpesticides:

4. Adherencetolabelrecommendationsforpesticideapplication(Y/N)5. Adjustmentofplantingtime(Y/N)6. Applicationofcropspacing(Y/N)7. Applicationofcroprotation(Y/N)8. Applicationofmixedcropping(Y/N)9. Applicationofinter-cropping(Y/N)10. Performbiologicalpestcontrol(Y/N)11. Useofbiopesticides(Y/N)12. Adoptingpasturerotationtosuppresslivestockpestpopulation(Y/N)13. Useofpestresistant/tolerantcultivars(Y/N)14. Useofdiseaseresistant/tolerantlivestockbreed(Y/N)15. Useofstandard/certifiedseedandplantingmaterial(Y/N)16. Systematicremovalofplantpartsattackedbypests(Y/N)17. Maintenanceandcleansingofsprayequipmentafteruse(Y/N)18. Useonepesticidenomorethantwotimesorinmixtureinaseasontoavoidpesticide

resistance(Y/N).

16WHOClassIIorIIIpesticidesasdefinedbyWHOclassification(http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard_2009.pdf),orequivalentnationalclassification.

32

8. Use of biodiversity-friendly practices Dimension:Environmental

Theme:Biodiversity

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) stresses the close relationship between agricultureactivities and biodiversity, considering three levels of biodiversity: genetic level diversity;agrobiodiversity at production system level; and ecosystem level (wild) biodiversity. The wayagricultureispracticedinfluencesallthreelevels.Attemptstodevelopindicatorsofbiodiversityforagriculture systematically consider a large number of sub-indicator, with no universally agreedsustainabilitycriteria.Consideringtheseconstraints,andthe importanceofaddressingbiodiversityin the construction of Indicator 2.4.1, it is proposed to develop a sub-indicator that captures theefforts towardsmorebiodiversity-friendlyagriculture,by identifyinga limited listofpractices thatareconducivetobiodiversityconservation.


Description:

This sub-indicatormeasures the level of adoption of biodiversity-friendly practices by the farm atecosystem, species and genetic levels. This indicator addresses both crops and livestock. Thepracticesarebrokendownasfollows:

1. Leavesatleast10%oftheholdingareafornaturalordiversevegetation.Thiscanincludenaturalpasture/grassland17,maintainingwildflowerstrips,stoneandwoodheaps,treesorhedgerows,naturalpondsorwetlands.

2. Doesnotusesyntheticpesticides,doesnotpurchasemorethan50%ofthefeedforlivestockanddoesnotuseantimicrobialsasgrowthpromoters.

3. Atleasttwoofthefollowingcontributetothefarmproduction,eachofthemrepresentingatleast10%ofthevalueoftheholding’sproduction:1)crop/pasture18;2)treesortreeproducts(includingpermanentcropslikeorchardsorvineyards);3)livestockoranimalproducts;4)fish.

4. Practicescroporcrop/pasturerotationinvolvingatleast3cropsorcropsandpasturesonatleast80%ofthefarmarea(excludingpermanentpastures)overaperiodof3years.

5. Theareaunderasinglecontinuouscommodityisnotlargerthan2hectares(excludingpasture),andareaslargerthan2hectaresunderasinglecommodityuseatleasttwodifferentvarieties.

6. Atleast50%ofeachanimalspecies’populationconsistsoflocallyadaptedbreeds19orbreedsatriskofextinction20.


17Naturalpasturesorgrasslandimpliesnouseofmineralorchemicalfertilizerandnopesticides18Avalueneedstobeappliedforpastureevenifitisusedforanimalproductiononthefarm19Locallyadaptedbreeds:“whichhavebeeninthecountryforasufficienttimetobegeneticallyadaptedtooneormoreoftraditionalproductionsystemsorenvironmentsinthecountry.”15FAO.2000.Guidelinesforthedevelopmentofcountryreports(availableathttp://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/021/am228e.pdf).

20TheenumeratorwillbeprovidedwithanationallistofbreedsatriskofextinctionbasedonDAD-IS(http://www.fao.org/dad-is/en/).

33

Levelofadoptionofbiodiversity-friendlypractices:

• Green(desirable):Theagriculturalholdingmeetsatleastfouroftheabovecriteria• Yellow(acceptable):Theagriculturalholdingmeetstwoorthreeoftheabovecriteria• Red(unsustainable):Theagriculturalholdingmeetslessthantwooftheabovecriteria

Dataitems


8.1 Percentageoftheholdingareacoveredbynaturalordiversevegetation(notcultivated),includingnaturalpastureorgrasslands;wildflowerstrips;stoneorwoodheaps;treesorhedgerows;naturalpondsorwetlands

8.2a Useofpesticidesbytheagriculturalholding(Y/N)(coveredbysub-indicator7)

8.2b Distributionofsourcesofanimalfeedusedontheagriculturalholding

⃝1 percentageproducedontheagriculturalholding

⃝2 percentagepurchasedfromoutsidetheholding

8.2c Useofantimicrobialsasgrowthpromoterforlivestock(Y/N)

8.3 Productionontheholding(coveredbysub-indicator1)⃝1 Cropsorpasture⃝2 Treesandtreeproducts⃝3 Livestockandanimalproducts⃝4 Fish

8.4 Percentageoftheagriculturalareaonwhichcroprotationorcrop/pasturerotationinvolvingatleastthreecropsispracticedovera3yearperiod

8.5 Areaoftheagriculturalholdingcoveredbythe(upto5)maincropslistedforsub-indicator1(excludingpasture)

8.6 Numberofvarietiesusedforeachofthe(upto5)maincropscultivatedontheholding

8.7 Listofdifferentbreedsandcross-breedandpercentageofanimalstheyrepresentforeachanimalspecies

34

9. Wage rate in agriculture Dimension:Social

Theme:Decentemployment

The theme provide information on the remuneration of employees working for the farm andbelonging to the elementary occupation group, as defined by the International StandardClassificationofOccupation(ISCO-08-code92).It informsabouteconomicrisksfacedbyunskilledworkersintermsofremunerationreceived,thelaterbenchmarkedagainsttheminimumwagesetatnational level in the agricultural sector. This sub-indicator allows distinguishing between holdingsthat pay a fair remuneration to all employees under the elementary occupation group, andagricultural holdings paying a remuneration to their employees belonging to the elementaryoccupationgroupthatisbelowtheminimumwagestandard.Inthelattercase,agriculturalholdingsaredeemedtobenon-sustainablesincetheremunerationpaidisnotsufficienttoensureadecentlivingstandard.

Coverage:Notapplicabletofarmsthatemployonlyfamilylabour.

Description:

Thesub-indicatormeasuresthefarmunskilledlabourdailywagerateinLocalCurrencyUnits(LCU).

𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑤𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑛𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 ℎ𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 =𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑑

∗ 8 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟

Wherecompensation=bothmonetaryandinkindpaymentsexpressedinLCU


Unskilledlabourwagerateinrelationtonationaloragriculturesectorminimumwagerate.Incasethere is no national or agriculture sector minimum wage rate, the national poverty line is usedinstead:

• Green (desirable): if the farm doesn’t hire any labour or if the holding has fair labourcertification21 or if thewage rate paid to unskilled labour is above theminimumnationalwagerateorminimumagriculturalsectorwagerate(ifavailable).

• Yellow (acceptable): if the wage rate paid to unskilled labour is equals to the minimumnationalwagerateorminimumagriculturalsectorwagerate(ifavailable).

• Red(unsustainable):ifthewageratepaidtounskilledlabourisbelowtheminimumnationalwagerateorminimumagriculturalsectorwagerate(ifavailable).

Dataitems


9.1 Unskilledworkershiredontheagriculturalholding(Y/N)

9.2 Averagepayin-cashand/orin-kindforahiredunskilledworkerperday(of8hours)

9.3 Minimumagriculturalsectorwagerate(ifavailable)orminimumnationalwagerate

21Recognizednationally

35

10. Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) Dimension:Social

Theme:Foodsecurity

FIES is ametric of severityof food insecurity at thehousehold level that reliesonpeople’s directyes/noresponsestoeightsimplequestionsregardingtheiraccesstoadequatefood.Itisastatisticalmeasurement scale similar to other widely-accepted statistical scales designed to measureunobservable traits such as aptitude/intelligence, personality, and a broad range of social,psychologicalandhealth-relatedconditions.

Coverage:Onlyhouseholdfarms

Description:

The Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) produces ameasureof the severity of food insecurityexperiencedbyindividualsorhouseholds,basedondirectinterviews.

The FIES questions refer to the experiences of the individual respondent or of the respondent’shouseholdasawhole.Thequestionsfocusonself-reportedfood-relatedbehaviorsandexperiencesassociatedwithincreasingdifficultiesinaccessingfoodduetoresourceconstraints.

TheFIESisderivedfromtwowidely-usedexperience-basedfoodsecurityscales:theU.S.HouseholdFood Security SurveyModule and the LatinAmerican andCaribbean Food Security Scale (SpanishacronymELCSA). It consists of a set of eight short yes/noquestions askeddirectly topeople. Thequestions focus on self-reported, food-related behaviours and experiences associated withincreasing difficulties in accessing food due to resource constraints. The FIES is based on a well-grounded construct of the experience of food insecurity composed of three domains:uncertainty/anxiety,changesinfoodquality,andchangesinfoodquantity.

Thissub-indicatorisSDGindicator2.1.2,contextualisedforafarmsurvey.

Sustainabilitycriteria:LevelonFIESscale

• Green(desirable):Mildfoodinsecurity22• Yellow(acceptable):Moderatefoodinsecurity• Red(unsustainable):Severefoodinsecurity

Dataitems


10.1 Therespondent’srecollectionthathe/she(oranyotheradultinthehousehold)wouldbeworriedaboutnothavingenoughfoodtoeatduetolackofmoneyorotherresources

10.2 Therespondent’srecollectionthathe/she(oranyadultinthehousehold)wasunabletoeathealthyandnutritiousfoodbecauseoflackofmoneyorotherresources

10.3 Therespondent’srecollectionthathe/she(oranyadultinthehousehold)onlyateafewkindsoffoodduetolackofmoneyorotherresources

22Computationoffoodinsecuritylevelisdescribedindetailsine-learningcourseonSDG2.1.2:http://www.fao.org/elearning/#/elc/en/course/SDG212

36

10.4 Therespondent’srecollectionthathe/she(oranyadultinthehousehold)hadtoskipamealbecausetherewasnoenoughmoneyorotherresourcesforfood

10.5 Therespondent’srecollectionthathe/she(oranyadultinthehousehold)atelessthanhe/shethoughtheshouldduetolackofmoneyorotherresources

10.6 Therespondent’srecollectionthathe/she(oranyadultinthehousehold)ranoutoffoodbecauseofalackofmoneyorotherresources

10.7 Therespondent’srecollectionthathe/she(oranyadultinthehousehold)washungrybutnoteatingduetolackofmoneyorotherresourcesforfood

10.8 Therespondent’srecollectionthathe/she(oranyadultinthehousehold)didnoteatforawholedaybecauseofalackofmoneyorotherresources

37

11. Secure tenure rights to land Dimension:Social

Theme:Landtenure

Thesub-indicatorallowsassessingsustainabilityintermsofrightsoveruseofagriculturallandareas.Since agricultural land is a key input for agricultural production, having secure rights over landensuresthattheagriculturalholdingcontrolssuchakeyassetanddoesnotrisklosingthelandusedbytheholdingforfarming.

Evidenceshowsthatfarmerstendtobelessproductiveiftheyhavelimitedaccesstoandcontrolofeconomic resources and services, particularly land. Long-lasting inequalities of economic andfinancial resources have positioned certain farmers at a disadvantage relative to others in theirabilitytoparticipatein,contributetoandbenefitfrombroaderprocessesofdevelopment.

As such, adequate distribution of economic resources, particularly land, help ensure equitableeconomicgrowth,contributestoeconomicefficiencyandhasapositiveimpactonkeydevelopmentoutcomes,includingpovertyreduction,foodsecurityandthewelfareofhouseholds.

Thissub-indicatorisSDGindicator5.a.1.,contextualisedforafarmsurvey.


Description:

Thesub-indicatormeasurestheownershiporsecurerightsoveruseofagriculturallandareasusingthefollowingcriteria:

• FormaldocumentissuedbytheLandRegistry/CadastralAgency• Nameoftheholderlistedasowner/userightholderonlegallyrecognizeddocuments• Rightstosellanyoftheparceloftheholding• Rightstobequeathanyoftheparceloftheholding


Levelofsecurityofaccesstoland.

• Green(desirable):hasaformaldocumentwiththenameoftheholder/holdingonit,orhastherighttosellanyoftheparceloftheholding,orhastherighttobequeathanyoftheparceloftheholding

• Yellow(acceptable):hasaformaldocumentevenifthenameoftheholder/holdingisnotonit

• Red(unsustainable):nopositiveresponsestoanyofthe4questionsabove

Dataitems


11.1 Typeofformaldocumentforanyoftheagriculturallandoftheholder/holdingthatitholds(alternatively‘possess,use,occupy)issuedbytheLandRegistry/CadastralAgency

⃝1 Titledeed⃝2 Certificateofcustomarytenure⃝3 Certificateofoccupancy⃝4 Registeredwillorregisteredcertificateofhereditaryacquisitions⃝5 Registeredcertificateofperpetual/longtermlease⃝6 Registeredrentalcontract⃝7 Other

38

11.2 Nameofanymemberoftheholdinglistedasanowneroruserightholderonanyofthelegallyrecognizeddocuments

11.3 Therightoftheholder/holdingtosellanyoftheparceloftheholding

11.4 Therightoftheholder/holdingtobequeathanyoftheparceloftheholding

sdg indicator 2.4.1 methodological note final · indicator 2.4.1 focuses on agricultural land, and...

Documents