anchor.diff:  5.a,TRUE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,27,"Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance and natural resources, in accordance with national laws.",5.a.1,"(a) Proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; and (b) share of women among owners or rightsbearers of agricultural land, type of tenure",FAO,,"The indicator is divided in two parts: (a) measures the incidence of people with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land among the total agricultural population; while (b) focusses on the gender parity measuring the extent to which women are disadvantaged in ownership or rights over agricultural land. Part (a) and part (b) cannot be seen as two different indicators, they rather provide two complementary information. Plus, they can be computed using (almost) the same data, the main difference between the 2 parts being only the denominator. \n Definition of agricultural land: \nSince Target 1.4 explicitly refers to equal rights on economic resources, the proposed indicator focuses on land that can be used as a productive resource for livelihood development, thus the focus on agricultural land. \nThe focus on land as productive resource (or for livelihood development) helps deriving indication on empowerment and advancement towards poverty reduction, compared to lands used for other purposes that are not economically and livelihood-related. This is particularly true in developing countries where poverty reduction strategies are necessarily linked to agricultural development. \nThe term 'agricultural land' is used to indicate land used for farming, livestock and forestry activities. This emphasizes the importance to monitor ownership/secure rights on land of farm-based livelihood people as well as people whose main source of livelihood is livestock and forestry. \nSimilarly the term 'agricultural population' has to be intended in a broad sense ' i.e. including people living out of farming, livestock and forestry, with land rights or without (landless). \nDefinition of ownership and rights over land: \nThe landowner is the legal owner of the land. Definitions of ownership may vary across countries and surveys. For instance, documented ownership means that ownership is verified through title or deed, while reported ownership relies on individuals' own judgment. Reported ownership may be more appropriate in countries where a formal registration system is not in place. \nAdditionally, in some countries, particularly where land private ownership is not applicable, it is more appropriate to investigate rights over land using proxies able to capture individuals' capability to control and take decisions over the land. This may include settings where customary rights prevail as opposed to individual ownership. Proxies of such ""bundle of rights"" may include the right to sell, to bequeath or the right to decide how to use the land. \nSince the definition of ownership and land rights has to take into account what is more relevant in the country, the indicator will need to be complemented with metadata that specify what definition(s) of ownership or rights over land is/are employed. \nTenure Type \nFinally and most importantly, this indicator has to be disaggregated by type of tenure. Therefore, the data collection methodology should always include a question on land tenure. Land tenure refers to the arrangements or rights under which people have access to land, and it is one of the key elements to tenure security.5 There are different formal and informal tenure systems around the world and the distinction between legal and non-legal tenure is often blurred. When available, the indicator shall also be disaggregated by documented tenure rights. \nThe FAO World Census of Agriculture encourages countries to use country-specific types of tenure whilst ensuring the possibility to classify ex-post under the following broad categories: 1) legal ownership or legal owner-like possession; 2) Non-legal ownership or non-legal owner-like possession; 3) Rented land from someone else; 4) Various other types of land tenure. \nBroadly speaking, legal ownership or legal owner-like possession describes land rights that provide statutory security of tenure. This may be done through a formal land title system, but may also include certain forms of customary land tenure arrangements where land rights are registered or certified in some way. The following types of tenure arrangements may be included under this heading: \n\tOwnership is certified through a title, which gives the individual the right to determine the nature and extent of the use of the land. \n\tLand is held under conditions that enable it to be operated as if legally owned. E.g., the land is operated under hereditary tenure, perpetual lease, or long-term lease, with nominal or no rent. \n\tThe land is held under a tribal, communal, or traditional form of tenure, which is legally recognized by the state. Such arrangements usually involve land being held on a tribal, village, kindred or clan basis, with land ownership being communal in character but with certain individual rights being held by virtue of membership in the social unit. Such arrangements can be formalized through the establishment of legal procedures to identify the community's land and to manage the land rights of community members.","We propose using the 'total agricultural population' as denominator of part (a), instead of the total population, because ownership or right-security over agricultural land is obviously relevant only for the people whose livelihood rely on agriculture. \nPart (a) \n( People with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land / Total agricultural population ) * 100 \nPart (b) \n( Women with ownership or rights over agricultural land / Total owners or rights bearers over agricultural land ) * 100",,,,"The indicator is related to Goal 1, target 1.4: ""By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance.""\nMore specifically, this indicator monitors ""ownership and rights over land"" and it is particularly useful in terms of framing gender differences in land ownership and control whilst relating them specifically to the population of interest, namely the people who own land or with rights over land. As such it gives a clearer picture of gender and social inequalities in land ownership/control, than for instance looking at the incidence of female ownership/control over land in the entire population of a country. An increase in the percentage of women owning/controlling land indicates that, within the population of interest (i.e., the landowners/rights bearers), progress is made towards achieving equal rights over land among men and women.","The indicator already exists. Until now, the indicator has been collected mainly through the LSMS-ISA surveys and to a smaller extent through DHS surveys in collaboration with National Institutes of Statistics. At the time of writing, the indicator is readily available for 11 countries. Additional, but yet unprocessed surveys (e.g., DHS, LSMS, national household income and expenditure surveys etc.) lead to a conservative estimate of an additional 10 countries for which the indicator could be derived. It cannot be excluded that many other surveys not currently available to FAO would be potential sources as well, for countries not covered by LSMS or DHS. \nThanks to a fruitful cooperation with IFPRI-PIM, FAO is already disseminating the available data for through the Gender and Land Rights Database (GRLD; http://www.fao.org/gender/landrights/home/en/). In the next future, the same data will be also disseminated through FAO's Rural Livelihood Monitoring (RLM) platform. The new World Programme for Agricultural Census (WCA 2020) has proposed the collection of land ownership data disaggregated by sex as a supplementary item. Furthermore, the FAO Statistics Division is starting a project called AGRIS (Agricultural Integrated Surveys) through which methodological guidelines will be provided to countries on how to conduct farm surveys (i.e. key indicators to collect, definitions, methods for data collection, periodicity, etc.), and effort will also be made to support countries in the actual implementation of the farm surveys. By doing so, the availability of this indicator will increase substantially in the future. \nWhile comparability across countries (mainly due to differing definitions) and low current availability pose a challenge to this indicator, it is still fair to consider the indicator superior to the ""share of female agricultural holders"" ' widely available through agricultural census data- because it provides intra-holding/household information and is usually made available in a shorter time span. \nIt also worth mentioning that the importance of a sex-disaggregated indicator on land is acknowledged in the Minimum Set of Gender Indicators approved by UNSC, where a place-holder indicator 'proportion of the (adult) population who own land, by sex' figures as one of the 52 indicators. Furthermore, the EDGE (Evidence and Data for Gender Equality) initiative7 is conducting methodological work on standards for the collection of reliable sex disaggregated data on land ownership.","Reliability \nThe indicator is expected to be reliable because the identification of the plot owner(s)/individual with rights over land in household surveys is a feasible task. Household surveys are usually done on a sample basis and are statistically representative at national and subnational level. \nCoverage \nThe indicator is nationally representative insofar the survey data is nationally representative. The indicator can be collected periodically (about every 2-4 years) which is a reasonable frequency to capture significant changes in land ownership. \nIn most countries, national household surveys and agricultural surveys will be the main data sources for this indicator. \nAcknowledging the relevance of land rights for indigenous populations, countries should work towards: i) including indigenous people in the survey sample frames; ii) collecting information on ethnicity and using it as disaggregation variable for this indicator. Oversampling and questionnaire adaptation might be required to guarantee representativeness and ensure adequacy of concepts and language to the indigenous populations. To this extent, representatives of indigenous populations may consider developing their own data collection capacity according to the existing national standards, and accompanying the national statistical offices in the various data collection efforts. \nComparability across countries \nDifferent country definitions of ownership and rights over land can be problematic. Also, the indicator is collected in different years, depending on when surveys are conducted in individual countries. This can negatively affects comparability across countries. \nSub-national estimates \nIt is possible to disaggregate the indicator by geographic areas if the surveys are representative for these areas. The level of disaggregation depends on the sample design of the surveys.",We do not expect this indicator to change rapidly. It is worth highlighting that the baseline and follow-up values will be different across countries. To ensure correct comparisons linear interpolation between the actual data points will be necessary.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   5.a,TRUE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,30,"Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance and natural resources, in accordance with national laws.",5.a.2,Proportion of countries where the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women's equal rights to land ownership and/or control,FAO,,"The precise definition of this indicator is: ""The legal framework includes special measures to guarantee women's equal rights to landownership and control"". \nThe indicator monitors reforms that give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land. More specifically, the indicator allows for monitoring progress towards gender equity through the adoption of women-specific measures to promote women's secure rights to land. The indicator has a scoring system from 0 to 4, which signals the stage in the policy/legal framework working towards legal reform, as follows: \n\tScore 0: Absence of the indicator in the legal framework \n\tScore 1: A policy is being developed \n\tScore 1.5: A policy is in place \n\tScore 2: A draft legislation is to be submitted for deliberations \n\tScore 3: The indicator appears in primary law \n\tScore 4: The indicator appears in multiple legal instruments \nN/A: Not applicable \nThe indicator considers whether: \n\tNational legal framework gives priority to women heads of household under land distribution and titling programmes; \n\tNational legal framework establishes targeted government funds to increase women access to land; \n\tJoint titling of private property (or user rights) is compulsory in the registration process for husband and wife; The proposed indicator is supported by a number of international instruments, including: \n\tMaputo Protocol, Article 19(c): \n\t""States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to [...] promote women's access to and control over productive resources such as land and guarantee their right to property""; \n\tIt is in line with the Voluntary Guidelines for Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests (VGGT). Namely: \n\t\tPrinciple 4 on Gender equality: ""Ensure the equal right of women and men to the enjoyment of all human rights, while acknowledging differences between women and men and taking specific measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality when necessary. States should ensure that women and girls have equal tenure rights and access to land, fisheries and forests independent of their civil and marital status.""\n\t\tSection 25.6: ""Special procedures should, where possible, provide the vulnerable, including widows and orphans, with secure access to land, fisheries and forests.""",,,,,"The indicator is related to Goal 5, target 5a: ""Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance and natural resources, in accordance with national laws.""\nIn particular, the indicator monitors legal reforms that promote women's land rights and increase their access and ownership of productive resources through land ownership or other special measures. It provides a good indication of government's efforts to move towards the realization of women's land rights and more gender-equal land tenure.","The indicator exists. It is being collected through the analysis of the legal and policy framework as part of the Legislation Assessment Tool for gender-equitable land tenure (LAT) of the Gender and Land Rights Database. The indicator is not reported as such by the countries, but information can be extrapolated from the countries'national laws. The legal information is mainly accessible in FAO's FAOLEX a database that collects (http://faolex.fao.org/) legal material from the official gazettes, compiling texts of laws and regulations that are sent by FAO's Member Nations pursuant to Article XI of the FAO Constitution. The information is also available in as well as LandWise (Landesa). The indicator is disseminated through the FAO's Gender and Land Rights database (GLRD;http://www.fao.org/gender/landrights/home/en/) through its Legislation Assessment Tool (http://www.fao.org/gender-landrights-database/legislation-assessment-tool/en/). The indicator has been applied to 18 countries and the results are available on the LAT map of the GLRD. The complete LAT analysis can be expanded to 83 countries and validated by national legal experts with a total investment of US$450,000 partly funded by FAO. Results are comparable across countries; however, the indicator available in the GRLD only applies to the national legal framework and does not include regional legal frameworks.","Reliability \nWe expect this indicator to be accurate because it reflects the existence of legal measures to promote women's land rights and or productive resources. The indicator will have a value of 1 if one or more legal measures promote women's land rights (as the examples shown above) exist in the country legal framework. \nCoverage \nThe indicator is nationally representative insofar these special measures apply to the national level. \nComparability across countries \nAs mentioned above, the indicator is comparable across countries. Even if countries take different promotional measures according to their context, the indicator measures whether countries are undertaking any legal measure to promote women's rights to land property and/or other productive resources. \nSub-national estimates \nThe indicator can be used as a sub-national indicator when special laws and legal procedures pertaining to one geographic area is analysed. However, up till now this indicator is only available at national level.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   5.b,TRUE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,33,"Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women.",5.b.1,"Proportion of individuals who own a mobile telephone, by sex",ITU, UN-WOMEN,"This indicator is defined as the 'proportion of individuals who own a mobile telephone, by sex'. An individual owns a mobile cellular phone if he/she has a mobile cellular phone device with at least one active SIM card for personal use. Mobile cellular phones supplied by employers that can be used for personal reasons (to make personal calls, access the Internet, etc.) are included. Individuals who have only active SIM card(s) and not a mobile phone device are excluded. Individuals who have a mobile phone for personal use that is not registered under his/her name are also included. An active SIM card is a SIM card that has been used in the last three months. A mobile (cellular) telephone refers to a portable telephone subscribing to a public mobile telephone service using cellular technology, which provides access to the PSTN. This includes analogue and digital cellular systems and technologies such as IMT-2000 (3G) and IMT-Advanced. Users of both postpaid subscriptions and prepaid accounts are included. Countries can collect data on this indicator through national household surveys.",This indicator is calculated by dividing the total number of in-scope individuals who own a mobile phone by the total number of in-scope individuals.,"Mobile phone networks have spread rapidly over the last decade and the number of mobile-cellular subscriptions is quasi equal to the number of the people living on earth. However, not every person uses, or owns a mobile-cellular telephone. Mobile phone ownership, in particular, is important to track gender equality since the mobile phone is a personal device that, if owned and not just shared, provides women with a degree of independence and autonomy, including for professional purposes. A number of studies have highlighted the link between mobile phone ownership and empowerment, and productivity growth. \nExisting data on the proportion of women owning a mobile phone suggest that less women than men own a mobile phone. This indicator highlights the importance of mobile phone ownership to track and to improve gender equality, and monitoring will help design targeted policies to overcome the gender divide. The collection of this indicator was proposed by the Task Group on Gender of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development.",,,,,,,"This indicator is a newly developed ITU indicator that was approved by the World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Symposium (WTIS) 2014. The indicator definition and methodology were developed under the coordination of ITU, through its Expert Groups and following an extensive consultation process with countries. Data for the proportion of individuals owning a mobile phone will be collected through an annual questionnaire that ITU sends to national statistical offices (NSO), starting in 2015. In this questionnaire, through which ITU already collects a number of ICT indicators, ITU collects absolute values. The percentages are calculated aposteriori. The survey methodology is verified to ensure that it meets adequate statistical standards. The data are verified to ensure consistency with previous years' data and other relevant country-level indicators (ICT and economic). \nData are usually not adjusted, but discrepancies in the definition, age scope of individuals, reference period or the break in comparability between years are noted in a data note. For this reason, data are not always strictly comparable. \nA number of countries already collect this indicator through official surveys but data will only be collected at the international level as of 2015.",,,"For countries that collect this indicator through a national household survey, and if data allow breakdown and disaggregation, the indicator can be broken down not only by sex but also by region (geographic and/or urban/rural), by age group, by educational level, by labour force status, and by occupation. ITU will collect data for all of these breakdowns from countries.",Data collection for this indicator will only commence in 2015 and no regional or global figures are available (yet).,"While the data on the 'proportion of individuals who own a mobile telephone' currently only exist for very few countries, ITU is encouraging all countries to collect data on this indicator through national household surveys and the indicator is expected to be added to the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development's Core List of Indicators. The number of countries with official data for this indicator is expected to increase in the near future.","Discrepancies exist between the proportion of men and women that access, own, use, and benefit from ICTs and this indicator is important to track the gender digital divide. Mobile phone ownership (as opposed to shared ownership), in particular, is important for a person's independence and autonomy, and increases the potential to fully benefit from mobile communications.",,"Once ITU has included this indicator in its regular data collection, year-end estimates will be released in December of the following year through the ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database.","Since the definition and methodology of this indicator will only be collected as of 2015, the indicator is not yet included in the ITU Manual for Measuring ICT Access and Use by Households and Individuals 2014. It will be included in the next version of the Manual. \nFor a discussion on the importance of this indicators, see also the UNCTAD, Measuring ICT and gender: an assessment.",,,,,,,,,Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  -5.c,FALSE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,35,Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels.,5.c.1,Proportion of countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women's empowermentNo metadata received on current indicator formulation,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  +5.c,FALSE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,35,Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels.,5.c.1,Proportion of countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women's empowerment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   6.1,TRUE,6,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-6.pdf,2,"By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.",6.1.1,Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services,UN-WATER, WHO,"Population using a basic drinking water source ('improved' sources of drinking water used for MDG monitoring i.e. piped water into dwelling, yard or plot; public taps or standpipes; boreholes or tubewells; protected dug wells; protected springs and rainwater) which is located on premises and available when needed and free of faecal (and priority chemical) contamination.","Household surveys and censuses currently provide information on types of basic drinking water sources listed above, and also indicate if sources are on premises. These data sources often have information on the availability of water and increasingly on the quality of water at the household level, through direct testing of drinking water for faecal or chemical contamination. These data will be combined with data on availability and compliance with drinking water quality standards (faecal and chemical) from administrative reporting or regulatory bodies. \nThe WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP) estimates access to basic services for each country, separately in urban and rural areas, by fitting a regression line to a series of data points from household surveys and censuses. This approach was used to report on use of 'improved water' sources for MDG monitoring. The JMP is evaluating the use of alternative statistical estimation methods as more data become available. \nThe accompanying Statistical Note describes in more detail how data on availability and quality from different sources, can be combined with data on use of different types of supplies, as recorded in the current JMP database to compute the proposed indicator. \nPredominant type of statistics: national estimates adjusted for global comparison.","MDG target 7C called for 'sustainable access' to 'safe drinking water'. At the start of the MDG period, there was a complete lack of nationally representative data about drinking water safety in developing countries, and such data were not collected through household surveys or censuses. The JMP developed the indicator use of 'improved' water sources, which was used as a proxy for 'safe water', as such sources are likely to be protected against faecal contamination, and this metric has been used since 2000 to track progress towards the MDG target. International consultations since 2011 have established consensus on the need to build on and address the shortcomings of this indicator; specifically, to address normative criteria of the human right to water including accessibility, availability, and quality. \nThe above consultation concluded that JMP should go beyond the basic level of access and address safe management of drinking water services, including dimensions of accessibility, availability and quality. The proposed indicator of 'safely managed drinking water services' is designed to address this.",,,,,,,"Access to water and sanitation are considered core socio-economic and health indicators, and key determinants of child survival, maternal, and children's health, family wellbeing, and economic productivity. Drinking water and sanitation facilities are also used in constructing wealth quintiles used by many integrated household surveys to analyse inequalities between rich and poor. Access to drinking water and sanitation is therefore a core indicator for most household surveys. Currently JMP database holds around 1600 such surveys and for over 140 countries, at least five data points are available which include information about basic water and sanitation for the period 1990-2015. In high-income countries where household surveys or censuses do not usually collect information on basic access, estimates are drawn from administrative records. \nData on availability and faecal and chemical quality of drinking water, and regulation by appropriate authorities will be collected by JMP through consultation with the government departments responsible for drinking water supply and regulation. JMP routinely conducts country consultations with national authorities before publishing country estimates. Data on availability and quality of water supplies are currently available from household surveys or administrative sources including regulators for over 70 high-income countries, and at least 30-40 low- and middle-income countries. Thus, data are currently available from ca. 100 countries, covering the majority of the global population. This number will rise as regulation becomes more widespread in low- and middle-income countries. \nThe population data used by JMP, including the proportion of the population living in urban and rural areas, are those routinely updated by the UN Population Division.",,,"Place of residence (urban/rural) and socioeconomic status (wealth, affordability) is possible for all countries. Disaggregation by other stratifiers of inequality (subnational, gender, disadvantaged groups, etc.) will be made where data permit. Drinking water services will be disaggregated by service level, including no service, basic, and safely managed services. \nDisaggregation by disability can be obtained bv including the functioning questions included the World Health Survey (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/en/), WHO Study on global AGEing and adult health (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/sage/en/) or WHO Model Disability Survey (http://www.who.int/disabilities/data/mds/en/) in population-based health surveys. Data by disability (i.e. by household with a persons with disabilities) was also collected in World Health Surveys (2003-4) and is currently being collected and will continue to be collected through the WHO Study on Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE).","JMP will draw upon the national data described above, and regional and global aggregations will be made in a similar fashion as has been done for MDG reporting. Estimates of faecal and chemical contamination, and regulation by appropriate authorities, will be collected from countries and used to adjust the data on use of basic drinking water sources as needed.","Data on availability and safety of drinking water is increasingly available through a combination of household surveys and administrative sources including regulators, but definitions have yet to be standardized. Data on faecal and chemical contamination, drawn from household surveys and regulatory databases, will not cover all countries immediately. However, sufficient data exist to make global and regional estimates of safely managed drinking water services by the time the global community adopts the SDG indicators in 2016/17.","In household surveys access to drinking water is measured at the household level and in most cases it is not possible to disaggregate to accurately measure intra-household inequalities such as sex, age, or disability. Gender-specific data are available for household management of drinking water, and the time spent for water collection (including waiting time at public supply points) can be used as a proxy for gender equality.",,"JMP has developed a detailed Statistical Note outlining and illustrating proposals for measuring safely managed drinking water services, building on the Statistical Note shared at the Expert Group Meeting in February 2015. JMP will continue to measure and report on use of 'basic' and unimproved drinking water sources as part of its drinking water ladder to ensure continuity with MDG monitoring.","The most recent JMP report: Progress on sanitation and drinking water - 2015 update and MDG assessment. New York: UNICEF/WHO, 2015. http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/JMP-Update-report-2015_English.pdf http://www.wssinfo.org/definitions-methods/data-sources/ \nWASH targets and indicators post-2015: recommendations from international consultations. Geneva: Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council; 2014 http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/post-2015-WASH-targets-factsheet- 12pp.pdf \nMethodological note on monitoring WASH and wastewater for the SDGs: http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/Methodological-note-on-monitoringSDG-targets-for-WASH-and-wastewater_WHO-UNICEF_8October2015_Final.pdf. \nGuidelines for drinking water quality, fourth edition. Geneva: WHO; 2011. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2011/dwq_guidelines/en/ \nJMP Task Force on Methods Final Report. New York: WHO/UNICEF, December 2014. http://www.wssinfo.org/task-forces/",,,,,,,,, UNICEF,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   6.2,TRUE,6,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-6.pdf,5,"By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations.",6.2.1,"Proportion of population using safely managed sanitation services, including a hand-washing facility with soap and water",WHO,UNICEF,"Population using a basic sanitation facility at the household level ('improved' sanitation facilities used for MDG monitoring i.e. flush or pour flush toilets to sewer systems, septic tanks or pit latrines, ventilated improved pit latrines, pit latrines with a slab, and composting toilets, the same categories as improved sources of drinking water used for MDG monitoring) which is not shared with other households and where excreta is safely disposed in situ or treated off-site. This is therefore a multipurpose indicator also serving the household element of the wastewater treatment indicator (6.3.1).","Household surveys and censuses provide data on use of types of basic sanitation facilities listed above. The percentage of the population using safely managed sanitation services is calculated by combining data on the proportion of the population using different types of basic sanitation facilities with estimates of the proportion of faecal waste which is safely disposed in situ or treated off-site. \nThe JMP estimates access to basic sanitation facilities for each country, separately in urban and rural areas, by fitting a regression line to a series of data points from household surveys and censuses. This approach was used to report on use of 'improved sanitation' facilities for MDG monitoring. The JMP is evaluating the use of alternative statistical estimation methods as more data become available. \nThe Statistical Note describes in more detail how 'safety factors', or the proportion of household wastewater that is safely disposed of in situ or transported to a designated place, will be generated through a national assessment process, and combined with data on use of different types of supplies, as recorded in the current JMP database. Calculation of safety factors for safe management of sanitation are the same used for safety factors for wastewater treatment required for household part of the indicator 6.3.1.","Predominant type of statistics:\nNational estimates adjusted for global comparison. MDG target 7C called for 'sustainable access' to ''basic sanitation'. JMP developed the metric of use of 'improved' sanitation facilities, which are likely to hygienically separate human excreta from human contact, and has used this indicator to track progress towards the MDG target since 2000. International consultations since 2011 have established consensus on the need to build on and address the shortcomings of this indicator; specifically, to address normative criteria of the human right to water including accessibility, acceptability, and safety. Furthermore, the safe management of faecal wastes should be considered, as discharges of untreated wastewater into the environment create public health hazards. \nThe above consultation concluded that post-2015 targets, which apply to all countries, should go beyond the basic level of access and address indicators of safe management of sanitation services, including dimensions of accessibility, acceptability and safety. The Expert Working Group called for analysis of faecal waste management along the sanitation chain, including containment, emptying of latrines and septic tanks, and safe on-site disposal or transport of wastes to designated treatment sites. Classification of treatment will be based on categories defined by SEEA and the International Recommendations for Water Statistics and following a laddered approach (primary, secondary and tertiary treatment),",,,,,,,"Access to water and sanitation are considered core socio-economic and health indicators, and key determinants of child survival, maternal, and children's health, family wellbeing, and economic productivity. Drinking water and sanitation facilities are also used in constructing wealth quintiles used by many integrated household surveys to analyse inequalities between rich and poor. Access to drinking water and sanitation is therefore a core indicator for most household surveys. Currently JMP database holds around 1600 such surveys and for over 140 countries, at least five data points are available which include information about basic water and sanitation for the period 1990-2015. In high income countries where household surveys or censuses do not usually collect information on basic access, estimates are drawn from administrative records. \nEstimates of excreta management will be collected from countries and used to adjust the data on use of basic sanitation facilities as needed. Administrative, population and environmental data can also be combined to estimate safe disposal or transport of excreta, when no country data are available. Data on disposal or treatment of excreta are limited but estimates for safe management of faecal wastes can be calculated based on faecal waste flows associated with the use of different types of basic sanitation facility. \nThe population data used by JMP, including the proportion of the population living in urban and rural areas, are those established by the UN Population Division.",,,"Place of residence (urban/rural) and socioeconomic status (wealth, affordability) is possible for all countries. Disaggregation by other stratifiers of inequality (subnational, gender, disadvantaged groups, etc.) will be made where data permit. Sanitation services will be disaggregated by service level, including no service, shared, basic, and safely managed services. Supplementary geospatial analysis will be made to identify populations most at risk of exposure to untreated wastewater.","JMP will draw upon the national data described above, and regional and global aggregations will be made in a similar fashion as has been done for MDG reporting.","A framework for measuring faecal waste flows and safety factors has been developed and piloted in 12 countries (World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, 2014), and is being adopted and scaled up by key elements of the sanitation sector. This framework has served as the basis for monitoring plans for indicators 6.2.1 and 6.3.1. Data on safe disposal and treatment is not available for all countries immediately. However, sufficient data exist to make global and regional estimates of safely managed sanitation services by the time the global community adopts the SDG indicators in 2016/17.","In household surveys access to sanitation facilities is measured at the household level and in most cases in not possible to disaggregate to accurately measure intra-household inequalities such as sex, age, or disability. Novel data sources, like rapid assessment methods, or crowdsourced data could be utilized to see intra-household disparity in access or gender discrimination on the use of safe management of sanitation services.",,JMP has developed a detailed statistical note outlining and illustrating proposals for measuring safely managed sanitation services. JMP will continue to measure and report on.,"Progress on sanitation and drinking water - 2015 update and MDG assesment. New York: \nUNICEF/WHO, 2015. http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/JMPUpdate-report-2015_English.pdf \nMethodological note on monitoring WASH and wastewater for the SDGs: http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/Methodological-note-onmonitoring-SDG-targets-for-WASH-and-wastewater_WHOUNICEF_8October2015_Final.pdf. \nWASH targets and indicators post-2015: recommendations from international consultations. Geneva: Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council; 2014 http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/post-2015-WASH-targetsfactsheet-12pp.pdf \nThe Missing Link in Sanitation Service Delivery: A Review of Fecal Sludge Management in 12 Cities. World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, 2014. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/04/19549016/targeting-urban-poorimproving-services-small-towns-missing-link-sanitation-service-delivery-review-fecalsludge-management-12-cities",6.3,,,,,,,,,6.3.1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
   6.3,TRUE,6,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-6.pdf,8,"By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally.",6.3.1,Proportion of wastewater safely treated,UN-WATER, WHO,"Proportion of wastewater generated both by households (sewage and faecal sludge), as well as economic activities (based on ISIC categories) safely treated compared to total wastewater generated both through households and economic activities. While the definition conceptually includes wastewater generated from all economic activities, monitoring will focus on wastewater generated from hazardous industries (as defined by relevant ISIC categories).","The wastewater safely treated is calculated by combining the percentage of household (sewage and faecal sludge) wastewater and the percentage of wastewater from hazardous industries treated. \nHousehold surveys and censuses provide information on use of types of basic sanitation facilities. These estimates are combined with safety factors for on-site disposal and for transportation to designated places for safe disposal or treatment, as described in indicator 6.2.1. The information generated for indicator 6.2.1 will be combined with safety factors describing the proportion of wastewater from hazardous industries which is safely treated before disposal or reuse to produce indicator 6.3.1. Calculation of safety factors for household wastewater (sewage and faecal sludge) treatment will be coordinated with estimation of similar safety factors for safe management of sanitation required for indicator 6.2.1. \nThe accompanying Statistical Note describes in more detail how 'safety factors' for wastewater treatment, disposal and reuse will be generated through a national assessment process, and combined with data on use of different types of sanitation facilities, as recorded in the current JMP database. \nStatistical methods for measurement of the wastewater treatment (called ""wastewater to sewerage""by SEEA-Water) align with the SEEA definitions and treatment categories (primary, secondary, tertiary). Statistical methods for the treatment of industrial wastewater align with the SEEA definitions and treatment categories using ISIC classifications and treated volumes from permits data.","SDG proposed target calls for reducing water pollution, minimizing release of hazardous chemical and increasing treatment and reuse. Household wastewater includes faecal waste from onsite facilities (such as emptying and cleaning of cesspools and septic tanks, sinks and pits) as well as off-site wastewater treatment plants according to the ISIC definition 3700 for ""Sewerage"". Inclusion of onsite facilities is critical from a public health, environment and equity perspective since approximately two thirds people globally use on-site facilities. \nIndustrial wastewater (which includes point source agricultural discharges) responds to minimizing release of hazardous chemicals. Diffuse agricultural pollution is a major source of water pollution but cannot be monitored at source and therefore its impact on ambient water quality will be monitored under 6.3.2.",,,,,,,"The aim is to cover households and the entire economy, and to build on the monitoring framework of JMP, AQUASAT, IBNET, UNSD/UNEP Water Questionnaire for non OECD/Eurostat countries, OECD/Eurostat Questionnaire for OECD countries, etc., as well as pop density, depth to groundwater, land-use/land-cover data from earth observations. Statistical methods for measurement of wastewater treatment will align with the SEEA1 statistical standard and associated definitions, classifications and treatment categories. \nThe calculation of the indicator value as derived from the framework is the amount treated (off-site and on-site) divided by the total amount of waste generated. The indicator for household wastewater could be expressed in population as expressed in indicator 6.2.1. Data will come from a variety of sources combining utility and regulator data for off-site and potentially household survey questions and measurements relating to onsite treatment supplemented by modelled estimates where no reliable national data exist. \nThe total volume of industrial wastewater (the denominator) can be reliably estimated from an inventory of industries, maintained by vast majority of member states through International Standard Industrial Classification from all economic activities, revision 4, ISIC Rev42). This can be populated from databases and records held by Ministries of Industry, Tax offices, local authority registries etc. For each industry, records will be available on the amount of water they abstract from municipal supplies or from boreholes or other sources. Given the knowledge of the type of industry, from and a mass balance of products in and out, the proportion of wastewater flow generated as waste water can be estimated.",,,"Household (on and off-site) and industrial wastewater. The household part of this indicator is also addressed by safely managed sanitation services (indicator 6.2.1) \nHousehold wastewater could be further disaggregated to estimate the proportion of treated wastewater that is safely reused responding to the target component ""substantially increase recycling and reuse"". However, data availability will be challenging in many countries.",Wastewater generated from types of sanitation facilities or types of industries will be aggregated to get national and regional estimates.,"A framework for measuring faecal waste flows and safety factors have been developed and piloted in 12 countries (World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, 2014), and is being scaled up post- 2015. This framework has served as the basis for monitoring plans for indicators 6.2.1 and 6.3.1. Data on safe disposal and treatment remain scarce, and will not be available all countries immediately. However, sufficient data exist to make global and regional estimates of safely treated wastewater by 2018.",Gender disaggregation for wastewater will not be possible since data on use of sanitation facilities is derived from household surveys. Measurement of treatment of wastewater from on-site sanitation is specifically included to respond to equity issues as approximately two thirds of all sanitation is on-site and predominantly used by poorest wealth quintiles who are seldom served by a sewer connection. Unsafe disposal of wastewater in disproportionately affects the poorest who are more likely to reside in affected areas.,,Please refer to the accompanying statistical note for detailed methodology.,"Progress on sanitation and drinking water _ 2015 update and MDG assessment. New York: UNICEF/WHO, 2015. http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/JMP-Update-report-2015_English.pdf \nMethodological note on monitoring WASH and wastewater for the SDGs: http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/Methodological-note-on-monitoringSDG-targets-for-WASH-and-wastewater_WHO-UNICEF_8October2015_Final.pdf. \nThe Missing Link in Sanitation Service Delivery: A Review of Fecal Sludge Management in 12 Cities. World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, 2014. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/04/19549016/targeting-urban-poor-improvingservices-small-towns-missing-link-sanitation-service-delivery-review-fecal-sludge-management- 12-cities \nSEEA-Water System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Water, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2012 \nInternational Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, Rev.4 http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=27 \nReport of the First Stakeholders Consultation on Post-2015 monitoring: Indicators and Monitoring Mechanisms: http://www.unwater.org/fileadmin/user_upload/unwater_new/docs/Topics/SDG/GEMI_Report_Firs t_Stakeholders_Consultation_Post-2015_Monitoring_FINAL2015-04-27.pdf",,,,,,,,, UNICEF,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  
positive.code: 5.2,TRUE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,4,"Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation.",5.2.2,"Proportion of women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to sexual violence by persons other than an intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by age and place of occurrence",UNFPA,UNICEF,"Number of girls and women aged 15+ who were subjected to sexual violence by persons other than an intimate partner, as percentage of all girls and women aged 15+, disaggregated by age and place of occurrence. \nSexual violence as defined in para 60 of the UN Guidelines for Producing Statistics on Violence against Women: Statistical Surveys [1]: \n... is any sort of harmful or unwanted sexual behavior that is imposed on someone. It includes act of abusive sexual contact, forced engagement in sexual acts, attempted or completed sexual acts with a woman without her consent, sexual harassment, verbal abuse, threats, exposure, unwanted touching, incest, etc. A minimum list of acts of sexual violence, which should be expanded depending on the specific country context, consists of the following: \n(a) Rape: Refers to engaging in the non-consensual vaginal, anal, or oral penetration of a sexual nature of the body of another person with any bodily part or object, including through the use of physical violence and by putting the victim in a situation where she cannot say no or complies because of fear; \n(b) Attempted rape: Refers to attempting to have non-consensual sexual intercourse through the use of force or threats; \n(c) Other sexual acts: Refers to: \n\tIntimate touching without consent \n\tSexual acts other than intercourse forced by money \n\tSexual acts other than intercourse obtained through threats of physical violence \n\tSexual acts other than intercourse obtained through threats to the well-being of family members \n\tUse of force or coercion to obtain unwanted sexual acts or any sexual activity that the female partner finds degrading or humiliating \n\tOther acts of sexual violence. \nThe indicator specifically considers the following: 1) sexual violence (separately from physical violence); 2) women and girls aged 15+ who were subjected to sexual violence; and 3) by perpetrators who are persons other than an intimate partner. \n\n This indicator provides the proportion of ever-partnered girls and women aged 15+ subjected to physical, sexual or psychological violence in the last 12 months by a current or former intimate partner. It is calculated by dividing the number of ever-partnered girls and women aged 15+ subjected to physical, sexual or psychological in the last 12 months by a current or former intimate partner by the total number of ever-partnered girls and women aged 15+ in the population.",,"Violence against women and girls is one of the most pervasive human rights abuses in the world today and takes place in all countries. In order to eradicate violence against women and girls, it is necessary to measure its prevalence in all its forms. \nBy measuring the prevalence of sexual violence by persons other than an intimate partner, this indicator complements the other priority indicator in 5.2 (i.e. the proportion of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15+ subjected to physical, sexual and psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner, in the last 12 months, by form of violence and age). \nFurthermore, by disaggregating this indicator by place of occurrence and perpetrator, this indicator would measure sexual violence in the workplace and in public spaces. \n\n Intimate partner violence includes abuse perpetrated by a current or former partner within the context of marriage, cohabitation or any other formal or informal union. Violence directed at girls and women is the most common form of gender-based violence.",,,,,,,"Data for this indicator are derived from violence against women modules in Demographic and Health Surveys or in other specialized surveys on violence against women. The European Union (EU) Agency for Fundamental Rights conducted an EU-wide survey on the extent, nature, and consequences of violence against women in all 28 Member States of the EU [3]. \n\n Household surveys such as DHS and other national violence against women surveys.",,,"Recommended disaggregation for this indicator are [2]: \n\tAge \n\tPlace of occurrence \n\t\tPublic space (including streets, parks etc.), employment etc. \n\tIncome \n\tOther characteristics such as disability, race, caste, ethnicity etc. as relevant \n\n Data are available by age, place of residence and wealth quintiles.","This indicator is currently classified as Tier II. UN Women and UNICEF would monitor this target \n\n UNICEF maintains a global database with estimates for the percentage of ever-partnered women and girls (aged 15-49) subjected to physical and/or sexual violence in the last 12 months by a current or former intimate partner, disaggregated by age, place of residence and wealth quintile by country and for some (flexible) regional groupings with sufficient population coverage. Fully comparable data are currently available for approximately 56 low- and middleincome countries. The FRA study on Violence against Women: An EU-wide Survey (2014) also provide recent estimates for all EU countries for girls and women aged 18-74.","The availability of comparable data remains a challenge in this area as many data collection efforts have relied on different study methodologies. Diverse age groups are often utilized and in many high-income countries, data on intimate partner violence have largely been collected from the adult population (i.e., women and men over the age of 18). This said, existing data collection mechanisms are already in place for many countries to monitor this indicator. In addition, most developing countries only collect data through a module in the DHS and therefore limit the age range to girls and women aged 15 to 49 [4]. However, many countries are also collecting data for women without specifying an upper age limit. \n\n The availability of comparable data remains a challenge in this area as many data collection efforts have relied on different study methodologies and used different definitions of partner or spousal violence. Diverse age groups are often utilized and in many high-income countries, data on intimate partner violence have largely been collected from the adult population (i.e., women and men over the age of 18). This is mostly due to the fact that relatively few adolescents in such countries can be found in marriages or other formal unions before the age of 18. This said, existing data collection mechanisms are already in place for many countries to monitor this indicator. Through standalone surveys, many countries are also collecting data for girls and women without specifying an upper age limit. There is an existing, standardized and validated measurement tool (the CTS) that is widely accepted and has been implemented in a large number of countries to measure Intimate Partner Violence.","In societies that sanction male dominance over women, violence between intimate partners may be perceived as an ordinary component of interpersonal dynamics between the sexes, particularly in the context of marriage or other formal unions. Therefore, it represents one manifestation of gender inequality.",,"The UN Guidelines for Producing Statistics on Violence against Women: Statistics Surveys have been prepared to assist countries in assessing the scope, prevalence, and incidence of violence against women. These Guidelines, in compliance with the UNGA resolution 61/143 and per request by the UN Statistical Commission at its 40th session in 2009, respond to the need to provide methodological advice regarding selection of topics, sources of data, relevant statistical classifications, outputs, wording of questions and all other issues relevant for national statistical offices to conduct statistical surveys on violence against women.[1] \n\n UNICEF website on violent union data: http://data.unicef.org/child-protection/violent-unions.html \nUNICEF 2014 report ' Hidden in Plain Sight: A statistical analysis of violence against children: http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_pdfs/corecode/VR-fullreport_Final-LR-3_2_15_189.pdf http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results-apr14_en.pdf","[1] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Guidelines for Producing Statistics on Violence against Women: Statistical Surveys, UN, New York, 2014. \n[2] UN Women, Monitoring Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Opportunities and Challenges, UN Women, New York, 2015. \n[3] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Violence against Women: An EU-wide Survey, European Union, Austria, 2014. \n[4] Kishor, Sunita, Domestic Violence Measurement in the Demographic and Health Surveys: The History and the Challenges, Measure DHS, ORC Macro, Switzerland, 2005.",,,,,,,,,UN-WOMEN,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  5.3,TRUE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,9,"Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation.",5.3.1,Proportion of women aged 20-24 years who were married or in a union before age 15 and before age 18,UNICEF,,This indicator provides the proportion of women aged 20 to 24 years who were first married or in union by age 18. It is calculated by dividing the number of women aged 20-24 who were first married or in union by age 18 by the total number of women aged 20-24 in the population.,,"Marriage before the age of 18 is a fundamental violation of human rights. Child marriage often compromises a girl's development by resulting in early pregnancy and social isolation, interrupting her schooling, limiting her opportunities for career and vocational advancement and placing her at increased risk of intimate partner violence. In many cultures, girls reaching puberty are expected to assume gender roles associated with womanhood. These include entering a union and becoming a mother. \nThe issue of child marriage is addressed in a number of international conventions and agreements: The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Article 16); Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages; African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child; and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People's Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa. Although marriage is not mentioned directly in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, child marriage is linked to other rights ' such as the right to freedom of expression, the right to protection from all forms of abuse, and the right to be protected from harmful traditional practices.",,,,,,,"Household surveys such as UNICEF-supported MICS and DHS have been collecting data on this indicator in low- and middle-income countries since around the late 1980s. In some countries, such data are also collected through national censuses or other national household surveys.",,,"Data are available by place of residence, wealth quintiles, education and other background characteristics.","UNICEF has estimates for the percentage of women aged 20-24 who were first married or in union before age 18, disaggregated by place of residence and wealth quintile for the world as a whole and by (flexible) regional groupings. The global and regional estimates are based on available data from 113 countries.",There are existing tools and mechanisms for data collection that countries have implemented to monitor the situation with regards to this indicator. The modules used to collect information on marital status among women and men of reproductive age (15-49 years) in the DHS and MICS have been fully harmonized.,The practice of early/child marriage is a direct manifestation of gender inequality.,,UNICEF website on child marriage data: http://data.unicef.org/child-protection/child-marriage.html \nUNICEF 2014 brochure ' Ending Child Marriage: Progress and prospects http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_pdfs/corecode/Child-MarriageBrochure-HR_164.pdf,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  5.3,TRUE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,10,"Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation.",5.3.2,"Proportion of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting, by age",UNICEF,WHO,From UNICEF: \nThis indicator provides the proportion of girls and women aged 15 to 49 years who have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). It is calculated by dividing the number of girls and women aged 15-49 who have undergone FGM/C by the total number of girls and women aged 15-49 in the population \n\nFrom WHO: \nThe numerator is the number of women and girls who have undergone a FGM procedure (Type 1 to IV). The denominator is the number of women and girls in the same population,,"From UNICEF: \nFGM/C is a violation of girls' and women's human rights. There is also a large body of literature documenting the adverse health consequences of FGM/C over both the short and long term. FGM/C is condemned by a number of international treaties and conventions including the Universal Declaration of Human Right (Article 25). FGM/C can also be considered as a form of violence against women, and therefore the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women can be invoked. Similarly, defining it as a form of torture brings it under the rubric of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Moreover, since FGM/C is regarded as a traditional practice prejudicial to the health of children and is, in most cases, performed on minors, it violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Existing national legislation in many countries also include explicit bans against FGM/C. \n\nFrom WHO: \n Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve the partial or total removal of external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons [1]. Although it is internationally recognized as a violation of human rights (including: the right to non-discrimination on the grounds of sex; the right to life; the right to the highest attainable standard of health; the right to freedom From torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; and the rights of the child), and legislation to prohibit the procedure has been put in place in many countries, the practice has still been documented. \nWHO classifies FGM into four types: [1] \n\tType I: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy). \n\tType II: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (excision). \n\tType III: Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with the creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation). \n\tType IV: All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, pulling, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization. \nThe removal of or damage to healthy, normal genital tissue interferes with the natural functioning of the body and causes several immediate and long-term health consequences.",,,,,,,"From UNICEF: \nHousehold surveys such as UNICEF-supported MICS and DHS have been collecting data on this indicator in low- and middle-income countries since the late 1980s. In some countries, such data are also collected through other national household surveys. \n\nFrom WHO: \n Household surveys",,,"From UNICEF: \nData are available by many stratifies including age, region, ethnicity, religion, education, place of residence and wealth quintiles. \n\nFrom WHO: \n By type of FGM",From UNICEF: \nUNICEF has estimates of the percentage of girls and women aged 15 to 49 years who have undergone FGM/C in the 29 countries in which the practice is concentrated in Africa and the Middle Est. Additional data points are expected to be made available in the next few weeks.,"From UNICEF: \nThere are existing tools and mechanisms for data collection that countries have implemented to monitor the situation with regards to this indicator. The modules used to collect information on the circumcision status of girls aged 0-14 and women aged 15-49 in the DHS and MICS have been fully harmonized. \n\nFrom WHO: \n The indicator will be collected by self-report; thus the identification of type FGM can be difficult; and due to varying social norms, factual disclosure of whether or not the individual has undergone FGM can be difficult to ascertain (eg, depending on the context, a woman/girl may be more or less willing to state that she has undergone the procedure).","From UNICEF: \nThis issue specifically affects girls and women and is one direct manifestation of gender inequality. \n\nFrom WHO: \n The broader scope of gender inequality is believed to perpetuate FGM, and violation of human rights by FGM represent the need to monitor the persistence of this harmful practice.",,From UNICEF: \n UNICEF website on FGM/C data: http://data.unicef.org/child-protection/fgmc.html \nUNICEF 2013 report - Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change: http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_pdfs/corecode/FGMC_Lo_res_Final_26.pdf \n\nFrom WHO: \n Women and girls living in diaspora with history of undergoing FGM should be considered in monitoring and evaluation frameworks.,"From WHO: \n Eliminating female genital mutilation: an interagency statement UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCHR, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO. Geneva, 2008.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  5.4,TRUE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,13,"Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate.",5.4.1,"Percentage of time spent on unpaid domestic and care work, by sex, age and location",UN-WOMEN,,"Average number of hours spent in a week on unpaid domestic and care work, by sex, age and location (for individuals 5 years and above) \nUnpaid domestic and care work activities include the unpaid production of goods for own final consumption (e.g., collecting water or firewood) and the unpaid provision of services (e.g., cooking or cleaning as well as person-to-person care) for own final use.",,"The provision of unpaid care and domestic work has a profound implication on our understanding of poverty and well-being. As a result of their socially ascribed roles, women and girls do the bulk of unpaid care and domestic work, which includes household maintenance activities such as cooking and cleaning as well as person-toperson care activities such as child and elder care. [2] \nProducing time use statistics thus contributes to increasing the visibility of women's work through better statistics on their contribution to the economy ' with particular emphasis on the value of goods and services they produce. [1]",,,,,,,"This indicator is generally derived through time use surveys or time use modules in general purpose or labour force surveys. \nA stand-alone time use survey is a household survey concerned with the single subject of time use. An independent survey is often a good solution for a subject as complex as time use. However, multi-purpose household surveys can also be used to produce time use statistics, for example through a modular approach [1]. \nBased on data compiled by UN Women in 2015, 75 countries currently have data related to this indicator. [2]",,,"Recommended areas of disaggregation for this indicator are: \n\tSex \n\tAge \n\tLocation \n\tMarital status \n\t\tUrban-rural location. \n\tIncome \n\t\tIncome group deemed relevant in the country context. \n\tOther characteristics such as disability, race, caste, ethnicity etc. as relevant \nNote: \nAs recommended by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Gender Statistics, this indicator should be disaggregated by tasks and distinguish between person to person care and other household management-related tasks. [3]","At the international level, UN Women and UNSD have compiled statistics from national and international surveys on time use.","A slight revision of the indicator has been proposed, that is, from \n\tAverage daily (24 hours) spent on unpaid domestic and care work, by sex, age and location (for individuals 5 years and above) \n\tto \n\tAverage number of hours spent in a week on unpaid domestic and care work, by sex, age and location (for individuals 5 years and above) \nThis recommendation is in recognition of the fact that time-use data need to be comprehensive not only in relation to covering the whole range of possible activities but also in relation to accounting for differences between weekends and weekdays as well as effects of special holidays, and variations in activities across seasons in a year and across areas or regions in a country. Hence, arriving at an average for a representative week, instead of day, is deemed more appropriate. [1] \nThis indicator is part of the minimum set of gender indicators agreed by the UN Statistical Commission in 2013 [3].","With the availability of time use statistics on hours spent on paid and unpaid work, the extent of the gender gaps in division of unpaid work can be examined. \nBased on available data, women devote on average 2.5 more time on unpaid care and domestic work than men: when both paid and unpaid total workloads are combined, women work more than men, resulting in more time poverty for them [4]. On the intergenerational transmission of gender roles, according to ILO (2009) 10 percent of girls aged 5 to 14 perform household chores for 28 hours a week or more, representing approximately twice the hours spent by boys, resulting in lower school attendance. [5]",,"The UN Guide to Producing Statistics on Time Use: Measuring Paid and Unpaid Work aims to serve as a reference tool for countries interested in conducting timeuse surveys. It is also aimed at facilitating the harmonization of methods and practices in collecting, processing and disseminating time use statistics. [1] \nThe United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has also prepared the Guidelines for Harmonising Time Use Surveys to respond to the need for the exchange of good practice and for coordination in defining the concepts, methodology and way of aggregation of results. The preparation of the said Guidelines aims to contribute towards the production of reliable time use statistics that can answer policy relevant questions and comparable across countries. [6]","[1] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN Guide to Producing Statistics on Time Use: Measuring Paid and Unpaid Work, UN, New York, 2005. \n[2] UN Women, Monitoring Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Opportunities and Challenges, UN Women, New York, 2015. \n[3] United Nations Statistics Division, Minimum Set of Gender Indicators. 2015. \n[4] UN Women. Progress of the World's Women: Transforming Economies, Realizing Rights. 2015 \n[5] ILO. Give girls a chance. Tackling child labour, a key to the future. \n[6] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Guidelines for Harmonising Time Use Survey, UNECE, Switzerland, 2013.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  5.5,TRUE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,16,"Ensure women's full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life",5.5.1,Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments and local governments,UN-WOMEN, IPU,"The indicator would measure the proportion of seats held by women across local government, compared with men holding those seats, in each reporting country.",,"Women participate in politics and decision-making at all levels, in different functions and across all spheres of government. They may participate as voters, candidates for local, regional and national elections, members of parliament or local council, heads of state and government, ministers, members of political parties, trade unions or business associations, or as electoral administrators. \nCapturing an accurate assessment of women's representation across these different forms of political participation has been difficult, however. The standard measure of women's political participation and involvement in decision-making, used to track progress for the Millennium Development Goals, was the proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments. In many respects, the existence and quality of this data has meant that other areas of political participation have not been paid sufficient attention. \nMeasuring women's participation in local government is an additional, but equally important measure of women's political participation and decision-making, because of the responsibilities of local governments and the significantly higher number of opportunities (that is seats) available to women candidates at this level. Women's entry into local politics has the potential to influence a wide range of policy decisions and local community programmes. \nHowever, the available data is limited; it is neither comprehensive across all countries, nor regularly updated. Data from the United Nations Statistical Division's 2010 edition of The World's Women, for example, show selected regional averages, with a low of 8 percent in Northern Africa to a high of 30 percent in sub-Saharan Africa. Averages across Latin America and Europe ranged from 24 to 29 percent and Asia reported averages below 20 percent. Drawing meaningful conclusions from this data is therefore difficult. \nIn 1995, the Beijing Platform for Action called on governments to accept a wider understanding of women's participation in decision-making that went beyond women in national politics. The 20-year review of the Platform, however, found that: \n\ta significant challenge for effectively monitoring progress towards gender equality is the lack of high quality and comparable data, collected over time. Many areas of statistics that are of critical importance such as ' women's participation in decision-making at all levels, including local government ' are still not produced regularly by countries. Data and statistical requirements for the post-2015 development agenda will be substantial, particularly for monitoring gender equality, women's empowerment and the human rights of women and girls in the new framework. \nA dedicated indicator on women's political participation would provide the necessary 'data mandate' to ensure this data set is more systematically collected across all countries and regularly monitored over time, allowing for both international and longitudinal comparisons.",,,,,,,"To date, the main global and regional sources of data on women's political participation at the local level have included: the UN Statistics Division's report, The World's Women; United Cities and Local Government (UCLG) country profiles; Member States' inputs to the SG Report on the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 66/130 on women and political participation; CEDAW country reports (a total of 122 countries have reported some information on women's representation at local level); and national government sources including Permanent Missions to the United Nations. \nThe United Nations Regional Commissions have also played an important role collecting data on women's political participation at the local level. There are consistent data on women's participation in local government published on the websites of two Regional Commissions: the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (UN-ECLAC). (See Annex 1 for more information.) \nAs the data is not comparable across countries and regions, a standardised data collection methodology ' including guidelines ' needs to be developed.",,,,"No organisation has to date developed a global repository of data on women's political participation at the local level. This, however, would be essential for any future global indicator. The most likely candidate is United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), a global organization representing local governments, although it is expected that guidance and capacity building would be required. Data could also be collected on a regional basis, in which case, the role of the United Nations Regional Commissions could be strengthened, led by United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UN-ECLAC) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), which are already collecting data on women's representation in local governments in their respective regions.\n\n On the basis of an agreed tier structure, data would be collected using a pre-prepared template for each country, with the identified tiers of government. The typology would be shared with national statistics offices in original language, to be populated with relevant data. The data itself would typically be an 'administrative record'. This process is similar to that used by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in collecting data on women's participation in national parliaments. Data would be collected for each country at the same point in time (e.g. 1 January of each year), to capture ""current"" the number of women in local government at that time. This allows for time comparability. Data would need to be entered into a global repository (database), held by the entity for global monitoring, but made publicly available for potential review.",,,"Local governments exist in every country, and in theory, data could be collected from each one. Available data on women's participation in local government, however, has suffered from the following limitations: \n\tinconsistent data coverage over time (some countries report regularly while others report less frequently, if at all) which results in an absence of trend data to show progress and setbacks; \n\tan absence of common baseline data, or a global repository of data; \n\ta lack of clear definitions of local government structures to be measured resulting in variation in the names and functions of the local government structures measured; \n\tconflation of data on councillors with data on mayor positions; \n\ta lack of clear methodological guidelines for data collection processes. \nIn attempting to address some of the challenges with existing data, UN Women has begun work on a new typology that reflects the diverse range of local government systems, to allow for international comparison. Research was commissioned on the sub-national administrative structures in 193 UN Member States. Data on each country's governance structure was collected from a combination of national government websites and secondary sources. This research distinguished the following ""tiers"" of local government: \n\tA first tier of local government could be identified as ""the district"" or ""the department"" and would include municipal corporations, administrative divisions and self-governing territories (estimated to apply to 92 countries). \n\tA second tier of local government could be identified as ""the municipality"" and would comprise cities, towns and other small urban agglomerations, usually headed by a mayor (estimated to apply to 178 countries). \n\tA third tier of local government might be identified as ""the rural village"", more prevalent in large countries with highly populated regional centres (estimated to apply to 48 countries). \n\tAdditional tiers, where required, could be identified as ""small villages"" and ""neighbourhoods"", responsible for arbitrating local disputes and liaising between formal and informal authorities, but with little financial authority (estimated to apply to 5 countries).","From IPU:\n The IPU suggests to develop an aggregate indicator which would cover women in ministerial positions, parliament and local government. This would provide for a comprehensive picture of women's participation in political decision-making structures. The IPU collects data on women in national parliaments; it also collects data on women in ministerial positions (for the past 10 years now). The proposal would allow to build on already existing data and methodologies, and make use of available capacities. It would also enable to include new data, collected by the UN, on local government. It would furthermore enable a continuity with the indicator used for MDG3 (women in parliament).",,11.5,16.7,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  5.5,TRUE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,19,"Ensure women's full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life",5.5.2,Proportion of women in managerial positions,UN-WOMEN,,"The indicator proposed measures the proportion of women in leadership positions across a number of areas, including: \n\tin the executive branch of government: \n\t\tNumber of women Heads of State and Governments as a percentage of total (Tier 1) \n\t\tNumber of ministerial positions that are held by women as a percentage of total (Tier 1 ' part of Minimum set of gender indicators) \n\t\tNumber of leadership positions held by women in local governments as a percentage of total (Tier 3) \n\tin the legislative branch of government: \n\t\tNumber of seats in national parliaments held by women as a percentage of total (Tier 1 ' part of Minimum set of gender indicators) \n\tin the judiciary branch of government and law enforcement: \n\t\tNumber of women judges as a percentage of total (Tier 2 - ' part of Minimum set of gender indicators) \n\t\tNumber of women police officers as a percentage of total (Tier 2 ' part of Minimum set of gender indicators) \n; and \n\tthe share of managers in public and private sector enterprises that are women (Tier 1 ' part of Minimum set of gender indicators). \nSome of these data are already collected while others need further development. For example, UN Women routinely collects data on women Heads of State and Government; the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) regularly collects data on the proportion of women ministers and in parliaments; indicators on women in law enforcement are also readily available; and ILO regularly publishes data on women managers using data from national labour force surveys. Data on women's political participation at the local level have not been as systematically collected at the global level. Measuring women's participation in local government is important, however, because of the responsibilities of local governments and the significantly higher number of opportunities (that is, seats) available to women candidates at this level. To measure women's representation in local governments, methodologies and standards are currently being developed by UN Women and United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG).",,"Women participate in politics and decision-making at all levels, in different functions and across all spheres. They participate as candidates for local, regional and national elections, members of parliament or local council, heads of state and government, ministers, members of political parties, leaders and managers of business. Capturing an accurate assessment of women's representation across these different forms of political and economic leadership is a key marker of progress in achieving gender equality and women's empowerment.",,,,,,,"Administrative and household surveys, including labour force surveys",,,,Many of the indicators are part of the minimum set of gender indicators and data are currently available for the Tier 1 components.,"The standard measure of women's political participation and involvement in decision-making, used to track progress for the Millennium Development Goals, was the proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments. This indicator broadens the scope to include many more areas of leadership but several of the indicators (two Tier 2 indicators and one Tier 3 indicator) will need further development.","Women's capacity to influence decision-making, whether in public or private institutions, is intimately linked with gender equality and empowerment. Having a voice and participating in the processes and decisions that determine their lives is an essential aspect of women's freedoms.",,,"IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union). Women in national parliaments. www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm \nFor data on managers, see International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) and ILO KILM database for cross-country data compilation: http://www.ilo.org/empelm/what/WCMS_114240/lang--en/index.htm \nData on judges and police force, see: UNODC compilation of national statistics: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/United-Nations-Surveys-onCrime-Trends-and-the-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-Systems.html",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  5.6,TRUE,5,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-5.pdf,21,Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences.,5.6.1,"Proportion of women aged 15-49 years who make their own informed decisions regarding sexual relations, contraceptive use and reproductive health care",UN-WOMEN,UNFPA,"From UN-WOMEN: \n This is an indicator measuring specific decisions by women (aged 15-49) on their own sexuality and reproduction. Interviewees will have to provide a 'yes' answer to all three questions in order to count as a woman who makes her own sexual and reproductive decisions. The first question looks at the ability to say no to sexual intercourse as a critical condition of sexual autonomy. The second question measures the woman's decision concerning using or not using contraception. The third question measures the woman's decision about reaching sexual and reproductive healthcare for her. \nThe three questions are as follows: \n\t1. Whether a woman can say no to her husband/partner if she does not want to have sexual intercourse (DHS q. 1054) \n\t2. Whether using contraception or not using contraception has been mainly the woman's decision (DHS phase 7 q. 819 and 820) \n\t3. Whether a woman can make a decision about sexual and reproductive healthcare for herself (DHS q.922 with added language) \n\n From UNFPA: \n The indicator is based on three central elements measuring the empowerment of women (married, in union and ever sexually active women) aged 15-49 to make the following decisions, : (a) whether they are able to reject unwanted sexual relations; (b) using or not using contraception; and (c) whether they can access sexual and reproductive health care for herself.","From UN-WOMEN: \nDenominator: \nWomen of reproductive age 15-49 \nMeasurement: \n\nIndicator will be measured through DHS and MICS covering most of low and middle income countries. In developed countries the indicator will be measured through national household surveys \n\n From UNFPA \n \n\tThe methodology for this indicator has been developed by UNFPA in close collaboration with UN Women by building on available information from DHS surveys. These three questions are already included in the DHS: (a) DHS q. 1054; (b) DHS Phase 7, q. 819 & 820; (c) DHS q. 922). In all cases these questions are currently asked to women married or in union. Therefore the denominator will need to be expanded to include ever sexually active women. In the case of the last question, the current DHS question just refers to 'healthcare for herself', not specifically SRH care, which will need to be added. \n\tUNFPA is also compiling and analyzing data from available countries across different regions to understand better how the indicator behaves and whether some additional tweaking will be needed in the formulation of the indicator and its specific components. \n\tIn DHS, the indicator is already disaggregated by location, economic quintile, and education. For the component related to contraceptive use the indicator is also disaggregated by method of contraception. The proposal is to add age, marital status (married, in union, unmarried) and disability.",,,,,,,,,,,"From UN-WOMEN: \n By age, location, economic quintile, education, marital status (married, in union, unmarried), and disability.","From UNFPA: \n For the time being, this indicator is available in approximately 70 countries covered by DHS. Meanwhile, UNFPA is holding conversations with MICS and other organizations to incorporate these questions in other surveys with a view to covering all countries on a global scale. While a combination of DHS and MICS would cover most low and middle-income countries, the possibility to integrate these questions in the gender and generations survey run by UNECE in several European countries and World values survey would ensure near universal coverage. A few high middle income countries such as Brazil and Mexico run their own national surveys, which tend to be similar in content to DHS.","From UNFPA: \n UNFPA advocates for the expansion of the age range of several indicators in the SDG framework that currently rely on DHS and MICS as primary sources of information. This is critical in order to better assess the health, education and general wellbeing of very young adolescents, particularly adolescent girls aged 10-14, at a critical point in their lives in which they transition from childhood to adulthood and are exposed to specific vulnerabilities that can hamper their physical and emotional integrity and their actual development as empowered rights-holders. While this is a central concern for UNFPA, expanding the age range for indicator 5.6.1 poses particular challenges. On the one hand, household surveys would not be the most appropriate tools to capture this information given the way these surveys are designed and rolled-out. On the other hand, the ability for a very young girl to make sexual and reproductive decisions has to be seen in light of legal considerations such as the 'minimum age of consent to sexual relations' and the 'evolving capacity of the child'. For instance a very young girl who declares that she can say 'yes' to sexual intercourse may not have the level of maturity or the minimum age of consent to make a valid autonomous decision in that regard. Beyond normative and ethical considerations, these legal variables differ a lot from country to country, thus making it difficult to ensure comparability of data. It will be less problematic to capture information on the situation of very young adolescent girls through other indicators such as those related to sexual and gender-based violence (5.2) and child marriage (5.3).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  
negative.code: 3.4,FALSE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,13,"By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from noncommunicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.",3.4.2,Suicide mortality rate,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  3.5,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,14,"Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol.",3.5.1,"Coverage of treatment interventions (pharmacological, psychosocial and rehabilitation and aftercare services) for substance use disorders",UNODC,,"Treatment of substance use disorder as defined by the Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International Cooperation Towards an integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem, High Level Segment, Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Vienna 11- 12 March 2009. \nComprehensive treatment system offering a wide range of integrated pharmacological (such as detoxification and opioid agonist and antagonist maintenance) and psychosocial (such as counselling, cognitive behavioural therapy and social support) interventions based on scientific evidence and focused on the process of rehabilitation, recovery and social reintegration (Plan of Action, Para 4:h) \nServices for the treatment of drug disorders' are part of clinical responses to substancerelated disorders. Such services are aimed at stopping or reducing the effects of acute intoxication, managing withdrawal symptoms during detoxification, preventing relapse and dealing with long-term psychological and behavioural symptoms.. (E/NR/2014/2)1 \nSubstance use disorders, occur when the recurrent use of alcohol and/or drugs causes clinically and functionally significant impairment, such as health problems, disability, and failure to meet major responsibilities at work, school, or home. According to the DSM-5, a diagnosis of substance use disorder is based on evidence of impaired control, social impairment, risky use, and pharmacological criteria. (DSM V) \nPharmacological Interventions include cluster of interventions such as detoxification, , opioid antagonist therapy, and opioid maintenance therapy (E/NR/2014/2) \n\tDetoxification refers to a process carried out in a safe and effective manner aimed at eliminating or minimizing withdrawal symptoms that occur after drugs are no longer taken (WHO). \n\tOpioid maintenance therapy refers to the regular administration of a long-acting opioid agonist to stabilize the patient without applying tapering dosage schedules. (WHO, UNODC, UNAIDS Technical Guide for Countries to Set Targets for Universal Access to HIV Prevention, Treatment and Care for Injecting Drug Users (WHO, Geneva, 2009) \n\tOpioid antagonist maintenance treatment refers to the regular administration of a long-acting opioid antagonist to block opioid receptors and avoid any opioid effect (adapted from WHO, 2009). \nPsychosocial cluster of interventions such as treatment planning, counselling, peer support groups, screening/brief intervention, contingency management, cognitive behavioural therapy, treatment of comorbidity, motivational interviewing. \n\tTreatment planning refers to the development of a written description of the treatment to be provided and its anticipated course. Such planning is done with the patient by establishing goals based on the patient's identified needs and setting interventions to meet those goals (UNODC, Principles of Drug Dependence Treatment: Discussion Paper, March 2008). \n\tCounselling refers to an intensive interpersonal process aimed at assisting individuals to achieve their goals or function more effectively (WHO). \n\tPeer support groups (self-help groups such as Narcotics Anonymous) refers to small groups of peers wishing to assist each other in their struggle with a particular problem (in the case of Narcotics Anonymous, with drug dependence) (WHO). \n\tScreening is aimed at detecting health problems or risk factors at an early stage before they have caused serious disease or other problems (WHO). A 'brief intervention' is a structured therapy of short duration aimed at assisting an individual to cease or reduce the use of a psychoactive substance or to deal with other life issues (WHO). \n\tContingency management' refers to psychosocial interventions that provide a system of incentives and disincentives designed to make drug use less attractive and abstinence more attractive (NIDA). \n\tCognitive behavioural therapy refers to psychosocial interventions aimed at helping patients recognize, avoid and cope with the situations in which they are most likely to use drugs (adapted from NIDA). \n\tMotivational interviewing refers to a counselling and assessment technique that follows a non-confrontational approach to questioning people about difficult issues like alcohol and drug use, assisting them to make positive decisions aimed at reducing or stopping such use (ODCCP). \nSocial rehabilitation and aftercare include a cluster of interventions such as vocational training, social assistance, educational activities, rehabilitation and aftercare. \n\tVocational training and income-generation support' refers to activities aimed at providing participants with the skills and opportunities to engage in meaningful employment and sustainably support themselves and their families. \n\tSocial assistance refers to the many ways in which professionals and nonprofessionals can support the social and psychological well-being of drug users with a view to improving both the quality and duration of their lives (WHO, Guidelines for the Psychosocially Assisted Pharmacological Treatment of Opioid Dependence, 2009). \n\tEducational activities on the risks posed by drug use refer to sessions aimed at informing and counselling people about the consequences of drug use, in other words, the ways in which such use affects physical and mental health, behavioural control and interpersonal relationships. In particular, these educational sessions should focus on providing information about overdosing, contracting infectious diseases, developing cardiovascular, metabolic and psychiatric disorders etc. and the benefit of abstaining from drug use. Treatment methods and goals are also explained in detail. \n\tRehabilitation and aftercare refers to the process aimed at achieving an optimal state of health, psychological functioning and social well-being for individuals with a drugrelated problem (WHO). \nCoverage Coverage describes the extent to which an intervention is delivered to the target population, that is, the proportion of the target population in need of an intervention that actually gets it. Coverage has to be determined relative to the national estimates of people in need, e.g., people with substance use disorders, or people vulnerable to substance use. (Economic and Social Council (E/NR/2014/2) Commission on Narcotics Drugs, Annual Report Questionnaire; Part 2:COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO DRUG DEMAND AND SUPPLY REDUCTION)",Number of people who have received different treatment interventions in the last year divided by the actual number of the target population (people with substance use disorders measured as the total number of problem drug users).\nThe target will be assessed through aggregating the information on the type of treatment interventions and extent of coverage of these for the population in need.,"Strengthening the treatment services entails providing a comprehensive set of evidence based interventions (that have been laid down in the international standards and guidelines) that are available and accessible to all population groups in need of these interventions or services. The indicator will inform the extent to which a range of evidence based interventions for treatment of substance use disorder are available and are accessed by the population in need for these in a country, regional or globally. For instance currently UNODC estimates that globally one out of 6 people with drug use disorders have access to or provided drug treatment services (World Drug Report 2014).",,,,,,,The source of information will primarily be the Annual Reports Questionnaire that are submitted by the Member States to UNODC as an annual reporting cycle that can be supplemented with information collected by WHO such as the WHO ATLAS-SU: Resources for Treatment and Prevention of Substance Use Disorders and the Global Information System on Alcohol and Health (GISAH),,Annual,"The current reporting of ARQ allows for disaggregation by the settings, type of intervention and for the population groups. The indicators can be further modified to include disaggregation by gender and specific age groups.","The data is available on country basis which makes it easy to aggregate at sub regional, regional and global levels. The reporting cycle is annual and therefore most recent data is available each year that can allow for monitoring the changes and trends.","The current response rate for returning the ARQ is around 60 per cent. However this is estimated to cover nearly 75 per cent of the global population. The extent of reporting also varies geographically where UNODC may have near complete responses from countries in Europe there are much less responses from Africa. The second limitation is that the indicators stresses on type, availability and coverage of services but does not necessarily provide information on the actual quality of the interventions/services provided. These could contextualised through the data generated by the information from WHO reports.",,,,"UNODC, International Standards on Drug Use Prevention, 2013. http://www.unodc.org/documents/prevention/prevention_standards.pdf \nE/CN.7/2013/CRP.4 International Standards on Drug Use Prevention, Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Fifty-sixth session, Vienna, 11-15 March 2013 UNODC, TREATNET Quality Standards For Drug Dependence Treatment And Care Services 2012 http://www.unodc.org/docs/treatment/treatnet_quality_standards.pdf \nE/CN.7/2015/3 World situation with regard to drug abuse: Report of the Secretariat, Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Fifty-eighth session Vienna, 9-17 March 2015 E/NR/2014/2 Commission on Narcotics Drugs, Annual Report Questionnaire; Part II : COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO DRUG DEMAND AND SUPPLY REDUCTION \nE/NR/2014/3 Commission on Narcotics Drugs, Annual Report Questionnaire Part III: Extent and patterns of and trends in drug use Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International Cooperation Towards an integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem, High Level Segment, Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Vienna 11-12 March 2009 http://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND/CND_Sessions/CND_52/PoliticalDeclaration2009_V0984963_E.pdf \nWHO, Global Information System on Alcohol and Health (GISAH) http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.GISAH?lang=en \nWHO, ATLAS-SU: Resources for Treatment and Prevention of Substance Use Disorders http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/activities/atlas/en/",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  3.5,FALSE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,17,"Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol.",3.5.2,"Harmful use of alcohol, defined according to the national context as alcohol per capita consumption (aged 15 years and older) within a calendar year in litres of pure alcohol",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  3.6,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,18,"By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents.",3.6.1,Death rate due to road traffic injuries,WHO,,Number of road traffic fatal injury deaths per 100 000 population (age_standardized).,"Number of deaths due to road traffic crashes / Population \nMethod of measurement \nDeath registration data using ICD_10. \nMethod of estimation \nModelling, using multiple inputs, is often used if no complete and accurate data are available.''",,Health status,Injury and violence,,,,,"Civil registration and vital statistics systems with full coverage.\nPopulation_based health surveys with verbal autopsy, administrative reporting systems (police reports)",,"Annual if civil registration data are available, otherwise every five years","Age, per motor vehicle (fatalities per 10 000 motor vehicles), sex, socioeconomic status",,,,,,"ESCAP road safety goals, targets and indicators for the Decade of Action, 2011_2020. In: Road safety: note by the Secretariat. Bangkok: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific; 2011: Annex 1 of Document E/ESCAP/MCT.2/8 of United Nations ESCAP Ministerial Conference on Transport, Bangkok, 12_16 March 2012 (http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/MCT2011/MCT/MCT2_8E.pdf, accessed 21 April 2015).'' \nGlobal status report on road safety: time for action. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009 (www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2009, accessed 29 March 2015). \nOrganisation for Economic Co_operation and Development. Health at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators, Paris: OECD Publishing; 2013 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health_glance_2013_en, accessed 29 March 2014).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  3.7,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,19,"By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes.",3.7.1,Proportion of women of reproductive age (aged 15-49 years) who have their need for family planning satisfied with modern methods,WHO,Population Division/DESA,"From WHO:\n Percentage of women of reproductive age (15-49 years) who are sexually active and who have their need for family planning satisfied with modern methods.\n\nFrom Population Division/DESA, United Nations: \nPercentage of women of reproductive age (15-49 years) who have their need for family planning satisfied with modern methods.\n\nFrom UNFPA: \n The contraceptive prevalence rate is the percentage of women of reproductive age who are currently using, or whose sexual partner is currently using, at least one contraceptive method, regardless of the method used. \nConcepts \nWomen of reproductive age include all women of reproductive age (15-49) who are married or in consensual union. \nContraceptive methods include modern and traditional methods. Modern methods of contraception include female and male sterilization, oral hormonal pills, intra-uterine devices (IUD), male condoms, injectables, implants (including Norplant), vaginal barrier methods, female condoms, and emergency contraception. Traditional methods of contraception include the rhythm method (periodic abstinence), withdrawal, lactational amenorrhea method (LAM) and folk methods.","Number of women with family planning demand who use modern methods / Total number of women in need of family planning \nMethod of measurement \nHousehold surveys include a series of questions to measure modern contraceptive prevalence rate and demand for family planning.\nTotal demand for family planning is defined as the sum of the number of women of reproductive age (15'49 years) who are married or in a union and who are currently using, or whose sexual partner is currently using, at least one contraceptive method, and the unmet need for family planning. Unmet need for family planning is the proportion of women of reproductive age (15'49 years) either married or in a consensual union, who are fecund and sexually active but who are not using any method of contraception (modern or traditional), and report not wanting any more children or wanting to delay the birth of their next child for at least two years. Included are: (i) all pregnant women (married or in a consensual union) whose pregnancies were unwanted or mistimed at the time of conception; (ii) all postpartum amenorrhoeic women (married or in consensual union) who are not using family planning and whose last birth was unwanted or mistimed; (iii) all fecund women (married or in consensual union) who are neither pregnant nor postpartum amenorrhoeic, and who either do not want any more children (want to limit family size), or who wish to postpone the birth of a child for at least two years or do not know when or if they want another child (want to space births), but are not using any contraceptive method.\n\nFrom Population Division/DESA, United Nations: \nThe numerator is the percentage of women of reproductive age (15-49 years old) who are currently using, or whose sexual partner is currently using, at least one modern contraceptive method. The denominator is the total demand for family planning (the sum of contraceptive prevalence (any method) and the unmet need for family planning. \nMetadata on the definition, method of computation and other information for each component' contraceptive prevalence and unmet need for family planning'are included in the MDG database as each was an indicator (5.3 and 5.6) used for global monitoring of MDG target 5.B. Achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health. An important limitation, though, of the indicators used in MDG monitoring is that they were only with reference to women of reproductive age who are married or in a union. The indicators missed women who are not married but who are exposed to the risk of pregnancy. \nSee http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx \nThe proposed indicator limits the numerator to women who are using a modern method of family planning. Women who are using a traditional method of contraception are not considered as having a met need for family planning. \nIn contrast, the indicator 'Demand for family planning satisfied (met need for contraception)' (regardless if the method used is modern or traditional).is a key indicator under the Every Woman, Every Child initiative and is described in detail in the handbook 'Monitoring maternal, newborn and child health: understanding key progress indicators' available here from WHO (2011): http://www.who.int/entity/healthmetrics/news/monitoring_maternal_newborn_child_health.pdf.\n\nFrom UNFPA: \n ( Women using a contraceptive method / Women of reproductive age ) X 100","From Population Division/DESA, United Nations: \nWhile it is difficult to define an ideal level of contraceptive prevalence, since it is dependent, in part, on women's and men fertility preferences, the proportion of demand for family planning satisfied can be interpreted as the degree to which total demand for contraception has been met with an ideal (if improbable) target of 100 per cent demand met. \n""The proportion of demand for family planning satisfied (met need for contraception) indicator enables assessment of family planning programmes and progress in providing contraceptive services to women who wish to avoid getting pregnant. Access to family planning provides women and their partners opportunities to make decisions about family size and timing of pregnancies. This contributes to maternal and child health by preventing unintended pregnancies and pregnancies that are too closely spaced, which are at higher risk for poor obstetrical outcomes. Unmet need for family planning shows the gap between women's reproductive intentions and their access to or use of contraceptives. The CPR provides an estimate of contraceptive use in a population. Both the unmet need for family planning and CPR indicators are used for tracking progress towards the MDG 5 target 5B of achieving universal access to reproductive health."" (WHO, 2011)\n\nFrom UNFPA: \n The contraceptive prevalence rate, which serves as a proxy measure of access to reproductive health services, is useful for tracking progress towards the target of achieving universal access to reproductive health, especially when the indicator is considered in conjunction with information about women's knowledge of family planning or accessibility, and the quality of family planning services. Information on contraceptive prevalence complements the indicator of unmet need for family planning. The sum of contraceptive prevalence and unmet need determines the total demand for contraception. Unlike the unmet need indicator, contraceptive prevalence does not take into account whether women or couples do or do not desire additional children. This makes the indicator more difficult to interpret than unmet need because contraceptive prevalence rates vary across societies with vastly different preferred family sizes. For the same reason, it is difficult to specify the desired target for contraceptive prevalence rates.",Service coverage,"Reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health",,,,,"From WHO:\nPopulation_based health surveys.\n\nFrom Population Division/DESA, United Nations: \n Data are from household surveys that are internationally-coordinated, such as the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), Reproductive Health Surveys (RHS) and national surveys based on similar methodologies. These surveys tend to be undertaken every three to five years. Other survey programmes, like the Pan-Arab Project for Family Health (PAPFAM) and the European Fertility and Family Surveys (FFS) may be considered as well. \nData are available for 138 countries and territories for the period 1990-2014; 90 countries and territories have at least two available data points. \n183 countries and territories have data on contraceptive prevalence (one component of this indicator); \n156 countries and territories have at least two data points.\n\nFrom UNFPA: \n Contraceptive prevalence rates are calculated from nationally representative surveys with questions on current use of contraception. Surveys that commonly include this information are: Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), Fertility and Family Surveys (FFS), Reproductive Health Surveys (RHS) conducted with assistance of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) and other national surveys. \nSurveys gather information on contraceptive prevalence through direct questions to women. These questions often include two parts: a general question asking women if they are currently using a method of contraception and a follow-up question regarding the type of contraceptive method currently used. In order to obtain an accurate measure of contraceptive prevalence, it is desirable for the survey interviewer to provide a description or a list of the specific methods of family planning. If this is not done, the level of contraceptive use may be significantly underreported, especially where the use of traditional methods such as withdrawal or calendar rhythm, or use of contraceptive sterilization, is common. In some surveys, such as the DHS, the methods are described in a series of ""probe"" questions about methods the respondent has heard about, before the respondent is asked about current use of contraception. In highly literate populations, the interviewer might provide the respondent with a printed list of the methods. \nIn recording data on the type of contraceptive method used, it is important to keep in mind that some respondents may use more than one method at a time. In such cases, a selection is either made a posteriori by the survey enumerator based on the effectiveness of the methods used or by respondents based on their own assessment of the method they used most frequently. Identifying only one method or combination of methods per respondent allows contraceptive prevalence to be computed as the sum of levels of use of each method. If more than one method or combination of methods is recorded per respondent and no selection criteria are employed, the sum of the various methods used may exceed the overall level of contraceptive prevalence. \nIt is also important to note that contraceptive prevalence is measured at the time of interview. There is, however, a lag, generally between one and two years, between the date of an interview and the diffusion of the survey report. On average, the surveys are undertaken every three to five years.",,Every 3-5 years,"From WHO: Age, marital status, place of residence, socioeconomic status. \n\nFrom UNFPA: \n Contraceptive use may vary significantly across socioeconomic groups and regional and geographical areas. For policy purposes, information on contraceptive prevalence should be disaggregated, at a minimum, by age and current marital status. This information is important because it allows monitoring of differences in access to contraceptive methods for more vulnerable groups such as adolescents and unmarried women. \nContraceptive use can be disaggregated by other social or economic characteristics, such as the woman's level of educational attainment, urban or rural residence, and number of own children as relevant for the policy needs of each country or area.","From Population Division/DESA, United Nations: \n Country-specific data from surveys are used for regional and global monitoring (as noted above). \nIn order to generate regional and global estimates for any given reference year, the Population Division/DESA uses a Bayesian hierarchical model. Country-level, model-based estimates are only used for computing the regional and global averages and are not used for global monitoring of trends at the country level. Country-specific estimates are generated by using the general relationship between contraceptive prevalence and unmet need, a quadratic function to summarize the 'world pattern', country-specific intercepts to capture the different levels within countries (estimated using a hierarchical model based on sub-regional information) and non-parametric changes over time to capture fluctuations around the expected trend. The fewer the number of observations for the country of interest, the more its estimates are driven by the experience of other countries, whereas for countries with many observations the results are determined to a greater extent by those observations. \nRegional and global estimates are weighted averages of the model-based country estimates, using the number of married or in-union women aged 15-49 for the reference year in each country (for MDG monitoring purposes). Regional averages are provided only if data are available for at least 50 per cent of the women of reproductive age who are married or in union in the region.\n\nFrom UNFPA: \n Data for this indicator are reported at the global level by the United Nations Population Division. Data are obtained from national repositories or from published survey reports. In exceptional cases, data are taken from other published analytic reports. If clarification is needed, contact is made with the survey sponsors or authoring organization, which may supply corrected or adjusted estimates in response. \nRegional estimates are weighted averages of the country data, using the number of married or inunion women aged 15-49 for the reference year in each country as the weight. Global estimates are weighted averages of the regional estimates, using the number of married or in-union women aged 15- 49 in each region as the weight. No figures are reported if less than 50 per cent of the married or inunion women in the region are covered.","From UNFPA: \n Differences in survey design and implementation, as well as differences in the way survey questionnaires are formulated and administered can affect the comparability of data over time, and between countries. Some of the most common differences are the range of contraceptive methods included in the surveys, and whether or not probe questions are included on the types of methods used. The lack of probe questions can result in an underestimation of contraceptive prevalence. \nThe characteristics (age, sex, marital or union status) of the persons for whom contraceptive prevalence is measured (base population) also affects the comparability of data on contraceptive prevalence. Although the standard definition of the contraceptive prevalence rate refers only to women who are married or in union, alternative base populations are sometimes presented including sexually active women (irrespective of marital status), ever-married women, or men and women who are married or in union. \nThe time frame used to assess contraceptive prevalence can also vary. Often it is left to the respondent to determine what is meant by 'currently using' a method of contraception. Some surveys ask about use within the past month. Occasionally, when information on current use is not collected, data on use of contraceptive methods at last sexual intercourse or during the previous year has been utilized to estimate current contraceptive prevalence. Any differences between the data presented and the standard definition of contraceptive prevalence should be clearly indicated. \nSampling variability can also be an issue in data collection, especially when contraceptive prevalence is measured for a specific subgroup (according to method, age-group, level of educational attainment, place of residence, etc) or when analyzing trends over time.","From UNFPA: \n Statistics on contraception prevalence rates are based primarily on women. This is mostly for pragmatic reasons, because the majority of contraceptive methods are female-based. But it can also be argued that the degree to which women control their reproduction is an indicator of the degree to which they control their own lives in general, thereby converting the contraceptive prevalence rate into an indicator of women's empowerment. Recent surveys have also interviewed samples of men about contraceptive use.",,,"From WHO: \nCountdown to 2015. Monitoring maternal, newborn and child health: understanding key progress indicators. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011 (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44770/1/9789241502818_eng.pdf, accessed 29 March 2015). \nFramework of actions for the follow_up to the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development beyond 2014. Report of the Secretary_General. New York (NY): United Nations; 2014 (https://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/ICPD/Framework%20of%20action%20for%20the%20follow_up%20to%20the%20PoA%20of%20the%20ICPD.pdf, accessed 19 August 2014).'' \nKeeping promises, measuring results. Commission on information and accountability for Women's and Children's Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011 (http://www.who.int/topics/millennium_development_goals/accountability_commission/Commission_Report_adv ance_copy.pdf, accessed 29 March 2015). \nMonitoring progress in family planning. FP2020 core indicators. Glastonbury (CT): Track20 (http://www.track20.org/pages/data/indicators, 21 March 2014). \nWorld Health Assembly governing body documentation: official records. Geneva: World Health Organization (http://apps.who.int/gb/or/, accessed 29 March 2015).\n\nFrom Population Division/DESA, United Nations: \n Alkema, LA and others (2013). National, regional, and global rates and trends in contraceptive prevalence and unmet need for family planning between 1990 and 2015: A systematic and comprehensive analysis. The Lancet, Volume 381, Issue 9878, pp. 1642-1652. \nWorld Health Organization (2011). Monitoring maternal, newborn and child health: understanding key progress indicators. Geneva: WHO.\n\nFrom UNFPA: \n ORC MACRO (2003). Online Guide to DHS Statistics. Calverton. Internet site http://www.measuredhs.com/help/Datasets/index.htm \nUNITED NATIONS (2008). World Contraceptive Use 2007. New York. Available from http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/contraceptive2007/contraceptive2007.htm \nUNITED NATIONS (2004). Levels and Trends of Contraceptive Use as Assessed in 2002. New York. Available from http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wcu2002/WCU2002_Report.pdf \nUNITED NATIONS (2002). World Contraceptive Use 2001. New York. Available from http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/contraceptive2001/contraception01.htm \nUNITED NATIONS (2001). Levels and Trends of Contraceptive Use as Assessed in 1998. New York. Available from http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm \nUNITED NATIONS (1958). Multilingual Demographic Dictionary, English Section. Population Studies, No. 29. New York. \nWORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (2006). Reproductive Health Indicators - Guidelines for their generation, interpretation and analysis for global monitoring, 2006. Geneva. Available from http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/rh_indicators/index.htm",,,,,,,,, United Nations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  3.7,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,29,"By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes.",3.7.2,"Adolescent birth rate (aged 10-14 years; aged 15-19 years) per 1,000 women in that age group",WHO,Population Division/DESA,"From WHO: \nAnnual number of births to women aged 15-19 years per 1000 women in that age group. It is also referred to as the age_specific fertility rate for women aged 15-19 years. \n\nFrom Population Division/DESA, United Nations: \nMetadata on the definition, method of computation and other information for the adolescent birth (15- 19) are included in the MDG database as this was an indicator (5.4) used for global monitoring of MDG target 5.B. Achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health. Please see http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx The definition and method of computation for the birth rate among 10-14 year olds are similar to that for the birth rate among 15-19 year olds.","From WHO: \nNumber of live births to women aged 15-19 years / Exposure to childbearing by women aged 15-19 years \nMethod of measurement \nThe adolescent birth rate is generally computed as a ratio. The numerator is the number of live births to women aged 15-19 years, and the denominator is an estimate of exposure to childbearing by women aged 15-19 years. The numerator and the denominator are calculated differently for civil registration and survey and census data. \nCivil registration: In the case of civil registration the numerator is the registered number of live births born to women aged 15-19 years during a given year, and the denominator is the estimated or enumerated population of women aged 15-19 years.'' \nSurvey data: In the case of survey data, the adolescent birth rate is generally computed on the basis of retrospective birth histories. The numerator refers to births to women who were 15-19 years of age at the time of the birth during a reference period before the interview, and the denominator to person_years lived between the ages of 15 and 19 years by the interviewed women during the same reference period. Whenever possible, the reference period corresponds to the five years preceding the survey. The reported observation year corresponds to the middle of the reference period. For some surveys, no retrospective birth histories are available and the estimate is based on the date of last birth or the number of births in the 12 months preceding the survey.'' \nCensus data: With census data, the adolescent birth rate is generally computed on the basis of the date of last birth or the number of births in the 12 months preceding the enumeration. The census provides both the numerator and the denominator for the rates. In some cases, the rates based on censuses are adjusted for under_registration based on indirect methods of estimation. For some countries with no other reliable data, the own_children method of indirect estimation provides estimates of the adolescent birth rate for a number of years before the census (See: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx, accessed 19 October 2009.) \nIf numbers are available, adolescent fertility at ages under 15 years can also be computed. \nMethod of estimation \nThe United Nations Population Division compiles and updates data on adolescent fertility rates for MDG monitoring. Estimates based on civil registration are provided when the country reports at least 90% coverage and there is reasonable agreement between civil registration estimates and survey estimates. Survey estimates are provided only when there is no reliable civil registration. Given the restrictions of the United Nations MDG database, only one source is provided by year and country. In such cases precedence is given to the survey programme conducted most frequently at the country level, with other survey programmes using retrospective birth histories, census and other surveys in that order. (See: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx, accessed 19 October 2009.) \n\nFrom Population Division/DESA, United Nations: \nMetadata on the definition, method of computation and other information for the adolescent birth (15- 19) are included in the MDG database as this was an indicator (5.4) used for global monitoring of MDG target 5.B. Achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health. Please see http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx The definition and method of computation for the birth rate among 10-14 year olds are similar to that for the birth rate among 15-19 year olds.","From Population Division/DESA, United Nations: \nThe birth rate among adolescents younger than age 15 is more meaningfully measured for ages 12-14 as births among 10-11 year olds are rare and a rate with respect to the 10-14 year old population would not correctly reflect the increased risk of early childbearing by age.",Health status,"Reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health",,,,,"From WHO: \nCivil registration systems with full coverage. Population census, household surveys \n\nFrom Population Division/DESA, United Nations: \nIn all developed countries and in several developing countries, data on births by age of mother are obtained from civil registration systems covering 90 per cent or more of all live births, supplemented eventually by census or survey estimates for periods when registration data are not available. In developing countries lacking a civil registration system or where the coverage of that system is lower than 90 per cent of all live births, the adolescent birth rate is obtained from household survey data and census data. Registration data regarded as less than 90 per cent complete are exceptionally used for countries where the alternative sources present problems of compatibility and registration data can provide an assessment of trends. In countries with multiple survey programmes, large sample surveys conducted on an annual or biennial basis are given precedence when they exist. \nData for the adolescent birth rate (15-19) are available for 225 countries and areas, and for 2,837 data points for the 1990-2014 period. For 223 countries and areas, there are at least two available data points. For the 2015 round of MDG reporting, data on adolescent birth rate have been updated for 119 countries. The corresponding years for the updated adolescent birth rate data range from 2008 to 2014, with 2012 as the median year. \nData on births to mothers under the age of 15 are available for at least 140 countries and areas for the period 2000-2014 from vital registration data or birth history data from household surveys. The data are not uniformly standardized in terms of age groups and the majority of countries with data available are those where births to mothers under the age of 15 are uncommon.",,Annual,"From WHO: \nMarital status (when possible, also capture girls < 15 years), place of residence, socioeconomic status","From Population Division/DESA, United Nations: \nThere is frequent confusion among users of data on ABR (even including United Nations entities and other international organizations) about where they should get the estimates when data were available from the MDG database and from World Population Prospects. \nThe Population Division publishes estimates and projections of age-specific fertility rates in the World Population Prospects (WPP). WPP considers potentially as many types and sources of empirical estimates as possible (including retrospective birth histories, direct and indirect fertility estimates), and the final estimates are derived to ensure as much internal consistency as possible with all other demographic components and intercensal cohorts enumerated in successive censuses. The advantages are that the estimates are internally consistent within a country and with respect to other related demographic information, you have better comparability over time within a country and can compare across countries at one time period. The disadvantage is that the estimates can depart from what a country considers its official estimates of adolescent fertility. Furthermore the estimates are available only in five-year periods. Several agencies use the WPP series in their publications and on-line databases. For instance, the World Bank database uses this series for internal consistency purposes (they draw on other population measures from WPP).",,,,,"From WHO: \nFramework of actions for the follow_up to the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development beyond 2014. Report of the Secretary_General. New York (NY): United Nations; 2014 (https://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/ICPD/Framework%20of%20action%20for%20the%20follo w_up%20to%20the%20PoA%20of%20the%20ICPD.pdf, accessed 19 August 2014). \nMonitoring progress in family planning. FP2020 core indicators. Glastonbury (CT): Track20 (http://www.track20.org/pages/data/indicators, 21 March 2014). \nThe UNFPA Strategic Plan, 2014-2017. Report of the Executive Director. New York (NY): United Nations Population Fund; 2013. \n\nFrom Population Division/DESA, United Nations: \nResults from a comparative study of very young childbearing using birth history data from 42 large, nationally representative household surveys in low resource countries showed that very small proportions of births to mothers under age 16 occurred below age 12 (less than 1 per cent in most countries) (see Neal et al. 2012. 'Childbearing in adolescents aged 12'15 years in low resource countries: a neglected issue. New estimates from demographic and household surveys in 42 countries.' Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012;91:1114'1118).",,,,,,,,, United Nations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  3.8,TRUE,3,http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/metadata-compilation/Metadata-Goal-3.pdf,33,"Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.",3.8.1,"Coverage of essential health services (defined as the average coverage of essential services based on tracer interventions that include reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health, infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases and service capacity and access, among the general and the most disadvantaged population)",WHO,,"Tracer interventions for promotion and prevention services include: family planning coverage (need satisfied), antenatal care (at least four visits),''vaccination, non_use of tobacco, improved water source, adequate sanitation'' and other locally relevant coverage indicators \nTracer interventions for treatment services include: skilled birth attendance, antiretroviral therapy, tuberculosis treatment (case detection and''treatment success), hypertension treatment, diabetes treatment, pneumonia treatment in children and other locally relevant indicators","Number of people receiving the intervention'/ Number of people who need the intervention \nMethod of measurement \nUniversal health coverage means that people receive the services they need, without incurring financial hardship. Countries progressively realize UHC according to their level of development, epidemiological situation, health system and people's expectations.''The indicators ideally cover promotion, prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and palliation. There are a number of indicators that all countries implement such as immunization coverage or skilled attendance at birth that can be used for a summary measure of progress that can be used at lgobal and regional and country levels. Countries however will also create their own set of indicators to track progress towards UHC.'' \nThe selection of indicators is based on the initial framework, and was applied in the global report published in 2015 by WHO and the World Bank.''This provides a basis for further improvements working alongside countries. \nMethod of estimation \nThe indicators can be expressed as a summary measure. These can be weighted according to indicator, or intervention area. Work on incorporating an equity component in the summary measure is ongoing but is possible in a relatively simple manner.",,Health status,HSS,,,,,Household surveys and facility data,,"Annual or bi_annual; some indicators may have annual data, others less frequent","By equity stratifier: sex, age, socioeconomic position, geographic; by'type of indicator (child full immunization, ARV therapy, TB treatment, hypertension treatment, skilled birth attendance, etc);\nDisaggregation by disability can be obtained bv including the functioning questions included the World Health Survey (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/en/), WHO Study on global AGEing and adult health (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/sage/en/) or WHO Model Disability Survey (http://www.who.int/disabilities/data/mds/en/) in population-based health surveys.. Data on the percentage of persons with disabilities receiving needed health services was collected in World Health Surveys (2003-4); and it is currently being collected and will continue to be collected through the WHO Model Disability Survey (MDS) and the Study on Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE). The MDS and SAGE, as the World Health Survey, are both sample surveys with nationally representative populations.",,,,,,"Monitoring Progress towards Universal Health Coverage at Country and Global Levels: Framework, Measures and Targets. Geneva:''World Health Organization and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; 2014 ( http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112824/1/WHO_HIS_HIA_14.1_eng.pdf?ua=1, accessed 14 May 2015). \nTracking universal health coverage: first global monitoring report. Geneva: World Health Organization and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; 2015 (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/universal_health_coverage/report/2015/en/, accessed 17 September 2015).",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  