anchor.diff:  16.5,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,21,Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.,16.5.1,"Proportion of persons who had at least one contact with a public official and who paid a bribe to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by those public officials, during the previous 12 months",UNODC, OHCHR,"Percentage of persons who paid at least one bribe (gave a public official money, a gift or counter favour) or were asked for a bribe by these public officials, to a public official in the last 12 months, as a percentage of persons who had at least one contact with a public official in the same period. Bribery is the undue advantage (money, gift or a service) requested/offered by/to a public official in exchange for a special treatment. Administrative bribery is often intended as the type of bribery affecting citizens or businesses in their dealings with public administrations and/or civil servants: this form of bribery affects most countries of the world and can be measured through sample surveys that focus on the experience of bribery.",,"Corruption is an antonym of equal accessibility to public services and of correct functioning of the economy; as such, it has a negative impact on fair distribution of resources and development opportunities. Besides, corruption erodes public trust in authorities and the rule of law; when administrative bribery becomes a recurrent experience of large sectors of the population and businesses, its negative effects have an enduring negative impact on democratic processes and justice. By providing a direct measure of the experience of bribery, this indicator provides an objective metrics of corruption, a yardstick to monitor progress in the fight against corruption.",,,,,,,"Household corruption surveys and victimisation surveys with module on bribery. The first large scale victimisation surveys were implemented in the 1970s and the programme of International Crime Victimisation Surveys (ICVS, 6 waves between 1989 and 2010) contributed to disseminate this instrument worldwide. According to a recent review conducted by UNODC-INEGI Centre of Excellence on crime statistics, 72 countries have implemented at least one national victimisation survey after 2009 (in 43 of these countries the victimisation survey has been conducted by national statistical office or another public institution/ministry). In addition, 9 African countries have already implemented or are in the process of implementing a victimisation survey module as part of the Strategy for Harmonisation of Statistics for Africa (SHaSA). \nUNODC collects prevalence data on bribery from surveys (since 2009) through the annual data collection UN-CTS.",,,Recommended disaggregation for this indicator are: \n\tage and sex \n\ttype of official,"Various programmes and initiatives have produced data on the experience of corruption by the population. Programme of surveys on the experience of corruption have been supported by international organizations, including by UNODC, the World Bank and UNDP. Surveys on corruption experience are also implemented by NGOs and the private sector: for example, the 'Global Corruption Barometer' is published annually by Transparency International and it includes survey data on the experience of bribery for a large set of countries. \nAt national level, surveys on the experience of corruption are conducted by an increasing number of countries, sometimes as part of the regular production by official statistics. Data on bribery can also be collected as part of general victimization surveys.","This indicator provides solid information on the experience of bribery, typically occurring in the interaction between businesses and the public sector in the context of basic service delivery/transactions, while it does not cover other forms of corruption, such as 'grand corruption', trading in influence or abuse of power.",Disaggregation of data by sex of both bribe-payers and public officials is important to assess different behaviours and vulnerability to bribery by sex.,,,"Documentation of corruption surveys (analytical reports and methodological information) is available on the UNODC website. Methodological documentation to develop and implement surveys on corruption can also be found in the UNODC-UNECE Manual on Victimisation surveys. \nUNODC, International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes, 2015",,,,,,,,,Goal 16 TST Working Group,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   16.5,FALSE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,22,Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.,16.5.2,"Proportion of businesses that had at least one contact with a public official and that paid a bribe to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by those public officials, during the previous 12 months",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   16.6,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,23,"Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.",16.6.1,"Primary government expenditures as a proportion of original approved budget, by sector (or by budget codes or similar)",Goal 16 TST Working Group,,"This indicator can be based on Indicator PI-2 of the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) dataset: composition of expenditure outturn compared to original approved budget, considers (i) the variation between approved budget and final expenditure for the year for each major function (comparable to a sector) (ii) variation in expenditure from the original budget by economic classification and (iii) the average amount charged to the contingency reserve over the last 3 years.",,"PEFA is the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability programme started in 2001 to develop a country-led agenda on public financial management reform, ie. a government-led reform programme for which analytical work, reform design, implementation and monitoring reflect country priorities and are integrated into governments' institutional structures. PEFA Indicator PI-2 on the composition of expenditure out-turn compared to original approved budget works at the administrative level to calculate variance for the main budgetary heads (votes) of ministries, departments and agencies, which are included in the approved budget.",,,,,,,Data for 149 countries (collected on 398+ occasions) available at www.pefa.org.,,,This indicator can disaggregated by different sectoral expenditures (for each major function and by economic classification).,Data for 149 countries (collected on 398+ occasions) available at www.pefa.org.,,,,,https://www.pefa.org/en/content/methodological-guidance-and-practical-tools,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -16.6,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,23,"Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.",16.6.2,Percentage of the population satisfied with their last experience of public services,OHCHR,,The indicator is calculated as the number of respondents replying that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their last experience of accessing a public service divided by the total number of respondents. The data may be weighted to reflect the general population.,,"In order to be effective and accountable, intuitions must be responsive to the needs of the population. This indicator will require the use of perception-based population surveys and will collect relevant data on the lived experience of individuals seeking access to and obtaining basic public services, such as health care, education, water and sanitation, as well as services provided by the police and judicial system.",,,,,,,"The main source of data is perception surveys. Such surveys are conducted in an increasing number of countries, and often include a number of measures of quality, which may include physical facilities in which the service was accessed, whether the service met expectations, timeliness, quality and comprehensiveness of information provided, professionalism and courtesy of public officials, responsiveness to queries or complaints, relevant outcomes, affordability/ value for money and specific issues of accessibility for targeted population groups, e.g. physical accessibility or availability of information in minority languages. \nSuch perception surveys include the World Value Survey, Gallup, Afrobarometer and the other Barometers (see below), and surveys conducted by NSOs at the national level.",,,"Data should be disaggregated by type of public service accessed (e.g. health, education, housing, social services, police, courts). Data should also be disaggregated by geographic location and the ethnicity, sex, age, income, disability status, religion, migratory or displacement status, civil status, minority or indigenous status, sexual orientation and gender identity of the user of the service.","In Africa, the approach has already been applied and reported by several NSOs using the SHaSA questionnaire. Nine countries have already started to collect data using the Harmonised Module on Democratic Governance, with as many as 20 expressing interest. Questions on the Harmonised Module ask specifically about rates of access to, and trust in, the following services/institutions: public service (in general), courts of justice, police, public hospitals and clinics, public schools, tax/customs authorities, social security system, state media, Parliament, army, President, Prime Minister (where applicable), Mayor (where applicable). \nRegional Barometers (e.g. 19 countries in Africa in 2014 amongst 36 in total since the Afrobarometer process started, 10 Arab states in the Arabbarometer, 18 Latin American states in the Latinobarometer, 13 Asian states with three surveys and a further five with at least one survey each) ask about experience of accessing essential government services, including public schools, public clinics and hospitals, registration offices (birth certificate, driver's licence, passport, voter's card, permits, etc), water, sanitation and electricity. Questions also ask about ease of access, including the need for bribes, gifts or favours. \nThe World Values Survey asks respondents in 60 countries (for the 6th Wave, 2010- 2014) about confidence in institutions including the armed forces, the police, the courts, government and parliament. There are also questions on the extent to which government should take responsibility to ensure that everybody is provided for. Private sector data collectors already conduct surveys in a range of countries ' Gallup's World Poll conducts representative surveys face to face in over 140 countries covering the emerging and developed world, including questions on confidence in the judicial system, in the local police, in the military and in government. Edelman's Trust Barometer breaks down questions of trust amongst a range of institutions.",,The indicator may capture gender differences as they are reflected in the comparative experience of men and women in accessing different sorts of services.,,,SHaSA Harmonised Module on Democratic Governance. \nGlobal Barometer Study: http://www.jdsurvey.net/gbs/gbs.jsp \nWorld Values Survey: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp \nGallup World Poll: http://www.gallup.com/services/170945/world-poll.aspx,1.4,3.8,4.1,4.2,4.a,7.1,10.2,11.1,,,,,,16.3,16.6,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +16.6,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,23,"Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.",16.6.2,Proportion of the population satisfied with their last experience of public services,OHCHR,,The indicator is calculated as the number of respondents replying that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their last experience of accessing a public service divided by the total number of respondents. The data may be weighted to reflect the general population.,,"In order to be effective and accountable, intuitions must be responsive to the needs of the population. This indicator will require the use of perception-based population surveys and will collect relevant data on the lived experience of individuals seeking access to and obtaining basic public services, such as health care, education, water and sanitation, as well as services provided by the police and judicial system.",,,,,,,"The main source of data is perception surveys. Such surveys are conducted in an increasing number of countries, and often include a number of measures of quality, which may include physical facilities in which the service was accessed, whether the service met expectations, timeliness, quality and comprehensiveness of information provided, professionalism and courtesy of public officials, responsiveness to queries or complaints, relevant outcomes, affordability/ value for money and specific issues of accessibility for targeted population groups, e.g. physical accessibility or availability of information in minority languages. \nSuch perception surveys include the World Value Survey, Gallup, Afrobarometer and the other Barometers (see below), and surveys conducted by NSOs at the national level.",,,"Data should be disaggregated by type of public service accessed (e.g. health, education, housing, social services, police, courts). Data should also be disaggregated by geographic location and the ethnicity, sex, age, income, disability status, religion, migratory or displacement status, civil status, minority or indigenous status, sexual orientation and gender identity of the user of the service.","In Africa, the approach has already been applied and reported by several NSOs using the SHaSA questionnaire. Nine countries have already started to collect data using the Harmonised Module on Democratic Governance, with as many as 20 expressing interest. Questions on the Harmonised Module ask specifically about rates of access to, and trust in, the following services/institutions: public service (in general), courts of justice, police, public hospitals and clinics, public schools, tax/customs authorities, social security system, state media, Parliament, army, President, Prime Minister (where applicable), Mayor (where applicable). \nRegional Barometers (e.g. 19 countries in Africa in 2014 amongst 36 in total since the Afrobarometer process started, 10 Arab states in the Arabbarometer, 18 Latin American states in the Latinobarometer, 13 Asian states with three surveys and a further five with at least one survey each) ask about experience of accessing essential government services, including public schools, public clinics and hospitals, registration offices (birth certificate, driver's licence, passport, voter's card, permits, etc), water, sanitation and electricity. Questions also ask about ease of access, including the need for bribes, gifts or favours. \nThe World Values Survey asks respondents in 60 countries (for the 6th Wave, 2010- 2014) about confidence in institutions including the armed forces, the police, the courts, government and parliament. There are also questions on the extent to which government should take responsibility to ensure that everybody is provided for. Private sector data collectors already conduct surveys in a range of countries ' Gallup's World Poll conducts representative surveys face to face in over 140 countries covering the emerging and developed world, including questions on confidence in the judicial system, in the local police, in the military and in government. Edelman's Trust Barometer breaks down questions of trust amongst a range of institutions.",,The indicator may capture gender differences as they are reflected in the comparative experience of men and women in accessing different sorts of services.,,,SHaSA Harmonised Module on Democratic Governance. \nGlobal Barometer Study: http://www.jdsurvey.net/gbs/gbs.jsp \nWorld Values Survey: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp \nGallup World Poll: http://www.gallup.com/services/170945/world-poll.aspx,1.4,3.8,4.1,4.2,4.a,7.1,10.2,11.1,,,,,,16.3,16.6,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   16.7,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,26,"Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.",16.7.1,"Proportions of positions (by sex, age, persons with disabilities and population groups) in public institutions (national and local legislatures, public service, and judiciary) compared to national distributions",Goal 16 TST Working Group,OHCHR,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group:\nThis indicator focuses on the representativeness aspect of the target, but the presence of diversity also conduces to inclusivity and responsiveness of decision-making. \nThe indicator is calculated as the number of public service positions held by members of the target group divided by the total number of such positions.\n\n From OHCHR: \nTarget groups should be identified at national level in an inclusive, participatory process, with the direct involvement of marginalised and minority groups themselves. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has made clear that identification as a member of a particular ethnic group 'shall, if no justification exists to the contrary, be based upon self-identification by the individual concerned.' This principle also applies to other population groups. Target groups may include persons with disabilities, ethnic groups, LGBTI persons, indigenous peoples, religious minorities, linguistic minorities, youth, older persons, or other groups under-represented in the national context. The indicator is calculated as the number of public service positions held by members of the target group divided by the total number of such positions.",,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group:\nIn order that decision-making be responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative, it is important to ensure diversity in representation at all levels of State institutions (central, regional and local). \nArticle 25(c) ICCPR provides that citizens should have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in their country. General Comment 25 of the Human Rights Committee elaborates that access to public service should be based on equal opportunity and general principles of merit, and further states that the provision of secured tenure would ensure that persons holding public service positions are free from political interference or pressures. \nArticle 7(c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) stipulates that States should take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular, ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right to participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government.\n\n From OHCHR: \nIn order that decision-making be responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative, it is important to ensure diversity in representation at all levels of State institutions (central, regional and local). \nArticle 25(c) ICCPR provides that citizens should have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in their country. General Comment 25 of the Human Rights Committee elaborates that access to public service should be based on equal opportunity and general principles of merit, and further states that the provision of secured tenure would ensure that persons holding public service positions are free from political interference or pressures. \nArticle 7(c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) stipulates that States should take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular, ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right to participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government. \nIn cases where a group is very under-represented or has experienced historical discrimination, temporary special measures including minimum quotas on representation may be introduced to redress such discrimination. In some circumstances, such as linguistic minorities, ensuring access to public services for the group may require over-representation of that group in public service posts.",,,,,,,From Goal 16 TST Working Group:\nThe primary data source is administrative and employment records at national level in accordance with the obligations arising from ICCPR and CEDAW.\n\n From OHCHR: \nThe primary data source is administrative and employment records at national level.,,,"From Goal 16 TST Working Group:\nDisaggregation by sex and disability are most immediately feasible and region of origin could be specified. Population group would be defined at the country level, and could include ethnic or religious groups, indigenous populations, etc. One particular disaggregation compares with Goal 5.5, namely local government by sex. [Comparison to national distributions may require affirmative action in some settings to ensure that certain populations are effectively included.] \nData for this indicator should also be disaggregated by State institution (executive, parliament, government department, judiciary, police, etc.), level of position (senior management, middle management, professional, entry level, support staff) and type of contract (short-term, temporary, permanent).\n\n From OHCHR: \nData for this indicator should be disaggregated by State institution (executive, parliament, government department, judiciary, police, etc.), level of position (senior management, middle management, professional, entry level, support staff) and type of contract (shortterm, temporary, permanent). \nThe indicator should be calculated for women and for each target group. Target groups should be defined at the national level, but could include ethnic groups, older persons, persons with disabilities, religious groups, minorities or indigenous peoples, LGBTI persons, etc.","From Goal 16 TST Working Group:\nAt the international level, the ILO compiles data on female share of employment by occupation, by level of position, and by private/public sector. UN Women and the InterParliamentary Union compile statistical information about women parliamentarians, women members of cabinet and other relevant information.\n\n From OHCHR: \nAt the international level, the ILO compiles data on female share of employment by occupation, by level of position, and by private/public sector. UN Women and the InterParliamentary Union compile statistical information about women parliamentarians, women members of cabinet and other relevant information.","From Goal 16 TST Working Group:\nFairer representation of all population groups in public service positions at all levels renders decision-making by public bodies more legitimate and more responsive to the concerns of the whole population. \nWhile the indicator, particularly disaggregated by seniority and contract type, provides a good indication of progress to overcome historical or ongoing discrimination, it cannot detect tokenism where official job titles mask a lack of influence in practice, or other forms of discrimination within the public service that may affect the ability of members of target populations to influence decision-making. Perception surveys or discrimination testing could supplement this indicator to detect such issues. \nIn order to reduce the total number of global indicators, this indicator is proposed to monitor targets 5.5 (women's full and effective participation), 10.2 (political inclusion), and 16.7 (responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making).\n\n From OHCHR: \nFairer representation of all population groups in public service positions at all levels renders decision-making by public bodies more legitimate and more responsive to the concerns of the whole population. \nWhile the indicator, particularly disaggregated by seniority and contract type, provides a good indication of progress to overcome historical or ongoing discrimination, it cannot detect tokenism where official job titles mask a lack of influence in practice, or other forms of discrimination within the public service that may affect the ability of members of target populations to influence decision-making. Perception surveys or discrimination testing could supplement this indicator to detect such issues.","From Goal 16 TST Working Group:\nThe indicator is highly gender 'relevant, disaggregation should be possible by sex within more sophisticated systems and so the indicator may capture gender differences as they are reflected in the comparative experience of men and women in representation. The indicator is also relevant for Goal 5.\n\n From OHCHR: \nThe indicator specifically considers representation of women. Data on each target group should also be disaggregated by sex to ensure that multiple grounds of discrimination can be detected.",,,From OHCHR: \nILO statistics database: http://www.ilo.org/global/statistics-and-databases/lang--en/index.htm \nUN Women data on women in government positions : http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-andfigures \nInter-Parliamentary Union data on women in parliament: http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm,5.5,10.2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   16.7,FALSE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,28,"Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.",16.7.2,"Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, by sex, age, disability and population group",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   16.8,TRUE,16,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-16.pdf,29,Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance.,16.8.1,Proportion of members and voting rights of developing countries in international organizations,Goal 16 TST Working Group,,"Representation and participation of developing countries in international organizations, including international financial institutions, is often below their relative weight in the world. This indicator would measure the representativeness of developing countries in international organizations. This indicator would be easily measurable by way of data collected by international organizations. \nThe indicator would require a list of international organizations that would be included in the calculation. The indicator could be calculated by taking the simple average of the international organizations on the list. The phrase ""global governance"" in the target would suggest that the list of international organizations should be limited to organizations with a global mandate, which could, for example, include the governing bodies of all agencies, funds and programmes of the UN system (including and the IMF and the World Bank), but also the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). \nThis is a global indicator, not a national indicator. National Statistical Offices need not be involved. The rating CBB from the survey is, therefore, odd, especially the C rating because the data on membership and voting rights is readily available, for example, from the IMF and the World Bank. \nThis indicator also relates to: \n\tTarget 10.6 (which focuses on global international economic and financial institutions). \n\tTarget 16.3 (rule of law at international level). \n\tTarget 16.7 (which focuses on inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels)",,"Representation and participation of developing countries in international organizations, including international financial institutions, is often below their relative weight in the world. This indicator would measure the representativeness of developing countries in international organizations. \nAn adjustment could be made to compare the percentage of members or voting rights of developing countries in IFIs to their share in global population (e.g. for governing bodies of UN funds and programmes) or GDP (e.g. for the IMF and World Bank). This would allow compensation for the fact that the indicator should not increase until reaching 100%.",,,,,,,Administrative data of international organizations.,,,Can be disaggregated by international organization,"This is a global indicator, not a regional or national indicator.",,,,,,10.6,16.3,16.7,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  
positive.code: 8.8,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,15,"Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment.",8.8.1,"Frequency rates of fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries, by sex and migrant status",ILO,Global Migration Group,"An occupational injury refers to any personal injury, disease or death resulting from an occupational accident, which is an unexpected and unplanned occurrence, including acts of violence, arising out of or in connection with work which results in one or more workers incurring a personal injury, disease or death. A fatal occupational injury is the result of an occupational accident where death occurred within one year from the day of the accident, whereas non-fatal occupational injuries entail a loss of working time. The frequency rates of fatal and non-fatal occupational injury are calculated as the number of new cases of fatal and non-fatal occupational injury during the reference year respectively, divided by the total number of hours worked by the workers in the reference group during the reference year, multiplied by 1,000,000. The time lost due to occupational injuries refers to the total number of calendar days during which those persons temporarily incapacitated due to occupational injuries were unable to work, excluding the day of the accident, up to a maximum of one year.",,"Occupational safety and health at work are vital components of decent work. The frequency rates of fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries and the time lost due to occupational injuries provide an indication of the extent to which workers are protected from work-related hazards and risks, and present information that is essential for planning preventive measures. Possible under-reporting of occupational injuries should be kept in mind when interpreting the data, and proper systems should be put in place to ensure the best reporting and data quality.",,,"8.8 Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environment of all workers, including migrant workers, particularly women migrants, and those in precarious employment",,,,,,,"From ILO: \nData are currently available by gender (as well as by economic activity and occupation), but not by migrant status. However, as the target is explicit in this dimension, countries increasingly should be compiling information to allow this disaggregation. \n\n From Global Migration Working Group: \nDisaggregated reporting by migratory status (citizenship status or nativity status)",The ILO does not currently produce global and regional estimates on occupational injuries.,"From ILO: \nBecause data quality issues may be present, it may be more relevant to analyze indicator trends rather than levels. When measured over a period of time, the data can reveal progress or deterioration in occupational safety and health, and thus point to the effectiveness of prevention measures. This indicator is volatile and strong annual fluctuations may occur due to unexpected but significant accidents or national calamities. The underlying trend should therefore be analysed. \n\n From Global Migration Working Group: \nMuch could be covered by introducing new questions into existing surveys, but in some instances new surveys might be needed. Administrative records may need to be adjusted to distinguish between migrants and non-migrants.","As this indicator is disaggregated by sex, it is well-suited for analysis of gender equality issues.","From ILO:\nThe ILO has data on the frequency rates of fatal occupational injuries for 117 countries; on the frequeny rates of nonfatal occupational injuries for 89 countries; and on the time lost due to occupational injuries for 107 countries. The breakdown by migrant status is not currently available..\n\nFrom Global Migration Working Group:\nLabour force surveys, administrative records.","For further details, refer to the Resolution concerning statistics of occupational injuries (resulting from occupational accidents), available at http://www.ilo.org/global/statistics-and-databases/standards-and-guidelines/resolutions-adoptedby-international-conferences-of-labour-statisticians/WCMS_087528/lang--en/index.htm",,10.7,,,,,,,,National Statistical Offices,, Ministry of Labour,Ministry of Health,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.8,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,16,"Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment.",8.8.2,"Increase in national compliance of labour rights (freedom of association and collective bargaining) based on International Labour Organization (ILO) textual sources and national legislation, by sex and migrant status",,,see report,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.9,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,46,"By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products.",8.9.1,Tourism direct GDP as a proportion of total GDP and in growth rate,UNWTO,,Tourism Direct GDP (TDGDP) is defined as the sum of the part of gross value added (at basic prices) generated by all industries in response to internal tourism consumption plus the amount of net taxes on products and imports included within the value of this expenditure at purchasers' prices (TSA: RMF 2008 para. 4.96). \nPresenting this economic contribution of tourism as a share of GDP shows the relative size of the tourism sector in the economy.,( TDGDP / GDP ) * 100,"Rationale \nTarget 8.9 has several dimensions but the essence of the target seems to be on promoting sustainable tourism [that ...]. It is recognized that the suggested indicator does not cater to all dimensions of the target, but finding one indicator that would do so seems unviable, certainly over the short-medium term. \nThere is the added challenge that the concept ""sustainable tourism"" is mainly a policy construct and not defined nor part of an established or internationally conceptual/statistical framework at this point. Even though UNWTO together with a number of countries, UNSD and OECD, and counting on the support of the UNCEEA are putting put in motion an initiative towards developing the measurement of the relationship between tourism and sustainability, notably through linking SEEA and TSA, it seems that the production of internationally comparable data on (something that could approximate for) ""sustainable tourism"" in a significant number of countries still has some years to go. \nFor the meantime, the suggested indicator (in its two parts, on tourism related GDP and jobs) seems to be a sensible approximation because (a) it is a good conceptual fit to some key dimensions of the target (b) it stems from a systems approach and is based on sound internationally agreed methodology, and (c) there is a significant number of countries already producing data for this indicator. In addition, the suggested indicator (tourism related GDP and jobs) is in line with Goal 8's general focus on economic growth and employment. \nFinally, the TDGDP/GDP part of this indicator can complement Target 14.7's indicator: ""Fisheries as a % of GDP"" in order to cater to tourism dimension of this target. \n\n Interpretation \n Target 8.9 has several dimensions; this caters to the dimension: tourism; promote [...] tourism. The value of the economic contribution of tourism captured by this indicator, and (relative) increases or decreases in it, could indicate the degree to which tourism is being successfully promoted. This indicator is useful for policy on tourism at national level and the level of sub-national regions as it gives the only credible measure of the economic contribution of tourism, which can be compared to GDP contributions of other economic activities. The indicator has been found especially useful in promoting and mainstreaming tourism in policy agendas at all levels. The indicator can also be compared across countries, although true international comparability of the figures needs to be improved.",,,,,,,"The indicator already exists. The indicator is sourced from countries' Tourism Satellite Account, which is a satellite account to the National Accounts. About 60 countries have some kind of TSA exercise and data available on this indicator, as shown in an international TSA data compilation exercise UNWTO realized in 2010. Eurostat and OECD have also occasionally collected data on this indicator. The indicator is currently not structurally compiled into an international dataset but UNWTO will start on this over the short term. Some countries cannot produce TDGDP but have Tourism Direct Value Added (% Total Value Added), which can be used as an approximation.",,,"To the extent that a TSA is available, TDGDP is derived from the productive activities that cater directly to tourism and so it could be possible to disaggregate by tourism industries (e.g. accommodation for visitors, the different kinds of passenger transportation, etc.). Sub-national disaggregation/estimates of Tourism Direct GDP are possible and there are a number of subnational regions that have information on this. However, there is no consensus on a methodology for doing this in a standardized way, compromising international comparability, although UNWTO is working on this (through the INRouTe project). In any case, it seems that collection of data would be warranted only for those regions that consider tourism a significant (economic) activity. Like GDP, it is not possible to disaggregate this by gender.",,"Given that a growing number of countries produce Tourism Satellite Account (TSA), data on (both parts of) the suggested indicators could become available in many more countries in the near future. \nThough inherent to much statistical production, the lag in production of data for Tourism Direct GDP by countries should be noted. The data demands (detailed input-output or supply and use tables) for setting up a TSA mean that it is often not possible to have current data nor frequent updating of the TSA. A solution some countries chose is to produce estimates of TSA aggregates, in between reference years, to have more current data and to produce a time series. \nTDGDP/GDP tends to not show large variations from one year to the next and variations may stem from the numerator and/or denominator. This could warrant considering the indicator in different forms: absolute value, % GDP and % change. \nThe suggested indicator (on tourism related GDP and jobs) as defined above can be supplemented with information on: \n\tNumber of full-time equivalent jobs (FTE jobs) in tourism industries. This is valuable because tourism tends to have a large share of part-time work and seasonality, elements related to sustainability. UNWTO compiles country data on FTE jobs in tourism industries, by gender and employed/self-employed, though coverage is still low. \n\tnumber of persons employed in tourism industries (growth rate, by gender, % total) \n\tTDGDP per employed person in tourism industries (growth rate), as the tourism equivalent of the suggested indicator for Target 8.2: 'Growth rate of GDP per employed person' \nThese indicators are methodologically robust and based on existing internationally agreed definitions, classifications and practices. The methodology behind the indicators (data sources, methods of computation, treatment of missing values, regional estimates, etc.) is well documented and readily available. \nMoreover, these indictors can be collected from well-established sources. The statistical capacity for data collection and analysis to support the indicator already partially exists in countries that conduct regular labour Force Surveys. But it is also true that in order to produce regular estimates of persons employed in the tourism industries, many countries would need launching pilot projects supported with necessary resources and test the indicators produced.",,,"The above suggested indicator (both parts, on GDP and jobs) is firmly based in the International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008 (IRTS 2008), approved by the United Nations Statistical Commission at its 39th session (26-29 February 2008) and the Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework 2008 (TSA: RMF 2008), which updates the 2000 version adopted by the UN Statistical Commission. \nThe IRTS 2008 provides the methodological framework (concepts, definitions and classifications) for basic tourism statistics, while the TSA: RMF 2008 provides the conceptual framework for linking tourism statistics to the System of National Accounts, enabling the economic measurement of tourism and the generation of aggregates such as Tourism Direct GDP.",,14.7,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.9,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,46,"By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products.",8.9.2,"Number of jobs in tourism industries as a proportion of totral jobs and growth rate of jobs, by sex",UNWTO,,"The ""tourism industries"", or tourism characteristic industries, comprise all establishments for which the principal activity is a tourism characteristic activity, i.e. the activities that typically produce tourism characteristic products (IRTS 2008 paras. 5.10-5.11). For international comparability purposes these are (according to ISIC Rev. 4 categories): accommodation for visitors (5510, 5520, 5590, 6810 and 6820), food and beverage serving activities (5610, 5629 and 5630), railway passenger transport (4911), road passenger transport (4922), water passenger transport (5011 and 5021), air passenger transport (5110), transport equipment rental (7710), travel agencies and other reservation service activities (7911, 7912 and 7990), cultural activities (9000, 9102, 9103), and sport and recreational activities (7721, 9200, 9311, 9319, 9321 and 9329). \nRegarding jobs, the agreement between an employee and the employer defines a job and each self-employed person has a job. The number of jobs in the economy thus exceeds the number of persons employed to the extent that some employees have more than one job (SNA 2008 para. 19.30 in IRTS 2008 Compilation Guide para. 7.6). Consequently, the number of jobs (demand side) and the number of persons employed (supply side) are dissimilar categories and therefore usually do not match. \nIn this respect, it should be noted that employment in the tourism industries refers to all the jobs (in all occupations) in both tourism-characteristic activities and non-tourism-characteristic activities in all establishments in tourism industries19. \nThe indicator shows the relative importance of jobs in the tourism industries as a share of the economy's total jobs.",( Jobs in tourism industries / Total jobs ) * 100,"Rationale \nTarget 8.9 has several dimensions but the essence of the target seems to be on promoting sustainable tourism [that ...]. It is recognized that the suggested indicator does not cater to all dimensions of the target, but finding one indicator that would do so seems unviable, certainly over the short-medium term. \nThere is the added challenge that the concept ""sustainable tourism"" is mainly a policy construct and not defined nor part of an established or internationally conceptual/statistical framework at this point. Even though UNWTO together with a number of countries, UNSD and OECD, and counting on the support of the UNCEEA are putting put in motion an initiative towards developing the measurement of the relationship between tourism and sustainability, notably through linking SEEA and TSA, it seems that the production of internationally comparable data on (something that could approximate for) ""sustainable tourism"" in a significant number of countries still has some years to go. \nFor the meantime, the suggested indicator (in its two parts, on tourism related GDP and jobs) seems to be a sensible approximation because (a) it is a good conceptual fit to some key dimensions of the target (b) it stems from a systems approach and is based on sound internationally agreed methodology, and (c) there is a significant number of countries already producing data for this indicator. In addition, the suggested indicator (tourism related GDP and jobs) is in line with Goal 8's general focus on economic growth and employment. \nFinally, the TDGDP/GDP part of this indicator can complement Target 14.7's indicator: ""Fisheries as a % of GDP"" in order to cater to tourism dimension of this target. \n\n Interpretation \n Target 8.9 has several dimensions; this caters to the dimension: tourism that creates jobs. It could also give an indication on how successful the ""promotion"" of tourism as job creator is being: promote [...] tourism that creates jobs.",,,,,,,"The indicator, or data series for populating this indicator, already exist and are regularly produced in a substantial number of countries. \nCurrently UNWTO compiles in its international dataset country yearly data on ""Jobs in tourism industries""(approx. 26 countries for reference year 2012). This is currently not compiled by gender. ILO compiles in its international dataset (ILOStats) data country data on ""total jobs"", by gender (approx.. 111 countries). Coverage could be increased over the medium term through joint UNWTO/ILO and capacity building in countries. \nWhile the indicator can already be produced for some 30 countries, time is required to develop or upgrade national statistical capacity of a considerable number of countries to produce the recommended indicators. It should, however be specially stressed that all these indicators are methodologically robust and based on existing internationally agreed definitions, classifications and practices. The methodology behind the indicators (data sources, methods of computation, treatment of missing values, regional estimates, etc.) is well documented and readily available. Moreover, these indictors can be collected from well-established sources.",,,"Depending on country, data could be available or produced that disaggregates by tourism industry, by gender, by status of employment. Currently UNWTO does not compile data on number of jobs in tourism industries disaggregated by gender (only full-time equivalent jobs) but this could be realized.",,"Given that a growing number of countries produce Tourism Satellite Account (TSA), data on (both parts of) the suggested indicators could become available in many more countries in the near future. \nThough inherent to much statistical production, the lag in production of data for Tourism Direct GDP by countries should be noted. The data demands (detailed input-output or supply and use tables) for setting up a TSA mean that it is often not possible to have current data nor frequent updating of the TSA. A solution some countries chose is to produce estimates of TSA aggregates, in between reference years, to have more current data and to produce a time series. \nTDGDP/GDP tends to not show large variations from one year to the next and variations may stem from the numerator and/or denominator. This could warrant considering the indicator in different forms: absolute value, % GDP and % change. \nThe suggested indicator (on tourism related GDP and jobs) as defined above can be supplemented with information on: \n\tNumber of full-time equivalent jobs (FTE jobs) in tourism industries. This is valuable because tourism tends to have a large share of part-time work and seasonality, elements related to sustainability. UNWTO compiles country data on FTE jobs in tourism industries, by gender and employed/self-employed, though coverage is still low. \n\tnumber of persons employed in tourism industries (growth rate, by gender, % total) \n\tTDGDP per employed person in tourism industries (growth rate), as the tourism equivalent of the suggested indicator for Target 8.2: 'Growth rate of GDP per employed person' \nThese indicators are methodologically robust and based on existing internationally agreed definitions, classifications and practices. The methodology behind the indicators (data sources, methods of computation, treatment of missing values, regional estimates, etc.) is well documented and readily available. \nMoreover, these indictors can be collected from well-established sources. The statistical capacity for data collection and analysis to support the indicator already partially exists in countries that conduct regular labour Force Surveys. But it is also true that in order to produce regular estimates of persons employed in the tourism industries, many countries would need launching pilot projects supported with necessary resources and test the indicators produced.",,,"The above suggested indicator (both parts, on GDP and jobs) is firmly based in the International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008 (IRTS 2008), approved by the United Nations Statistical Commission at its 39th session (26-29 February 2008) and the Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework 2008 (TSA: RMF 2008), which updates the 2000 version adopted by the UN Statistical Commission. \nThe IRTS 2008 provides the methodological framework (concepts, definitions and classifications) for basic tourism statistics, while the TSA: RMF 2008 provides the conceptual framework for linking tourism statistics to the System of National Accounts, enabling the economic measurement of tourism and the generation of aggregates such as Tourism Direct GDP.",,14.7,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.1,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,50,"Strengthen the capacity of domestic financial institutions to encourage and expand access to banking, insurance and financial services for all.",8.10.1,"Number of commercial bank branches and automated teller machines (ATMs) per 100,000 adults",UNCDF,,"Number of ATMs per 100,000 adults \nCalculated as: (number of ATMs)*100,000/adult population in the reporting country. \nNumber of branches per 100,000 adults \nCalculated as follows: (number of institutions + number of branches)*100,000/adult population in the reporting country --- calculated separately for commercial banks, credit unions and financial cooperatives, and all MFIs.",,"People and businesses need access to financial services that are safe, reliable, and convenient. The high costs of providing these services, particularly to those living and working in more remote areas or for those whose transaction values are low, have led to limited access. New technologies and delivery channels are lowering costs and bringing timely and appropriate services to even more people, but require the institutions providing or partnering to provide services to have the capability to design and deliver these services.",,,,,,,"The IMF Financial Access Survey (FAS) is the most comprehensive global supply-side data on financial inclusion. The FAS database currently contains annual data for 184 jurisdictions, including all G20 economies, covering a nine-year period (2004-2012). To date, over 94,000 interviews in 126 countries have taken place. FAS collects data on access to and usage of financial services from central banks and other financial regulators around the world on an annual basis. The key FAS indicators help: \n\tIdentify knowledge gaps and set priorities for policies on broadening financial access; \n\tMonitor the effectiveness of these policies over time; \n\tAdvance research and analysis to strengthen understanding of the determinants and implications of financial access and usage.",,,,The IMF is responsible for annually collecting and compiling this indicator at the international level.,"In the event that there are future reviews to reduce the number of global SDG indicators, this target could relating to the capacity of financial institutions could be monitored by the percentage of population that have an account. Therefore, the following indirectly related indicator can be used to monitor Target 8.10: \n\tAdults owning an account either through a financial institution or mobile money provider, disaggregated by income level, geography location, gender, age and education (Global Findex)",,,,"International Monetary Fund. Financial Access Survey (FAS). Washington, DC. Internet site: \nhttp://fas.imf.org/Default.aspx \nhttp://fas.imf.org/misc/Explanatory_Notes.pdf",1.4,2.3,5.a,10.2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.1,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,51,"Strengthen the capacity of domestic financial institutions to encourage and expand access to banking, insurance and financial services for all.",8.10.2,Proportion of adults (15 years and older) with an account at a bank or other financial institution or with a mobile-money-service provider,UNCDF,,"Definition \nThis indicator denotes the percentage of respondents who report having an account (by themselves or together with someone else) at a bank or another type of financial institution; having a debit card in their own name; receiving wages, government transfers, or payments for agricultural products into an account or through a mobile phone at a financial institution in the past 12 months; paying utility bills or school fees from an account at a financial institution in the past 12 months; receiving wages or government transfers into a card in the past 12 months; or personally using a mobile phone to pay bills or to send or receive money through a GSM Association (GSMA) Mobile Money for the Unbanked (MMU) service in the past 12 months (% age 15+) \nConcepts \nAccount (% age 15+): The percentage of respondents who report having an account (by themselves or together with someone else) at a bank or another type of financial institution (see definition for ""account at a financial institution"") or personally using a mobile money service in the past 12 months (see definition for ""mobile money account"").",,"Access to formal financial services such as savings, insurance, payments, credit and remittances is essential to the ability of people'regardless of income level, gender, age, education or where they live'to manage their lives, build their futures, and grow their businesses. Having access to an account is an important starting point for people to access a range of financial services.",,,,,,,"The Global Findex is the only global demand-side data source allowing for global and regional cross-country analysis. The over 100 indicators in the 2014 Global Financial Inclusion (Global Findex) database are drawn from survey data covering almost 150,000 people in 143 economies'representing more than 97 percent of the world's population. The survey was launched in 2011 by the World Bank with financial support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The survey was again carried out in 2014 calendar year by Gallup, Inc. as part of its Gallup World Poll, which since 2005 has continually conducted surveys of approxi-mately 1,000 people in each of more than 160 economies and in over 140 languages, using randomly selected, nationally representative samples. The target population is the entire civilian, non-institutionalized population age 15 and above. The global survey will be conducted every three years.\n\n Data Collection: Interview Procedure \nSurveys are conducted face to face in economies where telephone coverage represents less than 80 percent of the population or is the customary methodology. In most economies the fieldwork is completed in two to four weeks. In economies where face-to-face surveys are conducted, the first stage of sampling is the identification of primary sampling units. These units are stratified by population size, geography, or both, and clustering is achieved through one or more stages of sampling. Where population information is available, sample selection is based on probabilities proportional to population size; otherwise, simple random sampling is used. Random route procedures are used to select sampled households. Unless an outright refusal occurs, interviewers make up to three attempts to survey the sampled household. To increase the probability of contact and completion, attempts are made at different times of the day and, where possible, on different days. If an interview cannot be obtained at the initial sampled household, a simple substitution method is used. Respondents are randomly selected within the selected households by means of the Kish grid. In economies where cultural restrictions dictate gender matching, respondents are randomly selected through the Kish grid from among all eligible adults of the interviewer's gender. \nIn economies where telephone interviewing is em-ployed, random digit dialing or a nationally representative list of phone numbers is used. In most economies where cell phone penetration is high, a dual sampling frame is used. Random selection of re-spondents is achieved by using either the latest birthday or Kish grid method. At least three attempts are made to reach a person in each house-hold, spread over different days and times of day.",,,"It is possible to disaggregate this indicator by country and region, as well as by income level, geography (rural/urban), gender, age and education level. Disaggregation is especially important (1) by income level to monitor progress on target 1.4 on poverty; (2) by geographic location to monitor progress on target 2.3 on agricultural productivity; (3) by gender to monitor progress on target 5.a on gender equality and women's empowerment; and (4) by all these dimensions to address issues of equality and inclusion of all in target 10.2.",The World Bank is responsible for compiling this indicator at the international level.,,The indicator can be disaggregated by gender.,,,"Asli Demirguc-Kunt, Leora Klapper, Dorothe Singer, and Peter Van Oudheusden, ""The Global Findex Database 2014: Measuring Financial Inclusion around the World"". Policy Research Working Paper 7255 \nData for all indicators can be found on the website. World Bank. Global Findex. Washington, DC. Internet site: http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/globalfindex",1.4,2.3,5.a,10.2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  8.a,TRUE,8,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-8.pdf,53,"Increase Aid for Trade support for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, including through the Enhanced Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to Least Developed Countries.",8.a.1,Aid for Trade commitments and disbursements,OECD,,Total official development assistance (ODA) disbursements that qualify as aid for trade. Data expressed in US dollars at the average annual exchange rate.,,ODA is the accepted measure of international development co-operation. In this case it captures aid in support of projects and programmes to improve the trade and production capacities of developing countries.,,,,,,,Data are compiled by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development from returns submitted by its member countries and other aid providers. Data are available here.,,,"The data are generally obtained on an activity level, and include numerous parameters. They can thus be disaggregated by provider and recipient country; by type of finance, and by type of resources provided. Some data are also available on the policy objectives targeted by individual projects.","Data are available for essentially all high-income countries, and for an increasing number of middle-income aid providers.",The data only cover official concessional support from donor countries. The OECD and other organisations also collect data on broader investment flows to developing countries. However detailed sectoral information on such flows is lacking.,"The data include a ""gender equality"" marker which identifies individual projects that have a clear gender dimension.",,See Aid for trade,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  
negative.code: 17.14,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,26,Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.,17.14.1,Number of countries with mechanisms in place to enhance policy coherence of sustainable development,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.15,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,27,Respect each country's policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development.,17.15.1,Extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of development cooperation,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.16,TRUE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,28,"Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries.",17.16.1,Number of countries reporting progress in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks that support the achievement of the sustainable development goals,OECD,UNDP Secretariat of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation,A country is considered to have a mutual assessment of progress in place when at least 4 out of 5 of the following criteria are met: \n\tAn aid policy or partnership policy defines the country's development co-operation priorities. \n\tNational targets for effective development co-operation exist for both the developing country government and providers of development co-operation. \n\tProgress has been assessed regularly and jointly by government and providers at the senior level in the past two years. \n\tLocal governments and non-executive stakeholders have been actively involved in these reviews. \n\tThe comprehensive results of the review have been made public in a timely manner.,,"Development processes are driven by the contributions and the concerted efforts of multiple actors, including government authorities, providers of development co-operation, the private sector, civil society and others. Strong multi-stakeholder partnerships provide an enabling environment for greater development effectiveness. In this regard, mutual accountability in between the relevant stakeholders participating in development efforts can enhance the quality and strength of these partnerships. \nMutual assessment reviews are national exercises that engage both developing country authorities and providers of development co-operation, as well as other stakeholders, at the senior level in a mutual performance review. These reviews should ideally be conducted through inclusive dialogues involving a broad range of government ministries; providers of development co-operation (including bilateral, multilateral, and global initiatives); as well as other stakeholders, including parliamentarians, local governments, the private sector, and civil society organisations (referred to as ""non-executive"" stakeholders). These assessments should be done regularly (every one to two years).",,,,,,"Yes. In 2013, 59% of surveyed countries were determined to have mutual assessment reviews in place. A baseline can be calculated using the second monitoring round being conducted in 2015.","The data is collected as part of the monitoring efforts of the monitoring survey for the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation every 1 ' 2 years. The first such monitoring survey was carried out in 2013, and the second round is being conducted in 2015. The indicator based on a set of different criteria is also available from the surveys on monitoring the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness conducted in 2006, 2008, and 2011. The indicator for these years differs in that engagement of non-executive stakeholders was encouraged, while in 2013 the inclusiveness criterion required their active involvement.",,,The data can be further disaggregated according to each of the 5 criteria used to assess mutual assessments of progress.,"The indicator is well-suited for global monitoring, and global aggregates are calculated as the percentage of countries which have mutual assessment reviews in place.",Data is limited to those countries which participate in the monitoring survey for the Global Partnership.,,"Global aggregates are available for the 2006, 2008, and 2011 surveys on monitoring the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness as well as the 2014 and 2015 monitoring surveys of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. The Paris surveys on monitoring the Paris Declaration of Aid Effectiveness covered 34, 55, and 78 countries, respectively. The 2014 monitoring round of the Global Partnership covered 46 countries representing roughly 46% of global Country Programmable aid. For the 2015 monitoring round, more than 60 developing countries have preliminarily confirmed participation.",Information on the indicator as well as the monitoring surveys for the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation can be found by consulting the progress report from the 2014 monitoring round at: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/development/making-development-co-operationmore-effective_9789264209305-en#page1 \nInformation on the surveys on monitoring Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness can be found by consulting the 2011 survey report: http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/2011surveyonmonitoringtheparisdeclaration.htm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.17,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,31,"Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.",17.17.1,Amount of United States dollars committed to public-private and civil society partnerships,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.18,TRUE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,32,"By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts.",17.18.1,"Proportion of sustainable development indicators produced at the national level with full disaggregation when relevant to the target, in accordance with the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics",TST,,"The ability of National Statistical Offices and other bodies within countries to report on the diversity of SDG indicators is itself a measure of capacity, particularly when we think about the eventual complexity of the indicator framework as well as the points of disaggregation. Right now, a number of the existing indicators are calculated or modeled at global level, and the purpose of this indicator is to measure the shift in that calculation process to the national level. \nDisaggregation would be assessed on the basis of the language of target 17.18, as well as the metadata and agreements on disaggregation for each indicator itself. The baseline and targets for this indicators will be determined in a later stage using trend data on the MDGs reporting and independent assessments of current capacity of countries for reporting towards the final results framework and indicators for the SDGs.",,,,,,,,,MDG reporting databases (UNDESA and UNDP) plus baseline assessment in 2015 by UNFPA.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.18,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,32,"By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts.",17.18.2,Number of countries that have national statistical legislation that complies with the Fundamental Principles of Official statistics,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.18,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,32,"By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts.",17.18.3,"Number of countries with a national statistical plan that is fully funded and under implementation, by source of funding",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.19,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,33,"By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries.",17.19.1,Dollar Value of all resources made available to strengthen statistical capacity in developing countries,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  17.19,FALSE,17,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-17.pdf,33,"By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries.",17.19.2,Proportion of countries that (a) have conducted at least one population and housing census in the last 10 years and (b) have achieved 100 per cent birth registration and 80 per cent death registration,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  